diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-0.txt | 31370 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-0.zip | bin | 524256 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-h.zip | bin | 592025 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-h/63183-h.htm | 35438 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 40941 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-h/images/title.jpg | bin | 4502 -> 0 bytes |
9 files changed, 17 insertions, 66808 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..816449d --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #63183 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63183) diff --git a/old/63183-0.txt b/old/63183-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 24243f4..0000000 --- a/old/63183-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,31370 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the -International Military Tribunal, by Various - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Volume 8) - -Author: Various - -Release Date: September 12, 2020 [EBook #63183] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS, VOL 8 *** - - - - -Produced by John Routh, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net. - - - - - - - [Cover Illustration] - - - - - TRIAL - OF - THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS - - BEFORE - - THE INTERNATIONAL - MILITARY TRIBUNAL - - N U R E M B E R G - 14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946 - - - [Illustration] - - - P U B L I S H E D A T N U R E M B E R G , G E R M A N Y - 1 9 4 7 - - - - - This volume is published in accordance with the - direction of the International Military Tribunal by - the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction - of the Allied Control Authority for Germany. - - - - - VOLUME VIII - - - - O F F I C I A L T E X T - - I N T H E - - ENGLISH LANGUAGE - - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - 20 February 1946-7 March 1946 - - - - - E D I T O R ’ S N O T E - - On 1 July 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed Deputy - General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal. - - On 30 September 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed - Editor of the Record in addition to his other duties. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - Sixty-third Day, Wednesday, 20 February 1946, - Morning Session 1 - Afternoon Session 31 - - Sixty-fourth Day, Thursday, 21 February 1946, - Morning Session 53 - Afternoon Session 81 - - Sixty-fifth Day, Friday, 22 February 1946, - Morning Session 105 - Afternoon Session 125 - - Sixty-sixth Day, Saturday, 23 February 1946, - Morning Session 159 - Afternoon Session 186 - - Sixty-seventh Day, Monday, 25 February 1946, - Morning Session 202 - Afternoon Session 230 - - Sixty-eighth Day, Tuesday, 26 February 1946, - Morning Session 251 - Afternoon Session 281 - - Sixty-ninth Day, Wednesday, 27 February 1946, - Morning Session 300 - Afternoon Session 324 - - Seventieth Day, Thursday, 28 February 1946, - Morning Session 353 - Afternoon Session 383 - - Seventy-first Day, Friday, 1 March 1946, - Morning Session 409 - Afternoon Session 431 - - Seventy-second Day, Saturday, 2 March 1946, - Morning Session 468 - - Seventy-third Day, Monday, 4 March 1946, - Morning Session 489 - Afternoon Session 517 - - Seventy-fourth Day, Tuesday, 5 March 1946, - Morning Session 532 - - Seventy-fifth Day, Wednesday, 6 March 1946, - Morning Session 554 - Afternoon Session 578 - - Seventy-sixth Day, Thursday, 7 March 1946, - Morning Session 597 - Afternoon Session 621 - - - - - SIXTY-THIRD DAY - Wednesday, 20 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr. -President, with the permission of the Tribunal, evidence on the count -“Despoliation and Plunder of Private, Public, and National Property” -will be presented by the State Counsellor of Justice, Second Class, L. -R. Shenin. - -STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS L. R. SHENIN (Assistant -Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, my task -consists in presenting to the Tribunal evidence of the criminal and -predatory motives of Hitlerite aggression and of the monstrous -plundering of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, -and the U.S.S.R. - -My colleagues have already proved that the attack on the U.S.S.R., as -well as on other European countries, was planned and prepared beforehand -by the criminal Hitlerite Government. - -I shall submit to the Tribunal a number of the conspirators’ original -documents, statements, and speeches, which in the aggregate will prove -that the despoliation and plunder of private, public, and national -property in the occupied territories was also premeditated, planned, and -prepared on a large scale, and that thus, simultaneously with the -development of their purely military and strategic plans of attack, the -Hitlerites with the cold-blooded deliberateness of professional robbers -and murderers also developed and prepared beforehand the plan of -organized plunder and marauding, after having minutely and accurately -calculated their future profits, their criminal gains, their robbers’ -spoils. - -The official report of the Czechoslovak Government on the crimes -committed by the Hitlerites on the territory of Czechoslovakia, the -first victim of German aggression, has already been submitted to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document Number USSR-60). - -In the third section of this report there is a short extract from an -article by Ley, published on 30 January 1940 in the _Angriff_. I quote: - - “It is our destiny to belong to a superior race. A lower race - needs less room, less clothing, less food, and less culture, - than a superior race.” - -This promise, this program of action, found its concrete expression in -the fact that the Hitlerite conspirators subjected all territories -occupied by them to unrestrained plunder, highly varied in form and -method and entirely shameless in its devastating results. The report of -the Czechoslovak Government contains a large number of examples -corroborating the corresponding counts of the Indictment. - -I shall read this section into the record starting with the first -paragraph on Page 72 of the Russian translation. I read: - - “The German plan of campaign against Czechoslovakia was aimed - not only against the republic as a political and military unit, - but also against the very existence of the Czechoslovak people, - who were to be robbed not only of all political rights and - cultural life, but of their wealth and their financial and - industrial resources. - - “(1) Immediate Plunder. - - “(a) After Munich. - - “Immediately after Munich the Germans seized all the industrial - and commercial concerns belonging to the Czechs and Jews in the - seized areas of the republic; this was done without any - compensation. Czechs and Jews were robbed of their property and - of their office and plant equipment, usually by violence and - bloodshed.” - -The following characteristic fact is mentioned in the report, namely, -the way in which Hitler became acquainted with Czechoslovakia, which he -had just seized. I shall read into the record Subparagraph B of this -section, entitled, “After the Invasion of 15 March 1939.” The Tribunal -will find this excerpt on Pages 3 and 4 of the document book. I quote: - - “Hitler entered Prague at nightfall on 15 March 1939, and spent - the night there in the famous Hradschin castle. He left on the - following day, taking with him a number of valuable tapestries. - We mention this robbery not because of the value of the stolen - objects, but as an example set by the head of the Party and of - the German State on the very first day of invasion. - - “The German troops who invaded Prague brought with them a staff - of German economic experts, that is, experts in economic - looting. - - “Everything that could be of some value to Germany was seized, - especially large stocks of raw materials, such as copper, tin, - iron, cotton, wool, great stocks of food, _et cetera_. - - “Rolling stock, carriages, engines, and so on were removed to - the Reich. All the rails in the Protectorate which were in good - condition were lifted and sent to Germany; later they were - replaced by old rails brought from Germany. New cars fresh from - the factory which were on order for the Prague municipal - tramways and had just been completed were deflected from their - purpose and sent to the Reich. - - “The vessels belonging to the Czechoslovak Danube Steam - Navigation Company (the majority of shares belonged to the - Czechoslovak State) were divided between the Reich and Hungary. - - “Valuable objects of art and furniture disappeared from public - buildings, without even an attempt at any legal justification of - such robbery; pictures, statues, tapestries were taken to - Germany. The Czech National Museum, the Modern Art Gallery, and - public and private collections were plundered. - - “The German Reich Commissioner of the Czechoslovak National Bank - stopped all payments of currency abroad and seized all the gold - reserve and foreign currency in the Protectorate. Thus the - Germans took 23,000 kilograms of gold of a nominal value of - 737,000 million crowns (5,265,000 pounds sterling) and - transferred the gold from the Bank of International Settlement - to the Reichsbank.” - -One of the methods of thorough—I should say total—plunder was the -so-called economic Germanization. I submit to the Tribunal as evidence -of these crimes the following extract from the official Czechoslovak -report. This extract the Tribunal will find on Pages 4 and 5 of the -document book: - - “(2) Economic Germanization. - - “A. Rural. Expropriation. - - “(aa) After Munich. - - “In the areas occupied by the German Army in October 1938 - Germany began to settle her nationals on all the farms formerly - belonging to Czechs or Jews who had fled for political or racial - reasons. - - “The Czechoslovak Land Reform Act of 1919, insofar as it - benefited Czech nationals, was declared invalid; Czech farmers - were expelled from their land and compelled to relinquish their - cattle, agricultural implements, and furniture. - - “On paper the Czechs received compensation; in fact, however, - they were burdened with taxes in order to make good the - so-called ‘deliberate damage’ they were alleged to have caused - by their flight. These taxes far exceeded the compensation. - - “The large agricultural and government estates of the - Czechoslovak Republic automatically became Reich property and - came under the jurisdiction of the Reich ministries concerned. - - “(bb) After the invasion of 15 March 1939. - - “After the invasion, German directors, supervisors, and foremen - replaced Czech nationals in state-owned enterprises of the - Czechoslovak Republic. - - “Germanization of private property began, of course, under the - slogan ‘Aryanization.’ - - “The Germanization of rural Bohemia and Moravia was entrusted to - a special body called ‘Deutsche Siedlungsgesellschaft’ located - in Prague. - - “Czech peasants were offered compensation for their food - products but at entirely inadequate prices. - - “Rural Germanization, apart from Germanization pure and simple, - aimed at pauperizing as many well-to-do Czech nationals as - possible. - - “The Nazis did their utmost to squeeze as much as possible out - of Czech agriculture. Here too their aim was twofold: On the one - hand to obtain as much foodstuffs as possible, and on the other, - to carry the process of Germanization as far as possible. - - “Farmers were turned out of their farms to make way for German - settlers—entire agricultural districts were in this way cleared - of Czechs. Agricultural co-operative societies in control of - production were transformed into auxiliary organizations and - were gradually germanized. - - “The looting of property and wealth was followed by the - pillaging of products of the soil. Heavy fines and frequently - even the death penalty were imposed on Czech peasants for - intentional failure to comply with orders regarding production, - delivery, and rationing. - - “B. Expropriation of banks and their funds. - - “In Czechoslovakia industrial undertakings were directly - financed by the banks, which often owned or controlled the - majority of shares. Having obtained control of the banks, the - Nazis thus secured control of industry. - - “(a) After Munich. - - “After Munich, two important German banks, the Dresdner Bank and - the Deutsche Bank took over the branches of Prague banks, - situated in the ceded territory. Thus among the enterprises - taken over by the Dresdner Bank were 32 branches of the Bohemian - Discount Bank and among those taken over by the Deutsche Bank - were 25 branches of Bohemian Union Bank. - - “As soon as these two banks obtained control of the branch banks - in the Sudetenland they also endeavored to gain influence on the - respective head offices of these banks in Prague. - - “The Czechoslovak banks were joint stock companies. Every joint - stock company with even one Jewish director was considered to be - Jewish. In this manner the non-Jewish property was also taken - over. - - “(b) After the invasion of 15 March 1939. - - “After the invasion several Czechoslovak banks in Bohemia, in - consequence of their Aryanization, became the property of the - Dresdner Bank. Among other enterprises, this German bank took - over the Union Bank of Bohemia. In this way all the financial - interests which these banks had in Czech industry, as well as - the entire share capital, fell into German hands. - - “From that time on German capital began to infiltrate into the - Czech banks; their expropriation and incorporation into the - German bank system began. The Dresdner Bank (the establishment - which administered the funds of the National Socialist Party) - and the Deutsche Bank were officially entrusted with the task of - expropriating the funds belonging to the Czechoslovak banking - concerns. - - “By means of various ‘transactions,’ by gaining influence - through the branch banks in the Sudetenland over their - respective head offices in Prague, by reducing the share - capital, which was later increased with German assistance, by - appropriating industrial holdings and in this way acquiring - influence over the controlling banks which were thus deprived of - their industrial interests, _et cetera_, the two Berlin banks - achieved complete control of the banks of the Protectorate. - Gestapo terror helped them.” - -I skip one paragraph of this report and pass on to the next count: - - “C. Destruction of National Industry. - - “(a) Compulsory organization. - - “After the invasion the Germans introduced into the Protectorate - the compulsory organization of Czech industry on the German - model. - - “They appointed a committee for every new association and all - the industrial ‘groups’ appointing at least one Nazi as chairman - or vice chairman or, just as an ordinary member. However, all - the Czech members actually were mere puppets. - - “(b) Armament factories. - - “The Dresdner Bank acquired the most important armament - factories in Czechoslovakia, that is, the Skoda Works in Pilsen - and the Czechoslovak ‘Zborjobka’ in Brünn. The private - share-holders were forced to surrender their shares at prices - far below their actual value; the bank paid for these shares - with coupons which had been withdrawn from circulation, and - confiscated by the Germans in the districts previously ceded in - accordance with the Munich agreement. - - “(c) The Hermann Göring Werke. - - “The seizure by the Germans of the Czechoslovak banks and thus - of the industry, through the big Berlin banks, was accomplished - with the help of the gigantic Hermann Göring Werke which seized - the greatest Czechoslovak industries, one by one, at the - smallest financial cost, that is to say, under the pretext of - Aryanization, by pressure from the Reich, by financial measures, - and finally by threatening Gestapo measures and concentration - camps. - - “Finally, all the large Czechoslovak enterprises, factories, and - armament plants, and the coal and iron industries fell into - German hands. The huge chemical industry was seized by the - German concern, I. G. Farben Industrie.” - -I skip the paragraph concerning the same methods adopted in the case of -light industry and pass on to the next count of the report, “Financial -Spoliation.” - - “After the occupation of the territory, ceded apparently in - accordance with the Munich agreement, the Germans refused to - take over part of the Czechoslovak State debt, although they - acquired very valuable State property in the districts taken - away from Czechoslovakia. Government bonds of low denominations - amounting to a total of 1,600 million crowns were in circulation - in the occupied territory. - - “The Germans reserved the right to use these obligations in - Czechoslovakia as legal tender.” - -Gentlemen, further on in this report we find a detailed account of the -Hitlerite campaign of spoliation directed against the financial economy -of the Czechoslovak Republic. With a view to saving time I shall refrain -from quoting this excerpt and shall merely submit the balance sheet of -the Czechoslovak National Bank. - - “The balance sheet of the Czech National Bank showed the - following figures for ‘other assets’ in million of crowns: 31 - December 1938, 845; 31 December 1939, 3,576; 31 December 1942, - 17,366.” - -I now quote an excerpt from the section entitled, “Taxes”: - - “When war broke out the Nazis fixed the war contribution of the - Protectorate at an annual sum of 2,000 million crowns (14.2 - million pounds sterling). The Nazis claimed that they were - entitled to this on the grounds that the Czechs did not have to - fight, because the Germans fought for them. - - “Immediately after the occupation the Germans seized the - proceeds of various indirect taxes and diverted them into the - Reich Treasury.” - -Gentlemen, the excerpt which I just read from the report of the -Czechoslovak Government gives an adequate picture of the manner in -which, after having seized Czechoslovakia, the Hitlerites subjected it -to wanton plunder in every field of its economic life—agriculture, -industry, and finance. - -Having seized the entire economic resources of the Czechoslovak -Republic, the Hitlerite Government forced this economy to serve their -criminal interests, extracting everything possible in order to prepare -for further aggression against the peoples of Europe and for new -military attacks with the monstrous aim of achieving world domination by -the German “master race.” - -I shall now pass to the reading of the fourth section of the official -report of the Polish Government dealing with crimes committed by the -Hitlerites in occupied Poland. This report has already been presented to -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93) and, -according to Article 21 of the Charter, constitutes irrefutable -evidence. I quote an excerpt from this report which the Tribunal will -find on Page 14 of the document book: - - “Expropriation and plunder of public and private property. - - “a) On 27 September 1939 the German military authorities issued - a decree concerning the sequestration and confiscation of Polish - property in the western provinces. ‘The property of the Polish - State, Polish public institutions, municipalities and unions, - individuals, and corporations can be sequestered and - confiscated,’ stated Paragraph 1 of the said decree. - - “b) The right of the military authorities to dispose of Polish - property in the incorporated provinces passed to the - ‘Haupttreuhandstelle Ost’ (created by Göring on 1 November 1939) - with headquarters in Berlin and branch offices in Poland. It was - entrusted with the administration of confiscated property of the - Polish State, as well as with the general policy in Poland in - accordance with the plan devised by the Reich Government. - - “c) By a decree of 15 January 1940, the entire property of the - Polish State was placed under ‘protection,’ which practically - meant confiscation of all State property in the incorporated - territories. A special decree of 12 February 1940 dealt with - agriculture and forestry in the same way. - - “d) The confiscation of private property in the western - provinces was initiated by a decree of 31 January 1940. Special - permission was required for acquisition of property and transfer - of ownership rights in all enterprises in the incorporated - territory. By another decree of 12 June 1940, Göring authorized - the ‘Haupttreuhandstelle Ost’ to seize and administer, not only - State property, but also the property of citizens of the ‘former - Polish State.’ - - “e) The process of confiscation, however, went further. The - property of Polish citizens became liable to seizure and - confiscation unless the owner acquired German citizenship in - accordance with Hitler’s decree of 8 October 1939. - - “Other decrees dealt with the repayment of debts, because the - sequestrators were authorized to repay debts to privileged - creditors only. These were members of the ‘Deutsche Volksliste’ - so far as war debts were concerned, as well as citizens of the - Reich or the free city of Danzig, as regards debts incurred - after 1 September 1939.” - -I skip two pages of this report enumerating the companies which were -specially created for carrying out of this plunder activity and also for -plundering the Polish-Jewish population, which as is already known to -the Tribunal, was later exterminated. I pass on to the end of the Polish -Government report. The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 17 of the -document book. - -Mere quotations from these and other decrees may create a wrong -impression as to the means used by the defendants in the case of the -Jewish property in Poland. But it should be pointed out that steps -concerning Jewish property were only preliminaries to infinitely greater -crimes in the future. At the end of this section of the report is justly -stated—I quote: - - “Aside from the crimes which have been proved and described - here, there are thousands of others which fade into - insignificance beside the numberless crimes of mass murder, mass - plunder, and mass destruction.” - -It is impossible to enumerate all the crimes committed in Poland under -the direct leadership of the Defendant Frank, who was the head of all -the administration in the so-called Government General. - -Frank’s diaries which were found and became part of the evidence in this -case, give a clear and concrete idea of the crimes committed by the -Hitlerites in Poland under his direction. In these diaries, Your Honors, -are entries which have a direct bearing on the subject of my -presentation. - -Therefore I should like, with your permission, to quote excerpts from -this diary which have not yet been quoted. - -I quote from the volume entitled “Conference of Departmental Heads for -1939-1940” (Document Number USSR-223), Pages 11 and 12. In your document -book, gentlemen, this excerpt is on Page 21: - - “My relationship with the Poles resembles that between an ant - and a plant louse. When I treat the Poles helpfully, tickle them - in a friendly manner, so to speak, I do it in the expectation - that I shall profit by their labor output. This is not a - political, but a purely tactical and technical problem. In cases - where, in spite of all measures, the output does not increase, - or where I have the slightest reason to step in, I would not - hesitate to take even the most Draconian action.” - -From the volume entitled “Diary 1942” I quote: - - “Dr. Frank: ‘We must remember that notes issued by the Bank of - Poland to the value of 540,000,000 zlotys were taken over in - Occupied Eastern Territory by the Governor General without any - compensation being made by the Reich. This represents a - contribution of more than 500 million exacted from the - Government General by Germany, in addition to other payments.’” - -From the same volume, Page 1277—this concerns the Governor’s conference -which took place on 7 December 1942, in Kraków—measures for increasing -production for the years 1942-43 were discussed. A certain Dr. Fischer -stated: - - “If the new food scheme is carried out, it would mean that in - Warsaw and its suburbs alone 500,000 people would be deprived of - food.” - -From the same volume on Page 1331, Frank speaks: - - “I shall endeavor to squeeze out from the reserves of this - province everything that it is still possible to squeeze - out. . . . If you recall that I was able to send to Germany - 600,000 tons of grain and that an additional 180,000 tons were - reserved for local troops, as well as many thousands of tons of - seed, fats, vegetables, besides the export to Germany of 300 - million eggs, _et cetera_, you will understand how important - work in this region is for Germany.” - -This same Frank on Page 1332 states the following—the Tribunal will -find this quotation on Page 27 of the document book: - - “These consignments to the Reich had, however, one definite - drawback to them, since the quantities we were responsible for - delivering exceeded the actual food supplies required by the - region. We now have to face the following problem. Can we, as - from February, cut 2 million non-German inhabitants of the - region out of the general rationing scheme?” - -In the volume entitled “Workers Conferences for 1943,” we find an -excerpt concerning the conference of 14 April 1943, which took place in -Kraków. On Page 28 of the document book, the Tribunal will find the -excerpt which I wish to read into the record. - - “President Naumann is speaking, and he quotes the figures - estimated for 1943-44: - - “One thousand five hundred tons of sweets for the Germans, 36 - million liters of skimmed fresh milk; 15,100,000 liters of full - cream milk for the Germans.” - -On Page 24 the same person continues—this total account is on Page 28 -of the document book: - - “Last year, more than 20 percent of the total amount of live - stock in the Government General was requisitioned. Cattle which - were really required for the production of milk and butter were - slaughtered last year so that the Reich and the armed forces - could be supplied and the meat ration maintained to a certain - extent. If we want 120,000 tons of meat, we must sacrifice 40 - percent of the remaining live stock.” - -And further: - - “In answer to a question by the Governor General, President - Naumann replied that 383,000 tons of grain were requisitioned in - 1940, 685,000 tons in 1941, and 1.2 million tons in 1942. It - appears from these figures that requisitions have increased from - year to year and have steadily approached the limits of - possibility. Now they are preparing to increase the requisitions - by another 200,000 tons which will bring them to the extreme - bounds of possibility. The Polish peasant cannot be allowed to - starve beyond the point where he will still be able to cultivate - his fields and carry out any further tasks imposed upon him, - such as carting wood for the forestry authorities.” - -However, the quotation which I have read from Naumann’s reply in no way -influenced the policy of the merciless plundering of the Polish people, -whose fate, to use Frank’s own words, interested him from one angle -only. - -In the volume entitled “Diary, From 1 January to 28 February 1944” there -is the following statement by Frank made at the conference of the -leaders of German agriculture on 12 January 1944. The Tribunal will find -this excerpt on Page 30 of the document book. - - “Once we have won the war, the Poles, Ukrainians, and all other - people living around can be made into mincemeat, or anything - else, as far as I am concerned.” - -I believe, Your Honors, that after this quotation there is no need for -me, as a representative of the Soviet Prosecution, to add anything more -to that section of my statement which deals with the crimes committed by -the Hitlerite criminals on the territory of the Polish State. Indeed, -any one of the sentences quoted is more than sufficient to give us an -exact picture of the regime in Poland created by Frank, and of Frank -himself, who created this regime. - -Turning now to the plunder and pillage of private and public property by -the Hitlerites in Yugoslavia, I must, Your Honors, read the appropriate -extracts of the official report of the Yugoslav Government, submitted to -the International Military Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit -USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). This report, in accordance with -Article 21 of the Charter, is submitted as irrefutable evidence. - -Count 6 of this report, entitled “Plunder of Public and Private -Property,” reads as follows—this count is on Page 32 of the document -book: - - “6. Plunder of public and private property. - - “Along with the exploitation of manpower the plundering of - public and private property was systematically carried out in - Yugoslavia. This plunder was carried out in various ways and - within the scope of the different measures taken. In this way, - too, Germany succeeded in completely exhausting the economic and - financial forces in occupied Yugoslavia and in destroying her - almost completely from the economic point of view. - - “We shall cite here only a few examples of this systematic - plunder: - - “A. Currency and credit measures. - - “Just as in other occupied countries, the Germans, immediately - after their entry into Yugoslavia, carried out a series of - currency measures which enabled them to take out of Yugoslavia - in great quantities goods and other valuables at an - insignificant price. As early as 14 April 1941”—that is to say, - even before the occupation of Yugoslavia was actually - completed—“the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, ‘on the basis of - the authority received from the Führer and Supreme Commander of - the German Armed Forces,’ issued the ‘Proclamation Concerning - Occupied Yugoslav Territory.’ - - “Article 9 of this proclamation fixes an obligatory rate of - exchange of 20 Yugoslav dinars for 1 German mark. Thus the value - of the dinar in relation to the Reichsmark was artificially and - by force lowered. The real rate of exchange before the war was - much more favorable to the Yugoslav currency. - - “This proves clearly the violation of the appropriate - regulations of the Hague Convention, as well as the existence of - a plan prepared in advance for the depreciation of Yugoslav - currency.” - -I submit to the Tribunal a certified photographic copy of the -aforementioned proclamation as Exhibit Number USSR-140 (Document Number -USSR-140). - - “The second predatory measure in the field of currency policy - was the introduction of German bonds (Reichskreditkassenschein) - as an obligatory means of payment in the occupied territory of - Yugoslavia. This measure was also mentioned in Paragraph IX of - the proclamation submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number - USSR-140. These so-called occupation marks, which were without - any economic foundation and without any value whatsoever in - Germany itself, were printed in Yugoslavia in accordance with - the needs of the German forces of occupation and authorities and - in this way served as a means for enabling them to make - purchases at a very low price. - - “On 30 June 1942”—that is to say, more than a year - later—“these Reich bonds were withdrawn. This took place after - the Germans had already bought up almost everything that could - be purchased in Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav State Bank had been - liquidated and all its properties plundered. In its stead the - Germans created the so-called Serbian National Bank. - - “However, so that the Germans would suffer no loss through this - measure, the Serbian National Bank was forced to exchange the - so-called occupation marks for new dinars. The marks thus - exchanged were simply withdrawn from the Serbian National Bank - by the Germans against receipt. In this way one of the most - shameless plunders was carried out, which cost Yugoslavia many - thousands of millions of dinars.” - -I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-194 (Document Number -USSR-194), “the German decree of 30 June 1942 concerning the withdrawal -of notes issued by the Reichskreditkasse and also a certified copy of -the decree concerning the Serbian National Bank, of 29 May 1941,” as -Exhibit Number USSR-135 (Document Number USSR-135). - - “It can be seen from these documents that the German occupation - authorities carried out by force the illegal liquidation of the - Yugoslav State Bank, under the pretext that Yugoslavia no longer - existed, and that they took advantage of this liquidation in - order to plunder the country on an enormous scale. - - “The Germans established the so-called Serbian National Bank - exclusively for the purpose of creating an instrument for their - predatory economic and currency policy in Serbia. The bank was - administered by officials whom they themselves appointed. - - “The measures taken with regard to Yugoslav metal coins are also - very characteristic. The Yugoslav coinage, which contained a - certain percent of silver and brass, was withdrawn, and replaced - by coins of very poor metal alloy. Naturally, the Germans - carried to Germany a large quantity of the most valuable - Yugoslav coins. - - “B. Requisitions and fines.” - -The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 40 of the document book: - - “Reich Minister Speer, head of the Armament and War Production - Ministry, declared that fixed prices were the Magna Carta of the - Armament Program.” - -The Defendant Göring, on 26 March 1943, issued a decree demanding a -further decrease in the prices of all goods imported from the occupied -countries. - - “This lowering of prices was attained by means of currency - measures as well as by means of requisitioning, confiscation, - fines, and in particular, through a special price policy. - - “By means of requisitioning, a policy of fixed low prices, and - compulsory sales, the Government of the Reich was enabled to - plunder thoroughly the Yugoslav people. This went so far that - even the quisling institutions collaborating with the Germans - frequently had to declare that the quotas of goods demanded by - the Germans could not be filled. - - “Thus, a report made by the district chief, for the Moravski - District”—quisling administration of Milan Nedic—“on 12 - February 1942, stated: - - “1. If they are deprived of so many cattle, the peasants will - not be able to cultivate their fields. On the one hand, they are - ordered to cultivate every inch of ground, on the other hand, - their cattle are ruthlessly confiscated. - - “2. The cattle are purchased at such a low price that the - peasants feel that they are hardly compensated at all for the - loss of their cattle. - - “Similar examples from other regions or districts of Yugoslavia - are very numerous. - - “In order to plunder the country, the Germans often reverted to - the systematic imposition of money fines. For instance the cash - fines imposed by the ‘Feldkommandantur’ in Belgrade during 1943 - alone amounted to 48,818,068 dinars. In Nish, during the first - 3½ months of 1943, the cash fines amounted to 5,065,000 dinars. - - “Finally, we should like to give here a few details regarding - the clearing accounts through which the export of Yugoslav goods - to Germany was carried out. As early as 1 March 1943 the - clearing balance in favor of Serbia amounted to 219 million - Reichsmark, or 4,380 million dinars. By the end of the - occupation Germany owed Serbia 10,000 million dinars. - - “The situation was the same in all the other provinces of - Yugoslavia, and only the methods of plundering varied according - to local conditions. - - “C. Confiscations. - - “Confiscations were one of the most widespread and effective - means of plundering Yugoslavia. - - “Before the occupation of Yugoslavia was completed in 1941, a - decree on confiscation was issued by the Germans in the combat - zone. Pursuant to this decree the Germans confiscated enormous - quantities of agricultural products, raw materials, - semi-manufactured, and other goods.” - -I submit to the Tribunal a certified copy of the above-mentioned decree -as Exhibit Number USSR-206 (Document Number USSR-206). - - “Immediately after the occupation of the country, the German - occupation authorities introduced by means of numerous decrees, - the system of confiscation of private and public property.” - -In order to save time I skip a part of this section of the document -which quotes concrete examples of the confiscation of property belonging -to the Yugoslav population, and I pass on to the next count, which is -entitled, “Other Methods of Plunder.” The members of the Tribunal will -find this section on Page 52: - - “Together with the aforesaid methods of plunder, which were - carried out on the basis of various decrees, laws, and - regulations, more primitive methods of looting were practiced - throughout the Yugoslav territory. They were not sporadic - incidents but constituted a part of the German system for - enslavement and exploitation. - - “The Germans plundered everything from industrial and economic - undertakings, down to cattle, food, and even simplest objects - for personal use.” - -I shall cite a few examples: - - “1. Immediately after their entry into Yugoslavia, the Germans - looted all the bigger firms and storehouses. They generally - engaged in this form of looting at night, after the so-called - curfew hours. - - “2. The order of Major General Kuebler”—which has already been - submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as Document - Number USSR-132—“contains the following passage: - - “‘Troops must treat these members of the population who maintain - an unfriendly attitude toward the occupation forces in a brutal - and ruthless manner, depriving the enemy of every means of - existence by the destruction of localities which have been - abandoned and by seizing all available stocks.’ - - “On the basis of this and similar orders, the Germans - ceaselessly looted the country under the pretext of so-called - ‘control of existing stocks,’ using the opportunities afforded - by the ‘destruction of localities which had been abandoned.’ - - “3. Punitive expeditions, which became an everyday event during - the occupation, were, naturally, always accompanied by the - looting of the victims’ property. In the same way they robbed - their prisoners and the bodies of those who had fallen fighting - in the Free National Army, as well as all the internees in the - concentration camps. - - “4. Not even churches were spared. Thus, for example, the German - unit ‘Konrad-Einheit,’ which operated in the vicinity of - Sibenik, looted the Church of St. John in Zablad.” - -There are numerous examples of the same kind. - - “During the 4 years the whole of Yugoslavia was systematically - looted. This was carried out either through numerous so-called - ‘legal measures,’ or through mass looting on the part of the - Germans. The Nazi occupation forces showed great inventive - ability and applied to Yugoslavia the experience which they had - gained in other occupied countries. - - “These criminal measures damaged the Yugoslav State and its - citizens to such an extent that one can consider it simply as - economic destruction of the country.” - -From this Your Honors may see that the plunder of public and private -property in Yugoslavia was conducted by the Hitlerites according to a -preconceived plan, that it affected every class and every branch of the -country’s economy, and caused enormous material loss to the Yugoslav -State and to its citizens. - -THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I believe this would -be a convenient time to recess. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: After the invasion of Greece, the Hitlerite -conspirators pursued their policy of merciless despoliation of the -occupied countries and immediately began to plunder her national -property. The official report of the Greek Government on the crimes -committed by the Hitlerites has already been submitted to the Tribunal. - -The appropriate section of this report entitled, “Exploitation,” gives -the concrete facts of the plunder of public and private property in -Greece. I quote the following excerpts from the part, “Exploitation,” -from this report of the Greek Government, which will be found on Page 59 -of the document book: - - “Owing to her geographical position, Greece was used by the - Germans as a base of operations for the war in North Africa. - They also used Greece as a rest center for thousands of their - troops from the North African and Eastern fronts, thus - concentrating in Greece much larger forces than were actually - necessary for purpose of occupation. - - “A large part of the local supplies of fruit, vegetables, - potatoes, olive oil, meat, and dairy products were confiscated - to supply these forces. As current production was not sufficient - for these needs, they resorted to the requisitioning of - livestock on a large scale, with the result that the country’s - livestock became seriously depleted.” - -In addition to requisitioning supplies for their armies, the Hitlerite -conspirators exacted enormous sums of money from Greece to cover the -so-called cost of occupation. In the report of the Greek Government the -following remark is made on the subject—this is on Page 60 of the -document book—I read: - - “Between August 1941 and December 1941 the sum of 26,206,085,000 - drachmas was paid to the Germans, representing a sum of 60 - percent more than the estimated national income during the same - period. In fact, according to the estimates of two Axis experts, - Dr. Barberin, from Germany, and Dr. Bartoni, an Italian, the - national income for that year amounted to only 23,000 million - drachmas. In the following year, as the national income - decreased, this money was taken from national funds.” - -Another method of plundering Greece which the Hitlerites applied on a -vast scale was the so-called requisitions and confiscations. In order to -save time, I shall, with the permission of the Tribunal, merely read -into the record a brief excerpt from the Greek report dealing with this -question. I quote: - - “One of the enemy’s first measures on occupying Greece was to - seize all the existing stocks in the country by requisition or - open confiscation. Among other goods, they requisitioned from - the wholesale and retail trade 71,000 tons of currants and - 10,000 tons of olive oil; they confiscated 1,435 tons of coffee, - 1,143 tons of sugar, 2,520 tons of rice, and a whole shipload of - wheat valued at 530,000 dollars.” - -As the country was divided among three occupying powers, the Hitlerites -blockaded that part of Greece which was occupied by their own troops and -forbade the export of food supplies from that zone. The Hitlerites began -to confiscate all existing stocks of food and other goods, a measure -which reduced the population to a state of extreme misery and -starvation. This plundering had such catastrophic consequences for the -Greek nation that, finally, even the Germans themselves were forced to -realize that they had gone too far. The practical result of this was -that towards the end of 1942 the German authorities promised the -International Commission of the Red Cross that they would return to the -population all the local products confiscated and exported by the armies -of occupation. The Germans also undertook to replace them by the -importation of products of the same caloric value. This pledge was not -fulfilled. - -As in all the occupied countries, the Germans issued and put into -circulation an unlimited amount of currency. It should be noted that -this currency represented the so-called occupation marks without any -security. I quote an excerpt from this report, which the members of the -Tribunal will find on Page 63 in the document book. I read: - - “From the very first they”—the Germans—“put into circulation - 10,000 million occupation marks, a sum equal to half the money - in circulation at that date. By April 1944 the monetary - circulation had reached 14,000 million drachmas, that is, it had - increased 700 percent since the start of the occupation.” - -The Germans, after causing great inflation in that way, purchased all -goods at prices fixed before the occupation. All goods purchased, as -well as valuables, articles of gold, furniture, and so forth, were -shipped by the Germans to Germany. - -Finally, as in every country they occupied, the Hitlerites put into -operation in Greece also the so-called “clearing system.” Under this -system, all goods earmarked for export were first confiscated or put -under embargo by the military authorities. Then they were bought up by -German firms at arbitrarily fixed prices. The price of the goods -established in this one-sided way was then credited to Greece. The -prices for merchandise imported from Germany were fixed at from 200 to -500 percent higher than their normal value. Finally, Greece was also -debited with the price of merchandise imported from Germany for the -needs of the occupation forces. The Germans called this cynical method -of plundering “clearing.” - -I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Greek Government which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 64 of the document book. I -read: - - “In consequence, notwithstanding the fact that Greece exported - the whole of her available resources to Germany, the clearing - account showed a credit balance of 264,157,574.03 marks in favor - of Germany when the Germans left. At the time of their arrival - the credit balance in favor of Greece was 4,353,428.82 marks.” - -In this way, Your Honors, the Hitlerites plundered the Greek people. - -May it please Your Honors, I pass on to the statement of the facts of -the monstrous plunder and pillage to which private, public, and state -property was subjected by the Hitlerite usurpers in the temporarily -occupied territories of the Soviet Union. The irrefutable original -documents which I shall have the honor to present for your -consideration, Your Honors, will prove that long before their attack on -the U.S.S.R., the fascist conspirators had conceived and prepared their -criminal plans for the plunder and spoliation of its riches and of its -national wealth. - -Like all other military crimes committed by the Hitlerites in countries -occupied by them, the plunder and pillage of these territories was -planned and organized beforehand by the major war criminals whom the -determination and valor of the Allied nations have brought to justice. - -The crimes committed by those who carried out the conspirators’ criminal -plans over wide areas of the Soviet land, on the fertile steppes of the -Ukraine, in the fields and forests of Bielorussia, in the rich -cornfields of the Kuban and the Don, in the blossoming gardens of the -Crimea, in the approaches to Leningrad and in the Soviet Baltic -States—all these monstrous crimes, all this mass plunder and wholesale -pillage of the sacred wealth created by the peaceable and honest work of -the Soviet peoples, Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and others—all -these crimes were directly planned, designed, prepared, and organized by -the criminal Hitlerite Government and the Supreme Command of Armed -Forces—the major war criminals, now occupying the dock. - -I shall begin with evidence as to the premeditated nature of the crimes -committed on U.S.S.R. territory. I shall prove that the wholesale -indiscriminate pillage of private, public, and state property committed -by the German fascist usurpers was not an isolated occurrence, not a -local phenomenon. It was not the result of the disintegration or the -thefts of individual army units but was, on the contrary, an essential -and indissoluble part of the general plan of attack on the U.S.S.R. and -represented, moreover, the fundamental purpose, the chief motive -underlying this criminal aggression. - -May I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal if, in stating the facts -connected with the preparations for this type of crimes, I am obliged to -refer very briefly also to several of the documents already submitted to -the Tribunal by my American colleagues. I shall endeavor, however, to -avoid repetitions and shall mainly quote such extracts from these -documents as have not been previously read into the record. - -It is known that simultaneously with the elaboration of “Plan -Barbarossa,” which provided for all strategic questions connected with -the attack on the U.S.S.R., purely economic problems arising from the -plan were elaborated. - -In the document known under the title, “Conference of 29 April 1941 with -Branches of the Armed Forces,” and presented to the Tribunal by the -American prosecution on 10 December as Document Number 1157-PS, we read: - - “Purpose of the conference: Explanation of the administrative - organization of the economic section of undertaking - ‘Barbarossa-Oldenburg’. . . .” - -Further on in this document it is indicated that the Führer, contrary to -previous practice in the preparation measures envisaged, ordered that -all economic questions were to be worked out by one center and that this -center is to be “the special-purpose economic staff Oldenburg under the -direction of Lieutenant General Schubert” and that it is to be under the -Reich Marshal, that is, Göring. Thus, as early as April 1941, the -Defendant Göring was in charge of all preparations for plundering the -U.S.S.R. - -To finish with this document, I should like to recall that provision is -made in it, even at that early date, for the organization of special -economic inspectorates and commands at Leningrad, Murmansk, Riga, Minsk, -Moscow, Tula, Gorki, Kiev, Baku, Yaroslavl, and many other Soviet -industrial towns. The document points out that the tasks of these -inspectorates and commands included “the economic utilization of -suitable territory” that is, as is explained below, “all questions of -food supply and rural economy, industrial economy, including raw -materials and manufactured articles; forestry, finance and banking, -museums, commerce, trade, and manpower.” As you see, Your Honors, the -tasks were extremely wide and extraordinarily concrete. - -The Plan Barbarossa-Oldenburg was further developed in the so-called -“directives for economic management of the newly occupied eastern -territories” which were also elaborated and issued secretly before the -attack on the U.S.S.R. - -Before passing on to the “Green File” I should like to present to the -Tribunal and read but in part another document—the so-called “File of -the District Agricultural Leader,” which was submitted to the Tribunal -by my colleague Colonel Smirnov as Document Number USSR-89. These very -detailed instructions for future district agricultural leaders which -were also worked out and published in advance, bore the title of -“District Agricultural Leaders File,” and were dated 1 June 1941. -Naturally this document, too, is also marked “top secret.” - -This instruction begins, “12 Commandments for the Behavior of Germans in -the East and Their Attitude towards Russians.” My colleague, Colonel -Smirnov, read into the record only one of those commandments: and I, -with the Tribunal’s permission, shall read into the record the other -commandments. The first commandment states—the members of the Tribunal -will find it on Page 69 of the document book. I read: - - “Those of you who are sent to work in the East must adopt as - your guiding principle the rule that output alone is decisive. I - must ask you to devote your hardest and most unsparing efforts - to this end.” - -What sort of “work” is meant is clearly shown by the following -commandments. I quote extracts from this document: - - “5th commandment: It is essential that you should always bear in - mind the end to be attained. You must pursue this aim with the - utmost stubbornness; but the methods used may be elastic to a - degree. The methods employed are left to the discretion of the - individual. . . . - - “6th commandment: Since the newly incorporated territories must - be secured permanently to Germany and Europe, much will depend - on how you establish yourself there. . . . Lack of character in - individuals will constitute a definite ground for removing them - from their work. Anyone recalled for this reason can never again - occupy a responsible position in the Reich proper.” - -In this way the future “agricultural leaders” were not only ordered to -be implacable, merciless, and cruel in their plundering activities, but -were also warned of what would happen to them if they were not -implacable enough or if they showed “lack of character.” - -The following commandments develop the same idea: - - “7th commandment: Do not ask, ‘How will this benefit the - peasants?’ but ‘How will it benefit Germany?’ - - “8th commandment: Do not talk—act! You can never talk a Russian - around or persuade him with words. He can talk better than you - can, for he is a born ‘dialectic’. . . . - - “Only your will must decide, but this will must be directed to - the execution of great tasks. Only in this case will it be - ethical even in its cruelty. Keep away from the Russians—they - are not Germans, they are Slavs. - - “9th commandment: We do not wish to convert the Russians to - National Socialism; we wish only to make them a tool in our - hands. You must win the youth of Russia by assigning their task - to them—by taking them firmly in hand and administering - ruthless punishment to those who practice sabotage or fail to - accomplish the work expected of them. - - “The investigation of personal records and pleas takes up time - which is needed for your German task. You are neither - investigating magistrates nor yet the Wailing Wall. - - “11th commandment: . . . his (Russian) stomach is elastic, - therefore—no false pity for him!” - -Such were these commandments for agricultural leaders, which one -should—to be more exact—call “commandments for cannibals.” The file -begins with these “commandments,” which are followed by a perfectly -clear-cut program for the plundering of U.S.S.R. agriculture. At the -beginning of this program we read: - - “Fundamental economical directives for the Organization of - Economic Policy in the East, Agricultural Group. - - “As regards food policy, the aim of this campaign is: - - “1. To guarantee food supplies for many years ahead for the - German Armed Forces and the German civilian population.” - -As you see, Your Honors, a perfectly clear and candid formulation of the -aims of the attack on the U.S.S.R. is given. Of course, it does not -exhaust these aims. This aim was not confined to the stealing of -provisions, and provisions were far from being the only thing stolen. -This is only an extract from the agricultural leaders’ file, and they -were not the only people to be entrusted with tasks of pillage and to -perform these tasks. - -The file as a whole contains the following sections of a carefully -thought out and extremely concrete program for the plunder of the Soviet -Union’s agriculture. I read the table of contents. Your Honors will find -this document on Page 67 of the document book: - - “1. 12 commandments. 2. General economic directives. 3. - Organization chart. 4. Instructions for the regional - agricultural leader. 5. Instructions for securing personnel. 6. - State farms: Directives on the taking over and management of - State farms. 7. Directives for taking over and managing - collective farms. 8. Agriculture machine depots, directives - regarding administration. 9. Directives for registration. 10. - Furnishing food supplies for the cities. 11. Schedules for - agricultural work. 12. Price lists.” - -I am not, Your Honor, going to take up your time by reading the whole of -this document, which consists of 98 typewritten pages. I am presenting -it to the Tribunal in its entirety, to be included in the files of the -Trial. - -I shall read from this document, already presented to the Tribunal by my -American colleagues on 10 December of last year as Exhibit Number -USA-147 (Document 1058-PS), only a few short lines. It is a note of the -record of a speech made by Rosenberg at a secret conference on 20 June -1941, dealing with questions of the East. In his speech, Rosenberg -stated particularly: - - “The problem of feeding German nationals undeniably heads the - German demands on the East just now, and here the southern - regions and the northern Caucasus must help to balance the - German food situation. We certainly do not consider ourselves - obliged to feed the Russian people as well from the produce of - these fertile regions. We know that this is a cruel necessity, - which has nothing to do with any humane feelings. It will - undoubtedly be necessary to carry out evacuation on a large - scale and the Russians are doomed to live through some very hard - years.” - -Thus did the leaders of Hitlerite Germany formulate the tasks they set -themselves when preparing their attack on the Soviet Union. - -Already in August 1942—that is, from 26 to 28 August—Gauleiter Koch, -who had just arrived from Hitler’s headquarters, spoke at the conference -in Rovno. The record of this conference was found in Rosenberg’s -archives. This document was kindly put at our disposal by our American -colleagues. It is registered as Document Number 264-PS, but it has not -been presented to the Tribunal. - -I read into the record an excerpt from this record. The members of the -Tribunal will find it on Page 72 in the document book. I read: - - “He”—Koch—“explained the political situation and his tasks as - Reich Commissioner”—in the following way—“‘There is no free - Ukraine. We must aim at making the Ukrainians work for Germany, - and not at making the people here happy. The Ukraine will have - to make good the German shortages. This task must be - accomplished without regard for losses. . . . - - “‘The Führer has ordered 3 million tons of grain from the - Ukraine for the Reich, and they must be delivered. . . .’” - -I shall show later how far this original figure—3 million tons of -grain—was exceeded by the Hitlerite plunderers, whose avid appetites -grew from month to month. - -All these aims of plunder had been planned in advance by the criminal -Hitlerite Government, who worked out an organized scheme for carrying -out organized plunder and practical methods of pillaging the occupied -territories. - -With the Tribunal’s permission I shall read extracts from a secret -document by Reich Marshal Göring which was captured by units of the Red -Army. This document bears the title, “Directives for Economic Management -in the Newly Occupied Areas in the East (Green File),” and extracts of -it have already been mentioned by my colleagues. This document is -presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document -Number USSR-10). - -The title page of the document reads—Page 76 of the document book: - - “Eastern Staff for Economic Leadership; top secret. - - “Note: The present directives are to be considered as top-secret - documents (documents of State importance) until X-Day; after - X-Day they will no longer be secret and will be treated as open - documents for official use only. - - “Directives on the subject of economic management in the newly - occupied areas in the East (Green File). - - “Part I. Economic tasks and organization, Berlin, June 1941; - printed by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.” - -As is clear from the text of the document, these directives were -published immediately before Germany’s attack on the U.S.S.R. “for the -information of military and economic authorities regarding economic -tasks in the eastern territories to be occupied.” - -In setting forth the “main economic tasks” the directives state in the -first paragraph: - - “I. According to the Führer’s order, it is essential in the - interests of Germany that every possible measure for the - immediate and complete exploitation of the occupied territories - be adopted. Any measure liable to hinder the achievement of this - purpose should be waived or cancelled. - - “II. The exploitation of the regions to be occupied immediately - should be carried out primarily in the economic field - controlling food supplies and crude oil. The main economic - purpose of the campaign is to obtain the greatest possible - quantity of food and crude oil for Germany. In addition, other - raw materials from the occupied territories must be supplied to - the German war economy as far as is technically possible and as - far as the claims of the industries to be maintained outside the - Reich permit.” - -I omit the next part of the excerpt, and I pass on to the following -excerpt, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 78: - - “The idea that order should be restored in the occupied - territories and their economic life re-established as soon as - possible is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, the treatment of - the different parts of the country must be a very different one. - Order should only be restored and industry promoted in regions - where we can obtain considerable reserves of agricultural - products or crude oil.” - -I omit the rest of this quotation in order to save time. - -Further, the plan devised in advance for the organized plunder of the -Soviet Union provided in detail for the removal from the U.S.S.R. to -Germany of all raw materials, supplies, and stocks of goods available. -In confirmation of this I cite excerpts from this document so that I -shall not have to read it in full. The members of the Tribunal will find -these excerpts on Page 83, 87, and 88 of the document book: - - “All raw materials, semi-manufactured, or finished products of - which we can make use are to be withdrawn from commerce. This - will be done by IV Wi and by the economic authorities by means - of appeals and orders, by ordering confiscation or by military - supervision, or both.” - -Page 88—from the section “Raw Material and the Exploitation of -Commercial Resources”: - - “Platinum, magnesium, and rubber are to be secured at once and - transported to Germany as soon as possible.” - -Back of Page 87: - - “Food products, articles for personal use, and clothing - discovered in combat and rear zones are to be placed at the - disposal of IV A for immediate military requirements.” - -Back of Page 83—in the section of the directives entitled “Economic -Organization” we find a project of an apparatus with wide ramifications -which was to carry out this organized plunder of the U.S.S.R. I shall -read a series of excerpts from this section, which the members of the -Tribunal will find on Page 79 of the document book: - - “A. General questions. - - “To guarantee undivided economic leadership in the theater of - military activities, as well as in the administrative areas to - be established at a later date, the Reich Marshal has organized - the ‘Staff for Economic Leadership East’ directly under himself - and headed by his representative, State Secretary Körner.” - -Second excerpt: - - “The orders of the Reich Marshal apply to all economic spheres, - including food supply and rural economy.” - -In directing your attention to these two excerpts, Your Honors, I -consider it definitively proved that the Defendant Göring not only had -personal charge of the preparations for the plunder of private, public, -and state property, but later on directed personally the vast apparatus -specially set up for these criminal purposes. You can judge of the -projected organization of this apparatus, by the following extracts from -the Green File. I read: - - “Organization of Economic Administration in the operational - area. - - “1. The economic establishments, subordinated to the Economic - Staff East, insofar as their activities cover the theater of - military activities, are incorporated in the army staffs and are - subordinate to them in military matters, namely: - - “A. In the rear area: One economic inspectorate at each of the - chief commands of the rear area; one or several mobile units of - the economic section with the security divisions; one IV Wi - group at each of the field command headquarters. - - “B. In the army administration district: One IV Wi group - (liaison officer Wi Rü Amt) with the army commander. One IV Wi - group for each of the field commands attached to the army of the - region; in addition, as and when necessary, economic units are - sent forward to the armies in the field. These units are - subordinate in military matters to the army command.” - -Further on, in Paragraph 4 of this same section, under the title -“Structure of the Individual Economic Institutions” the whole plan of -construction of the Economic Staff East is described. I shall cite it in -my own words in order to save time. The members of the Tribunal will -find the document to which I refer at the back of Page 79 in the -document book. - -Chief of the Economic Staff with the leadership group (field of -activity, leadership questions, also manpower); Group IA, in charge of -food and agriculture, running the entire agricultural production and -also the assembling of supplies for the army; Group W, in charge of -industry, raw materials, forestry, finance, banking property, and trade; -Group M, in charge of troop requirements, armaments, and transport; -economic inspectorates attached to army groups, in charge of the -economic exploitation of the rear area. Economic task forces organized -in the zone of each security division and consisting of one officer as -commander, and several specialists in different branches of the work. -Economic groups attached to the field commands, who are responsible for -supplying the immediate requirements of the troops stationed within the -sphere of activity of the field command and for preparing the economic -exploitation of the country in the interests of war economy. - -To these economic groups were attached experts on manpower, food -production and agriculture, industrial economy and general economic -questions; the economic section, attached to the army command, with -special technical battalions and platoons as well as special -intelligence subsections for industrial research, particularly in the -field of raw materials and crude oil, and subsections for discovering -and securing agricultural produce and machines, including tractors. - -This same plan also provides for special technical units for crude -oil—battalions and companies—and also the so-called mining battalions. - -Thus, under the direct control of the Defendant Göring, a whole army of -plunderers of all ranks and branches was provided, prepared, trained, -and drilled in advance for the organized pillage and looting of the -national property of the U.S.S.R. - -Your Honors, I will not take up your time by reading the whole text of -the Green File; I shall limit myself to enumerating its remaining -sections, which bear the following titles—Page 77 in the document book: - - “Execution of individual economic tasks; Economic transport; - Problems of military protection of economy; Procuring of - supplies for the troops out of the resources of the country; - Utilization of manpower, particularly of the local population; - War booty, paid labor, captured material, prize courts; Economic - objectives of war industries; Raw materials and utilization of - goods available; Finance and credit; Foreign trade and - clearings; Price control.” - -Thus the plunder of all branches of the U.S.S.R.’s national economy was -foreseen. - -To conclude I shall read into the record Keitel’s order, dated 16 June -1941, 6 days before the attack on the U.S.S.R., in which he instructed -all military units of the German Army to be ready to execute all the -directives of the Green File. I shall now read this order—you will find -this, Your Honors, at the back of Page 89 of the document book: - - “By the Führer’s order, the Reich Marshal has issued ‘Directives - for the Guidance of the Economic Administration of the - Territories To Be Occupied.’ - - “These directives (Green File) are intended for the guidance of - the military command and economic authorities in the economic - tasks within the territories to be occupied in the immediate - future. They contain directives for supplying the army from the - resources of the country and give orders to army units to assist - the economic authorities. Army units must comply with these - directions and orders. - - “The immediate and thorough exploitation of the territories to - be occupied in the immediate future in the interest of Germany’s - war economy, especially in the field of fuel and food supply, is - of the highest importance for the further conduct of the war.” - -I omit the second part of this order which contains detailed -instructions as to how the directives of the Green File should be -executed, and I read only the last paragraph of Keitel’s order: - - “The exploitation of the country must be carried out on a wide - scale, with the help of field and local headquarters, in the - most important agricultural and oil-producing districts. - - “Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel.” - -The concluding provision of this document, which says that “the -exploitation of the country must be carried out on a wide scale” was -strictly observed by units of the German Army; and the occupied regions -of the U.S.S.R., from the very first day of the war, were subjected to -the most merciless plunder. In confirmation of this, I shall later -present to the Tribunal a series of original German documents, orders, -directives, instructions, decrees, and so forth, issued by German -military authorities. - -Meanwhile, to finish with the Green File, I may state in conclusion that -this striking document is definite evidence of the remarkable -qualifications for plunder and the vast experience in brigandage of the -Hitlerite conspirators. - -The program for plundering the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, -conceived on a wide scale and elaborated in detail by the conspirators, -was put into practice by the Hitlerite aggressors from the very first -days of their attack on the U.S.S.R. - -Apart from the organized plunder carried out by the vast apparatus -specially formed for this purpose—an apparatus consisting of all kinds -of agricultural leaders, inspectors, specialists in economics, technical -and intelligence battalions and companies, economic groups and -detachments, military agronomists, and so forth—the so-called “material -interest” of the German soldiers and officers, who had unlimited -possibilities of robbing the civilian population and sending their booty -to Germany, was widely encouraged by the Hitlerite Government and the -High Command of the German Army. - -The universal plundering of the population of the towns and villages of -the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. and the mass removal to Germany -of the personal property of Soviet citizens, the property taken from the -collective farms and co-operative unions and the property of the State -itself, was carried out according to a prearranged plan wherever the -German fascist aggressors appeared. - -I turn, Your Honors, to the presentation of individual Soviet Government -documents on this question. A few months after Hitlerite Germany’s -treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the Soviet Government had already -received irrefutable data about the war crimes committed by the -Hitlerite armies in the Soviet territories they occupied. - -My colleagues have already presented to the Tribunal as Document Number -USSR-51 a note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the -U.S.S.R., Molotov, dated 6 January 1942. - -In order to avoid repetition and to save time, I shall read only a few -excerpts from this note which have a direct bearing on the subject of my -presentation. You will find the quoted extracts, underlined on Page 100 -of the document book: - - “Every step which the German fascist army and its allies took on - the occupied Soviet territory of the Ukraine and Moldavia, - Bielorussia and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the - Karelo-Finnish territory and the Russian districts and regions - is marked by the ruin or destruction of countless objects of - material and cultural value.” - -The last paragraph of this quotation: - - “In the villages occupied by German authorities, the peaceful - peasant population is subjected to unrestrained depredation and - robbery. The farmers are robbed of their property, acquired - through whole decades of persistent toil, robbed of their - houses, cattle, grain, clothing—of everything, down to their - children’s last little garments and the last handful of grain. - In many cases, the Germans drive the rural population, including - old people, women, and children, out of their dwellings as soon - as the village is occupied and they are compelled to seek - shelter in mud huts, dugouts, forests, or even under the open - sky. In broad daylight the invaders strip the clothing and - footgear from anyone they meet on the road, including children, - savagely ill-treating those who try to protest against, or offer - any kind of resistance to, such highway robbery. - - “In the villages liberated by the Red Army in the Rostov and - Voroshilovgrad regions in the Ukraine, the peasants were - plundered again and again by the invaders. As successive German - army units passed through these areas each of them renewed their - searches, lootings, arsons, and executions for failure to - deliver up provisions. The same thing took place in the Moscow, - Kalinin, Tula, Orel, Leningrad, and other regions, from which - the remnants of the German troops are now being driven by the - Red Army.” - -In order to save time I shall not read the next paragraphs of this note, -but shall give an account of them to the Tribunal in my own words. They -contain a whole series of concrete facts of the looting of the peaceful -population in different regions of the Soviet Union and the names of the -victims as well as the list of such things and belongings as were taken -from these peaceful citizens. Further, this note reads as follows: - - “The marauding orgies of the German officers and soldiers have - spread to all the Soviet areas they have seized. The German - authorities have legitimatized marauding in their armies and - encouraged looting and violence. The German Government sees in - this practice the realization of their bandit principle that - every German combatant must have ‘a personal interest in the - war.’ Thus, in a confidential order of 17 July 1941, addressed - to all commanders of propaganda squads in the German Army and - discovered by Red Army units when the 68th German Infantry - Division was routed, explicit instructions are given to foster - in every officer and soldier of the German Army the feeling that - he has a material interest in the war. Similar orders inciting - the army to mass looting and murder of the civil population are - also issued by the armies of the countries fighting on the - German side. - - “On the German-Soviet front, and especially in the vicinity of - Moscow, more and more fascist officers and soldiers can be met - dressed in pilfered clothes, their pockets crammed with stolen - goods and their tanks stuffed with women’s and children’s - wearing apparel torn from their victims’ bodies. The German Army - is becoming more and more an army of ravenous thieves and - marauders, who are looting and sacking flourishing towns and - villages of the Soviet Union, ravaging and destroying the - property and belongings of the laboring population of our - villages and towns, the fruit of its honest toil. These are - facts testifying to the extreme moral depravity and degeneracy - of the Hitlerite Army, whose looting, thievery, and marauding - have earned it the contempt and the curses of the entire Soviet - nation.” - -Several months later, on 27 April 1942, in connection with the -information which continued to come in regarding the crimes committed by -the German fascist armies, Molotov, People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs of the U.S.S.R., published for the second time a note on the -monstrous misdeeds, atrocities, and acts of violence of the German -fascist invaders in occupied Soviet territories and on the -responsibility of the German Government and the High Command for these -crimes. This second note is also submitted to the Tribunal. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: General, what do you mean by “published”? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: What I mean is that this note was first sent to -all the governments with whom the U.S.S.R. Government maintained -diplomatic relations. The text of the note was also published in the -Soviet official press. - -This document has already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution as -Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). I shall read a few -brief excerpts from this document which have a direct bearing on the -subject of my presentation. - -THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now, and you can read it -after the adjournment. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court: I desire to -announce that the Defendant Streicher will be absent on account of -illness. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I shall read now excerpts from the note of the -People’s Commissar. . . - -[_The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the -interpreting system._] - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Owing to the delay the Tribunal will sit until half past -5 tonight without further adjournment. - -Yes, Colonel. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I am reading into the record excerpts from the -note by the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs dated 27 April 1942, -and in order to save time I shall, with your permission, quote only a -few of the most necessary excerpts from this note. They are very short. -In this note, attention was drawn to the fact that the documents -captured by the Soviet authorities and put at the disposal of the -People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs are evidence of the premeditated -nature of the plunder carried out by the Hitlerites. - -I read the following excerpts; last paragraph on Page 44 of my -statement, Russian text. - - “The appendix to Special Order Number 43761/41 of the Operations - Department of the General Staff of the German Army, states: - - “‘It is urgently necessary that articles of clothing be acquired - by means of forced levies on the population of the occupied - regions enforced by every possible means. It is necessary above - all to confiscate woolen and leather gloves, coats, vests, and - scarves, padded vests and trousers, leather and felt boots, and - puttees.’ - - “In several places liberated in the districts of Kursk and Orel, - the following orders have been found: - - “‘Property such as scales, sacks, grain, salt, kerosene, - benzine, lamps, pots and pans, oilcloth, window blinds, - curtains, rugs, phonographs, and records must be turned in to - the commandant’s office. Anyone violating this order will be - shot.’ - - “In the town of Istra, in the Moscow region, the invaders - confiscated decorations for Christmas trees and toys. In the - Shakhovskaya railway station they organized the ‘delivery’ by - the inhabitants of children’s underwear, wall clocks, and - samovars. In districts still under the rule of the invaders, - these searches are still going on; and the population, already - reduced to the utmost poverty by the thefts which have been - perpetrated continually since the first appearance of the German - troops, is still being robbed.” - -I omit the rest of the quotation from Mr. Molotov’s note and conclude -with the last paragraph: - - “The general character of the campaign of robbery planned by the - Hitler Government, on which the German Command tried to base its - plans for supplying its Army and the districts in its rear, is - indicated by the following facts: In 25 districts of the Tula - region alone the invaders robbed Soviet citizens of 14,048 cows, - 11,860 hogs, 28,459 sheep, 213,678 chickens, geese, and ducks, - and destroyed 25,465 beehives.” - -I omit the remainder of this quotation which gives an inventory of all -property, cattle, and fowl confiscated by the invaders from 25 districts -of the Tula region. - -Your Honors, the notes which I have read, mention only a few of the -innumerable crimes and cases of plunder committed by the Hitlerites on -Soviet soil. - -With the permission of the Tribunal I shall now present several German -documents from which you will see how the German commanders and -officials themselves described their soldiers’ behavior. Later I shall -read candid statements by the German fascist leaders saying that German -soldiers and officers must not be hindered in their marauding -activities. It is natural that under these conditions the moral -disintegration of the German fascist armies should reach its culminating -point. Things reached such a point that the Hitlerites begin to plunder -each other, thereby proving the truth of the well-known Russian proverb, -“A thief stole a cudgel from a thief.” - -May I now quote from the document which I present to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-285. This is an extract from a report of the German -District Commissioner of Zhitomir to the Commissioner General of -Zhitomir dated 30 November 1943. You will find the document to which I -refer on Page 93 in the document book. I read: - - “Even before the German administration left Zhitomir, troops - stationed there were seen to break into the apartments of Reich - Germans and to appropriate everything that had any value. Even - the personal luggage of Germans still working in their offices - was stolen. When the town was reoccupied it was established that - the houses where the Germans lived were hardly touched by the - local population, but that the troops just entering the town had - already started to loot the houses and business premises. . . .” - -I read the second excerpt from the same document: - - “The soldiers are not satisfied with taking the articles they - can use, but they destroyed some of the remaining items; - valuable furniture was used for fires, although there was plenty - of wood.” - -Now I shall read into the record an excerpt from a report of the German -District Commissioner of the town of Korostyshev to the Commissioner -General of Zhitomir. The members of the Tribunal will find this excerpt -on Page 94 of the document book. - - “Unfortunately the German soldiers behaved badly. Unlike the - Russians they broke into the storehouses even when the front - line was still far away. Enormous quantities of grain were - stolen, including large quantities of seed. That might have been - tolerated in the case of combat units. . . . Upon the return of - our troops to Popelnaya, the warehouses were again broken into - immediately. The ‘Gebiets- und Kreislandwirt’ nailed up the - doors again, but the soldiers broke in once more.” - -I read into the record other excerpts from the same document: - - “The Kreislandwirt reported to me that the dairy farm was - plundered by retreating units; the soldiers carried away with - them butter, cheese, _et cetera_.” - -And the second excerpt: - - “The co-operative store was plundered before the eyes of the - Ukrainians. Among other things the soldiers took with them all - the cash in the store.” - -Then the third excerpt: - - “On the 9th and 10th of this month the guards of the field - gendarmerie were posted at the co-operative store in - Korostyshev. These guards could not repel the onslaught of the - soldiers. . . .” - -And the last excerpt: - - “Pigs and fowls were slaughtered to the most irresponsible - degree and taken away by the soldiers. . . . The appearance of - the troops themselves can only be described as catastrophic.” - -In these towns; Your Honors, is the conduct of the German soldiers -depicted by a German commissioner in his official report. - -There is no doubt that this description is an objective one, especially -since it is supplemented by an official report of the German Ukrainian -company for supplying agriculture in the Commissariat General, addressed -to the Commissioner General of Zhitomir. This is how the report -describes the results of a raid by German soldiers on the company’s -premises, “. . . The office was in a horrifying and incredible -condition.” Second excerpt: - - “. . . A 20-room private house at Hauptstrasse Number 57 had an - appalling appearance. Carpets and stair carpets were missing, - and all the upholstered armchairs, couches, beds with spring or - other mattresses, chairs, and wooden benches.” - -I skip a few lines: - - “The condition of the living rooms generally is almost - indescribable.” - -I omit two more excerpts from the document. - -Such, Your Honors, is the heartcry of the German brigands of the company -for the economic adoption of the Ukraine, who themselves complain of the -brigands in the German Army. - -In order to show that it was not only in Zhitomir and Korostyshev that -such things took place, I shall quote yet another report, this time by -the Commissioner of the Kazatinsky district, which contains the -following statement, “. . . The German soldiers stole food, cattle, and -vehicles.” This laconic but significant introduction is followed by no -less significant details: - - “Threatening him with a pistol, the corporal demanded the keys - of the granary from the District Commissioner. . . . When I said - that the key was in my pocket, he yelled, ‘Give me the key.’ - With these words he pulled out his pistol, stuck it against my - chest, and shouted, ‘I’m going to shoot you—you are a shirker.’ - He followed up this remark by a few more specimens of invective, - thrust his hand into my pocket and grabbed the key, saying, ‘I - am the only person who gives orders here.’ This occurred in the - presence of numerous Germans and Ukrainians.” - -The chief of the main department, Dr. Moisich, relates the same story in -a report to the Commissioner General of Zhitomir, dated 4 December 1943. -All these documents are being presented in their original form to the -Tribunal. - -I shall now, Your Honors, proceed to read excerpts from the official -reports and communiques of the Extraordinary State Commission of the -Soviet Union for the investigation and establishment of crimes committed -by the German intruders and their accomplices. In order to save time, I -ask the Tribunal to permit me to read only a few excerpts from these -documents, and to give you the contents of the rest in my own words. - -The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the looting and -crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites in the city and district of Rovno -has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-45. -The corresponding section of this report reads as follows: - - “During their stay in Rovno and the district, Hitlerite officers - and soldiers unrestrainedly plundered the peaceful Soviet - citizens and thoroughly looted the property of cultural and - educational institutions.” - -I shall not quote all the data mentioned in this report of the -Extraordinary State Commission. The report made by the Extraordinary -State Commission on the atrocities committed by the Hitlerites in Kiev, -and submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-9, emphasizes the -fact that the Hitlerites plundered the peaceful population of Kiev. I -quote a brief extract, “The German occupation forces in the city of Kiev -looted factory equipment and carried it off to Germany.” - -Following the directives of the criminal German Government and the -Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces, the satellite states also -joined in plundering and other crimes. Romanian troops who temporarily -occupied Odessa along with German Armed Forces plundered this -flourishing city in accordance with instructions from their German -masters. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning the -crimes committed by German and Romanian invaders in Odessa reads in part -as follows: - - “. . . The Romanians damaged Odessa considerably from the - economic and industrial point of view during the occupation. - - “German-Romanian aggressors have confiscated and removed to - Romania 1,042,013 centners of grain, 45,227 horses, 87,646 head - of cattle, 31,821 pigs, _et cetera_, belonging to co-operative - farms and co-operative farmers.” - -The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the damages -inflicted by the German fascist invaders on industry, urban economy, and -cultural and educational institutions in the Stalino region, already -presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-2, also gives a good -deal of data on the looting and removal to Germany of the factory -equipment of this important industrial region. - -I have quoted only a few of the reports compiled by the Extraordinary -State Commission on certain districts of the Ukraine. This flourishing -Soviet republic was subjected to unrestrained looting by the Hitlerites. -The Hitlerite conspirators considered the Ukraine a tidbit and plundered -her with exceptional voracity. I should like to read several documents -in proof of the above. - -Rosenberg’s letter to Reichsleiter Bormann dated 17 October 1944. This -document which has already been submitted on 17 December by the United -States Prosecution under Exhibit Number USA-338 (Document Number 327-PS) -states that the Central Trading Company for the East for marketing of -agricultural produce sent the following goods to Germany in the period -between 1943 and 31 March 1944 only: - - “Cereals, 9,200,000 tons; meat and meat products, 622,000 tons; - oil seed, 950,000 tons; butter, 208,000 tons; sugar, 400,000 - tons; fodder, 2,500,000 tons; potatoes, 3,200,000 tons, and so - forth.” - -The Defendant Rosenberg reported his “agricultural achievements” to -Hitler’s closest assistant in these terms. - -It should be noted that during the first year of the war the voracity -shown by the Hitlerites in plundering the Ukraine was so great, that it -awakened certain misgivings even in themselves. - -I shall read an excerpt from a letter addressed by the Inspector of -Armaments in the Ukraine to the Infantry General Thomas, Chief of the -Economic Armament Office of the OKW. The letter is dated 2 December -1941. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by the United States -Prosecution on 14 December as Document Number 3257-PS. I read a short -excerpt: - - “The export of agricultural surpluses from the Ukraine for the - purpose of feeding the Reich is only possible if the internal - trade in the Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. This can be - attained by the following measures: - - “1. Elimination of unwanted consumers (Jews; the populations of - the large Ukrainian towns, which, like Kiev, receive no food - allocation whatsoever). - - “2. Reduction as far as possible of food rations allocated to - the Ukrainians in other towns. - - “3. Reduction of food consumption by the peasant population.” - -Having outlined this program, the author explains further: - - “If the Ukrainian is to be made to work, we must look after his - physical existence, not for sentimental motives, but for purely - business reasons.” - -I omit the next paragraphs of this quotation. - -However, the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Koch, went steadily on -with his policy of ruthlessly plundering the Ukraine. In due course I -shall submit to you numerous further documents, also in the original, in -confirmation of the above. Koch’s policy met with the approbation of the -Hitlerite Government. - -It is worthy of note that at the beginning of the war the plundering of -the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. was organized in accordance -with the directives contained in the Green File, already mentioned. I -submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-13 (Document Number -USSR-13), a letter by Göring dated 6 September 1941 on the subject of -inspection for the seizure and utilization of raw materials, in which, -among other things, the following passage occurs—the Tribunal will find -this excerpt on Page 131 of the document book: - - “The war emergency demands that the supplies of raw materials - found in the recently captured eastern territories be put at the - disposal of the German war economy as quickly as possible. The - Directives for the Economic Management of the Occupied Eastern - Territories (Green File) are to be taken as authoritative.” - -I omit the last part of the quotation. - -Later however, when the Germans set up their so-called civil -administration and organized a number of special economic bodies in -various occupied territories including the Ukraine, in particular, -disputes arose among the numerous German military and civil bodies and -organizations, all of whom were engaged in plundering the occupied -territories. Rosenberg, as Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied -Territories, began to insist that all military and economic -organizations in the Ukraine were to be liquidated and their functions -transferred to German civil administrations. - -I submit to the Tribunal a draft report for State Secretary Körner on -this subject, dated 3 December 1943, as Exhibit Number USSR-180 -(Document Number USSR-180). I read from it: - - “Subject, 1. Economic administration in the Occupied Eastern - Territories; 2. General economic staff for the occupied - territories. - - “In a letter to the Reich Marshal, dated 20 November 1943, - copies of which were sent to the Chief of Staff of the OKW, and - the Leader of the Party Chancellery, Minister Rosenberg made the - following demands: - - “1. For the Ukraine, - - “a. Military economic establishment still in existence to be - dissolved. - - “b. The office of Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments - to be abolished and the military functions of the latter to be - taken over again by the Chief Quartermaster. - - “c. In case of the retention of the office of the Chief of the - Army Group Economic Departments the practice of the same - specialists working both in the Reich Commissariat and under the - Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments to be - discontinued.” - -I omit the rest. In the same draft are detailed objections made by -General Stapf and submitted by him to Keitel. He criticizes Rosenberg’s -suggestion and advises the retention of the Economic Staff East. - -And now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I present as Exhibit -Number USSR-174 (Document Number USSR-174), another original document -which is a covering letter from the Permanent Deputy of the Reich -Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to State Secretary Körner -on the same subject. - -Written suggestions by Rosenberg were appended to this letter in which -Rosenberg insists that the entire economic activities be placed under -the control of his ministry once more. As this is a rather long document -and I am presenting it in the original, I ask your permission not to -read it since it is mainly concerned with Rosenberg’s proposal, which I -have already described to the Tribunal. For the information of the -interpreters—I omit two pages of my presentation and pass to Page 62. - -Evidently Rosenberg did not receive the answer he wanted, so on 24 -January 1944 he again wrote to Göring on the same subject. I submit this -letter as Exhibit Number USSR-179 (Document Number USSR-179). In this -letter Rosenberg suggests—I shall read into the record a short -quotation, which the Tribunal will find on Page 151 of the document -book: - - “. . . in the interest of smooth working and economy of staff, I - would request that the Economic Staff East and its subordinate - agencies be abolished and that the economic administration in - the Occupied Eastern Territories and even in those districts - where fighting is still going on, be transferred to my sphere of - authority.” - -Göring replied to this in a letter dated 14 February, which I offer in -evidence as part of the same Exhibit Number USSR-179. I quote: - - “Dear Party Member Rosenberg: - - “I received your letter of 24 January 1944 regarding economic - administration in the Occupied Eastern Territories. Since the - Reich Commissariat Ukraine is now almost entirely army - administrative territory”—this is a reference to the Red Army - offensive—“I consider it advisable to postpone our conference - on the future organization of the economic administration until - the military situation is completely clarified.” - -Thus, Your Honors, Rosenberg’s claims met with resistance on the part of -other German authorities who stubbornly refused to give up such a choice -“economic activity.” - -Rosenberg in his turn refused to yield and continued to press his -demands. I now offer in evidence the following document, Exhibit Number -USSR-173 (Document Number USSR-173)—this is a letter from Rosenberg to -Göring dated 6 March 1944. In this letter, Rosenberg refers to his -experience in Bielorussia and again urges his proposals. It is a long -document and I shall not read it, as it is presented to the Tribunal _in -toto_. But Göring still had his doubts and decided against Rosenberg. - -On 6 April 1944, a month after the above-mentioned letter was sent off, -Rosenberg again wrote to Göring. This document I submit to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-176 (Document Number USSR-176). May I omit -reading it into the record, since in substance it is like the last; and -the arguments advanced in it are not such as to interest us greatly now. -I omit Page 65 and pass on to Page 66. - -Thus, Your Honors, even when the Red Army was delivering its last -crippling blows against the German fascist hordes, the Hitlerite -brigands went on quarreling about the spoils. I think there is no need -to prove that while this haggling continued, the occupied territories -were looted in feverish haste by the German authorities, both military -and civil. - -Now, Your Honors, I shall read some brief excerpts from the report made -by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes -committed by the Hitlerite invaders in the Lithuanian, Latvian, and -Estonian Soviet Socialist Republics, which were also mercilessly -plundered by the German fascist aggressors. - -All these reports have been already presented to the Tribunal by the -Soviet Prosecution. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on -the crimes of the Hitlerites in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic -contains the following statement: - - “As the result of the way in which the Hitlerite invaders - managed affairs, even according to incomplete data, the number - of livestock and poultry in all the 14 districts of the - Lithuanian S.S.R. decreases in comparison with the year 1940-41 - by 136,140 horses, 565,995 cattle, 463,340 pigs. . . .” - -I shall now quote excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary State -Commission on the crimes committed by the German invaders in the Latvian -Soviet Socialist Republic. For the information of the interpreters—this -quotation is on Page 68, second paragraph: - - “The Germans plundered the depots of tractors and agricultural - machinery throughout Latvia; and according to figures which are - far from complete, they sent to Germany 700 tractors, 180 motor - vehicles, 4,057 ploughs, 2,815 cultivators, 3,532 harrows.” - -Second quotation: - - “In consequence of the despoliation of Latvian rural economy by - the German invaders, the livestock in Latvia was decreased by - 127,300 horses, 443,700 head of cattle, 318,200 pigs, and - 593,800 sheep.” - -Further, I shall read a short excerpt from the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission on the Estonian S.S.R.: I quote: - - “The German invaders plundered the rural population of Estonia - without restraint. This plunder took the form of forcing the - peasants to hand over various kinds of farm produce. - - “The quantities of farm produce to be delivered as ordered by - the Germans were very high.” - -I omit part of the quotation and I read the second paragraph on the next -page: - - “The Germans confiscated and drove to Germany 107,000 horses, - 31,000 cows, 214,000 pigs, 790,000 head of poultry. They - plundered about 50,000 beehives.” - -I omit one more paragraph and I read the last quotation from this -report: - - “The Hitlerites took away 1,000 threshing machines, 600 - threshing machine motors, 700 motors for driving belts, 350 - tractors, and 24,781 other agricultural machines which were the - personal property of individual peasants.” - -Your Honors, a similar policy of plundering private, public, and -national property was also carried out by the German fascist invaders in -the occupied territories of Bielorussia, Moldavia, the Karelo-Finnish -S.S.R. and the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. - -Various military units and organizations in different districts of the -U.S.S.R. employed the same methods of plunder at all stages of the war -in accordance with the same criminal plan and in pursuit of the same -criminal aims. This plan was worked out, these aims were determined, -these crimes were organized by the major war criminals who are now in -the dock. - -The U.S.S.R. Prosecution has at its disposal tens of thousands of -documents on this subject. The presentation of all these numerous -documents to the Tribunal would require such a long time that it would -only complicate the Trial. For this reason, with the Tribunal’s -permission, I shall not quote any further documents or reports of the -Extraordinary State Commission on separate regions and republics, but I -shall read into the record the statistical report of the Extraordinary -State Commission relative to the material damage done by the German -fascists to state enterprises and establishments, collective farms, -public organizations, and individual citizens of the U.S.S.R. - -This document is being presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35). I shall read into the record only -those extracts from the report which have a direct bearing on the -subject of my presentation. They are stated as follows—Page 71 of the -statement: - - “The German fascist aggressors destroyed and pillaged 98,000 - collective farms, 1,876 State farms, and 2,890 machine and - tractor stations. Seven million horses, 17 million head of - cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep and goats, and 110 - million poultry were slaughtered or shipped to Germany.” - -The Extraordinary State Commission calculates the damage done to the -national economy of the Soviet Union and to individual villagers and -townspeople at 679,000 millions of rubles reckoned at the official -prices current in 1941 as follows: - - “1. State concerns and institutions, 287,000 million rubles; 2. - collective farms, 181,000 million rubles; 3. villagers and - townspeople, 192,000 million rubles; 4. co-operatives, trade - unions, and other public organizations, 19,000 million rubles.” - -I omit the following sections of this report, which describe how this -damage is divided among separate Soviet Republics, and I pass on to the -fourth paragraph, which describes the destruction of collective farms, -State farms, and machine tractor stations. In order to save time, I -shall confine myself to a few separate excerpts: - - “While burning the villages and hamlets, the German fascists - plundered completely the inhabitants of these villages. Those of - the peasants who offered resistance were brutally murdered.” - -Further, some concrete data are given on the plundering in the -Kamenetz-Podolsk and the Kursk region, the collective farm “For Peace -and Work” in the region of Krasnodar, the collective farms “For the -Times” in the Stalino region, as well as collective farms in Mogilev and -Zhitomir districts and others. The German fascist invaders inflicted -great damage on the State farms of the U.S.S.R. They shipped out of -collective farms all stocks of agricultural products and destroyed farm -and other buildings belonging to the state farms. - -Another excerpt: - - “Horse Farm Number 62 in the Poltava district lost its stock of - Russo-American trotting brood mares through the German - occupation. Up to the war, this stud farm had 670 brood mares. - The Germans acted in the same way in regard to other breeding - farms.” - -I omit the remaining excerpt of this section; and I pass on to Paragraph -6, which deals with the mass looting of Soviet citizens’ property by the -Germans: - - “In all the republics, districts, and territories of the Soviet - Union which were occupied, the fascist German invaders looted - the property of the rural and urban population, stealing - valuables, property, clothing, and household articles, and - imposing fines, taxes, and contributions on the peaceful - population.” - -The same section contains a whole series of concrete facts of the -plunder of Soviet citizens in Smolensk, Orel and Leningrad Provinces; -the Dniepropetrovsk and Sumsky Provinces, _et cetera_. With the -Tribunal’s permission, I omit two pages of my presentation, and I read -the following paragraph at the bottom of Page 76: - - “The plundering of the Soviet population was being carried out - by the German aggressors throughout the whole of the occupied - Soviet territory. - - “The Extraordinary State Commission has undertaken the task of - estimating the damage done to the Soviet citizens by the - occupation authorities and has established that the German - fascist invaders burned down and destroyed approximately four - million dwelling houses which were the personal property of - collective farmers, workers, and employees; confiscated 1½ - million horses, 9 million head of cattle, 12 million pigs, 13 - million sheep and goats; and took away an enormous quantity of - household goods and chattel of all kinds.” - -The above documents and reports of the Extraordinary State Commission -depict the crimes committed by the Hitlerites in the occupied -territories of the U.S.S.R. These crimes had been organized by the -defendants. - -The fact that Göring, in his capacity as Reich Marshal and -Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan of the Hitlerite Government, was -directly in charge of all the operations of the German military and -civil authorities for the preparation and execution of despoliation of -the occupied territories, is clearly shown by the documents which I have -already presented. Nevertheless, I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal to -read the final document on this matter, that is, the decree issued by -Hitler on 29 June 1941. - -A copy of this decree was kindly put at our disposal by the American -Prosecution, and it has not yet been presented. I, therefore, present it -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-287 (Document Number USSR-287). -This decree reads as follows: - - “1. Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, as Plenipotentiary for the - Four Year Plan, will employ, within the scope of the power - allotted to him for the purpose, all means necessary for - exploiting to the fullest extent supplies and economic resources - discovered in the newly occupied eastern territories and for - developing all their economic possibilities for the benefit of - the German war economy. - - “2. For this purpose he is also authorized to give direct orders - to military authorities in the newly occupied eastern - territories. - - “3. This decree will become effective as from today. It must - first be made public by special order.” - -However, Your Honors, the granting of extraordinary powers to Göring -does not, in any way, mean that the other defendants took only a passive -interest in organizing the looting of the occupied territories. All of -them, jointly and separately, worked feverishly in this direction. Frank -robbed the Poles; Rosenberg managed affairs in the Ukraine and in the -other occupied territories of the U.S.S.R.; Sauckel and Seyss-Inquart -were busy here and there; Speer and Funk made schemes for and carried -out predatory measures within the scope of the Ministry of Economics and -the Ministry for Armament and War Production, while Keitel acted in the -field of the Armed Forces. - -In this connection I should like to submit to the Tribunal two more -documents relating to Keitel’s economic activities. These documents, -Your Honors, are presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-175 -(Document Number USSR-175). On 29 August 1942 Keitel, in his capacity of -Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, issued the following -order under “Number 002865/42-g.Kdos. regarding securing of supplies for -the Armed Forces.” I shall read only two short excerpts from this order. -Your Honors will find them on Page 181 of the document book. I read: - - “The food situation of the German people is such that it is - necessary for the Armed Forces to contribute as far as possible - towards alleviating it. All the necessary means of doing so - exist in the combat zones and in the occupied territories both - in the East and in the West. - - “It is essential, above all, that much greater quantities of - supplies and forage . . . should be secured in the occupied - territories of the East than has been the case up to now.” - -The second excerpt: - - “All establishments should consider it their pride as well as - their duty to attain this goal at all costs so that in this - field, too, they may play a decisive part in achieving victory.” - -In a memorandum by section chiefs Klare and Dr. Bergmann, dated, “19 -November 1942, most secret, subject: Procurement of Supplies for the -Armed Forces”—I submit this memorandum in the original to the Tribunal -under the same number, Document Number USSR-175—we find the following -estimate of the results achieved by the above-mentioned order from -Keitel. I now read into the record only the first paragraph of this -memorandum. - - “By order of the Führer, the Chief of the OKW has decreed in the - attached order of 29 August 1942 that the Armed Forces must, as - far as possible, contribute towards the task of ensuring food - supplies for the German people and that they must themselves - make every effort, not only to obtain sufficient food supplies - locally to cover the needs of the armies, but also to ensure - that the quantities required by the Reich are secured in - addition. - - “As the result of this order co-operation between the Army and - the economic authorities has fortunately grown closer.” - -Now with Your Honor’s permission, I shall read into the record one more -document, namely, a telegram sent by Keitel on 8 September 1944. This -document was kindly put at our disposal by the American Prosecution and -registered as Document Number 743-PS. It was not presented to the -Tribunal before; I therefore submit it now as Exhibit Number USSR-286, -and I quote: - - “1. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General - Quartermaster, Office of Chief of Staff, (Anna). - - “2. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General - Quartermaster, Army Administration Office, (Anna-Bu). - - “3. To Commanding General, Army Group North. - - “4. To Commanding General, Army Group Center. - - “5. To Economic Staff East. - - “6. To Military District H.Q.I.” - -I read this text as follows: - - “1. The Führer has entrusted Gauleiter Koch with the utilization - of local resources in the parts of Reichskommissariat Ostland - occupied by troops of Army Group Center. Furthermore, the Führer - has ordered that all German and local administrative authorities - be subordinated to Gauleiter Koch. In securing economic - resources, Gauleiter Koch is to maintain contact with competent - Supreme Reich agencies. - - “2. All authorities of the Armed Forces will give Gauleiter Koch - every assistance in their power in executing this order.” - -Thus, Your Honors, even at the end of 1944, when under the blows of the -Red Army and its allies Hitlerite Germany was precipitated towards its -final defeat and only a few months before its final military and -political collapse, Hitler, Keitel, Koch, and many others were still -stretching out their already stiffening fingers to grab the property and -wealth of others. - -This is the evidence I have to show regarding the looting and marauding -perpetrated by the Hitlerite hordes in the occupied territories of the -Soviet Union. But they plundered not only the living, they also -plundered the dead. My colleague, Colonel Smirnov, has already presented -comprehensive evidence on this question. I do not wish to quote it -again, but I refer to it only to show how closely interlocked and -all-embracing was the circle of their crimes. As Rauschning testifies in -his book, which has already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution to -the Tribunal, Hitler once said: - - “I need people with strong fists whose principles will not - prevent them from taking human life if necessary; and if on - occasion they swipe a watch or a jewel, I don’t care a tinker’s - damn.” - -And Hitler actually found these men in the persons of the defendants and -their numerous accomplices. - -As the documents which I have just presented show, the Defendant Göring, -on account of his position in Hitler’s Government as Reich Marshal and -Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan and as head of the whole criminal -system for the plundering of the occupied territories, was guilty of -these crimes. - -For this reason the stenographic record of a secret conference of German -administrative leaders (Reich Commissioners) for the occupied countries, -which took place on 6 August 1942, is of particular interest. Göring -presided over the meeting. This document, like many other original -documents which I had the honor of presenting today to the Tribunal, was -found by Soviet military authorities in September 1945 in one of the -municipal buildings of the town of Jena, in Thuringia. - -This extraordinary document contains a long speech by Göring and the -replies of the Hitlerite rulers of the occupied countries. And, Your -Honors, many of the people who are sitting in the dock now took part in -this conference. The contents of this document are such that any comment -on my part is unnecessary. Therefore, if it pleases the Tribunal, I -shall proceed to read from this document. - - “Stenographic notes; Thursday, 6 August 1942, 4 p. m., in the - Hermann Göring Hall in the Air Ministry. - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘The Gauleiter stated their views here - yesterday. Although they may have differed in tone and manner, - it was evident that they all feel that the German people have - too little to eat. Gentlemen, the Führer has given me general - powers exceeding any hitherto granted within the Four Year Plan. - - “‘At this moment Germany commands the richest granaries that - ever existed in the European area, stretching from the Atlantic - to the Volga and the Caucasus, lands more highly developed and - fruitful than ever before, even if a few of them cannot be - described as granaries. I need only remind you of the fabulous - fertility of the Netherlands, the unique paradise that is - France. Belgium too is extraordinarily fruitful and so is the - province of Posen. Then, above all, the Government General has - to a great extent the rye and wheat granary of Europe, and along - with it the amazingly fertile districts of Lemberg (Lvov) and - Galicia, where the harvest is exceptionally good. Then there - comes Russia, the black earth of the Ukraine on both shores of - the Dnieper, the Don region, with its remarkably fertile - districts which have scarcely been destroyed. Our troops have - now occupied, or are in process of occupying, the excessively - fertile districts between the Don and the Caucasus.’” - -Göring then goes on to say: - - “‘God knows, you are not sent out there to work for the welfare - of the people in your charge but to squeeze the utmost out of - them, so that the German people may live. That is what I expect - of your exertions. This everlasting concern about foreign - peoples must cease now, once and for all. - - “‘I have here before me reports on what you expect to be able to - deliver. It is nothing at all when I consider your territories. - It makes no difference to me if you say that your people are - starving. - - “‘One thing I shall certainly do. I will make you deliver the - quantities asked of you; and if you cannot do so, I will set - forces to work that will force you to do so whether you want to - or not. - - “‘The wealth of Holland lies close to the Ruhr. It could send a - much greater quantity of vegetables into this stricken area now - than it has done so far. What do I care what the Dutchmen think - of it. - - “‘The only people in whom I am interested in the occupied - territories are those who work to provide armaments and food - supplies. They must receive just enough to enable them to - continue working. It is all one to me whether Dutchmen are - Germanic or not. They are only all the greater blockheads if - they are; and more important persons than they have shown in the - past how Germanic numskulls sometimes have to be treated. Even - if you receive abuses from every quarter, you will have acted - rightly, for it is the Reich alone that counts.’” - -And now I come to the next excerpt: - - “‘I am still discussing the western territories. Belgium has - taken care of herself extraordinarily well. That was very - sensible of Belgium. But there, too, gentlemen, rage incarnate - could seize me. If every plot of ground in Belgium is planted - with vegetables, then they must surely have had vegetable seed. - When Germany wanted to start a big campaign last year for - utilizing uncultivated land, we did not have nearly as much seed - as we needed. Neither Holland nor Belgium nor France have - delivered it, although I myself was able to count 170 sacks of - vegetable seed on a single street in Paris. It is all very well - for the French to plant vegetables for themselves. They are - accustomed to doing this. But, gentlemen, these people are all - our enemies and you will not win over any of them by humane - measures. The people are polite to us now because they have to - be polite. But let the English once force their way in and then - you will see the real face of the Frenchman. The same Frenchman - who dines with you and in turn invites you to dine with him will - at once make it plain to you that the Frenchman is a - German-hater. That is the situation, and we do not want to see - it any other way than it is. - - “‘It is a matter of indifference to me how many courses are - served every day at the table of the Belgian king. The king is a - prisoner of war; and if he is not treated as such, I will see to - it that he is taken to some other place where this can be made - clear to him. I am really fed up with the business. - - “‘I have forgotten one country because nothing is to be had - there except fish; that is Norway. - - “‘With regard to France, I say that it is still not cultivated - to the greatest possible extent. France can be cultivated in a - very different way if the peasants there are forced to work in a - different manner. Secondly, inside France itself the population - is gorging itself to a scandalous degree. . . . - - “‘Besides, Heaven help a German car parked outside a French - tavern in Paris! it is reported. But a whole row of French - gasoline-driven vehicles parked there doesn’t bother anyone. - - “‘I would say nothing at all, on the contrary, I would not think - much of you if we didn’t have a marvelous restaurant in Paris - where we could get the best food obtainable. But I do not want - the French to be able to saunter into it. Maxim must have the - best food for us.’” - -Mr. President, I see one of the German Defense Counsel wishes to take -the floor. I shall, therefore, give him an opportunity to do so. - -DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, I -have only a short question. - -The prosecutor has not told us where this document can be found, in -which document book and what number it has. He mentioned only the page -on which the Court can find that document. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: This document was presented to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-170. The photostatic copy was turned over to -Defense Counsel. - -May I continue, Mr. President? - -THE PRESIDENT: It comes from the archives of the Defendant Göring, does -it not? You have so stated. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: Yes. - - “‘For German officers and men three or four first-class - restaurants—excellent, but not for the French.’” - -I quote the next excerpt: - - “‘Furthermore, you should be like bloodhounds on the track of - anything the German people can use; that stuff should be brought - here out of the warehouses like lightning. Whenever I issued a - decree, I stated repeatedly that soldiers are entitled to buy as - much as they want and whatever they want, as much as they can - carry. . . . - - “‘Now you will say—Laval’s foreign policy. Herr Laval calms - down Herr Abetz and as far as I am concerned, may go to Maxim’s, - although it is out of bounds. But the French will soon have to - learn. You have no idea of the impudence they have. When our - friends hear that a German is interested they charge fantastic - prices. They charge three times the normal price and if they - hear that the Reich Marshal is in the market, they charge five - times the normal price. I wanted to buy a tapestry. Two million - francs was asked. The woman was told that the buyer wanted to - see the tapestry. She said she did not wish to let it out of her - sight. Well, then she would have to go with it. She was told - that she was going to see the Reich Marshal. When she arrived - the tapestry was priced at 3 million francs. I reported it. Do - you think anything was done? I submitted the case to the French - court and they taught milady that it is inadvisable to profiteer - when dealing with me. - - “‘All that interests me is what we can squeeze out of the - territory now under our control with the utmost application and - by straining every nerve; and how much of that can be diverted - to Germany. I don’t give a damn about import and export - statistics of former years. - - “‘Now, regarding shipments to the Reich. Last year France - shipped 550,000 tons of grain, and now I demand 1.2 million - tons. Two weeks from now a plan will be submitted for handling - it. There will be no more discussion about it. What happens to - the Frenchmen is of no importance. One million two hundred - thousand tons will be delivered. Fodder—last year 550,000 tons, - now 1 million; meat—last year 135,000 tons, now 350,000; - fats—last year 23,000, this year 60,000.’” - -And so on. - -The next excerpt from this address concerns the quotas to be fixed for -deliveries from countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and -the Government General. In reply to Göring’s questions and instructions -definite figures were quoted by those attending the meeting. I omit one -page and continue: - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘So much for the West. A special order - will be issued concerning purchasers who buy up all the clothes, - shoes, _et cetera_, that are to be had. - - “‘Now comes the East. I have settled this point with the - Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht waives the demands it made on the home - country. How much hay was required?’ - - “Backe: ‘1.5 million tons. Over 1 million tons straw and 1½ - million tons oats. We can’t manage that.(?)’ - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Now, gentlemen, there is only one thing - more regarding Wehrmacht supplies. I want to hear nothing more - about you until further notice. No more requests. The - country—with its sour cream, apples, and white bread—will feed - us abundantly. The Don valley will take care of the rest.’” - -Passing to the next quotation—Göring is speaking: - - “‘The Wehrmacht in France will, of course, be supplied with food - by France. That is a matter of course, and I did not even - mention it before. - - “‘Now about Russia: There is no doubt of her fertility. The - position there is almost incredibly good. . . .’” - -The next quotation—Göring is still speaking: - - “‘I was glad to hear that the Reich Commissioner in Ostland is - doing just as well, and the people are just as fat and chubby - and puff a little when they work. Nevertheless, I shall see to - it, no matter how carefully certain groups are treated, that - some contribution is made from the inexhaustible fertility of - this area.’” - -After this Lohse, Reich Commissioner for Bielorussia, addressed the -meeting: - - “‘May I state my opinion in a few words? I should like to give - you more but certain conditions have to be observed. The harvest - is certainly excellent but in more than half of the area of - Bielorussia which is well cultivated, it is scarcely possible to - get in the crops, unless we can put a stop to the disturbances - caused by guerrillas and partisans. I have already been crying - out for help for 4 months.’” - -Lohse goes on to describe the activities of the partisans in -Bielorussia. In this connection Göring interrupts him and says: - - “‘My dear Lohse, we have known each other for a long time. I - know well enough that you are a great poet.’” - -And Lohse answered: - - “‘I won’t stand for that; I have never written poetry.’” - -In conclusion I quote the last three quotations from Göring’s speech. He -said: - - “‘We must have buyers from the Ministry of Economics, Funk, in - the Ukraine and elsewhere. We must send them to Venice to buy - odds and ends, those frightful alabaster things and cheap - jewelry, _et cetera_. I don’t think there is any other place - except Italy where one gets quite such junk. - - “‘Now let us see what Russia can deliver. I think, Riecke, we - should be able to get 2 million tons of cereals and fodder out - of the whole of Russia.’ - - “Riecke: ‘That can be done.’ - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘That means that we must get 3 million, - apart from Wehrmacht supplies.’ - - “Riecke: ‘No, all that is in the front areas goes for the - Wehrmacht only.’ - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Then we bring 2 million.’ - - “Riecke: ‘No.’ - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘A million and a half then.’ - - “Riecke: ‘Yes.’ - - “Reich Marshal Göring: ‘All right.’” - -The discussion went on in the same way. Göring’s speech ends with the -following sentence: - - “‘Gentlemen, I would just like to say one thing more. I have a - very great deal to do and a very great deal of responsibility. I - have no time to read letters and memoranda informing me that you - cannot supply my requirements. I have only time to ascertain - from time to time through short reports from Backe whether the - commitments are being fulfilled. If not, then we shall have to - meet on a different level.’” - -As Your Honors have heard, besides Göring this conference was attended -by the Defendants Rosenberg, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, Frank, Funk, and -others. As you have heard, Göring finished his speech with a direct -threat against the participants in this conference, by saying that “we -shall have to meet on a different level.” This threat came true. The -matter has, in every sense of the term, been met on a different -level—from the level of the dock. - -Thus the whole volume of evidence submitted establishes beyond all -doubt: - -1. That simultaneously with their well-laid preparations for the -military invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the -U.S.S.R., the criminal Hitlerite Government and the Supreme Command of -the German Armed Forces worked out a plan for the mass plunder and -spoliation of private, public, and state-owned property in the -territories belonging to these countries. - -2. That having worked out this criminal plan, the conspirators carried -out all the preliminary measures necessary for its execution by training -special bodies of officers and officials for the despoliation of the -territories they meant to seize by preparing and issuing special -instructions, reference books, and orders for this purpose, and by -creating a special and very complicated organization of all sorts of -“economic inspectorates,” “detachments,” “groups,” “joint stock -companies,” “plenipotentiaries,” _et cetera_, and by calling in a large -number of specialists in different branches, military experts on -agriculture, agricultural leaders, economic spies, _et cetera_. - -3. That in accordance with this long-prepared plan, they subsequently -plundered and despoiled private, public, and State property in the -occupied territories and also robbed the peaceful population of these -territories, having recourse to atrocities, violence, and arbitrary -practices of the most appalling nature. - -4. That in order to make the soldiers and the officers of the German -Army “economically interested” in the war, the conspirators not only -failed to prosecute cases of marauding and robbery committed, by German -soldiers and officers, but even encouraged these crimes and incited -their men to commit wholesale looting. - -5. That by the commission of all these crimes the conspirators caused -enormous economic damage to the people of the occupied territories, -exposing them to starvation and suffering, and that they profited by -their criminal activities for the personal gain and enrichment of -themselves and their adherents. - -6. That having thus planned, prepared, and initiated wars of aggression -against the freedom-loving nations, the conspirators aimed at the -predatory despoliation of these nations and thereafter achieved these -criminal ends by means of equally criminal and predatory methods. - -On the strength of the above, the defendants have consciously and -deliberately violated Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907, the -laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law accepted -by the penal codes of all civilized nations, as well as the national law -of those countries in which these crimes were committed. - -For these criminal acts, Your Honors, each and all of which are covered -by Article 6(b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, -all the defendants must be found guilty; all of them without exception -must be held responsible both individually and as members of the -conspiracy. - -May it please Your Honors, the documents which I have presented to the -Tribunal and which I have read into the record are silent witnesses to -the crimes organized and committed by the defendants. - -But the conscience of the Judges will hear the testimony of these silent -witnesses, who relate truthfully the story of the arbitrary practices -and crimes of the Hitlerite brigands and the boundless sufferings of -their innumerable victims. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 21 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SIXTY-FOURTH DAY - Thursday, 21 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -MARSHAL: The Defendant Hess will be absent from today’s session on -account of illness. - -GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to inform Your Honor that in accordance with -the plan of the Soviet Prosecution presented to the Tribunal and with -the permission of the Tribunal, we shall start presenting evidence on -that section entitled, “The Destruction and Plunder of Cultural and -Scientific Treasures, Cultural Institutions, Monasteries, Churches, and -Other Religious Institutions, as well as the Destruction of Cities and -Villages.” - -The evidence on this section will be presented by State Counsellor of -Justice of the Second Class, Raginsky. - -STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS M. Y. RAGINSKY -(Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, -among the numerous and grievous war crimes committed by the Hitlerite -conspirators—crimes enumerated in detail in Count Three of the -Indictment—crimes against culture occupy a definite place of their own. -These crimes expressed all the abomination and vandalism of German -fascism. - -The Hitlerite conspirators considered culture of the mind and of -humanity as an obstacle to the fulfillment of their monstrous designs -against mankind, and they removed this obstacle with their own typical -cruelty. In working out their insane plans for world domination, the -Hitlerite conspirators, side by side with the initiation and prosecution -of predatory wars, prepared a campaign against world culture. They -dreamed of turning Europe back to the days of her domination by the Huns -and Teutons. They tried to set mankind back. - -It is unnecessary to quote the numerous pronouncements of the fascist -ringleaders on this subject. I shall permit myself merely to refer to -one pronouncement of Hitler’s quoted on Page 80 of Rauschning’s book, -and already presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution. “We,” -said Hitler, “are barbarians and we wish to be barbarians. It is an -honorable calling.” - -On behalf of the Soviet Prosecution, I shall present to the Tribunal -evidence of how the defendants put into practice these orders of Hitler, -which found concrete expression in the wrecking of cultural -institutions, the looting and destruction of cultural treasures, and the -suffocation of the national cultural life of the peoples in the -territories temporarily occupied by the German armies, that is, the -territories of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. - -I shall present to the Tribunal evidence of the Hitlerites’ preparations -and planning for the looting of cultural treasures; how, long before the -treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the so-called Einsatzstab Rosenberg -prepared for pillage, how the predatory activity of the Defendant -Rosenberg was co-ordinated with Göring, Heydrich, and the Supreme -Command, and how this pillage was disguised. - -It is now generally known to what monstrous lies and provocations the -Hitlerites resorted in the camouflaging of their crimes. While -annihilating millions of people in the extermination camps they had set -up, they spoke, in their orders, of “filtration” and “cleansing.” While -destroying and plundering cultural treasures, the fascist vandals sought -shelter behind the terms “collection of materials” and the “study of -problems,” and shamelessly referred to themselves as “bearers of -culture.” - -The Hitlerite conspirators endeavored to change into serfs, bereft of -all their rights, the peoples of the territories seized; and, for this -purpose, they destroyed the national culture of these peoples. - -The destruction of the national culture of the Slav peoples and -particularly of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Bielorussian cultures, the -destruction of national monuments, schools, literature, and the -compulsory Germanization of the population, followed the German -occupation everywhere, in obedience to the same criminal principle which -governed the ensuing pillage, rape, arson, and mass murders. - -I omit, Mr. President, the end of Page 3 and Page 4 of my presentation, -and I proceed to the presentation of Section 2, Page 5. - -As I have already indicated, the destruction of the national culture of -the peoples in the occupied territories was a fundamental part of the -general plan for world domination established by Hitler’s conspirators. -It is difficult to determine whether destruction or plunder was the -prevalent factor in these plans. But there is no disputing the fact that -both plunder and destruction were aimed at one goal only—extermination; -and this extermination was carried out everywhere, in all the -territories occupied by the Germans, and on an enormous scale. - -Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Convention laid down, I quote: - - “The property of municipalities, of Church institutions and - establishments dedicated to charity and education, arts and - sciences, even when belonging to the State, shall be considered - as private property. All premeditated seizure of, and - destruction or damage to, institutions of this character, to - historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden and - should be made the subject of legal proceedings.” - -The Hitlerites consciously and systematically scoffed at the principles -and demands laid down in Article 56. All the conspirators are guilty of -this, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the first place. - -Rosenberg had an organization with widespread ramifications for the -plunder of cultural treasures and with numerous staffs and -representatives. The Einsatzstab Rosenberg and Rosenberg’s chief of -staff, Utikal, were the central point of the network co-ordinating the -criminal activities of many predatory organizations inspired and -directed by the Hitlerite Government together with the German Supreme -Command. Rosenberg was officially placed in charge of plundering the -cultural treasures in the occupied territories by a decree of Hitler of -1 March 1942. - -I have in mind Document Number 149-PS presented to the Tribunal on 18 -December of last year by the United States Prosecution and accepted by -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-369. With your permission, Mr. -President, I shall quote only two paragraphs of this document. You will -find this document on Page 3 of your document book. I quote: - - “His”—Rosenberg’s—“Einsatzstab for the occupied territories - has the right to investigate libraries, archives, and every - other kind of cultural establishment for corresponding - materials, and to confiscate these materials for the realization - of the ideological aims of the National Socialist Party. . . .” - -I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph of this document: - - “The regulations for the co-operation with the Armed Forces are - issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces - in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg. - - “The necessary measures for the eastern territories under German - administration will be taken by Reichsleiter Rosenberg in his - capacity as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern - Territories.” - -This decree of Hitler’s was issued, as is clear from the document -quoted, to all departments of the Armed Forces, the Party, and the -Government. - -But it is not 1 March 1942 which should be considered as the beginning -of Rosenberg’s predatory activities. I shall submit several excerpts -from a letter of Rosenberg to Reichsleiter Bormann in confirmation. The -letter is dated 23 April 1941. This document was presented to the -Tribunal on 18 December 1945 by the United States Prosecution, and it -was accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-371 (Document Number -071-PS). - -This document—which Your Honors will find on Page 4 of your document -book—is interesting also for the fact that the plunder, referred to as -“confiscation” in the letter, was carried out by the Defendant Rosenberg -in close collaboration and contact, based on a written agreement, -between the departments of Rosenberg and Himmler. I cite extracts from -Page 1 of the Russian translation of this letter: - - “I have”—wrote Rosenberg—“transmitted to you a photostatic - copy of my agreement with the Security Police (SD), concluded - with the express approval of Gruppenführer Heydrich.” - -And further—you will find this on Page 5 in your document book: - - “Questions bearing on works of art”—as stated in this - letter—“were considered of secondary importance. Of primary - importance was the Führer’s directive regarding the twice-issued - order from the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, - for the occupied territories of the West, to the effect that all - archives and all scientific property belonging to our - ideological opponents, be placed at my disposal. This, too, was - carried out on a wide scale and in close co-operation with the - SD and the military leaders.” - -The importance attached by the Hitlerite conspirators to Rosenberg’s -predatory staffs is shown in Göring’s special circular of 1 May 1941, -addressed to all Party, Government, and military institutions, which had -been ordered to co-operate with the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This document -was presented by our American colleagues on 18 December of last year and -accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-384 (Document Number -1117-PS). - -Even at that time the scale on which the pillage was conducted was -already enormous. As Rosenberg stated in his letter of 23 April 1941, at -that time, that is, in April 1941, 7,000 cases of looted works of art -had already been dispatched to Germany. - -To conclude with this document I shall, with your permission, read one -further brief quotation into the record. It consists of one paragraph -only. You will find this paragraph on Page 6 of the document book: - - “And thus”—wrote Rosenberg—“these problems practically solved - themselves and the work has followed its own course. Here I - would like to ask for a confirmation that these decisions, - already adopted in the West, should, in the present - circumstances, be rendered valid in the other occupied - territories, or in those which are to be occupied.” - -This document, in which pillage is referred to as “work,” proves that -Rosenberg’s criminal activities were carried out in close contact with -the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces; and, finally, that as early as -April 1941 plans were being made for plundering the territories about to -be occupied. - -The speech of the Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, -and the speech of the representative of the United States Prosecution, -Mr. Alderman, defined what Rosenberg meant in his letter by “territories -about to be occupied” at that time. That was the period of the practical -realization of the evil Hitlerite schemes, planned in the so-called Plan -Barbarossa, the period when the German fascist hordes were hurled -against the frontiers of the Soviet Union, the period of the attack on -the U.S.S.R. - -Lastly, it is necessary to point out that, in April 1941, the Defendant -Rosenberg placed Utikal at the head of all operational staffs, “the -creation of which may become necessary during the course of this war.” -In this connection Rosenberg referred to the “successful work” and to -the “experience gained” by his operational staff in the western occupied -territories and in the Netherlands. - -This fact is confirmed by a certificate issued to Utikal, dated 1 April -1941, and signed by Rosenberg. The authenticity of this document—which -bears Document Number 143-PS—was confirmed by Rosenberg at his -interrogation on 26 September 1945. I present this document to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-371. - -In reporting on the organization for the looting and destruction of -cultural treasures, it is necessary to indicate yet another department -which combined diplomacy with pillage. I have in mind the German -Ministry for Foreign Affairs. - -The Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, in his opening -speech pointed out that the general pillage in the occupied regions of -the U.S.S.R., carried out on the direct orders of the German Government, -was directed not only by the Defendants Göring and Rosenberg and by the -various “staffs” and “commands” subordinated to them; the Ministry for -Foreign Affairs, headed by the Defendant Ribbentrop, also participated -through a “special formation.” - -The creation of such a formation—the so-called “Ribbentrop -Battalion”—and its practical activities in the looting of cultural -treasures in the territory of the U.S.S.R. are testified to in a written -statement of 10 November 1942 by Obersturmführer Dr. Förster, who was -captured by Red Army units in the region of Mosdok. In this statement -Förster likewise indicated the task of Rosenberg’s staff in the plunder -or, as he expressed it, in the “withdrawal” of museum treasures and -antiques. A certified photostat of this statement I present to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-157 (Document Number USSR-157). - -It is stated in Förster’s statement, I read: - - “In August 1941 while in Berlin, I, with the assistance of my - old acquaintance from the University of Berlin, Dr. Focke, then - employed in the press section of the Foreign Office, was - transferred from the 87th Tank Destroyer Division to the special - purpose battalion attached to the Foreign Office. This battalion - had been created on the initiative of the Reich Minister for - Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, and was under his direction. The - officer commanding the battalion is Major of the Waffen-SS, Von - Künsberg. - - “The task of the special purpose battalion was to seize and to - secure, immediately after the fall of large cities, their - cultural treasures and all objects of great historic value, to - select valuable books and films, and finally to dispatch them - all to Germany. - - “The special purpose battalion consists of four companies. The - first company is attached to the German Expeditionary Corps in - Africa, the second company to Army Group North, the third to - Army Group Center, and the fourth to Army Group South. The first - company is located at present in Italy, in Naples, awaiting - possible deployment to Africa. Battalion staff headquarters are - in Berlin, Hermann Göring Strasse, Number 104. The confiscated - material is stored in the premises of the Adler firm, in the - Hardenbergstrasse. - - “Prior to our departure for Russia, Major Von Künsberg - transmitted to us Ribbentrop’s order, thoroughly to ‘comb out’ - all scientific establishments, institutions, libraries, and all - the palaces, to search all the archives, and to lay our hands on - anything of a definite value. - - “I heard from my comrades that the second company of our - battalion had removed valuable objects from the palaces in the - Leningrad suburbs. I myself was not there at the time. At - Zarskoje Selo the company seized and secured the property - belonging to the palace-museum of the Empress Catherine. The - Chinese silk draperies and the carved gilt ornaments were torn - from the walls. The floor of artistic ornaments was dismantled - and taken away. From the palace of the Emperor Alexander antique - furniture and a large library containing some 6,000 to 7,000 - volumes in French and over 5,000 volumes and manuscripts in - Russian, were removed. - - “The fourth company, to which I was attached, confiscated the - Kiev laboratory of the Medical and Scientific Research - Institute. The entire equipment, as well as scientific material, - documents and books, was shipped to Germany. - - “We reaped a rich harvest in the library of the Ukrainian - Academy of Science, treasuring the rarest manuscripts of - Persian, Abyssinian, and Chinese literature, Russian and - Ukrainian chronicles, the first edition books printed by the - first Russian printer, Ivan Fjodorov, and rare editions of the - works of Shevtchenko, Mickiewicz, and Ivan Franko. - - “From the Kiev museums of Ukrainian art, Russian art, Western - and Eastern art and from the central Shevtchenko museum numerous - exhibits which still remained there, including paintings, - portraits by Repin, canvases by Vereschagin, Fedotoff, Goe, - sculptures by Antokolsky and other masterpieces of Russian and - Ukrainian painters and sculptors were dispatched to Berlin. - - “In Kharkov several thousand valuable books in de luxe editions - were seized from the Korolenko library and sent to Berlin. The - remaining books were destroyed. From the Kharkov picture gallery - several hundred pictures were secured, including 14 pictures by - Aivasovsky, works by Repin and many paintings by Polienov, - Schischkin, and others. Antique sculptures and the entire - scientific archive of the museum were also taken away. - Embroideries, carpets, Gobelin tapestries, and other exhibits - were appropriated by the German soldiers. - - “I also knew”—testified Dr. Förster in his statement—“that the - staff of Alfred Rosenberg used special kommandos for the - confiscation of valuable antique and museum pieces in the - occupied countries of Europe and in the territories of the East. - Civilian experts were in charge of these kommandos. - - “After the occupation of any big city, the leaders of these - kommandos arrive, accompanied by various art experts. They - inspect museums, picture galleries, exhibitions, and - institutions of art and culture, they determine their condition - and confiscate everything of value.” - -I omit the last paragraph of this statement. - -With your permission, Your Honors, I shall read two more excerpts into -the record from a letter of the Reich Minister for the Occupied -Territories, dated 7 April 1942, and signed by order of the Minister, by -Laibrandt, closest assistant of the Defendant Rosenberg. This letter, -Your Honors, is in your document book, on Pages 12 and 13, and was -submitted on 18 December last year by the United States Prosecution as -Exhibit Number USSR-408 (Document Number USSR-408). - -This document is very revealing in that it indicates the scale of the -projected pillage and disguises this pillage which, in the document, is -shamelessly referred to as “the preservation of objects of culture, -research material, and of scientific institutions in the Occupied -Eastern Territories.” - -This document is also characteristic in that Rosenberg, fearing that he -might miss some of the booty, established his own monopoly to plunder -and only made concessions to the quartermaster general of the Army, in -conjunction with whom—as the letter reveals—Operational Staff -Rosenberg carried on its “work.” - -I read the first excerpt of this letter. I quote: - - “I have entrusted the Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the Occupied - Territories with the listing and detailed handling of all - cultural valuables, research materials, and scientific work in - libraries, archives, research institutions, museums, et cetera, - found in public and religious establishments, as well as in - private houses. The Einsatzstab, instructed once again by the - Führer’s order of 1 March 1942, begins its work jointly with the - quartermaster general of the Army immediately after the - occupation of the territories by combat troops and executes this - work after the establishment of civil government, in - co-operation with the competent Reich Commissioner, until such - time as the task is completed. I request all the authorities of - my department to support, as far as possible, the - representatives of the Einsatzstab in the execution of these - measures and to supply them with all essential information, - especially in connection with the registration of objects in the - occupied territories, whether or not they have been removed, and - if so, where this material is located at the present time.” - -As you see, Your Honors, the looting of libraries, archives, scientific -research institutes, museums—both public and private—and even of -church treasures, was already being planned. - -The fact that this is not a question of preserving cultural treasures, -but of plunder, is revealed by the following excerpt from the letter -mentioned. You will find it on Page 12 of your document book. I quote: - - “Insofar as seizures or transports have already taken place - contrary to these provisions . . . Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s - Einsatzstab, Berlin-Charlottenburg (2), Bismarckstrasse 1, must - be informed without delay.” - -I shall not burden you by enumerating the many addresses to whom copies -of this letter were sent. I shall merely name some of them: OKH, the -Reich Minister of Economics, the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, -the Reich Commissioners for the Baltic regions, the Ukraine, _et -cetera_. Thus this document reconfirms that both Göring and Funk, as -well as the representatives of the OKH, actively participated in this -pillage. - -The priceless works of art plundered in the occupied countries were -removed to Germany, now transformed by the Hitlerites into a robber’s -den. - -The Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union established that, -in January 1943, the Commander of the 1st Tank Army, Cavalry General -Mackensen, in the presence of the head of the propaganda department of -the 1st Tank Army, Müller, removed from the Rostov Museum of Pictorial -and Plastic Art, which had been evacuated to the town of Piatigorsk and -which was then on the premises of the Lermontov Museum, the most -valuable canvases of Ribera, Rubens, Murillo, Jordaens, Vereshtshagin, -Korovine, Kramskoy, Polenov, Repin, Lagorio, Aivasovsky, and Shishkin, -sculptures by Donatello, and other exhibits. - -This statement, Your Honors, has already been presented to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-37 (Document Number USSR-37). With your -permission I should like to read into the record only one paragraph on -Page 5 of this document. The quotation is on Page 18 of your document -book. I quote: - - “The Rostov Museum of Pictorial Art had been looted and its - contents carried off into Germany by the commander of the 1st - Tank Army, Cavalry General Mackensen, and by the chief of the - propaganda section of the 1st Tank Army, Müller.” - -From the affidavit of the Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government, -Stefan Kurovsky, it has been established that the Defendant Frank, in -looting the cultural treasures of the Polish State, was also striving -after his own personal gain. Pictures, porcelain, and other works of art -from the plundered museums of Warsaw and Kraków, particularly from Vavel -Castle, were transferred to the estate of the Defendant Frank. - -The affidavit to which I referred is an appendix to the report of the -Polish Government and is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-302 (Document Number USSR-302). This document, Your Honors, is to -be found on Pages 19-20 of your document book. - -In this document registered under Document Number 055-PS, which is a -letter from the head of the Political Leadership Group P4 of the Reich -Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, dated 14 September 1944, -there are indications as to where the looted treasures were taken and -stored. This letter, addressed to the “Reich Minister through the Chief -of the Political Leadership Staff” is headed, “Objects of Art Evacuated -from the Ukraine.” This letter is to be found in your document book on -Page 21. I present this letter as documentary evidence and, submit it as -Exhibit Number USSR-372 and I quote the text. I read: - - “The Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine has stored the objects - of art and the pictures evacuated from Kiev and Kharkov, in the - following shelters in East Prussia: 1. The Richau family estate, - near Wehlau; 2. Wildenhoff Manor (owner, Count Schwerin).” - -I read further from the text of this letter: - - “There are 65 cases, the exact contents of which are enumerated - on the attached list. As to the other 20 cases, 57 portfolios, - and one roll of engravings, their inventory has not been taken - to date. Among the pictures there are a great number of very - ancient icons, works by famous masters of the German, Italian, - and Dutch schools of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, as well - as the works of the best Russian masters of the 18th and 19th - centuries. On the whole, this property consists of extremely - valuable works of art, which had been removed from public - Ukrainian museums and whose value, even at a rough estimate, - amounts to a sum of many millions. In addition, this is the sole - collection of such international value on German - territory. . . .” - -I omit the last paragraph of this letter since it has no material -bearing on the subject, and will continue by quoting an excerpt from -Page 2 of Rosenberg’s letter, of which I have already read one quotation -earlier in the day. You will, Your Honors, find it on Page 5 of the -document book. I quote. Rosenberg wrote: - - “In the process of these confiscations we have, of course, found - also many other works of art. Among them there are some of great - value and, in order to preserve them, the Chief of the High - Command of the Army, at my request and in accordance with the - Führer’s directives, ordered me to draw up a catalogue of these - works of art and to keep them for the Führer.” - -You have heard, Your Honors, of Hitler’s attitude towards the property -of the people and the works of art in the countries seized by the -Germans. - -This episode is to be found in the Czechoslovakian Government report, -presented to the Tribunal; excerpts from this report were read yesterday -into the record. Therefore, I consider there is no necessity for reading -it into the record once more. However, it is necessary to note that not -only Hitler but Göring was an ardent adherent of this policy of -“acquisitions.” You also heard, Your Honors, yesterday how Göring -acquired valuable Gobelin tapestries in France. However, Göring did not -acquire Gobelin tapestries only. He wrote in one of his letters to -Rosenberg—I refer to Document Number 1985-PS, which I submit to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-373, and which is in your document book -on Pages 156 to 158—Göring wrote that he “by means of purchases, -presents, bequests, and barter owns perhaps the most important private -collection, at least in Germany, if not in Europe.” The document -presented is a copy of a typewritten letter and includes a series of -corrections and notes in ink, evidently in Göring’s own hand. This copy -was captured, together with Göring’s other correspondence, by units of -the American Army, a fact which was confirmed and in due time presented -to the Tribunal by our American colleagues. - -This document, Your Honors, reveals, to a remarkable extent, the nature -of the “acquisitions” effected by Göring and also confirms Ribbentrop’s -part in the “preservation” of cultural treasures in the occupied -territories. For this reason, I shall, with your permission, read a few -extracts from this document. - -I read the extract from the first page of this letter. I quote: - - “After prolonged search”—wrote Göring to Rosenberg—“I was much - gratified that an office was at last charged with the collection - of these things although I want to point out that other - departments are also claiming the authority of the Führer. First - of these was the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, - several months ago, sent a circular to all departments, in which - he, inter alia, stated that he had received full authority for - the preservation of cultural objects in occupied territories.” - -I now read an extract from Page 2 of the letter, the last paragraph: - - “In order to avoid misconceptions regarding these articles, part - of which I want to claim for myself, part of which I have - purchased, and part of which I wish to acquire, I want to inform - you as follows: - - “1. I have now obtained by means of purchase, presents, - bequests, and barter, perhaps the greatest private collection in - Germany at least, if not in Europe.” - -I omit one paragraph and I read Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the next one. -Subparagraph 2 enumerates the objects which Göring would like to -acquire. It refers to a very extensive and highly valued collection of -Dutch artists of the 17th century, while Subparagraph 3 mentions “a -comparatively small though very good collection of French artists from -the 18th century, and finally, a collection of Italian masters.” - -You have heard, Your Honors, what was meant, in practice, by “the -personal material interest of soldiers in the war.” All this established -irrevocably that the Hitlerites engaged in pillage and brigandage and -that everybody, from the privates to the criminal leaders of Hitlerite -Germany, participated in the plunder. The same must be said regarding -the destruction of cultural treasures. Decrees and directives concerning -the destruction of cultural treasures came from the leaders of Hitlerite -Germany and from the highest ranks of the Military Command. - -I shall refer, as evidence, to the order of the Commander of the German -6th Army, signed by Field Marshal Von Reichenau, approved by Hitler and -entitled, “On the Behavior of the Troops in the East.” This order was -presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-12. This document, -contrary to the usual Hitlerite custom, contains direct and entirely -undisguised instructions for the destruction and suppression of culture -in the occupied territories. - -With your permission, I shall quote just one paragraph of this order. It -is on Page 161 of your document book. I quote: - - “The Army is interested in extinguishing fires only in such - buildings as may be used for Army billets. . . .” - -All the rest to be destroyed; no historical or artistic buildings in the -East to be of any value whatsoever. - -I shall quote one more document which establishes that the destruction -and pillage of cultural treasures, universally carried out by the -Hitlerites in the territories occupied by them, was inspired and -directed by the Hitlerite Government. I refer to the diary of the -Defendant Frank, extracts of which have already been submitted to the -Tribunal as Document Number USSR-223. In the first volume of Frank’s -diary, on Page 38—Page 169 in your document book—there appears an -entry dated 4 October 1939 which reads as follows: - - “Berlin. Conference with the Führer. The Führer discussed the - general situation with the Governor General and approved the - activity of the Governor General in Poland, particularly in the - demolition of the Warsaw Palace, the non-restoration of this - city, and the evacuation of the art treasures.” - -I consider that the documents, now submitted and read into the record, -are fully sufficient to enable us to draw the following conclusions: - -(a) The pillage and destruction of the cultural treasures of the peoples -in the German occupied territories were carried out in accordance with -previously elaborated and carefully prepared plans. - -(b) The fascist Government and German High Command directed the pillage -and destruction of cultural treasures. - -(c) The most active role in the organization of the pillage and -destruction of cultural treasures was taken by the participants in the -conspiracy, the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, Frank, and Göring. - -I pass on to the next section of my presentation, entitled, “Destruction -and Pillage of Cultural Treasures in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and -Yugoslavia.” - -I reported to the Tribunal on the general plans of the Hitlerite -conspirators for strangling national cultural life in the countries -occupied by them. I now pass on to report on the actual materialization -of the criminal plans of the Hitlerite conspirators in Czechoslovakia, -Poland, and Yugoslavia. - -I shall refer only to such irrefutable proofs as the official reports of -the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, already -submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution. I shall read into -the record a few parts of the relevant sections of these reports -directly concerning the theme expounded by me, which have not been -quoted by my colleagues. - -I begin by quoting extracts from the Czechoslovak Government reports. -These excerpts, Your Honors, are to be found in your document book, on -Pages 81 to 88. I quote from Page 81: - - “K. H. Frank, who was appointed Secretary of State and Deputy to - Reich Protector Von Neurath in March 1939 and in August 1943 - became Minister of State and head of the German Executive in the - Protectorate, said, ‘The Czechs are fit to be used only as - workers or farm laborers.’ - - “K. H. Frank replied to a Czech delegation which, in 1942, - requested the Czech universities and colleges to be reopened, - ‘If the war is won by England, you will open your schools - yourselves; if Germany wins, an elementary school with five - grades will be enough for you.’” - -The Germans seized all colleges and hostels for students. - -I pass to a quotation on Page 83 of the report: - - “They immediately seized the most valuable apparatus, - instruments, and scientific equipment in many of the occupied - institutions. The scientific libraries were systematically and - methodically damaged. Scientific books and films were separated - and taken away, the archives of the Academy Senate (the highest - university authority) were torn up or burned, the card indexes - destroyed and scattered. - - “Suppression of Czech schools. . . . - - “K. H. Frank, in November 1939, personally ordered the closing - of all Czech higher educational institutions. - - “Such university students as were still at liberty were - forbidden to exercise any intellectual profession and were - invited to find manual occupation within 48 hours, failing which - they would be sent to labor camps in Germany. - - “The closing of the universities was aggravated by the closing - of the great scientific libraries and of all institutions - capable of offering intellectual sustenance to the students - expelled from the universities. The library of the University of - Prague was henceforth accessible to Germans only. - - “Suppression of all scientific activities: - - “The closing down of Czech universities and colleges was merely - a preliminary step towards the complete suppression of the - entire Czech scientific life. The buildings of scientific - institutions were converted either into German universities and - colleges or placed at the disposal of the German military and - civil authorities. The Germans removed all scientific - instruments and books and even complete laboratories to Germany, - on the pretext that the Czechs would no longer need them. The - number of works of art, pictures, statues, and rare manuscripts - stolen from the library of the University of Prague and from - private collections cannot be calculated, nor can their value be - estimated. Scientific collections were also given to German - schools, provided they had not been stolen piecemeal.” - -I pass on to the excerpts on Page 86 of the Czechoslovakian report: - - “Hundreds of Czech elementary and secondary schools were closed - in 1939, and so rapid was the systematic closing of Czech - schools during the first year of the war that, by the end of - 1940, 6,000 of the 20,000 Czech teachers were unemployed. - - “By September 1942 some 60 percent of the Czech elementary - schools had been closed by the Germans. - - “All Czech books published during the republican regime have - been confiscated, and the glorification of Greater Germany and - its Führer became the basis of all teaching at Czech elementary - schools. In 1939 the number of pupils permitted to enter Czech - secondary schools had diminished by 50 percent as compared with - 1938. About 70 percent of the Czech secondary schools had been - closed by the end of 1942. Girls have been entirely excluded - from the secondary schools. - - “Nursery schools for children between 3 and 6 were completely - germanized and employed only German teachers. - - “Other crimes in cultural spheres. - - “Monuments: - - “In many towns the ‘Masaryk Houses,’ which for the most part - contain libraries, halls for the showing of educational films, - and for the performance of plays and concerts, have been - confiscated and transformed into barracks or offices for the - Gestapo. The statues they contained, sometimes of great artistic - value, were spoiled and broken. . . . A number of monuments in - Prague, among them Bilek’s ‘Moses’ and Mardjatka’s ‘Memorial to - the Fallen Legionaries,’ have been melted down. . . . - - “A decree of the autumn of 1942 ordered all university libraries - to hand over all early printed Czech works and first editions to - the Germans. The collections in the National Museum were - pillaged; and the Modern Art Gallery, containing a unique - collection of Czech art of the 19th and 20th centuries with some - precious specimens of foreign (mainly French) art, was closed. - - “The crown jewels of the ancient Czech kings had to be handed - over to Heydrich. - - “Literature: - - “Translations of works by English, French, and Russian authors, - both classic and modern, were withdrawn from circulation. The - severest censorship was applied to the works of modern Czech - authors. The Germans liquidated many leading publishing firms.” - -THE PRESIDENT: This is a good opportunity to adjourn. - - [_A recess was taken._] - - MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “The entire political literature of the - free republic, as well as the works of the participants in the - Czech revival of the 18th and 19th centuries, were withdrawn. - The books of Jewish authors were prohibited, as well as those of - politically unreliable writers. The Germans withdrew the Czech - classics, as well as the works of the 15th century reformer John - Hus, of Alois Erassek, the author of historical novels, the poet - Victor Dieck, and others.” - -Thus the Hitlerites destroyed the national culture of the peoples of -Czechoslovakia, plundered and pillaged works of art, literature, and -science. - -In Poland, as in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the German fascist -invaders carried out a large-scale liquidation of national culture with -exceptional cruelty. The Hitlerite conspirators destroyed the Polish -intelligentsia, closed educational establishments, prohibited the -publication of Polish books, looted works of art, blew up and burned -national monuments. - -I am reading into the record relevant extracts from the Polish -Government report, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). These excerpts, Your Honors, are on -Pages 197-200 of the document book: - - “Annihilation of the Polish intelligentsia: - - “In the incorporated regions the intelligentsia were deprived of - all means of livelihood. Many of them, professors, teachers, - lawyers, and judges, were interned in concentration camps or - murdered. - - “In the Government General about 80 percent of the - intelligentsia were deprived of all means of subsistence. Owing - to the liquidation of the press, journalists and writers were - unable to earn a living. The publication of new books was - prohibited. - - “Four universities and twelve schools of the university type - ceased to exist. Their average attendance before September 1939 - reached 45,000. - - “Secondary schools: - - “There were about 550 secondary schools in the German occupied - territory. Their closing was ordered. In the incorporated - territories they were completely closed down. In the Government - General they were allowed to continue their activity, but in - November 1939 an order was issued to cease teaching. The only - schools which were allowed to continue work were commercial or - trade schools. Educated Poles were not needed; the Poles were to - become artisans and workmen. Such was the official line of - policy. - - “Elementary schools: - - “In the incorporated territories Polish schools were completely - abolished. They were replaced by German schools. Polish children - were educated in the German tongue and German spirit. - - “On the eve of war there were about 2,000 periodicals published - in Poland, among them 170 newspapers. By order of the Germans - the press was almost entirely eradicated. - - “The publication, printing, and distributing of Polish books was - prohibited as early as October 1939. - - “On 5 November 1940 the German _Verordnungsblatt_ published the - following decree: - - “‘Until further notice, the publication, without exception, of - all books, pamphlets, periodicals, journals, calendars, and - music is prohibited, unless published by the authority of the - Government General.’ - - “Theaters, music, and radio: - - “The principles of German policy in Poland were outlined in a - circular of a special branch of national education and - propaganda in the German Government General. It read as follows: - - “‘It is understood that not a single German official will assist - in the development of Polish cultural life in any way - whatsoever.’ - - “The sole purpose which was to be followed, in the words of the - circular, was to ‘satisfy the primitive demands for - entertainment and amusement, all the more as this was a question - of diverting as far as possible the attention of the - intellectual circles from conspiracy or political debates which - encouraged the development of an anti-German feeling.’” - -I skip the last paragraph and pass on to the next page: - - “Looting, spoliation, and carrying away of works of art, - libraries, and collections from Poland.” - -The excerpts are on Pages 207 and 208 of the document book. - - “On 13 December 1939 the Gauleiter of the Warthegau issued an - order that all public and private libraries and collections in - the incorporated territories were to be registered. Upon - completion of registration, libraries and book collections were - confiscated and transported to the ‘Buchsammelstelle.’ There - special experts carried out a selection. The final destination - was either Berlin or the newly constituted State Library - (Staatsbibliothek) in Posen. Books which were considered - unsuitable were sold, destroyed, or thrown away as waste paper. - - “The best and largest libraries of the country were victims of - the organized looting in the Government General. Among them were - the university libraries in Kraków and Warsaw. One of the best, - though not the largest, was the library of the Polish - Parliament. It consisted of about 38,000 volumes and 3,500 - periodical publications. On 15 and 16 November 1939 the main - part of this library was transported to Berlin and Breslau. - Ancient documents, such as, for instance, a collection of - parchments—the property of the central archives—were also - seized. - - “The Diocesan Archives in Pelilin, containing 12th century - documents, were burned in the furnaces of a sugar refinery. - - “The first art treasure removed from Poland was the well-known - altar of Veit Stoss from the Kraków Cathedral. It was taken to - Germany on 16 December 1939. The Defendant Frank issued a decree - concerning the confiscation of works of art.” - -I skip a few paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph on Page 221: - - “Three valuable pictures were removed from the galleries of the - Czartoryski in Sieniawa. Frank seized and kept them until 17 - January 1945, and then transferred them to Silesia, and thence, - as his personal property, to Bavaria.” - -National monuments: - - “In the process of destroying everything that was connected with - Polish history and culture, many monuments and works of art were - destroyed and demolished. - - “The monument of the eminent Polish King, Boleslaw, the Valiant, - in Gniezno, was first wound round with ropes and chains with a - view to throwing it off its pedestal. After an unsuccessful - attempt, acetylene was used: the head was cut off and the - pedestal broken in pieces. The same fate befell the monument of - the Sacred Heart in Posen, the monuments to Chopin, the poet - Slowacki, the composer Moniuszko, the Polish national hero - Kósciuszko, President Wilson, the greatest Polish poet - Mickiewicz, and many others.” - -To the report of the Polish Government is attached a list of public -libraries, museums, books and other collections sacrificed to plunder -and looting. These lists of objects are available on Pages 254 and 255 -of the document book. In the first list we find the names of 30 -libraries and in the second 21 museums and collections of works of art -which were plundered and destroyed. I shall not read these lists in -full, but shall mention only some of the museums and collections which -were a subject of national pride and constituted the treasure of the -Polish State. - -The following objects became the booty of the fascist vandals: The -treasure house of the Wawelski Cathedral in Kraków, the Potocki -Collection in Jablonna, the Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, the National -Museum in Kraków, the Museum of Religious Art in Warsaw, the State -Numismatic Collections in Warsaw, the Palace of King Stanislaw-August in -the Lazienkowski Park, the Palace of King Jan Sobieski in Willanow, the -collection of Count Tarnowski in Sukhaya, the Religious Museum in Posen, -and many others. - -The Hitlerite invaders also plundered monasteries, churches, and -cathedrals. On Page 43 of the report of the Polish Government, -corresponding to Page 223 of the document book, there are final notes by -the Polish Primate, Cardinal Hlond. They concern a written communication -from Cardinal Hlond to Pope Pius XII. I shall read into the record only -two paragraphs of these concluding notes. I quote: - - “Monasteries have been methodically suppressed, as well as their - flourishing institutions for education, press, social welfare, - charity, and care of the sick. Their houses and institutions - have been seized by the army of the Nazi Party. - - “Then the invaders confiscated or sequestrated the patrimony of - the Church, considering themselves the owners of this property. - The cathedrals, the episcopal palaces, the seminaries, the - canons’ residence, the revenues and endowments of episcopates - and chapters, the funds of the seminaries, all were pillaged by - the invaders.” - -I omit the end of Page 29 and pass on to Page 30: Yugoslavia. - -The destruction of the national culture of the peoples of Yugoslavia was -carried out by the Hitlerites by various means and methods. I shall not, -Your Honors, enumerate them in detail. These means and methods are -already known. - -In Yugoslavia the same thing occurred as in Poland and Czechoslovakia. -We need only stress that, in the destruction of the culture of the -peoples of Yugoslavia, the German fascist occupants showed great -ingenuity and utilized the vast experiences acquired in other countries -occupied by them. The system of destruction of the national culture of -the peoples of Yugoslavia starts with attack and pillage and ends with -mass murder, camps, and the ovens of the crematories. - -In the report of the Jugoslav Government, presented to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-36, there are quoted a large number of facts and -documents which establish, without any possibility of doubt, the -criminal deeds of the defendants. But even these numerous facts quoted -in the report do not exhaust all the crimes committed by the Hitlerites. -The report of the Yugoslav Government quotes only typical cases as -examples. I shall cite a few excerpts from this report. These excerpts, -Your Honors, are on Page 303 of the document book. I quote: - - “Immediately after the invasion of Slovenia, the Germans started - to fulfill their plans, thought out long beforehand, to - germanize the ‘annexed’ territories of Slovenia.” - -And further, on Page 307: - - “The occupiers closed all the schools in Slovenia, exiled all - the Slovene teachers, destroyed all Slovene libraries and books, - and forbade the use of the Slovene language, which was - considered as an act of sabotage.” - -The German barbarians destroyed and plundered not only schools and -libraries, they also destroyed universities and broadcasting stations, -cultural establishments, and sanatoria. On Page 23 of the report, -corresponding to Page 278 of the document book, we find, for instance, -the following facts concerning Belgrade. I quote: - - “Without any military need, the Germans premeditatively - destroyed and burned a great number of public buildings and - cultural institutions, such as the New University, the People’s - University ‘Koloraz,’ the first high school for boys, the second - high school for girls, the ancient royal palace, the - broadcasting station, the Russian Home of Culture, the - sanatorium of Dr. Jivkovich, and so forth. In the university - building valuable and highly important collections of scientific - works and research matter were destroyed.” - -As is established by the report of the Jugoslav State Commission, which -is Document Number J-39(a), and which I submit under Exhibit Number 364, -Page 313(a) of our document book—the Hitlerites razed to the ground the -National Library in Belgrade and burned hundreds of thousands of books -and manuscripts, which constituted the basic stock of Serbian culture. -They completely destroyed 71 and partially destroyed 41 scientific -institutes and laboratories of Belgrade University. They razed to the -ground the State Academy of Art, and they burned and looted thousands of -schools. - -I omit the end of Page 31 and pass on to Page 32. Your Honors will find -this passage on Page 303 of the document book. - -During the 4 years of German domination, the people of Yugoslavia -experienced great sufferings and sorrow. The Germans looted the economic -wealth of the country and caused great material damage. But the damage -they caused to the culture of the people of Yugoslavia was even greater. - -In concluding this chapter of my report, I consider it essential, Your -Honors, to quote yet another excerpt from the diary of the Defendant -Frank. I have in mind the calico-bound volume of the diary entitled, -“Conferences of the Leaders of Departments of 1939-1940,” which contains -an entry regarding the conference of the departmental leaders of 19 -January 1940 in Kraków. This excerpt is on Page 169 of the document -book. I read: - - “On 15 September 1939, I was entrusted with the administration - of the conquered eastern territories, and received a special - order pitilessly to devastate this district regarding it as a - combat zone and a prize of war, and to reduce its economic, - social, cultural, and political structure to a heap of ruins.” - -To this statement of Frank’s, we need only add that the Defendant Frank -zealously performed this task in Poland and that the Reich, Gau, and -other leaders acted with equal zeal in the occupied territories of the -U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. - -I am now going to present, Your Honors, proof of crimes committed by the -defendants against the culture of the peoples of the Soviet Union. - -We have heard in this court what brutality was used and on how vast a -scale the Hitlerites conducted the destruction and spoliation of the -cultural wealth of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and -Yugoslavia. The crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerite conspirators in the -occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. were graver still. The criminal -organization, known as the Hitler Government, aimed not only at -plundering the people of the Soviet Union, at destroying their towns and -villages, and at extirpating the culture of the peoples of the U.S.S.R., -but also at enslaving the people of the Soviet Union and of transforming -our native country into a fascist colony of serfs. - -In the second part of my statement I have proved how the destruction of -the cultural monuments of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. was planned and -perpetrated. - -In the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. M. Molotov, -dated 27 April 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)), documents and facts are -quoted which establish beyond dispute that the destruction of historic -and cultural monuments and the vile mockery of national feelings, -beliefs, and convictions constituted a part of the monstrous plan -evolved and put into practice by the Hitlerite Government, which strove -to liquidate the national culture of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. Later I -shall refer again to this document, but at present I wish, with your -permission, to read into the record the following excerpt which is on -Page 321 of your document book. I omit the first and quote the second -paragraph: - - “The desecration and destruction of historical and cultural - memorials in occupied Soviet territories, as well as the - devastation of the numerous cultural establishments set up by - the Soviet authorities, are a part of the monstrously senseless - plan conceived and pursued by the Hitlerite Government which - strives to liquidate Russian national culture and the national - cultures of the peoples of the Soviet Union, forcibly to - germanize the Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, Lithuanian, - Latvian, Estonian and other peoples of the U.S.S.R. - - “In Order Number 0973/41, General Hodt, commander of the German - 17th Army, demands that his subordinates thoroughly assimilate - that misanthropic notion so typical of the thick-skulled - fascists, that the ‘sound feeling of vengeance and repulsion - towards everything Russian should not be suppressed among the - men but, on the contrary, encouraged in every way.’” - -True to their custom of destroying universally recognized cultural -valuables, the Hitlerites everywhere on the Soviet territory occupied by -them, devastated and mostly burned libraries, from the small club and -school libraries up to and including the most valuable collections of -manuscripts and books, containing unique bibliographical valuables. - -I omit a paragraph and continue the quotation: - - “The Hitlerites looted and then set on fire the famous Borodino - Museum, the historical exhibits of which related to the struggle - against the armies of Napoleon in 1812, particularly dear to the - Russian people. The invaders looted and set fire to the Pushkin - House Museum in the hamlet of Polotnyany Zavod. - - “In Kaluga the Hitlerites assiduously destroyed the exhibits in - the house-museum in which the eminent Russian scientist K. E. - Tsiolkovsky, whose services in the field of aeronautics enjoy - world-wide fame, lived and worked. - - “The fascist vandals used Tsiolkovsky’s portrait as a target for - revolver practice. Extremely valuable models of dirigibles, - together with plans and instruments, were trampled underfoot. - One of the museum rooms was turned into a hen coop and the - furniture burned. One of the oldest agricultural institutions in - the U.S.S.R., the Shatilov selection station in the Orel - district, was destroyed by the invaders, who blew up and - consigned to the flames 55 buildings of this station, including - the agrochemical and other laboratories, the museum, the library - containing 40,000 volumes, the school, and other buildings. Even - greater frenzy was shown by the Hitlerites when looting the - cultural institutions and historical monuments of the Ukraine - and of Bielorussia.” - -I omit two paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph of this -quotation: - - “There was no limit to the desecration by the Hitlerite vandals - of the monuments and homes representing Ukrainian history, - culture, and art. Suffice to mention, as an example of the - constant attempts to humiliate the national dignity of the - Ukrainian people, that after plundering the Korolenko Library in - Kharkov, the occupiers used the books as paving stones for the - muddy street in order to facilitate the passage of German motor - vehicles.” - -The German vandals treated with particular hatred these cultural -monuments which were most dear to the Soviet people. I shall quote -several instances: - -The Hitlerites plundered Yasnaya Polyana, where one of the greatest -writers, Leo Tolstoy, was born, lived, and worked. - -They plundered and despoiled the house where the great Russian composer, -Tschaikovsky, lived and worked. In this house Tschaikovsky created the -world-famous operas _Eugen Onegin_ and _The Queen of Spades_. - -In Taganrog they destroyed the house where the great Russian writer -Chekhov lived; in Tikhvin they destroyed the residence of the Russian -composer Rimsky-Korsakov. - -As evidence, Your Honors, I shall read into the record an excerpt from -the note of Foreign Commissar Molotov, dated 6 January 1942. This -document has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number -51(2). This excerpt is on Page 317 of the document book. I quote: - - “For a period of 6 weeks, the Germans occupied the world-famous - property of Yasnaya Polyana where Leo Tolstoy, one of the - greatest geniuses of mankind, was born, lived, and created. This - glorious memorial to Russian culture was wrecked, profaned, and - finally set on fire by the Nazi vandals. The grave of the great - writer was desecrated by the invaders. Irreplaceable relics - relating to the life and work of Leo Tolstoy, including rare - manuscripts, books, and paintings, were either plundered by the - German soldiers or thrown away and destroyed. A German officer - named Schwartz, in reply to a request of one of the museum’s - staff collaborators to stop using the personal furniture and - books of the great writer for firewood and to use wood available - for this purpose, answered, ‘We don’t need firewood; we shall - burn everything connected with the name of your Tolstoy.’ - - “When the town of Klin was liberated by the Soviet troops on 15 - December, it was ascertained that the house in which P. I. - Tschaikovsky, the great Russian composer, had lived and worked - and which the Soviet State had turned into a museum, had been - wrecked and plundered by fascist officers and soldiers. In the - museum building proper, the Germans set up a garage for - motorcycles, heating this garage with manuscripts, books, - furniture, and other museum exhibits, part of which had in any - case been stolen by the German invaders. In doing this, the Nazi - officers knew perfectly well that they were defiling one of the - finest monuments of Russian culture. - - “During the occupation of the town of Istra, the German troops - established an ammunition dump in the famous ancient Russian - monastery known as the New Jerusalem Monastery, founded as far - back as 1654. The New Jerusalem Monastery was an outstanding - historical and religious monument of the Russian people and was - known as one of the most beautiful specimens of religious - architecture. This did not, however, prevent the German fascist - vandals from blowing up their ammunition dump in the New - Jerusalem Monastery on their retreat from Istra, thereby - reducing this irreplaceable monument of Russian church history - to a heap of ruins.” - -I omit the next paragraph and close this quotation. - -Acting upon directions of the German Military Command, the Hitlerites -destroyed and annihilated the cultural-historic monuments of the Russian -people connected with the life and work of the great Russian poet, -Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin. - -The report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, -the original copy of which is now submitted to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-40 (Exhibit Number USSR-40), reads as follows: - - “To preserve the cultural and historical memorials of the - Russian people connected with the life and creations of the - gifted Russian poet and genius, Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin, - the Soviet Government, on 17 March 1922, declared the poet’s - estate at Mikhailovskoye, as well as his tomb at the monastery - of Svyatogorsky and the neighboring villages of Trigorskoye, - Gorodischtsche, and Voronitch, a state reservation. - - “The Pushkin reservation, and especially the poet’s estate at - Mikhailovskoye, was very dear to the Russian people. Here - Pushkin finished the third and created the fourth, fifth, and - sixth chapters of _Eugen Onegin_. Here, too, he finished his - poem _Gypsies_, and wrote the drama _Boris Godunov_, as well as - a large number of epic and lyrical poems. - - “In July 1941 the Hitlerites forced their way into the Pushkin - reservation. For 3 years they made themselves at home there, - ruined everything, and destroyed the Pushkin memorials.” - -I shall omit the beginning of Page 1 of the report. - - “The plundering of the museum had already begun in August 1941.” - -I shall also omit the next paragraph. I read on: - - “In the autumn of 1943 the commander of the Pushkin Military - Kommandantur, Treibholz, urged Director K. V. Afanassiev to - prepare for the evacuation of all the museum valuables. All - these valuables were packed into cases by the German - authorities, loaded into trucks, and sent to Germany.” - -I omit the next paragraph and read on: - - “At the end of February 1944 the Germans turned Mikhailovskoye - into a military objective and into one of the strongpoints of - the German defense. The park area was dug up for combat and - communication trenches; shelters were constructed. The cottage - of Pushkin’s nurse was taken to pieces and next to it, and - partly on its former site, the Germans constructed a large - dugout, protected by five layers of timber. The Germans built a - similar dugout near the former museum building. - - “Prior to their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the Germans - completed the destruction and desecration of the Pushkin estate. - The house-museum erected on the foundation of Pushkin’s former - residence was burned down by the Germans and nothing remained - but a heap of ruins. The marble plate of the Pushkin monument - was smashed to pieces and thrown onto the pile of ashes. Of the - other two houses standing at the entrance to the Mikhailovskoye - estate, one was burned down by the Germans, the other severely - damaged. The German vandals put three bullets into the large - portrait of Pushkin hanging in an archway at the entrance to the - Mikhailovskoye park; then they destroyed the archway. - - “After their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the fascists bombarded - the village with mine throwers and artillery fire. The wooden - stairs leading to the River Soret were destroyed by German - mines. The old lime trees of the circular alley leading to the - house were broken down; the giant elm tree in front of the house - was damaged by shell fire and splinters.” - -I omit the end of this page and pass on to Page 41 of the report: - - “In the village of Voronitch the wooden church was burned down - which dated back to Pushkin’s times and where Pushkin had a - requiem sung on 7 April 1825 to commemorate the death of the - great English poet, Byron. The churchyard near the church where - V. P. Hannibal, one of Pushkin’s relatives, and the priest, - Rayevsky, close friend of the poet, lay buried, was - criss-crossed by trenches, mined, and devastated. The historical - aspect of the reservation, in which the Russian people saw a - symbol of Pushkin, was disfigured beyond all recognition by the - Germans. - - “The sacrileges perpetrated by the Germans against the national - sanctuaries of the Russian people are best demonstrated by the - desecration of Pushkin’s tomb. In an attempt to save the Pushkin - reservation from destruction, the units of the Red Army did not - defend this district, but withdrew to Novorzhev. Nevertheless, - on 2 July 1941 the Germans bombarded the monastery of - Svyatiye-Gory, at the adjoining walls of which is Pushkin’s - tomb. - - “In March 1943, long before the battle line approached the - Pushkinskiye hills, the Germans began the systematical - demolition of the Svyatiye-Gory monastery.” - -I omit the rest of this page, and I pass on to Page 42: - - “The poet’s tomb was found completely covered with refuse. Both - stairways leading down to the grave were destroyed. The platform - surrounding the grave was covered with refuse, rubble, wooden - fragments of icons, and pieces of sheet metal.” - -I omit a paragraph and quote further: - - “The marble balustrade surrounding the platform was damaged by - fragments of artillery shells and by bullets. The monument - itself inclined at an angle of 10 to 12 degrees eastwards, as a - result of a landslide following the shelling, and of the shocks - caused by the explosions of German mines. - - “The invaders knew perfectly well that, on entering the - Pushkinskiye hills, the officers and soldiers of the Red Army - would first of all visit the grave of the poet, and therefore - converted it into a trap for the patriots. Approximately 3,000 - mines were discovered and removed from the grounds of the - monastery and its vicinity by the engineers of the Soviet - Army. . . .” - -The destruction of works of art and architecture in the towns of -Pavlovsk, Tzarskoe-Selo, and Peterhof, figure among the worst -anti-cultural crimes of the Hitlerites. The magnificent monuments of art -and architecture in these towns, which had been turned into “museum -towns,” are known throughout the civilized world. These art and -architectural monuments were created in the course of 2 centuries. They -commemorated a whole series of outstanding events in Russian history. - -Celebrated Russian and foreign architects, sculptors, and artists -created masterpieces which were kept in these “museum towns” and, -together with valuable masterpieces of Russian and foreign art, they had -been blown up, burned, robbed, or destroyed by the fascist vandals. - -I read into the record Exhibit Number USSR-49 (Document Number USSR-49) -which includes a statement of the Extraordinary State Commission of the -Soviet Union dated 3 September 1944. The excerpts which I shall quote, -Your Honors, are on Pages 330-332 of the document book. - -I omit the end of Page 43 and the whole of Page 44 of this statement, -and begin my quotation in the middle of Page 45: - - “At the time the German invaders broke into Petrodvoretz (in - Peterhof) there still remained, after the evacuation, 34,214 - museum exhibits (pictures, works of art, and sculptures), as - well as 11,700 extremely valuable books from the palace - libraries. The ground floor rooms of the Ekaterininsky and - Alexandrovsky Palaces in the town of Pushkin contained assorted - furniture suites of Russian and French workmanship of the middle - of the 18th century, 600 items of artistic porcelain of the late - 19th and 20th centuries, as well as a large number of marble - busts, small sculptures, and about 35,000 volumes from the - palace libraries. - - “On the basis of documentary materials, the statements and - testimony of eyewitnesses, the evidence of German prisoners of - war and as a result of careful investigation, it has been - established that: Breaking into Petrodvoretz on 23 September - 1941, the German invaders immediately proceeded to loot the - treasures of the palace-museums and in the course of several - months removed the contents of these palaces. - - “From the Big, Marly, Monplaisir, and Cottage Palaces, they - looted and removed to Germany some 34,000 museum exhibits, among - them 4,950 unique items of furniture of Italian, English, - French, and Russian workmanship from the periods of Catherine - the Great, Alexander I, and Nicholas I, as well as many rare - sets of porcelain of foreign and Russian manufacture of the 18th - and 19th centuries. The German barbarians stripped the walls of - the palace rooms of the silks, Gobelin tapestries, and other - decorative materials which adorned them. - - “In November 1941 the Germans removed the bronze statue of - Samson, the work of the sculptor Koslovsky, and took it away. - Having looted the museum treasures, the Hitlerites set fire to - the Big Palace, created by the famous and gifted architect - Bartolomeo Rastrelli. - - “Upon their withdrawal from Petrodvoretz”—I have skipped a - paragraph—“the Germans wrecked the Marly Palace by - delayed-action mines. This palace contained very delicate - carvings and stucco moldings. The Germans wrecked the Monplaisir - Palace of Peter the Great. They destroyed all the wooden parts - of the pavilion and of the galleries, the interior decorations - of the study, the bedroom and the Chinese room. - - “During their occupation, they turned the central parts of the - palace, that is, the most valuable from the historical and - artistic viewpoint, into bunkers. They turned the western - pavilion of the palace into a stable and a latrine. In the - premises of the Assembly Building the Germans tore up the floor, - sawed through the beams, destroyed the doors and windowframes, - and stripped the panelling off the ceiling.” - -I skip one paragraph and quote the last one on this page: - - “In the northern part of the park, in the so-called Alexander - Park, they blew up the villa of Nicholas II, completely - destroyed the frame cottage which served as billet for officers, - the Alexander gates, the pavilions of the Adam fountain, the - pylons of the main gates of the upper park and the Rose - Pavilion.” - -I skip one paragraph on Page 47: - - “The Germans wrecked the fountain system of the Petrodvoretz - parks. They damaged the entire pipe-line system for feeding the - fountains, a system extending from the dam of the Rose Pavilion - to the upper park. - - “After the occupation of New Petrodvoretz, units of the 291st - German Infantry Division, using heavy artillery fire, completely - destroyed the famous English Palace at Old Petrodvoretz, built - on the orders of Catherine II by the architect Quarenghi. The - Germans fired 9,000 rounds of heavy artillery shells into the - palace; together with the Palace they destroyed the picturesque - English park and all the park pavilions.” - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has appreciated the successful efforts which -the other members of the Soviet Delegation have made to shorten their -addresses, and they would be glad if you could possibly summarize some -of the details with which you have to deal in the matter of destruction -and spoliation and perhaps omit some of the details. - -That is all for this morning. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The looting and destruction of historical and -artistic palaces in the town of Pushkin (Tzarskoe-Selo) was carried out -with malice aforesight by order of the highest German authorities. - -I omit the end of Page 47 and the beginning of Page 48: - - “A considerable part of the Catherine Palace was burned down by - the Germans. The famous ceremonial halls, 300 meters long and - designed by Rastrelli, perished in the flames. The famous - antechambers”—waiting rooms—“decorated by Rastrelli were - likewise ruined.” - -I omit one paragraph and continue: - - “The Great Hall—outstanding creation of the genius of - Rastrelli—presented a terrible spectacle. The unique ceilings, - work of Torelli, Giordano, Brullov, and other famous Italian and - Russian masters, were destroyed.” - -I omit another paragraph. - - “Equally ruined and pillaged was the Palace Church, one of - Rastrelli’s masterpieces, famous for the exquisite workmanship - of the interior decoration.” - -I omit one more paragraph. - - “In January 1944 the retreating German invaders prepared the - complete destruction of all that was left of the Catherine - Palace and adjoining buildings. For this purpose, on the ground - floor of the remaining part of the palace, as well as under the - Cameron Gallery, 11 large delayed-action aerial bombs were laid, - weighing from 1 to 3 tons. - - “In Pushkin the Hitlerite bandits destroyed the Alexander - Palace, constructed at the end of the 18th century by the famous - architect Giacomo Quarenghi.” - -I omit a paragraph. - - “All the museum furniture, stored in the basements of the - Catherine and Alexander Palaces, items of artistic porcelain, - and books from the palace libraries were sent to Germany. - - “The famous painted ceiling, ‘Feast of the Gods on Olympus,’ in - the main hall of the Hermitage pavilion was removed and shipped - to Germany.” - -I omit two paragraphs: - - “Great destructions were caused by the Hitlerites in the - magnificent Pushkin parks, where thousands of age-old trees were - cut down. - - “Ribbentrop’s special purpose battalion and the Kommandos Staff - Rosenberg shipped to Germany from the Pavlovsky Palace extremely - valuable palace furniture, designed by Veronikhin and by the - greatest masters of the 18th century.” - -I omit the end of Page 49 and the beginning of Page 50 of the report. - - “During their retreat the fascist invaders set fire to the - Paul’s Palace. The greater part of the palace building was - entirely burned down.” - -I omit the next two paragraphs and quote the last paragraph, which -concludes this document: - - “The Extraordinary State Commission established that the - destruction of art monuments in Petrodvoretz, Pushkin, and - Pavlovsk was carried out by the officers and soldiers of the - German Army on the direct instructions of the German Government - and the High Command.” - -Many large towns were destroyed by the German fascist invaders in the -occupied U.S.S.R. territories. But they destroyed with particular -ruthlessness the ancient Russian cities containing monuments of ancient -Russian art. I quote as an example the destruction of the cities of -Novgorod, Pskov, and Smolensk. Novgorod and Pskov belong to these -historical centers where the Russian people laid the foundation of their -state; here, in the course of centuries flourished a highly developed -and individual culture. It left a rich heritage which constitutes a -valuable possession of our people. Thanks to the survival of numerous -monuments of ecclesiastic and civil architecture, murals, paintings, -sculpture, and handicraft, Novgorod and Pskov were rightly considered -the seat of Russian history. - -The Hitlerite barbarians destroyed, in Novgorod, many valuable monuments -of Russian and foreign art of the 11th and 12th centuries. They not only -destroyed the monuments but they reduced the entire city to a heap of -ruins. - -By way of proof, I shall read into the record some excerpts from the -document presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-50. You will, -Your Honors, find these excerpts on Pages 333 and 334 of the document -book. I read: - - “The ancient Russian city of Novgorod was reduced to a heap of - ruins by the German fascist invaders. They destroyed the - historical monuments and dismantled some of them for use in the - construction of defense fortifications. . . . - - “The German fascist vandals destroyed and obliterated, in - Novgorod, the greatest monuments of ancient Russian art. The - fascists destroyed the vaults and walls of the Saint George - Cathedral tower of the Yuryev Monastery. This cathedral was - built in the early part of the 12th century, was decorated by - 12th century frescoes. - - “The Cathedral of Saint Sophia, built in the 11th century, was - one of the oldest monuments of Russian architecture and an - outstanding monument of world art. The Germans destroyed the - cathedral building. . . . - - “The Hitlerites robbed the cathedral entirely of all its - interior decorations; they carried off all the icons from the - iconostasis and the ancient chandeliers, including one which - belonged to Boris Godunov. . . . - - “The Church of the Annunciation on the Arkage, dating back to - the 12th century, was converted by the fascists into a fortified - position and barracks.” - -I omit one paragraph. - - “The Church of the Assumption on Volotov Field, a monument of - Novgorod architecture of the 14th-15th centuries, was turned by - the Germans into a heap of stones and bricks.” - -I omit one sentence. - - “The Church of the Transfiguration of our Lord, in Ilyin Street, - was destroyed. It was one of the finest specimens of Novgorod - architecture of the 14th century, particularly famed for its - frescoes, painted in the same period by the great Byzantine - master, Theofan, the Greek.” - -I omit the rest of this page and pass on to Page 54, of my report. - - “Over 2 years of Hitlerite rule in Novgorod brought about the - ruin of many other wonderful, ancient monuments of Russian - architecture. . . . By order of the commanding general of the - 18th German Army, Generaloberst Lindemann, the German barbarians - dismantled and prepared for removal to Germany the monument to - ‘a thousand years of Russia.’ This monument was erected in the - Kremlin Square in 1862 and represented, in artistic images, the - main stages of the development of our native land up to the - sixties of the 19th century. . . . - - “The Hitler barbarians dismantled the monument and smashed the - statuary. They did not, however, succeed in shipping it off and - melting down the metal.” - -Citizen Youri Nikolaievich Dimitriev, in his affidavit, gives a very -detailed account of the barbarous destruction by the Germans of the -monuments of ancient Russian art in the cities of Novgorod and Pskov. -Dimitriev, since 1937, was the custodian of the Ancient Russian Art -Section of the Russian State Museum in Leningrad. He began the study of -the historical monuments of Novgorod and Pskov in 1926. As a great -expert in this particular sphere of art, he was asked by the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union to participate in the -investigation of the crimes of the German fascist invaders. - -I submit to the Tribunal the original of Dimitriev’s depositions, duly -certified, in accordance with legal procedure in the U.S.S.R., as -Document Number USSR-312 (Exhibit Number USSR-312). You will find it, -Your Honors, on Pages 335 and 347 in your document book. In submitting -his affidavit, I shall omit facts already known to the Tribunal from the -report of the Extraordinary State Commission previously read into the -record. I quote only a few short excerpts which will be found on Pages -336 and 339. Mr. Dimitriev stated as follows—I read: - - “The greater part of Novgorod is razed to the ground; only a few - districts were left by the Germans and even these were in ruins. - Pskov was also left in ruins by the Germans; during their - retreat they blew up the buildings and monuments. Of 88 - buildings of historical and artistic value in Novgorod only two - buildings are without grave damages. . . . Only a few isolated - monuments in Pskov were left undamaged. - - “In Novgorod and Pskov the Germans deliberately destroyed - monuments of historical and artistic value.” - -And further: - - “The German Army, while destroying and damaging monuments of - historical and artistic value, plundered and carried off works - of art and valuable objects which formed part of, or were - contained in, these monuments. - - “At the same time the German troops profaned and desecrated - several ecclesiastical monuments of historic and artistic value - in Novgorod and Pskov.” - -Day by day for 26 months, the Hitlerites systematically destroyed one of -the most ancient Russian cities, Smolensk. - -The Soviet Prosecution has presented to the Tribunal a document as -Document Number USSR-56, containing the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union. I shall not quote this document; -but I shall only refer to it and endeavor, in my own words, to emphasize -the fundamental points of this document, dealing with the reported theme -now. - -In Smolensk, the German fascist invaders plundered and destroyed the -most valuable collections in the museums. They desecrated and burned -down ancient monuments; they destroyed schools and institutes, -libraries, and sanatoriums. The report also mentions the fact that in -April 1943, the Germans needed rubble to pave the roads. For this -purpose, they blew up the intermediate school. The Germans burned down -all the libraries of the city and 22 schools; 646,000 volumes perished -in the library fires. - -I now pass on to Page 57 of my report: - - “Prior to the German occupation Smolensk contained four museums - with extremely valuable collections. - - “The museum of art possessed most valuable collections, - primarily of Russian historic-artistic, historic-sociological, - ethnographic, and other valuables: paintings, icons, bronzes, - porcelains, metal castings, and textiles. These collections were - of international value and had been exhibited in France. The - invaders destroyed the museums and took the most valuable - exhibits to Germany.” - -I shall quote only one last paragraph on Page 57: - - “The Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the confiscation and exportation - of valuables from the occupied regions of the East had a special - branch in Smolensk, headed by Dr. Norling, the organizer for the - plunder of museums and historical monuments.” - -Such are some of the numerous facts of the crimes committed by the -fascist barbarians. They demonstrate how the criminal schemes of the -Hitlerite conspirators were actually materialized. - -It is known how mercilessly the German fascist invaders carried out the -economic plunder of the Ukrainian people. But destruction and plunder of -Ukrainian cultural and historical treasures played no lesser part in the -plans of the Hitlerite conspirators, and was carried out with the same -savage zeal. In accordance with their criminal plans for the enslavement -of the freedom-loving Ukrainian people, the Hitlerite conspirators -endeavored to annihilate its culture. From the very first days of their -invasion of the Ukraine the Hitlerites, in execution of their criminal -designs, embarked upon the systematic destruction of schools, higher -educational institutions, scientific establishments, museums, libraries, -clubs, and theaters. - -The historical and cultural treasures in the cities of Kiev, Kharkov, -Odessa, in the Provinces of Stalino and Rovno, and many other larger and -smaller cities, were subjected to plunder and destruction. - -From the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution under Document -Number USSR-32, containing the sentence pronounced by the military -tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front between 15-18 December 1943, it is -evident that the German fascist armies of Kharkov, in the Province of -Kharkov, acting on direct instructions of Hitler’s Government, burned, -plundered, and destroyed the material and cultural treasures of the -Soviet people. These excerpts, Your Honors, you will find on Page 359 in -your document book. - -I now proceed to the evidence of crimes committed by the Hitlerites in -the capital of the Ukrainian Republic, Kiev. I quote one paragraph of -the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution under Document Number -USSR-248. You will find it on Page 363 of your document book. It is an -extract from the records of the Extraordinary State Commission “about -the destruction and plunder by the fascist aggressors of Kiev’s -Psychiatric Hospital.” Among other destructions they—I quote: - - “. . . burned the archives of the institute, priceless from a - scientific point of view, destroyed the magnificent hospital - library of 20,000 volumes, plundered the especially protected - and priceless monument of the 11th century—the famous Cathedral - of Saint Cyryl situated in the institute grounds.” - -I next pass on to several excerpts from the Extraordinary State -Commission’s report which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9). The excerpts quoted are on Pages -365-366 of the document book: - - “Before the German invasion, Kiev possessed 150 secondary and - elementary schools. Of this number, 77 schools were used by the - Germans as military barracks. Nine served as warehouses and - workshops, two were occupied by military staffs and eight were - turned into stables. During their retreat from Kiev, the German - barbarians destroyed 140 schools.” - -I omit the next paragraph. - - “The German invaders stole more than 4 million volumes from the - book stocks of the Kiev libraries. From the library of the - Ukrainian S.S.R. Academy of Science alone the Hitlerites sent to - Germany over 320,000 various valuable and unique books, - magazines, and manuscripts.” - -I beg Your Honors to note that Dr. Förster, SS Obersturmführer, who -served in the special purpose battalion, established on the initiative -of the Defendant Ribbentrop and acting under his orders, testified to -the plunder of the library of the Ukrainian S.S.R., Academy of Science, -in his deposition of 10 November 1942, which I have already read into -the record. - -I omit one paragraph and pass on to a further reading from the report of -the Extraordinary State Commission: - - “On 5 September 1943 the Germans burned and blew up one of the - most ancient centers of Ukrainian culture, the T. G. Shevtchenko - State University in Kiev, founded in 1834. In the fire perished - the greatest of cultural treasures which for centuries had - represented the scientific and educational bases on which the - work of the university was founded; perished, the priceless - documents from the historical archives of ancient manuscripts; - perished, the library containing over 1,300,000 books; - destroyed, the zoological museum of the university with over 2 - million exhibits, together with a whole series of other - museums. . . . - - “. . . The German occupiers also destroyed other institutions of - higher learning in Kiev; they burned and looted the majority of - the medical institutions. - - “In Kiev the fascist barbarians burned down the building of the - Red Army Dramatic Theater . . . , the Theatrical Institute, the - Academy of Music, where the instruments were burned together - with the very wealthy library and all the equipment; they blew - up the beautiful circus building; they burned down, with its - entire equipment, the M. Gorki Theater for Juvenile Audiences; - they destroyed the Jewish theater. . . . - - “In the Museum of Western European and Eastern Art only some - large canvases were left; the robbers had not had time to remove - them from the high walls of the stairway shafts. From the Museum - of Russian Art the Hitlerites carried off, together with all the - other exhibits, a collection of Russian icons of inestimable - value. They looted the Museum of Ukrainian Art; only 1,900 - exhibits of the National Art Section of this museum were left of - the original 41,000.” - -I omit the remainder of this page and pass to Page 62 of my report: - - “The Hitlerites plundered the T. G. Shevtchenko Museum and the - historical museum. They looted the greatest monument to the Slav - peoples—the Cathedral of Saint Sophia—from which they removed - 14 12th century frescoes.” - - I omit one paragraph. - - “By order of the German Command the troops plundered, blew up, - and destroyed a very ancient cultural monument—the - Kievo-Pecherskaya Abbey. . . . - - “The Uspenski Cathedral, built in 1075-89 by the order of Grand - Duke Svjatoslav, with murals painted in 1897 by the famous - painter V. V. Vereshchiagin, was blown up by the Germans on 3 - November 1941.” - -I omit the remainder of Page 62 and pass on to Page 63 of the report: - - “We cannot gaze without sorrow”—states Nicholas, Metropolitan - of Kiev and Galicia, and member of the Extraordinary State - Commission—“on the heaps of rubble of the Uspenski Cathedral, - founded in the 11th century by the genius of its immortal - builders. The explosions formed several huge craters in the area - surrounding the cathedral, and, beholding them, it would appear - that the very earth had shuddered at the sight of the atrocities - committed by those who no longer had a right to be called human - beings. It was as if a terrible hurricane had passed over the - abbey, overturning everything, scattering and destroying the - mighty buildings of the abbey. For over 2 years Kiev lay - shackled in the German chains. Hitler’s executioners brought - death to Kiev, together with ruins, famine, and executions. In - time all this will pass from the near present to the far distant - past; but never will the people of Russia and the Ukraine, or - honest men all the world over, forget these crimes.” - -Mr. President, may I dwell on two more documents? - -The first, Document Number 035-PS, is entitled, “A Brief Report on -Security Measures of the Chief Labor Group in the Ukraine during the -Withdrawal of the Armed Forces.” It was presented to the Tribunal by our -American colleagues on 18 December 1945. A characteristic peculiarity of -this document is that it openly testifies to the looting. It is quite -clear to all that reference is made to a gang of robbers, although the -Hitlerites still persist in referring to robbery as work. They shipped -the most valuable exhibits of the Ukrainian Museum to Germany as -“miscellaneous textiles.” - -The report begins with the description of the creation of safe quarters -for the Einsatzstab establishments, a purpose for which the inhabitants -of an entire district were thrown out of their quarters. There then -follows, in this document, a list of booty removed from the plundered -museums of Kharkov and Kiev, from archives, and even from private -libraries. - -I shall quote one brief excerpt only from this document, dealing with -the contents of the Ukrainian and the prehistorical museum of Kiev. You -will find this excerpt on Page 368 of the document book. I quote: - - “October 1943, materials of the Ukrainian museum in Kiev. - - “On the basis of the general evacuation orders of the city - commissioner, the following were sorted out by us and loaded for - shipment to Kraków: - - “Miscellaneous textiles; collections of valuable embroidery - patterns; collections of brocades; numerous wooden utensils, _et - cetera_. - - “Moreover, a large part of the prehistoric museum was carried - away.” - -The second, Document Number 1109-PS of 17 June 1944, is headed, “Note -for the Director of Operation Group P4,” and is addressed to Von -Milde-Schreden. I shall quote it completely because it is really a short -excerpt which you will find on Page 369 of the document book: - - “2. The removal of cultural property. - - “A great deal of material from museums, archives, institutions, - and other cultural establishments was in an orderly manner - removed from Kiev in the autumn of 1943. - - “These actions to safeguard the material were carried out by - Einsatzstab RR, as well as by the individual directors of - institutes, _et cetera_, at the instigation of the Reich - Commissioner.” - -Here, Your Honors, I would point out that Einsatzstab Rosenberg in some -documents is also referred to as the “Task Staff RR.” These initials -stand for Reichsleiter Rosenberg. - - “At first, a great deal of the property that was to be evacuated - was taken only to the areas of the rear; later on, this material - was forwarded to the Reich. When the undersigned, towards the - end of September, received the order from the cultural division - of the Reich Commissioner to take out of Kiev the remaining - cultural effects, the materials most valuable from a cultural - point of view had already been removed. During October some 40 - carloads of cultural effects were shipped to the Reich. In this - case it was chiefly a question of valuables which belonged to - the research institutions of the national research center of the - Ukraine. These institutions, at present, are continuing their - work in the Reich and are being directed in such a manner that - at any given moment they can be brought back to the Ukraine. The - cultural values which could not be promptly safeguarded incurred - plunder. In this case, however, it was always a question of less - valuable material, as the essential assets had been removed in - an orderly manner. - - “In October 1943 factories, workshops, plants, and other - equipment were removed from Kiev by the order of the town - commander, but where it was taken, I do not know.” - -This letter ends with the following sentence: - - “At the time the Soviets entered the city there was nothing - valuable, in this respect, left in the city.” - -May it please Your Honors, from the documents submitted by the Soviet -Prosecution, the Tribunal has already learned about the criminal -conspiracy between Hitler and Antonescu. As a reward for supplying -Germany with cannon fodder, oil, wheat, cattle, _et cetera_, Antonescu’s -criminal clique received from Hitler’s Government authorization to -plunder the civilian population between the Bug and the Dniester. German -and Romanian invaders plundered and destroyed many objects of cultural -value, health resorts, and medical institutions in Odessa. The -Hitlerites also plundered on their own account, as well as in -co-operation with Antonescu’s clique. To prove this, I shall now read -into the record a few excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union, presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-47 (Document Number USSR-47). These excerpts are -taken from Page 372 of your document book. I omit one paragraph and -begin to quote from the penultimate paragraph on this page of my report: - - “The German Military Command plundered the museums of Odessa, - carrying away hundreds of unique objects.” - -Further, I here omit two paragraphs and quote the last line of Page 66: - - “According to a plan, drawn up in advance, the German fascist - invaders . . . blew up or burned 2,290 of the largest buildings - of architectural, artistic, and historical value. Included in - these were the house of A. S. Pushkin . . . the Saban barracks, - built in 1827, and others, representing in themselves valuable - monuments to the material culture of the beginning of the 19th - century. - - “In Odessa the German-Romanian invaders destroyed: The first - hospital for contagious diseases, the second district hospital, - the somatological hospital, the psychiatric hospital, and two - children’s hospitals, a children’s polyclinic, seven infant - consulting centers, 55 day nurseries, two maternity homes, one - dispensary, one leprosarium, six polyclinics, and research - institutions for the study of tuberculosis, for studying - conditions in spas and others. They destroyed 29 sanatoria - located around Odessa.” - -The Hitlerites committed crimes on an exceptionally large scale in the -Stalino Province. I omit the rest of this page and pass to Page 68 of my -report. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission, presented by -the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-2 (Document Number -USSR-2), relates an enormous number of facts. I shall not quote all of -those, Your Honors; but I shall confine myself only to several excerpts -from the above-mentioned document which have not yet been read into the -record by my colleagues. They can be found on Pages 374 and 375 in your -document book. I quote: - - “During their retreat from Stalino, the Hitlerites completely - destroyed . . . 113 schools, 62 kindergartens, 390 shops, the - winter and summer theaters, the Palace of the Pioneers, the - radio theater, the Museum of the Revolution, the picture gallery - and the Dzerjinsky Club of the city. - - “Special Engineer detachments went from school to school, - pouring incendiary liquid over them and setting them on fire. - Such Soviet people who tried to extinguish the fires were - immediately shot by the fascist scoundrels. . . . - - “Exceptionally severe damages were caused by the invaders to the - medical establishments of the city.” - -I omit three paragraphs of the report, and I quote the penultimate -paragraph on this page: - - “The Medical Institute, a model scientific establishment for - 2,000 students, was destroyed on the orders of Oberfeldarzt - Roll, chief medical officer of Belindorf, and the chief medical - officer of Kuchendorf. - - “Of a total of 600,000 books on science and art, 530,000 volumes - were burned by the Hitlerites. . . . - - “In the town of Makeyewka the German fascist invaders blew up - and burned down the city theater, seating 1,000 persons; the - circus, seating 1,500 persons; 49 schools, 20 day nurseries, and - 44 kindergarten schools. By order of the Town Commander, Vogler, - 35,000 volumes from the central Gorky library were destroyed on - a pyre.” - -I shall not enumerate all the cities. These facts were mentioned in a -document which, according to Article 21 of the Charter, provides -irrefutable evidence. In agreement with the rulings of the Tribunal, -this document will not be read into the record in full. I must, however, -draw your attention to the fact that in all industrial towns of the -Province of Stalino the Hitlerites burned down schools, theaters, day -nurseries, hospitals, and even churches. Thus in the town of Gorlovka: - - “. . . they destroyed 32 schools, attended by some 21,649 - children, burned down the town hospital, five polyclinics, a - church, and the Palace of Culture. . . . - - “In the city of Konstantinovka the occupational authorities blew - up and burned down all the 25 city schools, two cinemas, the - central city library with 35,000 volumes, the Pioneers’ Club, - the children’s technical center, the city hospital, and the day - nurseries. - - “Before their retreat from Mariupol the German occupational - authorities burned down all the 68 schools of the city, 17 - kindergarten schools . . . and the Palace of the Pioneers.” - -I shall now quote a few excerpts from the document presented to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR 45 (Document Number USSR-45). These -excerpts are found on Page 378 of your document book. The document deals -with the Hitlerite crimes in Rovno and the region of Rovno. The city of -Rovno was of special importance. It was the residence of Reich Minister -Erich Koch, the closest collaborator of the Defendant Rosenberg. -Numerous conferences of the Hitlerite leaders for elaborating their plan -for the enslavement of the Ukrainian people took place in this city. The -above-mentioned report of the Extraordinary State Commission established -the following facts: - - “The Hitlerites, on the Ukrainian territory they had seized, - endeavored to establish a regime of slavery and serfdom and to - annihilate the Ukrainian sovereignty and culture. . . . - - “The considerable material in possession of the Extraordinary - State Commission, based on documents, testimonies of witnesses, - and personal inspection by members of the commission, and their - acquaintance with conditions prevailing in various cultural and - educational establishments on Ukrainian territory liberated by - the Red Army, leaves no doubt that the German fascist barbarians - had for their aim the destruction of Ukrainian culture and the - extermination of the best representatives of Ukrainian art and - science who had fallen into their hands.” - -I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the penultimate paragraph on this -page: - - “The German fascist aggressors closed down nearly all the - cultural and educational establishments in Rovno. On 30 November - 1941 the closing down of schools in the General Commissariat of - Volhynia and Podolia was officially announced in the newspaper - _Volyn_.” - -I omit the end of Page 70, and I quote the last paragraph of this -document on Page 71 of my report: - - “The fact that all these crimes were committed in the residence - of the former Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Erich Koch, - serves as additional proof that all the crimes of the Hitlerite - bandits were perpetrated in execution of a plan for the - extermination of the Soviet people and the devastation of the - Soviet territories temporarily occupied by the Hitlerites, a - plan conceived and executed by the Hitlerite Government.” - -In Section 5 of his opening statement, General Rudenko, Chief Prosecutor -for the U.S.S.R., quoted an extract from a letter of the Commissioner -General for Bielorussia, Kube, addressed to the Defendant Rosenberg. - -This document is a typewritten letter, signed in ink by Kube. It has -several notations in pencil, evidently by the hand of Rosenberg; and it -has a stamp, “Ministerial Bureau,” and is dated 3 October 1941. This -document, identified as Document Number 1099-PS, I submit to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-374 in evidence of the enormous -proportions assumed by the plundering of historical treasures, carried -out everywhere by the Hitlerites. - -With your permission I shall now take the liberty of quoting some -additional extracts from this document, which discloses the fact that -not only were the plundered treasures sent to Germany but that they had -also been stolen by individual generals of Hitler’s Army. Kube’s letter -reveals at the same time the existence of a previously elaborated plan -for the plunder of the cultural treasures in Leningrad, Moscow, and the -Ukraine. The vandalism of the Hitlerites reached such proportions that -even Kube, that hangman of the Bielorussian people, was roused to -indignation. He was afraid of allowing a profitable deal to slip through -his hands and sought compensation from Rosenberg. I quote the second -paragraph from the beginning of the letter: - - “Minsk possessed a large and, in part, a very valuable - collection of art treasures and paintings which have now been - removed almost in their entirety from the city. By order of - Reichsführer SS, Reichsleiter Heinrich Himmler, most of the - paintings, some still during my term of office, were packed by - the SS and sent to the Reich. They are worth several millions - which were withdrawn from the general district of White - Ruthenia. The paintings were supposedly sent to Linz and to - Königsberg in East Prussia. I beg to have this valuable - collection—as far as it is not needed in the Reich—placed once - more at the disposal of the general district of White Ruthenia - or, in any case, to place the monetary value of these - collections with the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern - Territories.” - -Kube, as well as the Defendant Rosenberg, was of the opinion that he had -the right to monopolize the stolen treasures and complained—I quote the -second part of the second paragraph of this letter: - - “General Stubenrauch has taken a valuable part of this - collection and has carried it off to the area of military - operations. Sonderführer, whose names have not yet been reported - to me, have carried off three truckloads (without receipt) of - furniture, paintings, and objects of art.” - -Having, along with other fascist leaders, robbed the people of -Bielorussia, and taken a direct part in the mass ill-treatment and -extermination of the Soviet population, Kube hypocritically declared—I -quote the last paragraph of this letter: - - “Bielorussia, already poor in itself, has suffered heavy losses - through these actions.” - -And Kube recommended to Rosenberg—I quote: - - “I hope that experts will be appointed beforehand to prevent - such happenings in Leningrad and Moscow, as well as in some of - the ancient Ukrainian cultural centers.” - -That was the ultimate goal of their ideas. It is now universally known -what meaning the Hitlerites attached to the word “measures” when applied -to the occupied territories. It meant a regime of bloody terror and -violence, of unrestricted plunder, and arbitrariness. - -On breaking into Minsk, capital of the Bielorussian Republic, the German -fascist invaders attempted to destroy the culture of the Bielorussian -people and to turn the Bielorussians into obedient German slaves. As has -been established by a special investigation, the Hitlerite military -authorities, acting on direct orders from the German Government, -ruthlessly destroyed scientific research institutes and schools, -theaters and clubs, hospitals and polyclinics, kindergartens and day -nurseries. - -I am reading into the record an excerpt from the document which was -presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-38 (Document -Number USSR-38). - - “For 3 years the German fascist invaders in Minsk set out to - destroy, systematically, the scientific research institutes, - institutions of higher education, libraries, museums, - institutions of the academy of science, theaters, and clubs. - - “The Lenin library in Minsk was a foundation more than 20 years - old. In 1932 the work was completed by the construction of a - special new building with a large and well-equipped depository - for storing books. From this library the Germans carried off to - Berlin and Königsberg 1½ million extremely valuable books on the - history of Bielorussia. . . .” - -I omit the end of Page 73 of my report. - - “In their attempt to eradicate the culture of the Bielorussian - people, the German fascist invaders destroyed every cultural and - educational institution in Minsk. . . . The libraries of the - Academy of Science, containing 30,000 volumes, of the State - University, of the Polytechnical Institute, and the - medico-scientific library and the public library of the city, A. - S. Pushkin, were carried away to Germany. - - “The Hitlerites destroyed the Bielorussian State University - together with the Zoological, the Geological, and Mineralogical, - the Historical, and Archaeological Museums as well as the - Medical Institute with all its clinics. They also demolished the - Academy of Sciences with its nine institutes.” - -I omit the remainder of this paragraph. - - “They destroyed the State Art Gallery and carried away to - Germany paintings and sculptures by Russian and Bielorussian - masters. . . . They plundered the Bielorussian State Theater of - Opera and Ballet, the First Bielorussian Dramatic Theater, the - House of National Creative Art, together with the houses of the - unions of writers, artists, and composers. - - “In Minsk the fascists destroyed 47 schools, 24 kindergarten - schools, the Palace of the Pioneers, 2 lying-in hospitals, 3 - children’s hospitals, 5 municipal polyclinics, 27 nurseries, and - 4 children’s welfare centers; the Institution of Infant and - Maternity Welfare was reduced to a heap of ruins.” - -The Prosecution has at its disposal Document Number 076-PS which is a -report entitled, “On Minsk Libraries,” by a German private first class, -Abel. This private had investigated all the libraries in Minsk and -stated in his report that nearly all of them had been destroyed. - -I present this report as Exhibit Number USSR-375 (Document Number -USSR-375). I consider, Mr. President, that it will be quite sufficient -to read into the record individual excerpts from this report. There is -no need to read the report in its entirety. It is stated, on Page 75 of -my report, that: - - “The Lenin library was the central library of Bielorussia. It is - difficult to estimate the number of volumes, but the number of - books is approximately 5 millions. . . . The depositories for - storing books present a desolate picture. . . .” - -I omit two paragraphs of my report, and I quote further: - - “The library of the Polytechnical Institute in the basement of - the left wing, as well as a great number of laboratories, were - devastated beyond hope and left in complete disorder.” - -The report concludes with the following sentence, which I quote: - - “The purpose of this report”—wrote the German private—“can be - achieved only if submitted to the Supreme Command and when the - command will issue the necessary orders plainly forbidding the - German soldier from behaving like a barbarian.” - -But such orders never followed and never could follow, since fascism and -barbarism are inseparable; fascism, in fact, means barbarism. - -THE PRESIDENT: What were you proposing to do after the adjournment this -afternoon? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: After the recess I shall present several -written documents pertaining to the destruction of cultural valuables in -the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Republics and later, with the -permission of the Tribunal, I should like to present a documentary film, -so that at the close of the session all presentation of evidence would -be completed and my report finished. - -THE PRESIDENT: How long will the film take? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The presentation of the documentary film will -take about 30 to 35 minutes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think that after the vast amount of damage and -spoliation to which you have drawn our attention in some detail it would -be sufficient if you were to summarize by telling us the countries in -which similar spoliation had taken place? It is difficult to assimilate -all this vast amount of detail. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have in mind, Mr. President, to present to -the Tribunal a document which will serve as a summary and in which all -the general totals will be given. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal -for a few minutes to the fact that before presenting the conclusion of -this document I should like to read into the record a German document -referring to the subject. - -Having occupied the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Soviet Republics, -the German fascist invaders attempted to reduce the Soviet Baltic -provinces to the status of a German colony and to enslave the people of -these republics. This criminal design of the Hitlerite Government found -its full expression in universal plunder, general ruin, violence, -degradation, and in the mass murder of old men, women, and children. - -In order to germanize the people of the Lithuanian, Estonian, and -Latvian Soviet Socialist Republics, the Hitlerites destroyed, by all -possible means, the culture of the peoples of these republics. I skip -the remainder of Pages 76, 77, and 78, and from Page 79 I quote one -paragraph only: - - “The capital of Soviet Latvia, Riga, was declared by the - occupational authorities as the capital of ‘Ostland’ (Eastern - Territory) and the seat of Staff Rosenberg.” - -In the documents presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as -Document Number USSR-7, Document Number USSR-39, and Document Number -USSR-41, there are a number of facts which do not and cannot exhaust the -crimes perpetrated by the German fascist invaders in the Soviet Baltic -provinces. Among the monstrous crimes against the peoples of the Baltic -provinces, the Defendant Rosenberg, the former Reich Minister, played a -major part. - -I read from Page 81. Even at the time when it was quite evident that the -downfall of fascist Germany was fast approaching, when the hour of just -and stern retribution was facing the Hitler criminals, the Defendant -Rosenberg still continued in his plundering. As late as the end of -August 1944, Rosenberg organized and executed the plundering of cultural -resources in Riga and Reval, in Dorpat, and in a number of towns in the -Estonian Republic. - -I draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document Number 161-PS, dated 23 -August 1944, entitled “Assignment” and signed by Rosenberg’s Chief of -Staff, Utikal. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-376 (Document Number USSR-376), which Your Honors will find -on Page 400 of the document book. I quote: - - “Order. On 21 August 1944, Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg - requested Haupteinsatzführer Friedrich Schueller from the - Einsatzstab RR to report on the possibilities still existing for - the evacuation of cultural treasures from the eastern - territories. On the basis of this report the Reichsleiter has - ruled that the most precious cultural riches of the Ostland - could still be removed by his staff, insofar as this can be done - without interfering with the interests of the fighting forces. - The Reichsleiter specified the following cultural objects as - having particular value: - - “From Riga—the city archives, the state archives (the major - part of these were in Edwahlen); - - “From Reval—the city archives, the Estonian Literary Society, - and small collections from Schwarzhäupterhaus, the town hall, - Evangelical Lutheran consistory, and Nicolas’ Church. - - “From Dorpat—the university library; collections evacuated to - Estonian estates—Jerlep, Wodja, Weissenstein, and Lachmes. - - “Haupteinsatzführer Schueller, in his capacity as acting - director of the main working group of the Einsatzstab RR, is - commissioned with the carrying out of the removal and shipment. - - “He is advised to maintain special contact with Army Group North - in order to co-ordinate the execution of this mission of the - Reichsleiter, with the transportation requirements of the field - forces. - - “Utikal, chief of Einsatzstab” - -I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to another peculiar -circumstance. In this case, too, the looting was carried out by -Rosenberg together with the High Command, and as late as the fall of -1944, “future chiefs” of Staff Rosenberg were selected. - -An analysis of all these circumstances permits us categorically to -reassert that the destruction and looting of cultural valuables was -inspired, directed, and executed by a central organization, and that -this central organization was the criminal Hitler Government and the -High Command, the representatives of which, in the persons of all the -defendants in this Trial, should suffer punishment in accordance with -Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. - -May it please Your Honors, when we deal with a system of wholesale -destruction and plunder, it is impossible, and scarcely necessary, to -enumerate all the facts, even if these facts are, _per se_, of great -importance. In the occupied territories of the Soviet Union the -Hitlerites carried out precisely such a system of wholesale and manifold -destruction and plunder of cultural treasures of the peoples of the -U.S.S.R. At this moment it is not yet possible to draw up an exhaustive -balance of the defendants’ crimes. - -But I shall, with the permission of the Tribunal, submit a document -containing data which, although only of a preliminary nature, are -absolutely accurate and bear witness to the tremendous damage inflicted -by the Hitlerites. - -I have in view the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the -Soviet Union, submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-35 -(Document Number USSR-35). This document is on Pages 404 and 405 of your -document book. From this I shall only quote individual excerpts -concerning the subject which I am presenting and which have not yet been -read into the record: - - “Destruction of Cultural-Social Institutions, Public - Organizations, and Co-operatives. - - “The German plunderers destroyed various establishments, clubs, - stadia, rest homes, and sanatoria belonging to consumer and - industrial co-operatives, trade unions, and other public - organizations . . . in the occupied territory of the U.S.S.R. - They destroyed over 87,000 industrial buildings belonging to - co-operatives, trade unions, and other social organizations; - 10,000 residential buildings and 1,839 cultural and social - institutions. They carried off to Germany about 8,000,000 - books. . . . - - “Of the property of the trade unions the German invaders - completely destroyed 120 sanatoria and 150 rest homes in which - over 3 million workers, engineers, technicians, and other - employees spent their annual rest leave. Of this total figure - they destroyed, in the Crimea 59 sanatoria and rest homes. . . - in the spas of the Caucasus 32 sanatoria and rest homes; in the - Leningrad area 33 sanatoria and rest homes; in the Ukraine 88 - sanatoria and rest homes. - - “The German fascist invaders destroyed the buildings of 46 - pioneer camps and children’s convalescent institutions belonging - to the trade unions. They destroyed 189 clubs and palaces of - culture.” - -I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph on this page: - - “In the territory of the Soviet Union which was occupied by the - Germans, at the beginning of 1941, there were 82,000 elementary - and secondary schools with 15 million pupils. All the secondary - schools possessed libraries, each with from 2,000 to 25,000 - volumes; many schools possessed auditoria for physics, - chemistry, biology, and others. . . . - - “The German fascist invaders burned, destroyed, and plundered - these schools with their entire property and equipment. . . .” - -I omit the end of this paragraph. - - “The German fascist invaders entirely or partially destroyed 334 - colleges at which 233,000 students were studying; they removed - to Germany the equipment of the laboratories and lecture rooms - together with the exhibits, unique of their kind, from the - collections of the universities, institutes, and libraries. - - “Great damage was inflicted on the medical colleges. . . . - - “The occupants destroyed or looted 137 pedagogical institutions - and teachers’ colleges. . . . They removed historical material - and ancient manuscripts from special libraries, and stole or - destroyed over 100 million volumes in the public libraries.” - -I omit the next paragraph: - - “They destroyed, on the whole, 605 scientific research - institutes.” - -I omit the end of Page 85 of my report and the first paragraph of Page -86. - - “Enormous damage was inflicted by the Germans on the medical - establishments of the Soviet Union. They destroyed or plundered - 6,000 hospitals, 33,000 polyclinics, dispensaries, and - out-patient departments, 976 sanatoria and 656 rest homes.” - -I omit the next three paragraphs. - - “Destruction of Museums and Historical Monuments. - - “In the occupied territories the German fascist invaders - destroyed 427 out of a total of 992 museums of the Soviet - Union.” - -I omit the end of this page and quote the beginning of Page 87 of the -report: - - “The Germans also destroyed the museum of the peasant poet S. D. - Drozhzhin, in the village of Zavidovo, the museum of the - people’s poet I. S. Nikitin, in Voronezh, and the museum of the - famous Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, at Novogrudka in the - Bielorussian S.S.R. At Alagir they burned the manuscript of the - national singer Osetij Kosta Khetagurov. - - “The German fascist invaders destroyed 44,000 theaters, clubs, - and so-called ‘Red corners.’” - -Now with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit a -documentary film and a certificate testifying to the documentary -character of this film. The film is entitled, “Destruction of Art and -Museums of National Culture perpetrated by the Germans on the Territory -of the U.S.S.R.” This film and the documents testifying to the -documentary nature of these reels are submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-98 (Document Number USSR-98). In this film, besides -documentary photographs taken between 1941-45, there are also extracts -made in 1908, showing Yasnaya Polyana and Leo Tolstoy. Subsequent -photographs show what the German invaders did to this cultural relic of -the Soviet people. - -May I proceed with the presentation of the film, Your Honor? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course. - -[_Moving pictures were then shown._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I must dwell, Your Honors, on one more category -of crimes committed by the Hitlerites—the spoliation and destruction of -churches, convents, and other places of religious worship. - -By destroying monasteries, churches, mosques, and synagogues and robbing -their property, the German invaders sadistically mocked the religious -feelings of the people. These blasphemous crimes assumed a general -appearance in all the territories which were under German rule. Soldiers -and officers organized bloody orgies in places of worship, kept horses -and dogs in the churches, donned the church vestments, and made sleeping -bunks out of the icons. - -I shall not trespass on your time by reading all the numerous documents -at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution, and shall merely dwell on -some of these, in particular on the documentary photographs, an album of -which I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-99 (Document -Number USSR-99). - -With your permission, I should like to read a few more documents and -particularly a short extract from the document which has already been -presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number -USSR-51(3)). You can find this extract in your document book on the back -of Page 321. I quote: - - “The Hitlerite invaders do not spare the religious sentiments of - the believing section of the Soviet population either. They have - burned, looted, blown up, and desecrated hundreds of churches on - Soviet territory, including several irreplaceable monuments of - ancient church architecture.” - -I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the next one: - - “The priest Amvrosy Ivanov writes from the village of - Iklinskoye, in the Moscow region: - - “‘Before the arrival of the Germans the church was in complete - order. A German officer ordered me to take everything out of the - church. . . . At night troops arrived, occupied the church, - brought in their horses. . . . Then they began to smash and - break everything in the church and to build bunks. They threw - out everything: the altar, the holy gates and banners, and the - holy shroud. In a word, the church was turned into a robbers’ - den.’” - -I omit the remaining part of Page 88, and I read Page 89 of the report: - - “In the village of Gosteshevo, the Germans plundered the church, - broke up the holy banners, threw the books about, robbed the - Reverend Mikhail Strakhov and carried him off with them to - another district. In the village of Kholm, near Mozhaisk, the - Germans robbed and beat up the 82-year-old local priest. In - retreating from Mozhaisk, the Germans blew up the Church of the - Ascension, the Church of the Holy Trinity, and the Cathedral of - Nicholas, the miracle worker. As a rule, before retreating, the - Germans would drive part of the population of the villages - destroyed by fire into the churches, lock them up, and then set - fire to these churches.” - -I am now reading into the record a short excerpt from Exhibit Number -USSR-312 (Document Number USSR-312), submitted to the Tribunal: - - “In a north side-altar of the Znamensky Cathedral, the Germans - set up a latrine for the soldiers living in the crypt of the - cathedral. - - “The Church of the Prophet Elijah on the Slavna was transformed - into a stable. - - “Stables were built in the following Pskov churches: - Bogoyavlenie on Zapskovie, Kozma and Demian on the Gremiatchy - Hill, Constantine and Helen, and in the Church of Saint John the - Evangelist.” - -The document which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279) describes facts of blasphemous -mockery which took place in the town of Gjatsk where the churches were -transformed by the Germans into stables and warehouses. In the Church of -the Annunciation the Germans set up a slaughterhouse for horned cattle. - -The document which I am now presenting to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-246 (Document Number USSR-246) is a report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union and contains general data relating -to the churches, chapels, and other institutions of religious worship -which have been destroyed or damaged. This document states: - - “The German fascist invaders completely destroyed or partly - damaged 1,670 churches, 69 chapels, 237 Roman Catholic churches, - four mosques, 532 synagogues, and 254 other buildings for - religious worship.” - -Your Honors will find in the document, submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), these general data on -the subject. I will not burden the Tribunal’s attention by reading the -document into the record in full, but I should like to quote a few very -short excerpts from it. I quote: - - “The material responsibility by the Germans cannot make complete - amends for the destruction of ecclesiastical buildings, and of - the most ancient historical monuments; the majority of these can - never be restored.” - -Omitting the remainder of the page, as well as the first four paragraphs -of Page 91 of the report, I read the last paragraph of this page: - - “Many churches, historical monuments of antiquity, were - destroyed by the German invaders in Bielorussia. Thus, in the - city of Vitebsk, they destroyed the Church of the Nativity, an - interesting monument of Bielorussian architecture of the 12th - century. They completely destroyed the wooden Apostle and Saint - Nicholas Churches, built in the 18th century. - - “Almost irreparable damage was done to the - Voskresenko-Zaruchjevsky Church, built in the 18th century. This - church was an interesting example of the Bielorussian classic - style of architecture. In the same area, in the city of Vitebsk, - the Germans destroyed a Roman Catholic church built in the 18th - century. . . . - - “In the town of Dyesna, of the Polotsk region, the Germans - burned a Roman Catholic church founded in the 17th century, - after plundering its property. - - “Timoschel Rudolf, German garrison commandant of the town of - Rozhnyatov, in the Stanislav region, used three synagogues for - barracks and later on destroyed the buildings after plundering - the property contained therein.” - -I omit the next paragraph. - - “Before destroying buildings of various religious cults the - Germans plundered and destroyed all their equipment. A great - number of icons and church decorations were removed from - ecclesiastical buildings to Germany. - - “The Joseph-Volokalamsky Monastery was plundered and the ancient - shrouds of the monastery, together with the personal belongings - of Joseph Volotsky, founder of the monastery, have - disappeared. . . . - - “In 1941 German soldiers and officers stole from the Staritzki - Church all the vessels, altar crosses, crowns, miters, and - tabernacles. - - “In the town Dokshitza, in the Polotsk region, the Germans - looted and took away all the property of the local mosque. The - same fate was shared by nearly all the churches in the - territories occupied by the Germans. - - “Everywhere the Germans plundered Orthodox and Catholic - churches, synagogues, mosques, and other buildings of religious - worship.” - -The Hitlerite conspirators not only actually plundered, tortured, and -murdered, but they also strove to humiliate the believers morally and to -rob them of their spiritual treasures. - -Such, Your Honors, is the conclusive evidence concerning the crimes -against culture, committed by Rosenberg, Frank, Göring, Ribbentrop, -Keitel, and the other participants in the conspiracy. The crimes of the -defendants against culture are terrible indeed in their consequences. -Even though it be possible, by a tremendous effort, to rebuild the -cities and villages destroyed by the Hitlerites, even though it be -possible to restore the factories and plants blown up or burned down by -them, mankind has lost for all time the irreplaceable art treasures -which the Hitlerites so ruthlessly destroyed, as it has lost forever the -millions of human beings sent to their death in Auschwitz, Treblinka, -Babye-yar, or Kerch. - -Having inherited the savage hatred of all mankind from the dim ages of -the past, the modern Huns have far surpassed, in cruelty and vandalism, -the darkest pages of history. While arrogantly challenging the future of -mankind, they trampled under foot the finest heritage of mankind’s past. -Themselves without faith or ideals, they sacrilegiously destroyed both -the churches and the relics of the saints. - -But in this unparalleled struggle between culture and obscurantism, -between civilization and barbarism, culture and civilization prevailed. -The Hitlerite conspirators who had aspired to world domination, who had -dreamed of destroying the culture of the Slavs and of all other nations, -now stand in the defendants’ dock. May a just punishment be theirs. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you continue until 5 o’clock? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As you wish, Your Honor. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes; will you go on until 5 o’clock? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I should only like to ask for a few minutes’ -interval in order to collect some documents. It will literally take only -a few moments. - -THE PRESIDENT: It would be hardly worth while if you want a short -interval. We shall stop at 5 o’clock. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It would perhaps be more convenient to begin -again at 1000 hours tomorrow. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then we will adjourn now. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 22 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SIXTY-FIFTH DAY - Friday, 22 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -MARSHAL: May it please the Court: The Defendant Fritzsche will be absent -until further notice on account of illness. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: May it please Your Honors, may I begin the -submission of evidence to prove the charge that the defendants are -guilty of the destruction of towns and villages and of the perpetration -of other kinds of destruction. This charge is laid down in Section C of -Count Three of the Indictment. - -We shall present evidence proving that the destruction of cities and -towns was brought about neither by the hazards of war nor by military -expediencies. We shall submit evidence that this deliberate destruction -was carried out in accordance with the thoroughly elaborated plans of -the Hitlerite Government and orders of the German military command; that -the destruction of towns and cities, of industry and transportation was -an integral part of the conspiracy which aimed at enslaving the peoples -of Europe and other countries, and establishing a world hegemony of -Hitlerite Germany. - -Wherever the German fascist invaders appeared, they brought death and -destruction. In the flames of the fires were lost the most valuable -machines devised by the genius of mankind; factories and dwellings -giving work and shelter to millions were blown up. People themselves -perished, especially old men, women, and children, left without a roof -over their heads or any means of existence. - -With particular ruthlessness the Hitlerites annihilated and destroyed -the towns and cities in the territories of the Soviet Union which they -temporarily occupied, where, acting on direct orders of the German High -Command, they created a desert zone. - -As proof, I read into the record an excerpt from the document which had -been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51(2) (Document -Number USSR-51(2)). This excerpt the Members of the Tribunal will find -on Page 3 of the document book. I quote: - - “An order recently seized near the town of Verkhovye, Orel - region, issued to the 512th German Infantry Regiment and signed - by Colonel Schittnig, stated with unparalleled brazenness: - - “‘A zone which, in view of the circumstances, is to be - evacuated, upon withdrawal of the troops should present a desert - zone. In order to carry out a complete destruction, all the - houses shall be burned. To this end they should first be filled - with straw, particularly stone houses. Structures of stone are - to be blown up, particularly cellars. Measures for the creation - of desert zones . . . are to be prepared beforehand and carried - out ruthlessly and in their entirety.’” - -So runs the order to the 512th German Infantry Regiment. - - “In razing our towns and villages, the German command demands of - its troops that a desert zone be created in all Soviet - localities from which the invaders are successfully expelled by - the Red Army.” - -This order to the 512th Regiment, which is mentioned in the document I -just quoted, is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-168 (Document Number -USSR-168). - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you know the date of it? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The date of this order is 10 December 1941. -From this document it is clear that the German military command -underwrote a ruthless and complete destruction of inhabited localities -and that this destruction was planned and prepared in advance. - -A large number of documents and facts concerning this question are in -the possession of the Soviet Prosecution. I shall limit myself to -reading into the record an excerpt from the verdict of the regional -military court in the case of the German war criminals Lieutenant -General Bernhardt and Major General Hamann. I submit this verdict to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-90 (Document Number USSR-90). - -The military court established that the generals, Bernhardt and Hamann, -had acted in accordance with the common plans and directives of the High -Command of the German Army and that they—I quote a short excerpt from -the verdict which Your Honors will find on Pages 24 and 25 of the -document book: - - “. . . had carried out a planned destruction of towns and - inhabited localities, determined in advance, along with the - destruction of industrial buildings, hospitals, sanatoria, - educational institutions, museums, and other cultural - educational institutions, as well as dwellings. The latter were - blown up without any previous warning to the Soviet citizens - living in them, with the result that people as well perished.” - -As in the case of the destruction of inhabited localities, plants, and -factories, power-stations and mines were also destroyed with -premeditation. - -For confirmation I shall draw the attention of the Tribunal to the -report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union which -was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-2 (Document Number -USSR-2). This document is on Page 28 of the document book. - -In this report is quoted the secret directive of the leader of the -department of economics (Wirtschaftsoffizier) of Army Group South of 2 -September 1943, under Number 1/313/43, which ordered army leaders and -leaders of the economics detachments to carry out a thorough -annihilation of industrial institutions, emphasizing particularly that -“. . . the destruction must be carried out not at the last moment when -the troops may be engaged in combat or in retreat, but ahead of time.” - -The note by V. M. Molotov, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of -the U.S.S.R. of 27 April 1942, deals with the orders of the German -Supreme Command and with the manner in which these orders were executed. -This note was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) -(Document Number USSR-51(3)). - -I shall now quote several excerpts from Part II of the note just -mentioned, which is entitled, “The Devastation of Cities and Towns,” -excerpts which were not read into the record before. These excerpts will -be found on Pages 6, the reverse side, and 7 of the document book which -is in the hands of the Tribunal. I read: - - “By direct order of its High Command the German fascist Army has - subjected Soviet towns and villages to unparalleled devastation - upon seizure and in the course of the army’s occupation.” - -I omit the end of Page 4 and the beginning of Page 5 of my report. - -THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you ought to omit the first four lines of -Page 5. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I omitted it inasmuch as I read this document -into the record yesterday, but if the Tribunal wishes—I shall gladly do -it. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you read it yesterday, do not read it again. I do not -remember. Was it read yesterday? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, I read this into the record yesterday. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -I am told that—and I think—that you did not read those lines “from 10 -October 1941” at the top of Page 5. I think you had better read them. I -am referring to the order of 10 October 1941, which is set out in your -exposé. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This is the excerpt from the order given to the -6th German Army, on 10 October 1941, signed by Von Reichenau. This -document is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-12 -(Document Number USSR-12). I quote: - - “The troops have an interest in extinguishing fires only - inasmuch as military quarters have to be conserved. Otherwise - the disappearance . . . also of buildings, is within the limits - of the fight of extermination. - - “At the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 the German command - issued a number of orders instructing German army units to - destroy, in the course of their retreat under the pressure of - the Red Army, everything that had remained unscathed during the - occupation. Thousands of villages and hamlets, whole city - blocks, and even entire cities are reduced to ashes, blown up, - or razed to the ground by the retreating German fascist army. - The organized destruction of Soviet towns and villages has - become a special branch of the criminal activity of the German - invaders on Soviet territory; special instructions and detailed - orders of the German command are devoted to methods of - devastating Soviet populated centers; special detachments, - trained in this criminal profession, are set up for this - purpose. Here are some of the many facts which are at the - disposal of the Soviet Government:” - -Once again I refer to the order addressed to the 512th Infantry Regiment -already presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-168 (Document -Number USSR-168). - - “This order . . . is an exposition, consisting of seven typed - pages of the most precisely detailed plan for the methodical - destruction of village after village, from 10 December to 14 - December inclusive, in the regiment’s area. This order, which - follows a model used throughout the German Army, states: - - “‘Preparations for the destruction of populated centers must be - carried out in such a way that: - - “‘(a) No suspicions whatever be aroused among the civilian - population prior to its announcement; - - “‘(b) The destruction should begin and be carried out in a - single blow at the appointed time. On the day in question - particularly strict watch must be kept to see that no civilians - leave this place, especially after the destruction has been - announced.’ - - “An order of the commander of the 98th German Infantry Division, - dated 24 December 1941, after listing 16 Soviet villages - designated to be burned down, states: - - “‘Available stocks of hay, straw, foodstuffs, _et cetera_, are - to be burned. All the stoves in dwelling houses are to be - wrecked by placing hand grenades in them, thus making further - use of them impossible. This order under no circumstances is to - fall into the hands of the enemy.’” - -The following order of 3 January 1942, issued by Hitler, is of the same -nature. The order states: - - “‘Cling to every populated center; do not retreat a single step; - defend yourself to the last soldier, to the last grenade. That - is the requirement of the present moment. Every point occupied - by us must be turned into a base, which must not be surrendered - under any circumstances, even if outflanked by the enemy. If, - however, the given point must be abandoned on superior orders, - it is imperative that everything be razed to the ground, the - stoves blown up. . . . - - “‘(Signed): Adolf Hitler.’ - - “Hitler felt no embarrassment about publicly admitting that the - devastation of Soviet towns and villages was carried out by his - Army. In his speech. . .” - -THE PRESIDENT: That order of 3 January 1942, signed by Hitler, is that -in the official Soviet State report? Where did it come from? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This order is incorporated in the note of -People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov. I quote an excerpt from -it, a document which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(3). - -THE PRESIDENT: That is Mr. Molotov’s report? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, this is a note of the Foreign Commissar, -Molotov. - -THE PRESIDENT: All right. - - MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “. . . In his speech of 30 January - 1942, Hitler stated: - - “‘In those places where the Russians have succeeded in making a - break-through and where they thought that they would once again - be in possession of populated centers, these populated centers - no longer exist; they are but a heap of ruins.’” - -While retreating from the Kuban under the thrust of the Red Army, the -German High Command worked out a detailed plan of operations which bore -the code name of “Movement Krimhild,” and a considerable part of this -plan, a whole section, in fact, is devoted to the demolition plan. I -omit one paragraph of my report. - -This plan is mentioned in a two-page secret document transmitted by -telegraph to the chiefs of the higher staffs. The document is signed by -Hitler and has the following heading on the first page: “Top secret (A) -2371; 17 copies.” The document which we submit to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-115 is the 17th copy of the Hitler order. This -document is listed as Document Number C-177; in your document book it is -contained on Pages 31 to 33. I shall read into the record the second -point of this document: - - “2. Demolitions in case of retreat. - - “(a) All structures, quartering facilities, roads, - constructions, dams, _et cetera_, which may be useful to the - adversary have to be thoroughly destroyed. - - “(b) All railroads and field railways are to be either removed - or completely destroyed. - - “(c) All constructed corduroy roads must be torn up and rendered - useless. - - “(d) All oil wells in the Kuban bridgehead must be entirely - destroyed. - - “(e) The harbor of Novorossiysk will be so demolished and - obstructed as to render it useless to the Russian fleet for a - long time. - - “(f) Extensive sowing of mines, delayed-action mines, _et - cetera_, also come under the heading of destruction. - - “(g) The enemy must take over a completely useless, - uninhabitable desert land where mine detonation will occur for - months hence.” - -Many other documents bear witness of similar orders, but I want to draw -the attention of the Tribunal to just two of them. I refer to an entry -in the diary of the Defendant Frank which dealt with this subject in -particular, as well as a directive issued by the commanding general of -118th German Jäger Division which operated in Yugoslavia. - -In Frank’s diary, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal, -there is the following entry for 17 April 1944, contained in the volume -which was started on 1 March 1944 and ended on 31 May 1944, entitled, -“The Business Meeting at Kraków on 12 April 1944.” Your Honors will find -the quotation on Page 45 of the document book. I read: - - “It is important that the troops be given an order to leave only - scorched earth to the Russians. In cases when it becomes - necessary to withdraw from a certain area, no distinction should - be made between the territory of the Government General and any - other territory.” - -May I remind the Tribunal that according to Exhibit Number USSR-132 -(Document Number USSR-132), which is a secret instruction issued to the -118th German Jäger Division with the signature of Major General Kübler -and was captured in June 1944 by units of the Yugoslav People’s -Liberation Army, the troops were to treat the population “ruthlessly -with cruel firmness” and to destroy the inhabited localities which were -abandoned. - -May it please Your Honors, in concluding this part of my report I deem -it necessary to draw your attention to another circumstance. The -destruction of peaceful towns and villages was not only planned, not -only carried out deliberately and with exceptional ruthlessness, but was -executed by special detachments created by the German High Command for -that very purpose. By way of evidence I shall quote several excerpts not -yet read into the record from official Soviet Government documents. - -In the note of 27 April 1942 is stated—I quote an excerpt which is on -Page 9 of your document book: - - “The special detachments set up by the German Command for the - purpose of setting fire to Soviet populated centers and for the - mass extermination of the civilian population during the retreat - of the Hitlerite Army, are perpetrating their sanguinary deeds - with the cold-bloodedness of professional criminals. Thus, for - instance before their retreat from the village of - Bolshekrepinskaya, Rostov region, the Germans sent down the - streets of the village special flame-throwing machines which - burned 1,167 buildings, one after the other. The large, - flourishing village was turned into flaming bonfires which - consumed the dwellings, the hospital, the school, and various - other public buildings. At the same time machine gunners, - without any warning, shot at inhabitants who approached their - burning houses; some of the residents were bound, sprayed with - gasoline and thrown into the burning buildings.” - -I omit part of Page 9 of my report and pass on to the next, to the last -paragraph on that page of my report. The report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union which was presented to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-46 (Document Number USSR-46) states: - - “In their insane fury against the Soviet people, which was - caused by defeats suffered at the front, the commanding general - of the 2d German Panzer Army, General Schmidt, and the commander - of the Orel administrative region and military commander of that - city, Major General Hamann, had created special demolition - commandos for the destruction of towns, villages, and collective - farms of the Orel region. These commandos, plunderers, and - arsonists destroyed everything in the path of their retreat. - They destroyed cultural monuments and works of art of the - Russian people, burned down cities, towns, and villages.” - -In the document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-279 -(Document Number USSR-279), the following facts are described—I read: - - “In Viazma and Gjatsk, the commanding generals—Major General - Merker of the 35th Infantry Division, Major General Schäfer of - the 252d Infantry Division, and Major General Roppert of the 7th - Infantry Division—organized special incendiary and demolition - commandos to set on fire and blow up dwellings, schools, - theaters, clubs, museums, libraries, hospitals, churches, - stores, and industrial plants, so that only ashes and ruins - would be left in the wake of their retreat.” - -In the document which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2) there are several depositions of German -prisoners of war. I shall quote one of these depositions. I read at the -end of the page: - - “Herman Verholtz, a private first class, from the 597th Infantry - Regiment of the 306th Division of the German Army, deposes as - follows: - - “‘As a member of a demolition squad I took part in setting fire - to and blowing up government buildings and dwellings on First - Line, the main street of Stalino. My job was to place the - explosives, which I then ignited and thus blew up the buildings. - Altogether I participated in the demolition of five large houses - and in the burning of several others.’” - -Your Honors, one could go on with the same kind of quotations. I repeat -that scores of them are contained in the documents and depositions which -we presented to the Tribunal, but I consider that there is no necessity -to do that. What has already been read into the record permits us to -conclude that the premeditated and deliberate devastations which were -carried out by the Hitlerites in the occupied territories were really a -system and not individual acts, and that those devastations were not -perpetrated only at the hand of individual officers and soldiers of the -German Army, but that these devastations were carried out on the orders -of the German Supreme Command. Therefore, I omit Page 11 of my report, -and I begin with Page 12. - -In the criminal plans of the fascist conspirators, the devastation of -the capitals of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Poland occupied a -particular place. Among these plans the destruction of Moscow and -Leningrad received special attention. - -Intoxicated by the first military successes, the Hitlerites elaborated -insane plans for the destruction of the greatest cultural and industrial -centers dear to the Soviet people. For this purpose they prepared -special task forces. They even hurried to advertise their “decision” to -refuse the capitulation of the cities which never even took place. - -It is necessary to note that such expressions as “raze to the ground” or -“wipe from the face of the earth” were used quite frequently by the -Hitlerite conspirators. These were not only threats but criminal acts as -well. As we shall see from the subsequent presentation, in some places -they did succeed in razing flourishing towns and villages to the ground. - -I omit one paragraph of my report. - -I shall now present two documents which reveal the intentions of the -Hitlerite conspirators. - -The first document is a secret directive of the naval staff, numbered -I-a 1601/41, dated 22 September 1941. It is entitled, “The Future of the -City of Petersburg.” (Document Number C-124, Exhibit Number USSR-113). -Therefore, as we are in possession of the original of this document, -which was distributed in several copies, I believe that it does not have -to be read into the record. With your permission, Mr. President, I shall -remind the Tribunal of the contents of this directive. In this directive -it is stated, “The Führer has decided to wipe the city of Petersburg -from the face of the earth,” that it is planned to blockade the city -securely, to subject it to artillery bombardment of all calibers, and by -means of constant bombing from the air to raze Leningrad to the ground. -It is also decreed in the order that should there be a request for -capitulation, such request should be turned down by the Germans. -Finally, it is stated in this document that this directive emanates not -only from the naval staff, but also from the OKW. - -I omit Page 13 of my report and begin with the last paragraph of the -page. - -The second document, bearing the number Document C-123, presented to the -Court as Exhibit Number USSR-114, is also a top secret order of the -Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, dated 7 October 1941, Number -44/1675/41, and signed by the Defendant Jodl. This document, Your -Honors, is to be found on Pages 69 and 70 in the document book. I read -into the record the text of this document, or rather a few excerpts from -this letter on Page 14 of my presentation. I read the first paragraph of -the letter: - - “The Führer has again decided that a capitulation of Leningrad - or, later, of Moscow is not to be accepted even if it is offered - by the enemy.” - -And further the last but one paragraph of this page: - - “Therefore, no German soldier is to enter these cities. By our - fire we must force all who try to leave the city through our - lines to turn back. The exodus of the population through the - smaller, unguarded gaps toward the interior of Russia is only to - be welcomed. Before the cities are taken, they are to be - weakened by artillery fire and air attacks, and their population - should be caused to flee. - - “We cannot take the responsibility of endangering our soldiers’ - lives in order to save Russian cities from fire, nor that of - feeding the population of these cities at the expense of the - German homeland. . . . - - “All commanding officers shall be informed of this will of the - Führer.” - -The Hitlerite conspirators began to put their criminal ideas about the -destruction of Leningrad into effect with unprecedented ferocity. In the -report of the Leningrad city commission for the investigation of the -atrocities of the German fascist invaders, the monstrous crimes of the -Hitlerites are described in detail. - -This document had been presented to the Court as Exhibit Number USSR-85. -I shall read into the record only a general summary of the data -presented on Page 1 of the report, which is on Page 71 of the document -book. I read: - - “As a result of the barbarous activities of the German fascist - invaders in Leningrad and its suburbs, 8,961 household and - annexed buildings, sheds, baths, _et cetera_, with a total - volume of 5,192,427 cubic meters were completely destroyed, and - 5,869 buildings with a total volume of 14,308,288 cubic meters - were partially destroyed. Completely destroyed were 20,627 - dwellings, with a total volume of 25,429,780 cubic meters, and - 8,788 buildings, with a total volume of 10,081,035 cubic meters - were partially demolished. Six buildings dedicated to religious - cults were completely, and 66 such buildings partially, - destroyed. The Hitlerites destroyed, ruined, and damaged various - kinds of institutions valued at more than 718 million rubles, as - well as more than 1,043 million rubles’ worth of industrial - equipment and agricultural machinery and implements.” - -This document establishes that the Hitlerites bombed and shelled, -methodically and according to plan, day and night, streets, dwelling -houses, theaters, museums, hospitals, kindergartens, military hospitals, -schools, institutes, and streetcars, and ruined most valuable monuments -of culture and art. Many thousands of bombs and shells hammered the -historical buildings of Leningrad, and at its quays, gardens, and parks. - -I omit the end of Page 16. - -In conclusion, I shall permit myself to quote one of the many German -depositions which are quoted in the document, namely paragraph 4 on Page -14. Your Honors will find this deposition I am quoting on Page 84 of the -document book. I quote: - - “Sergeant Fritz Köpke, commanding Number 2 gun of the 2d battery - of the 2d Detachment of the 910th Artillery Regiment stated: - - “‘For the bombardment of Leningrad, there was in the batteries a - special stock of munitions supplied over and above the limit to - an unlimited amount. . . . - - “‘All the gun crews know that the bombardments of Leningrad were - aimed at ruining the town and annihilating its civilian - population. They therefore regarded with irony the bulletins of - the German Supreme Command which spoke of shelling the “military - objectives” of Leningrad.’” - -The Hitlerite conspirators aimed at the complete destruction of the -Yugoslav capital, Belgrade. - -I remind you of Document Number 1746-PS, presented to the Tribunal on 7 -December 1945; it is an order by Hitler, dated 27 March 1941, dealing -with the attack on Yugoslavia. It is known that this order, entitled -“Instruction Number 25,” gives in detail the military strategy for the -attack and, besides, decrees that all the Yugoslav Air Force ground -installations and the city of Belgrade shall be destroyed by means of -continuous day and night air raids. - -I omit the first paragraph of Page 18 of my report, inasmuch as the -facts which are mentioned in this paragraph have been read into the -record on 11 February. I shall read a few excerpts from Pages 22 and 23 -of the official report of the Yugoslav Government. This corresponds to -Pages 111 and 112 in your document book. I read: - - “The planned and systematic execution of these crimes, based on - the orders of the Government of the Reich and of the OKW, is - confirmed by the fact that the destruction of inhabited - localities and of the population did not cease even at the time - of the retreat of the German troops from Yugoslavia. - - “Typical for thousands of such cases is the destruction of - Belgrade and extermination of its citizens in October 1944. - - “The fights for the liberation of Belgrade lasted from 15 to 20 - October 1944. Even before the fighting started, the Germans - prepared a plan for the systematic destruction of the city. They - sent into the city a large number of specially trained units - whose duties consisted of mining houses and killing the - population. Though, because of the swift advance of the Red Army - and of the Yugoslav National Liberation Forces, they failed to - carry out their task as ordered by the German commanders, they - succeeded in destroying a large number of houses in the southern - part of the city and in killing a considerable number of its - inhabitants. - - “To a still greater extent, this happened in the northern part - of the city, on the Rivers Sava and Danube. The Germans went - from house to house, herded the inhabitants, unclothed and - unshod, into the streets, sprayed inflammable chemical - explosives into every apartment, and set fire to all the - buildings. If a house happened to be made of a very solid - material, they mined it. They fired at the inhabitants, killing - defenseless people; in several large houses the inhabitants were - locked in, and were destroyed by fire and by mine explosions. - The entire damage thus caused in the city of Belgrade totals the - sum of 1,127,129,069 dinars at prewar value.” - -Thus, the destruction of Belgrade was prescribed by Hitler’s order of 27 -March 1941 and was carried out on direct orders of the Defendant Göring; -in October 1944 it was carried out by the same methods as those employed -by the Hitlerites in the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. - -I shall now present evidence of the intentional and unexampled -destruction by the Hitlerites of the capital of the Polish nation, -Warsaw. - -I shall quote three documents which reveal the criminal intentions of -the fascist conspirators to raze this city. As the first document, -Exhibit Number USSR-128 (Document Number USSR-128), I present to the -Tribunal a telegram Number 13265, addressed to the Defendant Frank, and -signed by the Governor of the Warsaw District, Dr. Fischer. This -document can be found on Page 148 of the document book. I read into the -record the text of this telegram: - - “To the Governor General and Reich Minister, Dr. Frank, at - Kraków. - - “Warsaw, Number 13265; 11. X. 44; 10.40, HE. - - “Subject: New Policy with Regard to Poland. - - “As a result of the visit of SS Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach - to the Reichsführer SS, I wish to inform you of the following: - - “. . . 2) Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach again received an order - to pacify Warsaw—that is, to raze Warsaw to the ground while - the war is still on, if there is nothing against this from the - military point of view (construction of fortresses). Prior to - destruction, all raw materials, textiles, and furniture should - be taken out of Warsaw. The main role in performing this task - should be assumed by the civilian administration. - - “I am informing you of these facts because this new order of the - Führer regarding the destruction of Warsaw is of the greatest - importance for the future policy toward Poland. - - “The Governor of the Warsaw District, temporarily at Sochaczew, - signed: Dr. Fischer.” - -Von dem Bach, mentioned in the telegram just read into the record, is -already known to you, Your Honors; he testified in the afternoon session -of the Tribunal on 7 January. - -How SS Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach carried out Hitler’s order -regarding the destruction of Warsaw can be seen from the written -evidence given by him on oath on 28 January 1946, during his -interrogation by the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic, M. -Savitzky. - -I present to the Court the original record of the interrogation in -German, duly signed by Von dem Bach. I shall read two extracts from this -record. . . - -[_Dr. Seidl approached the lectern._] - -THE PRESIDENT: We will hear the objection. - -DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): I object to the reading -of the interrogation of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. The witness -was heard before the Court, and it would have been possible at that time -to hear the witness about the matter of the interrogation right here -before the Court. - -Should the Soviet Prosecution not wish to forgo the presentation of this -material, then I request that the witness, Von dem Bach-Zelewski, who is -still here in Nuremberg, be summoned before the Tribunal again, so that -the Defense may have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, do you want to say anything? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this record of the interrogation -of Von dem Bach-Zelewski was given under oath, and it was presented to -the Soviet Delegation by the representatives of the Polish Government. -The record of the interrogation is formulated according to the laws of -procedure and was given under oath. Therefore, we consider it imperative -and possible to present it to the Tribunal without calling Von dem -Bach-Zelewski for a second interrogation before the Tribunal. If the -Tribunal decides that the testimony of Bach-Zelewski cannot be read into -the record without his being called again before the Tribunal, then, in -the interests of expediting the Trial, and in order not to protract the -presentation of our evidence, we agree not to read this testimony into -the record inasmuch as evidence regarding these facts is contained in -other documents which I shall later present to the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you then, General: If the evidence given before -the Polish Commission is the same as the evidence which Bach-Zelewski -gave in court, it would be cumulative; if it is different, then surely -the defendants’ counsel ought to have the opportunity of cross-examining -him upon it. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The testimony which was given by Bach-Zelewski -to the prosecutor of the Polish Republic is supplementary. Bach-Zelewski -was not examined before the Tribunal about the devastations. - -THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, the Tribunal understood you to say that -you would be prepared to withdraw this evidence in view of the fact that -the witness had given evidence already and the Tribunal considers that -that is the proper course to take. So then the evidence will be -withdrawn and struck from the record so far as it has been put on the -record. - -I think this would be a good time to adjourn. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As a result of the decision of the Tribunal, I -exclude Page 21 from my report and pass on to Page 22. I shall read into -the record an extract from the diary of the Defendant Frank, which was -presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-223 (Document Number -USSR-223). This extract is on Page 45 of the document book. I have in -mind the file which was begun on 1 August 1944 and brought to 14 -December 1944, entitled “Diary,” where there is a note which mentions -the contents of a telegram sent by Frank to Reich Minister Lammers. I -read—on 5 August 1944: - - “The Governor General sends the following telegram to Reich - Minister Dr. Lammers: - - “‘. . . The city of Warsaw is, for the most part, engulfed in - flames. Burning of the houses is the surest way to rob the - insurgents of any shelter. . . . - - “‘After this uprising and its suppression, Warsaw will justly be - committed to its deserved fate of being completely destroyed.’” - -These documents prove, thus, that the fascist conspirators set for -themselves the aim of razing to the ground the capital of the Polish -State, Warsaw, and that the Defendant Frank played an active part in -this crime. - -In all the territories of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece, and -Czechoslovakia which they occupied, the German fascist invaders -systematically destroyed inhabited localities according to plan, under -the pretense of fighting the partisans. Punitive expeditions, -detachments, and commandos, specially detailed by the German military -command, burned down and blew up tens of thousands of villages, hamlets, -and other inhabited localities. - -I skip a paragraph of my report. - -From the numerous documents in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution -I shall quote, as examples, a few which are typical and which -characterize the whole system developed by the Hitlerites. - -The report of Captain Kasper, a company commander, dated 27 September -1942 and entitled, “Conclusive Report on the Results of the Punitive -Expedition Carried out in the Village of Borisovka from 22 to 26 -September 1942,” starts as follows: “Tasks: Company 9 must destroy the -band-infested village of Borisovka.” This document has been presented to -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-119 (Document Number USSR-119). - -I omit the beginning of Page 42 of my report. - -In January 1942, in the Rezeknes district of the Latvian Socialist -Soviet Republic, the Germans destroyed the village of Audrini with its -entire population, ostensibly for having aided members of the Red Army. -In the towns of Latvia a notice to this effect was posted by the chief -of the German State Security Police in Latvia, SS Obersturmbannführer -Strauch, in German, Latvian, and Russian. - -I present to the Tribunal a certified photostatic copy of this notice as -Exhibit Number USSR-262 (Document Number USSR-262), and I read into the -record an excerpt from this document. This excerpt is on Page 158: - - “The commander of the Security Police in Latvia hereby announces - the following: - - “. . . 2) The inhabitants of the village of Audrini, in the - Rezeknes district, concealed members of the Red Army for over - one-quarter of a year, armed them, and assisted them in every - way in their anti-government activities. . . . - - “As punishment I ordered the following: - - “a) That the village of Audrini be wiped from the face of the - earth.” - -The Hitlerites widely practiced punitive expeditions in the occupied -districts of the Leningrad region. As can be seen from a verdict of the -military tribunal of the Leningrad Military District, which is submitted -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-91 (Document Number USSR-91), the -Hitlerites burned down, in February 1944, 10 inhabited localities in the -Dedovitch, Pozherevitz, and Ostrov districts. The Hitlerite punitive -expeditions also burned down the villages of Strashevo and Zapolye in -the Plyuss district, and the villages of Bolshye, Lyady, Ludoni, and -others. - -Numerous punitive detachments, acting on the orders of the German -Supreme Command, burned down many hundreds of inhabited localities in -the Yugoslav territory. - -I refer, as evidence, to the third section of the report of the Yugoslav -State Commission for establishment of the crimes of the German invaders, -which has been presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-36, and -also to the special memorandum of the Yugoslav State Commission, -numbered 2697 (45) and signed by Professor Nedelkovitsch, which I -present to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-309. This document is on -Pages 165 to 167 of the document book. In these documents we find a -number of facts concerning the burning and destruction of villages and -hamlets by the special punitive expeditions of the Hitlerites. As -examples, the localities of Zagnezdye, Udora, Mechkovatz, Marsich, -Grashniza, Rudnika, Krupnya, Rastovach, Orakh, Grabovica, Drachich, -Lozinda, and many others can be named. Whole districts of Yugoslavia -were completely devastated after the Germans had been there. - -I also present to the Tribunal the original copy of a notice by the -so-called Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, which I beg the Tribunal to -accept as evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-200 (Document Number -USSR-200). This notice was captured in Serbia by troops of the Yugoslav -Army of Liberation, which fact is duly certified by the Yugoslav State -Commission in Belgrade. I read into the record only one paragraph: “The -Commander-in-Chief of Serbia announces: The village of Skela has been -burned and razed to the ground.” - -German punitive detachments also destroyed inhabited localities in -Poland. As evidence I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-368 -(Document Number USSR-368), which is an affidavit of the Plenipotentiary -of the Polish Government, Dr. Stefan Kurovsky. This affidavit is an -appendix to the report of the Polish Government and is on Page 169 of -your document book. - -This document ascertains that in the spring of 1943 in the territory of -Zamoisk, Bilgoraisk, Khrubeshovsk, and Krasnitzk the Germans burned down -a number of inhabited localities under the orders of the SS leader, -Globocznik; and in February 1944 five villages were destroyed in the -Krasnitzk district with the help of the air force. - -The Germans burned and razed to the ground a considerable number of -inhabited localities in Greece. As examples we shall name the -settlements of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Ano-Kerzilion, and -Kato-Kerzilion in the Salonika district, and the settlements of -Mesovunos and Selli in the Korzani district, and others. - -I present to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-103 (Document Number -USSR-103), certified photostatic copies of three telegraphic reports of -the 164th German Infantry Division to the Chief of Staff of the 12th -Army. These reports, Your Honors, are on Page 170 of your document book. -Each of these reports consists of nine to ten lines. They are uniform in -type and standardized. But these short official documents reveal in -essence the monstrous system generally employed by the Hitlerites in the -territories occupied by them. - -I shall read into the record one of these reports. I read: - - “18 October 1941; to the Chief of Staff of the 12th Army, - Athens. - - “Daily report. - - “1. The villages of Ano-Kerzilion and Kato-Kerzilion (75 - kilometers east of Salonika on the mouth of the Struma) which - had been ascertained to be the base of a considerable guerrilla - band in this area, were razed to the ground by troops of the - division on 17 October. The male inhabitants between 16 and 60 - years of age—(totalling 207 persons)—were shot, women and - children evacuated. - - “2. No other special incidents.” - -Surely, there is no need for a comment regarding this document. - -I should also like to refer to the official report of the Greek -Government, which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-379 (Document Number UK-82). On pages 29 and 30 of the report, -which correspond to Page 207 of your document book, we find numerous -facts concerning the burning and destruction of villages on the Island -of Crete. Thus, the villages of Skiki, Prassi, and Kanados were -completely burned down in retaliation for the murder of some German -parachutists carried out by the employees of the local police at the -time of the attack on the Island of Crete. Certain villages were -demolished by the Germans for the sole reason that they were in the -partisans’ zone of operations. - -It is stated in the report that 1,600 out of 6,500 villages were -completely or partially demolished. It should also be noted that the -Germans intentionally bombed undefended towns and caused heavy damage to -23 Greek towns, among which the towns of Yanina, Arta, Preveza, Tukkala, -Larissa, and Canea were almost completely destroyed. This is mentioned -on Page 21 of the report of the Greek Government. It is on Page 190 of -your document book. - -Your Honors, the whole world knows about the Hitlerites’ crimes at -Lidice. The 10th of June 1942 was the last day of Lidice and of its -inhabitants. The fascist barbarians left irrefutable evidence of their -monstrous crime. They made a film of the annihilation of Lidice, and we -are able to show this evidence to the Tribunal. Upon orders from the -Czechoslovak Government, a special investigation was carried out which -established that the filming of the tragedy of Lidice was entrusted by -the so-called Protector to an adviser on photography of the NSDAP, one -Franz Treml, and was carried out by him in conjunction with Miroslav -Wagner. Among the documents which we present to the Tribunal are -photographs of the operators who filmed the phases of the destruction of -Lidice. - -I present these documents to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-370 -(Document Number USSR-370). I should like to remark, Your Honors, that -this film is a German documentary film. It was filmed a few years ago. -The technical state of this reel is not very satisfactory, and therefore -when we present it, there may be a few defects. - -I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal beforehand and request permission -to show this film. - -[_Moving pictures were then shown._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What the Germans perpetrated in Lidice was -repeated a short time later in another inhabited point of Czechoslovakia -in the village of Lezhaky. I shall refer as evidence to the Czechoslovak -Government’s report, Pages 126-127. This report is presented to the -Court as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document Number USSR-60). This report -states, “Lezhaky, like Lidice, was totally destroyed and the ground -where it stood is now covered over with rubble.” - -I pass on to the next section of my report, the destruction of villages -and towns, industry, and transport in the territory of the U.S.S.R. - -Your Honors, I have quoted above the general directives of the criminal -Hitler Government and the German Supreme Command concerning the -destruction of inhabited centers, industry, and means of communications -in the U.S.S.R. Now I pass on to the presentation of evidence of those -destructions which were carried out in execution of these directives by -the Hitlerites everywhere on the territory of the Soviet Union which -they temporarily occupied. - -I omit the evidence regarding the destruction of single towns of the -Soviet Union and pass on to the presentation of my report beginning on -Page 42. - -There are a large number of documents at the disposal of the Soviet -Prosecution which incriminate the Hitlerite criminals in premeditated -and systematic, calculated and cruel annihilation and destruction of -cities and towns, plants and factories, railways and means of -communication. - -The presentation of all this documentation would seriously delay the -Trial. Therefore, I consider it possible to pass on to the presentation -of the general conclusive data established by the Extraordinary State -Commission of the Soviet Union instead of presenting separate documents. - -From Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), I shall read into -the record only those sections and data which have not been read into -the record previously and only those which directly concern my subject. -These extracts, Your Honors, are on Pages 223-224 of your document book. -I quote: - - “The German fascist invaders totally or partially destroyed and - burned 1,710 towns and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets. - They burned and destroyed more than 6 million buildings and - rendered some 25 million persons homeless. Among the destroyed - towns which suffered most are the greatest industrial and - cultural centers: Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Leningrad, Kiev, - Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, Orel, Kharkov, - Voronezh, Rostov-on-the-Don, and many others. - - “The German fascist invaders destroyed 31,850 industrial works - which employed some 4 million workers.” - -I omit the end of Page 43, Pages 44 and 45, and the beginning of Page 46 -of my report. - - “The Hitlerites destroyed . . . 36,000 postal and telegraphic - offices, telephone centers, and other communication - centers. . . . During their occupation of a part of the - territory of the Soviet Union, and especially during their - retreat, the German fascist invaders caused great damage to the - railway system, waterways, and river transport. - - “They used special machines for the destruction of roads and - thus put out of action 26, and partially destroyed eight, main - railway lines. They destroyed 65,000 kilometers of rails and - 500,000 kilometers of cables for the automatic railroad - controls, signals, and communication lines. They blew up 13,000 - railway bridges, 4,100 railway stations, and 1,600 water - pressure stations. They destroyed 317 locomotive depots and 129 - locomotive and wagon repair shops, as well as railway machine - works. - - “They destroyed, damaged, or evacuated to Germany 15,800 - locomotives, and Diesel locomotives, and 428,000 railway cars. - - “The enemy caused great damage to the buildings, enterprises, - and institutions and ships of the shipping lines operating in - the Arctic Ocean, in the White Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black, - and the Caspian Seas. They sank or partially damaged more than - 1,400 passenger, cargo, and special ships. - - “The sea ports of Sevastopol, Mariupol, Kerch, Novorossisk, - Odessa, Nikolaiev, Leningrad, Murmansk, Lepaya, Tallinn, and - other ports equipped with modern technical installations - suffered greatly. - - “The invaders sank or captured 4,280 passenger and cargo ships - and steam tugs of the river shipping and auxiliary services, as - well as 4,029 barges. They destroyed 479 harbor and quay - installations, as well as 89 dockyards and machine factories. - - “While retreating under the pressure of the Red Army, German - troops blew up and destroyed 91,000 kilometers of highways and - 90,000 road bridges of a total length of 930 kilometers.” - -With this I conclude my statement, Your Honors. - -The documents which were read into the record and presented to the -Tribunal clearly demonstrate how the Hitlerite conspirators, in all the -territories seized by them in the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, -Czechoslovakia, and Greece, violated the laws and customs of war, the -fundamental principles of criminal law, and the direct provisions of -Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907. - -The documents submitted also prove that the German invaders contemplated -complete destruction of cities and villages from which the Hitlerites -were compelled to retreat under the blows of the Armed Forces of the -Soviet Union. - -Finally these documents show with what bestial cruelty and mercilessness -the Hitlerites carried out their criminal plans in reducing to dust and -ashes the largest cultural and industrial centers. Over a wide area from -the White to the Black and the Aegean Seas, in the territory temporarily -occupied by the German troops, the Hitlerites purposely and according to -plan reduced to ruins densely populated and flourishing Russian, -Bielorussian, Yugoslavian, Greek, and Czechoslovakian cities, towns, and -villages. All this was the result of the criminal activity of the -Hitlerite Government and of the German High Command, the representatives -of which are now in the dock. - -In conclusion I should like, Mr. President, to present as evidence and -as Exhibit Number USSR-401 (Document Number USSR-401) a documentary film -concerning the destruction perpetrated by the Germans on the territories -of the Soviet Union. Documents certifying the authenticity of this film -are now being submitted to the Tribunal. - -[_Moving pictures were then shown._] - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until 1410 hours. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, in order to exhaust fully the -presentation of evidence on the subject matter of my report I ask your -permission to examine witness Joseph Abgarovitch Orbeli who has been -brought to the courthouse. Orbeli will testify to the destruction of the -monuments of culture and art in Leningrad. - -[_Dr. Servatius approached the lectern._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any objections to make? - -DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel and for the -Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): I would like to ask the Court to -decide whether the witness can be heard on this subject, whether this -single piece of evidence is relevant. Leningrad was never in German -hands. Leningrad was only fired upon with the regular combat weapons of -the troops and also attacked from the air, just as it is done regularly -by all the armies of the world. It must be established what is to be -proved by this witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that there is no substance in the -objection that has just been made, and we will hear the witness. - -[_The witness Orbeli took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: What is your name? - -JOSEPH ABGAROVITCH ORBELI (Witness): Joseph Abgarovitch Orbeli. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the oath after me—state your name again: -I—Orbeli, Joseph, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as a witness in this Trial—in the presence of the -Court—promise and swear—to tell the Court nothing but the truth—about -everything I know in regard to this case. - -[_The witness repeated the oath in Russian._] - -THE PRESIDENT: You may sit if you wish. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Witness, will you tell us, please, what -position do you occupy? - -ORBELI: Director of the State Hermitage. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What is your scientific title? - -ORBELI: I am a member of the Academy of Science of the Union of the -Soviet Socialist Republics, an active member of the Academy of -Architecture of the U.S.S.R., an active member and president of the -Armenian Academy of Science, an honorable Member of the Iran Academy of -Science, member of the Society of Antiquarians in London, and a -consultant member of the American Institute of Art and Archeology. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you in Leningrad at the time of the German -blockade? - -ORBELI: Yes, I was. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Do you know about the destruction of monuments -of culture and art in Leningrad? - -ORBELI: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Can you tell the Tribunal the facts that are -known to you? - -ORBELI: Besides general observations which I was able to make after the -cessation of hostilities around Leningrad, I was also an eyewitness of -the measures undertaken by the enemy for destruction of the Hermitage -Museum, and the buildings of the Hermitage and the Winter Palace, where -the exhibits from the Hermitage Museum were displayed. During many long -months these buildings were under systematic air bombardment and -artillery shelling. Two air bombs and about 30 artillery shells hit the -Hermitage. Shells caused considerable damage to the building, and air -bombs destroyed the drainage system and water conduit system of the -Hermitage. - -While observing the destruction done to the Hermitage I could also see, -across the river, the buildings of the Academy of Science, namely: the -Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the Zoological Museum, and right -next to it the Naval Museum, in the building of the former Stock -Exchange. All these buildings were under especially heavy bombardment of -incendiary bombs. I saw the effect of these hits from a window in the -Winter Palace. - -Artillery shells caused considerable damage to the Hermitage. I shall -mention the most important. One shell broke the portico of the main -building of the Hermitage, facing the Millionnaya Street and damaged the -piece of sculpture “Atlanta.” - -The other shell went through the ceiling of one of the most sumptuous -halls in the Winter Palace and caused considerable damage there. The -former stable of the Winter Palace was hit by two shells. Among court -carriages of the 17th and 18th centuries that were there displayed, four -from the 18th century of high artistic value, and one 19th century gilt -carriage were shattered to pieces by one of these shells. Furthermore, -one shell went through the ceiling of the Numismatic Hall and of the -Hall of Columns in the main building of the Hermitage, and a balcony of -this hall was destroyed by it. - -At the same time, a branch building of the Hermitage Museum on Solyanoy -Lane, namely the former Stieglitz Museum was hit by a bomb from the air -which caused very great damage to the building. The building was -absolutely unfit for use, and a large part of the exhibits in this -building suffered damage. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Please tell me, Witness, do I understand you -correctly? You spoke about the destruction of the Hermitage and you -mentioned the Winter Palace. Is that only one building? Where was the -Hermitage located, the one you mentioned? - -ORBELI: Before the October Revolution, the Hermitage occupied a special -building of its own facing Millionnaya Street, and the other side facing -the Palace Quay of the Neva. After the Revolution, the Little Hermitage, -the building of the Hermitage Theater, the building which separated the -Hermitage proper from the Winter Palace, and later even the entire -Winter Palace were incorporated into the Hermitage. - -Therefore, at the present moment the series of buildings comprising the -Hermitage consist of the Winter Palace, the Little Hermitage, and Great -Hermitage, which was occupied by the museum prior to the Revolution, and -also the building of the Hermitage Theater, which was built during the -reign of Catherine II by the architect Quarenghi and which was hit by -the incendiary bomb which I mentioned. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides the destruction of the Winter Palace -and the Hermitage, do you know any other facts about the destruction of -other cultural monuments? - -ORBELI: I observed a series of monuments of Leningrad which suffered -damage from artillery shelling and bombing from the air. Among them -damage was caused to the Kazan Cathedral, which was built in 1814 by -Architect Voronikhin, Isaak’s Cathedral, whose pillars still bear the -traces of damage pitted in the granite. - -Within the city limits considerable damage was done to the Rastrelli -Wing near the Smolny Cathedral, which was built by Rastrelli. The middle -part of the gallery was blown up. Furthermore, considerable damage by -artillery fire was done to the surface of the walls of the Fortress of -Peter and Paul, which cannot now be considered a military objective. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides Leningrad proper do you know anything -about the destruction and devastation of the suburbs of Leningrad? - -ORBELI: I had the chance to acquaint myself in detail with the condition -of the monuments of Peterhof, Tzarskoye Ssyelo, and Pavlovsk; in all -those three towns I saw traces of the monstrous damage to those -monuments. And all the damage which I saw, and which is very hard to -describe in full because it is too great, all of it showed traces of -premeditation. - -To prove, for instance, that the shelling of the Winter Palace was -premeditated, I could mention that the 30 shells did not hit the -Hermitage all at once but during a longer period and that not more than -one shell hit it during each shooting. - -In Peterhof, besides the damage caused to the Great Palace by fire which -completely destroyed this monument, I also saw gold sheetings torn from -the roofs of the Great Palace, the dome of Peterhof Cathedral, and the -building at the opposite end of this enormous palace. It was obvious -that the gold sheetings could not fly off because of the fire alone, but -were intentionally torn off. - -In Monplaisir, the oldest building of Peterhof, built by Peter the -Great, the damage showed also signs of long and gradual ravages, and was -not a result of a catastrophe. The precious oak carvings covering the -walls were torn off. The ancient Dutch tile stoves, of the time of Peter -the Great, disappeared without trace, and temporary, roughly-built -stoves were put in their place. The Great Palace, built by Rastrelli in -Tsarskoye Ssyelo, shows indubitable traces of intentional destruction. -For example, the parquet floors in numerous halls were cut out and -carried away, while the building itself was destroyed by fire. In -Catherine’s Palace, an auxiliary munition plant was installed, and the -precious carved 18th century fireplace was used as a furnace and was -rendered absolutely worthless. - -Paul’s Palace, which was also destroyed by fire, showed many a sign that -the valuable property that once could be found in its halls was carried -out before the Palace had been set on fire. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Tell me, please, you said the Winter Palace as -well as the other cultural monuments that you mentioned were -intentionally destroyed. Upon what facts do you base that statement? - -ORBELI: The fact that the shelling of the Hermitage by artillery fire -during the siege was premeditated was quite clear to me and to all my -colleagues because damage was caused not casually by artillery shelling -during one or two raids, but systematically, during the methodical -shelling of the city, which we witnessed for months. The first shells -did not hit the Hermitage or the Winter Palace—they passed near by; -they were finding the range and after this they would fire in the same -direction, with just a little deviation from the straight line. Not more -than one or two shells during one particular shelling would actually hit -the Palace. Of course, this could not be accidental in character. - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no more questions for the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Prosecuting Counsel want to ask any -questions? Do any of the Defense Counsel want to ask any questions? - -DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and High Command of -the German Armed Forces): Witness, you have just said that through -artillery shelling and also through aerial bombs, the Hermitage, the -Winter Palace, and also the Peterhof Palace were destroyed. I would be -very much interested to know where these buildings are located; that is, -as seen from Leningrad. - -ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage, which stands right next to -it, are in the center of Leningrad on the banks of the Neva on the -Palace Quay, not far from the Palace Bridge, which during all the -shelling, was hit only once. On the other side, facing the Neva, next to -the Winter Palace and the Hermitage, there are the Palace Square and -Halturin Street. Did I answer your question? - -DR. LATERNSER: I meant the question a little differently. In what part -of Leningrad were these buildings—in the south, the north, the -southwest, or southeast section? Will you inform me on that? - -ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage are right in the center of -Leningrad on the banks of the Neva, as I have already mentioned before. - -DR. LATERNSER: And where is Peterhof? - -ORBELI: Peterhof is on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, southwest of -the Hermitage, if you consider the Hermitage as the starting point. - -DR. LATERNSER: Can you tell me whether near the Hermitage Palace and -Winter Palace there are any industries, particularly armament -industries? - -ORBELI: So far as I know, in the vicinity of the Hermitage, there are no -military enterprises. If the question meant the building of the General -Staff, that is located on the other side of the Palace Square, and it -suffered much less from shelling than the Winter Palace. The General -Staff building, which is on the other side of Palace Square was, so far -as I know, hit only by two shells. - -DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether there were artillery batteries, -perhaps, near the buildings which you mentioned? - -ORBELI: On the whole square around the Winter Palace and the Hermitage -there was not a single artillery battery, because from the very -beginning steps were taken to prevent any unnecessary vibration near the -buildings where such precious museum pieces were. - -DR. LATERNSER: Did the factories, the armament factories, continue -production during the siege? - -ORBELI: I do not understand the question. What factories are you talking -about—the factories of Leningrad in general? - -DR. LATERNSER: The Leningrad armament factories. Did they continue -production during the siege? - -ORBELI: On the grounds of the Hermitage, the Winter Palace, and in the -immediate neighborhood, no military enterprise worked. They were never -there and during the blockade no factories were built there. But I know -that in Leningrad munitions were being made, and were successfully used. - -DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Winter Palace is on the Neva River. How far -from the Winter Palace is the nearest bridge across the Neva River? - -ORBELI: The nearest bridge, the Palace Bridge, is 50 meters from the -Palace, at a distance of the breadth of the quay, but, as I have already -said, only one shell hit the bridge during the shellings; that is why I -am sure that the Winter Palace was deliberately shelled. I cannot admit -that while shelling the bridge, only one shell hit the bridge and 30 hit -the near-by building. The other bridge, the Stock Exchange Bridge, -connecting Vasilievsky Island with the Petrograd side, is on the -opposite bank of the Great Neva. Only a few incendiary bombs were -dropped from planes on this bridge. The fires which broke out on the -Stock Exchange Bridge were extinguished. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, those are conclusions that you are drawing. Have -you any knowledge whatever of artillery from which you can judge whether -the target was the palace or the bridge beside it? - -ORBELI: I never was an artillery man, but I suppose that if German -artillery was aiming only at the bridge then it could not possibly hit -the bridge only once and hit the palace, which is across the way, with -30 shells. Within these limits—I am an artillery man. - -DR. SERVATIUS: That is your conviction as a non-artillery man. I have -another question. The Neva River was used by the fleet. How far from the -Winter Palace were the ships of the Red Fleet? - -ORBELI: In that part of the Neva River there were no battleships which -were firing or were used for such kind of service. The Neva ships were -anchored in another part of the river, far from the Winter Palace. - -DR. SERVATIUS: One last question. Were you in Leningrad during the -entire period of the siege? - -ORBELI: I was in Leningrad from the first day of the war until 31 March -1942. Then I returned to Leningrad when the German troops were driven -out of the suburbs of Leningrad and had a chance to inspect Peterhof, -Tsarskoye Ssyelo, and Pavlovsk. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you. I have no more questions. - -THE PRESIDENT: General, do you want to ask the witness any questions in -re-examination? - -MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: We have no further questions. - -THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE 3RD CLASS MAJOR GENERAL N. D. ZORYA -(Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, I -want to begin to submit documentary evidence on the part of the Soviet -Prosecution with regard to the employment of compulsory slave labor -practiced by the Hitlerite conspirators on an enormous scale. - -Fascism, with its plans for world domination, with its denial of law, -ethics, mercy, and humane considerations, foresaw the enslavement of the -peaceful population of the temporarily occupied territories, the -deportation of millions of people to fascist Germany, and the compulsory -utilization of their labor power. Fascism and slavery—these two -concepts are inseparable. - -I shall begin, Your Honors, the presentation of documents relating to -this count with the report of the Yugoslav Republic, which has already -been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document -Number USSR-36). I shall ask you to look at Page 40 of the report, which -is on Page 41 of the document book at the disposal of the Tribunal. I -read into the record extracts from the report of the Yugoslav Republic, -which is entitled, “Forced Labor of Civilians.” I quote: - - “The Nazi policy of the wholesale exploitation of the occupied - territories has also been applied in Yugoslavia. - - “Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia the Reich - Government and the OKW introduced obligatory labor service for - the population of the occupied territory. The exploitation of - manpower in Yugoslavia has been carried out within the framework - of the general German plan. The Defendant Göring, as the leader - of the German economic plan, issued directives to his - subordinates concerning the systematic exploitation of manpower - of the occupied territories. - - “In a report from Berlin, written by one of the head - functionaries of the economic service of the German Kommandantur - in Belgrade, named Ranze, instructions by Göring are - communicated, according to which the economic measures in the - occupied territories do not aim at the protection of the local - population, but at the exploitation of manpower of the occupied - countries for the benefit of the German war economy. - - “Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia, the Germans - established offices for enlisting workers for ‘voluntary’ labor - in Germany. They also used the organizations which already - existed in Yugoslavia for arranging employment of workers, and - began to carry out their plans through these organizations. - Thus, for example, in Serbia they used the central office for - arranging employment of workers as well as the labor exchange. - Through these organizations, until the end of February 1943, and - from Serbia alone the Germans sent 47,500 workers to Germany. - Later on this number considerably increased but the relative - data in this respect have not yet been fully established. These - workers were employed in agriculture and various industries in - Germany, mostly in the heaviest work.” - -In the report of the Yugoslav Republic it is stated that the Gestapo and -a special commission used pressure and force. This went so far that -these “volunteer” workers were hunted in the streets, collected in -units, and herded into Germany by force. - - “Apart from these so-called ‘volunteer’ workers, the Germans - sent into forced labor in Germany a large number of prisoners - from various camps, as well as politically ‘suspicious’ persons, - who had to perform the heaviest kinds of work under disgusting - living and working conditions. As early as 1942 many innocent - victims of the Banyitza, Saimishte, and other camps, were sent - into Germany. - - “The first transport of them left on 24 April 1942, and these - transports continued without interruption until 26 September - 1944. Old and young, men and women, farmers, workers, - intellectuals, and others were taken not only to Germany, but to - other countries under German occupation as well. - - “According to the registers of Banyitza Camp, which are far from - giving an exact picture, over 10,000 prisoners were sent for - forced labor from this camp alone. - - “The German authorities in Serbia issued a series of orders, - aiming at maximum exploitation of manpower. Among the first - measures two decrees were passed: The Decree for General Labor - Service and Restriction of the Freedom of Labor, of 14 December - 1941, and the Decree for the National Labor Service for the - Reconstruction of Serbia, of 5 November 1941. According to the - first decree all persons between 17 and 45 years of age could be - called up for compulsory labor in certain enterprises and - branches of economy. According to the second order, such persons - could be called up for civilian service in the National - Reconstruction, which in fact meant that they had to work for - the strengthening of the German economic and war effort. - - “The persons eligible for labor in accordance with these two - laws, although remaining in the country, worked in fact for the - aims and benefit of the Germans’ economic exploitation. They - were primarily used for work in the mines (Bor, Kostolac, _et - cetera_), for road building and railway line repairs, in the - water transport, and so on. - - “On 26 March 1943 the German Commander of Serbia, Befehlshaber - Serbien, in a special order introduced the so-called war economy - measures of the Reich in the occupied territory of Serbia, and - by this act imposed the general mobilization of manpower in - Serbia. . . . - - “By this decree, therefore, the entire population of occupied - Serbia was mobilized for the German war economy. The Germans - exploited Serbian manpower, in fact, to the greatest possible - extent. . . . - - “The situation was in no way different in the other occupied - areas of Yugoslavia. Without entering into numerous details of - this planned exploitation, we shall quote here only one example - from occupied Slovenia. - - “According to an official announcement of the German Farmers’ - Union in Carinthia (Landesbauernschaft Kärnten) of 10 August - 1944, issued in Klagenfurt, every case of pregnancy of - non-German women was to be reported, and in all such cases these - women were to be obliged to have their child ‘removed by - operation in a hospital.’ The announcement itself explains that - in cases when non-German women give birth to their children this - ‘creates difficulties for their use in work,’ and besides, it is - also ‘a danger for the population policy.’ Furthermore, this - announcement states that the Office of Labor Service should try - to influence these women to commit an abortion. - - “As another proof of the exploitation of manpower, we quote the - circular instructions of the German Landrat for the Marburg - (Maribor) district, of 12 August 1944. This circular deals with - the question of enlisting everybody eligible according to that - decree into the armed forces and into the labor service, and it - calls upon all the inhabitants of Lower Styria, and not only - upon the indigenous population, but also upon the Dutchmen, - Danes, Swedes, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Belgians who may - find themselves living there.” - -I shall pass on now to the Report of the Polish Government which was -presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number -USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). First we should note the special role -of the Defendant Frank in organizing deportations of the Polish -population for compulsory labor to Germany. I shall read into the record -several excerpts from a document known under the title “Frank’s Diary,” -which is at the disposal of the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-223 -(Document Number USSR-223). - -Frank described his attitude toward the Poles at the meeting of the -section chiefs which took place in Kraków, 12 April 1940, as follows—I -shall quote an excerpt on Page 62 of the document book, to be exact, on -the reverse side of the page. I quote: - - “Under pressure from the Reich, it had now been decreed that, - since sufficient labor did not present itself voluntarily for - service in the German Reich, compulsion could be used. This - compulsion meant the possibility of arresting male and female - Poles. A certain amount of unrest had been caused by this, - which, according to some reports, had spread very widely and - which could lead to difficulties in all spheres. Field Marshal - Göring had once pointed out, in his big speech, the necessity - for sending a million workers to the Reich. One hundred and - sixty thousand had been delivered to date. . . . To arrest young - Poles as they left church or the cinema would lead to - ever-increasing nervousness among the Poles. Fundamentally Frank - had no objections to removing people capable of work who were - lounging about in the streets. But the best way would be to - organize a round-up, and one was absolutely justified in - stopping a Pole in the street and asking him what work he did, - where he was employed, _et cetera_.” - -During his conversation with Defendant Sauckel, 18 August 1942, the -Defendant Frank stated—I quote the part which is on Page 67 of the -document book: - - “I am pleased to be able . . . to inform you officially that we - have now supplied more than 800,000 workers for the Reich. . . . - - “You recently requested the supply of a further 140,000 workers. - I am pleased to be able to inform you that, in accordance with - our agreement of yesterday’s date, we shall deliver 60 percent - of these newly requested workers to the Reich by the end of - October and the remaining 40 percent by the end of the - year. . . . - - “Over and above the present figure of 140,000, you can, however, - count on a further number of workers from the Government General - next year, as we are going to use the police to recruit them.” - -Frank fulfilled his promise given to the Defendant Sauckel. - -At the conference of the political leaders of the Labor Front in the -Government General, 14 December 1942, Frank stated in his address—this -is on the same page of the document book: - - “You know that we have delivered more than 940,000 Polish - workers to the Reich. The Government General thereby stands - absolutely and relatively at the head of all European countries. - This achievement is enormous and has also been recognized as - such by Gauleiter Sauckel.” - -Will you kindly permit me to quote that section of the report of the -Government of the Polish Republic which is entitled, “Deportation of the -Civilian Population for Forced Labor.” This document is on Page 72 and -73 of the document book: - - “a) As early as on 2 October 1939 a decree was issued by Frank - concerning the introduction of forced labor for the Polish - civilian population within the Government General. By virtue of - the said decree Polish civilians were under the obligation to - work in agricultural establishments, on the maintenance of - public buildings, road construction, regulation of rivers, - highways, and railways. - - “b) A further decree of 12 December 1939 extended the groups of - those liable to forced labor to children from the age of 14 - years. And a decree of 13 May 1942 gave the authorities the - right to use forced labor even outside the Government General. - - “c) The practice which developed on the basis of those decrees - turned into mass deportation of civilians from Poland to - Germany. - - “Throughout the Government General, in towns and villages, - posters were continually inviting Poles to go ‘voluntarily’ to - work in Germany. At the same time however every town and village - was told how many workers it was to supply. - - “The result of the ‘voluntary’ recruitment was usually very - disappointing. As a result of that the German authorities - invited the people to go or arranged round-ups in the streets, - restaurants, and other places, and those caught were sent - straight to Germany. There was a particular hunt for young - workers of both sexes. The families of those deported received - no news from them for months and only after some time postcards - arrived describing the poor conditions in which they were forced - to live. Often, after several months, the workers used to return - home in a state of spiritual depression and complete physical - exhaustion. - - “There is substantial evidence that while on that forced labor - thousands of men were sterilized, while young girls were forced - into public houses. - - “d) These laborers were either sent to live with German farmers - to work on their land, to work in factories, or to special work - in forced labor camps. The conditions in those camps were - terrible. - - “e) According to provisional estimates, in 1940 alone 100,000 - women and men were sent to Germany as laborers. - - “f) To this great army of slave workers thousands of Poles - deported from the incorporated territories have to be added and - also 200,000 Polish prisoners of war who, by a decree issued by - Hitler in August 1940, were ‘released’ from camps, but only to - be sent to forced labor into various parts of Germany. - - “g) These deportations continued throughout the years of war. - The total number of those workers reached at a certain point a - figure of 2 million. - - “Exact figures are obviously not available. But if one considers - that in spite of the very high death rate among those people, - there are now about 835,000 Polish citizens registered in - western Germany, the estimate appears correct. - - “The whole chapter concerning the deportations to forced labor - is presented here in a very condensed form. Behind these few - lines lies the history of hundreds of thousands of Polish - families destroyed, tragedy, death, and sorrow. The history of - each of these laborers was a continuous tragedy: fathers leaving - their families without means; husbands their wives with no - possibility of maintaining them, with no protection and little - hope of return. The quoted number of 2 million conceals an ocean - of broken lives, involving, at the least, 10 percent of the - total population of Poland. - - “This was a terrible crime. Deportation and forced labor were a - flagrant violation of the laws and customs of war.” - -The Greek Report on German atrocities, submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-369 (Document Number USSR-369) states the -following—I beg you to refer to Page 74 of the document book: - - “As in all the other occupied territories, the Germans pursued - two main objectives in their occupational policy in Greece: the - maximum exploitation of the country’s resources in the interests - of the German military economy, and the enslavement of the - population by means of systematic terror and general repression. - The Germans pursued their two-sided policy of plunder and - revenge, violating commonly accepted laws.” - -The section of the report of the Greek Government entitled “Recruitment -of Manpower” contains two paragraphs which I intend to read into the -record: - - “One of the problems confronting the German administration was - that of recruiting labor. All males between 16 and 50 years of - age were liable to labor conscription. Strikes were declared - illegal, and severe penalties enforced for resort thereto. - Persons who organized and directed a strike were liable to the - death penalty. Strikers were tried by military courts. - - “At first the Germans, by propaganda and various forms of - indirect pressure, tried to recruit Greek labor to work within - Germany. They promised high wages and better conditions of life. - As this kind of ‘voluntary’ recruitment failed to produce the - expected results they abandoned it and confronted the workers - with the dilemma either of being taken as hostages or else of - being sent to Germany to work.” - -Similar measures of deportation of manpower to Germany were applied by -the fascists also in Czechoslovakia. - -But the deportation by the fascist criminals of the peaceful populations -into slave labor reached its climax in the temporarily occupied -territories of the Soviet Union. I would like now to dwell briefly on -the preparatory measures taken by the Hitlerite criminals for the -utilization of forced labor in the temporarily occupied territories of -the Soviet Union. - -Even before their attack on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in -a document which is known to the Tribunal as the “Green File” of the -Defendant Göring, Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document Number EC-472), a -whole chapter was dedicated to the problem of organizing compulsory -labor in the Soviet territories which the war criminals intended to -occupy; the chapter was called “Allocation of Labor and Recruitment of -Indigenous Population.” - -This chapter—Pages 17 and 18 of the Russian text of the Green File, -which is on Page 83 of the document book—lays down the Principle of -compulsory labor for the peaceful Soviet population. - -Paragraphs 3 and 2 of Subsection A in the second part of that chapter -entitled, “Recruitment of the Local Population,” point out that: - - “The workers in public utilities—gas, water, electricity, oil - drilling, oil distilling, and oil storage, as well as emergency - work in important industries . . . will be ordered to continue - their work under threat of punishment, if necessary.” - -And several lines above that: - - “In case of necessity, the workers will be organized into labor - gangs.” - -The nonpayment of wages for the compulsory labor of Soviet citizens had -already been provided for in this so-called Göring’s Green File. It was -presupposed that the problem of payment was reduced to the question of -providing the workers with food. The fascist slave owners were only -interested in maintaining the working potential of the people and -nothing more—Page 18 of the Russian text of the Green File. This is the -back of Page 83 of the document book. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: This document has already been read into the record. - -GEN. ZORYA: I think that this particular part of the document has not -been read into the record. This is a document of the Soviet Prosecution, -which was published completely for the first time in the note of the -People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, in May 1942. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you say that it has not yet been read into the record, -please go on. - -GEN. ZORYA: On Page 18 of the Russian text of the Defendant Göring’s -Green File it is mentioned at least three times that food was to be the -only payment. I do not wish to take more time of the Tribunal with this -document, but will proceed with my presentation. - -Defendant Göring, who signed this directive for the plunder of the -Soviet Union—for how else could we refer to the above-mentioned -document—continued to organize forced labor in the temporarily occupied -territories of the Soviet Union. - -As evidence I present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-386 (Document -Number USSR-386), a document which discloses this phase of the Defendant -Göring’s activity. This document, or to be precise, these two documents -are the record of the conference of 7 November 1941, on “Allocation of -Russians,” in which Göring participated, and a covering letter to this -record. - -One hundred copies of the document were originally prepared and mailed -to the 14 addresses which are listed, as Your Honors may see, on Page 5 -of the Russian text of the document, at the end of the covering letter. - -The covering letter attached to the record bears the signature of the -Chief, Military Administration, Economic Staff East, Dr. Rachner. The -minutes of the conference in question have been written by one Von -Normann who was evidently an official of the same organization. - -I think it will promote clarification if I read into the record certain -parts of these minutes. I quote Page 6 of the Russian text of the -document which corresponds to Pages 95 and 96 of the document book: - - “Conference of 7 November 1941 on the allocation of Russian - manpower. The Reich Marshal gave the following directives for - the utilization of Russian manpower: - - “I. Russian labor has demonstrated its capacity for production - in building up the gigantic industry of Russia. It must now be - successfully allocated in the Reich. In the face of such an - order of the Führer, objections are of secondary importance. The - disadvantages that may result from the employment of Russian - labor must be reduced to a minimum, and this is primarily the - concern of the counterintelligence service (Abwehr) and the - Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei). - - “II. Russians in the operational zone. The Russians are to be - used primarily in the construction of roads and railroads, for - clearing work, clearing out mine fields, and in the construction - of air fields. The German construction battalions are largely to - be dissolved (for example in the Air Force). German skilled - workmen belong in war industry. Digging and stone breaking is - not their work. The Russian is there for that. - - “III. Russians in the territories of the Reich commissioners and - of the Government General. Here the same principle applies as in - the second paragraph. In addition, increased use in agriculture; - if machines are lacking, manpower must produce what the Reich - will have to demand in the agrarian sector from the Eastern - territories. Further local manpower should be made available for - the ruthless exploitation of the Russian coal deposits. - - “IV. Russians in the territory of the Reich, including the - Protectorate. The number to be employed is to be determined by - the need. Need is to be decided from the standpoint that foreign - workers who eat much and produce little are to be sent away from - the Reich and that in the future the German woman is not to be - used as extensively in the field of labor as hitherto. Along - with Russian prisoners of war, free Russian manpower is also to - be utilized.” - -I shall now omit one page of this document and refer to Page 7. In the -middle of the page there is Section B, entitled “The Free Russian -Worker.” - -My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, already mentioned the fact that the -Hitlerites considered the civilian population as prisoners of war. This -gave them the opportunity to increase for propaganda purposes the number -of the allegedly captured Red Army soldiers in their reports on military -operations, on the one hand, and to draw on them for manpower, on the -other hand. - -The section to which I just referred begins as follows, “Employment and -treatment is not actually to be other than that given to Russian -prisoners of war.” It should here be noted that the minutes of the -conference end with the following statement by Göring—you will find -this excerpt on Page 98 of the document book: - - “Enlistment of workers and the utilization of prisoners of war - are to be carried on in a uniform manner, and they must be - organizationally combined.” - -Coming back to Page 7 of the same minutes we come across the following -eloquent statement by Göring on the subject of labor conditions for -Russian workers and particularly their wages. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: General Zorya, can you tell the Tribunal whether you -think you will be able to finish the presentation of your documents this -afternoon? - -GEN. ZORYA: My intention is to finish my presentation today. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. - -GEN. ZORYA: I would like to read into the record statements by Göring -which concern the labor conditions of Russian workers and particularly -their wages, from the document I have just presented: - - “In connection with the labor conditions of the free Russians it - is to be kept in mind that: - - “1. He may receive a little pocket money. . . . - - “3. Since his labor is available to the employer cheaply, - financial compensation from the employer is to be given - attention.” - -To clarify the above statement the Defendant Göring makes further the -following suggestion—I quote on Page 8 of the Russian text of the -document, Paragraph B, Subparagraph 6: - - “The allocation of Russians must under no circumstance be - allowed to prejudice the wage problem in the eastern - territories. Every financial measure in this sphere must proceed - from the standpoint that lowest wages in the East—according to - a specific Führer decree—are a prerequisite for the equal - distribution to balance war costs and the clearing of war debts - by the Reich at the end of the war. - - “Infractions are subject to the severest penalties.” - -This is followed by two lines which are of interest, not only because -they incriminate the Defendant Göring for introducing the system of -forced labor. Having expressed himself so categorically against the -“prejudice of the wage problem in the eastern territories,” Göring -stated at the same conference as follows—Page 98 of the document book, -“The same applied in substance to every encouragement of ‘social -aspirations’ in the Russian colonial territory.” - -The covering letter appended to the minutes of the meeting consists of -comments which really do not add anything new to the facts already -presented to the Tribunal. Therefore I shall not quote this letter. - -The next document which I consider necessary to submit to the Tribunal -and which I beg you to accept as evidence under Exhibit Number USSR-379 -(Document Number UK-82) is a decree issued by the Defendant Göring on 10 -January 1942. I will quote only the first 18 lines of this decree, which -are on Page 100 of the document book: - - “In the coming months the employment of manpower will acquire - still greater importance. On the one hand, the recruiting - situation of the Armed Forces necessitates the release of all - members of the younger age groups for this task. On the other - hand, urgent armament production and other phases of the war - economy, and also of agriculture, must be provided with the - manpower urgently needed by them. For this, the utilization of - prisoners of war, especially from Soviet Russia, plays an - important role. - - “The measures that will be necessary in this field in the future - promise success only under unified leadership, and I shall use - every means to attain it. - - “For that reason I have now granted my manpower - commission—which had already been dealing with all the manpower - questions of the Four Year Plan—the unlimited power to direct - . . . the entire manpower program.” - -Later on, Your Honors, the criminal activity of the fascist conspirators -in organizing and extending the system of forced labor acquired such -magnitude that on 21 March 1942 Hitler issued a decree creating a -special department under the Defendant Sauckel, who developed these -activities on a large scale. I shall not dwell any longer on these -historical facts as they have already been covered by our American, -English, and French colleagues. - -The vital bond between fascism and the system of forced labor is -especially apparent when we consider the part played in this field not -only by the fascist government machine but by the fascist Party itself. -I should like to submit to the Tribunal a few documents which illustrate -this fact. - -I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-365 (Document Number -USSR-365) a printed edition entitled, “Report of the Delegate of the -Four Year Plan—Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor.” This -document is on Page 101 of the document book. The copy of the report, -which I present, has the order Number 1 and it is dated 1 May 1942. The -first page of the report contains Hitler’s decree of 21 March 1942, -appointing Sauckel to this post. On the second page there is an order of -the Defendant Göring dated 27 March of the same year, explaining the -duties of the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor within the -framework of the Four Year Plan organizational structure. And on the -third page of this report there is a program prepared by Sauckel for the -“Führer’s birthday” in 1942. - -Your Honors, the above-mentioned documents have already been submitted -to the Tribunal by the Prosecution of the United States. But I wish to -draw your attention to Page 17 of the Russian translation of this -document, where you will find an order of the Defendant Sauckel, dated 6 -April 1942: Order Number 1. This order is presented for the first time -and is entitled, “Concerning Appointment of Gauleiter as Commissioners -for the Allocation of Labor in the Gaue. This order begins as follows—I -quote Page 118 of the document book: - - “I hereby appoint the Gauleiter of the NSDAP my commissioners - for allocation of labor in the Gaue administered by them. - - “A. Their tasks are: - - “1) The achievement of smooth co-operation between all offices - set up by the State, the Party, the Wehrmacht, and the economic - authorities to deal with questions of manpower; and by means of - this, the regulation of different interpretations and claims in - such a way as to utilize manpower to the best possible effect.” - -I omit some points. - - “4) Investigation of the results obtained by utilizing the labor - of all foreign male and female workers. Special regulations will - be issued with regard to these. - - “5) Investigation of the correct feeding, housing, and treatment - of all foreign workers and prisoners of war engaged in work.” - -In his program for the allocation of labor, presented—as I have already -pointed out—for Hitler’s birthday in 1942, the Defendant Sauckel -wrote—this part of the program was not read into the record by the -United States Prosecution; it is on Page 105 of the document book: - - “IV. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor will, - therefore, with a very small personal staff of his own choice, - make exclusive use of existing institutions set up by the Party, - State, and industry, and the goodwill and co-operation of all - will assure the quickest success of his measures. - - “V. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor has, therefore, - with consent of the Führer and in agreement with the Reich - Marshal of Greater Germany and the Chief of the Party - Chancellery, appointed all the Gauleiter of Greater Germany as - his commissioners in the Gaue of the National Socialist Labor - Party (NSDAP). - - “VI. The commissioners for allocation of labor will use the - competent offices of the Party in their Gaue. The chiefs of the - highest competent State and economic offices in their Gaue will - advise and instruct the Gauleiter in all-important questions - relative to labor allocation. - - “Especially important for that purpose are the following: The - President of the State Labor Office, the Trustee for Labor, the - State Peasant Leader, the Gau Economic Adviser, the Gau Trustee - of the German Labor Front, the Gau Women’s Leader, the District - Hitler Youth Leader, the highest representative of the Interior - and General Administration, especially if the Office for - Agriculture falls within his jurisdiction. - - “VII. The most elevated and most essential task of the Gauleiter - of the NSDAP in their capacity of commissioners in their Gaue is - to secure the maximum agreement between all offices dealing with - questions of manpower in their Gau.” - -In this document Sauckel addressed himself to the Gauleiter asking them -repeatedly to give him all possible assistance in every respect. I would -like to draw Your Honors’ attention to only one of Sauckel’s assertions -in this document. He mentions the decision of Hitler to send to the -Reich “in order to help the German peasant women, four or five hundred -thousand selected, healthy, and strong girls from the eastern -territories,” thus to relieve German women and girls of labor duty. -Apparently in order to explain the advantage of this measure, Sauckel -wrote, “Please trust me as an old and fanatical National Socialist -Gauleiter when I say that in the end the decision could not be -different.” - -The importance of the part played by the fascist Party in the -organization of compulsory slave labor and how far this Party went into -the matter, is shown by the following document which I am submitting to -the Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit Number USSR-383 (Document Number -USSR-383). This document is a letter of the Defendant Sauckel, dated 8 -September 1942, and is entitled, “Special Action of the Plenipotentiary -for Allocation of Labor for the Purpose of Procuring Female Workers from -the East for the Benefit of Town and Country Households with Many -Children.” - -In the course of my presentation I shall have the opportunity to refer -once more to this document. In the meantime I wish to draw your -attention to the passage which has direct bearing on the role of the -fascist Party in this measure. On Page 3 of the Russian text of the -document, which I hereby submit, there is a section entitled, -“Viewpoints for Selecting Households.” - -THE PRESIDENT: Does it matter whether these women were brought into a -house where they ought not to have been brought and whether a particular -German housewife was entitled to a woman worker or not? The whole point, -it would seem, is whether they were deported—and forcibly deported. - -GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, I just had it in view to abridge this passage -which you mentioned. But now I am talking about something else. I would -like to show the part which the fascist Party played in organizing slave -labor inside Germany and in particular in the distribution of those -Soviet women who were transported for this purpose to Germany. Here are -two short documents which I consider necessary to submit to the -Tribunal. As for the rest, which concerns the regime which has already -been described sufficiently by the United States and British -Prosecutions, I do not intend to dwell upon it and contemplated cutting -down this part to the minimum. - -I wish to dwell on this part of the document which says that -applications for obtaining an eastern woman worker for household duties, -are to be examined by the Labor Department which would decide whether -there is a real need for the worker and are then to be forwarded for -final approval to the corresponding leader of NSDAP. Should the district -leader object to granting a woman worker to the household, the Labor -Department declines to send an eastern woman worker to the applicant and -accordingly declines the permission for the employment of such. The -refusal need not be motivated, and the decision is final. - -You may find this on Page 129 of the document book. It is followed by -the application form. You will find this in the appendix to Exhibit -Number USSR-383 (Document Number USSR-383). This application form -contains a brief questionnaire about the family which would like to -employ a domestic worker in the household. This application form also -contains the reply form of the corresponding fascist Party organization -whether it recommends or not the use of an eastern slave in this -household. - -I request the Tribunal to pay attention to the appendix to Exhibit -Number USSR-383. This appendix is entitled, “Memo for Housewives -Regarding Employment of Eastern Woman Workers in Urban and Rural -Households.” This memo has already been mentioned by Mr. Dodd. I will -not dwell upon it in detail, but will only draw the attention of the -Tribunal to the subtitle which is on Page 133. - -I beg Your Honors to pay attention to the subtitle of this slave owner’s -memo. - -The statement between brackets announces that this memo is published by -the Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor in agreement with the -chief of the Party Chancellery and other corresponding authorities. It -is difficult to state it more precisely. Millions of foreign slaves were -languishing in Germany. A German could become a slave-owner with the -sanction and under the supervision of the fascist Party. Apparently this -also constituted one of the elements of the New Order in Europe. - -I deem it indispensable to refer also to the order of the Defendant -Göring, dated 27 March 1942. I do not submit this document, as it is -already at the disposal of the Tribunal, having been presented by the -United States Prosecution: - - “The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, in order to carry - out his tasks, herewith receives the power which the Führer has - given me to issue directives to the superior Reich authorities - and to their subordinate offices, to Party authorities and to - Party organizations and attached units.” - -This order of the Defendant Göring does not only determine the special -part of the fascist Party in the execution of the compulsory labor -system, but also emphasizes the extraordinary powers of Defendant -Sauckel in this field. - -The documents to which I have been referring thus far give grounds for -the Soviet Prosecution to assert that within the general framework of -the fascist State the fascist Party was the center of all measures for -the organization of compulsory slave labor. - -I would like now to turn to the part taken by the German High Command in -the organization of compulsory labor and deportation into slavery of -Soviet people. With this object in view, I submit to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-367 (Document Number USSR-367), an OKH document -regarding—I am using the words of the document itself—the “Enlistment -of Russian Manpower for the Reich.” I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page -138 of the document book in which this document is to be found. - -First of all, let us look at the source from which this document -emanates. In the upper left-hand corner of the first page you will find, -“High Command of the Army, General Staff of the Army, Quartermaster -General, Office of Military Administration, (EC) Number II -3210/42—secret.” In the upper right-hand corner: “Headquarters, High -Command of the Army, 10 May 1942,” and again the stamp “secret.” After -the title it states: - - “Subject: OKH, Gen Qu/Ec/II, Number 2877/42, secret, 25 April - 1942; OKH, Gen Qu/Section Mil. Adm. Number 3158/1942, secret, 6 - May 1942.” - -Therefore, the document which I intend to quote here originates from the -OKH and is based on orders previously issued by the OKH. At the end of -the document there is a list of addresses to which it was distributed. I -will not quote this list in full, but it leaves no doubt as to who were -the executors of the orders contained in the above document. These -executors were the military authorities. - -Let us now turn to the contents of the submitted document. First of all, -what induced the OKH when it issued this letter? The reply to this -question is contained in the first paragraph of our document, which I -shall now read into the record. I abridge the quotation: - - “The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor appointed by the - Führer, Gauleiter Sauckel . . . in consideration of the - increased armament requirements of the Reich and in order to - secure the manpower requirements of the German war and armament - economy, has ordered that the enlisting and transferring into - the Reich of Russian manpower be speeded up and considerably - increased. - - “For the execution of this recruiting action . . . influence of - the military and local administrative authorities (field - Kommandantura, local Kommandantura, I A—organization of the - Economic Staff East, district administrations, town mayors, _et - cetera_) . . . is necessary. This is a task of decisive - importance for the outcome of the war. The labor situation of - the Reich makes it necessary that the ordered measures are - carried out on a priority basis and in a large scale manner. - This must be the chief task of all organizations.” - -The next two paragraphs of the quoted document, part of which is -entitled, “Priority of Manpower Needs in the Armed Forces and Economy in -the East,” contain the following statement—I quote Page 139 of your -document book which runs: - - “The immediate manpower needs of the Army must be satisfied in - the highest priority inasmuch as the need is actually - inescapable . . . and unalterable. The scale of the needs of the - Army is to be determined by the armies, the commanders of the - front areas, and the Wehrmacht commanders. However, in - consideration of the urgent labor needs of the Reich . . . the - severest standard is to be applied, and especially the scale of - the troops’ own manpower needs is to be most carefully - examined.” - -THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t it sufficient to say that this document provides -for the speeding up of the mobilization of manpower and slave labor for -the purposes of the necessities of the Reich? Does it do anything more -than that? - -GEN. ZORYA: Yes, you are quite right, Mr. President. It would be enough -if we add that this document contains the demand not only to accelerate -the mobilization of manpower but also the demand for immediate -participation by the military authorities who had to arrange a suitable -machinery in the form of suitable officers. - -I pass on to the next document which I submit to the Tribunal. - -It would be a mistake to think that the OKH gave orders only of such -general character. In July 1941 the Defendant Keitel learned that the -subdepartments of the Organization Todt in the Lvov district paid the -local workers a wage of 25 rubles. This fact made Keitel indignant. Todt -immediately received an appropriate reprimand. And so we come to the -next document, which I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-366 (Document Number USSR-366). - -The Reich Minister directly refers, in this document, to the fact that -Field Marshal Keitel expressed his displeasure that the subdepartments -of the Organization Todt in the suburbs of Lvov paid the local workers -wages of 25 rubles and that the subdepartments of the O.T. were making -use of the factories. - -Todt declares that during his last trip he had explained in detail to -all members of the staff that the rules for the allocation of labor in -Russian territory were different from those in Western Europe. Further -in this document Todt categorically prohibits the paying of any sums of -money at all. He concludes this document in the following terms: - - “No compensation shall be given to the firms for payments not in - conformity with the above principles. - - “This order is to be brought to the attention of all subordinate - labor allocation offices and to all firms. - - “Signed: Dr. Todt.” - -The German Government and the High Command ordered the use of peaceful -Soviet citizens for work which endangered life. This was mentioned by -Göring at a conference on 7 November 1941. I now submit to the Tribunal -Exhibit Number USSR-106 (Document Number USSR-106), which contains the -translation of the Führer’s directive, signed by him on 8 September -1942. This directive concerns the allocation of labor for the -construction of fortifications on the Eastern Front. This document comes -from the German archives captured by the Allied armies in the West. The -covering letter to this document states that this document “is top -secret, and that copies of it will be sent to staffs and divisions and -are to be returned to the Army staffs and destroyed.” - -On the second page of the document, we find Hitler’s order. I read it -into the record: - - “HQu, 8 September 1942. - - “The heavy defensive battles in the area of Army Groups Center - and North induce me to fix my views on some fundamental tasks of - the defense.” - -The next Paragraphs, 1 and 2 on Pages 1 to 7, concern general principles -of defense, which do not interest us today. On Page 148 of the document -book is the following passage which I read into the record: - - “The enemy carries on construction to a far greater extent than - do our own troops. I know that it will be argued that the enemy - has at his disposal more labor for construction of such - positions. But it is therefore an absolute necessity at exactly - this point to make use, with ruthless energy, especially of - prisoners of war and the population for these tasks. Only in - this respect is the Russian superior to us in his brutal way. By - this means, however, the German soldier, too, can be spared to a - large extent from labor on defensive works behind the front - lines, in order that he may be kept free and fresh for his real - duties. Frequently the necessary ruthlessness which the present - fateful battle demands is not yet being employed here, for in it - not a victory but the existence and survival of our people is - contested. Besides, it is in all circumstances still always more - humane to drive the Russian population to work, with every - means, as it has always been accustomed to be driven, than to - sacrifice our most precious possession, our own blood.” - -This order is signed by Hitler. - -Units of the Red Army also captured a decree issued by the German -occupation authorities, which referred to an order of the General Staff -about forced labor in combat zones. I submit this document as Exhibit -Number USSR-407 (Document Number USSR-407), and I deem it necessary to -quote a few sentences from Page 149 of the document book: - - “Decree: In accordance with the regulations of the Chief of the - OKW, dated 6 February 1943, regarding transfer for labor in the - combat zone of the newly occupied eastern territory, all women - born in 1924 and 1925 are hereby summoned for labor in Germany. - - “Point V of this order provides that: . . . those who do not - present themselves on the given dates shall be held responsible - as saboteurs in accordance with military laws.” - -I am summarizing this section. - -The High Command of the German Armed Forces and the Defendant Keitel -took a direct part in the execution of this system of forced slave -labor. For the realization of this criminal objective they used on a -large scale from bottom to top, the entire machinery of the military -administration. - -Your Honors, I beg to refer to the next document which I am now -presenting as Exhibit Number USSR-381 (Document Number USSR-381). - -THE PRESIDENT: General, was that last order that you gave us Keitel’s -order? It is signed apparently by the Chief of the General Staff of the -Military Command. - -GEN. ZORYA: This is not an order of Keitel. This document which was -submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-381 is entitled “Instruction to the -Economic Offices, ‘Section Labor,’ on the Organization of Labor -Allocation in the East.” - -THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that was by Keitel. - -GEN. ZORYA: The preceding document which was submitted to the Tribunal -was actually one of Keitel’s orders, but now I wish to speak of this -instruction. I beg Your Honors to pay attention to the date on which -this instruction was issued, namely 26 January 1942. In this -instruction, on Page 150 of the document book, it is stated that the -hopes which the Reich Marshal had placed in the office for the -allocation of labor must be justified at all costs: - - “The task of the economic organizations and the office for the - allocation of labor in the East consists in bridging, during the - coming months, the gaps in the economy which arose owing to the - departure into the army of men of younger conscription age due - to the universal enlistment of Russian manpower. This is of - decisive importance for the war and must therefore be achieved. - If the number of volunteers does not come up to expectations, - then the enlistment measures already ordered should be - reinforced by all available means.” - -The United States Prosecution has submitted to the Tribunal a document -of the Soviet Prosecution, Exhibit Number USSR-381 (Document Number -USSR-381), entitled, “Memo on the Treatment of Foreign Civilian Workers -in the Reich.” - -I do not wish to quote this document again, but consider it necessary -only to show. . . - -DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The President has just -now asked about the Document Number USSR-407 and the prosecutor has -presented it here as a document of Keitel. I have only just now found -this document. If it is a question of the same document that I have -marked as USSR-407, then it is signed by a local commander and by a -chief of the labor office. - -Is this document the same as that presented to you as USSR-407? - -THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out, have I not, that it was not -by Keitel? - -DR. NELTE: Yes, Sir. But the Prosecutor has thereupon repeatedly said -that this Document 407 represents an order by Keitel. That is why I -wanted to clarify it. - -GEN. ZORYA: Perhaps the Tribunal will allow me to clarify this matter. -Apparently a misunderstanding arose through faulty translation. I said -that troops of the Red Army had seized a German order, and added that -the order had been issued by the German occupational authorities—you -can verify this by looking up the stenographic record—which referred to -an order of Keitel regarding forced labor in the combat zones. This -order begins with the following words, “In accordance with the -regulations of the Chief of the OKW, dated 6 February 1943, transfer for -labor in the combat zone,” and so forth. I shall not quote any further. - -If I may beg the Tribunal to consider once more a document which I have -already submitted previously, that is, the document of the High Command -of the Army, Number II/3210/42, it is because this order refers to -corresponding orders of the General Staff of the Army on questions of -allocation of labor in the East. This order of the occupational -authorities, which I submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-407, refers to one -of these orders. It states quite clearly, “In accordance with the -regulations of the Chief of the OKW.” That is why I submitted this -document. - -THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I really don’t understand you. What I have -got in the translation before me is this, “The units of the Red Army -captured a copy of the German decree which mentioned Keitel’s order on -forced labor in the combat zone,” and continues further that those -persons refusing to work shall be apprehended as saboteurs. This -document is submitted as Exhibit USSR something or other. - -It may be useful to read a few excerpts of it, “By order of the Chief of -the General Staff of the Military Command, of 6 February 1943, -concerning the compulsory labor service . . . in the combat zone”—and -then it goes on to deal with persons who don’t present themselves being -considered saboteurs. - -Well, I thought you were saying that the Chief of the General Staff of -the Military Command was Keitel. He was the Chief of the OKW. Are you -still saying that he was the Chief of the Military Command? - -GEN. ZORYA: I quote only that which is in the document: “In accordance -with the regulations of the Chief of the General Staff of the Military -Command.” That is in the document, and I do not wish to add anything. - -THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think it is worth taking any more time over it. - -GEN. ZORYA: I will now go back to that document which was submitted to -the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution and which was entitled, -“Memo for the Treatment of Foreign Civilian Laborers in the Reich.” I -will not quote this document in detail; I would like to stress only that -it established a special regime for Eastern Workers. They lived in camps -surrounded by guards and under supervision of a camp commander. The -latter forbade a normal life for workers from the East. They were thus -forbidden to visit churches or public places and they were obliged to -wear special insignia—a rectangle with pale blue edges, and in the -middle the word “Ost” in white letters on the dark blue background. - -In the memorandum to housewives regarding the employment of women from -the East in town and rural households it was stated that—Page 131 of -the document book: - - “Every foreigner judges the standard of our entire people by the - personal and political conduct of the individual. The foreign - workers must see in the housewife and the members of her family - worthy representatives of the German people.” - -I proceed further: - - “If, in exceptional cases, German and eastern female domestic - workers are employed in the same household, the German domestic - workers must be given mainly tasks of serving the family and - must also be given the supervision of the Eastern woman worker. - The German living in the household must always have precedence.” - -General conditions of work did not apply to the women workers from the -East. Their labor was regulated only by the discretion of their masters. -This was expressed in Paragraph 4 of the same memorandum. I quote: - - “Eastern women workers are employed in the households in a - special labor relation. German regulations on working conditions - and on labor protection refer to them only insofar as this is - specifically decreed.” - -The character of these special instructions can be seen in Paragraph 9, -Section B of the memorandum, which states quite openly: - - “No claim to leisure time is given. Eastern women domestic - workers may leave the household only when on duty connected with - the needs of the household. . . . Visiting the theaters, - restaurants, cinemas, and similar . . . institutions is - forbidden.” - -Paragraph 10 of the memorandum states: - - “Eastern female domestic workers are enlisted for indefinite - time.” - -Paragraph 12 of the memorandum states that: - - “Germans may not share a room with the Eastern woman worker.” - -Paragraph 14 states that: - - “Clothing as a rule cannot be supplied.” - -These two documents just mentioned by me, “Memo on the Treatment of -Foreign Civilian Laborers” and “Memorandum for Housewives on the -Employment of Eastern Female Workers,” reflect the inhuman conditions of -work for the forcibly mobilized Soviet citizens. The Soviet Prosecution -has at its disposal numerous documents, the testimonies of persons who -themselves experienced the terror of fascist slavery. The enumeration of -all these documents would take too much time. The Soviet Government had -at its disposal, already in the early phases of the war against fascist -Germany, many proofs of the crimes of the fascist conspirators in this -field. - -The first document of this kind published by the Soviet Government is -the note of the People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Molotov, dated 6 -January 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet -Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-51(2), (Document USSR-51(2)) and this -note stated that: - - “The peaceful citizens forcibly deported for compulsory labor - were proclaimed ‘prisoners of war’ by the German authorities and - treated as such as far as their maintenance is concerned. It has - been established by reports of Staffs of the German Army that - peasants and other peaceful citizens seized by the Germans and - deported for compulsory labor were automatically put on the list - as prisoners of war. Thus the number of prisoners of war was - artificially and unlawfully increased. - - “In the vicinity of the town of Plavsk, in the region of Tula, a - camp was established where Soviet war prisoners and the civilian - population from neighboring villages were interned at the same - time. The Soviet citizens were there subjected to inhuman - tortures and sufferings. There were young boys and girls, women, - and old men among them. Their only food consisted of two - potatoes and some barley grits each day. The death rate reached - 25 to 30 persons daily. - - “After the occupation of Kiev, the Germans drove into slave - labor all the civilian population from 11 to 60 years of age, - irrespective of their profession, their sex, state of health, or - nationality. - - “People who were too ill to stand on their feet were fined by - the Germans for every day of work they missed. - - “In Kharkov the German invaders decided to make the local - Ukrainian intellectuals an object of their mockery. On 5 - November 1941 all actors were ordered to appear at the - Shevtshenko Theater for registration. When they had gathered, - they were surrounded by German soldiers who harnessed them to - carts and drove them along the most frequented streets to the - river for water.” - -The second document of the Soviet Government was the Foreign Commissar’s -note, dated 27 April 1942. This note is submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). Section 3 of this note is -entitled, “Installation of a Regime of Slavery and Bondage in the -Occupied Territories of the Soviet Union and Deportation of Civilian -Population as Prisoners of War.” This note states that: - - “In the Ukraine and Bielorussia the Germans introduced a 14- or - 16-hour workday, in most cases without any compensation and in - some cases with ridiculously low wages. - - “In the secret instructions entitled, ‘On Current Tasks in the - Eastern Regions,’ captured by Red Army troops at the beginning - of March 1942, the chief of the Military Economic Inspectorate - Central Front, Lieutenant General Weigang, admits that: - - “‘It has proved impossible to maintain industrial production - with the labor of semi-starved and semi-clad people,’ that ‘the - devaluation of money and the commodity crisis coincide with a - dangerous lack of confidence in the German authorities on the - part of the local population,’ and that ‘this constitutes a - danger to the peace in the occupied regions which cannot be - permitted in the rear of the combat troops.’ The German general - in this document presumes to call these occupied regions ‘our - new eastern colonial possession.’ - - “Acknowledging that the complete collapse of industrial - production in the occupied districts has led to mass - unemployment, the German General Weigang issued the following - orders for speeding up the forcible dispatch of the Russian, - Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and other workers to Germany. - - “‘Only the shipping to Germany of some millions of Russian - workers and only the inexhaustible reserves of healthy and - strong people in the Occupied Eastern Territories . . . can - solve the urgent problem of manpower shortage and therewith meet - the lack of labor in Germany.’ - - “In an order . . . seized by units of the Red Army, recruiting - the entire civilian population of the occupied districts for all - kinds of heavy labor was ordered; and it was stated that this - forced labor was not to be paid for; and it was insolently - declared that by this unpaid labor the population would atone - for its guilt for the acts of sabotage already committed as well - as for the acts of sabotage which might be committed by them in - the future. - - “In Kaluga, on 20 November 1941, an announcement was posted, - signed by the German commandant, Major Portatius, which ran as - follows: - - “‘1. Citizens who do poor work or do not work the specified - number of hours will be subject to a monetary fine. In the event - of nonpayment, delinquents will be subjected to corporal - punishment. - - “‘2. Citizens who have received a work assignment and who have - not reported for work will be subject to corporal punishment and - will receive no food rations from the municipality. - - “‘3. Citizens evading work in general will, in addition, be - expelled from Kaluga. Citizens shirking work will be attached to - labor detachments and columns, and billeted in barracks. They - will be used for heavy labor.’” - -This note indicated also that land would be transferred to German -landowners. This was established by a land law which was promulgated at -the end of April 1942 by the Hitlerite Gauleiter Alfred Rosenberg. - -I pass on to the next note of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs -Molotov which was published a year after the note dated 27 April 1942. - -On 11 May 1943 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Molotov, sent -to all Ambassadors and Ministers of all the countries with which the -U.S.S.R. had diplomatic relations a note, “Concerning the Wholesale -Forcible Deportation of Peaceful Soviet Citizens to German Fascist -Slavery and Concerning the Responsibility Borne for this Crime by German -Authorities and Individuals.” This note is submitted to the Tribunal as -evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-51(4) (Document Number USSR-51(4)). - -I consider it necessary to read a few quotations from this note. On Page -165 of the document book there is a reference to a declaration of Göring -of 7 November 1941, which has already been mentioned by me. I will not -again repeat all that Göring said at that conference. I will only stress -that Göring issued a blood-thirsty order “not to spare the Soviet people -deported into Germany and to handle them in the most cruel manner under -any excuse.” This order is included in section IV-A7 of the -above-mentioned note. It reads as follows: - - “In applying measures for the maintenance of order, the main - principle must be swiftness and severity. Only the following - forms of punishment must be employed, without intermediary - grades: deprivation of food and death by sentence of field - court-martial.” - -On 31 March 1942 Sauckel issued the following order by telegraph: - - “The enlistment, for which you are responsible, must be speeded - up by every available means, including the stern application of - the principle of labor service.” - -The Soviet Government is in possession of the complete text of a report -by the Chief of the Political Police and Security Service with the Chief -of the SS in Kharkov, headed, “The Situation in the City of Kharkov from -23 July to 9 September 1942.” - - “The recruiting of labor power”—states this document—“is - causing the competent bodies disquietude, for the population is - displaying extreme reluctance to go to work in Germany. The - situation at present is that everybody does his utmost to evade - enlistment. Voluntary departure to Germany has long been - entirely out of the question.” - -Your Honors, I must stress that the Defendant Sauckel, as -Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, actively pursued criminal -activity, as it is pointed out in the note of the People’s Commissar for -Foreign Affairs, which I just presented. On 31 March 1942 Sauckel sent -to his subordinate departments a telegraphic instruction regarding the -utilization of Russians and the work of the enlistment committee. I -submit this telegram of Sauckel to the Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit -Number USSR-382 (Document Number USSR-382). In this telegram Sauckel -writes: - - “The rate of mobilization must be increased immediately and - under all circumstances to insure, in the shortest possible - time, that is to say, by April, that a three-fold increase in - the number of dispatched workers is achieved.” - -Sauckel’s efforts were appreciated by the Defendant Göring at the time -when he was Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I refer now to the -conference which Göring held on 6 August 1942. This protocol has been -submitted by the Soviet Prosecution to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-170 (Document Number USSR-170). I beg you to refer to Pages 12 and -13 of this document, Page 184 of the document book. Göring came forth -with the following words, - - “I have to say one thing to this. I do not wish to praise the - Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.” - -THE PRESIDENT: All this was read the other day. The actual words were -read yesterday. - -GEN. ZORYA: I am quite sure, Mr. President, that my colleague, who read -into the record this document, did not read this particular passage. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I still think that he read this excerpt which -you have got set out in your document, “I do not wish to praise -Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.” He certainly referred to the -excerpt which you have just summarized about Lohse. - -GEN. ZORYA: I do not wish to argue but I had the information that this -excerpt had not been read into the record. If you like, I will not read -this passage into the record. - -THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you are right. I don’t know. - -GEN. ZORYA: Then, I will read it into the record very briefly: - - “I do not wish to praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it. - But what he has done in such a short time to collect workers so - quickly from the whole of Europe and supply them to our - undertakings is a unique achievement. I must tell that to all - these gentlemen; if each of them used in their sphere of - activity a tenth of the energy used by Gauleiter Sauckel, the - tasks laid upon them would indeed easily be carried out. This is - my sincere conviction and in no way fine words.” - -I return again to the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs, V. M. Molotov, dated 11 May 1943. This note further gives data -concerning the number of Soviet people who were deported to Germany. -This note states that the deportation of Soviet people to German slavery -was accompanied nearly everywhere by bloody repressive measures against -Soviet citizens seeking refuge from slave merchants who were hunting for -them. It has been established that in Gjatsk 75 peaceful inhabitants of -the town were shot and that in Poltava 65 railroad men were hanged. The -same thing in other towns also—executions, shootings, and hangings were -carried out on the same scale. - -THE PRESIDENT: I understood from you at the beginning of your speech -that you were going to finish this afternoon your presentation. It is -now 5 minutes past 5. Is there any chance of your finishing today? - -GEN. ZORYA: If I had not been interrupted by Defense Counsel for 10 -minutes in connection with a discussion about the order of the German -occupational authorities, I would have finished my statement. - -THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think will it take you now? - -GEN. ZORYA: A maximum of 10 minutes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -GEN. ZORYA: The note states that the Soviet citizens in the territories -captured by the Germans are, with growing frequency and organization, -offering courageous resistance to the slave owners. The growth of the -partisan movement in connection with the resistance the Soviet citizens -are offering to forcible transportation into German slavery is admitted -with alarm in a number of secret reports from German army and police -administrations. - -This note quotes further a number of testimonies of Soviet people who -had escaped German slavery. I will only quote one of these testimonies -of Kolkhoz member Varvara Bakhtina of the village of Nikolayevka, Kursk -region, who stated: - - “In Kursk we were pushed into cattle wagons, 50 to 60 persons in - each wagon. Nobody was permitted to leave. Every now and then - the German sentry hustled and punched us. In Lgov we had to get - out and be examined by a special commission there. In the - presence of the soldiers we were compelled to undress quite - naked and have our bodies examined. The nearer we got to - Germany, the fewer were the people left in the train. From Kursk - they took 3,000 persons but at nearly every station the sick and - those dying from hunger were thrown out. In Germany we were put - into a camp with Soviet prisoners of war. This was in a forest - section surrounded by a high barbed-wire fence. Four days later - we were taken to different places. I, my sister Valentina, and - 13 other girls were sent to an armament factory.” - -The third section of this report describes further the treatment under -which the Soviet workers lived in German slavery. This part of the -report also mentions the statement made by Göring concerning Russian -workers. Göring states in the above-mentioned directives: - - “The Russian is not fastidious and, therefore, it is easy to - feed him without affecting our food stocks to any appreciable - degree. He must not be spoiled or allowed to get accustomed to - German food.” - -Finally the note quotes a number of letters from home to the German -soldiers on the Eastern Front, which describe the humiliation to which -the Soviet workers were subjected. I will quote a passage from one of -such letters. A letter from his mother in Chemnitz was found on the body -of Wilhelm Bock, killed German private, of the 221st German Infantry -Division. This letter reads: - - “Many Russian women and girls are working at the Astra Works. - They are compelled to work 14 and more hours a day. Of course, - they receive no pay whatever. They go to and from the factory - under escort. The Russians literally drop from exhaustion. The - guards often whip them. They have no right to complain about the - bad food or ill-treatment. The other day my neighbor obtained a - servant. She paid some money at an office and was given the - opportunity to choose any woman she pleased from a number here - from Russia.” - -Letters also mention mass suicides of Russian women and men. - -The note ends with a declaration of the Soviet Government, which states -that it places responsibility for atrocities in this domain on the -leading Hitlerite clique and the High Command of the German fascist -Army: - - “The Soviet Government also places full responsibility for the - above enumerated crimes upon the Hitlerite officials who are - engaged in recruiting, abducting, transporting in camps, selling - into slavery, and inhumanly exploiting peaceful Soviet civilians - who have been forcibly transported from their native land to - Germany. . . . The Soviet Government holds that stern - responsibility should be borne by such already exposed criminals - as . . . Fritz Sauckel and . . . Alfred Rosenberg.” - -And finally the note points out: - - “The Soviet Government expresses the conviction that all the - Governments concerned are unanimous on the point that the Hitler - Government and its agents must bear full responsibility and - receive stern punishment for the monstrous crimes they have - committed, for the privation and suffering they have inflicted - upon millions of peaceful citizens who have been forcibly - deported into German fascist slavery.” - -This is the end of People’s Commissar Molotov’s note. Kindly allow me to -close my statement also with these words. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 23 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SIXTY-SIXTH DAY - Saturday, 23 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: Before we deal with the applications, I am going to read -the Tribunal’s order upon Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum of 4 February 1946 -and the Prosecution’s motion of the 11th of February 1946. This is the -order: - -The Tribunal makes no order with regard to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the -Prosecution’s motion as to the evidence of the defendants, dated the -11th of February 1946. - -With regard to Paragraphs 2 and 7 of Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum on defense -procedure, dated the 4th of February 1946, the Tribunal makes the -following order: - -1. The defendants’ cases will be heard in the order in which the -defendants’ names appear in the Indictment. - -2. (a) During the presentation of a defendant’s case, defendant’s -counsel will read documents, will question witnesses, and will make such -brief comments on the evidence as are necessary to insure a proper -understanding of it. - -(b) The defendant’s counsel may be assisted in the courtroom by his -associate counsel or by another defendant’s counsel. Such other counsel -may help the defendant’s counsel in handling documents, _et cetera_, but -shall not address the Tribunal or examine witnesses. - -3. Documentary evidence. - -(a) Defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary the original -of any document which he offers in evidence if the original is in his -possession. If the original is in the possession of the Prosecution, -counsel will request the Prosecution to make the original of the -document available for introduction in evidence. If the Prosecution -declines to make the original available, the matter shall be referred to -the Tribunal. - -(b) Should the original of any such document be in the possession of the -Tribunal, defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary a copy -of the whole or relevant part of such document, together with a -statement of the document number and the date upon which it was received -in evidence. - -(c) Should counsel wish to offer in evidence a document, the original of -which is not in his possession or otherwise available to the Tribunal, -he will hand to the General Secretary a copy of the whole or relevant -part of such document, together with an explanation as to where and in -whose possession the original is located and the reason why it cannot be -produced. Such copy shall be certified as being correct by an -appropriate certificate. - -4. Each defendant’s counsel will compile copies of the documents or -parts of documents which he intends to offer in evidence into a document -book, and six copies of such document book will be submitted to the -General Secretary 2 weeks, if possible, before the date on which the -presentation of the defendant’s case is likely to begin. The General -Secretary will arrange for the translation of the document book into the -English, French, and Russian languages, and the defendant’s counsel will -be entitled to receive one copy of each of these translations. - -5. (a) Defendant’s counsel will request the General Secretary to have -the witnesses named by him and approved by the Tribunal available in -Nuremberg; such request being made, if possible, at least 3 weeks before -the date on which the presentation of a defendant’s case is likely to -begin. The General Secretary will, as far as possible, have the -witnesses brought to Nuremberg 1 week before this date. - -(b) Defendant’s counsel will notify the General Secretary not later than -noon on the day before he wishes to call each witness. - -6. (a) A defendant who does not wish to testify cannot be compelled to -do so, but may be interrogated by the Tribunal at any time under -Articles 17(b) and 24(f) of the Charter. - -(b) A defendant can only testify once. - -(c) A defendant who wishes to testify on his own behalf shall do so -during the presentation of his own defense. The right of Defense Counsel -and of the Prosecution under Article 24(g) of the Charter to interrogate -and cross-examine a defendant who gives testimony shall be exercised at -that time. - -(d) A defendant who does not wish to testify on his own behalf but who -is willing to testify on behalf of a co-defendant may do so during the -presentation of the case of the co-defendant. Counsel for other -codefendants and for the Prosecution shall examine and cross-examine him -when he has concluded his testimony on behalf of the co-defendant. - -(e) Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not limit the power of the -Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony in -exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the Tribunal the interest of -justice so requires. - -7. In addition to the addresses of each defendant’s counsel under -Article 24(h), one counsel representing all the defendants will be -permitted to address the Tribunal on legal issues arising out of the -Indictment and the Charter which are common to all defendants, but in -making such address he will be held to strict compliance with Article 3 -of the Charter. This address will take place at the conclusion of the -presentation of all the evidence on behalf of the defendants, but must -not last more than half a day. If possible, a copy of the written text -of the address shall be delivered to the General Secretary in time to -enable him to have translations made in the English, French, and Russian -languages. - -8. In exercising his right to make a statement to the Tribunal under -Article 24(j), a defendant may not repeat matters which already have -been the subject of evidence or already have been dealt with by his -counsel when addressing the Court under Article 24(h), but will be -limited to dealing with such additional matters as he may consider -necessary before the judgment of the Tribunal is delivered and sentence -pronounced. - -9. The procedure prescribed by this order may be altered by the Tribunal -at any time if it appears to the Tribunal necessary in the interest of -justice. - -Now the Tribunal will deal with the application for witnesses and -documents on behalf of the Defendant Göring, and the procedure which the -Tribunal proposes to adopt is to ask counsel for the defendant whose -case is being dealt with to deal, in the first instance, with his first -witness, and then to ask Counsel for the Prosecution to reply upon that -witness and then, when that has been done, to ask defendant’s counsel to -deal with his second application for a witness, and then for the -Prosecution Counsel to deal with that witness; that is to say, to hear -the defendant’s counsel and the Prosecution Counsel upon each witness in -turn. - -That procedure will probably not be necessary when the Tribunal comes to -deal with documents. Probably it will be more convenient for defendant’s -counsel to deal with the documents together and prosecuting counsel to -deal in answer to the documents together. But, so far as the witnesses -are concerned, each will be taken in turn. - -I call upon Dr. Stahmer. - -DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Before we go -into these details I ask to be informed why the Court has the intention -of treating the Defense in a fundamentally different manner from the -Prosecution. In Article 24 of the Charter it is stated that the Tribunal -will ask the Prosecution and the Defense whether they will submit -evidence to the Tribunal and if so, what evidence. This decision has so -far not been applied by the Tribunal in relation to the Prosecution. I -am glad that today the Defense has been granted the possibility to name -to the Tribunal those documents and witnesses, which up to now have been -difficult to obtain. I am prepared today to tell the Tribunal the -essential points which establish the necessity of calling the witnesses -and the relevancy of the documents. I ask the Court, therefore on the -basis of past practice, not to allow the Prosecution to take part in -judging whether a document should be considered relevant or not. As -Defense Counsel I am convinced that I would have to submit to a sort of -precensorship by the Prosecution which would impair the unity of my -entire evidence. I may point out that the protests of the Defense have -constantly been postponed with the remark that the Defense would be -heard about these points at a later date. If selection of evidence, on -the basis of objections by the Prosecution, takes place here today the -danger arises that protests which have been postponed will not be able -to be treated later. For the reasons stated, therefore, I request the -Court to proceed according to past practice, and decide as to the right -of the Prosecution to protest against the procurement of evidence. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel for Ribbentrop come back to the rostrum? The -Tribunal is not altogether clear what motion you are making. - -DR. HORN: I propose that the Prosecution should not, at this stage of -the Trial, be entitled to make a decision about the calling of witnesses -and the relevancy of documents. - -Mr. President, I should like to plead further on that point. I meant by -making a decision that the Prosecution should not yet, at this time, -have anything to say about the question of the admissibility or -nonadmissibility of evidence. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that your motion cannot be -granted, for this reason: It is true that the Defense is being asked to -apply for witnesses and documents now, in accordance with Article 24(d). - -One principal reason for that is that the Tribunal has got to bring all -your witnesses here. The Tribunal has been, for many weeks, attempting -to find your witnesses and to produce them here, and to produce the -documents which you want. The relevancy of those witnesses and of those -documents has got to be decided by the Tribunal; but it is obvious that -Counsel for the Prosecution must be allowed to argue upon the question -of relevancy, just as counsel for the defendants have been allowed to -argue upon the relevancy of every witness and every document which has -been introduced by the Prosecution. - -Exactly the same procedure is being adopted now for the defendants as -has been adopted for the Prosecution, with the sole exception that the -defendants are being asked to make applications for the witnesses and -documents and to deal with the matter at one time, rather than to deal -with it as each witness or document is produced. The reason for that is -that the Tribunal, as I have stated, have got to find and bring the -witnesses here for the defendants, and also to produce the documents. - -Your motion was that the Prosecution should not receive any possibility -to decide on the calling of witnesses. The Prosecution, of course, will -not decide upon it; the Tribunal will decide upon it. The Prosecution -must have the right to argue upon it, to argue that the evidence of a -certain witness is irrelevant or cumulative, and to argue that any -document is not relevant. - -And I am reminded that all of these documents have got to be translated -for the purposes of the Tribunal. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, many of the defendants’ counsel, myself -included, have, so far, not been able to question decisive witnesses for -the purpose of obtaining information. Therefore, in decisive points we -often do not even know exactly what a witness can prove. - -If, now, we already have to deal with the Prosecution before we know -definitely how far it is desirable to fight or not to fight for a -witness, we are in an essentially worse situation than the Prosecution, -which, whenever the defendants’ counsel made protests, knew exactly for -what their witness or their evidence was important. In this regard the -Defense is, for the most part, in a considerably worse situation, and I -am of the opinion that this situation will become even worse if here, -besides the Tribunal, the Prosecution can also make protests against the -evidence at this stage of the Trial. - -THE PRESIDENT: It is true that it is impossible to decide finally upon -the admissibility of any piece of evidence until the actual question is -asked; and for that reason the Tribunal has already, in deciding -provisionally upon the application for witnesses, acted in the most -liberal way. If it appears that there is any possible relevancy in the -evidence to be given by a witness, they have allowed that witness to be -alerted. Therefore, if there is any witness whose evidence appears to -be, by any possibility, relevant, the Tribunal will allow that witness, -subject, of course, to the directions of the Charter to hold the Trial -expeditiously. - -Subject to those limitations, the Tribunal will allow any witness to be -called whose evidence appears to be possibly relevant. That is all the -Tribunal can do because, as I have already stated, it is the Tribunal -who has to undertake the difficult task of securing these witnesses for -the defendants, who cannot secure them themselves. - -DR. HORN: Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Stahmer. - -DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Mr. President, I do not -wish to repeat, but I believe that the objection of Dr. Horn has not -been understood quite rightly. Dr. Horn wanted only to complain about -the fact that the Defense in no case has been asked previously whether -an item of evidence that the Prosecution has presented was relevant or -not, but we have always been surprised when a witness was brought in and -we had no possible opportunity to make any material objections relative -to him. - -Insofar as objections against documents were concerned, that is, as to -their relevance, the Defense has always been told that for such an -objection the time had not yet come for the Defense. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you have -misunderstood. The Defense have never been told that objections to the -admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every -objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at the -time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be dealt with -now, during the course of the Defense. I don’t mean today, but during -the course of the Defense. - -There is a fundamental distinction between the admissibility of a -document and the weight of a document, and all questions of -admissibility have been dealt with at the time. - -DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I fully understood that distinction. Nor did -I want to say that objections against admissibility were turned down, -but rather objections against relevancy. - -THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents—that is to say, -their admissibility—that is the governing consideration under this -Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If they are relevant, they -are admissible. That is what the Charter says. And any objection which -has been made to documents or to evidence by defendants’ counsel has -been heard by the Tribunal and has been decided at the time. - -Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to the defendants’ -counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, long -notice that under Article 24(d) they were going to be called upon to -specify or name their witnesses and the documents which they wish to -produce, and to state what the relevancy of the witnesses and the -documents would be. - -It seems to the Tribunal obvious that that procedure is really necessary -when one remembers that it is for the Tribunal, with very great -difficulty and at considerable expense, to find these witnesses and to -bring them to Nuremberg, and to find the documents, if possible, and to -bring them to Nuremberg. - -Now, as to your or to Dr. Horn’s objections to the procedure which has -been adopted with reference to the Prosecution, it is open to -defendants’ counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply to -strike from the record any document which they think ought not to have -been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your objection, -appeared to be that defendants’ counsel have not had sufficient time to -consider whether a particular document or a particular witness was -relevant, and therefore admissible. You have had ample time now to -consider the point and if now you wish to apply to strike out any -document or to strike out any evidence, you will make that application -in writing and the Tribunal will consider it. - -As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the defendants -and their counsel. And it is a necessary procedure because the -defendants are unable, naturally, and defendants’ counsel are unable, -naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses here in Nuremberg, and -in some cases to procure the production of documents. - -In order that we should do so, on their behalf, it is necessary that we -should know whom they want to have produced here, what documents they -want to have produced here; and, in order that time should not be wasted -and money should not be unduly wasted, it is necessary to know whether -the witnesses and the documents have any shadow of relevancy to the -issues raised. - -DR. STAHMER: Then I shall begin with the naming of those witnesses whose -interrogation before the Tribunal I consider necessary. - -I name first General of the Air Force Karl Bodenschatz. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal does not desire you to read -your application. If you will just say in your own words, as shortly as -you can, why you want the particular witness, they will then consider -it. And if Counsel for the Prosecution wish to object, they will do so. -Then the Tribunal will finally decide the matter. - -DR. STAHMER: The witness I have named, General of the Air Force -Bodenschatz, who is here in the Nuremberg prison, was with the Defendant -Göring since 1933, first as adjutant and later as minister, as Chief of -the Ministerial Office. He is, therefore, informed about all the -principal events of that time. I have named him as a witness for a -number of facts which are individually contained in my written -statement, but especially that he took part in a conference which took -place at the beginning of August 1939 in Soenke Nissen Koog, at which -Göring met with English negotiators in order to bring about, with them, -the possibility of a peaceful solution of the difficulties already -existing at that time between Germany and Poland. At that time he -declared to the English negotiators that a war must not take place under -any circumstances, and that they must endeavor to settle these -differences peacefully. - -Furthermore, he has made known statements, made by Göring during the -past years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which it can be seen that -the intention of the Defendant Göring was to avoid a war, if possible. -He declared that the policy of the Reich should be conducted in such a -way that a war could not break out under any circumstances. - -Furthermore, this witness knows about the attitude of Göring when he -first heard from Hitler that Hitler intended to attack Russia. - -Finally he is also informed about the social attitude of Göring, whom he -had ample opportunity to know very well, particularly after 1939. - -Those are, generally, the facts about which Bodenschatz could testify -here as a witness. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): -May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general word about the -procedure of the Prosecution? - -My colleagues in all the delegations have asked me to deal primarily -with these particular applications. There will be some of them, if the -Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues would like to add a -word as they have special interest in them. But in general, and on the -whole, I shall deal with the applications for the Prosecution. - -May I say that the Prosecution has proceeded on this principle, that if -there is any point of relevance in a witness for whom application is -made, they will not, of course, object. But they want to make it quite -clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are not, by making no -objections, accepting the position that every point set out in the -document or mentioned by counsel is admitted to be relevant. By making -no objection they are simply admitting that there is some relevant point -in the matter put forward. - -On that basis—and the Tribunal will understand why I have to be careful -in the matter—the Prosecution makes no objection in the case of General -Bodenschatz. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer. - -DR. STAHMER: I further name as a witness the former Gauleiter, Dr. -Uiberreither, who is at present here in the prison at Nuremberg. -Uiberreither is to offer the following evidence. He can give information -about a speech . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: May I say this to Sir David that perhaps, in view of what -you have said, you might be able to indicate at the opening of Dr. -Stahmer’s motion in respect to each witness whether the Prosecution has -any objection to the witness. Perhaps that would make it easier for him -to deal shortly with it. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection to Dr. -Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned. - -THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if Counsel for the Prosecution indicate -to us that they have no objection to a particular witness, then Dr. -Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness. - -DR. STAHMER: Surely. - -THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the evidence is, but -do it shortly because the Prosecution has got no objection. - -DR. STAHMER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, would it not be -equally convenient to the Defense, for the purpose of shortening things, -to have this evidence taken either out of an affidavit or by -interrogatories? - -DR. STAHMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no objections if -I have the possibility of getting a statement from the witness himself. - -THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us what the -substance of the evidence is. - -DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Göring, in the summer of -1938, delivered a speech before the new Gauleiter of Austria in which he -dealt with the policy of the Reich and in which he spoke about the goal -and purpose of the Four Year Plan. The witness, furthermore, was present -when Göring, some time after 10 November 1938, that is, after the -demonstration against the Jews, called all the Gauleiter to Berlin and -there criticized those actions very severely. Those are the two subjects -of evidence. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number 3 now. - -DR. STAHMER: The witness is Lord Halifax. Referring to this witness -. . . - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate—the interrogatories have been -served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The Prosecution has no objection -to the interrogatories. Of course, it objects to his being called as a -witness, but we understand that the Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to -Lord Halifax being dealt with by means of interrogatories, and we have -no objections. - -DR. STAHMER: I am satisfied with the reply to my interrogatories which I -have already received and I do not insist on summoning the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may say that also -in this case the submission of an interrogatory was approved and the -interrogatory, as far as I have been able to determine, has been sent -out already. I have not yet received an answer. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to Sir George -Ogilvie-Forbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I will do my best to -see that the answer will be forthcoming as soon as possible. My -recollection—I wasn’t able to check it—is that Sir George is at a -foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the answers are -brought and certainly will do everything to help on the point. - -DR. STAHMER: Whether I can ultimately forego him I shall naturally be -able to judge only when I have the interrogatory before me. It may be -that in regard to some questions he has given an insufficient answer. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Dahlerus or Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes? - -DR. STAHMER: Forbes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted to you -as soon as they are answered. - -DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. Interrogatories -have been granted for him. - -DR. STAHMER: With regard to the testimony of Dahlerus I have to say the -following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so important that -an interrogatory could not exhaust all his knowledge and therefore I ask -to have the witness called so that he can be interrogated here in court. - -If this should not be possible, I ask for the opportunity to question -him personally at Stockholm. Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus personally, and -he will make a statement concerning this witness. - -DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I have known Mr. -Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has written to me about the -fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus, in -principle, is prepared to come to Nuremberg without further ado if the -Court approves. As soon as the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus, as far as -I can deduce from his letter, will certainly be ready to come -personally. - -I wish to say something else, as a matter of principle. In the case of -important witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could answer -questions which are of far-reaching historic importance, most probably -not only one defendant’s counsel will want to ask questions, but the -subject concerns several Defense Counsels. Therefore, an interrogatory -which comes only from Dr. Stahmer, would, in my opinion, not be -sufficient in such a case. I therefore ask the admission of the witness -also from this point of view. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position as to -the Witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put in interrogatories -consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of that at all. I only -bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show that Dr. Stahmer has -certainly covered the ground. - -In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer’s -application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is Dahlerus’ -book—if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish—_Sista Forsoket_, (_The -Last Attempt_). That is a quite lengthy book, dealing in detail with -this point, and it is desired, and the Tribunal has allowed, that Dr. -Stahmer will use it. - -In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of -interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign -Minister, and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor in -Berlin, and on the main point of the matter, that Dr. Dahlerus had -certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no dispute. - -In my respectful submission, the defendant is well covered by the -interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax and Sir -George Ogilvie-Forbes; and the book, and the evidence of the Defendant -Göring himself; and it is unnecessary to investigate this matter further -as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and can come and should come -from Sweden. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, has the Prosecution -administered cross-interrogatories to Dahlerus? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. - -THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the Defendant Raeder’s -counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that I know of is by -the Defendant Ribbentrop’s counsel on a limited point. - -DR. HORN: Before the Court makes a decision about the witness Dahlerus, -I would like to inform the Tribunal that I have asked for that witness -for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus, in the decisive -hours before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, played a decisive -role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can give important evidence -about the last document which contained the conditions for further -negotiations with Poland. This document was the cause of the second -World War. I believe that this should be sufficient reason to call the -witness Dahlerus to come here, especially since Dr. Siemers has declared -that he knows that the witness is prepared to come on his own -initiative. - -DR. STAHMER: In view of the importance of this motion to me, may I in -addition state the following: I have sent an interrogatory with 52 -questions; but I do not believe that these questions really exhaust the -subject matter of the evidence. For it is impossible, as I said before, -to summarize everything that the witness knows strategically and to -bring it out in such sequence that the Tribunal can have a complete -picture of the important function which Dahlerus exercised at that time -in the interests of England as well as of Germany. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that point. - -DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have named Dr. Baron Von -Hammerstein, who was Judge Advocate General in the Air Force and who is -at this time a prisoner of war either in American or British hands. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, the Tribunal -allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February; and Dr. Stahmer has not -yet submitted the interrogatories; and the witness is not yet located. I -have no objection to interrogatories. It seems as if this is essentially -the type of witness that interrogatories would be most helpful with. He -was the equivalent, as I understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of -the Air Force, and interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in -this application, would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no -objection at all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer -the interrogatories as soon as he likes. - -DR. STAHMER: As far as I can find out, I have not received any -resolution that an interrogatory should be submitted, but I would -nevertheless like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: You must be mistaken about that, Dr. Stahmer, because -upon our documents the right to administer interrogatories was granted -on the 9th of February. - -DR. STAHMER: I cannot find it at the moment. I must check on it first; -but in any case I am making the request. - -Hammerstein has known the defendant for many years, specifically in a -field which is of greatest importance for the forming of an opinion -concerning the defendant’s attitude towards justice and also towards the -treatment of the population in occupied territory and of prisoners of -war, and here also in my opinion, it will be decisively important that -the witness should give to the Tribunal detailed information about these -facts and describe them in a manner which cannot possibly be expressed -in an interrogatory or in answer to an interrogatory. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the interrogatories -have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat a day or two ago. -I don’t want to add to my point. - -DR. STAHMER: I believe that is correct. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one? - -DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Werner von Brauchitsch, Jr., colonel in -the Air Force, son of General Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch, who is here -in the courthouse prison in Nuremberg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel Von Brauchitsch. - -DR. STAHMER: This witness is to give information about the attitude of -the defendant with regard to lynch justice, to terror fliers, and with -regard to his attitude towards enemy fliers in general. - -Next, General of the Air Force Kammhuber, who is a prisoner of war -either in American or British captivity. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber, -interrogatories were also allowed on the 9th of February of this year, -and they have not been submitted, as far as my information goes, and -again the witness has not been located. I have no objection to -interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably Dr. -Stahmer could decide whether it is necessary to call the witness. - -I remind the Tribunal that this sketch was introduced in quite guarded -terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to me the sort -of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed statement could -be put in about this? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the -interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that, because -as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan showing the -Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts outside Germany, and -Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said that he was not stating -positively that it had been placed before the Defendant Göring. -Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be most ready to consider -it, and, if possible, agree on the point. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer? - -DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, a prisoner of war in -American hands. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection to General -Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he should be alerted. He -has not yet been located, but if he is located, then clearly the matters -suggested are relevant in the view of the Prosecution. - -DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, a prisoner of war in English -hands. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection to this -witness. If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I have not had the -chance to take this particular point up with my French colleague. As far -as I know there is no objection. I would like to verify that. - -[_There was a pause in the proceedings._] - -I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. Champetier de -Ribes, agrees that he has no objection. - -DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the courthouse -prison in Nuremberg at the present time. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and the Prosecution -takes the same attitude: No objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: We would like to hear some explanation from you, Dr. -Stahmer, on what the evidence—what is the relevance of Field Marshal -Kesselring’s evidence. - -DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant because -the Prosecution has declared that Rotterdam had been attacked without -military necessity, and that the attack, in addition, took place at a -time when negotiations were already under way for the capitulation of -the city. - -THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but General -Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, as I -understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field -Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn’t it be sufficient -to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student? - -DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. STAHMER: Dr. Von Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, whose -whereabouts are unknown to me, but who has presumably been released from -captivity and may be at his home in Hamburg now. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are really on the same -point. As I understand it, I thought that—my copy is very bad, but I -read it—the defendant was not informed of the experiments conducted by -two doctors—the first one must be Rascher, I think, and Dr. Romberg—on -inmates of Dachau and other places; that the defendant himself never -arranged for any experiments whatsoever on prisoners, and Field Marshal -Milch—Paragraph A—said that the defendant was not informed of the -letters exchanged between the witness and Wolff concerning the -experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were -employed, and the witness did not even inform the defendant of this -subject; and that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau, -withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon. - -Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We have no objection to -the witness being called. - -It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Von Ondarza, -that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should be alerted -on 26 January. Field Marshal Milch is in the prison. Again I should have -thought that in these circumstances we would make no objection to Field -Marshal Milch being called on this point, and if the surgeon, Von -Ondarza can be located, then I shall agree to interrogatories, but I -don’t feel very. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, if we were -to grant the application to call Field Marshal Milch on this point and -were to allow an interrogatory for the other witness when he has been -located? - -DR. STAHMER: I have also examined the question whether the evidence -would be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence to be offered by -Milch is slightly different, and the Defendant Göring considers it -important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. Ondarza was his -physician for many years and therefore is well informed, and he is -furthermore to tell us that the Defendant Göring did not know anything -about the experiments which were made with these 500 brains. That is not -yet in my application, but I have just found out about that. There was a -long deposition which was submitted by the Prosecution concerning these -500 brains. I protested against that at the time and I was told that I -should make this objection at a specified time. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what you say upon -that. You can turn now to Körner. - -DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Körner, who is here in Nuremberg in -the courthouse prison. . . - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection on the part of the -Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, in our documents it is stated that the -suggested witness Paul Körner is not located, but in the document of -your application you say that he is in the Nuremberg prison. - -DR. STAHMER: I did receive that information at one time. At this moment -I cannot say where my information comes from. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I could easily -find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the matter can be checked. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster of -internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear to be in that -list. - -THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr. Stahmer? - -DR. STAHMER: Körner was a state secretary since 1933 and he can testify -about the purpose behind the establishment of concentration camps in -1933, about the treatment of the people imprisoned there, and that -Göring was in charge of these camps only until 1934. He can also testify -about the measures and regulations, the purpose and aim of the Four Year -Plan, and also about the attitude of the defendant after he had been -informed in November 1938, about the anti-Jewish incidents. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that. - -DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English or an -American camp. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, is that interrogatories -were allowed on the 9th of February. They have not yet been submitted, -and the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to -interrogatories with regard to Dr. Lohse or the next witness, Dr. -Bunjes, who deals with the same point. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems to me -important—considering the weight of the accusations which have been -made here against the defendant—so important that I ask to hear him as -witness here before this Tribunal. The question is a very short one: He -is to testify as to what the defendant’s attitude was toward the -acquisition of art objects in the occupied territories. That is, to be -sure, a very short subject, but for the judgment of the defendant it is -extremely important; and the accusation made by the Prosecution in this -respect is extremely serious. - -THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing now with Dr. Bunjes? - -DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal; the interrogatories -apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, and the Prosecution -respectfully submits that we should see what Dr. Lohse can say in answer -to the interrogatories, and then Dr. Stahmer can, if necessary, renew -the application. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about Dr. Bunjes? - -DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He seems to be, My Lord, in exactly the same -position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not think I need repeat what I said. - -THE PRESIDENT: Except that he may be located. I do not know where he is. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference to Dr. -Bunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find out whether he can -be located or not. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps Dr. Stahmer knows. - -DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp at -Hersbruck. That is here in the vicinity of Nuremberg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall have inquiries made about him. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bunjes—do you know where he can be located? - -DR. STAHMER: No; his home is in Trier, but whether he is there I do not -know. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses, does it -not? - -DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Are those all the witnesses that you are applying for? - -DR. STAHMER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list? - -DR. STAHMER: I cannot yet foresee how far the Prosecution, which has not -finished the presentation of its case, will make it necessary for me to -make further applications. - -THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider your documents the Tribunal will -adjourn. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents more as a whole. -Have you anything to say about them? - -DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning the two -witnesses, Koller and Körner? I was just told that Koller was Chief of -Staff of the Air Force, and Körner a lower staff officer. Both were -repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces. This indication may make -it easier and more possible to locate the witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of course, we will -do our best to help in locating them. - -THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Koller and Körner. They are both witnesses to -whom I made no objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the Tribunal please, -if I were to explain the general position of the Prosecution with regard -to the documents, and then Dr. Stahmer could deal with these points -because they fall into certain groups which I can indicate quite -shortly. There are three documents which are not in evidence, but to -which there is no objection: Number 19, the Anglo-German Naval -Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, and the Court can take judicial -cognizance of it. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the Constitution of the German Reich, the -Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919. Again I shall assume the Court -will take judicial cognizance of it. - -THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Number 30, Hitler’s speech of 21 May 1935. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which are already in -evidence as far as I know: - -Number 4, the Rhine Pact of Locarno; Number 5, the Memorandum to the -Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935; Number 6, Memorandum to the -Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936; Number 9, the Treaty of -Versailles; Number 17, the speech by the Defendant Von Neurath, of 16 -October 1933; Number 18, the proclamation by the Reich Government, of -the 16th of March 1935. And then Number 7 was referred to but not read. -That is the speech by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop before the League of -Nations on the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been -referred to and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are -concerned. - -Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the moment -referred to the whole book: Number 1, the late Lord Rothermere’s book, -_Warnings and Prophecies_; Number 2, the late Sir Nevile Henderson’s -_Failure of a Mission_; Number 3, the references to a number of years of -the _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_. - -THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, don’t they, in the ones that -follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, are taken from -those volumes, aren’t they, of the _Deutschen Politik_? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My Lord. If I might -just give Your Lordship the others so that you have the group together: - -Number 8, Mr. Fay’s book on the _Origin of the World War_, the first -World War; Number 20, Mr. Winston Churchill’s book, _Step by Step_; -Number 24, the Defendant Göring’s book, _Building up a Nation_; Number -26, to which I have already referred, is Mr. Dahlerus’ book, _The Last -Attempt_. - -With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is -mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into -Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already; -secondly, the relevancy of the book cannot be decided until we see the -extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution submits -that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us know what are -the extracts on which he relies so that they can be translated and we -can decide as to whether they are relevant or not. - -Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the issue is -not clear or insofar as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. One to -which I have already referred comes into this: - -Number 8, Fay on _The Origin of the First World War_. Number 10, speech -by President Wilson, of 8 January 1918—that is the 14-point speech; -Number 11, the note of President Wilson, of 5 November 1918—that is the -Armistice note; Number 12, a speech by M. Paul Boncour, of 8 April 1927; -Number 13, a speech by General Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before -1921, because it is quoted in _What Really Happened at Paris_, published -in 1921; Number 14, a speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November -1927; Number 15, an article by Lord Cecil, on the 1st of March 1924, and -another on the 18th of November 1926; Number 16, Lord Lloyd George’s -memorandum for the peace conference of 25 March 1919. - -May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only -relevancy of these books and documents is to the issue of whether the -Treaty of Versailles accorded with the 14 Points of President Wilson. -The Prosecution submits that that is poles removed from the issues of -this Trial and is just one of the matters against which the whole -intendment of the Charter proceeds and which should not be gone into by -this Court. It may be that I am wrong, or so it seems, difficult, in -view of the collection of documents, to suppose that there is another -issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, that Dr. Stahmer ought -to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to which these documents are -directed and, where the document is long, to indicate what extract he -refers to. But if the issue be that that I have referred to, then in the -submission of the Prosecution—I speak for all my colleagues—we submit -that it is a completely irrelevant matter. - -I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Number 21 and -22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They ought to be -added. - -Then I have already dealt with Number 20, Mr. Churchill’s book. Apart -from the question of extracts, again the Prosecution submits that it -ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book has been -quoted. - -Number 23 is a missive of M. Tchitcherin, stated to be the Foreign -Commissar of the U.S.S.R., to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the -Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to which -that is directed. - -The Defendant Göring’s book, I have already dealt with, and I ask that -we should get extracts. Number 28, General Fuller’s book on _Total War_ -or an essay on _Total War_—again the Prosecution does not know the -issue at which it is directed. - -Then my fifth category, Number 27, which is the White Books of the -German Foreign Office. - -And I draw attention to Number 4, document to the Anglo-France policy of -extending the war; Number 5, further document as to the western policy -of extending the war; Number 6 are secret files of the French General -Staff; Number 29, documentations and reports of the German Foreign -Office regarding breaches of the Hague regulations for land warfare and -Crimes against Humanity committed by the powers at war with the German -Reich. These last documents seem to raise quite clearly the issues of -_tu quoque_: If the Reich committed breaches of the laws and usages of -war, other people did the same thing. The submission of the Prosecution -is that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the -conventions and it is no answer, even if it were true that someone else -had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional reason, -that it would be quite impracticable and intolerable if this Tribunal -were to embark on the further task of investigating every allegation, -however tenuously founded, that some one else had not maintained these -conventions. - -It is in the submission of the Prosecution—again I speak for all my -colleagues—a matter which is completely irrelevant; and therefore we -object to any evidence, whether oral or documentary, intended on that -point. Of course, we all along have taken the view that we have no -objection to the Defense Counsel having access to these documents in -order to use them for refreshing their memory as to the background, but -we object to their introduction in evidence for the reasons that I have -given. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, perhaps you could say in the first -instance whether you agree, that so far as the books are concerned that -you would be willing to provide the extracts upon which you rely? You -cannot expect the Prosecution or the Tribunal to get the whole books -translated. - -DR. STAHMER: This was also not my intention, and I believe that I -prefaced my list of documents with a remark in which, under Number 2 I -had pointed out, and had declared myself willing to specify the -quotations. To that extent, of course, the objection in itself is in -order. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. Very well. - -DR. STAHMER: Another topic the Prosecution has attacked is the books -which I have cited, and which refer to the Treaty of Versailles. Here -also I will state specifically to what extent I wish to use quotations -from these books. As a matter of principle, however, the Defense must be -granted the right to present its point of view in this matter, since -after all. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, all these books which Sir David referred to, -of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice, of course, you can make -comment upon them if you wish, as on any document of which the Tribunal -takes judicial notice. - -[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were referring to the Treaty of -Versailles. - -DR. STAHMER: No; with the literature concerning the Treaty of -Versailles. - -THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with the ones which Sir David -itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22? - -DR. STAHMER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. STAHMER: Since an essential accusation made by the Prosecution is -that the defendants violated the Treaty of Versailles, the Defense -naturally has to take a stand relative to the question as to whether and -to what extent the breach of the treaty took place and whether and to -what extent that treaty was still valid. To that extent, at least, the -books and dissertations which deal with these questions are important. I -believe that an understanding of this question in detail can be reached -only after I have submitted the quotations, and that will take place at -the beginning of the presentation of testimony. I have not been able to -accomplish the work. - -THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you confusing the question of validity with the -question of justice? - -DR. STAHMER: No, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Go on. - -DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this sphere also the Defense is justified -in demanding the presentation of the _White Books_, because the contents -of these _White Books_ will, to a great extent, be of importance in the -question of the war of aggression; and to that extent also a reference -to these books has significance. Here also, I believe, it will only be -possible to make a decision after the individual quotations from these -_White Books_ have been read. - -Furthermore, the presentation of the reports concerning the breaches of -the Hague Convention has been demanded. I believe that this motion -cannot be rejected with the remark that it is not concerned with the -question whether such breaches were committed on the other side too. -This fact, in my opinion, is of importance in two ways. First of all, to -reach a just decision one has to make sure whether the conduct on the -other side was really correct and beyond reproach and it is furthermore -of importance because it involves the question of whether the defendants -were not resorting to retaliatory measures. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think you have dealt with each topic with the exception -of Numbers 20, 23, and 28. Number 20 is Mr. Winston Churchill’s book; 23 -is Tchitcherin’s, and 28 is General Fuller’s book. We will take those. - -DR. STAHMER: Book Number 20, Churchill’s _Step by Step_—here we are -concerned with statements in which Churchill at one point expresses his -opinion as to whether England, by the Naval Treaty of 1935, had not -sanctioned Germany’s renunciation of the Versailles Treaty. - -Furthermore, this book is of importance as far as I can see it now, in -evaluating the extent to which England rearmed, and finally at various -points in that book there are references to Hitler’s personality. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I say with the greatest respect to Dr. Stahmer -that he has reinforced my point, that if Dr. Stahmer is putting forward -the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision on the matters -before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate whether other -belligerents have committed breaches of conventions, then, as I say, I -join issue with him _in toto_. I cannot add to the matter. But with -regard to Mr. Churchill, Dr. Stahmer makes three points; one, that some -passages in the book give color to the idea that by the naval agreement -the validity of the Versailles Treaty was affected. That is a point to -which there are obviously many answers, including the facts that France -was a party to the treaty and the United States was a party to a treaty -in the same terms. But clearly Mr. Churchill’s view expressed in a book, -as to the legal effect of one treaty or another, is in my submission -irrelevant. - -Equally irrelevant is the British rearmament and the personality of Mr. -Churchill himself. And I respectfully submit, without going into detail, -that Dr. Stahmer has, by his examples, confirmed the argument that these -matters are irrelevant to the issues before the Court. I do not wish to -say more. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to know if you would -go back from this question, or if you like, deal with anything you have -to say about Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s observations about Mr. Churchill’s -book. If you prefer to do that, do that now. - -But afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these -documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further about -Document 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should develop your -argument as to how those documents can be relevant. For instance, -Document 10 and Document 11, the speeches and notes of President Wilson. -How can such documents as that have any bearing upon this Trial or -indeed upon the validity of the Treaty of Versailles? But take it in -your own order. - -DR. STAHMER: These speeches form the foundation of the Versailles Treaty -and they are significant therefore for the interpretation of the treaty. -Consequently it is important to refer to the speeches, in order to judge -the contents of the treaty and the question whether Germany rightfully -or wrongly renounced the treaty, that is, whether thereby a breach of -the treaty took place, or whether the treaty actually gave Germany the -right to withdraw. - -THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that? - -DR. STAHMER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything further about -Number 20, 23, or 28? - -DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Number 23 refers to the same -questions regarding the interpretation and the contents of the treaty. - -THE PRESIDENT: The statement by the Foreign Commissar of the U.S.S.R. in -1924. . . . Very well, you say that it is relevant on the interpretation -of the Treaty of Versailles. And General Fuller’s book. . . - -DR. STAHMER: General Fuller also refers in this speech to the -personality of Hitler and to the question of rearmament. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that concludes them. - -[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._] - -The Tribunal will consider their decision upon your witnesses and upon -your documents. Have you anything further to say upon it? - -DR. STAHMER: No. - -[_Professor Dr. Franz Exner approached the lectern._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Exner? - -PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): May it please -the Court, I take the liberty of adding something for the specific -reason that there is danger that evidence may be refused which is of -crucial importance for my client also. It concerns evidence which will -show that War Crimes and violations of international law were committed -by the other side too. The Prosecutor has said that this is irrelevant -as far as we are concerned here in this Trial. The Defense certainly -does not think of making defendants of the prosecutors, but this point -is certainly not irrelevant, specifically because: - -First, it has to do with the concept of retaliation in international -law. Retaliation justifies an action, which under normal circumstances -would be illegal. That is to say, retaliation then has this significance -when the individual action is the answer to a violation of international -law committed by the other side. If, therefore one wants to justify -one’s own action from the point of view of retaliation—one can only do -so by proving that violations of law have preceded it on the other side. - -Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known that this -war in the beginning was conducted relatively humanely and. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you will forgive me, the argument which you -are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer and will, of -course, be fully considered by the Tribunal. - -[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Would you continue then, Dr. Exner? - -DR. EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known that at -the beginning of this war international law was respected on both sides -and that the war was conducted humanely. It was only in the second phase -of the war that a terrible bitterness among the fighting powers -developed and on both sides things occurred which international law -cannot sanction. In my opinion, it is entirely important in the judgment -of a crime, whatever crime that may be, to consider the motive. If one -does not know the motive of the action, one cannot judge the action -itself. And the bitterness which was started, purely psychologically, by -the manner in which the war was conducted on one side and on the other, -was the motive for actions which normally cannot be justified. - -I therefore ask the Tribunal to consider carefully before this evidence -is declared irrelevant. - -[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._] - -DR. SIEMERS: I should like to mention a matter of principle with -reference to the manner in which the relevancy of evidence is being -discussed. If I understand the Tribunal correctly, then we should talk -today about the relevancy of those witnesses and documents which are -still to be brought here. That was exactly what was stated in the -Tribunal’s decision of 18 February. - -Now, however, the Prosecution has brought the discussion round to -documents which we already have in our hands. I ask the Tribunal to -understand me correctly if I protest unequivocally to this. In no case -was it possible to discuss the relevancy of the Prosecution’s documents -weeks before they were presented. If I have documents in my possession, -as is the case with most of the documents about which we have spoken, -then, as defendant’s counsel, I must be able to submit these documents -without the consent of the Prosecution. - -Sir David has said that the relevancy of books which are here in the -building is to be examined after we have presented the extracts, and -then the Prosecution will decide whether they are relevant. Sir David -has also said that numerous books which are here are not relevant. If -this motion by the Prosecution is granted, then that is an extraordinary -limitation of the Defense which I cannot accept without protest. - -The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court has -declared that each letter and each document could be presented and -therefore I do not understand why we are now arguing about the relevancy -of documents which are at hand, since, in my opinion, the Court has -already said that we will argue only about the relevancy of documents -which are still missing. - -THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I had explained -this morning—in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn on behalf of the -Defendant Ribbentrop—what the Tribunal was seeking to do today, was to -follow the provision of Article 24(d), which provides that the Tribunal -shall ask the Prosecution and Defense what evidence, if any, they wish -to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule on the -admissibility of any such evidence, and I pointed out that the reason -why the Defense had been to some extent treated in a different way from -the Prosecution was because in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has -got to find all the witnesses and bring them here, and the Tribunal has -got, in many instances, to find the documents or supply the documents; -and therefore it isn’t reasonable that the Tribunal should be asked to -bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance with -the Charter, until the Tribunal has heard argument upon the -admissibility of the witness or the document. And that is what it is -doing. I thought that I had fully explained that in answer to Dr. Horn’s -argument. - -It is perfectly true that you cannot rule finally on the admissibility -of a document or the admissibility of a witness until you have actually -heard the passage in the document which is relied upon or the questions -put to the witness which are said to be relevant or irrelevant. -Therefore, the final determination upon the question of admissibility -will be when the witness is put in the witness-box and asked questions -or the document or the passage from the document is actually produced. - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Excuse me, but I believe that this still does not -answer one point. It is undoubtedly true that we are arguing here about -documents and witnesses which are not at our disposal. But it is a -different thing in the case of those documents which are already here in -this building and which are at our disposal as Defense Counsel. To give -an example: - -The _White Books_ which Sir David has mentioned are here; why should we -argue now about the relevance of this evidence? This question has -nothing to do with the delay of the Trial, nor with the procurement of -documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything, General Rudenko? - -GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Sir David has already expressed the -point of view of the Prosecution on the question raised by the Defense -Counsel. I should like to add to what has already been said by Sir David -regarding the statements made here by the Defense Counsel. - -The position of Defense Counsel Exner is that the Defense would not -intentionally turn the prosecutor into a defendant and that the Defense -will resort to a method of analysis and explanation of events which will -establish the motives, for in its opinion, the motive is unknown, and in -order to determine this motive it is necessary to examine the question: -Were the Geneva and Hague Conventions at least violated by other powers -at war with Germany? It stands to reason in my opinion—and I believe -that I am also expressing the point of view of all the Prosecution—it -is really strange to hear such a statement on the part of a lawyer after -a 3-months’ trial and after the presentation of a mass of evidence by -the Prosecution. - -The Defense unquestionably has full right to submit proof—documents and -witnesses—on all counts of the charges lodged against the defendants; -and, as is evident from this morning’s session, when the Prosecution -examined the request on behalf of the Defendant Göring, as is known to -the esteemed Tribunal, the Prosecution, in its opinion, gave its -consent, in major part, to the calling of witnesses. But in the question -raised by Dr. Exner we have here positive divergences of opinions and -divergences of principle. - -The Prosecution considers it impossible to diverge from the one -fundamental and decisive factor, that this is a trial of the major -German war criminals. The Tribunal is investigating atrocities -perpetrated by the Hitlerite fascists and as a result of this position, -and not losing sight of this fact, the Defense certainly could submit, -after examining and analyzing the evidence already presented by the -Prosecution, this or that evidence which in some manner could change -individual details. But it is, not admissible and it would indeed be a -grave violation of the Charter to transform examination of these charges -into a digression on questions having no relation whatever to this -particular Trial. - -The Prosecution therefore so energetically objects to the requests for -and incorporation of such documents as have absolutely no relevancy to -this Trial and the examination of which, without a doubt, would lead to -a digression from the basic fact. This is what I wanted to add to what -Sir David has said on behalf of the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do now, I want -to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment are required to -name their witnesses and the subject matter of their evidence, and the -documents and the relevance of the documents, by Wednesday next at 5 p. -m. The Tribunal will hold a similar session to the session it has been -holding this morning with reference to the defense of those defendants -on Saturday next at 10 o’clock. - -The Tribunal will now adjourn until a quarter past 2. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. With reference to the -announcement that I made this morning, the Tribunal may hear the -applications for witnesses and documents of the Defendants -Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick before Saturday. That will -depend upon the progress of the case. I have already stated that those -applications must be deposited with the General Secretary by 5 o’clock -p. m. on Wednesday. - -Secondly, all the defendants, other than the first eight named in the -Indictment, must make application naming their witnesses and the -relevancy of their evidence, and the documents and the relevancy of the -documents, by Friday next at 5 p. m. - -Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next at 4 p. -m. - -Perhaps I also ought to say that this does not affect—it does not refer -directly to defendants’ counsel who represent the criminal -organizations. Those counsel will be heard after the close of the -Prosecution’s case, as has already been announced. - -Next would be Hess. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the Tribunal did -desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, which was raised -by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the Tribunal would care to hear -further matter on it. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal would like to hear that now. - -MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): May -it please the Tribunal, I wish to say at the very outset, that I have -made a rather hurried preparation during the noon recess of the few -notes on this subject based on some work which we had done a little -earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go into the matter to any great -extent at this time, but I did want to call to the attention of the -Tribunal a few of these notes that we have prepared, and to say that, in -view of Dr. Exner’s contention that some of the documents which are -offered by the Defense, or which they intend or hope to offer, are -admissible on the theory or under the doctrine of reprisal. - -We would like to say to the Tribunal that the Convention of 1929 -concerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits -altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war. -Parenthetically, I might say that the United States prohibited in its -Army instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862 or -1863. - -Secondly, I should like to point out that the Hague regulations do not -mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use of -so-called “reprisal action” against civilians. - -It appears that the Brussels conference of 1874, which accepted the -unratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in international law—that -conference rejected or struck out several sections which were proposed -by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of reprisal -action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting and -indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the matter of -reprisals against civilians as early as then. - -Thirdly, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that it is commonly -said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal action may be -taken a notice of some character is usually required, and this reprisal -action is directed against some specific instance which the first power -believes to be offensive and which it believes may call for or justify -the use of reprisal action. So that some notice of some kind seems to be -required by the power which feels it has been offended to the offending -power. - -I might say that in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief we specifically -avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war of the -shackling of prisoners of war, because there, there was some color of -notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers concerned. - -These are the points that we have had in mind during this brief recess -this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us do it, we shall -be glad to prepare ourselves further, and to be heard further on this -subject at a later date. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position with -regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl’s communication to -the Tribunal; and I have one or two comments to make on that on behalf -of the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you comment upon that, Dr. Seidl? Would it be -convenient to follow the same course as we followed with Dr. Stahmer, -and perhaps Sir David may say if he has any objection, first of all to -the witnesses, one by one, that you are asking for? - -DR. ALFRED SEIDL: I should like, however, to request the Court to permit -me a short preparatory remark and to make a motion. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SEIDL: My Lords, from what happened in this morning’s session I -gained the conviction that now the Trial has entered into a decisive -phase, at any rate as far as concerns the Defense. I consequently feel -myself obliged to make the following application. - -I should like to ask that the Court, at this point in the Trial, should, -when examining the relevancy of the evidence submitted by the Defense, -limit itself to the witnesses, and postpone examination of the relevancy -of documents until a later time. To establish reason for this I permit -myself to point out the following: - -The Court issued a ruling regarding the submission of evidence by the -Defense for the first time on 17 December 1945. In this ruling only -witnesses and not documents were discussed. A second decision is that of -18 February in which the following introductory remark is made, “In -order to avoid delay in the securing of witnesses and documents, Defense -Counsel shall . . .” and then follow the remaining contents of the -ruling. - -I am of the opinion, My Lords, that the question as to whether a -document has relevancy or not can only be decided when I have this -document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar with the -precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a summary -proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the admissibility of -whole books is supposed to be decided on, to pass appropriate judgment -as to whether a particular passage in a document has relevancy or not. -This question can be decided clearly and definitely only if the -Prosecution and the Court as well have the document in their hands in -the form in which the Defense wishes to submit it. I am convinced . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this morning that the -question of the final admissibility, whether of witnesses as evidence, -or documentary evidence, can only be finally decided when the document -is actually put in or when the witness is actually asked a question. -What we are now considering is whether the document has any possibility -of relevance and must, therefore, be searched for, if necessary, or sent -for. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, it is not -necessary . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal thinks that you had better deal -with your witnesses and documents now, and we do not desire to hear any -further general arguments on the subject. We desire to hear you upon the -documents and the witnesses which you wish to call and produce. - -DR. SEIDL: It is, then, a question of the documents I already have in my -possession and not of the documents which I wish to obtain. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to mention. - -DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply the -documents that must first be procured. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for certain -witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you upon that -application. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next Wednesday for -the Defendant Frank, and I should like to know whether those documents -should be brought up which I already have in my hands. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with your -witnesses in the same way that Dr. Stahmer did. - -DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I intend to hear is Fräulein Ingeborg -Berg, a former secretary to the Defendant Rudolf Hess. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not seen this list until a -moment ago. - -THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg; is that -right? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl tells me that this lady was a -private secretary to Hess, it seems to me, _prime facie_, reasonable -that there was a chance of discussing the matter. As a general rule it -seems to me reasonable that a private secretary should be called who can -corroborate the matters with which the defendant was dealing. I do not -think any of my colleagues will disagree with that point. - -DR. SEIDL: My second witness is the previous Gauleiter and head of the -Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle, who is imprisoned here -on remand. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have not really adopted the procedure -which the Tribunal asked you to adopt. You have not specified the -relevance of the evidence which you wish to produce. You have referred -to some previous application. The Tribunal has not got all these -applications before it at the moment, and therefore we wish to know in -what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg is relevant. - -DR. SEIDL: The witness Ingeborg Berg was the secretary of the Defendant -Hess at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to make statements -regarding the time Hess began making preparations for his flight to -England, and what sort of preparations they were. - -She is further to testify as to what Hess’s attitude was toward the -Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with the -Jewish pogrom of 8 November 1938. - -THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nuremberg? - -DR. SEIDL: She is here, in Nuremberg. - -THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the second witness now, if you like. - -DR. SEIDL: The second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the -Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle. He is imprisoned on -remand in Nuremberg. He is to testify whether the Auslands-Organisation -developed any activity which might make it appear to be a Fifth Column. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is one of our -allegations against the Auslands-Organisation, and therefore it does -seem relevant. I make no objection. - -DR. SEIDL: Walter Schellenberg is the third witness I mention. Whether I -shall be able to uphold his application I can only judge after the Court -has given me the opportunity to speak to this witness who is here in -Nuremberg. I do not know whether the witness can give pertinent evidence -concerning the time in question, prior to 10 May 1941. I should like to -avoid occupying the time of the Tribunal with the hearing of a witness -whose hearing proves that he cannot offer pertinent evidence. I -consequently ask the Tribunal first of all for permission to speak to -this witness for the purpose of getting information. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the witness -Schellenberg who was called for the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that it would be very undesirable to -have private conversations with witnesses before cross-examination. If -Dr. Seidl wishes to cross-examine the witness Schellenberg further, then -he ought to apply to the Court to cross-examine him in open court. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the defendants’ -counsel asked to postpone the further cross-examination of Dr. -Schellenberg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not to the further -cross-examination; that is a matter, of course, which is entirely for -the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my recollection is that -Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kauffmann also wanted to cross-examine the witness -further, and therefore I submit that, both generally and on this -particular occasion, it would be very undesirable for any counsel who is -going to cross-examine to have a private conversation with the witness -before he cross-examines. That is the matter to which I object. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants’ counsel finally decide that -they are not going to cross-examine the witness, I suppose then they -would be able to examine him in chief if they wanted to do so, to call -him. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, My Lord, of that -procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by one side, then the -other side must, in my respectful submission, do what they can by way of -cross-examination. The witness is before the Court and, as the -Prosecution have called the witness, then I submit that the Defense -should deal with the witness by way of cross-examination. They have the -additional rights which cross-examination gives, which is a compensation -for the other rights which they would have if he were their own witness. - -DR. SEIDL: Perhaps we might find a solution whereby I would renounce the -right to cross-examination, and if the witness could actually say -something pertinent, I could let him give me an affidavit. I do not -believe that the Prosecution would object to that. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of evidence -applicable to this Trial, would it be objectionable, would you say, if -the Defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the presence of a -representative of the Prosecution, if that is satisfactory to them? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the Prosecution all desire that only -the interest of justice should be furthered, and if the Tribunal -consider that that would be a suitable method of dealing with it, the -Prosecution would raise no objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: Unless you wish to say something further about -Schellenberg, the Tribunal will consider your application. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish to refer to? - -DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the resolution -of 18 February, every Defense Counsel has the right, until the -conclusion of the Trial, to ask permission to call further witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; in accordance -with the order of the Tribunal to which you are referring, this is the -time at which you are to apply for any witnesses you want. The Tribunal -always has the discretion, which it would exercise, if you prefer to -make any further applications. If later you want to ask for further -witnesses, the Tribunal will always consider your application. - -Did you get that? - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. - -As to the question of whether the Auslands-Organisation, the Volksbund -für das Deutschtum im Ausland, and the Bund Deutscher Osten had anything -to do with the activities of a Fifth Column, a further witness who would -come into question is the brother of the Defendant Rudolf Hess, Alfred -Hess, who was formerly a deputy Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation, -and is at present in Mergentheim in an internment camp. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got your application in front of us -with reference to that. If you want to make any further application you -may do so. - -DR. SEIDL: I have made the application. - -THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now? - -DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application now, -since the Tribunal has asked me to speak. I am, of course, prepared to -submit that application in writing later. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you now, then, upon this -application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards as a -matter of record. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: What was the name? - -DR. SEIDL: Hess, Alfred. His last official position was Deputy Gauleiter -of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP. At present he is in the -internment camp in Mergentheim. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because he was going to -speak as to Fifth Column activities; was that it? - -DR. SEIDL: Regarding the Fifth Column and regarding the question of -whether the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP and the Volksbund für das -Deutschtum im Ausland and the Bund Deutscher Osten have anything to do -with a Fifth Column or not. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded that this is a -relevant issue, and therefore the only question is cumulation. The -Defendant Hess will himself be able to speak on this point, and the -witness further if the Tribunal allows it. - -The Tribunal might well consider, in my submission, that an affidavit or -interrogatories from a third witness on the point would be sufficient at -the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in which case Dr. -Seidl could summon the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention first to read further passages -from individual documents in Rudolf Hess’s document book which was -submitted by the Prosecution in order to establish the connection. A -further justification of the relevance of these documents would be -superfluous, since it is entirely a question of documents submitted by -the Prosecution which have already been accepted in evidence by the -Court. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in this form: - - “I intend to read pages from the following books: _Rudolf Hess’s - Speeches_; _Directives of the Deputy of the Führer_. The - relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply from the - fact that both have already been introduced in evidence by the - Prosecution.” - -Insofar as the documents are documents already before the Tribunal, of -course, Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment on them as much -as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches and directives, -documents of the same class, then the Prosecution asks that he indicate -which speeches and which directives he is going to put in. - -DR. SEIDL: What Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe just read was the second point of -my application. It is true that I also intend to read certain passages -from the book, _Rudolf Hess’s Speeches_, and also from the book -_Directives of the Deputy of the Führer_. But since the Prosecution has -already submitted passages from both these books in evidence, which were -likewise already accepted as evidence, I believe I may say that there -are at least passages in these books—and that it is here a question of -documents—that are most certainly relevant. Whether those passages that -I intend to read are relevant or not can be decided only when I submit -these documents and this is exactly what I meant at the beginning of my -remarks, that it is possible to decide on the relevancy of a document -only when one has that document before one and knows its precise -contents. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hope Dr. Seidl will realize that this is -largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to introduce new speeches -and new directives, they have got to be translated into English, -Russian, and French; and therefore it will be necessary, for the general -progress of the Trial, that he should indicate which passages he is -going to put in so that they can be translated as well as considered. - -I am sure that Dr. Seidl will desire to use only relevant passages. -Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects, and -some of Hess’s speeches may well not be relevant. - -I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help along -the general progress of the Trial by the request that I have made. - -DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those passages -from the speeches, and few of them at that, which are relevant. I have -no intention of having whole sections of the book translated if it is -not necessary. I declare formally to the Tribunal that neither as -counsel for the Defendant Hess nor as counsel for the Defendant Frank -shall I submit one single document that could not be considered as -relevant. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Sir David was saying was that for the -mechanics of the Trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that we do not all -understand German, it is necessary that these documents which are in -German should be translated. Therefore, it is necessary for you to -specify which speech and which part of the speech you propose to rely -upon, and then it will be translated. - -DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage that -I intend to read in a document book, and I shall, in good time, submit -to the Court and to the Prosecution every passage from a speech which I -intend to read, in a document book. It is not the task of the -Prosecution, nor of the General Secretary, to do work which, of course, -I shall attend to. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is quite all right. That is -exactly the point that I was seeking to make. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now you are coming to Paragraph 3. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report of the -conference between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord Byron, who at that -time, as I recall, was Lord Privy Seal, and which took place on 9 June -1941. In this way the motives and aims which caused the Defendant Hess’s -flight to England are to be clarified. The relevancy is derived directly -from the fact that the Prosecution has, for its part, submitted as -evidence the reports of Mr. Kirkpatrick concerning his conference with -Hess. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl thinks that that conversation adds -anything to the conversations with the Duke of Hamilton and Mr. -Kirkpatrick, I shall not object to his reading the report. - -THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document? - -DR. SEIDL: It is in my possession. - -THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean, what -authenticity has it? Who made it? Who wrote it? - -DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the Defendant Hess -which were given to him when he was brought from England to Germany. It -is a copy of the original, that is to say a carbon copy, and a series of -official stamps prove beyond doubt that it is the carbon copy of an -original. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you would let us have the document, we will consider -it. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your presentation? - -DR. SEIDL: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn’t there? There are two other -documents referred to, but you are not asking us for those? A document -of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet, dated 10 May 1941? - -DR. SEIDL: This application appears to have been made by my predecessor, -by the lawyer Dr. Rohrscheidt. I should like to have an opportunity of -examining the relevancy of this point. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir David, about -them? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not got that document. The Prosecution -have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess sent to Hitler, and we -just simply cannot help on that point. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, it shall be -submitted to you. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn. - -DR. HORN: It is my intention to call as the first witness for the -Defendant Ribbentrop the former Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at present in -a camp at Minden near Hanover. Ambassador Gaus was for more than three -decades the head of the legal department of the German Foreign Office. I -believe that this witness is necessary in view of this function alone. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the same procedure -as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he has introduced the -witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the same way whether there -is any objection. - -Dr. HORN: Certainly. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned, there is no -objection, subject to one point on what I may call the Foreign Office -group of witnesses; and I think it will be convenient if I develop it -now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with the point in one moment. - -Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who was the defendant’s -private secretary, and then witnesses 3 to 7, five Foreign Office -officials, Herr Von Sonnleitner, Herr Von Rintelen, Gottfriedsen, -Hilger, and Bruns. - -The position at the moment is that there is some doubt as to whether -Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two of the witnesses, -Von Sonnleitner and Bruns were granted on 5 December. Von Sonnleitner -was granted as one of two and Herr Bruns was granted _simpliciter_. - -The Prosecution draws the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that no -special facts are stated as to which of these witnesses will speak, and -at the present moment, the applications are not within the Rule of -Procedure 4 (a), but what the Prosecution suggests is this: - -That it is reasonable that the defendant should have certain witnesses -who will speak as to Foreign Office business and activities, but they -suggest that if he has Herr Gaus and his private secretary, Miss Blank, -that one other Foreign Office official to speak as to general methods -would be sufficient, and Von Sonnleitner is obviously the sort of person -who could help the defendant on general Foreign Office matters. They -suggest that to call seven witnesses to deal with his general position -in the business would be unduly cumulative, and they suggest that three -is sufficient. - -I hope the Tribunal will not mind my dealing with the seven witnesses, -but really my point involves the number of them. - -DR. HORN: May I say something in reply to that? Dr. Gaus, in all -probability, will be my main witness for the Defense. Therefore, since -10 November 1945, I and my predecessor have done everything to find this -witness, and after that had been accomplished, to bring him here. I know -that the witness, although he has now been located, is not here. -Consequently, I do not know on what matters he can give us rebutting -evidence. For this reason I would also prefer not to commit myself yet -as to the other witnesses from the Foreign Office. I would like to demur -only to the following extent: The witnesses who have been listed in -addition, these additional witnesses of the Foreign Office, are not -witnesses who are to give testimony on routine questions, as Sir David -expressed himself, about general affairs of the Foreign Office; but they -are witnesses who can offer rebutting evidence concerning special topics -which the Prosecution has brought up. - -I consequently suggest that a final decision should be reached as to the -calling of these other witnesses only after Ambassador Von Gaus is here. -In connection with this statement, I should like to ask the Court again -personally to assist me in the securing of this extraordinarily valuable -witness because I can submit my rebutting evidence in writing to the -General Secretary in time only if I have him here soon. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will consider that. That deals with 1 to 7, -does it not? - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I remark that I should like to omit Witness -Number 2, Fräulein Margarete Blank. Consequently not 2 to 7, but 3 to 7. - -May I make the following explanation: Fräulein Blank was for many years -secretary to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Von Ribbentrop, -specifically since 1933. The witness Blank drew up a whole series of -decisive sketches and memoranda and also discussed decisive points with -Ribbentrop in connection with these manuscripts. Thereby I mean -memoranda which expressly relate to the charges, and I therefore ask -that the Tribunal’s original decision, which granted us this witness, be -upheld. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking, are you, that Ambassador Gaus and -Fräulein Blank should be brought here as soon as possible, and that the -consideration of the other witnesses 3 to 7, should be deferred until -you have had an opportunity of seeing Gaus and Blank? - -DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. As regards Fräulein Blank, I can say that -she is in an internment camp near Nuremberg, in Hersbruck. - -THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean that Fräulein Blank was in a camp so near -Nuremberg that you could go and visit her and speak to her there? - -DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, that is possible. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. HORN: May I interpret this as an authorization to visit Fräulein -Blank in order to interrogate her? - -THE PRESIDENT: We understand that that is your application, and we will -consider it. - -DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President. - -As my next witness I name the former SS Gruppenführer and personal -adjutant to Hitler, at present in Nuremberg in solitary confinement. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, the application -says that there was a decisive conference between Hitler and the -Defendant Von Ribbentrop, and that he can speak as to certain things -that occurred. If that is so, if he can speak as one attending the -conference, the Prosecution have no objections. - -They object—and this point will arise in regard to a number of -witnesses—to what I call self-created evidence. That is, if a witness -is merely coming to say that the defendant said that he had certain -views, that, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not carry the -thing any further. If I understand, this witness is speaking as an -observer of the conference, and, as such, we take no objection. - -DR. HORN: I should like to give Sir David my assurance that this is a -witness who has first-hand knowledge of decisive events and can give -such testimony. - -My next witness is Adolph Von Steengracht, since 1943 Secretary of the -German Foreign Office. This witness is now in Nuremberg in solitary -confinement. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at -the seventh line from the foot of this application, it says that -Steengracht will further testify that, contrary to the assertions of the -Chief Prosecutor of the United States, the protests of the churches and -of the Vatican were always processed, thus obviating even worse -excesses. - -If it is meant by that—and the English is a little obscure—that the -Defendant Ribbentrop sent forward the protests of the churches to -Hitler, then the Prosecution would feel that they ought not to object to -the witness. - -DR. HORN: I can say in regard to this, Mr. President, that these -protests were submitted not only to Hitler, but that furthermore, on the -initiative and orders of the defendant, other German offices involved in -these breaches of international law were approached for the purpose of -settling the difficulties arising from the protests of the churches and -the Vatican. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Can we go on to 10? - -DR. HORN: My witness Number 10 is Dahlerus. Mr. Dahlerus has already -been discussed at length today, and I should like to know whether -further discussion as to procurement of this witness is necessary. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have already put my general position with -regard to Dahlerus. Apparently this defendant wants him on one -particular point, namely, an order from Hitler; and I submit that the -appropriate way would be if Dr. Horn added an interrogatory on that -point. - -_Prima facie_, it seems highly improbable that Hitler communicated his -private order to a Swedish engineer, but in view of the fact that -interrogatories have been ordered, I suggest that Dr. Horn can send a -further interrogatory on that point. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make a remark in this connection? It is -not, as was translated, a question in this case of a command of Hitler, -but a question of the decisive note that was the beginning of the second -World War. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My position goes into a great deal of these -requests. This is only evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say what Hitler -said, what Hitler told him. It is not evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say, -“Herr Ribbentrop told me that Hitler had so ordered.” That does not add -to the evidence of the defendant himself. - -Therefore, I think it is essential that before one can judge of the -evidential value at all, the matter should be submitted, as I suggest, -by way of interrogatory. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, unless you have anything further to add with -reference to this witness, we will stop at this point, because we think -it is impossible to go further today, and apparently it is impossible to -finish the whole of your application this afternoon, so do you wish to -add anything more about Dahlerus? - -DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make another short statement in answer -to what Sir David considers as decisive for the evidence. Mr. Dahlerus -will not say here what he heard from Ribbentrop; he will testify to what -he heard about Ribbentrop from an important person and from Hitler -himself, and that is why I consider him as particularly decisive. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord, in the case of the -witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn; I had prepared the comments of -the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in English. The Tribunal -will realize that we received this application only yesterday, and it -had to be translated and is not ready by today. - -I have not been able to get this translation, but I have given Dr. Horn -a copy quite informally so that he would be informed; and it might be -useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the proceedings and -also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the consideration of -these points. I do not know if that appeals to the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will adjourn now. - -I want to ask the Soviet Chief Prosecutor whether it would be convenient -to the Soviet Prosecution that we should continue on Monday morning with -this examination of witnesses and evidence. I think it will probably -take the whole of the morning if we deal with the Defendant Ribbentrop’s -applications and then the Defendant Keitel’s, so that the Soviet -Prosecution, if that course were adopted, would come on at 2 o’clock. -Would that be convenient for them? - -GEN. RUDENKO: If it is convenient for the Tribunal it will be so for us, -Mr. President. - -THE PRESIDENT: There is just one other point I should like to ask you. I -think the Tribunal were notified that there were two witnesses the -Soviet Prosecution proposed to call. I think that we said that the -General Warlimont and, I think, General Halder, ought to be called so as -to give the Defense Counsel the opportunity of cross-examining them. - -GEN. RUDENKO: If the Tribunal so wishes I shall report on this question. -I became acquainted with the transcript of the reports made by General -Zorya and Colonel Pokrovsky when the question concerning witnesses -Halder and Warlimont was discussed. The Soviet Delegation consider there -to be no basis for objections to the Court examining the witnesses -Generals Warlimont and Halder, at the request of the Defense. But the -Soviet Prosecution intended to request that the Tribunal submit these -witnesses as witnesses on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. - -I should like once again to report about the plan which the Soviet -Prosecution has in mind regarding the conclusion of the presentation of -evidence. There remains for us to present to the Tribunal the last -section, “Crimes against Humanity.” The presentation of this will take -approximately 3 to 4 hours. - -In addition, we shall ask the Tribunal to permit us to interrogate, -episode by episode, four witnesses, Soviet citizens who have been -specially brought and now are in Nuremberg. In such a way we consider -that if we start our presentation tomorrow at 2 o’clock, then on Tuesday -we will finish our presentation on all counts. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will expect to have General Warlimont and -Halder presented here before the Soviet case finishes, not for the -Soviet Prosecution to ask them questions but for them to be -cross-examined by the Defense if the Defense want to, but that may take -place at any time that is convenient to you. If you wish, they could be -called at 2 o’clock on Monday; if you prefer, at the end of the Soviet -presentation, either on Tuesday afternoon or on Wednesday morning, -whichever is convenient to you. - -GEN. RUDENKO: As I already stated, the Soviet Prosecution did not think -of introducing either Halder or Warlimont. The Soviet Prosecution did -not object that, on the request of the Defense Counsel, Halder and -Warlimont be subjected to cross-examination. As far as I know, as far -back as last December, the Tribunal granted the application of the -Defense to call Halder into court as a witness. - -Therefore it seems to me, and in order to expedite the exposition of -material of the Soviet Prosecution, this really will not influence the -examination of essential questions, that the examination of the -witnesses Warlimont and Halder be made in the Trial during the -presentation of evidence by Defense Counsel. - -As far as I know, in the application of the Defendant Keitel, which was -presented to the Tribunal, Halder and Warlimont are indicated as -witnesses, and the Defendant Keitel and his attorney applied for -examination of them as witnesses on behalf of the Defense. - -On the basis of this, I consider that the examination of these witnesses -should be made during the presentation of evidence by the Defense -Counsel. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that both General Warlimont and -General Halder are here in Nuremberg. Is that so? - -GEN. RUDENKO: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Probably the most convenient course would be for the -Tribunal to see exactly what order the Tribunal made with reference to -their being called. We will look up the shorthand notes and see exactly -what order we made and deal with the matter on Monday morning. - -In the meantime, on Monday morning we will continue, as you said is -convenient to you, the applications by Dr. Horn for the Defendant -Ribbentrop and the applications by Dr. Nelte on behalf of the Defendant -Keitel; and we shall sit from 2 until 4 o’clock only on Monday -afternoon. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 25 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY - Monday, 25 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you dealt with Dahlerus last, I believe. - -DR. HORN: That is right, Mr. President. - -As the next witness, I ask the Tribunal to call General Koestring, -former military attaché at Moscow, and at present in prison in -Nuremberg. In this case I am willing to forego the personal appearance -of the witness if the submission of affidavit will be permitted. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we object to this witness and so Dr. -Horn can develop it as far as he desires. - -THE PRESIDENT: You object to him? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object. - -THE PRESIDENT: Go on. - -DR. HORN: I wish nevertheless, to ask the Tribunal to call the witness -in this case. - -Originally, there was a possibility, as I was told, that the witness -might be called by the Prosecution. Since this has not taken place, I -ask that this witness be approved because he took part in the -German-Russian negotiations from August to September 1939 at Moscow and, -until the beginning of hostilities against the Soviet Union, remained at -that post. The witness, therefore, can tell us about the attitude of -authoritative German circles and personalities toward the German-Russian -pact. For these reasons I ask the Tribunal to call the witness. - -GEN. RUDENKO: As it has already been stated by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, -the Prosecution objects to the summoning of this witness. I merely wish -to define the position of the Prosecution in this case. The fact that -the witness participated or was present at the August-September 1939 -negotiations is scarcely of interest to the Tribunal. The Tribunal -primarily proceeds from the fact of the existence of this agreement and -its treacherous violation by Germany. Consequently, the summoning of -this witness to describe these negotiations would merely delay the -course of the Trial. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, I am sorry, I was not able to understand the -answer and the reasoning of the General. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat, General? - -GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I was saying, with reference to Sir David’s -protest, on behalf of the Prosecution, against the summoning of this -witness, that I wished to explain that the summoning of this witness in -regard to his presence at the 1939 negotiations at Moscow was of no -interest whatsoever to the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeds from the -facts that this agreement had been concluded in 1939 and had been -treacherously violated by Germany. - -I consider that the summoning of this witness before the Tribunal is -superfluous since the witness in question has no connection whatsoever -with the present case. - -DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal’s permission to point out that for weeks -General Koestring was in prison in Nuremberg at the disposal of the -Prosecution. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to grant him a hearing as a -witness for the reasons which I have mentioned. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. Dr. Horn, the -Tribunal does not understand the fact that General Koestring is in -prison at Nuremberg is any answer to the objection which is made on -behalf of the Prosecution, namely, that the Tribunal is not interested -in negotiations which took place in September 1939, but in the violation -of the treaty. The Tribunal would like to know whether you have any -answer to make to that objection? The only answer you have made up to -date is that General Koestring is here in Nuremberg. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, General Koestring is to testify that the pact -with Russia was drawn up with full intention of its being kept on the -part of Germany and on the part of my client. - -I would not like to say anything further on this point at the moment and -I ask the Court to call the witness on the basis of this reason. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider your request. - -DR. HORN: The next witness is legation councillor for reports, Dr. -Hesse, who was formerly in the Foreign Office in Berlin and now -presumably is in the camp at Augsburg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection to this witness. -I do not know if Dr. Horn wants him in person or if an affidavit would -do. The Prosecution do not feel strongly on the matter but they ask Dr. -Horn whenever possible to accept an affidavit and they suggest that he -might consider it in this case. - -DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit. - -The next witness is the former ambassador in Bucharest, Fabricius, -presumably in Allied custody in the American zone of occupation or -possibly already discharged from custody. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this case. Apparently -this witness will speak as to an interview which is already in evidence -before the Court and will give a different account of it. Prosecution -makes no objection under the circumstances. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that. - -DR. HORN: The next witness is Professor Karl Burckhardt, President of -the International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League of Nations -Commissioner at Danzig. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Burckhardt is -obviously in a very special position. As President of the International -Red Cross he is a person to whom all belligerents, irrespective of -country, are indebted; and the point that the Prosecution makes is that -if he can speak of evidence coming from Hitler himself, that is if he -can prove either by saying that he was informed by Hitler that the -Defendant Ribbentrop had interceded; or if he can say he saw letters -received by Hitler from Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no -objection. If he is merely going to say that Ribbentrop told him so, the -Prosecution would object. - -Therefore, we submit that the reasonable course would be that he should -make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge, and if that is done and -if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should not think for a -moment that the Prosecution would do anything but accept the evidence of -Dr. Burckhardt. - -The second point, we submit, is irrelevant: the question of the results -of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position in -Danzig. - -DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have already submitted in my -application, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt visited Ribbentrop -and Hitler in the year 1943 and therefore can make detailed statements -with reference to the reasons which I have mentioned for calling him. -That answers the first question by Sir David. - -I also agree, however, in this case that Professor Burckhardt submit the -necessary affidavit and thus be spared a personal examination. - -The next witness is the Swiss Ambassador Feldscher, who was finally, to -our knowledge, Ambassador at Berlin. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest, My Lord, that he comes into the same -position as Dr. Burckhardt. He should be dealt with in the same way. - -DR. HORN: I agree, Mr. President. The next witness is the former Prime -Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Winston Churchill. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution -objects to this application and, with the greatest respect to Dr. Horn, -submits that there are no relevant reasons disclosed in the application -now before the Tribunal. The first part of it is apparently an account -of a conversation which does not touch the facts of this case, and the -second part is also a discussion of a conversation which apparently took -place some years before the war, between the German Ambassador and a -gentleman who at that time was in no official position in England. But -what relevancy the conversation has to any of the issues in this case -the Prosecution respectfully submits is not only nonapparent but -nonexistent. - -DR. HORN: Against this statement of Sir David, I want first to point out -the following: - -Prime Minister Winston Churchill was at that time Leader of His -Majesty’s Opposition in Parliament. In this capacity we may attribute to -him a sort of official position, particularly since he, to my knowledge, -as Leader of the Opposition is even paid a salary. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure that Dr. Horn would be the last person -to rely on a point on which he has been misinformed. - -Mr. Churchill was not Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition at any period -and was certainly not from 1936 to 1938, when the Defendant Ribbentrop -was ambassador. Mr. Attlee was the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. -Churchill was not in office; was a back-bench member of the Conservative -Party, independent member of the Conservative Party at that time. - -I did not want my friend to be under any misapprehension. - -DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of the -statesmen best known in Germany. This statement, which Churchill made at -that time on the occasion of his visit to the embassy, was immediately -reported to Hitler by Ribbentrop and was, in all probability, one of the -reasons for Hitler’s making the statements quoted in the so-called -Hossbach document, submitted as Document Number 386-PS, which contains -statements and declarations so surprising to the participants and in -which the Prosecution saw the first definite evidence of a conspiracy in -the sense of the Indictment. - -Furthermore, I should like to say that the British Prosecutor, Jones, -mentioned that, after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, people -in England and Poland became very concerned. Therefore negotiations -between England and Poland were started, and a pact of guarantee -concluded. - -On the basis of this statement of Churchill which has been mentioned, -and those of other important British statesmen, according to which -England would bring about a coalition against Germany within a few years -in order to oppose Hitler with all available means—as a result of these -statements, Hitler became henceforth more keenly anxious to increase his -own armaments and to busy himself with strategic plans. - -For these reasons I consider Churchill’s statement extraordinarily -important and I ask that this witness be called. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point, My Lord; I do not think -I can add to it. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have Dr. Horn’s observations, -which they have only heard through the microphone, in writing on this -subject. - -DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, Lord Kemsley, -Lord Beaverbrook, and Lord Vansittart. Interrogatories have already been -sent out to these witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt with by -interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories. - -DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral Schuster; -last address, Kiel. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of Admiral Schuster. -The grounds for his being asked for are that he took part in the -negotiations which led to the German-English Naval Treaty of 1935. -Apparently the point that is desired to be made is that the treaty was -concluded on this defendant’s initiative. - -The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the -negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there -for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend can -find any argument which he desires. - -But in general, the Prosecution wish to stress that going into -negotiations anterior to old-standing treaties would be an intolerable -waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the Tribunal. - -DR. HORN: In this Trial we are discussing straightforwardly the problem -of plans and preparations. In this connection it is certainly not -inappropriate to hear evidence as to what the German Government, and -especially Ribbentrop, had planned and prepared at that time. This -planning and preparations which took place within the negotiations -leading to the signing of the naval treaty was carried further than just -to the conclusion of that treaty. The treaty was considered by Von -Ribbentrop—and Admiral Schuster can bear witness to the fact—the first -cornerstone in a close treaty of alliance between England and Germany. -To make these intentions clear to the Tribunal, and thereby the policy -which the Defendant Von Ribbentrop pursued, I consider this witness -important; and I ask Sir David to modify his position. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues and I have -considered this matter very carefully and I have put our general -position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as to treaties of -long standing. With the greatest desire to be reasonable, to help Dr. -Horn, I am very sorry I cannot, at this point, accede to his request. - -GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to complete what my colleague, Sir David, has -stated by the following: - -Dr. Horn has requested us to justify the arguments of the Prosecution. I -believe that there is one fundamental divergence in this matter between -the Prosecution and the Defense. The Defense, in calling witnesses, give -evidence and try to prove the defendants’ endeavors to conclude -peace-promoting agreements. We proceed from another fact, namely, the -treacherous violation of concluded agreements and the commission of -crimes contravening these agreements. And it seems to be quite -superfluous to call witnesses to prove that the defendants strove, in -view of these considerations, to sign peaceful agreements. The violation -and treachery in the fulfillment of these agreements are generally known -facts. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of this class of -evidence, I should like to ask you this question: - -Assume that Ribbentrop did want to make agreements with England and did -not wish that Germany should make war on England. What relevancy would -that have to the allegation that Germany was planning to make war upon -Poland? - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, to be able to answer that question decisively -as far as the conduct of the Defense is concerned, I would have to go -back to the state of all the political and diplomatic affairs of the -period previous to the second World War. To explain the reasons for -calling witnesses, I would not like to enter into arguments yet on such -matters of principle before I have thoroughly scrutinized all the -possible evidence at my disposal and formed a definite opinion—and a -basis for my conduct of the Defense. The ruling which the President gave -regarding reasons for summoning witnesses—that the Tribunal will help -us to procure the witnesses and the evidentiary material—I have -understood to mean that for the summoning of witnesses, we have only to -state reasons which in all probability would be confirmed by the -witnesses themselves after preliminary interrogation. - -To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself. - -THE PRESIDENT: It is a material question to consider in considering what -evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to commit yourself upon the -point, you can proceed. - -DR. HORN: The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, former -interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time probably at -Oberursel in the interrogation camp. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the -next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the application, they -are desired to give evidence of the fact that this defendant asked -Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. Again I make the -point, which I have made several times to the Tribunal, that if these -witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler side of these offers, then -there would be no objection. - -If they merely give evidence of the fact that Von Ribbentrop told them -that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission of the -Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be that there are -letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen saw; and if that is -the purpose of their evidence, then the Prosecution feel that it might -be relevant, certainly on the question of sentence; if not, then they -would reserve all rights to say whether it was a question of guilt or -innocence in view of the provisions of the Charter. - -I therefore suggest that the reasonable course would be for both these -gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge and that would -deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather than -interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord; interrogatories which -would cover that point of means of knowledge would be the best thing. I -do not think, if I may put it that way, that it would be worth while -making two bites at the cherry, if I may use a colloquialism. - -DR. HORN: We can talk about the next two witnesses at the same time. I -believe I can already say that Sir David will give the same reasons -against them as he did against the other witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, My Lord, that my friend -and I could agree that they stand or fall with the Tribunal’s decision -on Admiral Schuster. - -DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two -witnesses, provided the Court will grant me Admiral Schuster. - -The next witness is the former Chief Recorder at the Foreign Office, -Dörnberg, at present most probably interned at Augsburg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr Dörnberg’s views -on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, are not relevant. If -we get into calling witnesses to express their views as to the veracity -of or other characteristics of the statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal -would embark on a course that might well take a very long time and would -not lead to any great results, and I respectfully submit that this is -not a class of testimony or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal -should entertain. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, with reference to this matter I can say that -Ciano, himself, in his diary which has now been made accessible to us, -presents this proof—at least as to the decisive point—which Mr. -Dörnberg is supposed to bring; and we shall submit it to the Court at -the proper time and—I believe I can say—in a conclusive form. - -The second point of Dörnberg’s statement deals with the matter of -decoration. The Russian Prosecution has accused Ribbentrop of bartering -Siebenbürgen for a high Romanian order. For this reason I would like -permission to question Mr. Dörnberg about this point either here or in -the form of an affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. HORN: Next I name Ambassador Schnurre, chief of the commercial -policy department of the Foreign Office, present whereabouts unknown, -presumably in custody in the British zone. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, the Prosecution -again say that there is no need for a witness to be called to give -information that his political chief intended to keep a treaty which he -signed. The very grounds that are given for the application seem to me -to show that this is really a matter of comment and argument, and we -submit that a witness on this point is both irrelevant and unnecessary. - -DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me this witness, because the fact -alone that the witness can testify about the sincerity or insincerity or -the intentions of his chief is not so important for me as the fact that, -on the basis of participation at the negotiations and preliminary -negotiations and his discussions with other important persons about the -background of this treaty, he can testify with regard to an important -point of the Indictment. - -THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you again, with reference to the relevance of -this evidence, suppose it were true that in August 1939 the German -authorities intended to keep the treaty which was made with Russia, that -depended or might have depended upon whether England supported Poland in -the war which Germany was about to begin with Poland; and it may very -well be that the German authorities intended to keep the treaty with -Russia in order to keep Russia out of the war with Poland and England. -Therefore, how would the intention of Ribbentrop at that time be -relevant? - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, for determining the criminal facts in this case -in order to establish guilt, it is material to know the extent to which -the Defendant Ribbentrop, as a human being, strove to keep the treaty; -and it is a different question how far he may have been compelled, by -political necessity and other forces, to witness how a treaty was not -kept in the sense in which it was originally signed. - -THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on. - -DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office, eventually a liaison -man with the OKW; at this time most probably in the internment camp at -Augsburg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The application for Ambassador Ritter falls into -two parts. One raises the point which we have just been discussing with -regard to the Russo-German Treaty of 23 August 1939, and I have -indicated the view of the Prosecution on that. The second deals with the -defendant’s attitude with regard to the treatment of Allied airmen. The -position at the moment is that I put in a document which was prepared by -Ambassador Ritter and another document in which Ambassador Ritter said -that the Defendant Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum from the -German Foreign Office dealing with the proposals for lynching aviators -and handing them over to the SD before they could become prisoners of -war and entitled to the rights under the Convention. - -If it is desired to say that Ambassador Ritter was wrong in stating that -Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum, then, of course, it would be a -relevant point. But at the moment these documents are in, and I am not -quite clear from this for what purpose my friend wishes him called on -the second point. If there is any further purpose, then perhaps Dr. Horn -will indicate it. - -DR. HORN: Sir David has just stated the reason why I have requested the -witness. The witness is supposed to and will testify that Von Ribbentrop -was opposed to special treatment of terror fliers—at least for acts -covered by the Geneva Convention—without previous notification to the -signatory powers of that convention. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn says that he wants to call Ambassador -Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared by Ambassador Ritter, -which are already in evidence. Then I can’t make any objection. That is -obviously a relevant point, if he is going to contradict his own -document. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would it be acceptable to Dr. Horn to have -interrogatories administered to Ambassador Ritter, or would the -Prosecution prefer that he should be called, if he is to give evidence -of any sort? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If he gives evidence, the Prosecution would -prefer that he should be called, because that is our position. There are -two documents in, prepared by this gentleman; and if he is going to -contradict them, then I suggest he should come and do it in person. - -DR. HORN: I leave it up to the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador in Oslo, Von -Grundherr, at present presumably in Allied custody. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, I don’t want to go into detail. The -position is that there is a document before the Court signed by the -Defendant Rosenberg in which he says that 10,000 pounds sterling a month -were given to Quisling through an arrangement with this gentleman. If -Dr. Horn wishes to call Herr Von Grundherr to contradict the statement -of the Defendant Rosenberg, again I suppose the Prosecution cannot make -any objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. HORN: Regarding the witnesses which I have listed under points 30 to -34, I can limit my statement to the fact that I want to call them to -testify that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, also earnestly and -constantly endeavored to bring about close relations with France. - -The witnesses, above all M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of France, -can give substantive, detailed evidence about these efforts. If the -Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these witnesses, -could give their testimony in the form of affidavits, I will submit -relevant questions to the Tribunal. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the submission of the Prosecution, the -grounds stated for calling these witnesses are too vague and general to -justify their being called before the Court. When two countries are at -peace, the fact that a foreign minister or an ambassador has made -statements saying that he hopes the good relations between the two -countries will continue, or words to that effect, does not really take -us any further; and it would, in the submission of the Prosecution, be a -waste of time for witnesses to be called for such a purpose. - -Apart from that, the first four witnesses, the Marquis and Marquise De -Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellane, as far as the -Prosecution know, have not been in any official position, and there is, -therefore, the additional objection that calling people who may be the -most admirable people but are in a position of general friendship to -talk as to what really becomes their view of the state of mind of a -defendant, is not evidence which is relevant or which the Tribunal -should entertain. - -DR. HORN: With these witnesses the Defense wishes to prove exactly the -fact that the efforts of Ribbentrop with respect to France went further -than normal remarks which could not be called anything more than -_courtoisie internationale_. For this reason I ask that one or the other -of the witnesses in this group be granted me. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, these witnesses seem to raise the same question -as to relevance as I put to you earlier on them. - -Assuming that it was the intention of the German Foreign Office to try -to keep France out of any war which Germany was preparing to make, what -relevance has that got to the question whether she was about to make an -aggressive war upon Poland? - -DR. HORN: I would like through these witnesses to produce evidence that -it was at least not the intention of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to -plan and prepare wars but that he has tried for years to improve -relations with Germany’s neighboring states. - -The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having planned -and carried out aggressive aims, war against England and France. If the -Prosecution will forego this point, I, of course, can also forego these -witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give this the necessary consideration. - -DR. HORN: The next witness is Mr. Ernest Tennant of London. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, I don’t know the -gentleman, and I have never heard of him, and the only information which -is in the application is that he is a member of the firm of Tennant and -Company and a member of the Bath Club, and also that he was well known -to the Defendant Ribbentrop. But the matters for which he is sought to -be called are surely the acme of irrelevance. It is submitted that the -witness can testify that in the early and middle 30’s the defendant -asked him to bring him in contact with Lord Baldwin, Mr. Macdonald, and -Lord Davidson for the purpose of negotiating with the latter toward -paving the way to good political relations, aiming at the conclusion of -an alliance. In 1936 the defendant was Ambassador to the Court of St. -James. Mr. Macdonald had just ceased being Prime Minister in 1935 and -was still, I think, Lord President of the Council. Lord Baldwin was then -Prime Minister and Lord Davidson, I think, was Chancellor of the Duchy -of Lancaster in the same administration. At any rate, he held a -comparatively less important office. - -But how it can be relevant to the issues before this Tribunal, that at -or shortly before that time the defendant asked a gentleman of no -official position whether he could introduce him to the three gentlemen -I have just mentioned, I really suggest, cannot be stated; and I submit -that this witness should not be allowed. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the naming of witnesses we always come back -to the same fundamental question. The Prosecution always raises the -question: What can this witness tell us about the fact that Germany did -or did not march against Poland, or is to blame for the Polish-German -war, inasmuch as the witness comes from an entirely different country -and has nothing to do with Poland or Polish affairs? - -The Defense is of the opinion, on the other hand, that the entire policy -of Germany toward Poland can only be understood within the framework of -the whole of European politics. Therefore, the Defense has called for -witnesses whom the Prosecution would like to exclude, because they can -offer us material for the reconstruction of the large picture. With this -in mind, I also ask for Professor Conwell-Evans of London. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal again I have never -heard of Professor Conwell-Evans, and he does not appear in the Who’s -Who, the British publication showing a very large number of the citizens -who have certain grades of distinction or hold certain offices. But I -would like Dr. Horn to consider this point, which I respectfully put to -the Tribunal: - -Accepting that every word that is stated in this application with regard -to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in Court by Professor Conwell-Evans, -I submit that it would not advance the case at all and that the Tribunal -would be left in exactly the same position if it had that evidence as it -is in at the present moment. After all, the defendant will be able to -give evidence himself and to make his own impression on the Tribunal as -to his intentions and as to his honesty of mind at various times. The -submission of the Prosecution is that the evidence of this gentleman -would not help the Trial at all and is not relevant to any issue before -the Court. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. HORN: As next witness I name Wolfgang Michel, Oberstdorf in Allgäu, -the witness under Number 38. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman is stated to have been a partner -in the defendant’s former business. According to the application, it is -really desired that he should give his views of the defendant’s general -attitude and state of mind. Again, the Prosecution fail to see to what -issue he is relevant; but it may be that it would please the defendant -to have affidavits from an old business partner to give his views on the -defendant. If that is desired, the Prosecution would be prepared to -consider such an affidavit; but they really must take up the consistent -attitude that a witness of this kind is irrelevant—a witness who is -going to say, “I have known this defendant for 20 years; I have been in -business with him; and I have always had a high opinion of him.” That, -in the submission of the Prosecution, does not touch the issues before -this Tribunal and, therefore, is irrelevant. But, as I say, if my friend -cares to produce an affidavit, the Prosecution will consider it with the -greatest sympathy. - -DR. HORN: I would be satisfied, in the case of the witness Michel, with -an affidavit. - -Mr. President, I would like to come back to the witness listed under -Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen. - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Aren’t you going to deal with Number 38? You -didn’t deal with 37. You are passing that over, are you? - -DR. HORN: I believe that the same objections would be raised against him -as were raised with reference to the other witnesses. Since I assume -that the Tribunal is going to decide in principle about the question -whether or not all the related facts should be submitted here, I have -left out the naming of this witness and ask the Tribunal for a decision. - -THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you want to go back to Number 5? - -DR. HORN: I would like to come back to Number 5, Legation Counsellor -Gottfriedsen. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen conducted the entire -official and private finances of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop for many -years. - -Ribbentrop has been accused by various members of the Prosecution of -enriching himself with objects of art and similar things. About this -point Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen can give decisive evidence which -will invalidate these charges. I therefore ask for approval of this -witness. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked Dr. Horn on this -point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen to Herr Von Sonnleitner. -I think Dr. Horn says that, if there was a question of choice, he would. - -The Prosecution do not want to be unreasonable. I made my general -statement that this group of witnesses, of seven foreign office -witnesses, ought to be restricted to three. If my friend thinks that -Herr Gottfriedsen will be more helpful, especially on this point, I have -no objection to the substitution, so long as some limitation is made in -the group of witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would it be satisfactory if interrogatories were -administered? - -DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President; in this case I ask for the witness -Gottfriedsen. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. HORN: My statement on the subject of summoning witnesses is thereby -concluded. - -DR. STAHMER: I have not named some witnesses because other defendant’s -counsel had asked for them. Among these is also the interpreter Dr. -Schmidt. I likewise have the greatest interest in the questioning of -this witness. Schmidt was Göring’s interpreter and was present at almost -all foreign political negotiations with statesmen. Therefore I also ask -for the summoning of this witness and to that extent support the -application made by Dr. Horn. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will adjourn now -for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring up one other point having to -do with the calling of witnesses? - -I have also named a number of the witnesses, because I must ascertain -when the conspiracy in general begins and when my client could have -joined this conspiracy. The Prosecution made things relatively easy for -itself as regards setting the time at which the conspiracy begins, by -stating in the general Indictment “sometime before 8 May 1945.” - -Now, if I can call no witnesses with regard to the years 1933 to 1938, -then I must assume that the Prosecution admits that the Defendant -Ribbentrop could not have been a party to the conspiracy at least before -1939. I should like this point of view to be taken into consideration in -the granting of witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated quite -generally what Dr. Horn has to meet. - -The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th and 9th of January I -presented the individual case against this defendant. The first point is -the time of Hitler’s accession to power in 1933. It is the case for the -Prosecution that this defendant assisted in various ways in that -accession. After that, he held various positions in close touch with -Hitler. - -If Dr. Horn will refer to the transcript of my presentation, he will -find that there is detailed, with a note of all the supporting -documents, the part which his client played in the aggression against -Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, England, France, Norway, -Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, and finally, -the United States and Japan. All these matters are set out with the -supporting documents, and a reference to them will show exactly what is -alleged against the defendant on that point. - -Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts Three and Four -which are specially raised. - -First of all, the defendant pressed that measures contrary to -international law and the conventions should be taken against Allied -aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence. Second, there -is General Lahousen’s evidence as to what the defendant said with regard -to the treatment of the population of Poland. Third, there is the -defendant’s responsibility for putting the various Protectors of Bohemia -and Moravia in office with unrestricted powers, which resulted in the -crimes against the populations of these areas. Then there is a similar -position with regard to the Netherlands. - -The third main category is the treatment of the Jews. Again, there is an -American official document, the report of Ambassador Kennedy; there is a -long Foreign Office statement on the policy towards the Jews; and there -is a document showing the preparation for an anti-Semitic congress, of -which this defendant was to be an honorary member. - -Finally, there is the question of plunder, the evidence given by my -Soviet colleague on the Ribbentrop battalions for the collection of -plunder, which was given the other day. - -I don’t think that if Dr. Horn will consider various points, which are -practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of -January, except the last point, he will find that there is any -difficulty in deciding the commencement of these allegations or their -detailed and concrete constitution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know whether the -Prosecution allege any particular date at which the conspiracy started; -and second, they would like to know whether you contend that defendants -joining the conspiracy after it started are responsible for the -conspiracy. - -What the Tribunal would like to know is whether a person who joins the -conspiracy after it started would be responsible for acts committed by -the conspirators before he joined. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I might deal with the questions in order, the -position of the Prosecution on the question of time is as set out in -Count One of the Indictment. The Prosecution say that the Nazi Party was -the core of the conspiracy and that it was an essential part of the -conspiracy that the Nazi Party should obtain political and economic -control of Germany in order that they might carry out the aims set out -in Articles 1 and 2 of the Nazi Party program. That part of the -conspiracy started with the emergence of the Nazi Party as a force in -German politics and was fully developed in January 1933. At that time it -was the aim of the Nazi Party to secure the breaches of the Treaty of -Versailles and the other matters set out in these articles, if necessary -by force. - -But, as is stated in the statement of offense under Count One of the -Indictment, the conspiracy was not static; it was dynamic. And, in 1934, -after Germany left the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference, -the aggressive war aspect of the conspiracy increased in momentum. - -It is the case for the Prosecution that from 1935, when conscription was -introduced and the Air Force came into being, through 1936 when the -Rhineland was reoccupied, that the securing of Germany’s objectives—the -objectives of the Nazi Party—if necessary by aggressive war, became a -stronger, clearer, and more binding aim. - -The position is crystallized by the meeting on the 5th of November 1937, -when Hitler declared that Austria and Czechoslovakia would be conquered -at the earliest opportunity. That was succeeded by the acquisition of -Austria in March 1938, and the Fall Grün against Czechoslovakia, which -originated in May 1938, to be carried out before October. - -From that time the Prosecution say that the plan of aggressive war -followed the well-known and clear technique of attacking one country or -taking aggressive measures against one country, and giving assurances to -the country that was next on the list to be attacked. - -From that time the succession and procession of aggressive wars takes a -clear course, which I have just mentioned in outlining the accusation of -aggression against the Defendant Ribbentrop. I may summarize it by -saying that the Prosecution submit that the Nazi Party was always -engaged in this agreement and concerted action to get control of Germany -and carry out its aims but that the aggression crystallized and became -clear from 1934 and the beginning of 1935 onwards. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Sir -David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection with this. - -First of all, you must know either the date when the conspiracy began, -or you must not be able to give us the date. Now, is it the contention -that the Prosecution don’t know when the conspiracy began? If you do -know, would you tell us? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the formation of the -Nazi Party. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was that date? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1921. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): 1921? Now, was the conspiracy to wage -aggressive war begun on that date? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it was begun in this way that Hitler had -said, “I have certain objects, one of them being to break the Treaty of -Versailles—which means also breaking the treaty of friendship with the -United States which has the same clauses—and I shall attain these -objects, if necessary by using force.” That was always one of the -beliefs and aims of the Party. - -Now, if people agree to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal -methods, that is, _ipso facto_, the committing of the offense of -conspiracy. Conspiracy is constituted by the agreement, not by the acts -carrying out the agreement. Therefore, in that way the conspiracy starts -in 1921. But, as Mr. Justice Jackson made clear in his opening and as I -have repeated this morning, the aims—and more particularly the methods -by which the conspirators sought to achieve these aims—grew and -acquired particular forms as the years went on. They appear to have -acquired the special form and to have decided on the method of breaking -the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 and bringing that to fruition in 1935. - -I am not seeking to avoid answering the question of the learned American -Judge; but I am putting, in summary form, exactly what is stated in both -the statement of offense and the particulars of offense under Count One, -and I hope that I will not be thought to be avoiding the question. I am -not doing that. I am trying to put it in the clearest and most accurate -language. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I wouldn’t ask you, were I clear about -the matter in my own mind, Sir David. Let me ask you a few more -questions. - -The conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity—was that begun in -1921? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To the extent that a general readiness was -adopted to use all methods, irrespective of the rights, safety, and -happiness of other people, it was commenced with the start of the Nazi -Party. Ruthlessness and disregard for the rights, and safety, and -happiness of others was a badge of the Nazi Party program, insofar as -the rights and happiness of others might interfere with their aims, from -the very start. - -Again, the translation of that into practical methods developed as the -years went on, and in a period well before the war—Mr. Biddle will not -put it against me that I should remember exact documents in an answer -straight off the rule to his question, but well before the war—there -will be found again and again in the speeches of Hitler to his -associates that utter ruthlessness and disregard for non-German -populations should be employed. That is the foundation of the War Crimes -and Crimes against Humanity, and it was initiated and grew in the method -which I have stated. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you answer the President with respect to -the question of whether the conspirators joining later became -responsible? If that were true, then this defendant would be responsible -for acts running back to 1921. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There are two legal conceptions which have to be -borne in mind in considering that point. I can only speak with knowledge -on the law of England, but I understand that the law of the United -States is very much the same. - -In England there is a common law offense of conspiracy. There are also -certain statutory offenses, but there is a common law offense of -conspiracy. The gist of that offense is, as I have already stated, -entering into an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by -illegal means. As far as a conviction for conspiracy per se is -concerned, there is no doubt about the law of England. If someone joins -a conspiracy at a late state, a conspiracy to do any illegal act, he can -be convicted of conspiracy to do that act however late he joins. - -The usual analogy, with which I am sure the learned American Judge is -familiar, is that of a stage play. The fact that a character does not -come in until Act 3 does not mean that he is any the less carrying out -the design of the author of the play to present the whole picture which -the play embraces. It is a very useful analogy because it shows the -position. That is one aspect of the law, and on that there is no doubt -at all. - -The other aspect of the law is as to how far those who act in consort to -commit a crime are responsible for each other’s acts, that is, -irrespective of the substantive offense of conspiracy. If one may take -an example—a highly fantastic one but I think it raises the -point—assume that you had a conspiracy on the part of road operators to -wreck railway trains, and a number of road operators agreed in December -to wreck a train on the 1st of January and to wreck a further train on -the 1st of February. Between the 1st of January and the 1st of February, -another road operator joins the conspiracy. I hope I have got rightly -the point in My Lord’s mind and in the mind of the learned American -Judge. Then there is, as far as I can see, some doubt as to whether that -road operator would be liable for a murder committed in the wrecking -that took place on the first of January. - -I hope I have made my point clear. I am postulating someone who joins a -conspiracy on the 15th of January, after the first wrecking has been -carried out during which someone has been killed, and therefore those -who consorted with regard to the first wrecking are guilty of murder. -But as to the person who joins after that, there is some doubt as to -whether he acquires retroactive responsibility. In English law it would -appear to be at least doubtful—it certainly is arguable that in -American law he would, as I have been told the decision. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you have made that very clear, Sir -David, but what I am getting at is what the Prosecution claim in this -case. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry if I have been theoretical, but -it has been rather a difficult point, and I wanted to relate it to the -law with which I am most familiar. - -With regard to the present case, the Prosecution say that the defendants -do become responsible for the consequences of acts done in pursuance of -the conspiracy. It is rather difficult to speak entirely in vacuo in the -matter; but if one may take, for example—again I speak from memory—the -Defendant Speer, who comes on the scene rather late, if my recollection -is right, he then becomes minister for production and armaments and -makes the demands for the slave labor which were fulfilled by the -Defendant Sauckel. - -In the submission of the Prosecution, there would not be any difficulty -in convicting the Defendant Speer on all counts, assuming that the -Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Prosecution. By his actions, he -has conspired to commit a Crime against Peace; he has joined and entered -into the conspiracy to carry on aggressive war; he has taken part in the -waging of aggressive war by making the demands for the slave labor; he -has instigated a war crime, namely the ill-treatment of populations of -occupied countries; and also, by instigating and procuring the action of -the Defendant Sauckel, he has committed Crimes against Humanity in that -he has participated in actions which are condemned by the criminal law -of all civilized countries; and probably—I am speaking from memory -now—these actions have taken place in countries where it is arguable -whether they were strictly occupied countries after an invasion, as in -Czechoslovakia. - -On the method in which our Indictment is drawn, there is no difficulty, -the Prosecution submit, in convicting a defendant who emerges in -evidence at a later date on each of the counts. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just one more question and then I am through. -You understand I am asking these questions only in performance of what -we are doing to determine what witnesses should be called, and therefore -the year 1921 as the beginning of the conspiracy becomes a year -obviously not remote in time when we consider witnesses. Would that not -follow? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A year not. . . ? - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Not remote in time with relation to the -conspiracy. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it is part of the particular Indictment. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make some brief remarks in this -connection? - -I have based myself on the general Indictment as regards the time of the -conspiracy. The general Indictment states simply and solely that the -definitive point of time which one can take as the start of the -conspiracy is any time before 8 May 1945. - -The Chief Prosecutor of the United States, in his opening statement, -described the Party program, in the form in which it was framed in ’21 -and revised, I believe, in ’25, and characterized it as legitimate and -unimpeachable—according to the German translation—insofar as these -aims were not to be attained by war. - -Now, assuming that the Party leadership was to pursue these objectives -by war, it is, first of all, not clear with what point of view these -goals were set; and the Defense as well as the Prosecution must prove -that from this time on these aims were to be attained through war. -Furthermore, it can hardly be denied that only a very few people, and -perhaps only one person, had knowledge of war plans. - -Now, as regards the various defendants, as well as my own client, the -times at which they came into contact with the Party are quite -different. - -First, they were ordinary Party members, so they had consequently to -assume, as the Chief Prosecutor did, that the Party program of which -they had become adherents, was legally unimpeachable. - -Now the question arises for the Defense, and above all, for conducting -the defense: When did the individual client enter the sphere in which it -was known that the aims were to be attained by war, aims which so far he -had considered legitimate and unimpeachable, that is, aims which -according to his previous assumption, were not to be pursued by recourse -to war? Had the Defendant Ribbentrop already entered the circle of -conspirators when in 1932 he contacted Party circles? Was he, as -Ambassador in London, already “in the know” and thereby a party to the -conspiracy; or did he only realize, at the time of the Hossbach -document, that the political aims of the Party were to be materialized -through war? Or when? - -The Defense must be aware of the danger that the defendant will be -accused by the Prosecution that he joined the conspiracy the very -earliest moment he came in contact with the Party and its aims. In this -connection I can refer to the words just spoken by Sir David who said -that the foundation of the conspiracy was laid in 1921. I ask—or -rather—is it my task or my duty to prove through witnesses that my -client, for instance, up to 1939 was striving for peaceful relations in -order to refute that he then already planned or prepared wars or took a -decisive part in these plans and preparations? - -From this point of view, I ask the Tribunal to weigh the applications -for the witnesses and subjects of evidence as set forth in my brief. -Furthermore, I expressly maintain that this discussion has not clarified -the question: When does the conspiracy start? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I don’t want to repeat any general -argument. My desire is that Dr. Horn should know what case Ribbentrop -has to meet, and I have already stated that, but I want to make it quite -clear. - -According to the entry in _Das Archiv_ Ribbentrop entered the service of -the Nazi Party in 1930, and between 1930 and January 1933 was one of the -instruments and vehicles by which the accession of the Nazi Party to -power took place. That semi-official publication says that some meetings -between Hitler and Von Papen and the Nazis and representatives of -President Von Hindenburg took place in his house at Berlin-Dahlem. That -is the first point. It is quite clear and it is all set out in the -transcript. - -The second stage is that he held certain offices between 1934 and 1936 -that show that he was an important and rising Nazi politician and -negotiator in the realm of foreign affairs. In 1936 he justified the -action of Germany in breaking the Versailles Treaty. The defendant -justified it before the League of Nations. Therefore, he has to meet -that point. - -In the same year he negotiated the Anticomintern Pact. He has to explain -that. - -From that time onwards, there are a succession of German documents, all -referred to in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, which show -exactly the part this defendant played in 10 sets of aggression against -10 separate countries. - -I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that that is a perfectly clear -case which this defendant has to meet. There is no doubt about it at -all. - -I have already summarized the case on the War Crimes and Crimes against -Humanity. Again Dr. Horn will find it dealt with, with every document -mentioned, in the transcript for the 9th of January. - -I respectfully submit that whatever else may be said, the particularity -and clarity of the case against the Defendant Ribbentrop is manifest. - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, in my presentation of defense against the -charges lodged by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in his special plea for the -Prosecution, I have offered rebutting evidence in answer to these -charges. I have, however, not only to confine myself to refuting those -charges just mentioned, but I have—and thus I have to repeat what I -just said—to consider all these charges under the point of view of -conspiracy, as according to the submission of the Prosecution, the -Defendant Ribbentrop is party to this conspiracy; and the question -cannot be avoided: When did the conspiracy start? Taking the supposition -that my client took part in a conspiracy, this participation did not -start in 1930, as submitted by the Prosecution—I shall be able to -refute this—but only in 1932; but I should like to prove through -witnesses and otherwise that then and later he did not join in any -conspiracy. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well now, perhaps you will get on with the documents -which you want. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the documents, I have -had the opportunity of discussing it informally with Dr. Horn; and I -understand that with regard to Documents 1 to 14, Dr. Horn really wants -these books as working books which he can read and use and, if -necessary, take extracts from to illustrate his argument and point at -that time. Now, that is a matter of course to which we make no objection -at all. I have consistently taken the view that there should be no -objection to any book for working purposes for the Defense. - -What I do want to ask is this, that if Dr. Horn or any other Defense -Counsel wishes to use an extract from a book when it comes to presenting -his case, he will let us know what the extract is and, if necessary, for -what purpose he is going to use it. I say “if necessary” because in many -cases it will be quite apparent for what purpose, but in some cases it -may have special significance; and if they let us know, then any -question of relevance can be argued when the matter is produced in -court. - -THE PRESIDENT: But that seems to me to be necessary in order that the -documents should be translated. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite; yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: I mean that the part of the book or part of the document -which Dr. Horn wants to use should be translated. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But as far as providing the Defense with working -copies, any co-operation that the Prosecution can do in that way they -will gladly do. That is a matter on which we should be anxious to help. - -The last five documents named fall into rather a different category. I -haven’t discussed these with Dr. Horn; but I respectfully submit—and it -is the united view of the Prosecution—that complete files of newspapers -will be difficult to justify as evidence before the Tribunal, but again, -if Dr. Horn wants them for matter of reference, then it just becomes a -question of possibility. - -I am not sure with regard to these whether it is desired to use them or -whether it is merely desired to have them to refer to. I don’t know -anything about Number 19, the withdrawn number of the _Daily Telegraph_, -but I suppose the Secretariat can make inquiries about that from the -proprietors. - -DR. HORN: The last item I should like to take up: Now that the Trial has -already progressed so far that I now require these documents in order to -be able to make use of them for rebutting evidence, may I ask that -copies of those newspapers—it is a matter of three or four newspapers, -which are bound in 1-month volumes—be made available to me as soon as -possible with the help of the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the withdrawn number of the _Daily -Telegraph_? You haven’t yet indicated why it would be relevant. - -DR. HORN: On the 30 or 31 of August 1939, an edition of the _Daily -Telegraph_ was withdrawn because it contained extensive details of the -contents of the memorandum which the then Reich Foreign Minister, Von -Ribbentrop, had read to the British Ambassador, Henderson, in Berlin. It -is asserted—also by the Prosecution—that Ribbentrop read this note to -Henderson so rapidly that the latter was unable to understand the -essential points. From the issue of the _Daily Telegraph_ of 31 August -1939, it will thus appear to what extent Ambassador Henderson was in a -position to understand Ribbentrop’s statements or the oral presentation -of that memorandum as Von Ribbentrop read it. I therefore ask that this -number of the _Daily Telegraph_ be procured, and I am convinced that the -Prosecution is able to obtain this issue by the means at their disposal -but not available to us. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time that I have -heard of this withdrawn copy apart. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: The first time you have heard there was any copy -withdrawn? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have never heard it except from Dr. Horn that -there was a copy withdrawn, and I shall probably have to investigate the -matter. - -I only want to say one thing, that of course Dr. Horn has just made one -point about the question between this defendant and Sir Nevile -Henderson. It is the case for the Defendant Göring, as expressed in Dr. -Stahmer’s interrogatories, that the Defendant Göring had caused the -contents of this memorandum to be given unofficially to Mr. Dahlerus -behind the Defendant Ribbentrop’s back. That is the case which he is -making in the interrogatories, so that it by no means follows that Sir -Nevile Henderson’s account of the interview was wrong, even if an -account of the document had come out. - -I don’t want to make a point of the memory of Sir Nevile, but shall -investigate this matter, which I have just heard now for the first time. - -DR. HORN: May I add for the fuller information of the Tribunal that the -Defendant Göring made the memorandum available to Ambassador Henderson -only at a considerably later date. It is, therefore, of decisive -importance when and whether Henderson acquired knowledge of this -memorandum and whether it happened in good time so that he could still -communicate it to the Polish Government within the proper time. - -May I ask therefore for the procurement of this most important edition -of the _Daily Telegraph_. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Horn. - -We will continue with the evidence against the Defendant Keitel. - -DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a remark preliminary -to the discussion about the evidence submitted for Defendant Keitel. I -hope the discussions about the various applications for evidence will -thereby be considerably shortened. From my written application you will -see that in respect to the majority of the witnesses one main subject of -evidence recurs again and again, namely, the position of Defendant -Keitel as Chief of the OKW and in his other official functions, his -personality, particularly, also his relations to Hitler, and the -clarification of the chain of command within the Armed Forces. - -I shall present evidence that the idea of the public and the Prosecution -regarding the personality of the Defendant Keitel, his scope, and his -activities is incorrect. No name has been so frequently mentioned in the -course of this proceeding as that of the Defendant Keitel. Every -document which dealt in any way with military matters was identified -with the OKW, and the OKW, in turn with Keitel. The defendant believes, -and I think with some justification. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal appreciates the general points which you -will probably want to argue on behalf of the Defendant Keitel when you -come to make your final speech, but it does not appear to the Tribunal -to be necessary that you should do so now. - -DR. NELTE: I mention it only to make possible a comprehensive appraisal -of all witnesses offered for the presentation of evidence. I think Sir -David shares this opinion with me—he already discussed it with me on -Saturday—and it was my intention to expound in a preliminary way the -subject of evidence which otherwise had to be presented in five or six -different cases. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Nelte, that you will be able to deal -with all your witnesses in one series of observations? - -Could you help us, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think I can help. - -Apart from the witnesses who are codefendants that are mentioned by Dr. -Nelte, whom of course the Tribunal has already provided, Dr. Nelte asks -for Field Marshal Von Blomberg, General Halder, General Warlimont, and -the Chief Staff Judge of the OKW, Dr. Lehmann. The Prosecution have no -objection to these witnesses, because they are called to deal with the -position of the Defendant Keitel as head of the OKW. - -With regard to the witness Erbe, who is, I think, a civil servant called -on a specific point as to his position in the Committee for Reich -Defense. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Have the interrogatories already been granted? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; we have always said that interrogatories -would be sufficient and he should not be called as an oral witness. - -Then with regard to the next witness, Roemer, whom Dr. Nelte wishes to -call to say that the decree for the branding of Soviet Russian prisoners -of war was announced by mistake and retracted at once on the order of -Keitel, that is obviously relevant to one matter in the case, and we -don’t object to that. - -We don’t object to General Reinecke, who is called on various matters -relating to prisoners of war. - -With regard to Mr. Romilly, so long as it is confined to interrogatories -which have been allowed, and he is not called orally, we have no -objection. - -My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will have a word to say about -Ambassador Scapini. I have asked him to deal with that matter in French. - -Then we come to two witnesses, Dr. Junod and Mr. Petersen. At the moment -the Prosecution cannot see how these witnesses are needed in addition to -General Reinecke. And of course they would object if the purpose of the -testimony is to show that the Soviet Union did not treat its prisoners -of war properly. If that is the purpose, they would object. - -Then the calling of Dr. Lammers has been granted by the Tribunal. - -Then finally, there are three witnesses who are all called in order to -show that at discussions between Hitler and the Defendant Keitel, two -stenographers had to be present. The Prosecution do not regard that as a -very vital part of the case, and if Dr. Nelte will produce an affidavit -from one of these gentlemen, then the Prosecution are not in a -position—and do not desire—to dispute the point. Frankly, if I may say -so, and with the greatest respect, we are not at all interested in that -point, and therefore will be content with an affidavit if produced. - -If I might summarize—and I hope I am merely trying to help Dr. -Nelte—the only matters which, as far as the Prosecution are concerned, -require further discussion is the matter of what the French Delegation -will have to say about Ambassador Scapini, and my objection to Dr. Junod -and Mr. Petersen, and my suggestion as to an affidavit for the last -three witnesses. There is very little between us, if I may say so, with -respect to Dr. Nelte’s witnesses; on the whole they seem to the -Prosecution to be obviously relevant and in that case we make no -objection. - -There is one rather sad fact with regard to the witness Blomberg, of -which I think Dr. Nelte has been informed. I understand that Field -Marshal Von Blomberg is very ill at the moment and cannot be brought -into court, so that I am sure, Dr. Nelte, the Defendant Keitel will be -the first to accept some method of getting his evidence which will not -necessitate that fact. - -DR. NELTE: I thank Sir David for his kindness, by which my task has been -made easier. - -I should like to state in addition that in respect to the witness, Dr. -Erbe, I shall put written questions. To the witness Petersen I have -already submitted written questions, and on the answers received depends -whether I shall call him in person. As to witness Junod, I believe I may -say that his examination is relevant because the Soviet Prosecution has -submitted that an offer to apply the Geneva Convention had been rejected -by Keitel. Dr. Junod is to be examined as a witness that, by order of -the OKW Department of Prisoners of War, he contacted the Soviet Union in -order to secure the application of the Geneva Convention but that this -could not be brought about. I believe that if only General Reinecke is -to be examined as a witness on this question, it could perhaps be -objected that he, as chief of the Department of Prisoners of War, cannot -give sufficient testimony. Neither can General Reinecke testify to what -Dr. Junod actually did. Consequently I ask that this witness be -approved. As far as the stenographers are concerned, I ask approval to -submit an affidavit. - -As to Ambassador Scapini, I should merely like to point out that he was -the permanent representative of the French Vichy Government and that he -was particularly concerned with the question of caring for prisoners of -war in Germany. I believe that this is adequate reason for considering -him relevant. To be sure, I did not know his address, and hope that the -French Prosecution can help me in that regard. - -M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for the French -Republic): We see no objection to hearing the former Ambassador Scapini, -if his testimony can in our opinion have the slightest bearing on the -search for truth; but the very reasons which Dr. Nelte gives for the -calling of this witness seem to me to prove the complete absence of -relevance of this testimony. The former Ambassador Scapini, says the -honorable representative of the Defense, could point out and say that he -freely exercised his control in the prisoner-of-war camps and moreover -that these prisoners of war had a representative, but this we are quite -willing to grant to the Defense. It is perfectly true that Germany had -consented to allow the former Ambassador Scapini—who we know was -wounded in the war of 1914 and blinded—to visit the camps of prisoners -and hear the French prisoners of war though he could not see them. - -But the question is not to find out whether the Germans had been willing -to allow a blind inspector to visit the camps. The only question -presented by the Indictment is whether, in spite of the visits of this -inspector and in spite of the presence of a special representative in -the camps, there did not occur in these camps acts contrary to the laws -of war. - -On this point the former Ambassador Scapini could surely give no answer, -for obviously nothing happened in his presence. This is why the French -Prosecution considers that the testimony of the former Ambassador -Scapini would shed no light in this search for truth. - -DR. NELTE: It was not known to me that Ambassador Scapini was blind. Not -he himself, but rather the delegation of which he was head, made regular -inspections of the prisoner-of-war camps for French soldiers. It is -certain that in prisoner-of-war camps things happened which violated the -Geneva Convention, but the question at issue here is that the Defendant -Keitel and the OKW, as the supreme authority, did—or at any rate, tried -to do—all that they, as highest authority, had to do. - -The OKW had no command jurisdiction in the individual camps. It had only -to issue instructions as to how prisoners of war were to be treated and -had to permit the protecting powers to visit the camps. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would interrogatories be satisfactory, supposing we -thought it proper to administer them to Mr. Scapini? - -DR. NELTE: An interrogation in Nuremberg? Could Ambassador Scapini be -heard in Nuremberg? - -THE PRESIDENT: I was asking whether interrogatories would be -satisfactory. I imagine Mr. Scapini is not in Nuremberg. Written -interrogatories, I mean, of course, where I have mentioned them. - -DR. NELTE: I ask for a ruling on whether the written questions which I -first should like to put will be sufficient or whether another ruling -will be necessary. So I assume that first I shall interrogate Ambassador -Scapini in writing and on his answer it will depend whether. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in writing. Will that be satisfactory to you, M. -Champetier de Ribes? - -M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Yes, that will be quite satisfactory. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps we might adjourn now, Dr. Nelte, until a -quarter past 2. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished with your -witnesses, had you not? - -DR. NELTE: Yes, I think so. I must only reserve the right on what I may -have to state, after the Soviet Prosecution have finished presenting -their case—whether I still may wish to call this or that witness. As to -the documents I should like to put a few questions which are of -particular interest for me—rather for the Defendant Keitel. - -THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. - -DR. NELTE: The Tribunal knows my main subject of evidence. In order to -prove that in many cases the Prosecution is wrong in assuming the OKW -and the Defendant Keitel to be responsible, I can refer to a great many -documents which have been presented by the Prosecution. - -I take it that these documents are not to be submitted by me as -evidential material, as they have already been put in. I ask the -Tribunal for examination of these documents and for a ruling that in my -pleadings on behalf of the defendant I may refer to such documents -without having to submit or quote them. - -I should like to add that the Tribunal, having been informed about the -structure of the Armed Forces or parts of them and about the -competencies of the various commands, will itself be able to judge which -of the documents submitted are not suitable for supporting the -allegations of the Prosecution regarding the responsibility of the -Defendant Keitel. - -I am also convinced that the Tribunal, in its findings, will examine -carefully any document relevant to the question of guilt, even if the -Defense does not submit such documents, and even if the Defense cannot -submit a comprehensive presentation in view of the extremely large -number of documents—there are thousands relating to the Defendant -Keitel—and even if the Defense cannot deal with all these documents in -the final speeches. - -Furthermore, I should like to submit to the Tribunal another question -which is important for the presentation of evidence on behalf of the -Defendant Keitel and which is of great importance. - -During the session of 1 February 1946, the French Prosecutor made the -following statement, and I quote: - - “Chapter 4 and the last will bear the heading, ‘The - Administrative Organization of Criminal Action’. . . . for the - fourth chapter I might point out that the French Delegation - examined more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original - German documents of which I have kept only about 50.” - -According to the opening address of the United States Chief Prosecutor, -there can be no doubt that these 50 documents were selected merely from -the point of view of incriminating the defendant. On 11 February, if I -remember correctly, I addressed myself to the French Prosecution with a -request to place at my disposal for examination the remaining 1,950 -documents, which the French Prosecution did not use. - -To date I have received no answer. The Tribunal will appreciate the -difficulties of my position. I know there are documents there which I am -sure contain also exonerating facts. Yet I am not able to specify these -documents. I beg the Tribunal, therefore, for a ruling in this -matter—that the Prosecution should place at my disposal those documents -for my perusal. - -THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents that you are -asking for, are you going to say anything about them? - -DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I know only -that the French Prosecution have these 2,000 documents. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I will ask the -French Prosecutor to answer what you have said. - -DR. NELTE: If Your Honor pleases, I leave it to the Tribunal whether -they wish to examine this question or whether it can be dealt with now. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the French -Prosecutor now. - -M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): A -certain number of documents of doubtful origin were in our hands at the -time that we were beginning to prepare our prosecution. We have -eliminated all documents which could not bear serious critical -examination. We undertook a critical task and rejected all those that -were considered to be insufficient proof. At the end of this task about -fifty documents remained which have been referred to by my colleagues -and which appeared relevant. These 50 documents have, moreover, not all -been accepted by the Tribunal, which has rejected some, and if I -remember rightly, 3 or 4 of whose origin we were not quite sure. In -these conditions, it is absolutely incorrect to say that we have kept -1,950 documents from the Defense. - -We handed over to the Court, and therefore to the Defense, the 50 -documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient probative -value. - -If I understand this request of the Defense they wish the Court to ask -to have handed to them documents of which some have been rejected by the -Court itself as not having sufficient probative value or as not being -sufficiently authenticated. The Tribunal will decide whether this -request should be granted. As far as I am concerned, I must oppose this -application with all my might because it would mean taking into account -documents which did not offer a sufficiently authentic character for the -examination we made, and which the Tribunal itself also made when we -submitted to it some of these documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but M. Dubost, the position is this: There were a -large number of documents which the Counsel for the French Prosecution -said that they had examined; and the French Prosecution, in the exercise -of their discretion, thought it unnecessary to refer to more than a -certain number of them; but it is only the French Prosecution which has -exercised their discretion about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is -asking is to see them for the purpose of seeing whether there is -anything in the documents which assists his case. Would the French -Prosecution have any objection to that? I mean—it may be that some of -the documents are no longer in the possession of the French Prosecution, -but those that are in their possession, would the French Prosecution -object to Dr. Nelte’s seeing those? - -M. DUBOST: May I remind the Tribunal that the documents which we -rejected were not rejected as useless in the beginning, but as not -presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin, as to the conditions -under which we obtained them and as to their probative value. - -The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of these -documents were rejected by the Court itself. Those which we did not -consider are of the same character as those documents which were -rejected. We did not submit them because we could not tell you where, -when, and how they had been discovered. For the most part, they are -documents that fell into the hands of combat troops in battle, and under -the terms of jurisprudence do not offer sufficient guarantee to be -retained. - -Insofar as they are still in my possession I am ready to communicate -them to Defense Counsel, it being clearly understood that they will not -attach to them any higher merit, any higher value than I did. - -THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all Dr. Nelte wants -is to see any documents which you have brought to see whether he can -find anything in them that he thinks may help the case of the defendant -for whom he appears, and I understand you would not have any objection -to his doing that. - -M. DUBOST: I would only answer the Defense Counsel that some of those -documents were rejected by your Tribunal when I presented them. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it would not apply to documents which -have been rejected by the Court. Very well. We will not decide the -matter now. We will consider it. - -DR. NELTE: Would the Tribunal announce its decision regarding the first -question which I brought up, namely, whether it is sufficient that I -refer to documents which have been presented by the Prosecution without -submitting them myself. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to support Dr. -Nelte’s suggestion. If a document has already been put in, I should have -thought it was right and convenient that Counsel for the Defense could -comment on it without putting it in again, and should have full right of -comment. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of occasions that -any document which has been put in evidence, or a part of which has been -put in evidence, can, of course, be used by the Defense in order to -explain or criticize the part that has been put in. It may be that as a -matter of informing the Tribunal as to the document, it may be necessary -to have part of the document, which has not been put in evidence, put in -now in order that it may be translated. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it would be convenient if -I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the Prosecution on his list of -documents, or whether he would like to develop it himself. I can quite -shortly do that if it would be convenient. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the documents in the -list fall into that category which has just been mentioned. Documents 3 -to 9, 17 and 29, 30 and 31 all appear to be in, and therefore Dr. Nelte -may comment in accordance with your ruling. - -Then there are a number of documents which are affidavits, either of -defendants or intended witnesses: Documents 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 25, and -28. - -The Tribunal may remember that in the case of the witness, Dr. Blaha, my -friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness, “Is your -affidavit true?” and then reading the affidavit to save time. The -Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s pursuing that course, -should he so desire; but, of course, where a witness is going to be -called as a witness, he will have to verify his affidavit on oath, in -the submission of the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness is here, you -have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s reading the affidavit and the witness -being then liable to cross-examination? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, “I agree; I verify the -facts that are in my affidavit.” - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might save considerable time in the -examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate in -that. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? Is that what -he means? - -DR. NELTE: Entirely. - -THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were presented to -the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they did not wish to -cross-examine. That would save the witnesses being here or being brought -here. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of Dr. Lehmann. I think -all the other cases are either defendants or witnesses with regard to -whom there are certain points which the Prosecution would like to ask. - -Then there are three documents to which there are no objections to their -being used: 18, 26, and 27. - -That leaves a number of documents as to whose use I am not quite sure at -the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain how he wishes to -use them, and that may remove the difficulty of the Prosecution. If the -Tribunal will be good enough to look at 1 and 2, 1 is an expert’s -opinion on state laws concerning the Führer state, and the importance of -the Führer order, and Document 2 is an order of the Führer, Number 1. - -If it is desired to use these so as to controvert Article 8 of the -Charter, the Prosecution will object. That is a question of superior -orders. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain the backgrounds -as a matter of history, that may be a different matter. Now, the next -one is Document 10—a need for a ministry of rearmament, taken from. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, ought we to -accept the opinion of an expert on such a point? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We do not at all. I am afraid -that my second remark really applied to the order of the Führer. That -might be used as a background or it might be used for purposes of -mitigation or explanation of how a thing took place, but I respectfully -agree that the expert’s opinion on state laws cannot be used with regard -to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Of course, the law of any other -state may be a question of fact as far as the Tribunal is concerned just -as it would be a question of fact in an English court: “What is the law -of another state?” As I say, I want to reserve emphatically the position -of Article 8 with regard to these two documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 deal with rearmament in -other countries. I do not want to prevent the Defense using -illustrations, but again I reserve the position most emphatically that -rearmament in other countries cannot be an excuse for aggressive war and -would be irrelevant on that point. - -Now, 15 and 16 refer to books by Major General Fuller and Major General -Temperley, who are both ex-officers, who were journalists during this -period. As far as any question of fact that is stated in these books, if -Dr. Nelte will let us know what the passage is, we shall see whether we -could admit it, but the general views of Major General Fuller and Major -General Temperley we would submit to be irrelevant. - -Then, 19, 20, and 21 are books about Austria. Again the Prosecution -reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion in Austria with -regard to an Anschluss is irrelevant when considering the question of -the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 which took place -in 1938. - -I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents and, as I -say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to three of which -there is nothing really between us in principle, and with regard to the -fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve these various points which I -have mentioned. Again I want to make clear that the Prosecution does not -object to Dr. Nelte’s obtaining any of these books for the purpose of -preparing his case, but we want them to make clear at the earliest -opportunity what their position is with regard to their use. - -DR. NELTE: With respect to the first three categories, the Prosecution -agrees with me that I can confine myself to the last category which -begins with Documents 1 and 2. One of the fundamental questions of this -Trial, which at first glance appears a purely legal problem, is the -question of the so-called Führer state (Führerstaat) and Führer order -(Führerbefehl). This question has, however, important actual -significance here at this Trial, also of a factual importance. For -instance, the Defendant Keitel, as a result of his particular position, -was to the utmost degree affected by this Führer state principle and -acted accordingly as he was continuously in personal contact with the -incarnation of this principle, namely, Hitler. It is not as if Article 8 -of the Charter remained unaffected by it. It will, however, so I assume, -be possible to prove that Article 8 of the Charter is not applicable -here. - -As to the Führer Order Number 1, Document Number 2, the Tribunal itself -will, upon hearing the order, be able to judge whether it bears any -relevance. This order, Führer Order Number 1, from Keitel Document Book -Number 1, reads: - - “a) No one is to have any knowledge of secret matters which do - not fall within his sphere. - - “b) No one is to obtain more information than he needs for the - fulfillment of the task set him. - - “c) No one is to receive information earlier than is necessary - for the duties assigned to him. - - “d) No one is to pass on to subordinates more secret orders or - at an earlier date than is indispensable for the attainment of - the purpose.” - -Document Number 1, that is, the expert opinion on the Führer state and -Führer order, in connection with this Führer Order Number 1, is to serve -as proof for the fact that there can be no question of conspiracy in the -sense of the Indictment. Therefore, I request the Tribunal to admit -those two documents as relevant. Documents Number 10 and Number 11, and -also to a certain degree, Number 16, are submitted as proof that the -principles which the Defendant Keitel, as a soldier and a German, -considered to be important, namely, rearmament up to a point of securing -a respectable position for Germany among the council of nations, were -not only postulated by the German people, but also appreciated and -approved by important persons abroad. This subject is to be proved by -submission of articles by a British, a French, and an American author, -military men, all of whom hold a high reputation for their writings on -military matters. Among these is the article “Total War,” by Major -General Fuller, my Document 15, as well as the book by the British Major -General Temperley, _The Whispering Gallery of Europe_. Mr. Fuller, for -instance, writes in his article, that: - - “It is nonsense to state that he”—Hitler—“wanted war. War - could not bring him the rebirth of his nation. What he needed - was an honorable, secure peace.” - -The point to be proved here is that any aggressive intentions would of -themselves be incompatible with the pronouncements of Hitler and the -leading Nazis, if one believes in their sincerity. The defendant -believed in the sincerity of these pronouncements and to this end he -referred to the opinion of important persons abroad. - -I think those are the documents to which the Prosecution raised certain -objections. - -THE PRESIDENT: You have not mentioned 19 to 21, which documents are said -to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria. - -DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents—Number 19, “The Cultural and Political -Importance of the Anschluss,” and Document 20, “The Way Toward the -Anschluss,” and the third, “The Anschluss in the International Press,” -dated 1931—are to prove the defendant could assume, and was justified -in so doing, that the overwhelming majority of Austrian people welcomed -the Anschluss with Germany. These are articles and memoranda of the -Austro-German Peoples Union, the chairman of which was the Social -Democrat Reichstag President Loebe. - -THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not? - -DR. NELTE: I should like to make only one additional application to the -Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have been unable to mention -earlier since they were not submitted until the sitting of 22 February. -I shall now submit this application. It refers to 11 documents, all of -which were presented during the Friday sitting in order to prove the -complicity of Keitel in the destruction during the retreat and in regard -to forced labor of prisoners of war and civilian population. From the -contents of these documents submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes -apparent that, according to evidence I have already offered, a large -number of the accusations of the Prosecution are to be attributed to the -fact that every document which dealt in any way with military matters -was simply charged to the OKW and Keitel. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents have -already been put in evidence. - -DR. NELTE: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to which Sir David -agreed. They could be touched on by you. - -DR. NELTE: That is correct. - -THE PRESIDENT: There is no need to make any fresh application in -connection with them. - -DR. NELTE: When I made this additional application I had not yet -received Sir David’s consent. Besides this seems to be a particularly -singular and convincing case because, on one day, 11 documents were -submitted, all of which were used as accusations against Keitel, but -which all showed by their contents that they do not apply to him or the -OKW. - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment. There is only one other thing that I wanted -to ask you. You asked at an earlier stage for the evidence from -Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg and in both, cases the Tribunal -granted you interrogatories. I do not know whether you are withdrawing -your application in respect to those cases or whether you have seen the -answers to the interrogatories. - -DR. NELTE: I have, in accordance with the suggestion, sent those -interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith as well as to Otto Wettberg. -Depending on the reply I shall receive from those two witnesses, I shall -or shall not submit them. - -THE PRESIDENT: You have submitted the one for Otto Wettberg, have you? - -DR. NELTE: Yes, but I have not received it back. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Exhibit Number 1, would you explain a -little bit more what Number 1 is going to be? It appears to be the -opinion of an expert witness on the meaning of the Führer precept. Is -that what you intend? - -DR. NELTE: Yes. It is an article in the field of constitutional law on -the structure and significance of what is known as the Leader State -(Führerstaat). - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Colonel Smirnov. - -CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the -U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, it is my duty to submit to the -Tribunal evidence on the last count of the Indictment. “Crimes against -Humanity” are dealt with in Count Four of the Indictment, and by Article -6, and particularly Subparagraph C of Article 6, of the Charter. - -I shall submit evidence of crimes which the Hitlerites committed on the -territories of the temporarily occupied areas of the Soviet Union, -Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece. - -The Crimes against Humanity—just as the other crimes of the German -fascists for which evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal by my -colleagues—originated in the criminal nature of fascism, in its -endeavors to dominate the world by predatory seizure of whole states in -the East and in the West, and by enslavement and mass extermination of -people. These crimes were put into effect by adoption of the -cannibalistic theories of German fascism. - -Elements forming the concept of Crimes against Humanity are to be found -in nearly all the criminal acts of the Hitlerites. For instance, a -considerable amount of probative facts in corroboration of the gravity -of the crimes committed by the German fascists has already been -submitted to the Tribunal during the presentation of the Count -concerning War Crimes against the civilian population. - -The criminal violation by the Hitlerites of the laws and customs of war, -as well as the mass extermination of prisoners of war, are some of the -gravest Crimes against Humanity. At the same time, the concept Crimes -against Humanity is considerably broader in scope than any definition of -German fascist crimes, of which proofs have been hitherto submitted to -the Tribunal. - -Together with the arrival of German forces and the appearance of the -swastika on official buildings, life of the inhabitants of the -temporarily occupied eastern European countries seemed to stop. The -merciless fascist machine tried to force them to be deprived of all that -which, as a result of centuries of human development, had become an -integral part of humanity. - -Thus, death hung over them constantly, but on their way to death they -were forced to pass through numerous and agonizing phases, insulting to -human dignity, which constitute, in their entirety, the charge entitled -in the Indictment “Crimes against Humanity.” - -Attempts were made to force them to forget their own names by hanging a -number around their necks or by sewing a classification mark on their -sleeves. They were deprived of the right to speak or to read in their -mother tongue. They were deprived of their homes, their families, their -native country, forcibly deported hundreds and thousands of kilometers -away. They were deprived of the right to procreate. They were daily -scoffed at and insulted. Their feelings and beliefs were jeered at and -ridiculed. And, finally, they were deprived of their last right—to -live. - -The numerous investigations noted not only the state of extreme physical -exhaustion of the victims of German fascist atrocities; they also -usually mentioned the state of deep moral depression of those who, by -the hazards of fate, escaped the fascist hell. - -A long period of time was necessary for these victims of German fascism -to return once again to a world of normal conceptions and activities and -to man’s conventions for human society. All this is very hard to express -in legal formula, but, in my opinion, it is very important in the -Indictment of the major war criminals. - -I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Polish Government which -has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 -(Document Number USSR-93). The quotation which I should like now to read -is on Page 10 of the document book. On Page 70 of the Russian text of -this report, there is a quotation from the statement of Jacob Vernik, a -carpenter from Warsaw, who spent a year in the extermination camp of -Treblinka 2. Sometimes the official German documents refer to “Treblinka -2” as “Treblinka B,” but it is one and the same. This was one of the -most terrible centers for mass extermination of people, created by -German fascists. In my statement, I shall submit to Your Honors evidence -connected with the existence of this camp. - -This is what Vernik said in presenting a report on Treblinka to the -Polish Government; a report which, as he stressed in his foreword, was -his only reason “to continue his pitiful life”: - - “Awake or asleep I see terrible visions of thousands of people - calling for help, begging for life and mercy. - - “I have lost my family, I have myself led them to death; I have - myself built the death chambers in which they were murdered. - - “I am afraid of everything, I fear that everything I have seen - is written on my face. An old and broken life is a heavy burden, - but I must carry on and live to tell the world what German - crimes and barbarism I saw.” - -The persons who came to Treblinka entered, as I said, the ante-chamber -of death. But were they the only victims of this fate? An analysis of -probative facts connected with the crimes of the German fascists -irrefutably testifies to the fact that the same fate was shared not only -by those who were sent to special extermination camps, but also all -those who became the victims of these criminals in the temporarily -occupied countries of Eastern Europe. - -I ask the Tribunal’s permission to bring in evidence a short quotation -from a document already submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number -USSR-46—the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union on the crimes committed in the city and region of Orel. In the -text of this document there is a special communication of a famed -Russian scientist, a doctor, the President of the Academy of Medical -Science and member of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union, Academician Burdenko. The Tribunal will find this communication -on Page 14 of the document book, Paragraph 6: - - “The scenes I had to witness”—says Burdenko—“surpassed the - wildest imagination. Our joy at the sight of the delivered - people was dimmed by the expression of stupor on their faces. - - “This led one to reflect—what was the matter? Evidently the - sufferings they had undergone had stamped upon them equality of - life and death. I observed these people during 3 days. I - bandaged them, I evacuated them, but their physical stupor did - not change. Something similar could be noticed during the first - days on the faces of the doctors.” - -I shall not, Your Honors, waste time in drawing attention to the long -and well-known extracts from _Mein Kampf_ or the _Myth of the Twentieth -Century_. We are interested, in the first place, in the criminal -practices of the German fascist fiends. - -I have already said above, that death constantly hung over the people -who became the victims of fascism. Death could come unexpectedly, -together with the appearance in one or another place of a -Sonderkommando; but at the same time, a death sentence would be -pronounced for any act in these special decisions so mockingly called -German fascist “laws.” - -I and other members of the Soviet Prosecution already have given -numerous examples of these terroristic laws, directives, and decrees of -the German fascist authorities. I do not wish to repeat myself, but I -beg the Tribunal’s permission to quote one of these documents as it -concerns all the temporarily seized eastern territories. - -The only justification for the publication of this document for its -author, the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, is that these temporarily -occupied districts were populated by non-Germans. This document is a -characteristic evidence of the persecution of people for racial, -national, or political motives. I beg the Tribunal to enter in the -record, as Exhibit Number USSR-395 (Document Number USSR-395), the -photostat of the so-called third decree supplementing the penal -directives for the Eastern territories which was issued by Alfred -Rosenberg on 17 February 1942. Your Honors will find this document on -Pages 19 and 20 of the document book. I shall read in full, beginning -with Paragraph 1: - - “The death penalty, or, in lesser cases, penal servitude will be - inflicted upon: Those who undertake to use violence against the - German Reich or against the high authority established in the - occupied territories; those who undertake to commit violence - against a Reich citizen or a person of German nationality for - his or her belonging to this German nationality; those who - undertake to use violence against a member of the Wehrmacht or - its followers, the German police including its auxiliary forces, - the Reich Labor Service, a German authority or institution, or - the organizations of the NSDAP; those who appeal or incite to - disobedience of orders or directives issued by the German - authorities; those who with premeditation damage the furniture - of German authorities and institutions or things used by the - latter for their work or in the public interest; those who - undertake to assist anti-German movements or to maintain the - organizational connection of groups prohibited by the German - authorities; those who participate in or incite hostile activity - and thus reveal anti-German mentality or who by their behavior - lower or injure the authority or the welfare of the German State - and people; those who premeditatively commit arson and thereby - damage German interests in general or the property . . .” - -THE PRESIDENT: Have you read this before? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I checked the transcript, and I do not think -that this has been read into the record. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It may be that similar orders were read; maybe -those of Frank or some other orders. They are all alike. In any case I -could not find any mention of this document in the transcript. - -I continue: - - “. . . damage German interests in general or the property of a - Reich citizen or persons of German nationality.” - -Paragraph 2 is very characteristic: - - “Furthermore, the death penalty and, in lesser cases, penal - servitude is to be inflicted upon: Those who agree to commit any - punishable action as foreseen by Paragraph 1; those who enter - into serious negotiations on that subject; those who offer their - services to commit such an action or accept such an offer; or - those who possess credible information on such an action or its - intention at a moment when the danger can still be averted, and - willfully refrain from warning the German authorities or the - menaced person in due time. - - “Paragraph 3. An offense not coming under Paragraphs 1 and 2 is - to be punished by death, even if this penalty is not provided - for by the general German criminal laws and by decrees of German - authorities, if the offense is of a particularly base type or - for other reasons is particularly serious. In such cases the - death penalty is also permissible for juvenile hard criminals. - - “Paragraph 4. (1) If there is insufficient justification for - turning the case over to competent courts-martial, the special - courts are competent. (2) The special instructions issued for - the Armed Forces are not hereby affected.” - -I skip Paragraph 5. - -This decree of Rosenberg’s was only one link in the chain of crimes -committed by the leaders of the German fascism directed toward -exterminating the Slav peoples. - -I pass on to the first part of my statement, which is entitled, -“Extermination of Slav Peoples.” In this part I shall show how this -criminal purpose of the Hitlerites to exterminate the Slav peoples was -carried out. I shall quote data from the report of the Yugoslav -Government, which is to be found on Page 56 of the Russian text or on -Page 76, Paragraph 3, document book: - - “Apart from the thousands of Yugoslavs who died in battle, the - occupants exterminated at least one and a half to two million - people, mostly women, children, and aged persons. Of the 15 - million prewar Yugoslav population, in the relatively short - period of 4 years, almost 14 percent of the entire population - was exterminated.” - -In the report of the Czechoslovak Government, on Pages 36 and 37 of the -Russian text, there is proof of a plan conceived by the Hitlerite -criminals for the forceful expulsion of all Czechs and the settling of -German colonists in Czechoslovakia. The report quotes an excerpt from a -statement of Karl Hermann Frank, who admitted the existence of this plan -and declared that he, Frank, had compiled a memorandum in which he -objected to a similar plan. I quote the excerpt from the statement of -Karl Hermann Frank, which the Tribunal can find on Page 37 in the -document book, fourth paragraph. - - “I considered this plan senseless as, in my opinion, the vacuum - created by these measures would have seriously upset the vital - functioning of Bohemia and Moravia for various reasons of - geopolitical, traffic, industrial, and other character; and the - immediate filling of this vacuum with new German settlers was - impossible.” - -In Poland a regime of extermination of the Slav population was put into -effect by diverse criminal methods, among which driving people to an -extreme state of exhaustion by excessive labor and subsequent death from -hunger, was most prevalent. The criminals quite consciously embarked -upon the extermination of millions of people by hunger, which is -attested by a number of documents already quoted by me and my colleagues -in part, namely, the diary of Hans Frank. - -I shall quote a few short extracts from this document. Here is an -excerpt concerning the minutes of a conference held by the Governor -General on 7 December 1942 in Kraków. The Tribunal will find the passage -I wish to quote on Page 89 of the document book, in the first column of -the text, last paragraph: - - “Should the new food supply plan be put into effect, it means - that for the city of Warsaw and its surroundings alone 500,000 - people will no longer receive food relief.” - -And here is another short excerpt from the minutes of a governmental -conference held on 24 August 1942. The Tribunal will find it on Page 90 -of the document book, first paragraph of the text. Dr. Frank states: - - “With all the difficulties which arise from the illness of - workers, or the breaking down of your co-operatives, you must - always bear in mind that it is much better if a Pole collapses - than if the Germans are defeated. The fact that we shall be - condemning 1,200,000 Jews to death by starvation should be - mentioned incidentally. Of course, if the Jews do not die from - starvation, it is to be hoped that anti-Jewish measures will be - expedited in the future.” - -The third short quotation is an excerpt from the minutes of a labor -conference held by the political leaders of the Labor Front of the NSDAP -in the Government General, on 14 December 1942. The Tribunal will find -it on the reverse of Page 89 of the document book, second column, second -paragraph: - - “. . . we are faced with the following problem: Shall we be - able, as from February, to exclude from general food supply 2 - million persons of non-German nationality or not?” - -In his preliminary speech, the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., while -speaking of Crimes against Humanity, referred to the notes of Martin -Bormann. The notes of Martin Bormann were presented to the Court under -Exhibit Number USSR-172 (Document Number USSR-172) in particular. The -Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. quoted the following lines, which the -Tribunal can find on Page 97 of the document book, last paragraph: - - “In summing up, the Führer once more stated: The least German - workman and the least German peasant must always stand - economically 10 percent higher than any Pole.” - -How were things in reality? I should like to show that, with full -approval, the Defendant Frank put these Hitler orders into effect in -Polish territory. I beg the Tribunal to take for evidence an original -German document. - -Among the other fascist institutions carrying out various -pseudo-scientific experiments, the German criminals created a special -institute for economic research. This institute issued a document -entitled, “What the Polish Problem Means for War Economy of Upper -Silesia.” - -The fascist “scientific” institute decided to make such investigations -in order to clarify the reason why the output of Polish workers became -considerably reduced. - -Two short excerpts will testify to the aims of this investigation better -than anything else. On Page 39 of this original document we read—the -Tribunal will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 101, of the -document book, second paragraph. I submit this document as Exhibit -Number USSR-282 (Document Number USSR-282). I begin the quotation which -is on Page 101 of the document book, second paragraph. - - “This investigation is in no way to be construed as propaganda - to arouse pity.” - -On Page 149 of the quoted document—the Tribunal will find this on Page -101, third paragraph, of the document book—it is said: - - “We raise our voices not to defend the Poles, but to protect the - war production for the Armed Forces.” - -Quoting these two short excerpts characterizing the aims and nature of -this investigation, I further quote a few excerpts which show the status -of the Polish worker and the practical realization by the Defendant -Frank of the above-mentioned directives of Hitler. I quote on Page 38 of -the original of the document, which corresponds to Page 101, Paragraph 7 -of the document book: - - “Information concerning the situation of the Polish population - and considerations as to which measures would be the most - suitable in this connection disagree on many points; but there - is general agreement on one point, which can be summed up here - in three words: The Poles are starving! Already some passing - observations corroborate these conclusions. One of our - investigators visited a war production plant during the lunch - recess. The workers are standing or sitting apathetically, - warming themselves in the sun, and here and there smoking. The - investigator reports that of 80 persons, only one has a piece of - bread for lunch. The others, although all working 10 to 12 hours - a day, have nothing.” - -I pass to Page 72 of the original, which corresponds to Page 102 of the -document book; there is this quotation. - - “Observations made in the factories prove that the present - rations of the Polish workers do not allow them enough food to - take with them to work. In many cases, the workers do not even - have a piece of bread. When some do bring breakfast, it is only - coffee and one or two pieces of dry bread or raw potatoes; at - the worst time, they did not even have this, but raw carrots, - which were then roasted on a stove during work.” - -I continue my quotation on Page 150 of the same document: - - “In this connection it could be stated that on visiting the - mines, it appeared that nearly 10 percent of the Polish workers - went to work underground with only dry bread, or raw potatoes - cut in slices which they warmed afterwards on a stove.” - -The institute began its “scientific calculations” with a comparison of -the calories received by the Poles in Upper Silesia and the calories -received by the German population. - -I shall not quote large excerpts from the document, but will limit -myself to short facts only. I start on Page 63 of this report, which -corresponds to Page 102, last paragraph of the document book: - - “Comparison of the number of calories received by the Poles in - Upper Silesia with the number of calories allocated to the - German population indicates that the Poles receive 24 percent - less than the Germans. This difference reaches 26 percent on - food ration cards of nonworking Poles. For youths from 14 to 20, - the difference in rations allocated to Germans and to Poles - reached almost 33 percent. However, it must be stressed that - this only applies to working youths over 14. - - “The difference between what Polish and German children from 10 - to 14 receive is even more striking. The difference here is not - less than 65 percent. The looks of these underfed youths already - testify to this. In a similar way Polish children under 10 - receive up to 60 percent less than German children. - - “If on the other hand the doctors state that the food conditions - of the babies are not so unfavorable, it is only an imaginary - contradiction. As long as a mother nurses her child, the child - gets everything from that source. The consequences of the - underfeeding are felt in this period not by the child but by the - mother. Her health and working capacity are impaired - considerably from the undernourishment.” - -I continue on Page 178 of the original which corresponds to Page 103, -Paragraph 2 in the second document book: - - “In all categories the Polish youth in comparison with the - German is more wretched. The difference in rations of the Poles - and Germans reaches 60 percent.” - -Extracts from the report of the German Labor Front cited in this -investigation also offer some interest. Particularly on Page 76 are -quoted excerpts from the report of the German Labor Front, dated 10 -October 1941, after a visit to one of the coal mines in Poland: - - “It was established that daily in various villages Polish miners - fall from exhaustion. . . . As the workers constantly complained - of stomach pains, doctors were consulted, who answered that this - was a symptom of undernourishment.” - -I would conclude the description of the Polish workers’ physical -condition drawn by the German criminals themselves, and, what is more, -by the “learned” criminals, by a short quotation from the same report -which the Tribunal will find on Page 106, Paragraph 6 of the document -book: - - “The management of the factories constantly stresses that it is - no longer possible by threats of deportation to concentration - camps to incite to work underfed people incapable of physical - effort. Sooner or later there comes a day when the weakened body - can no longer work.” - -There is also in this document a descriptive sketch of the legal status -of the Polish worker during the German occupation which bears no -possibility of double interpretation. This descriptive sketch is all the -more valuable because, as was already stressed above, the authors of the -investigation report expressly emphasized that “all humanitarian -tendencies whatsoever were alien to them.” - -I begin the quotation of the produced document on Page 127 which -corresponds to Page 110, second paragraph of the document book: - - “The law does not recognize any legal claim of any member of the - Polish nation in any sphere of life. Whatever is granted a Pole - is done voluntarily by the German masters. This legal situation - is perhaps most clearly mirrored in ‘the Pole’s lack of - possession in the eyes of the law.’ In the administration of - justice Poles are not permitted to conduct their cases before a - court. In criminal procedure the viewpoint of obedience - dominates. The execution of legal regulations is in the first - place the task of the police, who can decide at their discretion - or refer individual cases to the courts.” - -According to an order, dated 26 August 1942 Polish as well as German -workers were obliged to take out insurance against illness, accidents, -and disability. The deductions from the wages for this purpose were -larger for the Poles than for the German. However, the German workers -profited by this insurance, whereas, in actuality, the Poles were -deprived of it. - -As proof of this I shall present to the Tribunal two short excerpts from -the same investigation report which Your Honors will find on Page 111 in -the document book, Paragraph 4. It corresponds to Page 134 of the -original text of the investigation report quoted above: - - “Insurance against accidents, which is incumbent on the trade - unions, involved particularly stringent measures for the Poles. - The recognition of disability caused by an accident is much more - limited than in the case of Germans. Disability for the loss of - an eye is 30 percent for a German and 25 percent for a Pole. The - payment of a subvention depends on 33⅓ percent disability.” - -I continue my quotation on Page 135 of the original document, that is to -say, on Page 111, last paragraph of the document book: - - “The most stringent measures are provided for the dependents of - fatally injured persons. The maximum a widow can receive is half - of that granted by the insurance to Germans—and this only in - case she has to support four children under 15 years of age, or - is herself an invalid. - - “The restriction on the rights of Poles is illustrated by an - example: A German widow with three children receives 80 percent - of the yearly salary of her fatally injured husband; from an - annual income of 2,000 marks she receives 1,600 marks per year, - but a Pole in a similar situation would receive nothing.” - -The major German fascist war criminals not only sent into the -temporarily occupied Eastern territories soldiers and the SS, but -specially appointed fascist “scientists,” “consultants in economic -problems,” and all sorts of “investigators” followed after. Some of them -were detached from Ribbentrop’s office; some others were sent by -Rosenberg. - -I beg the Tribunal to enter into the record as evidence one of these -documents. I submit it under Document Number USSR-218. I mean the report -of the representative attached by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the -command of the 17th Army, Captain Pfleiderer, and addressed to his -colleague Von Rantzau from the information service of the Ministry of -Foreign Affairs. These documents were discovered by units of the Red -Army on the Dirksen estate in Upper Silesia. - -On the basis of a reading of these documents, it can be concluded that -in 1941-42 Pfleiderer made a trip covering the following route through -the occupied territories on the route Yaroslavl in the Ukraine, Lvov, -Tarnopol, Proskurov, Vinnitza, Uman, Kirovograd, Alexandria, and -Krementshoug on the Dnieper. - -The purpose of this trip was to study economic and political conditions -in the occupied territories of the Ukraine. That the author of this -document was also completely free of so-called humanitarian tendencies, -can be seen from the short excerpt from his report dated 28 October -1941, where Pfleiderer writes—the Tribunal will find this quotation on -Page 113, second paragraph of the document book. I quote only one line: - - “. . . there is the urgent necessity to press out of the country - everything to secure the food supply of Germany.” - -But even with such proclivity to cruelty and rapacity, Pfleiderer -evidently was abashed by the conduct of his compatriots to the extent -that he deemed it necessary to bring it to the attention of the highest -authorities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I quote the report of -Pfleiderer which is entitled: - - “Conditions for the Guarantee of Supply and for Producing the - Largest Possible Food Surplus in the Ukraine. - - “. . . 3) Frame of mind and living conditions of the population - by the end of October 1941.” - -The Tribunal will find this part on Page 114, third paragraph of the -document book: - - “The frame of mind of the population generally became worse a - few weeks after the occupation of the territory by our troops. - The reason for it? We display . . . inner hostility and even - hatred toward this country, and arrogance toward the - people. . . . The third year of war and the necessity of - wintering in an unfriendly country causes many difficulties, but - they must be surmounted with courage and self-discipline. We - must not work off our discontent over this country on the - population. . . . How often it happened that, acting against the - rules of psychology and committing mistakes that we could easily - have avoided, we lost all sympathy of the population. The people - cannot understand the shooting of exhausted prisoners of war in - villages and larger localities and the leaving of their bodies - there. As the troops are entrusted with a broad authority for - self-provisioning, the _kolkhozes_ along the main roads and near - the larger towns for the most part lack pedigree cattle, seeds, - seed potatoes (Poltava). Evidently, the supplying of our own - troops stands first; however, the system of supply in itself is - not immaterial: Psychologically, requisitioning the last hen is - as unreasonable as it is economically unreasonable to kill the - last pig or the last calf.” - -I continue my quotation, Paragraph 3, Page 115 of the document book: - - “The population . . . is without leadership. It stands apart and - feels that we look down on it, that we see sabotage in their - tempo and methods of work, that we do not take any steps to find - a way to an understanding.” - -A similar document is the document submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-439, -which was graciously given to us by our United States colleagues. It was -registered by the American Prosecution as Document Number 303-PS, but -was not filed. It is a political report of the German professor, Doctor -Paul W. Thomsen, written on the forms of the State University of Posen -Biological Paleontological Institute and was indexed by the author -himself, “Not for publication.” Your Honors will find this document on -Page 116 of the document book. This document also introduces us into -this field of complete lawlessness and tyrannical arbitrariness toward -the local population of the temporarily occupied districts of the Soviet -Union. These observations were made by this fascist professor during his -trip through the temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union -“from Minsk to the Crimea.” - -I refer to two short excerpts from this document. The quotation which I -have read into the record testifies to the absence of any humanitarian -tendencies on the part of that author and if Paul Thomsen brought back -from his trip only “the most depressing impression” that is only further -proof of the depths of cruelty and brutality to which the German -fascists were willing to go. The Tribunal will find these excerpts on -Page 116 of the document book. I begin the quotation. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 26 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY - Tuesday, 26 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to explain the Tribunal’s decision with -reference to General Halder and General Warlimont. - -Would Dr. Nelte kindly come to the Tribunal? - -I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nelte, whether you were the only one of the -defendants’ counsel who wished to call General Halder and General -Warlimont? - -DR. NELTE: No, besides myself, so far as I know, my colleagues Dr. -Laternser, Professor Dr. Kraus, and Professor Dr. Exner have called both -General Halder and General Warlimont. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I understand. - -Then the Tribunal’s decision is this: The Tribunal ordered, when the -Soviet prosecutor wished to put in the affidavits of these two generals, -that if they were put in, the witnesses must be produced for -cross-examination. But in view of the fact that defendants’ counsel have -asked to call these witnesses themselves, the Tribunal is willing that -the defendants’ counsel should decide whether they prefer that those two -generals should be produced now, during the Prosecution’s case, for -cross-examination, or should be called thereafter during the defendants’ -case for examination by the defendants, in which case, of course, they -would be liable to cross-examination on behalf of the Prosecution. - -But it must be clearly understood, in accordance with the order which -the Tribunal made the other day—either yesterday or the previous day, I -forgot which it was—that these witnesses, like other witnesses, can -only be called once, and when they are called, each of the defendants’ -counsel who wishes to put questions to them must do so at that time. - -Now, if there were any difference of opinion among defendants’ counsel, -one defendant’s counsel wishing to have these two generals produced now -during the Prosecution’s case for cross-examination, and other -defendants’ counsel wishing to have them called hereafter as witnesses -on their behalf during the course of their case, then the Tribunal -consider that in view of the order which they have already made, -Generals Halder and Warlimont ought to be produced and called now. And -the same rule would apply then. They could only be called once, and any -questions which the other defendants’ counsel wish to be put to them -should be put to them then. But the decision as to whether they should -be called now or whether they should be called during the course of the -defendants’ case is accorded to defendants’ counsel. - -Is that clear? - -DR. NELTE: I request to hear the decisions of the various Defense -Counsel at the beginning of the afternoon session. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, certainly. You can let us know during the -afternoon session, at the beginning of the afternoon session, what the -decision of defendants’ counsel is. - -DR. NELTE: Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation of the political report -of Professor Paul Thomsen, which was already submitted at yesterday’s -afternoon session to the Tribunal. Your Honors will find it on Page 116 -of the document book. I start quoting—and quote only two short excerpts -from this political report: - - “I consider it is my duty, although I am only here in the East - on a specific scientific mission, to add a general political - outline to my actual reports. I must admit, openly and in all - honesty, that I return home with the most grievous impressions. - - “In this fateful hour of our nation every mistake we make may - result in the most disastrous consequences. A Polish or a Czech - problem can be crushed because the biological forces of our - people are sufficient for that purpose. - - “Remnants of people like Estonians, Lithuanians, and Letts have - to adapt themselves to us or they will perish. Things are quite - different in the immense Russian area, of vital necessity to us - as a basis for raw materials.” - -Here I interrupt my quotation and continue on Page 117 of the document -book, Paragraphs 10 and 11—I quote: - - “I do not dare to voice an opinion on the economic measures, - such as, for instance, the abolition of the free market in Kiev, - which has been taken as a heavy blow by the population, since I - am in no position to observe the entire situation. The ‘sergeant - major attitude,’ the beatings and shouting in the streets, the - senseless destruction of scientific institutions which is still - going on as strong as ever in Dniepropetrovsk, should cease - immediately and be punished severely. - - “Kiev, 19 October 1942; Professor Dr. Paul W. Thomsen.” - -The German fascist theory of Germanization, already well known to the -Tribunal, announced that not the people but the territories were to be -germanized. - -I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal that a similar Hitlerite crime -was to have been committed in Yugoslavia. This crime could not be -perpetrated because of the liberation movement which flared up all over -Yugoslavia. - -I quote a short excerpt from the statement of the Yugoslav Government, -which is on Page 68, Paragraph 7 in the document book: - - “Immediately after the entry of the German troops into Slovenia, - the Germans began to put into effect their long premeditated - plan for the Germanization of the annexed regions of Slovenia. - It was perfectly clear to the leading Nazi circles that a - successful Germanization of Slovenia could not be realized - unless the greater part of the nationally and socially conscious - elements had previously been removed; and in order to weaken the - resistance of the mass of the people towards the Nazi - authorities engaged in the task of Germanization, it would be - essential to lessen them numerically and destroy them - economically. - - “The German plan foresaw the complete removal of all the - Slovenes from certain regions of Slovenia, and their - repopulation by Germans”—Germans from Bessarabia and so-called - “Gottscheer” Germans.” - -I omit a passage and continue: - - “A few days after the seizure of Slovenia, central offices were - organized for resettlement control. The headquarters staff was - established in Maribor (Marburg on the Drava) and Bled (Veldes). - - “At the same time, on 22 April 1941, a ‘Decree for the - Strengthening of German Folkdom’ was published. The immediate - aim of this decree was the confiscation of property of all - persons and institutions antagonistically inclined towards the - Reich. Naturally, all those, who in accordance with the - aforesaid plan were to be deported from Slovenia, were included - in this category. - - “The Hitlerites proceeded to the practical realization of this - plan. They arrested a large number of persons registered for - deportation to Serbia and Croatia. The treatment of the arrested - persons was extremely cruel. Their entire property was - confiscated in the interest of the Reich. Numerous assembly - points were organized and practically turned into concentration - camps, in Maribor, Zelie, and other localities.” - -As regards the treatment of arrested persons in these points, the -statement of the Yugoslav Government reads as follows—the members of -the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 69, Paragraph 4, of the -document book: - - “The internees were left without food; in unhygienic conditions; - the personnel of the camp subjected them to bodily and mental - torture. All the camp commanders and personnel belonged to the - SS. Among them were Germans from Carinthia and Styria who hated - anything connected with Slovenia in particular, and Yugoslavia - in general.” - -The following sentence is typical: - - “The members of the so-called Kulturbund”—Cultural - Union—“particularly distinguished themselves for their - cruelty.” - -In corroboration of this Hitlerite crime, I submit to the Tribunal, as -Exhibit Number USSR-139 (Document Number USSR-139), a letter from the -German Command in Smeredov, addressed to the Yugoslav quisling, -Commissioner Stefanovitch, ordering him to report what the possibilities -were for transferring to Serbia a large number of Slovenes. Your Honors -will find this document on Page 119 of the document book. - -In the report of the Yugoslav Government, Page 49 of the Russian text, -which corresponds to Page 59, Paragraph 7, of the document book of the -Tribunal, it is stated that the Germans primarily intended to transfer -260,000 Slovenes to Serbia. However, the realization of this plan met -with a number of difficulties. In this connection I should like to quote -a paragraph from the report of the Yugoslav Government: - - “But in view of the fact that the transportation to Serbia of - such a very large number of Slovenes has encountered a great - many difficulties, negotiations were opened shortly afterwards - between the German authorities and the quisling Oustachi - administration in Zagreb concerning the transit of the expelled - Slovenes through Croatian territory and the resettling of a - certain number of these Slovenes in Croatia proper, while the - Serbs in Croatia were deported from the country.” - -I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-195 (Document Number -USSR-195), the minutes of a conference held on 4 June 1941 at the German -Legation in Zagreb and presided over by SA Obergruppenführer Siegfried -Kasche, German Minister in Zagreb. These minutes, in the Serbian -translation, were seized in the archives of the Refugee Commission of -the so-called Government of Milan Neditch. They give the subject matter -of the conference, that is, “The Expulsion of the Slovenes from Germany -to Croatia and Serbia, as well as of the Serbs from Croatia to Serbia.” -The Tribunal will find this document on Page 120 of the document book. -The passage in question literally reads as follows: - - “The conference was approved by the Reich Ministry for Foreign - Affairs by Telegram Number 389, dated 31 May. The Führer’s - approval for the deportation was received by Telegram Number - 344, dated 25 May.” - -We are thus able to prove that the direct responsibility for this crime -against humanity rests on the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. - -We gather, at the same time, from the report of the Yugoslav Government, -that the deportation of a considerable number of Slovenes to Germany was -put into effect. I quote a paragraph from the report of the Yugoslav -Government, which Your Honors will find on Page 70, last paragraph of -the document book. I begin the quotation: - - “Shortly afterwards the deportation itself began. In the morning - German trucks would arrive in the villages. Soldiers and Gestapo - men, armed with machine guns and rifles, broke into the houses - and ordered the inhabitants to leave, each man being allowed to - take with him only as much as he could carry. The unfortunate - people were given only a few minutes in which to quit and they - were forced to leave all their property behind them. The trucks - drove them to the Roman Catholic Trappist monastery of - Reichenberg. The transports started from the monastery. Each - transport consisted of 600 to 1,200 persons to be taken to - Germany. The district of Bregiza was almost completely - depopulated, the district of Krshko up to 90 percent; 56,000 - inhabitants were deported from these two districts. Over and - above this 4,000 were deported from the communities of Zirkovsky - and Ptuya.” - -I omit one paragraph and continue: - - “They were forced to perform the very hardest tasks and to live - under the most horrible conditions. The mortality rate assumed - enormous proportions in consequence. The harshest penalties were - applied for the slightest offense.” - -I shall not enumerate other passages in the report of the Yugoslav -Government in connection with the same subject. I do not quote this -document; I merely ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence the -supplementary official report of the Yugoslav Government which I am -submitting as Document Number USSR-357. - -Similar crimes were committed by the German criminals on the territory -of occupied Poland. I quote a few excerpts from the official report of -the Polish Republic. Your Honors will find the passage I wish to quote -on Page 3, Paragraph 3 of the document book. The passage is in -Subparagraph A and is entitled, “The Germanization of Poland”: - - “Clear indications concerning the program are found in a - publication distributed among members of the National Socialist - Party in Germany in 1940. It contained the principles of German - policy in the East. Here are some quotations from this document: - - “‘In a military sense the Polish question has been settled, but - from the point of view of national policy it is only now - beginning for Germany. The national political conflict between - the Germans and Poles must be carried forward to a degree never - yet seen in history. - - “‘The aim which confronts German policy in the territory of the - former Polish State is twofold: Firstly, to see that a certain - portion of space in this area is cleared of the alien population - and colonized by German nationals; secondly, by imposing German - leadership, in order to guarantee that in that area no fresh - conflagrations should flare up against Germany. It is clear that - this aim can never be achieved with, but only against, the - Poles.’” - -I interrupt this quotation and continue on Page 15 of the report of the -Polish Republic, which corresponds to Page 5, Paragraph 5 of the -document book. This part is entitled, “The Colonization of Poland by -German Settlers.” I begin the quotation: - - “The policy, in this respect, was clearly expressed by the - official German authorities. In the _Ostdeutscher Beobachter_ of - 7 May 1941 the following proclamation is printed: - - “For the first time in German history we can exploit our - military victories in a political sense. Never again will even a - centimeter of the earth which we have conquered belong to the - Pole.” - -Such was the plan. The facts which were put into practice were the -following: - - “Locality after locality, village after village, hamlets and - cities in the incorporated territories were cleared of the - Polish inhabitants. This began in October 1939, when the - locality of Orlov was cleared of all the Poles who lived and - worked there. Then came the Polish port of Gdynia. In February - 1940 about 40,000 persons were expelled from the city of Posen. - They were replaced by 36,000 Baltic-Germans, families of - soldiers and of German officials. - - “The Polish population was expelled from the following towns: - Gnesen, Kulm, Kostian, Neshkva, Inovrotzlav. . .”—and many - other towns. - - “The German newspaper _Grenzzeitung_ reported that in February - 1940 the entire center of the city of Lodz was cleared of Poles - and reserved for the use of future German settlers. By September - 1940 the total number of Poles deported from Lodz was estimated - at 150,000. - - “But it was not only that the persons living in these places - were ordered to leave—they were forbidden to take their - property with them; everything was to be left behind. The German - newcomers took the place of the Poles evicted from their homes, - business shops, and farms. By January 1941 more than 450,000 - Germans had been settled in this manner.” - -I omit the next part of this report which I wished to quote and I would -request the Tribunal only to pay attention to the part entitled, -“Germanization of Polish Children.” This is a short quotation. Just two -small paragraphs: - - “Thousands of Polish children (between the ages of 7 and 14) - were ruthlessly torn from their parents and families and carried - off to Germany. The purpose of this most brutal measure was - explained by the Germans themselves in the _Kölnische Zeitung_ - Number 1584, 1940 issue. We read: - - “‘They will be taught German. They will be inculcated with the - German spirit so that later they can be brought up as model - German boys and girls.’” - -In order to explain the methods adopted by the German fascists in the -execution of their cannibalistic plan for the extermination of the -Soviet people—peaceful citizens of my motherland, women, children, and -old people—I request the Tribunal to call and question witness -Grigoriev, Jacob Grigorievitch, a peasant from the village of Pavlov, -village soviet of Shkvertovsk, region of Porkhovsk, district of Pskov. -He has arrived from the district of Pskov, a district near Leningrad -and, according to my information, is now in the courtbuilding. I ask the -permission of the Tribunal to examine this witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. - -[_The witness Grigoriev took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: What is your name? - -JACOB GRIGORIEV (Witness): Jacob Grigoriev. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath: - -I—Jacob Grigoriev—citizen of the Union of the Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in -the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but the -truth—about everything I know in regard to this case. - -[_The witness repeated the oath in Russian._] - -THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, in which village did -you live before the war? - -GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo, Porkhov region, district of -Pskov. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In which village were you overtaken by the -outbreak of war? - -GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this village currently exist? - -GRIGORIEV: It does not exist. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal what happened. - -GRIGORIEV: On the memorable day of 28 October 1943, German soldiers -suddenly raided our village and started murdering the peaceful citizens, -shooting them, chasing them into the houses. On that day I was working -on the threshing floor with my two sons, Alexei and Nikolai. Suddenly a -German soldier came up to us and ordered us to follow him. - -THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. When you see the light on -that desk there or here, it means you are going too fast. You -understand? - -GRIGORIEV: I understand, yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly, Witness. Continue, please. - -THE PRESIDENT: You said you were working with your two sons in the -field. - -GRIGORIEV: Yes; my own two sons. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continue. - -GRIGORIEV: We were led through the village to the last house at the -outskirts. There were 19 of us, all told, in that house. So there we sat -in that house. I sat close to the window and looked out of it. I saw -German soldiers herd together a great number of people. I noticed my -wife and my 9-year-old boy. They were chased right up to the house and -then led back again—where to, I did not know. - -A little later three German machine gunners came in, accompanied by a -fourth carrying a heavy revolver. We were ordered into another room. So -we went, all 19 of us, and were lined up against a wall, including my -two sons, and they began shooting at us from their machine guns. I stood -right up to the wall, bending slightly. - -After the first volley I fell to the floor, where I lay, too frightened -to move. When they had shot all of us they left the house. When I came -to, I looked round and saw my son Nikolai who had been shot and had -fallen, face downwards. My second son I could not find anywhere. - -Then, when some time had passed, I began to think how I could escape. I -straightened my legs out from under the man who had fallen on me and -began to think how I could get away. And instead of that, instead of -planning my escape, I lost my head and called out, at the top of my -voice, “Can I really go now?” At that moment my small son, who had -remained alive, recognized me. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That would be your second son? - -GRIGORIEV: The second. The first had been killed and was lying by my -side. My little son called out, “Daddy, are you still alive?” - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He was wounded? - -GRIGORIEV: He was wounded in the leg. I calmed him down: “Do not fear, -my small son. I shall not leave you here. Somehow or other, we shall get -away from here. I shall carry you out.” - -A little later the house began to burn. Then I opened the window and -threw myself out of it, carrying my little boy who had been wounded in -the leg. We began to creep out of the house, hiding so that the Germans -could not see us, but on our way from the house we suddenly saw a high -fence. - -We could not move the lattice apart so we began to break it up. At that -moment we were noticed by the German soldiers and they began to shoot at -us. Then I whispered to my little son to hide while I would run away. I -was unable to carry him and he ran a short distance and hid in the -undergrowth, while I ran off. I ran a short distance and then jumped -into a building near the burning house. - -There I sat for a while and then decided to run farther on. So I escaped -into a nearby forest, not far from our village, where I spent the night. -In the morning I met Alexei N. from the neighboring village, who told -me, “Your son, Aljosha, is alive; he started to crawl to the neighboring -village.” - -Then on the second day, from the same village, Kuznetzov, I met the boy -Vitya who had escaped from Leningrad and was living in our village -during the time of the occupation. He had also been saved by a miracle. -He escaped from the fire. He told me what had happened in the second hut -where my wife and son had been taken. - -There matters were carried out as follows: The German soldiers, having -driven the people into the hut, opened the door into the passage and -proceeded to shoot from their machine guns across the threshold. - -According to Vitya’s words, people who were still half alive were -burning, including my little boy, Petya, who was only 9 years old. When -he ran out of the hut he saw that my Petya was still alive. He was -sitting under a bench, having covered his ears with his little hands. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How old was the oldest inhabitant of this -village destroyed by the Germans? - -GRIGORIEV: The oldest inhabitant, a woman aged 108 years, was Ustinia -Artemieva. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, how old was the youngest -victim murdered by the Germans? - -GRIGORIEV: Four months. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many villagers were destroyed all told? - -GRIGORIEV: Forty-seven, excluding those who were saved by a miracle. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why did the Germans destroy the population of -your village? - -GRIGORIEV: The reason was not known. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what did the Germans themselves say? - -GRIGORIEV: When a German soldier came to our threshing floor we asked -him, “Why are you killing us?” He replied, “Do you know the village of -Maximovo?” This is the village next to our village community. I said, -“Yes.” Then he told me, “This village of Maximovo is kaput—the -inhabitants are kaput, and you too will be kaput.” - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And why kaput? - -GRIGORIEV: “Because,” said he, “partisans were hiding in your village.” -But his words were untruthful because we had no partisans in the -village; nobody indulged in any partisan activities since there was -nobody left. Only old people and small children were left in the -village; the village had never seen any partisans and did not know who -these partisans were. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were there many adult men in your village? - -GRIGORIEV: There was one man, 27 years old, but he was a sick man, -half-witted and paralytic. We had only old men and small children. All -the rest of the men were in the Army. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, witness, were the inhabitants of -your village alone in suffering this fate? - -GRIGORIEV: No, they were not alone. The German soldiers shot 43 persons -in Kurysheva, 47 in Vshivova, and in the village of Pavlovo, where I now -live, they burned 23 persons. And in a number of villages where, -according to our village community, there were some four hundred -inhabitants, they shot all the peaceful citizens, both young and old. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please repeat that figure. How many persons were -destroyed in your village community? - -GRIGORIEV: About four hundred people in our village community alone. - -MR COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, who remained alive in your -family? - -GRIGORIEV: In my family only I and my boy remained alive. In my family -they shot my wife, in her sixth month of pregnancy, my son Nikolai, aged -16 years, my youngest boy, Petya, aged 9 years, and my sister-in-law—my -brother’s wife—with her two infants, Sasha and Tonya. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask this witness, -Mr. President. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to ask the witness -any questions? Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask the witness -any questions? The witness may retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I pass on to the next count of my -statement, the discrimination against the Soviet people. - -Discrimination against the Soviet population was the usual method of the -Hitlerite criminals. It was carried out by the criminals continuously -and everywhere. - -In this part of my presentation I shall refer to the documents of the -German criminals themselves, which have only now been obtained and -placed at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution. They were seized by -the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union in the -prisoner-of-war camp at Lamsdorf. - -I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-415 (Document Number -USSR-415), a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the -crimes committed by the German Government and the German Supreme Command -against Soviet prisoners of war in the camp of Lamsdorf. A number of -original documents of the German fascist criminals, discovered in the -camp archives are attached to the report. - -I shall be able to submit some of these documents to Your Honors. Their -value consists in the fact that they prove that even in the murderous -regime established in one of the largest and most cruel of the German -concentration camps, the criminals, true to the cannibalistic principles -of their theories, shamelessly discriminated against Soviet nationals. - -I shall quote a few brief excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission. The passage, Your Honors, to which I refer, you will -find on Page 123 of the document book, Paragraph 4. It sets forth the -general characteristics of the camp. I quote: - - “Subsequent to investigations made, the Extraordinary State - Commission proved that in Lamsdorf, in the district of the town - of Oppeln, there existed, from 1941 to May 1945, a German - stationary camp, Number 344. - - “In 1940-41 this camp contained Polish prisoners of war; from - the end of 1941 Soviet, English, and French prisoners of war - began to come in.” - -I omit the next two sentences and continue the quotation: - - “The prisoners of war were deprived of their outer clothing and - boots. Even in winter they had to go barefoot. No fewer than - 300,000 prisoners of war passed through the camp during the - years of its existence, including 200,000 Soviet and 100,000 - Polish, English, French, Belgian, and Greek prisoners. - - “The prevalent method for the extermination of Soviet prisoners - in Lamsdorf camp was the sale of the captives to German - undertakings for work in various German firms where they were - mercilessly exploited until, their strength completely lost, - they died of exhaustion. - - “In contrast to the numerous German labor exchanges, where - Sauckel’s representatives sold enslaved Soviet citizens by - retail to German housewives, a wholesale business in internees - was organized in Lamsdorf camp where the captives were formed - into labor commands. There were 1,011 such labor commands in the - camp.” - -When presenting the subsequent documents, I should like to ask the -Tribunal to understand correctly the statements in corroboration of -which I am submitting evidence. - -I do not in the least wish to say that the regime established by the -Germans for British, French, or other prisoners of war was at all -distinguished for humanity or kindness and that, alone, the Soviet -prisoners of war were exterminated by the camp administration by various -criminal methods. - -Not at all. Lamsdorf Camp factually pursued its object, which was the -extermination of prisoners of war regardless of their nationality or -citizenship. Nevertheless, even in this death camp, in these most -grievous conditions created for prisoners of war of all nationalities, -the German fascists, committing crimes against humanity and faithful to -the principles of their theories, created particularly excruciating -conditions for the people of the Soviet. - -I shall submit to the Tribunal, in a few brief excerpts, a series of -documents taken from the archives of this camp and presented to the -Tribunal in the original version. All these documents point to the -manifest discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, carried out by -the camp administration pursuant to orders of the Reich Government and -of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. - -I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-421 (Document Number -USSR-421), a memorandum on the utilization of the labor of Soviet -prisoners of war, addressed by the chief of the prisoner-of-war -department for the 8th Military District for the administration of -industrial concerns to which the prisoners of war were sent. - -I request the Tribunal to accept this document as evidence. It is -submitted in the original. I quote Point 10 of this memorandum. Your -Honors will find the passage quoted in the last paragraph of Page 150 of -the document book. I begin the quotation: - - “The following directives have been issued for the treatment of - Russian prisoners of war: - - “The Russian prisoners of war have all passed through the school - of Bolshevism, they must be looked upon as Bolsheviks and - treated as such. According to their own instructions they must, - even in captivity, struggle actively against the state which has - captured them. Therefore, we must from the very beginning treat - all Russian prisoners of war with ruthless severity, if they - give us the slightest cause for so doing. - - “Complete separation of prisoners of war from the civilian - population must be carried out strictly, in work as well as - during recreation. - - “Civilians attempting, some way or another, to approach the - Russian prisoners of war, to exchange ideas with them, to hand - them money, food supplies, _et alia_, will be arrested without - warning, questioned, and handed over to the police.” - -I further quote the introduction to this memorandum. Your Honors will -find it on Page 149 of the document book, Paragraph 2: - - “The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued directives - regulating the utilization of Soviet prisoner-of-war labor. - According to these directives the utilization of Russian - prisoners of war could be tolerated only if carried out under - far harsher conditions than those applied to prisoners of war of - other nationalities.” - -Thus the instructions for a specially cruel regime, to be applied to -Soviet prisoners of war merely because they were Soviet people, were not -the result of any arbitrary action on the part of the Lamsdorf Camp -administration. They were dictated by the Supreme Command of the Armed -Forces. In drafting this memorandum, the Lamsdorf Camp administration -was only carrying out direct orders from the Supreme Command. - -I quote two more, fairly characteristic points from the memorandum. I -quote Point 4, which Your Honors will find on Page 149 of the document -book, last paragraph. I begin the quotation—it is a very brief one: - - “In contrast to the increased requirements for the safeguarding - of the Russian billets, these—from the viewpoint of - comfort—must be reduced to the most modest requirements.” - -I shall endeavor to explain later on what this means. I shall next quote -Point 7, which Your Honors will find on Page 150 of the document book, -Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation: - - “The food rations for Russian prisoners of war at work will - differ from the rations allocated to prisoners of other - nationalities. More detailed information on this subject will be - given later.” - -Such was the memorandum addressed to the industrialists to whose -concerns the Soviet prisoners of war were sent to work as slaves. - -I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-431 (Document Number -USSR-431), which is another memorandum about guarding the Soviet -prisoners of war. The document is submitted in the original and I -request the Tribunal to accept it as evidence into the record. - -I ask the permission of the Tribunal to quote a few brief excerpts from -this document. First I quote that part of the document which proves its -origin. The first page of the text indicates it is an appendix to a -“Directive of the OKW—General Office, Armed Forces, POW Section.” Next -follow number and document, which are not so important. I now read the -introduction to this memorandum, which is on Page 150 of the document -book: - - “For the first time in this war the German soldier is faced with - an adversary who is educated both in a military and in a - political sense, whose ideal is communism and who sees in - National Socialism his very worst enemy.” - -I omit the next paragraph and continue: - - “Even in captivity, the Soviet soldier—however harmless he may - appear outwardly—will seize every occasion to show his hatred - for all that is German. We must reckon with the fact that the - prisoners will have received suitable instructions on their - behavior if captured and imprisoned.” - -My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, has already denounced the absurdity of -these so-called special instructions and I therefore do not consider it -necessary to dwell on this passage. I continue: - - “It is therefore absolutely essential, when dealing with them, - to exercise the greatest caution and prudence, and to nourish - the deepest suspicions.” - -The following directives were issued to the guard on watch over the -Soviet prisoners: - -Firstly—ruthless action at the slightest sign of resistance or -disobedience. Merciless use of firearms to break any resistance. -Escaping prisoners to be shot at immediately, without challenge, with -firm intent to hit. “Without challenge” is characteristic. - -I omit the two following paragraphs and quote the second part, Point 3 -of the memorandum, which Your Honors will find on Page 153, Paragraph 2 -of the document book. From this Subparagraph I quote three lines: - - “Kindness is out of place, even when dealing with willing and - obedient prisoners of war. They will ascribe it to weakness and - draw their own conclusions from your kindness.” - -I omit Point 4 and end my quotation from this document on Subparagraph 5 -of the memorandum—Your Honors will find this passage on Page 153, last -paragraph of the document book: - - “5. Never must the apparent inoffensiveness of the Bolshevik - prisoner of war tempt you to deviate from the above-mentioned - instructions.” - -I have, a very short time ago, quoted Point 4 of the memorandum for the -industrial, regarding the utilization of the work of Soviet prisoners. -It stated that the requirements respecting billets for the Soviet -captives should, from the viewpoint of living facilities, be of a -minimum nature. - -The meaning of this will be clear to Your Honors from a report of the -Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve Army, dated 17 -October 1941, addressed to the acting corps commanders and to the -administrative authorities of military districts. - -I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-422 (Document Number -USSR-422). This too is presented in the original and I beg that it be -entered as documentary evidence into the record. It was issued in Berlin -and dated as far back as 17 October 1941. I quote one paragraph of the -text. Your Honors will find this paragraph on Page 154 of the document -book. I begin the quotation: - - “Subject: Quarters for Soviet prisoners of war. - - “At a conference held on 19 September 1941 at the office of the - Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve Army (V-6), - it was decided that by the construction of several tiers of - superimposed wooden bunks in lieu of bedsteads, a RAD”—Reich - Labor Service—“barrack for 150 prisoners could be built - according to specifications for Soviet prisoners’ permanent - barracks to hold 840 prisoners in permanent billets.” - -I shall not quote the remainder of this document since I consider this -paragraph sufficiently clear in itself. - -I request the Tribunal to accept two documents in evidence which are -also presented in the original. They testify to the fact that the -extermination, in the camp, of Soviet prisoners of war was practiced for -political reasons. It was the practice of murder. - -I shall first submit, as Exhibit Number USSR-432 (Document Number -USSR-432), an order addressed to Camp Number 60. The document is in the -original and I request that it be added to the record as evidence. Your -Honors will find the paragraph which I wish to quote on Page 155 of the -document book. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote one passage only of the document -already submitted. The passage which I ask the permission of the -Tribunal to read is on Page 155. Point 4 of the order runs as follows: - - “Behavior at the shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner of - war. (Legal Officer) - - “Every case of shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner of war - should be reported as a special occurrence. If you are dealing - with British, French, Belgian, or American prisoners of war you - should also act in accordance with instructions of the OKW, Code - Number F-24.” - -This order was dated 2 August 1943. - -But on 5 November 1943 another order followed, which changed even this -arrangement where the Soviet prisoners of war were concerned. I request -the Tribunal to accept in evidence the document which I am submitting as -Number 433, pertaining to Camp Number 86. From this document I quote one -paragraph only, that is, Paragraph 12: - - “The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war. (Legal Officer) - - “The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war and other fatal - accidents need no longer be reported by phone to the Prisoner of - War Commander as an ‘unusual occurrence.’” - -In certain cases, the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces agreed -to the payment of a miserably small sum for the work done by the -prisoners of war, but here too the Soviet prisoners of war were placed -in conditions which were twice as bad as those of the prisoners of other -nationalities. - -To confirm this, I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a -directive of the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces dated 1 -March 1944. The document will be submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-427 -(Document Number USSR-427). - -I request that the Tribunal attach it as evidence to the documentation -of the case. From this document I shall quote two sentences only. These -sentences Your Honors will find on Page 274 of the document book: - - “Prisoners of war working all day will receive for one full - working day the following basic salary: Non-Soviet prisoners of - war, RM 0.70; Soviet prisoners of war, RM 0.35.” - -The second sentence is at the end of the document, on Page 275 of the -document book, last paragraph: - - “The minimum daily wage for non-Soviet prisoners will consist of - 0.20 RM, and 0.10 for Soviet prisoners of war.” - -Here I end my quotation from this document. - -If other prisoners received from the German fascist murderers the right -to a few breaths of fresh air a day, the Soviet people were deprived of -even this privilege. I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence an -original order, Exhibit Number USSR-424 (Document Number USSR-424), -referring to Camp Number 44. I request the permission of the Tribunal to -quote one sentence from Paragraph 7, entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of -War.” I begin to quote: - - “In special cases, when prisoners of war, engaged on work, have - their living quarters at the same place where they work and - therefore have no access to the open air, they should be allowed - to be taken out into the fresh air in order to maintain their - working strength.” - -I further request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the original order -addressed to Camp Number 46. This document is submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-425 (Document Number USSR-425). I would remind the Tribunal -that the directive ruling the preceding order, “Walks for Prisoners of -War,” was listed under Point 7. - -I cite one sentence from Point 10 of Order Number 46. This Point 10 is -also entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of War,” and the basis for this -point is Order Number 1259, Part 5, of the Chief of the Section for -Prisoner-of-War Affairs, dated 2 June 1943. I quote one sentence: - - “In complement to Point 7 of the order addressed to Camp Number - 44, dated 8 June 1943, it is explained that the order does not - apply to Soviet prisoners of war.” - -I further request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the original -request of the labor office of Mährisch-Schönberg. This request concerns -the utilization of prisoners of war for nonagricultural work. I quote -two sentences from this document. The passage which I have asked -permission to quote is on Page 160 of the document book. I begin the -quotation: - - “The replacement of 104 English prisoners of war from Labor - Brigade for Prisoners of War E 351, currently employed in the - Heinrichsthal paper mills, by 160 Soviet prisoners of war, has - been rendered necessary by the labor shortage which has - developed in this factory. An additional allocation of English - prisoners, to raise the number to the required figure of 160, is - impossible, since after the last check of camp conditions, - undertaken a few months ago by competent Wehrmacht authorities, - it was decided that billets in the camp were only sufficient for - 104 English prisoners of war, whereas the same space would - accommodate 160 Russian prisoners of war without any - difficulties whatsoever.” - -I request Your Honors’ permission to quote one more document, namely -Directive Number 8 regarding this camp, dated 7 May 1942. It is -entitled, “The Utilization of Soviet Prisoners of War for Work.” - -I submit this document in the original as Exhibit Number USSR-426 -(Document Number USSR-426), and I request that it be added as evidence -to the record of the Trial. - -I quote the section entitled, “Measures for the restoration of full -working capacities.” I think that the boundless cynicism and the cruelty -of this document require no further comment: - - “The Soviet prisoners of war are, almost without exception, in a - state of acute malnutrition, which currently renders them unfit - for a normal output of work.” - -The General Staff of the German Armed Forces was particularly concerned -over two questions: Firstly, with blankets for Soviet prisoners of war, -and secondly, in what form the mercilessly murdered Soviet victims of -the concentration camps should be buried. Both questions found their -solution in one document. - -I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-429 (Document Number -USSR-429), and request that it be added as evidence to the record. Your -Honors will find it on Page 162 of the document book. This is a -directive of the 8th Military District, dated 28 October 1941. I begin -the quotation: - - “Re: Soviet Russian prisoners of war. The following arrangements - were decided during a conference of the OKW: - - “1. Blankets. The Soviet Russians will receive paper blankets, - which they will have to manufacture themselves, in the form of - quilts, from paper tissue, filled with crumpled paper and - similar material. The material will be procured by the OKW.” - -The second part, as Your Honors will notice, is as follows—the heading -reads, “Burial of Soviet Russians”: - - “Soviet prisoners of war are to be buried naked, without a - coffin, wrapped in packing paper. Coffins will be used only for - transports. In the labor commands the burial will be attended to - by the competent authorities. Burial expenses will be met by the - competent M-Stalag for prisoners of war. The stripping of the - bodies will be done by the camp guards. Signed: by order, - Grossekettler.” - -But not only the administration of the military district was concerned -with the methods for burying Soviet prisoners of war; the Ministry of -the Interior was also concerned with this question, and an urgent letter -was addressed to the camp specially marked, “Not for publication in the -press, even in excerpts.” - -I request the Tribunal to accept this document in evidence as Exhibit -Number USSR-430. The members of the Tribunal can find this passage on -Page 276 of the document book. I quote a few sentences from this fairly -voluminous document—five sentences. I begin to quote: - - “For the transport of the bodies (procurement of vehicles) - offices of the Wehrmacht should be contacted. For transportation - and burial a coffin is not to be requested. The bodies should be - completely wrapped up in paper, preferably in oiled paper, - tarpaulin, corrugated paper, or some other suitable material. - Both transportation and burial should be done unostentatiously. - When many corpses come in at the same time, burial should take - place in a common grave. The corpses should be laid at the usual - depth, side by side, not overlapping each other. As a site for - the burial a distant part of the cemetery should be chosen. Any - burial service and any decoration of the graves should be - disallowed.” - -I omit the following sentence: “It is necessary to keep expenses as low -as possible.” - -But even in the special organizations of German fascism, specially -created for the extermination of human life, the criminals still -continued in their policy of racial and political discrimination. -Actually, this discrimination could mean one thing only, namely, that -one part of the camp prisoners came to their inevitable end, death, more -rapidly than the other part. - -And the criminals even tried to make the inevitable end more of a -torment for those of their victims whom they, following the Nazi -man-hating theories, designated as subhumans or considered capable of -active resistance. - -I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record one -paragraph from a document already submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-415. -This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union on the “Crimes at Lamsdorf Camp” and the quotation will testify to -the extent of the criminal Hitlerite activities. It concludes the -presentation of evidence regarding this camp. Your Honors will find the -passage in question on Page 146 of the document book, Paragraph 3. I -quote: - - “According to the findings of the special commission during the - existence of the Lamsdorf Camp, the Germans tortured to death - more than 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Most of these died in - the mines, in the various economic enterprises, or during - transportation back to the camp. Some were crushed to death in - the dugouts, many were killed during the evacuation of the camp. - Forty thousand prisoners of war were tortured to death in the - Lamsdorf Camp proper.” - -Mr. President, the Soviet Prosecution begs to present one more witness, -Doctor Kivelisha. He is a physician and his evidence is particularly -important in establishing that there existed a special regime for Soviet -prisoners of war in the camps. The Soviet Prosecution requests your -permission to question this witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov. - -[_The witness Kivelisha took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: What is your name? - -DR. EUGENE ALEXANDROVICH KIVELISHA (Witness): Kivelisha, Eugene -Alexandrovich. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I, and then state -your name—a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in -the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but the truth about -everything I know in regard to this case. - -[_The witness repeated the oath._] - -THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish. Will you spell your name; -will you spell your surname? - -KIVELISHA: It is K-i-v-e-l-i-s-h-a. - -THE PRESIDENT: Please, Colonel Pokrovsky. - -COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): What -was your position in the ranks of the Red Army at the time of the attack -on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite Germany? - -KIVELISHA: At the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite -Germany I was junior physician in the 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle -Division. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Did your unit of the 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle -Division take part in battles against the Germans? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, our 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division -participated in the battles from the first day of the war. - -COL. POKROVSKY: On what date and under what circumstances were you -captured by the Germans? - -KIVELISHA: I was captured by the Germans on 9 August 1941, in the -district of the City of Uman, in the Kirovograd region. I was captured -at the moment when our unit and two Russian armies to which our unit -belonged were surrounded by the Germans after prolonged fighting. - -COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the treatment applied by the -Germans to Red Army soldiers who were captured by the Hitlerite troops? -What was the position of these prisoners of war? - -KIVELISHA: I know only too well every form of barbarous mockeries -applied to the Russian prisoners of war by the Hitlerite authorities and -the Army, for the reason that I was a prisoner of war myself, for a very -long time. - -On the day I was captured, I was sent in convoy in a large column of -prisoners of war to one of the transient camps. En route, talking to the -prisoners with whom I marched—I stress the fact that this was on the -very first day—I learned that the greater part of the prisoners had -been captured 3 or 4 days before the small group to which I myself -belonged. - -During these 3 or 4 days the prisoners had been kept in a shed, under a -reinforced German guard and were given nothing at all to eat or drink. -Later, when we passed through the villages, the prisoners, on seeing -wells and water, passed their tongues over their parched lips and made -involuntary swallowing movements when their eyes fell on the water. - -Later on in the same day we finished the march toward nighttime and the -column of prisoners, 5,000 strong, was billeted in a farm yard where we -had no possibility of resting after the long journey, and we were forced -to spend the night in the open. This continued on the following day, and -on this day too we were deprived of food and water. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Was there no case when the prisoners, passing by water -tanks or wells, stepped two or three paces out of line and tried to get -at the water themselves? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, I remember a few such cases and shall tell you of one -particular incident which occurred on the first day of our march. It -happened like this: - -We were passing the outskirts of a little village. The peaceful civilian -population came to meet us, and tried to supply us with water and bread. -However, the Germans would not allow us to approach the citizens, nor -would they let the population approach the column of prisoners. One of -the prisoners stepped 5 or 6 meters out of the column, and without any -warning was killed by a German soldier shooting from a tommy gun. -Several of his comrades rushed to help him thinking that he was still -alive, but they too were immediately fired on without warning. Some of -them were wounded and two of them were killed. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Was that the only incident you witnessed, or, during -your transfer from one place to another, did you observe other cases of -a similar nature? - -KIVELISHA: No, this was not an individual occurrence. Almost every -transfer from one camp to another was accompanied by the same kind of -shootings and murders. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Did they shoot only the prisoners of war, or were -measures of repression adopted toward the peaceful citizens as well, -toward the citizens who had tried to give bread and water to the -captives? - -KIVELISHA: Measures of repression were applied not only to the prisoners -of war; they were also applied to the peaceful citizens. I remember -once, during one of our transfers, a group of women and children -attempted to give us bread and water, like the others, only the Germans -would not allow them to come anywhere near us. Then one woman sent a -little girl, about 5 years old, evidently her daughter, to the -prisoners’ column. This little child came quite close to the place where -I had passed and when she was five or six steps away from the column, -she was killed by a German soldier. - -COL. POKROVSKY: But perhaps the prisoners of war didn’t need the food -which the population tried to give them; perhaps they were sufficiently -well fed by the German authorities? - -KIVELISHA: The prisoners of war on the transfer marches suffered from -hunger to an exceptional extent. The Germans provided no food whatsoever -en route from one camp to the other. - -COL. POKROVSKY: So that these gifts from the local population were the -only practical means possible to sustain the strength of the soldiers in -German captivity? - -KIVELISHA: Yes. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Did the Germans shoot them? - -KIVELISHA: You understand me correctly. - -COL. POKROVSKY: In which prisoner-of-war camps were you interned? Name -some of them. - -KIVELISHA: The first camp in which I was interned was in the open, in a -field, in the district of the small hamlet of Tarnovka. The second camp -was situated on the site of a brick yard and former poultry farm on the -outskirts of the town of Uman. The third camp was situated in the -suburbs of Ivan-Gora. The fourth camp was situated on the territory -pertaining to the stables of some military unit or other in the region -of the town of Gaisen. The fifth camp was in the region of the small -garrison town of Vinnitza. The sixth camp was in the suburbs of the -small town of Dzemerinka and the last camp, where I stayed the longest -time, was in the village of Rakovo, 7 kilometers from the town of -Proskurov, in the Kamenetz-Podolsk district. - -COL. POKROVSKY: So that you yourself, from your own personal experience, -could realize the state of affairs prevalent in this series of camps? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, in all the camps I was personally and completely -acquainted with all the conditions. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Are you a physician by profession? - -KIVELISHA: I am a physician by profession. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Tell the Tribunal how matters stood insofar as medical -attention and food for the prisoners of war were concerned in the camps -you have just enumerated. - -KIVELISHA: When I was transported under convoy to the camp near the -hamlet of Tarnovka, I was, for the first time and in company with other -Russian doctors, separated from the rest of the prisoners’ column, and -sent to the so-called infirmary. - -This infirmary was in a shed with a concrete floor, without any -equipment for the care of the wounded. And on this concrete floor lay a -large number of wounded Soviet prisoners, mostly officers. Many had been -captured 10 to 12 days before my arrival at Tarnovka. During all that -time they had received no medical attention although many of them were -in need of surgical aid, with simultaneous and frequent dressings and a -number of drugs. - -They were systematically left without water; food too was administered -without any system at all; at least, at the time of my arrival in the -camp there was no equipment to prove that food had ever been prepared or -cooked for these wounded soldiers. - -There were about 15,000 to 20,000 wounded in Uman Camp where I found -myself on the second day after my arrival in Tarnovka. They were all -lying in the open, dressed in their summer uniforms and a great many of -them were incapable of moving. - -Food and water were supplied to them in the same way as to the other -captives in the camp. There they lay, without any medical attention, -their dust-covered dressings soaked in blood, often in pus. Dressings, -surgical instruments, equipment for an operating theater just did not -exist in the camp at Uman. - -In Gaisen prisoners of war, sick and wounded, were herded into one of -the stables. This stable had no wooden floors and lacked every facility -for human habitation. The prisoners of war were lying on the earthen -floor, and here, too, as in the preceding camp, they did not have even -an iota of medical attention. As before, dressings, drugs, and surgical -instruments were unobtainable. - -COL. POKROVSKY: You mentioned the Uman Camp. Look at this photograph and -tell me, is it a photograph of one of the camps where you were interned? - -KIVELISHA: I see on this photograph the camp which was situated in the -grounds of the brick yard at the city of Uman. I know this picture very -well. - -COL. POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal that the photograph I have -just shown the witness is a photograph of Uman Camp and was submitted by -me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-345. It shows the camp -concerning which witness Bingel has already testified. - -[_Turning to the witness._] This means that you recognize Uman Camp -situated in the grounds of the brick yard from this photograph? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, in the grounds of the brick yard. It is a part of the -camp. - -COL. POKROVSKY: What was the prevailing regime in Uman Camp? Tell us -just the main points, very briefly. - -KIVELISHA: Almost all the captives in the camp were kept in the open -air. The food was extremely bad. In the grounds of the Uman Camp, where -I spent 8 days, twice a day a few fires would be lit out of doors and a -thin pea soup was cooked in vats over these fires. - -There was no special routine for distributing food to the prisoners of -war, and the boiled soup would then be set down amongst the whole mass -of people. No control whatsoever was exercised over the distribution. -The starving prisoners rushed up in the hope of obtaining even a minute -portion of this thin, unsalted soup, cooked without fat and served -without bread. - -Disorder and crowding arose. The German guards, all armed with clubs as -well as with rifles and automatic guns, beat up all the prisoners of war -within range of their blows for the purpose of maintaining order. The -Germans would often intentionally set down a small barrel of soup among -a great number of people, and once again, to restore order, they would -beat up the absolutely innocent people with laughter, oaths, insults, -and threats. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Please tell me, Witness: In the camp situated in the -village of Rakovo, was the quality of the food better or was it -approximately the same as in other camps? And how did the food situation -affect the health of the prisoners? - -KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo the food was exactly the same in -quality as that of the other camps where I had been previously interned. -It consisted of beets, cabbage, and potatoes frequently served -half-cooked. Owing to this poor quality of food the prisoners developed -severe gastric trouble accompanied by dysentery, which rapidly exhausted -them and resulted in a very high rate of mortality from hunger. - -COL. POKROVSKY: You talked about the guards often beating the prisoners -on the slightest provocation and time and again without any provocation -at all. - -KIVELISHA: Yes. - -COL. POKROVSKY: What kind of traumatic lesions did the prisoners receive -as a result of these beatings? Were there any cases of severe traumatic -injuries caused by heavy beatings or did the whole matter result in a -few kicks only? - -KIVELISHA: In Rakovo Camp I was in the so-called hospital, where I -worked in the surgical section. Frequently, after dinner or supper in -the hospital, prisoners were brought in with most grievous physical -injuries. I frequently had to do all I could to help people who were so -terribly injured by these beatings that they would die without regaining -consciousness. - -I remember a second case when two prisoners were beaten over the head -with some hard object till the brains oozed out from the gaping head -wound. I remember yet another incident, only too well, when an athlete -from Moscow had an eye knocked out with a whip. The athlete then -contracted meningitis and died soon after. - -COL. POKROVSKY: How high was the mortality rate among the prisoners of -war in Rakovo Camp? - -KIVELISHA: The history of Rakovo Camp can be divided into two periods. -There was the first which lasted about 2 years and ended in November -1941. At that time the number of prisoners was not very great and -consequently the rate of mortality was not so high. Then there was the -second period, from November 1941 to March 1942, at which time I was in -Rakovo myself. During this second period the mortality rate was -exceptionally high: there were days when 700, 900, and even 950 persons -died in the camp. - -COL. POKROVSKY: What disciplinary measures were there in Rakovo Camp and -for what reasons were the prisoners punished? Do you know? - -KIVELISHA: Yes. I know that there was, in the camp grounds, a cell for -prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. Prisoners of war guilty of -attempting to escape from the terrible conditions created for them in -captivity, or with offenses such as stealing food products in the -kitchen, were locked up in this cell. - -It was in the cellar; it had a cement floor and windows with iron bars -instead of panes. The prisoner was stripped to the skin, deprived of -food and water, and locked up in solitary confinement for 14 days. I do -not know of a single case where a prisoner survived this confinement; -all of them died in that particular cell. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Evidently the conditions which you have described to the -Tribunal increased the number of persons suffering from exhaustion. - -KIVELISHA: Yes. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Did this condition result in a decreased number of -prisoners capable of working? Did their number decrease; what was done -to those prisoners who could not work? - -KIVELISHA: An immense number of prisoners were kept, in Rakovo Camp, in -stables which were quite unfit for human beings to live in during the -winter period. At first everybody was made to work. I can safely say -that most of this work was entirely aimless, since it consisted in -pulling down houses and then paving the camp grounds with bricks from -the demolished buildings. After some time, when severe gastric troubles -had set in, troubles which I have already mentioned, fewer and fewer -prisoners came out to work. - -Many of them, who had lost all control of their movements, never even -left the stables for the appointed meal times, and if a great many -people were discovered to have lost their strength, a so-called -quarantine was established. In such a stable all the exits and entries -would be blocked and the patients would be completely isolated from the -outer world. Having kept them locked up for 4 or 5 days on end, the -stable would be opened and the dead brought out by the hundreds. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Can you tell us, Witness, on what medical or sanitary -work you and the other doctors were employed in the camp by the Germans? - -KIVELISHA: In the camps we were not employed by the Germans on any work -connected with the prisoners. All the Germans were interested in was the -separation of people who could work from those of the prisoners who were -incapable of working. We could not render the prisoners any purely -medical services because of the conditions in which we ourselves -existed. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Did your duties in any of these camps include sanitary -supervision? And what exactly was understood by sanitary supervision? - -KIVELISHA: The duties of sanitary supervision were entrusted to us in -the camp of the town of Gaisen. It only meant that we, the captured -military doctors, had to be on duty in the vicinity of the general -latrine in the camp, which was nothing more than a ditch dug for this -purpose, and as and when the ditch was filled up with excrement, we were -forced to clean up the ground. - -COL. POKROVSKY: The doctors? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, the doctors. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Did you really consider this function as a form of -sanitary supervision, or did you consider it as straightforward mockery -by the Germans at the expense of the captured Soviet army doctors? - -KIVELISHA: I consider that it was straightforward mockery at the expense -of the captured Soviet doctors. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I have no more questions to ask this -witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the other prosecutors got any questions to -ask? - -COL. POKROVSKY: No, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any -questions? - -DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you have stated that in August 1941 . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly announce your name for whom you appear. - -DR. LATERNSER: Dr. Laternser, Defense Counsel for the General Staff and -the OKW. - -Witness, you have just stated that in August 1941 you were brought to -captivity in the district of Uman. Do you know whether the Germans had -taken many prisoners at that time? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, I do know. About 100,000 prisoners were captured at that -time. - -DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether German troops had advanced very -rapidly into Russian territory at that time? - -KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything about this. The German armies moved -very rapidly, but before our units were surrounded we fought obstinately -and we retreated, fighting, right up to 9 August. - -DR. LATERNSER: How great was the number of prisoners in the column in -which you marched? - -KIVELISHA: Four thousand to five thousand persons. - -DR. LATERNSER: When did you first get any food from the German troops? - -KIVELISHA: I personally, and for the first time, received food from the -German troops when I reached the town of Uman. - -DR. LATERNSER: How much time had passed between the moment you were -captured and your first meal? - -KIVELISHA: When I was first fed I had been a prisoner of war for about 4 -or 5 days. - -DR. LATERNSER: You were a Red Army doctor and must have been quite aware -that the feeding of armies is not so simple a matter. - -KIVELISHA: I could not imagine this, especially as the Germans had then -at their disposal time and many possibilities for supplying the -prisoners of war with food. Further, to my previous statements I shall -again repeat that if the German authorities were unable to provide the -prisoners of war with food, the peaceful population did everything in -their power to feed the Russian prisoners. However, obviously neither -the German authorities nor the German Command issued any instructions on -this matter. - -I have already reported that no opportunity was given for friendly -relations between the prisoners of war and the peaceful citizens. On the -contrary, any persons who tried to bring food to the prisoners or any -prisoner who accepted the food from the citizens was promptly shot. - -DR. LATERNSER: But you can certainly imagine that it must have presented -immense difficulties if, as you have just testified, 100,000 prisoners -had been taken at that time in the area of Uman? - -KIVELISHA: Not all the prisoners of war were concentrated at Uman at one -and the same time. There were several stationary and permanent camps, -only several of them were at Uman. - -DR. LATERNSER: I was not speaking about the food problem in Uman Camp. -We are still talking about the feeding during the first days after their -capture. - -KIVELISHA: When I was brought into captivity I was not singled out in -any way from among the other prisoners of war. I was fed and I was -supplied in exactly the same way as all the others. I was one of the -general crowd and the general column of the prisoners of war. The German -Command made no distinction in the first days of captivity. - -DR. LATERNSER: But you will have to admit that there were certain -difficulties connected with food supplies which would arise if quite -unexpectedly a column, such as yours, 5,000 men strong, had to be fed by -rapidly advancing troops. - -KIVELISHA: Even if the German Command had been faced with this -particular difficulty, the problem could always have been solved by -allowing the prisoners to accept the food products which the peaceful -population, the Soviet citizens, were offering them. - -DR. LATERNSER: We shall talk about that immediately. You say you were in -a column of 5,000 prisoners. Can you tell me how strong the guard was, -the German guard, under whom this column of 5,000 marched? - -KIVELISHA: I cannot state the exact figures. But there were a great many -German machine gunners. The column was too drawn out in length and I am -unable to state the figure. - -DR. LATERNSER: I understand that you cannot give the exact figures. But -can you describe to the Tribunal how great the distance was between -individual guards marching alongside the column? - -KIVELISHA: The distance would be as follows: two or three soldiers, -walking in a row, would march approximately five or six steps behind a -second row of the same number. - -DR. LATERNSER: Thus, every 50 to 60 meters, on either side of the -column, or perhaps only on one side of the column, German troops marched -in groups of two and three soldiers, as you say, or have I not -understood you correctly? - -KIVELISHA: Not 50 to 60 meters; 5 to 6. - -DR. LATERNSER: Were the guards elderly men or were there younger -soldiers among them? - -KIVELISHA: They were soldiers of the German Army. They were of every -age. - -DR. LATERNSER: Were the Russian prisoner-of-war columns informed, before -they started, that they would be shot if they left the ranks? - -KIVELISHA: I have already said, and I repeat once again, there were no -warnings. - -DR. LATERNSER: Not even when the column set off? - -KIVELISHA: No. - -THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be a good time to break off till 2 -o’clock. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the witnesses and -documents to be called and produced on behalf of the first four -defendants and that decision will be communicated as soon as possible -this afternoon to counsel for those defendants and will also be posted -in the Defendants’ Information Center. - -Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief Prosecutor -for France with reference to the calling of two additional witnesses. -The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to call any witnesses -after closing the case on behalf of any of the chief prosecutors, that a -written application should be made to the Tribunal for the calling of -such witnesses, and the Tribunal also desires me to draw the attention -of Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense to the terms -of Article 24, Subsection (e), which refers to rebutting evidence. In -the event of Counsel for the Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense -wishing to call rebutting evidence when the proper time comes, after the -case for the Prosecution and the Defense has been closed, such -application to call rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in -writing. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would allow me -to say something on a matter on which I promised to get information -yesterday. - -Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn edition -of the _Daily Telegraph_ of the 31st of August 1939, and I promised the -Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had a telegram from the _Daily -Telegraph_, which I received this morning, and it says: - - “No edition of the _Daily Telegraph_ withdrawn on 31 August 1939 - or any other day thereabouts. The _Telegraph_ of the 31st gave a - brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop had taken - place but without details. - - “On 1st September carried summary of Germany’s 16 points for - Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text of the note - did not appear until September 2, when extracted from the - Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents.” - -I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information, -that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose to send a copy -of that to Dr. Horn. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may necessitate a -slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was proposing to make. - -DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and Warlimont as -witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to answer one question; -namely, to tell me if the Court has decided yet that the Generals Halder -and Warlimont, whom I have named as witnesses, and whose relevancy has -been admitted by the Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for -Keitel so that we can count with certainty on their appearing in the -proceedings. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this morning was -that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they wanted to have them -to cross-examine them now or call them as witnesses on behalf of one or -other of the defendants, and therefore that was a decision that the -Defense Counsel would be able to call them on behalf of one of the -defendants if they determined to do so. - -Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they were -called before. If the Defendant Göring wanted to call them then they -would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when they were called for -Göring, because of the fundamental rule that a witness is only to be -called once. - -DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel who are -interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and Warlimont are -agreed that these generals should be called in the course of the -presentation of evidence by the Defense. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. - -Colonel Smirnov . . . I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser. - -DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this witness. - -Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march to the -camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were accommodated in a -stable. Was this stable roofed? - -KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and since the farm -had previously been evacuated, the shed had not been cleaned for a very -long time and was in a state of complete neglect. And if we add to this -state of neglect the fact that it had been pouring with rain all that -day, we must also add that it was half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite -impossible to settle down in the stables and barns since they were -filled with left-over manure, so that all the people stayed out of -doors. - -DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate these -prisoners in a better way? - -KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, for I am -not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, and, on -the other hand, we were brought to this village late at night and I do -not know whether there were more convenient places where the prisoners -could have been quartered. - -DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you entered this -village, you yourself saw no possibility for better accommodations? - -KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but because -it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, although it -was a rather large village and it seems to me that there was a -sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people might have -easily been billeted more conveniently for the night. - -DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that in the -prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as a physician. Did -the German prisoner-of-war administration ever place any medical -supplies at your disposal so that you could treat your sick comrades? - -KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated step by -step from one camp to another, we received no medical equipment at all -from the Germans; but subsequently when I was in a stationary camp, -Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, though never in sufficient -quantities to meet the requirements of all the wounded. - -DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions. - -HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have only one -question. The witness has stated that the stable was evacuated. What do -you mean by that term? - -KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had been -driven off beyond the zone of military operations. - -HERR BABEL: By whom was this done? - -KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had entered and -who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army units who had not -been surrounded as we were. - -HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back to Russian -territory? - -KIVELISHA: From this village, yes. - -HERR BABEL: Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions? - -Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of war whilst -you were prisoner of war? - -KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo; in the district of the town of -Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying of labor -Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, at that time, -were named the SS. - -THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp? - -KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp. - -THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until you got to -that stationary camp? - -KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since I did -not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything in -re-examination? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept as one of the -proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the prisoner-of-war camps -certain documents which I should like to submit to the Tribunal at the -request of our honorable British colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does -this all the more readily in that it considers this documentation of the -British Prosecution of essential importance in establishing the criminal -contravention by the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and -customs of war accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of -prisoners of war. - -I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial the -documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as Exhibit -Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding the cruel murder of 50 -prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air Force, who were captured -while attempting to escape en masse from Stalag Luft III at Sagan and -shot after their capture by the German criminals in the night of 24-25 -March 1944. - -These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite crimes, -signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British Armed -Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held in Sagan -by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded -to the protecting power. - -Included with these documents are the statements of the following Allied -witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant Tonder, Flight -Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, Flight Lieutenant -Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant Nelson, Flight -Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P. S. M. Hicks. - -The material evidence is also corroborated by statements taken from the -following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs und Kriminalrat -Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner. - -There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of those -who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss -Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the representative of -the protecting power during his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944. - -I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous crime of -the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier Shapcott. Your -Honors will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 163, -Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin: - - “On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped - from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been - confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and - returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by - the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50 - officers the following information was given by the German - authorities. . . .” - -The following information was given by the German authorities who stated -that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting to escape. -Actually this statement was the customary routine lie of the Hitlerites, -since the very thorough investigation carried out by the British -military authorities proved indubitably that the British R.A.F. officers -had been vilely murdered after recapture by the German police. - -I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented by the -British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was committed by -order of Göring and Keitel. The passage which I wish to submit to the -Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, Russian text. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte? - -DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing the -witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here once -before. The Prosecution at the time—I do not have the document here -now—submitted a report regarding the interrogation of Major General -Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my objection, refused to -have this document read in Court. - -I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the -testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document which -the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it concerns a new -document which I do not know as yet. I draw your attention to the fact -that General Westhoff is here in person; in other words, he could be -called as a witness on this question. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. Nelte said. As I -understood it—I am not sure if I got the name right—but he referred to -General Westhoff’s evidence which has been tendered, and which had been -rejected because the Tribunal thought that if that evidence was to be -given, General Westhoff ought to be called. Is it right that the -document you are putting in has got nothing to do with General Westhoff -at all, has it? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only one part of the -official British report. - -THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, is it? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am now submitting -an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one passage in the text -of the official British report mentions Major General Westhoff, but this -mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory of Major General -Westhoff which will be brought up later. - -MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, -perhaps I might assist in this matter—because I am partly responsible -for that report—with the kind indulgence of my learned friend, my -Russian colleague. - -My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British -official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the -original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that -General Westhoff’s name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a -different document to the document which my French colleagues tendered -and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official -government report. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been saying, Your -Honor. This is an official report of the British Government. - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov. - -Mr. Roberts—I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte—why do you -say that it is an official government report so as to come within -Article 21 of the Charter? - -MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it has been -certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military Department of -the Judge Advocate General’s office. I think you have the original. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom was it -made, this report? - -MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the collection of -evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it is headed, “German -War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for the Killing of 50 R.A.F. -Officers,” and then it starts to say—then it states the sources on -which the material has been based. Your Lordship will see on the last -page of the report the appendix, “Material upon which the foregoing -report is based”: - - “1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan. . . . 2. - Statements of the following Allied witnesses. . . . 3. - Statements taken from the following German. . . . 4. Photostat - copy of the official list of dead, transmitted by the German - Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation. . . . 5. Report of the - Representative of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag - Luft III on 5th June 1944.” - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for the Tribunal -or for the War Crimes Commission? - -MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial? - -MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army? - -MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom? - -MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British Delegation -for this Trial. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution? - -MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British general -made to the British Prosecution? - -MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept the phrase -“report of a British general.” I would say “a report of a government -department.” It is signed and certified by a British general. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. - -MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My Lords may -exactly read in Article 21: “The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of -official governmental documents and reports of the United -Nations. . . .” - -My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental -document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, a -government department, for the purpose of this Trial. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was collected and sent -in by the government will be official evidence. - -MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I read it -and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte? - -DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks. - -It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis of -testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also Major -General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of this -document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under the terms -of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is involved -here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, who is at -the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including his -testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would not -comply with the Tribunal’s desire that it should represent the best -method to discover the truth. - -The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain literally -what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which is subject -to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I believe the Defense -must also have an opportunity in their turn, to hear and examine a -witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case. - -THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the witnesses who -had been examined by one of the committees set up by the government had -not made a report to the government at all, but an affidavit or -something of that sort; and that had been offered to the Court and the -witness had been available, the Court might very possibly have refused -to entertain that affidavit or report. But if that report was the -foundation for a government report or for a government official -document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is directed to entertain -such a report. - -Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they -wouldn’t have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff -unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a -question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit comes -within Article 21. - -DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship’s view is correct. I should -merely like to bring up the question whether, when one has two different -types of evidence, namely, the report and the possibility of examining a -witness, it should not be taken into consideration to question the -witness, not in order to correct the official report, but in order to -clarify what the witness actually said, because from the report we -cannot know what he actually said. - -This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance for -the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the escaped -fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is available, -this witness should be heard instead of an official report which already -actually contains an evaluation. - -THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not proceed only -or even substantially upon the evidence of General Westhoff. There are a -number of other origins of the report, and the second thing is that the -whole object of Article 21 was to make government reports admissible and -not to necessitate the calling of the witnesses upon whose evidence they -proceeded. - -DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other matters, -namely, the shooting. . . The other witnesses who were mentioned were -questioned on other facts. On the question of whether Keitel issued such -an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one mentioned in the -report. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my earphones on. - -DR. NELTE: I said, in that report other witnesses are also mentioned -but, as far as I know, they did not make a statement on the question of -whether or not Keitel issued an order to shoot the fliers. Westhoff was -the only one among the witnesses listed who could and did make a -statement on that question. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further in argument upon the -admissibility of the document? - -DR. NELTE: No. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It appears to me, Mr. President, that that part -of the document which refers to Major General Westhoff occupies merely -one paragraph, namely, Paragraph 7, of the document in question. This -part deals with the initial stage of the perpetration of the crime, -namely, with the stage of the conception, the stage of the planning of -the crime. - -The document also speaks of other stages in the commission of this -crime. Moreover, it is an official document, presented according to -Article 21 of the Charter. It seems to me that I have thereby said all -that is necessary, Mr. President. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, Dr. Nelte? - -DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I merely ask the Court to decide; in that case -I should have to request that General Westhoff be admitted as a witness -to testify that the conclusion drawn in this report does not correspond -with what he said. - -DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen and for the Reich -Cabinet): May I make a few legal remarks, a few generally legal remarks -regarding Article 21 of the Charter? - -In all criminal procedure of every country we find the primary principle -of oral court proceedings. Only if this cannot be carried out are part -of the proceedings, so to say, transferred outside the court. In most -codes of criminal procedure of the various countries we have a provision -similar to that of Article 21 of the Charter that previous decisions of -a court should not be re-examined in new proceedings, but that such -decisions should be binding. - -In this Trial the Charter extends this provision further to cases which -obviously, because of their scope, should not be further discussed here. -Therefore the decision that government reports should be considered as -evidence is clearly taken up in Paragraph 21. It is clear to every -jurist that this provision in itself is to an extent a flaw in -proceedings because through it certain rights are lost to the -defendants. On the other hand one cannot, of course, ignore the argument -that there is subject matter which, because of its extent, cannot be -practically discussed in a trial in which the time is limited. - -Paragraph 21 of the Charter therefore gave the Tribunal the possibility -of accepting such reports as valid evidence. But this provision is not -compulsory for the Tribunal. So far as I can see from the German text -before me it is provided that the Tribunal should accept these reports, -but it does not say that the Tribunal must do so. Therefore it is in -every case left to the discretion of the Tribunal whether the nature of -the report makes it advisable to accept such a report in evidence. - -We now have here a rather striking case which, in my opinion, clearly -shows that the Tribunal can make use of its discretion and reject this -document. The Defense have taken the position that this subject of -evidence could be taken care of by a witness. The examination of the -witness would have provided the Defense with the right of -cross-examination. - -Since, for tactical reasons inherent in the nature of the Trial, the -witness will not be called, the subsequent transfer of his evidence into -a government report means curtailing the right of the defendant to -cross-examination, and is thus contrary to the corresponding article of -the Charter. - -DR. STAHMER: It was not until today that the accusation was made that -Göring knew of or ordered the execution of these fliers. I could not -take this act into consideration when I recently offered my evidence, -because I did not know of it; and I must, therefore, reserve the right -to call additional witnesses on this question. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words, Mr. President? - -THE PRESIDENT: On the question of the admissibility? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I consider the arguments put forward by the -second Defense Counsel as entirely incomprehensible from a legal point -of view since he introduces certain numerical and quantitative criteria -into the legal nature of the evidence. According to this Counsel, -Article 21 of the Charter deals only with evidence of crimes committed -on an enormous scale, but cannot touch crimes of a smaller caliber. - -To me, viewing the matter from a legal point of view, this argumentation -appears rotten from the root upwards and I consider that Article 21 of -the Charter applies, _in toto_, to any crime committed by the -Hitlerites, regardless of the fact if they be committed on a very large -or on a slightly smaller scale. That is all I wish to say, Mr. -President. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal would like to know where these -appendices which are referred to in Paragraph 9 of the report are. - -MR. ROBERTS: I think they are in the Tribunal now, in the charge of the -Officer of the Court. - -THE PRESIDENT: They are in the court now? You can undertake, I suppose, -to produce them all if they are not any of them there? - -MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, most certainly. I understood the whole of the -material is not necessary—the original, of course—but I understood the -whole of the material to be there, all in the original, of course. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then the Tribunal decides that the document will be -admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is available—and we think -he is—General Westhoff; and that will be, in effect, granting the -defendants’ application to call General Westhoff, and also to call the -officer mentioned in Paragraph 3(b) of the appendix, whose surname -appears to be Wielen. I do not know whether you know where he is. - -MR. ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I can assure the Tribunal that we -will do everything in our power to get the witnesses that are required -for the defense, namely, General Westhoff, who is in Nuremberg, I -understand, and General Wielen. I am not certain where he is, but I will -find out. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. -President, you made a remark during the session with which the Defense -Counsel are very much concerned. If we understood this remark, it was -said that private affidavits would not be accepted by the Tribunal. -Considering the fact that we must offer our evidence now, this question -of affidavits is very urgent. That is why I am forced to clarify that -question. The Defense Counsel has. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, I do not think I said that affidavits could -not be admitted. What I said was, it might be that affidavits would not -be admitted, if the witness was available to give direct evidence. That -is the rule which we have enforced throughout the Trial. - -DR. KRAUS: Yes, I understand you, Mr. President, to say that in -principle we may offer affidavits, whether certified by notary public or -by a lawyer or whether bearing only the signature of the person who -makes the statement. These are the three forms we have: The simple -letter written with the statement, “I declare under oath.” The second -type is that in which the signature has been certified by a lawyer; and -the third type is the one which has been declared before and certified -by a notary public. - -We have procured many documents of that kind, in order to expedite -matters, and we would like to know whether or not we may expect to -present them as evidence in order to avoid the calling of witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will be -considered when you present the applications for giving evidence by -affidavit. We have, today, in dealing with the first four defendants, -allowed, in a variety of instances, interrogatories to be administered -to various witnesses where it appeared appropriate that that should be -done in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will apply when you -come to submit your applications. - -DR. KRAUS: Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient to you to go -on with your presentation now on this document which we have admitted, -or do you wish to present a film? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to finish the -presentation of this proof, that is, to read into the record the -passages from the document I have quoted. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well; but the Tribunal, I think, desire that these -two witnesses, Major General Westhoff and Wielen, whatever his rank may -be, should be produced for examination as soon as possible afterwards. I -don’t mean this afternoon, because that would not be possible, but, if -possible, tomorrow. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I shall request the -representative of the British Delegation to reply to this question. - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he would ask you -to answer, because I was saying that the Tribunal would like to have the -witnesses called as soon as possible after the report was read. - -MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about, so I heard, Sir, and I am trying to -make inquiries now where Wielen is. If Your Lordship will give me a few -minutes I will try to find out where Wielen can be located. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the Court, then, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: One minute, please. - -Colonel Smirnov, would not it be equally convenient to go on with the -film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can be -presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses? - -Otherwise, supposing Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wielen this -afternoon, it might be that if you read the report now, there might be a -week possibly—or even more—between the reading of the report and the -evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with the film now? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What we are showing the Tribunal cannot be -called a film in the full sense of the word. It is a series of -photographic evidence, of photographs taken by the Germans themselves on -the site where the crimes were committed, which were then rephotographed -and transferred to a reel. It is not a film—it is a photo-document. We -are presenting these photo-documents as Exhibit Number USSR-442 -(Document Number USSR-442), and we are presenting only one part of these -photo-documents. The fact of the matter is that the Government of -Yugoslavia presented photo-documents for every section of the report. We -have excluded the part dealing with the other sections and show only -that part which deals with Crimes against Humanity. Thus, only a section -of the documents is being shown to the Tribunal. May I show these -photo-documents? - -[_The photographic document was then projected on the screen._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue with the presentation of the -documentary evidence? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in order to allow the British -Prosecution to settle the question as to when the two witnesses will be -summoned before the Tribunal, I take the liberty of passing to the next -part of my statement. Have I your permission to do so? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I pass on to that part which deals with the -persecution of the Jews, Page 37 of the text. The excessive -anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which assumed a perfectly -zoological aspect, is only too well known. I shall not quote from the -so-called theoretical works of the major war criminals—from Himmler and -Göring to Papen and Streicher. In the Eastern European countries all the -anti-Semitism of the Hitlerites was put into full effect and mostly in -one way only—in the physical extermination of innocent people. - -The United States Prosecution, in its own time, submitted to the -Tribunal one of the reports of a special German fascist organization, -the so-called Einsatzgruppe A, which was submitted as Exhibit USA-276 -(Document Number L-180). Our American colleagues submitted this -particular report which covered the period up to 15 October 1941. The -Soviet Prosecution submits another report of this criminal German -fascist organization, covering a further period of time and which might -almost be considered as a continuation of the first document, namely the -report on Einsatzgruppe A, from 10 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I -submit to the Tribunal a photostatic copy of this report as Exhibit -Number USSR-57 (Document Number USSR-57). I request the permission of -the Tribunal to read into the record a very brief excerpt from Chapter 3 -of the report of Einsatzgruppe A, entitled “The Jews,” and I would -invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data presented -in this report refer exclusively to one organization—Einsatzgruppe A. I -quote one paragraph from Page 170 of the document book: - - “The systematic task of purging the East was, according to - fundamental orders, the liquidation of the Jews to the fullest - possible extent. This objective has been practically realized, - with the exception of Bielorussia, by the execution of 229,052 - Jews. . . . The surviving Jews in the Baltic provinces are - urgently needed for work, and have been quartered in ghettos.” - -I interrupt the quotation and read two further excerpts from a -subparagraph, “Estonia,” on Page 2 of the Russian text, which -corresponds to Page 171, Paragraph 2 of your document book. I begin the -quotation: - - “The execution of the Jews, insofar as they were not - indispensable for working purposes, was carried out gradually by - forces of the Sipo and the SD. At present there are no Jews left - in Estonia.” - -I quote a few brief excerpts from the subparagraphs entitled “Latvia.” I -quote one line from the last paragraph on the second page of the Russian -text, Page 171, Paragraph 5 of the document book. I begin: - - “When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still 70,000 - Jews left there.” - -I break off the quotation and read one line on Page 3, Paragraph 2 of -the Russian text, Page 171, last paragraph of the document book: - - “By October 1941 the Sonderkommandos had executed about 30,000 - Jews.” - -I again break off and continue with the following paragraph: - - “Further executions were later carried out. Thus, for instance, - 11,034 Jews were executed on 9 November 1941 in Dünaburg. In the - beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation carried - out in Riga and following the order of the Higher Chief of the - SS and Police, 27,800 persons were executed, and in mid-December - 1941, in Libau, 2,350 Jews were executed. At present there are - in ghettos, besides the Jews from Germany, about 2,500 Latvian - Jews in Riga, about 950 in Dünaburg, and about 300 in Libau.” - -THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come from? Are they -in an official report, or are they German figures? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These are the data published by the Germans -themselves. This particular document was discovered in the Gestapo -archives. It was brought out of Latvia by troops of the Red Army. I -request Your Honors to take note that this document covers only the -period between 16 October 1941 and 31 January 1942. This is therefore -not conclusive data but merely data connected with one German -operational group during this particular period of time. - -Have I your permission to proceed, Mr. President? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote one line only from the subparagraph -entitled “Lithuania,” which is on Page 173 of the document book, -Paragraph 3: - - “In numerous individual operations, 136,421 persons were - liquidated all told.” - -I request the Tribunal to allow me to quote in greater detail from the -next subparagraph of the “A” group report, entitled “White Ruthenia.” I -quote the last paragraph on Page 5 of the Russian text; Page 174, last -paragraph, of the document book: - - “The final and definite liquidation of the Jews remaining in the - territory of White Ruthenia, after the arrival of the Germans, - presented certain difficulties. As a matter of fact, it is - precisely in this territory that the Jews constitute a high - percentage of specialists and are indispensable for lack of - other reserves. Moreover, Einsatzgruppe A took over the - territory only after the hard frosts had set in, a fact which - hampered the carrying out of the mass executions very seriously - indeed. A further difficulty consists in the circumstance that - the Jews are scattered all over the territory. Bearing in mind - the fact that distances are vast, road conditions bad, - transportation and petrol lacking, and the forces of the - Security Police and SD insignificant, the executions could be - carried out only by a maximum effort. Nevertheless, 41,000 Jews - have already been shot. This figure does not include the persons - executed by former Einsatzkommandos.” - -I interrupt once more and proceed to read from the following -paragraph—this corresponds to Page 175, Paragraph 2 of the document -book. I begin the quotation: - - “The Chief of Police in White Ruthenia, despite the difficult - situation, has been given orders to solve the Jewish question as - soon as possible. All the same, this calls for about two months’ - time, according to the weather. - - “The distribution of the remaining Jews in special ghettos of - White Ruthenia is nearing its end.” - -In order to show how mass executions of the Jews by the German criminals -were carried out, I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-119(a) (Document Number USSR-119(a)) a photostatic copy, certified -by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union of an original -German document. This is the conclusive report of the commander of one -of the companies of the 12th Regiment of Police, which carried out the -mass extermination of the Jews assembled in the ghetto of the town of -Pinsk. On 29 and 30 October 1942, the criminal elements from the 15th -Regiment of Police murdered 26,200 Jews in Pinsk. This is how Company -Commander Sauer described the crime. I shall not quote the document _in -toto_ since it is rather long, but I shall quote a few excerpts. The -passage I am about to read—and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to read -it into the record—is on Page 177 of your document book, Paragraph 3. I -begin the quotation: - - “The ordered encirclement of the districts was accomplished at - 0430 hours; owing to the personal investigations made by the - commanders and to the manner in which the secret was kept, the - encirclement was carried out in the shortest time imaginable and - it was impossible for the Jews to flee. - - “The combing of the ghetto was to begin at 0600 hours, but owing - to the darkness it was postponed for another half-hour. The Jews - had noticed the proceedings and began to assemble voluntarily in - all the streets. With the aid of two Wachtmeister (Staff - Sergeants) it was possible to bring several thousand Jews to the - assembly point within the very first hour. When the remaining - Jews realized what was coming, they too joined this column, so - that the screening planned by the SD at the assembly point could - not be carried out in view of the enormous multitude which had - gathered. (For the first day of the comb-out only one to two - thousand persons had been counted on.) The first comb-out ended - at 1700 hours without any incident. About 10,000 persons were - executed on this first day. That night the company was standing - by, ready for action, in a soldiers’ club. - - “On 30 October 1942 the ghetto was combed a second time. On 31 - October it was combed for the third time and on 1 November for - the fourth time. About 15,000 Jews were rounded up, all told. - Sick Jews and children left behind in the houses were executed - on the spot in the yard of the ghetto. About 1,200 Jews were - executed in the ghetto.” - -I request the permission of the Tribunal to allow me to continue quoting -the second page of the document which corresponds to Page 178 of the -document book, Paragraph 6. I quote two points from the section -“Experiences.” I begin to quote: - - “3) Where there are no cellars and a considerable number of - persons are huddled together in the small space between the - floor and the ground, these places must be broken into from the - outside, or else police dogs sent in (one police dog, Asta, put - up a remarkably good performance in Pinsk), otherwise a hand - grenade should be thrown in, after which the Jews invariably - come out into the open.” - -I further quote Point 5: - - “We recommend persuading half-grown persons to disclose these - hiding places by promising to spare their lives. This method has - fully justified its application.” - -This example of this police regiment, which I have just read into the -record, is typical of the methods applied for the extermination of Jews -who had been rounded up in the ghetto. But the German fascist invaders -did not always apply this method when proceeding to the extermination of -the peaceful Jewish population. - -Another, similarly criminal device was the assembling of Jews in a given -spot under the pretext of transferring them to some other locality. The -assembled Jews would then be shot. I submit to the Tribunal an original -poster which had been put up in the town of Kislovodsk by Kommandantur -Number 12. Your Honors will find the text (Document Number USSR-434) -quoted on Page 180. I shall quote some extracts from this poster which -is a comparatively long one. I start with the first part: - - “To all Jews! For the purpose of colonizing sparsely populated - districts of the Ukraine, all Jews residing in Kislovodsk and - all Jews who have no permanent abode are ordered to present - themselves on Wednesday, 9 September 1942, at 5 a. m. Berlin - time (6 a. m. Moscow time), at the goods’ station in Kislovodsk; - the transport will take off at 6 a. m. (7 a. m. Moscow time). - - “Every Jew is to bring luggage not exceeding 20 kilograms in - weight, including food for a minimum of 2 days. Further food - will be supplied by the German authorities at the railway - stations.” - -I omit the next paragraph and only quote one line: - - “Also subjected to transfer are the Jews who have been - baptized.” - -I break off the quotation at this point. - -In order to ascertain what happened to the Jewish population in the town -of Kislovodsk—the same happened to the Jews in many other towns—I -would request the Tribunal to refer to the contents of a document which -has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1 -(Document Number USSR-1). It is a report of the Extraordinary State -Commission of the Stavropol region. - -The part which I wish to read, in brief, is on Page 187 of your document -book. It states there that the 2,000 Jews who had assembled at the -Kislovodsk station were sent to the station of Mineralniye Vody and shot -in an antitank trench 2½ kilometers distant from the town. Here too, -thousands of Jews, transferred from the towns of Essentuki and -Piatigorsk, were shot on the same site. - -In order to show the extent of the criminal extermination of the -peaceful Jewish population in Eastern Europe, I now refer to the -contents of reports received from the governments of the respective -Eastern European countries, which have already been submitted to the -Tribunal. - -I quote a report of the Polish Government, on Page 136 of the Russian -text of this document. I begin the quotation: - - “The official statistical yearbook of Poland, in 1931, estimates - the number of Jews at 3,115,000. - - “According to unofficial figures collected in 1939 there were in - Poland 3,500,000 Jews. - - “After the liberation of Poland the Jews in that country - numbered less than 100,000, and 200,000 Polish Jews are still in - the U.S.S.R. - - “Thus, about 3 million Jews perished in Poland.” - -In Czechoslovakia, as seen from the data published on Pages 82-83 of the -Russian text of the report, the Jews numbered 118,000. At present, in -the entire country, they number only 6,000 all told. Of the total number -of 15,000 Jewish children, only 28 have returned. - -THE PRESIDENT: Can we leave off here? - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SIXTY-NINTH DAY - Wednesday, 27 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I wonder if the -Tribunal would allow me to make a very short explanation as to the -source of the document with regard to Stalag Luft III which the Tribunal -discussed yesterday. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position was that when evidence for this -Trial was being collected, each government that might be concerned was -written to and asked if they would produce government reports, and they -have produced government reports which have been put before the Tribunal -by the various sections of the Prosecution. - -The document with regard to the shooting of the prisoners in Stalag Luft -III was a British Government report of the same type. It was compiled -from various information, which is included in the appendices; that -information included the interrogation of General Westhoff, which had -been sent to the United Nations War Crimes Commission as thousands of -other documents were sent, for that Commission to consider whether any -action should be taken from the matters disclosed. - -That document was then sent from the United Nations War Crimes -Commission to the British Government and dealt with as part of the -material on which the British Government report was based. The British -Government report is certified by myself to be a Government report, and -I have specific authority from His Majesty’s Government in Britain to -perform such certification. It is very short, and it might be convenient -if I read it so that it appears in the record. I have the copy, which -was sent to me on the official Cabinet paper, purporting to be signed by -Sir Edward Bridges, the Secretary to the Cabinet. The original was sent -to the Attorney General, and the document is jointly to us both; but -there is no doubt as to its authenticity; and the original can be -produced, if necessary. The document reads: - - “His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain - and Northern Ireland has authorized the Right Honorable Sir - Hartley Shawcross, K. C., M. P., the Chief Prosecutor for the - United Kingdom, appointed under Article 14 of the Charter, - annexed to the agreement dated the 8th day of August 1945, and - the Right Honorable Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, K. C., M. P., the - Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom, to certify those - documents to be produced at the trial of war criminals before - the International Military Tribunal which are documents of His - Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.” - -My respectful submission is, therefore, that on my certification the -document becomes a governmental document within Article 21, and it is -thereupon a mandatory injunction to the Tribunal that it shall take -judicial notice of such a document. At that point the document, in my -respectful submission to the Tribunal, should be taken into evidence. -And it is then, of course, a matter for the Defense, if they wish to -call any witness, to make such application as they desire and for the -Tribunal to rule on it. - -But as a point of construction, I respectfully submit that once a -document is certified as a government document, as all these government -reports are, the Charter enjoins the Tribunal to take judicial notice of -them. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal did admit the document yesterday; -but they are glad of your explanation. Nothing in the order that they -made is in any way inconsistent with what you have now said. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I would like to recall to you -certain figures which I mentioned yesterday afternoon. I am speaking -about the number of Jews who were exterminated in Poland and -Czechoslovakia. I allow myself to remind the Tribunal that the figures I -mentioned yesterday, which were based on the report of the Polish -Government, show that 3 million Jews in Poland have been exterminated. -In Czechoslovakia out of 118,000 Jews only 6,000 remain. - -I would now like to pass on to the report of the Yugoslav Government and -will quote one paragraph, which the Tribunal will find on Page 75 of the -document book, third paragraph: - - “Out of 75,000 Yugoslav Jews and about 5,000 Jewish emigrées - from other countries who were in Yugoslavia at the time of the - attack—that is to say, out of a total number of about 80,000 - Jews—only some 10,000 persons survived the German occupation.” - -I beg the Tribunal to call to this Court a witness who will confirm -these data. He is Abram Gerzevitch Suzkever, a Jewish writer, who -together with his family became a victim of the German fascist criminals -who had temporarily occupied the territory of the Lithuanian Soviet -Republic. I beg the Tribunal to allow me to question this witness. - -[_The witness, Suzkever, took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: What is your name? - -ABRAM GERZEVITCH SUZKEVER (Witness): Suzkever. - -THE PRESIDENT: Are you a Soviet citizen? - -SUZKEVER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat after me: I—and mention your -name—citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—summoned as a -witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in the presence of the -Court—to tell the Court nothing but the truth—about everything I know -in regard to this case. - -[_The witness repeated the oath in Russian._] - -THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, Witness, where did the German -occupation find you? - -SUZKEVER: In the town of Vilna. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stayed in this town for a long time during -the German occupation? - -SUZKEVER: I stayed there from the first to nearly the last day of the -occupation. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You witnessed the persecution of the Jews in -that city? - -SUZKEVER: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the Court about this. - -SUZKEVER: When the Germans seized my city, Vilna, about 80,000 Jews -lived in the town. Immediately the so-called Sonderkommando was set up -at 12 Vilenskaia Street, under the command of Schweichenberg and Martin -Weiss. The man-hunters of the Sonderkommandos, or as the Jews called -them, the “Khapun,” broke into the Jewish houses at any time of day or -night, dragged away the men, instructing them to take a piece of soap -and a towel, and herded them into certain buildings near the village of -Ponari, about 8 kilometers from Vilna. From there hardly one returned. -When the Jews found out that their kin were not coming back, a large -part of the population went into hiding. However, the Germans tracked -them with police dogs. Many were found, and any who were averse to going -with them were shot on the spot. - -I have to say that the Germans declared that they were exterminating the -Jewish race as though legally. - -On 8 July an order was issued which stated that all Jews should wear a -patch on their back; afterwards they were ordered to wear it on their -chest. This order was signed by the commandant of the town of Vilna, -Zehnpfennig. But 2 days later some other commandant named Neumann issued -a new order that they should not wear these patches but must wear the -yellow Star of David. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what does this yellow Star of David mean? - -SUZKEVER: It was a six-pointed patch worn on the chest and on the back, -in order to distinguish the Jews from the other inhabitants of the town. -On another day they were ordered to wear a blue band with a white star. -The Jews did not know which insignia to wear as very few lived in the -town. Those who did not wear this sign were immediately arrested and -never seen again. - -On 17 July 1941 I witnessed a large pogrom in Vilna on Novgorod Street. -The inciters of this pogrom were the forenamed Schweichenberg and Martin -Weiss, a certain Herring, and Schönhaber, a German Gestapo chief. They -surrounded this district with Sonderkommandos. They drove all the men -into the street, told them to take off their belts and to put their -hands on their heads like this [_demonstrating_]. When that order had -been complied with, all the Jews were driven along into the Lukshinaia -prison. When the Jews started to march off, their trousers fell down and -they couldn’t walk. Those who tried to hold up their trousers with their -hands were shot then and there in the street. When we walked in a column -down the street, I saw with my own eyes the bodies of about 100 or 150 -persons who had been shot in the street. Blood streamed through the -street as if a red rain had fallen. - -In the first days of August 1941 a German seized me in the Dokumenskaia -Street. I was then going to visit my mother. The German said to me, -“Come with me, you will act in the circus.” As I went along I saw that -another German was driving along an old Jew, the old rabbi of this -street, Kassel, and a third German was holding a young boy. When we -reached the old synagogue on this street I saw that wood was piled up -there in the shape of a pyramid. A German drew out his revolver and told -us to take off our clothes. When we were naked, he lit a match and set -fire to this stack of wood. Then another German brought out of the -synagogue three scrolls of the Torah, gave them to us, and told us to -dance around this bonfire and sing Russian songs. Behind us stood the -three Germans; with their bayonets they forced us toward the fire and -laughed. When we were almost unconscious, they left. - -I must say that the mass extermination of the Jewish people in Vilna -began at the moment when District Commissar Hans Fincks arrived, as well -as the referant, or reporter on the Jewish problems, Muhrer. On 31 -August, under the direction of District Commissioner Fincks and -Muhrer. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Which year? - -SUZKEVER: 1941. - -THE PRESIDENT: Go on. - -SUZKEVER: Under the direction of Fincks and Muhrer, the Germans -surrounded the old Jewish quarter of Vilna, taking in Rudnitskaia and -Jewish Streets, Galonsky Alley, the Shabelsky and Strashouna Streets, -where some 8 to 10 thousand Jews were living. - -I was ill at the time and asleep. Suddenly I felt the lash of a whip on -me. When I jumped up from my bed I saw Schweichenberg standing in front -of me. He had a big dog with him. He was beating everybody and shouting -that we must all run out into the courtyard. When I was out in the -courtyard, I saw there many women, children, and aged persons—all the -Jews who lived there. Schweichenberg had the Sonderkommando surround all -this crowd and said that they were taking us to the ghetto. But, of -course, like all their statements, this was also a lie. We went through -the town in columns and were led toward Lutishcheva Prison. All knew -that we were going to our death. When we arrived at Lutishcheva Prison, -near the so-called Lutishkina market, I saw a whole double line of -German soldiers with white sticks standing there to receive us. While we -had to pass between them they beat us with sticks. If a Jew fell down, -the one next to him was told to pick him up and carry him through the -large prison gates which stood open. Near the prison I took to my heels. -I swam across the River Vilia and hid in my mother’s house. My wife, who -was put in prison and then managed to escape later on, told me that -there she saw the well-known Jewish scientist Moloch Prilutzky, who was -almost dead, the president of the Jewish Society of Vilna, Dr. Jacob -Wigotzky, and the young Jewish historian, Pinkus Kohn. The famous -artists Hash and Kadisch were lying dead. The Germans flogged, robbed, -then drove away all their victims to Ponari. - -On 6 September at 6 o’clock in the morning thousands of Germans, led by -District Commissar Fincks, by Muhrer, Schweichenberg, Martin Weiss, and -others, surrounded the whole town, broke into the Jewish houses, and -told the inhabitants to take only that which they could carry off in -their hands and get out into the street. Then they were driven off to -the ghetto. When they were passing by Wilkomirowskaia Street where I -was, I saw the Germans had brought sick Jews from the hospitals. They -were all in blue hospital gowns. They were all forced to stand while a -German newsreel operator, who was driving in front of the column, filmed -this scene. - -I must say that not all the Jews were driven into the ghetto. Fincks did -this on purpose. He drove the inhabitants of one street to the ghetto -and the inhabitants of another street to Ponari. Previously the Germans -had set up two ghettos in Vilna. In the first were 29,000 Jews, and in -the second some 15,000 Jews. About half the Jewish population of Vilna -never reached the ghetto; they were shot on the way. I remember how, -when we arrived at the ghetto. . . - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Just a moment, Witness. Did I understand you -correctly, that before the ghetto was set up, half the Jewish population -of Vilna was already exterminated? - -SUZKEVER: Yes, that is right. When I arrived at the ghetto I saw the -following scene: Martin Weiss came in with a young Jewish girl. When we -went in farther, he took out his revolver and shot her on the spot. The -girl’s name was Gitele Tarlo. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, how old was this girl? - -SUZKEVER: Eleven. I must state that the Germans organized the ghetto -only to exterminate the Jewish population with greater ease. The head of -the ghetto was the expert on Jewish questions, Muhrer, and he issued a -series of mad orders. For instance, Jews were forbidden to wear watches. -The Jews could not pray in the ghetto. When a German passed by, they had -to take off their hats but were not allowed to look at him. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were these official orders? - -SUZKEVER: Yes, issued by Muhrer. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were they posted? - -SUZKEVER: Yes, they were posted in the ghetto. The same Muhrer, when he -visited the ghetto, went into the shops where the Jews were working for -him and ordered all workers to fall down on the ground and bark like -dogs. On Atonement Day in 1941 Schweichenberg and the same -Sonderkommando broke into the second ghetto and seized all the old men -who were praying in the synagogues and drove them to Ponari. I remember -when Schweichenberg went to the second ghetto and the man-hunters seized -the Jews. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Who were these hunters? - -SUZKEVER: The soldiers of the Sonderkommando who seized the Jews and -whom the population called the hunters. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So they were soldiers of the Sonderkommando, -whom the population called hunters? - -SUZKEVER: Yes, that is so. These hunters dragged the Jews out of the -cellars and tried to drive them to Ponari. But the Jews knew that nobody -returned alive and did not want to go. Then Schweichenberg began to -shoot at the inhabitants of the ghetto. I remember that there was a big -dog at his side; and when this dog heard the shots, it jumped at -Schweichenberg and began to bite his throat like a mad dog. Then -Schweichenberg killed this dog and told the Jews to bury it and to cry -over its grave. We really cried then—we cried because it was not -Schweichenberg but the dog that had been buried. - -At the end of December 1941 an order was issued in the ghetto which -stated that the Jewish women must not bear children. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell us how, or in what -form, this order was issued by the German fascists. - -SUZKEVER: Muhrer came to the hospital in Street Number 6 and said that -an order had come from Berlin to the effect that Jewish women should not -bear children and that if the Germans found out that a Jewish woman had -given birth, the child would be exterminated. - -Towards the end of December in the ghetto my wife gave birth to a child, -a boy. I was not in the ghetto at that time, having escaped from one of -these so-called “actions.” When I came to the ghetto later I found that -my wife had had a baby in a ghetto hospital. But I saw the hospital -surrounded by Germans and a black car standing before the door. -Schweichenberg was standing near the car, and the hunters of the -Sonderkommando were dragging sick and old people out of the hospital and -throwing them like logs into the truck. Among them I saw the well-known -Jewish writer and editor, Grodnensky, who was also dragged and dumped -into this truck. - -In the evening when the Germans had left, I went to the hospital and -found my wife in tears. It seems that when she had had her baby, the -Jewish doctors of the hospital had already received the order that -Jewish women must not give birth; and they had hidden the baby, together -with other newborn children, in one of the rooms. But when this -commission with Muhrer came to the hospital, they heard the cries of the -babies. They broke open the door and entered the room. When my wife -heard that the door had been broken, she immediately got up and ran to -see what was happening to the child. She saw one German holding the baby -and smearing something under its nose. Afterwards he threw it on the bed -and laughed. When my wife picked up the child, there was something black -under his nose. When I arrived at the hospital, I saw that my baby was -dead. He was still warm. - -On the next day I went to my mother in the ghetto, and I found her room -empty. A prayer book was still open on the table and a glass of tea, not -yet touched. I learned that in the night the Germans had surrounded this -house, seized all the inhabitants, and driven them off to Ponari. In the -last days of December 1941 Muhrer gave a present to the ghetto. A -carload of shoes belonging to the Jews executed at Ponari was brought -into the ghetto. He sent these old shoes as a gift to the ghetto. Among -them I recognized my mother’s. - -Shortly afterwards the second ghetto was liquidated, and the German -newspaper in Vilna announced that the Jews from this district had died -of an epidemic. - -On 23 December 1941, in the night, Muhrer came and distributed among the -population 3,000 yellow tickets, the so-called Ausweise. Those who had -these tickets were allowed to register their relatives; that meant some -9,000 persons. At that time about 18 to 20 thousand people lived in the -ghetto. Those who had these yellow tickets went to work the next day; -and the others, who remained in the ghetto without these tickets and did -not want to go to their death, were slaughtered in the ghetto itself. -The rest were driven away to Ponari. - -I have a document which I found after the liberation of the town of -Vilna, concerning the Jewish clothing from Ponari. If this document -interests you I can show it to you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the document? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I do not know of this document either, Mr. -President. - -SUZKEVER: [_Continuing._] This document reads as follows—I will read -only a few lines. . . - -[_The witness read the document in German, and only part of it was -translated. It was later identified as Document USSR-444._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, as you have read this document, you -must hand it over to the Tribunal, as otherwise we cannot judge this -document. - -SUZKEVER: Certainly. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us first of all where the document was -found? - -SUZKEVER: I found this document at the district commissioner’s building -in Vilna, in July 1944, when our city was already liberated from the -German invaders. - -THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say it was found? - -SUZKEVER: In the building of the District Commissar in Vilna on the -Gedemino Street. - -THE PRESIDENT: Was that the building occupied by the Germans? - -SUZKEVER: Yes, it was the headquarters of the German District -Commissioner of Vilna. Hans Fincks and Muhrer lived there. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, read the part of the document you were reading just -now; we did not hear it. - -SUZKEVER: Certainly. - - “To the District Commissioner at Vilna: Pursuant to your order, - the old Jewish clothing from Ponari is at present being - disinfected by this establishment and delivered to the - administration of Vilna.” - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand it in, please? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please, Witness, I am interested in the -following question: You said that at the beginning of the German -occupation 80,000 Jews lived in Vilna. How many remained after the -German occupation? - -SUZKEVER: After the occupation about 600 Jews remained in Vilna. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thus, 79,400 persons were exterminated? - -SUZKEVER: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I have no further questions to ask -of the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Chief Prosecutor want to ask any -questions? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No questions. - -MR. DODD: No questions. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask -any questions? No? Then the witness can retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -Yes, Colonel Smirnov. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to modify the plan -of my statement and leave out just now that chapter of my statement -which is entitled, “Religious Persecutions,” to which I shall come back -a little later. I would now like, with your permission, to take up that -part of my statement which is entitled, “Experiments on Living Persons.” -It is on Page 47 of the Russian text. - -Before reading this part of my statement, I would like to quote a few -short extracts from a document which has not as yet been read into the -record by our United States colleagues, because the main part of this -document refers to experiments which were described in detail by the -United States Prosecution with the help of other documents. This -document is registered under Document Number 400-PS (Exhibit Number -USSR-435). It refers to experiments by Dr. Rascher. It is submitted to -the Tribunal as a photostat copy, which includes a series of documents. -I quote two paragraphs only from this Document Number 400-PS. These two -paragraphs testify to the predilection of Dr. Rascher for the Auschwitz -Camp. This extract is on Page 149 of the document book, last paragraph: - - “It would be simpler if I were soon transferred to the Waffen-SS - and could visit the Auschwitz Camp with Neff, where I could, by - a series of large scale experiments, solve the problem of - reviving people who had been frozen on land. For these - experiments Auschwitz is in every respect better adapted than - Dachau, for the climate is colder there and, as the camp area is - larger, less attention will be attracted. The victims yell when - they are being frozen. - - “If it is agreeable to you, esteemed Reichsführer, to have these - experiments—so important for our land forces—quickly carried - out at Auschwitz (or in Lublin or any other Eastern camp), I - would respectfully beg you to give the necessary orders in the - near future so that we could yet profit by the last cold, winter - weather. With most obedient greetings I am, in sincere - gratitude, Heil Hitler, your always devoted servant, S. - Rascher.” - -I would like to remind the Tribunal that this special interest of Dr. -Rascher in the Auschwitz Camp—I remind the Tribunal that Auschwitz was -the central section of the camp situated near the town of Oswieczim—was -not accidental. In Auschwitz cruel experiments on live persons were -carried out on a scale greatly exceeding all that was done in Dachau or -other concentration camps of the Reich. - -Our Exhibit Number USSR-8 (Document Number USSR-8) has already been -added to the file of the case. It is the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union on the monstrous crimes of the -German Government in Oswieczim. The introductory part of this report -contains the following excerpt, which the members of the Tribunal will -find on Page 196 of the document book. I read one paragraph only: - - “Special hospitals, surgical blocks, histological laboratories, - and other departments were set up in the camp. But they were - intended not for the treatment but for the extermination of - people. Here German professors and doctors carried out mass - experiments on men, women, and children who were in perfectly - good health. They carried out experiments on sterilization of - women, on castration of men, experiments on children, artificial - infection with cancer, typhus, and malaria, of masses of people - who were afterward subjected to observation. They tested the - action of poisonous substances on living persons.” - -I would like to stress that experiments on the sterilization and -castration of women and men were carried out on a particularly large -scale. Whole blocks in the camp were especially designated for -experiments using particularly effective methods of sterilization and -castration. - -I will read two short excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission, which the Tribunal will find on the back of Page 196 -of the document book, Paragraph 5. I quote: - - “Experiments on women were carried out in the hospital blocks of - the Oswieczim Camp. Up to four hundred women were detained - simultaneously in Block 10 of the camp, and experiments on - sterilization were carried out on them by means of X-rays and - subsequent removal of the ovaries, experiments in engrafting - cancer in the neck of the uterus and forced abortion, and on - testing countermeasures against injuries to the uterus by - X-ray.” - -I omit three sentences and proceed with the quotation: - - “In Block 21”—that is another block, the women’s block was - Number 10—“mass experiments on castration of men were carried - out for the purpose of studying the possibility of sterilization - by X-ray. The castration itself was carried out some time later - after the X-ray process. These experiments on X-raying and - castration were carried out by Professor Schumann and Dr. - Dering. It frequently happened that after treatment by X-ray, - one or both testicles of the subject were removed for - examination.” - -I beg the Tribunal to allow me, in order to show the extent of these -experiments, to read short excerpts from the testimony of the Dutch -Doctor De Vind. It is contained in the Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document -Number USSR-52) already presented to the Court. I will not read the -testimony in full but will just quote the statistics, which the Tribunal -may find on the back of Page 203 of the document book, last paragraph, -first column. I repeat that these numbers refer only to one block, Block -10. The following women were interned in this block: - - “Fifty women of different nationalities who arrived in March - 1943; 100 Greek women who arrived in March 1943; 110 Belgian - women who arrived in April 1943; 50 French women who arrived in - July 1943; 40 Dutch women who arrived in August 1943; 100 Dutch - women who arrived on 15 September 1943; and 100 Dutch women who - arrived one week later; and finally 12 Polish women.” - -I will quote a further excerpt from the statement of the Dutch Doctor De -Vind, which has also been submitted previously to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52), I quote that part of -the statement in which he speaks of experiments carried out by a certain -Professor Schumann on 15 young girls. Your Honors will find this excerpt -on Page 204 of the document book, first column of the text, third -paragraph: - - “Professor Schumann (a German). These experiments were carried - out on 15 girls of 17 to 18 years of age, including Shimmi - Bella, from Salonika (Greece) and Buena Dora, from Salonika - (Greece). Only a few of them survived; but unfortunately they - are still in the German hands, and we have consequently no - objective data on these brutal experiments. However, the - following has been established beyond doubt: The girls were - placed between two plates within the field of ultra-short waves; - one electrode was placed on the abdomen and the other on the - buttocks. The focus of the rays was directed on the ovaries - which were consequently burned out. As a result of the irregular - dosage, serious burns appeared on the abdomen and on the - buttocks. One girl died of these terrible sufferings; the other - girls were sent to Birkenau to the medical unit or to working - kommandos. - - “A month later they were returned to Oswieczim, where they were - subjected to two operations for checking the results; one, - longitudinal, the other, a horizontal incision. The reproductive - organs were removed for study. As a result of the destruction of - hormones, the girls completely changed in appearance and - resembled old women.” - -With this I end the quotation. - -Experiments on sterilization of women and castration of men were carried -out in Oswieczim on a mass scale beginning in 1942, and some time after -the sterilization the men were castrated for a special study of the -tissues. - -You can find a confirmation of this fact in the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on Oswieczim, where -numerous statements of individual internees who underwent such -operations have been quoted. The Tribunal will find the excerpt which I -wish to read on Page 197 of the document book, second paragraph, second -column of the text. I quote two paragraphs: - - “Valigura, who was subjected to such experiments, stated: - - “‘A few days after I had been brought to Birkenau, I believe it - was in the first days of December 1942, all the young men from - 18 to 30 years of age were sterilized by X-raying the scrotum. I - myself was among those sterilized. Eleven months later, that is - to say, on the 1st of November 1943, I was castrated. Together - with me on that same day 200 men were sterilized.’ - - “Witness David Sures, from the town of Salonika (Greece), stated - the following: - - “‘Toward July 1943 I myself and 10 other Greeks were placed on - some kind of list and sent to Birkenau. There we were stripped - and subjected to sterilization by X-rays. A month later we were - summoned to a central section of the camp where all those - sterilized underwent an operation of castration.’” - -I believe that it was not by accident that the experiments on people -began with sterilization and castration. This was a quite natural result -of the theories of German fascism, interested in lowering the birthrate -of those people whom they considered to be vanquished. It was a part of -Hitler’s depopulation technique; and in confirmation of this I would now -like to quote a very short excerpt from Rauschning’s book, _The Voice of -Destruction_, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal. This -extract has not yet been read into the record, and the Tribunal will -find it on Page 207 of the document book. - -Hitler said to Rauschning: - - “And by ‘destruction’ I do not necessarily mean extermination of - these people—I shall simply take systematic measures to prevent - their procreation.” - -I skip the next three sentences and quote one more sentence: - - “There are many means by which a systematic and comparatively - painless extinction of undesirable races can be attained, at any - rate without blood being shed.” - -This excerpt is on Page 137 of the original book. - -Sterilization and castration became a criminal practice of the -Hitlerites in the occupied territories in Eastern Europe. I beg the -Tribunal’s permission to draw its attention to two of these documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, perhaps that would be a convenient time -to break off. - -The Tribunal would like to know how long you think you will take before -you conclude your statement. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that I will finish the -presentation of evidence today. - -I would like the Tribunal to allow me to question three more witnesses -today and I still have about one hour of reading. But it is very -difficult for me to determine the time exactly, as that sometimes -depends on other factors, known to you, which may force me to change my -intentions. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask the permission of the Tribunal to draw its -attention to two very short German documents, which are submitted under -Exhibit Number USSR-400 (Document Number USSR-400) in photostats -certified by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union. -They are two communications from Lieutenant Frank, head of a Security -Police division, regarding the conditions under which a gypsy woman, -Lucia Strasdinsch had the right to reside in the town of Libau. - - “Libau, 10 December 1941. - - “Security Police Post, Town of Libau; to the Prefect of the Town - of Libau. - - “It has been decided that the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch will be - allowed to take up residence here again only on the condition - that she submits to being sterilized. She is to be informed - accordingly and a report on the result is to be rendered to this - office. - - “Frank, Lieutenant, Security Police and O. C. Security Police - Station.” - -The second document is a memorandum from the Prefecture of Libau, H. -Grauds, to the head of the Security Police Post. The text: - - “I herewith return your letter of 10 December 1941 regarding the - sterilization of the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch and beg to report - that this person was sterilized in the local hospital on 9 - January 1942. Pertinent letter Number 850 of 12. 1. 42 from the - hospital is attached.” - -In order to show the extent of the experiments which were performed on -live persons, I would ask Your Honors to turn to the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission on Oswieczim. The extract which I should -like to quote, the members of the Tribunal may find on Page 197 of the -book of documents, first column, second paragraph. It is stated there -that a statistical report by the commandant of the camp has been -discovered in the archives of the camp. This report is signed by the -deputy commander of the camp, Sella. It has a column under the heading, -“Internees designated for experiments.” This column reads as follows; -“Women subject to experiments: on 15 May 1944—400, on 15 June—413, on -19 June—348, and so on.” - -I would like to conclude this chapter on experiments on live persons, by -the following: I would like to quote the memorandum of the judicial and -medical report, an excerpt of which is in the report on Oswieczim Camp. -The members of the Tribunal may find the passage which I should like to -quote on Page 197 of the document book, first column, Paragraph 5. I -omit the part which refers to sterilization and castration because I -think that this question has been sufficiently elucidated. I will quote -only Points 4, 6, and 7 of the memorandum, indicating that in Oswieczim: - - “Researches were carried out with various chemical preparations - of German firms. According to the testimony of one German - physician, Dr. Valentin Erwin, there was a case where the - representatives of the chemical industry of Germany, a - gynecologist, Glauber, from Königshütte, and a chemist, Gebel, - bought from the administration of the camp 150 women for such - experiments.” - -I omit Point 5 and I quote Point 6: - - “Experiments on men by applying irritant chemical substances on - the skin of the calf in order to create ulcers and phlegmons. - - “7) A series of other experiments—artificial infection with - malaria, artificial insemination, and so forth.” - -I omit the next three pages of my statement which give the particulars -of these experiments. I would like only to draw the attention of the -Tribunal to other crimes perpetrated by the German doctors and, in -particular, to the extermination of patients in mental hospitals. I am -not going to quote all the examples which the Tribunal will find in the -report of the Extraordinary State Commission but will dwell on one crime -only, which was perpetrated in the town of Kiev. I quote a paragraph -from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the town of -Kiev, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 212 of the -document book, first column, Paragraph 6: - - “On 14 October 1941 an SS detachment under the leadership of the - German garrison physician Rikowsky, entered the mental hospital. - The Hitlerites drove 300 patients into one building, kept them - there without food and water, and then shot them in a gully of - the Kirilov wood. The remaining patients were exterminated on 7 - January, 27 March, and 17 October 1942.” - -In the subsequent part of the Extraordinary State Commission’s report a -statement is quoted, a statement made by Professor Kapustianski, by a -woman doctor Dzevaltovska, and the nurse Troepolska. I submit to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-249 (Document Number USSR-249) the -photostat of this testimony, and I request that it be included in the -files of the case as evidence. I am quoting some of the extracts from -this document: - - “During the German occupation of the city of Kiev, the Kiev - Psychiatric Clinic had to experience tragic days, which - culminated in the complete ruin and destruction of the hospital. - A crime was committed against the unfortunate mentally sick - people, the like of which had not been known in history up to - this time.” - -I omit the next part and I quote further on: - - “In the course of the years 1941-42, 800 patients were killed.” - -I omit the next two paragraphs and I read on: - - “On 7 January 1942 the Gestapo came to the hospital. They posted - guards everywhere in the grounds of the hospital. To enter or - leave the hospital was forbidden. A representative of the - Gestapo requested the selection of the incurably sick people to - be sent to Zhitomir.” - -I skip the next sentence. - - “What was in store for the sick people was carefully concealed - from the medical staff. After that, special cars arrived at the - hospital. The sick people were pushed into them, some 60 to 70 - persons into each car. Everyone could see these atrocities which - were perpetrated in front of the ward windows. The patients were - pushed into the cars and murdered there. Their corpses were - thrown out on the spot. This awful deed went on for two days, - during which 365 patients were exterminated. The patients who - had not completely lost their minds soon realized the truth. - There were heart-rending scenes. Thus, a young girl, patient Y, - in spite of all of the efforts of the doctor, understood that - death was awaiting her. She came out of the ward, embraced the - doctor, and quietly asked him, ‘Is this the end?’ Pale as death, - she went to the car and, refusing any assistance, climbed - inside. The entire staff was told that any criticism or any - expression of displeasure would be completely out of place and - would be regarded as sabotage.” - -I shall quote one more sentence from this report: - - “It is a characteristic detail that these murders—unprecedented - by their abomination—were committed on Christmas Day, when - Christmas trees were being distributed to the German soldiers; - and the inscription ‘God is with us’ sparkled on the belts of - the executioners.” - -Herewith I end my quotation. - -I think it possible to omit the following four pages of my speech -because they deal with similar cases of the murder of mental patients in -other parts of the country. Similar methods were used for these murders -as those used in Kiev. I will request the Tribunal to accept as evidence -the photostats of three German documents, certified by the Extraordinary -State Commission, which testify to the fact that special standard forms -of documents were worked out for the report on the murder of the insane -by the German fascists. - -I submit these documents. The first document is submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-397 (Document Number USSR-397.) The members of the Tribunal -may find it on Page 218 of the document book. I am quoting the text of -the document: - - “To the Registrar’s office in the Town of Riga:” - -I omit the next paragraph. - - “I hereby certify that 368 incurably insane patients, whose - names appear on the annexed list, died on 29 January - 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, SS Sturmbannführer.” - -The second document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-410 (Document -Number USSR-410). This is a report of the head of the Security Police -and SD in Latvia, Number 357/42g, dated 28 May 1942. I am quoting the -one paragraph from this document: - - “I hereby certify that 243 incurably insane patients, whose - names appear on the enclosed list, died on 14 April - 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, SS Sturmbannführer.” - -The third document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-398 (Document -Number USSR-398). This is a report by the head of the Security Police -and SD, Latvia, dated 15 March 1943. I will read into the record the one -paragraph of this document: - - “I hereby certify that 98 incurably insane patients, whose names - appear on the enclosed list, died on 22 October - 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, SS Sturmbannführer.” - -I think I can also omit the next one and a half pages of my statement; -but I would request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the following -document without reading it, as proof of the experiments carried out on -live persons. I submit as Exhibit Number USSR-406 (Document Number -USSR-406) the data about the experiments carried out in another camp, -the Ravensbrück Camp. It contains the results of the investigation by -the Polish State Commission. The photographs contained therein are very -characteristic and I need not comment on them. - -I would now request the Tribunal’s permission to summon as witness a -Polish woman, Shmaglevskaya, to have her testify regarding only one -question, the attitude of the German fascists toward the children in the -concentration camps. Would the President permit the calling of this -witness? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. - -[_The witness, Shmaglevskaya, took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you first of all tell me your name? - -SEVERINA SHMAGLEVSKAYA (Witness): Severina Shmaglevskaya. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby swear before -God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal nothing but the -truth—concealing nothing that is known to me—so help me God, Amen. - -[_The witness repeated the oath._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, were you an internee of -Oswieczim Camp? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During what period of time were you in the camp -of Oswieczim? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: From 7 October 1942 to January 1945. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you have any proof that you were an internee -of this camp? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I have the number which was tattooed on my arm, right -here. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is what the Oswieczim inmates call the -“visiting cards”? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, please, Witness, were you an eyewitness -of German SS men’s attitude toward children? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please tell the Tribunal about this? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I could tell about the children who were born in the -concentration camp, about the children who were brought to the -concentration camp with the Jewish transports and who were taken -directly to the crematories, as well as about those children who were -brought to concentration camps and there interned. Already in December -1942 when I went to work about 10 kilometers from Birkenau. . . - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me. May I interrupt you? Then, you were -in the Birkenau section of the camp? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, I was in the Camp Birkenau, which is a part of the -Oswieczim Camp, which was called Oswieczim Number 2. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please go on. - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I noticed then a woman in the last month of pregnancy. It -was obvious from her appearance. This woman, together with the others, -had to walk 10 kilometers to the place of work and there she toiled the -whole day, shovel in hands, digging trenches. She was already ill and -she asked the German superintendent, a civilian, for permission to rest. -He refused, laughed at her, and together with another SS man, started -beating her. He scrutinized her work very strictly. Such was the -situation of all the women who were pregnant. And only during the very -last minutes were they permitted to stay away from work. The newborn -children, if Jewish, were immediately put to death. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Pardon me, Witness, what do you mean by “were -immediately put to death”? When was it? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: They were immediately taken away from their mother. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When the transport arrived? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, I am speaking of the children who were born in the -concentration camps. A few minutes after delivery the child was taken -from the mother, who never saw it again. After a few days the mother had -to return to work. In 1942 there were no special blocks in the camp for -the children. At the beginning of 1943, when they started to tattoo the -internees, the children born in the concentration camps were also -branded. The number was tattooed on their legs. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why on the leg? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Because the child is very small and there was not enough -room on their tiny arms for the number, which contained five digits. The -children did not have special numbers but bore the same numbers as the -grown-ups; that is to say, they were given serial numbers. The children -were placed in a special block and after a few weeks, sometimes after a -month, they were taken away from the camp. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Where to? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: We were never able to find out where these children were -taken. They were taken away all the time this camp existed; that is to -say, in 1943 and 1944. The last convoy of children left the camp in -January 1945. These were not only Polish children, because, as you know, -in Birkenau there were women from all over Europe. Even today we don’t -know whether these children are alive. - -I should like, in the name of all the women of Europe who became mothers -in concentration camps, to ask the Germans today, “Where are these -children?” - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, did you yourself see the -children being taken to gas chambers? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I worked very close to the railway which led to the -crematory. Sometimes in the morning I passed near the building the -Germans used as a latrine, and from there I could secretly watch the -transport. I saw many children among the Jews brought to the -concentration camp. Sometimes a family had several children. The -Tribunal is probably aware of the fact that in front of the crematory -they were all sorted out. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Selection was made by the doctors? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always by doctors; sometimes by SS men. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And doctors with them? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes, by doctors, too. During such a sorting, -the youngest and the healthiest Jewish women in very small numbers -entered the camp. Women carrying children in their arms or in carriages, -or those who had larger children, were sent into the crematory together -with their children. The children were separated from their parents in -front of the crematory and were led separately into gas chambers. - -At that time, when the greatest number of Jews were exterminated in the -gas chambers, an order was issued that the children were to be thrown -into the crematory ovens or the crematory ditches without previous -asphyxiation with gas. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How should we understand that? Were they thrown -into the ovens alive or were they killed by other means before they were -burned? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: The children were thrown in alive. Their cries could be -heard all over the camp. It is hard to say how many there were. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Nevertheless, there was some reason why this was -done. Was it because the gas chambers were overworked? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: It is very difficult to answer this question. We don’t -know whether they wanted to economize on the gas or whether there was no -room in the gas chambers. - -I should also add that it is impossible to determine the number of these -children—like that of the Jews—because they were driven directly to -the crematory, were not registered, were not tattooed, and very often -were not even counted. We, the internees, often tried to ascertain the -number of people who perished in gas chambers; but our estimates of the -number of children executed could only be based on the number of -children’s prams which were brought to the storerooms. Sometimes there -were hundreds of these carriages, but sometimes they sent thousands. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In one day? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always the same. There were days when the gas -chambers worked from early morning until late at night. - -I should also like to tell you about the children—and their number is -large—who were interned in concentration camps. At the beginning of -1943 Polish children from Zamoishevna arrived at the concentration camp -with their parents. At the same time Russian children from territories -occupied by the Germans began to arrive. The Jewish children were added -to these. In smaller numbers, one could also meet Italian children in -the concentration camp. The conditions were as difficult for the -children as for adults; perhaps even more onerous. These children didn’t -receive any parcels because there was no one to send them. Red Cross -packages never reached the internees. In 1944 a great number of Italian -and French children arrived at the concentration camp. All these -children suffered from skin diseases, lymphatic boils, and malnutrition; -they were badly clad, often without shoes, and had no possibility of -washing themselves. - -During the Warsaw uprising captured children from Warsaw were brought to -the concentration camp. The youngest of the children was a little -6-year-old boy. The children were quartered in special barracks. When -the systematic deportation of internees from Birkenau to the interior of -Germany commenced, these children were used for heavy labor. At the same -time there arrived in the concentration camps the children of Hungarian -Jews, who had to work together with the children who were brought after -the Warsaw uprising. These children worked with two carts which they had -to pull themselves to transport coal, iron machines, wood for floors, -and other heavy things from one camp to the other. They also labored at -dismantling barracks during the liquidation of the camp. These children -remained in the concentration camp until the very end. In January 1945 -they were evacuated and had to march to Germany on foot under conditions -as difficult as those of the front, under an SS guard, without food, -covering about 30 kilometers a day. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During this march the children died of -exhaustion? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I wasn’t in the group where there were children, as I -managed to escape on the second day after this evacuation march. - -I should also like to add a few words regarding the methods of -demoralization of the people who were interned in concentration camps. -Everything that we had to suffer was the result of a whole system for -degrading human beings. - -The concentration camp cars in which the internees were transported had -previously been used for cattle. When the transports were about to move -the cars were nailed shut. In each one of these cars there was a great -number of people. The convoy of SS men never considered that human -beings have physical needs. Some of these people happened to have -necessary pots with them, and they often had to use them for physical -needs. - -For some time I worked at the store, where kitchen utensils of internees -were brought. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you mean that you worked in the warehouse -where the belongings of these who were murdered were brought. Did I -understand you correctly? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, only the kitchen utensils of people who arrived at -the concentration camps were brought to this warehouse. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These things were taken away from them? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: What I want to say is that in some cases the kitchen -utensils and pots contained remains of food, and in others there was -human excrement. Each of the workers received a pail of water, and had -to wash a great number of these kitchen utensils during one half of the -day. These kitchen utensils, which were sometimes very badly washed, -were given to people who had just arrived at the concentration camp. -From these pots and pans they had to eat, so that often they caught -dysentery and other diseases from the first day. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I don’t think the Tribunal wants quite -so much of the detail with reference of these domestic matters. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The witness was called here with a view to -describing the attitude of the Germans toward the children in the camps. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you keep her to the part of her testimony which you -wish to bring out? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, can you add anything else to -your description of the attitude of the Germans towards the children in -the camp? Have you already told us about all of the facts which you know -regarding this question? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I should like to say that the children, as well as the -adults, were also subjected to the system of demoralization and -degradation through famine. Often starvation caused the children to look -for potato peels in garbage heaps. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, do you certify in your -testimony, that sometimes the number of carriages remaining after the -murder of the children amounted to a thousand per day? - -SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes there were such days. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further question to ask -of the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the chief prosecutors wish to ask any -questions? - -[_There was no response._] - -Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions? - -[_There was no response._] - -Then the witness can retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to take up the next -section of my presentation which deals with the organization, by German -fascism, of secret centers for the extermination of people. These cannot -even be considered concentration camps because the human beings in these -places rarely survived more than 10 minutes or 2 hours at the most. Out -of all these terrible centers, organized by the German fascists, I would -submit to the Tribunal evidence on two such places, that is to say, on -Kwelmno center (Kwelmno is a village in Poland) and on the Treblinka -Camp. In connection with this I would ask the Tribunal to summon one -witness, whose testimony is interesting, because he can be considered a -person who returned from “the other world,” for the road to Treblinka -was called by the German executors themselves “The Road to Heaven.” I am -speaking of the witness Rajzman, a Polish national, and I beg the -Tribunal’s permission to bring this witness here for examination. - -THE PRESIDENT: It is just a quarter to 1 now, so we had better have this -witness at 2 o’clock. We will adjourn now. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that the witness who was -referred to yesterday, Wielen, is in a prisoner-of-war camp or in prison -near London, England; and he can, therefore, be brought over here to be -examined at short notice. The Tribunal, therefore, wishes defendants’ -counsel to make up their minds whether they wish Colonel Westhoff and -this man Wielen to be brought here during the Prosecution’s case for -them to cross-examine those witnesses or whether they prefer that they -should be brought when the defendants are presenting their case. But, as -I have stated with reference to all witnesses, they can only be called -once. If they are examined as part of the Prosecution’s case, then all -the defendants must exercise their rights, if they wish to do so, of -interrogating the witnesses at that time. If, on the other hand, the -defendants’ counsel decide that they would prefer that these witnesses -should be called during the defendants’ case, then similarly, the -witnesses will be called only once, and the right of examining them must -then be exercised. - -At the same time, the statement or the report which was presented -yesterday and which the Tribunal ruled was admissible, will be read in -the course of the Prosecution’s case at such time as the Prosecution -decide. - -DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to postpone making a -statement until after discussion with my colleagues. I hope this will be -possible in the course of the afternoon. - -THE PRESIDENT: I understand you want to consult the other defendants’ -counsel before you let us know. Very well; you will let us know at your -convenience. Go on, Colonel Smirnov. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to proceed with the -interrogation of the witness. - -[_The witness Rajzman took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: What is your name? - -SAMUEL RAJZMAN (Witness): Rajzman, Samuel. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby swear before -God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal—nothing but -the truth—concealing nothing of what is known to me—so help me God, -Amen. - -[_The witness repeated the oath._] - -THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness Rajzman, will you please tell the -Tribunal what was your occupation before the war? - -RAJZMAN: Before the war I was an accountant in an export firm. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When and under what circumstances did you become -an internee of Treblinka Number 2? - -RAJZMAN: In August 1942 I was taken away from the Warsaw ghetto. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How long did you stay in Treblinka? - -RAJZMAN: I was interned there for a year—until August 1943. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means you are well acquainted with the -rules regulating the treatment of the people in this camp? - -RAJZMAN: Yes, I am well acquainted with these rules. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg you to describe this camp to the Tribunal. - -RAJZMAN: Transports arrived there every day; their number depended on -the number of trains arriving; sometimes three, four, or five trains -filled exclusively with Jews—from Czechoslovakia, Germany, Greece, and -Poland. Immediately after their arrival, the people had to leave the -trains in 5 minutes and line up on the platform. All those who were -driven from the cars were divided into groups—men, children, and women, -all separate. They were all forced to strip immediately, and this -procedure continued under the lashes of the German guards’ whips. -Workers who were employed in this operation immediately picked up all -the clothes and carried them away to barracks. Then the people were -obliged to walk naked through the street to the gas chambers. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the Tribunal what the -Germans called the street to the gas chambers. - -RAJZMAN: It was named Himmelfahrt Street. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say, the “street to heaven”? - -RAJZMAN: Yes. If it interests the Court, I can present a plan of the -camp of Treblinka which I drew up when I was there, and I can point out -to the Tribunal this street on the plan. - -THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to put in a plan of the -camp, unless you particularly want to. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I also believe that it is not really -necessary. - -Please tell us, how long did a person live after he had arrived in the -Treblinka Camp? - -RAJZMAN: The whole process of undressing and the walk down to the gas -chambers lasted, for the men 8 or 10 minutes, and for the women some 15 -minutes. The women took 15 minutes because they had to have their hair -shaved off before they went to the gas chambers. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why was their hair cut off? - -RAJZMAN: According to the ideas of the masters, this hair was to be used -in the manufacture of mattresses for German women. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that there was only 10 minutes between the -time when they were taken out of the trucks and the time when they were -put into the gas chambers? - -RAJZMAN: As far as men were concerned, I am sure it did not last longer -than 10 minutes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Including the undressing? - -RAJZMAN: Yes, including the undressing. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, were the people brought -to Treblinka in trucks or in trains? - -RAJZMAN: They were brought nearly always in trains, and only the Jews -from neighboring villages and hamlets were brought in trucks. The trucks -bore inscriptions, “Expedition Speer,” and came from Vinegrova Sokolova -and other places. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, what was the subsequent aspect -of the station at Treblinka? - -RAJZMAN: At first there were no signboards whatsoever at the station, -but a few months later the commander of the camp, one Kurt Franz, built -a first-class railroad station with signboards. The barracks where the -clothing was stored had signs reading “restaurant,” “ticket office,” -“telegraph,” “telephone,” and so forth. There were even train schedules -for the departure and the arrival of trains to and from Grodno, Suwalki, -Vienna, and Berlin. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did I rightly understand you, Witness, that a -kind of make-believe station was built with signboards and train -schedules, with indications of platforms for train departures to -Suwalki, and so forth? - -RAJZMAN: When the persons descended from the trains, they really had the -impression that they were at a very good station from where they could -go to Suwalki, Vienna, Grodno, or other cities. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what happened later on to these people? - -RAJZMAN: These people were taken directly along the Himmelfahrtstrasse -to the gas chambers. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And tell us, please, how did the Germans behave -while killing their victims in Treblinka? - -RAJZMAN: If you mean the actual executions, every German guard had his -special job. I shall cite only one example. We had a Scharführer Menz, -whose special job was to guard the so-called “Lazarett.” In this -“Lazarett” all weak women and little children were exterminated who had -not the strength to go themselves to the gas chambers. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps, Witness, you can describe this -“Lazarett” to the Tribunal? - -RAJZMAN: This was part of a square which was closed in with a wooden -fence. All women, aged persons, and sick children were driven there. At -the gates of this “Lazarett,” there was a large Red Cross flag. Menz, -who specialized in the murder of all persons brought to this “Lazarett,” -would not let anybody else do this job. There might have been hundreds -of persons who wanted to see and know what was in store for them, but he -insisted on carrying out this work by himself. - -Here is just one example of what was the fate of the children there. A -10-year-old girl was brought to this building from the train with her -2-year-old sister. When the elder girl saw that Menz had taken out a -revolver to shoot her 2-year-old sister, she threw herself upon him, -crying out, and asking why he wanted to kill her. He did not kill the -little sister; he threw her alive into the oven and then killed the -elder sister. - -Another example: They brought an aged woman with her daughter to this -building. The latter was in the last stage of pregnancy. She was brought -to the “Lazarett,” was put on a grass plot, and several Germans came to -watch the delivery. This spectacle lasted 2 hours. When the child was -born, Menz asked the grandmother—that is the mother of this woman—whom -she preferred to see killed first. The grandmother begged to be killed. -But, of course, they did the opposite; the newborn baby was killed -first, then the child’s mother, and finally the grandmother. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, does the name Kurt -Franz mean anything to you? - -RAJZMAN: This man was deputy of the camp commander, Stengel, the biggest -murderer in the camp. Kurt Franz was known for having published in -January 1943, a report to the effect that a million Jews had been killed -in Treblinka—a report which had procured for him a promotion from the -rank of Sturmbannführer to that of Obersturmbannführer. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please tell how Kurt Franz -killed a woman who claimed to be the sister of Sigmund Freud. Do you -remember this incident? - -RAJZMAN: A train arrived from Vienna. I was standing on the platform -when the passengers left the cars. An elderly woman came up to Kurt -Franz, took out a document, and said that she was the sister of Sigmund -Freud. She begged him to give her light work in an office. Franz read -this document through very seriously and said that there must be a -mistake here; he led her up to the train schedule and said that in 2 -hours a train would leave again for Vienna. She should leave all her -documents and valuables and then go to a bathhouse; after the bath she -would have her documents and a ticket to Vienna. Of course, the woman -went to the bathhouse and never returned. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, why was it that you -yourself remained alive in Treblinka? - -RAJZMAN: I was already quite undressed, and had to pass through this -Himmelfahrtstrasse to the gas chambers. Some 8,000 Jews had arrived with -my transport from Warsaw. At the last minute before we moved toward the -street an engineer, Galevski, an old friend of mine, whom I had known in -Warsaw for many years, caught sight of me. He was overseer of workers -among the Jews. He told me that I should turn back from the street; and -as they needed an interpreter for Hebrew, French, Russian, Polish, and -German, he managed to obtain permission to liberate me. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You were therefore a member of the labor unit of -the camp? - -RAJZMAN: At first my work was to load the clothes of the murdered -persons on the trains. When I had been in the camp 2 days, my mother, my -sister, and two brothers were brought to the camp from the town of -Vinegrova. I had to watch them being led away to the gas chambers. -Several days later, when I was loading clothes on the freight cars, my -comrades found my wife’s documents and a photograph of my wife and -child. That is all I have left of my family, only a photograph. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons were brought -daily to the Treblinka Camp? - -RAJZMAN: Between July and December 1942 an average of 3 transports of 60 -cars each arrived every day. In 1943 the transports arrived more rarely. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons were -exterminated in the camp, on an average, daily? - -RAJZMAN: On an average, I believe they killed in Treblinka from ten to -twelve thousand persons daily. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In how many gas chambers did the killings take -place? - -RAJZMAN? At first there were only 3 gas chambers, but then they built 10 -more chambers. It was planned to increase this number to 25. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But how do you know that? Why do you say, -Witness, that they planned to increase the number of gas chambers to 25? - -RAJZMAN: Because all the building material had been brought and put in -the square. I asked, “Why? There are no more Jews.” They said, “After -you there will be others, and there is still a big job to do.” - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What was the other name of Treblinka? - -RAJZMAN: When Treblinka became very well known, they hung up a huge sign -with the inscription “Obermaidanek.” - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What do you mean by “very well known”? - -RAJZMAN: I mean that the persons who arrived in transports soon found -out that it was not a fashionable station, but that it was a place of -death. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, why was this make-believe -station built? - -RAJZMAN: It was done for the sole reason that the people on leaving the -trains should not be nervous, should undress calmly, and that there -should not be any incidents. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I understand you correctly, this criminal -device had only one purpose—a psychological purpose of reassuring the -doomed during the first moments. - -RAJZMAN: Yes, exclusively this psychological purpose. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask this witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other chief prosecutors wish to ask any -questions? - -[_There was no response._] - -Do the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions? - -[_There was no response._] - -Then the witness can retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to submit to the Tribunal a very -short excerpt from a document which is submitted as an appendix to the -Polish Government report. I mean an affidavit. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, have you got any more witnesses? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I still have a request to call one more -witness on the last count of my statement. In connection with the -presentation of evidence on this last count I would request the -Tribunal’s permission to summon as witness the Archdeacon of Leningrad -Churches and Rector of the Leningrad Seminary, the Permanent Dean of -Nikolai Bogoiavlensky Cathedral in Leningrad, Nikolai Lomakin. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and you will be able to include his evidence -today and conclude your statement; is that right? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I should like to read -another short excerpt from this report of the Polish examining -magistrate, which I have submitted to the Tribunal (Document Number -USSR-340). I shall read only that excerpt which demonstrates the scale -of the crimes. The number of victims murdered at the Treblinka Camp, -according to the Polish magistrate’s estimate, is about 781,000 persons. -At the same time he mentions that the witnesses interrogated by him -testified to the fact that when the clothes of the internees were sorted -out, they even found British passports and diplomas of Cambridge -University. This means that the victims of Treblinka came from every -European country. - -I should like further to quote, as proof of the existence of another -secret extermination center, the depositions of Wladislav Bengash, the -district examining magistrate in the city of Lodz, made before the Chief -Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. This -testimony is also an official appendix to the Polish Government report. -I should like to read two excerpts from this statement which would give -us an idea of the methods of extermination practiced in the village of -Helmno. The two paragraphs are on the back of Page 223 of the document -book: - - “In the village of Helmno there was an abandoned mansion - surrounded by an old park—the property of the state. Nearby - . . . there was a pine forest with a nursery and dense - undergrowth. At this point the Germans built an extermination - camp. The park was closed in by a high wooden fence, and one - could not see what was going on in the park nor in the house - itself. The inhabitants of the village of Helmno were all - evacuated.” - -I interrupt the quotation and pass on to Page 226 of the document book, -first paragraph. I quote: - - “The whole organization set up for the extermination of people - was so cunningly devised and carried out that right up to the - last moment the next transport of doomed persons could not guess - the fate of the group which had preceded them. The departure of - transports—consisting of 1,000 to 2,000 persons—from the - village of Sawadki to the extermination camp and the - extermination of the arrivals lasted until 2 o’clock. - - “The cars loaded with Jews arrived in the camp and stopped - before the mansion. A representative of the Sonderkommando made - a short speech to the new arrivals. He assured them that they - were going to work in the East. He promised them just treatment - by the authorities and adequate food and, at the same time, - instructed them to take a bath before leaving, while their - clothing was disinfected. From the courtyard the Jews were then - brought to a big warm room on the second floor of the mansion. - There they had to undress, and, clad in underclothes only, they - went downstairs, passed through a corridor with signs such as - ‘To the medical officer’ and ‘To the bath’ on the walls. The - arrow which showed the way ‘To the bath’ pointed toward the - exit. The Germans told the Jews who came out into the yard that - they would go to the bath in a closed car; and, true enough, a - large car was brought up to this door so that the Jews coming - out of the house found themselves on a ladder leading straight - inside the car. The loading of the Jews into the car lasted a - very short time. Police were on guard in the corridor and near - the car. With blows and shouts they forced the Jews to enter the - car, stunning them, so that they could not attempt any - resistance. When all the Jews were piled inside the car, the - doors were carefully locked, and the chauffeur switched on the - motor, so that those in the car were poisoned by the exhaust - gas.” - -I consider it unnecessary to quote that part of the report which -testifies that the car in question was the “murder van” already well -known to the Court. - -I will just quote one sentence from Page 10 of this document, Paragraph -3: - - “Thus, at least 340,000 men, women, and children, from newborn - babies to aged persons, were exterminated in Helmno.” - -I believe that I can end here that part of my statement which concerns -the secret exterminating centers. And now I pass on to the part of my -statement dealing with religious persecutions. - -In the Soviet Union as well as in the occupied countries of Eastern -Europe, the German fascist criminals brought shame upon themselves by -their mockery of the religious feelings and faith of the people, by -persecuting and murdering the priesthood of all religious creeds. In -proof of this I shall read a few excerpts from the pertinent reports of -the various governments. - -On Page 70 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 80 of the -document book, we find the description of the persecution of the Czech -Orthodox Church by the German fascist criminals. I quote only one -paragraph: - - “The hardest blow was directed against the Czech Orthodox - Church. The Orthodox parishes in Czechoslovakia were ordered by - the Berlin Ministry for Church Affairs to leave the jurisdiction - of Belgrade and Constantinople dioceses and to become - subordinate to the Berlin bishop. The Czech Bishop Gorazd was - executed together with two other priests of the Orthodox Church. - By a special order of the Protector Daluege, issued in September - 1942, the Orthodox Church of Serbian-Constantinople jurisdiction - was dissolved on Czech territory, its religious activity - forbidden, and its property confiscated.” - -On Page 69 of the same report, which corresponds to Page 79 of the -document book, in the last paragraph, there is a description of the -persecutions of the Czech National Church, which was persecuted by the -German fascists, according to the report, “Just because of its name, -because of its sympathy for the Hus movement, the democratic -constitution, and because of the role it played in founding the Czech -Republic.” The Czech national church in Slovakia was prohibited and its -property confiscated by the Germans in 1940. - -The Protestant church in Czechoslovakia was also persecuted. The excerpt -which I would like to read may be found on Page 80 of the document book, -Paragraph 2: - - “The Protestant churches were deprived of the freedom to preach - the Gospel. The German Secret State Police watched carefully to - see that the clergy observed the restrictions imposed on it. - Nazi censorship went so far as to prohibit the singing of hymns - which praised God for liberating the nation from the enemy. Some - passages from the Bible were not allowed to be read in public at - all. The Nazis strongly opposed the promulgation of certain - Christian doctrines, especially those which proclaimed the - equality of all men before God, the universal character of - Christ’s Church, the Hebraic origins of the Gospel, et cetera. - Any reference to Hus, Ziska, the Hussites, and their - achievements, as well as to Masaryk and his doctrines, were - strictly forbidden. Even religious text books were confiscated. - Church leaders were especially persecuted. Scores of ministers - were thrown into concentration camps, among them the general - secretary of the Christian Student Movement in Czechoslovakia. - One of the assistants of their president was executed.” - -On Page 68 of this report we find information as to the persecution of -the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. This excerpt is on Page 79 of the -document book, second paragraph. I quote a short excerpt: - - “In the territory annexed to Germany after the Munich Pact a - number of Czech priests were robbed of their property and - expelled. . . . Pilgrimages to national shrines were prohibited - in 1939. - - “At the outbreak of the war 437 Catholic priests were among the - thousands of Czech patriots arrested and sent to concentration - camps as hostages. Venerable church dignitaries were dragged to - concentration camps in Germany. It was a common thing to see on - the road near the concentration camps a priest, dressed in rags, - exhausted, pulling a cart, and behind him a youth in the SS - uniform, whip in hand.” - -The believers and clergy in Poland also suffered most ruthless -persecution. I quote short excerpts from the Polish Government report, -which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 10 of the document -book: - - “By January 1941 about 700 priests were killed; 3,000 were in - prisons or in concentration camps.” - -The persecution of the clergy began immediately after the capture of -Polish territory by the Germans, according to Page 42 of the Polish -report: - - “The day after the occupation of Warsaw the Germans arrested - some 330 priests. . . . In Kraków the closest collaborators of - Archbishop Sapieha were arrested and sent to Germany. The - Reverend Canon Czeplicki, 75 years of age, and his assistant - were executed in November 1939.” - -The report of the Polish Government quotes the following words of -Cardinal Hlond: - - “The clergy were persecuted very violently. Those who were - permitted to stay were subjected to humiliation, were paralyzed - in the exercise of their pastoral duties and were stripped of - parochial benefices and of all their rights. They were entirely - at the mercy of the Gestapo. . . . It is like the Apocalyptic - vision of the _Fides Depopulata_.” - -On the territory of the Soviet Union the persecution of religion and -clergy took the form of sacrilegious desecration of churches, -destruction of shrines connected with the patriotic feelings of the -Russian people, and the murder of priests. - -I beg the Tribunal to call the witness of the Soviet Prosecution, the -Archdean of the churches of the City of Leningrad, the Very Reverend -Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin. - -[_The witness Lomakin took the stand._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell me your name? - -THE VERY REVEREND NIKOLAI IVANOVITCH LOMAKIN (Witness): Nikolai -Ivanovitch Lomakin. - -THE PRESIDENT: Is it the practice for you to take an oath before giving -evidence or not? - -LOMAKIN: I am an Orthodox priest. - -THE PRESIDENT: Will you take the oath? - -LOMAKIN: I belong to the Orthodox Church, and when I entered the -priesthood in 1917 I took the oath to tell the truth all my life. This -oath I remember even to the present day. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You can sit, if you wish. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, are you the Archdean of -the Churches of the City of Leningrad? Does that mean that all the -churches in that city are subordinate to you? - -LOMAKIN: Yes, all the churches are directly subordinate to me. I am -obliged to visit them periodically to inspect their condition and the -life of the parish. I must then make my report to His Grace the -Metropolitan. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The churches of the Leningrad region were also -under your authority? - -LOMAKIN: They are not subordinated to me at the present time, but during -the siege of Leningrad by the Germans and the occupation of the -Leningrad region they were under my authority. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: After the liberation of the Leningrad region -from the German occupation, were you obliged to visit and inspect the -churches throughout the region on the request of the Patriarch? - -LOMAKIN: Not by request of the Patriarch, but by request of the -Metropolitan Alexei, who was then at the head of the Leningrad Eparchy. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak more slowly. - -LOMAKIN: Not by request of Patriarch Alexei—the Patriarch was then -Sergei—but by request of Metropolitan Alexei, who administered the -Eparchy and later became Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, where were you during -the siege of Leningrad? - -LOMAKIN: I was all the time in Leningrad. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I am not mistaken, you were decorated with -the medal “For the Defense of Leningrad”? - -LOMAKIN: Yes, on my birthday I was awarded this high government medal -for my participation in the heroic defense of Leningrad. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, at the beginning of the siege -of Leningrad, at which church did you officiate? - -LOMAKIN: At the beginning of the siege I was in charge of the -Georgievsky Cemetery—I was rector of the church of the cemetery of St. -Nicholas. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It was, therefore, a cemetery church? - -LOMAKIN: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Maybe you will be able to relate to the Tribunal -the observations you made during your office in this church? - -LOMAKIN: Yes, of course. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please. - -LOMAKIN: In 1941 and at the beginning of 1942 I was rector of the -cemetery church, and I witnessed certain tragic scenes which I should -like to relate in detail to the Tribunal. - -A few days after the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite -Germany I witnessed the rapid increase of masses for the dead. The dead -were mostly children, women, and old people—victims of the air raids on -the city by German planes—peaceful citizens of our town. Before the war -the number of dead varied from 30 to 50 persons a day, but during the -war this number rose quickly to several hundred a day. It was physically -impossible to bring the bodies inside the church. Long rows of boxes and -coffins with remnants of the victims stood outside the church; the -horribly mutilated bodies of Leningrad’s peaceful citizens—victims of -barbarous air raids of the German planes. - -Side by side with the increasing number of funeral masses for the -deceased, there grew up the practice of saying the so-called requiems in -absence. The faithful could not bring to the church the bodies of their -relatives or friends, as they lay buried under the ruins and the debris -of the houses destroyed by the Germans. The church was each day -surrounded by masses of coffins—100, 200 coffins—over which one priest -used to sing a funeral service. - -Forgive me—it is difficult for me to speak of all this, for as the -Tribunal already knows, I lived through the whole siege. I, myself, was -dying of hunger. I saw the terrible, uninterrupted air raids of the -German planes. I was hurt several times. - -In the winter of 1941-42 the situation of besieged Leningrad was -particularly terrible. The ceaseless air raids of the Luftwaffe, the -shelling of the city, the lack of light, of water, of transportation, of -sewerage in the city, and finally the terrible starvation—from all -this, the peaceful citizens of the town suffered privations unique in -the history of mankind. They were indeed heroes, who suffered for their -country, these innocent, peaceful citizens. - -Together with all that I have just told you, I could describe other -terrible scenes which I witnessed during the period when I was the -rector of this cemetery church. The cemetery was very often bombed by -German planes. Please imagine the scene when people who have found -eternal rest—their coffins, bodies, bones, skulls—all this is thrown -out on the ground. Tombstones and crosses lay scattered in disorder, and -people who had just suffered the loss of their kin, had to suffer once -more seeing the huge craters made by bombs sometimes on the very spot -where they had just buried their relatives or friends, had to suffer -once more, knowing that they had no peace. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, during the period of hunger, -in what proportion did the number of burial services at this cemetery -church increase? - -LOMAKIN: I have already said that as a result of the terrible conditions -imposed by the siege, as a result of the nonstop air raids, as a result -of the shelling of the city, the number of burial services reached an -incredible figure—up to several thousand a day. I would especially like -to relate to the Tribunal the facts which I observed on 7 February 1942. -A month earlier, quite exhausted by hunger and the long walk from my -house which I had to the church every day, I fell ill. Two of my -assistant priests replaced me. - -On 7 February, on the Parents’ Saturday before the beginning of Lent I -came for the first time since my illness to my church. A horrifying -picture was before my eyes. The church was surrounded by piles of -bodies, some of which even blocked the entrance. These piles numbered -from 30 to 100 bodies. They were not only at the church door, but also -around the church. I witnessed people, exhausted from starvation, who, -in their desire to bring the bodies of their relatives to the cemetery, -would fall down themselves and die on the spot beside the body. Such -scenes I witnessed quite frequently. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please answer the following -question: What damage was done to the Leningrad churches? - -LOMAKIN: Your Honors, as I have already reported to you, my duty as -Archdean of these churches was to observe from time to time the -condition of the churches in the city and to report in detail to the -metropolitan. The following were my personal observations and -impressions: - -The Church of the Resurrection on Griboiedov Canal, which is a very -remarkable artistic church, was very seriously damaged by shelling from -the German enemy. The domes were destroyed, the roofs pierced by shells, -numerous frescos were either partly damaged or entirely destroyed. The -Holy Trinity Cathedral in the Ismailovskaya Fortress, a memorial -ornamented by beautiful artistic friezes commemorating the heroic siege -of Izmailovskaya Fortress, was severely damaged by systematic shelling -and bombing by the Germans. The roof was broken in. All the sculpture -was broken; only a few fragments remained. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many churches were -destroyed and how many were severely damaged in Leningrad? - -LOMAKIN: The Church of the Serafimov Cemetery was almost completely -destroyed by artillery fire; this church was not only hit by shells, but -great damage was caused to it by air raids. The Luftwaffe caused great -damage to churches. I must first of all mention two churches which -suffered most from the Leningrad siege. To begin with, the Church of -Prince Vladimir, where, by the way, I have the honor of officiating at -the present time. In 1942 from February until the first of July, I was -rector of this church; and I should like to acquaint Your Honors with -the following very interesting but terrible incident which occurred on -Easter Eve of 1942. - -On Easter Saturday, at 5 p. m. Moscow time, the Luftwaffe carried out a -mass raid over the city. At 5:30 two bombs fell on the southwestern part -of the Church of Prince Vladimir. The faithful were at that moment -waiting to approach the picture of our Lord’s interment. There was an -enormous mass of faithful, who wished to fulfill their Christian duty. I -saw some 30 persons lying wounded in the portico and in different places -about the church. They lay helpless for some time, until we could give -them medical aid. - -It was a scene of utter confusion. People who had had no time to enter -the church tried to run away and hide in the air-raid ditches, while the -others who had entered scattered in terror against the walls of the -church, awaiting death. The concussion of the bombs was so heavy that -for some period of time there was a constant fall of shattered glass, -mortar, and pieces of stucco. When I came down from a room on the second -floor, I was quite astounded by the scene before me. People flocked -around me: - - “Little father, are you alive? Little father, how can we - understand this? How can we believe what was said about the - Germans—that they believe in God, that they love Christ, that - they will not harm those who believe in God? Where is their - faith then, if they can shoot about like this on Easter eve?” - -I must add that the air-raid lasted right through the night until Easter -morning; this night of love, this night of Christian joy, the -Resurrection Night, was turned by the Germans into a night of blood, a -night of destruction, and a night of suffering for innocent people. Two -or three days passed. In the Church of Prince Vladimir—it was obvious -to me, as rector—and in other churches and cemeteries the victims of -the Luftwaffe Easter raid appeared: women, children, and aged. . . - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, you also visited the Leningrad -region to verify the condition of the churches. Were you not a witness -to. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, if your examination is going on, I think -perhaps we’d better adjourn now for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, can you let the Tribunal know what your wishes -are about General Westhoff and Wielen? - -DR. NELTE: In reply to the suggestion by the Court, as to calling the -witnesses Westhoff and Wielen, I should like to make the following -statement after discussion with my colleagues: - -First, we abstain from calling both witnesses at this stage of the -proceedings provided that the Prosecution also abstains at present from -reading out Documents RF-1450 and USSR-413 at this stage of the Trial. -Second, I call General Westhoff as witness; and I gather, from the -Court’s suggestion, that this witness has been allowed. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. - -Mr. Roberts, could Sir David attend here in the course of a short time, -do you think? - -MR. ROBERTS: He is at the Chief Prosecutors’ meeting now, but I can get -him in a few moments if there is a question which I couldn’t answer on -his behalf. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think perhaps it will be best if he were here. It -is only a question, really, as to whether the document should be read. - -MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am told the meeting has just ended. I didn’t quite -get what Your Lordship said. - -THE PRESIDENT: I said that the question was whether the document is to -be read by the Prosecution. Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, was -suggesting that perhaps the Prosecution would forego their right to read -the document. - -MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, speaking for myself, I feel quite certain that so -far as the British Delegation is concerned we should not forego reading -that document. We do put it forward, or our Russian colleagues put it -forward, as a very cold-blooded murder of brave men; and we are most -anxious that the document should be read. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have not made it a condition that the -documents should not be submitted at all, but only at this stage of the -proceedings. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you see, the Prosecution want it read as part of -the Prosecution case. If it is postponed until your case begins, it will -not be read as part of the Prosecution case. - -DR. NELTE: I think that the Prosecution, when cross-examining the -witness, could present the documents they want to submit now. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, we can’t get Wielen over here tomorrow, and the -case of the Prosecution, we hope, will close tomorrow. - -DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President. - -THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, the document must be read tomorrow. We will -then get General Westhoff and Wielen over for you at any time that is -convenient to you. - -DR. NELTE: I think the Prosecution has reserved the right to adduce, at -any time during the proceedings, other charges and documents. This -follows from the Indictment. It therefore seems to me that the -Prosecution, without prejudice to its case, could postpone the -presentation of this charge until I have examined the witness. - -GENERAL RUDENKO: I should like to add something to what my colleague, -Mr. Roberts, has said. The point is that the document presented to the -Tribunal was put at our disposal by the British Delegation and was -submitted by us in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. This -document, being an irrefutable proof, can be read into the record or -not, in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal of 17 December -1945. - -If the Defense, as Sir David already stated this morning, intends to -oppose this document by summoning witnesses, it is their right. This is -what I wanted to add to Mr. Roberts’ statement. - -MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps Your Lordship would allow me to add one thing. The -Tribunal has ruled that this document is admissible, and it has been -admitted, as I understand; and therefore, I would submit that it ought -to be read as part of the Prosecution case, or perhaps it might be -equally convenient after the discussion on organizations. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, yes, I see that Sir David has just come into court. - -Sir David, I think the view the Tribunal take is that it is a matter for -the Prosecution to decide when they put in this document; and if they -wish to put it in now, or as Mr. Roberts suggested, after the argument -on organizations, they are at liberty to do so. Then these witnesses can -be called at a later stage when the defendants’ counsel wish them to be -called. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I entirely agree with what I am told -Mr. Roberts has put forward. We consider that this document ought to be -put in as part of the case for the Prosecution. If it will be of any -assistance to counsel for the defendants, I shall be glad to take up the -matter of the time that shall be fixed, after the organizations; but the -reading of the document certainly should be part of the Prosecution’s -case. - -THE PRESIDENT: The document may be read, then, at the end of the -Prosecution’s case. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. - -May I apologize to the Tribunal for being absent. There was other -business, connected with the Trial, in which I was engaged. - -THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. - -Then, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal would like you to let us know when you -wish those witnesses called, so that we can communicate with London in -order that the witness, Wielen, may be brought over here. - -DR. NELTE: As to when exactly during my presentation the witnesses -should appear I cannot say, for I cannot say when the stage for the -presentation of my witnesses will be reached. I think the Court is in a -better position to judge when it will be my turn for the presentation of -evidence. In the course of the examination of those witnesses who will -be granted to me, I shall also question this witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you see these witnesses not only affect your -client, but they affect the Defendant Göring and the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner; and therefore, what the Tribunal wish is that you, in -consultation with Dr. Stahmer and counsel for Kaltenbrunner, should let -the Tribunal know what would be the most appropriate time for those two -witnesses to be called, so that time may be given for summoning Wielen -here and letting the prison authorities know about Westhoff. - -DR. NELTE: We spoke about that and have agreed that the witnesses be -called during my presentation. - -I just understand from Sir David that we are all agreed that the -documents be presented after the case against the organizations. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue my questioning, Mr. President? - -THE PRESIDENT: Continue, yes. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have one last question to put to you, Witness. -Tell me, when you left the city to go into the country to inspect the -churches, did you sometimes witness instances of derision of religion -and desecration of churches? - -LOMAKIN: Yes, I did. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Would you be kind enough to relate this to the -Tribunal? - -LOMAKIN: In June 1943, by order of Metropolitan Alexei, I went to visit -the district of Old Peterhof and Oranienbaum. From personal observations -and from my conversations with the members of the church I learned the -following, which I know to be true, and which was all corroborated later -on when New Peterhof was freed from the German occupation. All that I -shall now relate may be verified by inspection. - -In Old Peterhof soon after the Germans occupied New Peterhof, exactly -within 10 days, all churches were destroyed by the enemy’s artillery -fire and aircraft. At the same time the Luftwaffe and German artillery -forces timed their raids so that not only would the churches be -demolished, but the peaceful worshipers who sought refuge there from the -fighting and the artillery fire would be killed as well. - -All the churches in Old Peterhof, namely the Znamenskaya Church, the -Holy Trinity Cemetery Church, and the small Church of Lazarus attached -to it, the church museum at the Villa of Empress Maria Feodorovna, the -Serafimovskij Church and the church of the military cemetery—all these -were destroyed by the Germans. I can state with certainty that under the -ruins of the Cemetery Church of the Holy Trinity and the Lazarus Church, -in their crypts, as well as in the cemetery tombs and vaults of the -Znamenskaya Church, up to 5,000 persons perished. - -The Germans wouldn’t let the survivors come outside. It is easy to -picture the sanitary conditions and the general state of the people -confined in those church crypts—air fouled by the breathing and -excrements of these unfortunate people, frightened to death. They -fainted, they grew dizzy, but their slightest attempt to leave the -church and come out into fresh air was punished by shots from the -inhuman fascists. - -Much time has already passed since that time, but I remember especially -well one instance which a close relative of the people about whom I am -now going to speak related to me. A little girl came out of the crypt of -Trinity Church for a breath of fresh air; she was immediately shot by a -German sniper. The mother followed in order to pick her up, but she also -fell down bleeding at the side of her child. The citizen Romashova, who -related this to me, is still alive, and I have seen her many times—she -recalls this incident with horror. And many were the incidents of that -kind. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, in the other districts of the -Leningrad region did you ever witness the desecration of shrines and -sacred objects? - -LOMAKIN: Yes, for example in Pskov. Pskov presented a horrible picture -of ruins and devastation. I feel that I must recall to Your Honors that -Pskov is a museum city, a shrine of the Orthodox faith, ornamented by -numerous churches, and situated on the Velikaya River and its -tributaries. - -In that city, there were no less then 60 churches of various sizes and -various denominations. Of these 39 were not only priceless monuments of -church architecture of high artistic value, with beautiful icons and -frescos, but also wonderful historical monuments, reflecting all the -greatness and century-old multiform history of the Russian people. The -Kremlin (walled city)—the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity. . . - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, what did the Germans do to those churches? - -LOMAKIN: That is just what I want to relate. The Kremlin—the whole Holy -Trinity Cathedral, with its remarkable altar screen, was plundered by -the German soldiers. Everything was carried out of it as well as out of -all the other churches in the city. You won’t find even a single tiny -icon left, not a single church vestment or sacramental vessel—all has -been taken away by the Germans. The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity—I -speak again of this Cathedral. I almost paid with my life for my visit -there. Just half an hour before my arrival a mine exploded right in -front of the altar gates. The gates were destroyed; the altar was -blood-spattered. Before my own eyes I saw three of our Soviet soldiers -who had perished in the explosion, right in front of the altar. - -Mines were also laid in other places. I could give another interesting -detail. Pskov was liberated in August 1944, but on Epiphany, in January -1946, another mine exploded, killing two persons. Likewise the church of -St. Vasili-on-the-Hill was also mined. There a mine was laid at the very -entrance to the church. In all the churches the abundance of all kinds -of refuse, dirt, bottles, cans, _et cetera_, was strikingly noticeable. -The Cathedral of St. John’s Monastery was turned by the Germans into a -stable. In another church, the Church of the Epiphany, they set up a -wine cellar. In a third church I saw a depot of fuel—coal, peat, _et -cetera_. But why speak of individual churches? Wherever we turn, our -hearts bleed at the spectacle of all the suffering, all the plunder, -brought about by people who shouted all over Europe about their culture, -who despised mankind, while some proclaimed their belief in God. What -kind of faith is theirs! - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more questions to ask -the witness. - -LOMAKIN: I should like to ask the Prosecutor’s permission to say a few -more words about what happened in Leningrad. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With regard to that, you must ask the Tribunal. - -LOMAKIN: I am slightly diverging from the usual order. I beg your -permission, Your Honors. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -LOMAKIN: The Church of Nikolai Bogoiavlensky is the Cathedral of -Leningrad. The present Patriarch Alexei lived at this church during the -siege. Since I served there from July 1942 to the end of the war, I -witnessed on numerous occasions artillery fire directed at the -cathedral. One wonders what kind of military objectives those heroic -warriors could seek in our holy church! On high feast days or ordinary -Sundays immediately the artillery would begin fire. And what a fire! In -the first week of Lent in 1943, from the early morning and until late at -night, neither we, the clergy, nor the worshipers praying in the church -could possibly leave it. Outside was death and destruction. With my own -eyes I saw some fifty persons—I don’t know exactly how many—members of -my congregation, killed right near the church. They tried to leave in -haste before the “all clear” signal, and death met them near the church. -In this sacred cathedral I had to bury thousands of peaceful citizens -torn to pieces, victims of the predatory raids of the air force and -artillery. An ocean of tears was shed here during the memorial services. -During one of the bombardments His Grace, our Metropolitan Alexei, -escaped death by a hair’s breadth, as several shell fragments smashed -his cell. - -I should just like to add, not wishing to take up too much of your time, -that it is a remarkable thing that most of the intensive artillery fire -on Leningrad always took place on feast days; the houses of God, tramway -stops, and hospitals were put under fire, and destroyed with all means. -The homes of peaceful citizens were bombed. - -It would take too long, Your Honors, to relate everything which I have -seen during these grim war days of blood and sorrow of the -Leningradians. But I just want to say in conclusion that the Russian -people and the people of Leningrad have fulfilled their duty to their -fatherland to the very end. In spite of the heavy artillery fire and -raids of the Luftwaffe there was organized efficiency and order, and the -Orthodox Church shared this suffering. By prayer and preaching of God’s -word, she brought consolation and gave courage to the hearts of the -faithful. She has laid an unsparing sacrifice on the altar of the -fatherland. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no more questions to ask the witness, Mr. -President. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other members of the Prosecution wish to -ask any question? - -[_Each indicated that he had no question._] - -Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions? - -[_Each indicated that he had no question._] - -Then the witness can retire. - -[_The witness left the stand._] - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words by way of concluding my -report? - -THE PRESIDENT: You may, certainly. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, in his note of 6 January 1942 the -People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. declared that the -Soviet Government considered it their duty to inform the “entire -civilized world and all honest people throughout the world” of the -monstrous crimes committed by the Hitlerite bandits. - -In the battles of this war, the greatest ever fought by men, millions of -honest people achieved victory over fascist Germany. The will of -millions of honest people created this International Tribunal for the -purpose of judging the main criminals of war. Behind him each -representative of the Prosecution feels the invisible support of these -millions of honest people, in whose name he accuses the leaders of the -fascist conspiracy. - -The honor of concluding the presentation of the evidence submitted by -the Soviet Prosecution has fallen to my lot. I know that at this very -moment millions of citizens of my country and with them millions of -honest persons throughout the world await a just and speedy verdict. -Your Honors, may I conclude with this. - -MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, I have a few matters that will -take just a very few minutes, with respect to the record. - -In the course of the presentation of the 23rd day of November 1945, -pertaining to the economic aspects of the conspiracy, certain documents -were read from; but they were not formally offered in evidence. At the -time, the Tribunal indicated that sufficient time had not been allowed -Counsel for the Defense to make an examination of these documents, and -we did not offer them and said instead that we would make them available -in the defendants’ Information Center. We did so, and they have been -there all of the time since. They should be offered formally and, as the -extracts were read, there is no necessity for going through that again. -They are as follows: - -The first one referred to in the record was one bearing the Document -Number EC-14, which we offer as Exhibit USA-758. Extracts from this -document were quoted on Page 297 of the record (Volume II, Page 233). - -The next one is Document Number EC-27, which we offer as Exhibit Number -USA-759. Extracts from this document were quoted on Pages 279 and 280 of -the record (Volume II, Page 221). - -The third one is Document Number EC-28, which we offer as Exhibit Number -USA-760. Extracts from this document were quoted on Page 275 of the -record (Volume II, Pages 218, 219). On that page the document was -erroneously referred to as USA Exhibit 23, but the correct number is -Exhibit Number USA-760. - -Document Number EC-174 was quoted from on pages 303 and 304 of the -record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer that as Exhibit Number USA-761. - -Document Number EC-252—extracts from it were quoted on Page 303 of the -record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer it as Exhibit Number USA-762. - -Document Number EC-257—extracts from this document were quoted on Page -303 of the record (Volume II, Page 237). We offer it as Exhibit Number -USA-763. - -Document Number EC-404—we summarized and quoted from this document on -Pages 291 and 292 of the record (Volume II, Page 229). We now offer it -as Exhibit Number USA-764. - -Document Number D-157 was read from, on Page 288 of the record (Volume -II, Page 227), and we now offer it as Exhibit Number USA-765. - -Document Number D-167 was summarized and extracts were quoted from it on -Page 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), and we offer it as Exhibit -Number USA-766. - -Document Number D-203—extracts from it were quoted on Pages 283 to 286 -of the record (Volume II, Pages 224-226), and we offer it as Exhibit -Number USA-767. - -Document Number D-204, which was quoted from on Pages 286 and 287 of the -record (Volume II, Pages 226-227), is offered as Exhibit Number USA-768. - -Document Number D-206—extracts from this paper were quoted on Pages 297 -and 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), and it is offered as -Exhibit Number USA-769. - -Document Number D-317—extracts were quoted from it on Pages 289 and 290 -of the record (Volume II, Page 227), and we offer it as Exhibit Number -USA-770. - -Now in addition to these documents, Lieutenant Bryson, who presented the -case for the Prosecution against the individual Defendant Schacht, -offered in evidence Documents EC-437 and 258 in their entirety, on the -condition that the French and Russian translations subsequently be filed -with the Tribunal. Now, EC-437 was assigned as Exhibit Number USA-624 -and EC-258 was assigned as Exhibit Number USA-625, and the Tribunal -ruled on Page 2543 of the record (Volume V, Page 129) that the documents -would be received in their entirety only after the translations had been -completed. Copies of these documents in all four languages have been -filed with the Tribunal and in the defendants’ Information Center, and -that was done a few weeks ago and in accordance therefore with the -ruling of the Tribunal. We now offer these documents in evidence in -their entirety, and we assume that they will retain the numbers Exhibit -Number USA-624 and Exhibit Number USA-625. - -Also in the trial brief on the individual responsibility of the -Defendant Schacht, which was recently submitted to the Tribunal and to -the defendants’ counsel, reference is made to a few documents which have -not already, or heretofore, been offered in evidence. I think there is -no necessity for taking the time of the Tribunal to read from these -documents, and instead we have had pertinent extracts made available in -German, French, Russian, and English; copies in all the four languages -have already been distributed to the Tribunal and placed in the -defendants’ Information Center. They are these documents, and we ask -that they be received in evidence: - -They are: Document Number EC-384, which we offer as Exhibit Number -USA-771; Document Number EC-406, offered as Exhibit Number USA-772; -Document Number EC-456, offered as Exhibit Number USA-773; Document -Number EC-495, offered as Exhibit Number USA-774; Document Number -EC-497, offered as Exhibit Number USA-775; and in addition an -interrogation of the Defendant Schacht, dated 11 July 1945, which is one -of those referred to in the trial brief as Exhibit Number USA-776; and, -finally, with respect to this economic aspect of this person, we -respectfully ask that the secret minutes of the meeting of the -ministers, dated 30 May 1936, which are included in the set of -documents, Number 1301-PS, and assigned Exhibit Number USA-123, be -received in evidence in their entirety. These minutes have been made -available to the Tribunal and the defendants’ counsel in all four -languages. - -I also wish to refer to Document Number 1639-PS, which we offer as. . . - -DR. KRAUS: The Prosecution has just made the motion to accept in -supplementary evidence a number of documents concerning the Defendant -Schacht. These documents are contained in a supplementary volume which -we received after the special case against the Defendant Schacht had -been finished, even a considerable time afterwards. - -I do not intend to protest against this procedure; but in my opinion -this procedure, if admitted by the Court, has some consequences for -Defense Counsel. If this procedure is approved, we ought also to be -permitted to offer evidential material on behalf of our clients after -this case has been concluded and until the end of the entire -presentation of evidence, if we feel that such evidential material, that -is, mainly documents, should still be submitted on behalf of our -clients. - -It is necessary that we should be in a position also to present -witnesses later on, and I should like to ask the Tribunal for -clarification of this. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal thinks that the Prosecution -are entitled to apply, as they have applied, to have these documents -admitted in evidence and, similarly, that the defendants will be -entitled to apply to have any evidence which they wish offered in -evidence even after the individual defendants’ case has come to an end. - -DR. KRAUS: Thank you, Sir. - -MR. DODD: Now I wish to refer to the document bearing our Number -1639-PS, which we wish to offer as Exhibit Number USA-777. For the -benefit of the Tribunal, this document is entitled _Mobilization Book -for the Civil Administrations_ and is the 1939 edition. It was published -in February—or put out in February 1939, over the signature of the -Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW. It is classified “top secret” and -was distributed in 125 copies to the highest Reich Ministries, as well -as to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. - -In its original German the document runs to some 150 pages. We have had -translated into English, Russian, and French Pages 2 to 18, which give -the essential text of the document. It appears from statements in the -document itself that the _Mobilization Book_ had previously been issued -and was revised annually. This particular book which we introduce, or -offer to introduce, was effective the 1st day of April 1939 and thus was -the operative basis, we say, for the mobilization calendar at the time -the Nazis launched their aggression against Poland. However, we wish to -relate it back primarily to that part of the record dealing with the -Nazi plans and preparations for aggression, because the _Mobilization -Book_, or such a _Mobilization Book_, had been in effect for years prior -to 1939. - -Secondly, we say it fits in with the secret Nazi Defense Laws of 1935 -and 1938, which are contained in Documents 2261-PS and 2194-PS, -introduced before the Tribunal as Exhibits USA-24 and 36 respectively. - -Thirdly, it is another clear indication, we submit, of the Nazi plans -and preparations for aggressive war. That portion of the Prosecution’s -case dealing with Nazi preparations for aggression was presented by Mr. -Alderman of the American prosecution staff at the morning and afternoon -sessions of the Tribunal on 27 November 1945 and may be found at Pages -399 to 464 of the record (Volume II, Pages 303-347). - -Inasmuch as this document has been translated into all four languages, -we assume that it is not necessary to read it into the record; but we do -wish to quote, however, directly two extracts—rather, we will withdraw -that. They are included in the translation and I see no necessity for -reading it into the translation system. - -This document was also, I might say, referred to by the Chief Prosecutor -for the United States in his opening address, and it is the only -document therein referred to which has not been offered formally to the -Tribunal in evidence. - -Thirdly, I should like to take up one other matter. I wish to move to -strike out one piece of evidence offered by an American member of the -Prosecution. - -[_Mr. Dodd then quoted the evidence in question._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Has the Defendant Rosenberg’s counsel any objection to -this being struck out of the record? - -DR. THOMA: I have no objection, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then it will be struck out. - -MR. DODD: I have only one last matter, which I am sure I can conclude -before the usual recess time. - -In the course of the presentation of the individual case against the -Defendant Ribbentrop, our distinguished colleague Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe, the Deputy Chief British Prosecutor, introduced Document -Number 3358-PS as Exhibit GB-158. This was on the 9th day of January -1946 and may be found at Page 2380 of the record (Volume V, Page 17). - -This document is a German Foreign Office circular dated the 25th day of -January 1939, and it is on the subject of the “Jewish Question as a -Factor in German Foreign Policy in the Year 1938.” Sir David read -portions of this document into the record, including the first sentence -of the full paragraph appearing on Page 3 of the English translation of -the document. - -I have discussed the matter with Sir David, and he has very graciously -agreed that we might ask the permission of the Tribunal to add two more -sentences to the quotation which he read, because we feel, and Sir David -feels with us, that the additional two sentences which follow -immediately the sentence which he read add something to the proof with -reference to the persecution of the Jews as related to Crimes against -Peace. It is desired, therefore, by the Prosecution that the entire -paragraph on Page 3 of the English translation of this document be -considered as in evidence by the Tribunal, and in accordance with the -ruling of the Tribunal generally made as to other such situations we -submit now an English, German, French, and Russian translation of that -entire paragraph to obviate the necessity for reading it; and the -original, of course, is in the German language. - -It is a very brief paragraph, but I don’t think that the Tribunal would -care to have me read it, even to take a minute or two. It is in the -record. There are only two additional sentences. It does not wrench -anything from the text; in our opinion, it only adds a little to the -proof. If you would like to have it read, I can do so. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we would. - -MR. DODD: The sentence read by Sir David reads as follows: - - “It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 - brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question - simultaneously with the realization of the ‘idea of Greater - Germany,’ since the Jewish policy was both the basis and - consequence of the events of the year 1938.” - -That is the end of the sentence, and that is what was quoted by Sir -David on the 9th day of January, at Page 2380 (Volume V, Page 17). We -wish to add the following, beginning right after that sentence: - - “The advance made by Jewish influence and the destructive Jewish - spirit in politics, economy, and culture paralyzed the strength - and the will of the German people to rise again, perhaps even - more than the political antagonism of the former Allied enemy - powers of the World War.” - -And this second sentence which follows immediately, as well: - - “The curing of this malady of the people was therefore certainly - one of the most important prerequisites for exerting the force - which, in the year 1938, resulted in the consolidation of the - Great German Reich against the will of the world.” - -We felt that that would add something to our proof with respect to this -persecution of the Jews. Those are the only matters I have to bring up -with reference to the record. - -THE PRESIDENT: Some time ago I wrote to Mr. Justice Jackson on behalf of -the Tribunal, asking whether a list of the persons who formed the German -Staff could be submitted to the Tribunal. Has that been done? - -MR. DODD: I am familiar with that communication. I recall Mr. Justice -Jackson’s showing it to me. If it has not, it shall be directly. It may -have been overlooked. - -THE PRESIDENT: I had a letter back from Mr. Justice Jackson saying that -it should be done. - -MR. DODD: Yes, I recall it. - -THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal will be glad for you to verify that it -has been done. - -MR. DODD: I am afraid I must say that if it hasn’t been done, it is -probably my fault. I recall the Justice’s handing it to me, and I think -I passed it to Colonel Taylor’s organization, but I will check up on it -directly and see that it is delivered. - -THE PRESIDENT: It will be an appropriate time for it to be done, I -should think, during the course of the argument on the organizations, if -it hasn’t been done. - -MR. DODD: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and an affidavit accompanying it, showing how it has -been made up. - -MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor. - -Lieutenant Margolies tells me that he thinks it has been sent in 2 days -ago, but he is not certain. - -THE PRESIDENT: He thinks it has been done? - -MR. DODD: He thinks so, but we will look into it. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. - -Then tomorrow morning at 10, Counsel for the Prosecution will be ready, -will they, to argue the case of the organizations which they have asked -the Tribunal to be declared criminal under Article 9 of the Charter? - -MR. DODD: The Prosecution is prepared to be heard tomorrow morning at 10 -o’clock on that. - -THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the various organizations are prepared to -argue against that? So that is understood that at 10 o’clock tomorrow -the Tribunal will sit for that purpose and will continue until the -argument is concluded. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Counsel for the organizations are prepared, according -to the Tribunal’s suggestion, to join in the discussion of the new -argument to be put forward by the Prosecution tomorrow. The Prosecution -has helped us by making available to us a copy of the factual points -which so far had not been submitted as a basis of the Indictment. - -According to the Tribunal’s suggestion not only these factual points -would be discussed tomorrow but also new legal questions which have -arisen recently, inasmuch as they have bearing on the scope and -relevancy of the evidence. The Defense Counsel for the organizations -would be obliged if the Prosecution would beforehand make available to -us the speech they are going to give on legal questions tomorrow so that -we are in the position to answer immediately. - -THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know, but we haven’t had any copy of any written -argument presented to us. I don’t know whether Counsel for the -Prosecution would say whether they have any written argument? - -MR. DODD: Well, Sir David can speak much better for himself. What I was -going to say is what I said previously, that I am informed that he has -already presented his outline both to the Tribunal and to counsel. - -Mr. Justice Jackson is still working on his remarks, and while he did -hope to submit a draft, late communications received only this morning -from interested persons in the War Department have made it necessary for -him to work right up to now, and therefore we think that the practical -difficulty results in not having a prepared statement to submit. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have prepared two -appendices which endeavor to cover the first two points in the -Tribunal’s statement of January, the elements of criminality and the -connected defendants mentioned in Article 9 of the Charter. I arranged -that copies in German should be given to all the Defense Counsel. I hope -everyone has got a copy. I have also arranged that copies be submitted -to the Tribunal. - -I have added to that an addendum showing the references to the -transcript, and in some cases to the documents, on each of the points, -and I am afraid that is in English; but it is reference to paragraphs, -so it shouldn’t be difficult for the Defense Counsel to fit it into -their document. - -I am afraid that it would be impossible to give a copy of the Justice’s -speech and mine. What I intended to add was largely on the facts which I -have endeavored to put before the Defense Counsel already, but if the -Defense Counsel for the organizations would care to hear informally what -is the sort of general line, I should be very pleased to tell them, if -it would be any help. I want to help in every way I can. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. We will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 28 February 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTIETH DAY - Thursday, 28 February 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -DR. HORN: Mr. President, on Monday, when I wished to give my reasons for -the application to call Winston Churchill as witness, the Tribunal asked -me to submit this in writing so that the Tribunal could make a decision. - -The decision that Winston Churchill should not be called as witness was, -however, made already on the 26th of February, before the Tribunal -received my written application. I assume a mistake has been made, and I -ask the Tribunal to reconsider the question in the light of the reasons -set out in my written application. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reconsider the matter. - -Mr. Justice Jackson. Did you propose, Mr. Justice Jackson, to argue -first on the question of the organizations? - -JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief Counsel for the United States): If that -is agreeable to the Tribunal, that’s definitely our . . . - -We are taking up, as I understand it, the deferred subject of the rules -which should guide in determining the criminality of organizations, -partly upon our initiative and partly an response to the questions -propounded by the Tribunal. - -The unconditional surrender of Germany created for the victors novel and -difficult problems of law and administration. Being the first such -surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, precedents and -past experiences are of little help in guiding our policy toward the -vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding and accepting -capitulation of a whole people certainly must include a duty to -discriminate justly and intelligently between the opposing elements of -that population, which bore dissimilar relations to the policies and -conduct which led to the catastrophe. This differentiation is the -objective of those provisions of the Charter which authorize this -Tribunal to declare organizations or groups to be criminal. -Understanding of the problem with which the instrument attempts to deal -is essential to its interpretation and application. - -One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time of the -surrender was that the state itself played only a subordinate role in -the exercise of political power, while the really drastic controls over -German society were organized outside of the nominal government. This -was accomplished through an elaborate network of closely knit and -exclusive organizations of selected volunteers, both bound to execute -without delay and without question the commands of the Nazi leaders. - -These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The country was -subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about 50 households each, -and every such community had its recognized Party leaders, Party police, -and its undercover, planted spies. These were combined into larger units -with higher ranking leaders, executioners, and spies, the whole forming -a pyramid of power outside of the law, with the Führer at its apex, the -local Party officials constituting its broad base, which rested heavily -on the German population. - -The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of these individual -defendants alone. A thousand little Führers dictated; a thousand -imitation Görings strutted; a thousand Schirachs incited the youth; a -thousand Sauckels worked slaves; a thousand Streichers and Rosenbergs -stirred up hate; a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks tortured and -killed; a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks administered and -supported and financed this movement. - -The Nazi movement was an integrated force in every city and county and -hamlet. The party power resulting from this system of organizations -first rivaled and then dominated the power of the state itself. The -primary vice of this web of organizations was that they were used to -transfer the power of coercing men from the government and the law to -the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, and security of person and -property do not exist except where the power of coercion is possessed -only by the state and is exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis, -however, set up this private system of coercion outside of and immune -from the law, with Party-controlled concentration camps and firing -squads to administer privately decreed sanctions. - -Without responsibility to law and without warrant from any court, they -were enabled to seize property and take away liberty and even take life -itself. These organizations had a calculated part—and a decisive -part—in the barbaric extremes of the Nazi movement. They served -primarily to exploit mob psychology and to manipulate the mob. -Multiplying the number of persons in a common enterprise always tends to -diminish the individual’s sense of moral responsibility and to increase -his sense of security. The Nazi leaders were masters of that technique. -They manipulated these organizations to make before the German populace -impressive exhibitions of numbers and of power, which have already been -shown on the screen. They were used to incite a mob spirit and then -riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and the -Germanic ambition they had inflated. - -These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and terrorism. -They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined execution -throughout Germany and the occupied countries of the plan for crimes -which we have proven. The flowering of this system is represented in the -fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who told this Tribunal without shame or -trace of pity how he personally directed the putting to death of 90,000 -men, women, and children. No tribunal ever listened to a recital of such -wholesale murder as this Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a -fellow officer of the SS. Their own testimony shows the SS -responsibility for the extermination program which took the lives of 5 -million Jews—a responsibility that that organization welcomed and -discharged methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes -with which we deal are unprecedented, first because of the shocking -number of victims. They are even more shocking and unprecedented because -of the large number of people who united their efforts to perpetrate -them. All scruple or conscience of a very large segment of the German -people was committed to the keeping of these organizations, and their -devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as they went from one extreme -to another. On the other hand, they developed a contest in cruelty and a -competition in crime. Ohlendorf, from the witness stand, accused other -SS commanders whose killings exceeded his of “exaggerating” their -figures. - -There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy of -Germany which imposed upon passive, unorganized, and inarticulate -Germans the same burdens as upon those who voluntarily banded themselves -together in these powerful and notorious gangs. One of the basic -requirements both of justice and of successful administration of the -occupation responsibility of our four countries is a segregation of the -organized elements from the masses of Germans for separate treatment. -That is the fundamental task with which we must deal here. It seems -beyond controversy that to punish a few top leaders but to leave this -web of organized bodies in the midst of postwar society would be to -foster the nucleus of a new Nazidom. These members are accustomed to an -established chain of centralized command. They have formed a habit and -developed a technique of both secret and open co-operation. They still -nourish a blind devotion to the suspended, but not abandoned, Nazi -program. They will keep alive the hates and ambitions which generated -the orgy of crime we have proven. These organizations are the carriers -from this generation to the next of the infection of aggressive and -ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen how easily an -assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor force can in fact be a -military outfit training with shovels. The next war and the next pogroms -will be hatched in the nests of these organizations as surely as we -leave their membership with its prestige and influence undiminished by -condemnation and punishment. - -The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when we -consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be years -before there can be established in the German State any political -authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It cannot quickly -acquire the stability of a government aided by long habit of obedience -and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, and possible -overthrow which older and established governments always fear from -conspiratorial groups is a real and present danger to any stable social -order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow. - -Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of -retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized -instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case I said -that the United States does not seek to convict the whole German people -of crime. But it is equally important that this Trial shall not serve to -absolve the whole German people except 21 men in the dock. The wrongs -that have been done to the world by these defendants and their top -confederates were not done by their will and their strength alone. The -success of their designs was made possible because great numbers of -Germans organized themselves to become the fulcrum and the lever by -which the power of these leaders was extended and magnified. If this -Trial fails to condemn these organized confederates for their share of -the responsibility for this catastrophe, it will be construed as their -exoneration. - -But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. It -manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and preventive -considerations. - -The primary objective of requiring that the surrender of Germany be -unconditional was to clear the way for a reconstruction of German -society on such a basis that it will not again threaten the peace of -Europe and of the world. Temporary measures of the occupation -authorities may by necessity, and I mean no criticism of them, have been -more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination than befits a -permanent policy. For example, under existing denazification policy, no -member of the Nazi Party or its formations may be employed, in any -position—other than ordinary labor—in any business enterprise, unless -he is found to have been only a nominal Nazi. Persons in certain -categories whose standing in the community is one of prominence or -influence are required to be, and others may be, denied further -participation in their businesses or professions. It is mandatory to -remove or exclude from public office and from positions of importance in -quasi-public and private enterprises persons falling within about 90 -specified categories, deemed to consist of either active Nazis, Nazi -supporters, or militarists. Property of such persons is blocked. - -Now, it is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the framers -of this Charter, that a permanent long-term program should be based on a -more careful and more individual discrimination than was possible with -sweeping temporary measures. There is a movement now within the Control -Council for reconsideration of its whole denazification policy and -procedure. The action of this Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to -declare, an accused organization criminal has a vital bearing on this -future occupation policy. - -It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes of -this Tribunal and its judgment to identify and condemn those Nazi and -militaristic forces that were so strongly organized as to constitute a -continuing menace to the long-term objectives for which our respective -countries have spent their young lives. It is in the light of this great -purpose that we must examine the provisions of this Charter. - -It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could not, -without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system of -jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for handling a -great number of common charges against a great multitude of accused -persons. The number of individual defendants that fairly can be tried in -a single proceeding probably does not greatly exceed the number now in -your dock. Also, the number of separate trials in which the same -voluminous evidence as to a common plan must be repeated is very limited -in actual practice. Yet, adversary proceedings of the type in which we -are engaged are the best assurance the law has ever evolved that -decisions will be well-considered and just. The task of the framers of -the Charter was to find some way to overcome the obstacles to -practicable and early decision without sacrificing the fairness implicit -in hearings. The solution prescribed by the Charter is certainly not -faultless, but not one of its critics has ever proposed an alternative -that would not either deprive the individual of all hearing or -contemplate such a multitude of long trials that it would break down and -be impracticable. In any case, this Charter is the plan adopted by our -respective governments and our duty here is to make it work. - -The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a severance of -the general issues which would be common to all individual trials from -the particular issues which would differ in each trial. The plan is -comparable to that employed in certain wartime legislation of the United -States, dealt with in the case of _Yakus versus United States_, in which -questions as to the due process quality of the order must be determined -in a separate tribunal and cannot be raised by a defendant when he is -defending on indictment. Those countries which do not have written -constitutions and constitutional issues may find it difficult to follow -the logic of that decision, but essentially the plan was to separate -general issues relative to the order as a whole from specific issues -which would arise when an individual was confronted with a charge of -guilt. - -The general issues under this Charter are to be determined with finality -in one trial before the International Tribunal, and in that trial every -accused organization must be defended by counsel and must be represented -by at least one leading member, and other individuals may apply to be -heard. Their applications may be granted if the Tribunal thinks justice -requires it. The only issue in this trial concerns the collective -criminality of the organization or group. It is to be adjudicated by -what amounts to a declaratory judgment. It does not decree any -punishment either against the organization or against individual -members. - -The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration -that an organization is criminal is contained in Article 10, which, if -you will bear with me, I will read: - - “In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by - the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory - shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for - membership therein before national, military, or occupation - courts. - - “In any such case the criminal nature of the group or - organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.” - -Unquestionably, it would have been competent for the Charter to have -declared flatly that membership in any of these named organizations is -criminal and should be punished accordingly. If there had been such an -enactment, it would not have been open to an individual, who was being -tried for membership, to contend that the organization was not in fact, -criminal. But the framers of the Charter, acting last summer at a time -before the evidence which has been adduced here was even available to -us, did not care to find organizations criminal by fiat. They left that -issue to determination after relevant facts were developed by adversary -proceedings. Plainly, the individual is better off because of the -procedure of the Charter, which leaves that finding of criminality to -this body after hearings at which the organization must, and the -individual may, be represented. It is at least the best assurance that -we could devise, that no mistake would be made in dealing with these -organizations. - -Under the Charter, the groups and organizations named in the Indictment -are not on trial in the conventional sense of that term. They are more -nearly under investigation as they might be before a grand jury in -Anglo-American practice. Article 9 recognizes a distinction between the -declaration of a group or organization as criminal and “the trial of any -individual member thereof.” The power of the Tribunal to try is confined -to “persons,” and the Charter does not expand that term by definition, -as statutes sometimes do, to include other than natural persons. The -groups or organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities -served with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any -sentence upon them as entities. For example, it may not levy a fine upon -them even though they have property of the organization, nor convict any -person because of membership. - -It is also to be observed that the Charter does not require subsequent -proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the competent national -authorities shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for -membership therein. - -The Charter is silent as to the form that these subsequent trials should -take. It was not deemed wise, on the information then available, that -the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. Nor was it necessary -to do so. There is a continuing legislative authority, representing all -four signatory nations, competent to take over where the Charter leaves -off. Legislative supplementation of the Charter, of course, would be -necessary in any event to confer jurisdiction on local courts, to define -their procedures, and to prescribe different penalties for different -forms of activity. - -Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence as to -future proceedings means that great numbers of members will be rounded -up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration that an -organization is criminal. It also has been suggested that this is, or -may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control Council Act -Number 10, which defines as a crime “membership in categories of a -criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International -Military Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishment without a right of -hearing cannot be spelled out of this Charter and would be offensive to -both its letter and its spirit. And I do not find in Control Council Act -Number 10 any inconsistency with the Charter. Of course, to reach all -individual members would require numerous hearings, but they will -involve only narrow issues. Many persons will have no answers to charges -if they are carefully prepared; and the proceedings should be -expeditious, nontechnical, and held in the locality where the person -accused resides, and, incidentally, may be conducted in two languages at -most. - -And I think it is clear that before any person is punishable for -membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a hearing on -the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize the national -authorities to punish membership without hearing—it gives them only the -right to “bring individuals to trial.” That means what it says. A trial -means there is something to try. - -The Charter denies only one of the possible defenses of an accused; he -may not relitigate the question in a subsequent trial whether the -organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes him from -denying that his participation was voluntary and proving that he acted -under duress; he may prove that he was deceived or tricked into -membership; he may show that he had withdrawn or he may prove that his -name on the rolls is a case of mistaken identity. - -The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act make -criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving the volition -of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization must have -been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion or illegal duress, -actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim has never been thought to -be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust result is not to be implied -now. The extent of the member’s knowledge of the criminal character of -the organization is, however, another matter. He may not have known on -the day he joined but may have remained a member after learning the -facts. And he is chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of -which he was reasonably put on notice. - -There are safeguards to assure that this program will be carried out in -good faith. Prosecution under this declaration is discretionary. If -there were purpose on the part of the Allied Powers to punish these -persons without trial, it would have been already done before this -Tribunal was set up, and without waiting for its declaration. We think -that the Tribunal will presume that the signatory powers which have -voluntarily submitted to this process will carry it out faithfully. - -The Control Council Act applies only to categories of membership -declared criminal. This language on the part of the Control Council -recognizes a power in this Tribunal to limit the effect of its -declaration. I do not think, for reasons which I will later state, that -this should be construed or availed of to try any issue here as to -subgroups or sections or individuals which can be tried in later -proceedings. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not the sort of -limitation which must be defined by evidence of details, but limitations -of principle such as those I have already outlined, such as duress, -involuntary membership, or matters of that kind, which the Tribunal can -recognize and deal with without taking detailed evidence. It does not -require this Tribunal to delve into evidence to condition its judgment -to apply only to intentional and voluntary membership. This does not -supplant later trials by the declaration of this Tribunal but guides -them. - -It certainly cannot be said that such a plan—such as we have here for -severance of the general issues common to many cases from the particular -issues applicable only to individual defendants for litigation in -separate tribunals specially adapted for the different kinds of -issues—is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it presents -unusual procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents any -insurmountable ones. I will discuss the question of the criteria and the -principles and the precedents for declaring collective criminality -before coming to the procedural questions involved. The substantive law -which governs the inquiry into criminality of organizations is, in its -large outline, old and well settled and fairly uniform in all systems of -law. It is true that we are dealing here with a procedure which would be -easy to abuse and one that is often feared as an interference with -liberty of assembly or as an imposition of guilt by association. It also -is true that proceedings against organizations are closely akin to the -conspiracy charge, which is the great dragnet of the law and rightly -watched by courts lest it be abused. - -The fact is, however, that every form of government has considered it -necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not even the most -tolerant of governments can permit an accumulation of private power in -organizations to a point where it rivals, obstructs, or dominates the -government itself. To do so would be to grant designing men a liberty to -destroy liberty. The very complacency and tolerance, as well as the -impotence, of the Weimar Republic towards the growing organization of -Nazi power spelled the death of German freedom. - -Protection of the citizen’s liberty has required even free governments -to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power which threaten -to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every one of the nations -signatory to this Charter has laws making certain types of organizations -criminal. The Ku Klux Klan in the United States flourished at about the -same time as the Nazi movement in Germany. It appealed to the same -hates, practiced the same extra-legal coercions, and likewise terrorized -by the same sort of weird nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it -was composed of a core of fanatics, but it enlisted the support of -respectabilities who knew it was wrong but thought it was winning. It -eventually provoked a variety of legislative acts directed against such -organizations as organizations. - -The Congress of the United States also has enacted legislation outlawing -certain organizations. A recent example was on the 28th of June 1940, -when the Congress provided that it shall be unlawful for any person, -among other things, to organize or help to organize any society, group, -or assembly of persons to teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or -destruction of any government in the United States by force or violence, -or to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, -group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof. - -There is much legislation by states of the American Union creating -analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the act of California -dealing with criminal syndicalism, which, after defining it, makes -criminal any person who organizes, assists in organizing, or is, or -knowingly becomes, a member of such organization. - -Precedents in English law for outlawing organizations and punishing -membership therein are old and consistent with the Charter. - -One of the first is the British India Act Number 30, enacted in 1836, -which, among other things, provides: - - “It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have - belonged, either before or after the passing of this Act, to any - gang of thugs, either within or without the territories of the - East India Company, shall be punished with imprisonment for life - with hard labor.” - -And the history is that this was a successful act in suppressing -violence. - -Other precedents in English legislation are the Unlawful Societies Act -of 1799, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817, the Seditious Meetings Act -of 1846, the Public Order Act of 1936, and Defense Regulations 18(b). -The latter, not without opposition, was intended to protect the -integrity of the British Government against the fifth-column activities -of this same Nazi conspiracy. - -Soviet Russia punishes as a crime the formation of and membership in a -criminal gang. Criminologists of the Soviet Union call this crime the -“crime of banditry,” a term altogether appropriate to these German -organizations. General Rudenko will advise this Tribunal more in detail -as to the Soviet law. - -French criminal law makes membership in subversive organizations a -crime. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in itself. My -distinguished French colleague will present you more detail on that. - -Of course, I would not contend that the law of a single country, even -one of the signatory powers, was governing here, but it is clear that -this is not an act or a concept of a single system of law, that all -systems of law agree that there are points at which organizations become -intolerable in a free society. - -For German precedents, it is neither seemly nor necessary to go to the -Nazi regime, which, of course, suppressed all their adversaries -ruthlessly. However, under the Empire and the Weimar Republic German -jurisprudence deserved respect, and it presents both statutory and -juridical examples of declaring organizations to be criminal. Statutory -examples are: The German Criminal Code enacted in 1871. Section 128 was -aimed against secret associations, and 129 against organizations -inimical to the State. A law of March 22, 1921, against paramilitary -organizations. A law of July 1922 against organizations aimed at -overthrowing the constitution of the Reich. - -Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. It -reads: - - “The participation in an organization, the existence, - constitution, or purposes of which are to be kept secret from - the government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or - unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is - punishable by imprisonment.” - -It would be difficult to draw an act that would more definitely condemn -the organizations with which we are dealing here than this German -Criminal Code of 1871. I recall to your attention that it condemns -organizations in which obedience to unknown superiors or unconditional -obedience to known superiors is pledged. It is exactly the sort of -danger and menace with which we are dealing. - -Under the Empire various Polish national unions were the subject of -criminal prosecutions. Under the Republic, in 1927 and 1928, judgments -held criminal the entire Communist Party of Germany. In 1922 and 1928, -judgments of the courts ran against the political leadership corps of -the Communist Party, which included all of its so-called body of -functionaries. This body of functionaries in that organization -corresponded somewhat in their powers to the Leadership Corps of the -Nazi Party, which we have accused here. The judgment against the -Communist Party rendered by the German courts included every cashier, -every employee, every delivery boy and messenger, and every district -leader. In 1930 a judgment of criminality against what was called “The -Union of Red Front Fighters” of the Communist Party made no distinction -between leaders and ordinary members. - -Most significant of all is the fact that on the 30th of May 1924 -judgment of the German courts was rendered that the whole Nazi Party was -a criminal organization. Evidently there was a lack of courage to -enforce that judgment, or we might not have been here. This decision -referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we are indicting here, -but to all other members as well. The whole rise of the Nazi Party to -power was in the shadow of this judgment of illegality by the German -courts themselves. - -The German courts, in dealing with criminal organizations, proceeded on -the theory that all members were held together by a common plan in which -each one participated, even though at different levels. Moreover, -fundamental principles of responsibility of members as stated by the -German Supreme Court are strikingly like the principles that govern our -Anglo-American law of conspiracy. Among the statements by the German -courts are these: - -That it is a matter of indifference whether all the members pursued the -forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the forbidden activity. - -And again, that it is a matter of indifference whether the members of -the group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of working, -and means of fighting. - -And again, that the real attitude of mind of the participants is a -matter of indifference. Even if they had the intention of not -participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this cannot -eliminate their responsibility from real membership. - -Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in the -nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged by -application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are offensive -to law-governed people has been succinctly stated by an American legal -authority as follows, and I quote from _Miller on Criminal Law_: - - “The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a - combination to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means, - where none would exist, even though the act contemplated were - actually committed by an individual, is that a combination of - persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a means to an - end, is so much more dangerous, because of its increased power - to do wrong, because it is more difficult to guard against and - prevent the evil designs of a group of persons than of a single - person, and because of the terror which fear of such a - combination tends to create in the minds of the people.” - -The Charter in Article 6 provides that: - - “Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating - in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy - to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all - acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.” - -That, of course, is a statement of the ordinary law of conspiracy. The -individual defendants are arraigned at your bar on this charge of -conspiracy which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts of -others in execution of the common plan. - -The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others in -terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in nontechnical but -inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and executing a common plan, -as well as participating in a conspiracy. It was feared that to do -otherwise might import into the proceedings technical requirements and -limitations which have grown up around the term “conspiracy.” There are -some divergencies between the Anglo-American concept of a conspiracy and -that of either French, Soviet, or German jurisprudence. It was desired -that concrete cases be guided by the broader considerations inherent in -the nature of the problem I have outlined, rather than to be controlled -by refinements of any local law. - -Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude, -there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization accused -here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part of the -conspiracy under Article 6, even if the Charter had never mentioned -organizations at all. To become voluntarily affiliated was an act of -adherence to some common plan or purpose. - -These organizations did not pretend to be merely social or cultural -groups; admittedly, the members were united for action. In the case of -several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation was -evidenced by formal induction into membership, the taking of an oath, -the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the submission to a discipline. -That all members of each Nazi organization did combine under a common -plan to achieve some end by combined efforts is abundantly established. - -The criteria for determining whether these ends were guilty ends are -obviously those which would test the legality of any combination or -conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or purpose illegal ends? -If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi organizations -for the acts of every other member is not essentially different from the -liability for conspiracy enforced in the courts of the United States -against businessmen who combine in violation of the anti-trust laws, or -other defendants accused under narcotic-drugs acts, sedition acts, or -other Federal penal enactments. - -Among the principles every day enforced in courts of Great Britain and -the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these sweeping -principles: - -No formal meeting or agreement is necessary. It is sufficient, although -one performs one part and other persons other parts, if there be concert -of action and working together understandingly with a common design to -accomplish a common purpose. - -Secondly, one may be liable even though he may not have known who his -fellow conspirators were or just what part they were to take or what -acts they committed, and though he did not take personal part in them or -was absent when the criminal acts occurred. - -Third, there may be liability for acts of fellow conspirators although -the particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if they were done -in execution of the common plan. One in effect makes a fellow -conspirator his agent with blanket authority to accomplish the ends of -the conspiracy. - -Fourth, it is not necessary to liability that one be a member of a -conspiracy at the same time as other actors, or at the time of the -criminal acts. When one becomes a party to a conspiracy, he adopts and -ratifies what has gone before and remains responsible until he abandons -the conspiracy with notice to his fellow conspirators. - -Now, those are sweeping principles, but no society has been able to do -without these defenses against the accumulation of power through -aggregations of individuals. - -Members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who personally commit -crimes, of course, are individually punishable for those crimes exactly -as are those who commit the same offenses without organizational -backing. The very essence of the crime of conspiracy or membership in a -criminal association is liability for acts one did not personally -commit, but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The crime is to -combine with others and to participate in the unlawful common effort, -however innocent the personal acts of the participants, considered by -themselves. - -The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to tie one into a -conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal plan. -And we have multitudinous examples in the jurisprudence of the United -States where the mailing of a letter brought one not only within the -orbit of the definition of crime, but within Federal jurisdiction. - -There are countless examples of this doctrine that innocent acts in the -performance of a common purpose render one liable for the criminal acts -of others performed to that same end. - -This sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration in -determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the -vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership, -formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose and -submission to discipline and chain of command, cannot be less than that -vicarious liability which follows from informal co-operation with a -nebulous group, as is sufficient in case of a conspiracy. - -This meets the suggestions that the Prosecution is required to prove -every member, or every part, fraction, or division of the membership to -be guilty of criminal acts. That suggestion ignores the conspiratorial -nature of the charge against organizations. Such an interpretation also -would reduce the Charter to an unworkable absurdity. To concentrate in -one International Tribunal inquiries requiring such detailed evidence as -to each member or as to each subsection would set a task not possible of -completion within the lives of living men. - -It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as that -“one should be convicted for his activities and not for his membership.” -But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi bodies was an -activity. It was not something passed out to a passive citizen like a -handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and abet a movement greatly. - -Does anyone believe that the picture of Hjalmar Schacht sitting in the -front row of the Nazi Party Congress, which you have seen, wearing the -insignia of the Nazi Party, was included in the propaganda film of the -Nazi Party merely for artistic effect? The great banker’s mere loan of -his name to this shady enterprise gave it a lift and a respectability in -the eyes of every hesitating German. There may be instances in which -membership did not aid and abet organizational ends and means, but -individual situations of that kind are for appraisal in the later -hearings and not by this Tribunal. - -By and large, the use of organizational affiliation is a quick and -simple, but at the same time fairly accurate, outline of the contours of -a conspiracy to do what the organization actually did. It is the only -workable one at this stage of the Trial. It can work no injustice -because before any individual can be punished, he can submit the facts -of his own case to further and more detailed judicial scrutiny. - -While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary legal -principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of criminality -is, of course, upon the Prosecution. It is discharged, we think, when we -establish the following: - -1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of -persons associated in identifiable relationship with a collective, -general purpose. - -2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that -membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. This -does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. Nor does it -mean that an organization is not to be considered voluntary if the -Defense proves that some minor fraction or small percentage of its -membership was compelled to join. The test is a commonsense one: Was the -organization on the whole one which persons were free to join or to stay -out of? Membership is not made involuntary by the fact that it was good -business or good politics to identify one’s self with the movement. Any -compulsion must be of the kind which the law normally recognizes, and -threats of political or economic retaliation would be of no consequence. - -3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was designed -to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the Charter. No -other act would authorize conviction of an individual and no other act -would authorize conviction of the organization in connection with the -conviction of the individual. - -4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of -such a character that its membership in general may properly be charged -with knowledge of them. This again is not specifically required by the -Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent on the Prosecution to establish -the individual knowledge of every member of the organization or to rebut -the possibility that some may have joined in ignorance of its true -character. - -5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the organization -and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which the organization -was declared to be criminal. - -I shall now take up the subject of the issues, as we see it, which are -for trial before this Tribunal, and some discussion of those which seem -to us not to be for trial before this Tribunal. - -Progress of this Trial will be expedited by a clear definition of the -issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be proper -criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are not -relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in the -specific questions asked by the Tribunal. - -Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. That -is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized as -criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that does -not bear on a question that would be common to the case of every member. -Any matter that would be exculpating for some members but not for all -is, as we see it, irrelevant here. - -We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that one or -many members were conscripted if in general the membership was -voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good defense for an -individual charged with membership in a criminal organization, but an -organization can have criminal purpose and commit criminal acts even if -a portion of its membership consists of persons who were compelled to -join it. The issue of conscription is not pertinent to this proceeding, -but it is pertinent to the trials of individuals for membership in -organizations declared to be criminal. - -Also, we think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more -members of the named organizations were ignorant of its criminal -purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open or notorious. -An organization may have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts -although one or many of its members were without personal knowledge -thereof. If a person joined what he thought was a social club, but what -in fact turned out to be a gang of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of -knowledge would not exonerate the gang considered as a group, although -it might possibly be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality -brought against him for mere membership in the organization. Even then, -the test would be not what the man actually knew, but what, as a person -of common understanding he should have known. - -It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the -named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful acts. This -proposition is basic in the entire theory of the declaration of -organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality of -organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for aiding -crimes, although the precise perpetrators can never be found or -identified. - -We know that the Gestapo and the SS, as organizations, were given -principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish people in -Europe, but beyond a few isolated instances, we can never establish -which members of the Gestapo or SS actually carried out the murders. -Most of them were concealed by the anonymity of the uniform, committed -their crimes, and passed on. Witnesses know that it was an SS man or a -Gestapo man, but to identify him is impossible. Any member guilty of -direct participation in such crimes, if we can find and identify him, -can be tried on the charge of having committed the specific crimes in -addition to the general charge of membership in a criminal organization. - -Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of the -organizations were themselves allegedly innocent of specific wrongdoing. -The purpose of this proceeding is not to reach instances of individual -criminal conduct, even in subsequent trials, and therefore such -considerations are irrelevant here. - -Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time during -which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment are claimed by -the Prosecution to have been criminal. The Prosecution believes that -each organization should be declared criminal for the period stated in -the Indictment. We do not contend that the Tribunal is without power to -condition its declaration so as to cover a lesser period of time than -that set forth in the Indictment. The Indictment is specific as to each -organization. We think that the record at this time affords adequate -evidence to support the charge of criminality with respect to each of -the organizations during the full time set forth in the Indictment. - -Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes of -persons included within the accused groups or organizations should be -excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of course, -necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some identifiable -group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not expected or -required to be bound by formalities of organization. In framing the -Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or concepts which -would involve this Trial in legal technicalities about juristic persons -or entities. - -Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the refinements of these -fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is a nontechnical one. -“Group” or “organization” should be given no artificial or sophistical -meaning. The word “group” was used in the Charter as a broader term, -implying a looser and less formal structure or relationship than is -implied in the term “organization.” The terms mean in the context of the -Charter what they mean in the ordinary speech of people. The test to -identify a group or organization is a natural and commonsense one. - -It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal has, no doubt, -power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare criminal, -the precise composition and membership of groups and organizations is -not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter requirement and no -practical need for the Tribunal to define a group or organization with -such particularity that its precise composition or membership is thereby -determined. - -The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues was a -recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive of -such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend persons -who, on more detailed inquiry, will prove to be outside of it. - -Any effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of -individuals, be they few or many, would unduly protract the Trial, -transgress the limitations of the Charter, and quite likely do some -mischief by attempting to adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence -which is not directed to that purpose. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time for you to break off for -a few moments? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Sir. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Prosecution stands upon the language of the -Indictment and contends that each group or organization should be -declared criminal as an entity and that no inquiry should be entered -upon and no evidence entertained as to the exculpation of any class or -classes of persons within such descriptions. Practical reasons of -conserving the Tribunal’s time combine with practical considerations for -defendants. A single trial held in one city to deal with the question of -excluding thousands of defendants living all over Germany could not be -expected to do justice to each member unless it was expected to endure -indefinitely. Provision for later local trials of individual -relationships protects the rights of members better than possibly can be -done in proceedings before this Tribunal. - -With respect to the Gestapo, the United States and, I believe all of my -colleagues consent to exclude persons employed in purely clerical, -stenographic, janitorial, or similar unofficial routine tasks. As to the -Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by the position taken at the time of -submission of the evidence, that the following should be included: The -Führer, the Reichsleiter, main departments and office holders, the -Gauleiter and their staff officers, the Kreisleiter and their staff -officers, the Ortsgruppenleiter, the Zellenleiter, and the Blockleiter, -but not members of the staff of the last three officials. - -As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the declaration -expressly exclude: (1) Wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) the -SA-controlled home-guard units, which were not, as we view it on the -evidence, strictly a part of the SA, and there also be excluded the -National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans and the SA Reserve, so -as to include only the active parts of that organization. - -The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the severability -of any class or classes of persons within the organizations accused -which would justify any further concessions, and that no other part of -the named groups should be excluded. In this connection, we would again -stress the principles of conspiracy. The fact that a section of an -organization itself committed no criminal act, or may have been occupied -in technical or administrative functions, does not relieve that section -of criminal responsibility if its activities contributed to the over-all -accomplishment of the criminal enterprise. I should like to discuss the -question of the further steps to be taken procedurally before this -Tribunal. - -Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to the Tribunal asking -to be heard in connection with the accusations against organizations. -The volume of these applications has caused apprehension as to further -proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties yet to be overcome, but my -study indicates that the difficulties are greatly exaggerated. - -The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will -entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be anxious, -of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, not only -to do justice, but to avoid appearance of doing anything less than -justice. And we do not consider that expediting this Trial is so -important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really -pertinent facts. - -Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood of -applications indicated that their significance is not proportionate to -their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of the -right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied -prisoner-of-war and internment camps. The notice was published in all -German language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the radio. -Investigation shows that the notice was posted in all barracks of the -camps, and it also shows that in many camps it was read to the -prisoners, in addition. The 45,000 persons who responded with -applications to be heard came principally from about 15 prisoner-of-war -and internment camps in British or United States control. Those received -included an approximate 12,000 from Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser, -7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from Staumühle, 2,500 from Garmisch and -several hundred from each of the others. - -We have made some investigation of these applications, as well as of the -sending out of the notices, and we would be glad to place any -information that we have at the disposal of the Tribunal. - -An investigation was made of the Auerbach Camp in the United States -zone, principally to determine the reason for these applications and the -method by which they came. That investigation was conducted by -Lieutenant Colonel Smith Brookhart, Captain Drexel Sprecher, and Captain -Krieger, all of whom are known to this Tribunal. - -The Auerbach camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly SS members. Its -prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923 officers. The notice of the -International Military Tribunal was posted in each of the barracks and -was read to all inmates. All applications to the Tribunal were forwarded -without censorship of any kind. Applications to defend were made by -7,500 SS members. - -Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to the -notice, and that no action was directed or inspired from any other -source within or without the camp. All who were interrogated professed -that they had no knowledge of any SS crimes or of SS criminal purpose, -but they expressed interest only in their individual fate, rather than -any concern to defend the organization. - -Our investigators report no indication that they had any additional -evidence or information to submit on the general question of the -criminality of the SS as an organization. They seemed to think it was -necessary to protect themselves to make the application here. - -Turning then to examination of the applications, these, on their face, -indicate that most of the members do not profess to have evidence on the -general issue triable here. They assert almost without exception that -the writer has neither committed nor witnessed nor known of the crimes -charged against the organization. On a proper definition of the issues -such an application is insufficient, on its face, to warrant a personal -intervention. - -A careful examination of the notice to which these applications respond -will indicate, I believe, that the notice contains no word which would -inform a member, particularly if he were a layman, of the narrowness of -the issues which are to be considered here, or that he will have a later -opportunity, if and when prosecuted, to present personal defenses. On -the other hand the notice, it seems to me, creates the impression, -particularly to a layman, that every member may be convicted and -punished by this Tribunal and that his only chance to be heard is here. -I think a careful examination of these notices will bear out that -impression and a careful examination of the applications will show that -they are in response to that impression. - -Now, among lawyers there is usually a difference of opinion as to how -best to proceed and this case presents no exception to that; there are -different ideas. But I shall advance certain views as to how we should -proceed from here to obtain a fair and proper adjudication of these -questions. In view of these facts we suggest a consideration of the -following program for completion of this Trial as to organizations: - -1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope of the -issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it. - -2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation of -the issues and the opportunity later to be individually tried be sent to -all applicants and published in the same manner as the original notice. - -3. That a panel of masters be appointed, as authorized in Article 17(e) -of the Charter, to examine applications and to report those that are -insufficient on their own statements and to go to the camps and -supervise the taking of any relevant evidence. Defense Counsel and -Prosecution representatives should, of course, attend and be heard -before the masters. The masters should reduce any evidence to deposition -form and report the whole to this Tribunal, to be introduced as a part -of its record. - -4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify the -task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps might well -be invited to choose one or more to represent them in presenting -evidence. - -It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and the Defense Counsel -that the Prosecution has omitted from evidence many relevant documents -which show repetition of crimes by these organizations in order to save -time by avoiding cumulative evidence. It is not too much to expect that -cumulative evidence of a negative character will likewise be limited. - -Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons who might be -affected by the declarations of criminality which we have asked. - -Some people seem more susceptible to the shock of a million punishments -than to shock from 5 million murders. At most the number of punishments -will never catch up with the number of crimes. However, it is impossible -to state, even with approximate accuracy, the number of persons who -might be affected by the declaration of criminality which we have asked. - -Figures from the German sources seriously exaggerate the number, because -they do not take account of heavy casualties in the latter part of the -war, and make no allowance for duplication of membership which was -large. For example, the evidence is to the effect that 75 percent of the -Gestapo men also were members of the SS. We know that the United States -forces have a roughly estimated 130,000 detained persons who appear to -be members of accused organizations. I have no figure from other Allied -forces. But how many of these actually would be prosecuted, instead of -being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can foretell. -Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: It is so large that a -thorough inquiry by this Tribunal into each case would prolong its -session beyond endurance. All questions as to whether individuals or -subgroups of accused organizations should be excepted from the -declaration of criminality should be left for local courts, located near -the home of the accused and near the source of evidence. The courts can -work in one or at most in two languages, instead of four, and can hear -evidence which both parties direct to the specific issues. - -This is not the time to review the evidence against each particular -organization which, we take it, should be reserved for summation after -the evidence is all presented. But it is timely to say that the -selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment was not a -matter of chance. The chief reasons they were chosen are these: -Collectively they were the ultimate repositories of all power in the -Nazi regime; they were not only the most powerful, but the most vicious -organizations in the regime; and they were organizations in which -membership was generally voluntary. - -The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal -executors of the Nazi Party, and the Nazi Party was the force lying -behind and dominating the whole German State. The Reich Cabinet was the -facade through which the Nazi Party translated its will into -legislative, administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars on -which the security of the regime rested were the Armed Forces, directed -and controlled by the General Staff and High Command, and the police -forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. These organizations -exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime. - -These organizations were also selected because, while representative, -they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable that -innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up in the same -net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, but not all the -administrative officials or department heads or civil servants; only the -Reich Cabinet, the very heart of Nazidom within the government, is -named. The Armed Forces are accused, but not the average soldier or -officer, no matter how high-ranking. Only the top policy makers—the -General Staff and the High Command—are named. The police forces are -accused—but not every policeman, not the ordinary police which -performed only the normal police functions. Only the most terroristic -and repressive police elements—the Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi -Party is accused—but not every Nazi voter, not even every member, only -the leaders. And not even every Party official or worker is included; -only “the bearers of sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the -Party, who were the actual commanding officers and their staff officers -on the highest levels. - -I think it is important that we observe, in reference to the Nazi Party, -just what it is that we are doing here and compare it with the -denazification program in effect without any declaration of criminality, -in order to see in its true perspective the indictment which we bring -against the Nazi Party. - -Some charts have been prepared. This is a mere graphic representation of -the proportions of persons that we have accused, and which we ask this -Tribunal to declare as constituting criminal organizations. - -In the first column are the 79 million German citizens. We make no -accusation against the citizenry of Germany. The next is the 48 million -voters, who at one time voted to keep the Nazi Party in power. They -voted in response to the referendum. We make no charge against those who -supported the Nazi Party, although in some aspects of the denazification -program the supporters are included. Then come the 5 million Nazi -members, persons who definitely joined the Nazi Party by an act of -affiliation, by an oath of fealty. But we do not attempt to reach that -entire 5 million persons, although I have no hesitation in saying that -there would be good grounds for doing so; but as a mere matter of -practicality of this situation it is not possible to reach all of those -who are technically and perhaps morally well within the confines of this -conspiracy. So the voters are disregarded, the 48 million, the 5 million -members are disregarded, and the first that we propose to reach are the -Nazi leaders, starting with Blockleiter, which are shown in the last -small block, and piled together, amounting to the fourth block on the -diagram. - -It is true that we start with the local block leader, but he had -responsibilities—responsibilities for herding into the fold his 50 -households, responsibilities for spying upon them and reporting their -activities; responsibilities, as this evidence shows, for disciplining -them and for leading them. No political movement can function in the -drawing rooms and offices. It has to reach the masses of the people and -these block leaders were the essential elements in making this program -effective among the masses of the people and in terrorizing them into -submission. - -I submit that on this diagram the accusation which we bring here is a -moderate one reaching only persons of admitted leadership -responsibilities and not trying to reach people who may have been -beguiled into following in an unorganized fashion. - -We have also accused the formations, Party formations, such as the SA -and the SS. These were the strong arms of the Party. These were the -formations that the Blockleiter was authorized to call in to help him if -he needed to discipline somebody in his block of 50 houses. - -But we do not accuse every one of the formations of the Party, nor do we -accuse any of the 20 or more supervised or affiliated Party groups, Nazi -organizations in which membership was compulsory, either legally or in -practice, such as the Hitler Youth and the Student League. We do not -accuse the Nazi professional organizations, although they were Nazi -dominated, like the civil servants’ organization, the teachers’ -organization, and the National Socialist lawyers’ organization, although -I should show them as little charity as any group. We do not accuse any -Nazi organizations which have some legitimate purpose, like welfare -organizations. Only two of these Party formations are named, the SA and -the SS, the oldest of the Nazi organizations, groups which had no -purpose other than carrying out the Nazi schemes, and which actively -participated in every crime denounced by the Charter and furnished the -manpower for most of the crimes which we have proved. - -In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling -repetition of the Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, and War -Crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these organizations -than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual defendants in the -box. These defendants’ power for harm is past. They are discredited men. -That of these organizations goes on. If these organizations are -exonerated here, the German people will infer that they did no wrong, -and they will easily be regimented in reconstituted organizations under -new names, behind the same program. - -In administering retributive justice it would be possible to exonerate -these organizations only by concluding that no crimes have been -committed by the Nazi regime. For these organizations’ sponsorship of -every Nazi purpose and their confederation to execute every measure to -attain these ends is beyond denial. A failure to condemn these -organizations under the terms of the Charter can only mean that such -Nazi ends and means cannot be considered criminal and that the Charter -of the Tribunal declaring them so is a nullity. - -I think my colleagues, who have somewhat different aspects of the case -to deal with, would like to be heard on this subject. - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the -Tribunal thinks the most convenient course would be to hear argument on -behalf of all the chief prosecutors and then to hear argument on behalf -of such of the defendants’ counsel as wish to be heard, and after that -the Tribunal will probably wish to ask some questions of the chief -prosecutors. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That will be very agreeable to us. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Justice Jackson -has dealt with the general principles under which the organizations -named in the Charter should, in the view of the Prosecution, be dealt -with. It is not my purpose to repeat or even to underline his arguments. -My endeavor is to comply with Paragraph 4 of the statement of the -Tribunal made on the 14th of January of this year. This involves: - -(a) Summarizing, in respect of each named organization, the elements -which, in our opinion, justify the charge of their being criminal -organizations. For convenience I shall refer to these as the elements of -criminality. - -(b) Indicating what acts on the part of individual defendants in the -sense used in Article 9 of the Charter justified declaring the groups or -organizations of which they are members to be criminal organizations. -Again for convenience, I shall refer to such defendants in the wording -of the Charter, as connected defendants. - -(c) I shall submit that what I have put forward in writing under (a) and -(b) will form the necessary summary of proposed findings of fact under -the Tribunal’s third point. - -May I say one word about the mechanics of the position? I thought that -it would be convenient if the Tribunal and the Defense Counsel had -copies of these suggestions before I address the Tribunal. In pursuance -of this, copies have been given to the members of the Tribunal, of -course to the court interpreters, and copies in German have been -provided for counsel for the organizations and also for counsel for each -of the individual defendants. - -For the convenience of the Tribunal and of counsel, I have circulated -two addenda, which contain further references to the transcript and -documents on a number of points in the original appendices. These -addenda are compiled under the numbers of paragraphs and, although they -are in English, should be readily usable by Counsel for the Defense. The -result is that there is the summary in Appendices (A) and (B), which I -put in, and full reference in all the points in the summary to the -transcript and in some cases to documents. - -It is my intention not to read in full all the matters contained in my -Appendix (A) and Appendix (B) but to indicate how they fit in with the -conception of the Prosecution on this aspect of the case. I shall, of -course, be only too ready to read any portions which may be convenient -to the Tribunal. - -I think it would be best to start from the essential _probanda_ which -Mr. Justice Jackson has indicated, and perhaps the Tribunal will bear -with me while I repeat his five points: - -1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of -persons, (a) in some identifiable relationship, (b) with a collective -general purpose. That was Mr. Justice Jackson’s first test. - -2. Membership in such organization must be generally voluntary, although -a minor proportion of involuntary members will not affect the position. - -3. The aims of the organizations must be criminal in the sense that its -objects included the performance of acts denounced as crimes by Article -6 of the Charter. - -4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of -such a character that a reasonable man would have constructive knowledge -of the organization which he was joining; that is, that he ought to have -known what type of organization he was joining. - -5. Some individual defendants, at least one, must have been a member of -the organization and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which -a declaration of the criminality of the organization can be made. - -I do not think that I can avoid applying these tests to each of the -organizations, but I conceive that this can be done with brevity, and I -therefore propose to deal with the organizations _seriatim_. - -I take first the Reichsregierung. Under Appendix B of the Indictment -this group is defined as consisting of three classes: - -1. Members of the ordinary cabinet after the 30th of January 1933. The -term “ordinary cabinet” is in turn used as meaning: (a) Reich ministers -that is, heads of departments; (b) Reich ministers without portfolio; -(c) State ministers acting as Reich ministers, (d) other officials -entitled to take part in meetings of the cabinet. - -The second division is members of the Council of Ministers for the -Defense of the Reich. - -The third division, members of the Secret Cabinet Council. - -It is submitted that, on the evidence placed before the Tribunal, there -is no doubt that the first of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, Point 1, is -complied with in that there is an identifiable relationship with a -collective general purpose, and that this organization is generally -voluntary, within Point 2. - -The aims of the organization are set out in Paragraph 4 of Section A of -my Appendix A and the broad submission of the Prosecution is shown in -Paragraph 2. Perhaps, as that is short, I might be allowed to read it: - - “Owing to their legislative powers and functions the members of - the Reichsregierung gave statutory effect to the policy of the - Nazi conspirators and collectively formed a combination of - persons carrying out the executive and administrative decisions - of the Nazi conspirators.” - -The Prosecution apply that general submission to the crimes constituted -by Article 6 of the Charter in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of that -appendix. If the Tribunal would like me to deal further with these -paragraphs I should be pleased to read and comment on any that are -desired. - -When it is remembered that the Reichsregierung possessed policymaking, -legislative, administrative, and executive powers and functions, and -that many of its members held at the same time important positions in -the Party and in governmental activities outside the cabinet, enormous -political power was concentrated in this group. As I said, the -Reichsregierung implemented and gave statutory effect to the program of -the conspirators. - -If the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to my Appendix B they will -see that 17 of the 21 defendants before the Court were members of the -Reichsregierung. The Prosecution have submitted an enormous body of -evidence against these 17 defendants, and they now submit that it is -sufficient to say that these 17 defendants should be convicted under -each count of the Indictment, and therefore under each portion of -Article 6 of the Charter, and that they form the connected defendants -with the Reichsregierung, under Mr. Justice Jackson’s Point Number 5. - -The acts which I have mentioned and which are set out in Paragraph 4 of -my Appendix A and the other paragraphs are of such a character that no -one in a ministerial capacity could fail to have constructive knowledge -of their nature and intent. - -I now pass to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Mr. Justice -Jackson has indicated that the conspirators required wide instruments of -support. Hitler boasted of the complete domination of the Reich and of -its institutions and of its organizations, internally and externally, by -the National Socialist Party. - -In the Nazi Party, based on the Führerprinzip, its policies and -operations were determined not by the membership as a whole but by the -corps of bearers of sovereignty and their staff. These leaders were all -political deputies, obliged to support and carry out the doctrines of -the Party. At every level regular and frequent conferences were held to -discuss questions of policy and working measures. The leaders held the -Party together, but they also kept the entire populace firmly in the -grip of the conspirators through the control of the descending hierarchy -of leaders. - -The Prosecution submit that all these leaders are within the -organization which they claim to be criminal, and as Mr. Justice Jackson -pointed out the staffs of the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter, -which are set out in the volumes of the _National Socialist Organization -Yearbook_ as being in these positions. - -The Tribunal will note that we have omitted the staffs of the more -junior Hoheitsträger, as Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out. On that -the Prosecution again says that there is no doubt that Points 1 and 2 of -Mr. Justice Jackson’s criteria are complied with, and they indicate in -Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section B of my Appendix A the elements of -criminality; they indicate in my Appendix B the defendants who are -involved; and in a latter portion of Appendix B they submit that from -the position of these defendants as members of the Leadership Corps and -in the Government and the Nazi Party, and further, from the close -interconnection between the Government of the Reich and the Party, it is -clear that the Leadership Corps is a criminal organization connected -with all the crimes charged against all the defendants in the -Indictment, including those who were in the Leadership Corps and -elaborated before the Tribunal in the individual presentations. - -The Nazi Party is the core of the conspiracy and criminality alleged, -and the defendants are the core of the Nazi Party. Again the Prosecution -say that no one living in Germany and taking part in the management, -which in this case means literally the ordering of the Nazi Party, could -fail to have constructive knowledge of the intentions of its leaders and -the methods of carrying these out. This inner circle is in a different -position from even the best-informed opinion outside Germany. - -I now pass to the SS, including the SD. The Prosecution respectfully -remind the Tribunal of the statements regarding the composition of the -SS and its history, set out shortly in Appendix B of the Indictment, on -Page 36 (Volume I, Page 81) of the English text. The Prosecution stands -by these statements, which it submits are clear. I do not intend to read -them at the present moment. - -The Tribunal has heard in the case regarding the SS—the transcript -Pages 1787 to 1889 (Volume IV, Pages 161-230)—and the case regarding -concentration camps—Pages 1399 to 1432 (Volume III, Pages 496-518)—and -also the evidence as to the Defendant Kaltenbrunner, of which the -reference is given in the addendum. They have also heard in the cases of -the French and Soviet delegations additional mountains of evidence with -regard to the SS. It is submitted that there is no difficulty on the -first three of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, and that the criminality of -the SS has been proved several times over. - -On the fourth point I venture to submit the submission in Paragraph 4 of -Section C of my Appendix A, that the crimes of the SS were committed, -first, on such a vast scale, and, secondly, over such a vast area that -the criminal aims and methods of the SS, which have staggered humanity -since this Trial opened, must have been known to its members. It was -difficult to drive from one city of Germany to another without passing -near to a concentration camp, and every concentration camp contained its -SS crimes. In my Appendix B the Tribunal will find the members of the SS -who are defendants set out, and, in the second part, a summary of the -crimes of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. The Prosecution gives to him a -sinister particularity, while relying also on the crimes of the other -defendants who were members. - -DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): May I point out -that in the appendix the Defendant Frick has apparently been included by -mistake; among the offices held by the Defendant Frick this is not -listed as one of them. - -THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean? Do you mean not a member of the SS? - -DR. PANNENBECKER: The appendix says that Frick was a member of the SS. -This is not the case, and he has also made a statement to this effect in -his affidavit. - -DR. SEIDL: In the appendix just read out by the prosecutor the Defendant -Frank too is included as a member of the SS. Already earlier in the -Trial the American prosecutor submitted Document 2979-PS as Exhibit -Number USA-7. This document shows that at no time was Frank a member of -the SS or, as is asserted in the Indictment, an SS general. - -Furthermore I should like to point out to the Tribunal that several -months ago, when the Indictment was lodged against the SS as a criminal -organization, the name of the Defendant Frank was not mentioned. May I -therefore take it that in the drawing up of this appendix a mistake has -been made? - -DR. THOMA: I should like to make the same statement as that made by my -colleague Doctor Seidl on behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg. In Appendix -A, which lists the indicted elements, Rosenberg is shown as a member of -the SA. He was never a member of the SA, and he has already made a -statement to this effect in the course of an interrogation. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The defendants will have the opportunity of -disproving these allegations, which are all contained in the Indictment; -but in view of what has been said, I shall personally check the matter -myself. - -I proceed to deal with the Gestapo. Again, the Tribunal will find the -construction and history of the Gestapo set out in Appendix B of the -Indictment, and the criminality alleged is set out in Paragraphs 1, 2, -and 3 of Section D of my appendix. The second addendum, the Tribunal may -care to note, gives the most detailed references to each of these -alleged acts of criminality. And the Prosecution submit that from these -points which are mentioned it is clear that the first four of Mr. -Justice Jackson’s points are complied with. The provisions of Articles 7 -and 8 of the Charter, in the submission of the Prosecution, make it -impossible for the Defense to rely on the official background of the -Gestapo, and therefore, as I say, we submit that this clearly comes -within the first four of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points. If the Tribunal -will refer to my Appendix B they will see that the Defendants Göring, -Frick, and Kaltenbrunner are alleged to be members, and in the latter -part of that appendix we allege, as is the fact, that the crimes of -these defendants were committed in their capacities as responsible -chiefs of this organization. - -Then we come to the SA. I again refer to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section E -of my Appendix A, and I ask the Tribunal to note that, apart from the -correct statement of its phases and periods of activity, each of the -elements of criminality contained references to the transcript where -these matters are proved. I remind the Tribunal of Mr. Justice Jackson’s -statement, which shows that the Prosecution have omitted all connected -bodies—even including those who had only been members of the -reserve—about which there can be any argument, even a sentimental -argument, as to their full connection. - -It might be convenient if I reminded the Tribunal of these sections. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, before the Tribunal -adjourned, I was about to mention again the bodies on the fringe of the -SA, which the Prosecution did not seek to have included in the -organizations: - -First, wearers of the SA Sports Badge. The Tribunal may remember that -Colonel Storey explained that they were not strictly members. He wanted -to have that point quite clear. Secondly, SA Wehrmannschaften, who were -internal defense or home-guard units, controlled by the SA but not -members of the SA. Thirdly, SA members who were never in any part of the -SA other than the reserve. Fourthly, the NSKOV, the National Socialist -League for Disabled Veterans, who were apparently incorporated in the -SA; but from the names that have been given—and the membership—we do -not ask for their inclusion. - -In Appendix B the Tribunal will find the eight defendants alleged to be -connected with the SA, and it is alleged by the Prosecution that the -connection of the SA with the conspiracy was so intimate that all the -acts of the Defendant Göring would justify the declaration asked for. - -I now pass to the sixth and last group or organization, the General -Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces. As in this case the -Prosecution has drawn an arbitrary line, I may perhaps be allowed to -recall briefly its constitution. - -If the Tribunal will be good enough to look at Appendix B of the -Indictment, under this heading, Page 37 of the English text (Volume I, -Page 84), they will see that the first nine positions enumerated are -special command or chief-of-staff positions. There were 22 holders of -these positions between February 1938 and May 1945, of whom 18 are -living. The 10th position, of Oberbefehlshaber, includes 110 individual -officers who held it. The whole group varied from a membership of 20 at -the beginning of the war to about 50 in 1944 or 1945—that is, at any -one time. - -I remind the Tribunal, however, that the conjoining of these positions -is not artificial in reality, because on Page 2115 (Volume IV, Page 399) -and the following pages of Colonel Telford Taylor’s presentation—and I -refer especially to Pages 2125 and 2126 (Volume IV, Pages 407, 408)—it -will be seen how the holders of the positions enumerated met in fact and -in the flesh. This, in our submission, clearly comes within the -interpretation of “group” in the Charter which, as Mr. Justice Jackson -pointed out, has a wider connotation than “organization”; and we submit -that you cannot hold men in the top command against their will. It would -be impossible for them to carry on such work on such a condition. - -Under Section F of my Appendix A, read with the first addendum, there -will be found not only the references in the transcript but the -references to the captured documents which prove, out of the mouths of -the members of this group, the criminality alleged against them under -each part of Article 6 of the Charter. These documents also show their -actual knowledge and therefore, _a priori_, their constructive knowledge -of the nature of the act. - -In my Appendix B the five defendants involved are set out; and in the -latter part of that appendix the connection of the group, and especially -of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl, is emphasized. It is submitted that -these facts prevent any difficulty being encountered with regard to this -group on any of the five criteria which we say should guide the -Tribunal. - -Finally, may I repeat that, in our respectful submission, the facts -contained in Appendices A and B, which are before the Tribunal in -writing, clearly indicate the findings of fact for which the Prosecution -ask. - -My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will address the Tribunal. - -M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. President and -Gentlemen, I shall be careful not to add anything to the very complete -statements of Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. - -In agreement with my fellow prosecutors, I should like respectfully to -draw the Tribunal’s attention only to two clauses of French domestic law -which deal with questions comparable to those which we are considering -today—and in connection with which I believe the French legislature has -had to solve some of the problems with which the Tribunal is -concerned—and especially to reply to the question put by the Tribunal, -namely, the definition of the criminal organizations. - -I shall merely mention Article 265 of the French Penal Code which lays -down the general principle of the association of criminals by enacting -that: - - “Any organized association, whatever its structure or the number - of its members, any understanding made with the object of - preparing or committing crimes against persons or against - property, constitutes a crime against public peace.” - -But I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to this fact, -that in the course of the last few years France has had occasion to -apply this general principle to organizations which greatly resemble -those which we are asking you to declare criminal. - -It is known indeed, Gentlemen, that Nazism is a contagious disease, the -ravages of which threaten to go beyond the borders of the countries -which it has definitely contaminated. Thus, during the years 1934 to -1936 diverse groups had been formed in France which, following the -example of their German and Italian models, were organized with the -intention of substituting themselves for the legal government in order -to impose in the country what they called “order” but which was in -reality only disorder. - -The French Republic in 1936 did what the Weimar Republic ought to have -done. The law of 10 January 1936, promulgated on 12 January in the -_Official Gazette_, which I submit to the Tribunal, and a translation of -which was given to the Defense, decreed the dissolution of these groups -and enacted severe penalties against their members. With the Tribunal’s -permission, I shall read the first two clauses of this law: - - “Article I. By decree of the President of the Republic in - session with the Cabinet all associations or _de facto_ groups - shall be dissolved which: - - “1. Might provoke armed demonstrations in public thoroughfares; - - “2. Or which, with the exception of societies for military - preparation sanctioned by the Government and societies for - physical education and sport, might by their structure and their - military organization have the character of a fighting group or - a private militia; - - “3. Or which might aim at jeopardizing the integrity of the - national territory or at attempting to alter by force the - republican form of government. - - “Article II. Any person who has taken part in the maintenance or - the reconstitution, direct or indirect, of the association or - group as defined in Article I, will be punished by a term of 6 - months’ to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 16 to 5,000 - francs.” - -The Tribunal will observe, in the first place, that by imposing severe -penalties on members of these associations for the mere fact of having -taken part “in the maintenance or the reconstitution, direct or -indirect, of the association,” the law of 10 January 1936 has recognized -and proclaimed the criminal character of the association. - -The Tribunal will observe, in the second place, that neither the Penal -Code nor the law of 10 January 1936 is concerned with giving an exact -definition of the association nor with the question as to whether the -incriminated association constitutes a moral entity or a legal entity -having a legal existence. Article 265 of the Penal Code includes in its -condemnation not only any association, which means a legal entity, but -also condemns any agreement entered into with the object of preparing or -committing crimes. And the law of 10 January also mentions any -association, or any _de facto_ group. Thus the law of 10 January in the -same way as Article 265 of the Penal Code, speaking of agreements -entered into or _de facto_ groups, does not seek to define criminal -organizations by law and refers to the commonly accepted meaning and -implication of the words “group” or “organization” as we today ask you -to define them. - -In the same way, after the liberation of our country, the French -Government concerned itself with pursuing and punishing bad citizens -who, even without offending against an existing penal statute, had been -guilty of definite antinational activity; and issued the decree of 26 -August 1944, promulgated in the _Official Gazette_ of 28 August. This -decree, after having given a very general definition of the offense, -defined its extent by enumerating the essential facts which it -comprises. - -Thus, Article I of the decree of 26 August 1944 states that the crime of -national unworthiness is constituted by the fact of having participated -in a collaborationist organization of any kind, and more especially one -of the following: le Service d’Ordre Legionnaire (Legion of Order), la -Milice (Militia), the group called “Collaboration,” la Phalange -Africaine (African Phalanx), and so on. - -The decree of 26 August 1944 is much less concerned with defining the -punishable offense than with enumerating the criminal organizations to -which the fact of having adhered voluntarily constitutes the crime of -national unworthiness; and whether these organizations or these groups -are legally constituted organizations or simply agreements entered into, -as mentioned in Article 265 of the Penal Code, or merely _de facto_ -groups, as stated in the law of 1936, the decree does not define, it -enumerates, the organizations which are considered to be criminal. That -is what we are asking you to do with respect to the German organizations -mentioned in the Indictment. - -We are not asking you to condemn without having heard these men who, on -the contrary, will be able to put forward their personal means of -defense before a competent tribunal. We are asking you only to declare -criminal, as was allowed by the French laws of 1936 and 1944, _de facto_ -groups without which it would have been impossible for one man in a few -years to cause a great civilized nation to sink to the lowest depths of -barbarity, the more hateful because it was scientific. It is the shame -of our time that the mastery of technique should have placed new methods -at the disposal of ancient barbarity, so true is it that technical -progress is of no avail unless accompanied by moral progress. - -Your sentence will signify for all nations in the world, and for the -good of Germany herself, that above human liberties there exists a moral -law which imposes itself upon nations just as well as upon individuals -whether they be isolated or in groups and that it is criminal to violate -that moral law. - -GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, let me tell you first of all that I accept -the principle which has been expressed by my respected colleagues -Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the principle with regard to -the criminality of the organizations. It seems to me that to clarify -this question it is necessary to distinguish clearly two interwoven -problems: First, the problem of the material law, just what -organizations and what individual members or groups of individual -members can be considered criminal; and also the problem of objective -law, what evidence, what documents, what witnesses, and in what order -these can be presented to agree, to declare, or to deny the criminality -of this or that organization. - -First of all, as to the question of material law, it is necessary to -emphasize that the question of the criminal responsibility of an -organization does not stand before the Tribunal and never did; neither -does the question of the individual responsibility of the various -members of an organization, except those who are among the defendants -today or the various groups of these organizations, stand before the -Tribunal. The Charter of the Tribunal provides as follows: According to -Article 9, the examination or the trial of any individual member of this -or that group or of any organization is within the jurisdiction of the -Tribunal. It is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to declare this -or that organization criminal if one of the defendants belongs to the -organization. - -Thus, we speak here about declaring an organization criminal, and the -Charter definitely provides the legal consequences of declaring an -organization criminal. As the Tribunal declares this or that group or -organization criminal, then the competent national authorities of the -signatory powers have a right to bring to trial before the national -military tribunals and occupational tribunals members of organizations. -In this case the criminal nature of the organizations is considered -clear and cannot be contradicted. (Article 10 of the Charter.) - -Consequently the Charter provides two legal results of declaring an -organization criminal: First, the right, but not the obligation, of the -various national tribunals to bring to trial members or organizations -which the Tribunal declared criminal; and second, the obligation of the -national tribunals to consider an organization criminal if such an -organization was so declared by the International Military Tribunal. - -In such a manner, the result of declaring an organization criminal by -the International Military Tribunal does not automatically mean that all -members of the organization will also be declared criminal by the -national tribunals; neither does it mean that without exception all -members of such an organization must be brought to trial. The question -of individual guilt and of individual responsibility of the separate -members of the criminal organizations is wholly, and without exception, -within the jurisdiction of the national tribunal. - -As has already been pointed out, in Article 10 of the Charter, the -Tribunal limits the jurisdiction of the national tribunal in just one -way. The national tribunal cannot deny or cannot argue the criminality -of any organizations which have already been declared criminal. - -My colleague, Justice Jackson, has already tendered valuable information -about the legal codes of the respective countries concerning the -question of responsibility. Under English-American law, French law, and -also the Soviet legal code, it is provided that membership in an -organization which has criminal aims makes an individual liable. There -are two legal decrees on the subject—in U.S.S.R. penal code, Articles -58-11 and 59-3. These laws provide for the responsibility of members of -criminal organizations. They are considered criminals, not only for -committing crimes, but also for belonging to an organization which is -considered criminal. The very fact of belonging to an organization, the -law states, makes a person liable to prosecution. The law does not -require formal proofs to decide if a person is a member of a criminal -organization. A person can be a member of a criminal organization even -though he does not formally belong to the organization. The evidence is -all the more exhaustive if a person is formally put on the list of the -membership of a criminal organization. However, the formal membership of -a criminal organization is not the only basis of criminal responsibility -of a person. A member of the organization should know what is the nature -of the organization, what are its objectives. It is immaterial whether -an individual member knew all directives, all acts of the organization -or whether he knew personally all other members. - -One cannot help noting that on the basis of the general principles of -the law, especially in connection with the practice of fascist Germany, -where a whole network of criminal organizations functioned, established -by the usurpers of the supreme powers, the responsibility of individual -members of the organization does not necessarily imply that they were -aware of the penalties attaching to the acts committed by the -organization. - -On the basis of the legal code, especially in fascist Germany, where -there existed a whole series of organizations established by the -usurpers of powers now considered criminal, it is impossible to demand -that every member be acquainted with all the actions and all the members -and all the directives of the organization. - -May I now pass on to the next problem. It appears to me that there is a -certain degree of complexity attached to the problem of the criminal -organizations. There is very extensive correspondence by members of -various organizations, that has been submitted to the Tribunal on the -subject of these organizations. Such abundance of discussion comes from -an incorrect interpretation of legal proceedings if an organization is -declared criminal. As long as we know the fact that the question of the -individual responsibility of the individual members is fully within the -jurisdiction of the various national courts, the general question of -whether the organization is declared criminal or not is much easier to -follow. - -According to the Charter, on the question of declaring an organization -criminal the Tribunal will decide in connection with individual -defendants. Article 9 states that in examining the materials with regard -to each defendant the Tribunal can have the right to declare—and so on. -Therefore, the conclusion is that the facts which decide the solution of -the question as to whether an organization is or is not criminal, -consist of whether there is before us today among the defendants a -representative of this or that organization. It is well known in the -present Trial that all the organizations which the Prosecution want to -be declared criminal are represented on the bench of the defendants. For -that reason alone there has passed through the hands of the Tribunal a -great deal of material and evidence relating to the criminal nature of -the organizations which these defendants have represented that can be -used by the Tribunal to draw a conclusion as to the criminal character -of various organizations. Under such conditions the necessity of calling -special witnesses to testify about this or that organization can take -place only as a source of supplementary and even eventual evidence. And -even then the Tribunal has stated in Article 9 that it is up to the -Tribunal to acquiesce in or to refuse the calling of witnesses or the -introduction of supplementary evidence. It is impossible to deny the -possibility or the necessity of supplementary evidence with regard to -any criminal organization. The Charter of the Tribunal states very -definitely that after the indictment has been made, the Tribunal will do -that which it considers necessary with regard to the Prosecution’s -request for declaring this or that organization criminal. Any member of -an organization has a right to request that the Tribunal permit him to -be heard on whether the organization was criminal. However, this was -introduced into the Charter of the Tribunal for the sake of justice. It -now appears that this article is used for other purposes. If what has -been provided for in Article 9 extends widely enough and if it already -provides for calling witnesses with regard to the criminality of this or -that organization, in substance the evidence submitted by the -prosecutors of the four countries has already given enough exhaustive -reasons for the Tribunal to recognize the organizations indicated in the -Indictment as criminal. At the same time it seems expedient that the -Tribunal should publish Article 10 of the Charter explaining that to -declare an organization criminal does not necessarily lead to an -automatic bringing to trial of all members of that organization without -exception. It means that all questions about bringing any member to -trial and about the responsibility of individual members will be decided -by the national tribunals. - -This is all I wanted to state, in addition to what has been stated by my -colleagues. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants’ counsel arranged among themselves in -what order they wish to be heard? - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: As counsel for the Reichsregierung, which has first place -in the Indictment as a “criminal organization,” I have, according to the -decision of the Court, the duty of presenting my opinion in regard to -the presentation of evidence. Since, in so doing, I have to discuss -general points of view which affect in the same way all the six -organizations under Indictment, it is probable that my statements will -in the main constitute the opinion of other defendants’ counsel. -However, they reserve for themselves the right to express particular and -supplementary opinion. - -The Defense understand the decision of the Court of 14 January 1946 to -mean that at this stage of the procedure the Defense should not produce -detailed arguments against the Indictment as it has been lodged by the -Prosecution and as it has been explained today, also against the concept -of criminal organizations in the sense of the Charter or against other -hypotheses of a declaration of criminality, but should only express -their opinion on the question of what evidence is relevant and how the -evidence shall be presented. Therefore, I shall speak about the basic -questions only insofar as this seems necessary today in this particular -connection. First of all, I shall speak about the contents and the -effect of the requested verdict. - -The six organizations under Indictment are, according to the request of -the Prosecution, to be declared criminal organizations in their -entirety. A request of that kind and the proceedings pertaining to it -would represent something unprecedented in the jurisprudence of all -states. - -As we know, this request is not uninfluenced by the fact that, contrary -to other nations, in England and even more so in the United States, even -companies and corporations as such can be prosecuted in some cases for -reasons of expediency. This is a legal development called for by the -dominant position which companies and corporations have acquired, above -all, in economic life. This position made their punishment seem -desirable in certain cases. They were affected by this punishment, -however, only to the extent to which they could be affected in their -economic sphere, that is to say, by the imposition of fines. This also -concerns only definite offenses, mostly in the field of administrative -law. - -The American Chief Prosecutor and the other chief prosecutors have cited -a large number of precedents, even from German jurisprudence, in which -organizations are said to have been declared criminal. In these -precedents—and that is the decisive factor—the defendants convicted as -criminals were always individual persons, never organizations as such. -But a criminal procedure such as this one would have to deal most -seriously with the organizations as such, as well as with all the -members who are not indicted personally that is—I now refer to Law -Number 10 of the Allied Control Council—would have to pronounce the -most severe sentence, the sentence of death; such a procedure has never -before in the history of jurisprudence been either discussed or applied. - -The organizations under Indictment are organizations which differ -greatly in their structure. I do not have to discuss further today -whether they always represented an organically constructed unit. For -this Trial the essential thing is that the organizations under -Indictment have been dissolved by a law of the Military Government, and -therefore, no longer exist. What still exists are only the individual -former members who, therefore, in reality are the actual defendants and -have simply been brought together under the name of the former -organization as a collective designation. - -But independent of this question of the nonexistence of the -organizations, it can be seen from the outcome of the procedure that -this is indeed a collective procedure against the individual members of -the organization, and this for the following reasons: - -First, to declare an organization criminal means the outlawing and -branding as criminal, not only of the organization as such, but, above -all, of each individual member. Such a declaration, therefore, means a -final sentencing of each individual member to a general loss of honor. -This effect of the outlawing and branding is unavoidable and -ineradicable, especially if that verdict is spoken by so important a -court as the International Military Tribunal before the forum of the -world public. The effect of the outlawing would apply to each member of -the organization and would cling to him, regardless of whether the -subsequent proceedings, as provided for in Article 10 of the Charter, -were carried out against the individual members or not. - -Second, in respect to legal procedure, the verdict that has been asked -for provides the possibility of a criminal penalty for each individual -member of the organization. In the subsequent proceedings, according to -Article 10 of the Charter, the criminal character of the organization -will be considered conclusively determined. - -In execution of this, Law Number 10 of the Allied Control Council, of 20 -December 1945, has in the meantime been issued. According to this law -the mere fact of having been a member of an organization which has been -declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal renders liable -to punishment as a criminal each individual member. Penalties ranging -from the highest fines to compulsory labor for life and the death -penalty are provided. - -The proceedings according to Law Number 10 are concerned only with -determining membership and bases the punishment on this. In these -proceedings only grounds for personal exoneration, such as -irresponsibility, error, or coercion can be discussed. But these concern -only the membership as such and will apply only in a very few cases. - -Whatever concerns the character of the organization, the criminal aims -and actions of members of the organization, especially the individual -member’s knowledge of these—all these are matters which will not be -discussed in the proceedings any more according to Law Number 10. In the -proceedings against the organizations a binding declaration has been -made. Therefore, the proceedings against the organizations anticipate -the biggest and most important part of the proceedings against every -individual member, while the subsequent proceedings, according to Law -Number 10, to all intents and purposes only draw conclusions. - -In connection with the question of the effect of the verdict, the -numerical aspect should also be touched upon. - -The SA at the beginning of the war in 1939 had about 2.5 million active -members, to which should be added, let us say, 1 to 2 million, -representing those who during the preceding 18 years, either quit the SA -or had to leave because of their military service; therefore, in all, up -to 4.5 million. - -As far as the SS is concerned, my colleagues have not yet been able to -give a final estimate. It will have to be considered that the Waffen-SS -alone had an active membership of several hundred thousand men at any -given time. If we take into account the losses due to the war, which -were very considerable but which to a certain extent were assessed in -the proceedings, we find in the case of the SS as well that the figure -runs into millions. - -The Leadership Corps always had, after 1933, a fixed membership of about -600,000 to 700,000 members. Changes in the official personnel were very -frequent. We have to take into account that the membership changed at -least twice during the entire period, so that here also the complete -figure will be about 2 million. - -The entire figure covered by these proceedings is therefore very large. -The reduction which the Tribunal has today thought fit to make would not -reduce that number to any very large extent. Basically, it will -certainly make no difference whether this very large number which I have -just mentioned will include a half, a third, or a quarter of the adult -male population of Germany. If we consider the war losses among these -age groups, we can say with great certainty that the Indictment will -actually include a very considerable part of the adult male German -population. - -I shall speak now about the concept “criminal organization.” The -necessary condition for an organization’s being declared criminal is the -criminal character, as appears in Article 9, Paragraph 2, of the -Charter. The Charter does not interpret either the concept “criminal -character” or that of “criminal organization.” If we ask by means of -which legal system this gap in the Charter should be filled, then, -according to the general principle of _lex loci_, German law first of -all has to be considered. But that is of no avail, because these two -concepts, according to every legal code in the world, also represent a -_terra nova_ in criminal law. Here, too, the Defense reserve for -themselves the right to express their considered opinion at the time of -the final pleadings. - -In any case, we are of the opinion that because of its -already-mentioned, far-reaching consequences the declaration asked for -can be made justly and fairly within the framework of the validity of -the Charter only if: (1) the original purpose—that is, the constitution -or the Charter of the organization—was directed to the commission of -crimes in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, and if this purpose was -known to all members; or (2) in case the original purpose of the -organization was not criminal, if all members during a certain period of -time knowingly participated in the planning and perpetration of crimes -in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. Here, also, it is necessary -that the development should have been such that these crimes represent -typical actions of the organization, for only then can we speak of a -criminal nature as applicable to an organization as well as to an -individual human being. - -According to this interpretation, the concept “criminal organization” in -the sense of Articles 9 to 11 of the Charter is in large part identical -with the concept “criminal conspiracy” which plays an important role in -the former German and Italian criminal law; also with the concept -“conspiracy,” with or without action for its execution, in English or -American common law; also with the concept “Mordkomplott” (conspiracy -for the purpose of committing murder) in the sense of Paragraph 49-b of -the German Penal Code; and, finally, with the concept of a “Common Plan -or Conspiracy” in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, here also with -or without action for its execution. - -All these penal codes have in common that judgment can be delivered only -against those persons who have taken part in the criminal organization -knowing its purpose. - -In my opinion, negligence cannot be sufficient when passing judgment -subjectively because of the general principle that in cases of serious -crimes—and in this case the penalty may be death—there must always be -full proof, and that negligence cannot be sufficient. Therefore, as a -matter of principle, it has to be required in these present proceedings -that an organization under Indictment can be declared criminal only if -it has been ascertained that: Firstly, the aims of the organization were -criminal in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, and, furthermore, -that all members at least knew of these criminal aims. This is also -necessary for the reason that, as has just been said, this Trial before -the International Military Tribunal represents the essential main part -of the criminal proceedings which will ascertain the guilt of each -individual member of the organizations. - -Justice does not permit that those members who did not possess the -aforementioned knowledge and who are therefore innocent be included in a -verdict. And this will not lead to that consequence mentioned by Justice -Jackson, namely, that a rejection of the verdict would mean a triumph -for those who are guilty. I am of the opinion that the guilty ones, -regardless of their number, should be brought to punishment. Despite all -considerations of expediency, the issue should not be that along with -the guilty ones an enormous number of innocent persons also be punished. - -Therefore, to come to the core of the question, this is to be regarded -as relevant. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence depends on a -definition of the criminal organization and of its criminal character. -On the basis of my definition I contend that the following points are -relevant: - -(a) That the organizations, according to their constitution or statutes, -did not have a criminal composition and did not pursue any criminal aims -in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. - -(b) That within the organization, or in connection with it, crimes in -the sense of Article 6 were not, or at least not continuously, committed -during a certain period of time. - -(c) That a certain number of members had no knowledge of any possible -criminal constitution or criminal purpose, or the continuous commission -of crimes according to Article 6, and that they also did not approve of -these facts. - -(d) That a certain number of members or certain closed independent -groups joined these organizations under compulsion, or pressure, or as -the result of deception, or by order from higher authorities. - -(e) That a certain number of members without any action on their part -became members of these organizations through the bestowal of honorary -membership. - -Since I know that the questions to be decided represent a _terra nova_ -in the field of criminal law, I believe that in the course of the -presentation of evidence we shall receive many other suggestions. -Therefore it will be expedient if the Tribunal at the present stage of -the Trial do not bind and limit themselves by a final definition. I ask -rather that evidence be admitted to the greatest extent. In conclusion I -come to the question of how the presentation of evidence can be carried -out in practice and how the legal hearing of the member can be made -possible according to Article 9, Paragraph 2, of the Charter. - -The principles valid in criminal procedure in all countries allow every -defendant before the court certain rights. The most important principles -are the principle of direct oral proceedings and the right to defense -and to a legal hearing. Since, according to my statements, the real -defendants are the members of the organizations, these rights must be -accorded to every member of the organization. In spite of this basic -point of view, which will be discussed in still greater detail in our -final pleadings, and with all legal reservations, the Defense do not -overlook the fact that for all practical purposes that is impossible -within the framework of this Trial. A solution must be found, since the -Prosecution have lodged the Indictment of the organizations on the basis -of the Charter in its present form. - -This leads to the necessity of carrying out the proceedings, whereby the -aim of all people taking part in the Trial can be only that of finding -the best possible solution by getting as close as possible to the -universal and, in our opinion, inviolable points of view. In this -connection the Defense in the same way as the Prosecution are gladly -aware of their duty to work constructively towards a decision by the -Tribunal. - -If, now, the enormous number of people who are affected by the -Indictment gives rise to tremendous difficulties which prevent a -reasonable solution of this problem, an adequate basis for judgment of -the aims of the organizations, as well as of the actions and the -subjective attitude of the individual member of the organization, must -nevertheless be found. - -In order to make any headway in these proceedings, an attempt must be -made to attain a result in respect to the collective membership by -fixing certain types. We do not fail to recognize the great difficulties -which confront the passing of a just sentence when a typical aspect is -taken as the basis for judgment. Every attempt to attain, on the basis -of a large number of individual witnesses to be brought before the -Court, a clear picture of that which is typical would be unavailing. The -only way, in our opinion, is to separate the presentation of individual -evidence, in respect to time and place, from this Tribunal. - -One way of achieving this would be an exact interrogation of the -individual members at the places where—this would apply to most of the -organizations—at present large numbers of them are being kept in -internment in the various camps. We believe that the best way to -investigate individual cases, and the one most suitable to the Court, -would be to assign this work to one or more suitable spokesmen in each -camp, that is to say, of course, under the supervision and with the -assistance of the Defense Counsel or their assistants, and then bring -these spokesmen before the Court as witnesses so that they may give a -picture of the activity and attitude of the individual members. - -We believe that the way to get as clearly and conscientiously presented -a picture as possible would be for these spokesmen to get from the -inmates of the camps affidavits about the main points of Indictment -which have been specified by the Prosecution. The spokesmen could then, -as witnesses, say under oath what percentage, on the basis of these -affidavits of the individual inmates of the camps, had taken part in the -criminal actions mentioned in the Indictment or had known anything about -them. Certainly there are certain difficulties connected with this which -will also have to be considered. - -In order to get a true picture, one will have to relieve the individual -inmates of the suspicion that through a truthful testimony submitted to -the Prosecution they might be offering material which could be used -against them personally. - -We consider it therefore necessary that insofar as these affidavits are -to be presented to the Court as documentary evidence, the Prosecution -should make a statement that this material will not be used for the -purpose of criminal proceedings against persons. This statement would -naturally not involve any immunity for individual members; but the -individual inmate of the camp would be assured that the affidavit made -by him under oath does not establish his guilt as far as future criminal -proceedings are concerned. - -If the Prosecution do not want to accept this proposal, there would -still be the possibility, without submitting these documents, of using -the testimony of the spokesmen, who could give information as to the -percentage of the people who took part or did not take part in criminal -activities or plans. - -THE PRESIDENT: Since you have not finished, I think we had better -adjourn for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Before the recess I referred to a suggestion for getting -information about the actions and the attitude of the members by means -of typical facts. I continue. - -This taking of evidence would have, for practical purposes, to extend to -a sufficient number of camps in all the zones of occupation. From the -results of this taking of evidence a conclusion could then be drawn, on -the basis of what is found to be typical, as to the criminal activity -and attitude of the individual member of the organization, and at the -same time, a conclusion as to whether or not the organization had a -criminal nature. - -If the Prosecution are in agreement with the Defense so far, I believe -that I have perhaps found in this way a means of collecting the relevant -evidence, including all positive and negative elements. - -To whatever extent the hearing of inmates of camps does not suffice, -which might be true of the one organization or the other, the hearing of -members of the organization who are not in custody might have to be -considered. Here, too, a proper way could probably be found which would -likewise make possible and easier the execution of the tasks of the -Tribunal. - -DR. SERVATIUS: I, too, should like to take a stand on the questions now -being discussed before the Court. I am not at present in a position to -take a stand on the profound and well-presented statements which Justice -Jackson has made here. I should not like to make a brief and less -carefully thought-out answer, but the Court will understand that I and a -number of my colleagues desire to put our case after studying the -material and the laws. Perhaps the Tribunal will give us the opportunity -to do this very shortly. - -I should like now to take a stand on these questions along more -technical lines, in order to fulfill my duty and on behalf of the -Defense to take a clear stand on these clear questions. - -In the first question it was asked what evidence is to be admitted and -what particular evidence should be presented here in the main trial -before this Tribunal. - -The answer is this, that all evidence is relevant which is of -significance for the determination of criminality. If one examines the -concept “criminal” it is seen that there is no factual situation as -defined by criminal law, nor can there be any, for it is not a question -of determining the factual elements but rather of a judgment as to -whether an act is criminal in the same way as judgment as to whether -something is good or bad. Consequently, the Charter does not oblige the -Tribunal to pass sentence and declare such-and-such to be criminal, but -rather it states that the Tribunal “may” pass such a sentence, but not -that it “must” reach such a decision. - -It can thus be seen that the Tribunal is here confronted with a task -which is basically different from the activity of a judge. A judge is -obliged, when certain facts determined by law are put before him, to -pass sentence, but this Tribunal is to determine the culpability of a -set of facts, on the basis of which the judge will later pass sentence. - -Such a task is, however, that of a legislator and not of a judge. The -Tribunal here determines what is deserving of punishment and thereby -creates a law. In this way the Tribunal also creates that basis for the -procedure which Justice Jackson mentioned in a former address of -his—the basis for procedure in the subsequent individual trials. - -It is this basis for procedure which the legislator gives to the judge -who is to deliver judgment. In such a case the burden of proof is -likewise reversed, as Mr. Justice Jackson also has constantly mentioned. -It is as if a thief were before the court—his objection that theft is -not punishable, that “possession is theft,” would be questioned. - -That the activity of this Tribunal is legislative can also be seen from -the fact that, without setting up the Tribunal, the signatory powers -could just as successfully have determined that all members of -organizations could be brought before a court because of their -membership. - -Law Number 10 of the Allied Control Council, that has often been -mentioned today, corroborates this interpretation, since it constitutes -the law for carrying out the skeleton law expected of this Tribunal. The -examples of the criminal nature of the organizations that have been -given here in Mr. Justice Jackson’s address today show again and again -that it is a question of laws and not of judgments. - -It is also characteristic of the legislative function, that in all -discussions considerations of expediency take first place and Justice -Jackson asked in a previous statement that the verdict should provide -the means to proceed against the members of the organizations. - -It is seen that the Court must deal with _de lege ferenda_ -considerations on an ethical basis. But it must be proved that the -members of the organizations are punishable, and “punishable” is -equivalent to “criminal.” - -In order to determine the factual elements, the judge brings evidence. -As legislator, the Tribunal must collect the material for legislation. -The judge can, on the basis of the legally proscribed criteria, easily -determine what is relevant as proof of these criteria and what he -therefore must admit as proof. - -It is characteristic that such a determination here in this matter makes -for difficulties. The legislator proceeds differently from the judge. He -studies the facts to see if they deserve punishment, and for him all -those facts are relevant which are of significance for the contents of -his law. - -In this matter he must have an over-all picture of the entire problem -and must take into consideration both the good and bad aspect of the -matter to be judged. - -The basic principle of justice is that only the guilty be punished. If -the legislator wishes to achieve this, he must examine whether only -guilty people will be affected by his laws. He must therefore also -investigate the objections which any person affected by his law might -make. The innocent person is protected in this way, that in the -individual case the guilt of the individual must be proved unless the -legislator actually has in mind responsibility without guilt. - -Every killing of a human being is punishable, but whether the person is -guilty has to be proved. He can avail himself of the so-called objection -that the death was not intentional. If the legislator does not want to -permit such an objection, then he must himself examine the material that -leads to such an extraordinary measure. The extent of the material to be -examined, that is, the taking of evidence, depends on the contents of -the law that is to be passed. Inasmuch as in the subsequent individual -trials all objections remain open, the Tribunal does not have to concern -itself with them. But the Tribunal must consider to what extent the -innocent person in the individual trial will have legal guarantees which -protect him from an unjust punishment. - -It is absolutely necessary for the Tribunal also to examine every -submission which the individual member cannot bring in the subsequent -proceedings. - -In anticipation of these powers of the Tribunal, it has already been -determined by Law Number 10 mentioned above that every member can be -punished. Thereby these punishments, of which we have heard in the -previous speeches, have already been determined. It thus appears as if -the Tribunal could only pass a judgment _en bloc_ without having any -right to modify it, and consequently without possessing any influence on -the legal effect of its verdict. But such a concept is in contradiction -to the basic idea of the Yalta Conference, which was that of -transferring to the Tribunal the legislative powers of the signatories, -with the express purpose of vindicating this principle of justice, -namely, that only the guilty be punished, on the basis of examination of -the facts through the hearing of the members in question. Consequently -the Tribunal must have a right to determine in individual cases the -basic conditions for punishability, and to determine the objections -which should remain open to the individual, and the Tribunal must also -be able to limit the effect of its judgment by regulation of the -punishments. - -I believe that Mr. Justice Jackson expressed an opinion today which does -not contradict this. - -According to the sense of the Charter, the Tribunal is not permitted to -transfer its responsibility to the individual courts by simply leaving -for all practical purposes the decision to these courts which because of -their composition may have quite different legal views. - -The members of the organizations have been granted that very right to be -heard here before the International Military Tribunal and particularly -because of the significance of the judgment, which in all cases contains -a grave moral condemnation. To what extent then should the Tribunal -concern itself with the material for this taking of evidence? I believe -that the Tribunal, in order to determine what is deserving of -punishment, must investigate that which is typical, while the purely -individual can be left to the subsequent proceedings. - -This separation of the typical from the individual, however, is not -easy, for the submission of the members often has a double significance. -Thus the submission of a member that he did not know about the criminal -nature of the organization could mean, on the one hand, that such -purpose never existed, or, on the other hand, that the member had no -knowledge of that purpose which was really there. The first is an -objection which concerns the organization, the second a purely personal -objection. - -On the basis of these arguments I should like to answer the Tribunal’s -first question as follows: - -The factual elements of criminality as defined by criminal law cannot be -found here; the determination of criminality is the determination of -punishability as a legislative task of the Tribunal. Examination of -evidence in the procedural sense is in reality the examination of the -legislative material including the objections of the members of the -groups and organizations. To what extent the Tribunal itself must -examine the material depends on the scope and the effect which it -intends to give and which it is able to give to the verdict. Only that -which is not typical and which is not of importance as far as _de lege -ferenda_ considerations are concerned, only that can be left to the -individual trials. - -To Questions 2 and 3: Under Point 2 and 3 the Tribunal puts a question -regarding the limiting of the groups of members and the limiting of the -length of time of the criminality. Both questions touch the same -problem, namely, whether such a limitation is dependent on a motion on -the part of the Prosecution, or whether the Tribunal itself can limit -the contents of its verdict. - -I believe Mr. Justice Jackson today expressed the opinion that the -Tribunal has the power to make such a limitation. But, as regards the -political leaders, the Prosecution reserve to themselves the right, in -the case of a limitation of the groups of members as proposed by them, -later to introduce other trials against these members who are now being -excluded or to take other measures. - -However, such a right is not given to the Prosecution in the Charter. It -also stands in contradiction to the natural powers of the Tribunal of -including in its decision an acquittal—a power which cannot be -eliminated by reservation made by the Prosecution. The evidence material -to be examined also cannot be limited through such a limitation as -proposed, for the judgment delivered on the indicted organizations must -include these organizations as a whole. It is not permissible to seize -upon merely the unhealthy elements of groups during a period which was -not typical and still declare the organization criminal. - -That which is to be considered a group or an organization does not -depend on the discretion of the Prosecution, as is also seen in Article -9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, according to which the criminal -character must stand in some relationship to the acts of one of the main -defendants. This can only be understood to mean that the membership of -the organization must be influenced by the actions of one of the major -defendants at a given time. However, this is not for the Prosecution but -for the Tribunal to decide. - -Accordingly, I should like to answer Questions 2 and 3 as follows: - -Question 2: A limiting of the incriminating period does not depend on a -motion of the Prosecution. The Tribunal itself can and must limit the -length of time, if the organizations or groups were not deserving of -punishment throughout the whole period of their existence. If the -actions of the main defendant, as a member of the organization, were not -incriminating during the whole period of the existence of the -organization, then such a limitation must follow. - -Question 3: For the limiting of the groups of members the same applies -as for the limiting of the period of time. - -The Tribunal can, on the basis of its own powers, limit the effect that -its verdict will have in the case of all groups and organizations. It -must undertake this limitation, if the actions of the main defendant in -his capacity as a member of the organization are not to incriminate -certain groups of members. A limitation of the Indictment or of the -effect of the verdict does not limit the evidence material which is the -basis of the judgment. - -These were the remarks I wanted to make in answer to the questions of -the Tribunal. I should like now merely to take a stand on a question -that has also been brought up today, namely, the application for a legal -hearing, if the Tribunal permit me to discuss this question. According -to Article 10 of the Charter, every member of an organization can be -brought to trial, if the organization has been declared criminal. The -decision is left up to the Tribunal. The essential task of the Tribunal -is the hearing of the members. Without this hearing a sentence is not -possible. That is the basic condition without which the proceedings -cannot be carried out. So far, the Defense has about 50,000 applications -from the millions of members. In order that the Tribunal should not draw -the false conclusion that the overwhelming majority of those affected -admit their guilt by remaining silent, I must emphasize that such guilt -will be most passionately denied by all those affected. - -I shall therefore go into the reasons why so few applications have been -submitted, and I shall show that this is not the fault of those affected -or the result of negligence. Not a lack of interest or disrespect of the -Court but rather certain clear facts are responsible for this lack of -response. - -The announcement in the press and over the radio at the beginning of the -proceedings regarding the right to be heard was made at a time when -there were practically no newspapers in the destroyed cities and radios -were a rarity. - -In addition, because of the paper shortage, it was made in small print -and for the most part was simply not understood. The Tribunal ordered an -announcement to be made in the internment camps, where a great number of -the people affected are concentrated. To what extent this announcement -actually was made, I have not yet been able to determine. Mr. Justice -Jackson showed various documents this morning and from them I shall be -able to inform myself. The fact that so few applications have been made -gives cause for concern. But even those people who have obtained -knowledge of their right have apparently not been able as yet to make -applications to the Court. At the time of the announcement there was no -postal service between the various zones, and there are still no postal -connections with Austria, where there are probably tens of thousands of -men in custody. - -In the announcement to the organizations, because of the lack of postal -facilities, two additional ways were provided for submitting these -applications. Both of them proved to be insufficient and are the main -reason why we have so few applications. Those members who are not in -custody were to submit their applications through the nearest military -office. - -I know of no case in which an application was made in this way. The -attempt to use this procedure failed because of the lack of co-operation -on the part of the offices. I could give an example of this. - -The interned members were to submit their applications through the -commanding officer of their camp. Only in the case of a few camps, weeks -and months after the beginning of the Trial, were applications, which -had been made in November, received, and even then only from some of the -camps in the American and British zones and from a camp in the United -States. From the Soviet, Polish, and French zones, as well as from -Austria and other camps in foreign countries where there are camps, no -applications have as yet been received, so far as I know. I shall leave -it to the Tribunal to form its opinion of these facts. - -The uniformity of the circumstances shows, however, that it cannot be -the fault of the members of the organizations. Of the many difficulties -I should like to give only one striking example, which will give an -insight into the situation. In one camp about 4,000 members of various -organizations asked in November 1945 to be permitted to make use of -their right. A few days ago I was told in the camp by a guard officer -that at that time no applications were permitted since those in custody, -according to the rules of the camp, could not communicate with anyone -outside the camp. An army order would have been necessary for -transmissions of the applications, but there was no such order and -present restrictions were strictly adhered to. - -Another reason for the nonarrival of applications is the fact that those -concerned feared certain disadvantages. There was the fear that the CIC -would take action against the applicants because of their applications. -This fear was inspired particularly by the fact that the announcement of -the right to make applications was accompanied by the notice that the -applicants would not be granted immunity of any kind. The effect of this -is seen particularly in the case of those members not in custody, from -whom only very few applications have been received, and these very often -submitted anonymously or under false names. - -It would be welcome if the Tribunal could inform the public that such -fears are without foundation, and that the participation of all is -sought so that a false decision can be avoided. Thereby the inadequacy -of the present procedure for making applications would be remedied. - -From all this it can be seen that the first stage of the making of -applications has already shown itself to be so inadequate that the legal -hearing is a mere illusion. But even those applications that have been -received are, with a few exceptions, worthless, and for the following -reasons: On the basis of the applications the Tribunal is to decide -whether persons should be heard. But for practical purposes this can -happen only if these applications state the reasons. Such reasons are -either entirely lacking in the applications or they are useless. An -application without contents or an application which contains in the -main mere asseverations and figures of speech can form no basis for a -decision. - -Some of the applications do not even mention the official function of -the member in the organization or his civilian profession. This faulty -sort of application can obviously be traced back in the case of the men -in custody to an order issued by the camp commander which permitted only -collective or group applications or prescribed certain forms to be -followed. All those affected, whether in custody or not, were not able -to set out their reasons intelligently, because those accused know only -that their organization is said to have been criminal, but they do not -know in what this criminality consists. Insofar as detailed statements -were made, in single cases, they are based on assumptions. - -In order to relieve the situation, Defense Counsel have visited various -camps known to them to clear up the matter and to get practical -information. I shall not go into the difficulties which had to be -overcome. I do not want to discuss the limitation placed on the length -of time that we could stay in the camp and similar things; but I must -mention that the visits to the camps have been without success insofar -as I have not yet received the sworn affidavits and the other written -statements of the members made subsequent to our visit, although I know -that in one case they were handed over to the camp commander. - -In these circumstances the fact is that today, 3 months after the -beginning of the Trial, the technical basis for the procedure for -hearing the members is not yet in existence. Defense Counsel for the -large organizations are also hardly in a position to make up for this -delay in a short period of time. On the other hand, the actual material -is extremely comprehensive, as in the case of the political leaders, -where there are about fifteen to twenty categories, such as the Workers’ -Front, Propaganda Section, Organization Section, and so forth, which -must be examined as to their functions and as to their criminal -character. None of this can be neglected, and even the appearance of a -less careful treatment must be avoided. I shall not discuss the -difficulties which confront the Defense Counsel as a result of the fact -that Defense Counsel now for the first time learn from the Prosecution -of certain legal questions. - -The members in custody are particularly interested that their case be -decided quickly. Nevertheless, I am compelled by prevailing conditions -to make a motion, namely, that the proceedings against the groups and -organizations that are to be declared criminal be separated from the -main trial and be carried out as a special subsequent trial. This motion -is also compatible with the particular nature of the trial as I -discussed it at the beginning of my remarks. - -I should like to add to my motion a suggestion as to how the legal -hearing might be made possible. This proposal of mine is occasioned by -the proposal made this morning for carrying out the hearing by means of -a “master,” that is, I assume, a legal officer of the Allied armies. - -I cannot object too energetically to this suggestion. In my opinion, it -is one of the main rights of a Defense Counsel to collect his own -information, and it is the right of every defendant to speak with his -counsel. It would be incomprehensible that the Allies, who are concerned -with the prosecution, should at the same time work for the Defense. One -cannot expect that an officer, despite any amount of objectivity, could -be so objective in his feelings that he would give information to the -defendant and have an understanding of the latter and his feelings. - -My proposal is this: That each camp should have a German lawyer who -receives his information from the main Defense Counsel and instructs the -members interned in the camp and collects information. Then, in a -relatively short period of time, a selection of material can be made by -the Defense Counsel—a selection of the persons who can appear here as -well as of the material that can be submitted of the latter and his -feelings. - -In the proposal made here this morning by the Prosecution I see an -elimination of the Defense Counsel, and I should have to ponder a long -while as to what stand I, on behalf of the Defense, would take to such a -proposal. - -DR. RUDOLF MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Regarding the general -questions concerning the admissibility of declaring an organization -criminal, the technical procedure for the submission of evidence, and -the criminal character of the organizations in general, I refer to what -my colleagues Dr. Kubuschok and Dr. Servatius have said. I have just a -few additional statements to make. - -Regarding the question of applications, I can say from my own experience -that it has seemed strange to me, too, that the length of time between -the formulation of applications in the individual camps and the arrival -of these applications in the hands of the Defense is so extremely long. - -To mention one example, a few days ago we received applications from a -camp in Schleswig-Holstein, some of which were drawn up in November and -December. I, myself, in order to get information, sent letters to the -camps. I sent them 5, 6, and 7 weeks ago and I have so far received no -answer. - -In Camp Hersbruck, for example, I know that in November an application -for a hearing, with reasons given in detail, is said to have been sent -by members of the SS and Gestapo to the Defense Counsel—this has been -confirmed to me by reliable sources. Neither the Defense Counsel of the -SS nor I have received this application. - -Very few applications have been received from members of the Gestapo. In -my opinion one of the reasons is that the far greater number of -internees doubtless do not know that they are being represented and -defended in this Trial, for the announcement sent to the camps was made -in November of last year. Defense Counsel for the organizations were not -appointed until the decision of 17 December 1945. The correctness of my -opinion can be seen conclusively, I believe, from the following: About -three weeks ago in a German newspaper, the _Neue Zeitung_, an article -appeared regarding this question of the organizations and in this -article it states, word for word: “The organizations, as is, of course, -well-known, are not represented in the Nuremberg Trial.” Thus, if not -even the press knows of the fact that Defense Counsel for the -organizations have been sitting here in the front row for months and -have often spoken here from the lectern, what can one expect the -individual internees, who are living in camps hermetically shut off from -contact with the rest of the world, to know about the facts of the -Defense? That is what has to be said on this point. - -I, also, by the way take the point of view that the question whether the -organizations in their entirety can be indicted here is an absolute -_terra nova_ in the history of jurisprudence and that it is something -which in its extent and its scope and in its effects shakes the very -foundations of jurisprudence. In addition, as has been mentioned, -organizations are to be judged which ceased to exist almost a year ago. -In the criminal procedure of all civilized countries it is a basic -condition that the defendant still be alive; proceedings cannot take -place against a dead defendant. - -According to Mr. Justice Jackson’s statements today, the organizations -of the Gestapo and SS, for example, are to be held responsible for the -liquidation of the Jews in the East; and it is pointed out that because -of the death of millions of Jews and the impossibility of determining -who the individual perpetrators were, the organizations as such must be -judged in order that the guilty be punished. Of course, the Defense -holds the conviction and takes the point of view that the guilty must be -punished, but only the guilty. It is a fact, for example, that an -Einsatzgruppe of the SD, whose task it was to solve the Jewish problem -in the East, contained on the average only about 250 members of the -Gestapo. Considering the total number of 45,000 to 50,000 members of the -Gestapo, this figure is thus a very small one. In the case of a general -verdict against, for instance, the Gestapo, more than 45,000 people -would be affected who had absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I -refer to the example of a mass murderer who cannot be captured, and -whose whole family is taken into custody in his stead and condemned. - -In view of the very important statements which have been made today by -the Prosecution regarding the question of the organizations, I ask the -Tribunal for permission, after the record has been received, to state my -attitude, if necessary, to just a few other points today; first of all, -to the question of the time during which the Gestapo is to be considered -criminal. In this connection I must assert that at least until the year -1939 the Gestapo was a lawful, legally established institution. It is -also true that the Indictment refers to crimes which can be charged to -the Gestapo only after the autumn of 1939, that is, after the beginning -of the war. - -Today the Prosecution have furthermore excluded secretarial and office -workers from the Indictment. I am in agreement with this. It is in -accordance with the motion made by me already in December. I submit -further that not only the secretarial and office personnel but also all -other employees be excepted, because the reason for dropping the charges -against the office personnel is doubtless that the Prosecution are -convinced that this office personnel had nothing to do with the crimes -of which the Gestapo is accused. - -It should also be considered whether the administrative officials of the -Gestapo, who represented about 70 percent of the personnel of the -Gestapo, should be excluded from the Indictment. All of the 500 -applications received so far are from such administrative officials. -These officials were trained only in the field of administration. They -had neither the training nor the knowledge for the making of criminal -investigators. They could not be used for the execution of any criminal -actions, because they had no executive power. They were active only in -matters of personnel and finance—personnel matters such as the -appointment of officials, promotions, dismissals, and so forth; matters -of finance such as the administering of budget funds, figuring out and -compiling salary and wage lists, renting of offices, _et cetera_. These -are all things which have nothing to do with executive power, and -especially not with the crimes imputed to the Gestapo by the -Prosecution. In my opinion these people are just as entitled to -exemption as the secretarial and office personnel, who have already been -exempted by the Prosecution. - -I should like to touch briefly on one other point of view, that is, the -question of voluntary joining of an organization—a question which has -played an important role. On 7 June 1945 Mr. Justice Jackson, in his -statement to the President of the United States, said, among other -things, the following: Units such as the Gestapo and SS were fighting -units and consisted of volunteers—people especially suited for and -fanatically inclined to the plans of violence of these units. To what -extent that is true of the SS, I do not know. As far as the Gestapo is -concerned, it certainly is not true, for the Gestapo was a State -organization founded by the Defendant Göring on the basis of the law of -23 April 1933. It was a police authority just as was the Criminal Police -whose duty it was to track down crimes or the Regular Police who were -responsible for controlling traffic. The personnel consisted mostly of -life-long career officials, some of whom had been in the police service -many years before the creation of the Gestapo, and who, when this police -organization was created and in the ensuing years, were ordered to, -detailed to, or transferred to this police authority. According to the -German law affecting civil servants these officials were obliged to -follow such orders. They had never come voluntarily to the Gestapo. At -the most there might perhaps have been 1 percent who were voluntary -members; but 99 percent of the members were forcibly ordered on the -basis of this law. - -That is what I have to say at the moment. I should like, however, to -reserve for myself the right to speak some time later about today’s -discussions. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. We will adjourn now. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 1 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTY-FIRST DAY - Friday, 1 March 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: At the conclusion of the argument on the organizations, -which the Tribunal anticipates will finish before the end of today’s -session, the Tribunal will adjourn into closed session. Tomorrow morning -at 10 o’clock the Tribunal will sit in open session for consideration of -the applications for witnesses and documents by the second four -defendants. Will the defendant’s counsel who was in the middle of his -argument now continue? Dr. Merkel, had you finished? - -DR. MERKEL: Yes, Sir. - -DR. MARTIN LÖFFLER (Counsel for the SA): May it please the Tribunal: The -objections and misgivings expressed yesterday by the Defense regarding -the criminal proceedings against the six accused organizations are -particularly applicable when judging the SA. - -No other organization is so much exposed to the danger of a sentence -contrary to our sense of justice as is the SA. I ask the Tribunal’s -permission to submit the reasons for this fact. - -The demand of the Prosecution that the SA should be declared a criminal -organization affects at least 4 million people at a conservative -estimate. The limitation according to groups approved yesterday by -Justice Jackson was gratifying and welcome; but it will have no -appreciable effect on the numbers since the groups eliminated yesterday, -the armed SA units and the bearers of the SA Sports Badge, were not full -members of the SA. The only persons so far eliminated, therefore, are -the SA Reserves. As no limitation according to time was made, these -criminal proceedings will include everyone who ever belonged to the SA, -even for a very short time, during the 24 years between its -establishment in 1921 and its dissolution in 1945, that is to say, -during a period of almost a quarter of a century. - -We heard yesterday from the Prosecution that the criminal acts charged -to the organizations are the same as those charged to the main -defendants, namely, Crimes against Peace, crimes against the laws or -customs of war, and Crimes against Humanity, as well as participation in -the common conspiracy. - -If we now contemplate the possible participation of these 4 million -former SA men in these four important categories of crime, we get the -following picture: - -Crimes against the laws or customs of war are not charged to the SA. It -is true that the Prosecution presented an affidavit saying that the SA -also took part in guarding concentration camps and prisoner-of-war camps -and in supervising forced labor; but, according to the presentation of -the Prosecution, this did not occur until 1944 within the framework of -the total war raging at that time, and it has not been charged that this -activity of the SA involved any excesses or ill-treatment. - -In none of the atrocities reported here by witnesses and documents did -the SA with its 4 million members participate. The few offenses against -humanity charged to the SA by the Prosecution and committed by -individual members in the course of almost a quarter of a century can in -no way be compared with the serious crimes against humanity of which we -have heard here. - -The occupation of the trade-union buildings by the SA, adduced by the -Prosecution as another point, took place on the order of Reichsleiter -Ley, who used the SA for this operation, and this happened after the -seizure of power. - -Even the Prosecution did not assert that any outrages, ill-treatment, or -excesses occurred when this operation was carried out. The fact that in -connection with the seizure of power in the spring of 1933 individual -excesses occurred, and that the American citizens Rosemann and Klauber, -according to the affidavits submitted by the Prosecution, were beaten on -this occasion is certainly regrettable. However, such excesses on the -part of individual persons are unavoidable in organizations comprising -millions of people and, considered by themselves, are hardly proper -grounds for declaring the entire organization criminal. - -The participation, finally, of the SA as guard troops in concentration -camps is, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, restricted -to single exceptions and ended anyway in 1934. The commandant of the -Concentration Camp Oranienburg, according to the presentation of the -Prosecution, was an SA Führer. However it is not asserted that he -committed any atrocities. - -The second case, the ill-treatment of prisoners in the camp of Hohnstein -by SA and SS members in 1934 led to criminal proceedings and the SA men -guilty were sentenced to imprisonment of up to 6 years. - -As a last individual act there remains the participation of the SA in -the excesses during the night of 10 and 11 November 1938, when the -windows of Jewish stores were broken and the synagogues were burned. -Here, too, the plan and the order did not originate with the SA. The SA -was simply commissioned by the highest Party leadership to carry out -this order. Finally if we consider that during the political struggles -of 1921 to 1933 the old SA was involved in brawls—often purely -defensive—with political opponents and that it did not develop into an -organization with millions of members until after the seizure of power, -we arrive at the following conclusion, expressed in figures: - -On the basis of the presentation of the Prosecution at most 2 percent of -all the indicted former SA members participated in punishable individual -actions; 98 percent of the 4 millions, according to their conviction, -kept their hands clean of any such punishable individual acts. - -Here, too, the Prosecution will not want to insist that the excesses of -these 2 percent considered by themselves should brand the entire -organization as criminal. These 98 percent, that is in round numbers -3,900,000 former SA members, must nevertheless defend themselves here -against the charge of having participated in the preparation of the war -of aggression or in the planning or execution of the common conspiracy, -or, formulated more strongly, against the charge of having belonged to -organizations which pursued these criminal purposes. - -What is the result if we apply the definition of the criminal nature of -an organization as formulated yesterday by Justice Jackson and Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe? - -The SA members will acknowledge that the criteria under Points 1 and 2 -as defined yesterday are also true for the SA, namely, that the SA was -an aggregation of numerous persons with collective aims and a membership -which was voluntary in principle. However, they will strenuously deny -the application of the Criteria 3, 4, and 5. Point 3 requires that the -organization pursued objectively criminal aims in the sense of Article 6 -of the Charter. The millions of members, if testifying here, would state -that neither in the programs nor in the speeches of their leaders had -they been called upon to pursue such criminal aims or methods. Whether -the leaders of the SA pursued such criminal aims in secret or not these -people are not in a position to judge. Whether such criminal aims were -pursued secretly by the leadership of the SA can be determined only by -the Tribunal, and only now when the archives have been opened, witnesses -can testify, and the documents are laid open to the Court. - -Now, Point 4 of the Prosecution’s definition, if I understood Justice -Jackson correctly yesterday, requires, beyond this, as an element of -crime involving subjective guilt, that the aims and methods of this -organization were of such character that a reasonable, normal man may -properly be charged with knowledge of them. - -I should like at this point to emphasize particularly that I, in -agreement with my colleagues, do not consider this definition an -adequate protection, since it means that a member may be punished even -if he did not recognize the criminal nature of the organization but -ought to have recognized it by application of reasonable care. I know of -no system of penal law in any modern civilized state which holds that -negligence, even of a gross or serious nature, is sufficient to -constitute guilt of an infamous common crime, that is, of a crime -belonging to the group of severest offenses. A crime of this category -can be committed only with intention. Perhaps the Prosecution can later -discuss this question on the basis of their knowledge of the particulars -of Anglo-Saxon and other foreign legal systems. - -This point seems of particular importance to me because—if it is -neglected—there is the danger that the judges, particularly the -Anglo-Saxon judges, will apply the political standards of their -countries to German conditions. The sober political instinct that is -characteristic of the citizens of England and America is nonexistent in -the Germans. We are a politically immature people, credulous, and -consequently especially susceptible to political misguidance. The Court -should not overlook this dissimilarity when passing its judgment on the -good faith of the individual members of the organizations. According to -the impressions which the Defense of the SA has received to date from -its visits to camps and from numerous letters, the majority of SA -members are convinced that they did not belong to any criminal -organization. Among other reasons are the following subjective ones: - -It was generally known and has been specifically stated in the -_Organization Book_ of the Party—Document 1893-PS, Page 365—that only -a person whose character was unobjectionable could join the SA. It is -further stated verbatim, and I quote: “Unobjectionable reputation and no -criminal record.” The members of the SA maintain that they know of no -case in which a gang of criminals or conspirators required in their -statutes similar conditions for membership. - -Part of the essence of a conspiracy is the idea that its criminal aims -be kept secret from its opponents. An organization of several millions -is, by its very nature, not suited to carrying out a plot. The leaders -of the SA emphasized in numerous addresses that they wanted to maintain -peace under all circumstances. They pointed out that Germany would be -rather a danger to European peace if she were without defense and arms -in the heart of Europe and that being in a state of preparedness was the -best guarantee for securing future peace in Europe. The simple members -point again and again to the fact that foreign powers gave diplomatic -recognition to the leaders of National Socialism. They consider this -fact not simply an act of “international courtesy” but are convinced -that foreign governments would not have entered into relations with the -German Government if that German Government had consisted of open -criminals. - -I might mention a particularly characteristic example: the Indictment -against the SA is substantiated by a number of documents. These are -Documents 2822- and 2823-PS. According to these documents, as early as -May 1933 Lieutenant Colonel Auleb, a deputy of the Reich War Ministry of -that time, was detailed to the high command of the SA in order to assure -liaison between the heads of the two organizations. But the whole affair -is treated as strictly secret, and it is ordered that Auleb should wear -the SA uniform for the purpose of “camouflage.” How, I ask, should or -could a simple SA member have known anything of such affairs? I have -mentioned here only a few points put forward by SA members which, in the -opinion of the Defense, do not constitute unfounded subterfuges, but -which show that the majority of these people never thought of -participating in a criminal conspiracy. - -Also the fifth criterion set up yesterday by the Prosecution to define a -criminal organization—the close connection between the main defendants -and the SA—is in the case of no organization so difficult to prove as -in the case of the SA. This may, at first, sound surprising; of the main -defendants here, six were high-ranking members of the SA. Nevertheless, -a closer scrutiny shows that there were no close connections at all. -Except for Göring, none of the main defendants ever exercised command -authority over the entire SA. The rank which these main defendants had -in the SA was an honorary rank; and, so to speak, merely decorative. -Consequently, the Prosecution has mentioned only Göring’s connection -with the SA in its recent list of the criminal elements. But even -Göring’s connection with the SA curiously enough is very slight and is -actually confined to a period of three quarters of a year—that is—9 -months, namely, from February 1923 to 9 November 1923, that is to say, -23 years ago. Göring was never, as stated in Appendix A of the -Indictment, Reichsführer of the SA. That is an error. Rather, in -February 1923 Göring was commissioned to take over the command of the -then existing Party group for the protection of meetings—the so-called -Sturmabteilung. Göring led the SA until the November Putsch of 9 -November 1923. On that day his command power over the SA came to an end -and was never revived. Later Göring was given by Hitler honorary command -of the unit Feldherrnhalle. He was the honorary commander, not the -active commander of this unit. I believe the difference between honorary -and active command of a regiment is known in all states. I do not have -to give any further explanation. Honorary command has a purely -decorative significance. - -The task which the SA had to carry out under Göring in the year 1923 was -the protection of meetings. Anyway, it cannot be charged that at that -time the SA, in co-operation with Göring, already planned the crimes -stated in Article 6 of the Charter or that these aims could have been -anticipated at that time in any tangible form. Neither can it be charged -that Göring ever made use of the SA after 1923 for carrying out any -criminal plan. The man who led the SA from 1930 to 1934, Ernst Röhm, was -an embittered opponent of Göring’s. After his death the SA was led by -Victor Lutze from 1934 to 1943 and from 1943 until its dissolution, by -Wilhelm Schepmann. - -According to Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, an organization can -be declared criminal only in connection with any act of which a main -defendant may be convicted. From a legal and factual point of view I -have the gravest doubts as to whether the facts of the case in 1923, as -described by me, are sufficient to comply with the requirements of the -Charter as far as the SA is concerned. This could be done only if the -Tribunal had reason now to pass sentence on Göring’s activity as leader -of the SA group for protecting meetings 23 years ago, including the -November Putsch, as a special crime. This, however, would be at variance -with the fact that this entire action was settled with legal effect by -the amnesty of the democratic Reich Government, whereby the matter was, -at the time, disposed of in this fashion. - -May it please the Tribunal, if it is a fact in the case of any -organization, then certainly it is a fact in the case of the SA, that -its being listed among the criminal organizations is contrary to the -real picture. Large circles abroad, particularly those who were forced -to leave Germany in 1933, knew nothing of the complete change of -structure which the SA underwent during the following years. The foreign -countries heard at every Reichstag session the traditional song, “The SA -Marches,” while, as a matter of fact, the SA had long since lost all -political influence and had been transformed _en masse_ into an -association with a huge membership, the very size of which rendered it -harmless as far as conspiracy was concerned and which showed all the -characteristics of the so-called German club-mindedness. I refer in full -here to the statements made by Colonel Storey, himself, in his speech -for the Prosecution. This is on Page 1546 of the Court’s Record (Volume -IV, Page 138). The organization through which the SA was then eliminated -from political life was, as is well known, the SS, and this happened on -the occasion of the so-called Röhm Putsch in 1934. That, indeed, the SA -and SS always confronted each other like rival brothers is a fact which, -in the interest of truth, should not remain unmentioned. For all these -reasons the SA is judged on a completely different basis, even by German -opponents of National Socialism; and this has already led to -contradictory results, the speedy elimination of which by the -Prosecution or the Court would be highly desirable. - -At this opportunity the following facts should be pointed out: The SA, -up to the higher ranks, is not, as a matter of principle, subject to -arrest, which is at variance with probably all the other organizations. -The new denazification law which recently came into force after thorough -consultation between German circles and the Military Government and -which is now the law in force throughout the entire American Zone, -regards all SA members of a rank lower than that of Sturmführer neither -as active Nazis nor much less as criminals. According to the electoral -procedure now in force in the American Zone of Occupation, which -recently was the basis for elections in thousands of German communities -under the directives of the Military Government, the ordinary SA -members, insofar as they were not Party members, were not only permitted -to vote, but were also eligible for election. The same people who are -before the Court accused of serious crimes may at the same time, -according to the law in force, be elected as community councillors, and, -in fact, are being so elected. - -I talked personally about two weeks ago to an SA man and asked him -whether, following the notice of the Court, he had reported here for -interrogation. He declared that he saw no reason for doing that, because -in the meantime he had been elected and approved as community -councillor. - -The regulations of Law Number 30, regarding the application of the -German community order of 20 December 1945, namely, Articles 36 and 37, -which show that SA men are eligible for election, also confirm the fact, -which is known in Germany, but apparently not in foreign countries, that -an ordinary Party member had—only by comparison, naturally—a more -active political position than the completely uninfluential SA member. -Whoever was a Party member before 1937 cannot vote, and whoever at any -time was a Party member cannot be elected. - -A comparison of Party members, who are not indicted here, and SA -members, who are indicted here, shows the following facts: - -If at the time of National Socialism one was politically incriminated or -suspected one could, without difficulty, become an SA member but under -no circumstances a Party member, because in regard to Party -membership—and even ordinary Party membership—much higher political -qualifications were required than in the case of SA members. There were -certainly many SA members who joined this organization only to escape to -some extent the persecution they had to expect because of their -incriminating political record in the past. - -May it please the Tribunal, I have tried by means of these examples to -show the extraordinary danger existing in the particular case of the SA, -if all its members, including its millions of ordinary SA men, are -legally declared criminals by the Tribunal. I am sorry I cannot share -the opinion expressed yesterday by Justice Jackson that the verdict -sought from this Court would be a purely declaratory one with no -penalties involved. On the contrary I know that hundreds and thousands -of SA members, who were simple followers and were not even Party -members, have been dismissed from their positions, and their future and -their existence will depend on the verdict of this Court. A declaratory -judgment of this Court is sufficient to make them outlaws and to exclude -them from positions and professions in the future. Therefore the members -of the SA are correct in pointing out that they are denied the right of -judicial hearing. There is no direct evidence and no direct trial. A -court does not decide the fate of lifeless creatures of the law or -formal organizations that have long since ceased to exist; it passes -judgment on living human beings, and no court should forego the -opportunity of seeing in person those whom it is trying. A good judge is -always a good psychologist and soon can tell what kind of person is on -trial—whether he is a criminal or somebody who has been deceived and -misled. - -No law on earth since time immemorial ever allowed the passing of -judgment against an organization instead of against its single members. -The laws and precedents quoted yesterday by the Prosecution regarding -criminal gangs and conspiracy certainly recognize to a large extent the -collective responsibility for acts of accomplices, but two requirements -must be fulfilled there too: Firstly, the member must know that he is -party to a criminal conspiracy or criminal association; secondly, the -indictment is not directed against the conspiracy as such, and the -conspiracy will not be judged, but the persons of the individual -participants. It is the conviction of the Defense that the Charter did -not intend to stand in contradiction to these legal principles of all -states. - -The late President Roosevelt, whom Justice Jackson named the spiritual -father of the Charter, has in his great speeches, particularly in those -of 25 October 1941 and 7 October 1942, stated clearly that the leaders -and instigators shall be called to account. Permit me, Mr. President, to -read two sentences from the speech by President Roosevelt taken from the -official collection, _Speeches and Essays by President Roosevelt_, -published on order of the government of the United States. - -I quote from the speech of 25 October 1941: - - “Civilized peoples long ago adopted the basic principle that no - man should be punished for the deed of another.” - -The second quotation is from the speech of President Roosevelt on 7 -October 1942, and I quote: - - “The number of persons eventually found guilty will undoubtedly - be extremely small compared to the total enemy populations. It - is not the intention of this Government or of the Governments - associated with us to resort to mass reprisals. It is our - intention that just and sure punishment shall be meted out to - the ringleaders responsible for the organized murder of - thousands of innocent persons and the commission of atrocities - which have violated every tenet of the Christian faith.” - -In addition to these fundamental objections to such a separation of the -proceedings there is also an important technical objection. If the -Tribunal passes a declaratory judgment against the organizations, as -requested, all these millions of members of the organizations will -automatically become outlaws pending the definite legal decision in the -subsequent trials. Until that date every individual is under serious -suspicion of being a criminal, since it is questionable whether he will -succeed in exonerating himself in the subsequent trial. Since, however, -an individual person, without such exoneration will probably not be able -to return to his profession—and will also be excluded from the ranks of -honorable citizens until he is exonerated—the right to have such a -subsequent trial should not be denied to him. I believe that Justice -Jackson will agree with me in this. But if, as desired by the -Prosecution, 7 million members of organizations, according to a -conservative estimate, are affected by the declaratory judgment of the -Tribunal and thus temporarily become outlaws, then millions of -subsequent trials will have to take place. We shall have to assume that -in the course of 1 year, perhaps 100,000 trials can be completed. I -believe that this is a very optimistic estimate, as our German courts -will not be able to participate; it is well known that they are -completely overworked since they have now only a small portion of their -former personnel. Of these millions of cases, the courts will probably -have to deal first with those of the most criminal nature. The accused, -whose existence is at stake, will defend themselves during the -subsequent trials with all legal means at their disposal. There is the -danger that the really innocent people will have to wait for many years, -even for decades, before they will have an opportunity to rehabilitate -themselves through a process of exoneration. I believe that it would -have been possible to find some sort of solution. For instance, if the -Control Council had passed a law to the effect that, since there is the -suspicion that offenses and crimes against peace and humanity have been -committed with the aid of these organizations, the courts have the right -and the duty to try those of whom it can be proved that they -participated in these crimes as principals or accessories in some way or -other—if such a formula could be found, then I believe that both the -Prosecution and the Defense would consider that a just solution. The -effect would be limited to those who are actually guilty. The Defense -objects in no way to the punishment of those who are actually guilty, -provided that their guilt is determined in regular unobjectionable -proceedings. - -Should the Court, however, adhere to a verdict against the -organizations, as requested by the Prosecution, then I request for all -the reasons adduced, arising as they do from the presentation of the -Prosecution and from the impressions made by those applications which -have been filed, that judgment not be passed against the entire SA. The -point of view brought forward by Justice Jackson in the case of the -other organizations, namely, that in the face of so many murders and -atrocities the individual members of an organization can no longer be -determined as perpetrators, this point of view, noteworthy as it is, -does not apply to the SA. The few excesses which, according to the -presentation of the Prosecution, took place here, happened in Germany in -public. The perpetrators are known. Some regional courts have already -opened proceedings of this kind. I have heard, for example, that the -city of Bamberg has opened proceedings against the destroyers of the -synagogue there and against the perpetrators of the action of 10 and 11 -November 1938. - -But should the Tribunal be of the opinion that judgment is nevertheless -to be passed against the SA as an organization, then I ask the Tribunal -as far as possible to make use of the right to provide certain -limitations in regard to periods of time and categories of members, as -both the Prosecution and the Defense agree that the Tribunal has the -power to make such limitations. - -Very important distinctions are to be made here, first as to the -different periods of time. The SA men who joined the SA after the -seizure of power in 1933 joined an organization that on its face bore -the stamp of approval by the state. Admittedly not even a state -authority can declare crimes against humanity legal; but when weighing -the degree of guilt and the severity of the penalty it is, nevertheless, -of considerable importance whether the perpetrator acted outside the -bounds of the laws in force and committed offenses against the positive -law, or whether his acts, although they may offend a higher moral order, -are not contrary to the laws of his country. Therefore an exemption -should be made at any rate of all those SA members who joined after -1933, and who can be proved to have had no part in the events of 10 and -11 November 1938. - -In regard to categories, I urgently request, in the interest of justice, -a double limitation: - -1. Simple SA members up to the rank of Sturmführer should be exempted at -any rate and, if possible, very soon. I mentioned previously why this -appears imperative in the interests of justice, at least in the American -Zone. Perhaps—and I should welcome this tremendously—Justice Jackson -would have the kindness to pay special attention to this matter once -more. The idea of such limitation is also supported by the fact that it -would considerably reduce the numbers by eliminating the simple -followers; and in this way the technical difficulties, which seem almost -insurmountable, would also be considerably simplified. - -2. It was gratifying that the Prosecution yesterday agreed to separate -proceedings against the SA Wehrmannschaften, the bearers of the SA -Sports Badge, and the members of the SA Reserve—or rather, to exempt -them altogether. In the interest of equality and justice as recognized -by the law and by this Tribunal, it would be fair to separate from the -SA all those special sport units which had only a loose organizational -connection with the SA. These are the Navy SA (Marine-SA) and the -Cavalry SA (Reiter-SA). - -There are a number of applications before the Court, and it is well -known in Germany to everybody involved that these particular units were -exclusively devoted to their respective sports, namely, sailing and -rowing on the one hand, and horsemanship and holding of tournaments on -the other hand. When in 1933 the Party came to power, it attempted to -take charge of all sport activities in Germany. Consequently, the -various navy clubs and the so-called country riding clubs became -affiliated with the Party, but both clubs had hardly anything to do with -the political SA, even after their regrouping. Only their chiefs were, -according to the organizational system, subordinate to the SA. They are -very well suited for separate proceedings because they constituted a -completely closed group within the SA. - -None of the main defendants present here was ever a member of one of -these sport groups. Members of the Cavalry SA feel that they are at a -particular disadvantage because the Prosecution has not indicted the NS -Kraftfahrkorps (National Socialist Motor Corps) and the NS Fliegerkorps -(National Socialist Flier Corps), which is perfectly justified, since it -is known that they were by nature sport organizations. The NS -Kraftfahrkorps and the NS Fliegerkorps were, however, until the year -1934, exactly like the Reiterkorps, sport divisions of the SA. The NS -Kraftfahrkorps succeeded in gaining organizational independence since -1934 or 1935, due to the political influence of its leader Hühnlein. The -NS Fliegerkorps also succeeded in doing so. The NS Reiterkorps, however, -did not have such influence and merely succeeded in 1936 in being -recognized as an independent NS Reiterkorps; but it still remained -formally connected through its leadership with the SA, since Litzmann, -the Chief of the Reiterkorps, was subordinate to the Chief of the SA. -For this purely formal reason about 100,000 farmers and farmhands who -enjoyed education in horsemanship through these country riding clubs are -indicted here. It can be proved that they never took part in politics or -in any activities against Jews or people of other beliefs. Likewise a -pursuit of militaristic aims is out of question in the case of the -Cavalry SA. Already after the First World War it was evident that the -horse had no further role in war. This charge would rather be in point -as far as the Kraftfahrkorps and the Fliegerkorps are concerned. The -Prosecution stated correctly that these organizations were by nature -predominantly sport organizations. - -For this reason I should be grateful to the Prosecution if they would -once more examine the cases I have mentioned in order to find out -whether or not the same conditions exist in this case as in the case of -the SA Reserve and the armed SA units. - -As the last group I mention the SA university units (SA -Hochschulstürme), because they were almost without exception obligatory -organizations for those students who would not have been admitted to the -state examinations without a record of activity in such organizations. -The same thing applies to the SA health units (SA Sanitätsstürme), which -represented an obligatory activity for many physicians who were applying -for positions. - -I should like to correct myself on one point, because it has been called -to my attention that I wanted to set a time limit for those SA members -joining after 1933. I should have said, “after 30 January 1933,” the day -of the seizure of power. - -In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the hearing of SA -members. Most of the members of the SA are free. If only a few so far -have written to the Court, this is almost exclusively due to the fact -that, since the SA in this country is generally considered inoffensive, -they can hardly imagine that a Court with the experience and the high -standing of this Tribunal could reach a decision which would differ from -public opinion. Should the Court, however, adhere to its conception of -the SA, then I should like to support the suggestion made yesterday by -the Prosecution to the effect that the notice be published once more for -the members to make an effort to defend their interests. However, I -share the opinion of counsel for the Leadership Corps, that it would not -serve the interests of the proceedings if the direct contact between the -Defense Counsel and his client were destroyed. In the case of the SA men -who are free, a technically simple method could be used by having the -main Defense Counsel in Nuremberg appoint deputies, preferably lawyers, -in every province, for example, Baden, Bavaria, and Württemberg. The -provincial press should make mention of these men. Every individual -member of an organization could, with the help of these lawyers, answer -by means of an affidavit those questions which the Court has found to be -relevant. - -In a very gratifying manner the American Chief Prosecutor stated -yesterday, if I understood him correctly, that in the trial of the -organizations, because of its fateful importance for millions of people, -the principle of justice is much more important than the question of -speedy proceedings. I should therefore like to join in the request made -by Counsel for the Leadership Corps, that the trial of the -organizations, which is to be regarded from different points of view, be -separated from the trial of the main defendants. - -Members of the Tribunal, I am at the conclusion of my remarks. I should -like, however, to reply to the words, words worth heeding, spoken by -Justice Jackson yesterday at the beginning of his address. He said that -for the first time in history a modern state had completely collapsed, -and that this surrender created for the victorious nations completely -novel problems; that one of the most important tasks was to destroy the -structure of those organizations and to prevent this country forever -from waging wars of aggression or carrying out pogroms. All people of -good will must sincerely welcome this aim and support Justice Jackson. -It is, however, questionable whether the right way toward that end is to -defame all members of organizations as such, involving millions of -people. - -I ask the Tribunal to consider that there is hardly a family in this -country which did not have near relatives in some one of these -organizations at some time. The organizations are dead, the system of -terror and falsehood has disintegrated, millions of misled and deceived -people have turned away from their leaders and seducers. But if they -find themselves ostracized and stigmatized along with them the effect -might easily be the opposite of that which we all hope for. - -Justice Jackson correctly pointed out in his speech yesterday that the -Control Council will possibly change the method of denazification used -so far, which has been rather mechanical, and make it more individual. -Present experience that mechanical treatment evokes the feeling of -injustice and thereby a false solidarity, might contribute to this. The -millions of simple misled camp followers of the organizations would -consider such a verdict an act of revenge rather than a manifestation of -justice. The ringleaders, however, could conceal their actual guilt -behind the backs of millions of people. The educational and corrective -effect of a verdict as well as the idea of just atonement would -consequently be weakened. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. LÖFFLER: I ask the Tribunal that I be permitted to make one more -remark. - -In my previous request I did not ask for the exemption of one particular -group, namely, the Stahlhelm; this was only because, according to my -information, the Stahlhelm was transferred in its entirety to the SA -Reserve after the seizure of power and therefore, in my opinion, is -included in the declaration made yesterday by Justice Jackson exempting -the SA Reserve. - -HERR BABEL: May it please the Tribunal, I should have considered it -appropriate in the interest of a speedy trial that the Defense not -answer the inquiries of the Tribunal and reply to the arguments of the -Prosecution until they have received in writing the extensive and -important arguments of the Prosecution and are thereby in a position to -deal with the whole complex of problems comprehensively and -conclusively. - -Since a number of Defense Counsel for the organizations have already -spoken, I feel prompted to do the same, insofar as I am in a position to -do so at this time and consider it necessary and appropriate. - -The Tribunal desire to have a discussion in order to define the legal -concept of the criminal organization and desire in particular to examine -the question of which qualifying elements of a factual nature are -necessary in order to declare an organization criminal. The Defense -believe that a final and basic definition of this concept, which is -entirely new to any legal system, can be given only at the end of the -proceedings by means of a special hearing of evidence after all -necessary factual information has been collected and examined. - -The Prosecution have already presented a definition, which, however, -raises very serious objections, because it is derived from legal ideas -which have grown in countries other than Germany, under different -conditions and circumstances, and which involve far less important legal -consequences than those now considered by the Tribunal, the public -opinion of the world, the German people and jurisprudence, and -jurisdiction in general. - -The organizations now indicted are mostly large mass organizations, -without aims and ideas of their own, organizations whose Party-political -aims and purposes and Party activities developed to national dimensions. - -A just and pertinent definition can be found for these organizations -only on the basis of the evidence to be presented concerning the nature -and aims of these organizations and the knowledge, intentions, and -activities of their members. Considering the basic difference of the -organizations which have been and are now being investigated, it is more -than questionable whether it will be possible to take the legal basis -applied so far to single cases as a basis for proceedings against -political organizations comprising millions of people. - -The Prosecution and the Defense are probably agreed that the Indictment -is actually not directed against the organizations, which do not exist -any more anyhow, but in fact against the former membership. Likewise the -opinion seems to be held unanimously that the Tribunal as a matter of -principle will give the members an actual opportunity, not only a -theoretical one, to be heard on the question of the criminal character -of the organizations; that follows all the more since, according to Law -Number 10, the possibility seems to be excluded that the members may -make essential objections in regard to the organizations and their own -person during the subsequent individual trials. If the Tribunal does not -measure the responsibility of the entire organization on the basis of -the responsibility of the individuals comprising it, the danger of -collective liability arises, which would create such a degree of -injustice affecting individuals in such a way that it would be much -worse than the justly attacked Sippenhaftung of the Third Reich, which -in a criminal way aimed at involving innocent members of the family in -proceedings taken against any one of its members. - -In order to define a criminal organization, evidence and information as -to the knowledge, intentions, and actions of the members of the -organizations must be provided; similarly, before convicting -individuals, either singly or in the mass, justice and human dignity -alike demand that they should each be informed of the indictment and -should each have an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. This -requirement is imperative in view of the serious legal consequence -threatening the members of the organizations in case of a verdict -against them, such as loss of property, long-term imprisonment, and even -the death penalty. - -Last but not least, the hearing of all members of the organizations is -also necessary because the unrestricted compilation of judicial evidence -appears to be inevitable in order to work out the legal definition of -criminal character. - -The Defense do not ignore the fact that, considering the scope of the -Trial, these basic demands are confronted with tremendous difficulties. -The scope of the Trial, however, should not reduce the thoroughness of -the procedure but, on the contrary, should increase it. - -May it please the Tribunal, there are businessmen who are owners of -several firms. If, now, the owner uses one of these firms to commit -criminal acts, can we say that the other firms and their employees are -also criminal? On the basis of this principle, I consider it necessary -to point out which organizations, according to the reasons given by the -Prosecution so far, are affected by the Indictment as units of the SS. -They are: - -1. The General SS—strength at the beginning of the war, about 350,000 -men. This number includes the variety of special units like cavalry, -motor, information, music, and medical units. - -2. The Waffen-SS, of which, at the end of the war, there were still -under arms about 600,000 men. In the over-all number of Waffen-SS must -be included about 36 divisions of the combat troops and a large number -of reserve units of the reserve of the Armed Forces, as well as all -those who were discharged from the Waffen-SS or who left in some other -way. The verdict in this Trial would also affect the honor of the dead -and the fate of their surviving relatives, so that the dead also will -have to be included in this number which demonstrates the far-reaching -significance of this Trial. Consequently, the total number of members of -the Waffen-SS, especially when including those discharged as unfit for -war service, would be many times larger than the figure representing the -final strength. - -On the basis of investigations under way the Defense will submit still -more accurate figures, unless this is to be done by the Prosecution, -which in my opinion ought to submit to the Court the information -necessary for a verdict. - -3. The Death’s-Head Units—before 1939, about 6,000 men. - -4. SS troops for special employment, including the Adolf Hitler -Bodyguard—before 1939, about 9,000 men. - -5. Honorary Führer of the SS, whose number will probably turn out to be -very large, as, for instance, the Farmer Leaders (Bauernführer) of the -Reich Food Estate down to the District Farmer Leaders -(Kreisbauernführer) were for the most part appointed honorary Führer of -the SS. Similar conditions prevail with respect to the chiefs of several -branches of the state administration, who were often made honorary -Führer of the SS without any initiative on their part and without being -able to do anything about it. Likewise many leaders of the Reich -Veterans’ League received honorary ranks in the SS. - -6. The “supporting members” of the SS, among whom were also many -non-Party members; their number is not yet known but it is certainly -very considerable. - -7. SS Front Line Auxiliaries of the Reich Post Office. - -8. SS Construction Units. - -9. SS Front laborers. - -10. The entire Regular Police, to which belonged: - -(a) The Municipal Police of the Reich with several special units, such -as traffic squads, accident squads, information, cavalry, police dog -squads, radio, and medical units; (b) the Gendarmerie with innumerable -stations and posts, distributed all over the country, even in the -smallest villages, which had rendered service without essential changes -since Napoleon’s time—the motorized Gendarmerie supervised traffic; (c) -the Municipal Police of smaller communities; (d) the Water Police; (e) -the Fire Police; (f) the Technical Auxiliary Police Units, the Technical -Emergency Service. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, you are going rather fast if you want us to -take down these categories. - -HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I shall submit a copy to the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: Personally, I prefer to understand the argument when I -hear it. - -HERR BABEL: I repeat: (f) the Technical Emergency Service, the -Compulsory, Industrial, and Voluntary Fire Brigades; (g) Police and -Gendarmerie Reserves; (h) the Air Raid Police, with security and -auxiliary service; (i) the Town and Country Guard. - -Further, there belonged to the Regular Police a great many central -institutions, such as the State Hospital for Police, the Police -Officers’ Schools, the Technical Police School, the Police Sports and -Cavalry Schools, Police and Gendarmerie Schools, the Water Police School -and the Reich Fire Brigade School, the Driving and Traffic Schools, the -Air Raid Precautions Teaching Staff, the School and Experimental Station -for Police Dogs, and the Horse Depot of the Police. - -In 1942 all the above-named units of the Regular Police, including the -police troop units, totaled about 570,000 men. If we follow the -presentation of the Prosecution, then all the groups, institutions, and -organizations enumerated so far belong to the SS. - -11. All those units of the Security Police which did not belong to the -separately indicted Gestapo and SD, that is, offices and officials of -the Criminal Police. - -12. The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. - -13. The Offices of the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German -Nationality. - -14. National Political Institutes. - -15. The Lebensborn Association. - -16. The SS women auxiliaries. - -All these groups, institutions, and suborganizations were under the -administration and jurisdiction of the SS. - -By way of summary, the Defense estimate the group of persons indicted as -SS members at several millions. The verdict, however, will also affect -the members of the families of all SS members, at least indirectly, so -that additional millions will be affected personally, morally, and -financially. Since, besides the SS, the mass organizations of the SA and -the Leadership Corps are also indicted, a verdict against the indicted -organizations would amount to a considerable part of the German nation’s -being considered criminal. - -According to Law Number 10 of the Control Council, of 20 December 1945, -every member may be subject to any penalty, including the death penalty, -merely because he was a member of an organization which has been -declared criminal. - -The question put to discussion by the Court as to what objections can be -made in this collective Trial and what objections can be made later in -the individual trials has, in my opinion, been decided already by Law -Number 10 to the effect that in the individual objections of a -defendant, for example, ignorance of the criminal aims of the -organization, cannot be given any consideration. - -It is, therefore, necessary that evidence in this present Trial should -be admitted to the widest extent possible. It should be made possible -for the Defense to rebut, by means of evidence of the factual situation -at the date of the respective act, the conclusions drawn by the -Prosecution retrospectively from individual acts and facts. - -When evidence on behalf of the individual defendants was submitted, the -Tribunal declared its readiness to admit evidence if there is only the -slightest degree of relevancy. Considering the significance of the -decision of this Court for the millions of people affected and for their -families, it appears to be an absolutely necessary condition that -evidence be admitted to the largest extent possible in order to permit a -just verdict, to clarify the facts, and especially to find out to what -extent members of the SS participated in any criminal acts according to -Article 6 of the Charter. - -To clarify the question of whether it is permissible to conclude from -the fact of the extent of the indicted actions, as maintained by the -Prosecution, that the members of the SS had knowledge of these actions, -it will also be necessary to admit evidence to the widest extent -possible about the question as to whether or not and, if so, to what -extent the members of the SS knew of these actions, as well as evidence -of the facts which prove that the members of the SS, like the majority -of the German people, did not know anything about these matters, owing -to the precautions taken to keep them secret. - -The discussions initiated by the Tribunal make it necessary to -anticipate essential parts of the final pleadings. A ruling by the -Tribunal on the question of evidence would at this time signify a ruling -by the Tribunal on an essential part of its future decisions, without -any hearing of the evidence on the objections of the Defense having -taken place. The Charter has a gap, insofar as it has not defined the -facts which qualify an organization as criminal. This gap cannot be -filled by admitting evidence only in a certain direction. By doing so -the Tribunal would anticipate an essential part of its final verdict. - -According to what I have said, I believe that it will be necessary for -the evidence to include all elements which might influence the decision -of the question as to whether the organization of the SS was criminal. -This, however, would hardly be possible within the framework of this -Trial which, according to the Charter, is to be conducted as -expeditiously as feasible. Therefore, I consider it necessary to -separate the procedure against the SS and the SD from the trial of the -individual defendants. - -On 15 January 1946, partly for other reasons, I made a motion for -separation. As far as I know, no ruling has yet been given. I repeat -this motion as follows: - -Judging from the course of the Trial and the procedure up to now, I have -come to the opinion that the Indictment against the organizations of the -SS and the SD—for which I have been appointed Defense Counsel by an -order of the International Military Tribunal of 22 November 1945—and -probably against the other indicted organizations also, cannot be dealt -with within the framework of this Trial for factual and legal reasons. - -1. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I restrict myself to a few -brief points reserving for myself the right to present additional -arguments at a later date: - -(a) The International Military Tribunal has no jurisdiction. To this -point I should like to remark that a few days ago I learned from a -newspaper article that the objection of lack of jurisdiction has already -been raised during the session of 20 November 1945 and has been -overruled by the Court. I asked for a copy of the record of 20 November -1945—and also of the following days—but I have not received it to -date. Therefore, I could not take note either of the motion and the -reasons given or of the decision of the Tribunal and its reasons. - -(b) A criminal procedure against an organization is not possible or -permissible, especially against an organization which has been -dissolved. - -(c) To appoint a Defense Counsel for a dissolved organization, that is, -for something non-existing, is not possible and admissible. - -2. As to the facts, I am compelled to make more detailed statements in -support of my motion. - -On 19 November 1945 I was told orally that the International Military -Tribunal intended my nomination as counsel for the organization of the -Leadership Corps. After discussion I declared in writing my agreement to -take over the obligatory defense. On 20 November 1945 I was told orally -that I should take over the defense of the organizations of the SS and -SD. On 21 November 1945 I was told orally that I had been appointed -counsel for the SS and SD, and that I would receive the written -appointment very soon. On 23 November 1945 I received the letter of -appointment, dated 22 November 1945, and in the English language, and a -few days later I received the German translation which I had requested. -This letter, in the translation which I received, reads as follows: - - “Pursuant to the direction of the International Military - Tribunal you are hereby appointed to serve as counsel in the - case of _United States et al. v. Göring et al._ for the members - of the defendant organizations, the Schutzstaffeln der - Nationalsozialistischen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the - SS) and the Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the SD), who - may make application to the General Secretary under the order of - the International Military Tribunal attached hereto.” - -A few days later a file was handed to me with about 25 letters addressed -to the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal, partly -from members of the SS and partly from relatives of such members. When I -asked about my position and the position of these applicants in the -Trial, I was told orally that these applications were to be submitted by -me to the Tribunal in proper form. - -On 23 November 1945 there was a conference, during which a number of -questions and suggestions were brought up concerning the position and -rights of these members of the indicted organizations, who had applied -for and been granted leave to be heard, and of the defense counsel -provided for them. - -From 28 November 1945 until 11 December 1945 I was not able to obtain -the applications filed by members of the SS and SD although I asked for -them several times each day. At that time about 25 applications were -handed to me each day, upon request, and I had to return them in the -evening of the same day. I was told every time that the Tribunal needed -them and that they had not yet been returned. When I received the folder -again on 11 December 1945 the number of petitions had increased -considerably. - -By notice of 10 December 1945, according to the German translation which -I received on 11 December 1945, the Tribunal made known its view that a -member of an indicted organization who has applied to be heard on the -question of the criminal character of the organization is not to be -considered a defendant but will have the individual status of a witness -only, although he will be permitted to give evidence; furthermore, that -counsel representing any group or organization may, for this group or -organization, exercise the rights accorded by the Charter to counsel for -individual defendants. - -After a closed session of the Court on 11 December 1945, in which -counsel for the indicted organizations also took part, the Tribunal by -notice of 17 December 1945—of which I did not receive a German -translation until a few days later—directed that the respective -counsel, that is, counsel for the organizations, should represent only -the indicted groups and organizations and not individual applicants. - -Not until this date was the extent of my duties unambiguously stated and -defined. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know what your application now -is. The object of this session is to have an argument from Counsel for -the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense in order that the legal -questions with reference to these organizations should be clear, and -what your personal experience during November and December of 1945 has -to do with it the Tribunal is unable to see. - -HERR BABEL: Mr. President, before I started reading this motion, I -pointed out that already on 15 January of this year I made a motion to -separate the procedure, and to my knowledge no ruling has yet been -given. I have tried to repeat in part the reasons for this motion which -I made at the time. If the Court does not think it desirable or -necessary, I shall refrain from doing so. - -THE PRESIDENT: I don’t see any relevance in what you have been reading -to us now, either to the question of whether there should be a separate -trial or to any other questions with reference to the criminal -organizations. - -HERR BABEL: Mr. President, under these circumstances I shall not read -those further arguments, which may be known to the Court from my written -motion, and I shall come to the conclusion of what I still wish to say. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, the Court will, of course, consider the -suggestion which has been made, I think, by other counsel for the -organizations as well as the suggestion which I understand you are now -making, that it is necessary to have a separate trial. The Court will -consider that. But what you have been saying to us does not appear to me -to have any relevance to that. - -HERR BABEL: Mr. President, in my former motion I merely wanted to point -out the difficulties I had—since I was still alone and had no -assistance—before I was in a position to devote myself to my real -assignment; for that reason also, in my opinion, my motion for -separating the trial was well founded at that time. Part, or the greater -part, of what I said then has been repeated now. What I have read just -now, and the remainder of my motion, might have more significance today, -but I shall refrain from reading it, since the question of the -separation of the trial has already been brought up and argued by -others. Therefore, for the rest, I can also join in the arguments -brought forward by my colleagues in this regard. In this connection I -should like to point out that on 19 January 1946 I made a motion to be -relieved of the defense of the SD because of conflicting interests. - -I believe I ought to call this to your attention as I do not plead today -for the SD, because I have been waiting for a ruling on my motion. I -reserve for myself the right to make further statements after I receive -a copy of the record of 28 February, in particular on the question of -the membership of individuals and groups of persons in the SS, on the -definition of the lines of demarcation between the SS and the -governmental sector, on limitations as to periods and organizations, on -the question of voluntary membership, on limitation of responsibility -for other reasons according to criminal law, and on the jurisdiction of -the SS courts. - -In view of the tremendous amount of work which I had to do so far, I -have to this date not yet been able to take a stand on all these points. -I wish to make the remark that the suggestions made by the Prosecution -and several of the Defense Counsel as to the presentation of evidence -seem untenable to me. They would entail a considerable restricting of -the Defense. To carry them out seems to be impossible also for reasons -of time. - -This concludes my argument. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided to alter the order of procedure, -and they will therefore not sit in open session tomorrow but sit in -closed session tomorrow, Saturday; and sit on Monday in order to hear -the applications for witnesses and documents by the next four defendants -in order. - -Now, there is another counsel for the organizations to be heard, is -there not? - -DR. LATERNSER: The main subject of the discussion which, by request of -the Tribunal, has taken place today and yesterday is the question as to -what is relevant evidence in the case against the indicted -organizations. - -As a preliminary question the concept of the criminal organization in -particular must be clarified. Consequently it is not the task of counsel -for the organizations to plead in detail; that should be reserved for -the later final address by Defense Counsel, but rather the subject of -discussion is definitely limited, as far as the Defense is concerned, to -the above-mentioned question of the relevancy of evidence and also to -certain fundamental issues which must be touched upon in order to judge -the relevancy of evidence. - -According to the sequence provided by the Indictment, our colleague Dr. -Kubuschok spoke first as defense counsel for the Reich Government. In -his address he dealt with the general issues in compliance with Point -Number 1 of the decision of the Tribunal of 14 January 1946. In order to -avoid unnecessary repetition, I should like to make the legal arguments -of my colleague Kubuschok, to their full extent, part of my own -argument. At the same time I submit the request that the Tribunal pay -particular attention to the contents of these arguments presented -yesterday. - -With regard to the definition of the concept “criminal organization,” I -should like to make a few short remarks and additional statements. It is -obviously a well-considered provision of the Charter that the Tribunal -can declare the indicted organizations criminal; it is thus not obliged -to do so but can exercise its free and conscientious judgment. - -If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the declaration of the -group as criminal can or has to lead to impossible, untenable, and -unjust consequences, then the rejection of the Prosecution’s demand -would as a matter of course be mandatory. - -It has already been stated by those who have just spoken what grave -legal consequences would result, as far as the members are concerned, -from a declaration of the criminality of the groups and how the -undoubtedly vast number of innocent members would also be affected by -that declaration. As far as these consequences for the members are -concerned, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough that all the members -of the groups and organizations will be affected directly by a -declaration of criminality, insofar as by the verdict of the Tribunal it -would irrefutably be established that they are accused of a crime, -namely, the crime of having belonged to a group or organization which -has been declared criminal. That this membership is a crime already -follows clearly from Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter. In Article 10 it -is stated that the competent courts of the individual occupation zones -have the right to put all members on trial because of their membership -in groups or organizations which have been declared criminal. - -It is further enacted that in those trials the criminal nature of the -group or organization shall not be questioned. Thus, the members can be -indicted because of membership in the group or organization; and, if -every indictment before a court can, of course, deal only with a crime, -then it is already established that membership in the group or -organization is a crime. Furthermore, in Article 11 of the Charter -membership in a group or organization declared criminal is specifically -designated a crime. That follows from the very words of the article, -which reads: “. . . with a crime other than of membership in a criminal -group or organization. . . .” - -In the same way in the law of 20 December 1945, issued to implement the -Charter, membership in a group or organization declared criminal is -specifically declared a crime. Consequently the finding of the criminal -character of the group or organization by the Tribunal will state with -immediate effect that all members, because of their membership in the -group or organization, have committed a crime, and this must necessarily -lead to untenable consequences. - -It is not correct to say that these members can exculpate themselves in -the subsequent trials before the individual military courts. If mere -membership in the organization is defined as a crime, they can take -exception to the charged guilt only by declaring that they were not -members of the group or organization. - -If Justice Jackson is of the opinion that in the subsequent trials they -could plead that they had become members under duress or by fraud, the -admissibility of this plea nevertheless seems to be highly questionable. - -Justice Jackson himself pointed out that a plea of personal or economic -disadvantages cannot serve as grounds for duress. What other kind of -duress could be considered relevant? According to German criminal law -only physical coercion would be left for consideration, and that only -for the period of its duration. In this case also fear of personal or -economic disadvantage is no ground for exculpation as far as remaining -in the group or organization later on is concerned. - -Thus a member of a group or organization declared criminal has in the -subsequent trial only the possibility of pleading certain extenuating -circumstances which might influence the degree of penalty. The question -is now whether, according to the principles of justice, these inevitable -consequences are tolerable; so far as innocent members are concerned, -this question can be definitely answered only in the negative. - -Justice Jackson is further of the opinion that there probably are no -innocent members of the organizations concerned, because it is simply -incomprehensible to sound common sense that anyone joined the indicted -groups or organizations without having known from the very beginning, or -at least very soon after, what aims and methods these groups and -organizations were pursuing. - -This point of view may appear comprehensible to the retrospective -observer, after the crimes charged to the groups and organizations have -collectively been brought to light. That the mental attitude of the -members to the aims and tasks was or could have been entirely different -at that time cannot be doubted by anyone. - -If one were to subscribe to Justice Jackson’s interpretation, then the -provision of Article 9 of the Charter providing for a hearing of members -on the question of the criminal character of the organizations would -make no sense at all. It would then be entirely superfluous to admit any -sort of evidence in respect to this, and it would furthermore be -unnecessary to discuss the criminal character, as the Tribunal itself -has suggested. - -If we follow the Prosecutor’s line of thought that, according to sound -common sense, it is obvious that all the members took part in the crimes -mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter, then the provisions regarding the -Common Plan or Conspiracy would suffice altogether as grounds for -prosecuting and punishing these members who, without exception, are to -be considered guilty. In this case the structure of the declaration of -criminality and the stipulation of its consequences would in no way have -been necessary. - -From the following deliberation it is to be inferred that the -declaration of the criminality of the organizations is not necessary and -can be dispensed with altogether. - -Justice Jackson declared that, of course, no one intended an indictment -of the innumerable members of the groups and organizations, which would -result in a flood of trials which could not possibly be dealt with in -one generation. What will be done is to seek out and find only those who -are actually guilty and have them brought to trial. - -Thus it is not in any way necessary to create such a large circle of -members through the declaration of criminality and to select the guilty -from this circle. This selection can take place without creating this -circle. That in a group or organization of many members there were -obviously a number of innocent members is a fact of common experience -which cannot be disputed, and this thought is taken into consideration -not only by the Charter, but also by the Prosecution in that they want -to exempt from one of the organizations the category of those with -low-grade routine tasks, obviously because of the conviction that these -had nothing to do with crimes, for otherwise they would have been -members of or participants in the criminal conspiracy. - -Besides this category, however, a number of other members come into -consideration whom one cannot speak of as guilty in the legal sense of -the term; for instance, those people who did not give any thought at all -to the aims of the group. All these people would of necessity not only -be dishonored by a declaration of the criminality of the group or -organization but, if indicted, would also be punishable because of mere -membership. Incidentally it might be mentioned that eventually their -economic existence would be menaced or destroyed because of their -membership in the group or organization and the defamation brought about -by the declaration of criminality. - -But again it must be asked whether all these consequences have been -weighed and can be justified in view of the basic principle of all -criminal law systems, according to which only the guilty are to be -punished, and in view of the principle of substantive justice. That -ought to be answered in the negative all the more if these members who -would necessarily be affected by the verdict of the Tribunal were not -granted any legal hearing in this Trial. - -It has already been pointed out that granting a legal hearing to the -vast majority of the members is unfeasible for technical reasons. Thus -the unique situation arises that the Tribunal would pass verdict on all -those members without knowing whether or not numerous innocent members -would be affected thereby. - -If Justice Jackson further pointed out that the issue under dispute is -nothing new, but can be found in the penal codes of all other states and -in particular also in Germany, this view likewise can in no wise be -supported. The German laws and precedents quoted are of a character -entirely different from the structure of the Charter. - -In Germany, as in almost all other states, the punishment of groups and -organizations is not known at all, only the punishment of individuals is -known. No German judgment has yet been passed by which a group or -organization as such was subjected to penalty or was declared criminal. -It is very well possible, though, that in the trials against members of -criminal organizations the criminal character of the organization was -stated in the opinion. This statement, however, had effect only on the -convicted members and not on other members who were neither indicted nor -convicted. - -The provisions quoted of Articles 128 and 129 of the German Penal Code -are provisions which corroborate exactly the view of the Defense, -because they threaten only the participants in an illegal association -with penalties and not the association itself. Also, the French laws -quoted deal merely with the threat of punishment for participation and -membership in certain associations with punishable pursuits. A -possibility for declaring the association itself criminal is not to be -found in these legal sources either. - -The French Prosecutor quoted, first of all, Articles 265 and 266 of the -Penal Code. The first provision forbids the forming of associations with -a punishable pursuit; the second subjects only the participants to -penalty. Likewise, the French law concerning armed groups and private -militia, of 10 January 1936, provides only for the punishment of the -participants. The same is true of the other law quoted, that of 26 -August 1944, which provides only for individual responsibility. None of -the above-mentioned laws allows the punishment of organizations. -Consequently, they can support only the legal view of the Defense. - -If in England and America—as exceptions—associations as such can be -punished, that can be done only on account of certain groups of offenses -and only to the effect that either the dissolution of the corporation -may be pronounced or fines imposed. Naturally in such proceedings it is -a necessary condition for the Prosecution and the Defense that the -corporation as such be represented during the proceedings by its -functionaries and representatives and be able to defend itself; whereas -in this Trial the groups and organizations as such are summoned before -the Court, although they do not exist any longer and although their -functionaries are absent. - -It has never been the case in any country that groups and organizations -are declared guilty or criminal and that on the basis of this -declaration of the Court all members of the groups or organizations can -be or must be indicted and punished because of their mere membership. -This is the completely novel and odd feature which stands in contrast to -the existing law of any country. - -I believe it is permissible to say that neither England nor America -would ever be willing to pass such a law for their own population. If -all this proves that the declaration of criminality demanded must -automatically result in grave and completely untenable consequences as -demonstrated, then the demand of the Prosecution should be denied in the -name of justice. The Charter, which in no way obliges the Tribunal to -make such a declaration, would also not be violated thereby. In this way -an injustice which could only injure the integrity of the judgment of -the Tribunal in the eyes of our contemporaries and of posterity would be -avoided. - -My arguments lead to the following conclusion: - -1. The Tribunal should, because of the legal arguments presented, as a -matter of principle, refuse to declare any group or organization -criminal; it is within the Tribunal’s power to do so. - -2. If this is not done, the concept of the criminal organization must be -so defined that the innocent members are protected from serious -consequences. This can be done only by means of a definition, as -suggested yesterday by my colleague, Kubuschok. Accordingly, those -subjects of evidence proposed by him should also be admitted if they are -not _a priori_ irrelevant because of the fact that, for legal reasons, -the Prosecution’s demand of a verdict against the groups and -organizations cannot be granted. It is necessary that the following -additional evidence be admitted for the group of the General Staff and -the OKW, which I represent: - -(1) The group included under the designation “General Staff and OKW” is -not such a group and is not an organization. My explanation of this -subject of proof is as follows: - -(a) Justice Jackson is of the opinion that the concept of “group” is -more comprehensive than that of “organization,” that it does not have to -be defined but can be understood by common sense. To this I must object -that those who occupied the highest and the higher command posts -represent the heads of a military hierarchy as it is to be found in -every army in the world. There was no relationship whatsoever evident -among the members of this group. Nor can such relations be assumed -merely because of the official connections between the various offices -or because of the channels which actually existed. Moreover, since the -circle of people whom the Prosecution wish to include in this group is -admittedly composed in a completely arbitrary way, simply on the basis -of official positions occupied within a period of 8 years, there is no -evident tie which could justify the assumption of the existence of a -group. But to form a group it is absolutely necessary to have some -connecting element in addition to the purely official contact between -offices. - -(b) Aside from the Chiefs of the General Staffs of the Army and the Air -Force, none of the individual persons in the group belonged to the -General Staff. The German General Staff of the Army and the Air -Force—the Navy had no admiral staff—was headed by the Chief of the -General Staff and consisted of the General Staff officers who acted as -operational assistants to the higher military leaders. For these reasons -the designation or name given by the Prosecution to this fictitious -group under indictment is false and misleading as well. - -(2) The following subject of evidence, in addition to those advanced by -my colleague, Kubuschok, should be admitted for the group of the General -Staff and OKW: The holders of the offices forming the group did not join -a group voluntarily, nor did they remain in it voluntarily. The -admission of this subject of evidence is necessary for the following -reasons: Justice Jackson stated yesterday that joining a group, or -membership in it, must be voluntary. This condition is not present in -the case of the group which I represent. The vast majority of the -indicted higher military leaders had come from the Imperial Army and -Navy; all of them had served in the Reichswehr long before 1933. They -did not join any group, but were officers of the Armed Forces and got -their positions, which they were not at liberty to choose, only on the -basis of their military achievements. They also were not at liberty to -withdraw from these positions without violating their duty of military -obedience. - -(3) All evidence is to be admitted which refers to the charge against -the group of the General Staff and the OKW as contained in the summary -of arguments. Evidence on these points could be presented in the -following way: - -(1) A number of people concerned should make sworn affidavits from the -contents of which conclusions could be drawn regarding the typical -attitude of a certain number of those involved. (2) Some typical -representatives of the group ought to testify before this Court about -the subjects of evidence submitted. (3) Every other sort of evidence -having some probative value should be admitted to the extent necessary. - -We request that this evidence should be admitted at present to a full -extent for the time being without prejudice to a subsequent decision on -the weight of this evidence, just as Justice Jackson suggested the same -thing on 14 December 1945 with regard to the evidence offered by the -Prosecution, for at present a binding decision on the relevancy of the -evidence offered cannot be reached. - -Whether this evidence is necessary at all and whether or not and to what -extent it is relevant depends on the following: (1) Whether the -Tribunal, following the arguments of justice and fairness as submitted -and by authority of the power given it, will decline to declare these -groups and organizations criminal. (2) Or, if this is not done, in what -way it defines the concept of criminal groups and organizations. These -two points cannot be definitely decided at present, since there is still -a great deal to be said about these thoroughly difficult and significant -and completely novel problems, as well as about the impressive address -delivered by Justice Jackson. One of my colleagues has undertaken to -work out a comprehensive memorandum on all these problems and questions -which will be ready in about two or three weeks. I request that -additional arguments pertaining thereto be reserved for me and my -colleagues at that time. - -One last point: The Tribunal ought also to reach a ruling as to what is -to be done about the last word for the organizations. - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would be glad to hear -you in reply. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think there is not much that I care to say in -reply, but there are one or two points which I would like to cover. It -has been suggested that there be a separation of the trial of the issues -as to the organizations from the Trial now pending. I think that is -impossible under the Charter. I think the Trial must proceed as a unit. -Of course, it is possible to take up at separate times different parts -of the Trial, but the jurisdiction conferred by Article 9 for the trial -of organizations is limited. - -It is at the trial of any individual member, of any group, _et cetera_, -that this decision must be reached and it must be in connection with any -act of which the individual may be convicted. So I think that any -separation, in anything more than a mere separation of days or -separation of weeks of our time, is impossible. - -I find some difficulty in understanding the argument which has been -advanced by several of the representatives of the organizations that -there would be some great injustice in dishonoring the members of these -organizations or branding the members of these organizations with the -declaration of criminality. I should have thought that if they were not -already dishonored by the evidence that has been produced here, dishonor -would be difficult to achieve by mere words of the declaration. It isn’t -we who are dishonoring the members of those organizations. It is the -evidence in this case, originating largely with these defendants, that -may well bring dishonor to the members of these organizations. But the -very purpose of this organizational investigation is to determine that -part of German society which did actively participate in the -promulgation of these offenses and that those elements may be condemned; -and, of course, if it carries some discredit with it, I think we must -say that the discredit was not originated by any of our countries; the -dishonor originated mainly with those in this dock, together with those -whom the fortunes of war have removed from our reach. - -There seems to be some misunderstanding as to just what we mean, or at -least we do not agree as to what is to be meant by treating these -organizations as generally voluntary. The test which has been advanced -by the counsel for the organizations would, it seems to me, completely -nullify any practicable procedure. - -Now let us contrast the Wehrmacht and the SS to get at what I mean by -regarding an organization as generally voluntary. The Wehrmacht was -generally a conscript organization, but it may have had a good many -volunteers in it. I do not think we would be justified, because there -were volunteers, in calling the Wehrmacht a voluntary organization. The -SS, on the other hand, was generally a voluntary organization, but it -did have some conscripts, and I do not think it would be any more just -to carry the SS into the class of conscript organizations because of a -few members than it would to classify the Wehrmacht as _voluntary_ -because of a few members. In other words, in neither case would we be -justified in allowing, as we might say, the “tail to wag the dog.” It is -a question of the general character of the over-all organization that -decides what these organizations are. - -Now, of course, if the Tribunal saw fit to say that its declaration was -not intended to apply to any groups, sections, or individuals who were -conscripts, that is one thing. I have no quarrel with that. From the -very beginning I have insisted that of course we were not trying to -reach conscripts. But if you sit here week after week determining who is -a conscript and just where that principle leads, that, I think, would be -quite apart from what we ought to do here. - -A great deal of argument is addressed to the fact that proof is -lacking—or that here should be stronger proof—that these -organizations’ real criminality was known to the members; and the -inference seems to be that we must prove that every member—or, at -least—that we cannot hold members who did not know this criminal -program on the part of these organizations. I think this gets into a -question, perhaps, of the sufficiency of proof rather than one of -principle, but it seems to me again that we have the common sense -division. - -If someone organized a literary society for the study of German -literature and accumulated some funds and had a home, a house, and some -of the defendants became its officers and secretly diverted its funds to -a criminal purpose, while all the time to the public it was presenting -only the appearance of being a literary society, it might very well be -that a member should not be held unless we proved actual knowledge. Or, -if a labor union, ostensibly for the purpose of improving the welfare of -its members, has its funds or properties or the prestige of its name -diverted by those who happened to gain control of it to criminal -purposes, then you have a situation where the members might not be -chargeable with knowledge. - -But when I speak of knowledge sufficient to charge members, as I did, I -do not mean the state of mind of each individual member. That would be -an absurd test in any court of law. In the first place, it is never a -satisfactory thing to explore the state of mind of an individual; and, -in the second place, it is impossible to explore the state of mind of a -million individuals. So we might as well drop this from consideration, -if that were to be the test. - -But let us look at this over-all program. How did these few men who were -the heads of this Nazi regime kill 5 million Jews, as they boast they -did? Now, they didn’t do it with their hands; and it took disciplined, -organized, systematic manpower to do it. That manpower wasn’t casually -assembled. It was organized, directed, and used. Can the killing of 5 -million Jews in Europe be a secret? Weren’t the concentration camps -known in every one of our countries? Were they not a byword in every -land in the world—the German concentration camps—and yet we have to -hear that the German people themselves had no knowledge about it. - -Our public officials were protesting against the slaughter of Jews -diplomatically and in every other way, and yet we are told this was a -secret in Germany. The name of the Gestapo was known throughout the -world, and there isn’t a man among counsel who would not have turned -white if, in the night at his door, someone rapped and said he was -representing the Gestapo. The name of that organization was -known—unless we are to assume that it was singularly secret in Germany, -but known to the rest of the world. - -That sort of thing bears on this question of what men who joined these -organizations ought to know. There was no declared and ostensible -purpose of the SS, SA, and several of these organizations, except to -carry into effect the Nazi program. They would make themselves masters -of the streets. - -The story is all in the evidence, and I won’t go on to repeat it. The -program was an open, notorious program, and these were the strong-arm -organizations. So it seems to me that we get down to the situation -where, as Chief Justice Taft once said to the Supreme Court of the -United States on a somewhat similar question: “We as judges are not -obliged to close our eyes to things that all other men can see.” And -this was notorious and open. - -It is a little hard, if Your Honors please, for an American patiently to -listen to the arguments made here again and again, that there is some -plan here to punish with death penalties or extremely severe penalties -people who innocently got caught in this web of organizations. If there -were the slightest purpose to go through Germany with death we wouldn’t -have bothered to set up this Tribunal and stand here openly before the -world with our evidence. We were not out of ammunition when the -surrender took place, and the physical power to execute anyone was -present. - -These powers have voluntarily, in their hour of victory, submitted to -the judgment of this Tribunal the question of the criminality of these -organizations. And it seems to me a little trying on the patience of -representatives of those powers to be told that in back of this is some -purpose to wreak vengeance on innocent people. I think it is difficult -for those who have survived this Nazi regime to understand how reluctant -we are to kill any human being. It is a commentary on the state of mind -that survived this Nazi regime, rather than upon us. - -Control Council Act Number 10—I don’t know whether Your Honors have -copies of that—Control Council Act Number 10, does make membership in -the categories which may be convicted a crime, and I think it ought to. -It ought to be sufficient to bring before a Tribunal inquiring into the -detail of each individual any individual as a member, and that is all -that we have here in a declaration, in substance, an indictment which -enables you to put the individual on trial. - -It is true that the punishment may include a death penalty, and so long -as the death penalty is imposed by any society for anything, the penalty -of death ought to follow in some of these cases; the SS men who were -responsible for the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, for example, or SS -men who are shown to have been responsible for the top planning, even -though they did not actually participate. - -But I call your attention to the fact that in Provision Number 3 of Act -Number 10 the slightest penalties are also provided. The restitution of -property wrongfully acquired is one of the penalties that may be -imposed. The deprivation of some or all civil rights is another. And -during this period of reconstruction of German society, those minor -penalties may very well be imposed upon people who entered into these -organized plans. If not, you have the situation that the people who -organized themselves to force this Nazi program, first on the German -people and then on the world, are treated exactly the same as the German -who was the victim of it. Now, isn’t it our duty as occupying powers of -a prostrate country to draw some distinction between those who organized -to bring on this catastrophe and those who were passive and helpless in -the face of overwhelming power? - -Counsel for one of the defendants has already shown that, in -administering the affairs, an SA man has been made a councillor in one -of the districts. There is no purpose, because a man happened to get -into the SA, to take his life or to take his property or to condemn him -to hard labor for life. There is a purpose to have the basis for -bringing these people in for what the military people call a “screening” -and find out what kind of people they are and what they have been up to. - -This Control Council Act—while I am frank enough to say I would not -have drafted it in the language it is drafted in—this Control Council -Act leaves, in the first place, discretion as to whether prosecutions -will take place, in the hands of the occupying powers. I do not share -the fears of counsel that millions—I have forgotten how many millions -it was estimated—would be brought to trial. I know that the United -States has worries enough over manpower to bring to trial 130,000, so we -do not want to bring to trial millions. And it is for that reason that -we have consented to the exclusion of some of these categories where it -seemed we could exclude them very safely without jeopardizing the -over-all program of dealing with these people. - -Now, I want to make clear why it is that we do not want to go, in this -Trial, into this question of each of these many subdivisions of these -Nazi organizations and the functions of each. You have heard some of -them named. They are innumerable. Some of them existed a short time and -then disappeared. - -The trial of each of these subdivisions would take—I would not venture -to say how long. We do not want to see this Court trivialized. This is -not a police court. This was not set up to be a police court; and this -is a police court function, after this Court has laid down the general -principles, to take up the case of individuals or of many individuals -and to determine whether they are within or outside the definition. - -I do not know whether a mounted group of SS men are any less dangerous -than an unmounted group. I had always associated the equestrian art with -warfare, but I do know it will take a long time to determine it. - -I do not know whether SS motorcycle mounted traffic officers are less -dangerous than those who do not have motorcycles, or were less criminal, -but I should have a suspicion that the greater the mobility, the more -active the group was in carrying out these widespread offenses. - -I do not know about the physicians. I do not think it is up to us to try -it in this case, but I suspect that a medical corps meant there might be -some casualties; and this thing isn’t innocent on its face, as it -appears. This will require a great deal of evidence, if we go into each -of these things, and it seems to me that it would be out of keeping with -the character of this Tribunal to go into that kind of question. - -It is not necessary to go into the group any more than it is the -individual, and if you go into the group I know of no reason why you -should not go into the individual, because if the group is within the -general contour, each one member of that group is entitled to his -hearing before he is condemned. It may very well be that the occupying -authorities will decide that the whole group is not worth prosecuting. -We have no illusions about this thing. We are never going to catch up -with all the people who are guilty, let alone prosecuting the innocent. -If they are prosecuted, however, it may very well be that the group -would be treated together in some way, so that there could be a single -determination as to each group. - -In any event, since each individual has to have a hearing, there can be -no point in having a hearing for subgroups between the individual and -the principal organization that we ask to have declared guilty. - -If there were any point in our fully trying this question and deciding -just who is in and who is out of the circle of guilt, there would be no -reason why the Charter would not have given you power to sentence. There -would be no reason for further trials. - -It seems to me that we must look at this matter somewhat in the light of -an indictment. It is true it is an accusation against all members of the -group. It has no effect unless it is followed by a trial and a -conviction, any more than an indictment that is never followed by a -trial would have effect. The effect of the declaration is that the -occupying power may bring these individual members to trial. -Administrative considerations will enter into it—the degree of -connection. It may very well be that it will be decided that those who -were mere members and not of officer rank of any capacity should not be -punished. We cannot say just what will be necessary. - -Frankly, I do not know just what manpower is going to be available for -the United States’ part in the follow-up of these trials. There are -difficulties which I do not underestimate, but I do know that the idea -that this means a wholesale slaughter or a wholesale punishment of -people in Germany is a figment of imagination and is not in accordance -with either the spirit of this Trial or the purpose of the Charter. - -I think that is all that I care to say unless the Tribunal has some -question, which I will be glad to answer. - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, there are one or two questions I -should like to put up to you. - -First of all, in your submission, do the words in Article 11 have any -bearing, the words at the end of Article 11, where it is provided that -“such court”—in the last three lines—“may, after convicting him, -impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the -punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal -activity of such groups or organizations.” Do the words “for -participation in the criminal activity of such groups or organizations” -add anything to the definition of the word “membership“ in Article 10? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think they add anything. Frankly, the -wording of this article has bothered me as to just what it does mean, -since no punishment is imposed by this Tribunal at all for participation -in the activities of the group. The purpose of the language was to make -clear that the punishment for an individual crime, if one committed a -murder individually or was guilty of aggressive warfare planning, is not -to interfere with the punishment for being a member of a criminal -organization or _vice versa_, to make clear that they are not mutually -exclusive. But the language I am not proud of. - -THE PRESIDENT: Secondly, would an individual who was being tried before -a national court be heard on the question whether, in fact, he knew of -the criminal objects of those groups? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think he would be heard on that subject, -but I do not think it would be what we in the United States would call a -complete defense. It would perhaps be a partial defense or mitigation. I -should think that the tribunal might well—the court trying it—might -well have felt that he should have known under the circumstances what -his organization was, despite his denial that he did not; and that his -denial, if believed, will weigh in mitigation rather than in complete -defense. In other words, I do not believe that you can make as a -decisive criterion of guilt the state of mind of one of these members -where you have no power whatever, no ability whatever, to controvert his -statement of that state of mind. I think you have to have some more -objective test than his mere declaration. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then I understood you to say that it was not for the -Tribunal to limit or define the groups which were to be declared -criminal; but, as the Charter does not define them, isn’t it necessary -for the Tribunal to define what the group is? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is necessary for the Tribunal to -identify the groups which it is condemning, sufficiently so that it -would afford a basis for bringing the members to trial for membership. I -do not think it is necessary to define the exact contours of guilt. It -is defined in reference to membership rather than in terms of guilt or -innocence. That is to say, it may be that there is some little section -of the SS that on trial would be said to be not guilty of participating -in the crimes of the organization. I do not think it is up to this -Tribunal to take evidence, because if you take evidence as to some you -must as to all, to separate out those elements. The SS is a well-known -organization. Its contour is easily defined by membership, and within -those contours it does not seem to me necessary to make exceptions. - -THE PRESIDENT: But if there were to be an essential distinction on the -question of criminality between the main body of the SS and, for -instance, the Waffen-SS, would it not be the duty of the Tribunal to -make that distinction? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think that would be necessary. I think -when the member was brought to trial—one may be a conscript and still -have remained in on a voluntary basis, or he may have gone beyond his -duty as a conscript. I do not think it is necessary at this stage of the -proceeding, where the individual is not here, to eliminate him. I do -think that the principle that acts performed under conscription are not -within the condemnation of the Tribunal is quite a different thing. - -THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible for this Tribunal to limit the powers of -the national courts under Article 10 by either defining the group or -giving a definition of the word “membership” in Article 10? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, if Your Honor pleases, I think every tribunal -in its judgment has a right to include, in its judgment, provisions -which will prevent its abuse. And I do not think this Tribunal is -lacking in power to protect its decision against distortion or abuse. I -take it that is the question rather than the question of if the national -courts brought these persons to trial and paid no attention to the -declaration—I do not suppose that there would be any power in this -Tribunal to stop them from doing it. But I assume you mean as a -consequence of this declaration, and I think that the declaration can be -circumscribed or limited. I certainly would insist that the Court had -inherent power to protect its judgment against abuse. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you think this Court could direct the national court -to take any particular defenses into consideration? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know that it could put it in just that -way, but I suppose it could define the categories in a way that the -declaration would not reach any except those included within it. In -other words, I think the declaration that this Tribunal will make is -within this Tribunal’s control. When you get away from the declaration, -I think you would have no control over the national courts. But insofar -as they relied on the declaration, you would have power to control the -effect of the declaration, provided the effect was not inconsistent with -the provisions of the Charter. - -THE PRESIDENT: You did, I think, make some suggestions for obtaining -such evidence as you thought was necessary. Do you wish to add anything -to that? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have nothing to add to that, Your Lordship. I -realize that the defendants’ counsel have great difficulty in getting -evidence, great difficulty in communication. I have it myself—great -difficulty in getting letters delivered, great difficulty in all of -these things. But I will state to this Tribunal categorically—I do not -know what camp it is that was referred to yesterday as substantially -refusing counsels’ application to see their clients—but so far as the -American Zone is concerned, counsel, if they are properly cleared to go -there, will be given every facility to get every kind of evidence that -is available in that camp. If they are there at mealtimes they will be -fed, and if they are there at night they will be sheltered. We will put -everything in their way to help them that is possible. - -Of course, there are security problems involved, and counsel cannot just -walk into a camp and make himself at home. He will have to be cleared in -advance so that he meets the security requirements; but there is no -purpose to obstruct, and there is every purpose to assist. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I should like to ask you -a few questions. Some of them will be somewhat repetitious of what the -President has already said. You will excuse me if I repeat one or two of -those. Most of them are directed for the purposes of this argument, -which, I take it, is to form some kind of definition of the -organizations, which may, of course, not be final but will at least give -us a view of what should be relevant to the defendants’ making up their -cases. So the questions are addressed to that, rather than any ultimate -theory of definition. - -You said that you would suggest excluding clerks, stenographers, and -janitors in the Gestapo. Well, now, if we accepted that, would we not be -obliged to exclude such categories from other criminal organizations? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not at all, Your Honor. I think there is a -difference between a concession by the Prosecution and the necessity for -the Tribunal’s making a decision. - -It might appear logical that if we conceded clerks, stenographers, and -janitors of the Gestapo were not to be included, that no clerks, -stenographers, or janitors should be included. It does not follow. The -relationships in different organizations differ. - -From what we know about the Gestapo situation, we are satisfied that -clerks, stenographers, and janitors in that organization ought not to be -included, and we do not want to waste any time on it. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was the reason for that, that those clerks -would not have had knowledge of what was going on in the Gestapo? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think either that they had sufficient -knowledge, in general, to be held or that they had sufficient power to -do anything about it if they did. - -Now, this question of dealing with minor people—and it is one of the -questions that the Court inevitably gets into, if it undertakes to draw -these lines itself rather than letting them be drawn administratively by -what we choose to prosecute—is illustrated by just this sort of thing. - -One of the difficulties with the Court is that it tries to be logical, -and ought to be logical perhaps. I have always thought that was the -great merit of the jury system, that juries do not have to be, and in -prosecuting we do not have to be. It may look illogical to exempt small -people in one organization and not in another, but there were -differences in them. - -For example—I think it is in evidence; if not, it will be—it was -pointed out at one meeting by the Defendant Göring that chauffeurs to -certain officers had profited to the extent of half a million Reichsmark -from Jewish property that they had gotten their hands on. Now, I suppose -ordinarily you would say that a chauffeur for an official was not a man -who had much discretion and not a man who was expected to know much -about what his employer was doing, but you have a great deal of -difference in their relations to these men. - -So far as I am concerned, I want to make perfectly clear—and I think it -will be assumed—the United States is not interested in coming over here -3,500 miles to prosecute clerks and stenographers and janitors. That is -not the class of crime, even if they did have some knowledge, that we -are after, because that is not the class of offender that affects the -peace of the world. I think there is little reason to fear that that -sort of person—unless there is some reason to feel that some guilty -connection exists beyond merely performing routine tasks—will be -prosecuted in as big a problem as we have on hand here. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But in spite of that, you would include them -in the SS, let us say? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not exclude them. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it that would include them. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If they were members, they would be included; if -they were merely employees, that is something different; but if they -took the oath and became a part of the SS organization, I think they -stand in a different relation to the employed clerks of a government -agency. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, somewhat along those same lines, you -stated, in trying to define what a criminal organization was, that its -membership must have been—I am quoting your words—“generally -voluntary” and its criminal purpose or methods open and notorious and -“of such character that its membership in general may properly be -charged with knowledge of them.” - -Now I am going to ask you a question which is somewhat repetitious of -what the President asked you, but perhaps you can specify a little more. -Would it not be inconsistent with that test which you suggest for -criminality, if we decline to consider whether any substantial segment -of the organization—I mean a section or segment might comprise a third -of the whole organization or even more, like the Waffen-SS within the -general SS—was either conscripted, which is one test, or ignorant of -the criminal purpose? Because if such a substantial segment could be -shown to be innocent under these tests, would it not be necessary either -to decline a declaration on that ground—that the criteria were not -generally satisfied as to the accused organization—or else to exclude -the innocent segments from the deposition of the criminal organization? - -Now, that is a rather involved question but it seems to me, if the test -is the knowledge or assumed knowledge, that evidence that a very large -segment did not and probably could not have had knowledge would be -relevant and would be relevant not only for the purposes of evidence, -but for the purposes of definition? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think you have at least two ideas in the -question that must be dealt with separately. The first is that -conscription and knowledge, to my way of thinking, present a very -different problem. - -As to conscription, as I said before, I think, if the Tribunal saw fit -to condition its judgment not to apply to conscripted members of any -organization, I shall have no quarrel with it. I have always conceded we -did not seek to reach conscripted men. If the overwhelming power of the -state puts them in that position, I do not think we should pursue them -for it. - -If the Tribunal says that the Waffen-SS must be excluded because it was -conscripted, that raises a question of fact. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it raises a question of fact that we would be 3 -weeks trying and that is what I want to avoid, because there were -Waffen-SS and other Waffen-SS and there were different periods of time -and there were different conditions; and we get into a great deal of -difficulty if we undertake to apply the principle that the conscript is -not to be punished; and that, it seems to me, is what is properly left -to the future course, the question as to whether an individual or a -number of individuals comes within that principle. In other words, I -think this Court should lay down principles and not undertake what I -call “police court administration” of those principles as applied to -individuals. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I interrupt you for a moment on the first -point? I take it, then, that you would think it appropriate to express a -general limitation with respect to conscription in the declaration, but -not to designate to whom that applies? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would have no objection to such a designation as -far as I am concerned. Now, the other question is a question of -knowledge, which is infinitely more difficult. We do not want to set up -a trap for innocent people. We are not so hard up for somebody to try -that we have to seek and to catch people who had no criminal purpose in -their hearts; but there can be no doubt that every person affiliated -with this movement at any point knew that it was aimed at war and -aggressive war. There can be no doubt that they knew that these -formations under the Nazi Party were maintaining concentration camps to -beat down their political opposition and to imprison Jews and the -terrible things that were going on in these camps. - -To ask us to prove individual knowledge or to ask us to accept the man’s -own statement of his state of mind is to say that there can be no -convictions, of course. It seems to me that the scale of this crime and -the universality of it, going on all over Germany, concentration camps -dotting the landscape, and the vast population, is sufficient to charge -with knowledge the principal organizations of the Nazi Party which were -responsible for those things. The test that I think applies as to -knowledge is not what some member now on the witness stand may say he -knew or did not know; but what, in the light of the conditions of the -times, he ought to have known—what he is chargeable with. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wouldn’t it follow from that that there was -no taking of any evidence on what was generally known? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think the proof of what was going on -establishes the point as to chargeability with knowledge. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the defendants should not -be permitted to give any evidence as to that which was generally known -with respect to what was going on? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: To what was generally known, I do not think the -defendant’s denial that he knew what was going on has any materiality. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was not my question. My question was -whether a witness could be permitted to testify that the acts of the -particular organizations were not generally known to its members. Would -you exclude that evidence? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly would, and if I heard it I would not -believe it; but perhaps my . . . - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Excuse me. Although on your test of -knowledge, you wouldn’t permit the defendants to meet that test? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should say that that is just exactly the -situation, that the Court would take judicial notice, from the evidence -that is in, that this was a thing that must have been known in Germany; -and I would not think that it would be permissible for a citizen of the -United States to testify that he did not know the United States was at -war, a fact of which he is chargeable with knowledge; and it seems to me -that the magnitude of these things is so equally established and the -repeated daily connection between the organizations and this criminal -program is so equally clear. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I only have two or three -more questions. One is directed to the General Staff. Does the -particular date when an individual accused—I beg your pardon—when an -individual assumed one of the commands listed in Appendix B of the -Indictment have any bearing on whether he is a member of the -organization? Now, I am going to bring that question down to the General -Staff. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Perhaps I should warn you of this—that I am not a -military man. I have not specialized on that subject and I shall want to -refer your question to someone whose knowledge is more reliable than -mine. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I shall ask the question directed to you as a -lawyer and not an expert in military matters. Assume that one of these -individuals became an army group commander after the wars of aggression -had been planned, proposed, initiated—roughly, that would be after -1942; let us say, after Pearl Harbor—and had reached the stage when -Germany was on the defensive; is his acceptance of a command at that -date sufficient to make him a member of the organization? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should think it would. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The reason I asked you that, Mr. Jackson, is -that I thought you had rather indicated in your opening address that the -starting of the war was the essence of the crime rather than the waging -of war, and I was wondering whether in that case there would be any -difference which we should consider? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think when one joins, he ratifies what has -gone before, and it would seem to me that when he came into the picture -at that point, it was a ratification of all that had gone before on the -ordinary principles of conspiracy. - -Now I think it is a difficult question, whether a man had not had any -prior connection with the Nazi Party—if you take the example of a man -who disapproved all that the Nazi Party had done, who never became a -member of it, who stood out against it and publicly his position was -clear, and he took no part in the war until the day his country was -being invaded and he said, “I don’t care what happened before; my -country is being invaded and I shall now go to its defense,” I would -have difficulty convicting that man. I do not know such a man. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, there is only one more -question I should like to address in connection with Law Number 10. I am -a little puzzled myself on Law Number 10, the Control Council Law of -December 20—I think that was the date. You spoke of one reason for -declaring the organizations criminal and bringing persons into the -Control Council for screening. I take it they can do that easily without -any help on our part. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you said something very interesting. You -said the act would not have been so, if you would have drafted it. How -would you have drafted it, if that is not an improper question? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think I would not have made these penalties -of this act apply to all of the crimes. You have one lumping of a whole -list of crimes which, to my mind, range from the very serious to the -very minor. Then you have applicable to all of those crimes, penalties -from death down to deprivation of the right to vote in the next -election. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): For instance, you would not have made the -death penalty applicable to the members of the SA who might have -resigned in 1922? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not; and I think that in that way I would -have been more explicit with the penalties. Like the Mikado, I would try -to make the punishment fit the crime, rather than leave it wide open. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, what defenses do you -think are expressly permitted under the Control Council Law? Don’t we -have to assume that the members of the Tribunal will permit certain -defenses or are any defenses expressly permitted? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No; no defense is expressly permitted. I take it -that any defense which goes to the genuineness of membership, as the -volition of the individual, duress, fraud—and by duress I mean legal -duress—I do not think that the fact that it is good business, that the -man’s customers may leave him if he does not join the Party—that is not -duress; but anything which goes to the genuineness of his membership. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only one more question. If the Tribunal were -of the view that a declaration of criminality of the organization is an -essentially legislative matter, as suggested by some of the defense -lawyers, rather than a judicial one—if we were of that view, would it -be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the legislative authority of -the Control Council, to make such a declaration, which undoubtedly we -could do in exercising that discretion which is conferred on us under -Article 9 of the Charter? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not think so, Your Honor. I think that this -Tribunal was constituted by the powers for the purpose of determining on -the record—after hearing the evidence, after knowing the -facts—determining what organizations were of such a character that the -members ought to be put to trial for membership. - -The fact that some other group which does not have hearing processes and -which is not constituted as this might, either administratively or some -other way, reach that same result, I do not think is a proper -consideration. I should think it was rather a way of avoiding the -duty—there are other ways of doing it, but this is the way our -governments have agreed upon. I should think it would not be a proper -consideration. - -Of course, you could punish these members without anything. We have them -in our power and in our camps. But our governments have decided they -want this thing done after a full consideration of the record, and in -this matter I think that. . . - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But you have no doubt of the power of the -Control Council to do it, irrespective of what we do, do you? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know of any limitations on the power of -the Control Council. There is no constitution. It is a case of the -victor and the vanquished, and I think that is one of the reasons why, -however, we should be very careful to observe the request of our -governments to proceed in this way. In a position where there was no -restraint on their power except their physical power, and mighty little -of that today, they have voluntarily submitted to this process of trial -and hearing, and it seems to me that nothing should be done, by us as -members of the legal profession at least, to discredit that process or -to avoid it. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Those are all the questions I have to ask. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Professeur Donnedieu de Vabres, Member for the French -Republic): I would like to ask Mr. Jackson a few details on the -consequences of the declaration of the criminality of an organization. -Suppose an individual belonging to one of the organizations classified -as criminal—for instance, an SS man or a member of the Gestapo—is -brought before the military jurisdiction of an occupying power. -According to what has been said so far, he will be able to justify -himself by proving that his membership in the group was a forced -membership. He was not a volunteer and if I have understood correctly, -he will also be able to justify himself by proving that he never knew of -the criminal purpose of the association. That, at least, is the -interpretation which has been adopted and defended by the Prosecution, -and which we consider exact. - -But I suppose that the tribunal in question has a different conception. -I suppose that it considers the condemnation of the individual who was a -member of the criminal organization, obligatory and automatic. Strictly -speaking, the interpretation which has been advocated by Mr. Jackson is -not written in any text. It does not appear in the Charter. -Consequently, by virtue of what texts would the tribunal in question be -obliged to conform to this interpretation? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The control of the future tribunal is the control -of the effect of the declaration of this Tribunal. This Tribunal’s -effect, when brought before a subsequent tribunal, is defined by the -Charter, and it has only the effect that the issue as to whether the -organization is criminal cannot be retried. There could be no such thing -as automatic condemnations, because the authority given in the Charter -is to bring persons to trial for membership. - -It would, of course, be incumbent on the prosecutor on ordinary -principles of jurisprudence to prove membership. I think proof that one -had joined would be sufficient to discharge that burden, but then the -question could be raised by the defendant that he had defenses, such as -duress, force against his person, threats of force, and would have to be -tried; but the Charter does not authorize any use of the declaration of -this Tribunal except as a basis for bringing members to trial. - -THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): If I am not mistaken, the authority of the -International Military Tribunal will be imposed on the respective -jurisdictions of the states, and will oblige them to adopt the -interpretation in question. But in that case I conclude that, in the -opinion of the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, the judgment of the -International Military Tribunal, the judgment which we shall pass, will -have to contain a precise definition of this subject. Mr. Jackson said, -however, a few moments ago, in agreement I think with Mr. Biddle, that -the statute of the Charter permits us to define a criminal organization. -Our judgment would not only contain a determination of the groups which -we consider criminal, but also a definition of a criminal organization; -and in the same way there would be precise definitions concerning the -cases of irresponsibility, for example, the case of forced membership. -There would be precise definitions which the tribunals of the respective -states would be forced to respect. Do I understand Mr. Jackson’s thought -correctly? - -But, in that case, the question I ask is the following, and it is -somewhat similar to that of Mr. Biddle: Briefly, would it not mean -conferring on our judgment a certain legislative character? We are not -an ordinary court, since we are adopting provisions, such as the -definition of a criminal organization, which are generally included in a -law, and at the same time our judgment contains provisions which limit -the cases of individual responsibility. That is to say, in brief, we are -to a certain extent legislators, as it was argued yesterday. - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is true, that there is in this -something in the nature of legislation or of the nature of an -indictment. You may draw either analogy. But I do not see anything about -that, as I understand it, which complicates the problem. In the United -States we have a strict separation of legislative from judicial power, -but there is nothing in that matter which controls this Tribunal, and -whether you draw the analogy of an indictment in which you are accusing -by your finding, your declaration, or whether you draw the analogy of -legislation, it would be equally valid as the act of the Four Powers, -since they are not required to withhold any power from the Tribunal. - -THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Yes, yes. The question which I have just -asked seems to be of theoretical interest only. This is, however, the -practical consequence which I should consider, which I should be tempted -to draw, and on which I would like to hear your opinion: - -If we have some legislative power, in that we are able to limit the -indicting of persons and admit causes of irresponsibility or excuses, -does this absolutely exclude our limiting at the same time the -punishment? - -Earlier, Mr. Biddle and Mr. Jackson were considering Article 10, and Mr. -Jackson expressed some criticism concerning the penalties, which are not -individualized penalties, since they can extend as far as the death -penalty, as far as capital punishment. - -There are, of course, some crimes for which capital punishment seems -justified, such as Crimes against Humanity. But is it not going too far, -to consider imposing the death penalty as the maximum for a crime which -in France would perhaps be considered purely “material”—the crime of -belonging to a criminal organization? Would it not be too severe for us -to impose the death penalty? And might not the International Military -Tribunal be forced to reduce unduly the notion of a criminal -organization, precisely because we consider the possibility of this -penalty being too severe? In other words, does Mr. Jackson absolutely -exclude for the International Military Tribunal the power to fix a -penalty, or at least a maximum penalty, for the crime of belonging to a -criminal organization? - -MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should not think that it was within the proper -sphere of the Tribunal to deal with the question of penalties, for the -reason that no power to sentence anyone other than the defendants on -trial is given to this Tribunal; I mean, no power to sentence for -membership in the organizations. Therefore, I think no incidental power -to control penalties is given, but the power to declare an organization -criminal does, incidentally, confer power to determine what that -organization is, and I have not been disposed to question the power of -the Tribunal to carry that definition to great detail, although I would -question the wisdom of it. - -The power, however, of sentence for membership is not even remotely -conferred upon the Tribunal, and I would think that that would be a -rather drastic expansion of its power. - -THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Those were the only questions I wished to -ask. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, did you want to add a reply or did you come in -order that we might ask you some questions? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: First, if the Tribunal will allow me, there are -three or four points on which I should like to add a word. - -The first point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that the procedure of asking -for a declaration against the organizations was objectionable for two -reasons: First, because it was founded on the limited phenomenon in -Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, that a corporation may be convicted in -certain limited spheres; and secondly, that the organizations were in -fact dissolved some time ago. - -I think it is important to stress that that is not the legal conception -which underlies this portion of the Charter. It is really based, in my -submission, on a doctrine found in most systems of law, either _res -adjudicata_ or the conception of the judgment _in rem_ as opposed to the -judgment _in personam_. That is, that it is in the general and public -interest that litigation on a particular point should not be -interminable, and that, if the appropriate tribunal has come to a -decision on a point of general interest and importance, that point -should not thereafter be litigated many times. - -It is the essential view of the Prosecution here that this Tribunal, -having had the advantage of evidence dealing with the whole period and -functioning of the Nazi conspiracy, is the appropriate and, indeed, the -only suitable tribunal for deciding the question of criminality. It is a -prospect which would be quite impracticable and beggars the imagination -as to time to consider that every military government or military court -should decide one after the other the question of criminality of great -organizations like these. And therefore we have in the Charter adopted -the procedure that that preliminary question will be decided once and -for all by this Tribunal. - -The fact that the organizations have been administratively dissolved is -irrelevant. What is important is, what was the nature of the -organizations when they did function? And that is the issue which the -Tribunal has to determine. And we submit and indeed say that it is a -clear implication, if not indeed expressly within the words of Article -9, that it must be at the trial of the individual defendants that the -question of this criminality should be decided, and we say that apart -from considerations of practicality the wording of Article 9 is a clear -guide against separation of these issues as suggested by two or three of -the Defense Counsel. - -I only want to add one word about what has been said on the argument on -Law Number 10. Dr. Kubuschok made the point that this procedure really -acted entirely against the individual. There are at least two answers: -The first, which I have endeavored to give, as to the legal concept -behind the idea of a declaration, and the second, the one which has been -canvassed before the Tribunal, as to the rights of defense. May I say -that, in my submission, membership in an organization is a question of -fact and therefore these defenses of duress, fraud, or mistake—to take -three examples—must clearly be permissible and good defenses on that -question of fact. The third is that every document such as the -Charter—the same would apply to every piece of legislation—always -contemplates intelligent and reasonable administration in carrying out -its requirements, and it would be, in my submission, idle to take the -view that where you have a permissive enactment like Law Number 10—and -it is clearly permissive as to prosecution—intelligent administration -should prosecute every one who could be prosecuted under the act. - -In our candid proverb, hard cases make bad law; and in my submission, it -would be wrong to decide or interpret on an extremely unlikely hard -case. - -I want, if I may, to say just one or two words on the argument so -interestingly put forward by Dr. Servatius and mentioned a few moments -ago by the learned French judge. - -In my submission there is no legislative function for this Tribunal -whatsoever. There is a clearly judicial function, and I want to make it -quite clear; I do not qualify it by “quasi-judicial” or any -qualification at all. It is a simple judicial duty. The first portion of -that duty is to define what is criminal. In my submission, as Mr. -Justice Jackson argued yesterday, that presents no difficulties. It -occurs in Article 9, three articles after Article 6, and “criminal“ in -that context means an organization whose aims, objects, methods, or -activities involved the committing of the crimes set out in Article 6. - -When “criminal” has been defined, it is a matter of judicial weighing of -evidence to decide whether there is evidence of these crimes being -committed by the organization or being the aim or object of the -organization, as I have stated. But I respectfully ask the Tribunal to -hesitate long before it accepts the argument of Dr. Servatius that this -Tribunal should decide the interpretation of “criminal” on its own _a -priori_ basis, to use Dr. Servatius’ own words, of politics and ethics. -That would be introducing a new, dangerous, and unchartered factor into -the Trial. There is, in my submission, a clear line of guidance for the -judicial approach, and nothing in the Charter to support the _prima -facie_, unexpected idea that a body established as a tribunal should -delegate to itself legislative powers. - -Again, if I may add just one word as to the conclusions which Dr. -Kubuschok drew on the question of criminality as a ground for deciding -the relevancy of evidence, his first conclusion was that the -organization in question, according to its constitution or charter, did -or did not have a criminal aim or purpose. - -I accept, of course, the test of aim and purpose, but I do not accept -the limitation as to charter or constitution. The criminal aim or -purpose may be shown by the declarations or publications of the leaders -of the organizations, and also, as I submitted, by its course of conduct -in method and action. I agree with Dr. Kubuschok that aim or purpose is -the first test, but I do not agree with his limitation as to -establishing it. - -His second point was that crimes under Article 6 were not committed -within or in connection with the organization or were not committed -continuously over a period. The first part of that would seem fairly -clear, that, if the crimes were not committed within or in connection -with the organization, the organization is obviously in a very favorable -position. But I first answer the second part by saying that it does not -come into the picture of this case that there is any instance of -isolated crimes with regard to every organization. The crimes alleged -are, in fact, spread over the period alleged in the Indictment, but I -suggest that the adoption of such a criterion does not really help. One -comes back to the first point of Dr. Kubuschok, that aims or purposes, -as disclosed by declarations, methods, or activities, are the primary -and most important tests. - -Then, the third point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that an appreciable -number of members had no knowledge of the criminal aims or of the -continuous commission of crimes. I endeavored to stress, as did Mr. -Justice Jackson, that the Prosecution’s test is constructive knowledge. -That is, ought a reasonable person in the position of a member to have -known of these crimes? And that really is the answer, in my respectful -submission, to the relevancy of individual knowledge of one particular -member. - -It is only too true that during the period under discussion a very large -number of people made a habit of sticking their heads in the sand and -endeavoring to abstain from acquiring knowledge of things that were -unpleasant. In my respectful submission, that sort of conduct on the -part of a member would not help him at all, and the only answer to that -is to adopt the test which we have suggested: Ought a person in that -position reasonably to have known of the commission of the crimes? - -Dr. Kubuschok’s fourth point is that an appreciable number of members or -certain independent groups joined the organization under compulsion or -illusion or superior orders. Shortly we answer that by saying that that -is only relevant to the defense of an individual member in the -subsequent proceedings, and, of course, it is only a defense where he -can show that he has taken no personal part in the criminal acts. - -Then, the last point which Dr. Kubuschok made was that an appreciable -number of members were honorary members. Again we say that that is only -relevant to the defense of the individual member, and it does not really -alter or increase the defenses open to him. - -The only other point of Dr. Kubuschok’s which I do think requires -mention is that in considering how evidence could be presented, he said -that certain rights of defense are universal. The first of these which -he claimed was direct oral testimony, and he said that each individual -defendant should have this right. He then admitted that that was -practically impossible and suggested as a solution that we must typify, -that is, that representatives of groups in the various camps should make -affidavits showing what percentage took part in criminal actions or knew -about them. - -I want to point out to the Tribunal that it is expressly laid down in -the Charter that members of the organization are entitled to apply to -the Tribunal for leave to be heard, but the Tribunal shall have power to -allow or reject the application. As a point of construction no less than -of sense, there would have been no point in giving the Tribunal the -power to reject the application, if it were implicit that everyone -should have the right to be heard. - -The answer is that the Tribunal has complete discretion to decide what -line and what course shall be taken to procure the evidence. The -Prosecution, through Mr. Justice Jackson, has indicated that it makes no -objection to any reasonable form of collecting relevant evidence. What -the Prosecution objects to is evidence being tendered on the issue -before the Tribunal which is only relevant to the question of individual -innocence or guilt of the member. - -My Lord, I could have dealt, and indeed was prepared to deal, with a -number of points raised by the other Counsel for the Defense. I hope -they would not think that it is any disrespect to their arguments that I -have not dealt with them, but I know that the Tribunal wishes to ask -certain questions, and I do not want to trespass on that time. I only -want to deal with one point, because it kills with one stone two birds -that have flown against our argument in this case. - -It will be remembered that when I dealt with the SA yesterday, Dr. -Seidl—and I am sorry he is not here—raised the question that the -Defendant Frank was not a member of the SA; and Dr. Löffler, in dealing -with the SA today, raised the question that its activities no doubt did -not really extend after 1939, and not importantly after the purge in -1934. - -I find an interesting quotation from the semi-official publication, _Das -Archiv_, for April 1942, and as it is very short and deals with these -points I venture to read it to the Tribunal, so that it may appear on -the record. At Page 54 it says: - - “SA Unit, Government General. At the order of the Chief of Staff - of the SA, there took place the foundation of the SA unit, - Government General, whose command Governor General SA - Obergruppenführer Dr. Frank took over.” - -I only quote that to finish my argument to show, as indeed all the -evidence shows, that with regard to the SA, no less than any other of -the organizations, the Prosecution have provided evidence of crimes -reaching over the period which they have stated. - -I deliberately have cut out anything further that I might say, My Lord, -because I do not want to shorten unduly the time, if the Tribunal wishes -to ask me any questions. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think there is only one question that I should like to -ask you. As I understand it, you say that the Prosecution have proved -facts from which one must conclude that every reasonable person who -joined any of these organizations would know that they were criminal. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: You would agree, would you not, that proof of any fact -which went to contradict the facts from which you have presumed -knowledge of criminality could be proved by the Defense? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. If the Defense sought to prove, to -take an extreme example, that the conduct of the SS with regard to, -first of all, concentration camps and, secondly, killing Jews and -political commissars on the Russian front, was done in such a way, -despite the vast territory over which these crimes have been proved to -have been carried on, was done in such a way that nobody knew about -it—if there was relevant evidence on that point, then they could call -it, on the general point that it was not a matter of imparted -constructive knowledge, but of memory. - -THE PRESIDENT: I only asked you that question because there were certain -observations by Mr. Justice Jackson, which did not seem altogether to -accord with the answer which you have just given. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that, as I understood Mr. Justice -Jackson, he was saying that it might not be relevant to prove that one -member did not know of the crimes, and I thought that our two approaches -really did fit in with each other. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it then, Sir David, that you would say -that evidence with respect to general knowledge by any very substantial -segment of an organization would be relevant, would it not? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think it would be relevant if it were -not absurd. I mean, a disclaimer of knowledge of certain acts may be so -absurd that the Tribunal should not take the time of inquiring into it. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That would apply to any evidence, of course. -But my point was: You have said that evidence with respect to general -knowledge over a whole organization would clearly be relevant. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And now I ask you whether that would be true -with respect to any substantial segment of an organization such as the -Waffen-SS. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am trying to relate it to the practical -position. That is where I find it very difficult. - -Now, to take your example, it is difficult to imagine. Let us take four -divisions that were very well known: the Totenkopf, the Polizei, Das -Reich, or the 12th Panzer Division. I should have thought that, as a -matter of discretion, if it were sought to show that these divisions, -about which there is so much evidence as to their participation in -crime, did not know of the crimes, the Tribunal would be right in -rejecting that. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, the question would come up more whether -the acts of the members of certain divisions were known generally -throughout the whole Waffen-SS, would it not? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, I find it very -difficult to see how the knowledge or absence of knowledge of a -particular division in the Waffen-SS could affect the question of -criminality of the SS as a whole. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, again, I am not asking you as to -knowledge in a particular division; I am asking you as to general -knowledge, throughout the entire Waffen-SS, of the acts of a particular -unit. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if someone is prepared to say, “I knew -every division of the Waffen-SS, and in my opinion no one in the -Waffen-SS had any knowledge or had any opportunity of knowing of the -crimes,” then the evidence would be admissible. Its weight would be so -negligible that, I should submit, it would not detain the Tribunal long. - -But I concede that if someone is prepared, laying the proper ground for -his evidence, to say, “I can speak; I have the grounds for and the -opportunity of speaking on the general position,” then I do not see how -the Tribunal could exclude it. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The matter is very practical because we have -to advise Counsel for the Defendants what material they can introduce, -and do that very soon. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now let me ask you a few other questions. - -On what basis, Sir David, do you contend that the Reich Cabinet was a -criminal organization as of January 30, 1933, when, if I remember -correctly; there were only three members of the Nazi Party who were in -the Cabinet: Göring, Hitler, and Frick? Do you think that if three out -of a very much larger number, some twenty odd, could be said to be part -of a criminal organization, that makes the entire Cabinet criminal? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, on the facts. It must be remembered -that Hitler had refused to take office as vice chancellor during the -months before that, before the date that you put to me. He had refused -on the ground that, as vice chancellor, he would not be in a position to -carry out his Party program. On that basis the Defendant Von Papen and -Hitler negotiated, and Hitler came into power on the 30th of January. It -is the case for the Prosecution that those who formed part of that -Cabinet knew that they were forming part of a cabinet in which Hitler -was going to work out his program, as has been declared on so many -occasions. That is the first point. Secondly, it is the case for the -Prosecution that the Defendant Von Papen did join in introducing the -Nazi conspirators into the Government with that knowledge and with the -purpose of letting them have their way in Germany. And the same must -apply—it has not been investigated to the same extent, because they are -not defendants—to the industrialists and the Party, who were acting -with them in the Cabinet. They must be taken to have known, just as -Gustav Krupp knew and supported, just as Kurt von Schröder knew and -supported, the aims of the Nazis whom they introduced and co-operated -with in the Government. - -Thirdly, the personalities of the Nazis in the Government—Hitler -himself, and the Defendants Göring, Frick, and Dr. Goebbels, who I think -became Propaganda Minister either at the same time or very shortly -afterwards—show that these people, they have shown it by their acts, -were not persons to take second place. They introduced at once the -Führerprinzip into operation in the states, and these other people in -the Cabinet at that time accepted the Führerprinzip and united in -placing Hitler and the Defendant Göring and the other conspirators in -the position of power and authority which enabled them to carry out -their monstrous crimes that are charged against them. - -I will give you one other reference. It was within a few months of that -period that the Defendant Schacht became Plenipotentiary for War Economy -and began the preparations for the economic side of the creation of -Germany’s war potential. - -For all these reasons I submit that the actions of the Reich Cabinet at -that date were deliberate. The same applies to the Defendant Von -Neurath; it is the whole case of the Prosecution, as to the case against -Von Neurath, that he sold his respectability and reputation to the Nazis -in order to help them buy with that reputation and respectability a -position of power in Germany, with the conservative circles in Germany, -and with the diplomatic circles in Europe with whom he came in touch. -For all these reasons, Your Honor, I submit that the Reichsregierung at -that time was thoroughly infected with the criminality which we suggest -in this case. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In relation to the political leaders, let me -ask you this, Sir David: - -In your opinion, would it be necessary to establish the responsibility -of political leaders of lower grades to show that, as a group, they were -informed of plans to wage aggressive war or to commit War Crimes or -Crimes against Humanity? In other words, I take it there is some -obligation to show that information. Does that rest simply on the fact -that these crimes were being perpetrated, or is there any evidence of -that information? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is evidence—and if I might just indicate -the kind of evidence there is—on the first stage of the acquisition of -totalitarian control in Germany, which is the first stage in the -conspiracy, that is, apart from the Party program, there are the -extracts from the Hoheitsträger magazine. You remember, Hoheitsträger -are all the political leaders. On the anti-Semitic part of that there -are documents, which are Exhibit USA-240 (Document Number 3051-PS) and -Exhibit USA-332 (Document Number 3063-PS), which are shown in the -transcript at Pages 1621 and 1649 (Volume IV, Pages 47 and 66). On the -question of war crimes against Allied airmen you will remember that a -document was circulated to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, with -instructions that Ortsgruppenleiter were to be informed verbally with -regard to the lynching of Allied airmen. That document is Document -Number 057-PS, shown in the transcript at Page 1627 (Volume IV, Page -50). And that the hint was taken by at least one Gauleiter is shown by -Document L-154, Exhibit USA-325, at Page 1628 (Volume IV, Page 51). - -Then, there is a Himmler order to senior SS officers, to be passed -orally to the Gauleiter, that the police are not to interfere in the -clashes between Germans and aviators. That is Document Number R-110, -Exhibit USA-333, shown at Page 1624 (Volume IV, Page 49). Then there is -a declaration by Goebbels inciting the people to murder Allied airmen, -which is shown at Page 1625 (Volume IV, Page 50). Similarly, with regard -to foreign labor, there is a telegram from Rosenberg to the Gauleiter -asking them not to interfere with the confiscation of certain companies -and banks. - -There is Jodl’s lecture to Reichsleiter and Gauleiter at a later stage. -There is an undated letter from Bormann to all Reichsleiter and -Gauleiter, informing them that the OKW had instructed guards to enforce -obedience of prisoners of war refusing to obey orders, if necessary, -with weapons. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Sir David, if I may interrupt you for a -moment. I was familiar with the evidence with respect to the Gauleiter -and Reichsleiter. My question, you will remember, was addressed to the -lower levels, the Blockleiter. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think one can summarize it that even as -far as lower levels are concerned you have the four points: You have -_Mein Kampf_, the _Party Program_, _Der Hoheitsträger_, and the fact -that conferences were constantly held throughout the organization. - -As I say, I have dealt with the evidence on the Jews, the lynching of -Allied airmen, and I think I mentioned the letter from Bormann to the -Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter about assisting in increasing -the output of prisoners of war. And there is an instruction from Bormann -down to the Kreisleiter about the burial of Russian prisoners of war. -There is a decree for insuring the output of foreign workers that goes -down towards the Gruppenleiter. - -All these matters are in evidence, and we submit that there is -particular evidence on practically every point. And on the general -point, as I said, you have these publications, coupled with the evidence -that conferences were held, apart from the general Führerprinzip which -would, and did, make the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter the final -weapon in order to ensure that the people acted in accordance with the -leader’s wishes. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you just two questions, and then I -will finish with regard to the SA. Would you say that a member of the SA -who had joined, let us say, in 1921, and resigned the next year, was -guilty of conspiring to wage aggressive war and guilty of War Crimes? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may recall, I answered -a question that you were good enough to put to me a day or two ago as to -when the conspiracy started. A man who took an active and voluntary part -as a member of the SA in 1921 certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party, -was supporting the published program of the Party which had the aims -which you have just put to me. - -That is certainly put clearly in Article 2 of the Party Program as the -getting rid of the dictate of Versailles and the Anschluss, getting the -Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a polite way of -saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia. - -Therefore, that man had these aims in view. - -With regard to War Crimes, I respectfully repeat the answer that I put -to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the Nazi Party -that they should disregard the life and safety of any other people who -stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. A person who -deliberately joins an organization with that aim, and with that aim -getting more and more clearly related to practical problems as week -succeeded week, was taking part in a first essential step of involving -mankind in the miseries that we have seen; because it is that tenet, -applied to every facet of human life and human suffering, which has -caused the crimes which this Tribunal is investigating. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I can see how you might say that with -respect to conspiracy in War Crimes, but I want to be perfectly clear -also that you say, on the substantive crime of committing War Crimes, -that a man joining the SA in 1921 and leaving in 1922 would have -committed those War Crimes in the beginning of 1939. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive War Crimes, I -respectfully remind you that under Article 6 the last words are: - - “Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating - in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy - to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all - acts performed by any person in the execution of such a plan.” - -Under the Charter, in my respectful submission, that is enough to make -them responsible for the crimes. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now only one other question. What do you -contend was the function of the SA after the Röhm purge? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The function was still to support all Nazi -manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember that Dr. Löffler was -careful to except—very frankly and fairly he excepted the 10th of -November 1938. The SA—and I gave another example how they were formed -in the Government General—we have also given examples, which I think -you will find in my appendix, of the participation—limited -participation, but still a participation—in the War Crimes and Crimes -against Humanity. - -But the main point of the SA after that time was to show that here were -3 million people who had come into the organization which had provided -the force to bring the Nazis into power, and it had the forceful size -needed to bring the Nazis into power in those days. They were then -joined by 2½ million people, which brought their numbers up at that time -very high. They went down again later on, but they were high in 1939, -and they provided a great immoral force behind the Nazi Party. They -provided strong support and were ready on all occasions; whenever a -demonstration had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support. -They were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over -the German Reich. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, in your -opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? Would you say -that? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim did not change. It did not need to do -half as much, because, of course, by the end of 1933 all the other -political parties were broken. Part of the SA’s original task, as I -think Dr. Löffler put it, had been to safeguard the Defendant Göring -when he was making a speech—I should have put it that it was to prevent -the other people from having a free run when they made speeches—and to -deal with the clashes between the various groups. That was unnecessary, -because all political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they -became rather—I forget the exact term—a sort of cheer leader or a -collection of people who would always be ready to give vociferous -support. - -You must have heard, Your Honor, of the meetings coming over the -wireless with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, rather than -dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was the same, to keep -the grip. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, it is now nearly quarter past 5. Do you think -that this discussion can be closed this evening before 6 o’clock? - -DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I -believe I can finish in 5 minutes. - -THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do the other prosecutors wish to add anything? - -GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, Mr. President. - -THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General Rudenko? - -GEN. RUDENKO: I think about 10 minutes; no more. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add anything? - -THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Ribes): I have nothing to add. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what I really want to know is whether there is -any prospect of our finishing this discussion tonight. General Rudenko -wishes to speak for about 10 minutes, and if the defendant’s counsel—of -course, you will understand that a discussion of this sort, an argument -of this sort, cannot go on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears -counsel on one side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one -does not go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants’ -counsel want to speak? - -DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think probably the best thing would be if we were to -adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, and then we shall -probably be able to conclude this argument in about an hour tomorrow. Do -you agree with that, General Rudenko? - -GEN. RUDENKO: I agree. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants’ counsel think we shall be able to conclude -it in about an hour tomorrow morning? - -[_Several counsel nodded assent._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn now and sit at 10 o’clock -tomorrow morning. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTY-SECOND DAY - Saturday, 2 March 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko. - -GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, permit me to make a few supplementary remarks -concerning the criminal organizations, a problem to which the Tribunal -has devoted much attention in the last few days. - -I consider it essential, in the first instance, to clarify completely -the legal aspect of this problem. There is in the Charter of the -Tribunal a marked absence of any statement to the effect that the -recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature would -automatically entail the bringing to trial and, further, the condemning -of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, the Charter -contains a definite indication of an opposite nature. Article 10 of the -Charter, repeatedly quoted at this Trial, states that the national -courts have the right, though not the obligation, to bring to trial -members of organizations declared as criminal. Consequently, the -question of the problem of the trial and the punishment of individual -members of criminal organizations lies exclusively within the scope of -the national tribunals. - -The legal sovereignty of every country that has adopted the Charter of -the Tribunal is thus limited in one respect only: The national courts -cannot deny the criminal character of an organization, once it has been -declared to be criminal. The Tribunal can impose no further limitation -on the legal sovereignty of the contracting parties. - -Therefore, Justice Jackson has stated here—and with reason—that the -recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature and -therefore automatically entailing the mass condemnation of all its -members, is a mere figment of the imagination; I would add, that has not -sprung from legal grounds but from some entirely different source. - -It appears to me that this legal problem is also based on a definite -misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, was -speaking here of the legislative authority of the Tribunal. The -authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by four -states in the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous; but, -of course, this Tribunal, as a legal organization, does not and cannot -possess any legislative authority. When solving the problem of the -criminal character of an organization, the Tribunal is only exercising -the right entrusted to it by the Charter, that is, to solve -independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. Of -course, the verdict of this Tribunal, when coming into force, acquires -the value of a law, but that is the value attached to any of the -verdicts of the courts once it has been delivered. - -Counsel for the Defense Kubuschok has stated here that the decision of -the Charter with regard to the criminal organizations is a legal -innovation. This, to a certain extent, is true. The innovation consists -in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and all its -articles, whose creation, _per se_, is an innovation in the first -instance. But should the Defense consider it possible to deplore this -fact, I would consider it opportune to remind them of the causes of -these legal innovations. - -The very evil deeds committed by the defendants and their associates, -deeds hitherto unknown in the history of mankind, have, of necessity, -imposed new legislative measures for protecting the peace, the liberty, -and the lives of the nations against criminal attempts. Moreover, the -states which created this Tribunal and all peace-loving people remain -invariably faithful to the ideals of law and to the principles of -justice. Therefore, responsibility for participation in criminal -organizations will be established only when personal guilt has been -proved. In reality, the national courts will decide the problems of -individual responsibility. - -A few words now on the tactical side of the problem: It has been stated -here that several detachments of the SS did not follow any criminal -objective. It is difficult, Your Honors, to find within the fascist -machinery neutral organizations which did not follow criminal -objectives. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Mr. Babel, mentioned -the existence of a research department for dog breeding within the SS. -It would appear that this was an organization of general utility. It -seems, however, that the learned dog breeders in this organization were -engaged in training hounds to attack human beings and to tear their -appointed victims to pieces. Can we isolate these dog breeders from the -SS? - -In Danzig another scientific research institute was engaged in the -preparation of soap from human fat. Perhaps we should exonerate these -soap boilers as well from all criminal responsibility? - -At this point two practical suggestions have been put forward by the -Defense Counsel: The isolation, as a separate activity, of the case of -the criminal organizations and the establishment in the various camps of -a Defense organization having as its purpose the collection of -information and evidence. In practice, however, both proposals would -create insoluble difficulties for the Tribunal in the execution of the -immense task imposed upon it by the nations. - -This task is precisely formulated in the Charter which instructs the -Tribunal to solve the problem of the investigation of concrete facts -concerning members of these organizations. Therefore an appeal to the -Tribunal to isolate and consider the case of the criminal organizations -as an independent activity is tantamount to an appeal to the Tribunal to -infringe the articles of the Charter. - -Article 9 of the Charter decides the problem of the criminal -organizations when investigating the case of any one particular member, -but it also has one other meaning for the Trial. It shows, as I have -already mentioned, that the fact on which the statements and the -solution of the question of the criminality of the organization are -based is the presence in the dock of the accused representatives from -the corresponding organizations. As is known, in the present case all -the organizations which the Prosecution suggests should be considered as -criminal are represented in the dock. - -There is evidence in this case which amply suffices to admit the -criminality of these organizations. Therefore the calling of special -witnesses, capable of giving evidence on these organizations, can appear -only as a supplementary source of evidence. I am bringing these matters -to a close, Your Honors, and in closing I cannot omit one argument of -the Defense. It was stated here by the Defense that as a result of the -admission of the criminality of these organizations millions of Germans, -members of these organizations, would be brought to trial. Together with -my colleagues of the Prosecution I am not of this opinion, but there is -something more I would like to say. - -By this reference to hypothetical millions the Defense is attempting to -hinder the progress of justice. However, before us, the representatives -of the nations who have borne the burden and the suffering of the -struggle against Hitlerite aggression, before the conscience and -consciousness of all freedom-loving people, appear other figures, other -millions of victims irrevocably lost, tortured to death in Treblinka, -Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Maidanek and Kiev. It is our duty to -spare no effort to crush the criminal system directed by the fascist -organizations against humanity. Your Honors, the extent of the crimes -committed by the Hitlerite brigands cannot be imagined. However, we are -not blinded by sentiments of revenge and have no intention of destroying -the entire German people in retaliation. But justice does not permit us -to swerve and thus give free play to the committing of new crimes. - -We are deeply convinced that the Tribunal will unswervingly follow the -path towards a just and rapid verdict and that it will, in full measure, -chastise those whose crimes have shattered the earth. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): General Rudenko, may I ask you a few -questions? - -General Rudenko, you remember that Mr. Justice Jackson suggested certain -tests that we should use before we found an organization criminal, -whether the tasks and the purpose of the organization were open and -notorious, in order to show that the members knew what they were doing. - -Now, if we find that any organization is criminal we would necessarily -find, I presume, on that test, that its actions were open and notorious. -Now, if a member of that organization found to be criminal was then -tried by one of the national courts, I suppose under that finding he -would not have any right to show that he did not know about it, because -we would have found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he -must have known, so he could not raise as a defense that he had no -knowledge of the criminal acts, could he? - -GEN. RUDENKO: That is quite true. But we are bearing in mind the fact -that the national courts investigating the problem of the individual -responsibility of individual members of the organizations will, of -course, proceed from the principle of individual guilt, since, -naturally, we cannot exclude the possibility that in the organization of -the SA, which fundamentally and in an overwhelming majority was aware of -its criminal purpose, there might yet be individual members who might -have been lured into the organization, either by deception or by some -other reasons, and have been unaware of its criminal purpose. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be any defense to him, -would it? He could not say he had no knowledge, because we would have -already found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he must -have known. - -GEN. RUDENKO: Why? I personally proceed from the standpoint that if the -national court investigates the case of members who plead ignorance of -the criminal purpose of the organization to which they belonged, the -national court must examine these arguments submitted in their defense -and estimate them accordingly. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could they consider that, if we make a -rule that the activities of the organization are so notorious that he -must have known? How can he then say he did not know? - -GEN. RUDENKO: I still maintain the point of view, and I still interpret -and understand the Charter to mean that the judgment of the -International Military Tribunal should determine and decide the question -of the criminal character of the organizations, but where the question -of individual responsibility and guilt of every member of this -organization is concerned, the decision falls exclusively within the -competence of the national courts. It is therefore extremely difficult -to foresee all the possible individual cases and the eventualities which -might arise when investigating a category of individual defendants. - -You yesterday submitted a question to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe concerning -a member of the SA who had joined the organization in 1921 and left a -year later. These, of course, are special cases and I cannot state how -numerous they are; they are unavoidable, and when we come to the -question of the extent of his information, the reasons for his entering -and the reasons for his leaving this organization, when we come to -estimate the value of his actions, it seems to me that it should be done -by a national court which will examine the findings of the defense and -appreciate them accordingly. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can you say now what defense he would have -before the national court, except the defense that he was never a -member? Does he have any other defenses so far as we know? Does the Law -Number 10 permit him any other defenses? - -GEN. RUDENKO: It is difficult for me, at the present moment, to say what -arguments the members of these organizations may put forward, for were I -to speak, it would be on assumption. But I, for instance, consider, that -the argument produced—if produced—which might be considered sufficient -to exonerate this member of the organization would be that he had been -coerced into joining. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I ask you two more questions. - -You used the expression that any evidence given by the defendants would -be merely supplementary. That expression is not known to our law, and I -would be very interested in your telling us what you meant by -supplementary evidence. I do not know what the term means. - -GEN. RUDENKO: I did not put it that way. This is perhaps an inaccuracy -of translation. What I did say, speaking of questions connected with -further investigations of the matter of the criminal organizations, was -that this investigation should be carried out together with the -investigation of the case of any one member of this organization, -inasmuch as representatives of those criminal institutions are now in -the dock. But I do say that this is already conclusive material for the -recognition, or the denial, of the criminal nature of this organization. - -But the Tribunal can, of course, consider this evidence as inadequate, -or, shall we say, the Defense may consider that further supplementary -evidence may be needed. In this connection, I consider that the calling -of witnesses capable of submitting special evidence on the problem of -the criminal or non-criminal character of these organizations may be -presented to the Tribunal as supplementary evidence. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One other question on the SA, which I asked -Sir David yesterday. - -What do you consider was the function of the SA after the Röhm Purge, -or, to put it a little differently, what criminal act do you believe the -SA was engaged in? - -GEN. RUDENKO: I consider that the SA after the Röhm incident committed -the same criminal acts as the other organizations of Hitlerite Germany. -I wish in confirmation of this evidence to refer to facts like the -seizure of the Sudeten territory. As is well known, detachments of the -SA played an active part in this affair. - -All the subsequent events which occurred in Germany in connection with -the Jews and, later, in the territories seized by -Germany—Czechoslovakia and others—these criminal events took place -with the connivance of this organization—the SA. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic wish to say -anything? - -THE FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No. - -DR. DIX: I have, as counsel for the Defendant Schacht, an indirect -interest in the question of the criminality of the group Reich Cabinet -(Reichsregierung) because Schacht was a member of the Reich Cabinet. I -want to point out, however, at the very beginning that I do not want to -make detailed statements now either of a legal nature or in regard to -the facts of the case. I shall do that rather at the time of my -concluding speech. - -What I want and seek now, and for which I ask the support of the -Tribunal, is a clarification and amplification of those answers which -Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe gave yesterday to your -questions, Mr. Biddle. - -I should like to point out that it is, of course, clear to me that I -have no right to ask any questions of the members of the Prosecution. -Formally speaking, I could at the most ask the Tribunal to supplement -the questions which were put yesterday by the Tribunal. I believe, -however, that this formal objection has no practical significance, -because I am convinced that Sir David, who will see the pertinence of my -request to have his answer extended, will be prepared to amplify the -answer given to the question by Mr. Biddle without discussing the -theoretical question, whether he is under any obligation to do so. - -Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was asked yesterday whether he considers the -Reichsregierung, that is to say, the Reich Cabinet, as it was composed -on 30 January 1933, in view of the then relatively small number of -National Socialist cabinet members, criminal even at that time and if -so, whether he is of the opinion that this hypothetic criminal character -was at that time discernible to other people. - -Sir David answered this question of Mr. Biddle’s in the affirmative and -based this answer (1) on the contents of the Party program and (2) on -the fact that already at that time the Leadership Principle had been set -forth in the program. - -I should like to ask if Sir David would supplement his answers along the -following lines: Does Sir David really mean to say that the Leadership -Principle as such, that is to say, purely as an abstract theory, is not -only to be rejected politically or for other reasons but is also to be -considered criminal? I want to make it understood that I am speaking -about the abstract principle, without considering any factual -developments in the ensuing period of time. - -Concerning his second answer, that the Party program occasions him to -declare that even at that time the Reich Cabinet is to be considered -criminal and was recognizable as such, this answer—not directly in -response to Mr. Biddle’s first question put in the course of further -questions addressed to him by the Tribunal—he added to and -substantiated by declaring that the aim expressed in the Party program -of eliminating the Treaty of Versailles and the announcement therein of -the desire for the annexation of Austria were the criminal points in -this program. - -May I ask Sir David to state, first, whether these two points of the -Party program, that is to say, the abrogation of the Treaty of -Versailles and the Anschluss, were with the exception of the Leadership -Principle, the only points of the Party program which caused him to -consider that program criminal, that is, to consider a government -criminal which knew that program? Secondly, I should like to ask whether -he really wants to put forward the opinion that an attempt to attain a -revision or an abrogation in a peaceful fashion, that is, by way of -negotiations, of a treaty found to be oppressive, very oppressive, by a -nation, can be considered criminal. - -Furthermore, I should like to ask him to state whether, considering the -great democratic principle of the right of self-determination of nations -and considering the history of the annexation movement in Austria -itself—and I remind him of the plebiscite of 1919 when this Anschluss -was demanded by, one may safely say, 100 percent of the Austrian -population—he as a politician would consider a political party or a -political program criminal which aimed at reaching this goal in a -peaceful fashion. And here I should like to stress, again in order not -to be misunderstood, that the later development and everything which -actually happened and anything which might not have happened in -accordance with the Party program is to be left out of consideration and -only the Party program as such taken into consideration. Upon that, of -course, the sense of his answer depended when he said, “Yes, the Party -program is the basis of the criminal character.” - -Now, finally, to come to the end, it would be consistent with the -logical course of my explanations, to wait until Sir David has decided -on this question, an answer to which I should like to request from Sir -David and also from Mr. Justice Jackson, who is not here today. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Dr. Dix, the Tribunal will, of course, -consider anything that you have said insofar as it refers to matters of -principle, but they do not think that this is the proper time for -Counsel for the Defense to pose questions to counsel for the -Prosecution. The matter has already been fully dealt with, and the -Tribunal do not propose to ask any further questions of the Prosecution -unless the Prosecution wish to say anything in answer to what you have -to say. - -DR. DIX: Your Lordship, that was what I took the liberty of saying at -the beginning. I realize that it is Sir David’s free will and decision -as to whether he cares to comply with my request to add to his answer to -the questions posed by Mr. Justice Jackson. That I have to leave to him. - -I have only a short question, which is intended to prevent our -misunderstanding each other. It is always well not to be misunderstood. - -I remember—but I may be mistaken, and that is why I wish to ask Sir -David what Mr. Justice Jackson declared as his opinion—that he did not -consider the Party program, as such, criminal. As I have said, this is -what I remember. I did not take any notes on it, because it did not -strike me particularly at that time, since I considered it self-evident. -Therefore I may be mistaken. But if my memory is correct, I should like -to ask Sir David to state whether there is any uniform attitude on the -part of the Prosecution toward this point. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal asked the Prosecution to present -their arguments in principle on the question of these organizations, and -they wished also to hear counsel for the organizations in order that -these matters should be cleared up, with a view to any possible evidence -which might have to be given. They have heard counsel for all four -prosecutors. They have asked them questions which they thought right to -ask them in order to clear up any points. They have heard counsel for -all the organizations and they have heard Counsel for the Prosecution in -reply. They do not propose to ask any further questions of the -Prosecution at this stage. Of course Counsel for the Prosecution and -Counsel for the Defense will be fully heard at a later stage. - -DR. DIX: I have come to the end of my statement. I leave it to the Court -and Sir David as to whether he wants to answer these questions now. - -DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I should like to give a short explanation to -the question as to which of the indicted organizations, the Defendant -Frank belonged. Is that possible at this moment? - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal do not think this is an -appropriate time for any of the counsel for individual defendants to go -into matters connected with the charges against the organizations. They -will, of course, be heard in the course of their own defense, but this -is not the appropriate time. This is only a preliminary discussion for -the purpose of clarifying the issues which relate to the organizations. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, but I should like to use this opportunity to clarify a -mistake which slipped in the day before yesterday. The day before -yesterday I protested against the statement that the Defendant Frank was -a member of the SS and this seems to have been translated incorrectly. - -THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Seidl, won’t it appear in the shorthand notes? -You have not seen the shorthand notes yet? - -DR. SEIDL: I have not seen the transcript yet, but I believe that by -error “SS” was translated as “SA.” The Defendant Frank has never denied -that he was an SA Obergruppenführer. What I wanted to point out is only -that the statement in the Indictment that he was an SS general is not -correct and also that the statement in Annex B about the nature of the -criminal element is not pertinent, because it is said there that he was -an SS general. But I attach importance to the fact that the Defendant -Frank has never denied that he was an SA Obergruppenführer. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, but you will have an opportunity to develop -the whole case of Frank when your turn comes. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, but the question is merely this, as to whether the -Defendant Frank was a member of the SS or not. As long as the -Prosecution do not present any definite proof of the membership of the -Defendant Frank in the SS, I have to contradict this statement. I do not -believe that it is the task of the Defense to prove that the Defendant -Frank was not a member of the SS. I am convinced that, on the other -hand, this is one of the tasks of the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well; I have heard what you said. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for the Leadership Corps. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal are prepared to hear counsel -for the organizations very shortly in the rebuttal, but only very -shortly, as otherwise we may go on interminably. - -DR. SERVATIUS: I do not want to make a speech, but merely to speak for -about 5 minutes, in order to define my attitude towards a few matters of -evidence. First, I have two questions to ask concerning the limitation -of the proceedings to certain groups of members. I should be grateful if -the Prosecution could give a statement as to whether the exception of -certain parts of the organizations, as has taken place, is a final one -or whether other procedures and steps are being held in reserve. This -was stated originally in reference to the Leadership Corps. Concerning -the limitation of the proceedings to certain groups of members in -reference to the Leadership Corps, I do not wish to make any further -motion inasmuch as that limitation has already been effected. I should -be glad, however, if a decision could still be reached concerning the -women. The female technical aides who were employed in the offices -cannot, in my opinion, be included in the staffs. At any rate, they do -not belong to the Leadership Corps, although they worked with the -staffs. These women themselves are of this opinion, and also the -officers in the camps shared this opinion. Accordingly not a single -application for leave to be heard has been made by any woman in the -British zone. - -I presume it is known that women, as a matter of principle, were kept -away from politics in the National Socialist State; and therefore, they -can hardly be connected with the crimes stated in Article 6. - -Now I should like to speak about two points concerning questions of -evidence. As every profession creates the tools which it needs, so the -jurist creates concepts to solve his problems. These concepts are not -created for their own sake; thus the concept of the criminal -organization shall serve to call guilty persons to account who would -otherwise possibly evade this responsibility of theirs. In establishing -the Charter the procedure was this, that one did away with the -traditional structure of the state in order to reach the individual -organs. But in order to be able to seize these organs, one brought them -together again through the concept of the guilt of conspiracy. In this -way, however, only a relatively small circle can be reached, since its -members would have to be bound to each other by means of an agreement. -In order to enlarge this circle by means of legal technique, the concept -of a criminal group or organization was created. This organization is -involved in the agreement of conspiracy only at the very top, while the -members automatically, without their own knowledge, are included in the -conspiracy. Such a definition of the concept of a criminal organization -is justifiable only insofar as it is useful in getting hold of the -really guilty persons and only the guilty ones. - -In order to define the limits of this concept, I should like to discuss -two further points concerning the determination of guilt and therefore -necessarily relevant to the question of admissibility of evidence. -First, there is the question of the members’ lack of knowledge of this -criminality—the lack of knowledge resulting from secrecy—and then the -attitude of the members after they had recognized the offenses being -committed. In my opinion, the examination of guilt cannot be dismissed -by pointing to the alleged knowledge of foreign countries about the real -conditions. In foreign countries a propaganda was effective which -exaggeratedly brought these things to light. In Germany all these facts -remained secret, since because of their very nature they had to be -secret—for instance, what was going on in the extermination camps—and -because they had to be kept secret for political reasons. Moreover, the -things which have become known here were so unimaginable that even in -Germany one could not have believed them, had they become known during -the war. It must be relevant to determine not whether a single -individual member had no knowledge, but that 99 percent of the -individual members acted in good faith. In this case, the organization -is not criminal, but there could have been a criminal in it. If this is -determined, then the legal construction of the criminal organization is -superfluous and thereby false. The legal concepts existing until now -will then be sufficient for bringing the guilty to trial. - -The next viewpoint: The criminal nature or the criminal character of -which the Charter speaks shows that that must be something which -concerns the entire organization, and that it must be a continuous state -of affairs. Individual acts which were rejected as wrong by the -organization or the overwhelming majority of its members cannot -establish the criminal character of the organization. The attitude of -all the members to the incriminating acts is therefore of decisive -importance and thus of evidentiary relevancy. - -We do not need the concept of the criminal organization in order to -punish individual criminals whose acts were rejected by the majority. -Among such individual cases, in organizations which comprise millions of -members, there may be cases in which smaller or even larger groups or -merely certain local districts took part. - -I believe that it is really a major task of the Tribunal to define, with -the objectivity of the judge, the nature of this guilt as applied to the -entire organization. I am of the opinion that the points I have -mentioned, the secrecy of these facts and the attitude of the members -after gaining knowledge, must form the basis for the collecting of -evidence. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I want to ask some questions. - -Dr. Servatius, I would like to ask you—and I will ask other counsel for -the organizations—whether in general you accept the definition of -criminal organizations suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, which is found -on Pages 19 and 20 of his statement? You will remember that he made five -general tests. Now, in order to determine what evidence should be taken, -we must determine what is relevant. Now, the test of what is relevant -depends on a general definition of what is common to all organizations -for that purpose. Now, do you or could you now say whether in a general -way you accept those tests for the purpose of taking evidence? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I have not yet thought about that and have not had a -chance to discuss it with my colleagues. I should be grateful if we -would be given such an opportunity. Perhaps this afternoon a -representative of the Defense Counsel for the organizations could report -to the Court about this. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you another question. What, in -your mind, are the tests that should be applied for the purpose of -taking evidence? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand the question. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I said that Mr. Justice Jackson had suggested -a definition from which the relevancy of certain evidence could be -established. Now, have you got any suggestion to offer for that same -purpose? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I should not like to commit myself without having spoken -to my colleagues. It is a question of great importance which I should -not like to deal with by myself. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, but it is the basis of this entire -argument. The very purpose of the argument was to develop that. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the course of yesterday’s debate the problem was -discussed as to whether the task set before the Tribunal by the Charter -can be considered a legislative act. The question was brought up as to -whether, if we answer the preliminary question in the affirmative, the -Court has the possibility of giving any binding instructions to the -national court which has to try individuals, according to Law Number 10. -That concerns, above all, the extent of the examination of the guilt of -the individual member and the limitation of the scope of punishment for -minor cases. I believe that if we follow up this deliberation we shall -be led from a play upon words into a labyrinth when it comes to the -practical application. Actually the task given the Court is not a -legislative act. It is not a procedural innovation, if the national -court in subsequent proceedings is bound by the previous decision of -this Tribunal. Such cases are quite plausible and legally admissible. If -elsewhere in criminal procedure a criminal court is bound by a previous -decision, say of an administrative court, we consider these cases quite -in order and unobjectionable. Likewise a criminal court could, for -instance, be bound in judging a case of embezzlement to wait for the -previous decision of the civil court as to whether the object embezzled -was the property of somebody else. - -Here, too, nobody would think that the civil judge was undertaking an -act of legislation. That another court’s decision is binding on the -criminal court and is the premise for its sentence does not in any way -mean that the author of the criminal code has not completed his -legislative task and that this has now to be done by the court which -takes the preceding decision. In my opinion we therefore do not have to -consider this point any further, for Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the -Charter demands of the Tribunal a clear and unequivocal decision of the -question whether the organization is criminal or not. - -More cannot be read either into the Charter or into Law Number 10. -Yesterday Sir David defined his attitude to the five points which were -submitted by me for consideration as to relevancy of evidence. In regard -to the two last points he raised the objection that they were to be -dealt with in the subsequent trials envisaged by Law Number 10. It was a -question of the grounds for exonerating persons—for instance, coercion, -deception, _et cetera_. I want to avoid repetition and point out only -the following: It is quite correct that the question of coercion and -deception and other reasons for the exoneration of persons be discussed -in subsequent trials. In connection with this, Sir David also called the -attention of the Court to a really noteworthy problem—that is, the -problem of a deception by the state, that is, a problem of mass -suggestion. This is really a very important problem. It affects many -members, as far as their joining is concerned. But it leads to the -broadest deduction as to the guilt of the entire membership and the -character of the total organization. - -We have therefore to pay particular attention as to how the problem of -deception on the part of the state affected the member and thereby was -characteristic of the organization. All grounds for the exoneration of -persons are therefore also to be examined by the Tribunal in judging the -question of the character of the organization. Furthermore, evidence -must be taken on the broadest basis. - -If the Tribunal were to make any limitation now, there would be the -possibility that later, at the end of the Trial, in contrast to its -present opinion, it might consider as relevant material now excluded. - -In yesterday’s debate the importance of the question was discussed, in -regard to the proposed declaration of criminality, as to what should be -considered as constituting knowledge on the part of the single member. -Sir David here applied the standard of a person of average intelligence -and wants to consider as guilty anybody who was above that standard. - -I have already recently explained that in regard to laws threatening -such a severe punishment as in this case, all systems of penal law -require that willful intent on the part of the perpetrator be proved. -Offenses of negligence are punishable only in exceptional cases, and -then only with minor penalties. At any rate in a case of an offense by -negligence it must be clear to the offender that he is under an -obligation to examine his action from the point of view of penal law. -Law Number 10—and now in connection with it the proposed verdict of -this Court—represents an ex post facto law. - -In the case of the main defendants the Prosecution have justified the -deviation from the generally recognized principle _nulla poena sine -lege_ on the ground that they themselves did not act in accordance with -this principle and cannot, therefore, base themselves on it now. This, -however, does not in any way apply to the organizations, quite apart -from the question whether this argument can be accepted at all. - -At any rate, however, in considering the element of negligence one -should also not overlook the fact that the obligation to exercise -attention differs in the case of _ex post facto_ laws from what it would -be in the case of existing laws. - -In this connection I should like to refer to the fact that the question -of whether the statutes of the Party organizations were illegal or not -has often been examined already, even earlier, at the time of the Weimar -Republic. Political considerations definitely favored such a -declaration. Apparently, legal considerations at that time did not let -the carrying out of such a procedure seem practical. What measure should -we then apply to the individual member’s ability to judge such matters, -if the legal problem is so difficult and lends itself so very much to -discussion? - -The Prosecution has restricted the motion so as to exclude the auxiliary -workers in the case of the Gestapo. The reason for this can only have -been that in the case of these members knowledge cannot be assumed to be -self-evident. I ask that the conclusions drawn in this individual case -be applied to the members of other organizations. Should not the -individual member of an organization comprising millions who had far -less contact with the executive organ than did an auxiliary worker of -the Gestapo—should not this member be judged much more favorably, as -far as knowledge is concerned, than this group which has been excepted? - -Are we not in particular obliged to use the best methods possible to -inform ourselves as to the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the -individual member? Sir David, in discussing the problem of negligence, -suddenly spoke of an ostrich policy. But here we have to consider that -the person who sticks his head into the sand in order not to see has -actually seen something and therefore does not want to see any more. It -is quite different in the case of this member who from the sources at -his disposal can gain no knowledge of individual actions; who, in -particular, has no knowledge of whether possibly only. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Forgive my interrupting you, but the Tribunal have -already heard and listened with attention to your interesting argument, -and the argument that they now are prepared to listen to is only a very -short argument in rebuttal. As I have already pointed out, it seems to -me that the greater part of what you are now saying is what you have -already said. We cannot go on hearing these arguments at great length. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Since I have arrived at the end of my remarks, I should -like in conclusion just to introduce one point of view which concerns -the defense of the Reich Cabinet. The number of members of the Reich -Cabinet is very limited. One half are in the defendants’ dock. Is it -really necessary to consider the other half cumulatively as an -organization, since the small number of those concerned makes possible -an individual trial, with all the legal guarantees given therein? To -this extent I should like to refer to the remarks made by my colleague, -Dr. Laternser, who mentioned the provision of the Charter that the -Tribunal is not compelled to reach a decision but that for reasons of -expediency it can refrain from doing so. - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Biddle wants to ask you some questions. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have just one question. Will you listen to -this very carefully? - -If the Tribunal find that an organization was being used for a criminal -purpose, and certainly, with respect to some organizations, there is -ample evidence that might justify such a finding, why, then, would the -Tribunal not be justified in holding that organization as a criminal -organization insofar as it was composed of persons who had knowledge -that it was being so used and voluntarily remained members of the -organization? In other words, the definition would state that it -consisted of members who had actual knowledge that the organization was -engaged in the commission of crime. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: The organization cannot be separated from the total -number of its members. The declaration of criminality in connection with -Law Number 10 is to affect each individual member. The task of the -Tribunal would not be fulfilled if it limited that task and excluded -from the organization unspecified individuals. In the task which I have -mentioned we cannot overlook the practical purpose, and that will not be -guaranteed if such a limitation is made. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will ask just one more question. I do not -think you have answered my question. I will put it very simply again. - -How would that definition be unfair to any individual? - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: If only a limited circle of persons in connection with -the organization is branded as criminal, this necessarily results in an -injustice to the other members of the organization. The declaration -naturally affects the name of the entire organization, and, therefore, -the declaration of criminality affects each individual member, even if -one tries to limit the definition. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think in view of the time we had better adjourn for 10 -minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, it was not my intention to make statements -today about the concept of the criminal organizations, because I believe -that my statements of yesterday on this point were comprehensive. I -should merely like to state briefly my attitude to the second question -put by Mr. Biddle to my colleague, Kubuschok. - -The second question, if I understood it correctly, was as follows: Why -is it unfair to the individuals who were members of an organization, or -why can it be unfair to them, if this organization is declared criminal? -This declaration of the criminality of an organization is certainly -unfair to all those members who had no knowledge of any supposedly -criminal purpose and aims. For in this question one has to. . . - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You misunderstood the question, I think; so, -to save time—the question was a very simple one. I do not want to go -into it unless you want to. I will repeat it again. I said this: If an -organization was being used for criminal purposes—and I added that -there was very great evidence that such was the case in certain -instances—why would it not be proper to hold it a criminal organization -insofar as it was composed of persons who had knowledge that it was -being so used and voluntarily remained members? Of course, that would -exclude from the organization everybody who did not have knowledge that -it was engaged in criminal purposes. - -DR. LATERNSER: Then I did not understand the question quite correctly, -and further statements in regard to these questions, which have now been -settled, are unnecessary. - -DR. LÖFFLER: I should like first of all to correct a misunderstanding. -Sir David stated yesterday in his reply that I had admitted that the SA -had participated in the 10th and 11th of November 1938. I emphasize -expressly that I stated that only 2 percent of the SA at the most were -involved in individual actions, and that obviously applies to this event -as well. This example occasions me to underscore what my colleague, -Servatius, has previously stated about taking into consideration the -so-called mistake of an organization, in a case where an organization -deviates from its path and commits an error—which should be avoided. -The 98 percent who did not participate, as well as the 2 percent who did -participate there, with few exceptions, all regarded this action with -aversion and disgust and were not inwardly in agreement with it. - -It is therefore an error on the part of the Indictment if on the basis -of this single event, on the basis of this exceptional case, general -conclusions are drawn as to the general character of the organization. -For it is rightfully protested that the very rejection of this action is -a proof that this is an exception to the general tendency of the -organization. - -If, then, it is asserted as a second point that the SA was also -concerned with concentration camps, that is also a further typical proof -of the false conclusion to which one can come in the case of judgment -against the organizations. Of 4 millions there were 1,000 men at the -most, that is, only 0.5 percent. The remaining 3,999,000 had no -knowledge of this, and this can be proved. No one will wish to claim -that the fact that 0.5 percent were involved in something about which -the others knew nothing at all allows a conclusion to be drawn as to the -question of criminal character. But this small percentage, as such, is -not an answer to the question which is being raised at this point. -Rather we are, as before, of the opinion that the explanation which was -made by attorney Kubuschok absolutely covers the criminal character as -formulated by the Defense, if the basic conditions are met, as set down -by attorney Kubuschok in agreement with all defense counsel for the -organizations. On the basis of this formulation, that question which -Justice Biddle previously put to counsel for the various organizations -can readily be answered. - -I should like to emphasize that yesterday Mr. Justice Jackson made the -suggestion that, instead of having countless witnesses, experts be heard -on the subject of what willful intent can be assumed in the case of the -single organizations. I should like to oppose this emphatically. One -cannot hear any witness or any expert who can tell the Court what, so to -speak, that “common sense” was on the basis of which the question is to -be judged—what knowledge the single members had. - -The members, as far as intelligence is concerned, vary greatly. There -are those of average intelligence and there are less intelligent members -of the organizations. If a judgment is to be passed here which also -affects less intelligent members of the organizations and condemns them, -then it is a basic principle of law that this should not be done on the -basis of what the intelligent members of the organizations might and -could have known; that would be an injustice to the average persons and -the less intelligent. Not even the average persons can be taken as a -basis, since this would be an injustice to the still less intelligent, -who would be included in and affected by this judgment. - -In conclusion I should like to point out that yesterday’s debate on the -question of the effect of the judgment which this Court is to pass -confirmed in full measure the fears of the Defense Counsel. Mr. Justice -Jackson declared that this judgment would have the character of a -declaration. This is not compatible with the statement which Lieutenant -General Clay, the Deputy Military Governor of the American occupied -zone, made yesterday in an interview for the _Neue Zeitung_, the -American paper for the German population. I should like to quote a -sentence from the latest issue which refutes Justice Jackson’s opinion. -Lieutenant General Clay declares in regard to the question of the fate -of these interned in the United States zone of occupation: - - “The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal will decide what will - happen to them. Their number is at present 280,000 to 300,000. - Should the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, however, - consider all the members of the indicted National Socialist - organizations war criminals, then the number will be increased - to 500,000 or 600,000.” - -The declaration made by Justice Jackson yesterday that no mass -retribution is intended could be made only in reference to the present -standpoint of his Government. But there is no guarantee that other -governments will not take another stand or that his Government, which is -not bound to Justice Jackson’s opinion, will not alter its stand. - -I should like to conclude with this remark: Justice Jackson mentioned -the shock which the combination of the Charter and decision desired by -the Prosecution—in connection with Law Number 10—has been to the -Defense. I believe that the effect of this shock is not confined to the -Defense alone but affects all people who are interested in justice, for -if the combination of these various laws gives the national courts the -opportunity to call millions of members of organizations to -account—among whom, as Justice Jackson also could not deny yesterday, -there are innocent people—and if punishments for mere membership -ranging from a fine to the death sentence are provided, then it is the -duty of the Defense to point out that the procedure here obviously -threatens to deviate from the basis of law and will necessarily lead to -arbitrary action. - -If Justice Jackson then in answer to this refers to the effect of shock -in connection with the death of many Jews, one can say that those things -happened outside the law and in the name of force. This Charter and this -Tribunal, however, want to do away with force and put justice in its -place. But justice must be clear and it must be sure. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Tribunal said -earlier that certain questions had been asked of me. I am perfectly -prepared to answer the three questions if the Tribunal desire their time -to be occupied by my so doing. - -THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the Tribunal wish to hear any further -arguments unless you particularly want to answer anything. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not intend to argue at all. It was only -that Dr. Dix put two questions to me on which he asked my view, and Dr. -Servatius one, but I am in the hands of the Tribunal. I do not want it -to be thought that the Prosecution are not prepared to answer the -questions. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you can answer them shortly, we should be quite glad -to hear them. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first question that Dr. Dix asked me was to -clarify what I had said about the Führerprinzip in relation to the -Reichsregierung. I can answer that in two sentences. I said that, in -addition to the ordinary support which members of the Reichsregierung in -1933 gave to Hitler under the Führerprinzip, they entrusted their -consciences and wills to him and adopted completely his points of view. - -In order that Dr. Dix may be under no misapprehension with regard to his -client, the case for the Prosecution may be put in the words of Dr. -Goebbels, one of the conspirators, on the 21st of November 1934, in -conversation with Dr. Schacht: - - “I assured myself that he absolutely represents our point of - view. He is one of the few who accepts the Führer’s position - entirely.” - -The second point was on the question of the Party program in relation to -the Treaty of Versailles and the Anschluss. Dr. Dix asked me to deal -with those who desired to effect the aims of the Party program in a -peaceful way. The Prosecution say that does not arise, that the Party -program must be considered in the background of Hitler and other -publications as to the use of force and also as to the existing state of -things in the relationship of Germany with the Western Powers and also -of treaty obligation to Austria and Czechoslovakia. - -The third question that was put to me was by Dr. Servatius, about the -Leadership Corps. You will remember, My Lord, that in the statement of -the Tribunal the Prosecution were asked, if they were making any -limitation, to make it now. That is contained in the statement of the -Tribunal. The limitation which we have made—that is, only including the -staff in the case of the Reichsleitung, Gauleitung, and Kreisleitung, -and excluding the staff in the case of the Ortsgruppenleiter, -Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter—is the view to which the Prosecution -adhere and which has been agreed upon by the different delegations. I -wanted Dr. Servatius to know that that was the position. I don’t intend -to repeat the reasons for it which were given by my friend, Mr. Justice -Jackson. - -THE PRESIDENT: There is only one thing I should like to say. I think it -might be useful to the Tribunal, if you have them, to let us have copies -of the British statutes to which Mr. Justice Jackson referred and also -of certain judgments of the German courts—if you have copies available. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They will be found for the Tribunal and the -Tribunal will receive them within the shortest possible time. - -THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I understand that you have an affidavit which -you wish to put in with reference to the High Command? - -MR. DODD: Yes, we do have it. We located this affidavit on Thursday; the -Tribunal had inquired about it on the afternoon of the day before—on -Wednesday, I believe it was. We have prepared for the Tribunal a list of -the offices comprising the German General Staff and High Command as -defined by the Indictment in Appendix B. The list was compiled from -official sources in the Admiralty Office of Great Britain, the War -Office of Great Britain, and the Air Ministry of Great Britain, and -supplemental information was obtained from senior German officers, now -prisoners of war in England and in Germany. The list is attached to this -affidavit, as we intended to submit it this morning to the Tribunal; and -the affidavit describes the source from which this information was -obtained and it points out that the list does not purport to be -exhaustive or necessarily correct in every detail. It is, however, -substantially a complete list of the members of the General Staff and of -the High Command and of the High Command group, and on the basis of this -compilation there appear to have been a total of 131 members, of whom -114 are thought to be living at the present time. I wish to offer the -list formally, together with this affidavit, as Exhibit Number USA-778 -(Document Number 3739-PS), I ask that it be accepted without reading. -However, of course, if the Tribunal would like it read over the public -address system, I should be glad to do so. - -THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not think you need read it over. Copies have -been given to the Defense? - -MR. DODD: Yes, they have, Your Honor. They have been given to the -Defense. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. - -MR. DODD: Colonel Smirnov, if Your Honor pleases, is prepared to read -the document with reference to Stalag Luft III. If the Tribunal would -like, we will have him do so. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think that might perhaps be done on Monday morning. - -MR. DODD: Very well. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 4 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTY-THIRD DAY - Monday, 4 March 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Sir, a few days ago the Tribunal issued -instructions concerning the expedience of reading into the record the -official British report on the responsibility for the slaying of 50 -officers of the Royal Air Force coincidentally, as far as possible, with -the proposed interrogatory of General Westhoff and the senior criminal -counsel, Wielen. May I read into the record some of the more essential -passages from this report of the British Government? I shall read into -the record those parts of the document which, on the one hand, testify -to the general character of this criminal act and, on the other hand, -establish the responsibility for the crime. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you are offering the document, are you, -as evidence? You are seeking to put the document in evidence? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document has already been presented in -evidence and has already been accepted by the Tribunal. I wished only to -read into the record certain extracts from this document. It has been -submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48). - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am quoting Paragraph 1 of the official British -report: - - “1. On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped - from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia, where they had been - confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and - returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by - the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50 - officers the following information was given by the German - authorities: - - “(a) On 6th April 1944, at Sagan, the acting commandant of - Stalag Luft III (Oberstleutnant Cordes) read to the senior - British officer (Group Captain Massey) an official communication - of the German High Command that 41 officers (unnamed) had been - shot, ‘some of them having offered resistance on being arrested, - others having tried to escape on the transport back to their - camp.’ - - “(b) On 15th April 1944, at Sagan, a member of the German camp - staff (Hauptmann Pieber) produced to the new senior British - officer (Group Captain Wilson) a list of 47 names of the - officers who had been shot. - - “(c) On 18th May 1944, at Sagan, the senior British officer was - given three additional names, making a total of 50. - - “(d) On or about 12th June 1944, the Swiss Minister in Berlin - received from the German Foreign Office, in reply to his enquiry - into the affair, a note to the effect that 37 prisoners of - British nationality and 13 prisoners of non-British nationality - were shot when offering resistance when found or attempting to - re-escape after capture. This note also referred to the return - of urns containing the ashes of the dead to Sagan for burial.” - -The official German version—the official version of the German -authorities—indicated that these officers were shot allegedly while -attempting to escape. As a matter of fact, as definitely proved by the -documentation of the investigation carried out by the British -authorities, the officers were murdered—and murdered by members of the -Gestapo on direct orders from Keitel and with the full knowledge of -Göring. - -I shall, with your permission, read into the record in confirmation of -this fact two paragraphs—or rather two points—from the official -British report, that is, Point 7 and Point 8: - - “7. General Major Westhoff at the time of the escape was in - charge of the general department relating to prisoners of war, - and on 15th June 1945 he made a statement in the course of which - he said that he and General Von Graevenitz, the inspector of the - German POW organization, were summoned to Berlin a few days - after the escape and there interviewed by Keitel. The latter - told them that he had been blamed by Göring in the presence of - Himmler for having let the prisoners of war escape. - - “Keitel said, ‘Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must set - an example. We shall take very severe measures. I can only tell - you that the officers who have escaped will be shot; probably - the majority of them are dead already.’ When Von Graevenitz - objected, Keitel said, ‘I do not care a damn; we discussed it in - the Führer’s presence and it cannot be altered.’” - -Point 8: I begin the quotation of the official British report: - - “Max Ernst Gustav Friedrich Wielen was then the officer in - charge of the Criminal Police (Kripo) at Breslau, and he also - made a statement, dated 26th August 1945, in the course of which - he said that as soon as practically all the escaped R.A.F. - officers had been recaptured he was summoned to Berlin where he - saw Arthur Nebe, the Chief of the Kripo head office, who showed - him a teleprint order signed by Kaltenbrunner, which was to the - effect that on the express order of the Führer over half of the - officers who had escaped from Sagan were to be shot after their - recapture. It was stated that Müller had received corresponding - orders and would give instructions to the Gestapo. According to - Wielen the Kripo, who were responsible for collecting and - holding all the recaptured prisoners, handed over to the Gestapo - the prisoners who were to be shot, having previously provided - the Gestapo with a list of the prisoners regarded by the camp - authorities as ‘troublesome.’” - -I would also ask the Tribunal’s permission to read into the record that -part of the text of the official report of the British Government which -deals with the methods of investigation in regard to individual -officers. This documentation has been systematized and divided into -three parts. I take the liberty of reading into the record the data of -the findings referring to the three separate parts. I quote Page 3 of -the Russian text, beginning from Paragraph 2: - - “Flight Lieutenants Wernham, Kiewnarski, Pawluk, and Skanziklas. - - “On or about 26th March 1944 . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, are you going to read now some of the -evidence upon which the report is based? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to read out only -from the text proper and particularly those parts of the report which -testify to the methods of investigation applied in the case of -individual officers. I should like to begin reading from the paragraph -dealing with the three groups of officers. - -THE PRESIDENT: Paragraph 4? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - - MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: “On or about the 26th of March 1944 - these officers were interrogated at the police station in - Hirschberg and were then moved to the civil gaol in that town. - On the morning of 29th March Pawluk and Kiewnarski were taken - away and later in the day Skanziklas and Wernham left. Both - parties were escorted, but their destination was unknown. They - have not been seen since and the urns later received at the - Stalag showing their names bear the date 30th March 1944.” - -And now the next group of British officers: - - “Squadron Leader Cross, Flight Lieutenants Casey, Wiley, and - Leigh, and Flight Officers Pohe and Hake. - - “Between 26th and 30th March 1944 these officers were - interrogated at the Kripo headquarters in Görlitz and then - returned to the gaol there. During the interrogation Casey was - told that ‘he would lose his head,’ Wiley that ‘he would be - shot,’ and Leigh that ‘he would be shot.’ Hake was suffering - from badly frostbitten feet and was incapable of traveling for - any distance on foot. On 30th March the officers left Görlitz in - three motor cars accompanied by 10 German civilians of the - Gestapo type. The urns later received at the Stalag bear their - names and show them to have been cremated at Görlitz on 31st - March 1944. - - “Flight Lieutenants Humpreys, McGill, Swain, Hall, Langford, and - Evans; Flight Officers Valenta, Kolanowski, Stewart, and - Birkland. - - “These officers were interrogated at the Kripo headquarters in - Görlitz between 26th and 30th March. Swain was told that ‘he - would be shot,’ Valenta was threatened and told that ‘he would - never escape again.’ Kolanowski was very depressed after his - interview. On 31st March these officers were collected by a - party of German civilians, at least one of whom was in the party - which had come on the previous day. The urns later received at - the Stalag bore their names and show them to have been cremated - at Liegnitz on a date unspecified.” - -I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that similar -data also relate to different groups of British officers slain by the -Germans in Stalag Luft III. - -The following page of the text includes identical data relating to -Flight lieutenants Grisman, Gunn, Williams, and Milford, Flight Officer -Street and Lieutenant McGarr. Similar information is given concerning -Flight Lieutenant Long, Squadron Leader J. E. Williams, Flight -Lieutenants Bull and Mondschein, and Flight Officer Kierath. The same -information is given with reference to Flight Officer Stower, Flight -Lieutenant Tobolski, Flight Officer Krol, Flight Lieutenants Wallen, -Marcinkus, and Brettell, Flight Officer Picard and Lieutenants Gouws and -Stevens, Squadron Leader Bushell and Lieutenant Scheidhauer, Flight -Officer Cochran, Lieutenants Espelid and Fugelsang, Squadron Leader -Kirby-Green and Flight Officer Kidder, Squadron Leader Catanach and -Flight Officer Christensen, and Flight Lieutenant Hayter. - -I shall, with your permission, read into the record one more paragraph -from this official report. I refer to Paragraph 6 of the official -British report and also to Paragraph 5, because it is of essential -importance. - -THE PRESIDENT: I was going to suggest you should read Paragraph 5. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am going to read Paragraph 5 of the British -text: - - “According to the evidence of the survivors there was no - question of any officers having resisted arrest or of the - recaptured officers having attempted a second escape. All were - agreed that the weather conditions were against them and that - such an attempt would be madness. They were anxious to be - returned to the Stalag, take their punishment, and try their - luck at escaping another time. - - “6. The Swiss representative (M. Gabriel Naville) pointed out on - 9th June 1944 in his report on his visit to Sagan that the - cremation of deceased prisoners of war was most unusual (the - normal custom being to bury them in a coffin with military - honors) and that was the first case known to him where the - bodies of deceased prisoners had been cremated. Further it may - be noted that if, as the Germans alleged, these 50 officers who - were recaptured in widely scattered parts of Germany had - resisted arrest or attempted a second escape, it is probable - that some would have been wounded and most improbable that all - would have been killed. In this connection it is significant - that the German Foreign Office refused to give to the protecting - power the customary details of the circumstances in which each - officer lost his life.” - -Those are the parts of the official report of the British Government -which I had the honor to communicate to the Court. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think it would perhaps be better if you also read the -appendix so as to show the summary of the evidence upon which the report -proceeded, Paragraph 9. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I refrained from reading the appendix because it -had already been read in due course by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I shall -read it once more with pleasure: - - “9. The appendix attached hereto gives a list of the material - upon which this report is based. The documents referred to are - annexed to this report. - - “Appendix. - - “Material upon which the foregoing report is based: - - “(1) Proceedings of court of inquiry held at Sagan by order of - the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded by - the protecting power. - - “(2) Statements of the following Allied witnesses: (a) Wing - Commander Day, (b) Flight Lieutenant Tonder, (c) Flight - Lieutenant Dowse, (d) Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, (e) - Flight Lieutenant Green, (f) Flight Lieutenant Marshall, (g) - Flight Lieutenant Nelson, (h) Flight Lieutenant Churchill, (i) - Lieutenant Neely, (k) P. S. M. Hicks. - - “(3) Statements taken from the following Germans: (a) Major - General Westhoff, (b) Oberregierungsrat und Kriminalrat Wielen - (two statements), (c) Oberst Von Lindeiner. - - “(4) Photostat copy of the official list of dead transmitted by - the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation in Berlin on or - about 15 June 1944. - - “(5) Report of the representative of the protecting power on his - visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.” - -THE PRESIDENT: Then, for the purposes of the record, you had better read -in the signature and the department at the bottom. - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The document is signed by H. Shapcott, -Brigadier, Military Deputy, and is certified by the Military Department, -Judge Advocate General’s Office, London, 25 September 1945. - -THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, so far as the Russian Chief Prosecutor -is concerned, does that conclude the case for the Prosecution? - -MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. - -DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Paragraph 9 of the report which has just been -read by the Prosecution mentions the documents which served as a basis -for it and says that they are attached to the report. The individual -documents on which the report is based are listed in the appendix. I ask -the Tribunal to decide whether Document USSR-413 satisfies the -requirements of Article 21 of the Charter, since the material on which -it was based, and which is expressly mentioned in the report, has not -been produced along with it. I request that the Prosecution be asked to -make the appendix available to the Defense as well. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you mean that you have only had the report -made by the Brigadier and have not seen any part of the other evidence -upon which the report proceeds? - -DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the Tribunal decided during an earlier phase -of this Trial . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Yes, but I did not ask you what we had -decided. I asked what you had received. Have you received from the -Prosecution the whole of this document or only the report made by the -Brigadier? - -DR. NELTE: Only the report, without the appendix. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal certainly intended that the whole of -the document should be furnished to defendant’s counsel, and that must -be done so that you may have all the documents before you. - -DR. NELTE: But that has obviously not been done. The appendix expressly -mentions statements made by Major General Westhoff and by -Oberregierungsrat Wielen. I am not acquainted with either of these -statements. They were not attached to the report. - -THE PRESIDENT: You must have them. The Prosecution must see that the -whole of this document is furnished to the Defense Counsel. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I do not think the whole of -it has been copied, but if Dr. Nelte will let us know if he wants the -whole of it, or a part, we will co-operate the best way we can. The last -thing we desire is that he should not have it. We want him to have -everything he wants. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, will you inform the Tribunal whether the -Prosecution have now concluded their case. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. That is the conclusion of the case -for the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we will now proceed with the applications -for witnesses and documents by the second four of the defendants: -Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick. - -DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): The Defendant -Kaltenbrunner wishes to call a number of witnesses whom I will name now. -First, Professor Dr. Burckhardt. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if the Tribunal approves, we will adopt -the same procedure as was done on the first four defendants. - -With regard to the three Swiss witnesses, Burckhardt, Brachmann, and -Meyer, the interrogatories were granted on the 15th of December and -submitted on the 28th of January. The Prosecution considered that the -interrogatories were rather on the vague side and suggested that they -might be made more precise. The Prosecution have no objection to -interrogatories in principle, and I am sure that there would not be much -difference between Dr. Kauffmann and the Prosecution as to the form. -That applies to the first three witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: We are informed that none of these three witnesses has -been located yet. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I respectfully agree, My Lord. That is the -position of the Prosecution, that we have no objection in principle to -these interrogatories, and if we can help the Court in any way to locate -the witnesses, we should be glad to do so. - -THE PRESIDENT: When were the interrogatories furnished to the -Prosecution? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of January, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: And were the Prosecution’s objections communicated to the -Defense Counsel shortly afterwards, or when? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, I am afraid I have not got that -date, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t the most sensible course be for the Prosecution -to try to agree upon a suitable form of interrogatory whilst the General -Secretary is continuing his inquiries to find the witnesses? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if Dr. Kauffmann will communicate -with me, I have no doubt that we could agree on a form that would be -mutually acceptable. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I think there is no need for me to repeat -the individual questions which I have listed in the interrogatory. There -are 19 of them. I do not think that I need repeat them now. - -THE PRESIDENT: No, certainly not. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: The fourth witness is the former German Minister in -Belgrade, Neubacher. At present he is in the internment camp Oberursel -near Frankfurt, in American custody. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection to this witness. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the Tribunal want me to specify the evidence? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you would. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Neubacher will, in the opinion of the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner, be able to testify that the order given by Hitler in -October 1944 to stop the persecution of the Jews was really given at -Kaltenbrunner’s suggestion. - -Furthermore, in the opinion of the defendant, he will be able to testify -that when Himmler was appointed Chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt -he put the defendant in charge of Amt III and VI. This seems to me to be -important, since so far the Indictment has always been based on the -defendant’s definite connection with Amt IV, which is, indeed, borne out -to a certain extent by the evidence. Neubacher is expected to be able to -testify to this. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if those are the questions which it is -desired to interrogate Neubacher on, couldn’t they be dealt with by -interrogatories? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: According to the information given to me by -Kaltenbrunner, Kaltenbrunner attaches importance to the personal -appearance of this witness for reasons which are easy to understand. I -believe that Kaltenbrunner considers this witness one of the most -important witnesses, and he would like to see this witness called. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: The next witness is Number 5, Wanneck, at present in -American custody in Heidelberg. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution suggests that the witness -Wanneck is cumulative. According to Dr. Kauffmann’s application, he is -going to deal with the point that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner was -actually occupied mainly with the task of the intelligence service and -that he objected to persecution of the Jews. That is already covered by -Neubacher, and it is also covered by the cross-examination of the -Prosecution’s witness Schellenberg, who was the chief of Amt VI, which -Dr. Kauffmann has set out in his note on the witness Neubacher, Number -4, as being one of the Intelligence Ämter. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: I leave it to the Tribunal to decide whether this witness -could be dealt with by means of an interrogatory. But I do consider the -evidence material relevant in the case of Wanneck as well. In a certain -sense it is cumulative, but some points in it go further. But I agree to -an interrogatory. - -The sixth witness is Scheidler. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think it would be unreasonable to -administer an interrogatory? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. Generally I make no objection to -interrogatories at all. - -With regard to Scheidler, he was, as I understand the application, the -Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s adjutant, and as such the Prosecution would -not make any objection. But I think it would be convenient if I were to -draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the next six -witnesses, Numbers 6 to 11 inclusive, all deal with concentration camps, -and numbers 6, 8, 9, and 11 deal with Mauthausen. I want to give Dr. -Kauffmann warning that I shall ask for some selectivity among these six -witnesses. - -The Prosecution feel that the application for an adjutant is a -reasonable one, but it will be reflected in objections to later -witnesses. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: The defendant naturally considers it important that the -adjutant who served him for many years and who accompanied him on every -single trip, as Kaltenbrunner told me himself, be called. He knows also, -for instance, that the wireless message to Fegelein, which is part of -the accusation, did not come from Kaltenbrunner and that his radiogram -was never sent. He also knows that Kaltenbrunner had made all -preparations for the Theresienstadt camp to be made accessible to the -Red Cross. These are things which have not been mentioned by previous -witnesses, but which shed some light on the person of the defendant. - -THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of Scheidler? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to deal with the -whole of that group together, and then Dr. Kauffmann can answer what you -say. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With pleasure, My Lord. - -The next witness is Ohlendorf, who was called as a witness for the -Prosecution. The situation as I have found it is that Dr. Kauffmann did -cross-examine the witness Ohlendorf on the Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s -responsibility on concentration camps on the 3rd of January of this -year, at Page 2034 of the transcript (Volume IV, Page 335). - -The witness Wisliceny, Number 12, who has not been cross-examined on -behalf of Kaltenbrunner by Dr. Kauffmann, would be the natural person to -deal with that point. But, of course, if Dr. Kauffmann has any special -point for the recalling of Ohlendorf, he will tell the Tribunal. - -That is the position. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if you had the opportunity of -cross-examining General Ohlendorf and actually availed yourself of the -opportunity wasn’t that the appropriate time for you to put any -questions which you had on behalf of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to remind you that Kaltenbrunner was ill -for more than 12 weeks and that I could get almost no information from -him. At the session of 2 January the right of cross-examining the -witnesses at a later date was expressly granted me by the Tribunal. I -had, as the Court will remember, made a motion to adjourn, and then I -was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses at a given time which would -suit me. - -That appears in the transcript of 2 January 1946. - -As these witnesses have all been called in Kaltenbrunner’s absence, I -should like to cross-examine now in his presence. I am, however, -prepared to forego the cross-examination, if I can talk to the witnesses -beforehand. Perhaps it will not be necessary to call one or the other -witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by one or the other witness? Which is -the other? Wisliceny? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Number 7, Ohlendorf, and then Number 11, Höllriegel, and -Number 12, Wisliceny, also Number 14, Schellenberg. All these witnesses -have been heard here, and Kaltenbrunner was ill at the time. - -THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about it, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest that Dr. Kauffmann -cross-examine Number 11, Höllriegel, and Number 12, Wisliceny, whom he -has not cross-examined so far. And then, if there is any special point -which remains to be dealt with by the witness Ohlendorf, Dr. Kauffmann -can make a special application to the Court. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the Tribunal would like to know what position -you take about the defendants’ counsel seeing these witnesses and -discussing with them their evidence before they call them. I mean, there -is a distinction between cross-examination when defendants’ counsel -cannot see them and calling them as their own witnesses when they can -see them. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, the Prosecution feel that they ought -simply to cross-examine witnesses that have been called by the -Prosecution, unless there are very special circumstances. I think that -Dr. Seidl showed special circumstances with regard to the case that he -mentioned of one witness in special relation to the Defendant Hess. But -as a general rule, the Prosecution submit that witnesses that they have -called should be cross-examined without prior consultation. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know your -view. Of course, we are not deciding the point now, but we should like -to know your view as to whether it would be a proper course to allow the -defendants’ counsel to see the particular witness in the presence of a -representative of the Prosecution, because it may be that that would -lead to a shortening of the proceeding, because the defendants’ counsel -might after that not wish to cross-examine the witness any further. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am afraid that would require discussions -with my colleagues on each particular witness. I am afraid I have not -covered that point; witnesses 11 and 12 were called by my American -colleagues and although I take the general position which I put before -the Tribunal, I have not discussed that point; but I shall be pleased to -discuss it with them and perhaps to inform the Tribunal later on in the -day. - -Of course, you will appreciate the fact that there may be a special -point relating to a special witness that may come up in this connection. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I can explain this. The witness Ohlendorf was -reserved for me for cross-examination. In accordance with an agreement -made with the American Prosecution, I dispensed with a cross-examination -of Ohlendorf and on this condition was allowed to speak to him. I think -it would be quite fair if I could do the same with other witnesses. I -forego the cross-examination and can speak to the witnesses beforehand. -Perhaps one or the other will turn out to be unnecessary. - -THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure that you understand the view being -put to you, Dr. Kauffmann. The view is that when a witness is called on -behalf of the Prosecution the defendants’ counsel certainly have the -right to cross-examine the witness, not to see the witness beforehand, -but only to cross-examine him. If on the other hand they are entitled to -call that witness as their own, then they are entitled to see him -beforehand, which is. . . - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, that is what I mean. But if I am allowed to speak to -the witness beforehand, then the Court will understand that I should -like to avoid as far as possible the presence of a representative of the -Prosecution, since the reasons which might cause me to forego the -calling of a witness would then be known to the Prosecution. I think -everyone will understand that, and I also think it is fair. - -THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to clarify what the difference in view between -you and the Prosecution is. The Prosecution said that when the witness -was called for the Prosecution the right of the defendants is only to -cross-examine. Can you help us further with respect to this group, Sir -David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. With regard to Eigruber, Number 8, he -is no longer in Nuremberg, and he is being held as a probable defendant -in the case concerning Mauthausen Camp, which will be dealt with by a -military court, and therefore the Prosecution suggests that in these -circumstances, as he is one of this group dealing with concentration -camps in general and Mauthausen in particular, he ought to be dealt with -by interrogatories. - -Then with regard to Höttl, Number 9, he deals with two aspects of one -point, that is, that Kaltenbrunner on his own initiative ordered the -surrender of the concentration camp of Mauthausen and that he took steps -to induce Himmler to release people from concentration camps. These seem -to be general points that again might be conveniently dealt with by -interrogatories. - -And the same applies to the witness Von Eberstein, who deals with the -point that Kaltenbrunner is alleged not to have given an order to -destroy the concentration camp at Dachau, and that he did not give an -order to evacuate Dachau. The Prosecution suggest that these ought also -to be interrogatories. - -With regard to the next witness, Höllriegel, the Prosecution make no -objection to further cross-examination, and respectfully suggest to the -Tribunal that he will be able to deal with the question of Mauthausen, -which is one of the main questions that this whole group of witnesses is -called to deal with. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: [_Interposing._] Maybe I can say something so that. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: [_To Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe._] Are you in agreement with -Number 12, in the same group? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 12 is not in the same group, because he -deals with the question of Kaltenbrunner’s relations with Eichmann and -with reports he received regarding the action against the Jews. We have -no objection to this witness being called for cross-examination, as Dr. -Kauffmann did not cross-examine him. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Concerning the witness Eigruber, Number 8, may I point -out that this witness is here in Nuremberg. However, I agree that -interrogatories be sent. The subject of the evidence itself seems to me -decidedly relevant, for what Eigruber is supposed to testify is neither -more nor less than the fact that the concentration camp at Mauthausen -was directly supervised by Himmler through Pohl and the commander of the -camp. Kaltenbrunner denies the possession of exact knowledge regarding -Mauthausen. The witness Höttl. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: You were in error in saying he was here in town. Sir -David said he has been removed from Nuremberg for the purpose of trial -by a military court. So perhaps you would not object to interrogatories -in that case. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. The witness Höttl is, in my opinion, an important -witness. As we know, Kaltenbrunner is also accused of having -participated in the conspiracy against the peace. Here I intend to prove -that Kaltenbrunner conducted an active peace campaign ever since 1943. -An important name in this connection is Mr. Dulles. He is, according to -Kaltenbrunner, the late President Roosevelt’s confidential agent. Mr. -Dulles was in Switzerland. According to Kaltenbrunner, meetings between -them constantly took place with this object. I believe that this subject -of evidence is relevant. - -THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Höttl in person, not by way of -interrogatories? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 10, General of the Police Von Eberstein, -is called to prove that the statement of another witness by the name of -Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will perhaps remember that the -Prosecution submitted an affidavit by a man named Gerdes who was an -important figure in Munich. He was the confidential agent of the former -Gauleiter of Munich. In his affidavit, Gerdes accuses Kaltenbrunner of -ordering the destruction of Dachau through bombing. Kaltenbrunner -emphatically denies that. - -THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly dealt with by -interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did give an order to -destroy a concentration camp, or an order to evacuate Dachau. Surely -those are matters which admit of proof by interrogatories. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree. The same problem arises in connection with the -next witness, Number 11, the witness Höllriegel, who has already been -heard. Am I to have the opportunity of speaking to this witness before -he is cross-examined? Kaltenbrunner denies that he ever saw gas -chambers, _et cetera_. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, isn’t Number 11 really cumulative to -Number 6, whom you particularly wanted to call? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly. - -THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the question whether -you ought to be given the right merely to cross-examine or to recall as -your own witness, with reference to Numbers 11 and 12. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. Just a word about witness Number 12. Eichmann, as is -well known, was the man who carried out the whole extermination -operation against the Jews, and Kaltenbrunner’s name has been mentioned -in connection with this operation. Kaltenbrunner denies it. For that -reason I consider Wisliceny a relevant witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the other ones, Sir -David? Are they in the same category? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite, but I think it might be convenient if -I deal with them. - -Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner did not -authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders for protective custody -or internment, and I should submit that in view of the previous -evidence, of Scheidler and Number 4, Neubacher, Dr. Mildner’s evidence -is cumulative and that interrogatories would suffice. - -As to Schellenberg, Number 14, I have already said that the Prosecution -make no objection to his recall for cross-examination. - -Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because the object of -his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended to the Gauleiter of -Austria not to oppose the advancing troops of the Western Powers and not -to organize Werewolf movements, is in our submission irrelevant to the -issues before this Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Kauffmann? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is here in Nuremberg, -in custody. I have asked to call this witness because he has submitted -an affidavit containing certain accusations against Kaltenbrunner which -Kaltenbrunner denies. I do not think that an interrogatory can clear up -these difficulties. - -Now, Number 14 . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner had submitted an affidavit? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Sir. There is a reference in the Indictment to an -affidavit made by Dr. Mildner. I believe it was on 3 January. The -witness’ name was mentioned in connection with the charges against -Kaltenbrunner. There are one or two affidavits. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit has not been produced to the Court, -what have we got to do with it? We have not seen it, at least in my -recollection. You know about it, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not been able to trace this affidavit of -Dr. Mildner’s. I do not remember it, but I will willingly check the -reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given. - -THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the Prosecution have used the affidavit, -then you would have no objection to the witness being called for -cross-examination? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason why I am rather -surprised is that usually that point has been taken when it is sought to -use the affidavit. The Defense Counsel involved has asked for the -production of the witness—but I will have it looked into, this -particular point; but in general the Tribunal may take it that unless we -put forward a special point, where an affidavit has been given, and -where we have not argued to the Court previously, it is a very good case -for the witness’s being brought here, if it is convenient. - -THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that Dr. Kauffmann was saying that -the affidavit had actually been put in by the Prosecution, but there was -some reference made to it. Is that right, Dr. Kauffmann? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: It would not take me long to look it up. I have the files -for 3 January here. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, we will give you an opportunity for -looking that up. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. KAUFFMANN: The name of Mildner appears in the transcript of 2 -January, not in the form of an affidavit but in the form of a letter -written by a third person and this letter is only mentioned in -connection with Mildner’s name; it is not an affidavit. I should like to -request that Mildner be interrogated in writing. - -Now turning to witness Number 15 . . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen? - -DR. KAUFMANN: We have already dealt with Number 14. - -THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very well, then 15. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 15 is Rainer, who was a Gauleiter. I -should like to request that this witness be heard as well. He is in -Nuremberg. The subject of the evidence seems important to me. In the -case against Kaltenbrunner, he is not expressly charged with the -contrary; but if we are dealing with peace and violations of peace, an -effort on the part of the defendant to prove that he has done everything -in his power to prevent further bloodshed seems to me relevant. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that witness? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: I have not yet submitted any documents, Mr. President. -Later on, I may present some affidavits, but, as I have not yet received -them, I cannot present them at the moment. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, that you wish to -reserve for yourself the right to apply to put in documents at a later -stage. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you know when -they make the order. - -Yes, Dr. Thoma? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal with the -document list. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the first six documents, which are quotations -from various books on philosophy, the Prosecution submit that they are -irrelevant to the question of the ideology propounded by the Defendant -Rosenberg, which the Prosecution make part of the case against him. - -Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would quote from such -books in making his speech, and if he would let us know the passages he -wants to quote so they can be dealt with mechanically, we do not make -any anticipatory objection. - -I think that takes us up to Number 6—which are purely general books on -philosophy. The Prosecution view with some dismay all these books being -put in evidence and the Prosecutors having to read them. - -I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr. Thoma wishes to -use them to illustrate the argument, and if he lets us know the passage, -we make no general objection, but we object to their being put in as -evidence, as not being relevant to the matters before the Court. - -DR. THOMA: I do not think that it is possible without a consideration of -world philosophy before Rosenberg’s time to understand the morbid -psychological state of the German people after their defeat in the first -World War. Unless this psychological condition is appreciated, it is -impossible to understand why Rosenberg believed that his ideas could -help them. I am extremely anxious to show that Rosenberg’s theories were -representative of a phase of contemporary philosophy taught in similar -form by many other philosophers both at home and abroad. I am extremely -anxious to refute the charges made against Rosenberg’s ideology as -degenerate and—I must quote the expression—a “smutty ideology.” I have -to bear in mind that the members of the Prosecution, especially M. De -Menthon, who has made a special study of the National Socialist -ideology, made the very natural mistake of confusing the extravagances -and abuses of this ideology, usually dubbed “Nazism,” with its real -philosophic content. The French Revolution of 1789 was in the same way, -I believe, represented by neighboring peoples as a disaster of the first -magnitude, and all the rulers in Europe were called upon to fight -against it. - -I believe that the Court was specially impressed by M. De Menthon’s -statements, which represented the Nazi ideology as having no spiritual -value and described it as a dangerous doctrine. I think we must allow -the possibility of its being taught in other countries as well at that -time. I should like, therefore, to ask permission to present the -philosophical systems of the time in question, by which I mean the views -expressed by other philosophers on Rosenberg’s main concepts, especially -the question of blood or race, the soil as a fact of nature and as -political and economic living space. Science declares that these ideas -are based on the irrational presentation of natural and historical -facts. They cannot be dismissed for that reason as unscientific, -although they may be disturbing to rationalism and humanism. - -I should like, in particular, to prove that these ideas have been -respected and developed by rational and empirical science on account of -their significance, and that they have been put into practice by other -countries in their policy—a fact which I think is important. I need -only remind you of the U.S.A. immigration laws, which also give -preference to particular races. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he wants to use the -teachings of other philosophers as illustrations and arguments. If he is -going to quote from them, then all that the Prosecution ask is that he -tell us which passages he is going to quote, but we suggest that it is -not relevant for us to go into an examination of, say, M. Bergson’s book -as a matter of evidence. - -It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr. Thoma will -be well able to develop the point which he has just put with the -limitation which I have just suggested. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know what it is -that you actually propose. Are you proposing to put in evidence certain -passages from certain books and that the Tribunal should read them or -are you simply asking for the production of books so that you may -consult them, read them, and then incorporate in your argument certain -ideas which you may gather from the books? - -DR. THOMA: I ask the Tribunal to note—officially, at least—the -contents of the books which I shall submit. I shall not read all these -quotations from the books, but I shall ask the Tribunal to note the -outlines. I think it is important for the Tribunal to have the passages -quoted from these books actually before them, so that they may have a -clear picture of the philosophical—and particularly of the ethical -situation—of the German people after their defeat in the World War. - -THE PRESIDENT: But the books are not books of any legal authority. You -can only cite, surely, to a court of international law, books that are -authorities on international law. You can, of course, collect ideas from -other books which you can incorporate in your argument. You cannot cite -them as authorities. - -DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, by submitting quotations from the works of -well-known philosophers who presented ideas similar to Rosenberg’s, I -propose to prove that this ideology is to be taken quite seriously. In -the second place I want to prove that those features of Rosenberg’s -ideology which have been branded as immoral and harmful are -extravagances and abuses of this ideology; and in my opinion it is most -important for the Tribunal to know from a consideration of the history -of philosophy, that even the best ideas—such as the French -Revolution—can degenerate. I should like to point out these historical -parallels to National Socialism and to Rosenberg’s ideology. - -I also need these books to prove that Rosenberg was concerned only with -the spiritual combating of alien ideology and that he was not in a -position to protest any more energetically against the brutal -application of his ideology in National Socialism, but that as a matter -of principle he allowed scientific discussions of his works to proceed -freely and never called in the Gestapo against his theological -opponents. - -He assumed that his ethnic ideas were not to be carried through by -force, but that every people should preserve its own racial character -and that intermingling was only permissible in the case of kindred -races. He believed that this ideology was for the good of the German -people and in the interest of humanity generally. - -For these reasons I believe that the Tribunal, in order to have a vivid -picture of the background of the development of National Socialism, -should inform itself of the spiritual conditions of that time. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the argument you have -addressed to it. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document Number 7, that is, -excerpts from certain books, the first five are from Rosenberg’s own -works, and the last is a book by another author on Hitler. - -Again I submit that if Dr. Thoma wants to support the thesis contained -in the first half of his note—that “the Defendant Rosenberg does not -see individual and race, individual and community, at contrast but -represents the new romantical conception that the personality finds its -perfection and its inner freedom by having the community of the racial -spirit developed and represented within itself”—if Dr. Thoma will give -any of the extracts from Rosenberg’s works on which he bases that -argument, then he can present them at whatever part of his case is -convenient; and similarly, with regard to the specific points set out in -the second part of his note—there again, if he will give the relevant -extracts, they can be considered and their relevancy for the purpose of -this Court dealt with when he introduces them in his presentation. But -again I take general objection to the fact that either the Court or the -Prosecution should read all these works and treat them as evidence. I -developed that about the previous document. - -DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, if I quote Rosenberg’s actual words and ask the -Tribunal to take official notice of them, I shall be in the fortunate -position of being able to show that Rosenberg’s philosophy and ideology -differ basically from the extravagances and abuses which were attributed -to him and to which he took exception. - -I am in a position to show that it is clear from his works that -Rosenberg intended the Leadership Principle to be restricted by a -special council exercising an authoritative, advisory function. I shall -also be able to show that the _Myth of the Twentieth Century_ was a -purely personal work of Rosenberg’s which Hitler did not by any means -accept without reserve. More especially, I am in a position to prove -that Rosenberg, as his works will show, would have nothing to do with -the physical destruction of the Jews and that, as far as his writings -show, he took no part in the psychological preparations for war and -that, as far as his writings show, he worked for a peaceful -international settlement, especially between the four great European -powers of the period. Therefore I beg the Tribunal to allow me to submit -the real, genuine quotations from his writings as evidence material. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will consider the whole question -of the production of and the citation from these books. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 8, My Lord, falls into a rather different -field. The first 11 documents seem to be books and writings containing -Jewish views of an antinational basis. The Prosecution reminds the -Tribunal that the questions at issue are: Did the defendants as -co-conspirators embark on a policy of persecution of the Jews; secondly, -did the defendants participate in the later manifestations of that -policy, the deliberate extermination of the Jews? Within the submission -of the Prosecution, it is remote and irrelevant to these important and -terrible accusations that certain Jewish writings, spread over a period -of years, contained matters which were not very palatable to Christians. - -DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I should like to reply to this point as follows: I -am not interested in showing that the Nazi measures against the Jews -were justified. I am interested only in making clear the psychological -reasons for anti-Semitism in Germany; and I think I am justified in -asking you to listen to some quotations of this kind taken from -newspapers, since they must by their very nature offend the patriotic -and Christian susceptibilities of very many people. - -I must go rather more deeply into this question, too, in order to show -the reason for the existence of the so-called Jewish problem in history -and religion and the reason for the tragic opposition between Jewry and -other races. I should like to quote both Jewish and theological -literature on the point. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the question. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the Tribunal can take the -remaining documents, 9 to 14, together. They seem to deal with specific -and, if I may say so without the least intention of offense, more -practical matters, in that they deal with the government of the Eastern -territories, for which this defendant was responsible; and the -Prosecution has no objection to my friend’s using these documents in -such a way as it seems fit to him. - -DR. THOMA: I should like to mention the following points in connection -with the documents: - -I have had four additional documents allowed in part by the Tribunal. I -have not been able to submit them, because they have not yet been handed -over to me; but I would like to tell the Tribunal what they are: First, -a letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in 1924, containing a request by -Rosenberg not to be accepted as a candidate for the Reichstag; second, a -letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in 1931 regarding his dismissal -from the post of editor in chief of the _Völkischer Beobachter_, the -reason being that Rosenberg’s _Myth of the Twentieth Century_ created a -tremendous stir among the German people. Rosenberg asked at the time -that his work be considered a purely personal work, something which it -actually was, and that if his writing was in any way detrimental to the -Party, he would ask to be released from his position as editor of the -_Völkischer Beobachter_; third, I should like to include a directive -from Hitler to Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories Rosenberg, -dated June 1943, in which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit himself to -matters of principle; fourth, an eight-page letter from Hitler to -Rosenberg, written by hand and dating from the year 1925. - -THE PRESIDENT: And the fourth one? Will you state the fourth one, the -fourth document? - -DR. THOMA: I am coming to that. - -Point 4—a letter written by Hitler to Rosenberg in 1925, in which -Hitler stated his reasons for refusing on principle to take part in the -Reichstag elections. Rosenberg’s view at that time was that the Party -should enter the Reichstag and co-operate practically with the other -parties. - -I have just learned that this letter is dated 1923. - -Gentlemen, this is something of decisive importance. From the very -beginning, Rosenberg wanted the NSDAP to co-operate with the other -parties. That could constitute the exact opposite of a conspiracy from -the start. May I present to the Court a copy of my four applications? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these seem to be individual documents -whose relevancy can be finally dealt with when Dr. Thoma shows their -purpose in his exposition. I do not stress that the Tribunal need not -make any final decision on them at the present time. - -DR. THOMA: I should like to refer to the fact that I have already asked -the General Secretary to admit these documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, have you the documents in your possession? - -DR. THOMA: Yes, My Lord. The only documents that are lacking are the -four I have just mentioned. They are still in the hands of the -Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: They are in the hands of the Prosecution, are they? - -DR. THOMA: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not appreciated that. If Dr. Thoma wants -the documents we will do our best to find them. The first time I heard -of them, of course, was when Dr. Thoma started speaking a few minutes -ago. If the Prosecution have them or can find them, they will let Dr. -Thoma have them or have copies of them. - -THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Thoma, why it is that you have not put -in a written application for these four? - -DR. THOMA: I have made such a request, My Lord, several days or a week -ago. I made the first request already in November. - -THE PRESIDENT: For these four documents? - -DR. THOMA: It is like this: The first two documents were granted me -already in November or December 1945, but I have not as yet received -them. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider that. Well, that finishes -your documents, does it not? - -DR. THOMA: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the witnesses, it might -be convenient if I indicated the view of the Prosecution on the, say, -first six. The Prosecution has no objection to the first witness, -Riecke, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, or to Dr. -Lammers, who is being summoned for a number of the defendants, or to -Ministerialrat Beil, who was the deputy chief of the Main Department of -Labor and Social Policy in the East Ministry. - -With regard to the next one, Number 4, Dr. Stellbrecht, the Prosecution -suggests that that is a very general matter which does not seem very -relevant, and they say that Dr. Stellbrecht should be cut out, or at the -most that that point be dealt with by a short interrogatory. - -We also object to 5 and 6, General Dankers and Professor Astrowski. -General Dankers is sought to say that certain theaters and museums of -art in Latvia remained untouched, and that hundreds of thousands of -Latvians begged to be able to come into the Reich. - -There are papers about certain laws. The Prosecution submits that that -evidence does not really touch the matters that are alleged against the -Defendant Rosenberg and again they make objection. - -Professor Astrowski, who is alleged to be the Chief of the White -Ruthenian Central Council and whose whereabouts are still unknown, who -was last in Berlin, is to be called to prove that the Commissioner -General in Minsk exerted all efforts in order to save White Ruthenian -cultural goods. There again the Prosecution says that that is a very -general and indefinite allegation and, if the defendant and certain of -his officials are called to give evidence as to his policy and -administration, it is suggested that the witnesses 5 and 6 are really -unnecessary. - -I might also deal with Number 7, because the first seven witnesses are -the subject of a note by Dr. Thoma. Number 7 is Dr. Haiding, who is the -Chief of the Institute for German Ethnology, and it is sought to call -him in order to prove that in the Baltic countries cultural institutions -were advanced and new ones founded by Rosenberg. That witness, the -Prosecution submits, falls into the same category as Dankers and -Astrowski. But, with regard to him, if there is any general point, they -say that he could be dealt with by interrogatories but certainly should -not be called. - -It is relevant for the Tribunal to read the note under Number 8 dealing -with these witnesses. Dr. Thoma says: - - “The witnesses can present evidence for the refutation of the - Soviet accusation that Rosenberg participated in the planning of - a world ideology for the extermination of the Slavs and for the - persecution of all dissenters.” - -The Prosecution submits that the three witnesses that they have -suggested, coupled with the interrogatories, if necessary, in the case -of Stellbrecht and Haiding, should cover these points amply. - -DR. THOMA: I agree with Sir David that as far as Dr. Haiding and Dr. -Stellbrecht are concerned an interrogatory will be sufficient. Regarding -witnesses Numbers 5 and 6, I was interested in bringing in as witnesses -people who actually lived in these countries and who have their personal -impressions of Rosenberg’s cultural activities; and I request that these -witnesses be granted. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court will consider that. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness Scheidt comes into the story of the -Defendant Rosenberg’s connection with Quisling, and this has been dealt -with by interrogatories by the Defense and by certain -cross-interrogatories by the Prosecution. This is obviously an important -part of the case, and I suggest that the Tribunal does not decide as to -the personal summoning of Scheidt until the answers to the -interrogatories are before the Tribunal. - -Number 10 is Robert Scholz, the department chief in the Special Staff of -creative art, and roughly the evidence is to show that the defendant did -not take the works of art for his personal benefit. The Tribunal ordered -the alerting of this witness on the 14th of January, but on the 24th of -January the application for this witness was withdrawn and it is now -renewed by Dr. Thoma. If the Tribunal will look at the way in which it -is put in Dr. Thoma’s application, which is limited and guided by -certain specific acts on which Mr. Scholz can speak—the Prosecution -suggest that the Tribunal might think the most convenient way was again -to get a set of interrogatories on Mr. Scholz, and see how he can deal -with the many individual points put to him. - -DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the case of the witness Wilhelm -Scheidt touches the question of Norway. Scheidt is the decisive witness -as to the reports made by Quisling of his own volition without being -invited to do so, either through the Amt Rosenberg for foreign policy or -through the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I believe that a -personal hearing, a cross-examination, of this witness Scheidt is -extremely important, because he can give a great deal of detailed -information which is decisive for the question of whether or not Hitler -conducted a war of aggression against Norway. - -I have been granted an interrogatory for the witness, Departmental -Director Scheidt, and I have already taken steps to confer with the -Prosecution in this connection. The witness Wilhelm Scheidt has not made -an affidavit; but I must point out to the Tribunal that I should have to -be present when the affidavit is made and that I should be allowed to -question the witness myself, in common with the Prosecution. I should -like to repeat my request to cross-examine this Wilhelm Scheidt as a -witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, if the witness was granted to you as a witness -to give evidence in court, it would not be necessary for you to have any -representative of the Prosecution when you saw the witness wherever he -might be. The advance of a witness would entitle you to see him yourself -and to obtain proof of his evidence. Is that clear? - -DR. THOMA: So far I have been granted only an affidavit. I have not been -granted him as a witness as yet. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to make clear to you the difference -between interrogatories and being allowed to call a witness to give all -the evidence. Of course, if you are submitting to written -interrogatories, you would not see the witness; but if, on the other -hand, you were going to call the witness as a witness or to present an -affidavit from him, you would then be at liberty to see the witness -before he made his affidavit or before he drew up his proof. - -DR. THOMA: Then I should like to put the request that Wilhelm Scheidt be -called as a witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you are making that request. - -DR. THOMA: As far as Robert Scholz is concerned, I should like to point -out to the Tribunal that Scholz was the director of the Special Staff -entrusted with the practical application of measures to be taken for the -safekeeping of works of art in both eastern and western districts and I -should like to draw the special attention of the Tribunal to the fact -that a number of learned German experts were members of this Special -Staff and that they did a great deal of very conscientious work in -safeguarding, restoring, and protecting these works of art and in -preserving them for posterity. The way in which this Special Staff did -its work is of decisive importance, therefore, for a good many men. -Robert Scholz knows every detail of the procedure. Robert Scholz can -testify, in particular, to the fact that Rosenberg did not appropriate -for himself a single one of the enormous wealth of art treasures that -passed through his hands and that he kept a careful record of those that -went to Hitler and Göring. He also knows that all these works of -art—or, at least, the greater part of them—were left where they were -at first, especially in the East, and were only brought to the Reich -when it was no longer safe to delay. - -I beg the Tribunal to hear this important witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application was -withdrawn on the 24th of January? - -DR. THOMA: It was said then—I think by the British or American -Prosecution—that the Special Staff would not be mentioned again during -the proceedings. The French Prosecution, however, have now given -detailed accounts of the looting of France; and so this witness is once -more required. - -THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, I think? - -DR. THOMA: I have one other request. I want to call a further witness, -and I have already filed a request with the General Secretary for this -witness, ministerial Subdirector Bräutigam. Bräutigam was Junior -Assistant Secretary in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern -Territories, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that -Rosenberg, in his capacity of Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern -Territories, did not persecute the churches but granted freedom to all -religious sects by the issue of an edict of tolerance; that, further, -Rosenberg himself consistently opposed the use of force, supported a -policy of promoting culture and represented the view that the peasant -class should be strengthened and established on a healthy basis. -Further—and this seems to me to be particularly significant—that very -many letters and telegrams of thanks from the clergy in the Soviet Union -arrived at the ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories addressed to -Rosenberg. Gentlemen, if Dankers and Astrowski are not granted as -witnesses, then I request permission to go back to Bräutigam. - -And then I have one further witness. To show how Rosenberg behaved -towards his academic opponents, I should like to call one of these -academic opponents, to wit, Dr. Kuenneth, a university professor who -wrote an important book attacking the _Mythos_. He will testify that -those who disagreed with Rosenberg’s philosophy were not at all afraid -of the Gestapo and that they had no cause to fear the Gestapo. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those last two? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these last two -witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this defendant -which have been developed by the Prosecution. They are general -witnesses, and if I may put it—I hope the Tribunal will not think it -flippant to put it this way—they are really witnesses who say that the -Defendant Rosenberg would not hurt a fly; we have often seen him doing -it—not hurting flies. That really puts it quite briefly as to what this -class of evidence amounts to, and I respectfully submit, on behalf of my -colleagues, that that should not be the subject of oral evidence, and it -should be disallowed; or if there is any special point raised, it should -be dealt with by an affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated the -persecution of churches? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took part in -antireligious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That is one of the -matters. And I think there was certain correspondence between him and -the Defendant Bormann, which was directed towards his antireligious -views. I do not remember at the moment that there was any evidence that -he had personally participated in physical destruction of churches. That -is my recollection. - -My Lord, I am reminded that there is a general allegation in Appendix A -that he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes and -Crimes against Humanity, including a wide variety of crimes against -persons and property. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered. - -DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans Bühler, -State Secretary with the Chief of the Administration in the Government -General. This witness is detained here in Nuremberg, pending trial; and -he is the most important witness for the Defendant Dr. Frank. He is -called for Dr. Frank’s whole policy in the Government General, since he -was head of the government during the entire period from the -establishment of the Government General up to the end. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to Dr. Bühler? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have not, My Lord. The only point that I -want to make clear is that the Defendant Frank calls an enormous number -of witnesses from his own officials; he calls something like 15. And I -am not going to object to Dr. Bühler; I am going to ask the Tribunal to -cut down substantially the witnesses who were officials of the -Government General. And it might help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the -adjournment that my suggestion would be that the Tribunal would consider -allowing Dr. Bühler, an affidavit from Dr. Von Burgsdorff, and that they -might consider allowing Fräulein Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s -secretary, and Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of -officials from the Government General. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow Dr. -Bühler? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bühler. - -THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from. . . - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow Dr. -Lammers—he is in the general list. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Allow the private secretary, Fräulein Kraffczyk, -Number 7, and allow Numbers 9 and 10. - -THE PRESIDENT: What are the names? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp. - -THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed, I should suggest that -Numbers 13 to 20, who are various officials from the office of the -Government General, should not be allowed. If I may say so, with the -submission of the Prosecution, the height of irrelevancy will be Number -18, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the Forestry Department. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient for Dr. Seidl -to know what the views of the Prosecution were. Of course, if he has any -suggestions of any alternatives we should be pleased to consider them. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, Dr. -Seidl. - -Before the Tribunal rises, before the adjournment, I want to say that -the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at 3:30. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl. - -DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, if I understand correctly, Sir -David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses Dr. Hans Bühler, -Dr. Bilfinger, and Fräulein Kraffczyk. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SEIDL: The second witness named by me is Dr. Von Burgsdorff, whose -last appointment was that of Governor of Kraków. He is at present in the -Moosburg Internment Camp, which means that he is close to Nuremberg. - -The witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff is the only one of the nine governors -whom I have named to the Court as a witness. Considering the importance -of the position of the governors in the Government General and in view -of the great difficulties which these governors had to overcome, it -seems proper to me that the witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff should be heard -personally by the Court and not by means of an interrogatory. - -Is it necessary for me to read out the evidence material in detail now, -or is it enough to refer to the application for evidence? - -THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand that, while -Sir David suggests an affidavit, you want to insist upon his coming -personally. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, since the Court approved the calling of -this witness at an earlier date. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich -Chancellery Dr. Lammers. This witness has already been approved for the -Defendant Keitel, so that no further discussion is necessary. - -The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard to the -fact that this witness is called in connection with evidence for which -the witness Dr. Lammers was also named, I should like to ask the -Tribunal to allow an interrogatory unless this witness is called for -another defendant and can appear in person. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point as far as I -could from my records, and I could not find that he was being called as -a witness for any other defendant. And, as Dr. Seidl very fairly says in -his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for the same evidence material -as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is my point. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, former Chief of the -Chancellery of the Government General, who, like Dr. Von Burgsdorff, is -in Moosburg. My written application shows that this witness held a very -important appointment. He received all the correspondence of the -administration of the Government General and is acquainted in particular -with the substance, with suggestions and complaints addressed by the -Defendant Dr. Frank to the central government authorities in Berlin, and -in particular with the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank -repeatedly made to the Führer himself. - -The witness was likewise approved previously by the Tribunal, and I -think that considering the vast knowledge of this witness—he worked in -the Government General for several years—a personal hearing before this -Court seems advisable. - -THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not approved as one out -of a group of which Frank was to choose three? There was a large group -of witnesses. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The witnesses Von Burgsdorff and Dr. Max -Meidinger were chosen from this group. Those are the two witnesses who -were selected from a group of 13. - -THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one? - -DR. SEIDL: The other one was witness Number 2, Dr. Von Burgsdorff. -Witness Number 6, whom I have named and whom I should like to have -called in person, is the witness Hans Gassner. His last appointment was -that of press chief of the Government General, and he is also in the -Moosburg Internment Camp. He was named, along with some others, to give -evidence that the Defendant Frank did not hear of the existence of the -camp of Maidanek and the conditions prevailing there until 1944, and -then only because the witness informed him of reports published by the -foreign press. - -The witness was also present—this is not stated in my application—when -Dr. Frank told a press reporter that the forests of Poland would not be -large enough to publish the death warrants. The witness will also be -able to describe the interview in detail, to say what Frank meant by -this remark, how he intended it to be understood, and what his reasons -were for making the remark. - -I may add that the Court likewise approved this witness at an earlier -date. I may say also, generally speaking, that, according to the wishes -of the Tribunal, my applications for evidence will only indicate the -general lines on which the witnesses are to be questioned and that I -have consciously refrained from formulating the separate questions which -I intend to put to the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about Number 6? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, it seemed to the -Prosecution that the second matter which Herr Gassner was desired to -speak about, that the Defendant Frank learned from him only in 1944 -about Maidanek, is really a matter about which no witness can be as -satisfactory as the defendant himself. All the witness can say is, “I -told the Defendant Frank about Maidanek, and it appeared to me that he -did not know anything about it.” Well, that is not, in the view of the -Prosecution, satisfactory evidence. - -The Court will be able to judge from the Defendant Frank himself when he -has been cross-examined on that point. If it is desired that that -interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submit that it -could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory. -Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general and again could be -covered by a written statement. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already expressed -his views on. - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. - -The next witness is Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s last secretary. If -I understand correctly, there are no objections on the part of the -Prosecution. - -Witness Number 8 is General Von Epp, the last Reich Governor of Bavaria. -He is at present in the internment camp at Oberursel. The statements to -be made by this witness will be mainly concerned with the attitude of -the Defendant Frank towards the concentration camps in 1933. As the -witness is at present in the neighborhood of Frankfurt, I should be -satisfied in this case with an interrogatory. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General Ritter von -Epp seems to cover the same incident as Dr. Stepp. I said that I would -not object to Dr. Stepp, but if Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on -some specific points from General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any -objections. - -DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, late -Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannführer in the Reich Security Main -Office. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. The Prosecution -apparently has no objection to the hearing of this witness. - -The next witness, Number 10. . . - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [_Interposing_] My Lord, I would just like to -say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal to understand what -the Prosecution have in mind. The general plan for these witnesses is to -show from both ends the relationship between the Defendant Frank and the -central agencies. The Prosecution thought that it was right that the -defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of his own -staff and a member from headquarters, who was in the position of Dr. -Bilfinger, to give the other side of the picture. I just wanted the -Tribunal to understand the plan on which we were working. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, former chief judge of the -highest regional court of appeal in Munich. He is at present in the -internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I understand Sir David correctly, he -has no objection to the calling of this witness. - -I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the Court an -affidavit which is in my possession, and which will prove the veracity -of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take a few -minutes, if the Court would permit me to call another witness instead, -or if it would withdraw its objection to my calling another witness. . . - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; I have to ask for some notice as to who the -other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection to Dr. Stepp, -because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank’s position in relation to -other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I cannot speak on -behalf of my colleagues and accept just another witness blindly until I -know who the witness is and what he is going to say. - -DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as possible. The -reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was because, as the Tribunal -will see under Number 7, it is stated that Fräulein Kraffczyk is called -for positive facts for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been -named. It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the most -useful witness, but I am afraid that I cannot help Dr. Seidl any -further. I have put my view, but I shall not say anything further -against him. I am afraid that is as far as I can go on that point. - -DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 11, is Von dem Bach-Zelewski, SS -Obergruppenführer and general of the Waffen-SS, who has already been -heard by this Tribunal as a witness for the Prosecution. The Court has -already at an earlier date granted permission for an interrogatory. In -the meantime I have spoken to the witness. He has made an affidavit, -which I shall submit instead of calling him in person. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it would be most -convenient if the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski came back, and then Dr. -Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he wanted. We might want to -re-examine on the point. I do not know what is in the affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl? - -DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to -cross-examine him, and for that reason. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine him? - -DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be called by -the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to speak to the -Defendant Frank about the questions which might have been put to this -witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be -recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be allowed to call -him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been -submitted to the Prosecution? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord. - -DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the -following. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a -representative of the Prosecution? - -DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself granted me -permission to speak to the witness, and that was after the Court had -already approved the use of an interrogatory. - -THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and -you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you were not ready to -cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine him at a later -date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine at that time, because -you had not had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the -subject, you ought to have asked to cross-examine at a later date. - -DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I had -thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. I did not -find out until later that the witness possessed any vital information -relevant to Frank’s case. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter. - -DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The difficulty of -a cross-examination is just this, that we do not learn of the intended -calling of a witness by the Prosecution until the witness is led into -the courtroom, and we do not know the subject of the evidence until the -Prosecution start to examine the witness. It would have been much easier -for us to cross-examine, if we had received information about the -witnesses and the subjects of evidence as far in advance as the -Prosecution—that is, as the Prosecution is informed about the witnesses -for the Defense. - -The next witness is witness Number 12, Von Palezieux. His last -appointment was that of art expert in the Government General. In regard -to this witness I should like to suggest that an interrogatory might be -granted in this case too. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory, I have -no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a written -interrogatory. I do not want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension. - -THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you not, Dr. -Seidl? - -DR. SEIDL: Yes; I assume that in cases where a written interrogatory is -admitted the submission of an affidavit is also admitted by the Court. -The purpose is obviously to avoid bringing witnesses here and thus to -save time. - -The next witness is Number 13, Dr. Böpple. His last appointment was that -of State Secretary in the administration of the Government General. He -is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg near Stuttgart. This -witness seems to me to be one of the most important because in the -administration of the Government General he answered a number of -questions which play an important part in the case against the Defendant -Frank. I may refer to the details in my list of evidence and should like -to add, above all, that this witness can give detailed information as to -whether, during the 5 years of the Government General’s existence, the -industrial equipment of the area was exploited or whether in 1943 and -1944, as a result of transfers from the Reich, the Government General -did not possess a considerably greater industrial potential than before. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submit that, as is stated in the -first sentence, Dr. Böpple is called for a number of facts of evidence -for which Dr. Bühler has been already generally mentioned. Part of the -evidence stated is the relationship with the Government General -agencies, and the remainder, as to the happenings in the Government -General, can be dealt with by the witness already agreed to by the -Prosecution. - -DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr. Böpple is to -confirm are also to be testified to by Bühler. But in my opinion it -cannot be denied that the subject of evidence for which I have named -this witness is so important that one witness might not be sufficient to -convince the Court. - -I should like furthermore to point out the following: The witness Bühler -was chief of the administration of the Government General. He has -already been interrogated many times by the Polish Delegation as well. -There is a danger that proceedings may be instituted against this -witness as well, on account of the importance of the position he held. -It is self-evident that under these circumstances every conscientious -Defense Counsel should take into account the fact that the witness may -try to shield himself when he answers certain questions; and considering -the importance of the evidence, it seems proper that, in these difficult -circumstances, the Defendant Frank be granted additional witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include any of the -other witnesses who were cumulative to Bühler? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from Böpple and only -Fräulein Kraffczyk on the general work of the Government General. The -others, I think, are on the different points of the relationship with -the central agencies. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. - -DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Number 14, President Struve, whose last -appointment was that of chief of the main labor department of the -Government General. In other words, he was Minister for Labor in the -Government General. Since both the United States Prosecution and the -Russian Prosecution have made grave charges against the Defendant Dr. -Frank on this very point of the alleged compulsory transfer of workers, -it seems to me proper that one witness at least—the competent -official—should be examined on the facts presented by the Prosecution -so that he can say what orders he received on the subject from the -Government General. Information as to the location of this witness has -also been obtained. He is in an internment camp near Paderborn. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, My Lord, with great deference, -that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses and show those -to which he attaches special importance, it would be convenient for the -Tribunal; and if Dr. Seidl would be good enough to say quite bluntly -whether he attaches importance to any of the others or if he does not, -then it might be possible for the Prosecution to reconsider the -elimination of all these witnesses; but the position at the moment is -that there are requests for all sections, all departments of the -Government General, and the Prosecution failed to see how these are -necessary. If Dr. Seidl would indicate any special purpose that he -attaches to any of them, then one might come back and consider President -Struve again; but the position at the moment is that the Prosecution do -not see how it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank that each -one of the departmental chiefs should be called. - -DR. SEIDL: It is not the case that all the officers or rather holders of -office, were named as witnesses. A good many others could have been -named. For instance, I have already said that out of nine governors, -each of whom was in charge of 3 to 3½ million people, I have named only -one: the witness Von Burgsdorff. - -I have also foregone witnesses whom I had previously named—for -instance, the various military commanders. If, however, the Prosecution -wishes to know which witnesses I consider of special importance, I shall -give the numbers of these witnesses. - -They are, besides State Secretary Dr. Bühler, witness Number 2, Von -Burgsdorff; Lammers has already been approved; further, the witness Dr. -Max Meidinger; the witness Gassner, Number 6; the witness Number 7, -Helene Kraffczyk; the witness Number 9, Bilfinger—he was not a member -of the administration of the Government General; members of the -Government General; Numbers 13, 14, 15, and 19. That does not mean, -however, that I am willing to forego the witnesses which I have not -mentioned. Witness Number 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important -witness because he was the chief of the main department for food and -agriculture and can give us detailed information about the Defendant Dr. -Frank’s policy with regard to the feeding of the Polish and Ukrainian -peoples and how he tried in particular, through the highest authorities -of the Reich, to have the demands of the Reich reduced. The witness’ -address was not known until now, but I understand that the chief Polish -public prosecutor, Dr. Sawicki, is supposed to know where he is at -present. The next witness is Number 16, President Ohlenbusch, who is -called mainly to testify to the cultural policy pursued by the Defendant -Frank in the Government General. He is not, however, one of our most -important witnesses; and I imagine that in his case an interrogatory -would suffice. - -The same applies to witness Number 17. Witness Number 18 is Dr. Eisfeldt -whose last appointment was head of the main department of forestry, and -who will testify to the forestry policy of the defendant and -especially—this seems to me an essential point—to the fact that there -was so much trouble with the partisans in the Government General that it -was in the interest of the Polish and Ukrainian people themselves to -take strong measures against them. Witness Number 19 is President -Lesacker, lately head of the main department of internal administration, -whose last known place of residence was Bad Tölz. His present address -may now have become known. Witness Number 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge, -who, as my application shows, is to testify to the efforts made by the -Defendant Dr. Frank in the field of public health. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have now had the -advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl has to say, and it seems -to me that, so far as the witnesses from the Government General itself -are concerned, the position is that Dr. Böpple, Number 13, does not add -greatly to the general position which would be explained by Dr. Bühler -and Dr. Von Burgsdorff and Fräulein Kraffczyk; that the witness Number -5, Dr. Meidinger, seems to deal with very much the same problems as -President Struve, witness Number 14, and the witness Naumann, Number 15, -and that, on reconsideration, I think the Prosecution would be prepared -to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, or Dr. -Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called. - -With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, Dr. Senkowsky, and Dr. -Eisfeldt seem to speak about points that are really removed from the -issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general attitude of -the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is covered by Dr. -Bühler and Von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is granted; and the last -witness, Teitge, seems again to speak on a really departmental point -which is not a serious issue in the case. And, therefore, in trying to -apply our own principle of recommending any witness where there is a -real relevancy, the Prosecution would be prepared to go as far as I said -in their recommendation, that, in addition to the witnesses that I have -mentioned, they would suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the -witnesses Struve or Naumann should be called. - -COL. POKROVSKY: I ask for permission to add a few words to that which -has been said by my esteemed colleague, Sir David. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -COL. POKROVSKY: After listening very carefully to Dr. Seidl, I have come -to the conclusion that we must ask you to take notice of our negative -attitude towards a further summoning of the witness Von dem -Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation fears that should the Tribunal deem -it possible to grant Dr. Seidl’s application—which, to my mind, appears -completely unfounded—then a very dangerous precedent would be created -for the factual annulment of the basic decision already accepted by the -Tribunal in this respect. - -As far as I understand, the Tribunal are of opinion that every witness -can and must be called once only for purpose of cross-interrogation. In -reply to your question Dr. Seidl confirms that he was present here -during the cross-examination by my colleague, Colonel Taylor, and -myself. He saw and heard how the cross-examination was progressing. His -reference to the fact that he did not have time enough to prepare for -participation in this cross-examination appears to me unworthy of the -slightest attention. He was in the same position as the rest of us. The -Tribunal will remember that a number of the Defense Counsel participated -in the cross-examination of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. I see no -reason why a different attitude should be adopted for Dr. Seidl’s sake -and I do not see why, to gratify a wish of Dr. Seidl, which, to me, is -completely incomprehensible, the basic decision of the Tribunal should -be changed concerning the repeated calling of witnesses for -cross-examination. - -This is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected colleague, Sir -David Maxwell-Fyfe. - -DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the desire to hear an -important witness is incomprehensible in itself, if the -cross-examination is rendered difficult for reasons over which we have -no control. In the first place, I have only asked the Court for -permission to submit an affidavit from this witness to the Tribunal. If -now the affidavit is such. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with Number 20? - -DR. SEIDL: No, Sir. I am speaking about the witness Von dem -Bach-Zelewski. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said about it. - -DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the -documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence between the Governor -General and the Reich Chancellery. I have just verified that we do not -have the other part of the correspondence. Of course, if any of it comes -into our possession, we will be only too pleased to give it to Dr. -Seidl. We do not have it, and we also do not have the personal files of -the Defendant Frank in the Reich Security Main Office. The same applies -to that—that if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at -once. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the other documents -which are asked for? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others are the diary. -Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he desires as to the -diary. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Now counsel for the Defendant Frick. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: Your Honors, the first witness I have named is Dr. -Lammers, who has, however, already been approved for the Defendant -Keitel. I believe, therefore, that I need make no statement on this -point. - -As my second witness I have named the former State Secretary of the -Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. He is one of the State -Secretaries of the Ministry of the Interior, and he is in custody in -Nuremberg. He was chief of the central office. - -THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the Defendant Keitel? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that it was certainly -thought that on the 9th of February this witness was to be so called by -the Defendant Keitel, and on that basis he was approved in connection -with the Defendant Frick. That is not directly my request to write it on -the Defendant Keitel’s final list. - -THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, Your Lordship. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, as witness Number 3 I have named -General Daluege, who was formerly general of the Regular Police, and who -is now in custody here in Nuremberg. He is informed especially about the -attitude of the Defendant Frick to the anti-Jewish demonstration on 9 -November 1938, and he also knows the relations between Frick and -Himmler. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 4 I have named Dr. Diels, who is now -in an internment camp in the Hanover district. The witness was chief of -the Gestapo in Prussia in 1933-1934. He is acquainted with the measures -which the Defendant Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, decreed -for the supervision of the provinces by the Reich, as well as about the -concentration camps, and also, in particular, about measures taken in -individual cases and about conditions in the camps. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness’ evidence should be -taken in writing. With regard to the earlier part, the Tribunal will -have the advantage of the Defendant Göring who was concerned especially -with the practices of the police in Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with -regard to the other points, as to the measures of the Defendant Frick, -these are either laws or orders or administrative measures, which could -be included, in the submission of the Prosecution, as being dealt with -by written testimony supplemented by testimony of the Defendant Frick -himself. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say something to that. I believe that -it would be more practical to hear the witness here before the Court. We -can then have a talk with him beforehand and find out the points on -which he has detailed information, whereas in an interrogatory these -things could not be discussed in detail. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 5 I have named the former police -commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber accompanied the Defendant Frick on -all his official trips as his police guard. He therefore knows what -trips Frick made and can therefore testify that Frick never went to the -Dachau Concentration Camp, which contradicts the testimony given here by -the witness Dr. Blaha. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, to the Defendant -Frick’s dealing with that point. The only difficulty as to a witness of -this sort is, I will say, the unfamiliarity with all of his travels, -because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost certain to have -periods of leave, and periods of interruption would occur. I should have -thought that this could have been dealt with by affidavits, or an -interrogatory, if necessary. When they are seen the matter could be -reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage the interrogatories, -indicating in the witness’ own account how often he was with the -Defendant Frick and what interruptions would be most frequent in that -period; therefore, it is for the Court to decide. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next point, I have a -suggestion to make in regard to the witness—the next witness, Denson. -The point, as I understand it there, is that the Witness Blaha said -before the Tribunal that Frick had visited Dachau, that it was, however, -his evidence at the Dachau trial that Frick did not come to Dachau. I -should say the most satisfactory way in dealing with that is to get the -shorthand notes of the Witness Blaha’s evidence at the Dachau trial and -put in a certified copy. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that these notes. . . - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified copy of the -shorthand notes of Blaha’s evidence here, and I also say in fairness to -the witness that it does show he did say that at Dachau Frick visited -the concentration camp, and I will show it to Dr. Pannenbecker whenever -he likes. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 7 I have named Dr. Messersmith. An -affidavit from him has been read here by the Prosecution. An -interrogatory has already been approved for this witness. We have not as -yet received an answer. I should like for the time being to withhold the -question as to whether a hearing of this witness in person seems -necessary. - -As an additional application I have also named the witness Dr. Gisevius. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius’ evidence -might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an affidavit in answer -to interrogatories. He was consultant of the Reich Minister of the -Interior under the Defendant Frick and supposedly went to Switzerland -after 20 July 1944; he has exact knowledge of the responsibility and -actual authority of the Defendant Frick to issue orders in police -matters. I should think that such matters might be conveniently dealt -with in an affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker? - -DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say that the Witness Dr. Gisevius is -also required as a witness by the Defendant Schacht, as far as I know, -about the events of 20 July 1944. I believe that this witness will have -to appear in person for the Defendant Schacht. It would also be better -if the witness could be heard here in person for the Defendant Frick. In -case of necessity an affidavit would suffice. - -THE PRESIDENT: There is one other point about it. You asked earlier for -the return of Colonel Ratke. I think that you were told you could have -him or Stuckart. Will you now leave him out of your application because -you have Stuckart? - -DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it was like this. I had named three witnesses for -Dr. Blaha—Gillhuber, Ratke, and a third. We dropped Ratke when I got -Gillhuber. - -May I speak about the document book here? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: In order to give a general description of the -Defendant Frick’s character, I asked permission to refer to two books. -One of them is a small book, _We Build the Third Reich_, which contains -speeches made by Frick. I intend merely to quote short excerpts from -these speeches in the course of my presentation of evidence. As regards -the other book, _Inside Europe_, by John Gunther, I want to read here, -too, only a short excerpt, one sentence about Frick. - -Then I have offered further evidence material on the question of whether -Frick intervened by means of restrictive decrees against arbitrary -measures in imposing protective custody and have based my observations -mainly on documents originally submitted by the Prosecution but not read -in court. These documents I have listed simply under Number 2a-c. - -I have further asked for permission to refer to the files of the police -department of the Ministry of the Interior, where restrictive decrees -issued by the Defendant Frick in regard to protective custody are also -to be found. - -With reference to his intervention in individual cases, I request -permission to read a letter written to me by the former Reichstag Deputy -Wulle. I have listed it under Number 3. The Prosecution has submitted an -affidavit by Seger, in which the latter declares that Frick, as chairman -of the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Reichstag, had made -statements on putting political opponents into concentration camps as -early as December 1932. In Number 4 I have asked for the stenographic -records of the Foreign Affairs Committee to prove that such a statement -was never recorded and never made. - -Number 5 concerns the records of the Dachau trial in regard to the Blaha -incident already discussed. - -Number 6 concerns an affidavit by the Witness Dr. Stuckart, which he -made for the American Prosecution on 21 September 1945. I could just as -well ask this witness about these questions when he is heard in person; -but it would shorten the hearing if I could read this affidavit, which -was made for the Prosecution. - -With regard to Frick’s position as Reich Protector of Bohemia and -Moravia, I should like to submit the Prosecution’s Document Number -1368-PS, which contains details of the limitations imposed on the -Defendant Frick’s powers as Reich Protector at the time of his -appointment. - -I have also made a supplementary application for Gisevius’ book, _To the -Bitter End_. I learned of this book through an extract published in the -_Süddeutsche Zeitung_ on 26 February 1946 which gave interesting details -of the Röhm Putsch of 30 June 1934. This extract states that for the -events of 30 June 1934, police power was assumed by Hitler and -transferred to Göring and Himmler. The book will give further details in -precisely this field, since Gisevius was at that time expert for police -matters in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. I request the Tribunal, -therefore, to refer to this book, which is not yet in my hands, or to -assist me to procure a copy. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say I do not think that there is much -disagreement between Dr. Pannenbecker and the Prosecution. I might run -through the documents asked for. In the book, _We Build the Third -Reich_, if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate the excerpts he is going to -use, the Prosecution will have no objection to his quoting from them, -and the same with regard to the quotations from Mr. Gunther’s book, -_Inside Europe_. To Paragraph 2 of the Document 779-PS and the excerpt -from a newspaper, the Document 775-PS—to these there are no objections. -The files of the police division are not in the hands of the -Prosecution. If we do get any of them, then we shall let Dr. -Pannenbecker know. As far as the letter from the former representative -Wulle is concerned, there is no objection to that. I have not seen any -letter yet, but there is no objection to it in principle. - -With regard to Number 4, I think there is some misunderstanding there. -That is Document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USA-234, and the statement referred to by Seger was that -the Defendant Frick said to him, “Don’t worry, when we are in power, we -shall put all of you guys into concentration camps.” This was alleged in -the affidavit as said by Frick to Seger during the course of a -conversation. It is not alleged to have been said in the Foreign Affairs -Committee. - -Then Number 5—I say I have the shorthand notes, and it will be shown to -Dr. Pannenbecker. As to Number 6, I understand that Dr. Stuckart is -going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be put to him and he -can verify its truth. The Document 1336-PS will be put at the disposal -of the Defense and they can make such use of it as they can. That covers -the documents. As to Dr. Gisevius’ book, I understand that Dr. -Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. Perhaps the Tribunal will see that -a copy can be obtained for him. I do not know whether we have a copy. We -will see what we can do and see that a copy is available. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: As to Number 4, Dr. Seger, I still have a brief -comment to make on Document 83. Perhaps an interrogatory could show -whether or not Frick made the statement in question in his capacity as -chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—in other words whether or not -that statement is in the stenographic minutes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understood that it was not in the minutes. - -It would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that it was -made during the course of a conversation, and not in that committee. - -DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning at 10 -o’clock, if possible, with the further applications for witnesses and -documents, which the Tribunal understand have been lodged on Friday -evening. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY - Tuesday, 5 March 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. - -The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hanns Marx, one of -the German counsel appearing in this case for the Defense, to an article -which was published in the newspaper _Berliner Zeitung_ for February 2, -under the heading, “A Defense Counsel.” The article, which I do not -propose to read, criticizes Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error -in his cross-examination of a witness when he deputized for Dr. Babel on -behalf of the SS. The article suggested that in asking the question he -did he was behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and -personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his proper -course was to remain silent in view of the character of the evidence. - -The matter assumes a graver aspect still because the article goes on to -threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the future and does so in -language both violent and intimidating. - -The Tribunal desires to say in the plainest language that such conduct -cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be represented -by counsel is one of the most important elements in the administration -of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court, and he must be permitted -freely to make his defense without fear from threats or intimidations. -In conformity with the express provisions of the Charter, the Tribunal -was at great pains to see that all the individual defendants and the -named organizations should have the advantage of being represented by -counsel; and the Defense Counsel have already shown the great service -they are rendering in this Trial, and their conduct in this regard -should certainly not leave them open to reproach of any kind from any -quarter. - -The Tribunal itself is the sole judge of what is proper conduct in Court -and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard of professional -conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of their duties under the -Charter, may count upon the fullest protection which it is in the power -of the Tribunal to afford. In the present instance the Tribunal does not -think that Dr. Marx in any way exceeded his professional duty. - -The Tribunal regards the matter as one of such importance in its bearing -on the due administration of justice that they have asked the Control -Council for Germany to investigate the facts and to report to the -Tribunal. - -That is all. - -Sir David, the first application is for the Defendant Streicher. I call -upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher. - -DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, the -Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, that he was -active in the planning and in the conspiracy for preparation of -aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against Humanity. - -As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think it -necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, during -the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document; -neither can it be proved that he took part in any of the intimate -conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not see fit to offer any -proof. As to the second point, first of all I should like to call the -wife of the Defendant Streicher, Frau Adele Streicher nee Tappe as -witness. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient for me to -indicate the views of the Prosecution on these witnesses; there are only -six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could make his comments on my -suggestions. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there are six -witnesses, and if it would take them in my order, I would indicate the -point of view of the Prosecution. - -Number 3, Ernst Hiemer, was the editor in chief of _Der Stürmer_, and -apparently the defendant’s principal lieutenant. - -Number 4, Wurzbacher, was an SA brigade leader in Nuremberg, and is -alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the defendant. - -Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant’s chauffeur, and he is to speak -on one point, namely, the defendant’s annoyance at violence being used -on the 10th of November 1938. - -And Number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, is to speak on the same -point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in December 1938 of -the measures taken in November. - -Then there are two members of the defendant’s family: Frau Streicher, -who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, Lothar Streicher. - -The Prosecution would have no objection to Herr Hiemer, as the -defendant’s principal lieutenant, speaking, as suggested by Dr. Marx, on -what Dr. Marx calls the Defendant Streicher’s basic attitude to the -Jewish question. There are a number of matters on which he is said to be -able to speak, to which the Prosecution would object as irrelevant. -However, the time for so doing is later. - -Then, with regard to Herr Wurzbacher, he is said to have always been -present at meetings where Streicher spoke, from the early days. To that -also the Prosecution would not make objection, but they draw attention -to the fact that in the earlier applications Herr Wurzbacher was said to -be able to speak as to the boycott in 1933 and the events of November -1938. Therefore the Prosecution respectfully remind the Tribunal that he -can speak on the events in 1938, and, in the view of the Prosecution, it -is not necessary to have oral testimony to repeat that point. They -therefore suggest that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant’s -chauffeur, who really speaks on one main point—that the defendant -showed anger with regard to the events of 1938—an affidavit would be -sufficient. They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, the -attorney who is mentioned. - -With regard to Frau Streicher, Number 1, the Tribunal will see that it -is said that Frau Streicher was the defendant’s secretary during the -period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the case against this -defendant refers, of course, to a much earlier period, both before and -immediately after the rise to power. - -The Prosecution suggest that the evidence which is desired from Frau -Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant during -the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered by an -affidavit. - -That leaves Lieutenant Lothar Streicher, the eldest son of the -defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters mentioned in -regard to him come into the case: In a report of the Göring commission -on the question of corruption in regard to Aryanization, part of the -report stated that this defendant paid a visit to three boys in prison, -and that certain disgusting and cruel actions took place. The -Prosecution, of course, submit that that is not really a matter relevant -to the charges against the defendant, but they realize that it is a -highly prejudicial matter; it has been read and a bad effect has -resulted from that evidence. Therefore they feel it must be a matter for -the Tribunal; and the Prosecution, having put in the report including -that, ought not to take objection, except to point out that it is not -strictly relevant. However, if the Tribunal feel that this defendant -ought to have the advantage of his son’s counteracting that account of -very unpleasant matters, the Prosecution would not take any objection, -although they are bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant. - -THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the Prosecution, would an affidavit be -suitable in that case? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the Prosecution -would suggest. - -Therefore, if I may summarize, what I am suggesting is that the -Prosecution would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr Wurzbacher -giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other witnesses. - -DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. -The Prosecution hold that the testimony to be given by Frau Adele -Streicher would not be specially relevant. Opposing this I should like -to state that this witness was for 5 years, that is from 1940 to 1945, -close to the defendant, handled his entire correspondence, and knows -what contacts Streicher had during the whole war. - -The Defense is particularly anxious to prove that Streicher had no -connection with any of the leading men of the State or Party while he -lived in isolation in Pleikershof. There was no exchange of letters or -opinions with Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, or Heydrich, or any other -leading personalities, whatever their names might be. Streicher was -completely isolated and played no political role whatsoever; neither had -he any authority. In view of this, I, as his counsel, cannot waive the -evidence of this witness, as otherwise the vital interests of the -Defendant Streicher would be prejudiced. I therefore suggest that my -application to call Frau Streicher as witness before the Tribunal be -granted, so that the pertinent questions may be put to her. - -The same applies to the witness Herrwerth. It cannot be said that this -witness can give information only on irrelevant matters or on an -insignificant incident. On the contrary the incident in question is of -decisive importance. This man Herrwerth was present on the night of 9 -November 1938, when SA Group Leader Von Obernitz reported to the then -Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations against the Jewish population -were being planned. He therefore knows from personal experience what -passed between these two men, and that Streicher was opposed to this -demonstration, because he considered such a demonstration to be entirely -wrong. - -Thus, in opposition to the Führer’s will and order, Streicher kept -himself aloof from this demonstration against the Jewish population. -There can be no doubt that this incident is of particular importance. It -is clear that the behavior of Streicher, who at the time was already in -bed and received Obernitz in his bedroom, corroborated the stand taken -by his defense, I therefore submit that Fritz Herrwerth be called as -witness before the Tribunal, so that he can be examined by me and, if -necessary, also by the Prosecution. - -As to the witness Hiemer, the Prosecution and I seem to be in agreement -that he as well as Wurzbacher appear before the Tribunal. I may mention -that Wurzbacher is now in the Altenstaedt Camp near Schongau, Camp -Number 10. - -As to the witness Lothar Streicher, the Defendant Streicher attaches -particular importance to having it confirmed by this witness that what -the Göring report mentions about the Defendant Streicher’s indecent -words or acts, when visiting the prison, is untrue. - -If the Prosecution are prepared to state that they will drop this point -and no longer use this report, then I would agree to refrain from -calling this witness. Otherwise, I consider it my duty to insist on -having this witness called before the Tribunal to vindicate my client’s -honor. An affidavit could not possibly meet this purpose, and I -therefore ask that the application of the Defense be granted. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, I have indicated -from the Prosecution that that incident is not relevant to the charges -against the Defendant Streicher. The Prosecution, of course, produced -the report and I thought I had made it clear to the Tribunal that it is -one of these collateral matters that do come in, and the Prosecution for -that reason would not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the -main case of the Prosecution against this defendant is on the stirring -up of and consistent incitement to persecution of the Jews. I do not -think I can put it further than that. But I had hoped I had made clear -that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other issue. -The report under discussion was on the Aryanization of Jewish -properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report itself is -relevant to persecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter. - -DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I make a few additional remarks? - -This matter which is to be proved by Lothar Streicher forms a part of -the Göring report and cannot therefore be dealt with separated from its -context. The defendant contends that this Göring report originates from -a man who wanted to harm him, who, after having received many favors -from him, became his enemy and used this Göring commission, which was -originally meant for quite other purposes, to deal the defendant, whom -he hated, a sudden blow. - -It is a rather serious matter to say of a man that he indulged in sadism -in the presence of other persons in a disgusting manner. That is why the -defendant is so anxious to have the falsity of this allegation exposed -here publicly. I therefore request once more that Lothar Streicher be -brought before this Tribunal. - -As to the last witness, Attorney Strobel, I would be very pleased to -comply with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s wishes, but also in this case I am -afraid I cannot do so. - -Attorney Strobel’s testimony is offered as proof for the following: -Sometime, approximately three weeks after the events on the night of 9 -November 1938, Streicher addressed a meeting of the Association of -Lawyers at Nuremberg. At that public meeting of lawyers, Streicher -defined his attitude to the events of 9 November 1938 and made it clear -that he had been against the demonstration and the firing of synagogues. -Attorney Strobel, as he said, was very surprised at the time that -Streicher so openly took a stand against Hitler’s order and made no -secret of what he had said to Obernitz, that he would not take part in -the demonstration and that he considered the whole thing to be a -mistake. - -Strobel’s testimony may carry more weight than that of chauffeur -Herrwerth, since in the case of the latter the Prosecution can hold -against the Defense the fact that Herrwerth was an employee of the -defendant and may therefore be inclined to take the defendant’s side. -This argument, however, does not apply to Attorney Strobel, as he, in a -letter addressed to the Tribunal, wanted to express his aversion to the -defendant and mentioned the meeting only incidentally. - -Consequently, Strobel must be regarded as an impartial witness, whereas -one might say of Herrwerth that he is perhaps not wholly disinterested. -I therefore submit that Attorney Strobel also be called before the -Tribunal in order to enable the Defense and, if necessary, also the -Prosecution to put direct questions to this witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? Now you can -turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, the Tribunal will -consider your applications. - -DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to now it has not -been possible for me to collect all the documents we need. There are a -number of newspaper articles which I should like to submit to the -Tribunal, and I ask for leave to submit the list of documents later on. -I shall get in touch with the Prosecution beforehand as to which -documents should be discarded and which should be put in. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no objection to -your getting in touch with the Prosecution with reference to documents -later on, but you must understand that no delay can be permitted. - -I call upon the Counsel for the Defendant Funk. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Sauter would allow me, I should like to -say that, with regard to these applications, there is so little between -the applications and the views of the Prosecution that it might shorten -matters if I were to indicate the views of the Prosecution, and then Dr. -Sauter could add anything he has to say. I could be extremely short, but -I do not want to forestall Dr. Sauter if he has any objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would that meet with your view, Dr. Sauter? - -DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): That I present my -applications now and that the Prosecution then reply? - -THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David meant that he should first indicate any -objections which he has, and then you could explain your view. - -DR. SAUTER: I quite agree, My Lord. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, the witnesses fall into -four groups. The first group is three witnesses from the Ministry of -Economics, Numbers 1, 2, and 10 on the list. As I understand Dr. Sauter, -he wishes to call Number 2, Herr Hayler, as an oral witness, and to have -affidavits from the witnesses Landfried, Number 1, and Kallus, Number -10. The Prosecution have no objection to this course, except that with -regard to the witness Landfried they may have some observation to make -on the form of the interrogatories, which could no doubt be settled with -Dr. Sauter, and then put to the Tribunal for their approval. Secondly, -they want to reserve the right to apply for further -cross-interrogatories. Apart from that, which I submit are really minor -points, they agree with that suggestion. - -The second group is two witnesses from the Reichsbank, Number 5, Herr -Puhl, and Number 7, Dr. August Schwedler. Again, as I understand Dr. -Sauter, he wants an affidavit in the form of answers to questions. The -Prosecution have no objection to that, only again they reserve the right -to apply for cross-interrogatories, if necessary; if the answers take a -certain form, they might have to apply to the Court that the witness be -brought for cross-examination. They simply want to reserve that right, -but, of course, they cannot take up their position until they have seen -the form of the answers. - -Then, the third group consists of one witness, who is Dr. Lammers, who -has been called by most of the defendants orally, and there is no -objection to that, and the Prosecution suggest that Dr. Sauter will put -his questions to Dr. Lammers when he is called by the other defendants. - -Then, the fourth group is a general one. There is Herr Oeser, who is an -editor, Number 6; Herr Amann, Number 8; and Number 9, Herr Roesen; and -lastly, Number 4, Frau Funk. As I understand it, with regard to all -these witnesses, Dr. Sauter wished either an interrogatory or an -affidavit. The Prosecution make no objection to that, with the same -understanding that they reserve their rights to put -cross-interrogatories or to ask the Tribunal to summon any of them as -witnesses if any point emerges. Subject to the reservation of these -points, there is nothing between us, because the result is, if I have -understood it all correctly, that Dr. Sauter is asking for two oral -witnesses and eight sets of interrogatories. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, don’t you draw any distinction between an -affidavit and interrogatories? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I do, certainly. But, My Lord, Dr. Sauter -has shown in the case of most of the witnesses the interrogatories which -he is putting—apart from Dr. Lammers, who, of course, will be dealt -with orally, because he is being produced as a witness. I understand -that when Dr. Sauter says “affidavit” he means an affidavit in the form -of answers to questions, such as those he has set out in the appendix. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, Sir David, so far as the Prosecution are -concerned, they would take the line that you have suggested, meaning by -an affidavit, interrogatories and, if necessary, cross-interrogatories? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Sauter? - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am in agreement with the suggestions of the -Prosecution as to the individual applications. As to the wording of the -individual interrogatories I shall come to an agreement with the -Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Dr. Sauter, perhaps you could tell us, -dealing, for instance, with Number 6—you say there, “I have in hand an -affirmation from this witness with a supplement thereto.” Does that mean -answers to interrogatories, or does that mean an affidavit, a statement? -Have you got the passage? - -DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have an affidavit from this witness, Albert Oeser, -Number 6, and this affidavit will be submitted to the Tribunal, together -with my document book. I am already in possession of this affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, that is not quite the same as -interrogatories. I do not know whether you have seen the affidavit. I -mean, it may be that at a later stage you would want to cross-examine or -to put cross-interrogatories to that witness. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that would be so, Your Honor. I must -reserve the right, until I have seen the affidavit, to do that. The ones -that are attached to Dr. Sauter’s application are all in the -interrogatory form, but where the document is in the form of a -statement, the Prosecution would have to reserve these rights. Really, -one cannot make any declaration until one has seen that. - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before I put in evidence this affidavit by -the witness Oeser, Number 6, I shall, of course, pass it to the -Prosecution so that they have ample time to decide as to whether they -wish to cross-examine this witness. This goes without saying. - -THE PRESIDENT: Where is that particular witness? Where is he? - -DR. SAUTER: He is witness Number 6, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but where is the man? Where is he at the present -moment? Is he in Nuremberg or where? - -DR. SAUTER: Witness Oeser is at Schramberg in the Black Forest, in -Baden, near the Rhine. It is some distance from Nuremberg. Moreover, Mr. -President, the points to which the witness is to testify are -comparatively so insignificant that it would hardly be worth while to -bring the witness himself to Nuremberg. I personally do not know the -witness, but an acquaintance of mine mentioned him to me as a person who -could give favorable information on the conduct of the Defendant Funk. -Thus we got to know about witness Oeser and obtained from him an -affidavit which I shall pass to the Prosecution in good time. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the documents, My Lord, the first -one is a biography of the Defendant Funk. The extracts were submitted as -part of the Prosecution’s case. I ask that Dr. Sauter intimate what -passages he desires to use, and then the Prosecution can make such -objections or comments as may or may not be necessary. - -The second request is, I think, the same as we had yesterday, namely for -the record of the Dachau trial and of the evidence of the witness Dr. -Blaha. The American prosecutors will be pleased to show Dr. Sauter the -report that they have of Dr. Blaha’s evidence at that trial. - -With regard to the speeches of the Defendant Funk, there again, if Dr. -Sauter will intimate what they are and what he intends to use, the -Prosecution will consider them. _Prima facie_ they would be a relevant -matter. - -And with regard to Number 4, the copy of the newspaper with a report of -the defendant’s speech, that again would _prima facie_ be relevant, and -we shall look into it. It is very unlikely that there would be any -objection, but we shall look into it; and, if necessary, deal with it -when Dr. Sauter makes his presentation. - -THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Sauter the newspaper? - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper mentioned under Number 4, and -also the speeches mentioned under Number 3, are now in my possession. I -shall not use the entire text of the speeches in my brief. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then you would be prepared to indicate to the Prosecution -the passages in your Document 1 and the passages in 3 and 4, which you -wanted to use, so that they can have them translated? - -DR. SAUTER: Yes, My Lord. I shall include in the Document Book from the -book mentioned under Number 1 only a few—I think two or three—pages -and from the speeches and newspaper articles only those passages which I -am going to use, and submit these to the Prosecution in time for -translation. As to the record of the Dachau trial, this request is -settled by what the Prosecution stated yesterday regarding the Defendant -Frick. I believe the Dachau stenographic report is already available. I -shall peruse it, so that this matter is settled. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then I call upon counsel for Dr. Schacht. - -DR. DIX: I am very pleased to be able to tell the Tribunal that I -believe I am in agreement with Sir David as to the compass of evidence -to be submitted by me, especially as to those applications which I shall -either withdraw or restrict. In order to facilitate matters, may I -therefore first tell the Tribunal which applications on my list I -withdraw and which ones I restrict, so that eventually those will be -left which I maintain. I withdraw application Number 5 for the -examination of Dr. Diels. I heard yesterday that Dr. Diels has been -called for as witness in another application. Should the Tribunal grant -yesterday’s application and order Diels to appear, then I should like to -reserve the right to examine. I myself shall, however, not apply for -him. - -Then I should like to call your attention to applications Number 6, -Colonel Gronau; Number 7, Herr Von Scherpenberg; Number 8, State -Secretary Carl Schmid; Number 9, Consul General Dr. Schniewind; Number -10, General Thomas of the armament staff; Number 11, Dr. Walter Asmus; -Number 12, Dr. Franz Reuter; and Number 13, Dr. Berckemeyer. For all -these witnesses I am willing to accept an affidavit. I quite realize -that I have to pass affidavits to the Prosecution and that the latter -have the right to apply for these witnesses to be summoned for -cross-examination. - -The following witnesses, therefore, remain to be called before the -Tribunal: Witness Number 1, Dr. Gisevius; witness Number 2, Frau -Strünck; witness Number 3, the former Reichsbank Director, Vocke; and -witness Number 4, the former Reichsbank Director, Ernst Huelse. In -respect to these witnesses, I must insist on my application for their -personal appearance. Schacht’s defense cannot dispense with the oral -examination of these witnesses. May I put forward my reasons in each -case. The testimony of these witnesses is in no way cumulative. One -witness knows things the other does not. Vocke and Huelse were Schacht’s -closest collaborators at the Reichsbank and at the International Bank at -Basel. They know of events and developments which Schacht may not be -able to recall in detail. The oral examination of these witnesses cannot -therefore be replaced by interrogatories because he is no longer -sufficiently versed to draw up the relevant questions. These witnesses -must be informed of the theme of the evidence and be given the -opportunity to make a comprehensive statement. - -The same, namely that they still remember events in detail which Schacht -no longer recollects, applies to Frau Strünck and Gisevius, who can -testify particularly as to the plans for the various attempts on -Hitler’s life from 1938 to 1944. - -This is all I have to say regarding my application for these witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Dix and -Professor Kraus were good enough to indicate to me and my colleagues -yesterday their proposals which Dr. Dix suggested be put before the -Tribunal. The Prosecution felt that by limiting all the witnesses to the -first point and Point 2, Dr. Dix was making a reasonable suggestion. The -Prosecution, of course, reserve all rights as to the relevancy of the -various points set out as to these witnesses, but they felt that that, -as I say, was a reasonable suggestion. On Numbers 3 and 4 it means that -the Defense are limiting all the witnesses, on the general economic -course of conduct of the defendant, and again the Prosecution felt that -that was a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the others, the -Prosecution must, as I have said—and Dr. Dix agreed—reserve all rights -by way of cross-interrogatories or of asking that the witness should be -summoned, but the Prosecution felt that they could be in a position -really to decide what their rights and proper course should be only when -they had seen the affidavits that were put in. That is the reasoning of -the Prosecution in the matter. - -THE PRESIDENT: As to documents, Dr. Dix? - -DR. DIX: Regarding the documents, I should like to make it clear that -wherever in my list I have referred to books, published speeches, and -such like, especially under Number 2, this does not mean that I intend -to present to the Tribunal long extracts from these books. Only short -quotations will be made and these quotations will be. . . - -[_The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the -interpreting system._] - -THE PRESIDENT: The best course would be for us to adjourn now and then -this mechanical defect will be remedied. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Dr. Dix. I have one or two announcements -to make. In the first place, the application which has been made on -behalf of the defendants for a separate trial of the organizations named -under Articles 9 and 10 of the Charter is denied. - -Secondly, with reference to the application made on behalf of counsel -for the Defendant Bormann, the Tribunal have considered the application -dated February 23, 1946, by Dr. Bergold, counsel for the Defendant -Bormann, in which he asks that Bormann’s case should be heard last, at -the end of the cases of all the other defendants. The Tribunal have -decided to grant this application. - -The Tribunal also rule that the hearing of Dr. Bergold’s applications on -behalf of Bormann for witnesses and documents, in accordance with -Article 24(d), shall not take place at the present time, when the -Tribunal are hearing the applications of all the other defendants, but -at a later date to be fixed within the next three weeks. - -Thirdly, with reference to the business of the Tribunal, the Tribunal -will sit in closed session after the conclusion of the applications on -behalf of the four defendants who are being heard today. Tomorrow the -Tribunal will continue the applications on behalf of the next four -defendants, and on Thursday the Tribunal will hear the case on behalf of -the Defendant Göring. - -Yes, Dr. Dix. - -DR. DIX: Before the recess, I was about to tell the Tribunal, as to -Number 2 of the list of documents, that in my presentation I would -confine myself to really important and quite short quotations, after -having made them available to the Prosecution in our document book. This -disposes of Number 2. - -Number 1 consists of extracts from copies already submitted by the -Prosecution. I shall give but one example, namely, the report by -Ambassador Bullitt to the Secretary of State in Washington. The -Prosecution presented the last part of this report, in which they were -interested, whereas I wish to reserve the right to present the first -part, which deals with Schacht’s peaceful intentions and his lack of -political influence on Hitler, and which is therefore of importance to -the Defense. - -I now turn, to Number 3, Subparagraph (a), which is the Schacht -memorandum to Hitler of 3 May 1935 concerning the legal rights of Jews, -dissolution of the Gestapo, _et cetera_. - -May I again ask the Prosecution to see to it as far as possible that -this document, which has not been introduced so far, be procured -together with Document 1168-PS, which at the time of Schacht’s -interrogation by Colonel Gurfein was produced. As I heard yesterday, the -document has not yet been found, but perhaps Colonel Gurfein, who has -already gone back, can assist us in this matter. These two documents are -very important, as they constitute parts of a Schacht memorandum which -can be understood and appreciated only in its entirety. - -Furthermore, here is a letter addressed by Schacht to General Field -Marshal Von Blomberg. It deals with restriction of armaments, et cetera, -and its relevancy is, I think, obvious. - -Still a word about Subparagraph (c). This is a Hitler memorandum of -August 1936 regarding the Four Year Plan. This memorandum, in which -Hitler reproaches Schacht most bitterly, even with sabotage, is of -decisive importance to us. Contrary to what appears in the list, I am -not in a position to produce a reliable copy of this memorandum, which -under certain circumstances could replace the original. What I have is -an extract, which in no way can be considered reliable and thus cannot -be submitted to the Tribunal as evidence. In order to ascertain the -exact contents of this memorandum, we must have the original. To my -knowledge the original was among the files of the Dustbin Camp in the -Taunus, and again I ask the Prosecution to assist in procuring it. - -Then there is the letter written by Schacht to Göring in November 1942. -Göring’s answer was to dismiss Schacht for defeatism, or rather in -consequence of this letter Schacht was dismissed for defeatism. A -further consequence of this letter was that Göring excluded him from the -Prussian State Council. A copy of this letter was last seen by Schacht -in the possession of one Von Schlaberndorff, who worked with General -Donovan, but who is no longer here. Where Schlaberndorff is now, I do -not know. May I ask the Prosecution to assist us also in this matter. -Furthermore, there is a telegram of January 1943 from Göring to Schacht, -excluding him from the State Council. - -As to Subparagraph (f), I have to ask the Russian Prosecution to assist -us in procuring this item. It is made up of miscellaneous notes, records -of Schacht’s reflections, written soliloquies and letters, which were -kept in a box at Schacht’s country seat, Guehlen, near Lindow, Mark -Brandenburg—that is in the Russian occupation zone. According to -information received, this box has been confiscated by Soviet troops. I -should be very much obliged to the Russian Delegation if they would do -their utmost to procure the box with its contents. - -The documents under Number 4 are already in our possession. I do not -think it necessary to enumerate and comment on them here; they will be -included in our document book and the Prosecution will then have the -opportunity of making observations on their relevancy. That is all I -have to say now regarding the documents. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the approval of the Tribunal I shall -confine the very few remarks I have to make to Paragraph 3 of Dr. Dix’ -memorandum. With regard to the document for which Dr. Dix has made a -request, it is not yet procured. I have asked my colleagues to make -inquiries, but at the moment they cannot find certain of these -documents, although a search has been made. For example, (a), the note -handed to Hitler on the same day, is Document Number 1168-PS. Mr. Dodd -tells me that an exhaustive search was made by the American Delegation -two months ago, and they are convinced that that document is not in -their possession, and the same applies to the Soviet Delegation -regarding (e). - -THE PRESIDENT: Who was the interrogator, Judge Gurfein? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Colonel Gurfein is the one who started the -American Prosecution, who conducted the interrogations at the earlier -stages. - -THE PRESIDENT: Where is he now? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: New York. That point has been borne in mind in -the usual interrogations. If the document is used, it is very carefully -referred to, and the American Delegation informs me that they took that -line of search, and they had that in mind, and that they have not been -able to find it. Similarly, in regard to Number (e), my Soviet -colleagues told me that they have no trace of the document there -mentioned. - -THE PRESIDENT: You mean there is no reference, to that document in the -interrogation conducted by Judge Gurfein? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, yes. They are unable to find any -reference, I am told, going through the interrogation. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have you any knowledge of any communication that has been -sent to Judge Gurfein? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure; he had gone when the search was -made two months ago. I am sure that the American Delegation will look -into that. What I was going to say in regard to Number (e) was that my -Soviet colleagues informed me that no trace of this document has been -discovered by the Russian authorities. With regard to the others, the -Prosecution would like some further time to make further inquiries, and -then they will report to Dr. Dix and to the General Secretary if -anything can be done. With regard to the other documents, the ones which -are referred to by Dr. Dix, and the many extracts, his plan is one which -entirely suits the Prosecution if it suits the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Dönitz. - -FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I should -like to call the following witnesses: First, Judge Admiral Kurt -Eckhardt. He was expert on international law in the Naval War Staff. He -is to testify that the rules of international law were considered when -the German U-boat war policy was laid down. This testimony is relevant -in view of the documents submitted by the Prosecution, according to -which the U-boat war was conducted without regard for international law. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again it might help Dr. Kranzbühler and the -Tribunal, if I indicated the view of the Prosecution. They consider that -Number 1, Admiral Eckhardt, and Number 2, Rear Admiral Wagner, and -Number 4, Rear Admiral Godt, should not be the subject of objections; -they do not make objections to these three. With regard to Commander -Hessler, Number 3, it seems to the Prosecution that he is really -cumulative to Rear Admiral Godt, as he ceased to be a U-boat commander -at the end of 1941, before most of the material orders were issued. That -is really the only point; as I said, we raise no objections to the other -three. With regard to the second portion, the interrogatories, the -interrogatory of Mr. Messersmith has been granted. With regard to the -next three, Vice Admiral Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren, -these were granted on 14 February, and a slight error crept into the -Prosecution’s action which was purely mechanical. The Prosecution -replied that they did not object in principle and did not wish to file -cross-interrogatories; they objected to two of the questions to be -addressed to Commander Suhren, Numbers 7 and 8. It was intended that the -same objection to the same questions should be made with regard to the -other two. It appears that the document only related to Commander -Suhren, but in general there is no objection; with regard to Number 5, -that has been done. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, have those mistakes been rectified, in -reference to 2 and 3? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not quite sure. I want to mention that same -objection, to narrow the issues of this objection to two of the -interrogatories, and in connection with all three sets of -interrogatories, I do not think this has been before the Tribunal so far -as I know. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Captain Eck, that evidence -has been taken on commission, and so there is no objection. Finally, -with regard to Admiral Nimitz, the Prosecution do object to that -application; that is a new application, and if the Tribunal will look at -the grounds, they are that the United States submarines attacked all -ships apart from the United States and Allied vessels without warning, -and that the United States submarines attacked all Japanese ships -without warning, at the latest from the time when it could be surmised -that the Japanese ship would resist being taken as a prize. And third, -that the United States submarines did not assist shipwrecked people in -such waters where the submarine would have endangered herself through -such assistance. The reason which Dr. Kranzbühler gives is that this -testimony proves that the United States Admiralty made the same -strategical and legal considerations in carrying out its submarine -warfare. In the submission of the Prosecution this is irrelevant. That -they followed the same legal considerations might have been done as -retaliation, and if so, the question whether the United States broke the -laws and usages of war is quite irrelevant; as the question before the -Tribunal is whether the German High Command broke the laws and usages of -war, it really raises the old problem of evidence directed to _tu -quoque_, an argument which this Prosecution has always submitted -throughout this Trial is irrelevant. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I shall confine myself to the points to -which Sir David has raised objections. - -First of all, witness Number 3, Commander Hessler. I do not consider his -testimony to be cumulative. He is to testify as to when Order 154, which -has been submitted by the Prosecution, was abrogated. This testimony is -important because the Prosecution contend that the order of September -1942 need not have been issued at all but that it would have been -sufficient to refer to the old Order 154. To counter this contention -Hessler is to testify that Order 154 was no longer in force at that -time. - -Moreover, Captain Hessler, being on the staff of the U-boat commanders -from 1941 on, instructed nearly all U-boat commanders putting to sea -about the orders issued, particularly the orders regarding treatment of -shipwrecked persons. For these reasons, his testimony is, in my opinion, -indispensable as a check on the statement of witness Moehle. - -I now turn to the interrogatories for Numbers 2, 3, and 4: Admiral -Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren. I think that the -objections of the Prosecution to two of the questions asked in my -interrogatory can be dealt with only after these questions have been -answered. I heard only today that objections would be raised, but I do -not yet know on what grounds. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have the Tribunal got the interrogatories and the -objections of the Prosecution to Number 4? - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The Tribunal have received only the -interrogatories from me. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution given us their objection to one -question? This, I understand, was an objection that was made to the -interrogatories put to Suhren, which should have been an objection to a -particular question on the other two as well. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. It is very short. I will indicate it, if -Dr. Kranzbühler will allow me. - -The two questions were: “Is it known to you that in September 1942 -German submarines saved shipwrecked people after torpedoing the British -steamer _Laconia_ and while doing so were bombed by an Allied plane?” -Number 8, “Do you know whether this incident was the reason for the -commander of the U-boat fleets issuing an order by which assistance at -the risk of endangering one’s own boat was prohibited, and for the -declaration that this was not at variance with the laws of sea warfare?” - -The objections—I will read them out: “Question 7. Objection is entered -on the ground that this question is unnecessary and the facts are -admitted.” - -“Question 8: Objection entered. It is not seen how the witness could -possibly know the reason for the orders from the Defendant Dönitz.” - -These are the objections that were made. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: May I say something to this? I think that -the officers mentioned can testify as to the reasons for the orders -received by them from the commander of the U-boat fleet, because the -events which led to the order of September 1942 were generally known -among the U-boat commanders, and U-boat commanders in the various -theaters of war may possibly have picked up the wireless messages sent -to the U-boats concerned with the _Laconia_ incident. That is all. - -I now turn to the application regarding the interrogatory to be put to -Admiral Nimitz. The stand taken by the Prosecution differs entirely from -the conception on which my application is based. I in no way wish to -prove or even to maintain that the American Admiralty in its U-boat -warfare against Japan broke international law. On the contrary, I am of -the opinion that it acted strictly in accordance with international law. -In the United States’ sea war against Japan, the same question arises as -in Germany’s sea war against England, namely the scope and -interpretation of the London Submarine Agreement of 1930. The United -States and Japan were also signatories to this agreement. - -My point is that, because of the order to merchant vessels to offer -resistance, the London Agreement is no longer applicable to such -merchantmen; further, that it was not applicable in declared operational -zones in which a general warning had been given to all vessels, thus -making an individual warning unnecessary before the attack. - -Through the interrogatory to Admiral Nimitz I want to establish that the -American Admiralty in practice interpreted the London Agreement in -exactly the same way as the German Admiralty, and thus prove that the -German conduct of sea warfare was perfectly legal. The same applies to -the treatment of shipwrecked persons in waters where the U-boat would -endanger herself by rescue measures. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kranzbühler. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you are departing from Admiral Nimitz I should like to -ask a question of Sir David. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understood you to submit that these -questions to Admiral Nimitz were entirely irrelevant? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would it make any difference to your submission whether -the German Navy had attacked merchant ships without warning in the first -instance in the beginning of their war against England? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that of course would be a clearer breach -of the treaty, as, at that time, there was no question of armament, so -far as I am aware; and there was certainly no question that the German -submarines thought that they were attacking armed vessels which were -really ships of war. Then, of course, one comes to the position which -the Prosecution developed in evidence, that, the German Navy having -indulged in the beginning in that form of submarine warfare, the -position changed, and armament had to be installed in British ships. In -my submission it would make a difference even if one takes the argument -as Dr. Kranzbühler has put it now; he is saying that he is not alleging -breaches of the laws and usages of war, but is relying on his -interpretation of the London Agreement, that merchant ships that were -armed could be attacked. It really becomes a very difficult matter if -one is to construe these treaties by a sort of general investigation of -the interpretation by various commanders. Within the point that Your -Lordship put to me there is that very clear point which appears in our -documents that the arming of merchant ships was the result of the -attacks without warning which took place in the first months of the war. - -THE PRESIDENT: But would you say that these questions to Admiral Nimitz -are irrelevant because the United States came into the war in December -1941 when the sea warfare between Germany and England had developed to -that stage, when attacks were being made without warning? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord. That is what I was saying. -I am very grateful to Your Lordship for clarifying the argument that I -wanted to make. - -THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear to you, Dr. Kranzbühler? The argument which -I understand Sir David is putting forward with reference to these -interrogatories is that they are truly irrelevant because of the date at -which the United States came into the war; a date when the sea war -between England and Germany had, for reasons which must be investigated, -arrived at the stage that submarines were attacking merchant vessels -without warning, and merchant vessels were defending themselves against -those attacks. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President. It is, however, my -opinion that the conditions which developed in the sea war between -Germany and England do not necessarily have a bearing on the measures -applied in the sea war between the United States and Japan, as here an -entirely different theater of war was involved, in which German forces -did not operate. In my opinion, the directives for sea warfare in the -East Asia theater of war should be based on the conditions prevailing -there and not be derived from experiences made in the European theater -of war. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will consider these arguments. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How can what any navy did show the proper -construction of a law? It may show what a particular admiral thought -about it, but how are we interested in knowing what one admiral or -another admiral thought about the law? Isn’t that for us to decide? How -is that any evidence? Isn’t that your point, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How does that really throw any light on the -meaning of a law? - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not think that the principles for the -conduct of sea war originate from one admiral, but that in view of their -far-reaching implications they have become a matter for the government. -It is recognized in international law that it springs not only from -treaties, but also from acts of governments. May I give as an example -that Mr. Justice Jackson in his first report to President Truman -specially emphasized that international law is developed by acts of -governments. Consequently, if the London Naval Agreement of 1930 did not -originally imply that merchant vessels which had orders to resist were -excluded, then acts to this effect on the part of the governments of all -nations would have been instrumental in creating new international law -to this end. I am therefore of the opinion that the attitude taken in -this question by the United States as one of the greatest sea powers is -decisive as to the interpretation of the London Agreement and hence as -to the legality of Germany’s conduct. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the London Agreement is -ambiguous? - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What words in the London Agreement are -ambiguous? - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The term “merchant vessels.” - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have not got the citation there, have -you? - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Which is it? - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The phrase in the London Agreement which you -claim is ambiguous. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have not got it here, but I can give a -fairly accurate quotation. It says that submarines are subject to the -same rules as surface vessels in their conduct towards merchant vessels. - -I shall later submit proof that the term “merchant vessel,” even at the -Washington Conference of 1922, was considered ambiguous, and that also -in books on international law published later it had repeatedly been -stressed that this term is ambiguous. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Dr. Kranzbühler, you want Admiral Nimitz to -give us his opinion of his construction of the treaty, do you not? Isn’t -that the purpose of these interrogatories? - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: No, I do not want to hear Admiral Nimitz’ -opinion, but the policy pursued by the United States in its sea war -against Japan. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the arguments you have -addressed to them, Dr. Kranzbühler. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the documents. As I have just -heard from Sir David, there are no objections on the part of the -Prosecution. I do not know whether I need give my reasons for submitting -the individual documents. - -First of all, there are the war diaries and the standing orders of the -Admiralty and of the commander of the U-boat fleet. They have already -been admitted, and the Prosecution do not raise any objections. - -Under Number 3, I ask for the “British Confidential Fleet Orders” and -“Admiralty Merchant Shipping Instructions” of the British Admiralty to -be produced. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this matter came up before the Tribunal -in closed session on an application from Dr. Kranzbühler. I have not -heard definitely from the British Admiralty whether they agreed to do -this, but I have asked Dr. Kranzbühler if he will leave this matter over -for 10 days in the hope that we may be able to meet him. If Dr. -Kranzbühler will not press it for 10 days, I shall, of course, let him -know as soon as I have any definite information. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I agree to that. Under Number 4 I declare my -intention to submit a number of statements and letters I have received -from German U-boat commanders and officers, some of them through the -General Secretariat. These statements contain items from the lecture -given at Gydnia by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and referred to by -witness Heisig, including the instruction of U-boat commanders by -witness Moehle and the orders regarding the treatment of shipwrecked -persons. I understand the Prosecution have no objections. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any objection, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, many of these matters may have to be -considered when the actual document is put before us. There are no class -objections to them. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I should like to mention that I shall -probably have to submit some further documents later, after I have -spoken to Judge Admiral Eckhardt. May I again ask the Tribunal to allow -me as soon as possible to call this witness, who is particularly -important for the defense of the methods employed in U-boat warfare. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think the Tribunal would grant that, subject, of -course, to there being no delay regarding further applications. - -FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 6 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY - Wednesday, 6 March 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: I desire to announce a slight change in the order of -business. - -Dr. Stahmer has submitted a motion in writing, stating that he desired a -little more time in the preparation of his documents and for other -reasons would be grateful if the case of the Defendant Göring did not -come on on Thursday, as announced. - -The Tribunal realizes that the case of the first defendant to be heard -may present some difficulties in getting the documents translated in -time. As the Tribunal has announced that they would continue the hearing -of the applications for witnesses until they are all completed, they -will adhere to this decision. It is anticipated that this will give Dr. -Stahmer one day more, but at the conclusion of the hearing of the -applications for witnesses the case of the Defendant Göring will come on -without further delay. - -The Tribunal wishes to make it quite clear that no further applications -for delay or postponement on the part of the defendants will be -entertained, save in the most exceptional circumstances. - -DR. SIEMERS: For the Defendant Raeder, I should like to apply first for -a witness who will testify to the defendant’s character. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if it would be convenient, I might -first indicate the views of the Prosecution, and then Dr. Siemers can -deal with this point. - -The Prosecution has no objection to the following witnesses being called -for oral testimony: Number 3, the retired Minister Severing; Number 5, -Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting; Number 6 has already been sought for and -not objected to by the Prosecution—a witness for the Defendant Dönitz; -Number 10, Admiral Boehm. - -Then, with regard to the following witnesses the Prosecution suggest an -affidavit as the suitable procedure: Number 2, Vice Admiral Lohmann. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatories? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in this case I should prefer an affidavit, -because it is only a history of past events that is involved. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Affidavit in which case? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the case of Number 2—Lohmann. - -Then with regard to Number 4—that is Admiral Albrecht—his evidence -covers the same ground as Number 5. It might be that interrogatories -would be more convenient, but that would be a matter for my friends to -decide. - -Then the next, Number 7. That is Dr. Süchting, who is an engineer, and -it is desired to have him speak about the Anglo-German Naval Treaty and -technical questions. The Prosecution suggest an affidavit there, because -apparently it is desired that he speak on technical matters. - -Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg, I am told, is still ill. I think -that Dr. Siemers has already submitted questions and has received the -answers. He ought to be dealt with by interrogatories. That is probably -the easiest thing for the Field Marshal and the most suitable. - -THE PRESIDENT: Was that not suggested in the case of one of the other -defendants? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Von Blomberg, yes. I have a note that the -Defense Counsel have submitted questions. I was not quite sure whether -this was Dr. Siemers or another Defense counsel. I think it was Dr. -Nelte, for Keitel. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. That is Number 8. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then the next one, Von Weizsäcker, who was the -Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. He is asked for with regard to -the _Athenia_ case. At the moment I cannot see the point for which the -Defense want this gentleman, but I suggest that if they get an affidavit -from Weizsäcker we should know what he can speak about. - -Then the other one is Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. It is desired to give -the results of the interrogation of certain British prisoners of war at -Lillehammer. It would appear that the object was merely to give further -evidence which would be cumulative to the statements in the German -_White Book_, and therefore the Prosecution suggest an affidavit. - -There are two witnesses that the Prosecution think are in the border -line between admissibility and affidavits. They are really, in the -submission of the Prosecution, not relevant witnesses, but the Tribunal -might like to consider the question. These are Number 1, a naval -chaplain who really speaks as to the general moral and religious outlook -of the Defendant Raeder. That is, in the submission of the Prosecution, -really irrelevant, and at the most it would be a matter for an -affidavit. The position of the Prosecution is that it is really -irrelevant, but it certainly should not be more than an affidavit, even -if a different view was taken. - -The other is Number 16, Admiral Schultze. He speaks as to an interview -with the late Admiral Darlan, and the Prosecution submit that that is -irrelevant; if there are any approaches to relevance—which the -Prosecution have been unable to see—why then it could only be a matter -for an affidavit. - -The Prosecution submit that the following are unnecessary: Number -11. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, dealing with Number 16, would that not be more -suitably dealt with by interrogatories? The Tribunal granted -interrogatories on 9 February in that case, but I suppose they have not -yet been produced. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Which one was that? - -THE PRESIDENT: Number 16. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if the Tribunal feel that it is a -matter that should be explored, I agree that interrogatories would be -suitable. - -Then, My Lord, the ones that the Prosecution make objection to _in toto_ -are: - -Number 11, Vice Admiral Bürckner, because he is cumulative to Numbers 5 -and 10; Number 12, Commander Schreiber, because on 21 February Dr. -Siemers said that he was willing not to call this witness if Number 5, -Schulte-Moenting, was allowed; Number 13, Lackorn, who is a Norwegian -merchant, who is supposed to speak of the Allied plans, without any -means of knowledge being stated. This witness was temporarily given up -on 21 February; Number 15, Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in -the Quisling cabinet, as I understand the application. There is no -indication why this witness should be competent to speak on the -reputation of the Defendant Raeder; and Number 16 has been dealt with; -Number 17 is Colonel Goldenberg, who was the interpreter at the meeting -between the Defendant Raeder and Darlan. The Defendant Raeder gives -evidence and Admiral Schultze answers an interrogatory. It will appear -that that interview is well covered. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers? - -DR. SIEMERS: I thank Sir David for taking up the individual points, as a -consequence of which I can, as I presume, count on the Tribunal’s -approval of the points to which Sir David has agreed, without giving -specific reasons. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the best course would be for you -to go through the ones upon which Sir David has not agreed as to being -called as oral witnesses, and then perhaps it may be necessary to deal -with the ones where he has agreed. I would begin in the order in which -he took them up—2, 4, 7, 8, 9—if that is convenient for you. - -In the case of Number 2 he suggested an affidavit. - -DR. SIEMERS: Number 2 is the Vice Admiral Lohmann. In this connection I -refer to the last page of my brief, where I have discussed the documents -under “III.” There I have stated that I suggested to the British -Delegation that we come to some agreement as to the figures with regard -to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Treaty. The British Delegation -has promised me that such an agreement may be possible and has in the -meantime communicated with the British Admiralty in London on this -matter. If, as I expect, an understanding is reached, I am agreeable to -an affidavit from Vice Admiral Lohmann, for then he is to testify on -only a few points. I ask, therefore, that he be approved for the time -being, and I undertake not to call him if the agreement mentioned is -reached with the Prosecution. If this understanding is not reached, the -proof of some important figures would be very difficult, and I could not -do without Lohmann who is well informed about the figures; otherwise, I -could. - -THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about that, Sir David? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have circulated Dr. Siemers’ note and request -for agreement to my colleagues, and I have also sent it to the -Admiralty, and I hope that we may be able to give the information and -probably to agree on these matters, but I am waiting to get that -confirmed from the Admiralty in Britain; so I think if we could leave -over the question of this witness until I see if I can get an agreement -which will satisfy Dr. Siemers on the point. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then if you cannot make the agreement, probably the -witness would have to be called? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. I can let Dr. Siemers know whether there is -any controversy on the point, whether I am going to challenge what he -puts forward. If I am going to challenge it, obviously I should not -object to the witness being called. - -DR. SIEMERS: Under these circumstances, I shall be satisfied with the -submission of an affidavit. I have written to Vice Admiral Lohmann, -asking him to answer the other brief questions; and regarding the main -points the principles just stated by Sir David will be adhered to. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 4, Admiral Albrecht, was one of the closest -collaborators of Grand Admiral Raeder. From 1926 to 1928 he was Raeder’s -Chief of Staff in Kiel; from 1928 to 1930, chief of the Navy personnel -office of the OKM. From then on he was commanding admiral in Kiel, and -finally Navy Group Commander East in 1939. - -I should like to remark in this connection that in this last year he -also joined, upon the suggestion of the Security Group commander, this -organization, and from this point of view also he appears important to -me. Admiral Albrecht has also, as I know, written directly to the -Tribunal for this reason. - -Albrecht has known the Defendant Raeder so long that he is well -acquainted with his main ideas and thus orientated on the main charges -of the Indictment. He has known Raeder’s trend of thought since 1928, -that is to say, from the time in which the charges against Raeder have -their beginning. I ask that consideration be given to the tremendous -charges which are brought against Raeder covering a period of 15 years. -I cannot refute all the accusations with one or two witnesses. The -differences among the testimonies are so great that in such a case one -cannot speak of “cumulative.” - -Furthermore I ask that note be taken of the fact that so far I have been -unable to talk to Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting, who has been approved -by the Tribunal and the Prosecution. - -The Tribunal has also not yet informed me where Schulte-Moenting is. I -presume that he is in a prisoner-of-war camp in England, but I do not -know whether he will really be at my disposal, and whether I will be -able to talk with him in time. - -THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing with Admiral Konrad Albrecht, are you -not? You are dealing with Number 4? - -DR. SIEMERS: No; regarding Admiral Albrecht, we know that he is in -Hamburg. I simply pointed out that it would not be cumulative if both -Albrecht and Schulte-Moenting are heard by the Court. - -THE PRESIDENT: You see, what Sir David was suggesting was an -interrogatory in the case of Admiral Albrecht and an affidavit in the -case of Admiral Schulte-Moenting. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will agree to Admiral Schulte-Moenting’s being -called orally. - -THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. I was mixing the numbers. Yes, that is -right, to call the one and have interrogatories from the other. Have you -any objection to that? - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I request that I be allowed to call both witnesses -because Schulte-Moenting is to testify about a later period and Albrecht -about the earlier period that was immediately subsequent to the -Versailles Treaty. The position of both is entirely different. In -addition, as I have just pointed out, the Tribunal has not yet informed -me whether I can with absolute certainty count on the witness -Schulte-Moenting, whether he has been found, whether it is known where -he is. - -THE PRESIDENT: Our information is that Schulte-Moenting has not been -located. - -DR. SIEMERS: I have no information as yet. - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am not sure that is right. Yes, he has been -located in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom. At least I -think so. - -Yes, I have a document before me here which shows that he is in a -prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom. - -DR. SIEMERS: I thank you very much. I did not know that. Under the -circumstances I am prepared, in regard to Admiral Albrecht, to accept an -affidavit or an interrogatory, provided Schulte-Moenting really appears. - -Number 7, Dr. Süchting. In this connection Sir David suggests an -affidavit in order to speed up the Trial. I am satisfied with an -affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SIEMERS: Again, however, with the one reservation that the matter of -the figures will be clarified between me and the British Prosecution, in -accordance with my letter as already discussed in connection with -Admiral Lohmann, I believe that Sir David is agreeable to this. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how you suggest that -these questions of shipbuilding in connection with the German-English -Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937 are relevant to any charge made here. - -DR. SIEMERS: The Defendant Raeder is accused of not having adhered to -the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreement. Such a treaty -violation is mainly a question of the building of ships. Consequently I -must demonstrate what could be built according to the Treaty of -Versailles and the Naval Agreement and what actually was built and what -thoughts and orders the Navy had in this connection. As I said, however, -I shall be satisfied with an affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the arguments on -that. - -DR. SIEMERS: Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg. The Prosecution have -suggested an affidavit or an interrogatory. In consideration of Von -Blomberg’s state of health, I am agreeable to this for the sake of -simplicity. Since it does not involve any great number of questions, I -suggest an affidavit. - -Number 9, Ambassador Baron Von Weizsäcker. I submitted the application -on 6 February and do not know thus far the position of the Tribunal. At -the time of the _Athenia_ case Weizsäcker was State Secretary in the -Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. At that time, in September 1939, -Weizsäcker spoke with the American Ambassador on the subject of the -_Athenia_. Weizsäcker spoke with Hitler and with Raeder. He knows the -details and must be heard on these details. I do not believe that an -affidavit will suffice. First let me remark that I do not know where -Weizsäcker is. But aside from that, the charge which has been made -against the Defendant Raeder in the case of the _Athenia_ is morally so -grave that, although otherwise it might not be such an important point, -I have to put particular stress on this point. - -The British Delegation has given particular emphasis to the case of the -_Athenia_ and has made insulting attacks on the defendant in connection -with this case. In the interest of the absolutely irreproachable life of -my client I feel obliged to clarify this case completely. That can only -be done by Weizsäcker. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as far as the application goes, there is -nothing to show, beyond the position of the suggested witness, that he -knew anything about it at all. Under these circumstances would not -interrogatories be the most appropriate course? You did not show whether -he knew anything about it at all. All you say in your application is -that he was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. - -DR. SIEMERS: I may point out that I stated in my application that the -witness is informed regarding the events connected with the _Athenia_ -case. - -THE PRESIDENT: You say that he must know on the basis of his position as -State Secretary. - -DR. SIEMERS: The American Ambassador approached Weizsäcker immediately -after the _Athenia_ case in order to clarify the case. Thereupon -Weizsäcker spoke with Raeder; however, only after he had already told -the American Ambassador that no German submarine was involved. The -question as to whether a German submarine was involved in the _Athenia_ -case was settled only after the return of the German submarine. Prior to -that the Defendant Raeder had not known of it either. The German -submarine returned on 27 September; the sinking was on 3 September. - -THE PRESIDENT: Did you state these facts about conversations between the -American Ambassador and State Secretary Weizsäcker in one of your -previous applications? - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes, on 6 February I did submit the application, and also -mentioned in general terms the _Athenia_ case. I may add that Weizsäcker -knows also the subsequent occurrences. Weizsäcker knows exactly that the -Navy, and particularly the Defendant Raeder, had nothing, absolutely -nothing to do with the article which the Propaganda Ministry published -in the newspapers. Weizsäcker was just as outraged about this article as -was the Defendant Raeder. But it is precisely this that the Prosecution -charges against Raeder. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider what you say. - -DR. SIEMERS: Let me add that I have made a mistake. I just heard that -Weizsäcker is still at the Vatican in Rome; in other words, it is known -where he is. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SIEMERS: Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. As far as I know, Colonel -Soltmann will be requested as a witness also by the Defendant Jodl, and -an affidavit or an interrogatory has already been sent to him. I -therefore concur with Sir David that an affidavit from Soltmann will -suffice, subject to the consent, or the applications of the Defense -Counsel for General Jodl. - -THE PRESIDENT: He does not appear to have been located yet. - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes—the witness Soltmann? I have given his address in my -application. - -THE PRESIDENT: Have you? - -DR. SIEMERS: It is Falkenberg near Moosach in Upper Bavaria. - -Number 16, Admiral Schultze is in Hamburg, and it is an easy matter to -have him testify personally here in Nuremberg. The Prosecution have -accused the Defendant Raeder of participating in the National Socialist -policy of conquest. This accusation is unfounded. Raeder, both in Norway -and in France, constantly directed his efforts towards bringing about -peace; in other words, not towards the effecting of any final conquest -of the countries. In this Raeder found himself in a strong opposition to -Hitler, and only after much urging did Raeder succeed in enabling -himself to negotiate with Darlan in Paris concerning the possible -conclusion of a peace. I believe that such a positive intervention for a -quick termination of the war with France is important enough, in a trial -like this, to have the witness testify personally. I cannot understand -how Sir David, in view of his accusation, can say that this point is -irrelevant. The Prosecution has constantly declared that the Defendant -Raeder was agitating for war. - -THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that Sir David did say it was -irrelevant. He suggested interrogatories. - -DR. SIEMERS: I made a note that Sir David said the witness was -irrelevant, but that he would, as a concession, agree to an affidavit. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then I was wrong. - -DR. SIEMERS: I simply wanted to make my position clear on the question -as to whether or not this witness is irrelevant. I believe I have shown -that he is relevant. - -THE PRESIDENT: You want the witness? You would not agree to an affidavit -or an interrogatory? Is that right? - -DR. SIEMERS: I ask the Tribunal to hear Schultze as a witness here in -Nuremberg, because, in my opinion in view of the principles of the -Indictment, it is a vital point that Raeder’s attitude toward the entire -problem is shown by facts prevailing at that time, and not by present -assertions and statements. - -I come now to the witness to whom Sir David has objected, witness Number -11, Admiral Bürckner. I asked for him on 31 January. So far I have -received no answer. I asked to be allowed to speak to the witness -Bürckner in order to acquaint myself with the details. The interview is -denied me so long as he has not been approved as a witness. In order to -speak with him therefore I am dependent on his being approved first as a -witness. Should it then prove that this evidence is cumulative, I am -willing to forego the witness. I presume that Sir David is agreeable to -this. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal does not quite understand why the -counsel should not have seen this officer who is in prison in Nuremberg, -subject of course to security. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have no objection to the counsel’s seeing -Admiral Bürckner. I think up to now the Prosecution have always taken -the view that what Dr. Siemers wanted to see him about was not relevant. -I do not think the Tribunal has ruled on that. - -THE PRESIDENT: The view of the Tribunal is that Counsel for the Defense -ought to be in touch with the witnesses before, in order to see whether -they are able to give relevant evidence or not. They cannot give the -evidence or the relevancy of it unless they know what the witness is -going to say. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection will be made, and Dr. Siemers can -make arrangement, as far as the Prosecution are concerned, to see -Admiral Bürckner at the earliest date he likes. - -DR. SIEMERS: I am grateful to the Tribunal for clarifying this point. -This point has made the work of the Defense Counsel extremely difficult. -I have been waiting for more than a month to speak to Bürckner. For four -weeks I have not been able to speak to Admiral Wagner for the same -reason. I should like to speak to others also who are in the courthouse -prison. They were all denied me because the Tribunal had not yet -approved them as witnesses. I believe that the point is now clarified. - -THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Siemers. - -DR. SIEMERS: It is quite possible that, after speaking with the witness, -I may not call him to the stand, particularly since I hear today that -Schulte-Moenting can be called, and provided that Boehm is approved. - -THE PRESIDENT: That who is approved? - -DR. SIEMERS: Boehm, Number 10. - -THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. That was Sir David’s only objection to Number -11, was it not, that it was cumulative to 5 and 10? - -DR. SIEMERS: Number 12, Captain Schreiber. Sir David has rightly pointed -out that I have already stated the possibility that I may give up this -witness. This still stands. If the witness Schulte-Moenting and the -witness Boehm actually appear, the witness Schreiber is not necessary. - -Number 13, the witness Lackorn, in Leipzig. Before the occupation of -Norway Lackorn was on business in Oslo. He had nothing to do with the -military. It was purely by accident that he learned, in the Hotel -Bristol in Oslo, that the landing of English troops was imminent. This -point is important because one can only judge the defendant’s attitude -toward the Norwegian undertaking if one considers the general situation -of Norway. The general situation of Norway means, however, the relations -of Norway with Germany, England, Sweden, and all the other countries -adjacent to Norway. It is not proper, in such a decisive question, to -state that only a small part is relevant. I am agreed, however, that the -witness is not to be heard here. I have, therefore, while I was waiting -for the decision of the Prosecution, written to the witness in order to -obtain an affidavit. It is therefore agreeable to me if an affidavit -only is submitted here. He need not be approved as a witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you did not deal with that aspect of the -matter, with an affidavit. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid the view of the -Prosecution is that the story, which apparently started in the bar of a -hotel in Oslo, is not evidence which is really admissible, relevant, or -of any weight in a matter of this kind. That is the view we have taken -throughout. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, it appears from the application which is -before us that you originally made a request for this witness on 19 -January 1946, which appears to have been in perfectly general terms, and -that the Tribunal ordered, on 14 February, that you should furnish -supplementary details of the evidence which you wanted to obtain by -calling this witness. Thereupon, on 21 February, you withdrew your -application. - -You now submit the application again without giving any details at all, -simply saying that the witness had been in Oslo on business and received -information there of the imminent landing of Allied forces in Norway. -Well, that is a perfectly general statement, just as general as the -original statement. It does not seem to comply with the orders of the -Tribunal at all. - -DR. SIEMERS: On 21 February I withdrew my application because of the -basic point of view which I have also presented to the Court. - -I have pointed out that, in my opinion, the Defense cannot be expected -to give every single detail, when we have not for three months after we -were consulted had the slightest word, not one word, about a single -witness of the Prosecution. When we of the Defense have not had the -opportunity even of taking a stand on the relevancy of their -witnesses. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out on several occasions that the -reason why the defendants’ counsel have to submit applications for their -witnesses is because they are unable to get their witnesses themselves -and because they are applying to the Tribunal to get their witnesses for -them and their documents for them. It is a work of very considerable -magnitude to find and to bring witnesses to Nuremberg. - -I understand from you that with reference to this witness you are trying -now to get an affidavit from him. - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate I have been making the effort. Whether I -shall receive the answer in time from Leipzig, which is in the Russian -Zone, remains to be seen. In the meantime, in order to facilitate -matters and to avoid delay, I have written to the witness Lackorn. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time. - -For this reason I am willing to waive having him testify here. - -THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit, you will be able to give the -Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness would give, and -also to show it to the Prosecution, who will then be able to say whether -they wish to have the witness brought here for cross-examination. - -DR. SIEMERS: Certainly. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application. - -DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 15 is a Norwegian, Alf Whist, former -Secretary of Commerce. By decision of the Court on 14 February he was -rejected as irrelevant. - -Whist can testify that the reputation of the German Navy in Norway was -very good throughout the occupation, and that in Norway the complaints -were directed exclusively against the civil administration and not -against the German Navy. Whist knows definitely, as does every other -Norwegian, that the Navy was not involved in a single illegal or -criminal measure in Norway during the occupation. - -If this is considered irrelevant, I presume that Sir David means that -the Navy, during the occupation of Norway, behaved correctly. Of course -this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from the question -which I shall discuss later, that is, the question of the occupation and -the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of the time after the -occupation had been carried out. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is this: That -whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that the facts were -that the German Navy had behaved with meticulous correctness on every -point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the -Quisling cabinet in Norway, as to how the German Navy behaved would not -have the slightest interest or relevance or weight with anyone. That is -the view of the Prosecution. - -DR. SIEMERS: I hoped that Sir David would make his position clear as to -whether charges in this connection will be made against the Navy. Sir -David speaks of the Germans in general. I draw attention to the fact -that the entire administration in Norway was a civil administration, and -that, in the Terboven jurisdiction, the Navy had nothing to do with this -administration; if I have named a single witness where I might have -named hundreds, I did this only to give the Tribunal a picture of how -Admiral Boehm, the Navy, and Raeder conducted themselves. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers. - -DR. SIEMERS: Thank you. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then you have still Number 17, the interpreter. - -DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lieutenant Colonel Goldenberg, it is Sir David’s -point of view that he is unnecessary; if Admiral Schultze is approved as -witness, an affidavit from Goldenberg will suffice for me. A short -affidavit appears to me to be important, because Goldenberg was present -as an impartial interpreter at every conference which took place between -Darlan and Raeder. An affidavit will suffice in this case. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents. I ought to -call your attention to an observation at the end of your application, -which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. Who are they? - -DR. SIEMERS: The Tribunal has declared that the details about a witness -have to be submitted a long time in advance only because the Tribunal -must procure the witness. When it is a question of a witness who comes -to Nuremberg on his own initiative, I should be obliged for a decision -on the point in connection with my defense, as to whether or not the -Tribunal will admit such a witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the principal reasons -why Defense Counsel have to make applications, and another principal -reason is a necessity for expedition in this Trial—expedition and -security. The question of security is important, and therefore we must -insist on being told who the witnesses are that you wish to call, Dr. -Siemers. Otherwise, you will not be able to call them. - -DR. SIEMERS: Am I obliged to do this even when the witness is already in -the building? - -THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there are 20 or -21 defendants in the dock; and we have to try and make this Trial -expeditious and we therefore cannot allow them to call as many witnesses -as they choose to call. But if it is a question of your not having the -names of the witnesses in your mind at the moment, you can certainly -specify them after a short delay, or tomorrow. - -DR. SIEMERS: I shall submit information on this matter shortly. I do not -want to name the witness before I have talked it over with him. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to your -applying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do so by -tomorrow. - -DR. SIEMERS: Very well, I know that, at the moment, the witness in -question is not in Nuremberg, so that I cannot talk to him at the -moment. I ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being so cautious. The -Tribunal will be cognizant of the fact that witnesses have been taken -into custody. I cannot take the responsibility for somebody’s being -taken into custody because I named him as a witness. That is the reason. -I shall, however, notify the Tribunal as soon as the witness is in -Nuremberg and I have had a chance to speak to him. I shall do so within -24 hours. It is here a question of a testimony which would take 10 -minutes at the most of the Court’s time. Therefore, I do not believe -that this will burden the Tribunal too much. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -DR. SIEMERS: Then I should like to add that I can give the address of -the witness Severing, retired Reich Minister. I received it yesterday by -telegraph. Witness Severing is Number 3 and the Prosecution is agreeable -to his being heard. I shall submit the address in writing to the General -Secretary. He is in Bielefeld and can be reached without trouble. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If you give it to the General Secretary, that is all -that is required. And now would probably be a convenient time to break -off for 10 minutes. - -MR. DODD: Your Honor. There is the matter of Admiral Bürckner. So far as -we know, Dr. Siemers made one request about Admiral Bürckner some time -ago, and at that time he was told, as I understand it, that Admiral -Bürckner was to be called or that the Prosecution intended to call him -as a witness, and that therefore we did not think it proper for him to -talk to Admiral Bürckner until after we had called him as a witness. - -Up to a very late date in this presentation of our case, we still had in -mind calling Admiral Bürckner. I think some reference was made to him, -as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference to the witness -Lahousen. And it was for that reason that we told Dr. Siemers that we -did not think he should talk to the witness until after he had testified -or a decision had been made with reference to his testimony. But we have -at all times tried to co-operate with the Defense and make available -these people who are here in custody so that they may talk with them. - -THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. SIEMERS: May I add something regarding the witnesses? Concerning -witness Number 1, Marinedekan Ronneberger, I agree to use an affidavit -as suggested by Sir David. Concerning the witness Bürckner, I would like -to mention that Mr. Dodd’s statement is based on an error. I am not -permitted to speak to the witness, because he has not yet been approved -by the Tribunal as my witness. No other reason was given. - -THE PRESIDENT: We do not think any further discussion is necessary about -this witness. I have already stated what the members of the Tribunal -will act upon. - -DR. SIEMERS: I did not understand whether Mr. Dodd agreed to my speaking -with the witness Bürckner now. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the Prosecution have closed -their case, and they now have no longer any objection to your seeing the -witness. - -DR. SIEMERS: Then one last remark. The Tribunal will have noticed that I -have not requested any witness concerning naval warfare and submarine -warfare. The reason is that I have agreed with Dr. Kranzbühler that Dr. -Kranzbühler will deal with the entire complex of naval warfare and -submarine warfare, although, in this respect, it not only affects -Grossadmiral Dönitz, but also in a considerable degree Grossadmiral -Raeder in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Therefore, -insofar as the interests of Grossadmiral Raeder are concerned in this -matter, Dr. Kranzbühler will also represent him. - -I should like to point out only that Dr. Kranzbühler’s very important -application regarding the questions to Admiral Nimitz not only affects -Grossadmiral Dönitz but, in particular, Grossadmiral Raeder, and beyond -that, the organization of the General Staff, insofar as the Navy is -concerned. - -May I pass to the documents now? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document Number 1, The War -Diaries of the Seekriegsleitung and the B.d.U., Dr. Kranzbühler’s -assistant Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work on these at the -Admiralty. - -With regard to Number 2, Weyer’s _Navy Diary_, and Nautikus’ _Navy Year -Book_, there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these. He will -indicate in the ordinary way the passages he intends to use. - -With regard to General Marshall’s report of 10 October 1945, I cannot -see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if Dr. Siemers will indicate -which part he intends to use, it can be discussed when he actually -presents it to the Tribunal. - -Now Number 4, the British Admiralty documents, May 1939 to April 1940, -which are wanted as to the preparations of landing in Scandinavia and -Finland. Although, strictly, what is relevant is what was known to the -Defendant Raeder, I shall make inquiries about these documents, and if -the Tribunal will give me a short time, I hope to be able to report to -the Tribunal upon them. - -I want to make it clear that I cannot, of course, undertake to give -details on Allied documents; but I hope to be able to produce some -documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal with them -authoritatively. I would rather not be pressed for details at the -moment. - -DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, I hope that I will receive the -books which belong to Number 2 and Number 3 soon, because otherwise a -delay may be caused. The report of General Marshall of 10 October 1945 -is, as far as I can judge from the excerpts, important for the reason -that General Marshall adopts, on various points, an entirely different -attitude from Justice Jackson’s. I believe that a comparison of two such -outstanding opinions is of sufficient importance to have the report of -General Marshall also heard here. Concerning Number 4, I am waiting for -the final decision of the Prosecution. - -I have only one more request, and I ask to be excused, since, by error, -I have not listed this Number 5. It is the following: The Prosecution -has repeatedly presented quotations from the book _Mein Kampf_ by Adolf -Hitler and inferred from it that each one of the defendants who held a -leading position as early as 1933 should have known from this book, even -before 1933, that Hitler was contemplating the launching of aggressive -wars. I noticed that the quotations in the document book which was -presented in November are all taken from an edition which was published -only in 1933. The edition of 1933, however, differs in many points from -the original edition. Unfortunately, I am personally only in possession -of an edition which was published after 1933. In order to check these -questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could have read -in this book in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution to try to -submit a copy of the first edition. As far as I know, the first edition -was published in 1925, and the second in 1927, by the publishing firm of -Franz Eher. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get an earlier edition, so that -Dr. Siemers can compare the passages. - -THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with Page 2 of your document? Sir -David, you have not dealt with this, have you? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I assume, Your Lordship, that Dr. Siemers -would, in due course, indicate what excerpts he was going to use. We -could discuss when he presents them, whether the Prosecution have any -objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You intended, Dr. Siemers, I suppose, to indicate -the passages upon which you rely in your document book? - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have already discussed the point on Page 3, -that is the question of tonnages built, and so on—I said I am making -inquiries with regard to that. - -THE PRESIDENT: My attention is drawn, Sir David, to Paragraph 4 B on -Page 2. Are you suggesting that the Tribunal supply him with documents -on German policy without any further reservation? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an oversight. I took it -that that was included in the words at the top of the page: - - “In addition, I shall submit documents and affidavits, some of - which are already in my possession, and some of which I shall - procure myself without having the assistance of the - Prosecution.” - -I took it that Dr. Siemers had certain documents on German policy, and -will indicate what passages he is going to use. I am very sorry I did -not refer to that. - -THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, with -reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and does not wish -any further action to be taken with reference to them? - -DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be convenient if I -indicate the view of the Prosecution. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note that Dr. Sauter -is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, as oral witnesses; -that is, he is asking for seven oral witnesses, and Numbers 5 and 9 to -13 by way of affidavit. - -The Prosecution suggest that, as far as oral witnesses are concerned, -the defendant might have Number 1 or Number 2. that is, Wieshofer or -Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the same ground; that -he might have Number 3, the witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff -of the Reich Youth Leadership (Reichsjugendführung); and, also, that he -might have Number 8, that is Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, who, I think, -is Schirach’s father-in-law—since the description of his evidence takes -up nine pages of the application, he is obviously a very important -witness. - -Then the Prosecution suggest that there might be affidavits from Number -5, Scharizer, who was the deputy Gauleiter of Vienna; Number 11, who is -Madame Vasso; Number 12, Herr Schneeberger; and Number 13, Field Marshal -Von Blomberg. - -The witnesses that the Prosecution find difficulty in perceiving the -necessity for are: First of all, Number 4, Frau Hoepken—there are no -details given in this application, except that she was secretary to Von -Schirach; Number 6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who apparently repeats -part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher word for word; Number -7, Dr. Schlünder, who also repeats the witness Lauterbacher word for -word; and Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, who passes a personal view on the -defendant, which, in the submission of the Prosecution, is not really -helpful evidence; and finally, Dr. Roesen, Number 10, who speaks as to -an isolated incident of kindness on the part of the defendant to the -family of the musician Richard Strauss. - -This is the position which the Prosecution take with regard to the -witnesses. - -DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have, in the case of Baldur von Schirach -also, limited my evidence as much as possible. For a personal hearing, -here before the Tribunal, I have proposed as witnesses, Numbers 1, 2, 3, -6, 7, and 8, and I must earnestly request you, Your Honors, to grant me -these witnesses. - -The difficulty, in the case of Schirach, as regards the presentation of -evidence, is that evidence must be produced and offered for two entirely -separate complexes. One is the activity of the Defendant Von Schirach in -his capacity as Reich Youth Leader; and the second is his activity in -Vienna, during the period from 1940 to 1945, in which he still exercised -certain functions in Youth Leadership in addition to his main duties. -Therefore, I need witnesses for both these activities of the Defendant -Von Schirach. - -In addition to this difficulty there is still another one. The Defendant -Von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that implied that practically -without exception all his collaborators were relatively young people who -during the second World War served a long time in the Army. Therefore it -is quite possible that for a few years during the World War one witness -might know nothing at all, because he did not work on the staff of the -Defendant Von Schirach during this time; and that therefore, for this -time, another collaborator of Schirach will have to be called upon, in -order to give information on his activity. - -Your Honors, in earlier written applications I had requested more -witnesses, but I have omitted these additional witnesses right from the -beginning in the application now submitted to you, in order to -contribute thus, as far as I can, to expediting the procedure. But, Your -Honors, these six witnesses that I have requested to have brought before -the Tribunal I really must have granted me for, if a clear picture of -Schirach’s activities is to be gained, I cannot forego any one of them. -I may also point out that all these six witnesses that I have listed -under the numbers given, for the purpose of calling them, have already -been approved by the Tribunal, so that the new approval will consist -only of a repetition of your own earlier decision. - -The witness Wieshofer, Your Honors, who is listed under Number 1, was -from 1940 to 1945 adjutant of the Defendant Von Schirach; that is to -say, during the period that covers the activity of the Defendant Von -Schirach as Gauleiter of Vienna and Reichsstatthalter. - -This collaborator, who was with the Defendant Schirach daily and who -knew him very well, has been named by me particularly for the purpose of -testifying—although, of course, he will also testify on other -things—that Schirach, in his capacity as Gauleiter of Vienna, pursued -an entirely different policy to that of his predecessor, the former -Gauleiter Bürckel; that he, contrary to Bürckel, endeavored to establish -correct relations with the Catholic Church, and that, with this aim in -mind, he successfully influenced and instructed also his collaborators -and subordinates. I say successfully, because these efforts by the -Defendant Von Schirach to bring about satisfactory relations with the -Catholic Church have also been repeatedly acknowledged on the part of -the Church, as well as by the Catholic population of Vienna. - -Besides, the witness Wieshofer will also corroborate that the Defendant -Von Schirach had nothing at all to do with the deportation of Jews from -Vienna; that this matter of the Jews was. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Do not Numbers 1 and 2, Wieshofer and Hoepken, really -deal substantially with the same subject? Would it not be sufficient if -one were called as a witness and if the other one gave evidence by -interrogatory? - -DR. SAUTER: I do not quite think so, Mr. President, because the witness -Hoepken, who is listed under Number 2, was a collaborator of the -Defendant Von Schirach as early as 1938, in the Reich Youth Leadership, -and because he is supposed to give information especially about the -activity of the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader and in -particular also about his efforts to bring about understanding and -friendship with the youth of other nations, such as, for instance, -England and France. I believe, Your Honors, that with regard to the -specific importance of these particular questions, the attitude of the -Defendant Von Schirach in the naming of witnesses should be given -recognition here, and that not one witness only, but both should be -granted. I have submitted the addresses of both witnesses to the -Tribunal. They are in a camp, and I believe, Your Honors, it is -imperative to summon both witnesses to establish the facts. - -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 -Number 2, Hoepken, had a leading position in the Reich Youth Leadership, -and that therefore the witness Number 2, Hoepken, is in a position to -give information especially about the activity of the Defendant Von -Schirach as Reich Youth Leader. - -THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, Number 1, was -adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reichsleiter 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 youth education was Hoepken’s main official task -while the activity of the witness Wieshofer was limited mainly to the -job of adjutant to the Defendant Von Schirach, primarily in his capacity -as Gauleiter in Vienna. That is the main difference, and the witnesses -who could provide information about his activity in Vienna are mainly -the witness Wieshofer and, to a small extent, also Hoepken. But I need -Hoepken, by all means, as I said, for the clarification of the activity -of Schirach in the Reich Youth Leadership. - -Mr. President, may I also point out that much is at stake for the -Defendant Von Schirach, and that, from the point of view of the Court, -it should really not make much difference, in a matter so important to -Schirach, whether one witness or two witnesses are called. - -Your Honors, I could have suggested perhaps four witnesses in the hope -that two would then be granted. If now, in the name of the Defendant Von -Schirach, I am proposing to call only two witnesses, I would not think -it very just if one of these two witnesses should be denied. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have said. - -DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, Your Honors, in the third place, I have to -request Hartmann Lauterbacher. If I have understood correctly, the -Prosecution agree to this; therefore, I can be brief. - -The witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff of the Reich Youth -Leadership, is in a position to supply information especially about the -fact that the Defendant Schirach in no way prepared the youth -psychologically and pedagogically for the war, and by no means for an -aggressive war. Furthermore, he can testify that the allegations of a -Polish report—presented by the Russian Prosecution in one of the -sessions during February, I believe on 9 February 1946—are definitely -false. According to this report, the Hitler Youth had used spies and -parachute agents in Poland. And this is false and the witness -Lauterbacher will refute it. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not object to Number -3 being called as a witness, but what he did object to was 6 and 7, whom -you are also asking for, as oral witnesses, because he said that they -repeated what Lauterbacher said—Numbers 6 and 7, that is Schmidt and -Schlünder. - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there again is the difficulty which I pointed -out before. From the Polish Government report which was read by the -Soviet Prosecution on 9 February 1946, it cannot be seen in what period -these activities concerning the Hitler Youth agents and spies are to -have taken place. - -Now it may happen here that, if I have only one witness, it will be -alleged that it was at some other time, perhaps at a time when this -witness was in the Army; and that is why, in the interest of a complete -clarification of these facts, I have asked to have witness Number 6 -heard also. That is the witness Schmidt. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that, with -reference to Schlünder, 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 only 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, Sir David was prepared to have Lauterbacher called as -a witness. - -DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher is to be called as a witness and Schmidt is to -receive an interrogatory? - -THE PRESIDENT: He said that Schmidt and Schlünder were cumulative. Then -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 7 -related 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 Schlünder and left out Schmidt. . . - -DR. SAUTER: You mean that an interrogatory is to be obtained from -Schmidt? I am agreeable to that. - -THE PRESIDENT: The statements which you make with reference to Schmidt -and to Schlünder are practically identical. - -DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different periods, as each of them -was in the Army. If one of them comes, he cannot say anything, of -course, about the time during which he served in the Army. He cannot -give any information as to whether, during his military service, agents -were used. - -THE PRESIDENT: I do not know about that. You have stated that they 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 cannot have been in the Army; they cannot 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 Schlünder were called, it would -dispense with the necessity for Schmidt. - -DR. SAUTER: May I point out, Mr. President, that in any case I need -Schlünder, who, by the way, was arrested a few weeks ago, because he was -a specialist for physical training with the Reich Youth Leadership, and -because, therefore, I want to prove, especially through Dr. Schlünder, -that the education of the youth, as administered by the Defendant Von -Schirach, was absolutely neither extraordinary nor militaristic. The -Defendant Von Schirach has thus far, during the entire procedure in his -interrogations. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement between -you and Sir David that Number 1 and Number 3 certainly should be called -and that Number 7 might be called; but I do not know whether Sir David -agrees that an affidavit or an interrogatory might be given by Number 6. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, Dr. Sauter? - -DR. SAUTER: Yes, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us get on then. - -DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have then, in addition, under Number 4, -listed an affidavit by a witness, Maria Hoepken. I shall submit this -affidavit, which is already in my possession, to the Tribunal and to the -Prosecution, along with my document book, sufficiently in advance. - -Then I have also affidavits in my possession, if I may mention that now, -from two witnesses: Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, and Number 10, Dr. Roesen. -The same thing applies here. The Tribunal and the Prosecution will -receive these two affidavits in time, together with my document book. - -Concerning Number 8, the witness Hoffmann, the Prosecution agree to -having him called as a witness since this witness is here in Nuremberg. -Therefore I believe that I do not have to make any detailed statements -concerning this witness. - -The same applies to Number 12 and Number 13. These are two witnesses: -One a Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, who, primarily, is to inform -us on the attitude of the defendant on the question of foreign workers -during the time of his activity as Gauleiter in Vienna; and Number 13, -Field Marshal Von Blomberg, who is to inform us on the attitude of the -Defendant Von Schirach on the question of the premilitary education of -the youth, on the question of physical training, and on the question of -patriotic education of youth. The Prosecution agree to interrogatories -from these two witnesses—which I have already suggested myself. - -And now, Your Honors, I come to the one figure on my list which is -closest to the heart of my client and myself. It is Number 11; that is -the application to examine a French woman by the name of Ida Vasso. Of -this witness, Ida Vasso, we have heard in court for the first time when -the Soviet Prosecution submitted a commission “Report on the Atrocities -of the Fascist-German Invaders in the Lvov Area,” as the title -reads—Document Number USSR-6. - -This document contains a sentence to the effect that a French woman, Ida -Vasso, who was working in a children’s home in Lvov, had reported that -the Hitler Youth had committed special atrocities in Lvov. It was -alleged that from the ghetto small children were sold; however, it was -not revealed by whom and to whom these children were to have been sold; -and yet, as a matter of course, it is the Hitler Youth who are said to -have used these children as targets. - -Your Honors, we are fully aware that such happenings would represent a -quite extraordinary atrocity, and I can tell you that none of all the -presentations of the Prosecution during the last three months has so -distressed the Defendant Schirach, as has this statement. The Defendant -Schirach has always, even in his earlier interrogations, maintained that -he assumes full responsibility for the education and training of the -German Youth, as directed by him; and that he is ready and willing, even -as a defendant here, to explain to the Tribunal what principles guided -him, what aims he had, and what successes he achieved. He has, for -instance, never denied that this youth training was based on -patriotism. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses now, are -you not? 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, “However, in consideration of the far distance of the witness from -Nuremberg, I agree that at first an affidavit should be drawn up.” - -DR. SAUTER: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David agreed that an affidavit should be drawn up. So -you are in agreement, and I do not understand why we should be troubled -with further application. - -DR. SAUTER: However, Mr. President, I have added something to my -application. I have written that a personal appearance of this witness -before the Tribunal would be useful so that she can be questioned, -because her testimony is important for the judging of the Hitler Youth -as a whole. I have also added. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Your application states that you reserve that right. -Well, you can prepare the affidavit and then 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, my client attaches so much importance to this -particular case for the following reasons: The HJ, that is the Hitler -Youth, which he led, comprised about 8 million members. It was therefore -larger than. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal quite understands why the -defendant is interested in the matter. But it seems to them it would be -perfectly satisfactory if an affidavit were drawn up and sent to the -witness; and then you can see whether you want the witness, whose -present location is unknown, brought here personally. - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client noticed one thing in particular, -that is, that among 8 million members only one single case of atrocities -occurred, of which he never heard anything at all in the Reich Youth -Leadership. However, I agree to the obtaining of an affidavit for -reasons of expediency; but for just this case I must reserve the right -to have the witness called, if the affidavit should be insufficient. - -THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we had better adjourn -now. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -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 Number 9, the book -entitled, _Look, the Heart of Europe_, and the commentary on it by the -late Lord 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: Mr. President, I can state my position regarding the -documents very briefly. In the main, it is a question of books, -speeches, and essays by the Defendant Von Schirach. These literary works -are in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution along -with my document book. With the document book I shall submit to the -Tribunal and the Prosecution the individual extracts which I propose to -use as evidence, so that the Prosecution will still be able to make any -statements it wishes with regard to the individual excerpts. - -I believe that is all I have to say on that subject. - -DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 28 February I made a supplementary motion -on behalf of the Defendant Hess. I should be grateful if the Tribunal -would inform me whether they wish to hear the argument in regard to this -motion now or later, since I do not know whether the Tribunal have a -translation of my motion in their hands. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have not seen the application yet, so I -think you had better postpone making the argument until the Tribunal has -seen the application. - -DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President. - -DR. SERVATIUS: For the Defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of -witnesses and in my preliminary remarks on the list I have divided them -into various groups. - -The peculiarity of this evidence, as presented, lies in the fact that in -this case a mosaic of smaller facts has to be clarified. In its case -against Sauckel the Prosecution confined itself to the production of -incriminating material generally, and did not work out the full details -about SS assignments carried out under the auspices of the Labor Service -and similar matters. - -Very few facts have been established at all with regard to Sauckel’s -sphere of activity generally. I am compelled, in consequence, to present -his staff, his collaborators, and their spheres of activity. At first -sight my list of witnesses may appear cumulative, but closer inspection -shows that they represent different fields. Some of them are experts on -Eastern affairs, others deal with the West or South. There is the -question of direction of manpower, supplies, housing, and the authority -exercised by individuals. The recruitment of workers in foreign -countries comes under another head; and witnesses must be heard on this -subject, too. - -In Sauckel’s case, the question of manpower is all-important and that of -conspiracy is a secondary matter. I believe I can rely to a very great -extent on the statements which may be expected from others among the -accused and from their witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution have -endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering the suggested -witnesses under various heads. - -The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by himself. 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 -suggested that this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges -which have been made against the defendant. My French colleagues will, -however, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the effect of an -interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard to this subject. I do not -want to comment on it at the moment, because it is obviously a matter -which Dr. Servatius should consider before any comment is made on it in -court. But, 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 -eight for oral testimony, and two more to give affidavits. - -The next three, Numbers 9, 10, and 11, were members of the Defendant -Sauckel’s staff, who are sought to be called to give evidence as to his -efforts to obtain good conditions. Again, the Prosecution suggest a -selection, and put forward one witness and one affidavit. - -Number 12, the witness Hoffmann, is called for the purpose of saying -that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, 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. - -Then there are a series of witnesses, Numbers 13 to 18, who deal 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 next witness, Number 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals with 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. - -Number 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of foreign -workers at the Gustloff works. That subject has been thoroughly covered -in general by previous witnesses, and the Prosecution suggest that this -particular witness is cumulative. - -With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for Labor, he deals -with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley and the -contention 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 -his application on that point. - -The witness Darré, who was the former Reich Minister for Food and -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 -it will indicate a number of other witnesses and documents which deal -with this point. - -As to Number 23, General Reinecke, there is no objection. - -Number 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought to say that French prisoners 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. - -The next, 26, the witness Peuckert, again deals with the administrative -position and executive 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 Jäger, is asked for -cross-examination on his affidavit. That is Exhibit Number USA-202 -(Document Number D-288), and the references in the transcript are 1322 -to 1327 (Volume III, Pages 441-446) and 3057 (Volume V, Page 509). No -request was made at this time, and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to -explain his position before dealing with this point. - -The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, 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. - -As to the next three witnesses, 31, 32, and 33, I think the position is -that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute certain evidence -given by M. Dubost on 28 January that the defendant authorized the -evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked, at Pages 3466 to 3492 of the -transcript (Volume VI, Pages 242-263), 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. - -With regard to 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that the defendant, -as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, we make no -objection. - -With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party produced -before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we suggested that that -be allowed. - -With regard to Frau Sauckel, who is desired in order that she may speak -as to the defendant’s charitable disposition, irrespective of the Party, -the Prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to the issues before the -Tribunal. - -I think it is impossible in this case, My Lord, to leave the witnesses -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 all the relevant statutory rules and -orders, that is, the subsidiary legislation made with regard to the -activities of this defendant. Frankly, I must say to the Tribunal that I -have not had the opportunity of reading the original orders. I have read -only 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. - -There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues and myself -take considerable objection, and I might just state two or three of -these. - -Number 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, and 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 comparison of the caloric -and other properties of the meat, it is going to be extremely difficult -to get any benefit from the evidence, if one is going into that. It is -unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before the Tribunal. - -If the Tribunal would then turn to Numbers 80 and 81; Dr. Servatius -wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, 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 this -evidence indicate that there would have to be extensive examination of -the facts surrounding them and they 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. But -evidence of that kind would, in my respectful submission, not be the -basis of such an argument. - -Then come Numbers 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. There again -it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged consideration of the -circumstances under which each affidavit was made, to assess the values -of bundles of affidavits of that kind. - -Number 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I suggest that it would be -reasonable 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 arguments 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 will, I hope, -consider that it is reasonable that we should see the film before we are -asked to comment on it further. - -I have taken only certain examples in the documents because obviously -they will have to be considered in detail when we see the text, and the -Prosecution have to reserve their rights as to objection. But I make the -general point—and I hope the Tribunal will think that it is a fair -point, and I hope Dr. Servatius will not think that I am decrying his -work; I am emphasizing the industry and care which he has shown in doing -it—that with this immense body of documentation the witnesses in this -case will want careful pruning. That, as I have said, indicates our -general view. - -THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, Dr. Servatius, -I ought to say, for the information of other defendants’ counsel and -other persons concerned, that the Tribunal proposes to adjourn today at -4 o’clock instead of 5 o’clock. - -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 -have not 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 other question: In view of what you have said -about the documents, would it not be a 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 -will appreciate that we have been under considerable pressure in the -last few 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 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? - -DR. SERVATIUS: From a legal point of view, the witness Beisiegel can be -dispensed with, but the other witnesses are necessary because they have -actual knowledge of the use of manpower abroad. So far, I have only one -witness who can really speak on the use of manpower in the East. This -witness should be able to describe the actual procedure followed; for -laws have little meaning in themselves, if we do not know how they were -applied. For the East, we have the witness Letsch—a highly important -witness—and for the West, the witness Hildebrandt, who can testify how -conditions gradually changed in France in consequence of the resistance -movement. - -The witness Kaestner could not be found, and I will dispense with him. - -Witness Number 7, Dr. Geissler, is of the greatest importance because he -can testify regarding inspections. The main point is at what period -these workers were employed and what provision was made by Sauckel for -their well-being in Germany. To ensure that Sauckel’s -regulations—which, I maintain, were models of their kind—were actually -put into practice, a series of inspectorates existed. Witness Number 7, -Geissler, was in charge of the Reich inspectorate, a branch established -by Sauckel. I consider him indispensable. - -THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number 3 and Number 8 cumulative? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number 8 in order to give special emphasis to the -wage question. So far the Prosecution have not treated individual points -in any very great detail. Otherwise I should find myself in difficulties -owing to lack of evidence when the emphasis is transferred later to the -question of wages. Only witness Number 8 can testify to this question. -Witness Number 3 can testify regarding the regulations generally and in -particular that Sauckel constantly improved conditions to the last, so -that the situation of all foreign workers was considerably improved by -legislation and continued to improve. This can be seen from all the -regulations, which I have carefully collected for the purpose. - -Witness Number 9, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel’s consultant, his personal -adviser, and conducted many negotiations, particularly with France. For -this reason I have named him as a substitute for witness Number 1, -Abetz. In particular he conducted negotiations over the restrictions of -the so-called Weisungsrecht, the restriction, that is, Sauckel’s right -to recruit workers. From the very start of Sauckel’s activities, it was -clear that no official administering a zone would tolerate interference -of this kind on Sauckel’s part, that from a practical point of view it -was impossible to tolerate it and his powers were promptly curtailed -through parleys. Witness Stothfang will testify on that subject. - -THE PRESIDENT: Why are 9 and 10 not cumulative? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number 10. I wish to say something on a -rather different subject. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 11 knows the conditions. He was the press -expert, and if I must forego any witness, I would dispense with him -rather than anyone else. He really does know, however, exactly what -conditions were like. He wrote the book _Europa Works in Germany_ and -made the film, and can say that these pictures were not faked but are -genuine photographs. For this reason he is important, as his testimony -is supplementary to the book and the film. - -The next witnesses belong to the Labor Front. The Labor Front was -responsible for the welfare of all foreign workers, as well as for that -of German workers. The situation never changed in that respect; and the -witnesses can testify now to the way in which the regulations were -carried out in different cases, with regard to the construction of the -camps, supplies, clothing, and everything else that took place. - -Witness Number 13 would be the most important witness, but he has not -been found. For this reason I attach special importance to witness -Number 14, who worked with him. The witness Hoffmann was practically in -charge and knows what conditions were in the camps. - -Those were the witnesses who worked with Sauckel in liaison with the -Labor Front. The other witnesses will testify as to the practical work -done by the workers themselves. - -The situation is this: Dr. Ley no longer appears here, so that the whole -of Ley’s field now becomes part of the case against Sauckel and forms a -further charge against Sauckel unless the question is clarified. There -are a good many charges and they must be clarified. - -THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between 15 and 16? - -DR. SERVATIUS: 15 is a stenographer’s error; 15 is identical with -witness 12. Witness 16, Mende, of the head office is particularly -important because he had to look after the organizations within the -Labor Front. - -THE PRESIDENT: You mean 15 comes out, does it? - -DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 15 comes out. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Witness 17, Dr. Hupfauer, can testify as to the origin of -the code of regulations in general and about the direction in which -Sauckel worked. - -THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative with Number 14, whom you wanted -to have instead of 13? The charge of inhumanity applies to both of them. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Because witness 14 deals with the practical side, and -witness 17 deals with the legislative side. Witness 18 was responsible -for the practical application within the Labor Front. One must keep -these various fields distinct from each other. Sauckel had a small -office, which was incorporated into the Ministry of Labor. He issued -regulations with the aim of steadily improving matters. I offer evidence -that they were of social value and will prove on investigation to be -irreproachable. - -We then have to consider the other side of the question—the practical -application, for which the Labor Front was responsible; and the -recruitment. I have special witnesses to deal with these heads as well. - -The next witnesses are members of Sauckel’s specialist staff. Witness -19, Bank Director Goetz, can testify that billions of marks were -transferred to foreign countries for workers’ wages. - -Witness 20, Beckurtz, was manager of the Gustloff works and one of -Sauckel’s closest collaborators. He will confirm that the treatment and -housing of workers in this very Gustloff factory was exemplary. - -Witness 21 will testify as to the degree of authority exercised by Ley -and Sauckel respectively. It is of great importance to know whether -Sauckel himself was responsible or whether some other office was in -charge of the practical side. - -THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot this be dealt with by an affidavit or -interrogatories? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I shall be satisfied here with an affidavit. I have not -yet spoken to the witness personally and for that reason I had to list -him as a witness. - -Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture. He will testify -that from the moment Sauckel took up his appointment, he made every -effort to improve conditions for foreign workers and that he continued -to pay special attention to this point. That is of particular importance -in view of the accusation that the foreign workers had been starved. -Through it I shall be able to adduce evidence that the foreign workers -were in part—I say in part—better off than German workers. - -Witness 23. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another defendant. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I see. Then I can forego him. - -The next witness has not yet been found. He will testify regarding the -exchange of prisoners of war for French workers. I understand that Reich -Minister Lammers has already been approved for other defendants. - -Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can furnish information -on the way in which workers were recruited in the Eastern territories. -They can testify to the extent of Sauckel’s powers, whether they were -executive or otherwise, to the authority given to the police, and to -what extent the organization was distinct from the SS. Witness 26 has -not been found. Consequently, I shall have to confine myself to witness -Number 27, Governor Fischer, who has been found and approved. - -THE PRESIDENT: What about an affidavit for 27? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I do not consider that I can forego calling him as a -witness. It is of the utmost importance to have a witness who can say -what conditions in the East actually were. - -Witness 28, Dr. Jäger. We have a detailed affidavit, but it is extremely -inaccurate. It has been submitted as Document Number D-288, Exhibit -Number USA-202. I have also received the German translation. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was it not the proper course to -cross-examine Dr. Jäger when his affidavit was read? - -DR. SERVATIUS: I assumed that it was accurate, as at that time I was not -acquainted with conditions in the district in question. I have since -made inquiries and can bring evidence to show that his statements were -not only very much exaggerated, but in many cases actually false. The -truth emerged by degrees on studying in detail some half dozen sworn -statements which I obtained. Krupp had 60 camps. The witness deals with -three or four of them at a time when the aerial war was at its peak—a -fact which he does not mention. I do not anticipate much difficulty in -proving his statements incorrect. I should like to reserve the right to -submit further affidavits with which the witness can be confronted if he -appears here in person, I also made an application, which has not yet -been granted, for leave to make use of a number of medical reports made -in these very factories, which in themselves prove that Dr. Jäger’s -testimony is inaccurate. My chief difficulty was to obtain possession of -this evidence, hence the delay. Otherwise I should have submitted it -sooner. I attach great importance to Dr. Jäger as a witness. - -The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, will testify on the same -subject, but each in connection with a different area. They have -attended the camps as doctors and can testify that the conditions there -were irreproachable and good. I could name many such doctors if I had -the time and opportunity to look them up. I know both of these and they -will confirm what conditions were really like. - -THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an affidavit -about it? - -DR. SERVATIUS: They are in a camp. It is difficult for me to contact -them; it would be easier to bring the witnesses here. Perhaps Dr. Voss -can appear here so that one of the witnesses can be heard. - -The next three witnesses are named for this purpose. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the explanation, I have -had a chance of comparing the English text with the French text, and it -would appear that an error has crept into the English text, which says: - - “He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of the - gravity of the communication Shiedlauski had given. Shiedlauski - had given an order that no prisoner should remain in - Buchenwald.” - -The French text is, if I may translate it: - - “He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given. The - Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order that none of - the detained persons should remain at Buchenwald.” - -So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could not find this -reference, I was dealing with the English text, and it appears that -there was such a reference in the French text. Since M. Dubost was -calling the witness, the probability is that the French text is right, -and as there is evidence that Sauckel had given this order, I think it -is only fair that I should say that one witness should be permitted to -deal with this point in the view of the Prosecution; it is, of course, a -matter for the Tribunal. - -DR. SERVATIUS: I agree with the Prosecutor and need only one of the -three witnesses. Should none of the witnesses be found, I have in the -document book an affidavit of one of Sauckel’s sons who was also present -at the conference. - -Witness 34, Skorzeny, will testify to the general connection between the -Gauleitung and the concentration camps; in other words, to what extent -the Gauleitung, by virtue of its official position, had knowledge of -what went on in the concentration camps. - -Witness 35, Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, Schwarz. This question has -been settled. I have received my interrogatory with the answers. - -Witness 36, Frau Sauckel, was previously approved by the Tribunal. I can -see that certain objections might be raised but the essential point is -this: Among other things, the witness repeatedly heard that the -Defendant Sauckel was criticized for treating foreign workers too well -and for manifesting an international rather than a nationalistic -attitude. That is one point. The other point is that which concerns the -conspiracy, namely, that Sauckel kept aloof and had very little -intercourse with other members of the Party. He worked consequently on -his own and knew very little about major developments in policy. - -That concludes my remarks on the list of witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you probably realize that you have asked -for a very much larger number of witnesses than other counsel and I -have, therefore, to ask you whom you regard as the most important -witnesses. It may be that it will be necessary to limit the number, as -you are aware that we are directed to hold an expeditious trial, and so -would you kindly give me the list of those witnesses whom you regard as -the most essential. - -DR. SERVATIUS: If I have time till tomorrow to think it over, I shall -try to reduce the number. It is difficult because the field is so large. -Also I did not receive a trial brief for Sauckel defining charges in -detail, so that I must be prepared for all eventualities. I must define -my position with regard to many points: food, wages, leave, workers, -transport, illness and there are many aspects to which I must refer. - -THE PRESIDENT: You will not forget that many of the defendants are -concerned in various aspects and they have neither asked for nor been -allowed this very large number of witnesses. - -DR. SERVATIUS: May I turn to the documents now? - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, I rather thought that perhaps Sir David was going -to get in touch with you after the adjournment and perhaps you could -then deal with the documents more successfully. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that would be time usefully spent, My -Lord, if the Tribunal would allow it. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -I call on Dr. Exner on behalf of the Defendant Jodl. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Exner and -Professor Jahrreiss were good enough to approach the Prosecution on this -matter and put forward certain considerations, including the names of -the witnesses to whom they attached the greatest importance, and over a -considerable part of the field there is no difference between us. On -certain matters there is a difference of principle, which I shall point -out to the Tribunal in a moment, but the effect is, if I might run -through the application, that the Prosecution will not offer any -objections to General Winter, who speaks as to the organization of the -OKW and the respective duties of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl. They -will not offer objections to Major Professor Schramm, although the need -for his evidence is perhaps not so obvious. On the other hand, with -regard to Number 3, the evidence of Major Kipp, that the fettering or -chaining of prisoners took place at Dieppe and as to the cause of the -shooting-of-Commandos order, the Prosecution submit that these matters -are irrelevant. With regard to Major Büchs, Dr. Exner tells me that he -will be satisfied with interrogatories. The Prosecution do not object. - -With regard to Number 5, General Von Buttlar, Professor Exner suggests -that he should be a witness, and the Prosecution do not object. - -With regard to Number 6, the Prosecution are content that there should -be interrogatories. - -With regard to Vice Admiral Bürckner, the Prosecution are prepared to -take no objection. - -Then with regard to Number 8, General Buhle, a questionnaire has been -sent off. - -With regard to Number 9, it is suggested that there should be -interrogatories. - -Number 10, interrogatories. - -With reference to Numbers 11 to 21, the Tribunal has allowed an -interrogation in each case, and in many cases a questionnaire has been -sent off, and therefore the Prosecution could not object at this stage -when action has been taken on the Tribunal’s suggestion. That would mean -that the Defendant Jodl would have four oral witnesses, apart from the -interrogatories which have already been largely approved by the -Tribunal. The objection of the Prosecution to Number 3 is maintained. - -DR. EXNER: I should like, first of all, to mention Number 3, Kipp. The -Prosecution have its objections to this witness. We need him to give -information as to how the Hitler order of 18 October 1942, that is, the -Hitler order regarding Commandos, originated. This order has been made -the basis of a highly incriminating charge against Jodl and it is of -great importance to hear how this order came to be given. It concerns -the killing of Commandos dropped by planes or landed from boats. As I -understand it, the objection to this witness and this subject generally -is that it appears to concern for the most part the events of Dieppe, in -consequence of which this order was admittedly issued. But we are not -concerned with an exact portrayal of what actually happened at Dieppe. -The witness Kipp is, in any case, unable to do so, since he was in the -OKW and was not a witness of those events. We are concerned with -something else, namely, the fact that certain reports were presented to -the OKW which caused this order to be made. We are furthermore concerned -with the following facts to which Kipp is in a position to testify. - -When these reports about the events at Dieppe arrived, the Führer was -enraged and ordered strict measures to be taken against these Commandos. -Jodl refused to issue or draft the order as demanded by the Führer. When -pressed, he said he did not know what reason he could give for that -order. - -Jodl then passed the matter to Major Kipp for investigation, as it was -peculiarly complicated from a legal point of view and Kipp, being a -professor of law, should know something about legal matters. - -In addition, a kind of poll was held in Jodl’s office in the Wehrmacht -Operations Staff and the opinions of other offices on the matter in -question were collected. Varying opinions were received from the Ausland -Abwehr, the legal department, et cetera. As in the meantime 10 days had -passed, Hitler lost patience, sat down and drew up the entire order -himself, as well as a further decree, establishing the reasons for the -order. Jodl, therefore, was not the author of this order. All that he -did was to express his doubts regarding it. The story of the origin of -the order of 28 October 1942, which, as I have said, has been made the -basis of a grave accusation against Jodl, is of the utmost importance. -Kipp will testify to it. Further, it has already been said that there is -no objection to witness Number 5, Buttlar. - -As to Number 4, I am satisfied with an affidavit or an interrogatory, -but I must reserve the right to call him as a witness, should the -interrogatory be inadequate or not clear. I hope, however, that this can -be avoided. - -Regarding witness Number 7, Vice Admiral Gottlieb Bürckner, I should -like to point out that he is the same Admiral Bürckner who was the -subject of discussion this morning in connection with the witnesses for -the Defendant Raeder. Perhaps that will clear up the difficulty about -Raeder. - -Regarding Number 8, the interrogatory has already been sent out. We -have, however, distinctly, reserved the right to resort to oral -testimony should the interrogatory again prove unsatisfactory. -Otherwise, I have nothing further to say on the subject and the -Prosecution has no grounds for protest. - -I have just received a note saying I was relying on the appearance of -Büchs as a witness and therefore why did I not ask for him. This is on -behalf of Göring, is it not? I shall have to leave the decision to the -Tribunal. I had in fact intended to call Büchs as a witness and I only -agreed to forego his personal appearance in the course of the -discussion. - -THE PRESIDENT: Which witness were you talking about? - -DR. EXNER: Witness Number 4. - -THE PRESIDENT: Do you say you are asking for him as an oral witness? - -DR. EXNER: Göring has also asked for him as a witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Has he been allowed to the Defendant Göring? - -DR. EXNER: He had counted on my calling him as a witness, on his being -allowed and on being able to question him. He is here in Nuremberg. May -I now turn to the documents? - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 1 and 4, the Prosecution has no objections. -I take this to mean that I put into my document book an extract of the -part I read. I submit the entire document to the Tribunal without a -translation of anything except the part which I am going to read; and -which deals with an important point which must be clarified. If I am -dealing with a large document and I need to quote only one paragraph, it -is sufficient if I submit the original document to the Tribunal in its -entirety and include in my document book only the particular paragraph -in question and its translation. - -THE PRESIDENT: That is right. - -DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 5 and 6, the Prosecution objects and I -withdraw these two documents. - -Point 7 is a curious one. That is Document Number 532-PS, submitted by -the Prosecution and to which I made objection at the time. The document -was removed from the record, and now I myself apply for this document to -be submitted again. This is for the following reason: The document is an -order that was submitted to Jodl in draft form. Jodl did not approve it, -crossed it out, and sent it back without signing it. This draft was -submitted by the Prosecution, and I objected to its being presented as -if it were actually an order signed by Jodl. I want to submit it now in -order to prove that Jodl, by making it impossible for this order to be -carried out, deprived an illegal order of its effectiveness. - -Regarding Points 8 to 15, the Prosecution also has no objection. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Points 16 and 17 are the subjects of objection -from the Prosecution. Point 16 relates to the English “Close Combat -Regulations” of the year 1942, and 17 is the English order for the -Operation Dieppe of the same year. With regard to the “Close Combat -Regulations,” the only relevance they could seem to have would be in -relation to an objection to this form of training, and in the submission -of the Prosecution it would be irrelevant on the question of the -Commando order. - -With regard to the question of shackling, I think the simplest way of -dealing with it is to point out that the Prosecution, as my friend Mr. -Dodd pointed out, have not introduced that matter into their case, and -therefore it would appear that, the English order in question was not -relevant. Apart from the two general objections, neither of these -matters seems connected with points in the case. - -I might just indicate Number 20, which is another objection that is on -the same basis as the old document, which I think the Tribunal has had -before—the implication of the German Foreign Office on breaches of -international law, and it is sought for, as the Tribunal will see, as -evidence of the reports that were made to the High Command of the -Wehrmacht, and that gave occasion to take reprisal measures. - -Then a similar ground of objection applies to Number 21, a history of -the White Russian partisan war, which is sought for as evidence that the -danger of bandit warfare gave cause for undertaking sweeping -countermeasures. - -These objections can be all grouped together. They fall under the -general objection to _tu quoque_ evidence which the Prosecution has -maintained throughout the Trial. - -DR. EXNER: May I say something about this? As far as 16 and 17 are -concerned, we just want to see these documents. We want to see them -first in order to judge whether or not we want to submit them in -evidence. I have stated so at the foot of the page. - -As to irrelevance, we do not say that we regard these orders as illegal. -But if for instance, in the “Close Combat Regulations,” English soldiers -are ordered to perform actions for which our soldiers are censured, it -would constitute a discrepancy of some importance. For in that case it -would be obvious that the British Government regarded such methods of -warfare as legitimate. If, however, such methods are legitimate for -them, they must also be legitimate in our case, since it is impossible -to have two standards in these matters. In order to establish this, we -wanted to see these “Close Combat Regulations.” That is Number 18. - -Number 19 is a similar case, but I can more readily understand that that -was refused, as it may be a secret order. Number 20, the White Book. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David did not deal with 19, did he? He only dealt -with 16, 17, 20, and 21. - -DR. EXNER: Yes. 18 and 19 have not been objected to. - -THE PRESIDENT: As I understood it, his objection to 16 and 17 was that -there was no complaint against the German forces, either with the -reference to close combat or with reference to shackling, in the -Indictment. - -DR. EXNER: If these “Close Combat Regulations” should happen to include -illustrations—there are actually pictures in there—of the shackling of -prisoners and orders for doing so, one would be obliged to say that the -British Government does not consider this kind of treatment illegal and -that if it happens on our side we cannot be censured for it. It is -difficult for me to estimate their importance to us, because I have not -had these “Close Combat Regulations” in my own hands. If I had them, I -could make my application. I should like to know whether I have to -include them in my evidence or whether there is no need. - -No objection has been raised to 18 and 19. As to 20, these are the White -Books already approved for Göring. Consequently, I need not ask for them -myself. - -Regarding Point 21, I am convinced that this cannot be settled with a -charge of _tu quoque_. It is a Russian book, describing partisan -warfare. The author of this book is a Russian who, himself, participated -in partisan warfare for several years as chief of staff and he writes -from personal experience. - -We do not assert that the Russians did the same as we did, which would -be a _tu quoque_ argument; I should like to have this book for another -reason. To understand and appreciate our regulations regarding -partisans, one must know these partisans. One must have knowledge and -experience of their methods, and be able to appreciate the danger which -they represented. This Russian book describes all that, and is therefore -important. The author himself, as stated, played an active part in the -warfare carried on against the partisans. - -In the Indictment it is stated, “The war against the partisans was -simply an excuse for the annihilation of Jews, Slavs, and so on.” This -book shows that the war against the partisans was a real war and not an -excuse on our part. - -If the book is unobtainable, I ask permission to read the short account -of the contents recently published in The Stars and Stripes. To -conclude, it should be emphasized that the book was written by a Soviet -Russian and for this reason cannot be assumed to have an anti-Russian -bias. - -Therewith I have concluded my presentation. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know what your -argument is with reference to 21. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was opposing it for the reason that was given. -The book is asked for as evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave -rise to undertaking sweeping countermeasures. - -Now, broadly, the case for the Prosecution is that the countermeasures -against partisans constituted atrocities, and evidence of that kind has -been given. It is, in my submission, no defense to the committing of -atrocities against partisans, of the kind given in evidence, that their -warfare was of a great extent or very fiercely or bravely waged. This is -just the _tu quoque_ argument in its nakedness—because partisans fight -you, therefore you can burn their villages, shoot their women, and kill -their children. That is the argument which we say is irrelevant and is -inadmissible. - -My Lord, I should like to say that I have no objection, if any of these -documents can be obtained, to Dr. Exner’s looking at the documents; on -that point to which the Prosecution attached importance, I thought it -right—and I know my colleagues desired it—that I should make our -position clear. - -THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your address, Dr. Exner, does it? - -DR. EXNER: May I add something concerning the last point. I am, of -course, perfectly aware that those atrocities, as described here, cannot -be justified by the activities of the partisans, but the more violent -the actions of the partisans became, the harsher—of necessity—were the -German military countermeasures, so that there is, after all, a -connection between these matters. - -THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your argument. - -The Tribunal will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 7 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY - Thursday, 7 March 1946 - - - _Morning Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von Papen. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal approves, I shall indicate the -views of the Prosecution on the witnesses requested by Dr. Kubuschok. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first witness is Von Lersner and there is no -objection. This witness is called to cover, among other things, the -period of the coming into power of the Hitler Government, which is a -time of material importance in the case against Von Papen. - -If the Tribunal would consider the next three witnesses, there is a -minor point: The witness Tschirschky was, as I understand it, Von -Papen’s private secretary from 1933 to February 1935. That is, he -covered the period of the rise to power of the Nazi Party. And he also -covers some of the Austrian period. - -The next witness, Von Kageneck, is also a private secretary. He does not -cover the period of the rise to power, but covers the whole Austrian -period. - -The next witness, Erbach, was counsellor at the Embassy in Vienna, that -is, he covers the period 1934 to 1938. - -The Prosecution has always been reluctant to oppose the calling of -secretaries who could assist the memory of the defendant, but it did -seem to us that the witness Tschirschky was cumulative both on the -period of the rise to power and the Austrian period and that it would be -sufficient to have interrogatories in that case. Therefore, the -Prosecution, apart from that, would not object to Von Kageneck and -Erbach. - -THE PRESIDENT: That is, you suggest interrogatories for 2 and calling 3 -and 4? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, interrogatories, and calling of 3 -and 4. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Number 5, the witness Kroll, -the Prosecution submits that he is irrelevant. He is called for the -period when the defendant was an ambassador in Turkey and he allegedly -is able to say that Von Papen had no aggressive thoughts with regard to -Russia. The Prosecution would submit that Von Papen is really the person -who can speak on a matter like that, and the Prosecution has had no -evidence as to any subversive activity of the Nazi Party in Turkey; -which is the other point that this witness is said to speak on. - -Then the next five witnesses, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: The Tribunal granted -interrogatories and, so long as the matter is limited to -interrogatories, the Prosecution will make no objection. - -And Number 11, the Baroness De Nothomb: The Prosecution object to -evidence on acts of intercession on behalf of members of the resistance -movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the opinion of the -Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters before the Court. - -With regard to Archbishop Gröber, if the Tribunal would not mind looking -at Number 12 in the application, in the opinion of the Prosecution the -matters raised by the questions are not relevant. The first is, “Were -the Concordat negotiations between Germany and the Holy See brought -about by Defendant Von Papen’s own initiative?” The second part of this -question is, in short, “Did Von Papen make efforts with Hitler regarding -the conclusion of the Concordat?” Well, the Concordat was made, and what -the Tribunal are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, -of which the Prosecution has given written evidence. - -The second question—I am afraid that I do not understand that, and in -its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to being -vague—“Were the activities of the defendant directed by his positive -religious attitude after the conclusion of the Concordat also?” - -Then the third question: “Was the conclusion of the Concordat welcomed -by the German Episcopate?” I don’t think that really helps. - -And fourth: “Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church during -the latter’s religious struggles?” And, “Could the Church, in the end, -fall back on the Concordat?” - -The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and, as I say, the issue -in this case is the breaches of the Concordat, not its contents. So we -object to Number 12. - -Number 13, the witness Von Beaulieu—that is very short, if the Tribunal -would be good enough to look at it: - - “I shall submit an affidavit of the witness, which deals with - the intervention of the defendant as President of the Union Club - on behalf of Jews.” - -The Prosecution submit that the intervention in a racing club on behalf -of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, even on the -Jewish issue. - -Number 14, the witness Josten—Dr. Kubuschok asks for the use of a -statement which has been sent to the Tribunal. The Prosecution would -prefer that to be in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if this -is possible. - -THE PRESIDENT: That is 14, is it? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 14, My Lord, yes. - -Then 15 is His Majesty, the King of Sweden. That is a new application -and general in its scope. It is difficult to judge how much King Gustav -could contribute, and, therefore, the Prosecution do not object to -interrogatories. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in 14 Dr. Kubuschok says that he requested -that the statement made by the witness to the legal department of the -Military Government headquarters, Düsseldorf, be furnished him. Are you -objecting to that being furnished him? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I thought that he had got it. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: I got it this morning. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Kubuschok says that he received it today, -this morning. - -THE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to his offering it as evidence? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only say that we should prefer it in the -form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if that can be done. I do not -make any great objection. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: In regard to the witnesses I should like to say the -following: Witness Number 1, Baron Lersner—the Tribunal granted only an -interrogatory at first. The prosecutor has today agreed to have the -witness called before this Tribunal. I also ask very urgently that this -witness be questioned before the Tribunal. - -The witness was the president of the German peace delegation at -Versailles. He is a very well known German diplomat, who since 1932 has -worked very closely with the Defendant Von Papen. A man like Lersner -had, of course, a particularly fine understanding for every policy of -aggression. Therefore, it is very important that this co-worker of the -Defendant Von Papen be heard and be allowed to tell us how he has -observed the defendant in his activities up to 1944. It is particularly -important that Lersner, at the instigation of Defendant Von Papen, could -go to Turkey. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, Sir David agreed, I think, with reference -to Number 1. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, if the Tribunal also agrees, then the matter is -taken care of. - -The second witness, Tschirschky—Tschirschky was the private secretary -of the defendant from 1933 to 1935, the first private secretary during -the time that the defendant was Vice Chancellor. He is a man who was -himself persecuted by the Gestapo and had to go into exile in 1935, -where he still is. He is a man who can give exhaustive information on -the whole period from 1933 to 1935 in regard to the external activity of -the defendant and his personal attitude. - -I believe that, especially for the time from the beginning of 1933, we -shall not get a thorough picture if we do not hear this closest -co-worker of the defendant personally. The other witnesses concern -mostly different periods. Only in some cases do they overlap with the -activity of this witness. - -Number 5, Kroll. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Supposing that the Tribunal thought it right to grant you -Number 2 as an oral witness, would it not be possible to dispense with -one of 3 or 4 and have interrogatories from one of them and call the -other one? They deal with somewhat the same period. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: We definitely need 3 for the following reasons: - -Witness Kageneck was present when Hitler entrusted Papen with the -Austrian mission. This is a very important point, since the Prosecution -alleges that he was entrusted with this mission for those purposes of -which he was accused. The witness will testify that Papen accepted the -mission only after a clear guarantee concerning the purpose of the -mission. Furthermore, Count Kageneck was also in Vienna after 1935, that -is to say, from 1935 until the Anschluss, and for this period we should -not have any other witness. Kageneck can also confirm a very important -point, that is, that he was entrusted with taking diplomatic documents -to Switzerland and safeguarding them there, since from these documents -the documentary proof for the activity of the defendant in Vienna could -be deduced. Therefore, in my opinion, the witness Kageneck also cannot -be dispensed with. - -If we can dispense with any witness, it would be witness Number 4, -Erbach, in regard to whom I might then ask for permission to use an -interrogatory, because here, too, questions are to be asked which the -other witnesses cannot answer. - -Witness Number 5, Minister Kroll—Papen is accused of a conspiracy for -aggressive war. The Indictment is not limited in respect to time. For -the largest part of the time in question, namely 1938 to 1944, Papen was -in a position which would have been particularly designed for an -activity directed at undermining the peace. Turkey was for a long time -an important pillar in military and, therefore, political -considerations. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest whether Papen -used his position for any activity in the nature of such a conspiracy. - -Moreover, I should like to bring proof of the opposite. The fact was -that his activity was directed at preserving the peace and that he was, -in particular, against any extension of the war by means of military -measures against Russia, and was against every political measure for the -destruction of the relations between Turkey and the Allied Powers. - -The witness was, during the Turkish period, the closest co-worker of the -defendant. He is, therefore, in a position to give us information about -the entire period. - -Baroness De Nothomb—I have asked in this case to be permitted to -present an affidavit or interrogatory. I want. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you dealing with? - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11. - -THE PRESIDENT: You are not dealing with 6 to 10? - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we are in agreement about 6 to 10. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well, 11. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11, Baroness De Nothomb—in this case I asked for -an interrogatory or for permission to submit an affidavit. The subject -of the evidence is: - -During the years 1940 to 1944 the defendant continuously supported the -witness in her intervention on behalf of persecuted members of the -French resistance movement. I want thereby to prove that the Defendant -Von Papen shows again, in this case, that he was greatly interested in a -peaceful shaping of German-French relations, and that during the war he -always had in mind the postwar time, when the poison should be removed -from these relations. The intervention on the part of the defendant was -also a result of general humanitarian considerations. This is not -without considerable importance in connection with the charge of -conspiratorial activity. - -Number 12, Archbishop Gröber—the Indictment asserts that the Defendant -Von Papen used his position as a prominent German Catholic for a dirty -business of deception, and that the conclusion of the Concordat, as -such, was effected in the course of a policy directed against the -Church; that the conclusion of the Concordat was not intended seriously, -as one could see from the later violations of the Concordat. Archbishop -Gröber was, at the time of negotiations concerning the Concordat, at the -Holy See. He was present during all the negotiations. He knows that the -initiative for starting negotiations came from Von Papen himself, who -did not get Hitler’s approval until later. He knows that the draft which -had been made by Von Papen for the Concordat was strongly disapproved by -Hitler and that Papen was able to advance this draft only after long -struggles. The witness knows the Defendant Von Papen very well. He also -knows from what inner stand toward the Catholic question the defendant -approached the matter of the conclusion of the Concordat. As an -influential dignitary of the Church he can also judge the consequences -of the Concordat. He is in a position to judge that the contents of the -Concordat at a later time also were still a protection for Church -interests; and from his knowledge of the personal relations of the -defendant and all the relations of the Church in Germany, he can testify -as to whether the defendant had anything at all to do with the -violations of the Concordat. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness Number 2 deal with the same -subject? Where you say in your discussion of the subject of the -evidence, that witness Number 2 accompanied the defendant to Rome to -conclude the Concordat—can he testify that against Hitler’s strong -opposition he succeeded, at the last minute, in concluding the -Concordat? At that time was the witness present at all the speeches? - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into the -negotiations concerning the Concordat by the defendant. It is very -important, in my opinion, to examine also a witness who was present at -the negotiations as representing the other side. In particular, this -witness, Archbishop Gröber, could also express an opinion in regard to -the later period, the violations of the Concordat. He can judge the -entire situation from the point of the Church better than can the -private secretary Tschirschky. He can also give an essentially more -reliable picture of Von Papen’s personality, which in this matter is -very closely connected with his political activity. I have been very -modest in my requests; but I should like to ask urgently, in this case, -that an interrogatory or an affidavit by Archbishop Gröber be granted, -for it is indeed clear that the accusation that a prominent German -Catholic uses his position for evil purposes of deception is a very -serious one, and the defendant also is very greatly interested in having -this question clarified, within the framework of the Indictment and also -beyond that. - -Witness Number 13—an affidavit of Herr Von Beaulieu, who shall testify -that the defendant, in his position as president of a very large and -prominent German organization, intervened until the very end for the -non-Aryan members, as this term was used at that time. Everything which -is of importance in judging the Papen case lies, for the most part, in -the sphere of the subjective. We will see very few actual actions in the -Papen case. The accusations are, for the most part, based on the fact -that he was present. It is, therefore, relatively difficult to bring -proof and therefore the counterevidence must to a large extent be -subjective in nature. To judge a person’s character in its entirety, it -is not unimportant to know what, for instance, his attitude was in 1938 -toward the question of the treatment of Jews, for, if Papen here -definitely deviated from a general line followed by Hitler and the -Nazis, one will certainly be able to draw a conclusion as to whether he -was really the faithful follower of Hitler which the Indictment tries to -picture him. - -Witness Number 14—I received the statement today. I have not yet had -time to look through it. I shall submit either the statement or an -affidavit which I shall try to get. - -Number 15—a questioning of His Majesty King Gustav of Sweden, to be -conducted in every way possible. This is a very important question. It -touches a major point of the Defense, namely, in how far it was possible -for a person not entangled in the ideas of Nazism to collaborate to a -certain extent. To what extent could he hope, by his personal activity, -to change things or at least to modify them? If, on the basis of the -evidence submitted, we prove that Von Papen not only exhausted his means -to serve this end within Germany, but also, beyond this, used his -foreign political connections for this purpose, then this should, I -believe, round out the picture of the character of the defendant in an -important way. This strong activity in the interest of peace is such -that, in my opinion, simply on the basis of such activities, the -absolute falsehood and untenability of that charge of the Indictment -that the defendant at any time could have approved of the aims of an -aggressive policy within the framework of a conspiracy becomes apparent. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the -documents, Numbers 1 to 8, the Prosecution asks Dr. Kubuschok to submit -the extracts, and then we can consider the relevancy at that time. I -think that Dr. Kubuschok has Number 9. - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have in my possession only the photostat which I -received from the Prosecution. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry. I should have said he had a -photostatic copy, but the Prosecution have certified the photostat. The -original is not obtainable at present. If it comes into our possession -we shall let Dr. Kubuschok see it. - -The third point is that Dr. Kubuschok says that he may have to make a -supplementary application after Herr Von Papen, Jr. returns. That is, of -course, a matter for him and the Tribunal. The Prosecution make no -objection. - -THE PRESIDENT: With reference to 1 to 8, has Dr. Kubuschok got the -books? - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then he will be prepared to specify what parts -of them. . . - -DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Sir; yes, indeed. I should merely like to add one -point to the list. Yesterday I received from the Prosecution a further -report to Hitler by Von Papen at the time of his activity in -Vienna—Number 9, also a report to Hitler. I have also received it in -the form of a photostat. I shall also submit this report for purposes of -evidence. - -THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May we state our position? - -May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this defendant, the position -as to the first four witnesses is that they deal with the Austrian part -of the case. On the 2d of December the Tribunal allowed this defendant a -choice of four out of nine. He has chosen Glaise-Horstenau, who was a -minister in the Austrian Government; Guido Schmidt, who was the Foreign -Minister at the time of the Schuschnigg-Hitler-Ribbentrop interview; -Skubl, who was the Police President and State Secretary for Security in -Vienna; and Rainer, who is a well-known Nazi and who was afterwards -Gauleiter of Carinthia. - -The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses. - -Then we come to the Holland period, and the Prosecution have no -objection to Wimmer and Schwebel, but they do object to Bolle’s being -called as an oral witness. The position is that he was refused by the -Tribunal on the 26th of January. After the refusal interrogatories were -submitted, but these seem to be almost entirely covered by the -interrogatories administered to the witness Von der Wense, who is the -second under the heading of affidavits. I think out of the 20 questions -suggested for Bolle, there are only two that are not covered by Von der -Wense, which are Numbers 17 and 18, and two others which seem to deal -with very obvious points. So that is the objection with regard to Bolle, -and the Prosecution submit that he would really be cumulative and is -unnecessary. They make no objection to Fischböck, who speaks on the -Jews, financial administration, art treasures, and forced labor. They -make no objection to Hirschfeld, who speaks about confiscations and -destruction of factories and the food situation. So, on the oral -witnesses, the only objection is regarding Bolle. - -With regard to the affidavits there is no objection—or rather, they -should be interrogatories. They were all granted by the Tribunal on the -26th of January, and under these circumstances the Prosecution make no -objection to them. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Steinbauer. - -DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Mr. -President, Your Honors, my client, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, had at first asked -for a large number of witnesses and then, at my advice, and according to -the desire of the Tribunal, reduced this number considerably. - -I ask that the witness, construction supervisor Bolle, be admitted -before the Tribunal because in my opinion the objection made by the -Prosecution, that this is a cumulative witness, is not quite correct. -Bolle was, before the occupation, Director of the Port of Hamburg, and -then during all the years of the occupation he was director of the -transportation department in Holland. - -In particular he can testify about the railroad and shipping strike in -October 1944. This chapter of the history of the occupation is -extraordinarily important, because this strike resulted in a blocking of -traffic which led to an embargo. The Indictment asserts, moreover, that -the causes of the later famine catastrophe in Holland, as we may call -it, can in part be traced back to measures which the Defendant -Seyss-Inquart took in October 1944. Quite understandably, the Armed -Forces wanted to use the few means of transportation which were still -functioning, for their own purposes. The very examination of the witness -Bolle should prove, however, that Seyss-Inquart endeavored, insofar as -possible, to mitigate the effects of the measures taken by the Wehrmacht -in this matter. In an interrogatory this complex of questions could not -be treated exhaustively. - -I ask you, Gentlemen, to realize that we are dealing here with the -examination of the administration of a kingdom of 9 million within a -period of 5 years. If we read through the report submitted by the Dutch -Delegation we see, in regard to the financial consequences, alone, that -it is alleged that the damage, which had been brought about by the -administration on the one hand and by the events of war on the other -hand, in short, by the occupation of Holland by Germany, reaches a -figure of 25,725,000,000 Dutch guilders, to which, considering the -difference in prices between 1938 and now, we have to add a margin of -175 percent. - -I wish to point out that we are dealing here with the examination of -administrative, legal, financial, and economic measures over a period of -5 years. I therefore believe that the request of the defendant that this -witness be admitted is quite justified. - -Concerning the affidavits, I took the liberty of making two more -applications which have not yet been granted. This is on the last page, -a very short affidavit by Baron Lindhorst-Hormann. He was formerly -Commissioner of the Province of Groningen and should in particular be -examined in regard to one point, in regard to the treatment of the -so-called hostages in the hostage camp, and also in regard to the fact -that none of these hostages was shot. - -In addition to getting this affidavit, I have also asked that some -official announcements be obtained, announcements by the Higher Police -and SS Leader Rauter regarding the executions in order to prove who had -done these things, that is, that the point of view of the defendant is -that these regrettable measures were taken by the police and not by the -civil administration. - -I also intend to submit two affidavits which are already in my -possession. One of them is an affidavit by a German judge, -Kammergerichtsrat Rudolf Fritsch. In Seyss-Inquart’s administration in -Holland he was in charge of appeals. He can tell us how Seyss-Inquart -handled this important chapter of jurisdiction. - -Another affidavit which I have in my possession comes from a Dr. Walter -Stricker. It is cited as Document Number 30. Dr. Walter Stricker was a -lawyer in Vienna and emigrated in 1938 to Australia. He served in the -Australian Army and, without my asking, he sent me an affidavit, -notarized by an Australian notary public, in which he testifies about -conditions in Vienna in the critical days of October and November 1938. -I ask also that this affidavit be admitted. As to the documents, as I -have already told Sir David, I shall submit an exact list. - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment, before you deal with that. Sir David said -that with reference to the affidavits, which are mentioned on Page 2, -that these ought to be called interrogatories. I do not know whether you -wish to ask particularly for affidavits, which are different from -interrogatories. - -DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: You want affidavits? - -DR. STEINBAUER: Interrogatories, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would there be any objection to the affidavit from the -lawyer in Australia being shown to the Prosecution, so that they may see -whether they wish to put cross-interrogatories to that witness? -Australia is too far away from here for him to be brought here for -cross-examination. - -DR. STEINBAUER: Certainly. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have just been handed that affidavit from the -witness Stricker and also Number 6, on the Dutch questions, from Judge -Fritsch; and if the same course could be taken with regard to that from -Baron Lindhorst-Hormann, I shall be ready then to consider that, too. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the rest of the documents in the -usual course, I ask that the Defense make extracts and show them to us. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one point I call to the attention of -the Tribunal. It may be helpful that Number 28, Document Number D-571, -is already in as Exhibit Number USA-112. I do not know if the Defense -really wants Number 3. I shall not deal with it now, but the Prosecution -will submit that it is really unnecessary and irrelevant, but I think -that is a matter that we can more conveniently discuss when it comes up. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then with reference to Number 2, under the heading -concerning the Dutch question, will it be satisfactory if that is in the -form of an affidavit and is submitted to you, so that you can put -cross-interrogatories if you want to? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be very satisfactory. - -THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, have you got the affidavit mentioned in -Paragraph 2 of the last heading? - -DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; I have not received it yet. But I have -requested that the Tribunal question the witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Could the interrogatories be in a more convenient form? - -DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not trouble you further about the documents. - -DR. STEINBAUER: I have only the request that, if possible, two books, -which are not in my possession, be obtained: Document Number 8, Guido -Zernatto, _The Truth about Austria_, and Number 9, the book _A Pact with -Hitler—The Austria Drama_ by Martin Fuchs. I was told by Austrian -people that both these books contain worthwhile information on -clarifying the events in 1937 and 1938. Both books were, of course, -prohibited in Austria during the Nazi regime and therefore I cannot get -them. - -The second book is also on the list presented by the French Prosecution, -and from this I have learned that the book appeared in the publishing -firm of Plon in Paris. Perhaps it is possible, with the assistance of -the Prosecution, to get these books in time. All other documents I have -in my possession. - -THE PRESIDENT: Did you say Number 2? You said 8 and 9, but did you also -say Number 2? - -DR. STEINBAUER: Number 2, _Three Times Austria_, by Schuschnigg. - -THE PRESIDENT: I thought you mentioned the third book. You said you have -not got Numbers 8 and 9 and I thought you went on to mention a third -one. - -DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; only these two books. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then, no doubt, the Prosecution will help you -to get them. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make inquiries, My Lord, and we will -communicate with them. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Speer -has asked for 22 witnesses, who are all to answer in writing. There are -no oral witnesses. And he asked for 41 documents. He has also asked that -the Court appoint a panel of experts to interrogate a number of -witnesses on what are termed “economic questions.” Now, I think it would -be convenient if I summarize in four sentences the points of defense -that appear on Page 26 and the following pages of the application, -because if the Tribunal have these in mind it will make consideration of -the witnesses easier. - -There are four points. Number 1 is to show the responsibility of Speer. -The Defendant Speer says that he was not responsible for the -mobilization, allocation, or treatment of labor. The second point is to -prove that his functions were merely technical and not political. The -third point, to prove his actions to stop the importing of foreign labor -and the treatment of concentration camp labor in the armament factories, -which were his concern. The fourth point is his efforts, at the end of -the war, to stop destruction in Germany and so to benefit the Allies and -Germany after the war. - -Now, of the witnesses, the following are from his own ministry, Numbers -1 to 6, 8, 10, and 12. The Prosecution submit that nine is rather a -large number dealing with the position of the ministry. They are -cumulative on many points and we should suggest that, if counsel would -pick three, that that would cover that part of the case. - -Now, the following witnesses, Numbers 15 to 21, are designed to show the -attitude of the defendant at the end of war. There are a number of -documents on this point, and again the Prosecution submit that that -number of witnesses could be cut down to two or three. - -Now, dealing with the remaining witnesses, Number 7, Field Marshal -Milch, has already been allowed to Defendant Göring, so that point does -not arise. - -And Number 9, Dr. Malzacher, although not a member of the defendant’s -ministry, was in charge of armaments in the southeast, and would appear -to be cumulative as to the members of the ministry. - -Number 11 is the liaison officer between the ministry and the OKW and -also appears cumulative, unless counsel could indicate any special point -that escaped the Prosecution. - -Number 13 is really cumulative of Number 12, speaking on a point on -which Frau Kempf can speak. - -Number 14 is the defendant’s doctor, to speak on a period of illness. -Again, unless there is some point that the Prosecution have not -appreciated, they would have thought that the defendant and his -secretary could speak on a period of illness. - -Finally, Number 22, Gottlob Berger, is designated to inform the Tribunal -of Hitler’s general views on the situation at the end of April 1945, and -would appear to be irrelevant. I think the only point that is made is to -show that this had some effect on the radio speech which this defendant -wanted to make. These are the views of the Prosecution as to the -witnesses. With regard to the panel of experts, the Prosecution -respectfully say that these matters of supply labor and armaments are -matters which are very generally familiar now and on which a great deal -of evidence has been given, and that they are essentially matters which -can be dealt with by the Tribunal which will decide other questions of -fact. They are not really sufficiently specialist matters to merit the -Tribunal’s setting up a special panel to deal with them. These are the -views of the Prosecution on the question of witnesses. - -THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flächsner. - -DR. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): May I start, Mr. -President, with the last point which the prosecutor has mentioned, -namely, the question of whether the case of the Defendant Speer might -justify having his sphere of activity explained and interpreted to the -Court by an expert. The prosecutor is of the opinion that the evidence -presented so far is sufficient to inform the Tribunal about the manner -of work, the course of work, and its consequences in regard to those -questions, which came under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Speer. - -I regret to have to say, however, that the description which the -Prosecution has given of the activity of the Defendant Speer up till now -is not correct, that is to say, not complete. - -It is very difficult to take account of a ministry and its manner of -work, which in normal times has no place in the state administration. In -all states at war the ministries of armament and production are created -during the war. The sphere of activities of these ministries is -determined from time to time; and that also applies to the ministry -which the Defendant Speer headed. - -Not only the ministry of the Defendant Speer, but especially other -authorities within the state administration were concerned with that -question, which the Prosecution has brought to the notice of the -Tribunal; and the authorities overlapped each other in regard to -jurisdiction. Many times the jurisdiction of a single authority could -not be determined, so that from time to time a solution would have to be -found. These are all questions of importance, if the Tribunal is to -judge to what extent this or that accusation of the Prosecution, -especially concerning the employment of foreign workers, is well -founded. In addition we have to consider that that defendant originally -involved in this complex of economic questions, who could have helped -very much to clear up the question of jurisdiction—the Defendant Ley, -who, as head of the German Labor Front, played an important role in the -question of labor employment, that is, the taking care of the laborers -utilized—that this Defendant Ley is no longer here. The question of the -use of foreign labor, of which the Defendant Speer is in the main -accused by the Prosecution, must be discussed further. For this reason I -requested that an expert be allowed to clear up these purely technical -questions of the labor employment as a help to the Tribunal. - -The selection of such an expert is not easy. I proposed that one of the -gentlemen who work in the economic branch in Washington might have -examined the question of Speer’s ministry; and might appear as an expert -before this Tribunal. I was told this office does not exist any more and -the persons of whom the Defendant Speer had the impression, at the -occasion of an interrogation, that they really understood the situation, -are no longer available. But, there is still an Allied authority here, -which is concerned with, in all probability, economic questions; and -perhaps it would be possible to select a suitable person within the -circle of gentlemen who are working there, who would be in a position to -clear up these questions for the benefit of the Tribunal. - -I turn now to the question of witnesses. First of all I have to correct -a wrong impression which may have been formed by the Prosecution. If it -is said that witnesses 1 to 5—no, 1 to 6, 8 and 10 and 12. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: If you are leaving now the question of the panel of -experts, this would be a convenient time to break off for the recess. - - [_A recess was taken._] - -DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I am now turning to the question of -witnesses and should like to make a general remark before I start. - -The evidence to be offered by the witnesses, as I have already requested -in writing, is somewhat more extensive for this reason, that those very -witnesses who would have had the most comprehensive knowledge cannot be -called. Those are the former Army chiefs of armaments, General Fromm, -and Schieber, who for many years was the chief of the central office in -Speer’s ministry. The names which I have included in my list are, in -part, men who only later were called to these tasks. Witness Hupfauer, -for instance, who is listed as Number 1, was active in this function -only from 1 January 1945 on—that is barely 4 months—as chief of the -central office, an office formerly held by the previously mentioned -Schieber. - -I know very well that if I mention a number of witnesses who were -employed in Speer’s ministry the appearance is thereby created that -these witnesses might be cumulative because they are questioned in -regard to the same points. In reality that is not the case. Indeed, -although the witnesses concerned were active in Speer’s ministry, they -were not active as routine officials, that is, as professional civil -servants in an office. - -Speer’s ministry as a war institution was organized along lines entirely -different from those of a regular ministry. Main functions were -delegated to industrialists, who took care of them in a suboffice. -Rohland, witness Number 2, was, for instance, by profession a director -of the United Steel Works; witness Number 4 was director of the Zellwell -A.G.; witness Number 6, a manufacturer and owner of a textile factory; -witness Number 9, the director of the Upper Silesian mining works and of -Hütten A.G. In addition to these functions they had special functions in -Speer’s ministry. Therefore they can testify only on a small section, -namely, those functions delegated to them. Therefore I cannot follow the -suggestion of the Prosecution, that only two of these gentlemen be -selected by me. - -I do not know just how far each of these gentlemen is informed on the -questions which I shall submit to him. I am not in the fortunate -position of the Prosecution, who can question their witnesses in advance -and find out what they know. I must rely on an interrogatory and can -only surmise that they are in a position to answer the questions -submitted to them. If I were to follow the suggestion of the Prosecution -and select only two or three of these gentlemen, it may very well happen -that I should select exactly the wrong people, those who do not know -anything. Therefore I cannot say that I could dispense with any one of -these witnesses who are to be here on the main question in the case -against Defendant Speer, namely, the employment of foreign laborers. - -In the list of witnesses I mentioned briefly the particulars about which -these witnesses are to be heard. I believe that it is unnecessary for me -to make further explanations in that regard; I believe my reasons are -self-explanatory. - -Now I am turning to the question of witness Number 7. This witness has -already been granted me. I do not believe that further explanations in -regard to this are necessary. - -As far as Malzacher, witness Number 9, is concerned, the Prosecution -asserts that this witness would be cumulative of witness Number 1. But -that is not so. The vital question which is to be put to this witness is -the question as to how the distribution of manpower to the various -industries was made by the labor office. The second question is, whether -and to what extent the offices of Speer’s ministry and the industries -had the opportunity of influencing the distribution of available -manpower. This witness is of decisive importance in regard to this -question. I have further questions to put to this witness and I should -include in the interrogatory these questions which refer in particular -to destruction, _et cetera_. - -I wanted my list to be as concise as possible and therefore mentioned -only the main points. I therefore request that this witness be admitted, -since I shall make use of the interrogatory only insofar as the -witnesses can state therein something which is really relevant. If an -interrogatory comes back to me which does not contain relevant material, -I shall, of course, refrain from abusing the time and the patience of -the Tribunal by not presenting that interrogatory. - -The Prosecution is of the opinion that witnesses 12 and 13 are -cumulative. That is not correct. Perhaps I expressed myself too -concisely in regard to the facts on which these witnesses are to -testify. - -The Prosecution have, only incidentally to be sure, produced a document, -3568-PS, which contained an interrogatory which gave information -regarding Speer’s membership in the SS. This document did not, according -to the Defendant Speer, come from him, and therefore I name his -secretary as a witness to this fact; that is, she should receive an -interrogatory. - -Witness 13 is to testify on an entirely different matter. The -Reichsführer SS Himmler had the intention of making Speer an SS man and -of taking him into his personal staff. Witness Wolff had received from -Himmler the official statement, which he was to hand to Speer. And Wolff -is to testify that this statement was never forwarded to Speer, for -which reason there is no question of Speer’s membership in the SS. - -Even if, in respect to the charge in the Indictment, this is a very -minor point, it must nevertheless be considered, since Document 3568-PS -has been submitted by the Prosecution and used as evidence for their -case. - -I agree with the Prosecution that questioning of witness Number 22 can -be dispensed with and I can do so. - -As far as the questioning of the other witnesses is concerned, I ask to -be allowed to use interrogatories. - -THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what you have to say about 14? Surely the -secretary can speak as to the fact that the defendant was ill in the -spring of 1944? - -DR. FLÄCHSNER: Yes, Mr. President; I did not include this question in -the interrogatory but I can add it, and we can dispense with witness 14. - -THE PRESIDENT: Would it, do you think, Sir David, expedite matters or -help the defendant’s counsel if he were to be allowed to issue all these -interrogatories and then were to consider them with you and see what was -then cumulative? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I should be quite prepared to do that. They -are all witnesses who are giving their evidence in writing so that I -shall be quite prepared to. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that aspect of the -matter. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal saw fit I should be very happy -to co-operate. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then you can now deal with the documents, Dr. Flächsner, -or Sir David will. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents 1 to 8 deal with the -Defendant Speer’s being against the importation into Germany of foreign -labor and they seem relevant, apart from Number 1, which seems rather a -_non sequitur_, for the amount used in the armament industry does not -seem to have any connection, as far as we can see, with the -Prisoner-of-War Convention, 1929. And Number 6, as to the calling up of -women in Germany, seems rather remote. But perhaps these matters can be -more conveniently dealt with when counsel seeks to introduce the -documents. - -Numbers 9 to 13 show the general attitude of the Defendant Speer to the -treatment of foreign workers and therefore appear relevant. Number 14 -deals with the point on which I think it is desired also to have -evidence from the witness Milch. - -Numbers 15 to 18 are reports showing the hopelessness of the economic -situation in Germany from June 1944 onwards. The Prosecution makes no -objection at the moment. Of course, all these matters will have to be -considered when the document is used. And Numbers 19 to 41 all deal with -the efforts of the Defendant Speer to prevent destruction of bridges and -railways and water transport undertakings and the like, during the last -few weeks of the war. They might have a bearing on the sentence and -therefore the Prosecution make no objection. - -Perhaps learned counsel will set out the quotations which he wants -admitted in that regard. It is not a matter on which the Prosecution -have called any contrary evidence and therefore, if counsel will -indicate what the matters are that he wants submitted, it may be that we -shall be able to agree and shorten the presentation. - -With regard to Documents 38 to 41, these are said to be in the -possession of the French Delegation. They are not in the possession of -the French Delegation at the moment, but they have asked for them to be -sent here. - -I think that covers our position as to documents. - -DR. FLÄCHSNER: I should like to comment briefly on one factor. Document -Number 1 is of value only if the Tribunal decides to call an expert on -the general themes which I described to the Tribunal before the recess. - -An expert—for practical purposes an industrial expert—can draw from -the old distribution plan conclusions which the jurist is generally not -in a position to draw. If the expert is considered superfluous by the -Tribunal, then Document Number 1 is also superfluous—that I see. - -The other documents requested by me are of importance, but not because, -as the Prosecution seem to assume, I am trying to produce evidence of -the fact that we did not want any foreign laborers; this should not be -expressed so pointedly. - -The Defendant Speer had the task of producing armaments and needed -workers for that. Nothing is farther from his intentions than, in any -way, to deny or lessen his responsibility in respect to that. But what I -have to consider important—and for this purpose these documents, which -I am requesting, are essential—is the task of defining the extent to -which the defendant is responsible. - -I believe that this explains the question of documents. - -THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite clear as to whether you are suggesting -that the Tribunal should call the panel of experts or whether you would -like to designate the persons who would form that panel. - -DR. FLÄCHSNER: The selection of experts I wish to place in the hands of -the Tribunal. At the moment I myself should not have the opportunity of -finding a suitable person. I am fully aware, though, that in the -department of economic warfare there were persons who would be very -suitable as experts and who have the knowledge which is necessary in the -judgment of these questions. - -THE PRESIDENT: Then, supposing that the Tribunal were not to accept your -contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there is nobody whom you -wish to add to your list of interrogatories? - -DR. FLÄCHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President. I have only one more -request. This expert should voice an opinion as to whether the figures -given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit—Document Number 2520-PS—would -stand up under close examination. In this affidavit Mr. Deuss stated -statistically how many of all the workers employed in Germany were -foreign workers in the armament industry, _et cetera_. - -Important technical objections can be raised to the method of figuring -used by Mr. Deuss. If the Tribunal is not to grant the use of an expert -in this matter, I wish to ask for permission to submit certain questions -to Mr. Deuss, in the form of an interrogatory, naturally, in order to -give him the opportunity of checking his figures. - -The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained therein -were considered relevant by the Prosecution at the time; I assume that -the objections made to Mr. Deuss’ figures will also be considered -relevant. I should then have to ask permission to call Mr. Deuss’ -attention, by means of an interrogatory, to these points which in my -opinion are technically incorrect. - -THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. - -COL. POKROVSKY: Please forgive me. I have not had the time to exchange -opinions on the subject with my friend, Sir David, and my other -colleagues. Therefore, at the present time, I am merely expressing the -point of view of the Soviet Delegation on the subject of experts. - -I do not consider that the appointment of a board of experts would be a -method of solving the problem which could be recognized as correct. We -would object to the introduction of experts for the clarification of the -circumstances interesting the Defendant Speer and his counsel, as set -forth in the document submitted by them. We do not consider it right -that a question like the procedure governing the request for manpower -for Speer’s ministry, and the ratification of this request by Sauckel, -as well as the allocation of workers by the competent local labor -offices should call for the findings of a board of experts. We do not -consider it right that questions of technical productions, as emanating -from Speer’s ministry, should call for expert opinion. - -I could say as much with regard to all the subsequent points. We are -inclined to defend the point of view that all these problems can be -adequately elucidated by the high Tribunal, and this without the -intervention of experts. Therefore the Soviet Prosecution objects to the -granting of this claim and requests the Tribunal to reject the -application for a board of experts. - -THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Von Neurath. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the -witnesses of the Defendant Von Neurath, the Prosecution makes no -objection to Number 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director of the political -division in the Foreign Office. - -Then, Number 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been granted -for the Defendant Ribbentrop. - -With regard to the third, Dr. Dieckhoff, the Tribunal granted this -witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered -the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests that it -might be covered by interrogatories. - -DR. OTTO FREIHERR VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant Von Neurath): -Mr. President, I agree, and I have already worked out an interrogatory -which will be submitted to the General Secretary today; but I wish to -reserve the right of asking under certain circumstances that, when the -interrogatory is returned to me, the witness nevertheless be heard in -person before the Tribunal. In principle I agree, however, to his being -heard by means of an interrogatory. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. And the same view is taken by the -Prosecution of Number 4, the witness Prüfer; again it seemed to be -largely a historical matter and they suggested an interrogatory. There -is no objection to the evidence of the witness being brought before the -Court. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been submitted by -me to the General Secretary several weeks ago. I assume that it will be -returned to me, answered, within a reasonable period of time. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Number 5 is Count Schwerin von Krosigk, -who was Finance Minister for a long period of years in the Government of -the Reich. If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the -application which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen has put in: He says this witness -is most accurately informed about the personality of the defendant, his -political viewpoints as well as the basic thoughts and aims of the -policy of peace carried on by the defendant, and his avoidance of all -use of force as well as his endeavors for the maintenance of peace, even -after being Foreign Minister, and about his opinion of National -Socialism and about the happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January -1937. - -The Prosecution felt that these matters were really emphasizing points -that the defendant would speak on, and that it was difficult to see that -Count Schwerin von Krosigk was being asked to speak on any particular -point that was an issue. Therefore, again, they would suggest that an -interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of the defense. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory will serve -the purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several sectors of the -activity of the Defendant Von Neurath are dealt with, in regard to which -the witness is to give us information. - -For instance, the Indictment asserts that Defendant Von Neurath acted as -a sort of Fifth Column in the ranks of the conservative, that is, the -German National Party. In regard to the fact that this is not true, the -witness named by me, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, can give extensive -information; and I attach importance to having this take place before -the Tribunal in such a way that the Tribunal may have an idea also of -the atmosphere in the ranks of the parties of the Right at the time -these things took place. - -A further subject for his hearing is the question of the outstanding -manner in which the Defendant Von Neurath intervened, although he was no -longer Foreign Minister at the time, in order to bring about the -conference at Munich in September 1938, and the measure in which he had -an effect on the outcome of this conference which, at that time, was -generally considered a happy one. - -I should consider the summoning before the Tribunal of this witness, who -is present in Nuremberg, and who will therefore not have to be brought -from another city, important. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not desire to say anything more on that -point. - -Then, Field Marshal Von Blomberg is, we understand, ill, and there will -be an interrogatory. - -Number 7, Dr. Guido Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt with this -morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart. He is an Austrian ex-Foreign -Minister. I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart and I make no -objection now, of course. - -Lord Halifax has been the subject of interrogatories. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The interrogatory has already been sent to Lord -Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czechoslovakian -Ambassador in Berlin, came into the case in that the Prosecution put in -a letter from Jan Masaryk describing a visit of Dr. Mastny to the -Defendant Von Neurath. Of course, if there is any issue as to that -report—its not being true—then there would be some reason for calling -him as a witness; but if it is merely a question of clarifying it, I -should believe an interrogatory would be sufficient. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this case. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next witness, Dr. -Stroelin—if the Tribunal would consider that along with Number 12, Dr. -Wurm—I understand that the Tribunal granted Number 12 on the 19th of -December as an alternative to Stroelin, giving the choice between the -witness Stroelin and the witness Wurm. Dr. Stroelin is Oberbürgermeister -of Stuttgart. I do not know if Dr. Seidl can tell the Tribunal if it is -the same Dr. Stroelin he desires in the case of Hess. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen tells me that he is, so the -Tribunal might note that point—that that witness will also be asked for -by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess—and therefore I should suggest that we -might leave that undecided for the moment. If the Tribunal grant it in -the case of Hess, of course, Dr. Von Lüdinghausen will automatically -have the advantage of this witness; and if he is not granted—and I do -not know whether Dr. Von Lüdinghausen feels strongly about his personal -presence—I am not the Court—I do not feel very strongly on the point -myself. Do you want to be heard? - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make this decision at -that time when the question is settled as to whether the witness is -granted to another defendant or not. I should like to make the following -remark. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Which witness? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 10, Dr. Stroelin. - -THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you require Dr. Wurm -at all, Number 12? - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I do not insist on Dr. Wurm’s being -heard in person at Nuremberg. Bishop Wurm has already told me that he -would give me the information requested in the form of an affidavit. I -should ask for permission to submit this affidavit to the Tribunal. I do -not insist on his being heard in person. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely cumulative, Number 10, but if it is -felt that an affidavit would help—it will be along the same lines—I -shall not press an objection. - -Now, Number 11. The Prosecution felt, with regard to the witness -Zimmermann, that he was really speaking on the contents of the -defendant’s mind. If I might read the first five lines: - - “The witness is in a position to give information about the - personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant, - as well as about the fact that he entered the Cabinet only at - the express request of the Reich President Von Hindenburg, and - that he remained in the Cabinet after the latter’s death because - he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent of any policy - pointing toward force or war, and that because of this reason he - handed in his resignation as Reich Foreign Minister soon after 5 - November 1937; also about the reasons because of which he - declared himself ready to take over the office of Reich - Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.” - -It would appear that these are all matters which Dr. Zimmermann has -heard from the defendant. I do not really think it helps the defendant’s -case any further. The Prosecution therefore felt that that witness was -irrelevant. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I should like to request that he be heard here. -The witness has been a very intimate friend of Defendant Von Neurath for -many, many years. The defendant considered him somewhat as a father -confessor and informed him of everything which oppressed him. From this -information the witness has a very clear impression of events and -happenings. Thus this lawyer, Dr. Zimmermann, is very closely informed -about the incidents that took place in September 1932, when Von Neurath -entered the newly-formed Cabinet of Von Papen upon the express desire of -the then Reich President Von Hindenburg. The witness is informed of the -fact that Defendant Von Neurath did not wish to accept the call, and -that it took very earnest persuasion on the part of the Reich President -Von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal duty, before the -defendant could be moved to assume the office of Reich Foreign Minister. -This witness also knows the motives because of which the defendant after -the death of the Reich President considered it his duty, in response to -a wish expressed previously by the Reich President, to remain in office, -and in that way to fulfill the wishes of the Reich President. - -He also knows very well what a really devastating effect it had on Von -Neurath when, on 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time came to the -fore with martial intent. Witness Zimmermann also knows very exactly the -reasons which moved the defendant after very long deliberation to assume -the office of Reich Protector. The witness also is very well informed -not only about the difficulties confronting the position of Reich -Protector, but also about the attitude of the defendant to the problems -in the Reich Protectorate. These matters are all of decisive importance -so far as a judgment of the defendant is concerned, and I do not believe -that even an affidavit or minutes of interrogation which has been worked -out with the greatest care can have the same weight as a personal -hearing of the witness. For these reasons I request that this witness, -who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come here -from Berlin, be granted me. We do not have to find him; he is a -practicing lawyer and notary in Berlin. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not wish to add to that. That leaves one -point, My Lord, the two witnesses, 13 and 14. The first one, Dr. -Völkers, was the chief of the Cabinet of Defendant Von Neurath in -Prague. He has not been located. The second, Von Holleben, was. . . - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment camp at -Neumünster, and I indicated the exact address. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of the Prosecution -is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that it would be -unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Völkers is available. That -is my point. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I ask you to consent to witness -Consul Von Holleben’s being heard by means of an interrogatory. - -THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to 1; we will adjourn until 2. - - [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._] - - - _Afternoon Session_ - -THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will finish the -applications for witnesses and documents before the end of the sitting -today, but they do not propose to go on with the case against the -Defendant Göring until tomorrow. They will take that case at 10 o’clock -tomorrow morning. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the -documents applied for by the Defendant Von Neurath, Paragraph 1 requires -no comment. - -Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen has in his -possession. If they are treated in the usual way and extracts are made, -I have nothing further to say. - -Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession. Number 1 -and Number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference in 1932 and in -May 1933 respectively. I am afraid I do not know what the difficulty has -been in obtaining those documents, and if there is any way in which the -Prosecution can help, they will. - -DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Concerning Document Number 1 I was able to find, -in the meantime, in one of the documents which referred to the -Disarmament Conference, a copy of this document which is important for -me, namely, the resolution about Germany’s equality of rights. If the -document which I have asked for is not here in time, I am nevertheless -in the position of having to submit an excerpt from this German book. -However, that does not apply to Number 4, and I should like to be able -to get that. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for the interrogation of -Karl Hermann Frank. - -The ruling of the Tribunal was that only the portions of interrogations -of defendants used by the Prosecution might be re-used. If any portions -of this interrogation were used by the Soviet Prosecution, and I -confess. . . - -THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please, Sir David. As I understood you, you -did not state our ruling quite accurately. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the Prosecution put in any -part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the defendants would have -the opportunity of using any other part of the interrogation, treating -the interrogation as one document. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your Lordship. That was -the rule so far as defendants are concerned, but Karl Hermann Frank is -not a defendant. - -THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been used would have -appeared in the ordinary way in the document book of whichever -delegation had used it. The general interrogation was taken, of course, -not only for the Prosecution’s purpose at this Trial, but also for the -purposes of the Czech Government, in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank -himself. Therefore, what I suggest is that Dr. Lüdinghausen put -interrogatories to Karl Hermann Frank, on whatever points he wants to -raise. The Prosecution would have no objection to that. - -DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I make the following reply? - -These minutes of the four interrogations of Karl Hermann Frank are -mentioned and discussed in Exhibit Number USSR-60, which has been given -to me and which contains the indictment made by the Czech Government. - -I cannot judge to what extent these interrogations are important in -reference to my client, the Defendant Von Neurath, as Reich Protector, -or whether they have to do with a later period. For that reason I have -asked that these protocols be made available to me. I know that Karl -Hermann Frank has also been questioned about the document concerning the -meeting in Prague on a policy of Germanization of the Czech country. To -this document, which was presented, that is to say, which is contained -in a report of General Friderici, reference is made in the respective -minutes. - -Now, I know that Frank once made a report to the Reich Protector in -which he labeled all the opinions and proposals—which actually, -however, were never put into actions—ridiculous and declared them to be -impossible. Therefore, it is important for me to know just what is said -in these minutes which the Czech indictment has drawn on at this point. -If nothing is contained therein, then, of course, I shall dispense with -these minutes, but I have to examine them myself. It is, therefore, -important for me to see these minutes, at least, and then to present -from them whatever is of importance for me. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to counsel for -Von Neurath seeing these interrogations? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the Czech Government -before I could agree, because, frankly, I have not gone through the -parts which we were not concerned with in this case, and I do not know -on what subjects the interrogation was based. - -THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of principle, if a -certain document or a part of a document is used, ought it not to be -open to the defendants to use the rest of the document? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a matter of principle, -My Lord, only if there were connected parts. I think that is the general -rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories in the English courts. For -example, supposing that one day Karl Hermann Frank was examined about -the early days of the Protectorate, and then on another day he was -examined on a specific point at the end of the Protectorate. Then I -should not have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely -connected. - -My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. Barrington -has just brought to my attention. These interrogatories were the basis -of the Czech Government report. They are not introduced as -interrogatories but—so I am told—as part of the report by the person -who drew it. It is not material that we are in a position to introduce -as interrogatories. They come in as a Government report from the Czech -Government. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): If it should develop later that it is -relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that material -being introduced? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, but the material -is the property of the Czech Government. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then your position is really that it is not -in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine it. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. - -THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the treaty between -France and the Soviet Union, in 1935. This document was authorized by -the General Secretary on 29 January, and if there is any difficulty in -getting a copy, I will try to do anything I can to help, subject to the -reservation of objecting to its relevance when I know what use is going -to be made of it. - -DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I add a few more words to this point? - -During the very last few days I have received, from various sides, -suggestions of information which seem important to my defense; but I -have not yet had the opportunity of checking this information and -finding out whether it is really of importance to the conduct of the -Defense. May I therefore ask, if this should be the case and if there -should be one or two other witnesses or documents which I can find out -about only later, that I be permitted to make an application -supplementary to the list of witnesses and documents I have given today. - -THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Fritzsche. - - [_Dr. Fritz approached the lectern._] - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, there are only two -witnesses applied for in this case. - -The first of them is Von Schirmeister, who was an official of the late -Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have no -objection to that witness. - -With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the application says -that he received his information and instructions from the Defendant -Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directives issued to journalists. -On the assumption that these were more or less official directives that -he gave in the course of his duty, again, I do not think there can be -any objection from the Prosecution. But I do not know what Dr. Fritz -would think about interrogatories, or whether he has any strong views -about calling Dr. Kriegk on that point. As I understand it, it would be -more or less a synopsis of the directives given, but in view of the very -modest proportions of the applications in this case, I do not want to be -unreasonable if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk. - -DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Your Honors, I have -presented a very restricted list of evidence material and I should be -grateful if the personal appearance of the second witness, Dr. Kriegk, -were granted, for the following reasons: First the witness Von -Schirmeister has been named because he is to give us information about -the internal tasks which the Defendant Fritzsche had in the Ministry for -Propaganda, especially about his relations to Dr. Goebbels. As far as -the daily press conferences which the Defendant Fritzsche held are -concerned, this first witness, Von Schirmeister, did not take part in -them. From the subjective angle, especially, it is important to know -what directives the Defendant Fritzsche gave the journalists, -specifically the most important German journalists who assembled daily -at his press conferences. - -As a further reason for my request that the personal appearance of this -witness be granted, I point out that, of the collection of documents or -rather of the two document collections, 1 and 2 of my list are not yet -available to me, so that there are various points which I had wanted to -prove by presenting documents or quotations therefrom which I now hope -to prove by questioning these two witnesses. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not press the point of an affidavit. I -leave it to the Tribunal. - -With regard to the documents, Number 1 is the broadcasts of the -Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from the -Prosecution to that. - -Number 2 is the archives of the section German Express Service. And -again we make no objection at this stage. We will perhaps have to -consider the reports when we get them. - -There is a little trouble about the third group, sworn testimony or -letters which contain objective observations on the part of the writers -about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche. If these are official reports -or anything of that kind, of course, there would be no objection, if -they were contemporaneous; but the course which the Prosecution -respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that we wait and see these in -the document book and then we can consider them and make any objection -when they come up. - -DR. FRITZ: I agree to this procedure. I believe I need say nothing more -about Documents 1 and 2 after the statement Sir David has just made. - -THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, some of the defense counsel want to put in -supplementary applications. It would be convenient to deal with them -now. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to confer -with my colleagues as we deal with each one, as we go along, in case -they have any further views to express. - -THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I think there are some supplementary -applications by Dr. Seidl. - -DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors, on 28 February 1946, I -submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application for the Defendant -Rudolf Hess. The application was necessary for the following reasons: In -my first application I mentioned the witness Bohle, the former Gauleiter -of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, for a number of subjects, -among others in reference to the German Foreign Institute and the -activity of the League for Germans Abroad. When I made that application -to question the witness Bohle I had not yet had any opportunity to speak -to the witness. After approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and I -found out that the witness Bohle, although he can make very concrete -statements about the Auslands-Organisation, does not have any immediate -first-hand information about the activity of the German Foreign -Institute and the activity of the League for Germans Abroad. - -I therefore ask that the following be approved as further witnesses: -First, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart and -finally President of the German Foreign Institute. The witness is here -in Nuremberg as a prisoner awaiting trial, and it is the same witness -who has also been requested by the Defendant Von Neurath in his case. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, My Lord, if Dr. -Seidl would indicate what the final position of these witnesses is. As I -understand it, he no longer wants Herr Bohle. Is that right? I am not -clear whether this witness is in addition to or in substitution for Herr -Bohle. - -DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, this is an -additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be needed as a witness, -but only concerning the matter of the activity of the -Auslands-Organisation. The witness Stroelin, since the witness Bohle has -not first-hand information about the Foreign Institute, should speak -about this latter point. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would mean that Dr. -Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, Dr. Haushofer, and an -affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess. - -I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of witnesses on -what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, from the -point of view of the Prosecution. The Prosecution said that the -Auslands-Organisation was used for promoting Fifth Column activities, -but it was only put in this way: That by using the Auslands-Organisation -there was, first of all, complete record and organization of Party -members abroad; secondly, the intelligence service of that organization, -through the organization, reported on all German officials of every -section of the Government who came abroad and kept check on them in -their work, in addition to German subjects; and because of this -intelligence service, these Germans were ready for use and in fact were -used when there was a question of invasion of the country. - -It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for example, to blow -up bridges or commit acts of sabotage, given directly to the -organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning of the -organization that I have described. - -I say that only because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to know the -case he has to meet. The Prosecution has never proved direct orders for -sabotage in this regard. - -DR. SEIDL: The trial brief on his case has accused Rudolf Hess of the -fact that, under his leadership, the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, -as well as the Foreign Institute and the League for Germans Abroad had -developed an activity which was almost equivalent to that of a Fifth -Column. It is correct that in the original indictment of the Defendant -Hess, personally, there were no details given by means of which the -indictment meant to show this activity and above all Hess’ guilt in -regard to the activities of these organizations. - -As long, however, as the Auslands-Organisation and the Foreign Institute -and the League for Germans Abroad are accused of any connection with the -activities of a Fifth Column, the Defendant Hess has a reasonable -interest in seeing explained, first, what kind of activity these -organizations had and, second, which orders or directives he had given -to these organizations. - -The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete statements -regarding the Auslands-Organisation. The same is necessary for the -German Foreign Institute about which Dr. Stroelin, who is here in -Nuremberg, can make authentic statements, and for the League for Germans -Abroad, about which the witness Dr. Haushofer can speak. - -I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of the witness, -Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be used for this witness. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogation as far as -Dr. Haushofer is concerned. - -THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want? - -DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir, a third one. Before I come to the third witness, -whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I should like to inform -the Tribunal that I do not insist on a personal hearing of the witness -Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been approved by the Court. Instead of -that, I shall submit a short affidavit, which is already in the document -book which I have already given to the General Secretary. - -In the place of the witness Sperr, I request, however, that the witness -Alfred Leitgen be called. Leitgen was for many years, until the flight -of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant. - -I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I have found out -only now where this witness is. I believe that a personal hearing of -this witness is so important that one should not dispense with it. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points which Dr. Seidl specifies both -seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact that he is prepared -to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution will not take -objection to that witness. - -THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will allow me to say -one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain conversations with a -member of my staff. I think they will prove profitable and helpful on -the lines that Your Lordship suggested, and if the Tribunal will be good -enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius’ rights for a day or two, we hope to -have something practical and useful to put before the Tribunal. - -THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations? - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the Defendant Sauckel. - -THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember that you allowed the -matter to stand over. We have been working along the lines that Your -Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into -it myself and see the final result. - -THE PRESIDENT: I see. - -DR. SERVATIUS: In discussing the witnesses, I proposed a restriction -which is being presented to the Court in writing. Concerning the -documents, I have also practically come to an agreement as to how they -should be handled. There are, however, two principal applications which -I should like to submit and which have not been mentioned so far. But I -believe that a decision will have to be made by the Tribunal in respect -to principle. The applications are Documents 80 and 81. - -Document 80 is a photostat of a deportation order which had been issued -in the city of Oels by the Soviet local commander, whereby the native -male population had to report for deportation; and it can be seen from -this order that it is deportation for the purpose of labor. I want to -submit this to show that the Hague agreement concerning land warfare has -been considered obsolete by the Soviet Army. I have only this one -deportation order. I should therefore like to suggest that the Tribunal -make use of Article 17(e) of the Charter and have a judge determine on -the spot to what extent this deportation took place, and I should like -thereby to have it shown that it is not only the town of Oels, but that -it was done similarly on a large scale in the cities of East Prussia and -Upper Silesia. The population was deported in large numbers for purposes -of work and, if the information which I have received is correct, part -of the population of Königsberg is today still in the Ural Mountains. I -am not in a position to submit documents about all these things, because -of the difficulties of mailing, and the difficulties of receiving news -from the East at all. But the Tribunal should be in a position, by -asking the mayors and other officials, to find out that what I have just -said is correct. - -Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the city of Saaz in -Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants of the city of Saaz were put -into a camp and, until Christmas 1945, they worked there without pay. I -believe also that this is proof of the fact that the Hague agreement -concerning land warfare is considered to be obsolete and outmoded in -regard to labor employment. - -Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91: These are two books with affidavits -meant as a substitute for an investigation. It would be irrelevant if I -were to produce one or two affidavits concerning conditions in the labor -camps. One could object to that as being irrelevant because, in view of -the large number of factories and camps which exist, little proof would -be afforded by these affidavits. These mass conditions have somehow to -be considered juridically. Therefore, the Charter has admitted -government reports. I am not in a position to ask a government to help -me in this matter. Therefore I have to find a substitute by collecting -affidavits and grouping them in logical form in a notebook in order to -submit them to the Tribunal. This is the purpose of my proposal to -introduce a presentation of proof which is an innovation and is -difficult for me; but thereby the same objections are justified which -one might make to an investigation. An investigation has great -weaknesses, especially if it is conducted in a one-sided manner without -participation of those involved on the other side. In the case of my -affidavits, this danger is greatly reduced because it is hard to find -anybody who would fill out these affidavits unless he has very serious -reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the Tribunal to decide about my -application concerning these Documents 90 and 91. That is the matter I -wanted to submit here; the rest I shall discuss with the Prosecution. - -SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have already -intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution object to Documents 80 -and 81. To test their admissibility the easiest way is to assume that -Dr. Servatius has proved the facts alleged. And if that is done they -would not, in my opinion, come within miles of proving that Article 52 -had become obsolete; and it is illustrative of the danger which I -ventured to point out to the Tribunal in regard to these two -arguments—that vague and hypothetical suggestion that there might be -some evidence that Article 52 had become obsolete. It is suggested that -the Tribunal should try the conduct of the Soviet Union with regard to -labor conditions and, as I understand, send a commission to collect -evidence on that point; and I do not want to repeat the arguments, but -the Prosecution most strenuously object to the suggestion and say that -nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it. - -With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method would be by -_solvitur ambulando_. Let us see the affidavits and get some idea of -their contents and the source of knowledge disclosed and then the -Prosecution can make a decision regarding them. At this stage I do not -want to do anything to exclude them and they will receive the most -careful attention by my colleagues and me when they are brought forward. - -THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary applications -for the Defendant Schacht and for the Defendant Keitel. I think there -may be some mistake about that. - -Is the Defendant Bormann’s counsel here? - -DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes. - -THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet? - -DR. BERGOLD: No. - -THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that your applications -would stand over for some application within the next three weeks. So -you are not ready yet? I am told your documents are all here. Is that -so? - -DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far as I know. -However, since I have to collect my own information from the books, I -cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will be all my documents. I -therefore have asked permission to speak to the secretary, Wunderlich, -who was secretary for a long time, and also to another woman secretary. -Only from these two shall we get satisfactory information. Bormann, I -cannot reach. Therefore, for practical reasons, I ask permission to -present everything at a later date. - -THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now—I am told that -there are applications from the Defendants Keitel, Rosenberg. . . - -DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, Defense Counsel for Keitel and Rosenberg are -not present at the moment. They probably did not expect that their -applications would be presented today. Maybe that could be done tomorrow -before the beginning of the Göring case. - -THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn. - - [_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours._] - - - - - TRANSCRIBER NOTES - -Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious -printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for -periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; -however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus -“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes -French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: -hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout. - -Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb -tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the -tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations -between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this -volume, Russian documents presented in the trial. - -An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as -possible to the original document presentation and layout. - -[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International -Military Tribunal Vol. VIII_, by Various.] - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals -Before the International Militar, by Various - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS, VOL 8 *** - -***** This file should be named 63183-0.txt or 63183-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/1/8/63183/ - -Produced by John Routh, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/63183-0.zip b/old/63183-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d5e0fa8..0000000 --- a/old/63183-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/63183-h.zip b/old/63183-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 68d9fe3..0000000 --- a/old/63183-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/63183-h/63183-h.htm b/old/63183-h/63183-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index bdc11c7..0000000 --- a/old/63183-h/63183-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,35438 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. VIII by Various</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg"/> - <meta name="cover" content="images/cover.jpg" /> - <meta name="DC.Title" content="Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. 8"/> - <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Various"/> - <meta name="DC.Language" content="en"/> - <meta name="DC.Created" content="1947"/> - <meta name="DC.Subject" content="Law"/> - <meta name="DC.date.issued" content="1947"/> - <meta name="Tags" content="World War II, Germany, law, non-fiction"/> - <meta name="DC.Publisher" content="Project Gutenberg"/> - <meta name="generator" content="fpgen 4.62a"/> - <meta name="Series" content="Blue Series [8]"/> - <style type="text/css"> - body { margin-left:8%;margin-right:10%; } - .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: silver; - text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; - border:1px solid silver; padding:1px 3px; font-style:normal; - font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration:none; } - .pageno:after { color: gray; content: attr(title); } - .it { font-style:italic; } - .gesp { letter-spacing:0.2em; } - p { text-indent:0; margin-top:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em; - text-align: justify; } - div.lgc { } - div.lgc p { text-align:center; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; } - h1 { - text-align:center; - font-weight:normal; - page-break-before: always; - font-size:1.2em; margin:2em auto 1em auto - } - - h2 { - text-align:center; - font-weight:normal; - font-size:1.1em; - margin:1em auto 0.5em auto; - } - - hr.tbk100{ border:none; border-bottom:2px solid black; width:40%; margin-top:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em; text-align:center; margin-left:30%; margin-right:30% } - hr.tbk101{ border:none; border-bottom:2px solid black; width:40%; margin-top:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em; text-align:center; margin-left:30%; margin-right:30% } - hr.pbk { border:none; border-bottom:1px solid silver; width:100%; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:2em } - .figcenter { - text-align:center; - margin:1em auto; - page-break-inside: avoid; - } - - div.blockquote { margin:1em 2em; text-align:justify; } - .nobreak { page-break-before: avoid; } - p.line { text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; } - table { page-break-inside: avoid; } - table.center { margin:0.5em auto; border-collapse: collapse; padding:3px; } - table.flushleft { margin:0.5em 0em; border-collapse: collapse; padding:3px; } - table.left { margin:0.5em 1.2em; border-collapse: collapse; padding:3px; } - .tab1c1 { } - .tab1c2 { } - .tab1c3 { } - .tab1c1-col2 { border-right: 0px solid black; } - .tab1c1-col3 { border-right: 0px solid black; } - .tdStyle0 { - padding: 0px 5px; text-align:center; vertical-align:top; - } - .tdStyle1 { - padding: 0px 5px; text-align:left; vertical-align:top; - } - .tdStyle2 { - padding: 0px 5px; text-align:right; vertical-align:top; - } - .pindent { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-indent:1.5em; } - .noindent { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-indent:0; } - .hang { padding-left:1.5em; text-indent:-1.5em; } - .literal-container { text-align:center; margin:0 0; } - .literal { display:inline-block; text-align:left; } - </style> - <style type="text/css"> - h1 {font-size:1.2em; text-align:center; - line-height:150%; margin-top:4em;} - h2 {font-size:1.2em; text-align:center; margin-top:2em;} - .literal-container { margin-top:.5em; margin-bottom:.5em } - div.lgc { margin-top:.5em; margin-bottom:.5em } - p { text-indent:0; margin-top:0.3em; margin-bottom:0.3em; text-align: justify; } - div.blockquote { margin-top:0em; margin-bottom:0em; } - .pindent {margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0em;} - </style> - </head> - <body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the -International Military Tribunal, by Various - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Volume 8) - -Author: Various - -Release Date: September 12, 2020 [EBook #63183] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS, VOL 8 *** - - - - -Produced by John Routh, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Project Gutenberg team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net. - - - - - - -</pre> - -<div class='figcenter' style='width:80%'> -<img src='images/cover.jpg' alt='' id='iid-0000' style='width:100%;height:auto;'/> -</div> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='lgc' style=''> <!-- rend=';' --> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:2em;font-size:1.5em;'>TRIAL</p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:.2em;margin-bottom:.2em;font-size:.7em;'>OF</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.5em;'>THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.7em;'>BEFORE</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'>THE INTERNATIONAL</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'>MILITARY TRIBUNAL</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.7em;'><span class='gesp'>NUREMBERG</span></p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:.2em;margin-bottom:2em;font-size:.7em;'>14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<div class='figcenter'> -<img src='images/title.jpg' alt='' id='iid-0001' style='width:80px;height:auto;'/> -</div> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:4em;font-size:.7em;'><span class='gesp'>PUBLISHED AT NUREMBERG, GERMANY</span></p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:.2em;font-size:.7em;'><span class='gesp'>1947</span></p> -</div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='literal-container' style='margin-top:4em;margin-bottom:20em;'><div class='literal'> <!-- rend=';fs:.8em;' --> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>This volume is published in accordance with the</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>direction of the International Military Tribunal by</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.</p> -</div></div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='lgc' style='margin-top:8em;margin-bottom:4em;'> <!-- rend=';' --> -<p class='line'>VOLUME VIII</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<hr class='tbk100'/> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'><span class='gesp'>OFFICIAL TEXT</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'><span class='gesp'>IN THE</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'>ENGLISH LANGUAGE</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<hr class='tbk101'/> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'><span class='gesp'>PROCEEDINGS</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>20 February 1946-7 March 1946</p> -</div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='literal-container' style='margin-top:4em;margin-bottom:17em;'><div class='literal'> <!-- rend=';fs:.8em;' --> -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-bottom:2em;font-size:.8em;'><span class='gesp'>EDITOR’S NOTE</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>On 1 July 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed Deputy</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal.</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>On 30 September 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>Editor of the Record in addition to his other duties.</p> -</div></div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<table id='tab1' summary='' class='center'> -<colgroup> -<col span='1' style='width: 6em;'/> -<col span='1' style='width: 17.5em;'/> -<col span='1' style='width: 2.5em;'/> -</colgroup> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col3 tdStyle0' colspan='3'><span style='font-size:larger'>CONTENTS</span></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-third Day, Wednesday, 20 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_1'>1</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_31'>31</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-fourth Day, Thursday, 21 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_53'>53</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_81'>81</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-fifth Day, Friday, 22 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_105'>105</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_125'>125</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-sixth Day, Saturday, 23 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_159'>159</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_186'>186</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-seventh Day, Monday, 25 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_202'>202</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_230'>230</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-eighth Day, Tuesday, 26 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_251'>251</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_281'>281</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-ninth Day, Wednesday, 27 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_300'>300</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_324'>324</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventieth Day, Thursday, 28 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_353'>353</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_383'>383</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-first Day, Friday, 1 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_409'>409</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_431'>431</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-second Day, Saturday, 2 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_468'>468</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-third Day, Monday, 4 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_489'>489</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_517'>517</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-fourth Day, Tuesday, 5 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_532'>532</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-fifth Day, Wednesday, 6 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_554'>554</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_578'>578</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-sixth Day, Thursday, 7 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_597'>597</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_621'>621</a></td></tr> -</table> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='1' id='Page_1'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-THIRD DAY</span><br/> Wednesday, 20 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): -Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, evidence on the -count “Despoliation and Plunder of Private, Public, and National -Property” will be presented by the State Counsellor of Justice, -Second Class, L. R. Shenin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS -L. R. SHENIN (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please -Your Honors, my task consists in presenting to the Tribunal evidence -of the criminal and predatory motives of Hitlerite aggression -and of the monstrous plundering of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, -Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleagues have already proved that the attack on the U.S.S.R., -as well as on other European countries, was planned and prepared -beforehand by the criminal Hitlerite Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit to the Tribunal a number of the conspirators’ -original documents, statements, and speeches, which in the aggregate -will prove that the despoliation and plunder of private, public, and -national property in the occupied territories was also premeditated, -planned, and prepared on a large scale, and that thus, simultaneously -with the development of their purely military and strategic -plans of attack, the Hitlerites with the cold-blooded deliberateness -of professional robbers and murderers also developed and prepared -beforehand the plan of organized plunder and marauding, after -having minutely and accurately calculated their future profits, their -criminal gains, their robbers’ spoils.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The official report of the Czechoslovak Government on the crimes -committed by the Hitlerites on the territory of Czechoslovakia, the -first victim of German aggression, has already been submitted to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document Number USSR-60).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the third section of this report there is a short extract from -an article by Ley, published on 30 January 1940 in the <span class='it'>Angriff</span>. -I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is our destiny to belong to a superior race. A lower race -needs less room, less clothing, less food, and less culture, than -a superior race.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='2' id='Page_2'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This promise, this program of action, found its concrete expression -in the fact that the Hitlerite conspirators subjected all territories -occupied by them to unrestrained plunder, highly varied in -form and method and entirely shameless in its devastating results. -The report of the Czechoslovak Government contains a large number -of examples corroborating the corresponding counts of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read this section into the record starting with the first -paragraph on Page 72 of the Russian translation. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German plan of campaign against Czechoslovakia was -aimed not only against the republic as a political and military -unit, but also against the very existence of the Czechoslovak -people, who were to be robbed not only of all political -rights and cultural life, but of their wealth and their financial -and industrial resources.</p> - -<p>“(1) Immediate Plunder.</p> - -<p>“(a) After Munich.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after Munich the Germans seized all the industrial -and commercial concerns belonging to the Czechs and -Jews in the seized areas of the republic; this was done -without any compensation. Czechs and Jews were robbed of -their property and of their office and plant equipment, usually -by violence and bloodshed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following characteristic fact is mentioned in the report, -namely, the way in which Hitler became acquainted with Czechoslovakia, -which he had just seized. I shall read into the record -Subparagraph B of this section, entitled, “After the Invasion of -15 March 1939.” The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Pages 3 -and 4 of the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Hitler entered Prague at nightfall on 15 March 1939, and -spent the night there in the famous Hradschin castle. He left -on the following day, taking with him a number of valuable -tapestries. We mention this robbery not because of the value -of the stolen objects, but as an example set by the head of -the Party and of the German State on the very first day of -invasion.</p> - -<p>“The German troops who invaded Prague brought with them -a staff of German economic experts, that is, experts in economic -looting.</p> - -<p>“Everything that could be of some value to Germany was -seized, especially large stocks of raw materials, such as copper, -tin, iron, cotton, wool, great stocks of food, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p>“Rolling stock, carriages, engines, and so on were removed to -the Reich. All the rails in the Protectorate which were in -good condition were lifted and sent to Germany; later they -<span class='pageno' title='3' id='Page_3'></span> -were replaced by old rails brought from Germany. New cars -fresh from the factory which were on order for the Prague -municipal tramways and had just been completed were -deflected from their purpose and sent to the Reich.</p> - -<p>“The vessels belonging to the Czechoslovak Danube Steam -Navigation Company (the majority of shares belonged to the -Czechoslovak State) were divided between the Reich and -Hungary.</p> - -<p>“Valuable objects of art and furniture disappeared from public -buildings, without even an attempt at any legal justification -of such robbery; pictures, statues, tapestries were taken to -Germany. The Czech National Museum, the Modern Art -Gallery, and public and private collections were plundered.</p> - -<p>“The German Reich Commissioner of the Czechoslovak -National Bank stopped all payments of currency abroad and -seized all the gold reserve and foreign currency in the Protectorate. -Thus the Germans took 23,000 kilograms of gold of -a nominal value of 737,000 million crowns (5,265,000 pounds -sterling) and transferred the gold from the Bank of International -Settlement to the Reichsbank.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the methods of thorough—I should say total—plunder -was the so-called economic Germanization. I submit to the Tribunal -as evidence of these crimes the following extract from the -official Czechoslovak report. This extract the Tribunal will find on -Pages 4 and 5 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“(2) Economic Germanization.</p> - -<p>“A. Rural. Expropriation.</p> - -<p>“(aa) After Munich.</p> - -<p>“In the areas occupied by the German Army in October 1938 -Germany began to settle her nationals on all the farms -formerly belonging to Czechs or Jews who had fled for political -or racial reasons.</p> - -<p>“The Czechoslovak Land Reform Act of 1919, insofar as it -benefited Czech nationals, was declared invalid; Czech farmers -were expelled from their land and compelled to relinquish -their cattle, agricultural implements, and furniture.</p> - -<p>“On paper the Czechs received compensation; in fact, however, -they were burdened with taxes in order to make good -the so-called ‘deliberate damage’ they were alleged to have -caused by their flight. These taxes far exceeded the compensation.</p> - -<p>“The large agricultural and government estates of the Czechoslovak -Republic automatically became Reich property and -came under the jurisdiction of the Reich ministries concerned. -<span class='pageno' title='4' id='Page_4'></span></p> - -<p>“(bb) After the invasion of 15 March 1939.</p> - -<p>“After the invasion, German directors, supervisors, and -foremen replaced Czech nationals in state-owned enterprises -of the Czechoslovak Republic.</p> - -<p>“Germanization of private property began, of course, under -the slogan ‘Aryanization.’</p> - -<p>“The Germanization of rural Bohemia and Moravia was -entrusted to a special body called ‘Deutsche Siedlungsgesellschaft’ -located in Prague.</p> - -<p>“Czech peasants were offered compensation for their food -products but at entirely inadequate prices.</p> - -<p>“Rural Germanization, apart from Germanization pure and -simple, aimed at pauperizing as many well-to-do Czech -nationals as possible.</p> - -<p>“The Nazis did their utmost to squeeze as much as possible -out of Czech agriculture. Here too their aim was twofold: -On the one hand to obtain as much foodstuffs as possible, and -on the other, to carry the process of Germanization as far as -possible.</p> - -<p>“Farmers were turned out of their farms to make way for -German settlers—entire agricultural districts were in this -way cleared of Czechs. Agricultural co-operative societies in -control of production were transformed into auxiliary organizations -and were gradually germanized.</p> - -<p>“The looting of property and wealth was followed by the -pillaging of products of the soil. Heavy fines and frequently -even the death penalty were imposed on Czech peasants for -intentional failure to comply with orders regarding production, -delivery, and rationing.</p> - -<p>“B. Expropriation of banks and their funds.</p> - -<p>“In Czechoslovakia industrial undertakings were directly -financed by the banks, which often owned or controlled the -majority of shares. Having obtained control of the banks, the -Nazis thus secured control of industry.</p> - -<p>“(a) After Munich.</p> - -<p>“After Munich, two important German banks, the Dresdner -Bank and the Deutsche Bank took over the branches of Prague -banks, situated in the ceded territory. Thus among the enterprises -taken over by the Dresdner Bank were 32 branches of -the Bohemian Discount Bank and among those taken over by -the Deutsche Bank were 25 branches of Bohemian Union Bank.</p> - -<p>“As soon as these two banks obtained control of the branch -banks in the Sudetenland they also endeavored to gain -<span class='pageno' title='5' id='Page_5'></span> -influence on the respective head offices of these banks in -Prague.</p> - -<p>“The Czechoslovak banks were joint stock companies. Every -joint stock company with even one Jewish director was considered -to be Jewish. In this manner the non-Jewish property -was also taken over.</p> - -<p>“(b) After the invasion of 15 March 1939.</p> - -<p>“After the invasion several Czechoslovak banks in Bohemia, -in consequence of their Aryanization, became the property of -the Dresdner Bank. Among other enterprises, this German -bank took over the Union Bank of Bohemia. In this way -all the financial interests which these banks had in Czech -industry, as well as the entire share capital, fell into German -hands.</p> - -<p>“From that time on German capital began to infiltrate into -the Czech banks; their expropriation and incorporation into -the German bank system began. The Dresdner Bank (the -establishment which administered the funds of the National -Socialist Party) and the Deutsche Bank were officially -entrusted with the task of expropriating the funds belonging -to the Czechoslovak banking concerns.</p> - -<p>“By means of various ‘transactions,’ by gaining influence -through the branch banks in the Sudetenland over their -respective head offices in Prague, by reducing the share -capital, which was later increased with German assistance, -by appropriating industrial holdings and in this way acquiring -influence over the controlling banks which were thus deprived -of their industrial interests, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, the two Berlin banks -achieved complete control of the banks of the Protectorate. -Gestapo terror helped them.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip one paragraph of this report and pass on to the next count:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“C. Destruction of National Industry.</p> - -<p>“(a) Compulsory organization.</p> - -<p>“After the invasion the Germans introduced into the Protectorate -the compulsory organization of Czech industry on the -German model.</p> - -<p>“They appointed a committee for every new association and -all the industrial ‘groups’ appointing at least one Nazi as -chairman or vice chairman or, just as an ordinary member. -However, all the Czech members actually were mere puppets.</p> - -<p>“(b) Armament factories.</p> - -<p>“The Dresdner Bank acquired the most important armament -factories in Czechoslovakia, that is, the Skoda Works in Pilsen -and the Czechoslovak ‘Zborjobka’ in Brünn. The private -<span class='pageno' title='6' id='Page_6'></span> -share-holders were forced to surrender their shares at prices -far below their actual value; the bank paid for these shares -with coupons which had been withdrawn from circulation, -and confiscated by the Germans in the districts previously -ceded in accordance with the Munich agreement.</p> - -<p>“(c) The Hermann Göring Werke.</p> - -<p>“The seizure by the Germans of the Czechoslovak banks and -thus of the industry, through the big Berlin banks, was -accomplished with the help of the gigantic Hermann Göring -Werke which seized the greatest Czechoslovak industries, one -by one, at the smallest financial cost, that is to say, under -the pretext of Aryanization, by pressure from the Reich, by -financial measures, and finally by threatening Gestapo measures -and concentration camps.</p> - -<p>“Finally, all the large Czechoslovak enterprises, factories, and -armament plants, and the coal and iron industries fell into -German hands. The huge chemical industry was seized by -the German concern, I. G. Farben Industrie.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip the paragraph concerning the same methods adopted in -the case of light industry and pass on to the next count of the -report, “Financial Spoliation.”</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“After the occupation of the territory, ceded apparently in -accordance with the Munich agreement, the Germans refused -to take over part of the Czechoslovak State debt, although -they acquired very valuable State property in the districts -taken away from Czechoslovakia. Government bonds of low -denominations amounting to a total of 1,600 million crowns -were in circulation in the occupied territory.</p> - -<p>“The Germans reserved the right to use these obligations in -Czechoslovakia as legal tender.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Gentlemen, further on in this report we find a detailed account -of the Hitlerite campaign of spoliation directed against the financial -economy of the Czechoslovak Republic. With a view to saving time -I shall refrain from quoting this excerpt and shall merely submit -the balance sheet of the Czechoslovak National Bank.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The balance sheet of the Czech National Bank showed the -following figures for ‘other assets’ in million of crowns: -31 December 1938, 845; 31 December 1939, 3,576; 31 December -1942, 17,366.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I now quote an excerpt from the section entitled, “Taxes”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“When war broke out the Nazis fixed the war contribution -of the Protectorate at an annual sum of 2,000 million crowns -(14.2 million pounds sterling). The Nazis claimed that they -<span class='pageno' title='7' id='Page_7'></span> -were entitled to this on the grounds that the Czechs did not -have to fight, because the Germans fought for them.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation the Germans seized the -proceeds of various indirect taxes and diverted them into the -Reich Treasury.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Gentlemen, the excerpt which I just read from the report of the -Czechoslovak Government gives an adequate picture of the manner -in which, after having seized Czechoslovakia, the Hitlerites subjected -it to wanton plunder in every field of its economic life—agriculture, -industry, and finance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having seized the entire economic resources of the Czechoslovak -Republic, the Hitlerite Government forced this economy to serve -their criminal interests, extracting everything possible in order to -prepare for further aggression against the peoples of Europe and -for new military attacks with the monstrous aim of achieving world -domination by the German “master race.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now pass to the reading of the fourth section of the -official report of the Polish Government dealing with crimes committed -by the Hitlerites in occupied Poland. This report has already -been presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document -Number USSR-93) and, according to Article 21 of the Charter, -constitutes irrefutable evidence. I quote an excerpt from this report -which the Tribunal will find on Page 14 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Expropriation and plunder of public and private property.</p> - -<p>“a) On 27 September 1939 the German military authorities -issued a decree concerning the sequestration and confiscation -of Polish property in the western provinces. ‘The property of -the Polish State, Polish public institutions, municipalities and -unions, individuals, and corporations can be sequestered and -confiscated,’ stated Paragraph 1 of the said decree.</p> - -<p>“b) The right of the military authorities to dispose of Polish -property in the incorporated provinces passed to the ‘Haupttreuhandstelle -Ost’ (created by Göring on 1 November 1939) -with headquarters in Berlin and branch offices in Poland. It -was entrusted with the administration of confiscated property -of the Polish State, as well as with the general policy in -Poland in accordance with the plan devised by the Reich -Government.</p> - -<p>“c) By a decree of 15 January 1940, the entire property of the -Polish State was placed under ‘protection,’ which practically -meant confiscation of all State property in the incorporated -territories. A special decree of 12 February 1940 dealt with -agriculture and forestry in the same way. -<span class='pageno' title='8' id='Page_8'></span></p> - -<p>“d) The confiscation of private property in the western -provinces was initiated by a decree of 31 January 1940. Special -permission was required for acquisition of property and -transfer of ownership rights in all enterprises in the incorporated -territory. By another decree of 12 June 1940, Göring -authorized the ‘Haupttreuhandstelle Ost’ to seize and administer, -not only State property, but also the property of citizens -of the ‘former Polish State.’</p> - -<p>“e) The process of confiscation, however, went further. The -property of Polish citizens became liable to seizure and confiscation -unless the owner acquired German citizenship in -accordance with Hitler’s decree of 8 October 1939.</p> - -<p>“Other decrees dealt with the repayment of debts, because -the sequestrators were authorized to repay debts to privileged -creditors only. These were members of the ‘Deutsche Volksliste’ -so far as war debts were concerned, as well as citizens -of the Reich or the free city of Danzig, as regards debts -incurred after 1 September 1939.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip two pages of this report enumerating the companies which -were specially created for carrying out of this plunder activity and -also for plundering the Polish-Jewish population, which as is already -known to the Tribunal, was later exterminated. I pass on to the -end of the Polish Government report. The Tribunal will find this -excerpt on Page 17 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mere quotations from these and other decrees may create a -wrong impression as to the means used by the defendants in the -case of the Jewish property in Poland. But it should be pointed -out that steps concerning Jewish property were only preliminaries -to infinitely greater crimes in the future. At the end of this section -of the report is justly stated—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Aside from the crimes which have been proved and described -here, there are thousands of others which fade into insignificance -beside the numberless crimes of mass murder, mass -plunder, and mass destruction.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>It is impossible to enumerate all the crimes committed in Poland -under the direct leadership of the Defendant Frank, who was the -head of all the administration in the so-called Government General.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Frank’s diaries which were found and became part of the evidence -in this case, give a clear and concrete idea of the crimes -committed by the Hitlerites in Poland under his direction. In these -diaries, Your Honors, are entries which have a direct bearing on the -subject of my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore I should like, with your permission, to quote excerpts -from this diary which have not yet been quoted. -<span class='pageno' title='9' id='Page_9'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote from the volume entitled “Conference of Departmental -Heads for 1939-1940” (Document Number USSR-223), Pages 11 and 12. -In your document book, gentlemen, this excerpt is on Page 21:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“My relationship with the Poles resembles that between an -ant and a plant louse. When I treat the Poles helpfully, tickle -them in a friendly manner, so to speak, I do it in the expectation -that I shall profit by their labor output. This is not -a political, but a purely tactical and technical problem. In -cases where, in spite of all measures, the output does not -increase, or where I have the slightest reason to step in, I -would not hesitate to take even the most Draconian action.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the volume entitled “Diary 1942” I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Dr. Frank: ‘We must remember that notes issued by the -Bank of Poland to the value of 540,000,000 zlotys were taken -over in Occupied Eastern Territory by the Governor General -without any compensation being made by the Reich. This -represents a contribution of more than 500 million exacted -from the Government General by Germany, in addition to -other payments.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the same volume, Page 1277—this concerns the Governor’s -conference which took place on 7 December 1942, in Kraków—measures -for increasing production for the years 1942-43 were discussed. -A certain Dr. Fischer stated:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“If the new food scheme is carried out, it would mean that in -Warsaw and its suburbs alone 500,000 people would be deprived -of food.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the same volume on Page 1331, Frank speaks:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I shall endeavor to squeeze out from the reserves of this -province everything that it is still possible to squeeze out. . . . -If you recall that I was able to send to Germany 600,000 tons -of grain and that an additional 180,000 tons were reserved -for local troops, as well as many thousands of tons of seed, -fats, vegetables, besides the export to Germany of 300 million -eggs, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, you will understand how important work -in this region is for Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This same Frank on Page 1332 states the following—the Tribunal -will find this quotation on Page 27 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“These consignments to the Reich had, however, one definite -drawback to them, since the quantities we were responsible -for delivering exceeded the actual food supplies required by -the region. We now have to face the following problem. Can -we, as from February, cut 2 million non-German inhabitants -of the region out of the general rationing scheme?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='10' id='Page_10'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the volume entitled “Workers Conferences for 1943,” we find -an excerpt concerning the conference of 14 April 1943, which took -place in Kraków. On Page 28 of the document book, the Tribunal -will find the excerpt which I wish to read into the record.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“President Naumann is speaking, and he quotes the figures -estimated for 1943-44:</p> - -<p>“One thousand five hundred tons of sweets for the Germans, -36 million liters of skimmed fresh milk; 15,100,000 liters of -full cream milk for the Germans.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 24 the same person continues—this total account is on -Page 28 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Last year, more than 20 percent of the total amount of live -stock in the Government General was requisitioned. Cattle -which were really required for the production of milk and -butter were slaughtered last year so that the Reich and the -armed forces could be supplied and the meat ration maintained -to a certain extent. If we want 120,000 tons of meat, -we must sacrifice 40 percent of the remaining live stock.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In answer to a question by the Governor General, President -Naumann replied that 383,000 tons of grain were requisitioned -in 1940, 685,000 tons in 1941, and 1.2 million tons in 1942. -It appears from these figures that requisitions have increased -from year to year and have steadily approached the limits -of possibility. Now they are preparing to increase the requisitions -by another 200,000 tons which will bring them to the -extreme bounds of possibility. The Polish peasant cannot be -allowed to starve beyond the point where he will still be able -to cultivate his fields and carry out any further tasks imposed -upon him, such as carting wood for the forestry authorities.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>However, the quotation which I have read from Naumann’s -reply in no way influenced the policy of the merciless plundering -of the Polish people, whose fate, to use Frank’s own words, interested -him from one angle only.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the volume entitled “Diary, From 1 January to 28 February -1944” there is the following statement by Frank made at the conference -of the leaders of German agriculture on 12 January 1944. -The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 30 of the document -book.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Once we have won the war, the Poles, Ukrainians, and all -other people living around can be made into mincemeat, or -anything else, as far as I am concerned.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe, Your Honors, that after this quotation there is no -need for me, as a representative of the Soviet Prosecution, to add -<span class='pageno' title='11' id='Page_11'></span> -anything more to that section of my statement which deals with -the crimes committed by the Hitlerite criminals on the territory -of the Polish State. Indeed, any one of the sentences quoted is -more than sufficient to give us an exact picture of the regime in -Poland created by Frank, and of Frank himself, who created this -regime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Turning now to the plunder and pillage of private and public -property by the Hitlerites in Yugoslavia, I must, Your Honors, read -the appropriate extracts of the official report of the Yugoslav Government, -submitted to the International Military Tribunal by the Soviet -Prosecution as Exhibit USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). -This report, in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter, is submitted -as irrefutable evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Count 6 of this report, entitled “Plunder of Public and Private -Property,” reads as follows—this count is on Page 32 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“6. Plunder of public and private property.</p> - -<p>“Along with the exploitation of manpower the plundering -of public and private property was systematically carried out -in Yugoslavia. This plunder was carried out in various ways -and within the scope of the different measures taken. In -this way, too, Germany succeeded in completely exhausting -the economic and financial forces in occupied Yugoslavia and -in destroying her almost completely from the economic point -of view.</p> - -<p>“We shall cite here only a few examples of this systematic -plunder:</p> - -<p>“A. Currency and credit measures.</p> - -<p>“Just as in other occupied countries, the Germans, immediately -after their entry into Yugoslavia, carried out a series of -currency measures which enabled them to take out of Yugoslavia -in great quantities goods and other valuables at an -insignificant price. As early as 14 April 1941”—that is to say, -even before the occupation of Yugoslavia was actually completed—“the -Commander-in-Chief of the Army, ‘on the basis -of the authority received from the Führer and Supreme -Commander of the German Armed Forces,’ issued the ‘Proclamation -Concerning Occupied Yugoslav Territory.’</p> - -<p>“Article 9 of this proclamation fixes an obligatory rate of -exchange of 20 Yugoslav dinars for 1 German mark. Thus the -value of the dinar in relation to the Reichsmark was artificially -and by force lowered. The real rate of exchange before -the war was much more favorable to the Yugoslav currency.</p> - -<p>“This proves clearly the violation of the appropriate regulations -of the Hague Convention, as well as the existence of -<span class='pageno' title='12' id='Page_12'></span> -a plan prepared in advance for the depreciation of Yugoslav -currency.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal a certified photographic copy of the -aforementioned proclamation as Exhibit Number USSR-140 (Document -Number USSR-140).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The second predatory measure in the field of currency policy -was the introduction of German bonds (Reichskreditkassenschein) -as an obligatory means of payment in the occupied -territory of Yugoslavia. This measure was also mentioned -in Paragraph IX of the proclamation submitted to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-140. These so-called occupation -marks, which were without any economic foundation and -without any value whatsoever in Germany itself, were printed -in Yugoslavia in accordance with the needs of the German -forces of occupation and authorities and in this way served -as a means for enabling them to make purchases at a very -low price.</p> - -<p>“On 30 June 1942”—that is to say, more than a year later—“these -Reich bonds were withdrawn. This took place after -the Germans had already bought up almost everything that -could be purchased in Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav State -Bank had been liquidated and all its properties plundered. -In its stead the Germans created the so-called Serbian National -Bank.</p> - -<p>“However, so that the Germans would suffer no loss through -this measure, the Serbian National Bank was forced to exchange -the so-called occupation marks for new dinars. The -marks thus exchanged were simply withdrawn from the -Serbian National Bank by the Germans against receipt. In -this way one of the most shameless plunders was carried out, -which cost Yugoslavia many thousands of millions of dinars.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-194 (Document -Number USSR-194), “the German decree of 30 June 1942 -concerning the withdrawal of notes issued by the Reichskreditkasse -and also a certified copy of the decree concerning the Serbian -National Bank, of 29 May 1941,” as Exhibit Number USSR-135 -(Document Number USSR-135).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It can be seen from these documents that the German occupation -authorities carried out by force the illegal liquidation -of the Yugoslav State Bank, under the pretext that Yugoslavia -no longer existed, and that they took advantage of -this liquidation in order to plunder the country on an enormous -scale.</p> - -<p>“The Germans established the so-called Serbian National -Bank exclusively for the purpose of creating an instrument -<span class='pageno' title='13' id='Page_13'></span> -for their predatory economic and currency policy in Serbia. -The bank was administered by officials whom they themselves -appointed.</p> - -<p>“The measures taken with regard to Yugoslav metal coins are -also very characteristic. The Yugoslav coinage, which -contained a certain percent of silver and brass, was withdrawn, -and replaced by coins of very poor metal alloy. Naturally, -the Germans carried to Germany a large quantity of the -most valuable Yugoslav coins.</p> - -<p>“B. Requisitions and fines.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 40 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Reich Minister Speer, head of the Armament and War Production -Ministry, declared that fixed prices were the Magna -Carta of the Armament Program.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Göring, on 26 March 1943, issued a decree -demanding a further decrease in the prices of all goods imported -from the occupied countries.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“This lowering of prices was attained by means of currency -measures as well as by means of requisitioning, confiscation, -fines, and in particular, through a special price policy.</p> - -<p>“By means of requisitioning, a policy of fixed low prices, and -compulsory sales, the Government of the Reich was enabled -to plunder thoroughly the Yugoslav people. This went so -far that even the quisling institutions collaborating with the -Germans frequently had to declare that the quotas of goods -demanded by the Germans could not be filled.</p> - -<p>“Thus, a report made by the district chief, for the Moravski -District”—quisling administration of Milan Nedic—“on 12 -February 1942, stated:</p> - -<p>“1. If they are deprived of so many cattle, the peasants will -not be able to cultivate their fields. On the one hand, they -are ordered to cultivate every inch of ground, on the other -hand, their cattle are ruthlessly confiscated.</p> - -<p>“2. The cattle are purchased at such a low price that the -peasants feel that they are hardly compensated at all for the -loss of their cattle.</p> - -<p>“Similar examples from other regions or districts of Yugoslavia -are very numerous.</p> - -<p>“In order to plunder the country, the Germans often reverted -to the systematic imposition of money fines. For instance -the cash fines imposed by the ‘Feldkommandantur’ in Belgrade -during 1943 alone amounted to 48,818,068 dinars. In -Nish, during the first 3½ months of 1943, the cash fines -amounted to 5,065,000 dinars. -<span class='pageno' title='14' id='Page_14'></span></p> - -<p>“Finally, we should like to give here a few details regarding -the clearing accounts through which the export of Yugoslav -goods to Germany was carried out. As early as 1 March -1943 the clearing balance in favor of Serbia amounted to -219 million Reichsmark, or 4,380 million dinars. By the end -of the occupation Germany owed Serbia 10,000 million dinars.</p> - -<p>“The situation was the same in all the other provinces of -Yugoslavia, and only the methods of plundering varied -according to local conditions.</p> - -<p>“C. Confiscations.</p> - -<p>“Confiscations were one of the most widespread and effective -means of plundering Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p>“Before the occupation of Yugoslavia was completed in 1941, -a decree on confiscation was issued by the Germans in the -combat zone. Pursuant to this decree the Germans confiscated -enormous quantities of agricultural products, raw materials, -semi-manufactured, and other goods.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal a certified copy of the above-mentioned -decree as Exhibit Number USSR-206 (Document Number USSR-206).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation of the country, the German -occupation authorities introduced by means of numerous -decrees, the system of confiscation of private and public -property.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to save time I skip a part of this section of the document -which quotes concrete examples of the confiscation of property -belonging to the Yugoslav population, and I pass on to the -next count, which is entitled, “Other Methods of Plunder.” The -members of the Tribunal will find this section on Page 52:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Together with the aforesaid methods of plunder, which were -carried out on the basis of various decrees, laws, and regulations, -more primitive methods of looting were practiced throughout -the Yugoslav territory. They were not sporadic incidents -but constituted a part of the German system for enslavement -and exploitation.</p> - -<p>“The Germans plundered everything from industrial and -economic undertakings, down to cattle, food, and even simplest -objects for personal use.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall cite a few examples:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. Immediately after their entry into Yugoslavia, the Germans -looted all the bigger firms and storehouses. They -generally engaged in this form of looting at night, after the -so-called curfew hours.</p> - -<p>“2. The order of Major General Kuebler”—which has already -been submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as -<span class='pageno' title='15' id='Page_15'></span> -Document Number USSR-132—“contains the following passage:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Troops must treat these members of the population who -maintain an unfriendly attitude toward the occupation forces -in a brutal and ruthless manner, depriving the enemy of every -means of existence by the destruction of localities which -have been abandoned and by seizing all available stocks.’</p> - -<p>“On the basis of this and similar orders, the Germans -ceaselessly looted the country under the pretext of so-called -‘control of existing stocks,’ using the opportunities afforded -by the ‘destruction of localities which had been abandoned.’</p> - -<p>“3. Punitive expeditions, which became an everyday event -during the occupation, were, naturally, always accompanied -by the looting of the victims’ property. In the same way they -robbed their prisoners and the bodies of those who had fallen -fighting in the Free National Army, as well as all the internees -in the concentration camps.</p> - -<p>“4. Not even churches were spared. Thus, for example, the -German unit ‘Konrad-Einheit,’ which operated in the vicinity -of Sibenik, looted the Church of St. John in Zablad.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>There are numerous examples of the same kind.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During the 4 years the whole of Yugoslavia was systematically -looted. This was carried out either through numerous -so-called ‘legal measures,’ or through mass looting on the -part of the Germans. The Nazi occupation forces showed -great inventive ability and applied to Yugoslavia the experience -which they had gained in other occupied countries.</p> - -<p>“These criminal measures damaged the Yugoslav State and -its citizens to such an extent that one can consider it simply -as economic destruction of the country.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From this Your Honors may see that the plunder of public and -private property in Yugoslavia was conducted by the Hitlerites -according to a preconceived plan, that it affected every class and -every branch of the country’s economy, and caused enormous -material loss to the Yugoslav State and to its citizens.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I believe -this would be a convenient time to recess.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: After the invasion of Greece, the -Hitlerite conspirators pursued their policy of merciless despoliation -of the occupied countries and immediately began to plunder her -national property. The official report of the Greek Government on -<span class='pageno' title='16' id='Page_16'></span> -the crimes committed by the Hitlerites has already been submitted -to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The appropriate section of this report entitled, “Exploitation,” -gives the concrete facts of the plunder of public and private property -in Greece. I quote the following excerpts from the part, -“Exploitation,” from this report of the Greek Government, which -will be found on Page 59 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Owing to her geographical position, Greece was used by the -Germans as a base of operations for the war in North Africa. -They also used Greece as a rest center for thousands of their -troops from the North African and Eastern fronts, thus concentrating -in Greece much larger forces than were actually -necessary for purpose of occupation.</p> - -<p>“A large part of the local supplies of fruit, vegetables, -potatoes, olive oil, meat, and dairy products were confiscated -to supply these forces. As current production was not sufficient -for these needs, they resorted to the requisitioning of livestock -on a large scale, with the result that the country’s livestock -became seriously depleted.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to requisitioning supplies for their armies, the Hitlerite -conspirators exacted enormous sums of money from Greece -to cover the so-called cost of occupation. In the report of the Greek -Government the following remark is made on the subject—this -is on Page 60 of the document book—I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Between August 1941 and December 1941 the sum of -26,206,085,000 drachmas was paid to the Germans, representing -a sum of 60 percent more than the estimated national -income during the same period. In fact, according to the -estimates of two Axis experts, Dr. Barberin, from Germany, -and Dr. Bartoni, an Italian, the national income for that year -amounted to only 23,000 million drachmas. In the following -year, as the national income decreased, this money was taken -from national funds.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Another method of plundering Greece which the Hitlerites -applied on a vast scale was the so-called requisitions and confiscations. -In order to save time, I shall, with the permission of the -Tribunal, merely read into the record a brief excerpt from the -Greek report dealing with this question. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“One of the enemy’s first measures on occupying Greece was -to seize all the existing stocks in the country by requisition -or open confiscation. Among other goods, they requisitioned -from the wholesale and retail trade 71,000 tons of currants -and 10,000 tons of olive oil; they confiscated 1,435 tons of -<span class='pageno' title='17' id='Page_17'></span> -coffee, 1,143 tons of sugar, 2,520 tons of rice, and a whole -shipload of wheat valued at 530,000 dollars.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As the country was divided among three occupying powers, the -Hitlerites blockaded that part of Greece which was occupied by -their own troops and forbade the export of food supplies from -that zone. The Hitlerites began to confiscate all existing stocks -of food and other goods, a measure which reduced the population to a -state of extreme misery and starvation. This plundering had such -catastrophic consequences for the Greek nation that, finally, even -the Germans themselves were forced to realize that they had gone -too far. The practical result of this was that towards the end of -1942 the German authorities promised the International Commission -of the Red Cross that they would return to the population all the -local products confiscated and exported by the armies of occupation. -The Germans also undertook to replace them by the importation of -products of the same caloric value. This pledge was not fulfilled.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As in all the occupied countries, the Germans issued and put into -circulation an unlimited amount of currency. It should be noted -that this currency represented the so-called occupation marks -without any security. I quote an excerpt from this report, which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 63 in the document -book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“From the very first they”—the Germans—“put into circulation -10,000 million occupation marks, a sum equal to half the -money in circulation at that date. By April 1944 the monetary -circulation had reached 14,000 million drachmas, that is, it had -increased 700 percent since the start of the occupation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Germans, after causing great inflation in that way, purchased -all goods at prices fixed before the occupation. All goods purchased, -as well as valuables, articles of gold, furniture, and so forth, were -shipped by the Germans to Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, as in every country they occupied, the Hitlerites put -into operation in Greece also the so-called “clearing system.” Under -this system, all goods earmarked for export were first confiscated or -put under embargo by the military authorities. Then they were -bought up by German firms at arbitrarily fixed prices. The price of -the goods established in this one-sided way was then credited to -Greece. The prices for merchandise imported from Germany were -fixed at from 200 to 500 percent higher than their normal value. -Finally, Greece was also debited with the price of merchandise -imported from Germany for the needs of the occupation forces. The -Germans called this cynical method of plundering “clearing.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Greek Government -which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 64 of the -document book. I read: -<span class='pageno' title='18' id='Page_18'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In consequence, notwithstanding the fact that Greece -exported the whole of her available resources to Germany, -the clearing account showed a credit balance of 264,157,574.03 -marks in favor of Germany when the Germans left. At the -time of their arrival the credit balance in favor of Greece was -4,353,428.82 marks.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In this way, Your Honors, the Hitlerites plundered the Greek -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, I pass on to the statement of the -facts of the monstrous plunder and pillage to which private, public, -and state property was subjected by the Hitlerite usurpers in the -temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union. The irrefutable -original documents which I shall have the honor to present for your -consideration, Your Honors, will prove that long before their attack -on the U.S.S.R., the fascist conspirators had conceived and prepared -their criminal plans for the plunder and spoliation of its riches and -of its national wealth.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Like all other military crimes committed by the Hitlerites in -countries occupied by them, the plunder and pillage of these -territories was planned and organized beforehand by the major war -criminals whom the determination and valor of the Allied nations -have brought to justice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The crimes committed by those who carried out the conspirators’ -criminal plans over wide areas of the Soviet land, on the fertile -steppes of the Ukraine, in the fields and forests of Bielorussia, in the -rich cornfields of the Kuban and the Don, in the blossoming gardens -of the Crimea, in the approaches to Leningrad and in the Soviet -Baltic States—all these monstrous crimes, all this mass plunder and -wholesale pillage of the sacred wealth created by the peaceable and -honest work of the Soviet peoples, Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, -and others—all these crimes were directly planned, designed, -prepared, and organized by the criminal Hitlerite Government and -the Supreme Command of Armed Forces—the major war criminals, -now occupying the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall begin with evidence as to the premeditated nature of the -crimes committed on U.S.S.R. territory. I shall prove that the -wholesale indiscriminate pillage of private, public, and state property -committed by the German fascist usurpers was not an isolated -occurrence, not a local phenomenon. It was not the result of the -disintegration or the thefts of individual army units but was, on the -contrary, an essential and indissoluble part of the general plan of -attack on the U.S.S.R. and represented, moreover, the fundamental -purpose, the chief motive underlying this criminal aggression.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal if, in stating the facts -connected with the preparations for this type of crimes, I am -<span class='pageno' title='19' id='Page_19'></span> -obliged to refer very briefly also to several of the documents already -submitted to the Tribunal by my American colleagues. I shall -endeavor, however, to avoid repetitions and shall mainly quote -such extracts from these documents as have not been previously -read into the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is known that simultaneously with the elaboration of “Plan -Barbarossa,” which provided for all strategic questions connected -with the attack on the U.S.S.R., purely economic problems arising -from the plan were elaborated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the document known under the title, “Conference of 29 April -1941 with Branches of the Armed Forces,” and presented to the Tribunal -by the American prosecution on 10 December as Document -Number 1157-PS, we read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Purpose of the conference: Explanation of the administrative -organization of the economic section of undertaking ‘Barbarossa-Oldenburg’. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further on in this document it is indicated that the Führer, -contrary to previous practice in the preparation measures envisaged, -ordered that all economic questions were to be worked out by one -center and that this center is to be “the special-purpose economic -staff Oldenburg under the direction of Lieutenant General Schubert” -and that it is to be under the Reich Marshal, that is, Göring. Thus, as -early as April 1941, the Defendant Göring was in charge of all -preparations for plundering the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To finish with this document, I should like to recall that provision -is made in it, even at that early date, for the organization of special -economic inspectorates and commands at Leningrad, Murmansk, -Riga, Minsk, Moscow, Tula, Gorki, Kiev, Baku, Yaroslavl, and many -other Soviet industrial towns. The document points out that the -tasks of these inspectorates and commands included “the economic -utilization of suitable territory” that is, as is explained below, “all -questions of food supply and rural economy, industrial economy, -including raw materials and manufactured articles; forestry, finance -and banking, museums, commerce, trade, and manpower.” As you -see, Your Honors, the tasks were extremely wide and extraordinarily -concrete.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Plan Barbarossa-Oldenburg was further developed in the -so-called “directives for economic management of the newly occupied -eastern territories” which were also elaborated and issued secretly -before the attack on the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Before passing on to the “Green File” I should like to present to -the Tribunal and read but in part another document—the so-called -“File of the District Agricultural Leader,” which was submitted to -the Tribunal by my colleague Colonel Smirnov as Document Number -USSR-89. These very detailed instructions for future district -<span class='pageno' title='20' id='Page_20'></span> -agricultural leaders which were also worked out and published in -advance, bore the title of “District Agricultural Leaders File,” and -were dated 1 June 1941. Naturally this document, too, is also marked -“top secret.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This instruction begins, “12 Commandments for the Behavior of -Germans in the East and Their Attitude towards Russians.” My -colleague, Colonel Smirnov, read into the record only one of those -commandments: and I, with the Tribunal’s permission, shall read -into the record the other commandments. The first commandment -states—the members of the Tribunal will find it on Page 69 of the -document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Those of you who are sent to work in the East must adopt as -your guiding principle the rule that output alone is decisive. -I must ask you to devote your hardest and most unsparing -efforts to this end.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>What sort of “work” is meant is clearly shown by the following -commandments. I quote extracts from this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“5th commandment: It is essential that you should always -bear in mind the end to be attained. You must pursue this -aim with the utmost stubbornness; but the methods used may -be elastic to a degree. The methods employed are left to the -discretion of the individual. . . .</p> - -<p>“6th commandment: Since the newly incorporated territories -must be secured permanently to Germany and Europe, much -will depend on how you establish yourself there. . . . Lack of -character in individuals will constitute a definite ground for -removing them from their work. Anyone recalled for this -reason can never again occupy a responsible position in the -Reich proper.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In this way the future “agricultural leaders” were not only ordered -to be implacable, merciless, and cruel in their plundering activities, -but were also warned of what would happen to them if they were -not implacable enough or if they showed “lack of character.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following commandments develop the same idea:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“7th commandment: Do not ask, ‘How will this benefit the -peasants?’ but ‘How will it benefit Germany?’</p> - -<p>“8th commandment: Do not talk—act! You can never talk a -Russian around or persuade him with words. He can talk -better than you can, for he is a born ‘dialectic’. . . .</p> - -<p>“Only your will must decide, but this will must be directed -to the execution of great tasks. Only in this case will it be -ethical even in its cruelty. Keep away from the Russians—they -are not Germans, they are Slavs. -<span class='pageno' title='21' id='Page_21'></span></p> - -<p>“9th commandment: We do not wish to convert the Russians -to National Socialism; we wish only to make them a tool in -our hands. You must win the youth of Russia by assigning -their task to them—by taking them firmly in hand and -administering ruthless punishment to those who practice -sabotage or fail to accomplish the work expected of them.</p> - -<p>“The investigation of personal records and pleas takes up time -which is needed for your German task. You are neither -investigating magistrates nor yet the Wailing Wall.</p> - -<p>“11th commandment: . . . his (Russian) stomach is elastic, -therefore—no false pity for him!”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such were these commandments for agricultural leaders, which -one should—to be more exact—call “commandments for cannibals.” -The file begins with these “commandments,” which are followed by -a perfectly clear-cut program for the plundering of U.S.S.R. agriculture. -At the beginning of this program we read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Fundamental economical directives for the Organization of -Economic Policy in the East, Agricultural Group.</p> - -<p>“As regards food policy, the aim of this campaign is:</p> - -<p>“1. To guarantee food supplies for many years ahead for the -German Armed Forces and the German civilian population.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As you see, Your Honors, a perfectly clear and candid formulation -of the aims of the attack on the U.S.S.R. is given. Of course, it does -not exhaust these aims. This aim was not confined to the stealing of -provisions, and provisions were far from being the only thing stolen. -This is only an extract from the agricultural leaders’ file, and they -were not the only people to be entrusted with tasks of pillage and -to perform these tasks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The file as a whole contains the following sections of a carefully -thought out and extremely concrete program for the plunder of the -Soviet Union’s agriculture. I read the table of contents. Your -Honors will find this document on Page 67 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. 12 commandments. 2. General economic directives. 3. Organization -chart. 4. Instructions for the regional agricultural -leader. 5. Instructions for securing personnel. 6. State farms: -Directives on the taking over and management of State farms. -7. Directives for taking over and managing collective farms. -8. Agriculture machine depots, directives regarding administration. -9. Directives for registration. 10. Furnishing food -supplies for the cities. 11. Schedules for agricultural work. -12. Price lists.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not, Your Honor, going to take up your time by reading the -whole of this document, which consists of 98 typewritten pages. I -<span class='pageno' title='22' id='Page_22'></span> -am presenting it to the Tribunal in its entirety, to be included in the -files of the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read from this document, already presented to the Tribunal -by my American colleagues on 10 December of last year as -Exhibit Number USA-147 (Document 1058-PS), only a few short -lines. It is a note of the record of a speech made by Rosenberg at -a secret conference on 20 June 1941, dealing with questions of the -East. In his speech, Rosenberg stated particularly:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The problem of feeding German nationals undeniably heads -the German demands on the East just now, and here the -southern regions and the northern Caucasus must help to -balance the German food situation. We certainly do not -consider ourselves obliged to feed the Russian people as well -from the produce of these fertile regions. We know that this is -a cruel necessity, which has nothing to do with any humane -feelings. It will undoubtedly be necessary to carry out -evacuation on a large scale and the Russians are doomed to -live through some very hard years.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus did the leaders of Hitlerite Germany formulate the tasks -they set themselves when preparing their attack on the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Already in August 1942—that is, from 26 to 28 August—Gauleiter -Koch, who had just arrived from Hitler’s headquarters, spoke at the -conference in Rovno. The record of this conference was found in -Rosenberg’s archives. This document was kindly put at our disposal -by our American colleagues. It is registered as Document Number -264-PS, but it has not been presented to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read into the record an excerpt from this record. The members -of the Tribunal will find it on Page 72 in the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“He”—Koch—“explained the political situation and his tasks -as Reich Commissioner”—in the following way—“ ‘There is -no free Ukraine. We must aim at making the Ukrainians work -for Germany, and not at making the people here happy. The -Ukraine will have to make good the German shortages. This -task must be accomplished without regard for losses. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘The Führer has ordered 3 million tons of grain from the -Ukraine for the Reich, and they must be delivered. . . .’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall show later how far this original figure—3 million tons of -grain—was exceeded by the Hitlerite plunderers, whose avid -appetites grew from month to month.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these aims of plunder had been planned in advance by the -criminal Hitlerite Government, who worked out an organized scheme -for carrying out organized plunder and practical methods of pillaging -the occupied territories. -<span class='pageno' title='23' id='Page_23'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>With the Tribunal’s permission I shall read extracts from a secret -document by Reich Marshal Göring which was captured by units of -the Red Army. This document bears the title, “Directives for -Economic Management in the Newly Occupied Areas in the East -(Green File),” and extracts of it have already been mentioned by my -colleagues. This document is presented by the Soviet Prosecution as -Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document Number USSR-10).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The title page of the document reads—Page 76 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Eastern Staff for Economic Leadership; top secret.</p> - -<p>“Note: The present directives are to be considered as top-secret -documents (documents of State importance) until -X-Day; after X-Day they will no longer be secret and will be -treated as open documents for official use only.</p> - -<p>“Directives on the subject of economic management in the -newly occupied areas in the East (Green File).</p> - -<p>“Part I. Economic tasks and organization, Berlin, June 1941; -printed by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As is clear from the text of the document, these directives were -published immediately before Germany’s attack on the U.S.S.R. “for -the information of military and economic authorities regarding -economic tasks in the eastern territories to be occupied.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In setting forth the “main economic tasks” the directives state in -the first paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I. According to the Führer’s order, it is essential in the -interests of Germany that every possible measure for the -immediate and complete exploitation of the occupied territories -be adopted. Any measure liable to hinder the achievement of -this purpose should be waived or cancelled.</p> - -<p>“II. The exploitation of the regions to be occupied immediately -should be carried out primarily in the economic field controlling -food supplies and crude oil. The main economic -purpose of the campaign is to obtain the greatest possible -quantity of food and crude oil for Germany. In addition, other -raw materials from the occupied territories must be supplied -to the German war economy as far as is technically possible -and as far as the claims of the industries to be maintained -outside the Reich permit.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next part of the excerpt, and I pass on to the following -excerpt, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 78:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The idea that order should be restored in the occupied -territories and their economic life re-established as soon as -possible is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, the treatment -of the different parts of the country must be a very different -<span class='pageno' title='24' id='Page_24'></span> -one. Order should only be restored and industry promoted in -regions where we can obtain considerable reserves of -agricultural products or crude oil.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of this quotation in order to save time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, the plan devised in advance for the organized plunder -of the Soviet Union provided in detail for the removal from the -U.S.S.R. to Germany of all raw materials, supplies, and stocks of -goods available. In confirmation of this I cite excerpts from this -document so that I shall not have to read it in full. The members of -the Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page 83, 87, and 88 of the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“All raw materials, semi-manufactured, or finished products of -which we can make use are to be withdrawn from commerce. -This will be done by IV Wi and by the economic authorities -by means of appeals and orders, by ordering confiscation or -by military supervision, or both.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Page 88—from the section “Raw Material and the Exploitation of -Commercial Resources”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Platinum, magnesium, and rubber are to be secured at once -and transported to Germany as soon as possible.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Back of Page 87:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Food products, articles for personal use, and clothing -discovered in combat and rear zones are to be placed at the -disposal of IV A for immediate military requirements.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Back of Page 83—in the section of the directives entitled -“Economic Organization” we find a project of an apparatus with -wide ramifications which was to carry out this organized plunder of -the U.S.S.R. I shall read a series of excerpts from this section, which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 79 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“A. General questions.</p> - -<p>“To guarantee undivided economic leadership in the theater of -military activities, as well as in the administrative areas to be -established at a later date, the Reich Marshal has organized -the ‘Staff for Economic Leadership East’ directly under -himself and headed by his representative, State Secretary -Körner.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The orders of the Reich Marshal apply to all economic -spheres, including food supply and rural economy.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In directing your attention to these two excerpts, Your Honors, -I consider it definitively proved that the Defendant Göring not only -had personal charge of the preparations for the plunder of private, -<span class='pageno' title='25' id='Page_25'></span> -public, and state property, but later on directed personally the vast -apparatus specially set up for these criminal purposes. You can -judge of the projected organization of this apparatus, by the following -extracts from the Green File. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Organization of Economic Administration in the operational -area.</p> - -<p>“1. The economic establishments, subordinated to the Economic -Staff East, insofar as their activities cover the theater of -military activities, are incorporated in the army staffs and are -subordinate to them in military matters, namely:</p> - -<p>“A. In the rear area: One economic inspectorate at each of the -chief commands of the rear area; one or several mobile units -of the economic section with the security divisions; one IV Wi -group at each of the field command headquarters.</p> - -<p>“B. In the army administration district: One IV Wi group -(liaison officer Wi Rü Amt) with the army commander. One -IV Wi group for each of the field commands attached to the -army of the region; in addition, as and when necessary, -economic units are sent forward to the armies in the field. -These units are subordinate in military matters to the army -command.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further on, in Paragraph 4 of this same section, under the title -“Structure of the Individual Economic Institutions” the whole plan -of construction of the Economic Staff East is described. I shall cite -it in my own words in order to save time. The members of the -Tribunal will find the document to which I refer at the back of -Page 79 in the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Chief of the Economic Staff with the leadership group (field of -activity, leadership questions, also manpower); Group IA, in charge -of food and agriculture, running the entire agricultural production -and also the assembling of supplies for the army; Group W, in -charge of industry, raw materials, forestry, finance, banking -property, and trade; Group M, in charge of troop requirements, -armaments, and transport; economic inspectorates attached to army -groups, in charge of the economic exploitation of the rear area. -Economic task forces organized in the zone of each security division -and consisting of one officer as commander, and several specialists -in different branches of the work. Economic groups attached to the -field commands, who are responsible for supplying the immediate -requirements of the troops stationed within the sphere of activity of -the field command and for preparing the economic exploitation of -the country in the interests of war economy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To these economic groups were attached experts on manpower, -food production and agriculture, industrial economy and general -economic questions; the economic section, attached to the army -<span class='pageno' title='26' id='Page_26'></span> -command, with special technical battalions and platoons as well as -special intelligence subsections for industrial research, particularly -in the field of raw materials and crude oil, and subsections for -discovering and securing agricultural produce and machines, -including tractors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This same plan also provides for special technical units for crude -oil—battalions and companies—and also the so-called mining -battalions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, under the direct control of the Defendant Göring, a whole -army of plunderers of all ranks and branches was provided, prepared, -trained, and drilled in advance for the organized pillage and looting -of the national property of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I will not take up your time by reading the whole -text of the Green File; I shall limit myself to enumerating its -remaining sections, which bear the following titles—Page 77 in the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Execution of individual economic tasks; Economic transport; -Problems of military protection of economy; Procuring of -supplies for the troops out of the resources of the country; -Utilization of manpower, particularly of the local population; -War booty, paid labor, captured material, prize courts; -Economic objectives of war industries; Raw materials and -utilization of goods available; Finance and credit; Foreign -trade and clearings; Price control.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Thus the plunder of all branches of the U.S.S.R.’s national economy -was foreseen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To conclude I shall read into the record Keitel’s order, dated -16 June 1941, 6 days before the attack on the U.S.S.R., in which he -instructed all military units of the German Army to be ready to -execute all the directives of the Green File. I shall now read this -order—you will find this, Your Honors, at the back of Page 89 of -the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By the Führer’s order, the Reich Marshal has issued ‘Directives -for the Guidance of the Economic Administration of the -Territories To Be Occupied.’</p> - -<p>“These directives (Green File) are intended for the guidance -of the military command and economic authorities in the -economic tasks within the territories to be occupied in the -immediate future. They contain directives for supplying the -army from the resources of the country and give orders to -army units to assist the economic authorities. Army units -must comply with these directions and orders.</p> - -<p>“The immediate and thorough exploitation of the territories -to be occupied in the immediate future in the interest of -<span class='pageno' title='27' id='Page_27'></span> -Germany’s war economy, especially in the field of fuel and -food supply, is of the highest importance for the further -conduct of the war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the second part of this order which contains detailed -instructions as to how the directives of the Green File should be -executed, and I read only the last paragraph of Keitel’s order:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The exploitation of the country must be carried out on a -wide scale, with the help of field and local headquarters, in -the most important agricultural and oil-producing districts.</p> - -<p>“Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The concluding provision of this document, which says that “the -exploitation of the country must be carried out on a wide scale” -was strictly observed by units of the German Army; and the -occupied regions of the U.S.S.R., from the very first day of the war, -were subjected to the most merciless plunder. In confirmation of -this, I shall later present to the Tribunal a series of original German -documents, orders, directives, instructions, decrees, and so forth, -issued by German military authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Meanwhile, to finish with the Green File, I may state in conclusion -that this striking document is definite evidence of the -remarkable qualifications for plunder and the vast experience in -brigandage of the Hitlerite conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The program for plundering the occupied territories of the -Soviet Union, conceived on a wide scale and elaborated in detail by -the conspirators, was put into practice by the Hitlerite aggressors -from the very first days of their attack on the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from the organized plunder carried out by the vast -apparatus specially formed for this purpose—an apparatus consisting -of all kinds of agricultural leaders, inspectors, specialists in -economics, technical and intelligence battalions and companies, -economic groups and detachments, military agronomists, and so -forth—the so-called “material interest” of the German soldiers and -officers, who had unlimited possibilities of robbing the civilian -population and sending their booty to Germany, was widely -encouraged by the Hitlerite Government and the High Command of -the German Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The universal plundering of the population of the towns and -villages of the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. and the mass -removal to Germany of the personal property of Soviet citizens, -the property taken from the collective farms and co-operative unions -and the property of the State itself, was carried out according to a -prearranged plan wherever the German fascist aggressors appeared.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I turn, Your Honors, to the presentation of individual Soviet -Government documents on this question. A few months after -<span class='pageno' title='28' id='Page_28'></span> -Hitlerite Germany’s treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the Soviet -Government had already received irrefutable data about the war -crimes committed by the Hitlerite armies in the Soviet territories -they occupied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleagues have already presented to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-51 a note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs of the U.S.S.R., Molotov, dated 6 January 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to avoid repetition and to save time, I shall read only -a few excerpts from this note which have a direct bearing on the -subject of my presentation. You will find the quoted extracts, -underlined on Page 100 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Every step which the German fascist army and its allies took -on the occupied Soviet territory of the Ukraine and Moldavia, -Bielorussia and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the Karelo-Finnish -territory and the Russian districts and regions is -marked by the ruin or destruction of countless objects of -material and cultural value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The last paragraph of this quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the villages occupied by German authorities, the peaceful -peasant population is subjected to unrestrained depredation -and robbery. The farmers are robbed of their property, -acquired through whole decades of persistent toil, robbed of -their houses, cattle, grain, clothing—of everything, down to -their children’s last little garments and the last handful of -grain. In many cases, the Germans drive the rural population, -including old people, women, and children, out of their -dwellings as soon as the village is occupied and they are -compelled to seek shelter in mud huts, dugouts, forests, or -even under the open sky. In broad daylight the invaders -strip the clothing and footgear from anyone they meet on the -road, including children, savagely ill-treating those who try to -protest against, or offer any kind of resistance to, such highway -robbery.</p> - -<p>“In the villages liberated by the Red Army in the Rostov -and Voroshilovgrad regions in the Ukraine, the peasants were -plundered again and again by the invaders. As successive -German army units passed through these areas each of them -renewed their searches, lootings, arsons, and executions for -failure to deliver up provisions. The same thing took place in -the Moscow, Kalinin, Tula, Orel, Leningrad, and other regions, -from which the remnants of the German troops are now being -driven by the Red Army.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to save time I shall not read the next paragraphs of -this note, but shall give an account of them to the Tribunal in my -<span class='pageno' title='29' id='Page_29'></span> -own words. They contain a whole series of concrete facts of the -looting of the peaceful population in different regions of the Soviet -Union and the names of the victims as well as the list of such -things and belongings as were taken from these peaceful citizens. -Further, this note reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The marauding orgies of the German officers and soldiers -have spread to all the Soviet areas they have seized. The -German authorities have legitimatized marauding in their -armies and encouraged looting and violence. The German -Government sees in this practice the realization of their -bandit principle that every German combatant must have -‘a personal interest in the war.’ Thus, in a confidential order -of 17 July 1941, addressed to all commanders of propaganda -squads in the German Army and discovered by Red Army -units when the 68th German Infantry Division was routed, -explicit instructions are given to foster in every officer and -soldier of the German Army the feeling that he has a material -interest in the war. Similar orders inciting the army to mass -looting and murder of the civil population are also issued -by the armies of the countries fighting on the German side.</p> - -<p>“On the German-Soviet front, and especially in the vicinity -of Moscow, more and more fascist officers and soldiers can be -met dressed in pilfered clothes, their pockets crammed with -stolen goods and their tanks stuffed with women’s and -children’s wearing apparel torn from their victims’ bodies. -The German Army is becoming more and more an army of -ravenous thieves and marauders, who are looting and sacking -flourishing towns and villages of the Soviet Union, ravaging -and destroying the property and belongings of the laboring -population of our villages and towns, the fruit of its honest -toil. These are facts testifying to the extreme moral depravity -and degeneracy of the Hitlerite Army, whose looting, thievery, -and marauding have earned it the contempt and the curses -of the entire Soviet nation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Several months later, on 27 April 1942, in connection with the -information which continued to come in regarding the crimes committed -by the German fascist armies, Molotov, People’s Commissar -for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., published for the second time a -note on the monstrous misdeeds, atrocities, and acts of violence of -the German fascist invaders in occupied Soviet territories and on -the responsibility of the German Government and the High Command -for these crimes. This second note is also submitted to the -Tribunal. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General, what do you mean by “published”? -<span class='pageno' title='30' id='Page_30'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: What I mean is that this note -was first sent to all the governments with whom the U.S.S.R. -Government maintained diplomatic relations. The text of the note -was also published in the Soviet official press.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document has already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution -as Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). -I shall read a few brief excerpts from this document which have -a direct bearing on the subject of my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now, and you -can read it after the adjournment.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='31' id='Page_31'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court: -I desire to announce that the Defendant Streicher will be absent on -account of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I shall read now excerpts from the -note of the People’s Commissar. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the -interpreting system.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Owing to the delay the Tribunal will sit until -half past 5 tonight without further adjournment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Colonel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I am reading into the record -excerpts from the note by the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs dated 27 April 1942, and in order to save time I shall, with -your permission, quote only a few of the most necessary excerpts -from this note. They are very short. In this note, attention was -drawn to the fact that the documents captured by the Soviet authorities -and put at the disposal of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs are evidence of the premeditated nature of the plunder -carried out by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the following excerpts; last paragraph on Page 44 of my -statement, Russian text.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The appendix to Special Order Number 43761/41 of the Operations -Department of the General Staff of the German Army, -states:</p> - -<p>“ ‘It is urgently necessary that articles of clothing be acquired -by means of forced levies on the population of the occupied -regions enforced by every possible means. It is necessary -above all to confiscate woolen and leather gloves, coats, vests, -and scarves, padded vests and trousers, leather and felt boots, -and puttees.’</p> - -<p>“In several places liberated in the districts of Kursk and Orel, -the following orders have been found:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Property such as scales, sacks, grain, salt, kerosene, benzine, -lamps, pots and pans, oilcloth, window blinds, curtains, -rugs, phonographs, and records must be turned in to the commandant’s -office. Anyone violating this order will be shot.’ -<span class='pageno' title='32' id='Page_32'></span></p> - -<p>“In the town of Istra, in the Moscow region, the invaders -confiscated decorations for Christmas trees and toys. In the -Shakhovskaya railway station they organized the ‘delivery’ -by the inhabitants of children’s underwear, wall clocks, and -samovars. In districts still under the rule of the invaders, -these searches are still going on; and the population, already -reduced to the utmost poverty by the thefts which have been -perpetrated continually since the first appearance of the German -troops, is still being robbed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of the quotation from Mr. Molotov’s note and -conclude with the last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The general character of the campaign of robbery planned -by the Hitler Government, on which the German Command -tried to base its plans for supplying its Army and the districts -in its rear, is indicated by the following facts: In 25 districts -of the Tula region alone the invaders robbed Soviet citizens of -14,048 cows, 11,860 hogs, 28,459 sheep, 213,678 chickens, geese, -and ducks, and destroyed 25,465 beehives.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of this quotation which gives an inventory -of all property, cattle, and fowl confiscated by the invaders from -25 districts of the Tula region.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, the notes which I have read, mention only a few -of the innumerable crimes and cases of plunder committed by the -Hitlerites on Soviet soil.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With the permission of the Tribunal I shall now present several -German documents from which you will see how the German commanders -and officials themselves described their soldiers’ behavior. -Later I shall read candid statements by the German fascist leaders -saying that German soldiers and officers must not be hindered in -their marauding activities. It is natural that under these conditions -the moral disintegration of the German fascist armies should reach -its culminating point. Things reached such a point that the Hitlerites -begin to plunder each other, thereby proving the truth of the well-known -Russian proverb, “A thief stole a cudgel from a thief.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I now quote from the document which I present to the -Tribunal as Document Number USSR-285. This is an extract from -a report of the German District Commissioner of Zhitomir to the -Commissioner General of Zhitomir dated 30 November 1943. You -will find the document to which I refer on Page 93 in the document -book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Even before the German administration left Zhitomir, troops -stationed there were seen to break into the apartments of -Reich Germans and to appropriate everything that had any -value. Even the personal luggage of Germans still working in -<span class='pageno' title='33' id='Page_33'></span> -their offices was stolen. When the town was reoccupied it -was established that the houses where the Germans lived -were hardly touched by the local population, but that the -troops just entering the town had already started to loot the -houses and business premises. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the second excerpt from the same document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The soldiers are not satisfied with taking the articles they -can use, but they destroyed some of the remaining items; -valuable furniture was used for fires, although there was -plenty of wood.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I shall read into the record an excerpt from a report of -the German District Commissioner of the town of Korostyshev to -the Commissioner General of Zhitomir. The members of the Tribunal -will find this excerpt on Page 94 of the document book.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Unfortunately the German soldiers behaved badly. Unlike -the Russians they broke into the storehouses even when the -front line was still far away. Enormous quantities of grain -were stolen, including large quantities of seed. That might -have been tolerated in the case of combat units. . . . Upon the -return of our troops to Popelnaya, the warehouses were again -broken into immediately. The ‘Gebiets- und Kreislandwirt’ -nailed up the doors again, but the soldiers broke in once -more.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read into the record other excerpts from the same document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Kreislandwirt reported to me that the dairy farm was -plundered by retreating units; the soldiers carried away with -them butter, cheese, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And the second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The co-operative store was plundered before the eyes of the -Ukrainians. Among other things the soldiers took with them -all the cash in the store.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the third excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On the 9th and 10th of this month the guards of the field -gendarmerie were posted at the co-operative store in Korostyshev. -These guards could not repel the onslaught of the -soldiers. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And the last excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Pigs and fowls were slaughtered to the most irresponsible -degree and taken away by the soldiers. . . . The appearance of -the troops themselves can only be described as catastrophic.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In these towns; Your Honors, is the conduct of the German -soldiers depicted by a German commissioner in his official report. -<span class='pageno' title='34' id='Page_34'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is no doubt that this description is an objective one, -especially since it is supplemented by an official report of the -German Ukrainian company for supplying agriculture in the Commissariat -General, addressed to the Commissioner General of -Zhitomir. This is how the report describes the results of a raid by -German soldiers on the company’s premises, “. . . The office was in -a horrifying and incredible condition.” Second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . A 20-room private house at Hauptstrasse Number 57 -had an appalling appearance. Carpets and stair carpets were -missing, and all the upholstered armchairs, couches, beds with -spring or other mattresses, chairs, and wooden benches.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I skip a few lines:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The condition of the living rooms generally is almost indescribable.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit two more excerpts from the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Such, Your Honors, is the heartcry of the German brigands of -the company for the economic adoption of the Ukraine, who themselves -complain of the brigands in the German Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show that it was not only in Zhitomir and Korostyshev -that such things took place, I shall quote yet another report, this -time by the Commissioner of the Kazatinsky district, which contains -the following statement, “. . . The German soldiers stole food, -cattle, and vehicles.” This laconic but significant introduction is -followed by no less significant details:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Threatening him with a pistol, the corporal demanded the -keys of the granary from the District Commissioner. . . . -When I said that the key was in my pocket, he yelled, ‘Give -me the key.’ With these words he pulled out his pistol, stuck -it against my chest, and shouted, ‘I’m going to shoot you—you -are a shirker.’ He followed up this remark by a few -more specimens of invective, thrust his hand into my pocket -and grabbed the key, saying, ‘I am the only person who gives -orders here.’ This occurred in the presence of numerous -Germans and Ukrainians.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The chief of the main department, Dr. Moisich, relates the -same story in a report to the Commissioner General of Zhitomir, -dated 4 December 1943. All these documents are being presented in -their original form to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now, Your Honors, proceed to read excerpts from the -official reports and communiques of the Extraordinary State Commission -of the Soviet Union for the investigation and establishment -of crimes committed by the German intruders and their accomplices. -In order to save time, I ask the Tribunal to permit me to read -<span class='pageno' title='35' id='Page_35'></span> -only a few excerpts from these documents, and to give you the -contents of the rest in my own words.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the -looting and crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites in the city and -district of Rovno has already been submitted to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-45. The corresponding section of this -report reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During their stay in Rovno and the district, Hitlerite officers -and soldiers unrestrainedly plundered the peaceful Soviet -citizens and thoroughly looted the property of cultural and -educational institutions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not quote all the data mentioned in this report of the -Extraordinary State Commission. The report made by the Extraordinary -State Commission on the atrocities committed by the -Hitlerites in Kiev, and submitted to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-9, emphasizes the fact that the Hitlerites plundered -the peaceful population of Kiev. I quote a brief extract, “The -German occupation forces in the city of Kiev looted factory equipment -and carried it off to Germany.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Following the directives of the criminal German Government -and the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces, the -satellite states also joined in plundering and other crimes. Romanian -troops who temporarily occupied Odessa along with German Armed -Forces plundered this flourishing city in accordance with instructions -from their German masters. The report of the Extraordinary -State Commission concerning the crimes committed by German and -Romanian invaders in Odessa reads in part as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . The Romanians damaged Odessa considerably from the -economic and industrial point of view during the occupation.</p> - -<p>“German-Romanian aggressors have confiscated and removed -to Romania 1,042,013 centners of grain, 45,227 horses, 87,646 -head of cattle, 31,821 pigs, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, belonging to co-operative -farms and co-operative farmers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the -damages inflicted by the German fascist invaders on industry, urban -economy, and cultural and educational institutions in the Stalino -region, already presented to the Tribunal as Document Number -USSR-2, also gives a good deal of data on the looting and removal to -Germany of the factory equipment of this important industrial -region.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have quoted only a few of the reports compiled by the Extraordinary -State Commission on certain districts of the Ukraine. This -flourishing Soviet republic was subjected to unrestrained looting -by the Hitlerites. The Hitlerite conspirators considered the Ukraine -<span class='pageno' title='36' id='Page_36'></span> -a tidbit and plundered her with exceptional voracity. I should like -to read several documents in proof of the above.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Rosenberg’s letter to Reichsleiter Bormann dated 17 October -1944. This document which has already been submitted on 17 December -by the United States Prosecution under Exhibit Number -USA-338 (Document Number 327-PS) states that the Central Trading -Company for the East for marketing of agricultural produce sent -the following goods to Germany in the period between 1943 and -31 March 1944 only:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Cereals, 9,200,000 tons; meat and meat products, 622,000 tons; -oil seed, 950,000 tons; butter, 208,000 tons; sugar, 400,000 tons; -fodder, 2,500,000 tons; potatoes, 3,200,000 tons, and so forth.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Rosenberg reported his “agricultural achievements” -to Hitler’s closest assistant in these terms.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It should be noted that during the first year of the war the -voracity shown by the Hitlerites in plundering the Ukraine was so -great, that it awakened certain misgivings even in themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read an excerpt from a letter addressed by the Inspector -of Armaments in the Ukraine to the Infantry General Thomas, Chief -of the Economic Armament Office of the OKW. The letter is dated -2 December 1941. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by -the United States Prosecution on 14 December as Document Number -3257-PS. I read a short excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The export of agricultural surpluses from the Ukraine for -the purpose of feeding the Reich is only possible if the internal -trade in the Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. This can be -attained by the following measures:</p> - -<p>“1. Elimination of unwanted consumers (Jews; the populations -of the large Ukrainian towns, which, like Kiev, receive no -food allocation whatsoever).</p> - -<p>“2. Reduction as far as possible of food rations allocated to -the Ukrainians in other towns.</p> - -<p>“3. Reduction of food consumption by the peasant population.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Having outlined this program, the author explains further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“If the Ukrainian is to be made to work, we must look after -his physical existence, not for sentimental motives, but for -purely business reasons.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraphs of this quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>However, the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Koch, went -steadily on with his policy of ruthlessly plundering the Ukraine. -In due course I shall submit to you numerous further documents, -also in the original, in confirmation of the above. Koch’s policy met -with the approbation of the Hitlerite Government. -<span class='pageno' title='37' id='Page_37'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is worthy of note that at the beginning of the war the plundering -of the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. was organized in -accordance with the directives contained in the Green File, already -mentioned. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-13 -(Document Number USSR-13), a letter by Göring dated 6 September -1941 on the subject of inspection for the seizure and utilization of -raw materials, in which, among other things, the following passage -occurs—the Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 131 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The war emergency demands that the supplies of raw -materials found in the recently captured eastern territories -be put at the disposal of the German war economy as quickly -as possible. The Directives for the Economic Management of -the Occupied Eastern Territories (Green File) are to be taken -as authoritative.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the last part of the quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Later however, when the Germans set up their so-called civil -administration and organized a number of special economic bodies -in various occupied territories including the Ukraine, in particular, -disputes arose among the numerous German military and civil -bodies and organizations, all of whom were engaged in plundering -the occupied territories. Rosenberg, as Reich Minister for the Eastern -Occupied Territories, began to insist that all military and economic -organizations in the Ukraine were to be liquidated and their functions -transferred to German civil administrations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal a draft report for State Secretary -Körner on this subject, dated 3 December 1943, as Exhibit Number -USSR-180 (Document Number USSR-180). I read from it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subject, 1. Economic administration in the Occupied Eastern -Territories; 2. General economic staff for the occupied territories.</p> - -<p>“In a letter to the Reich Marshal, dated 20 November 1943, -copies of which were sent to the Chief of Staff of the OKW, -and the Leader of the Party Chancellery, Minister Rosenberg -made the following demands:</p> - -<p>“1. For the Ukraine,</p> - -<p>“a. Military economic establishment still in existence to be -dissolved.</p> - -<p>“b. The office of Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments -to be abolished and the military functions of the latter -to be taken over again by the Chief Quartermaster.</p> - -<p>“c. In case of the retention of the office of the Chief of the -Army Group Economic Departments the practice of the same -specialists working both in the Reich Commissariat and under -<span class='pageno' title='38' id='Page_38'></span> -the Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments to be -discontinued.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest. In the same draft are detailed objections made -by General Stapf and submitted by him to Keitel. He criticizes -Rosenberg’s suggestion and advises the retention of the Economic -Staff East.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I present as -Exhibit Number USSR-174 (Document Number USSR-174), another -original document which is a covering letter from the Permanent -Deputy of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories -to State Secretary Körner on the same subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Written suggestions by Rosenberg were appended to this letter -in which Rosenberg insists that the entire economic activities be -placed under the control of his ministry once more. As this is a -rather long document and I am presenting it in the original, I ask -your permission not to read it since it is mainly concerned with -Rosenberg’s proposal, which I have already described to the Tribunal. -For the information of the interpreters—I omit two pages -of my presentation and pass to Page 62.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Evidently Rosenberg did not receive the answer he wanted, so -on 24 January 1944 he again wrote to Göring on the same subject. -I submit this letter as Exhibit Number USSR-179 (Document Number -USSR-179). In this letter Rosenberg suggests—I shall read into the -record a short quotation, which the Tribunal will find on Page 151 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . in the interest of smooth working and economy of staff, -I would request that the Economic Staff East and its subordinate -agencies be abolished and that the economic administration -in the Occupied Eastern Territories and even in -those districts where fighting is still going on, be transferred -to my sphere of authority.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Göring replied to this in a letter dated 14 February, which I offer -in evidence as part of the same Exhibit Number USSR-179. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Dear Party Member Rosenberg:</p> - -<p>“I received your letter of 24 January 1944 regarding economic -administration in the Occupied Eastern Territories. Since the -Reich Commissariat Ukraine is now almost entirely army -administrative territory”—this is a reference to the Red -Army offensive—“I consider it advisable to postpone our -conference on the future organization of the economic administration -until the military situation is completely clarified.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Your Honors, Rosenberg’s claims met with resistance on -the part of other German authorities who stubbornly refused to -give up such a choice “economic activity.” -<span class='pageno' title='39' id='Page_39'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Rosenberg in his turn refused to yield and continued to press -his demands. I now offer in evidence the following document, -Exhibit Number USSR-173 (Document Number USSR-173)—this is -a letter from Rosenberg to Göring dated 6 March 1944. In this -letter, Rosenberg refers to his experience in Bielorussia and again -urges his proposals. It is a long document and I shall not read it, -as it is presented to the Tribunal <span class='it'>in toto</span>. But Göring still had his -doubts and decided against Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 6 April 1944, a month after the above-mentioned letter was -sent off, Rosenberg again wrote to Göring. This document I submit -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-176 (Document Number -USSR-176). May I omit reading it into the record, since in substance -it is like the last; and the arguments advanced in it are not -such as to interest us greatly now. I omit Page 65 and pass on to -Page 66.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Your Honors, even when the Red Army was delivering its -last crippling blows against the German fascist hordes, the Hitlerite -brigands went on quarreling about the spoils. I think there is no -need to prove that while this haggling continued, the occupied -territories were looted in feverish haste by the German authorities, -both military and civil.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Your Honors, I shall read some brief excerpts from the -report made by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union on the crimes committed by the Hitlerite invaders in the -Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republics, which -were also mercilessly plundered by the German fascist aggressors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these reports have been already presented to the Tribunal -by the Soviet Prosecution. The report of the Extraordinary State -Commission on the crimes of the Hitlerites in the Lithuanian Soviet -Socialist Republic contains the following statement:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“As the result of the way in which the Hitlerite invaders -managed affairs, even according to incomplete data, the -number of livestock and poultry in all the 14 districts of the -Lithuanian S.S.R. decreases in comparison with the year -1940-41 by 136,140 horses, 565,995 cattle, 463,340 pigs. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now quote excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission on the crimes committed by the German invaders -in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. For the information of -the interpreters—this quotation is on Page 68, second paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans plundered the depots of tractors and agricultural -machinery throughout Latvia; and according to figures -which are far from complete, they sent to Germany 700 tractors, -180 motor vehicles, 4,057 ploughs, 2,815 cultivators, 3,532 -harrows.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='40' id='Page_40'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Second quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In consequence of the despoliation of Latvian rural economy -by the German invaders, the livestock in Latvia was decreased -by 127,300 horses, 443,700 head of cattle, 318,200 pigs, and -593,800 sheep.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, I shall read a short excerpt from the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission on the Estonian S.S.R.: I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German invaders plundered the rural population of -Estonia without restraint. This plunder took the form of -forcing the peasants to hand over various kinds of farm -produce.</p> - -<p>“The quantities of farm produce to be delivered as ordered -by the Germans were very high.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit part of the quotation and I read the second paragraph -on the next page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans confiscated and drove to Germany 107,000 -horses, 31,000 cows, 214,000 pigs, 790,000 head of poultry. -They plundered about 50,000 beehives.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one more paragraph and I read the last quotation from -this report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites took away 1,000 threshing machines, 600 -threshing machine motors, 700 motors for driving belts, 350 -tractors, and 24,781 other agricultural machines which were -the personal property of individual peasants.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, a similar policy of plundering private, public, and -national property was also carried out by the German fascist -invaders in the occupied territories of Bielorussia, Moldavia, the -Karelo-Finnish S.S.R. and the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist -Republic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Various military units and organizations in different districts of -the U.S.S.R. employed the same methods of plunder at all stages -of the war in accordance with the same criminal plan and in pursuit -of the same criminal aims. This plan was worked out, these aims -were determined, these crimes were organized by the major war -criminals who are now in the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The U.S.S.R. Prosecution has at its disposal tens of thousands of -documents on this subject. The presentation of all these numerous -documents to the Tribunal would require such a long time that it -would only complicate the Trial. For this reason, with the Tribunal’s -permission, I shall not quote any further documents or -reports of the Extraordinary State Commission on separate regions -and republics, but I shall read into the record the statistical report -of the Extraordinary State Commission relative to the material -damage done by the German fascists to state enterprises and -<span class='pageno' title='41' id='Page_41'></span> -establishments, collective farms, public organizations, and individual -citizens of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is being presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35). I shall read into -the record only those extracts from the report which have a direct -bearing on the subject of my presentation. They are stated as -follows—Page 71 of the statement:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist aggressors destroyed and pillaged 98,000 -collective farms, 1,876 State farms, and 2,890 machine and -tractor stations. Seven million horses, 17 million head of -cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep and goats, and -110 million poultry were slaughtered or shipped to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Extraordinary State Commission calculates the damage done -to the national economy of the Soviet Union and to individual -villagers and townspeople at 679,000 millions of rubles reckoned at -the official prices current in 1941 as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. State concerns and institutions, 287,000 million rubles; -2. collective farms, 181,000 million rubles; 3. villagers and -townspeople, 192,000 million rubles; 4. co-operatives, trade -unions, and other public organizations, 19,000 million rubles.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the following sections of this report, which describe how -this damage is divided among separate Soviet Republics, and I pass -on to the fourth paragraph, which describes the destruction of collective -farms, State farms, and machine tractor stations. In order -to save time, I shall confine myself to a few separate excerpts:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“While burning the villages and hamlets, the German fascists -plundered completely the inhabitants of these villages. Those of -the peasants who offered resistance were brutally murdered.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, some concrete data are given on the plundering in the -Kamenetz-Podolsk and the Kursk region, the collective farm “For -Peace and Work” in the region of Krasnodar, the collective farms -“For the Times” in the Stalino region, as well as collective farms -in Mogilev and Zhitomir districts and others. The German fascist -invaders inflicted great damage on the State farms of the U.S.S.R. -They shipped out of collective farms all stocks of agricultural products -and destroyed farm and other buildings belonging to the -state farms.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Horse Farm Number 62 in the Poltava district lost its stock -of Russo-American trotting brood mares through the German -occupation. Up to the war, this stud farm had 670 brood -mares. The Germans acted in the same way in regard to -other breeding farms.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='42' id='Page_42'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remaining excerpt of this section; and I pass on to -Paragraph 6, which deals with the mass looting of Soviet citizens’ -property by the Germans:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In all the republics, districts, and territories of the Soviet -Union which were occupied, the fascist German invaders -looted the property of the rural and urban population, -stealing valuables, property, clothing, and household articles, -and imposing fines, taxes, and contributions on the peaceful -population.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The same section contains a whole series of concrete facts of -the plunder of Soviet citizens in Smolensk, Orel and Leningrad -Provinces; the Dniepropetrovsk and Sumsky Provinces, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. -With the Tribunal’s permission, I omit two pages of my presentation, -and I read the following paragraph at the bottom of Page 76:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The plundering of the Soviet population was being carried -out by the German aggressors throughout the whole of the -occupied Soviet territory.</p> - -<p>“The Extraordinary State Commission has undertaken the -task of estimating the damage done to the Soviet citizens -by the occupation authorities and has established that the -German fascist invaders burned down and destroyed approximately -four million dwelling houses which were the personal -property of collective farmers, workers, and employees; -confiscated 1½ million horses, 9 million head of cattle, -12 million pigs, 13 million sheep and goats; and took away -an enormous quantity of household goods and chattel of all -kinds.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The above documents and reports of the Extraordinary State -Commission depict the crimes committed by the Hitlerites in the -occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. These crimes had been organized -by the defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that Göring, in his capacity as Reich Marshal and -Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan of the Hitlerite Government, -was directly in charge of all the operations of the German -military and civil authorities for the preparation and execution of -despoliation of the occupied territories, is clearly shown by the -documents which I have already presented. Nevertheless, I beg the -indulgence of the Tribunal to read the final document on this matter, -that is, the decree issued by Hitler on 29 June 1941.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A copy of this decree was kindly put at our disposal by the -American Prosecution, and it has not yet been presented. I, therefore, -present it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-287 (Document -Number USSR-287). This decree reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, as Plenipotentiary for -the Four Year Plan, will employ, within the scope of the -<span class='pageno' title='43' id='Page_43'></span> -power allotted to him for the purpose, all means necessary -for exploiting to the fullest extent supplies and economic -resources discovered in the newly occupied eastern territories -and for developing all their economic possibilities for -the benefit of the German war economy.</p> - -<p>“2. For this purpose he is also authorized to give direct orders -to military authorities in the newly occupied eastern territories.</p> - -<p>“3. This decree will become effective as from today. It must -first be made public by special order.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>However, Your Honors, the granting of extraordinary powers -to Göring does not, in any way, mean that the other defendants -took only a passive interest in organizing the looting of the -occupied territories. All of them, jointly and separately, worked -feverishly in this direction. Frank robbed the Poles; Rosenberg -managed affairs in the Ukraine and in the other occupied territories -of the U.S.S.R.; Sauckel and Seyss-Inquart were busy here -and there; Speer and Funk made schemes for and carried out -predatory measures within the scope of the Ministry of Economics -and the Ministry for Armament and War Production, while Keitel -acted in the field of the Armed Forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this connection I should like to submit to the Tribunal two -more documents relating to Keitel’s economic activities. These -documents, Your Honors, are presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-175 (Document Number USSR-175). On 29 August -1942 Keitel, in his capacity of Chief of the Supreme Command -of the Armed Forces, issued the following order under “Number -002865/42-g.Kdos. regarding securing of supplies for the Armed -Forces.” I shall read only two short excerpts from this order. Your -Honors will find them on Page 181 of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The food situation of the German people is such that it is -necessary for the Armed Forces to contribute as far as -possible towards alleviating it. All the necessary means of -doing so exist in the combat zones and in the occupied -territories both in the East and in the West.</p> - -<p>“It is essential, above all, that much greater quantities of -supplies and forage . . . should be secured in the occupied -territories of the East than has been the case up to now.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“All establishments should consider it their pride as well -as their duty to attain this goal at all costs so that in this -field, too, they may play a decisive part in achieving victory.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In a memorandum by section chiefs Klare and Dr. Bergmann, -dated, “19 November 1942, most secret, subject: Procurement of -<span class='pageno' title='44' id='Page_44'></span> -Supplies for the Armed Forces”—I submit this memorandum in -the original to the Tribunal under the same number, Document -Number USSR-175—we find the following estimate of the results -achieved by the above-mentioned order from Keitel. I now read -into the record only the first paragraph of this memorandum.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By order of the Führer, the Chief of the OKW has decreed -in the attached order of 29 August 1942 that the Armed -Forces must, as far as possible, contribute towards the task -of ensuring food supplies for the German people and that -they must themselves make every effort, not only to obtain -sufficient food supplies locally to cover the needs of the -armies, but also to ensure that the quantities required by -the Reich are secured in addition.</p> - -<p>“As the result of this order co-operation between the Army -and the economic authorities has fortunately grown closer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Now with Your Honor’s permission, I shall read into the record -one more document, namely, a telegram sent by Keitel on 8 September -1944. This document was kindly put at our disposal by -the American Prosecution and registered as Document Number -743-PS. It was not presented to the Tribunal before; I therefore -submit it now as Exhibit Number USSR-286, and I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General Quartermaster, -Office of Chief of Staff, (Anna).</p> - -<p>“2. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General Quartermaster, -Army Administration Office, (Anna-Bu).</p> - -<p>“3. To Commanding General, Army Group North.</p> - -<p>“4. To Commanding General, Army Group Center.</p> - -<p>“5. To Economic Staff East.</p> - -<p>“6. To Military District H.Q.I.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read this text as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. The Führer has entrusted Gauleiter Koch with the utilization -of local resources in the parts of Reichskommissariat -Ostland occupied by troops of Army Group Center. Furthermore, -the Führer has ordered that all German and local -administrative authorities be subordinated to Gauleiter Koch. -In securing economic resources, Gauleiter Koch is to maintain -contact with competent Supreme Reich agencies.</p> - -<p>“2. All authorities of the Armed Forces will give Gauleiter -Koch every assistance in their power in executing this order.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Your Honors, even at the end of 1944, when under the -blows of the Red Army and its allies Hitlerite Germany was -precipitated towards its final defeat and only a few months before -its final military and political collapse, Hitler, Keitel, Koch, and -<span class='pageno' title='45' id='Page_45'></span> -many others were still stretching out their already stiffening fingers -to grab the property and wealth of others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is the evidence I have to show regarding the looting and -marauding perpetrated by the Hitlerite hordes in the occupied -territories of the Soviet Union. But they plundered not only the -living, they also plundered the dead. My colleague, Colonel -Smirnov, has already presented comprehensive evidence on this -question. I do not wish to quote it again, but I refer to it only -to show how closely interlocked and all-embracing was the circle -of their crimes. As Rauschning testifies in his book, which has -already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution to the Tribunal, -Hitler once said:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I need people with strong fists whose principles will not -prevent them from taking human life if necessary; and if on -occasion they swipe a watch or a jewel, I don’t care a tinker’s -damn.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And Hitler actually found these men in the persons of the -defendants and their numerous accomplices.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As the documents which I have just presented show, the -Defendant Göring, on account of his position in Hitler’s Government -as Reich Marshal and Plenipotentiary for the Four Year -Plan and as head of the whole criminal system for the plundering -of the occupied territories, was guilty of these crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For this reason the stenographic record of a secret conference -of German administrative leaders (Reich Commissioners) for the -occupied countries, which took place on 6 August 1942, is of -particular interest. Göring presided over the meeting. This -document, like many other original documents which I had the -honor of presenting today to the Tribunal, was found by Soviet -military authorities in September 1945 in one of the municipal -buildings of the town of Jena, in Thuringia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This extraordinary document contains a long speech by Göring -and the replies of the Hitlerite rulers of the occupied countries. -And, Your Honors, many of the people who are sitting in the -dock now took part in this conference. The contents of this document -are such that any comment on my part is unnecessary. -Therefore, if it pleases the Tribunal, I shall proceed to read from -this document.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Stenographic notes; Thursday, 6 August 1942, 4 p. m., in -the Hermann Göring Hall in the Air Ministry.</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘The Gauleiter stated their views here -yesterday. Although they may have differed in tone and -manner, it was evident that they all feel that the German -people have too little to eat. Gentlemen, the Führer has -<span class='pageno' title='46' id='Page_46'></span> -given me general powers exceeding any hitherto granted -within the Four Year Plan.</p> - -<p>“ ‘At this moment Germany commands the richest granaries -that ever existed in the European area, stretching from the -Atlantic to the Volga and the Caucasus, lands more highly -developed and fruitful than ever before, even if a few of -them cannot be described as granaries. I need only remind -you of the fabulous fertility of the Netherlands, the unique -paradise that is France. Belgium too is extraordinarily fruitful -and so is the province of Posen. Then, above all, the -Government General has to a great extent the rye and wheat -granary of Europe, and along with it the amazingly fertile -districts of Lemberg (Lvov) and Galicia, where the harvest -is exceptionally good. Then there comes Russia, the black -earth of the Ukraine on both shores of the Dnieper, the -Don region, with its remarkably fertile districts which have -scarcely been destroyed. Our troops have now occupied, or -are in process of occupying, the excessively fertile districts -between the Don and the Caucasus.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Göring then goes on to say:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘God knows, you are not sent out there to work for the -welfare of the people in your charge but to squeeze the -utmost out of them, so that the German people may live. -That is what I expect of your exertions. This everlasting -concern about foreign peoples must cease now, once and for all.</p> - -<p>“ ‘I have here before me reports on what you expect to be -able to deliver. It is nothing at all when I consider your -territories. It makes no difference to me if you say that your -people are starving.</p> - -<p>“ ‘One thing I shall certainly do. I will make you deliver -the quantities asked of you; and if you cannot do so, I will -set forces to work that will force you to do so whether -you want to or not.</p> - -<p>“ ‘The wealth of Holland lies close to the Ruhr. It could -send a much greater quantity of vegetables into this stricken -area now than it has done so far. What do I care what -the Dutchmen think of it.</p> - -<p>“ ‘The only people in whom I am interested in the occupied -territories are those who work to provide armaments and -food supplies. They must receive just enough to enable them -to continue working. It is all one to me whether Dutchmen -are Germanic or not. They are only all the greater blockheads -if they are; and more important persons than they have -shown in the past how Germanic numskulls sometimes have -<span class='pageno' title='47' id='Page_47'></span> -to be treated. Even if you receive abuses from every quarter, -you will have acted rightly, for it is the Reich alone that -counts.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And now I come to the next excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘I am still discussing the western territories. Belgium -has taken care of herself extraordinarily well. That was -very sensible of Belgium. But there, too, gentlemen, rage -incarnate could seize me. If every plot of ground in Belgium -is planted with vegetables, then they must surely have had -vegetable seed. When Germany wanted to start a big -campaign last year for utilizing uncultivated land, we did -not have nearly as much seed as we needed. Neither Holland -nor Belgium nor France have delivered it, although I myself -was able to count 170 sacks of vegetable seed on a single -street in Paris. It is all very well for the French to plant -vegetables for themselves. They are accustomed to doing -this. But, gentlemen, these people are all our enemies and -you will not win over any of them by humane measures. The -people are polite to us now because they have to be polite. -But let the English once force their way in and then you will -see the real face of the Frenchman. The same Frenchman -who dines with you and in turn invites you to dine with him -will at once make it plain to you that the Frenchman is a -German-hater. That is the situation, and we do not want -to see it any other way than it is.</p> - -<p>“ ‘It is a matter of indifference to me how many courses are -served every day at the table of the Belgian king. The -king is a prisoner of war; and if he is not treated as such, I -will see to it that he is taken to some other place where this -can be made clear to him. I am really fed up with the -business.</p> - -<p>“ ‘I have forgotten one country because nothing is to be had -there except fish; that is Norway.</p> - -<p>“ ‘With regard to France, I say that it is still not cultivated -to the greatest possible extent. France can be cultivated in -a very different way if the peasants there are forced to work -in a different manner. Secondly, inside France itself the -population is gorging itself to a scandalous degree. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘Besides, Heaven help a German car parked outside a -French tavern in Paris! it is reported. But a whole row of -French gasoline-driven vehicles parked there doesn’t bother -anyone.</p> - -<p>“ ‘I would say nothing at all, on the contrary, I would not -think much of you if we didn’t have a marvelous restaurant -in Paris where we could get the best food obtainable. But -<span class='pageno' title='48' id='Page_48'></span> -I do not want the French to be able to saunter into it. Maxim -must have the best food for us.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, I see one of the German Defense Counsel -wishes to take the floor. I shall, therefore, give him an -opportunity to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. -President, I have only a short question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The prosecutor has not told us where this document can be -found, in which document book and what number it has. He -mentioned only the page on which the Court can find that -document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: This document was presented to -the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-170. The photostatic -copy was turned over to Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I continue, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It comes from the archives of the Defendant -Göring, does it not? You have so stated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: Yes.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘For German officers and men three or four first-class -restaurants—excellent, but not for the French.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote the next excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘Furthermore, you should be like bloodhounds on the track -of anything the German people can use; that stuff should be -brought here out of the warehouses like lightning. Whenever -I issued a decree, I stated repeatedly that soldiers are entitled -to buy as much as they want and whatever they want, as -much as they can carry. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now you will say—Laval’s foreign policy. Herr Laval -calms down Herr Abetz and as far as I am concerned, may -go to Maxim’s, although it is out of bounds. But the French -will soon have to learn. You have no idea of the impudence -they have. When our friends hear that a German is interested -they charge fantastic prices. They charge three times the -normal price and if they hear that the Reich Marshal is in -the market, they charge five times the normal price. I -wanted to buy a tapestry. Two million francs was asked. -The woman was told that the buyer wanted to see the -tapestry. She said she did not wish to let it out of her -sight. Well, then she would have to go with it. She was -told that she was going to see the Reich Marshal. When she -arrived the tapestry was priced at 3 million francs. I reported -it. Do you think anything was done? I submitted the case -to the French court and they taught milady that it is -inadvisable to profiteer when dealing with me. -<span class='pageno' title='49' id='Page_49'></span></p> - -<p>“ ‘All that interests me is what we can squeeze out of the -territory now under our control with the utmost application -and by straining every nerve; and how much of that can -be diverted to Germany. I don’t give a damn about import -and export statistics of former years.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now, regarding shipments to the Reich. Last year France -shipped 550,000 tons of grain, and now I demand 1.2 million -tons. Two weeks from now a plan will be submitted for -handling it. There will be no more discussion about it. -What happens to the Frenchmen is of no importance. One -million two hundred thousand tons will be delivered. Fodder—last -year 550,000 tons, now 1 million; meat—last year 135,000 -tons, now 350,000; fats—last year 23,000, this year 60,000.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And so on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next excerpt from this address concerns the quotas to be -fixed for deliveries from countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, -Norway, and the Government General. In reply to Göring’s -questions and instructions definite figures were quoted by those -attending the meeting. I omit one page and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘So much for the West. A special -order will be issued concerning purchasers who buy up all -the clothes, shoes, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, that are to be had.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now comes the East. I have settled this point with the -Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht waives the demands it made -on the home country. How much hay was required?’</p> - -<p>“Backe: ‘1.5 million tons. Over 1 million tons straw and -1½ million tons oats. We can’t manage that.(?)’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Now, gentlemen, there is only one -thing more regarding Wehrmacht supplies. I want to hear -nothing more about you until further notice. No more -requests. The country—with its sour cream, apples, and -white bread—will feed us abundantly. The Don valley will -take care of the rest.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Passing to the next quotation—Göring is speaking:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘The Wehrmacht in France will, of course, be supplied -with food by France. That is a matter of course, and I did -not even mention it before.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now about Russia: There is no doubt of her fertility. The -position there is almost incredibly good. . . .’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The next quotation—Göring is still speaking:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘I was glad to hear that the Reich Commissioner in Ostland -is doing just as well, and the people are just as fat and -chubby and puff a little when they work. Nevertheless, I -shall see to it, no matter how carefully certain groups are -<span class='pageno' title='50' id='Page_50'></span> -treated, that some contribution is made from the inexhaustible -fertility of this area.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>After this Lohse, Reich Commissioner for Bielorussia, addressed -the meeting:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘May I state my opinion in a few words? I should like -to give you more but certain conditions have to be observed. -The harvest is certainly excellent but in more than half of -the area of Bielorussia which is well cultivated, it is scarcely -possible to get in the crops, unless we can put a stop to the -disturbances caused by guerrillas and partisans. I have already -been crying out for help for 4 months.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Lohse goes on to describe the activities of the partisans in -Bielorussia. In this connection Göring interrupts him and says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘My dear Lohse, we have known each other for a long -time. I know well enough that you are a great poet.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And Lohse answered:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘I won’t stand for that; I have never written poetry.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion I quote the last three quotations from Göring’s -speech. He said:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘We must have buyers from the Ministry of Economics, -Funk, in the Ukraine and elsewhere. We must send them to -Venice to buy odds and ends, those frightful alabaster things -and cheap jewelry, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. I don’t think there is any -other place except Italy where one gets quite such junk.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now let us see what Russia can deliver. I think, Riecke, -we should be able to get 2 million tons of cereals and fodder -out of the whole of Russia.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘That can be done.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘That means that we must get 3 million, -apart from Wehrmacht supplies.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘No, all that is in the front areas goes for the Wehrmacht -only.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Then we bring 2 million.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘No.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘A million and a half then.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘Yes.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘All right.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The discussion went on in the same way. Göring’s speech ends -with the following sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘Gentlemen, I would just like to say one thing more. I have -a very great deal to do and a very great deal of responsibility. -I have no time to read letters and memoranda informing -<span class='pageno' title='51' id='Page_51'></span> -me that you cannot supply my requirements. I have only -time to ascertain from time to time through short reports -from Backe whether the commitments are being fulfilled. If -not, then we shall have to meet on a different level.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As Your Honors have heard, besides Göring this conference was -attended by the Defendants Rosenberg, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, -Frank, Funk, and others. As you have heard, Göring finished his -speech with a direct threat against the participants in this conference, -by saying that “we shall have to meet on a different level.” -This threat came true. The matter has, in every sense of the term, -been met on a different level—from the level of the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus the whole volume of evidence submitted establishes beyond -all doubt:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. That simultaneously with their well-laid preparations for the -military invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, -and the U.S.S.R., the criminal Hitlerite Government and the -Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces worked out a plan -for the mass plunder and spoliation of private, public, and state-owned -property in the territories belonging to these countries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. That having worked out this criminal plan, the conspirators -carried out all the preliminary measures necessary for its execution -by training special bodies of officers and officials for the despoliation -of the territories they meant to seize by preparing and issuing -special instructions, reference books, and orders for this purpose, -and by creating a special and very complicated organization of all -sorts of “economic inspectorates,” “detachments,” “groups,” “joint -stock companies,” “plenipotentiaries,” <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, and by calling in -a large number of specialists in different branches, military experts -on agriculture, agricultural leaders, economic spies, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. That in accordance with this long-prepared plan, they subsequently -plundered and despoiled private, public, and State -property in the occupied territories and also robbed the peaceful -population of these territories, having recourse to atrocities, violence, -and arbitrary practices of the most appalling nature.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. That in order to make the soldiers and the officers of the -German Army “economically interested” in the war, the conspirators -not only failed to prosecute cases of marauding and -robbery committed, by German soldiers and officers, but even -encouraged these crimes and incited their men to commit wholesale -looting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. That by the commission of all these crimes the conspirators -caused enormous economic damage to the people of the occupied -territories, exposing them to starvation and suffering, and that they -profited by their criminal activities for the personal gain and -enrichment of themselves and their adherents. -<span class='pageno' title='52' id='Page_52'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>6. That having thus planned, prepared, and initiated wars of -aggression against the freedom-loving nations, the conspirators -aimed at the predatory despoliation of these nations and thereafter -achieved these criminal ends by means of equally criminal and -predatory methods.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the strength of the above, the defendants have consciously -and deliberately violated Article 50 of the Hague Convention of -1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal -law accepted by the penal codes of all civilized nations, as well as -the national law of those countries in which these crimes were -committed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For these criminal acts, Your Honors, each and all of which are -covered by Article 6(b) of the Charter of the International Military -Tribunal, all the defendants must be found guilty; all of them -without exception must be held responsible both individually and -as members of the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, the documents which I have presented -to the Tribunal and which I have read into the record are silent -witnesses to the crimes organized and committed by the defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the conscience of the Judges will hear the testimony of -these silent witnesses, who relate truthfully the story of the -arbitrary practices and crimes of the Hitlerite brigands and the -boundless sufferings of their innumerable victims.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 21 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='53' id='Page_53'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-FOURTH DAY</span><br/> Thursday, 21 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MARSHAL: The Defendant Hess will be absent from today’s -session on account of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to inform Your Honor that in -accordance with the plan of the Soviet Prosecution presented to the -Tribunal and with the permission of the Tribunal, we shall start -presenting evidence on that section entitled, “The Destruction and -Plunder of Cultural and Scientific Treasures, Cultural Institutions, -Monasteries, Churches, and Other Religious Institutions, as well as -the Destruction of Cities and Villages.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The evidence on this section will be presented by State Counsellor -of Justice of the Second Class, Raginsky.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS -M. Y. RAGINSKY (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it -please Your Honors, among the numerous and grievous war crimes -committed by the Hitlerite conspirators—crimes enumerated in -detail in Count Three of the Indictment—crimes against culture -occupy a definite place of their own. These crimes expressed all the -abomination and vandalism of German fascism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators considered culture of the mind and -of humanity as an obstacle to the fulfillment of their monstrous -designs against mankind, and they removed this obstacle with their -own typical cruelty. In working out their insane plans for world -domination, the Hitlerite conspirators, side by side with the initiation -and prosecution of predatory wars, prepared a campaign against -world culture. They dreamed of turning Europe back to the days of -her domination by the Huns and Teutons. They tried to set mankind -back.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is unnecessary to quote the numerous pronouncements of the -fascist ringleaders on this subject. I shall permit myself merely to -refer to one pronouncement of Hitler’s quoted on Page 80 of Rauschning’s -book, and already presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet -Prosecution. “We,” said Hitler, “are barbarians and we wish to be -barbarians. It is an honorable calling.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On behalf of the Soviet Prosecution, I shall present to the Tribunal -evidence of how the defendants put into practice these orders -of Hitler, which found concrete expression in the wrecking of -<span class='pageno' title='54' id='Page_54'></span> -cultural institutions, the looting and destruction of cultural treasures, -and the suffocation of the national cultural life of the peoples in the -territories temporarily occupied by the German armies, that is, the -territories of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall present to the Tribunal evidence of the Hitlerites’ -preparations and planning for the looting of cultural treasures; how, -long before the treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the so-called -Einsatzstab Rosenberg prepared for pillage, how the predatory -activity of the Defendant Rosenberg was co-ordinated with Göring, -Heydrich, and the Supreme Command, and how this pillage was -disguised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is now generally known to what monstrous lies and provocations -the Hitlerites resorted in the camouflaging of their crimes. -While annihilating millions of people in the extermination camps -they had set up, they spoke, in their orders, of “filtration” and -“cleansing.” While destroying and plundering cultural treasures, the -fascist vandals sought shelter behind the terms “collection of -materials” and the “study of problems,” and shamelessly referred to -themselves as “bearers of culture.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators endeavored to change into serfs, bereft -of all their rights, the peoples of the territories seized; and, for this -purpose, they destroyed the national culture of these peoples.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The destruction of the national culture of the Slav peoples and -particularly of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Bielorussian cultures, -the destruction of national monuments, schools, literature, and the -compulsory Germanization of the population, followed the German -occupation everywhere, in obedience to the same criminal principle -which governed the ensuing pillage, rape, arson, and mass murders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit, Mr. President, the end of Page 3 and Page 4 of my -presentation, and I proceed to the presentation of Section 2, Page 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I have already indicated, the destruction of the national -culture of the peoples in the occupied territories was a fundamental -part of the general plan for world domination established by Hitler’s -conspirators. It is difficult to determine whether destruction or -plunder was the prevalent factor in these plans. But there is no -disputing the fact that both plunder and destruction were aimed at -one goal only—extermination; and this extermination was carried -out everywhere, in all the territories occupied by the Germans, and -on an enormous scale.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Convention laid down, I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The property of municipalities, of Church institutions and -establishments dedicated to charity and education, arts and -sciences, even when belonging to the State, shall be considered -as private property. All premeditated seizure of, and destruction -or damage to, institutions of this character, to historic -<span class='pageno' title='55' id='Page_55'></span> -monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden and should -be made the subject of legal proceedings.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites consciously and systematically scoffed at the -principles and demands laid down in Article 56. All the conspirators -are guilty of this, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the first place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Rosenberg had an organization with widespread ramifications for -the plunder of cultural treasures and with numerous staffs and -representatives. The Einsatzstab Rosenberg and Rosenberg’s chief -of staff, Utikal, were the central point of the network co-ordinating -the criminal activities of many predatory organizations inspired and -directed by the Hitlerite Government together with the German -Supreme Command. Rosenberg was officially placed in charge of -plundering the cultural treasures in the occupied territories by a -decree of Hitler of 1 March 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have in mind Document Number 149-PS presented to the Tribunal -on 18 December of last year by the United States Prosecution -and accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-369. With -your permission, Mr. President, I shall quote only two paragraphs -of this document. You will find this document on Page 3 of your -document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“His”—Rosenberg’s—“Einsatzstab for the occupied territories -has the right to investigate libraries, archives, and every other -kind of cultural establishment for corresponding materials, -and to confiscate these materials for the realization of the -ideological aims of the National Socialist Party. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph of this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The regulations for the co-operation with the Armed Forces -are issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of the -Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.</p> - -<p>“The necessary measures for the eastern territories under -German administration will be taken by Reichsleiter Rosenberg -in his capacity as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern -Territories.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This decree of Hitler’s was issued, as is clear from the document -quoted, to all departments of the Armed Forces, the Party, and the -Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But it is not 1 March 1942 which should be considered as the -beginning of Rosenberg’s predatory activities. I shall submit several -excerpts from a letter of Rosenberg to Reichsleiter Bormann in -confirmation. The letter is dated 23 April 1941. This document was -presented to the Tribunal on 18 December 1945 by the United States -Prosecution, and it was accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USA-371 (Document Number 071-PS). -<span class='pageno' title='56' id='Page_56'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document—which Your Honors will find on Page 4 of your -document book—is interesting also for the fact that the plunder, -referred to as “confiscation” in the letter, was carried out by the -Defendant Rosenberg in close collaboration and contact, based on a -written agreement, between the departments of Rosenberg and -Himmler. I cite extracts from Page 1 of the Russian translation of -this letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I have”—wrote Rosenberg—“transmitted to you a photostatic -copy of my agreement with the Security Police (SD), concluded -with the express approval of Gruppenführer Heydrich.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further—you will find this on Page 5 in your document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Questions bearing on works of art”—as stated in this letter—“were -considered of secondary importance. Of primary importance -was the Führer’s directive regarding the twice-issued -order from the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed -Forces, for the occupied territories of the West, to the effect -that all archives and all scientific property belonging to our -ideological opponents, be placed at my disposal. This, too, was -carried out on a wide scale and in close co-operation with the -SD and the military leaders.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The importance attached by the Hitlerite conspirators to Rosenberg’s -predatory staffs is shown in Göring’s special circular of -1 May 1941, addressed to all Party, Government, and military -institutions, which had been ordered to co-operate with the Einsatzstab -Rosenberg. This document was presented by our American -colleagues on 18 December of last year and accepted by the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USA-384 (Document Number 1117-PS).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even at that time the scale on which the pillage was conducted -was already enormous. As Rosenberg stated in his letter of 23 April -1941, at that time, that is, in April 1941, 7,000 cases of looted works -of art had already been dispatched to Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To conclude with this document I shall, with your permission, -read one further brief quotation into the record. It consists of one -paragraph only. You will find this paragraph on Page 6 of the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“And thus”—wrote Rosenberg—“these problems practically -solved themselves and the work has followed its own course. -Here I would like to ask for a confirmation that these -decisions, already adopted in the West, should, in the present -circumstances, be rendered valid in the other occupied -territories, or in those which are to be occupied.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This document, in which pillage is referred to as “work,” proves -that Rosenberg’s criminal activities were carried out in close contact -with the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces; and, finally, that -<span class='pageno' title='57' id='Page_57'></span> -as early as April 1941 plans were being made for plundering the -territories about to be occupied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The speech of the Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, -and the speech of the representative of the United States -Prosecution, Mr. Alderman, defined what Rosenberg meant in his -letter by “territories about to be occupied” at that time. That was -the period of the practical realization of the evil Hitlerite schemes, -planned in the so-called Plan Barbarossa, the period when the German -fascist hordes were hurled against the frontiers of the Soviet -Union, the period of the attack on the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Lastly, it is necessary to point out that, in April 1941, the Defendant -Rosenberg placed Utikal at the head of all operational staffs, -“the creation of which may become necessary during the course of -this war.” In this connection Rosenberg referred to the “successful -work” and to the “experience gained” by his operational staff in the -western occupied territories and in the Netherlands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This fact is confirmed by a certificate issued to Utikal, dated -1 April 1941, and signed by Rosenberg. The authenticity of this document—which -bears Document Number 143-PS—was confirmed by -Rosenberg at his interrogation on 26 September 1945. I present this -document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-371.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In reporting on the organization for the looting and destruction -of cultural treasures, it is necessary to indicate yet another department -which combined diplomacy with pillage. I have in mind the -German Ministry for Foreign Affairs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, in his -opening speech pointed out that the general pillage in the occupied -regions of the U.S.S.R., carried out on the direct orders of the German -Government, was directed not only by the Defendants Göring -and Rosenberg and by the various “staffs” and “commands” subordinated -to them; the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, headed by the -Defendant Ribbentrop, also participated through a “special formation.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The creation of such a formation—the so-called “Ribbentrop -Battalion”—and its practical activities in the looting of cultural -treasures in the territory of the U.S.S.R. are testified to in a written -statement of 10 November 1942 by Obersturmführer Dr. Förster, -who was captured by Red Army units in the region of Mosdok. In -this statement Förster likewise indicated the task of Rosenberg’s -staff in the plunder or, as he expressed it, in the “withdrawal” of -museum treasures and antiques. A certified photostat of this statement -I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-157 (Document -Number USSR-157).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is stated in Förster’s statement, I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In August 1941 while in Berlin, I, with the assistance of my -old acquaintance from the University of Berlin, Dr. Focke, -<span class='pageno' title='58' id='Page_58'></span> -then employed in the press section of the Foreign Office, was -transferred from the 87th Tank Destroyer Division to the -special purpose battalion attached to the Foreign Office. This -battalion had been created on the initiative of the Reich -Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, and was under his -direction. The officer commanding the battalion is Major of -the Waffen-SS, Von Künsberg.</p> - -<p>“The task of the special purpose battalion was to seize and to -secure, immediately after the fall of large cities, their cultural -treasures and all objects of great historic value, to select -valuable books and films, and finally to dispatch them all to -Germany.</p> - -<p>“The special purpose battalion consists of four companies. The -first company is attached to the German Expeditionary Corps -in Africa, the second company to Army Group North, the -third to Army Group Center, and the fourth to Army Group -South. The first company is located at present in Italy, in -Naples, awaiting possible deployment to Africa. Battalion staff -headquarters are in Berlin, Hermann Göring Strasse, Number -104. The confiscated material is stored in the premises of -the Adler firm, in the Hardenbergstrasse.</p> - -<p>“Prior to our departure for Russia, Major Von Künsberg -transmitted to us Ribbentrop’s order, thoroughly to ‘comb out’ -all scientific establishments, institutions, libraries, and all the -palaces, to search all the archives, and to lay our hands on -anything of a definite value.</p> - -<p>“I heard from my comrades that the second company of our -battalion had removed valuable objects from the palaces in -the Leningrad suburbs. I myself was not there at the time. -At Zarskoje Selo the company seized and secured the property -belonging to the palace-museum of the Empress Catherine. -The Chinese silk draperies and the carved gilt ornaments were -torn from the walls. The floor of artistic ornaments was -dismantled and taken away. From the palace of the Emperor -Alexander antique furniture and a large library containing -some 6,000 to 7,000 volumes in French and over 5,000 volumes -and manuscripts in Russian, were removed.</p> - -<p>“The fourth company, to which I was attached, confiscated the -Kiev laboratory of the Medical and Scientific Research Institute. -The entire equipment, as well as scientific material, documents -and books, was shipped to Germany.</p> - -<p>“We reaped a rich harvest in the library of the Ukrainian -Academy of Science, treasuring the rarest manuscripts of -Persian, Abyssinian, and Chinese literature, Russian and -Ukrainian chronicles, the first edition books printed by the first -<span class='pageno' title='59' id='Page_59'></span> -Russian printer, Ivan Fjodorov, and rare editions of the works -of Shevtchenko, Mickiewicz, and Ivan Franko.</p> - -<p>“From the Kiev museums of Ukrainian art, Russian art, -Western and Eastern art and from the central Shevtchenko -museum numerous exhibits which still remained there, -including paintings, portraits by Repin, canvases by Vereschagin, -Fedotoff, Goe, sculptures by Antokolsky and other -masterpieces of Russian and Ukrainian painters and sculptors -were dispatched to Berlin.</p> - -<p>“In Kharkov several thousand valuable books in de luxe -editions were seized from the Korolenko library and sent to -Berlin. The remaining books were destroyed. From the Kharkov -picture gallery several hundred pictures were secured, -including 14 pictures by Aivasovsky, works by Repin and -many paintings by Polienov, Schischkin, and others. Antique -sculptures and the entire scientific archive of the museum -were also taken away. Embroideries, carpets, Gobelin tapestries, -and other exhibits were appropriated by the German -soldiers.</p> - -<p>“I also knew”—testified Dr. Förster in his statement—“that -the staff of Alfred Rosenberg used special kommandos for the -confiscation of valuable antique and museum pieces in the -occupied countries of Europe and in the territories of the East. -Civilian experts were in charge of these kommandos.</p> - -<p>“After the occupation of any big city, the leaders of these -kommandos arrive, accompanied by various art experts. They -inspect museums, picture galleries, exhibitions, and institutions -of art and culture, they determine their condition and confiscate -everything of value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit the last paragraph of this statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission, Your Honors, I shall read two more -excerpts into the record from a letter of the Reich Minister for the -Occupied Territories, dated 7 April 1942, and signed by order of -the Minister, by Laibrandt, closest assistant of the Defendant -Rosenberg. This letter, Your Honors, is in your document book, on -Pages 12 and 13, and was submitted on 18 December last year by -the United States Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-408 (Document -Number USSR-408).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is very revealing in that it indicates the scale of -the projected pillage and disguises this pillage which, in the document, -is shamelessly referred to as “the preservation of objects of -culture, research material, and of scientific institutions in the -Occupied Eastern Territories.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is also characteristic in that Rosenberg, fearing -that he might miss some of the booty, established his own monopoly -<span class='pageno' title='60' id='Page_60'></span> -to plunder and only made concessions to the quartermaster general -of the Army, in conjunction with whom—as the letter reveals—Operational -Staff Rosenberg carried on its “work.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the first excerpt of this letter. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I have entrusted the Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the Occupied -Territories with the listing and detailed handling of all cultural -valuables, research materials, and scientific work in -libraries, archives, research institutions, museums, et cetera, -found in public and religious establishments, as well as in -private houses. The Einsatzstab, instructed once again by -the Führer’s order of 1 March 1942, begins its work jointly -with the quartermaster general of the Army immediately -after the occupation of the territories by combat troops and -executes this work after the establishment of civil government, -in co-operation with the competent Reich Commissioner, -until such time as the task is completed. I request all the -authorities of my department to support, as far as possible, -the representatives of the Einsatzstab in the execution of -these measures and to supply them with all essential information, -especially in connection with the registration of -objects in the occupied territories, whether or not they have -been removed, and if so, where this material is located at -the present time.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As you see, Your Honors, the looting of libraries, archives, -scientific research institutes, museums—both public and private—and -even of church treasures, was already being planned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that this is not a question of preserving cultural treasures, -but of plunder, is revealed by the following excerpt from the -letter mentioned. You will find it on Page 12 of your document -book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Insofar as seizures or transports have already taken place -contrary to these provisions . . . Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab, -Berlin-Charlottenburg (2), Bismarckstrasse 1, must be -informed without delay.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not burden you by enumerating the many addresses to -whom copies of this letter were sent. I shall merely name some of -them: OKH, the Reich Minister of Economics, the Plenipotentiary -for the Four Year Plan, the Reich Commissioners for the Baltic -regions, the Ukraine, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. Thus this document reconfirms -that both Göring and Funk, as well as the representatives of the -OKH, actively participated in this pillage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The priceless works of art plundered in the occupied countries -were removed to Germany, now transformed by the Hitlerites into -a robber’s den. -<span class='pageno' title='61' id='Page_61'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union -established that, in January 1943, the Commander of the 1st Tank -Army, Cavalry General Mackensen, in the presence of the head -of the propaganda department of the 1st Tank Army, Müller, -removed from the Rostov Museum of Pictorial and Plastic Art, -which had been evacuated to the town of Piatigorsk and which -was then on the premises of the Lermontov Museum, the most -valuable canvases of Ribera, Rubens, Murillo, Jordaens, Vereshtshagin, -Korovine, Kramskoy, Polenov, Repin, Lagorio, Aivasovsky, -and Shishkin, sculptures by Donatello, and other exhibits.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This statement, Your Honors, has already been presented to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-37 (Document Number USSR-37). -With your permission I should like to read into the record only -one paragraph on Page 5 of this document. The quotation is on -Page 18 of your document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Rostov Museum of Pictorial Art had been looted and its -contents carried off into Germany by the commander of the -1st Tank Army, Cavalry General Mackensen, and by the -chief of the propaganda section of the 1st Tank Army, Müller.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the affidavit of the Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government, -Stefan Kurovsky, it has been established that the Defendant -Frank, in looting the cultural treasures of the Polish State, was also -striving after his own personal gain. Pictures, porcelain, and other -works of art from the plundered museums of Warsaw and Kraków, -particularly from Vavel Castle, were transferred to the estate of the -Defendant Frank.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The affidavit to which I referred is an appendix to the report -of the Polish Government and is presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-302 (Document Number USSR-302). This -document, Your Honors, is to be found on Pages 19-20 of your -document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this document registered under Document Number 055-PS, -which is a letter from the head of the Political Leadership Group -P4 of the Reich Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, -dated 14 September 1944, there are indications as to where the -looted treasures were taken and stored. This letter, addressed to -the “Reich Minister through the Chief of the Political Leadership -Staff” is headed, “Objects of Art Evacuated from the Ukraine.” -This letter is to be found in your document book on Page 21. I -present this letter as documentary evidence and, submit it as -Exhibit Number USSR-372 and I quote the text. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine has stored the -objects of art and the pictures evacuated from Kiev and -Kharkov, in the following shelters in East Prussia: 1. The -<span class='pageno' title='62' id='Page_62'></span> -Richau family estate, near Wehlau; 2. Wildenhoff Manor -(owner, Count Schwerin).”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read further from the text of this letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“There are 65 cases, the exact contents of which are enumerated -on the attached list. As to the other 20 cases, 57 portfolios, -and one roll of engravings, their inventory has not -been taken to date. Among the pictures there are a great -number of very ancient icons, works by famous masters of -the German, Italian, and Dutch schools of the 16th, 17th, and -18th centuries, as well as the works of the best Russian -masters of the 18th and 19th centuries. On the whole, this -property consists of extremely valuable works of art, which -had been removed from public Ukrainian museums and whose -value, even at a rough estimate, amounts to a sum of many -millions. In addition, this is the sole collection of such international -value on German territory. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the last paragraph of this letter since it has no material -bearing on the subject, and will continue by quoting an excerpt -from Page 2 of Rosenberg’s letter, of which I have already read -one quotation earlier in the day. You will, Your Honors, find it on -Page 5 of the document book. I quote. Rosenberg wrote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the process of these confiscations we have, of course, -found also many other works of art. Among them there are -some of great value and, in order to preserve them, the Chief -of the High Command of the Army, at my request and in -accordance with the Führer’s directives, ordered me to draw -up a catalogue of these works of art and to keep them for the -Führer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>You have heard, Your Honors, of Hitler’s attitude towards the -property of the people and the works of art in the countries seized -by the Germans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This episode is to be found in the Czechoslovakian Government -report, presented to the Tribunal; excerpts from this report were -read yesterday into the record. Therefore, I consider there is no -necessity for reading it into the record once more. However, it is -necessary to note that not only Hitler but Göring was an ardent -adherent of this policy of “acquisitions.” You also heard, Your -Honors, yesterday how Göring acquired valuable Gobelin tapestries -in France. However, Göring did not acquire Gobelin tapestries only. -He wrote in one of his letters to Rosenberg—I refer to Document -Number 1985-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-373, and which is in your document book on Pages 156 to -158—Göring wrote that he “by means of purchases, presents, -bequests, and barter owns perhaps the most important private -collection, at least in Germany, if not in Europe.” The document -<span class='pageno' title='63' id='Page_63'></span> -presented is a copy of a typewritten letter and includes a series -of corrections and notes in ink, evidently in Göring’s own hand. -This copy was captured, together with Göring’s other correspondence, -by units of the American Army, a fact which was confirmed -and in due time presented to the Tribunal by our American -colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document, Your Honors, reveals, to a remarkable extent, -the nature of the “acquisitions” effected by Göring and also confirms -Ribbentrop’s part in the “preservation” of cultural treasures in the -occupied territories. For this reason, I shall, with your permission, -read a few extracts from this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the extract from the first page of this letter. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“After prolonged search”—wrote Göring to Rosenberg—“I -was much gratified that an office was at last charged with -the collection of these things although I want to point out -that other departments are also claiming the authority of the -Führer. First of these was the Reich Minister for Foreign -Affairs, who, several months ago, sent a circular to all -departments, in which he, inter alia, stated that he had -received full authority for the preservation of cultural objects -in occupied territories.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I now read an extract from Page 2 of the letter, the last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In order to avoid misconceptions regarding these articles, -part of which I want to claim for myself, part of which I -have purchased, and part of which I wish to acquire, I want to -inform you as follows:</p> - -<p>“1. I have now obtained by means of purchase, presents, -bequests, and barter, perhaps the greatest private collection -in Germany at least, if not in Europe.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and I read Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the -next one. Subparagraph 2 enumerates the objects which Göring -would like to acquire. It refers to a very extensive and highly -valued collection of Dutch artists of the 17th century, while Subparagraph -3 mentions “a comparatively small though very good -collection of French artists from the 18th century, and finally, a -collection of Italian masters.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You have heard, Your Honors, what was meant, in practice, by -“the personal material interest of soldiers in the war.” All this -established irrevocably that the Hitlerites engaged in pillage and -brigandage and that everybody, from the privates to the criminal -leaders of Hitlerite Germany, participated in the plunder. The same -must be said regarding the destruction of cultural treasures. Decrees -and directives concerning the destruction of cultural treasures came -from the leaders of Hitlerite Germany and from the highest ranks -of the Military Command. -<span class='pageno' title='64' id='Page_64'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall refer, as evidence, to the order of the Commander of the -German 6th Army, signed by Field Marshal Von Reichenau, -approved by Hitler and entitled, “On the Behavior of the Troops -in the East.” This order was presented to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-12. This document, contrary to the usual -Hitlerite custom, contains direct and entirely undisguised instructions -for the destruction and suppression of culture in the occupied -territories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission, I shall quote just one paragraph of this -order. It is on Page 161 of your document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Army is interested in extinguishing fires only in such -buildings as may be used for Army billets. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>All the rest to be destroyed; no historical or artistic buildings in -the East to be of any value whatsoever.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote one more document which establishes that the -destruction and pillage of cultural treasures, universally carried out -by the Hitlerites in the territories occupied by them, was inspired -and directed by the Hitlerite Government. I refer to the diary of -the Defendant Frank, extracts of which have already been submitted -to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-223. In the first volume -of Frank’s diary, on Page 38—Page 169 in your document book—there -appears an entry dated 4 October 1939 which reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Berlin. Conference with the Führer. The Führer discussed -the general situation with the Governor General and approved -the activity of the Governor General in Poland, particularly -in the demolition of the Warsaw Palace, the non-restoration -of this city, and the evacuation of the art treasures.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider that the documents, now submitted and read into the -record, are fully sufficient to enable us to draw the following -conclusions:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) The pillage and destruction of the cultural treasures of the -peoples in the German occupied territories were carried out in -accordance with previously elaborated and carefully prepared plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) The fascist Government and German High Command directed -the pillage and destruction of cultural treasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) The most active role in the organization of the pillage and -destruction of cultural treasures was taken by the participants in -the conspiracy, the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, Frank, and -Göring.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next section of my presentation, entitled, -“Destruction and Pillage of Cultural Treasures in Czechoslovakia, -Poland, and Yugoslavia.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I reported to the Tribunal on the general plans of the Hitlerite -conspirators for strangling national cultural life in the countries -<span class='pageno' title='65' id='Page_65'></span> -occupied by them. I now pass on to report on the actual materialization -of the criminal plans of the Hitlerite conspirators in Czechoslovakia, -Poland, and Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall refer only to such irrefutable proofs as the official reports -of the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, -already submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution. I -shall read into the record a few parts of the relevant sections of -these reports directly concerning the theme expounded by me, -which have not been quoted by my colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I begin by quoting extracts from the Czechoslovak Government -reports. These excerpts, Your Honors, are to be found in your -document book, on Pages 81 to 88. I quote from Page 81:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“K. H. Frank, who was appointed Secretary of State and -Deputy to Reich Protector Von Neurath in March 1939 and in -August 1943 became Minister of State and head of the German -Executive in the Protectorate, said, ‘The Czechs are fit to be -used only as workers or farm laborers.’</p> - -<p>“K. H. Frank replied to a Czech delegation which, in 1942, -requested the Czech universities and colleges to be reopened, -‘If the war is won by England, you will open your schools -yourselves; if Germany wins, an elementary school with five -grades will be enough for you.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>The Germans seized all colleges and hostels for students.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass to a quotation on Page 83 of the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They immediately seized the most valuable apparatus, instruments, -and scientific equipment in many of the occupied -institutions. The scientific libraries were systematically and -methodically damaged. Scientific books and films were separated -and taken away, the archives of the Academy Senate -(the highest university authority) were torn up or burned, -the card indexes destroyed and scattered.</p> - -<p>“Suppression of Czech schools. . . .</p> - -<p>“K. H. Frank, in November 1939, personally ordered the -closing of all Czech higher educational institutions.</p> - -<p>“Such university students as were still at liberty were -forbidden to exercise any intellectual profession and were -invited to find manual occupation within 48 hours, failing -which they would be sent to labor camps in Germany.</p> - -<p>“The closing of the universities was aggravated by the -closing of the great scientific libraries and of all institutions -capable of offering intellectual sustenance to the students -expelled from the universities. The library of the University -of Prague was henceforth accessible to Germans only. -<span class='pageno' title='66' id='Page_66'></span></p> - -<p>“Suppression of all scientific activities:</p> - -<p>“The closing down of Czech universities and colleges was -merely a preliminary step towards the complete suppression -of the entire Czech scientific life. The buildings of scientific -institutions were converted either into German universities -and colleges or placed at the disposal of the German military -and civil authorities. The Germans removed all scientific -instruments and books and even complete laboratories to -Germany, on the pretext that the Czechs would no longer -need them. The number of works of art, pictures, statues, and -rare manuscripts stolen from the library of the University -of Prague and from private collections cannot be calculated, -nor can their value be estimated. Scientific collections were -also given to German schools, provided they had not been -stolen piecemeal.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I pass on to the excerpts on Page 86 of the Czechoslovakian report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Hundreds of Czech elementary and secondary schools were -closed in 1939, and so rapid was the systematic closing of -Czech schools during the first year of the war that, by the -end of 1940, 6,000 of the 20,000 Czech teachers were unemployed.</p> - -<p>“By September 1942 some 60 percent of the Czech elementary -schools had been closed by the Germans.</p> - -<p>“All Czech books published during the republican regime -have been confiscated, and the glorification of Greater -Germany and its Führer became the basis of all teaching at -Czech elementary schools. In 1939 the number of pupils -permitted to enter Czech secondary schools had diminished -by 50 percent as compared with 1938. About 70 percent of -the Czech secondary schools had been closed by the end of -1942. Girls have been entirely excluded from the secondary -schools.</p> - -<p>“Nursery schools for children between 3 and 6 were completely -germanized and employed only German teachers.</p> - -<p>“Other crimes in cultural spheres.</p> - -<p>“Monuments:</p> - -<p>“In many towns the ‘Masaryk Houses,’ which for the most -part contain libraries, halls for the showing of educational -films, and for the performance of plays and concerts, have -been confiscated and transformed into barracks or offices for -the Gestapo. The statues they contained, sometimes of great -artistic value, were spoiled and broken. . . . A number of -monuments in Prague, among them Bilek’s ‘Moses’ and -<span class='pageno' title='67' id='Page_67'></span> -Mardjatka’s ‘Memorial to the Fallen Legionaries,’ have been -melted down. . . .</p> - -<p>“A decree of the autumn of 1942 ordered all university -libraries to hand over all early printed Czech works and first -editions to the Germans. The collections in the National -Museum were pillaged; and the Modern Art Gallery, containing -a unique collection of Czech art of the 19th and 20th -centuries with some precious specimens of foreign (mainly -French) art, was closed.</p> - -<p>“The crown jewels of the ancient Czech kings had to be -handed over to Heydrich.</p> - -<p>“Literature:</p> - -<p>“Translations of works by English, French, and Russian -authors, both classic and modern, were withdrawn from -circulation. The severest censorship was applied to the works -of modern Czech authors. The Germans liquidated many -leading publishing firms.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: This is a good opportunity to adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “The entire political literature -of the free republic, as well as the works of the participants -in the Czech revival of the 18th and 19th centuries, -were withdrawn. The books of Jewish authors were prohibited, -as well as those of politically unreliable writers. The -Germans withdrew the Czech classics, as well as the works -of the 15th century reformer John Hus, of Alois Erassek, the -author of historical novels, the poet Victor Dieck, and others.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus the Hitlerites destroyed the national culture of the peoples -of Czechoslovakia, plundered and pillaged works of art, literature, -and science.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Poland, as in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the German -fascist invaders carried out a large-scale liquidation of national -culture with exceptional cruelty. The Hitlerite conspirators -destroyed the Polish intelligentsia, closed educational establishments, -prohibited the publication of Polish books, looted works of -art, blew up and burned national monuments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am reading into the record relevant extracts from the Polish -Government report, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). These excerpts, -Your Honors, are on Pages 197-200 of the document book: -<span class='pageno' title='68' id='Page_68'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Annihilation of the Polish intelligentsia:</p> - -<p>“In the incorporated regions the intelligentsia were deprived -of all means of livelihood. Many of them, professors, teachers, -lawyers, and judges, were interned in concentration camps -or murdered.</p> - -<p>“In the Government General about 80 percent of the intelligentsia -were deprived of all means of subsistence. Owing -to the liquidation of the press, journalists and writers were -unable to earn a living. The publication of new books was -prohibited.</p> - -<p>“Four universities and twelve schools of the university type -ceased to exist. Their average attendance before September -1939 reached 45,000.</p> - -<p>“Secondary schools:</p> - -<p>“There were about 550 secondary schools in the German -occupied territory. Their closing was ordered. In the incorporated -territories they were completely closed down. In -the Government General they were allowed to continue their -activity, but in November 1939 an order was issued to cease -teaching. The only schools which were allowed to continue -work were commercial or trade schools. Educated Poles were -not needed; the Poles were to become artisans and workmen. -Such was the official line of policy.</p> - -<p>“Elementary schools:</p> - -<p>“In the incorporated territories Polish schools were completely -abolished. They were replaced by German schools. Polish -children were educated in the German tongue and German -spirit.</p> - -<p>“On the eve of war there were about 2,000 periodicals -published in Poland, among them 170 newspapers. By order -of the Germans the press was almost entirely eradicated.</p> - -<p>“The publication, printing, and distributing of Polish books -was prohibited as early as October 1939.</p> - -<p>“On 5 November 1940 the German <span class='it'>Verordnungsblatt</span> published -the following decree:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Until further notice, the publication, without exception, -of all books, pamphlets, periodicals, journals, calendars, and -music is prohibited, unless published by the authority of the -Government General.’</p> - -<p>“Theaters, music, and radio:</p> - -<p>“The principles of German policy in Poland were outlined -in a circular of a special branch of national education and -<span class='pageno' title='69' id='Page_69'></span> -propaganda in the German Government General. It read as -follows:</p> - -<p>“ ‘It is understood that not a single German official will assist -in the development of Polish cultural life in any way whatsoever.’</p> - -<p>“The sole purpose which was to be followed, in the words of -the circular, was to ‘satisfy the primitive demands for entertainment -and amusement, all the more as this was a question -of diverting as far as possible the attention of the intellectual -circles from conspiracy or political debates which encouraged -the development of an anti-German feeling.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip the last paragraph and pass on to the next page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Looting, spoliation, and carrying away of works of art, -libraries, and collections from Poland.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The excerpts are on Pages 207 and 208 of the document book.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 13 December 1939 the Gauleiter of the Warthegau issued -an order that all public and private libraries and collections -in the incorporated territories were to be registered. Upon -completion of registration, libraries and book collections were -confiscated and transported to the ‘Buchsammelstelle.’ There -special experts carried out a selection. The final destination -was either Berlin or the newly constituted State Library -(Staatsbibliothek) in Posen. Books which were considered -unsuitable were sold, destroyed, or thrown away as waste -paper.</p> - -<p>“The best and largest libraries of the country were victims -of the organized looting in the Government General. Among -them were the university libraries in Kraków and Warsaw. -One of the best, though not the largest, was the library of -the Polish Parliament. It consisted of about 38,000 volumes -and 3,500 periodical publications. On 15 and 16 November -1939 the main part of this library was transported to Berlin -and Breslau. Ancient documents, such as, for instance, a -collection of parchments—the property of the central archives—were -also seized.</p> - -<p>“The Diocesan Archives in Pelilin, containing 12th century -documents, were burned in the furnaces of a sugar refinery.</p> - -<p>“The first art treasure removed from Poland was the well-known -altar of Veit Stoss from the Kraków Cathedral. It -was taken to Germany on 16 December 1939. The Defendant -Frank issued a decree concerning the confiscation of works of -art.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip a few paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph on -Page 221: -<span class='pageno' title='70' id='Page_70'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Three valuable pictures were removed from the galleries -of the Czartoryski in Sieniawa. Frank seized and kept them -until 17 January 1945, and then transferred them to Silesia, -and thence, as his personal property, to Bavaria.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>National monuments:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the process of destroying everything that was connected -with Polish history and culture, many monuments and works -of art were destroyed and demolished.</p> - -<p>“The monument of the eminent Polish King, Boleslaw, the -Valiant, in Gniezno, was first wound round with ropes and -chains with a view to throwing it off its pedestal. After an -unsuccessful attempt, acetylene was used: the head was cut -off and the pedestal broken in pieces. The same fate befell -the monument of the Sacred Heart in Posen, the monuments -to Chopin, the poet Slowacki, the composer Moniuszko, the -Polish national hero Kósciuszko, President Wilson, the greatest -Polish poet Mickiewicz, and many others.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>To the report of the Polish Government is attached a list of -public libraries, museums, books and other collections sacrificed to -plunder and looting. These lists of objects are available on -Pages 254 and 255 of the document book. In the first list we find -the names of 30 libraries and in the second 21 museums and collections -of works of art which were plundered and destroyed. I shall -not read these lists in full, but shall mention only some of the -museums and collections which were a subject of national pride -and constituted the treasure of the Polish State.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following objects became the booty of the fascist vandals: -The treasure house of the Wawelski Cathedral in Kraków, the -Potocki Collection in Jablonna, the Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, -the National Museum in Kraków, the Museum of Religious Art in -Warsaw, the State Numismatic Collections in Warsaw, the Palace -of King Stanislaw-August in the Lazienkowski Park, the Palace of -King Jan Sobieski in Willanow, the collection of Count Tarnowski -in Sukhaya, the Religious Museum in Posen, and many others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite invaders also plundered monasteries, churches, and -cathedrals. On Page 43 of the report of the Polish Government, -corresponding to Page 223 of the document book, there are final -notes by the Polish Primate, Cardinal Hlond. They concern a -written communication from Cardinal Hlond to Pope Pius XII. -I shall read into the record only two paragraphs of these concluding -notes. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Monasteries have been methodically suppressed, as well as -their flourishing institutions for education, press, social welfare, -charity, and care of the sick. Their houses and institutions -have been seized by the army of the Nazi Party. -<span class='pageno' title='71' id='Page_71'></span></p> - -<p>“Then the invaders confiscated or sequestrated the patrimony -of the Church, considering themselves the owners of this -property. The cathedrals, the episcopal palaces, the seminaries, -the canons’ residence, the revenues and endowments -of episcopates and chapters, the funds of the seminaries, all -were pillaged by the invaders.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 29 and pass on to Page 30: Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The destruction of the national culture of the peoples of Yugoslavia -was carried out by the Hitlerites by various means and -methods. I shall not, Your Honors, enumerate them in detail. These -means and methods are already known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Yugoslavia the same thing occurred as in Poland and Czechoslovakia. -We need only stress that, in the destruction of the culture -of the peoples of Yugoslavia, the German fascist occupants showed -great ingenuity and utilized the vast experiences acquired in other -countries occupied by them. The system of destruction of the -national culture of the peoples of Yugoslavia starts with attack and -pillage and ends with mass murder, camps, and the ovens of the -crematories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Jugoslav Government, presented to the Tribunal -as Document Number USSR-36, there are quoted a large -number of facts and documents which establish, without any possibility -of doubt, the criminal deeds of the defendants. But even -these numerous facts quoted in the report do not exhaust all the -crimes committed by the Hitlerites. The report of the Yugoslav -Government quotes only typical cases as examples. I shall cite a -few excerpts from this report. These excerpts, Your Honors, are -on Page 303 of the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Immediately after the invasion of Slovenia, the Germans -started to fulfill their plans, thought out long beforehand, to -germanize the ‘annexed’ territories of Slovenia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further, on Page 307:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The occupiers closed all the schools in Slovenia, exiled all -the Slovene teachers, destroyed all Slovene libraries and -books, and forbade the use of the Slovene language, which -was considered as an act of sabotage.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The German barbarians destroyed and plundered not only schools -and libraries, they also destroyed universities and broadcasting stations, -cultural establishments, and sanatoria. On Page 23 of the -report, corresponding to Page 278 of the document book, we find, -for instance, the following facts concerning Belgrade. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Without any military need, the Germans premeditatively -destroyed and burned a great number of public buildings and -cultural institutions, such as the New University, the People’s -<span class='pageno' title='72' id='Page_72'></span> -University ‘Koloraz,’ the first high school for boys, the second -high school for girls, the ancient royal palace, the broadcasting -station, the Russian Home of Culture, the sanatorium -of Dr. Jivkovich, and so forth. In the university building -valuable and highly important collections of scientific works -and research matter were destroyed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As is established by the report of the Jugoslav State Commission, -which is Document Number J-39(a), and which I submit under -Exhibit Number 364, Page 313(a) of our document book—the Hitlerites -razed to the ground the National Library in Belgrade and -burned hundreds of thousands of books and manuscripts, which -constituted the basic stock of Serbian culture. They completely -destroyed 71 and partially destroyed 41 scientific institutes and -laboratories of Belgrade University. They razed to the ground the -State Academy of Art, and they burned and looted thousands of -schools.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 31 and pass on to Page 32. Your Honors -will find this passage on Page 303 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the 4 years of German domination, the people of Yugoslavia -experienced great sufferings and sorrow. The Germans looted -the economic wealth of the country and caused great material -damage. But the damage they caused to the culture of the people -of Yugoslavia was even greater.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In concluding this chapter of my report, I consider it essential, -Your Honors, to quote yet another excerpt from the diary of the -Defendant Frank. I have in mind the calico-bound volume of the -diary entitled, “Conferences of the Leaders of Departments of -1939-1940,” which contains an entry regarding the conference of the -departmental leaders of 19 January 1940 in Kraków. This excerpt -is on Page 169 of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 15 September 1939, I was entrusted with the administration -of the conquered eastern territories, and received a special -order pitilessly to devastate this district regarding it as -a combat zone and a prize of war, and to reduce its economic, -social, cultural, and political structure to a heap of ruins.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>To this statement of Frank’s, we need only add that the Defendant -Frank zealously performed this task in Poland and that the Reich, -Gau, and other leaders acted with equal zeal in the occupied territories -of the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am now going to present, Your Honors, proof of crimes committed -by the defendants against the culture of the peoples of the -Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have heard in this court what brutality was used and on how -vast a scale the Hitlerites conducted the destruction and spoliation -<span class='pageno' title='73' id='Page_73'></span> -of the cultural wealth of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and -Yugoslavia. The crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerite conspirators in -the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. were graver still. The criminal -organization, known as the Hitler Government, aimed not only -at plundering the people of the Soviet Union, at destroying their -towns and villages, and at extirpating the culture of the peoples of -the U.S.S.R., but also at enslaving the people of the Soviet Union -and of transforming our native country into a fascist colony of serfs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the second part of my statement I have proved how the -destruction of the cultural monuments of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. -was planned and perpetrated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. M. -Molotov, dated 27 April 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)), -documents and facts are quoted which establish beyond dispute that -the destruction of historic and cultural monuments and the vile -mockery of national feelings, beliefs, and convictions constituted a -part of the monstrous plan evolved and put into practice by the -Hitlerite Government, which strove to liquidate the national culture -of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. Later I shall refer again to this -document, but at present I wish, with your permission, to read -into the record the following excerpt which is on Page 321 of your -document book. I omit the first and quote the second paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The desecration and destruction of historical and cultural -memorials in occupied Soviet territories, as well as the devastation -of the numerous cultural establishments set up by -the Soviet authorities, are a part of the monstrously senseless -plan conceived and pursued by the Hitlerite Government -which strives to liquidate Russian national culture and the -national cultures of the peoples of the Soviet Union, forcibly -to germanize the Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, Lithuanian, -Latvian, Estonian and other peoples of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p>“In Order Number 0973/41, General Hodt, commander of the -German 17th Army, demands that his subordinates thoroughly -assimilate that misanthropic notion so typical of the thick-skulled -fascists, that the ‘sound feeling of vengeance and -repulsion towards everything Russian should not be suppressed -among the men but, on the contrary, encouraged in -every way.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>True to their custom of destroying universally recognized cultural -valuables, the Hitlerites everywhere on the Soviet territory -occupied by them, devastated and mostly burned libraries, from the -small club and school libraries up to and including the most valuable -collections of manuscripts and books, containing unique bibliographical -valuables. -<span class='pageno' title='74' id='Page_74'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a paragraph and continue the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites looted and then set on fire the famous Borodino -Museum, the historical exhibits of which related to the -struggle against the armies of Napoleon in 1812, particularly -dear to the Russian people. The invaders looted and set fire -to the Pushkin House Museum in the hamlet of Polotnyany -Zavod.</p> - -<p>“In Kaluga the Hitlerites assiduously destroyed the exhibits -in the house-museum in which the eminent Russian scientist -K. E. Tsiolkovsky, whose services in the field of aeronautics -enjoy world-wide fame, lived and worked.</p> - -<p>“The fascist vandals used Tsiolkovsky’s portrait as a target -for revolver practice. Extremely valuable models of dirigibles, -together with plans and instruments, were trampled underfoot. -One of the museum rooms was turned into a hen coop -and the furniture burned. One of the oldest agricultural institutions -in the U.S.S.R., the Shatilov selection station in the -Orel district, was destroyed by the invaders, who blew up -and consigned to the flames 55 buildings of this station, -including the agrochemical and other laboratories, the museum, -the library containing 40,000 volumes, the school, and other -buildings. Even greater frenzy was shown by the Hitlerites -when looting the cultural institutions and historical monuments -of the Ukraine and of Bielorussia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph of this -quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“There was no limit to the desecration by the Hitlerite vandals -of the monuments and homes representing Ukrainian -history, culture, and art. Suffice to mention, as an example -of the constant attempts to humiliate the national dignity of -the Ukrainian people, that after plundering the Korolenko -Library in Kharkov, the occupiers used the books as paving -stones for the muddy street in order to facilitate the passage -of German motor vehicles.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The German vandals treated with particular hatred these cultural -monuments which were most dear to the Soviet people. I shall -quote several instances:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites plundered Yasnaya Polyana, where one of the -greatest writers, Leo Tolstoy, was born, lived, and worked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They plundered and despoiled the house where the great Russian -composer, Tschaikovsky, lived and worked. In this house Tschaikovsky -created the world-famous operas <span class='it'>Eugen Onegin</span> and <span class='it'>The -Queen of Spades</span>. -<span class='pageno' title='75' id='Page_75'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Taganrog they destroyed the house where the great Russian -writer Chekhov lived; in Tikhvin they destroyed the residence of -the Russian composer Rimsky-Korsakov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As evidence, Your Honors, I shall read into the record an -excerpt from the note of Foreign Commissar Molotov, dated 6 January -1942. This document has already been submitted to the Tribunal -as Document Number 51(2). This excerpt is on Page 317 of -the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For a period of 6 weeks, the Germans occupied the world-famous -property of Yasnaya Polyana where Leo Tolstoy, one -of the greatest geniuses of mankind, was born, lived, and -created. This glorious memorial to Russian culture was -wrecked, profaned, and finally set on fire by the Nazi vandals. -The grave of the great writer was desecrated by the -invaders. Irreplaceable relics relating to the life and work of -Leo Tolstoy, including rare manuscripts, books, and paintings, -were either plundered by the German soldiers or thrown -away and destroyed. A German officer named Schwartz, in -reply to a request of one of the museum’s staff collaborators -to stop using the personal furniture and books of the great -writer for firewood and to use wood available for this purpose, -answered, ‘We don’t need firewood; we shall burn everything -connected with the name of your Tolstoy.’</p> - -<p>“When the town of Klin was liberated by the Soviet troops -on 15 December, it was ascertained that the house in which -P. I. Tschaikovsky, the great Russian composer, had lived and -worked and which the Soviet State had turned into a museum, -had been wrecked and plundered by fascist officers and soldiers. -In the museum building proper, the Germans set up a -garage for motorcycles, heating this garage with manuscripts, -books, furniture, and other museum exhibits, part of which -had in any case been stolen by the German invaders. In doing -this, the Nazi officers knew perfectly well that they were -defiling one of the finest monuments of Russian culture.</p> - -<p>“During the occupation of the town of Istra, the German -troops established an ammunition dump in the famous ancient -Russian monastery known as the New Jerusalem Monastery, -founded as far back as 1654. The New Jerusalem Monastery -was an outstanding historical and religious monument of the -Russian people and was known as one of the most beautiful -specimens of religious architecture. This did not, however, -prevent the German fascist vandals from blowing up their -ammunition dump in the New Jerusalem Monastery on their -retreat from Istra, thereby reducing this irreplaceable monument -of Russian church history to a heap of ruins.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='76' id='Page_76'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph and close this quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Acting upon directions of the German Military Command, the -Hitlerites destroyed and annihilated the cultural-historic monuments -of the Russian people connected with the life and work of the great -Russian poet, Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union, the original copy of which is now submitted to the Tribunal -as Document Number USSR-40 (Exhibit Number USSR-40), reads -as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To preserve the cultural and historical memorials of the -Russian people connected with the life and creations of the -gifted Russian poet and genius, Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin, -the Soviet Government, on 17 March 1922, declared the poet’s -estate at Mikhailovskoye, as well as his tomb at the monastery -of Svyatogorsky and the neighboring villages of Trigorskoye, -Gorodischtsche, and Voronitch, a state reservation.</p> - -<p>“The Pushkin reservation, and especially the poet’s estate at -Mikhailovskoye, was very dear to the Russian people. Here -Pushkin finished the third and created the fourth, fifth, and -sixth chapters of <span class='it'>Eugen Onegin</span>. Here, too, he finished his -poem <span class='it'>Gypsies</span>, and wrote the drama <span class='it'>Boris Godunov</span>, as well -as a large number of epic and lyrical poems.</p> - -<p>“In July 1941 the Hitlerites forced their way into the Pushkin -reservation. For 3 years they made themselves at home there, -ruined everything, and destroyed the Pushkin memorials.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall omit the beginning of Page 1 of the report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The plundering of the museum had already begun in August -1941.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I shall also omit the next paragraph. I read on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the autumn of 1943 the commander of the Pushkin Military -Kommandantur, Treibholz, urged Director K. V. Afanassiev -to prepare for the evacuation of all the museum -valuables. All these valuables were packed into cases by the -German authorities, loaded into trucks, and sent to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit the next paragraph and read on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At the end of February 1944 the Germans turned Mikhailovskoye -into a military objective and into one of the strongpoints -of the German defense. The park area was dug up -for combat and communication trenches; shelters were constructed. -The cottage of Pushkin’s nurse was taken to pieces -and next to it, and partly on its former site, the Germans -constructed a large dugout, protected by five layers of timber. -The Germans built a similar dugout near the former museum -building. -<span class='pageno' title='77' id='Page_77'></span></p> - -<p>“Prior to their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the Germans -completed the destruction and desecration of the Pushkin -estate. The house-museum erected on the foundation of Pushkin’s -former residence was burned down by the Germans and -nothing remained but a heap of ruins. The marble plate of -the Pushkin monument was smashed to pieces and thrown -onto the pile of ashes. Of the other two houses standing at the -entrance to the Mikhailovskoye estate, one was burned down -by the Germans, the other severely damaged. The German -vandals put three bullets into the large portrait of Pushkin -hanging in an archway at the entrance to the Mikhailovskoye -park; then they destroyed the archway.</p> - -<p>“After their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the fascists bombarded -the village with mine throwers and artillery fire. The -wooden stairs leading to the River Soret were destroyed by -German mines. The old lime trees of the circular alley leading -to the house were broken down; the giant elm tree in front -of the house was damaged by shell fire and splinters.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of this page and pass on to Page 41 of the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the village of Voronitch the wooden church was burned -down which dated back to Pushkin’s times and where Pushkin -had a requiem sung on 7 April 1825 to commemorate the death -of the great English poet, Byron. The churchyard near the -church where V. P. Hannibal, one of Pushkin’s relatives, and -the priest, Rayevsky, close friend of the poet, lay buried, was -criss-crossed by trenches, mined, and devastated. The historical -aspect of the reservation, in which the Russian people -saw a symbol of Pushkin, was disfigured beyond all recognition -by the Germans.</p> - -<p>“The sacrileges perpetrated by the Germans against the -national sanctuaries of the Russian people are best demonstrated -by the desecration of Pushkin’s tomb. In an attempt to -save the Pushkin reservation from destruction, the units of -the Red Army did not defend this district, but withdrew to -Novorzhev. Nevertheless, on 2 July 1941 the Germans bombarded -the monastery of Svyatiye-Gory, at the adjoining -walls of which is Pushkin’s tomb.</p> - -<p>“In March 1943, long before the battle line approached the -Pushkinskiye hills, the Germans began the systematical demolition -of the Svyatiye-Gory monastery.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of this page, and I pass on to Page 42:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The poet’s tomb was found completely covered with refuse. -Both stairways leading down to the grave were destroyed. -The platform surrounding the grave was covered with refuse, -rubble, wooden fragments of icons, and pieces of sheet metal.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='78' id='Page_78'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a paragraph and quote further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The marble balustrade surrounding the platform was -damaged by fragments of artillery shells and by bullets. -The monument itself inclined at an angle of 10 to 12 degrees -eastwards, as a result of a landslide following the shelling, -and of the shocks caused by the explosions of German mines.</p> - -<p>“The invaders knew perfectly well that, on entering the -Pushkinskiye hills, the officers and soldiers of the Red Army -would first of all visit the grave of the poet, and therefore -converted it into a trap for the patriots. Approximately 3,000 -mines were discovered and removed from the grounds of the -monastery and its vicinity by the engineers of the Soviet -Army. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The destruction of works of art and architecture in the towns of -Pavlovsk, Tzarskoe-Selo, and Peterhof, figure among the worst -anti-cultural crimes of the Hitlerites. The magnificent monuments -of art and architecture in these towns, which had been turned into -“museum towns,” are known throughout the civilized world. These -art and architectural monuments were created in the course of -2 centuries. They commemorated a whole series of outstanding -events in Russian history.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Celebrated Russian and foreign architects, sculptors, and artists -created masterpieces which were kept in these “museum towns” -and, together with valuable masterpieces of Russian and foreign -art, they had been blown up, burned, robbed, or destroyed by the -fascist vandals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read into the record Exhibit Number USSR-49 (Document -Number USSR-49) which includes a statement of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union dated 3 September 1944. -The excerpts which I shall quote, Your Honors, are on Pages 330-332 -of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 43 and the whole of Page 44 of this -statement, and begin my quotation in the middle of Page 45:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At the time the German invaders broke into Petrodvoretz -(in Peterhof) there still remained, after the evacuation, 34,214 -museum exhibits (pictures, works of art, and sculptures), as -well as 11,700 extremely valuable books from the palace -libraries. The ground floor rooms of the Ekaterininsky and -Alexandrovsky Palaces in the town of Pushkin contained -assorted furniture suites of Russian and French workmanship -of the middle of the 18th century, 600 items of artistic -porcelain of the late 19th and 20th centuries, as well as a large -number of marble busts, small sculptures, and about 35,000 -volumes from the palace libraries. -<span class='pageno' title='79' id='Page_79'></span></p> - -<p>“On the basis of documentary materials, the statements and -testimony of eyewitnesses, the evidence of German prisoners -of war and as a result of careful investigation, it has been -established that: Breaking into Petrodvoretz on 23 September -1941, the German invaders immediately proceeded to loot the -treasures of the palace-museums and in the course of several -months removed the contents of these palaces.</p> - -<p>“From the Big, Marly, Monplaisir, and Cottage Palaces, -they looted and removed to Germany some 34,000 museum -exhibits, among them 4,950 unique items of furniture of -Italian, English, French, and Russian workmanship from the -periods of Catherine the Great, Alexander I, and Nicholas I, -as well as many rare sets of porcelain of foreign and Russian -manufacture of the 18th and 19th centuries. The German -barbarians stripped the walls of the palace rooms of the -silks, Gobelin tapestries, and other decorative materials which -adorned them.</p> - -<p>“In November 1941 the Germans removed the bronze statue -of Samson, the work of the sculptor Koslovsky, and took it -away. Having looted the museum treasures, the Hitlerites -set fire to the Big Palace, created by the famous and gifted -architect Bartolomeo Rastrelli.</p> - -<p>“Upon their withdrawal from Petrodvoretz”—I have skipped -a paragraph—“the Germans wrecked the Marly Palace by -delayed-action mines. This palace contained very delicate -carvings and stucco moldings. The Germans wrecked the -Monplaisir Palace of Peter the Great. They destroyed all -the wooden parts of the pavilion and of the galleries, the -interior decorations of the study, the bedroom and the -Chinese room.</p> - -<p>“During their occupation, they turned the central parts of -the palace, that is, the most valuable from the historical -and artistic viewpoint, into bunkers. They turned the western -pavilion of the palace into a stable and a latrine. In the -premises of the Assembly Building the Germans tore up the -floor, sawed through the beams, destroyed the doors and -windowframes, and stripped the panelling off the ceiling.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip one paragraph and quote the last one on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the northern part of the park, in the so-called Alexander -Park, they blew up the villa of Nicholas II, completely -destroyed the frame cottage which served as billet for officers, -the Alexander gates, the pavilions of the Adam fountain, the -pylons of the main gates of the upper park and the Rose -Pavilion.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='80' id='Page_80'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip one paragraph on Page 47:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans wrecked the fountain system of the Petrodvoretz -parks. They damaged the entire pipe-line system for -feeding the fountains, a system extending from the dam of -the Rose Pavilion to the upper park.</p> - -<p>“After the occupation of New Petrodvoretz, units of the 291st -German Infantry Division, using heavy artillery fire, -completely destroyed the famous English Palace at Old -Petrodvoretz, built on the orders of Catherine II by the -architect Quarenghi. The Germans fired 9,000 rounds of -heavy artillery shells into the palace; together with the -Palace they destroyed the picturesque English park and all -the park pavilions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has appreciated the successful -efforts which the other members of the Soviet Delegation have -made to shorten their addresses, and they would be glad if you -could possibly summarize some of the details with which you -have to deal in the matter of destruction and spoliation and perhaps -omit some of the details.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is all for this morning.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='81' id='Page_81'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The looting and destruction -of historical and artistic palaces in the town of Pushkin (Tzarskoe-Selo) -was carried out with malice aforesight by order of the -highest German authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 47 and the beginning of Page 48:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“A considerable part of the Catherine Palace was burned -down by the Germans. The famous ceremonial halls, 300 -meters long and designed by Rastrelli, perished in the flames. -The famous antechambers”—waiting rooms—“decorated by -Rastrelli were likewise ruined.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Great Hall—outstanding creation of the genius of -Rastrelli—presented a terrible spectacle. The unique ceilings, -work of Torelli, Giordano, Brullov, and other famous Italian -and Russian masters, were destroyed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit another paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Equally ruined and pillaged was the Palace Church, one of -Rastrelli’s masterpieces, famous for the exquisite workmanship -of the interior decoration.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one more paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In January 1944 the retreating German invaders prepared -the complete destruction of all that was left of the Catherine -Palace and adjoining buildings. For this purpose, on the -ground floor of the remaining part of the palace, as well as -under the Cameron Gallery, 11 large delayed-action aerial -bombs were laid, weighing from 1 to 3 tons.</p> - -<p>“In Pushkin the Hitlerite bandits destroyed the Alexander -Palace, constructed at the end of the 18th century by the -famous architect Giacomo Quarenghi.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“All the museum furniture, stored in the basements of the -Catherine and Alexander Palaces, items of artistic porcelain, -and books from the palace libraries were sent to Germany.</p> - -<p>“The famous painted ceiling, ‘Feast of the Gods on Olympus,’ -in the main hall of the Hermitage pavilion was removed -and shipped to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Great destructions were caused by the Hitlerites in the -magnificent Pushkin parks, where thousands of age-old trees -were cut down. -<span class='pageno' title='82' id='Page_82'></span></p> - -<p>“Ribbentrop’s special purpose battalion and the Kommandos -Staff Rosenberg shipped to Germany from the Pavlovsky -Palace extremely valuable palace furniture, designed by -Veronikhin and by the greatest masters of the 18th century.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 49 and the beginning of Page 50 of the -report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During their retreat the fascist invaders set fire to the -Paul’s Palace. The greater part of the palace building was -entirely burned down.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next two paragraphs and quote the last paragraph, -which concludes this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Extraordinary State Commission established that the -destruction of art monuments in Petrodvoretz, Pushkin, and -Pavlovsk was carried out by the officers and soldiers of the -German Army on the direct instructions of the German -Government and the High Command.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Many large towns were destroyed by the German fascist invaders -in the occupied U.S.S.R. territories. But they destroyed with particular -ruthlessness the ancient Russian cities containing monuments -of ancient Russian art. I quote as an example the destruction of the -cities of Novgorod, Pskov, and Smolensk. Novgorod and Pskov belong -to these historical centers where the Russian people laid the foundation -of their state; here, in the course of centuries flourished a -highly developed and individual culture. It left a rich heritage -which constitutes a valuable possession of our people. Thanks to -the survival of numerous monuments of ecclesiastic and civil -architecture, murals, paintings, sculpture, and handicraft, Novgorod -and Pskov were rightly considered the seat of Russian history.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite barbarians destroyed, in Novgorod, many valuable -monuments of Russian and foreign art of the 11th and 12th -centuries. They not only destroyed the monuments but they -reduced the entire city to a heap of ruins.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By way of proof, I shall read into the record some excerpts -from the document presented to the Tribunal as Document Number -USSR-50. You will, Your Honors, find these excerpts on Pages 333 -and 334 of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The ancient Russian city of Novgorod was reduced to a heap -of ruins by the German fascist invaders. They destroyed -the historical monuments and dismantled some of them for -use in the construction of defense fortifications. . . .</p> - -<p>“The German fascist vandals destroyed and obliterated, in -Novgorod, the greatest monuments of ancient Russian art. -The fascists destroyed the vaults and walls of the Saint -George Cathedral tower of the Yuryev Monastery. This -<span class='pageno' title='83' id='Page_83'></span> -cathedral was built in the early part of the 12th century, -was decorated by 12th century frescoes.</p> - -<p>“The Cathedral of Saint Sophia, built in the 11th century, -was one of the oldest monuments of Russian architecture -and an outstanding monument of world art. The Germans -destroyed the cathedral building. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Hitlerites robbed the cathedral entirely of all its interior -decorations; they carried off all the icons from the iconostasis -and the ancient chandeliers, including one which belonged to -Boris Godunov. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Church of the Annunciation on the Arkage, dating back -to the 12th century, was converted by the fascists into a -fortified position and barracks.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Church of the Assumption on Volotov Field, a monument -of Novgorod architecture of the 14th-15th centuries, -was turned by the Germans into a heap of stones and bricks.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one sentence.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Church of the Transfiguration of our Lord, in Ilyin -Street, was destroyed. It was one of the finest specimens -of Novgorod architecture of the 14th century, particularly -famed for its frescoes, painted in the same period by the -great Byzantine master, Theofan, the Greek.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of this page and pass on to Page 54, of my -report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Over 2 years of Hitlerite rule in Novgorod brought about the -ruin of many other wonderful, ancient monuments of Russian -architecture. . . . By order of the commanding general of the -18th German Army, Generaloberst Lindemann, the German -barbarians dismantled and prepared for removal to Germany -the monument to ‘a thousand years of Russia.’ This monument -was erected in the Kremlin Square in 1862 and represented, -in artistic images, the main stages of the development -of our native land up to the sixties of the 19th century. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Hitler barbarians dismantled the monument and smashed -the statuary. They did not, however, succeed in shipping -it off and melting down the metal.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Citizen Youri Nikolaievich Dimitriev, in his affidavit, gives a -very detailed account of the barbarous destruction by the Germans -of the monuments of ancient Russian art in the cities of Novgorod -and Pskov. Dimitriev, since 1937, was the custodian of the Ancient -Russian Art Section of the Russian State Museum in Leningrad. -He began the study of the historical monuments of Novgorod and -Pskov in 1926. As a great expert in this particular sphere of art, -<span class='pageno' title='84' id='Page_84'></span> -he was asked by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union to participate in the investigation of the crimes of the -German fascist invaders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal the original of Dimitriev’s depositions, -duly certified, in accordance with legal procedure in the U.S.S.R., -as Document Number USSR-312 (Exhibit Number USSR-312). You -will find it, Your Honors, on Pages 335 and 347 in your document -book. In submitting his affidavit, I shall omit facts already known -to the Tribunal from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -previously read into the record. I quote only a few short -excerpts which will be found on Pages 336 and 339. Mr. Dimitriev -stated as follows—I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The greater part of Novgorod is razed to the ground; only -a few districts were left by the Germans and even these -were in ruins. Pskov was also left in ruins by the Germans; -during their retreat they blew up the buildings and monuments. -Of 88 buildings of historical and artistic value in -Novgorod only two buildings are without grave damages. . . . -Only a few isolated monuments in Pskov were left -undamaged.</p> - -<p>“In Novgorod and Pskov the Germans deliberately destroyed -monuments of historical and artistic value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German Army, while destroying and damaging monuments -of historical and artistic value, plundered and carried -off works of art and valuable objects which formed part of, -or were contained in, these monuments.</p> - -<p>“At the same time the German troops profaned and -desecrated several ecclesiastical monuments of historic and -artistic value in Novgorod and Pskov.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Day by day for 26 months, the Hitlerites systematically -destroyed one of the most ancient Russian cities, Smolensk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Soviet Prosecution has presented to the Tribunal a document -as Document Number USSR-56, containing the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union. I shall not quote -this document; but I shall only refer to it and endeavor, in my -own words, to emphasize the fundamental points of this document, -dealing with the reported theme now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Smolensk, the German fascist invaders plundered and -destroyed the most valuable collections in the museums. They -desecrated and burned down ancient monuments; they destroyed -schools and institutes, libraries, and sanatoriums. The report also -mentions the fact that in April 1943, the Germans needed rubble -to pave the roads. For this purpose, they blew up the intermediate -<span class='pageno' title='85' id='Page_85'></span> -school. The Germans burned down all the libraries of the city -and 22 schools; 646,000 volumes perished in the library fires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass on to Page 57 of my report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Prior to the German occupation Smolensk contained four -museums with extremely valuable collections.</p> - -<p>“The museum of art possessed most valuable collections, -primarily of Russian historic-artistic, historic-sociological, -ethnographic, and other valuables: paintings, icons, bronzes, -porcelains, metal castings, and textiles. These collections -were of international value and had been exhibited in France. -The invaders destroyed the museums and took the most -valuable exhibits to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote only one last paragraph on Page 57:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the confiscation and exportation -of valuables from the occupied regions of the East had -a special branch in Smolensk, headed by Dr. Norling, the -organizer for the plunder of museums and historical -monuments.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such are some of the numerous facts of the crimes committed -by the fascist barbarians. They demonstrate how the criminal -schemes of the Hitlerite conspirators were actually materialized.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is known how mercilessly the German fascist invaders carried -out the economic plunder of the Ukrainian people. But destruction -and plunder of Ukrainian cultural and historical treasures -played no lesser part in the plans of the Hitlerite conspirators, and -was carried out with the same savage zeal. In accordance with -their criminal plans for the enslavement of the freedom-loving -Ukrainian people, the Hitlerite conspirators endeavored to annihilate -its culture. From the very first days of their invasion of the -Ukraine the Hitlerites, in execution of their criminal designs, -embarked upon the systematic destruction of schools, higher educational -institutions, scientific establishments, museums, libraries, -clubs, and theaters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The historical and cultural treasures in the cities of Kiev, Kharkov, -Odessa, in the Provinces of Stalino and Rovno, and many -other larger and smaller cities, were subjected to plunder and -destruction.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution under -Document Number USSR-32, containing the sentence pronounced by -the military tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front between 15-18 -December 1943, it is evident that the German fascist armies of -Kharkov, in the Province of Kharkov, acting on direct instructions -of Hitler’s Government, burned, plundered, and destroyed the -<span class='pageno' title='86' id='Page_86'></span> -material and cultural treasures of the Soviet people. These excerpts, -Your Honors, you will find on Page 359 in your document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now proceed to the evidence of crimes committed by the -Hitlerites in the capital of the Ukrainian Republic, Kiev. I quote -one paragraph of the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution -under Document Number USSR-248. You will find it on Page 363 -of your document book. It is an extract from the records of the -Extraordinary State Commission “about the destruction and plunder -by the fascist aggressors of Kiev’s Psychiatric Hospital.” Among -other destructions they—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . burned the archives of the institute, priceless from a -scientific point of view, destroyed the magnificent hospital -library of 20,000 volumes, plundered the especially protected -and priceless monument of the 11th century—the famous -Cathedral of Saint Cyryl situated in the institute grounds.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I next pass on to several excerpts from the Extraordinary State -Commission’s report which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9). The excerpts quoted -are on Pages 365-366 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Before the German invasion, Kiev possessed 150 secondary -and elementary schools. Of this number, 77 schools were -used by the Germans as military barracks. Nine served as -warehouses and workshops, two were occupied by military -staffs and eight were turned into stables. During their -retreat from Kiev, the German barbarians destroyed 140 -schools.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German invaders stole more than 4 million volumes -from the book stocks of the Kiev libraries. From the library -of the Ukrainian S.S.R. Academy of Science alone the -Hitlerites sent to Germany over 320,000 various valuable and -unique books, magazines, and manuscripts.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg Your Honors to note that Dr. Förster, SS Obersturmführer, -who served in the special purpose battalion, established on the -initiative of the Defendant Ribbentrop and acting under his orders, -testified to the plunder of the library of the Ukrainian S.S.R., -Academy of Science, in his deposition of 10 November 1942, which I -have already read into the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and pass on to a further reading from -the report of the Extraordinary State Commission:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 5 September 1943 the Germans burned and blew up one -of the most ancient centers of Ukrainian culture, the T. G. -Shevtchenko State University in Kiev, founded in 1834. In -<span class='pageno' title='87' id='Page_87'></span> -the fire perished the greatest of cultural treasures which for -centuries had represented the scientific and educational bases -on which the work of the university was founded; perished, -the priceless documents from the historical archives of ancient -manuscripts; perished, the library containing over 1,300,000 -books; destroyed, the zoological museum of the university -with over 2 million exhibits, together with a whole series of -other museums. . . .</p> - -<p>“. . . The German occupiers also destroyed other institutions -of higher learning in Kiev; they burned and looted the -majority of the medical institutions.</p> - -<p>“In Kiev the fascist barbarians burned down the building -of the Red Army Dramatic Theater . . . , the Theatrical -Institute, the Academy of Music, where the instruments were -burned together with the very wealthy library and all the -equipment; they blew up the beautiful circus building; they -burned down, with its entire equipment, the M. Gorki Theater -for Juvenile Audiences; they destroyed the Jewish theater. . . .</p> - -<p>“In the Museum of Western European and Eastern Art only -some large canvases were left; the robbers had not had time -to remove them from the high walls of the stairway shafts. -From the Museum of Russian Art the Hitlerites carried off, -together with all the other exhibits, a collection of Russian -icons of inestimable value. They looted the Museum of -Ukrainian Art; only 1,900 exhibits of the National Art Section -of this museum were left of the original 41,000.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of this page and pass to Page 62 of my -report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites plundered the T. G. Shevtchenko Museum and -the historical museum. They looted the greatest monument -to the Slav peoples—the Cathedral of Saint Sophia—from -which they removed 14 12th century frescoes.”</p> - -<p>I omit one paragraph.</p> - -<p>“By order of the German Command the troops plundered, -blew up, and destroyed a very ancient cultural monument—the -Kievo-Pecherskaya Abbey. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Uspenski Cathedral, built in 1075-89 by the order of -Grand Duke Svjatoslav, with murals painted in 1897 by the -famous painter V. V. Vereshchiagin, was blown up by the -Germans on 3 November 1941.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of Page 62 and pass on to Page 63 of the -report: -<span class='pageno' title='88' id='Page_88'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“We cannot gaze without sorrow”—states Nicholas, Metropolitan -of Kiev and Galicia, and member of the Extraordinary -State Commission—“on the heaps of rubble of the -Uspenski Cathedral, founded in the 11th century by the -genius of its immortal builders. The explosions formed -several huge craters in the area surrounding the cathedral, -and, beholding them, it would appear that the very earth -had shuddered at the sight of the atrocities committed by -those who no longer had a right to be called human beings. -It was as if a terrible hurricane had passed over the abbey, -overturning everything, scattering and destroying the mighty -buildings of the abbey. For over 2 years Kiev lay shackled -in the German chains. Hitler’s executioners brought death -to Kiev, together with ruins, famine, and executions. In -time all this will pass from the near present to the far distant -past; but never will the people of Russia and the Ukraine, -or honest men all the world over, forget these crimes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, may I dwell on two more documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first, Document Number 035-PS, is entitled, “A Brief Report -on Security Measures of the Chief Labor Group in the Ukraine -during the Withdrawal of the Armed Forces.” It was presented -to the Tribunal by our American colleagues on 18 December 1945. -A characteristic peculiarity of this document is that it openly -testifies to the looting. It is quite clear to all that reference is -made to a gang of robbers, although the Hitlerites still persist in -referring to robbery as work. They shipped the most valuable -exhibits of the Ukrainian Museum to Germany as “miscellaneous -textiles.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report begins with the description of the creation of safe -quarters for the Einsatzstab establishments, a purpose for which -the inhabitants of an entire district were thrown out of their -quarters. There then follows, in this document, a list of booty -removed from the plundered museums of Kharkov and Kiev, from -archives, and even from private libraries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote one brief excerpt only from this document, dealing -with the contents of the Ukrainian and the prehistorical museum -of Kiev. You will find this excerpt on Page 368 of the document -book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“October 1943, materials of the Ukrainian museum in Kiev.</p> - -<p>“On the basis of the general evacuation orders of the city -commissioner, the following were sorted out by us and -loaded for shipment to Kraków:</p> - -<p>“Miscellaneous textiles; collections of valuable embroidery -patterns; collections of brocades; numerous wooden utensils, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>. -<span class='pageno' title='89' id='Page_89'></span></p> - -<p>“Moreover, a large part of the prehistoric museum was carried -away.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second, Document Number 1109-PS of 17 June 1944, is -headed, “Note for the Director of Operation Group P4,” and is -addressed to Von Milde-Schreden. I shall quote it completely -because it is really a short excerpt which you will find on Page 369 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“2. The removal of cultural property.</p> - -<p>“A great deal of material from museums, archives, institutions, -and other cultural establishments was in an orderly -manner removed from Kiev in the autumn of 1943.</p> - -<p>“These actions to safeguard the material were carried out by -Einsatzstab RR, as well as by the individual directors of -institutes, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, at the instigation of the Reich Commissioner.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Here, Your Honors, I would point out that Einsatzstab Rosenberg -in some documents is also referred to as the “Task Staff RR.” -These initials stand for Reichsleiter Rosenberg.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At first, a great deal of the property that was to be evacuated -was taken only to the areas of the rear; later on, this -material was forwarded to the Reich. When the undersigned, -towards the end of September, received the order from the -cultural division of the Reich Commissioner to take out of -Kiev the remaining cultural effects, the materials most valuable -from a cultural point of view had already been removed. -During October some 40 carloads of cultural effects were -shipped to the Reich. In this case it was chiefly a question of -valuables which belonged to the research institutions of the -national research center of the Ukraine. These institutions, -at present, are continuing their work in the Reich and are -being directed in such a manner that at any given moment -they can be brought back to the Ukraine. The cultural values -which could not be promptly safeguarded incurred plunder. -In this case, however, it was always a question of less valuable -material, as the essential assets had been removed in an -orderly manner.</p> - -<p>“In October 1943 factories, workshops, plants, and other -equipment were removed from Kiev by the order of the -town commander, but where it was taken, I do not know.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This letter ends with the following sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At the time the Soviets entered the city there was nothing -valuable, in this respect, left in the city.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, from the documents submitted by -the Soviet Prosecution, the Tribunal has already learned about the -<span class='pageno' title='90' id='Page_90'></span> -criminal conspiracy between Hitler and Antonescu. As a reward -for supplying Germany with cannon fodder, oil, wheat, cattle, <span class='it'>et -cetera</span>, Antonescu’s criminal clique received from Hitler’s Government -authorization to plunder the civilian population between the -Bug and the Dniester. German and Romanian invaders plundered -and destroyed many objects of cultural value, health resorts, and -medical institutions in Odessa. The Hitlerites also plundered on -their own account, as well as in co-operation with Antonescu’s -clique. To prove this, I shall now read into the record a few -excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -of the Soviet Union, presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-47 (Document Number USSR-47). These excerpts are taken -from Page 372 of your document book. I omit one paragraph and -begin to quote from the penultimate paragraph on this page of -my report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German Military Command plundered the museums of -Odessa, carrying away hundreds of unique objects.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, I here omit two paragraphs and quote the last line of -Page 66:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“According to a plan, drawn up in advance, the German -fascist invaders . . . blew up or burned 2,290 of the largest -buildings of architectural, artistic, and historical value. Included -in these were the house of A. S. Pushkin . . . the Saban -barracks, built in 1827, and others, representing in themselves -valuable monuments to the material culture of the beginning -of the 19th century.</p> - -<p>“In Odessa the German-Romanian invaders destroyed: The -first hospital for contagious diseases, the second district hospital, -the somatological hospital, the psychiatric hospital, and -two children’s hospitals, a children’s polyclinic, seven infant -consulting centers, 55 day nurseries, two maternity homes, -one dispensary, one leprosarium, six polyclinics, and research -institutions for the study of tuberculosis, for studying conditions -in spas and others. They destroyed 29 sanatoria located -around Odessa.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites committed crimes on an exceptionally large scale -in the Stalino Province. I omit the rest of this page and pass to -Page 68 of my report. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission, -presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number -USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2), relates an enormous number -of facts. I shall not quote all of those, Your Honors; but I shall -confine myself only to several excerpts from the above-mentioned -document which have not yet been read into the record by my -colleagues. They can be found on Pages 374 and 375 in your document -book. I quote: -<span class='pageno' title='91' id='Page_91'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During their retreat from Stalino, the Hitlerites completely -destroyed . . . 113 schools, 62 kindergartens, 390 shops, the -winter and summer theaters, the Palace of the Pioneers, the -radio theater, the Museum of the Revolution, the picture -gallery and the Dzerjinsky Club of the city.</p> - -<p>“Special Engineer detachments went from school to school, -pouring incendiary liquid over them and setting them on fire. -Such Soviet people who tried to extinguish the fires were -immediately shot by the fascist scoundrels. . . .</p> - -<p>“Exceptionally severe damages were caused by the invaders -to the medical establishments of the city.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit three paragraphs of the report, and I quote the penultimate -paragraph on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Medical Institute, a model scientific establishment for -2,000 students, was destroyed on the orders of Oberfeldarzt -Roll, chief medical officer of Belindorf, and the chief medical -officer of Kuchendorf.</p> - -<p>“Of a total of 600,000 books on science and art, 530,000 -volumes were burned by the Hitlerites. . . .</p> - -<p>“In the town of Makeyewka the German fascist invaders blew -up and burned down the city theater, seating 1,000 persons; -the circus, seating 1,500 persons; 49 schools, 20 day nurseries, -and 44 kindergarten schools. By order of the Town Commander, -Vogler, 35,000 volumes from the central Gorky -library were destroyed on a pyre.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not enumerate all the cities. These facts were mentioned -in a document which, according to Article 21 of the Charter, -provides irrefutable evidence. In agreement with the rulings of -the Tribunal, this document will not be read into the record in -full. I must, however, draw your attention to the fact that in all -industrial towns of the Province of Stalino the Hitlerites burned -down schools, theaters, day nurseries, hospitals, and even churches. -Thus in the town of Gorlovka:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . they destroyed 32 schools, attended by some 21,649 children, -burned down the town hospital, five polyclinics, a -church, and the Palace of Culture. . . .</p> - -<p>“In the city of Konstantinovka the occupational authorities -blew up and burned down all the 25 city schools, two cinemas, -the central city library with 35,000 volumes, the Pioneers’ -Club, the children’s technical center, the city hospital, and the -day nurseries.</p> - -<p>“Before their retreat from Mariupol the German occupational -authorities burned down all the 68 schools of the city, -17 kindergarten schools . . . and the Palace of the Pioneers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='92' id='Page_92'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now quote a few excerpts from the document presented -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR 45 (Document Number -USSR-45). These excerpts are found on Page 378 of your document -book. The document deals with the Hitlerite crimes in Rovno and -the region of Rovno. The city of Rovno was of special importance. -It was the residence of Reich Minister Erich Koch, the closest collaborator -of the Defendant Rosenberg. Numerous conferences of the -Hitlerite leaders for elaborating their plan for the enslavement of -the Ukrainian people took place in this city. The above-mentioned -report of the Extraordinary State Commission established the following -facts:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites, on the Ukrainian territory they had seized, -endeavored to establish a regime of slavery and serfdom and -to annihilate the Ukrainian sovereignty and culture. . . .</p> - -<p>“The considerable material in possession of the Extraordinary -State Commission, based on documents, testimonies of witnesses, -and personal inspection by members of the commission, -and their acquaintance with conditions prevailing in -various cultural and educational establishments on Ukrainian -territory liberated by the Red Army, leaves no doubt that the -German fascist barbarians had for their aim the destruction -of Ukrainian culture and the extermination of the best representatives -of Ukrainian art and science who had fallen into -their hands.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the penultimate paragraph -on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist aggressors closed down nearly all the -cultural and educational establishments in Rovno. On 30 November -1941 the closing down of schools in the General Commissariat -of Volhynia and Podolia was officially announced -in the newspaper <span class='it'>Volyn</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 70, and I quote the last paragraph of -this document on Page 71 of my report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The fact that all these crimes were committed in the residence -of the former Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, -Erich Koch, serves as additional proof that all the crimes of -the Hitlerite bandits were perpetrated in execution of a plan -for the extermination of the Soviet people and the devastation -of the Soviet territories temporarily occupied by the Hitlerites, -a plan conceived and executed by the Hitlerite Government.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In Section 5 of his opening statement, General Rudenko, Chief -Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., quoted an extract from a letter of the -<span class='pageno' title='93' id='Page_93'></span> -Commissioner General for Bielorussia, Kube, addressed to the -Defendant Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is a typewritten letter, signed in ink by Kube. -It has several notations in pencil, evidently by the hand of Rosenberg; -and it has a stamp, “Ministerial Bureau,” and is dated -3 October 1941. This document, identified as Document Number -1099-PS, I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-374 in -evidence of the enormous proportions assumed by the plundering -of historical treasures, carried out everywhere by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission I shall now take the liberty of quoting -some additional extracts from this document, which discloses the -fact that not only were the plundered treasures sent to Germany -but that they had also been stolen by individual generals of Hitler’s -Army. Kube’s letter reveals at the same time the existence of a -previously elaborated plan for the plunder of the cultural treasures -in Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine. The vandalism of the -Hitlerites reached such proportions that even Kube, that hangman -of the Bielorussian people, was roused to indignation. He was afraid -of allowing a profitable deal to slip through his hands and sought -compensation from Rosenberg. I quote the second paragraph from -the beginning of the letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Minsk possessed a large and, in part, a very valuable collection -of art treasures and paintings which have now been -removed almost in their entirety from the city. By order of -Reichsführer SS, Reichsleiter Heinrich Himmler, most of the -paintings, some still during my term of office, were packed -by the SS and sent to the Reich. They are worth several -millions which were withdrawn from the general district of -White Ruthenia. The paintings were supposedly sent to Linz -and to Königsberg in East Prussia. I beg to have this valuable -collection—as far as it is not needed in the Reich—placed -once more at the disposal of the general district of White -Ruthenia or, in any case, to place the monetary value of these -collections with the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Kube, as well as the Defendant Rosenberg, was of the opinion -that he had the right to monopolize the stolen treasures and complained—I -quote the second part of the second paragraph of this -letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“General Stubenrauch has taken a valuable part of this collection -and has carried it off to the area of military operations. -Sonderführer, whose names have not yet been reported to -me, have carried off three truckloads (without receipt) of -furniture, paintings, and objects of art.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='94' id='Page_94'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having, along with other fascist leaders, robbed the people of -Bielorussia, and taken a direct part in the mass ill-treatment and -extermination of the Soviet population, Kube hypocritically declared—I -quote the last paragraph of this letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Bielorussia, already poor in itself, has suffered heavy losses -through these actions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And Kube recommended to Rosenberg—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hope that experts will be appointed beforehand to prevent -such happenings in Leningrad and Moscow, as well as in -some of the ancient Ukrainian cultural centers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>That was the ultimate goal of their ideas. It is now universally -known what meaning the Hitlerites attached to the word “measures” -when applied to the occupied territories. It meant a regime -of bloody terror and violence, of unrestricted plunder, and arbitrariness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On breaking into Minsk, capital of the Bielorussian Republic, -the German fascist invaders attempted to destroy the culture of -the Bielorussian people and to turn the Bielorussians into obedient -German slaves. As has been established by a special investigation, -the Hitlerite military authorities, acting on direct orders from the -German Government, ruthlessly destroyed scientific research institutes -and schools, theaters and clubs, hospitals and polyclinics, -kindergartens and day nurseries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am reading into the record an excerpt from the document -which was presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number -USSR-38 (Document Number USSR-38).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For 3 years the German fascist invaders in Minsk set out -to destroy, systematically, the scientific research institutes, -institutions of higher education, libraries, museums, institutions -of the academy of science, theaters, and clubs.</p> - -<p>“The Lenin library in Minsk was a foundation more than -20 years old. In 1932 the work was completed by the construction -of a special new building with a large and well-equipped -depository for storing books. From this library the -Germans carried off to Berlin and Königsberg 1½ million -extremely valuable books on the history of Bielorussia. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 73 of my report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In their attempt to eradicate the culture of the Bielorussian -people, the German fascist invaders destroyed every cultural -and educational institution in Minsk. . . . The libraries of the -Academy of Science, containing 30,000 volumes, of the State -University, of the Polytechnical Institute, and the medico-scientific -library and the public library of the city, A. S. -Pushkin, were carried away to Germany. -<span class='pageno' title='95' id='Page_95'></span></p> - -<p>“The Hitlerites destroyed the Bielorussian State University -together with the Zoological, the Geological, and Mineralogical, -the Historical, and Archaeological Museums as well -as the Medical Institute with all its clinics. They also demolished -the Academy of Sciences with its nine institutes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of this paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They destroyed the State Art Gallery and carried away to -Germany paintings and sculptures by Russian and Bielorussian -masters. . . . They plundered the Bielorussian State -Theater of Opera and Ballet, the First Bielorussian Dramatic -Theater, the House of National Creative Art, together with -the houses of the unions of writers, artists, and composers.</p> - -<p>“In Minsk the fascists destroyed 47 schools, 24 kindergarten -schools, the Palace of the Pioneers, 2 lying-in hospitals, 3 children’s -hospitals, 5 municipal polyclinics, 27 nurseries, and -4 children’s welfare centers; the Institution of Infant and -Maternity Welfare was reduced to a heap of ruins.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has at its disposal Document Number 076-PS -which is a report entitled, “On Minsk Libraries,” by a German -private first class, Abel. This private had investigated all the -libraries in Minsk and stated in his report that nearly all of them -had been destroyed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present this report as Exhibit Number USSR-375 (Document -Number USSR-375). I consider, Mr. President, that it will be quite -sufficient to read into the record individual excerpts from this -report. There is no need to read the report in its entirety. It is -stated, on Page 75 of my report, that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Lenin library was the central library of Bielorussia. It -is difficult to estimate the number of volumes, but the -number of books is approximately 5 millions. . . . The depositories -for storing books present a desolate picture. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs of my report, and I quote further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The library of the Polytechnical Institute in the basement -of the left wing, as well as a great number of laboratories, -were devastated beyond hope and left in complete disorder.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The report concludes with the following sentence, which I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The purpose of this report”—wrote the German private—“can -be achieved only if submitted to the Supreme Command -and when the command will issue the necessary orders plainly -forbidding the German soldier from behaving like a barbarian.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But such orders never followed and never could follow, since -fascism and barbarism are inseparable; fascism, in fact, means -barbarism. -<span class='pageno' title='96' id='Page_96'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What were you proposing to do after the -adjournment this afternoon?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: After the recess I shall present -several written documents pertaining to the destruction of cultural -valuables in the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Republics and -later, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to present -a documentary film, so that at the close of the session all presentation -of evidence would be completed and my report finished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: How long will the film take?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The presentation of the documentary -film will take about 30 to 35 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think that after the vast amount -of damage and spoliation to which you have drawn our attention -in some detail it would be sufficient if you were to summarize by -telling us the countries in which similar spoliation had taken place? -It is difficult to assimilate all this vast amount of detail.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have in mind, Mr. President, -to present to the Tribunal a document which will serve as a summary -and in which all the general totals will be given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now for 10 -minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I wish to draw the attention of -the Tribunal for a few minutes to the fact that before presenting -the conclusion of this document I should like to read into the -record a German document referring to the subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having occupied the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Soviet -Republics, the German fascist invaders attempted to reduce the -Soviet Baltic provinces to the status of a German colony and to -enslave the people of these republics. This criminal design of the -Hitlerite Government found its full expression in universal plunder, -general ruin, violence, degradation, and in the mass murder of old -men, women, and children.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to germanize the people of the Lithuanian, Estonian, -and Latvian Soviet Socialist Republics, the Hitlerites destroyed, by -all possible means, the culture of the peoples of these republics. I -skip the remainder of Pages 76, 77, and 78, and from Page 79 -I quote one paragraph only:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The capital of Soviet Latvia, Riga, was declared by the occupational -authorities as the capital of ‘Ostland’ (Eastern -Territory) and the seat of Staff Rosenberg.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='97' id='Page_97'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the documents presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution -as Document Number USSR-7, Document Number USSR-39, -and Document Number USSR-41, there are a number of facts -which do not and cannot exhaust the crimes perpetrated by the -German fascist invaders in the Soviet Baltic provinces. Among the -monstrous crimes against the peoples of the Baltic provinces, the -Defendant Rosenberg, the former Reich Minister, played a major part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read from Page 81. Even at the time when it was quite evident -that the downfall of fascist Germany was fast approaching, when -the hour of just and stern retribution was facing the Hitler -criminals, the Defendant Rosenberg still continued in his plundering. -As late as the end of August 1944, Rosenberg organized and -executed the plundering of cultural resources in Riga and Reval, -in Dorpat, and in a number of towns in the Estonian Republic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document Number -161-PS, dated 23 August 1944, entitled “Assignment” and signed by -Rosenberg’s Chief of Staff, Utikal. This document is submitted to -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-376 (Document Number -USSR-376), which Your Honors will find on Page 400 of the document -book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Order. On 21 August 1944, Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg -requested Haupteinsatzführer Friedrich Schueller from the -Einsatzstab RR to report on the possibilities still existing for -the evacuation of cultural treasures from the eastern territories. -On the basis of this report the Reichsleiter has ruled -that the most precious cultural riches of the Ostland could -still be removed by his staff, insofar as this can be done -without interfering with the interests of the fighting forces. -The Reichsleiter specified the following cultural objects as -having particular value:</p> - -<p>“From Riga—the city archives, the state archives (the major -part of these were in Edwahlen);</p> - -<p>“From Reval—the city archives, the Estonian Literary Society, -and small collections from Schwarzhäupterhaus, the town -hall, Evangelical Lutheran consistory, and Nicolas’ Church.</p> - -<p>“From Dorpat—the university library; collections evacuated to -Estonian estates—Jerlep, Wodja, Weissenstein, and Lachmes.</p> - -<p>“Haupteinsatzführer Schueller, in his capacity as acting -director of the main working group of the Einsatzstab RR, -is commissioned with the carrying out of the removal and -shipment.</p> - -<p>“He is advised to maintain special contact with Army Group -North in order to co-ordinate the execution of this mission -<span class='pageno' title='98' id='Page_98'></span> -of the Reichsleiter, with the transportation requirements of -the field forces.</p> - -<p>“Utikal, chief of Einsatzstab”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to another -peculiar circumstance. In this case, too, the looting was carried out -by Rosenberg together with the High Command, and as late as the -fall of 1944, “future chiefs” of Staff Rosenberg were selected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An analysis of all these circumstances permits us categorically -to reassert that the destruction and looting of cultural valuables -was inspired, directed, and executed by a central organization, and -that this central organization was the criminal Hitler Government -and the High Command, the representatives of which, in the persons -of all the defendants in this Trial, should suffer punishment in -accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of the International -Military Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, when we deal with a system of -wholesale destruction and plunder, it is impossible, and scarcely -necessary, to enumerate all the facts, even if these facts are, <span class='it'>per -se</span>, of great importance. In the occupied territories of the Soviet -Union the Hitlerites carried out precisely such a system of wholesale -and manifold destruction and plunder of cultural treasures of the -peoples of the U.S.S.R. At this moment it is not yet possible to -draw up an exhaustive balance of the defendants’ crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I shall, with the permission of the Tribunal, submit a document -containing data which, although only of a preliminary nature, -are absolutely accurate and bear witness to the tremendous damage -inflicted by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have in view the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -of the Soviet Union, submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35). This document -is on Pages 404 and 405 of your document book. From this I shall -only quote individual excerpts concerning the subject which I am -presenting and which have not yet been read into the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Destruction of Cultural-Social Institutions, Public Organizations, -and Co-operatives.</p> - -<p>“The German plunderers destroyed various establishments, -clubs, stadia, rest homes, and sanatoria belonging to consumer -and industrial co-operatives, trade unions, and other -public organizations . . . in the occupied territory of the -U.S.S.R. They destroyed over 87,000 industrial buildings -belonging to co-operatives, trade unions, and other social -organizations; 10,000 residential buildings and 1,839 cultural -and social institutions. They carried off to Germany about -8,000,000 books. . . . -<span class='pageno' title='99' id='Page_99'></span></p> - -<p>“Of the property of the trade unions the German invaders -completely destroyed 120 sanatoria and 150 rest homes in -which over 3 million workers, engineers, technicians, and other -employees spent their annual rest leave. Of this total figure -they destroyed, in the Crimea 59 sanatoria and rest homes. . . -in the spas of the Caucasus 32 sanatoria and rest homes; in -the Leningrad area 33 sanatoria and rest homes; in the -Ukraine 88 sanatoria and rest homes.</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders destroyed the buildings of -46 pioneer camps and children’s convalescent institutions -belonging to the trade unions. They destroyed 189 clubs and -palaces of culture.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the territory of the Soviet Union which was occupied -by the Germans, at the beginning of 1941, there were 82,000 -elementary and secondary schools with 15 million pupils. All -the secondary schools possessed libraries, each with from -2,000 to 25,000 volumes; many schools possessed auditoria for -physics, chemistry, biology, and others. . . .</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders burned, destroyed, and plundered -these schools with their entire property and equipment. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of this paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders entirely or partially destroyed -334 colleges at which 233,000 students were studying; they -removed to Germany the equipment of the laboratories and -lecture rooms together with the exhibits, unique of their -kind, from the collections of the universities, institutes, and -libraries.</p> - -<p>“Great damage was inflicted on the medical colleges. . . .</p> - -<p>“The occupants destroyed or looted 137 pedagogical institutions -and teachers’ colleges. . . . They removed historical material -and ancient manuscripts from special libraries, and stole or -destroyed over 100 million volumes in the public libraries.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They destroyed, on the whole, 605 scientific research institutes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 85 of my report and the first paragraph -of Page 86.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Enormous damage was inflicted by the Germans on the -medical establishments of the Soviet Union. They destroyed -or plundered 6,000 hospitals, 33,000 polyclinics, dispensaries, -and out-patient departments, 976 sanatoria and 656 rest -homes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='100' id='Page_100'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next three paragraphs.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Destruction of Museums and Historical Monuments.</p> - -<p>“In the occupied territories the German fascist invaders destroyed -427 out of a total of 992 museums of the Soviet -Union.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of this page and quote the beginning of Page 87 -of the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans also destroyed the museum of the peasant poet -S. D. Drozhzhin, in the village of Zavidovo, the museum of -the people’s poet I. S. Nikitin, in Voronezh, and the museum -of the famous Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, at Novogrudka -in the Bielorussian S.S.R. At Alagir they burned the manuscript -of the national singer Osetij Kosta Khetagurov.</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders destroyed 44,000 theaters, clubs, -and so-called ‘Red corners.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Now with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit -a documentary film and a certificate testifying to the documentary -character of this film. The film is entitled, “Destruction of -Art and Museums of National Culture perpetrated by the Germans -on the Territory of the U.S.S.R.” This film and the documents -testifying to the documentary nature of these reels are submitted -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-98 (Document Number -USSR-98). In this film, besides documentary photographs taken between -1941-45, there are also extracts made in 1908, showing Yasnaya -Polyana and Leo Tolstoy. Subsequent photographs show what -the German invaders did to this cultural relic of the Soviet people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I proceed with the presentation of the film, Your Honor?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Moving pictures were then shown.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I must dwell, Your Honors, -on one more category of crimes committed by the Hitlerites—the -spoliation and destruction of churches, convents, and other places -of religious worship.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By destroying monasteries, churches, mosques, and synagogues -and robbing their property, the German invaders sadistically mocked -the religious feelings of the people. These blasphemous crimes -assumed a general appearance in all the territories which were -under German rule. Soldiers and officers organized bloody orgies -in places of worship, kept horses and dogs in the churches, donned -the church vestments, and made sleeping bunks out of the icons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not trespass on your time by reading all the numerous -documents at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution, and shall -merely dwell on some of these, in particular on the documentary -<span class='pageno' title='101' id='Page_101'></span> -photographs, an album of which I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-99 (Document Number USSR-99).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission, I should like to read a few more documents -and particularly a short extract from the document which -has already been presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)). You can find this -extract in your document book on the back of Page 321. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerite invaders do not spare the religious sentiments -of the believing section of the Soviet population either. They -have burned, looted, blown up, and desecrated hundreds of -churches on Soviet territory, including several irreplaceable -monuments of ancient church architecture.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the next one:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The priest Amvrosy Ivanov writes from the village of -Iklinskoye, in the Moscow region:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Before the arrival of the Germans the church was in complete -order. A German officer ordered me to take everything -out of the church. . . . At night troops arrived, occupied the -church, brought in their horses. . . . Then they began to smash -and break everything in the church and to build bunks. They -threw out everything: the altar, the holy gates and banners, -and the holy shroud. In a word, the church was turned into -a robbers’ den.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remaining part of Page 88, and I read Page 89 of -the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the village of Gosteshevo, the Germans plundered the -church, broke up the holy banners, threw the books about, -robbed the Reverend Mikhail Strakhov and carried him off -with them to another district. In the village of Kholm, near -Mozhaisk, the Germans robbed and beat up the 82-year-old -local priest. In retreating from Mozhaisk, the Germans blew -up the Church of the Ascension, the Church of the Holy -Trinity, and the Cathedral of Nicholas, the miracle worker. -As a rule, before retreating, the Germans would drive part -of the population of the villages destroyed by fire into the -churches, lock them up, and then set fire to these churches.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I am now reading into the record a short excerpt from Exhibit -Number USSR-312 (Document Number USSR-312), submitted to the -Tribunal:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In a north side-altar of the Znamensky Cathedral, the Germans -set up a latrine for the soldiers living in the crypt of -the cathedral.</p> - -<p>“The Church of the Prophet Elijah on the Slavna was transformed -into a stable. -<span class='pageno' title='102' id='Page_102'></span></p> - -<p>“Stables were built in the following Pskov churches: Bogoyavlenie -on Zapskovie, Kozma and Demian on the Gremiatchy -Hill, Constantine and Helen, and in the Church of Saint John -the Evangelist.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The document which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279) describes facts of -blasphemous mockery which took place in the town of Gjatsk where -the churches were transformed by the Germans into stables and warehouses. -In the Church of the Annunciation the Germans set up a -slaughterhouse for horned cattle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The document which I am now presenting to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-246 (Document Number USSR-246) is a -report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union -and contains general data relating to the churches, chapels, and -other institutions of religious worship which have been destroyed -or damaged. This document states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders completely destroyed or partly -damaged 1,670 churches, 69 chapels, 237 Roman Catholic -churches, four mosques, 532 synagogues, and 254 other buildings -for religious worship.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors will find in the document, submitted to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), -these general data on the subject. I will not burden the Tribunal’s -attention by reading the document into the record in full, but I -should like to quote a few very short excerpts from it. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The material responsibility by the Germans cannot make -complete amends for the destruction of ecclesiastical buildings, -and of the most ancient historical monuments; the majority -of these can never be restored.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Omitting the remainder of the page, as well as the first four -paragraphs of Page 91 of the report, I read the last paragraph -of this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Many churches, historical monuments of antiquity, were -destroyed by the German invaders in Bielorussia. Thus, in -the city of Vitebsk, they destroyed the Church of the Nativity, -an interesting monument of Bielorussian architecture of the -12th century. They completely destroyed the wooden Apostle -and Saint Nicholas Churches, built in the 18th century.</p> - -<p>“Almost irreparable damage was done to the Voskresenko-Zaruchjevsky -Church, built in the 18th century. This church -was an interesting example of the Bielorussian classic style -of architecture. In the same area, in the city of Vitebsk, the -Germans destroyed a Roman Catholic church built in the 18th -century. . . . -<span class='pageno' title='103' id='Page_103'></span></p> - -<p>“In the town of Dyesna, of the Polotsk region, the Germans -burned a Roman Catholic church founded in the 17th century, -after plundering its property.</p> - -<p>“Timoschel Rudolf, German garrison commandant of the town -of Rozhnyatov, in the Stanislav region, used three synagogues -for barracks and later on destroyed the buildings after plundering -the property contained therein.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Before destroying buildings of various religious cults the -Germans plundered and destroyed all their equipment. A -great number of icons and church decorations were removed -from ecclesiastical buildings to Germany.</p> - -<p>“The Joseph-Volokalamsky Monastery was plundered and -the ancient shrouds of the monastery, together with the -personal belongings of Joseph Volotsky, founder of the monastery, -have disappeared. . . .</p> - -<p>“In 1941 German soldiers and officers stole from the Staritzki -Church all the vessels, altar crosses, crowns, miters, and -tabernacles.</p> - -<p>“In the town Dokshitza, in the Polotsk region, the Germans -looted and took away all the property of the local mosque. -The same fate was shared by nearly all the churches in the -territories occupied by the Germans.</p> - -<p>“Everywhere the Germans plundered Orthodox and Catholic -churches, synagogues, mosques, and other buildings of -religious worship.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators not only actually plundered, tortured, -and murdered, but they also strove to humiliate the believers -morally and to rob them of their spiritual treasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Such, Your Honors, is the conclusive evidence concerning the -crimes against culture, committed by Rosenberg, Frank, Göring, -Ribbentrop, Keitel, and the other participants in the conspiracy. -The crimes of the defendants against culture are terrible indeed -in their consequences. Even though it be possible, by a tremendous -effort, to rebuild the cities and villages destroyed by the Hitlerites, -even though it be possible to restore the factories and plants blown -up or burned down by them, mankind has lost for all time the irreplaceable -art treasures which the Hitlerites so ruthlessly destroyed, -as it has lost forever the millions of human beings sent to their -death in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Babye-yar, or Kerch.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having inherited the savage hatred of all mankind from the -dim ages of the past, the modern Huns have far surpassed, in -cruelty and vandalism, the darkest pages of history. While arrogantly -challenging the future of mankind, they trampled under -<span class='pageno' title='104' id='Page_104'></span> -foot the finest heritage of mankind’s past. Themselves without faith -or ideals, they sacrilegiously destroyed both the churches and the -relics of the saints.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But in this unparalleled struggle between culture and obscurantism, -between civilization and barbarism, culture and civilization -prevailed. The Hitlerite conspirators who had aspired to world -domination, who had dreamed of destroying the culture of the Slavs -and of all other nations, now stand in the defendants’ dock. May a -just punishment be theirs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you continue until 5 o’clock?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As you wish, Your Honor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes; will you go on until 5 o’clock?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I should only like to ask for -a few minutes’ interval in order to collect some documents. It will -literally take only a few moments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It would be hardly worth while if you want -a short interval. We shall stop at 5 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It would perhaps be more -convenient to begin again at 1000 hours tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then we will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 22 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='105' id='Page_105'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-FIFTH DAY</span><br/> Friday, 22 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MARSHAL: May it please the Court: The Defendant Fritzsche -will be absent until further notice on account of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: May it please Your Honors, -may I begin the submission of evidence to prove the charge that the -defendants are guilty of the destruction of towns and villages and -of the perpetration of other kinds of destruction. This charge is laid -down in Section C of Count Three of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We shall present evidence proving that the destruction of cities -and towns was brought about neither by the hazards of war nor by -military expediencies. We shall submit evidence that this deliberate -destruction was carried out in accordance with the thoroughly -elaborated plans of the Hitlerite Government and orders of the German -military command; that the destruction of towns and cities, of -industry and transportation was an integral part of the conspiracy -which aimed at enslaving the peoples of Europe and other countries, -and establishing a world hegemony of Hitlerite Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Wherever the German fascist invaders appeared, they brought -death and destruction. In the flames of the fires were lost the most -valuable machines devised by the genius of mankind; factories and -dwellings giving work and shelter to millions were blown up. People -themselves perished, especially old men, women, and children, left -without a roof over their heads or any means of existence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With particular ruthlessness the Hitlerites annihilated and -destroyed the towns and cities in the territories of the Soviet Union -which they temporarily occupied, where, acting on direct orders of -the German High Command, they created a desert zone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As proof, I read into the record an excerpt from the document -which had been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(2) (Document Number USSR-51(2)). This excerpt the -Members of the Tribunal will find on Page 3 of the document book. -I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“An order recently seized near the town of Verkhovye, Orel -region, issued to the 512th German Infantry Regiment and -signed by Colonel Schittnig, stated with unparalleled brazenness: -<span class='pageno' title='106' id='Page_106'></span></p> - -<p>“ ‘A zone which, in view of the circumstances, is to be -evacuated, upon withdrawal of the troops should present a -desert zone. In order to carry out a complete destruction, all -the houses shall be burned. To this end they should first be -filled with straw, particularly stone houses. Structures of -stone are to be blown up, particularly cellars. Measures for -the creation of desert zones . . . are to be prepared beforehand -and carried out ruthlessly and in their entirety.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>So runs the order to the 512th German Infantry Regiment.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In razing our towns and villages, the German command -demands of its troops that a desert zone be created in all -Soviet localities from which the invaders are successfully -expelled by the Red Army.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This order to the 512th Regiment, which is mentioned in the -document I just quoted, is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-168 -(Document Number USSR-168).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you know the date of it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The date of this order is -10 December 1941. From this document it is clear that the German -military command underwrote a ruthless and complete destruction -of inhabited localities and that this destruction was planned and -prepared in advance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A large number of documents and facts concerning this question -are in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution. I shall limit myself -to reading into the record an excerpt from the verdict of the -regional military court in the case of the German war criminals -Lieutenant General Bernhardt and Major General Hamann. I submit -this verdict to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-90 (Document -Number USSR-90).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The military court established that the generals, Bernhardt and -Hamann, had acted in accordance with the common plans and -directives of the High Command of the German Army and that -they—I quote a short excerpt from the verdict which Your Honors -will find on Pages 24 and 25 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . had carried out a planned destruction of towns and -inhabited localities, determined in advance, along with the -destruction of industrial buildings, hospitals, sanatoria, -educational institutions, museums, and other cultural educational -institutions, as well as dwellings. The latter were -blown up without any previous warning to the Soviet citizens -living in them, with the result that people as well perished.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As in the case of the destruction of inhabited localities, plants, -and factories, power-stations and mines were also destroyed with -premeditation. -<span class='pageno' title='107' id='Page_107'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>For confirmation I shall draw the attention of the Tribunal to -the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2). This document is on Page 28 -of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this report is quoted the secret directive of the leader of the -department of economics (Wirtschaftsoffizier) of Army Group South -of 2 September 1943, under Number 1/313/43, which ordered army -leaders and leaders of the economics detachments to carry out a -thorough annihilation of industrial institutions, emphasizing particularly -that “. . . the destruction must be carried out not at the last -moment when the troops may be engaged in combat or in retreat, -but ahead of time.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The note by V. M. Molotov, the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs of the U.S.S.R. of 27 April 1942, deals with the orders of the -German Supreme Command and with the manner in which these -orders were executed. This note was submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now quote several excerpts from Part II of the note just -mentioned, which is entitled, “The Devastation of Cities and Towns,” -excerpts which were not read into the record before. These excerpts -will be found on Pages 6, the reverse side, and 7 of the document -book which is in the hands of the Tribunal. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By direct order of its High Command the German fascist -Army has subjected Soviet towns and villages to unparalleled -devastation upon seizure and in the course of the army’s -occupation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 4 and the beginning of Page 5 of my -report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you ought to omit the first four -lines of Page 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I omitted it inasmuch as I read -this document into the record yesterday, but if the Tribunal -wishes—I shall gladly do it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you read it yesterday, do not read it again. -I do not remember. Was it read yesterday?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, I read this into the record -yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am told that—and I think—that you did not read those lines -“from 10 October 1941” at the top of Page 5. I think you had better -read them. I am referring to the order of 10 October 1941, which is -set out in your exposé. -<span class='pageno' title='108' id='Page_108'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This is the excerpt from the -order given to the 6th German Army, on 10 October 1941, signed -by Von Reichenau. This document is presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-12 (Document Number USSR-12). I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The troops have an interest in extinguishing fires only -inasmuch as military quarters have to be conserved. Otherwise -the disappearance . . . also of buildings, is within the -limits of the fight of extermination.</p> - -<p>“At the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 the German -command issued a number of orders instructing German army -units to destroy, in the course of their retreat under the -pressure of the Red Army, everything that had remained -unscathed during the occupation. Thousands of villages and -hamlets, whole city blocks, and even entire cities are reduced -to ashes, blown up, or razed to the ground by the retreating -German fascist army. The organized destruction of Soviet -towns and villages has become a special branch of the criminal -activity of the German invaders on Soviet territory; special -instructions and detailed orders of the German command are -devoted to methods of devastating Soviet populated centers; -special detachments, trained in this criminal profession, are -set up for this purpose. Here are some of the many facts -which are at the disposal of the Soviet Government:”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Once again I refer to the order addressed to the 512th Infantry -Regiment already presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-168 (Document Number USSR-168).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“This order . . . is an exposition, consisting of seven typed -pages of the most precisely detailed plan for the methodical -destruction of village after village, from 10 December to -14 December inclusive, in the regiment’s area. This order, -which follows a model used throughout the German Army, -states:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Preparations for the destruction of populated centers must -be carried out in such a way that:</p> - -<p>“ ‘(a) No suspicions whatever be aroused among the civilian -population prior to its announcement;</p> - -<p>“ ‘(b) The destruction should begin and be carried out in a -single blow at the appointed time. On the day in question -particularly strict watch must be kept to see that no civilians -leave this place, especially after the destruction has been -announced.’</p> - -<p>“An order of the commander of the 98th German Infantry -Division, dated 24 December 1941, after listing 16 Soviet -villages designated to be burned down, states: -<span class='pageno' title='109' id='Page_109'></span></p> - -<p>“ ‘Available stocks of hay, straw, foodstuffs, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, are to -be burned. All the stoves in dwelling houses are to be -wrecked by placing hand grenades in them, thus making -further use of them impossible. This order under no circumstances -is to fall into the hands of the enemy.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following order of 3 January 1942, issued by Hitler, is of the -same nature. The order states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘Cling to every populated center; do not retreat a single -step; defend yourself to the last soldier, to the last grenade. -That is the requirement of the present moment. Every point -occupied by us must be turned into a base, which must not be -surrendered under any circumstances, even if outflanked by -the enemy. If, however, the given point must be abandoned -on superior orders, it is imperative that everything be razed -to the ground, the stoves blown up. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘(Signed): Adolf Hitler.’</p> - -<p>“Hitler felt no embarrassment about publicly admitting that -the devastation of Soviet towns and villages was carried out -by his Army. In his speech. . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That order of 3 January 1942, signed by -Hitler, is that in the official Soviet State report? Where did it -come from?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This order is incorporated in -the note of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov. I quote -an excerpt from it, a document which was presented to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is Mr. Molotov’s report?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, this is a note of the -Foreign Commissar, Molotov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: All right.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “. . . In his speech of 30 January -1942, Hitler stated:</p> - -<p>“ ‘In those places where the Russians have succeeded in -making a break-through and where they thought that they -would once again be in possession of populated centers, these -populated centers no longer exist; they are but a heap of -ruins.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>While retreating from the Kuban under the thrust of the Red -Army, the German High Command worked out a detailed plan of -operations which bore the code name of “Movement Krimhild,” and -a considerable part of this plan, a whole section, in fact, is devoted -to the demolition plan. I omit one paragraph of my report. -<span class='pageno' title='110' id='Page_110'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This plan is mentioned in a two-page secret document transmitted -by telegraph to the chiefs of the higher staffs. The document is -signed by Hitler and has the following heading on the first page: -“Top secret (A) 2371; 17 copies.” The document which we submit to -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-115 is the 17th copy of the -Hitler order. This document is listed as Document Number C-177; -in your document book it is contained on Pages 31 to 33. I shall -read into the record the second point of this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“2. Demolitions in case of retreat.</p> - -<p>“(a) All structures, quartering facilities, roads, constructions, -dams, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, which may be useful to the adversary have -to be thoroughly destroyed.</p> - -<p>“(b) All railroads and field railways are to be either removed -or completely destroyed.</p> - -<p>“(c) All constructed corduroy roads must be torn up and -rendered useless.</p> - -<p>“(d) All oil wells in the Kuban bridgehead must be entirely -destroyed.</p> - -<p>“(e) The harbor of Novorossiysk will be so demolished and -obstructed as to render it useless to the Russian fleet for a -long time.</p> - -<p>“(f) Extensive sowing of mines, delayed-action mines, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, -also come under the heading of destruction.</p> - -<p>“(g) The enemy must take over a completely useless, uninhabitable -desert land where mine detonation will occur for -months hence.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Many other documents bear witness of similar orders, but I want -to draw the attention of the Tribunal to just two of them. I refer to -an entry in the diary of the Defendant Frank which dealt with this -subject in particular, as well as a directive issued by the commanding -general of 118th German Jäger Division which operated in -Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Frank’s diary, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal, -there is the following entry for 17 April 1944, contained in -the volume which was started on 1 March 1944 and ended on 31 May -1944, entitled, “The Business Meeting at Kraków on 12 April 1944.” -Your Honors will find the quotation on Page 45 of the document -book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is important that the troops be given an order to leave -only scorched earth to the Russians. In cases when it becomes -necessary to withdraw from a certain area, no distinction -should be made between the territory of the Government General -and any other territory.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='111' id='Page_111'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I remind the Tribunal that according to Exhibit Number -USSR-132 (Document Number USSR-132), which is a secret instruction -issued to the 118th German Jäger Division with the signature -of Major General Kübler and was captured in June 1944 by units -of the Yugoslav People’s Liberation Army, the troops were to treat -the population “ruthlessly with cruel firmness” and to destroy the -inhabited localities which were abandoned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, in concluding this part of my report -I deem it necessary to draw your attention to another circumstance. -The destruction of peaceful towns and villages was not only planned, -not only carried out deliberately and with exceptional ruthlessness, -but was executed by special detachments created by the German -High Command for that very purpose. By way of evidence I shall -quote several excerpts not yet read into the record from official -Soviet Government documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the note of 27 April 1942 is stated—I quote an excerpt which -is on Page 9 of your document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The special detachments set up by the German Command for -the purpose of setting fire to Soviet populated centers and for -the mass extermination of the civilian population during the -retreat of the Hitlerite Army, are perpetrating their sanguinary -deeds with the cold-bloodedness of professional criminals. -Thus, for instance before their retreat from the village of -Bolshekrepinskaya, Rostov region, the Germans sent down -the streets of the village special flame-throwing machines -which burned 1,167 buildings, one after the other. The large, -flourishing village was turned into flaming bonfires which -consumed the dwellings, the hospital, the school, and various -other public buildings. At the same time machine gunners, -without any warning, shot at inhabitants who approached -their burning houses; some of the residents were bound, -sprayed with gasoline and thrown into the burning buildings.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit part of Page 9 of my report and pass on to the next, to the -last paragraph on that page of my report. The report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union which was presented -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-46 (Document Number -USSR-46) states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In their insane fury against the Soviet people, which was -caused by defeats suffered at the front, the commanding -general of the 2d German Panzer Army, General Schmidt, -and the commander of the Orel administrative region and -military commander of that city, Major General Hamann, had -created special demolition commandos for the destruction of -towns, villages, and collective farms of the Orel region. These -commandos, plunderers, and arsonists destroyed everything -<span class='pageno' title='112' id='Page_112'></span> -in the path of their retreat. They destroyed cultural monuments -and works of art of the Russian people, burned down -cities, towns, and villages.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279), the following facts are -described—I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In Viazma and Gjatsk, the commanding generals—Major -General Merker of the 35th Infantry Division, Major General -Schäfer of the 252d Infantry Division, and Major General -Roppert of the 7th Infantry Division—organized special -incendiary and demolition commandos to set on fire and blow -up dwellings, schools, theaters, clubs, museums, libraries, -hospitals, churches, stores, and industrial plants, so that only -ashes and ruins would be left in the wake of their retreat.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the document which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2) there are several -depositions of German prisoners of war. I shall quote one of these -depositions. I read at the end of the page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Herman Verholtz, a private first class, from the 597th Infantry -Regiment of the 306th Division of the German Army, -deposes as follows:</p> - -<p>“ ‘As a member of a demolition squad I took part in setting -fire to and blowing up government buildings and dwellings -on First Line, the main street of Stalino. My job was to place -the explosives, which I then ignited and thus blew up the -buildings. Altogether I participated in the demolition of five -large houses and in the burning of several others.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, one could go on with the same kind of quotations. -I repeat that scores of them are contained in the documents and -depositions which we presented to the Tribunal, but I consider that -there is no necessity to do that. What has already been read into -the record permits us to conclude that the premeditated and -deliberate devastations which were carried out by the Hitlerites in -the occupied territories were really a system and not individual acts, -and that those devastations were not perpetrated only at the hand -of individual officers and soldiers of the German Army, but that -these devastations were carried out on the orders of the German -Supreme Command. Therefore, I omit Page 11 of my report, and -I begin with Page 12.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the criminal plans of the fascist conspirators, the devastation -of the capitals of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Poland occupied -a particular place. Among these plans the destruction of Moscow -and Leningrad received special attention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Intoxicated by the first military successes, the Hitlerites -elaborated insane plans for the destruction of the greatest cultural -<span class='pageno' title='113' id='Page_113'></span> -and industrial centers dear to the Soviet people. For this purpose -they prepared special task forces. They even hurried to advertise -their “decision” to refuse the capitulation of the cities which never -even took place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is necessary to note that such expressions as “raze to the -ground” or “wipe from the face of the earth” were used quite frequently -by the Hitlerite conspirators. These were not only threats -but criminal acts as well. As we shall see from the subsequent -presentation, in some places they did succeed in razing flourishing -towns and villages to the ground.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph of my report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now present two documents which reveal the intentions -of the Hitlerite conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first document is a secret directive of the naval staff, numbered -I-a 1601/41, dated 22 September 1941. It is entitled, “The -Future of the City of Petersburg.” (Document Number C-124, -Exhibit Number USSR-113). Therefore, as we are in possession -of the original of this document, which was distributed in several -copies, I believe that it does not have to be read into the record. -With your permission, Mr. President, I shall remind the Tribunal of -the contents of this directive. In this directive it is stated, “The -Führer has decided to wipe the city of Petersburg from the face of -the earth,” that it is planned to blockade the city securely, to subject -it to artillery bombardment of all calibers, and by means of constant -bombing from the air to raze Leningrad to the ground. It is also -decreed in the order that should there be a request for capitulation, -such request should be turned down by the Germans. Finally, it is -stated in this document that this directive emanates not only from -the naval staff, but also from the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit Page 13 of my report and begin with the last paragraph -of the page.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document, bearing the number Document C-123, -presented to the Court as Exhibit Number USSR-114, is also a top -secret order of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, dated -7 October 1941, Number 44/1675/41, and signed by the Defendant -Jodl. This document, Your Honors, is to be found on Pages 69 and -70 in the document book. I read into the record the text of this -document, or rather a few excerpts from this letter on Page 14 of -my presentation. I read the first paragraph of the letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Führer has again decided that a capitulation of Leningrad -or, later, of Moscow is not to be accepted even if it is -offered by the enemy.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further the last but one paragraph of this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Therefore, no German soldier is to enter these cities. By our -fire we must force all who try to leave the city through our -<span class='pageno' title='114' id='Page_114'></span> -lines to turn back. The exodus of the population through the -smaller, unguarded gaps toward the interior of Russia is only -to be welcomed. Before the cities are taken, they are to be -weakened by artillery fire and air attacks, and their population -should be caused to flee.</p> - -<p>“We cannot take the responsibility of endangering our soldiers’ -lives in order to save Russian cities from fire, nor that of -feeding the population of these cities at the expense of the -German homeland. . . .</p> - -<p>“All commanding officers shall be informed of this will of the -Führer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators began to put their criminal ideas about -the destruction of Leningrad into effect with unprecedented ferocity. -In the report of the Leningrad city commission for the investigation -of the atrocities of the German fascist invaders, the monstrous -crimes of the Hitlerites are described in detail.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document had been presented to the Court as Exhibit Number -USSR-85. I shall read into the record only a general summary -of the data presented on Page 1 of the report, which is on Page 71 -of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“As a result of the barbarous activities of the German fascist -invaders in Leningrad and its suburbs, 8,961 household and -annexed buildings, sheds, baths, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, with a total -volume of 5,192,427 cubic meters were completely destroyed, -and 5,869 buildings with a total volume of 14,308,288 cubic -meters were partially destroyed. Completely destroyed were -20,627 dwellings, with a total volume of 25,429,780 cubic -meters, and 8,788 buildings, with a total volume of 10,081,035 -cubic meters were partially demolished. Six buildings -dedicated to religious cults were completely, and 66 such buildings -partially, destroyed. The Hitlerites destroyed, ruined, -and damaged various kinds of institutions valued at more -than 718 million rubles, as well as more than 1,043 million -rubles’ worth of industrial equipment and agricultural -machinery and implements.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This document establishes that the Hitlerites bombed and shelled, -methodically and according to plan, day and night, streets, dwelling -houses, theaters, museums, hospitals, kindergartens, military -hospitals, schools, institutes, and streetcars, and ruined most valuable -monuments of culture and art. Many thousands of bombs and shells -hammered the historical buildings of Leningrad, and at its quays, -gardens, and parks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 16.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion, I shall permit myself to quote one of the many -German depositions which are quoted in the document, namely -<span class='pageno' title='115' id='Page_115'></span> -paragraph 4 on Page 14. Your Honors will find this deposition I am -quoting on Page 84 of the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Sergeant Fritz Köpke, commanding Number 2 gun of the 2d -battery of the 2d Detachment of the 910th Artillery Regiment -stated:</p> - -<p>“ ‘For the bombardment of Leningrad, there was in the -batteries a special stock of munitions supplied over and above -the limit to an unlimited amount. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘All the gun crews know that the bombardments of Leningrad -were aimed at ruining the town and annihilating its -civilian population. They therefore regarded with irony the -bulletins of the German Supreme Command which spoke of -shelling the “military objectives” of Leningrad.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators aimed at the complete destruction of -the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remind you of Document Number 1746-PS, presented to the -Tribunal on 7 December 1945; it is an order by Hitler, dated -27 March 1941, dealing with the attack on Yugoslavia. It is known -that this order, entitled “Instruction Number 25,” gives in detail the -military strategy for the attack and, besides, decrees that all the -Yugoslav Air Force ground installations and the city of Belgrade -shall be destroyed by means of continuous day and night air raids.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the first paragraph of Page 18 of my report, inasmuch as -the facts which are mentioned in this paragraph have been read -into the record on 11 February. I shall read a few excerpts from -Pages 22 and 23 of the official report of the Yugoslav Government. -This corresponds to Pages 111 and 112 in your document book. -I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The planned and systematic execution of these crimes, based -on the orders of the Government of the Reich and of the -OKW, is confirmed by the fact that the destruction of inhabited -localities and of the population did not cease even at the time -of the retreat of the German troops from Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p>“Typical for thousands of such cases is the destruction of Belgrade -and extermination of its citizens in October 1944.</p> - -<p>“The fights for the liberation of Belgrade lasted from 15 to 20 -October 1944. Even before the fighting started, the Germans -prepared a plan for the systematic destruction of the city. -They sent into the city a large number of specially trained -units whose duties consisted of mining houses and killing the -population. Though, because of the swift advance of the Red -Army and of the Yugoslav National Liberation Forces, they -failed to carry out their task as ordered by the German commanders, -they succeeded in destroying a large number of -<span class='pageno' title='116' id='Page_116'></span> -houses in the southern part of the city and in killing a -considerable number of its inhabitants.</p> - -<p>“To a still greater extent, this happened in the northern part -of the city, on the Rivers Sava and Danube. The Germans -went from house to house, herded the inhabitants, unclothed -and unshod, into the streets, sprayed inflammable chemical -explosives into every apartment, and set fire to all the buildings. -If a house happened to be made of a very solid -material, they mined it. They fired at the inhabitants, killing -defenseless people; in several large houses the inhabitants -were locked in, and were destroyed by fire and by mine -explosions. The entire damage thus caused in the city of Belgrade -totals the sum of 1,127,129,069 dinars at prewar value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, the destruction of Belgrade was prescribed by Hitler’s -order of 27 March 1941 and was carried out on direct orders of the -Defendant Göring; in October 1944 it was carried out by the same -methods as those employed by the Hitlerites in the occupied territories -of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now present evidence of the intentional and unexampled -destruction by the Hitlerites of the capital of the Polish nation, -Warsaw.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote three documents which reveal the criminal intentions -of the fascist conspirators to raze this city. As the first document, -Exhibit Number USSR-128 (Document Number USSR-128), -I present to the Tribunal a telegram Number 13265, addressed to the -Defendant Frank, and signed by the Governor of the Warsaw -District, Dr. Fischer. This document can be found on Page 148 of -the document book. I read into the record the text of this telegram:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To the Governor General and Reich Minister, Dr. Frank, at -Kraków.</p> - -<p>“Warsaw, Number 13265; 11. X. 44; 10.40, HE.</p> - -<p>“Subject: New Policy with Regard to Poland.</p> - -<p>“As a result of the visit of SS Obergruppenführer Von dem -Bach to the Reichsführer SS, I wish to inform you of the -following:</p> - -<p>“. . . 2) Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach again received an -order to pacify Warsaw—that is, to raze Warsaw to the ground -while the war is still on, if there is nothing against this from -the military point of view (construction of fortresses). Prior to -destruction, all raw materials, textiles, and furniture should -be taken out of Warsaw. The main role in performing this -task should be assumed by the civilian administration. -<span class='pageno' title='117' id='Page_117'></span></p> - -<p>“I am informing you of these facts because this new order of -the Führer regarding the destruction of Warsaw is of the -greatest importance for the future policy toward Poland.</p> - -<p>“The Governor of the Warsaw District, temporarily at Sochaczew, -signed: Dr. Fischer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Von dem Bach, mentioned in the telegram just read into the -record, is already known to you, Your Honors; he testified in the -afternoon session of the Tribunal on 7 January.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>How SS Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach carried out Hitler’s -order regarding the destruction of Warsaw can be seen from the -written evidence given by him on oath on 28 January 1946, during -his interrogation by the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic, -M. Savitzky.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Court the original record of the interrogation in -German, duly signed by Von dem Bach. I shall read two extracts -from this record. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Dr. Seidl approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will hear the objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): I object to -the reading of the interrogation of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. -The witness was heard before the Court, and it would -have been possible at that time to hear the witness about the matter -of the interrogation right here before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Should the Soviet Prosecution not wish to forgo the presentation -of this material, then I request that the witness, Von dem Bach-Zelewski, -who is still here in Nuremberg, be summoned before the -Tribunal again, so that the Defense may have an opportunity to -cross-examine the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, do you want to say -anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this record of -the interrogation of Von dem Bach-Zelewski was given under oath, -and it was presented to the Soviet Delegation by the representatives -of the Polish Government. The record of the interrogation is -formulated according to the laws of procedure and was given under -oath. Therefore, we consider it imperative and possible to present it -to the Tribunal without calling Von dem Bach-Zelewski for a -second interrogation before the Tribunal. If the Tribunal decides -that the testimony of Bach-Zelewski cannot be read into the record -without his being called again before the Tribunal, then, in the -interests of expediting the Trial, and in order not to protract the -presentation of our evidence, we agree not to read this testimony -into the record inasmuch as evidence regarding these facts is contained -in other documents which I shall later present to the Tribunal. -<span class='pageno' title='118' id='Page_118'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you then, General: If the evidence -given before the Polish Commission is the same as the evidence -which Bach-Zelewski gave in court, it would be cumulative; if it is -different, then surely the defendants’ counsel ought to have the -opportunity of cross-examining him upon it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The testimony which was given -by Bach-Zelewski to the prosecutor of the Polish Republic is -supplementary. Bach-Zelewski was not examined before the Tribunal -about the devastations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, the Tribunal understood -you to say that you would be prepared to withdraw this evidence -in view of the fact that the witness had given evidence already and -the Tribunal considers that that is the proper course to take. So -then the evidence will be withdrawn and struck from the record -so far as it has been put on the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think this would be a good time to adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As a result of the decision of -the Tribunal, I exclude Page 21 from my report and pass on to -Page 22. I shall read into the record an extract from the diary of -the Defendant Frank, which was presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-223 (Document Number USSR-223). This -extract is on Page 45 of the document book. I have in mind the file -which was begun on 1 August 1944 and brought to 14 December -1944, entitled “Diary,” where there is a note which mentions the -contents of a telegram sent by Frank to Reich Minister Lammers. -I read—on 5 August 1944:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Governor General sends the following telegram to Reich -Minister Dr. Lammers:</p> - -<p>“ ‘. . . The city of Warsaw is, for the most part, engulfed in -flames. Burning of the houses is the surest way to rob the -insurgents of any shelter. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘After this uprising and its suppression, Warsaw will justly -be committed to its deserved fate of being completely -destroyed.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>These documents prove, thus, that the fascist conspirators set for -themselves the aim of razing to the ground the capital of the Polish -State, Warsaw, and that the Defendant Frank played an active part -in this crime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In all the territories of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece, -and Czechoslovakia which they occupied, the German fascist invaders -<span class='pageno' title='119' id='Page_119'></span> -systematically destroyed inhabited localities according to plan, under -the pretense of fighting the partisans. Punitive expeditions, detachments, -and commandos, specially detailed by the German military -command, burned down and blew up tens of thousands of villages, -hamlets, and other inhabited localities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip a paragraph of my report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From the numerous documents in the possession of the Soviet -Prosecution I shall quote, as examples, a few which are typical and -which characterize the whole system developed by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of Captain Kasper, a company commander, dated -27 September 1942 and entitled, “Conclusive Report on the Results -of the Punitive Expedition Carried out in the Village of Borisovka -from 22 to 26 September 1942,” starts as follows: “Tasks: Company 9 -must destroy the band-infested village of Borisovka.” This document -has been presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-119 -(Document Number USSR-119).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the beginning of Page 42 of my report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In January 1942, in the Rezeknes district of the Latvian Socialist -Soviet Republic, the Germans destroyed the village of Audrini with -its entire population, ostensibly for having aided members of the -Red Army. In the towns of Latvia a notice to this effect was posted -by the chief of the German State Security Police in Latvia, SS Obersturmbannführer -Strauch, in German, Latvian, and Russian.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Tribunal a certified photostatic copy of this notice -as Exhibit Number USSR-262 (Document Number USSR-262), and -I read into the record an excerpt from this document. This excerpt -is on Page 158:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The commander of the Security Police in Latvia hereby -announces the following:</p> - -<p>“. . . 2) The inhabitants of the village of Audrini, in the Rezeknes -district, concealed members of the Red Army for over -one-quarter of a year, armed them, and assisted them in every -way in their anti-government activities. . . .</p> - -<p>“As punishment I ordered the following:</p> - -<p>“a) That the village of Audrini be wiped from the face of the -earth.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites widely practiced punitive expeditions in the -occupied districts of the Leningrad region. As can be seen from a -verdict of the military tribunal of the Leningrad Military District, -which is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-91 -(Document Number USSR-91), the Hitlerites burned down, in -February 1944, 10 inhabited localities in the Dedovitch, Pozherevitz, -and Ostrov districts. The Hitlerite punitive expeditions also burned -<span class='pageno' title='120' id='Page_120'></span> -down the villages of Strashevo and Zapolye in the Plyuss district, -and the villages of Bolshye, Lyady, Ludoni, and others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Numerous punitive detachments, acting on the orders of the German -Supreme Command, burned down many hundreds of inhabited -localities in the Yugoslav territory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I refer, as evidence, to the third section of the report of the -Yugoslav State Commission for establishment of the crimes of the -German invaders, which has been presented to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-36, and also to the special memorandum of the -Yugoslav State Commission, numbered 2697 (45) and signed by Professor -Nedelkovitsch, which I present to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-309. This document is on Pages 165 to 167 of the -document book. In these documents we find a number of facts -concerning the burning and destruction of villages and hamlets by -the special punitive expeditions of the Hitlerites. As examples, the -localities of Zagnezdye, Udora, Mechkovatz, Marsich, Grashniza, -Rudnika, Krupnya, Rastovach, Orakh, Grabovica, Drachich, Lozinda, -and many others can be named. Whole districts of Yugoslavia were -completely devastated after the Germans had been there.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also present to the Tribunal the original copy of a notice by -the so-called Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, which I beg the Tribunal -to accept as evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-200 (Document -Number USSR-200). This notice was captured in Serbia by troops -of the Yugoslav Army of Liberation, which fact is duly certified by -the Yugoslav State Commission in Belgrade. I read into the record -only one paragraph: “The Commander-in-Chief of Serbia announces: -The village of Skela has been burned and razed to the ground.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>German punitive detachments also destroyed inhabited localities -in Poland. As evidence I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number -USSR-368 (Document Number USSR-368), which is an affidavit of -the Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government, Dr. Stefan Kurovsky. -This affidavit is an appendix to the report of the Polish Government -and is on Page 169 of your document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document ascertains that in the spring of 1943 in the territory -of Zamoisk, Bilgoraisk, Khrubeshovsk, and Krasnitzk the -Germans burned down a number of inhabited localities under the -orders of the SS leader, Globocznik; and in February 1944 five -villages were destroyed in the Krasnitzk district with the help of -the air force.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Germans burned and razed to the ground a considerable -number of inhabited localities in Greece. As examples we shall -name the settlements of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Ano-Kerzilion, -and Kato-Kerzilion in the Salonika district, and the settlements of -Mesovunos and Selli in the Korzani district, and others. -<span class='pageno' title='121' id='Page_121'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-103 (Document -Number USSR-103), certified photostatic copies of three telegraphic -reports of the 164th German Infantry Division to the Chief -of Staff of the 12th Army. These reports, Your Honors, are on -Page 170 of your document book. Each of these reports consists of -nine to ten lines. They are uniform in type and standardized. But -these short official documents reveal in essence the monstrous system -generally employed by the Hitlerites in the territories occupied -by them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read into the record one of these reports. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“18 October 1941; to the Chief of Staff of the 12th Army, Athens.</p> - -<p>“Daily report.</p> - -<p>“1. The villages of Ano-Kerzilion and Kato-Kerzilion (75 kilometers -east of Salonika on the mouth of the Struma) which -had been ascertained to be the base of a considerable guerrilla -band in this area, were razed to the ground by troops of the -division on 17 October. The male inhabitants between 16 and -60 years of age—(totalling 207 persons)—were shot, women -and children evacuated.</p> - -<p>“2. No other special incidents.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Surely, there is no need for a comment regarding this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also like to refer to the official report of the Greek -Government, which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-379 (Document Number UK-82). On pages 29 and 30 of the -report, which correspond to Page 207 of your document book, we -find numerous facts concerning the burning and destruction of -villages on the Island of Crete. Thus, the villages of Skiki, Prassi, -and Kanados were completely burned down in retaliation for the -murder of some German parachutists carried out by the employees -of the local police at the time of the attack on the Island of Crete. -Certain villages were demolished by the Germans for the sole reason -that they were in the partisans’ zone of operations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is stated in the report that 1,600 out of 6,500 villages were -completely or partially demolished. It should also be noted that the -Germans intentionally bombed undefended towns and caused heavy -damage to 23 Greek towns, among which the towns of Yanina, Arta, -Preveza, Tukkala, Larissa, and Canea were almost completely -destroyed. This is mentioned on Page 21 of the report of the Greek -Government. It is on Page 190 of your document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, the whole world knows about the Hitlerites’ crimes -at Lidice. The 10th of June 1942 was the last day of Lidice and of -its inhabitants. The fascist barbarians left irrefutable evidence of -their monstrous crime. They made a film of the annihilation of -Lidice, and we are able to show this evidence to the Tribunal. Upon -<span class='pageno' title='122' id='Page_122'></span> -orders from the Czechoslovak Government, a special investigation -was carried out which established that the filming of the tragedy of -Lidice was entrusted by the so-called Protector to an adviser on -photography of the NSDAP, one Franz Treml, and was carried out -by him in conjunction with Miroslav Wagner. Among the documents -which we present to the Tribunal are photographs of the operators -who filmed the phases of the destruction of Lidice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present these documents to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-370 (Document Number USSR-370). I should like to remark, -Your Honors, that this film is a German documentary film. It was -filmed a few years ago. The technical state of this reel is not very -satisfactory, and therefore when we present it, there may be a few -defects.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal beforehand and request -permission to show this film.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Moving pictures were then shown.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What the Germans perpetrated -in Lidice was repeated a short time later in another inhabited point -of Czechoslovakia in the village of Lezhaky. I shall refer as evidence -to the Czechoslovak Government’s report, Pages 126-127. This report -is presented to the Court as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document -Number USSR-60). This report states, “Lezhaky, like Lidice, was -totally destroyed and the ground where it stood is now covered over -with rubble.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next section of my report, the destruction of -villages and towns, industry, and transport in the territory of the -U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I have quoted above the general directives of the -criminal Hitler Government and the German Supreme Command -concerning the destruction of inhabited centers, industry, and means -of communications in the U.S.S.R. Now I pass on to the presentation -of evidence of those destructions which were carried out in execution -of these directives by the Hitlerites everywhere on the territory of -the Soviet Union which they temporarily occupied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the evidence regarding the destruction of single towns of -the Soviet Union and pass on to the presentation of my report -beginning on Page 42.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are a large number of documents at the disposal of the -Soviet Prosecution which incriminate the Hitlerite criminals in -premeditated and systematic, calculated and cruel annihilation and -destruction of cities and towns, plants and factories, railways and -means of communication.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The presentation of all this documentation would seriously -delay the Trial. Therefore, I consider it possible to pass on to -the presentation of the general conclusive data established by the -<span class='pageno' title='123' id='Page_123'></span> -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union instead of -presenting separate documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), -I shall read into the record only those sections and data which have -not been read into the record previously and only those which -directly concern my subject. These extracts, Your Honors, are on -Pages 223-224 of your document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders totally or partially destroyed -and burned 1,710 towns and more than 70,000 villages and -hamlets. They burned and destroyed more than 6 million -buildings and rendered some 25 million persons homeless. -Among the destroyed towns which suffered most are the -greatest industrial and cultural centers: Stalingrad, Sevastopol, -Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, -Orel, Kharkov, Voronezh, Rostov-on-the-Don, and many others.</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders destroyed 31,850 industrial works -which employed some 4 million workers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 43, Pages 44 and 45, and the beginning of -Page 46 of my report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites destroyed . . . 36,000 postal and telegraphic -offices, telephone centers, and other communication centers. . . . -During their occupation of a part of the territory of the Soviet -Union, and especially during their retreat, the German fascist -invaders caused great damage to the railway system, waterways, -and river transport.</p> - -<p>“They used special machines for the destruction of roads and -thus put out of action 26, and partially destroyed eight, main -railway lines. They destroyed 65,000 kilometers of rails and -500,000 kilometers of cables for the automatic railroad controls, -signals, and communication lines. They blew up 13,000 -railway bridges, 4,100 railway stations, and 1,600 water -pressure stations. They destroyed 317 locomotive depots and -129 locomotive and wagon repair shops, as well as railway -machine works.</p> - -<p>“They destroyed, damaged, or evacuated to Germany 15,800 -locomotives, and Diesel locomotives, and 428,000 railway cars.</p> - -<p>“The enemy caused great damage to the buildings, enterprises, -and institutions and ships of the shipping lines operating in -the Arctic Ocean, in the White Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black, -and the Caspian Seas. They sank or partially damaged more -than 1,400 passenger, cargo, and special ships.</p> - -<p>“The sea ports of Sevastopol, Mariupol, Kerch, Novorossisk, -Odessa, Nikolaiev, Leningrad, Murmansk, Lepaya, Tallinn, -and other ports equipped with modern technical installations -suffered greatly. -<span class='pageno' title='124' id='Page_124'></span></p> - -<p>“The invaders sank or captured 4,280 passenger and cargo -ships and steam tugs of the river shipping and auxiliary -services, as well as 4,029 barges. They destroyed 479 harbor -and quay installations, as well as 89 dockyards and machine -factories.</p> - -<p>“While retreating under the pressure of the Red Army, German -troops blew up and destroyed 91,000 kilometers of -highways and 90,000 road bridges of a total length of 930 kilometers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>With this I conclude my statement, Your Honors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents which were read into the record and presented -to the Tribunal clearly demonstrate how the Hitlerite conspirators, -in all the territories seized by them in the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, -Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Greece, violated the laws and customs -of war, the fundamental principles of criminal law, and the direct -provisions of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents submitted also prove that the German invaders -contemplated complete destruction of cities and villages from which -the Hitlerites were compelled to retreat under the blows of the -Armed Forces of the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally these documents show with what bestial cruelty and -mercilessness the Hitlerites carried out their criminal plans in -reducing to dust and ashes the largest cultural and industrial -centers. Over a wide area from the White to the Black and the -Aegean Seas, in the territory temporarily occupied by the German -troops, the Hitlerites purposely and according to plan reduced to -ruins densely populated and flourishing Russian, Bielorussian, Yugoslavian, -Greek, and Czechoslovakian cities, towns, and villages. All -this was the result of the criminal activity of the Hitlerite Government -and of the German High Command, the representatives of -which are now in the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion I should like, Mr. President, to present as evidence -and as Exhibit Number USSR-401 (Document Number USSR-401) a -documentary film concerning the destruction perpetrated by the -Germans on the territories of the Soviet Union. Documents certifying -the authenticity of this film are now being submitted to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Moving pictures were then shown.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until 1410 hours.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='125' id='Page_125'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, in order to -exhaust fully the presentation of evidence on the subject matter -of my report I ask your permission to examine witness Joseph -Abgarovitch Orbeli who has been brought to the courthouse. Orbeli -will testify to the destruction of the monuments of culture and art -in Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Dr. Servatius approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any objections to make?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel and -for the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): I would like to ask -the Court to decide whether the witness can be heard on this subject, -whether this single piece of evidence is relevant. Leningrad -was never in German hands. Leningrad was only fired upon with -the regular combat weapons of the troops and also attacked from -the air, just as it is done regularly by all the armies of the world. -It must be established what is to be proved by this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that there is no -substance in the objection that has just been made, and we will -hear the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Orbeli took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>JOSEPH ABGAROVITCH ORBELI (Witness): Joseph Abgarovitch -Orbeli.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the oath after me—state -your name again: I—Orbeli, Joseph, a citizen of the Union of -Soviet Socialist Republics—summoned as a witness in this Trial—in -the presence of the Court—promise and swear—to tell the -Court nothing but the truth—about everything I know in regard -to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath in Russian.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit if you wish.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Witness, will you tell us, -please, what position do you occupy?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Director of the State Hermitage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What is your scientific title?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I am a member of the Academy of Science of the -Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, an active member of the -Academy of Architecture of the U.S.S.R., an active member and -president of the Armenian Academy of Science, an honorable -Member of the Iran Academy of Science, member of the Society -<span class='pageno' title='126' id='Page_126'></span> -of Antiquarians in London, and a consultant member of the -American Institute of Art and Archeology.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you in Leningrad at the -time of the German blockade?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Yes, I was.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Do you know about the -destruction of monuments of culture and art in Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Can you tell the Tribunal the -facts that are known to you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Besides general observations which I was able to make -after the cessation of hostilities around Leningrad, I was also an -eyewitness of the measures undertaken by the enemy for destruction -of the Hermitage Museum, and the buildings of the Hermitage -and the Winter Palace, where the exhibits from the Hermitage -Museum were displayed. During many long months these buildings -were under systematic air bombardment and artillery shelling. -Two air bombs and about 30 artillery shells hit the Hermitage. -Shells caused considerable damage to the building, and air bombs -destroyed the drainage system and water conduit system of the -Hermitage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>While observing the destruction done to the Hermitage I could -also see, across the river, the buildings of the Academy of Science, -namely: the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the -Zoological Museum, and right next to it the Naval Museum, in the -building of the former Stock Exchange. All these buildings were -under especially heavy bombardment of incendiary bombs. I saw -the effect of these hits from a window in the Winter Palace.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Artillery shells caused considerable damage to the Hermitage. -I shall mention the most important. One shell broke the portico -of the main building of the Hermitage, facing the Millionnaya -Street and damaged the piece of sculpture “Atlanta.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other shell went through the ceiling of one of the most -sumptuous halls in the Winter Palace and caused considerable -damage there. The former stable of the Winter Palace was hit -by two shells. Among court carriages of the 17th and 18th centuries -that were there displayed, four from the 18th century of high -artistic value, and one 19th century gilt carriage were shattered -to pieces by one of these shells. Furthermore, one shell went -through the ceiling of the Numismatic Hall and of the Hall of -Columns in the main building of the Hermitage, and a balcony of -this hall was destroyed by it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the same time, a branch building of the Hermitage Museum -on Solyanoy Lane, namely the former Stieglitz Museum was hit -<span class='pageno' title='127' id='Page_127'></span> -by a bomb from the air which caused very great damage to the -building. The building was absolutely unfit for use, and a large -part of the exhibits in this building suffered damage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Please tell me, Witness, do I -understand you correctly? You spoke about the destruction of the -Hermitage and you mentioned the Winter Palace. Is that only one -building? Where was the Hermitage located, the one you mentioned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Before the October Revolution, the Hermitage occupied -a special building of its own facing Millionnaya Street, and the -other side facing the Palace Quay of the Neva. After the Revolution, -the Little Hermitage, the building of the Hermitage Theater, -the building which separated the Hermitage proper from the -Winter Palace, and later even the entire Winter Palace were -incorporated into the Hermitage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, at the present moment the series of buildings -comprising the Hermitage consist of the Winter Palace, the Little -Hermitage, and Great Hermitage, which was occupied by the -museum prior to the Revolution, and also the building of the -Hermitage Theater, which was built during the reign of Catherine II -by the architect Quarenghi and which was hit by the incendiary -bomb which I mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides the destruction of the -Winter Palace and the Hermitage, do you know any other facts -about the destruction of other cultural monuments?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I observed a series of monuments of Leningrad which -suffered damage from artillery shelling and bombing from the air. -Among them damage was caused to the Kazan Cathedral, which -was built in 1814 by Architect Voronikhin, Isaak’s Cathedral, whose -pillars still bear the traces of damage pitted in the granite.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Within the city limits considerable damage was done to the -Rastrelli Wing near the Smolny Cathedral, which was built by -Rastrelli. The middle part of the gallery was blown up. Furthermore, -considerable damage by artillery fire was done to the surface -of the walls of the Fortress of Peter and Paul, which cannot now -be considered a military objective.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides Leningrad proper do -you know anything about the destruction and devastation of the -suburbs of Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I had the chance to acquaint myself in detail with -the condition of the monuments of Peterhof, Tzarskoye Ssyelo, and -Pavlovsk; in all those three towns I saw traces of the monstrous -damage to those monuments. And all the damage which I saw, and -which is very hard to describe in full because it is too great, all of -it showed traces of premeditation. -<span class='pageno' title='128' id='Page_128'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>To prove, for instance, that the shelling of the Winter Palace -was premeditated, I could mention that the 30 shells did not hit -the Hermitage all at once but during a longer period and that not -more than one shell hit it during each shooting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Peterhof, besides the damage caused to the Great Palace by -fire which completely destroyed this monument, I also saw gold -sheetings torn from the roofs of the Great Palace, the dome of -Peterhof Cathedral, and the building at the opposite end of this -enormous palace. It was obvious that the gold sheetings could not -fly off because of the fire alone, but were intentionally torn off.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Monplaisir, the oldest building of Peterhof, built by Peter -the Great, the damage showed also signs of long and gradual -ravages, and was not a result of a catastrophe. The precious oak -carvings covering the walls were torn off. The ancient Dutch tile -stoves, of the time of Peter the Great, disappeared without trace, -and temporary, roughly-built stoves were put in their place. The Great -Palace, built by Rastrelli in Tsarskoye Ssyelo, shows indubitable -traces of intentional destruction. For example, the parquet floors -in numerous halls were cut out and carried away, while the -building itself was destroyed by fire. In Catherine’s Palace, an -auxiliary munition plant was installed, and the precious carved -18th century fireplace was used as a furnace and was rendered -absolutely worthless.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paul’s Palace, which was also destroyed by fire, showed many -a sign that the valuable property that once could be found in its -halls was carried out before the Palace had been set on fire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Tell me, please, you said the -Winter Palace as well as the other cultural monuments that you -mentioned were intentionally destroyed. Upon what facts do you -base that statement?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The fact that the shelling of the Hermitage by artillery -fire during the siege was premeditated was quite clear to me and -to all my colleagues because damage was caused not casually by -artillery shelling during one or two raids, but systematically, -during the methodical shelling of the city, which we witnessed for -months. The first shells did not hit the Hermitage or the Winter -Palace—they passed near by; they were finding the range and -after this they would fire in the same direction, with just a little -deviation from the straight line. Not more than one or two shells -during one particular shelling would actually hit the Palace. Of -course, this could not be accidental in character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no more questions for -the witness. -<span class='pageno' title='129' id='Page_129'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Prosecuting Counsel -want to ask any questions? Do any of the Defense Counsel want -to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and -High Command of the German Armed Forces): Witness, you have -just said that through artillery shelling and also through aerial -bombs, the Hermitage, the Winter Palace, and also the Peterhof -Palace were destroyed. I would be very much interested to know -where these buildings are located; that is, as seen from Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage, which stands -right next to it, are in the center of Leningrad on the banks of -the Neva on the Palace Quay, not far from the Palace Bridge, -which during all the shelling, was hit only once. On the other -side, facing the Neva, next to the Winter Palace and the Hermitage, -there are the Palace Square and Halturin Street. Did I answer -your question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I meant the question a little differently. In -what part of Leningrad were these buildings—in the south, the -north, the southwest, or southeast section? Will you inform me -on that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage are right in -the center of Leningrad on the banks of the Neva, as I have -already mentioned before.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: And where is Peterhof?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Peterhof is on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, -southwest of the Hermitage, if you consider the Hermitage as the -starting point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Can you tell me whether near the Hermitage -Palace and Winter Palace there are any industries, particularly -armament industries?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: So far as I know, in the vicinity of the Hermitage, -there are no military enterprises. If the question meant the -building of the General Staff, that is located on the other side of -the Palace Square, and it suffered much less from shelling than -the Winter Palace. The General Staff building, which is on the -other side of Palace Square was, so far as I know, hit only by -two shells.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether there were artillery -batteries, perhaps, near the buildings which you mentioned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: On the whole square around the Winter Palace and -the Hermitage there was not a single artillery battery, because -from the very beginning steps were taken to prevent any unnecessary -vibration near the buildings where such precious -museum pieces were. -<span class='pageno' title='130' id='Page_130'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Did the factories, the armament factories, -continue production during the siege?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I do not understand the question. What factories are -you talking about—the factories of Leningrad in general?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: The Leningrad armament factories. Did they -continue production during the siege?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: On the grounds of the Hermitage, the Winter Palace, -and in the immediate neighborhood, no military enterprise worked. -They were never there and during the blockade no factories were -built there. But I know that in Leningrad munitions were being -made, and were successfully used.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Winter Palace is on the Neva -River. How far from the Winter Palace is the nearest bridge -across the Neva River?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The nearest bridge, the Palace Bridge, is 50 meters -from the Palace, at a distance of the breadth of the quay, but, -as I have already said, only one shell hit the bridge during the -shellings; that is why I am sure that the Winter Palace was -deliberately shelled. I cannot admit that while shelling the bridge, -only one shell hit the bridge and 30 hit the near-by building. The -other bridge, the Stock Exchange Bridge, connecting Vasilievsky -Island with the Petrograd side, is on the opposite bank of the -Great Neva. Only a few incendiary bombs were dropped from -planes on this bridge. The fires which broke out on the Stock -Exchange Bridge were extinguished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, those are conclusions that you are -drawing. Have you any knowledge whatever of artillery from -which you can judge whether the target was the palace or the -bridge beside it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I never was an artillery man, but I suppose that if -German artillery was aiming only at the bridge then it could not -possibly hit the bridge only once and hit the palace, which is across -the way, with 30 shells. Within these limits—I am an artillery man.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: That is your conviction as a non-artillery -man. I have another question. The Neva River was used by the -fleet. How far from the Winter Palace were the ships of the Red -Fleet?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: In that part of the Neva River there were no battleships -which were firing or were used for such kind of service. The -Neva ships were anchored in another part of the river, far from -the Winter Palace. -<span class='pageno' title='131' id='Page_131'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: One last question. Were you in Leningrad -during the entire period of the siege?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I was in Leningrad from the first day of the war -until 31 March 1942. Then I returned to Leningrad when the -German troops were driven out of the suburbs of Leningrad and -had a chance to inspect Peterhof, Tsarskoye Ssyelo, and Pavlovsk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you. I have no more questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General, do you want to ask the witness any -questions in re-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: We have no further questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE 3RD CLASS -MAJOR GENERAL N. D. ZORYA (Assistant Prosecutor for the -U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, I want to begin to submit -documentary evidence on the part of the Soviet Prosecution with -regard to the employment of compulsory slave labor practiced by -the Hitlerite conspirators on an enormous scale.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Fascism, with its plans for world domination, with its denial of -law, ethics, mercy, and humane considerations, foresaw the enslavement -of the peaceful population of the temporarily occupied territories, -the deportation of millions of people to fascist Germany, -and the compulsory utilization of their labor power. Fascism and -slavery—these two concepts are inseparable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall begin, Your Honors, the presentation of documents -relating to this count with the report of the Yugoslav Republic, -which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). I shall ask you -to look at Page 40 of the report, which is on Page 41 of the document -book at the disposal of the Tribunal. I read into the record -extracts from the report of the Yugoslav Republic, which is -entitled, “Forced Labor of Civilians.” I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Nazi policy of the wholesale exploitation of the occupied -territories has also been applied in Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia the Reich -Government and the OKW introduced obligatory labor -service for the population of the occupied territory. The -exploitation of manpower in Yugoslavia has been carried out -within the framework of the general German plan. The -Defendant Göring, as the leader of the German economic -plan, issued directives to his subordinates concerning the -systematic exploitation of manpower of the occupied territories. -<span class='pageno' title='132' id='Page_132'></span></p> - -<p>“In a report from Berlin, written by one of the head -functionaries of the economic service of the German Kommandantur -in Belgrade, named Ranze, instructions by Göring -are communicated, according to which the economic measures -in the occupied territories do not aim at the protection of -the local population, but at the exploitation of manpower -of the occupied countries for the benefit of the German war -economy.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia, the Germans -established offices for enlisting workers for ‘voluntary’ -labor in Germany. They also used the organizations which -already existed in Yugoslavia for arranging employment of -workers, and began to carry out their plans through these -organizations. Thus, for example, in Serbia they used the -central office for arranging employment of workers as well -as the labor exchange. Through these organizations, until -the end of February 1943, and from Serbia alone the Germans -sent 47,500 workers to Germany. Later on this number -considerably increased but the relative data in this respect -have not yet been fully established. These workers were -employed in agriculture and various industries in Germany, -mostly in the heaviest work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Yugoslav Republic it is stated that the -Gestapo and a special commission used pressure and force. This went -so far that these “volunteer” workers were hunted in the streets, -collected in units, and herded into Germany by force.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Apart from these so-called ‘volunteer’ workers, the Germans -sent into forced labor in Germany a large number of prisoners -from various camps, as well as politically ‘suspicious’ -persons, who had to perform the heaviest kinds of work -under disgusting living and working conditions. As early as -1942 many innocent victims of the Banyitza, Saimishte, and -other camps, were sent into Germany.</p> - -<p>“The first transport of them left on 24 April 1942, and these -transports continued without interruption until 26 September -1944. Old and young, men and women, farmers, workers, -intellectuals, and others were taken not only to Germany, -but to other countries under German occupation as well.</p> - -<p>“According to the registers of Banyitza Camp, which are -far from giving an exact picture, over 10,000 prisoners were -sent for forced labor from this camp alone.</p> - -<p>“The German authorities in Serbia issued a series of orders, -aiming at maximum exploitation of manpower. Among the -first measures two decrees were passed: The Decree for -General Labor Service and Restriction of the Freedom of -<span class='pageno' title='133' id='Page_133'></span> -Labor, of 14 December 1941, and the Decree for the National -Labor Service for the Reconstruction of Serbia, of 5 November -1941. According to the first decree all persons between -17 and 45 years of age could be called up for compulsory -labor in certain enterprises and branches of economy. -According to the second order, such persons could be called -up for civilian service in the National Reconstruction, which -in fact meant that they had to work for the strengthening -of the German economic and war effort.</p> - -<p>“The persons eligible for labor in accordance with these two -laws, although remaining in the country, worked in fact for -the aims and benefit of the Germans’ economic exploitation. -They were primarily used for work in the mines (Bor, Kostolac, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>), for road building and railway line repairs, -in the water transport, and so on.</p> - -<p>“On 26 March 1943 the German Commander of Serbia, -Befehlshaber Serbien, in a special order introduced the -so-called war economy measures of the Reich in the occupied -territory of Serbia, and by this act imposed the general -mobilization of manpower in Serbia. . . .</p> - -<p>“By this decree, therefore, the entire population of occupied -Serbia was mobilized for the German war economy. The -Germans exploited Serbian manpower, in fact, to the greatest -possible extent. . . .</p> - -<p>“The situation was in no way different in the other occupied -areas of Yugoslavia. Without entering into numerous details -of this planned exploitation, we shall quote here only one -example from occupied Slovenia.</p> - -<p>“According to an official announcement of the German -Farmers’ Union in Carinthia (Landesbauernschaft Kärnten) -of 10 August 1944, issued in Klagenfurt, every case of -pregnancy of non-German women was to be reported, and -in all such cases these women were to be obliged to have -their child ‘removed by operation in a hospital.’ The -announcement itself explains that in cases when non-German -women give birth to their children this ‘creates difficulties -for their use in work,’ and besides, it is also ‘a danger for -the population policy.’ Furthermore, this announcement states -that the Office of Labor Service should try to influence these -women to commit an abortion.</p> - -<p>“As another proof of the exploitation of manpower, we quote -the circular instructions of the German Landrat for the -Marburg (Maribor) district, of 12 August 1944. This circular -deals with the question of enlisting everybody eligible -according to that decree into the armed forces and into the -<span class='pageno' title='134' id='Page_134'></span> -labor service, and it calls upon all the inhabitants of Lower -Styria, and not only upon the indigenous population, but -also upon the Dutchmen, Danes, Swedes, Luxembourgers, -Norwegians, and Belgians who may find themselves living -there.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall pass on now to the Report of the Polish Government -which was presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as -Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). First -we should note the special role of the Defendant Frank in organizing -deportations of the Polish population for compulsory labor -to Germany. I shall read into the record several excerpts from -a document known under the title “Frank’s Diary,” which is at the -disposal of the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-223 (Document -Number USSR-223).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Frank described his attitude toward the Poles at the meeting -of the section chiefs which took place in Kraków, 12 April 1940, -as follows—I shall quote an excerpt on Page 62 of the document -book, to be exact, on the reverse side of the page. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Under pressure from the Reich, it had now been decreed -that, since sufficient labor did not present itself voluntarily -for service in the German Reich, compulsion could be used. -This compulsion meant the possibility of arresting male and -female Poles. A certain amount of unrest had been caused by -this, which, according to some reports, had spread very widely -and which could lead to difficulties in all spheres. Field -Marshal Göring had once pointed out, in his big speech, the -necessity for sending a million workers to the Reich. One -hundred and sixty thousand had been delivered to date. . . . -To arrest young Poles as they left church or the cinema would -lead to ever-increasing nervousness among the Poles. Fundamentally -Frank had no objections to removing people capable -of work who were lounging about in the streets. But the best -way would be to organize a round-up, and one was absolutely -justified in stopping a Pole in the street and asking him what -work he did, where he was employed, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>During his conversation with Defendant Sauckel, 18 August 1942, -the Defendant Frank stated—I quote the part which is on Page 67 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I am pleased to be able . . . to inform you officially that we -have now supplied more than 800,000 workers for the Reich. . . .</p> - -<p>“You recently requested the supply of a further 140,000 -workers. I am pleased to be able to inform you that, in accordance -with our agreement of yesterday’s date, we shall deliver -60 percent of these newly requested workers to the Reich by -<span class='pageno' title='135' id='Page_135'></span> -the end of October and the remaining 40 percent by the end -of the year. . . .</p> - -<p>“Over and above the present figure of 140,000, you can, -however, count on a further number of workers from the -Government General next year, as we are going to use the -police to recruit them.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Frank fulfilled his promise given to the Defendant Sauckel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the conference of the political leaders of the Labor Front in -the Government General, 14 December 1942, Frank stated in his -address—this is on the same page of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“You know that we have delivered more than 940,000 Polish -workers to the Reich. The Government General thereby stands -absolutely and relatively at the head of all European countries. -This achievement is enormous and has also been recognized -as such by Gauleiter Sauckel.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Will you kindly permit me to quote that section of the report of -the Government of the Polish Republic which is entitled, “Deportation -of the Civilian Population for Forced Labor.” This document is on -Page 72 and 73 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“a) As early as on 2 October 1939 a decree was issued by -Frank concerning the introduction of forced labor for the -Polish civilian population within the Government General. -By virtue of the said decree Polish civilians were under the -obligation to work in agricultural establishments, on the -maintenance of public buildings, road construction, regulation -of rivers, highways, and railways.</p> - -<p>“b) A further decree of 12 December 1939 extended the groups -of those liable to forced labor to children from the age of -14 years. And a decree of 13 May 1942 gave the authorities -the right to use forced labor even outside the Government -General.</p> - -<p>“c) The practice which developed on the basis of those decrees -turned into mass deportation of civilians from Poland to -Germany.</p> - -<p>“Throughout the Government General, in towns and villages, -posters were continually inviting Poles to go ‘voluntarily’ to -work in Germany. At the same time however every town and -village was told how many workers it was to supply.</p> - -<p>“The result of the ‘voluntary’ recruitment was usually very -disappointing. As a result of that the German authorities -invited the people to go or arranged round-ups in the streets, -restaurants, and other places, and those caught were sent -straight to Germany. There was a particular hunt for young -workers of both sexes. The families of those deported received -<span class='pageno' title='136' id='Page_136'></span> -no news from them for months and only after some time -postcards arrived describing the poor conditions in which they -were forced to live. Often, after several months, the workers -used to return home in a state of spiritual depression and -complete physical exhaustion.</p> - -<p>“There is substantial evidence that while on that forced labor -thousands of men were sterilized, while young girls were -forced into public houses.</p> - -<p>“d) These laborers were either sent to live with German -farmers to work on their land, to work in factories, or to -special work in forced labor camps. The conditions in those -camps were terrible.</p> - -<p>“e) According to provisional estimates, in 1940 alone 100,000 -women and men were sent to Germany as laborers.</p> - -<p>“f) To this great army of slave workers thousands of Poles -deported from the incorporated territories have to be added -and also 200,000 Polish prisoners of war who, by a decree -issued by Hitler in August 1940, were ‘released’ from camps, -but only to be sent to forced labor into various parts of -Germany.</p> - -<p>“g) These deportations continued throughout the years of war. -The total number of those workers reached at a certain point -a figure of 2 million.</p> - -<p>“Exact figures are obviously not available. But if one considers -that in spite of the very high death rate among those people, -there are now about 835,000 Polish citizens registered in -western Germany, the estimate appears correct.</p> - -<p>“The whole chapter concerning the deportations to forced -labor is presented here in a very condensed form. Behind -these few lines lies the history of hundreds of thousands of -Polish families destroyed, tragedy, death, and sorrow. The -history of each of these laborers was a continuous tragedy: -fathers leaving their families without means; husbands their -wives with no possibility of maintaining them, with no protection -and little hope of return. The quoted number of 2 million -conceals an ocean of broken lives, involving, at the least, -10 percent of the total population of Poland.</p> - -<p>“This was a terrible crime. Deportation and forced labor were -a flagrant violation of the laws and customs of war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Greek Report on German atrocities, submitted to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-369 (Document Number USSR-369) -states the following—I beg you to refer to Page 74 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“As in all the other occupied territories, the Germans pursued -two main objectives in their occupational policy in Greece: -<span class='pageno' title='137' id='Page_137'></span> -the maximum exploitation of the country’s resources in the -interests of the German military economy, and the enslavement -of the population by means of systematic terror and -general repression. The Germans pursued their two-sided -policy of plunder and revenge, violating commonly accepted -laws.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The section of the report of the Greek Government entitled -“Recruitment of Manpower” contains two paragraphs which I intend -to read into the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“One of the problems confronting the German administration -was that of recruiting labor. All males between 16 and 50 -years of age were liable to labor conscription. Strikes were -declared illegal, and severe penalties enforced for resort -thereto. Persons who organized and directed a strike were -liable to the death penalty. Strikers were tried by military -courts.</p> - -<p>“At first the Germans, by propaganda and various forms of -indirect pressure, tried to recruit Greek labor to work within -Germany. They promised high wages and better conditions of -life. As this kind of ‘voluntary’ recruitment failed to produce -the expected results they abandoned it and confronted the -workers with the dilemma either of being taken as hostages -or else of being sent to Germany to work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Similar measures of deportation of manpower to Germany were -applied by the fascists also in Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the deportation by the fascist criminals of the peaceful -populations into slave labor reached its climax in the temporarily -occupied territories of the Soviet Union. I would like now to dwell -briefly on the preparatory measures taken by the Hitlerite criminals -for the utilization of forced labor in the temporarily occupied territories -of the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even before their attack on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, -in a document which is known to the Tribunal as the “Green -File” of the Defendant Göring, Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document -Number EC-472), a whole chapter was dedicated to the problem of -organizing compulsory labor in the Soviet territories which the war -criminals intended to occupy; the chapter was called “Allocation of -Labor and Recruitment of Indigenous Population.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This chapter—Pages 17 and 18 of the Russian text of the Green -File, which is on Page 83 of the document book—lays down the -Principle of compulsory labor for the peaceful Soviet population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraphs 3 and 2 of Subsection A in the second part of that -chapter entitled, “Recruitment of the Local Population,” point -out that: -<span class='pageno' title='138' id='Page_138'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The workers in public utilities—gas, water, electricity, oil -drilling, oil distilling, and oil storage, as well as emergency -work in important industries . . . will be ordered to continue -their work under threat of punishment, if necessary.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And several lines above that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In case of necessity, the workers will be organized into labor -gangs.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The nonpayment of wages for the compulsory labor of Soviet -citizens had already been provided for in this so-called Göring’s -Green File. It was presupposed that the problem of payment was -reduced to the question of providing the workers with food. The -fascist slave owners were only interested in maintaining the working -potential of the people and nothing more—Page 18 of the Russian -text of the Green File. This is the back of Page 83 of the document -book. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: This document has already been read into the -record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I think that this particular part of the document -has not been read into the record. This is a document of the Soviet -Prosecution, which was published completely for the first time in the -note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, -in May 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you say that it has not yet been read into -the record, please go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: On Page 18 of the Russian text of the Defendant -Göring’s Green File it is mentioned at least three times that food -was to be the only payment. I do not wish to take more time of the -Tribunal with this document, but will proceed with my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Defendant Göring, who signed this directive for the plunder of -the Soviet Union—for how else could we refer to the above-mentioned -document—continued to organize forced labor in the -temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As evidence I present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-386 -(Document Number USSR-386), a document which discloses this -phase of the Defendant Göring’s activity. This document, or to be -precise, these two documents are the record of the conference of -7 November 1941, on “Allocation of Russians,” in which Göring -participated, and a covering letter to this record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One hundred copies of the document were originally prepared -and mailed to the 14 addresses which are listed, as Your Honors -may see, on Page 5 of the Russian text of the document, at the end -of the covering letter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The covering letter attached to the record bears the signature of -the Chief, Military Administration, Economic Staff East, Dr. Rachner. -<span class='pageno' title='139' id='Page_139'></span> -The minutes of the conference in question have been written by one -Von Normann who was evidently an official of the same organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it will promote clarification if I read into the record -certain parts of these minutes. I quote Page 6 of the Russian text -of the document which corresponds to Pages 95 and 96 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Conference of 7 November 1941 on the allocation of Russian -manpower. The Reich Marshal gave the following directives -for the utilization of Russian manpower:</p> - -<p>“I. Russian labor has demonstrated its capacity for production -in building up the gigantic industry of Russia. It must now -be successfully allocated in the Reich. In the face of such an -order of the Führer, objections are of secondary importance. -The disadvantages that may result from the employment of -Russian labor must be reduced to a minimum, and this is -primarily the concern of the counterintelligence service (Abwehr) -and the Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei).</p> - -<p>“II. Russians in the operational zone. The Russians are to be -used primarily in the construction of roads and railroads, for -clearing work, clearing out mine fields, and in the construction -of air fields. The German construction battalions are largely -to be dissolved (for example in the Air Force). German skilled -workmen belong in war industry. Digging and stone breaking -is not their work. The Russian is there for that.</p> - -<p>“III. Russians in the territories of the Reich commissioners -and of the Government General. Here the same principle -applies as in the second paragraph. In addition, increased use -in agriculture; if machines are lacking, manpower must produce -what the Reich will have to demand in the agrarian -sector from the Eastern territories. Further local manpower -should be made available for the ruthless exploitation of the -Russian coal deposits.</p> - -<p>“IV. Russians in the territory of the Reich, including the -Protectorate. The number to be employed is to be determined -by the need. Need is to be decided from the standpoint that -foreign workers who eat much and produce little are to be -sent away from the Reich and that in the future the German -woman is not to be used as extensively in the field of labor as -hitherto. Along with Russian prisoners of war, free Russian -manpower is also to be utilized.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now omit one page of this document and refer to Page 7. -In the middle of the page there is Section B, entitled “The Free -Russian Worker.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, already mentioned the fact that -the Hitlerites considered the civilian population as prisoners of war. -<span class='pageno' title='140' id='Page_140'></span> -This gave them the opportunity to increase for propaganda purposes -the number of the allegedly captured Red Army soldiers in their -reports on military operations, on the one hand, and to draw on -them for manpower, on the other hand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The section to which I just referred begins as follows, “Employment -and treatment is not actually to be other than that given to -Russian prisoners of war.” It should here be noted that the minutes -of the conference end with the following statement by Göring—you -will find this excerpt on Page 98 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Enlistment of workers and the utilization of prisoners of war -are to be carried on in a uniform manner, and they must be -organizationally combined.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Coming back to Page 7 of the same minutes we come across the -following eloquent statement by Göring on the subject of labor -conditions for Russian workers and particularly their wages. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Zorya, can you tell the Tribunal -whether you think you will be able to finish the presentation of -your documents this afternoon?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: My intention is to finish my presentation today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I would like to read into the record statements -by Göring which concern the labor conditions of Russian workers -and particularly their wages, from the document I have just -presented:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In connection with the labor conditions of the free Russians -it is to be kept in mind that:</p> - -<p>“1. He may receive a little pocket money. . . .</p> - -<p>“3. Since his labor is available to the employer cheaply, financial -compensation from the employer is to be given attention.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>To clarify the above statement the Defendant Göring makes -further the following suggestion—I quote on Page 8 of the Russian -text of the document, Paragraph B, Subparagraph 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The allocation of Russians must under no circumstance be -allowed to prejudice the wage problem in the eastern -territories. Every financial measure in this sphere must -proceed from the standpoint that lowest wages in the East—according -to a specific Führer decree—are a prerequisite for -the equal distribution to balance war costs and the clearing of -war debts by the Reich at the end of the war. -<span class='pageno' title='141' id='Page_141'></span></p> - -<p>“Infractions are subject to the severest penalties.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This is followed by two lines which are of interest, not only -because they incriminate the Defendant Göring for introducing the -system of forced labor. Having expressed himself so categorically -against the “prejudice of the wage problem in the eastern territories,” -Göring stated at the same conference as follows—Page 98 of the -document book, “The same applied in substance to every encouragement -of ‘social aspirations’ in the Russian colonial territory.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The covering letter appended to the minutes of the meeting -consists of comments which really do not add anything new to the -facts already presented to the Tribunal. Therefore I shall not quote -this letter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next document which I consider necessary to submit to the -Tribunal and which I beg you to accept as evidence under Exhibit -Number USSR-379 (Document Number UK-82) is a decree issued by -the Defendant Göring on 10 January 1942. I will quote only the first -18 lines of this decree, which are on Page 100 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the coming months the employment of manpower will -acquire still greater importance. On the one hand, the -recruiting situation of the Armed Forces necessitates the -release of all members of the younger age groups for this task. -On the other hand, urgent armament production and other -phases of the war economy, and also of agriculture, must -be provided with the manpower urgently needed by them. -For this, the utilization of prisoners of war, especially from -Soviet Russia, plays an important role.</p> - -<p>“The measures that will be necessary in this field in the -future promise success only under unified leadership, and I -shall use every means to attain it.</p> - -<p>“For that reason I have now granted my manpower commission—which -had already been dealing with all the manpower -questions of the Four Year Plan—the unlimited power -to direct . . . the entire manpower program.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Later on, Your Honors, the criminal activity of the fascist conspirators -in organizing and extending the system of forced labor -acquired such magnitude that on 21 March 1942 Hitler issued a -decree creating a special department under the Defendant Sauckel, -who developed these activities on a large scale. I shall not dwell -any longer on these historical facts as they have already been -covered by our American, English, and French colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The vital bond between fascism and the system of forced labor -is especially apparent when we consider the part played in this -field not only by the fascist government machine but by the fascist -Party itself. I should like to submit to the Tribunal a few documents -which illustrate this fact. -<span class='pageno' title='142' id='Page_142'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-365 (Document -Number USSR-365) a printed edition entitled, “Report of the -Delegate of the Four Year Plan—Plenipotentiary for the Allocation -of Labor.” This document is on Page 101 of the document book. -The copy of the report, which I present, has the order Number 1 -and it is dated 1 May 1942. The first page of the report contains -Hitler’s decree of 21 March 1942, appointing Sauckel to this post. -On the second page there is an order of the Defendant Göring -dated 27 March of the same year, explaining the duties of the -Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor within the framework of -the Four Year Plan organizational structure. And on the third page -of this report there is a program prepared by Sauckel for the -“Führer’s birthday” in 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, the above-mentioned documents have already been -submitted to the Tribunal by the Prosecution of the United States. -But I wish to draw your attention to Page 17 of the Russian -translation of this document, where you will find an order of the -Defendant Sauckel, dated 6 April 1942: Order Number 1. This -order is presented for the first time and is entitled, “Concerning -Appointment of Gauleiter as Commissioners for the Allocation of -Labor in the Gaue. This order begins as follows—I quote Page 118 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby appoint the Gauleiter of the NSDAP my commissioners -for allocation of labor in the Gaue administered by -them.</p> - -<p>“A. Their tasks are:</p> - -<p>“1) The achievement of smooth co-operation between all -offices set up by the State, the Party, the Wehrmacht, and -the economic authorities to deal with questions of manpower; -and by means of this, the regulation of different interpretations -and claims in such a way as to utilize manpower -to the best possible effect.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit some points.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“4) Investigation of the results obtained by utilizing the labor -of all foreign male and female workers. Special regulations -will be issued with regard to these.</p> - -<p>“5) Investigation of the correct feeding, housing, and treatment -of all foreign workers and prisoners of war engaged -in work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In his program for the allocation of labor, presented—as I have -already pointed out—for Hitler’s birthday in 1942, the Defendant -Sauckel wrote—this part of the program was not read into the -record by the United States Prosecution; it is on Page 105 of the -document book: -<span class='pageno' title='143' id='Page_143'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“IV. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor will, therefore, -with a very small personal staff of his own choice, make -exclusive use of existing institutions set up by the Party, -State, and industry, and the goodwill and co-operation of all -will assure the quickest success of his measures.</p> - -<p>“V. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor has, therefore, -with consent of the Führer and in agreement with the -Reich Marshal of Greater Germany and the Chief of the -Party Chancellery, appointed all the Gauleiter of Greater -Germany as his commissioners in the Gaue of the National -Socialist Labor Party (NSDAP).</p> - -<p>“VI. The commissioners for allocation of labor will use the -competent offices of the Party in their Gaue. The chiefs of -the highest competent State and economic offices in their -Gaue will advise and instruct the Gauleiter in all-important -questions relative to labor allocation.</p> - -<p>“Especially important for that purpose are the following: The -President of the State Labor Office, the Trustee for Labor, -the State Peasant Leader, the Gau Economic Adviser, the -Gau Trustee of the German Labor Front, the Gau Women’s -Leader, the District Hitler Youth Leader, the highest -representative of the Interior and General Administration, -especially if the Office for Agriculture falls within his jurisdiction.</p> - -<p>“VII. The most elevated and most essential task of the Gauleiter -of the NSDAP in their capacity of commissioners in -their Gaue is to secure the maximum agreement between all -offices dealing with questions of manpower in their Gau.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In this document Sauckel addressed himself to the Gauleiter -asking them repeatedly to give him all possible assistance in every -respect. I would like to draw Your Honors’ attention to only one -of Sauckel’s assertions in this document. He mentions the decision -of Hitler to send to the Reich “in order to help the German peasant -women, four or five hundred thousand selected, healthy, and strong -girls from the eastern territories,” thus to relieve German women -and girls of labor duty. Apparently in order to explain the advantage -of this measure, Sauckel wrote, “Please trust me as an old and -fanatical National Socialist Gauleiter when I say that in the end -the decision could not be different.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The importance of the part played by the fascist Party in the -organization of compulsory slave labor and how far this Party went -into the matter, is shown by the following document which I am -submitting to the Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit Number USSR-383 -(Document Number USSR-383). This document is a letter of the -Defendant Sauckel, dated 8 September 1942, and is entitled, “Special -<span class='pageno' title='144' id='Page_144'></span> -Action of the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor for the Purpose -of Procuring Female Workers from the East for the Benefit of -Town and Country Households with Many Children.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the course of my presentation I shall have the opportunity -to refer once more to this document. In the meantime I wish to -draw your attention to the passage which has direct bearing on -the role of the fascist Party in this measure. On Page 3 of the -Russian text of the document, which I hereby submit, there is a -section entitled, “Viewpoints for Selecting Households.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does it matter whether these women were -brought into a house where they ought not to have been brought -and whether a particular German housewife was entitled to a -woman worker or not? The whole point, it would seem, is whether -they were deported—and forcibly deported.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, I just had it in view to abridge -this passage which you mentioned. But now I am talking about -something else. I would like to show the part which the fascist -Party played in organizing slave labor inside Germany and in -particular in the distribution of those Soviet women who were -transported for this purpose to Germany. Here are two short documents -which I consider necessary to submit to the Tribunal. As for -the rest, which concerns the regime which has already been -described sufficiently by the United States and British Prosecutions, -I do not intend to dwell upon it and contemplated cutting down -this part to the minimum.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to dwell on this part of the document which says that -applications for obtaining an eastern woman worker for household -duties, are to be examined by the Labor Department which would -decide whether there is a real need for the worker and are then -to be forwarded for final approval to the corresponding leader of -NSDAP. Should the district leader object to granting a woman -worker to the household, the Labor Department declines to send -an eastern woman worker to the applicant and accordingly declines -the permission for the employment of such. The refusal need not -be motivated, and the decision is final.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You may find this on Page 129 of the document book. It is -followed by the application form. You will find this in the appendix -to Exhibit Number USSR-383 (Document Number USSR-383). This -application form contains a brief questionnaire about the family -which would like to employ a domestic worker in the household. -This application form also contains the reply form of the corresponding -fascist Party organization whether it recommends or not -the use of an eastern slave in this household.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to pay attention to the appendix to -Exhibit Number USSR-383. This appendix is entitled, “Memo for -<span class='pageno' title='145' id='Page_145'></span> -Housewives Regarding Employment of Eastern Woman Workers -in Urban and Rural Households.” This memo has already been -mentioned by Mr. Dodd. I will not dwell upon it in detail, but -will only draw the attention of the Tribunal to the subtitle which -is on Page 133.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg Your Honors to pay attention to the subtitle of this slave -owner’s memo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The statement between brackets announces that this memo is -published by the Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor in -agreement with the chief of the Party Chancellery and other corresponding -authorities. It is difficult to state it more precisely. -Millions of foreign slaves were languishing in Germany. A German -could become a slave-owner with the sanction and under the -supervision of the fascist Party. Apparently this also constituted -one of the elements of the New Order in Europe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I deem it indispensable to refer also to the order of the Defendant -Göring, dated 27 March 1942. I do not submit this document, as -it is already at the disposal of the Tribunal, having been presented -by the United States Prosecution:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, in order to -carry out his tasks, herewith receives the power which the -Führer has given me to issue directives to the superior Reich -authorities and to their subordinate offices, to Party authorities -and to Party organizations and attached units.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This order of the Defendant Göring does not only determine -the special part of the fascist Party in the execution of the compulsory -labor system, but also emphasizes the extraordinary powers -of Defendant Sauckel in this field.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents to which I have been referring thus far give -grounds for the Soviet Prosecution to assert that within the general -framework of the fascist State the fascist Party was the center of -all measures for the organization of compulsory slave labor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like now to turn to the part taken by the German -High Command in the organization of compulsory labor and deportation -into slavery of Soviet people. With this object in view, I -submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-367 (Document -Number USSR-367), an OKH document regarding—I am using the -words of the document itself—the “Enlistment of Russian Manpower -for the Reich.” I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page 138 of the -document book in which this document is to be found.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, let us look at the source from which this document -emanates. In the upper left-hand corner of the first page you will -find, “High Command of the Army, General Staff of the Army, -Quartermaster General, Office of Military Administration, (EC) -<span class='pageno' title='146' id='Page_146'></span> -Number II 3210/42—secret.” In the upper right-hand corner: “Headquarters, -High Command of the Army, 10 May 1942,” and again -the stamp “secret.” After the title it states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subject: OKH, Gen Qu/Ec/II, Number 2877/42, secret, -25 April 1942; OKH, Gen Qu/Section Mil. Adm. Number -3158/1942, secret, 6 May 1942.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Therefore, the document which I intend to quote here originates -from the OKH and is based on orders previously issued by the -OKH. At the end of the document there is a list of addresses to -which it was distributed. I will not quote this list in full, but it -leaves no doubt as to who were the executors of the orders contained -in the above document. These executors were the military -authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Let us now turn to the contents of the submitted document. First -of all, what induced the OKH when it issued this letter? The -reply to this question is contained in the first paragraph of our -document, which I shall now read into the record. I abridge the -quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor appointed by -the Führer, Gauleiter Sauckel . . . in consideration of the -increased armament requirements of the Reich and in order -to secure the manpower requirements of the German war and -armament economy, has ordered that the enlisting and transferring -into the Reich of Russian manpower be speeded up -and considerably increased.</p> - -<p>“For the execution of this recruiting action . . . influence of -the military and local administrative authorities (field Kommandantura, -local Kommandantura, I A—organization of the -Economic Staff East, district administrations, town mayors, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>) . . . is necessary. This is a task of decisive importance -for the outcome of the war. The labor situation of the Reich -makes it necessary that the ordered measures are carried out -on a priority basis and in a large scale manner. This must be -the chief task of all organizations.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The next two paragraphs of the quoted document, part of which -is entitled, “Priority of Manpower Needs in the Armed Forces and -Economy in the East,” contain the following statement—I quote -Page 139 of your document book which runs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The immediate manpower needs of the Army must be satisfied -in the highest priority inasmuch as the need is actually -inescapable . . . and unalterable. The scale of the needs of the -Army is to be determined by the armies, the commanders -of the front areas, and the Wehrmacht commanders. However, -in consideration of the urgent labor needs of the Reich . . . -the severest standard is to be applied, and especially the scale -<span class='pageno' title='147' id='Page_147'></span> -of the troops’ own manpower needs is to be most carefully -examined.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t it sufficient to say that this document -provides for the speeding up of the mobilization of manpower and -slave labor for the purposes of the necessities of the Reich? Does -it do anything more than that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Yes, you are quite right, Mr. President. It would -be enough if we add that this document contains the demand not -only to accelerate the mobilization of manpower but also the demand -for immediate participation by the military authorities who had -to arrange a suitable machinery in the form of suitable officers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next document which I submit to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would be a mistake to think that the OKH gave orders only -of such general character. In July 1941 the Defendant Keitel learned -that the subdepartments of the Organization Todt in the Lvov -district paid the local workers a wage of 25 rubles. This fact made -Keitel indignant. Todt immediately received an appropriate -reprimand. And so we come to the next document, which I present -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-366 (Document Number -USSR-366).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Reich Minister directly refers, in this document, to the fact -that Field Marshal Keitel expressed his displeasure that the subdepartments -of the Organization Todt in the suburbs of Lvov paid -the local workers wages of 25 rubles and that the subdepartments -of the O.T. were making use of the factories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Todt declares that during his last trip he had explained in detail -to all members of the staff that the rules for the allocation of labor -in Russian territory were different from those in Western Europe. -Further in this document Todt categorically prohibits the paying -of any sums of money at all. He concludes this document in the -following terms:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“No compensation shall be given to the firms for payments -not in conformity with the above principles.</p> - -<p>“This order is to be brought to the attention of all subordinate -labor allocation offices and to all firms.</p> - -<p>“Signed: Dr. Todt.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The German Government and the High Command ordered the -use of peaceful Soviet citizens for work which endangered life. -This was mentioned by Göring at a conference on 7 November 1941. -I now submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-106 (Document -Number USSR-106), which contains the translation of the -Führer’s directive, signed by him on 8 September 1942. This directive -concerns the allocation of labor for the construction of fortifications -on the Eastern Front. This document comes from the -<span class='pageno' title='148' id='Page_148'></span> -German archives captured by the Allied armies in the West. The -covering letter to this document states that this document “is top -secret, and that copies of it will be sent to staffs and divisions and -are to be returned to the Army staffs and destroyed.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the second page of the document, we find Hitler’s order. I -read it into the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“HQu, 8 September 1942.</p> - -<p>“The heavy defensive battles in the area of Army Groups -Center and North induce me to fix my views on some -fundamental tasks of the defense.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The next Paragraphs, 1 and 2 on Pages 1 to 7, concern general -principles of defense, which do not interest us today. On Page 148 -of the document book is the following passage which I read into -the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The enemy carries on construction to a far greater extent -than do our own troops. I know that it will be argued that -the enemy has at his disposal more labor for construction of -such positions. But it is therefore an absolute necessity at -exactly this point to make use, with ruthless energy, especially -of prisoners of war and the population for these tasks. Only -in this respect is the Russian superior to us in his brutal way. -By this means, however, the German soldier, too, can be -spared to a large extent from labor on defensive works behind -the front lines, in order that he may be kept free and fresh -for his real duties. Frequently the necessary ruthlessness -which the present fateful battle demands is not yet being -employed here, for in it not a victory but the existence and -survival of our people is contested. Besides, it is in all -circumstances still always more humane to drive the Russian -population to work, with every means, as it has always been -accustomed to be driven, than to sacrifice our most precious -possession, our own blood.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>This order is signed by Hitler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Units of the Red Army also captured a decree issued by the -German occupation authorities, which referred to an order of the -General Staff about forced labor in combat zones. I submit this -document as Exhibit Number USSR-407 (Document Number -USSR-407), and I deem it necessary to quote a few sentences from -Page 149 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Decree: In accordance with the regulations of the Chief of -the OKW, dated 6 February 1943, regarding transfer for -labor in the combat zone of the newly occupied eastern -territory, all women born in 1924 and 1925 are hereby -summoned for labor in Germany. -<span class='pageno' title='149' id='Page_149'></span></p> - -<p>“Point V of this order provides that: . . . those who do not -present themselves on the given dates shall be held responsible -as saboteurs in accordance with military laws.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I am summarizing this section.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The High Command of the German Armed Forces and the -Defendant Keitel took a direct part in the execution of this system -of forced slave labor. For the realization of this criminal objective -they used on a large scale from bottom to top, the entire machinery -of the military administration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I beg to refer to the next document which I am -now presenting as Exhibit Number USSR-381 (Document Number -USSR-381).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General, was that last order that you gave -us Keitel’s order? It is signed apparently by the Chief of the -General Staff of the Military Command.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: This is not an order of Keitel. This document -which was submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-381 is entitled -“Instruction to the Economic Offices, ‘Section Labor,’ on the Organization -of Labor Allocation in the East.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that was by Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: The preceding document which was submitted to -the Tribunal was actually one of Keitel’s orders, but now I wish to -speak of this instruction. I beg Your Honors to pay attention to -the date on which this instruction was issued, namely 26 January -1942. In this instruction, on Page 150 of the document book, it is -stated that the hopes which the Reich Marshal had placed in the -office for the allocation of labor must be justified at all costs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The task of the economic organizations and the office for -the allocation of labor in the East consists in bridging, during -the coming months, the gaps in the economy which arose -owing to the departure into the army of men of younger -conscription age due to the universal enlistment of Russian -manpower. This is of decisive importance for the war and -must therefore be achieved. If the number of volunteers does -not come up to expectations, then the enlistment measures -already ordered should be reinforced by all available means.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The United States Prosecution has submitted to the Tribunal a -document of the Soviet Prosecution, Exhibit Number USSR-381 -(Document Number USSR-381), entitled, “Memo on the Treatment -of Foreign Civilian Workers in the Reich.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not wish to quote this document again, but consider it -necessary only to show. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The President -has just now asked about the Document Number USSR-407 and the -<span class='pageno' title='150' id='Page_150'></span> -prosecutor has presented it here as a document of Keitel. I have -only just now found this document. If it is a question of the same -document that I have marked as USSR-407, then it is signed by a -local commander and by a chief of the labor office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is this document the same as that presented to you as USSR-407?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out, have I not, that -it was not by Keitel?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, Sir. But the Prosecutor has thereupon repeatedly -said that this Document 407 represents an order by Keitel. -That is why I wanted to clarify it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Perhaps the Tribunal will allow me to clarify -this matter. Apparently a misunderstanding arose through faulty -translation. I said that troops of the Red Army had seized a German -order, and added that the order had been issued by the German -occupational authorities—you can verify this by looking up the stenographic -record—which referred to an order of Keitel regarding -forced labor in the combat zones. This order begins with the -following words, “In accordance with the regulations of the Chief -of the OKW, dated 6 February 1943, transfer for labor in the -combat zone,” and so forth. I shall not quote any further.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If I may beg the Tribunal to consider once more a document -which I have already submitted previously, that is, the document -of the High Command of the Army, Number II/3210/42, it is because -this order refers to corresponding orders of the General Staff of -the Army on questions of allocation of labor in the East. This -order of the occupational authorities, which I submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-407, refers to one of these orders. It states quite -clearly, “In accordance with the regulations of the Chief of the -OKW.” That is why I submitted this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I really don’t understand you. -What I have got in the translation before me is this, “The units -of the Red Army captured a copy of the German decree which -mentioned Keitel’s order on forced labor in the combat zone,” and -continues further that those persons refusing to work shall be -apprehended as saboteurs. This document is submitted as Exhibit -USSR something or other.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It may be useful to read a few excerpts of it, “By order of the -Chief of the General Staff of the Military Command, of 6 February -1943, concerning the compulsory labor service . . . in the combat -zone”—and then it goes on to deal with persons who don’t present -themselves being considered saboteurs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Well, I thought you were saying that the Chief of the General -Staff of the Military Command was Keitel. He was the Chief of -<span class='pageno' title='151' id='Page_151'></span> -the OKW. Are you still saying that he was the Chief of the Military -Command?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I quote only that which is in the document: “In -accordance with the regulations of the Chief of the General Staff -of the Military Command.” That is in the document, and I do not -wish to add anything.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think it is worth taking any more -time over it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I will now go back to that document which was -submitted to the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution and -which was entitled, “Memo for the Treatment of Foreign Civilian -Laborers in the Reich.” I will not quote this document in detail; I -would like to stress only that it established a special regime for -Eastern Workers. They lived in camps surrounded by guards and -under supervision of a camp commander. The latter forbade a -normal life for workers from the East. They were thus forbidden -to visit churches or public places and they were obliged to wear -special insignia—a rectangle with pale blue edges, and in the middle -the word “Ost” in white letters on the dark blue background.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the memorandum to housewives regarding the employment of -women from the East in town and rural households it was stated -that—Page 131 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Every foreigner judges the standard of our entire people -by the personal and political conduct of the individual. The -foreign workers must see in the housewife and the members -of her family worthy representatives of the German people.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I proceed further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“If, in exceptional cases, German and eastern female domestic -workers are employed in the same household, the German -domestic workers must be given mainly tasks of serving the -family and must also be given the supervision of the Eastern -woman worker. The German living in the household must -always have precedence.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>General conditions of work did not apply to the women workers -from the East. Their labor was regulated only by the discretion -of their masters. This was expressed in Paragraph 4 of the same -memorandum. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Eastern women workers are employed in the households in -a special labor relation. German regulations on working conditions -and on labor protection refer to them only insofar as -this is specifically decreed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The character of these special instructions can be seen in Paragraph -9, Section B of the memorandum, which states quite openly: -<span class='pageno' title='152' id='Page_152'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“No claim to leisure time is given. Eastern women domestic -workers may leave the household only when on duty connected -with the needs of the household. . . . Visiting the -theaters, restaurants, cinemas, and similar . . . institutions is -forbidden.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 10 of the memorandum states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Eastern female domestic workers are enlisted for indefinite -time.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 12 of the memorandum states that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Germans may not share a room with the Eastern woman -worker.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 14 states that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Clothing as a rule cannot be supplied.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>These two documents just mentioned by me, “Memo on the -Treatment of Foreign Civilian Laborers” and “Memorandum for -Housewives on the Employment of Eastern Female Workers,” -reflect the inhuman conditions of work for the forcibly mobilized -Soviet citizens. The Soviet Prosecution has at its disposal numerous -documents, the testimonies of persons who themselves experienced -the terror of fascist slavery. The enumeration of all these documents -would take too much time. The Soviet Government had at -its disposal, already in the early phases of the war against fascist -Germany, many proofs of the crimes of the fascist conspirators in -this field.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first document of this kind published by the Soviet Government -is the note of the People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, -Molotov, dated 6 January 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal -by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-51(2), (Document -USSR-51(2)) and this note stated that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The peaceful citizens forcibly deported for compulsory labor -were proclaimed ‘prisoners of war’ by the German authorities -and treated as such as far as their maintenance is concerned. -It has been established by reports of Staffs of the German -Army that peasants and other peaceful citizens seized by the -Germans and deported for compulsory labor were automatically -put on the list as prisoners of war. Thus the number -of prisoners of war was artificially and unlawfully increased.</p> - -<p>“In the vicinity of the town of Plavsk, in the region of Tula, -a camp was established where Soviet war prisoners and the -civilian population from neighboring villages were interned -at the same time. The Soviet citizens were there subjected -to inhuman tortures and sufferings. There were young boys -and girls, women, and old men among them. Their only food -consisted of two potatoes and some barley grits each day. The -death rate reached 25 to 30 persons daily. -<span class='pageno' title='153' id='Page_153'></span></p> - -<p>“After the occupation of Kiev, the Germans drove into slave -labor all the civilian population from 11 to 60 years of age, -irrespective of their profession, their sex, state of health, or -nationality.</p> - -<p>“People who were too ill to stand on their feet were fined -by the Germans for every day of work they missed.</p> - -<p>“In Kharkov the German invaders decided to make the local -Ukrainian intellectuals an object of their mockery. On 5 November -1941 all actors were ordered to appear at the -Shevtshenko Theater for registration. When they had -gathered, they were surrounded by German soldiers who -harnessed them to carts and drove them along the most -frequented streets to the river for water.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document of the Soviet Government was the Foreign -Commissar’s note, dated 27 April 1942. This note is submitted to -the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). -Section 3 of this note is entitled, “Installation of a Regime of -Slavery and Bondage in the Occupied Territories of the Soviet -Union and Deportation of Civilian Population as Prisoners of War.” -This note states that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the Ukraine and Bielorussia the Germans introduced a -14- or 16-hour workday, in most cases without any compensation -and in some cases with ridiculously low wages.</p> - -<p>“In the secret instructions entitled, ‘On Current Tasks in the -Eastern Regions,’ captured by Red Army troops at the -beginning of March 1942, the chief of the Military Economic -Inspectorate Central Front, Lieutenant General Weigang, -admits that:</p> - -<p>“ ‘It has proved impossible to maintain industrial production -with the labor of semi-starved and semi-clad people,’ that ‘the -devaluation of money and the commodity crisis coincide with -a dangerous lack of confidence in the German authorities on -the part of the local population,’ and that ‘this constitutes a -danger to the peace in the occupied regions which cannot be -permitted in the rear of the combat troops.’ The German -general in this document presumes to call these occupied -regions ‘our new eastern colonial possession.’</p> - -<p>“Acknowledging that the complete collapse of industrial production -in the occupied districts has led to mass unemployment, -the German General Weigang issued the following -orders for speeding up the forcible dispatch of the Russian, -Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and other workers to Germany.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Only the shipping to Germany of some millions of Russian -workers and only the inexhaustible reserves of healthy and -<span class='pageno' title='154' id='Page_154'></span> -strong people in the Occupied Eastern Territories . . . can solve -the urgent problem of manpower shortage and therewith meet -the lack of labor in Germany.’</p> - -<p>“In an order . . . seized by units of the Red Army, recruiting -the entire civilian population of the occupied districts for all -kinds of heavy labor was ordered; and it was stated that this -forced labor was not to be paid for; and it was insolently -declared that by this unpaid labor the population would -atone for its guilt for the acts of sabotage already committed -as well as for the acts of sabotage which might be committed -by them in the future.</p> - -<p>“In Kaluga, on 20 November 1941, an announcement was -posted, signed by the German commandant, Major Portatius, -which ran as follows:</p> - -<p>“ ‘1. Citizens who do poor work or do not work the specified -number of hours will be subject to a monetary fine. In the -event of nonpayment, delinquents will be subjected to corporal -punishment.</p> - -<p>“ ‘2. Citizens who have received a work assignment and who -have not reported for work will be subject to corporal punishment -and will receive no food rations from the municipality.</p> - -<p>“ ‘3. Citizens evading work in general will, in addition, be -expelled from Kaluga. Citizens shirking work will be attached -to labor detachments and columns, and billeted in barracks. -They will be used for heavy labor.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>This note indicated also that land would be transferred to German -landowners. This was established by a land law which was promulgated -at the end of April 1942 by the Hitlerite Gauleiter Alfred -Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next note of People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs Molotov which was published a year after the note dated -27 April 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 11 May 1943 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, -Molotov, sent to all Ambassadors and Ministers of all the countries -with which the U.S.S.R. had diplomatic relations a note, “Concerning -the Wholesale Forcible Deportation of Peaceful Soviet Citizens -to German Fascist Slavery and Concerning the Responsibility Borne -for this Crime by German Authorities and Individuals.” This note -is submitted to the Tribunal as evidence as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(4) (Document Number USSR-51(4)).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider it necessary to read a few quotations from this note. -On Page 165 of the document book there is a reference to a -declaration of Göring of 7 November 1941, which has already been -mentioned by me. I will not again repeat all that Göring said at -<span class='pageno' title='155' id='Page_155'></span> -that conference. I will only stress that Göring issued a blood-thirsty -order “not to spare the Soviet people deported into Germany and -to handle them in the most cruel manner under any excuse.” This -order is included in section IV-A7 of the above-mentioned note. It -reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In applying measures for the maintenance of order, the main -principle must be swiftness and severity. Only the following -forms of punishment must be employed, without intermediary -grades: deprivation of food and death by sentence of field -court-martial.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>On 31 March 1942 Sauckel issued the following order by telegraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The enlistment, for which you are responsible, must be -speeded up by every available means, including the stern -application of the principle of labor service.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Soviet Government is in possession of the complete text of -a report by the Chief of the Political Police and Security Service -with the Chief of the SS in Kharkov, headed, “The Situation in -the City of Kharkov from 23 July to 9 September 1942.”</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The recruiting of labor power”—states this document—“is -causing the competent bodies disquietude, for the population -is displaying extreme reluctance to go to work in Germany. -The situation at present is that everybody does his -utmost to evade enlistment. Voluntary departure to Germany -has long been entirely out of the question.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I must stress that the Defendant Sauckel, as Plenipotentiary -for the Allocation of Labor, actively pursued criminal -activity, as it is pointed out in the note of the People’s Commissar -for Foreign Affairs, which I just presented. On 31 March 1942 -Sauckel sent to his subordinate departments a telegraphic instruction -regarding the utilization of Russians and the work of the -enlistment committee. I submit this telegram of Sauckel to the -Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit Number USSR-382 (Document Number -USSR-382). In this telegram Sauckel writes:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The rate of mobilization must be increased immediately and -under all circumstances to insure, in the shortest possible -time, that is to say, by April, that a three-fold increase in -the number of dispatched workers is achieved.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Sauckel’s efforts were appreciated by the Defendant Göring at -the time when he was Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I refer -now to the conference which Göring held on 6 August 1942. This -protocol has been submitted by the Soviet Prosecution to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-170 (Document Number USSR-170). -I beg you to refer to Pages 12 and 13 of this document, Page 184 -of the document book. Göring came forth with the following words, -<span class='pageno' title='156' id='Page_156'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I have to say one thing to this. I do not wish to praise the Gauleiter -Sauckel; he does not need it.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: All this was read the other day. The actual -words were read yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I am quite sure, Mr. President, that my colleague, -who read into the record this document, did not read this particular -passage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I still think that he read this excerpt -which you have got set out in your document, “I do not wish to -praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.” He certainly -referred to the excerpt which you have just summarized about -Lohse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I do not wish to argue but I had the information -that this excerpt had not been read into the record. If you like, -I will not read this passage into the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you are right. I don’t know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Then, I will read it into the record very briefly:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I do not wish to praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need -it. But what he has done in such a short time to collect -workers so quickly from the whole of Europe and supply -them to our undertakings is a unique achievement. I must -tell that to all these gentlemen; if each of them used in their -sphere of activity a tenth of the energy used by Gauleiter -Sauckel, the tasks laid upon them would indeed easily be -carried out. This is my sincere conviction and in no way -fine words.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I return again to the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs, V. M. Molotov, dated 11 May 1943. This note further gives -data concerning the number of Soviet people who were deported -to Germany. This note states that the deportation of Soviet people -to German slavery was accompanied nearly everywhere by bloody -repressive measures against Soviet citizens seeking refuge from -slave merchants who were hunting for them. It has been established -that in Gjatsk 75 peaceful inhabitants of the town were shot and -that in Poltava 65 railroad men were hanged. The same thing in -other towns also—executions, shootings, and hangings were carried -out on the same scale.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I understood from you at the beginning of -your speech that you were going to finish this afternoon your -presentation. It is now 5 minutes past 5. Is there any chance of -your finishing today?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: If I had not been interrupted by Defense Counsel -for 10 minutes in connection with a discussion about the order of -<span class='pageno' title='157' id='Page_157'></span> -the German occupational authorities, I would have finished my -statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think will it take you now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: A maximum of 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: The note states that the Soviet citizens in the -territories captured by the Germans are, with growing frequency -and organization, offering courageous resistance to the slave owners. -The growth of the partisan movement in connection with the -resistance the Soviet citizens are offering to forcible transportation -into German slavery is admitted with alarm in a number of secret -reports from German army and police administrations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This note quotes further a number of testimonies of Soviet -people who had escaped German slavery. I will only quote one -of these testimonies of Kolkhoz member Varvara Bakhtina of the -village of Nikolayevka, Kursk region, who stated:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In Kursk we were pushed into cattle wagons, 50 to 60 persons -in each wagon. Nobody was permitted to leave. Every -now and then the German sentry hustled and punched us. -In Lgov we had to get out and be examined by a special -commission there. In the presence of the soldiers we were -compelled to undress quite naked and have our bodies -examined. The nearer we got to Germany, the fewer were -the people left in the train. From Kursk they took 3,000 -persons but at nearly every station the sick and those dying -from hunger were thrown out. In Germany we were put into -a camp with Soviet prisoners of war. This was in a forest -section surrounded by a high barbed-wire fence. Four days -later we were taken to different places. I, my sister Valentina, -and 13 other girls were sent to an armament factory.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The third section of this report describes further the treatment -under which the Soviet workers lived in German slavery. This -part of the report also mentions the statement made by Göring -concerning Russian workers. Göring states in the above-mentioned -directives:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Russian is not fastidious and, therefore, it is easy to -feed him without affecting our food stocks to any appreciable -degree. He must not be spoiled or allowed to get accustomed -to German food.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally the note quotes a number of letters from home to the -German soldiers on the Eastern Front, which describe the humiliation -to which the Soviet workers were subjected. I will quote a -passage from one of such letters. A letter from his mother in -<span class='pageno' title='158' id='Page_158'></span> -Chemnitz was found on the body of Wilhelm Bock, killed German -private, of the 221st German Infantry Division. This letter reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Many Russian women and girls are working at the Astra -Works. They are compelled to work 14 and more hours a day. -Of course, they receive no pay whatever. They go to and -from the factory under escort. The Russians literally drop -from exhaustion. The guards often whip them. They have -no right to complain about the bad food or ill-treatment. The -other day my neighbor obtained a servant. She paid some -money at an office and was given the opportunity to choose -any woman she pleased from a number here from Russia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Letters also mention mass suicides of Russian women and men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The note ends with a declaration of the Soviet Government, -which states that it places responsibility for atrocities in this domain -on the leading Hitlerite clique and the High Command of the -German fascist Army:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Soviet Government also places full responsibility for -the above enumerated crimes upon the Hitlerite officials who -are engaged in recruiting, abducting, transporting in camps, -selling into slavery, and inhumanly exploiting peaceful Soviet -civilians who have been forcibly transported from their -native land to Germany. . . . The Soviet Government holds that -stern responsibility should be borne by such already exposed -criminals as . . . Fritz Sauckel and . . . Alfred Rosenberg.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And finally the note points out:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Soviet Government expresses the conviction that all -the Governments concerned are unanimous on the point that -the Hitler Government and its agents must bear full -responsibility and receive stern punishment for the monstrous -crimes they have committed, for the privation and suffering -they have inflicted upon millions of peaceful citizens who -have been forcibly deported into German fascist slavery.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This is the end of People’s Commissar Molotov’s note. Kindly -allow me to close my statement also with these words.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 23 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='159' id='Page_159'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-SIXTH DAY</span><br/> Saturday, 23 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before we deal with the applications, I am -going to read the Tribunal’s order upon Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum -of 4 February 1946 and the Prosecution’s motion of the 11th of -February 1946. This is the order:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal makes no order with regard to Paragraphs 2 to -5 of the Prosecution’s motion as to the evidence of the defendants, -dated the 11th of February 1946.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Paragraphs 2 and 7 of Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum -on defense procedure, dated the 4th of February 1946, the Tribunal -makes the following order:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The defendants’ cases will be heard in the order in which the -defendants’ names appear in the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. (a) During the presentation of a defendant’s case, defendant’s -counsel will read documents, will question witnesses, and will make -such brief comments on the evidence as are necessary to insure a -proper understanding of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) The defendant’s counsel may be assisted in the courtroom -by his associate counsel or by another defendant’s counsel. Such -other counsel may help the defendant’s counsel in handling documents, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>, but shall not address the Tribunal or examine witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. Documentary evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) Defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary the -original of any document which he offers in evidence if the original -is in his possession. If the original is in the possession of the Prosecution, -counsel will request the Prosecution to make the original of -the document available for introduction in evidence. If the Prosecution -declines to make the original available, the matter shall be -referred to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Should the original of any such document be in the possession -of the Tribunal, defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary -a copy of the whole or relevant part of such document, together -with a statement of the document number and the date upon which -it was received in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) Should counsel wish to offer in evidence a document, the -original of which is not in his possession or otherwise available to -<span class='pageno' title='160' id='Page_160'></span> -the Tribunal, he will hand to the General Secretary a copy of the -whole or relevant part of such document, together with an explanation -as to where and in whose possession the original is located -and the reason why it cannot be produced. Such copy shall be certified -as being correct by an appropriate certificate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. Each defendant’s counsel will compile copies of the documents -or parts of documents which he intends to offer in evidence into -a document book, and six copies of such document book will be -submitted to the General Secretary 2 weeks, if possible, before the -date on which the presentation of the defendant’s case is likely to -begin. The General Secretary will arrange for the translation of -the document book into the English, French, and Russian languages, -and the defendant’s counsel will be entitled to receive one copy of -each of these translations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. (a) Defendant’s counsel will request the General Secretary to -have the witnesses named by him and approved by the Tribunal -available in Nuremberg; such request being made, if possible, at -least 3 weeks before the date on which the presentation of a defendant’s -case is likely to begin. The General Secretary will, as far as -possible, have the witnesses brought to Nuremberg 1 week before -this date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Defendant’s counsel will notify the General Secretary not -later than noon on the day before he wishes to call each witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>6. (a) A defendant who does not wish to testify cannot be compelled -to do so, but may be interrogated by the Tribunal at any -time under Articles 17(b) and 24(f) of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) A defendant can only testify once.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) A defendant who wishes to testify on his own behalf shall -do so during the presentation of his own defense. The right of -Defense Counsel and of the Prosecution under Article 24(g) of the -Charter to interrogate and cross-examine a defendant who gives -testimony shall be exercised at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(d) A defendant who does not wish to testify on his own behalf -but who is willing to testify on behalf of a co-defendant may do so -during the presentation of the case of the co-defendant. Counsel for -other codefendants and for the Prosecution shall examine and -cross-examine him when he has concluded his testimony on behalf -of the co-defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(e) Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not limit the power of -the Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony -in exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the Tribunal the -interest of justice so requires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>7. In addition to the addresses of each defendant’s counsel under -Article 24(h), one counsel representing all the defendants will be -<span class='pageno' title='161' id='Page_161'></span> -permitted to address the Tribunal on legal issues arising out of the -Indictment and the Charter which are common to all defendants, -but in making such address he will be held to strict compliance -with Article 3 of the Charter. This address will take place at the -conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence on behalf of the -defendants, but must not last more than half a day. If possible, a -copy of the written text of the address shall be delivered to the -General Secretary in time to enable him to have translations made -in the English, French, and Russian languages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>8. In exercising his right to make a statement to the Tribunal -under Article 24(j), a defendant may not repeat matters which -already have been the subject of evidence or already have been -dealt with by his counsel when addressing the Court under -Article 24(h), but will be limited to dealing with such additional -matters as he may consider necessary before the judgment of the -Tribunal is delivered and sentence pronounced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>9. The procedure prescribed by this order may be altered by -the Tribunal at any time if it appears to the Tribunal necessary in -the interest of justice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now the Tribunal will deal with the application for witnesses -and documents on behalf of the Defendant Göring, and the procedure -which the Tribunal proposes to adopt is to ask counsel for -the defendant whose case is being dealt with to deal, in the first -instance, with his first witness, and then to ask Counsel for the -Prosecution to reply upon that witness and then, when that has -been done, to ask defendant’s counsel to deal with his second application -for a witness, and then for the Prosecution Counsel to deal -with that witness; that is to say, to hear the defendant’s counsel -and the Prosecution Counsel upon each witness in turn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That procedure will probably not be necessary when the Tribunal -comes to deal with documents. Probably it will be more -convenient for defendant’s counsel to deal with the documents -together and prosecuting counsel to deal in answer to the documents -together. But, so far as the witnesses are concerned, each -will be taken in turn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I call upon Dr. Stahmer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): -Before we go into these details I ask to be informed why the Court -has the intention of treating the Defense in a fundamentally different -manner from the Prosecution. In Article 24 of the Charter -it is stated that the Tribunal will ask the Prosecution and the -Defense whether they will submit evidence to the Tribunal and if -so, what evidence. This decision has so far not been applied by the -Tribunal in relation to the Prosecution. I am glad that today the -Defense has been granted the possibility to name to the Tribunal -<span class='pageno' title='162' id='Page_162'></span> -those documents and witnesses, which up to now have been difficult -to obtain. I am prepared today to tell the Tribunal the essential -points which establish the necessity of calling the witnesses and the -relevancy of the documents. I ask the Court, therefore on the basis -of past practice, not to allow the Prosecution to take part in judging -whether a document should be considered relevant or not. As -Defense Counsel I am convinced that I would have to submit to a -sort of precensorship by the Prosecution which would impair the -unity of my entire evidence. I may point out that the protests of -the Defense have constantly been postponed with the remark that -the Defense would be heard about these points at a later date. If -selection of evidence, on the basis of objections by the Prosecution, -takes place here today the danger arises that protests which have -been postponed will not be able to be treated later. For the reasons -stated, therefore, I request the Court to proceed according to past -practice, and decide as to the right of the Prosecution to protest -against the procurement of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel for Ribbentrop come back to -the rostrum? The Tribunal is not altogether clear what motion you -are making.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I propose that the Prosecution should not, at this -stage of the Trial, be entitled to make a decision about the calling -of witnesses and the relevancy of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, I should like to plead further on that point. I -meant by making a decision that the Prosecution should not yet, at -this time, have anything to say about the question of the admissibility -or nonadmissibility of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that your motion -cannot be granted, for this reason: It is true that the Defense is -being asked to apply for witnesses and documents now, in accordance -with Article 24(d).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One principal reason for that is that the Tribunal has got to -bring all your witnesses here. The Tribunal has been, for many -weeks, attempting to find your witnesses and to produce them here, -and to produce the documents which you want. The relevancy of -those witnesses and of those documents has got to be decided by -the Tribunal; but it is obvious that Counsel for the Prosecution must -be allowed to argue upon the question of relevancy, just as counsel -for the defendants have been allowed to argue upon the relevancy -of every witness and every document which has been introduced -by the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Exactly the same procedure is being adopted now for the defendants -as has been adopted for the Prosecution, with the sole exception -that the defendants are being asked to make applications for -<span class='pageno' title='163' id='Page_163'></span> -the witnesses and documents and to deal with the matter at one -time, rather than to deal with it as each witness or document is -produced. The reason for that is that the Tribunal, as I have stated, -have got to find and bring the witnesses here for the defendants, -and also to produce the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your motion was that the Prosecution should not receive any -possibility to decide on the calling of witnesses. The Prosecution, -of course, will not decide upon it; the Tribunal will decide upon it. -The Prosecution must have the right to argue upon it, to argue that -the evidence of a certain witness is irrelevant or cumulative, and -to argue that any document is not relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And I am reminded that all of these documents have got to be -translated for the purposes of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, many of the defendants’ counsel, -myself included, have, so far, not been able to question decisive -witnesses for the purpose of obtaining information. Therefore, in -decisive points we often do not even know exactly what a witness -can prove.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If, now, we already have to deal with the Prosecution before we -know definitely how far it is desirable to fight or not to fight for a -witness, we are in an essentially worse situation than the Prosecution, -which, whenever the defendants’ counsel made protests, -knew exactly for what their witness or their evidence was important. -In this regard the Defense is, for the most part, in a considerably -worse situation, and I am of the opinion that this situation will -become even worse if here, besides the Tribunal, the Prosecution -can also make protests against the evidence at this stage of the -Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is true that it is impossible to decide finally -upon the admissibility of any piece of evidence until the actual -question is asked; and for that reason the Tribunal has already, in -deciding provisionally upon the application for witnesses, acted in -the most liberal way. If it appears that there is any possible relevancy -in the evidence to be given by a witness, they have allowed -that witness to be alerted. Therefore, if there is any witness whose -evidence appears to be, by any possibility, relevant, the Tribunal -will allow that witness, subject, of course, to the directions of the -Charter to hold the Trial expeditiously.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Subject to those limitations, the Tribunal will allow any witness -to be called whose evidence appears to be possibly relevant. That -is all the Tribunal can do because, as I have already stated, it is -the Tribunal who has to undertake the difficult task of securing -these witnesses for the defendants, who cannot secure them themselves. -<span class='pageno' title='164' id='Page_164'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Stahmer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Mr. President, -I do not wish to repeat, but I believe that the objection of -Dr. Horn has not been understood quite rightly. Dr. Horn wanted -only to complain about the fact that the Defense in no case has been -asked previously whether an item of evidence that the Prosecution -has presented was relevant or not, but we have always been surprised -when a witness was brought in and we had no possible -opportunity to make any material objections relative to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as objections against documents were concerned, that is, -as to their relevance, the Defense has always been told that for such -an objection the time had not yet come for the Defense. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you have -misunderstood. The Defense have never been told that objections to -the admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every -objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at -the time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be -dealt with now, during the course of the Defense. I don’t mean -today, but during the course of the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is a fundamental distinction between the admissibility of -a document and the weight of a document, and all questions of -admissibility have been dealt with at the time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I fully understood that distinction. -Nor did I want to say that objections against admissibility -were turned down, but rather objections against relevancy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents—that -is to say, their admissibility—that is the governing consideration -under this Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If -they are relevant, they are admissible. That is what the Charter -says. And any objection which has been made to documents or to -evidence by defendants’ counsel has been heard by the Tribunal and -has been decided at the time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to the defendants’ -counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, -long notice that under Article 24(d) they were going to be -called upon to specify or name their witnesses and the documents -which they wish to produce, and to state what the relevancy of the -witnesses and the documents would be.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It seems to the Tribunal obvious that that procedure is really -necessary when one remembers that it is for the Tribunal, with -very great difficulty and at considerable expense, to find these witnesses -and to bring them to Nuremberg, and to find the documents, -if possible, and to bring them to Nuremberg. -<span class='pageno' title='165' id='Page_165'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, as to your or to Dr. Horn’s objections to the procedure -which has been adopted with reference to the Prosecution, it is open -to defendants’ counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply -to strike from the record any document which they think ought not -to have been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your -objection, appeared to be that defendants’ counsel have not had -sufficient time to consider whether a particular document or a -particular witness was relevant, and therefore admissible. You have -had ample time now to consider the point and if now you wish to -apply to strike out any document or to strike out any evidence, you -will make that application in writing and the Tribunal will consider -it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the -defendants and their counsel. And it is a necessary procedure -because the defendants are unable, naturally, and defendants’ -counsel are unable, naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses -here in Nuremberg, and in some cases to procure the production -of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order that we should do so, on their behalf, it is necessary -that we should know whom they want to have produced here, what -documents they want to have produced here; and, in order that -time should not be wasted and money should not be unduly wasted, -it is necessary to know whether the witnesses and the documents -have any shadow of relevancy to the issues raised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Then I shall begin with the naming of those -witnesses whose interrogation before the Tribunal I consider -necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I name first General of the Air Force Karl Bodenschatz.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal does not desire you -to read your application. If you will just say in your own words, -as shortly as you can, why you want the particular witness, they -will then consider it. And if Counsel for the Prosecution wish to -object, they will do so. Then the Tribunal will finally decide the -matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The witness I have named, General of the Air -Force Bodenschatz, who is here in the Nuremberg prison, was with -the Defendant Göring since 1933, first as adjutant and later as minister, -as Chief of the Ministerial Office. He is, therefore, informed -about all the principal events of that time. I have named him as -a witness for a number of facts which are individually contained -in my written statement, but especially that he took part in a conference -which took place at the beginning of August 1939 in Soenke -Nissen Koog, at which Göring met with English negotiators in order -to bring about, with them, the possibility of a peaceful solution of -<span class='pageno' title='166' id='Page_166'></span> -the difficulties already existing at that time between Germany and -Poland. At that time he declared to the English negotiators that a -war must not take place under any circumstances, and that they -must endeavor to settle these differences peacefully.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, he has made known statements, made by Göring -during the past years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which it can -be seen that the intention of the Defendant Göring was to avoid a -war, if possible. He declared that the policy of the Reich should be -conducted in such a way that a war could not break out under any -circumstances.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, this witness knows about the attitude of Göring -when he first heard from Hitler that Hitler intended to attack -Russia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally he is also informed about the social attitude of Göring, -whom he had ample opportunity to know very well, particularly -after 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Those are, generally, the facts about which Bodenschatz could -testify here as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the -United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general -word about the procedure of the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleagues in all the delegations have asked me to deal -primarily with these particular applications. There will be some -of them, if the Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues -would like to add a word as they have special interest in them. But -in general, and on the whole, I shall deal with the applications for -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I say that the Prosecution has proceeded on this principle, -that if there is any point of relevance in a witness for whom application -is made, they will not, of course, object. But they want to -make it quite clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are -not, by making no objections, accepting the position that every -point set out in the document or mentioned by counsel is admitted -to be relevant. By making no objection they are simply admitting -that there is some relevant point in the matter put forward.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On that basis—and the Tribunal will understand why I have to -be careful in the matter—the Prosecution makes no objection in the -case of General Bodenschatz.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I further name as a witness the former Gauleiter, -Dr. Uiberreither, who is at present here in the prison at -Nuremberg. Uiberreither is to offer the following evidence. He can -give information about a speech . . . -<span class='pageno' title='167' id='Page_167'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I say this to Sir David that perhaps, in -view of what you have said, you might be able to indicate at the -opening of Dr. Stahmer’s motion in respect to each witness whether -the Prosecution has any objection to the witness. Perhaps that -would make it easier for him to deal shortly with it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection -to Dr. Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if Counsel for the Prosecution -indicate to us that they have no objection to a particular -witness, then Dr. Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Surely.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the -evidence is, but do it shortly because the Prosecution has got no -objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, would -it not be equally convenient to the Defense, for the purpose of -shortening things, to have this evidence taken either out of an affidavit -or by interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no -objections if I have the possibility of getting a statement from the -witness himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us -what the substance of the evidence is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Göring, in the -summer of 1938, delivered a speech before the new Gauleiter of -Austria in which he dealt with the policy of the Reich and in which -he spoke about the goal and purpose of the Four Year Plan. The -witness, furthermore, was present when Göring, some time after -10 November 1938, that is, after the demonstration against the Jews, -called all the Gauleiter to Berlin and there criticized those actions -very severely. Those are the two subjects of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number -3 now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The witness is Lord Halifax. Referring to this -witness . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate—the interrogatories -have been served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The -Prosecution has no objection to the interrogatories. Of course, it -objects to his being called as a witness, but we understand that the -Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to Lord Halifax being dealt with -by means of interrogatories, and we have no objections. -<span class='pageno' title='168' id='Page_168'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I am satisfied with the reply to my interrogatories -which I have already received and I do not insist on summoning -the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may -say that also in this case the submission of an interrogatory was -approved and the interrogatory, as far as I have been able to determine, -has been sent out already. I have not yet received an answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to -Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I -will do my best to see that the answer will be forthcoming as soon -as possible. My recollection—I wasn’t able to check it—is that Sir -George is at a foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the -answers are brought and certainly will do everything to help on -the point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Whether I can ultimately forego him I shall -naturally be able to judge only when I have the interrogatory -before me. It may be that in regard to some questions he has given -an insufficient answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Dahlerus or Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Forbes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted -to you as soon as they are answered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. -Interrogatories have been granted for him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: With regard to the testimony of Dahlerus I have -to say the following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so -important that an interrogatory could not exhaust all his knowledge -and therefore I ask to have the witness called so that he can -be interrogated here in court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If this should not be possible, I ask for the opportunity to question -him personally at Stockholm. Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus -personally, and he will make a statement concerning this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I have -known Mr. Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has -written to me about the fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him -as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus, in principle, is prepared to come to -Nuremberg without further ado if the Court approves. As soon as -the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus, as far as I can deduce from his -letter, will certainly be ready to come personally. -<span class='pageno' title='169' id='Page_169'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to say something else, as a matter of principle. In the -case of important witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could -answer questions which are of far-reaching historic importance, most -probably not only one defendant’s counsel will want to ask questions, -but the subject concerns several Defense Counsels. Therefore, an -interrogatory which comes only from Dr. Stahmer, would, in my -opinion, not be sufficient in such a case. I therefore ask the admission -of the witness also from this point of view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -position as to the Witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put in -interrogatories consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of -that at all. I only bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show -that Dr. Stahmer has certainly covered the ground.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer’s -application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is -Dahlerus’ book—if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish—<span class='it'>Sista -Forsoket</span>, (<span class='it'>The Last Attempt</span>). That is a quite lengthy book, dealing -in detail with this point, and it is desired, and the Tribunal has -allowed, that Dr. Stahmer will use it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of -interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign -Minister, and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor -in Berlin, and on the main point of the matter, that Dr. Dahlerus -had certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no -dispute.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my respectful submission, the defendant is well covered by -the interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax -and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes; and the book, and the evidence of -the Defendant Göring himself; and it is unnecessary to investigate -this matter further as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and -can come and should come from Sweden.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, has the Prosecution -administered cross-interrogatories to Dahlerus?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the Defendant -Raeder’s counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that -I know of is by the Defendant Ribbentrop’s counsel on a limited -point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Before the Court makes a decision about the witness -Dahlerus, I would like to inform the Tribunal that I have asked for -that witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus, -in the decisive hours before the outbreak of World War II in -1939, played a decisive role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can -<span class='pageno' title='170' id='Page_170'></span> -give important evidence about the last document which contained -the conditions for further negotiations with Poland. This document -was the cause of the second World War. I believe that this should -be sufficient reason to call the witness Dahlerus to come here, especially -since Dr. Siemers has declared that he knows that the witness -is prepared to come on his own initiative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: In view of the importance of this motion to me, -may I in addition state the following: I have sent an interrogatory -with 52 questions; but I do not believe that these questions really -exhaust the subject matter of the evidence. For it is impossible, as -I said before, to summarize everything that the witness knows -strategically and to bring it out in such sequence that the Tribunal -can have a complete picture of the important function which -Dahlerus exercised at that time in the interests of England as -well as of Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that -point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have named Dr. Baron -Von Hammerstein, who was Judge Advocate General in the Air -Force and who is at this time a prisoner of war either in American -or British hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, -the Tribunal allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February; -and Dr. Stahmer has not yet submitted the interrogatories; and the -witness is not yet located. I have no objection to interrogatories. -It seems as if this is essentially the type of witness that interrogatories -would be most helpful with. He was the equivalent, as I -understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and -interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in this application, -would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no objection at -all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer the interrogatories -as soon as he likes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: As far as I can find out, I have not received -any resolution that an interrogatory should be submitted, but I -would nevertheless like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You must be mistaken about that, Dr. Stahmer, -because upon our documents the right to administer interrogatories -was granted on the 9th of February.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I cannot find it at the moment. I must check -on it first; but in any case I am making the request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Hammerstein has known the defendant for many years, specifically -in a field which is of greatest importance for the forming of -an opinion concerning the defendant’s attitude towards justice and -<span class='pageno' title='171' id='Page_171'></span> -also towards the treatment of the population in occupied territory -and of prisoners of war, and here also in my opinion, it will be -decisively important that the witness should give to the Tribunal -detailed information about these facts and describe them in a -manner which cannot possibly be expressed in an interrogatory or -in answer to an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the -interrogatories have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat -a day or two ago. I don’t want to add to my point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I believe that is correct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Werner von Brauchitsch, -Jr., colonel in the Air Force, son of General Field Marshal Von -Brauchitsch, who is here in the courthouse prison in Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel -Von Brauchitsch.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: This witness is to give information about the -attitude of the defendant with regard to lynch justice, to terror -fliers, and with regard to his attitude towards enemy fliers in -general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Next, General of the Air Force Kammhuber, who is a prisoner -of war either in American or British captivity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber, -interrogatories were also allowed on the 9th of February of -this year, and they have not been submitted, as far as my information -goes, and again the witness has not been located. I have no objection -to interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably -Dr. Stahmer could decide whether it is necessary to call the -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remind the Tribunal that this sketch was introduced in quite -guarded terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to -me the sort of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed -statement could be put in about this?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the -interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that, -because as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan -showing the Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts -outside Germany, and Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said -that he was not stating positively that it had been placed before the -Defendant Göring. Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be -most ready to consider it, and, if possible, agree on the point. -<span class='pageno' title='172' id='Page_172'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, a prisoner of -war in American hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection -to General Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he -should be alerted. He has not yet been located, but if he is located, -then clearly the matters suggested are relevant in the view of the -Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, a prisoner of war in -English hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection -to this witness. If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I have -not had the chance to take this particular point up with my French -colleague. As far as I know there is no objection. I would like to -verify that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. Champetier -de Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the -courthouse prison in Nuremberg at the present time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and -the Prosecution takes the same attitude: No objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We would like to hear some explanation from -you, Dr. Stahmer, on what the evidence—what is the relevance of -Field Marshal Kesselring’s evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant -because the Prosecution has declared that Rotterdam had been -attacked without military necessity, and that the attack, in addition, -took place at a time when negotiations were already under way for -the capitulation of the city.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but -General Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, -as I understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field -Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn’t it be sufficient -to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Dr. Von Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, -whose whereabouts are unknown to me, but who has presumably -been released from captivity and may be at his home in -Hamburg now. -<span class='pageno' title='173' id='Page_173'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are -really on the same point. As I understand it, I thought that—my -copy is very bad, but I read it—the defendant was not informed -of the experiments conducted by two doctors—the first one must be -Rascher, I think, and Dr. Romberg—on inmates of Dachau and other -places; that the defendant himself never arranged for any experiments -whatsoever on prisoners, and Field Marshal Milch—Paragraph -A—said that the defendant was not informed of the letters exchanged -between the witness and Wolff concerning the experiments conducted -by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were employed, and -the witness did not even inform the defendant of this subject; and -that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau, withdrew from -the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We have no -objection to the witness being called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Von Ondarza, -that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should -be alerted on 26 January. Field Marshal Milch is in the prison. -Again I should have thought that in these circumstances we would -make no objection to Field Marshal Milch being called on this point, -and if the surgeon, Von Ondarza can be located, then I shall agree -to interrogatories, but I don’t feel very. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, -if we were to grant the application to call Field Marshal Milch on -this point and were to allow an interrogatory for the other witness -when he has been located?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I have also examined the question whether the -evidence would be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence -to be offered by Milch is slightly different, and the Defendant Göring -considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. -Ondarza was his physician for many years and therefore is well -informed, and he is furthermore to tell us that the Defendant Göring -did not know anything about the experiments which were made -with these 500 brains. That is not yet in my application, but I have -just found out about that. There was a long deposition which was -submitted by the Prosecution concerning these 500 brains. I protested -against that at the time and I was told that I should make this -objection at a specified time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what -you say upon that. You can turn now to Körner.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Körner, who is here in -Nuremberg in the courthouse prison. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection on the part -of the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='174' id='Page_174'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, in our documents it is stated -that the suggested witness Paul Körner is not located, but in the -document of your application you say that he is in the Nuremberg -prison.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I did receive that information at one time. At -this moment I cannot say where my information comes from.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I -could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the matter can -be checked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a -roster of internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear -to be in that list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr. -Stahmer?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Körner was a state secretary since 1933 and he -can testify about the purpose behind the establishment of concentration -camps in 1933, about the treatment of the people -imprisoned there, and that Göring was in charge of these camps -only until 1934. He can also testify about the measures and -regulations, the purpose and aim of the Four Year Plan, and also -about the attitude of the defendant after he had been informed in -November 1938, about the anti-Jewish incidents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English or -an American camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, is -that interrogatories were allowed on the 9th of February. They have -not yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I have -no objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr. Lohse or the next -witness, Dr. Bunjes, who deals with the same point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems -to me important—considering the weight of the accusations which -have been made here against the defendant—so important that I ask -to hear him as witness here before this Tribunal. The question is a -very short one: He is to testify as to what the defendant’s attitude -<span class='pageno' title='175' id='Page_175'></span> -was toward the acquisition of art objects in the occupied territories. -That is, to be sure, a very short subject, but for the judgment of -the defendant it is extremely important; and the accusation made by -the Prosecution in this respect is extremely serious.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing now with Dr. Bunjes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal; the -interrogatories apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, -and the Prosecution respectfully submits that we should see what -Dr. Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and then Dr. -Stahmer can, if necessary, renew the application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about -Dr. Bunjes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He seems to be, My Lord, in -exactly the same position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not think I need -repeat what I said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Except that he may be located. I do not know -where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference -to Dr. Bunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find -out whether he can be located or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps Dr. Stahmer knows.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp -at Hersbruck. That is here in the vicinity of Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall have inquiries made -about him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bunjes—do you know where he can be -located?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No; his home is in Trier, but whether he is there -I do not know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses, -does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are those all the witnesses that you are -applying for?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list? -<span class='pageno' title='176' id='Page_176'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I cannot yet foresee how far the Prosecution, -which has not finished the presentation of its case, will make it -necessary for me to make further applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider your documents the Tribunal -will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents -more as a whole. Have you anything to say about them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning -the two witnesses, Koller and Körner? I was just told that -Koller was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Körner a lower staff -officer. Both were repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces. -This indication may make it easier and more possible to locate the -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of -course, we will do our best to help in locating them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Koller and Körner. They are -both witnesses to whom I made no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the -Tribunal please, if I were to explain the general position of the -Prosecution with regard to the documents, and then Dr. Stahmer -could deal with these points because they fall into certain groups -which I can indicate quite shortly. There are three documents which -are not in evidence, but to which there is no objection: Number 19, -the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, -and the Court can take judicial cognizance of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the Constitution of the German -Reich, the Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919. Again I shall -assume the Court will take judicial cognizance of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Number 30, Hitler’s speech -of 21 May 1935.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which -are already in evidence as far as I know:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 4, the Rhine Pact of Locarno; Number 5, the Memorandum -to the Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935; Number 6, -<span class='pageno' title='177' id='Page_177'></span> -Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936; -Number 9, the Treaty of Versailles; Number 17, the speech by the -Defendant Von Neurath, of 16 October 1933; Number 18, the -proclamation by the Reich Government, of the 16th of March 1935. -And then Number 7 was referred to but not read. That is the speech -by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop before the League of Nations on -the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been referred to -and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the -moment referred to the whole book: Number 1, the late Lord -Rothermere’s book, <span class='it'>Warnings and Prophecies</span>; Number 2, the late -Sir Nevile Henderson’s <span class='it'>Failure of a Mission</span>; Number 3, the -references to a number of years of the <span class='it'>Dokumente der Deutschen -Politik</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, don’t they, in -the ones that follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, -are taken from those volumes, aren’t they, of the <span class='it'>Deutschen Politik</span>?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My -Lord. If I might just give Your Lordship the others so that you -have the group together:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 8, Mr. Fay’s book on the <span class='it'>Origin of the World War</span>, the -first World War; Number 20, Mr. Winston Churchill’s book, <span class='it'>Step by -Step</span>; Number 24, the Defendant Göring’s book, <span class='it'>Building up a Nation</span>; -Number 26, to which I have already referred, is Mr. Dahlerus’ book, -<span class='it'>The Last Attempt</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is -mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into -Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already; -secondly, the relevancy of the book cannot be decided until we see -the extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution -submits that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us -know what are the extracts on which he relies so that they can be -translated and we can decide as to whether they are relevant or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the -issue is not clear or insofar as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. -One to which I have already referred comes into this:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 8, Fay on <span class='it'>The Origin of the First World War</span>. Number -10, speech by President Wilson, of 8 January 1918—that is the -14-point speech; Number 11, the note of President Wilson, of 5 November -1918—that is the Armistice note; Number 12, a speech by -M. Paul Boncour, of 8 April 1927; Number 13, a speech by General -Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before 1921, because it is quoted in -<span class='it'>What Really Happened at Paris</span>, published in 1921; Number 14, a -speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November 1927; -<span class='pageno' title='178' id='Page_178'></span> -Number 15, an article by Lord Cecil, on the 1st of March 1924, and -another on the 18th of November 1926; Number 16, Lord Lloyd -George’s memorandum for the peace conference of 25 March 1919.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only -relevancy of these books and documents is to the issue of whether -the Treaty of Versailles accorded with the 14 Points of President -Wilson. The Prosecution submits that that is poles removed from -the issues of this Trial and is just one of the matters against which -the whole intendment of the Charter proceeds and which should not -be gone into by this Court. It may be that I am wrong, or so it -seems, difficult, in view of the collection of documents, to suppose -that there is another issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, -that Dr. Stahmer ought to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to -which these documents are directed and, where the document is -long, to indicate what extract he refers to. But if the issue be that -that I have referred to, then in the submission of the Prosecution—I -speak for all my colleagues—we submit that it is a completely -irrelevant matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Number -21 and 22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They -ought to be added.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I have already dealt with Number 20, Mr. Churchill’s book. -Apart from the question of extracts, again the Prosecution submits -that it ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book -has been quoted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 23 is a missive of M. Tchitcherin, stated to be the Foreign -Commissar of the U.S.S.R., to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the -Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to -which that is directed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Göring’s book, I have already dealt with, and I -ask that we should get extracts. Number 28, General Fuller’s book -on <span class='it'>Total War</span> or an essay on <span class='it'>Total War</span>—again the Prosecution does -not know the issue at which it is directed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then my fifth category, Number 27, which is the White Books of -the German Foreign Office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And I draw attention to Number 4, document to the Anglo-France -policy of extending the war; Number 5, further document as to the -western policy of extending the war; Number 6 are secret files of -the French General Staff; Number 29, documentations and reports -of the German Foreign Office regarding breaches of the Hague -regulations for land warfare and Crimes against Humanity committed -by the powers at war with the German Reich. These last -documents seem to raise quite clearly the issues of <span class='it'>tu quoque</span>: If the -Reich committed breaches of the laws and usages of war, other -people did the same thing. The submission of the Prosecution is -<span class='pageno' title='179' id='Page_179'></span> -that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the -conventions and it is no answer, even if it were true that someone -else had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional -reason, that it would be quite impracticable and intolerable if this -Tribunal were to embark on the further task of investigating every -allegation, however tenuously founded, that some one else had not -maintained these conventions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is in the submission of the Prosecution—again I speak for all -my colleagues—a matter which is completely irrelevant; and therefore -we object to any evidence, whether oral or documentary, -intended on that point. Of course, we all along have taken the view -that we have no objection to the Defense Counsel having access to -these documents in order to use them for refreshing their memory -as to the background, but we object to their introduction in evidence -for the reasons that I have given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, perhaps you could say in -the first instance whether you agree, that so far as the books are -concerned that you would be willing to provide the extracts upon -which you rely? You cannot expect the Prosecution or the Tribunal -to get the whole books translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: This was also not my intention, and I believe -that I prefaced my list of documents with a remark in which, under -Number 2 I had pointed out, and had declared myself willing to -specify the quotations. To that extent, of course, the objection in -itself is in order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Another topic the Prosecution has attacked is -the books which I have cited, and which refer to the Treaty of Versailles. -Here also I will state specifically to what extent I wish to -use quotations from these books. As a matter of principle, however, -the Defense must be granted the right to present its point of view -in this matter, since after all. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, all these books which Sir David -referred to, of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice, of course, -you can make comment upon them if you wish, as on any document -of which the Tribunal takes judicial notice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were referring to the -Treaty of Versailles.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No; with the literature concerning the Treaty of -Versailles.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with the ones which Sir -David itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22? -<span class='pageno' title='180' id='Page_180'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Since an essential accusation made by the Prosecution -is that the defendants violated the Treaty of Versailles, the -Defense naturally has to take a stand relative to the question as to -whether and to what extent the breach of the treaty took place and -whether and to what extent that treaty was still valid. To that -extent, at least, the books and dissertations which deal with these -questions are important. I believe that an understanding of this -question in detail can be reached only after I have submitted the -quotations, and that will take place at the beginning of the presentation -of testimony. I have not been able to accomplish the work.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you confusing the question of validity -with the question of justice?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this sphere also the Defense is -justified in demanding the presentation of the <span class='it'>White Books</span>, because -the contents of these <span class='it'>White Books</span> will, to a great extent, be of importance -in the question of the war of aggression; and to that extent -also a reference to these books has significance. Here also, I believe, -it will only be possible to make a decision after the individual -quotations from these <span class='it'>White Books</span> have been read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, the presentation of the reports concerning the -breaches of the Hague Convention has been demanded. I believe -that this motion cannot be rejected with the remark that it is not -concerned with the question whether such breaches were committed -on the other side too. This fact, in my opinion, is of importance in -two ways. First of all, to reach a just decision one has to make sure -whether the conduct on the other side was really correct and beyond -reproach and it is furthermore of importance because it involves the -question of whether the defendants were not resorting to retaliatory -measures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think you have dealt with each topic with -the exception of Numbers 20, 23, and 28. Number 20 is Mr. Winston -Churchill’s book; 23 is Tchitcherin’s, and 28 is General Fuller’s book. -We will take those.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Book Number 20, Churchill’s <span class='it'>Step by Step</span>—here -we are concerned with statements in which Churchill at one point -expresses his opinion as to whether England, by the Naval Treaty -of 1935, had not sanctioned Germany’s renunciation of the Versailles -Treaty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, this book is of importance as far as I can see it -now, in evaluating the extent to which England rearmed, and -<span class='pageno' title='181' id='Page_181'></span> -finally at various points in that book there are references to Hitler’s -personality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I say with the greatest respect -to Dr. Stahmer that he has reinforced my point, that if Dr. Stahmer -is putting forward the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision -on the matters before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate -whether other belligerents have committed breaches of conventions, -then, as I say, I join issue with him <span class='it'>in toto</span>. I cannot add to the -matter. But with regard to Mr. Churchill, Dr. Stahmer makes three -points; one, that some passages in the book give color to the idea -that by the naval agreement the validity of the Versailles Treaty -was affected. That is a point to which there are obviously many -answers, including the facts that France was a party to the treaty -and the United States was a party to a treaty in the same terms. -But clearly Mr. Churchill’s view expressed in a book, as to the legal -effect of one treaty or another, is in my submission irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Equally irrelevant is the British rearmament and the personality -of Mr. Churchill himself. And I respectfully submit, without going -into detail, that Dr. Stahmer has, by his examples, confirmed the -argument that these matters are irrelevant to the issues before the -Court. I do not wish to say more.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to know -if you would go back from this question, or if you like, deal with -anything you have to say about Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s observations -about Mr. Churchill’s book. If you prefer to do that, do that -now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these -documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further -about Document 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should -develop your argument as to how those documents can be relevant. -For instance, Document 10 and Document 11, the speeches and notes -of President Wilson. How can such documents as that have any -bearing upon this Trial or indeed upon the validity of the Treaty of -Versailles? But take it in your own order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: These speeches form the foundation of the Versailles -Treaty and they are significant therefore for the interpretation -of the treaty. Consequently it is important to refer to the speeches, -in order to judge the contents of the treaty and the question whether -Germany rightfully or wrongly renounced the treaty, that is, -whether thereby a breach of the treaty took place, or whether the -treaty actually gave Germany the right to withdraw.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything further -about Number 20, 23, or 28? -<span class='pageno' title='182' id='Page_182'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Number 23 refers to the -same questions regarding the interpretation and the contents of the -treaty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The statement by the Foreign Commissar of -the U.S.S.R. in 1924. . . . Very well, you say that it is relevant on the -interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles. And General Fuller’s -book. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: General Fuller also refers in this speech to the -personality of Hitler and to the question of rearmament.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that concludes them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will consider their decision upon your witnesses -and upon your documents. Have you anything further to say -upon it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Professor Dr. Franz Exner approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Exner?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): -May it please the Court, I take the liberty of adding something for -the specific reason that there is danger that evidence may be -refused which is of crucial importance for my client also. It concerns -evidence which will show that War Crimes and violations of international -law were committed by the other side too. The Prosecutor -has said that this is irrelevant as far as we are concerned here in -this Trial. The Defense certainly does not think of making -defendants of the prosecutors, but this point is certainly not -irrelevant, specifically because:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, it has to do with the concept of retaliation in international -law. Retaliation justifies an action, which under normal circumstances -would be illegal. That is to say, retaliation then has this -significance when the individual action is the answer to a violation -of international law committed by the other side. If, therefore one -wants to justify one’s own action from the point of view of -retaliation—one can only do so by proving that violations of law -have preceded it on the other side.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known -that this war in the beginning was conducted relatively humanely -and. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you will forgive me, the argument -which you are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer -and will, of course, be fully considered by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>] -<span class='pageno' title='183' id='Page_183'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you continue then, Dr. Exner?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known -that at the beginning of this war international law was respected -on both sides and that the war was conducted humanely. It was -only in the second phase of the war that a terrible bitterness among -the fighting powers developed and on both sides things occurred -which international law cannot sanction. In my opinion, it is -entirely important in the judgment of a crime, whatever crime that -may be, to consider the motive. If one does not know the motive -of the action, one cannot judge the action itself. And the bitterness -which was started, purely psychologically, by the manner in which -the war was conducted on one side and on the other, was the -motive for actions which normally cannot be justified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I therefore ask the Tribunal to consider carefully before this -evidence is declared irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I should like to mention a matter of principle -with reference to the manner in which the relevancy of evidence -is being discussed. If I understand the Tribunal correctly, then -we should talk today about the relevancy of those witnesses and -documents which are still to be brought here. That was exactly -what was stated in the Tribunal’s decision of 18 February.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, however, the Prosecution has brought the discussion round -to documents which we already have in our hands. I ask the -Tribunal to understand me correctly if I protest unequivocally to -this. In no case was it possible to discuss the relevancy of the -Prosecution’s documents weeks before they were presented. If I -have documents in my possession, as is the case with most of the -documents about which we have spoken, then, as defendant’s -counsel, I must be able to submit these documents without the -consent of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David has said that the relevancy of books which are here -in the building is to be examined after we have presented the -extracts, and then the Prosecution will decide whether they are -relevant. Sir David has also said that numerous books which are -here are not relevant. If this motion by the Prosecution is granted, -then that is an extraordinary limitation of the Defense which I -cannot accept without protest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court -has declared that each letter and each document could be presented -and therefore I do not understand why we are now arguing about -the relevancy of documents which are at hand, since, in my opinion, -the Court has already said that we will argue only about the -relevancy of documents which are still missing. -<span class='pageno' title='184' id='Page_184'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I -had explained this morning—in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn -on behalf of the Defendant Ribbentrop—what the Tribunal was -seeking to do today, was to follow the provision of Article 24(d), -which provides that the Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and -Defense what evidence, if any, they wish to submit to the Tribunal, -and the Tribunal shall rule on the admissibility of any such evidence, -and I pointed out that the reason why the Defense had been to -some extent treated in a different way from the Prosecution was -because in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has got to find all -the witnesses and bring them here, and the Tribunal has got, in -many instances, to find the documents or supply the documents; -and therefore it isn’t reasonable that the Tribunal should be asked -to bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance -with the Charter, until the Tribunal has heard argument upon the -admissibility of the witness or the document. And that is what it -is doing. I thought that I had fully explained that in answer to -Dr. Horn’s argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is perfectly true that you cannot rule finally on the admissibility -of a document or the admissibility of a witness until -you have actually heard the passage in the document which is -relied upon or the questions put to the witness which are said to be -relevant or irrelevant. Therefore, the final determination upon the -question of admissibility will be when the witness is put in the -witness-box and asked questions or the document or the passage -from the document is actually produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Excuse me, but I believe that this still does -not answer one point. It is undoubtedly true that we are arguing -here about documents and witnesses which are not at our disposal. -But it is a different thing in the case of those documents which are -already here in this building and which are at our disposal as -Defense Counsel. To give an example:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The <span class='it'>White Books</span> which Sir David has mentioned are here; why -should we argue now about the relevance of this evidence? This -question has nothing to do with the delay of the Trial, nor with -the procurement of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything, General -Rudenko?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Sir David has already -expressed the point of view of the Prosecution on the question -raised by the Defense Counsel. I should like to add to what has -already been said by Sir David regarding the statements made -here by the Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The position of Defense Counsel Exner is that the Defense would -not intentionally turn the prosecutor into a defendant and that the -<span class='pageno' title='185' id='Page_185'></span> -Defense will resort to a method of analysis and explanation of -events which will establish the motives, for in its opinion, the -motive is unknown, and in order to determine this motive it is -necessary to examine the question: Were the Geneva and Hague -Conventions at least violated by other powers at war with Germany? -It stands to reason in my opinion—and I believe that I am also -expressing the point of view of all the Prosecution—it is really -strange to hear such a statement on the part of a lawyer after a -3-months’ trial and after the presentation of a mass of evidence by -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense unquestionably has full right to submit proof—documents -and witnesses—on all counts of the charges lodged against the -defendants; and, as is evident from this morning’s session, when the -Prosecution examined the request on behalf of the Defendant -Göring, as is known to the esteemed Tribunal, the Prosecution, in -its opinion, gave its consent, in major part, to the calling of witnesses. -But in the question raised by Dr. Exner we have here -positive divergences of opinions and divergences of principle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution considers it impossible to diverge from the one -fundamental and decisive factor, that this is a trial of the major -German war criminals. The Tribunal is investigating atrocities -perpetrated by the Hitlerite fascists and as a result of this position, -and not losing sight of this fact, the Defense certainly could submit, -after examining and analyzing the evidence already presented by -the Prosecution, this or that evidence which in some manner could -change individual details. But it is, not admissible and it would -indeed be a grave violation of the Charter to transform examination -of these charges into a digression on questions having no relation -whatever to this particular Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution therefore so energetically objects to the requests -for and incorporation of such documents as have absolutely no -relevancy to this Trial and the examination of which, without a -doubt, would lead to a digression from the basic fact. This is what -I wanted to add to what Sir David has said on behalf of the -Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do -now, I want to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment -are required to name their witnesses and the subject matter of their -evidence, and the documents and the relevance of the documents, -by Wednesday next at 5 p. m. The Tribunal will hold a similar -session to the session it has been holding this morning with -reference to the defense of those defendants on Saturday next at -10 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will now adjourn until a quarter past 2.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='186' id='Page_186'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. With -reference to the announcement that I made this morning, the -Tribunal may hear the applications for witnesses and documents -of the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick -before Saturday. That will depend upon the progress of the case. -I have already stated that those applications must be deposited -with the General Secretary by 5 o’clock p. m. on Wednesday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, all the defendants, other than the first eight named -in the Indictment, must make application naming their witnesses -and the relevancy of their evidence, and the documents and the -relevancy of the documents, by Friday next at 5 p. m.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next -at 4 p. m.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Perhaps I also ought to say that this does not affect—it does not -refer directly to defendants’ counsel who represent the criminal -organizations. Those counsel will be heard after the close of the -Prosecution’s case, as has already been announced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Next would be Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the -Tribunal did desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, -which was raised by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the -Tribunal would care to hear further matter on it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal would like to hear that now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United -States): May it please the Tribunal, I wish to say at the very outset, -that I have made a rather hurried preparation during the noon -recess of the few notes on this subject based on some work which -we had done a little earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go -into the matter to any great extent at this time, but I did want to -call to the attention of the Tribunal a few of these notes that we -have prepared, and to say that, in view of Dr. Exner’s contention -that some of the documents which are offered by the Defense, or -which they intend or hope to offer, are admissible on the theory -or under the doctrine of reprisal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We would like to say to the Tribunal that the Convention of 1929 -concerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits -altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war. Parenthetically, -I might say that the United States prohibited in its Army -instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862 or 1863.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, I should like to point out that the Hague regulations -do not mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use -of so-called “reprisal action” against civilians. -<span class='pageno' title='187' id='Page_187'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It appears that the Brussels conference of 1874, which accepted -the unratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in international law—that -conference rejected or struck out several sections which were -proposed by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of -reprisal action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting -and indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the -matter of reprisals against civilians as early as then.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that it is -commonly said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal -action may be taken a notice of some character is usually required, -and this reprisal action is directed against some specific instance -which the first power believes to be offensive and which it believes -may call for or justify the use of reprisal action. So that some -notice of some kind seems to be required by the power which feels -it has been offended to the offending power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might say that in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief we specifically -avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war -of the shackling of prisoners of war, because there, there was some -color of notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These are the points that we have had in mind during this brief -recess this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us -do it, we shall be glad to prepare ourselves further, and to be -heard further on this subject at a later date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -position with regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl’s -communication to the Tribunal; and I have one or two comments -to make on that on behalf of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you comment upon that, Dr. Seidl? -Would it be convenient to follow the same course as we followed -with Dr. Stahmer, and perhaps Sir David may say if he has any -objection, first of all to the witnesses, one by one, that you are -asking for?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ALFRED SEIDL: I should like, however, to request the -Court to permit me a short preparatory remark and to make a -motion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: My Lords, from what happened in this morning’s -session I gained the conviction that now the Trial has entered into -a decisive phase, at any rate as far as concerns the Defense. I -consequently feel myself obliged to make the following application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to ask that the Court, at this point in the Trial, -should, when examining the relevancy of the evidence submitted -<span class='pageno' title='188' id='Page_188'></span> -by the Defense, limit itself to the witnesses, and postpone examination -of the relevancy of documents until a later time. To establish -reason for this I permit myself to point out the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Court issued a ruling regarding the submission of evidence -by the Defense for the first time on 17 December 1945. In this -ruling only witnesses and not documents were discussed. A second -decision is that of 18 February in which the following introductory -remark is made, “In order to avoid delay in the securing of witnesses -and documents, Defense Counsel shall . . .” and then follow -the remaining contents of the ruling.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am of the opinion, My Lords, that the question as to whether -a document has relevancy or not can only be decided when I have -this document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar -with the precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a -summary proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the -admissibility of whole books is supposed to be decided on, to pass -appropriate judgment as to whether a particular passage in a document -has relevancy or not. This question can be decided clearly -and definitely only if the Prosecution and the Court as well have -the document in their hands in the form in which the Defense -wishes to submit it. I am convinced . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this -morning that the question of the final admissibility, whether of -witnesses as evidence, or documentary evidence, can only be finally -decided when the document is actually put in or when the witness -is actually asked a question. What we are now considering is -whether the document has any possibility of relevance and must, -therefore, be searched for, if necessary, or sent for.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, -it is not necessary . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal thinks that you had -better deal with your witnesses and documents now, and we do not -desire to hear any further general arguments on the subject. We -desire to hear you upon the documents and the witnesses which -you wish to call and produce.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is, then, a question of the documents I already -have in my possession and not of the documents which I wish to -obtain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to -mention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply -the documents that must first be procured. -<span class='pageno' title='189' id='Page_189'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for -certain witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you -upon that application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next -Wednesday for the Defendant Frank, and I should like to know -whether those documents should be brought up which I already -have in my hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with -your witnesses in the same way that Dr. Stahmer did.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I intend to hear is Fräulein -Ingeborg Berg, a former secretary to the Defendant Rudolf Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not seen this -list until a moment ago.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg; -is that right?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl tells me that this -lady was a private secretary to Hess, it seems to me, <span class='it'>prime facie</span>, -reasonable that there was a chance of discussing the matter. As a -general rule it seems to me reasonable that a private secretary -should be called who can corroborate the matters with which the -defendant was dealing. I do not think any of my colleagues will -disagree with that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: My second witness is the previous Gauleiter and -head of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle, who -is imprisoned here on remand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have not really adopted the -procedure which the Tribunal asked you to adopt. You have not -specified the relevance of the evidence which you wish to produce. -You have referred to some previous application. The Tribunal has -not got all these applications before it at the moment, and therefore -we wish to know in what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg -is relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The witness Ingeborg Berg was the secretary -of the Defendant Hess at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to -make statements regarding the time Hess began making preparations -for his flight to England, and what sort of preparations they were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>She is further to testify as to what Hess’s attitude was toward -the Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with -the Jewish pogrom of 8 November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nuremberg?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: She is here, in Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the second witness now, -if you like. -<span class='pageno' title='190' id='Page_190'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the -Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle. He is imprisoned -on remand in Nuremberg. He is to testify whether the Auslands-Organisation -developed any activity which might make it appear to -be a Fifth Column.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is -one of our allegations against the Auslands-Organisation, and -therefore it does seem relevant. I make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Walter Schellenberg is the third witness I mention. -Whether I shall be able to uphold his application I can only judge -after the Court has given me the opportunity to speak to this witness -who is here in Nuremberg. I do not know whether the witness can -give pertinent evidence concerning the time in question, prior to -10 May 1941. I should like to avoid occupying the time of the -Tribunal with the hearing of a witness whose hearing proves that -he cannot offer pertinent evidence. I consequently ask the Tribunal -first of all for permission to speak to this witness for the purpose -of getting information.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir -David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the -witness Schellenberg who was called for the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that it would be very -undesirable to have private conversations with witnesses before -cross-examination. If Dr. Seidl wishes to cross-examine the witness -Schellenberg further, then he ought to apply to the Court to cross-examine -him in open court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the -defendants’ counsel asked to postpone the further cross-examination -of Dr. Schellenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not -to the further cross-examination; that is a matter, of course, which -is entirely for the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my -recollection is that Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kauffmann also wanted to -cross-examine the witness further, and therefore I submit that, both -generally and on this particular occasion, it would be very undesirable -for any counsel who is going to cross-examine to have a -private conversation with the witness before he cross-examines. -That is the matter to which I object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants’ counsel finally -decide that they are not going to cross-examine the witness, I -<span class='pageno' title='191' id='Page_191'></span> -suppose then they would be able to examine him in chief if they -wanted to do so, to call him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, My -Lord, of that procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by -one side, then the other side must, in my respectful submission, do -what they can by way of cross-examination. The witness is before -the Court and, as the Prosecution have called the witness, then I -submit that the Defense should deal with the witness by way of -cross-examination. They have the additional rights which cross-examination -gives, which is a compensation for the other rights -which they would have if he were their own witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Perhaps we might find a solution whereby I would -renounce the right to cross-examination, and if the witness could -actually say something pertinent, I could let him give me an affidavit. -I do not believe that the Prosecution would object to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of -evidence applicable to this Trial, would it be objectionable, would -you say, if the Defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the -presence of a representative of the Prosecution, if that is satisfactory -to them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the Prosecution all -desire that only the interest of justice should be furthered, and if -the Tribunal consider that that would be a suitable method of -dealing with it, the Prosecution would raise no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Unless you wish to say something further -about Schellenberg, the Tribunal will consider your application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish -to refer to?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the -resolution of 18 February, every Defense Counsel has the right, -until the conclusion of the Trial, to ask permission to call further -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; -in accordance with the order of the Tribunal to which you are -referring, this is the time at which you are to apply for any witnesses -you want. The Tribunal always has the discretion, which it -would exercise, if you prefer to make any further applications. If -later you want to ask for further witnesses, the Tribunal will -always consider your application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Did you get that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. -<span class='pageno' title='192' id='Page_192'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the question of whether the Auslands-Organisation, the -Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland, and the Bund Deutscher -Osten had anything to do with the activities of a Fifth Column, a -further witness who would come into question is the brother of the -Defendant Rudolf Hess, Alfred Hess, who was formerly a deputy -Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation, and is at present in -Mergentheim in an internment camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got your application in -front of us with reference to that. If you want to make any further -application you may do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: I have made the application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application -now, since the Tribunal has asked me to speak. I am, of -course, prepared to submit that application in writing later.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you now, then, upon -this application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards -as a matter of record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What was the name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Hess, Alfred. His last official position was Deputy -Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP. At present -he is in the internment camp in Mergentheim.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because -he was going to speak as to Fifth Column activities; was that it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Regarding the Fifth Column and regarding the -question of whether the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP and -the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland and the Bund -Deutscher Osten have anything to do with a Fifth Column or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded -that this is a relevant issue, and therefore the only question -is cumulation. The Defendant Hess will himself be able to speak -on this point, and the witness further if the Tribunal allows it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal might well consider, in my submission, that an -affidavit or interrogatories from a third witness on the point would -be sufficient at the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in -which case Dr. Seidl could summon the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention first to read further -passages from individual documents in Rudolf Hess’s document -book which was submitted by the Prosecution in order to establish -<span class='pageno' title='193' id='Page_193'></span> -the connection. A further justification of the relevance of these -documents would be superfluous, since it is entirely a question of -documents submitted by the Prosecution which have already been -accepted in evidence by the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in -this form:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I intend to read pages from the following books: <span class='it'>Rudolf -Hess’s Speeches</span>; <span class='it'>Directives of the Deputy of the Führer</span>. The -relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply from the -fact that both have already been introduced in evidence by -the Prosecution.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as the documents are documents already before the -Tribunal, of course, Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment -on them as much as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches -and directives, documents of the same class, then the Prosecution -asks that he indicate which speeches and which directives he is -going to put in.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: What Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe just read was the -second point of my application. It is true that I also intend to read -certain passages from the book, <span class='it'>Rudolf Hess’s Speeches</span>, and also -from the book <span class='it'>Directives of the Deputy of the Führer</span>. But since the -Prosecution has already submitted passages from both these books -in evidence, which were likewise already accepted as evidence, I -believe I may say that there are at least passages in these books—and -that it is here a question of documents—that are most certainly -relevant. Whether those passages that I intend to read are relevant -or not can be decided only when I submit these documents and this -is exactly what I meant at the beginning of my remarks, that it -is possible to decide on the relevancy of a document only when one -has that document before one and knows its precise contents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hope Dr. Seidl will realize -that this is largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to -introduce new speeches and new directives, they have got to be -translated into English, Russian, and French; and therefore it will -be necessary, for the general progress of the Trial, that he should -indicate which passages he is going to put in so that they can be -translated as well as considered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am sure that Dr. Seidl will desire to use only relevant passages. -Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects, -and some of Hess’s speeches may well not be relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help -along the general progress of the Trial by the request that I have -made. -<span class='pageno' title='194' id='Page_194'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those -passages from the speeches, and few of them at that, which are -relevant. I have no intention of having whole sections of the book -translated if it is not necessary. I declare formally to the Tribunal -that neither as counsel for the Defendant Hess nor as counsel for the -Defendant Frank shall I submit one single document that could not -be considered as relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Sir David was saying was that -for the mechanics of the Trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that -we do not all understand German, it is necessary that these documents -which are in German should be translated. Therefore, it is -necessary for you to specify which speech and which part of the -speech you propose to rely upon, and then it will be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage -that I intend to read in a document book, and I shall, in good time, -submit to the Court and to the Prosecution every passage from a -speech which I intend to read, in a document book. It is not the -task of the Prosecution, nor of the General Secretary, to do work -which, of course, I shall attend to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is quite all right. -That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now you are coming to Paragraph 3.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report -of the conference between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord -Byron, who at that time, as I recall, was Lord Privy Seal, and which -took place on 9 June 1941. In this way the motives and aims which -caused the Defendant Hess’s flight to England are to be clarified. -The relevancy is derived directly from the fact that the Prosecution -has, for its part, submitted as evidence the reports of Mr. Kirkpatrick -concerning his conference with Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl thinks that that -conversation adds anything to the conversations with the Duke of -Hamilton and Mr. Kirkpatrick, I shall not object to his reading the -report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is in my possession.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean, -what authenticity has it? Who made it? Who wrote it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the -Defendant Hess which were given to him when he was brought -from England to Germany. It is a copy of the original, that is to -say a carbon copy, and a series of official stamps prove beyond -doubt that it is the carbon copy of an original. -<span class='pageno' title='195' id='Page_195'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you would let us have the document, we -will consider it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your presentation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn’t there? There are -two other documents referred to, but you are not asking us for -those? A document of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet, dated -10 May 1941?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: This application appears to have been made by my -predecessor, by the lawyer Dr. Rohrscheidt. I should like to have an -opportunity of examining the relevancy of this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir -David, about them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not got that document. -The Prosecution have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess -sent to Hitler, and we just simply cannot help on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, -it shall be submitted to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: It is my intention to call as the first witness for the -Defendant Ribbentrop the former Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at -present in a camp at Minden near Hanover. Ambassador Gaus was -for more than three decades the head of the legal department of -the German Foreign Office. I believe that this witness is necessary -in view of this function alone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the -same procedure as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he -has introduced the witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the -same way whether there is any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. HORN: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned, -there is no objection, subject to one point on what I may -call the Foreign Office group of witnesses; and I think it will be -convenient if I develop it now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with -the point in one moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who was the -defendant’s private secretary, and then witnesses 3 to 7, five Foreign -<span class='pageno' title='196' id='Page_196'></span> -Office officials, Herr Von Sonnleitner, Herr Von Rintelen, Gottfriedsen, -Hilger, and Bruns.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The position at the moment is that there is some doubt as to -whether Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two -of the witnesses, Von Sonnleitner and Bruns were granted on -5 December. Von Sonnleitner was granted as one of two and Herr -Bruns was granted <span class='it'>simpliciter</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution draws the attention of the Tribunal to the fact -that no special facts are stated as to which of these witnesses will -speak, and at the present moment, the applications are not within -the Rule of Procedure 4 (a), but what the Prosecution suggests is this:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That it is reasonable that the defendant should have certain -witnesses who will speak as to Foreign Office business and activities, -but they suggest that if he has Herr Gaus and his private secretary, -Miss Blank, that one other Foreign Office official to speak as to -general methods would be sufficient, and Von Sonnleitner is -obviously the sort of person who could help the defendant on general -Foreign Office matters. They suggest that to call seven witnesses to -deal with his general position in the business would be unduly -cumulative, and they suggest that three is sufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I hope the Tribunal will not mind my dealing with the seven -witnesses, but really my point involves the number of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: May I say something in reply to that? Dr. Gaus, in -all probability, will be my main witness for the Defense. Therefore, -since 10 November 1945, I and my predecessor have done everything -to find this witness, and after that had been accomplished, to bring -him here. I know that the witness, although he has now been located, -is not here. Consequently, I do not know on what matters he can -give us rebutting evidence. For this reason I would also prefer not -to commit myself yet as to the other witnesses from the Foreign -Office. I would like to demur only to the following extent: The -witnesses who have been listed in addition, these additional witnesses -of the Foreign Office, are not witnesses who are to give -testimony on routine questions, as Sir David expressed himself, -about general affairs of the Foreign Office; but they are witnesses -who can offer rebutting evidence concerning special topics which the -Prosecution has brought up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consequently suggest that a final decision should be reached as -to the calling of these other witnesses only after Ambassador Von -Gaus is here. In connection with this statement, I should like to -ask the Court again personally to assist me in the securing of this -extraordinarily valuable witness because I can submit my rebutting -evidence in writing to the General Secretary in time only if I have -him here soon. -<span class='pageno' title='197' id='Page_197'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will consider that. That deals -with 1 to 7, does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I remark that I should like to -omit Witness Number 2, Fräulein Margarete Blank. Consequently -not 2 to 7, but 3 to 7.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I make the following explanation: Fräulein Blank was for -many years secretary to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, -Von Ribbentrop, specifically since 1933. The witness Blank drew -up a whole series of decisive sketches and memoranda and also -discussed decisive points with Ribbentrop in connection with these -manuscripts. Thereby I mean memoranda which expressly relate to -the charges, and I therefore ask that the Tribunal’s original decision, -which granted us this witness, be upheld.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking, are you, that Ambassador -Gaus and Fräulein Blank should be brought here as soon as possible, -and that the consideration of the other witnesses 3 to 7, should be -deferred until you have had an opportunity of seeing Gaus and -Blank?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. As regards Fräulein Blank, I can -say that she is in an internment camp near Nuremberg, in Hersbruck.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean that Fräulein Blank was in a -camp so near Nuremberg that you could go and visit her and speak -to her there?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, that is possible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: May I interpret this as an authorization to visit -Fräulein Blank in order to interrogate her?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We understand that that is your application, -and we will consider it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As my next witness I name the former SS Gruppenführer and -personal adjutant to Hitler, at present in Nuremberg in solitary -confinement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, the -application says that there was a decisive conference between Hitler -and the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, and that he can speak as to -certain things that occurred. If that is so, if he can speak as one -attending the conference, the Prosecution have no objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They object—and this point will arise in regard to a number of -witnesses—to what I call self-created evidence. That is, if a witness -is merely coming to say that the defendant said that he had certain -<span class='pageno' title='198' id='Page_198'></span> -views, that, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not carry the -thing any further. If I understand, this witness is speaking as an -observer of the conference, and, as such, we take no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I should like to give Sir David my assurance that -this is a witness who has first-hand knowledge of decisive events and -can give such testimony.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My next witness is Adolph Von Steengracht, since 1943 Secretary -of the German Foreign Office. This witness is now in Nuremberg in -solitary confinement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal would be good -enough to look at the seventh line from the foot of this application, -it says that Steengracht will further testify that, contrary to the -assertions of the Chief Prosecutor of the United States, the protests -of the churches and of the Vatican were always processed, thus -obviating even worse excesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If it is meant by that—and the English is a little obscure—that -the Defendant Ribbentrop sent forward the protests of the churches -to Hitler, then the Prosecution would feel that they ought not to -object to the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I can say in regard to this, Mr. President, that these -protests were submitted not only to Hitler, but that furthermore, on -the initiative and orders of the defendant, other German offices -involved in these breaches of international law were approached for -the purpose of settling the difficulties arising from the protests of -the churches and the Vatican.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Can we go on to 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: My witness Number 10 is Dahlerus. Mr. Dahlerus -has already been discussed at length today, and I should like to -know whether further discussion as to procurement of this witness -is necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have already put my general -position with regard to Dahlerus. Apparently this defendant wants -him on one particular point, namely, an order from Hitler; and I -submit that the appropriate way would be if Dr. Horn added an -interrogatory on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='it'>Prima facie</span>, it seems highly improbable that Hitler communicated -his private order to a Swedish engineer, but in view of the fact that -interrogatories have been ordered, I suggest that Dr. Horn can send -a further interrogatory on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make a remark in this connection? -It is not, as was translated, a question in this case of a -command of Hitler, but a question of the decisive note that was the -beginning of the second World War. -<span class='pageno' title='199' id='Page_199'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My position goes into a great -deal of these requests. This is only evidence if Herr Dahlerus can -say what Hitler said, what Hitler told him. It is not evidence if -Herr Dahlerus can say, “Herr Ribbentrop told me that Hitler had -so ordered.” That does not add to the evidence of the defendant -himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, I think it is essential that before one can judge of the -evidential value at all, the matter should be submitted, as I -suggest, by way of interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, unless you have anything further -to add with reference to this witness, we will stop at this point, -because we think it is impossible to go further today, and apparently -it is impossible to finish the whole of your application this afternoon, -so do you wish to add anything more about Dahlerus?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make another short statement -in answer to what Sir David considers as decisive for the evidence. -Mr. Dahlerus will not say here what he heard from Ribbentrop; he -will testify to what he heard about Ribbentrop from an important -person and from Hitler himself, and that is why I consider him as -particularly decisive.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord, in the -case of the witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn; I had prepared -the comments of the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in -English. The Tribunal will realize that we received this application -only yesterday, and it had to be translated and is not ready by today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have not been able to get this translation, but I have given -Dr. Horn a copy quite informally so that he would be informed; and -it might be useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the -proceedings and also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the -consideration of these points. I do not know if that appeals to the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want to ask the Soviet Chief Prosecutor whether it would be -convenient to the Soviet Prosecution that we should continue on -Monday morning with this examination of witnesses and evidence. -I think it will probably take the whole of the morning if we deal -with the Defendant Ribbentrop’s applications and then the Defendant -Keitel’s, so that the Soviet Prosecution, if that course were adopted, -would come on at 2 o’clock. Would that be convenient for them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: If it is convenient for the Tribunal it will be -so for us, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is just one other point I should like to -ask you. I think the Tribunal were notified that there were two -<span class='pageno' title='200' id='Page_200'></span> -witnesses the Soviet Prosecution proposed to call. I think that we -said that the General Warlimont and, I think, General Halder, ought -to be called so as to give the Defense Counsel the opportunity of -cross-examining them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: If the Tribunal so wishes I shall report on this -question. I became acquainted with the transcript of the reports -made by General Zorya and Colonel Pokrovsky when the question -concerning witnesses Halder and Warlimont was discussed. The -Soviet Delegation consider there to be no basis for objections to the -Court examining the witnesses Generals Warlimont and Halder, at -the request of the Defense. But the Soviet Prosecution intended to -request that the Tribunal submit these witnesses as witnesses on -behalf of the Soviet Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like once again to report about the plan which the Soviet -Prosecution has in mind regarding the conclusion of the presentation -of evidence. There remains for us to present to the Tribunal the last -section, “Crimes against Humanity.” The presentation of this will -take approximately 3 to 4 hours.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, we shall ask the Tribunal to permit us to interrogate, -episode by episode, four witnesses, Soviet citizens who have been -specially brought and now are in Nuremberg. In such a way we -consider that if we start our presentation tomorrow at 2 o’clock, then -on Tuesday we will finish our presentation on all counts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will expect to have General -Warlimont and Halder presented here before the Soviet case finishes, -not for the Soviet Prosecution to ask them questions but for them -to be cross-examined by the Defense if the Defense want to, but that -may take place at any time that is convenient to you. If you wish, -they could be called at 2 o’clock on Monday; if you prefer, at the -end of the Soviet presentation, either on Tuesday afternoon or on -Wednesday morning, whichever is convenient to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: As I already stated, the Soviet Prosecution did -not think of introducing either Halder or Warlimont. The Soviet -Prosecution did not object that, on the request of the Defense -Counsel, Halder and Warlimont be subjected to cross-examination. -As far as I know, as far back as last December, the Tribunal granted -the application of the Defense to call Halder into court as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore it seems to me, and in order to expedite the exposition -of material of the Soviet Prosecution, this really will not influence -the examination of essential questions, that the examination of the -witnesses Warlimont and Halder be made in the Trial during the -presentation of evidence by Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as I know, in the application of the Defendant Keitel, -which was presented to the Tribunal, Halder and Warlimont are -<span class='pageno' title='201' id='Page_201'></span> -indicated as witnesses, and the Defendant Keitel and his attorney -applied for examination of them as witnesses on behalf of the -Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of this, I consider that the examination of these -witnesses should be made during the presentation of evidence by the -Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that both General -Warlimont and General Halder are here in Nuremberg. Is that so?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Probably the most convenient course would be -for the Tribunal to see exactly what order the Tribunal made with -reference to their being called. We will look up the shorthand notes -and see exactly what order we made and deal with the matter on -Monday morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the meantime, on Monday morning we will continue, as you -said is convenient to you, the applications by Dr. Horn for the Defendant -Ribbentrop and the applications by Dr. Nelte on behalf of -the Defendant Keitel; and we shall sit from 2 until 4 o’clock only -on Monday afternoon.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 25 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='202' id='Page_202'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY</span><br/> Monday, 25 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you dealt with Dahlerus last, I -believe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: That is right, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As the next witness, I ask the Tribunal to call General Koestring, -former military attaché at Moscow, and at present in prison in -Nuremberg. In this case I am willing to forego the personal appearance -of the witness if the submission of affidavit will be permitted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we object to this witness -and so Dr. Horn can develop it as far as he desires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You object to him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I wish nevertheless, to ask the Tribunal to call the -witness in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Originally, there was a possibility, as I was told, that the witness -might be called by the Prosecution. Since this has not taken -place, I ask that this witness be approved because he took part in -the German-Russian negotiations from August to September 1939 -at Moscow and, until the beginning of hostilities against the Soviet -Union, remained at that post. The witness, therefore, can tell us -about the attitude of authoritative German circles and personalities -toward the German-Russian pact. For these reasons I ask the Tribunal -to call the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: As it has already been stated by Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe, the Prosecution objects to the summoning of this -witness. I merely wish to define the position of the Prosecution in -this case. The fact that the witness participated or was present at -the August-September 1939 negotiations is scarcely of interest to -the Tribunal. The Tribunal primarily proceeds from the fact of the -existence of this agreement and its treacherous violation by Germany. -Consequently, the summoning of this witness to describe -these negotiations would merely delay the course of the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, I am sorry, I was not able to understand -the answer and the reasoning of the General. -<span class='pageno' title='203' id='Page_203'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat, General?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I was saying, with reference to Sir -David’s protest, on behalf of the Prosecution, against the summoning -of this witness, that I wished to explain that the summoning -of this witness in regard to his presence at the 1939 negotiations at -Moscow was of no interest whatsoever to the Tribunal. The Tribunal -proceeds from the facts that this agreement had been concluded -in 1939 and had been treacherously violated by Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider that the summoning of this witness before the Tribunal -is superfluous since the witness in question has no connection -whatsoever with the present case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal’s permission to point out that for -weeks General Koestring was in prison in Nuremberg at the disposal -of the Prosecution. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to grant him a -hearing as a witness for the reasons which I have mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. -Dr. Horn, the Tribunal does not understand the fact that General -Koestring is in prison at Nuremberg is any answer to the objection -which is made on behalf of the Prosecution, namely, that the -Tribunal is not interested in negotiations which took place in September -1939, but in the violation of the treaty. The Tribunal would -like to know whether you have any answer to make to that objection? -The only answer you have made up to date is that General -Koestring is here in Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, General Koestring is to testify that -the pact with Russia was drawn up with full intention of its being -kept on the part of Germany and on the part of my client.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would not like to say anything further on this point at the -moment and I ask the Court to call the witness on the basis of -this reason.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider your -request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is legation councillor for reports, -Dr. Hesse, who was formerly in the Foreign Office in Berlin and -now presumably is in the camp at Augsburg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection -to this witness. I do not know if Dr. Horn wants him in person or -if an affidavit would do. The Prosecution do not feel strongly on -the matter but they ask Dr. Horn whenever possible to accept an -affidavit and they suggest that he might consider it in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is the former ambassador in Bucharest, Fabricius, -presumably in Allied custody in the American zone of occupation -or possibly already discharged from custody. -<span class='pageno' title='204' id='Page_204'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this -case. Apparently this witness will speak as to an interview which -is already in evidence before the Court and will give a different -account of it. Prosecution makes no objection under the circumstances.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is Professor Karl Burckhardt, President -of the International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League -of Nations Commissioner at Danzig.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Dr. Burckhardt is obviously in a very special position. As President -of the International Red Cross he is a person to whom all belligerents, -irrespective of country, are indebted; and the point that -the Prosecution makes is that if he can speak of evidence coming -from Hitler himself, that is if he can prove either by saying that -he was informed by Hitler that the Defendant Ribbentrop had interceded; -or if he can say he saw letters received by Hitler from -Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no objection. If he is -merely going to say that Ribbentrop told him so, the Prosecution -would object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, we submit that the reasonable course would be that -he should make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge, and if -that is done and if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should -not think for a moment that the Prosecution would do anything but -accept the evidence of Dr. Burckhardt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second point, we submit, is irrelevant: the question of the -results of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position -in Danzig.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have already submitted -in my application, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt -visited Ribbentrop and Hitler in the year 1943 and therefore can -make detailed statements with reference to the reasons which I -have mentioned for calling him. That answers the first question by -Sir David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also agree, however, in this case that Professor Burckhardt -submit the necessary affidavit and thus be spared a personal examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is the Swiss Ambassador Feldscher, who was -finally, to our knowledge, Ambassador at Berlin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest, My Lord, that he -comes into the same position as Dr. Burckhardt. He should be dealt -with in the same way.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I agree, Mr. President. The next witness is the -former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Winston Churchill. -<span class='pageno' title='205' id='Page_205'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -Prosecution objects to this application and, with the greatest respect -to Dr. Horn, submits that there are no relevant reasons disclosed in -the application now before the Tribunal. The first part of it is -apparently an account of a conversation which does not touch the -facts of this case, and the second part is also a discussion of a conversation -which apparently took place some years before the war, -between the German Ambassador and a gentleman who at that time -was in no official position in England. But what relevancy the conversation -has to any of the issues in this case the Prosecution -respectfully submits is not only nonapparent but nonexistent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Against this statement of Sir David, I want first to -point out the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Prime Minister Winston Churchill was at that time Leader of -His Majesty’s Opposition in Parliament. In this capacity we may -attribute to him a sort of official position, particularly since he, to -my knowledge, as Leader of the Opposition is even paid a salary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure that Dr. Horn would -be the last person to rely on a point on which he has been misinformed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Churchill was not Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition at any -period and was certainly not from 1936 to 1938, when the Defendant -Ribbentrop was ambassador. Mr. Attlee was the Leader of the Opposition. -Mr. Churchill was not in office; was a back-bench member of -the Conservative Party, independent member of the Conservative -Party at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I did not want my friend to be under any misapprehension.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of -the statesmen best known in Germany. This statement, which -Churchill made at that time on the occasion of his visit to the embassy, -was immediately reported to Hitler by Ribbentrop and was, in all -probability, one of the reasons for Hitler’s making the statements -quoted in the so-called Hossbach document, submitted as -Document Number 386-PS, which contains statements and declarations -so surprising to the participants and in which the Prosecution -saw the first definite evidence of a conspiracy in the sense -of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, I should like to say that the British Prosecutor, -Jones, mentioned that, after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, -people in England and Poland became very concerned. Therefore -negotiations between England and Poland were started, and a -pact of guarantee concluded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of this statement of Churchill which has been mentioned, -and those of other important British statesmen, according to -<span class='pageno' title='206' id='Page_206'></span> -which England would bring about a coalition against Germany -within a few years in order to oppose Hitler with all available -means—as a result of these statements, Hitler became henceforth -more keenly anxious to increase his own armaments and to busy -himself with strategic plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For these reasons I consider Churchill’s statement extraordinarily -important and I ask that this witness be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point, My Lord; -I do not think I can add to it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have Dr. Horn’s -observations, which they have only heard through the microphone, -in writing on this subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, -Lord Kemsley, Lord Beaverbrook, and Lord Vansittart. Interrogatories -have already been sent out to these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt -with by interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral -Schuster; last address, Kiel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of -Admiral Schuster. The grounds for his being asked for are that -he took part in the negotiations which led to the German-English -Naval Treaty of 1935. Apparently the point that is desired to be -made is that the treaty was concluded on this defendant’s initiative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the -negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there -for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend -can find any argument which he desires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But in general, the Prosecution wish to stress that going into -negotiations anterior to old-standing treaties would be an intolerable -waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: In this Trial we are discussing straightforwardly the -problem of plans and preparations. In this connection it is certainly -not inappropriate to hear evidence as to what the German Government, -and especially Ribbentrop, had planned and prepared at that -time. This planning and preparations which took place within the -negotiations leading to the signing of the naval treaty was carried -further than just to the conclusion of that treaty. The treaty was -considered by Von Ribbentrop—and Admiral Schuster can bear -witness to the fact—the first cornerstone in a close treaty of alliance -between England and Germany. To make these intentions clear to -<span class='pageno' title='207' id='Page_207'></span> -the Tribunal, and thereby the policy which the Defendant Von -Ribbentrop pursued, I consider this witness important; and I ask -Sir David to modify his position.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues -and I have considered this matter very carefully and I have -put our general position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as -to treaties of long standing. With the greatest desire to be reasonable, -to help Dr. Horn, I am very sorry I cannot, at this point, accede -to his request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to complete what my colleague, -Sir David, has stated by the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Horn has requested us to justify the arguments of the Prosecution. -I believe that there is one fundamental divergence in this -matter between the Prosecution and the Defense. The Defense, in -calling witnesses, give evidence and try to prove the defendants’ -endeavors to conclude peace-promoting agreements. We proceed -from another fact, namely, the treacherous violation of concluded -agreements and the commission of crimes contravening these agreements. -And it seems to be quite superfluous to call witnesses to -prove that the defendants strove, in view of these considerations, to -sign peaceful agreements. The violation and treachery in the fulfillment -of these agreements are generally known facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of -this class of evidence, I should like to ask you this question:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Assume that Ribbentrop did want to make agreements with England -and did not wish that Germany should make war on England. -What relevancy would that have to the allegation that Germany -was planning to make war upon Poland?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, to be able to answer that question -decisively as far as the conduct of the Defense is concerned, I would -have to go back to the state of all the political and diplomatic affairs -of the period previous to the second World War. To explain the -reasons for calling witnesses, I would not like to enter into arguments -yet on such matters of principle before I have thoroughly -scrutinized all the possible evidence at my disposal and formed a -definite opinion—and a basis for my conduct of the Defense. The -ruling which the President gave regarding reasons for summoning -witnesses—that the Tribunal will help us to procure the witnesses -and the evidentiary material—I have understood to mean that for -the summoning of witnesses, we have only to state reasons which -in all probability would be confirmed by the witnesses themselves -after preliminary interrogation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself. -<span class='pageno' title='208' id='Page_208'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is a material question to consider in considering -what evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to -commit yourself upon the point, you can proceed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, -former interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time -probably at Oberursel in the interrogation camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the -application, they are desired to give evidence of the fact that this -defendant asked Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. -Again I make the point, which I have made several times to the -Tribunal, that if these witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler -side of these offers, then there would be no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If they merely give evidence of the fact that Von Ribbentrop -told them that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission -of the Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be -that there are letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen -saw; and if that is the purpose of their evidence, then the Prosecution -feel that it might be relevant, certainly on the question of -sentence; if not, then they would reserve all rights to say whether -it was a question of guilt or innocence in view of the provisions of -the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I therefore suggest that the reasonable course would be for both -these gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge -and that would deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather -than interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord; interrogatories -which would cover that point of means of knowledge -would be the best thing. I do not think, if I may put it that way, -that it would be worth while making two bites at the cherry, if I -may use a colloquialism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: We can talk about the next two witnesses at the -same time. I believe I can already say that Sir David will give the -same reasons against them as he did against the other witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, My Lord, -that my friend and I could agree that they stand or fall with the -Tribunal’s decision on Admiral Schuster.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two -witnesses, provided the Court will grant me Admiral Schuster.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is the former Chief Recorder at the Foreign -Office, Dörnberg, at present most probably interned at Augsburg. -<span class='pageno' title='209' id='Page_209'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr -Dörnberg’s views on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, -are not relevant. If we get into calling witnesses to express -their views as to the veracity of or other characteristics of the -statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal would embark on a course that -might well take a very long time and would not lead to any great -results, and I respectfully submit that this is not a class of testimony -or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal should entertain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, with reference to this matter I can -say that Ciano, himself, in his diary which has now been made -accessible to us, presents this proof—at least as to the decisive -point—which Mr. Dörnberg is supposed to bring; and we shall -submit it to the Court at the proper time and—I believe I can -say—in a conclusive form.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second point of Dörnberg’s statement deals with the matter -of decoration. The Russian Prosecution has accused Ribbentrop of -bartering Siebenbürgen for a high Romanian order. For this reason -I would like permission to question Mr. Dörnberg about this point -either here or in the form of an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Next I name Ambassador Schnurre, chief of the commercial -policy department of the Foreign Office, present whereabouts -unknown, presumably in custody in the British zone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, -the Prosecution again say that there is no need for a witness to be -called to give information that his political chief intended to keep -a treaty which he signed. The very grounds that are given for the -application seem to me to show that this is really a matter of comment -and argument, and we submit that a witness on this point is -both irrelevant and unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me this witness, because -the fact alone that the witness can testify about the sincerity or -insincerity or the intentions of his chief is not so important for me -as the fact that, on the basis of participation at the negotiations and -preliminary negotiations and his discussions with other important -persons about the background of this treaty, he can testify with -regard to an important point of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you again, with reference to the -relevance of this evidence, suppose it were true that in August 1939 -the German authorities intended to keep the treaty which was made -with Russia, that depended or might have depended upon whether -England supported Poland in the war which Germany was about -to begin with Poland; and it may very well be that the German -authorities intended to keep the treaty with Russia in order to keep -<span class='pageno' title='210' id='Page_210'></span> -Russia out of the war with Poland and England. Therefore, how -would the intention of Ribbentrop at that time be relevant?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, for determining the criminal facts -in this case in order to establish guilt, it is material to know the -extent to which the Defendant Ribbentrop, as a human being, strove -to keep the treaty; and it is a different question how far he may -have been compelled, by political necessity and other forces, to witness -how a treaty was not kept in the sense in which it was originally -signed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office, eventually -a liaison man with the OKW; at this time most probably in the -internment camp at Augsburg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The application for Ambassador -Ritter falls into two parts. One raises the point which we have -just been discussing with regard to the Russo-German Treaty of -23 August 1939, and I have indicated the view of the Prosecution -on that. The second deals with the defendant’s attitude with regard -to the treatment of Allied airmen. The position at the moment is -that I put in a document which was prepared by Ambassador Ritter -and another document in which Ambassador Ritter said that the -Defendant Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum from the -German Foreign Office dealing with the proposals for lynching -aviators and handing them over to the SD before they could become -prisoners of war and entitled to the rights under the Convention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If it is desired to say that Ambassador Ritter was wrong in -stating that Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum, then, of -course, it would be a relevant point. But at the moment these -documents are in, and I am not quite clear from this for what purpose -my friend wishes him called on the second point. If there is -any further purpose, then perhaps Dr. Horn will indicate it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Sir David has just stated the reason why I have -requested the witness. The witness is supposed to and will testify -that Von Ribbentrop was opposed to special treatment of terror -fliers—at least for acts covered by the Geneva Convention—without -previous notification to the signatory powers of that convention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn says that he wants to -call Ambassador Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared -by Ambassador Ritter, which are already in evidence. Then I can’t -make any objection. That is obviously a relevant point, if he is -going to contradict his own document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it be acceptable to Dr. Horn to have -interrogatories administered to Ambassador Ritter, or would the -<span class='pageno' title='211' id='Page_211'></span> -Prosecution prefer that he should be called, if he is to give evidence -of any sort?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If he gives evidence, the Prosecution -would prefer that he should be called, because that is our -position. There are two documents in, prepared by this gentleman; -and if he is going to contradict them, then I suggest he should come -and do it in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I leave it up to the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador -in Oslo, Von Grundherr, at present presumably in Allied custody.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, I don’t want to go into -detail. The position is that there is a document before the Court -signed by the Defendant Rosenberg in which he says that 10,000 -pounds sterling a month were given to Quisling through an arrangement -with this gentleman. If Dr. Horn wishes to call Herr Von -Grundherr to contradict the statement of the Defendant Rosenberg, -again I suppose the Prosecution cannot make any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Regarding the witnesses which I have listed under -points 30 to 34, I can limit my statement to the fact that I want -to call them to testify that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, also -earnestly and constantly endeavored to bring about close relations -with France.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witnesses, above all M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of -France, can give substantive, detailed evidence about these efforts. -If the Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these -witnesses, could give their testimony in the form of affidavits, I -will submit relevant questions to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the submission of the Prosecution, -the grounds stated for calling these witnesses are too vague -and general to justify their being called before the Court. When -two countries are at peace, the fact that a foreign minister or an -ambassador has made statements saying that he hopes the good -relations between the two countries will continue, or words to that -effect, does not really take us any further; and it would, in the submission -of the Prosecution, be a waste of time for witnesses to be -called for such a purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from that, the first four witnesses, the Marquis and Marquise -De Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellane, as -far as the Prosecution know, have not been in any official position, -and there is, therefore, the additional objection that calling people -who may be the most admirable people but are in a position of -<span class='pageno' title='212' id='Page_212'></span> -general friendship to talk as to what really becomes their view of -the state of mind of a defendant, is not evidence which is relevant -or which the Tribunal should entertain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: With these witnesses the Defense wishes to prove -exactly the fact that the efforts of Ribbentrop with respect to France -went further than normal remarks which could not be called anything -more than <span class='it'>courtoisie internationale</span>. For this reason I ask that -one or the other of the witnesses in this group be granted me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, these witnesses seem to raise the -same question as to relevance as I put to you earlier on them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Assuming that it was the intention of the German Foreign Office -to try to keep France out of any war which Germany was preparing -to make, what relevance has that got to the question whether she -was about to make an aggressive war upon Poland?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I would like through these witnesses to produce -evidence that it was at least not the intention of the Defendant -Von Ribbentrop to plan and prepare wars but that he has tried for -years to improve relations with Germany’s neighboring states.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having -planned and carried out aggressive aims, war against England and -France. If the Prosecution will forego this point, I, of course, can -also forego these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give this the necessary -consideration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is Mr. Ernest Tennant of London.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, I -don’t know the gentleman, and I have never heard of him, and the -only information which is in the application is that he is a member -of the firm of Tennant and Company and a member of the Bath -Club, and also that he was well known to the Defendant Ribbentrop. -But the matters for which he is sought to be called are surely -the acme of irrelevance. It is submitted that the witness can testify -that in the early and middle 30’s the defendant asked him to bring -him in contact with Lord Baldwin, Mr. Macdonald, and Lord Davidson -for the purpose of negotiating with the latter toward paving the way -to good political relations, aiming at the conclusion of an alliance. -In 1936 the defendant was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. -Mr. Macdonald had just ceased being Prime Minister in 1935 and -was still, I think, Lord President of the Council. Lord Baldwin was -then Prime Minister and Lord Davidson, I think, was Chancellor of -the Duchy of Lancaster in the same administration. At any rate, -he held a comparatively less important office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But how it can be relevant to the issues before this Tribunal, -that at or shortly before that time the defendant asked a gentleman -<span class='pageno' title='213' id='Page_213'></span> -of no official position whether he could introduce him to the three -gentlemen I have just mentioned, I really suggest, cannot be stated; -and I submit that this witness should not be allowed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the naming of witnesses we always -come back to the same fundamental question. The Prosecution -always raises the question: What can this witness tell us about the -fact that Germany did or did not march against Poland, or is to -blame for the Polish-German war, inasmuch as the witness comes -from an entirely different country and has nothing to do with -Poland or Polish affairs?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense is of the opinion, on the other hand, that the entire -policy of Germany toward Poland can only be understood within -the framework of the whole of European politics. Therefore, the -Defense has called for witnesses whom the Prosecution would like -to exclude, because they can offer us material for the reconstruction -of the large picture. With this in mind, I also ask for Professor -Conwell-Evans of London.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal again -I have never heard of Professor Conwell-Evans, and he does not -appear in the Who’s Who, the British publication showing a very -large number of the citizens who have certain grades of distinction -or hold certain offices. But I would like Dr. Horn to consider this -point, which I respectfully put to the Tribunal:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Accepting that every word that is stated in this application with -regard to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in Court by Professor -Conwell-Evans, I submit that it would not advance the case at all -and that the Tribunal would be left in exactly the same position if -it had that evidence as it is in at the present moment. After all, -the defendant will be able to give evidence himself and to make -his own impression on the Tribunal as to his intentions and as to -his honesty of mind at various times. The submission of the Prosecution -is that the evidence of this gentleman would not help the -Trial at all and is not relevant to any issue before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: As next witness I name Wolfgang Michel, Oberstdorf -in Allgäu, the witness under Number 38.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman is stated to have -been a partner in the defendant’s former business. According to the -application, it is really desired that he should give his views of the -defendant’s general attitude and state of mind. Again, the Prosecution -fail to see to what issue he is relevant; but it may be that -it would please the defendant to have affidavits from an old business -partner to give his views on the defendant. If that is desired, -the Prosecution would be prepared to consider such an affidavit; -<span class='pageno' title='214' id='Page_214'></span> -but they really must take up the consistent attitude that a witness -of this kind is irrelevant—a witness who is going to say, “I have -known this defendant for 20 years; I have been in business with -him; and I have always had a high opinion of him.” That, in the -submission of the Prosecution, does not touch the issues before this -Tribunal and, therefore, is irrelevant. But, as I say, if my friend -cares to produce an affidavit, the Prosecution will consider it with -the greatest sympathy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I would be satisfied, in the case of the witness -Michel, with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, I would like to come back to the witness listed -under Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Aren’t you going to deal with -Number 38? You didn’t deal with 37. You are passing that over, -are you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I believe that the same objections would be raised -against him as were raised with reference to the other witnesses. -Since I assume that the Tribunal is going to decide in principle -about the question whether or not all the related facts should be -submitted here, I have left out the naming of this witness and ask -the Tribunal for a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you want to go back to Number 5?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I would like to come back to Number 5, Legation -Counsellor Gottfriedsen. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen conducted -the entire official and private finances of the Defendant -Von Ribbentrop for many years.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Ribbentrop has been accused by various members of the Prosecution -of enriching himself with objects of art and similar things. -About this point Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen can give decisive -evidence which will invalidate these charges. I therefore ask for -approval of this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked -Dr. Horn on this point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen -to Herr Von Sonnleitner. I think Dr. Horn says that, if there was -a question of choice, he would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution do not want to be unreasonable. I made my -general statement that this group of witnesses, of seven foreign -office witnesses, ought to be restricted to three. If my friend thinks -that Herr Gottfriedsen will be more helpful, especially on this point, -I have no objection to the substitution, so long as some limitation is -made in the group of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it be satisfactory if interrogatories -were administered? -<span class='pageno' title='215' id='Page_215'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President; in this case I ask for the witness -Gottfriedsen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: My statement on the subject of summoning witnesses -is thereby concluded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I have not named some witnesses because other -defendant’s counsel had asked for them. Among these is also the -interpreter Dr. Schmidt. I likewise have the greatest interest in the -questioning of this witness. Schmidt was Göring’s interpreter and -was present at almost all foreign political negotiations with statesmen. -Therefore I also ask for the summoning of this witness and -to that extent support the application made by Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will -adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring up one other point -having to do with the calling of witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have also named a number of the witnesses, because I must -ascertain when the conspiracy in general begins and when my client -could have joined this conspiracy. The Prosecution made things -relatively easy for itself as regards setting the time at which the -conspiracy begins, by stating in the general Indictment “sometime -before 8 May 1945.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if I can call no witnesses with regard to the years 1933 to -1938, then I must assume that the Prosecution admits that the -Defendant Ribbentrop could not have been a party to the conspiracy -at least before 1939. I should like this point of view to be -taken into consideration in the granting of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated -quite generally what Dr. Horn has to meet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th and 9th of January -I presented the individual case against this defendant. The first -point is the time of Hitler’s accession to power in 1933. It is the -case for the Prosecution that this defendant assisted in various ways -in that accession. After that, he held various positions in close touch -with Hitler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Dr. Horn will refer to the transcript of my presentation, he -will find that there is detailed, with a note of all the supporting -documents, the part which his client played in the aggression against -Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, England, France, Norway, -Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, -<span class='pageno' title='216' id='Page_216'></span> -and finally, the United States and Japan. All these matters are set -out with the supporting documents, and a reference to them will -show exactly what is alleged against the defendant on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts Three and -Four which are specially raised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, the defendant pressed that measures contrary to -international law and the conventions should be taken against -Allied aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence. -Second, there is General Lahousen’s evidence as to what the -defendant said with regard to the treatment of the population of -Poland. Third, there is the defendant’s responsibility for putting -the various Protectors of Bohemia and Moravia in office with unrestricted -powers, which resulted in the crimes against the populations -of these areas. Then there is a similar position with regard -to the Netherlands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third main category is the treatment of the Jews. Again, -there is an American official document, the report of Ambassador -Kennedy; there is a long Foreign Office statement on the policy -towards the Jews; and there is a document showing the preparation -for an anti-Semitic congress, of which this defendant was to be an -honorary member.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, there is the question of plunder, the evidence given by -my Soviet colleague on the Ribbentrop battalions for the collection -of plunder, which was given the other day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I don’t think that if Dr. Horn will consider various points, which -are practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of -January, except the last point, he will find that there is any difficulty -in deciding the commencement of these allegations or their -detailed and concrete constitution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know -whether the Prosecution allege any particular date at which the -conspiracy started; and second, they would like to know whether -you contend that defendants joining the conspiracy after it started -are responsible for the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What the Tribunal would like to know is whether a person who -joins the conspiracy after it started would be responsible for acts -committed by the conspirators before he joined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I might deal with the questions -in order, the position of the Prosecution on the question of -time is as set out in Count One of the Indictment. The Prosecution -say that the Nazi Party was the core of the conspiracy and that it -was an essential part of the conspiracy that the Nazi Party should -obtain political and economic control of Germany in order that they -might carry out the aims set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Nazi -<span class='pageno' title='217' id='Page_217'></span> -Party program. That part of the conspiracy started with the emergence -of the Nazi Party as a force in German politics and was -fully developed in January 1933. At that time it was the aim of -the Nazi Party to secure the breaches of the Treaty of Versailles -and the other matters set out in these articles, if necessary by force.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But, as is stated in the statement of offense under Count One of -the Indictment, the conspiracy was not static; it was dynamic. And, -in 1934, after Germany left the League of Nations and the Disarmament -Conference, the aggressive war aspect of the conspiracy -increased in momentum.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is the case for the Prosecution that from 1935, when conscription -was introduced and the Air Force came into being, through -1936 when the Rhineland was reoccupied, that the securing of Germany’s -objectives—the objectives of the Nazi Party—if necessary by -aggressive war, became a stronger, clearer, and more binding aim.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The position is crystallized by the meeting on the 5th of November -1937, when Hitler declared that Austria and Czechoslovakia -would be conquered at the earliest opportunity. That was succeeded -by the acquisition of Austria in March 1938, and the Fall Grün -against Czechoslovakia, which originated in May 1938, to be carried -out before October.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From that time the Prosecution say that the plan of aggressive -war followed the well-known and clear technique of attacking one -country or taking aggressive measures against one country, and -giving assurances to the country that was next on the list to be -attacked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From that time the succession and procession of aggressive wars -takes a clear course, which I have just mentioned in outlining the -accusation of aggression against the Defendant Ribbentrop. I may -summarize it by saying that the Prosecution submit that the Nazi -Party was always engaged in this agreement and concerted action -to get control of Germany and carry out its aims but that the aggression -crystallized and became clear from 1934 and the beginning of -1935 onwards.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United -States): Sir David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection -with this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, you must know either the date when the conspiracy -began, or you must not be able to give us the date. Now, is it the -contention that the Prosecution don’t know when the conspiracy -began? If you do know, would you tell us?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the -formation of the Nazi Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was that date? -<span class='pageno' title='218' id='Page_218'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1921.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): 1921? Now, was the conspiracy -to wage aggressive war begun on that date?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it was begun in this way -that Hitler had said, “I have certain objects, one of them being to -break the Treaty of Versailles—which means also breaking the -treaty of friendship with the United States which has the same -clauses—and I shall attain these objects, if necessary by using -force.” That was always one of the beliefs and aims of the Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if people agree to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by -illegal methods, that is, <span class='it'>ipso facto</span>, the committing of the offense of -conspiracy. Conspiracy is constituted by the agreement, not by the -acts carrying out the agreement. Therefore, in that way the conspiracy -starts in 1921. But, as Mr. Justice Jackson made clear in his -opening and as I have repeated this morning, the aims—and more -particularly the methods by which the conspirators sought to achieve -these aims—grew and acquired particular forms as the years went -on. They appear to have acquired the special form and to have -decided on the method of breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 -and bringing that to fruition in 1935.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not seeking to avoid answering the question of the learned -American Judge; but I am putting, in summary form, exactly what -is stated in both the statement of offense and the particulars of -offense under Count One, and I hope that I will not be thought to -be avoiding the question. I am not doing that. I am trying to put -it in the clearest and most accurate language.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I wouldn’t ask you, were -I clear about the matter in my own mind, Sir David. Let me ask -you a few more questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity—was that -begun in 1921?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To the extent that a general -readiness was adopted to use all methods, irrespective of the rights, -safety, and happiness of other people, it was commenced with the -start of the Nazi Party. Ruthlessness and disregard for the rights, -and safety, and happiness of others was a badge of the Nazi Party -program, insofar as the rights and happiness of others might interfere -with their aims, from the very start.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Again, the translation of that into practical methods developed as -the years went on, and in a period well before the war—Mr. Biddle -will not put it against me that I should remember exact documents -in an answer straight off the rule to his question, but well before -the war—there will be found again and again in the speeches of -Hitler to his associates that utter ruthlessness and disregard for -<span class='pageno' title='219' id='Page_219'></span> -non-German populations should be employed. That is the foundation -of the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, and it was initiated -and grew in the method which I have stated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you answer the President -with respect to the question of whether the conspirators joining -later became responsible? If that were true, then this defendant -would be responsible for acts running back to 1921.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There are two legal conceptions -which have to be borne in mind in considering that point. I can -only speak with knowledge on the law of England, but I understand -that the law of the United States is very much the same.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In England there is a common law offense of conspiracy. There -are also certain statutory offenses, but there is a common law -offense of conspiracy. The gist of that offense is, as I have already -stated, entering into an agreement to commit an illegal act or a -legal act by illegal means. As far as a conviction for conspiracy per se -is concerned, there is no doubt about the law of England. If someone -joins a conspiracy at a late state, a conspiracy to do any illegal -act, he can be convicted of conspiracy to do that act however late -he joins.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The usual analogy, with which I am sure the learned American -Judge is familiar, is that of a stage play. The fact that a character -does not come in until Act 3 does not mean that he is any the less -carrying out the design of the author of the play to present the -whole picture which the play embraces. It is a very useful analogy -because it shows the position. That is one aspect of the law, and -on that there is no doubt at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other aspect of the law is as to how far those who act in -consort to commit a crime are responsible for each other’s acts, that -is, irrespective of the substantive offense of conspiracy. If one may -take an example—a highly fantastic one but I think it raises the -point—assume that you had a conspiracy on the part of road operators -to wreck railway trains, and a number of road operators agreed -in December to wreck a train on the 1st of January and to wreck -a further train on the 1st of February. Between the 1st of January -and the 1st of February, another road operator joins the conspiracy. -I hope I have got rightly the point in My Lord’s mind and in the -mind of the learned American Judge. Then there is, as far as I can -see, some doubt as to whether that road operator would be liable -for a murder committed in the wrecking that took place on the -first of January.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I hope I have made my point clear. I am postulating someone -who joins a conspiracy on the 15th of January, after the first -wrecking has been carried out during which someone has been -<span class='pageno' title='220' id='Page_220'></span> -killed, and therefore those who consorted with regard to the first -wrecking are guilty of murder. But as to the person who joins -after that, there is some doubt as to whether he acquires retroactive -responsibility. In English law it would appear to be at least doubtful—it -certainly is arguable that in American law he would, as -I have been told the decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you have made that very -clear, Sir David, but what I am getting at is what the Prosecution -claim in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry if I have been -theoretical, but it has been rather a difficult point, and I wanted -to relate it to the law with which I am most familiar.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the present case, the Prosecution say that the -defendants do become responsible for the consequences of acts done -in pursuance of the conspiracy. It is rather difficult to speak entirely -in vacuo in the matter; but if one may take, for example—again I -speak from memory—the Defendant Speer, who comes on the scene -rather late, if my recollection is right, he then becomes minister -for production and armaments and makes the demands for the slave -labor which were fulfilled by the Defendant Sauckel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the submission of the Prosecution, there would not be any -difficulty in convicting the Defendant Speer on all counts, assuming -that the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Prosecution. By his -actions, he has conspired to commit a Crime against Peace; he has -joined and entered into the conspiracy to carry on aggressive war; -he has taken part in the waging of aggressive war by making the -demands for the slave labor; he has instigated a war crime, namely -the ill-treatment of populations of occupied countries; and also, by -instigating and procuring the action of the Defendant Sauckel, he -has committed Crimes against Humanity in that he has participated -in actions which are condemned by the criminal law of all civilized -countries; and probably—I am speaking from memory now—these -actions have taken place in countries where it is arguable whether -they were strictly occupied countries after an invasion, as in Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the method in which our Indictment is drawn, there is no -difficulty, the Prosecution submit, in convicting a defendant who -emerges in evidence at a later date on each of the counts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just one more question and then -I am through. You understand I am asking these questions only in -performance of what we are doing to determine what witnesses -should be called, and therefore the year 1921 as the beginning of -the conspiracy becomes a year obviously not remote in time when -we consider witnesses. Would that not follow? -<span class='pageno' title='221' id='Page_221'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A year not. . . ?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Not remote in time with relation -to the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it is part of the particular -Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make some brief remarks in -this connection?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have based myself on the general Indictment as regards the -time of the conspiracy. The general Indictment states simply and -solely that the definitive point of time which one can take as the -start of the conspiracy is any time before 8 May 1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Chief Prosecutor of the United States, in his opening statement, -described the Party program, in the form in which it was -framed in ’21 and revised, I believe, in ’25, and characterized it as -legitimate and unimpeachable—according to the German translation—insofar -as these aims were not to be attained by war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, assuming that the Party leadership was to pursue these -objectives by war, it is, first of all, not clear with what point of -view these goals were set; and the Defense as well as the Prosecution -must prove that from this time on these aims were to be -attained through war. Furthermore, it can hardly be denied that -only a very few people, and perhaps only one person, had knowledge -of war plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, as regards the various defendants, as well as my own -client, the times at which they came into contact with the Party are -quite different.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, they were ordinary Party members, so they had consequently -to assume, as the Chief Prosecutor did, that the Party -program of which they had become adherents, was legally unimpeachable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now the question arises for the Defense, and above all, for conducting -the defense: When did the individual client enter the sphere -in which it was known that the aims were to be attained by war, -aims which so far he had considered legitimate and unimpeachable, -that is, aims which according to his previous assumption, were not -to be pursued by recourse to war? Had the Defendant Ribbentrop -already entered the circle of conspirators when in 1932 he contacted -Party circles? Was he, as Ambassador in London, already “in the -know” and thereby a party to the conspiracy; or did he only realize, -at the time of the Hossbach document, that the political aims of the -Party were to be materialized through war? Or when?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense must be aware of the danger that the defendant -will be accused by the Prosecution that he joined the conspiracy -<span class='pageno' title='222' id='Page_222'></span> -the very earliest moment he came in contact with the Party and its -aims. In this connection I can refer to the words just spoken by -Sir David who said that the foundation of the conspiracy was laid -in 1921. I ask—or rather—is it my task or my duty to prove through -witnesses that my client, for instance, up to 1939 was striving for -peaceful relations in order to refute that he then already planned -or prepared wars or took a decisive part in these plans and -preparations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From this point of view, I ask the Tribunal to weigh the applications -for the witnesses and subjects of evidence as set forth in my -brief. Furthermore, I expressly maintain that this discussion has -not clarified the question: When does the conspiracy start?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I don’t want to repeat -any general argument. My desire is that Dr. Horn should know -what case Ribbentrop has to meet, and I have already stated that, -but I want to make it quite clear.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the entry in <span class='it'>Das Archiv</span> Ribbentrop entered the -service of the Nazi Party in 1930, and between 1930 and January -1933 was one of the instruments and vehicles by which the accession -of the Nazi Party to power took place. That semi-official -publication says that some meetings between Hitler and Von Papen -and the Nazis and representatives of President Von Hindenburg -took place in his house at Berlin-Dahlem. That is the first point. -It is quite clear and it is all set out in the transcript.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second stage is that he held certain offices between 1934 -and 1936 that show that he was an important and rising Nazi -politician and negotiator in the realm of foreign affairs. In 1936 he -justified the action of Germany in breaking the Versailles Treaty. -The defendant justified it before the League of Nations. Therefore, -he has to meet that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the same year he negotiated the Anticomintern Pact. He has -to explain that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From that time onwards, there are a succession of German documents, -all referred to in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, -which show exactly the part this defendant played in 10 sets -of aggression against 10 separate countries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that that is a perfectly -clear case which this defendant has to meet. There is no doubt -about it at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already summarized the case on the War Crimes and -Crimes against Humanity. Again Dr. Horn will find it dealt with, -with every document mentioned, in the transcript for the 9th of -January. -<span class='pageno' title='223' id='Page_223'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I respectfully submit that whatever else may be said, the particularity -and clarity of the case against the Defendant Ribbentrop is -manifest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, in my presentation of defense against -the charges lodged by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in his special plea -for the Prosecution, I have offered rebutting evidence in answer to -these charges. I have, however, not only to confine myself to -refuting those charges just mentioned, but I have—and thus I have -to repeat what I just said—to consider all these charges under the -point of view of conspiracy, as according to the submission of the -Prosecution, the Defendant Ribbentrop is party to this conspiracy; -and the question cannot be avoided: When did the conspiracy start? -Taking the supposition that my client took part in a conspiracy, -this participation did not start in 1930, as submitted by the Prosecution—I -shall be able to refute this—but only in 1932; but I should -like to prove through witnesses and otherwise that then and later -he did not join in any conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well now, perhaps you will get on with the -documents which you want.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the -documents, I have had the opportunity of discussing it informally -with Dr. Horn; and I understand that with regard to Documents -1 to 14, Dr. Horn really wants these books as working books which -he can read and use and, if necessary, take extracts from to -illustrate his argument and point at that time. Now, that is a -matter of course to which we make no objection at all. I have -consistently taken the view that there should be no objection to -any book for working purposes for the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What I do want to ask is this, that if Dr. Horn or any other -Defense Counsel wishes to use an extract from a book when it -comes to presenting his case, he will let us know what the extract -is and, if necessary, for what purpose he is going to use it. I say -“if necessary” because in many cases it will be quite apparent for -what purpose, but in some cases it may have special significance; -and if they let us know, then any question of relevance can be -argued when the matter is produced in court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But that seems to me to be necessary in -order that the documents should be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite; yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I mean that the part of the book or part of -the document which Dr. Horn wants to use should be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But as far as providing the -Defense with working copies, any co-operation that the Prosecution -<span class='pageno' title='224' id='Page_224'></span> -can do in that way they will gladly do. That is a matter on which -we should be anxious to help.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The last five documents named fall into rather a different category. -I haven’t discussed these with Dr. Horn; but I respectfully -submit—and it is the united view of the Prosecution—that complete -files of newspapers will be difficult to justify as evidence before the -Tribunal, but again, if Dr. Horn wants them for matter of reference, -then it just becomes a question of possibility.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not sure with regard to these whether it is desired to use -them or whether it is merely desired to have them to refer to. I -don’t know anything about Number 19, the withdrawn number of -the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>, but I suppose the Secretariat can make inquiries -about that from the proprietors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The last item I should like to take up: Now that the -Trial has already progressed so far that I now require these documents -in order to be able to make use of them for rebutting evidence, -may I ask that copies of those newspapers—it is a matter of -three or four newspapers, which are bound in 1-month volumes—be -made available to me as soon as possible with the help of the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the withdrawn number -of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>? You haven’t yet indicated why it would be -relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: On the 30 or 31 of August 1939, an edition of the -<span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> was withdrawn because it contained extensive -details of the contents of the memorandum which the then Reich -Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, had read to the British Ambassador, -Henderson, in Berlin. It is asserted—also by the Prosecution—that -Ribbentrop read this note to Henderson so rapidly that the -latter was unable to understand the essential points. From the issue -of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> of 31 August 1939, it will thus appear to -what extent Ambassador Henderson was in a position to understand -Ribbentrop’s statements or the oral presentation of that memorandum -as Von Ribbentrop read it. I therefore ask that this number -of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> be procured, and I am convinced that the -Prosecution is able to obtain this issue by the means at their disposal -but not available to us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time -that I have heard of this withdrawn copy apart. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The first time you have heard there was any -copy withdrawn?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have never heard it except -from Dr. Horn that there was a copy withdrawn, and I shall -probably have to investigate the matter. -<span class='pageno' title='225' id='Page_225'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I only want to say one thing, that of course Dr. Horn has just -made one point about the question between this defendant and Sir -Nevile Henderson. It is the case for the Defendant Göring, as -expressed in Dr. Stahmer’s interrogatories, that the Defendant -Göring had caused the contents of this memorandum to be given -unofficially to Mr. Dahlerus behind the Defendant Ribbentrop’s -back. That is the case which he is making in the interrogatories, -so that it by no means follows that Sir Nevile Henderson’s account -of the interview was wrong, even if an account of the document -had come out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I don’t want to make a point of the memory of Sir Nevile, but -shall investigate this matter, which I have just heard now for the -first time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: May I add for the fuller information of the Tribunal -that the Defendant Göring made the memorandum available to -Ambassador Henderson only at a considerably later date. It is, -therefore, of decisive importance when and whether Henderson -acquired knowledge of this memorandum and whether it happened -in good time so that he could still communicate it to the Polish -Government within the proper time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I ask therefore for the procurement of this most important -edition of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We will continue with the evidence against the Defendant Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a remark -preliminary to the discussion about the evidence submitted for -Defendant Keitel. I hope the discussions about the various applications -for evidence will thereby be considerably shortened. From -my written application you will see that in respect to the majority -of the witnesses one main subject of evidence recurs again and -again, namely, the position of Defendant Keitel as Chief of the -OKW and in his other official functions, his personality, particularly, -also his relations to Hitler, and the clarification of the chain -of command within the Armed Forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall present evidence that the idea of the public and the -Prosecution regarding the personality of the Defendant Keitel, his -scope, and his activities is incorrect. No name has been so frequently -mentioned in the course of this proceeding as that of the Defendant -Keitel. Every document which dealt in any way with military matters -was identified with the OKW, and the OKW, in turn with Keitel. -The defendant believes, and I think with some justification. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal appreciates the general points -which you will probably want to argue on behalf of the Defendant -<span class='pageno' title='226' id='Page_226'></span> -Keitel when you come to make your final speech, but it does not -appear to the Tribunal to be necessary that you should do so now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I mention it only to make possible a comprehensive -appraisal of all witnesses offered for the presentation of evidence. -I think Sir David shares this opinion with me—he already discussed -it with me on Saturday—and it was my intention to expound in a -preliminary way the subject of evidence which otherwise had to be -presented in five or six different cases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Nelte, that you will be able -to deal with all your witnesses in one series of observations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Could you help us, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think I can help.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from the witnesses who are codefendants that are mentioned -by Dr. Nelte, whom of course the Tribunal has already provided, -Dr. Nelte asks for Field Marshal Von Blomberg, General -Halder, General Warlimont, and the Chief Staff Judge of the OKW, -Dr. Lehmann. The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses, -because they are called to deal with the position of the Defendant -Keitel as head of the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the witness Erbe, who is, I think, a civil servant -called on a specific point as to his position in the Committee for -Reich Defense. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the interrogatories already been granted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; we have always said that -interrogatories would be sufficient and he should not be called as an -oral witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to the next witness, Roemer, whom Dr. Nelte -wishes to call to say that the decree for the branding of Soviet -Russian prisoners of war was announced by mistake and retracted -at once on the order of Keitel, that is obviously relevant to one -matter in the case, and we don’t object to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We don’t object to General Reinecke, who is called on various -matters relating to prisoners of war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Mr. Romilly, so long as it is confined to interrogatories -which have been allowed, and he is not called orally, -we have no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will have a word to say -about Ambassador Scapini. I have asked him to deal with that -matter in French.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to two witnesses, Dr. Junod and Mr. Petersen. -At the moment the Prosecution cannot see how these witnesses are -needed in addition to General Reinecke. And of course they would -object if the purpose of the testimony is to show that the Soviet -<span class='pageno' title='227' id='Page_227'></span> -Union did not treat its prisoners of war properly. If that is the -purpose, they would object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the calling of Dr. Lammers has been granted by the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then finally, there are three witnesses who are all called in -order to show that at discussions between Hitler and the Defendant -Keitel, two stenographers had to be present. The Prosecution do -not regard that as a very vital part of the case, and if Dr. Nelte -will produce an affidavit from one of these gentlemen, then the -Prosecution are not in a position—and do not desire—to dispute -the point. Frankly, if I may say so, and with the greatest respect, -we are not at all interested in that point, and therefore will be -content with an affidavit if produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If I might summarize—and I hope I am merely trying to help -Dr. Nelte—the only matters which, as far as the Prosecution are -concerned, require further discussion is the matter of what the -French Delegation will have to say about Ambassador Scapini, and -my objection to Dr. Junod and Mr. Petersen, and my suggestion as -to an affidavit for the last three witnesses. There is very little -between us, if I may say so, with respect to Dr. Nelte’s witnesses; -on the whole they seem to the Prosecution to be obviously relevant -and in that case we make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is one rather sad fact with regard to the witness Blomberg, -of which I think Dr. Nelte has been informed. I understand that -Field Marshal Von Blomberg is very ill at the moment and cannot -be brought into court, so that I am sure, Dr. Nelte, the Defendant -Keitel will be the first to accept some method of getting his evidence -which will not necessitate that fact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I thank Sir David for his kindness, by which my -task has been made easier.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to state in addition that in respect to the witness, -Dr. Erbe, I shall put written questions. To the witness Petersen -I have already submitted written questions, and on the answers -received depends whether I shall call him in person. As to witness -Junod, I believe I may say that his examination is relevant because -the Soviet Prosecution has submitted that an offer to apply the -Geneva Convention had been rejected by Keitel. Dr. Junod is to -be examined as a witness that, by order of the OKW Department -of Prisoners of War, he contacted the Soviet Union in order to -secure the application of the Geneva Convention but that this could -not be brought about. I believe that if only General Reinecke is -to be examined as a witness on this question, it could perhaps be -objected that he, as chief of the Department of Prisoners of War, -cannot give sufficient testimony. Neither can General Reinecke -testify to what Dr. Junod actually did. Consequently I ask that -<span class='pageno' title='228' id='Page_228'></span> -this witness be approved. As far as the stenographers are concerned, -I ask approval to submit an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Ambassador Scapini, I should merely like to point out -that he was the permanent representative of the French Vichy -Government and that he was particularly concerned with the -question of caring for prisoners of war in Germany. I believe that -this is adequate reason for considering him relevant. To be sure, -I did not know his address, and hope that the French Prosecution -can help me in that regard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for -the French Republic): We see no objection to hearing the former -Ambassador Scapini, if his testimony can in our opinion have the -slightest bearing on the search for truth; but the very reasons which -Dr. Nelte gives for the calling of this witness seem to me to prove -the complete absence of relevance of this testimony. The former -Ambassador Scapini, says the honorable representative of the -Defense, could point out and say that he freely exercised his control -in the prisoner-of-war camps and moreover that these prisoners -of war had a representative, but this we are quite willing to grant -to the Defense. It is perfectly true that Germany had consented to -allow the former Ambassador Scapini—who we know was wounded -in the war of 1914 and blinded—to visit the camps of prisoners and -hear the French prisoners of war though he could not see them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the question is not to find out whether the Germans had -been willing to allow a blind inspector to visit the camps. The -only question presented by the Indictment is whether, in spite of -the visits of this inspector and in spite of the presence of a special -representative in the camps, there did not occur in these camps -acts contrary to the laws of war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On this point the former Ambassador Scapini could surely give -no answer, for obviously nothing happened in his presence. This -is why the French Prosecution considers that the testimony of the -former Ambassador Scapini would shed no light in this search for -truth.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: It was not known to me that Ambassador Scapini -was blind. Not he himself, but rather the delegation of which he -was head, made regular inspections of the prisoner-of-war camps -for French soldiers. It is certain that in prisoner-of-war camps -things happened which violated the Geneva Convention, but the -question at issue here is that the Defendant Keitel and the OKW, -as the supreme authority, did—or at any rate, tried to do—all that -they, as highest authority, had to do.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The OKW had no command jurisdiction in the individual camps. -It had only to issue instructions as to how prisoners of war were -<span class='pageno' title='229' id='Page_229'></span> -to be treated and had to permit the protecting powers to visit the -camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would interrogatories be satisfactory, supposing -we thought it proper to administer them to Mr. Scapini?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: An interrogation in Nuremberg? Could Ambassador -Scapini be heard in Nuremberg?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I was asking whether interrogatories would -be satisfactory. I imagine Mr. Scapini is not in Nuremberg. -Written interrogatories, I mean, of course, where I have mentioned -them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I ask for a ruling on whether the written questions -which I first should like to put will be sufficient or whether another -ruling will be necessary. So I assume that first I shall interrogate -Ambassador Scapini in writing and on his answer it will depend -whether. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in writing. Will that be satisfactory to -you, M. Champetier de Ribes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Yes, that will be quite satisfactory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps we might adjourn now, -Dr. Nelte, until a quarter past 2.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='230' id='Page_230'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished -with your witnesses, had you not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, I think so. I must only reserve the right on -what I may have to state, after the Soviet Prosecution have finished -presenting their case—whether I still may wish to call this or that -witness. As to the documents I should like to put a few questions -which are of particular interest for me—rather for the Defendant -Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: The Tribunal knows my main subject of evidence. -In order to prove that in many cases the Prosecution is wrong in -assuming the OKW and the Defendant Keitel to be responsible, -I can refer to a great many documents which have been presented -by the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I take it that these documents are not to be submitted by me as -evidential material, as they have already been put in. I ask the -Tribunal for examination of these documents and for a ruling that -in my pleadings on behalf of the defendant I may refer to such -documents without having to submit or quote them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to add that the Tribunal, having been informed -about the structure of the Armed Forces or parts of them and -about the competencies of the various commands, will itself be able -to judge which of the documents submitted are not suitable for -supporting the allegations of the Prosecution regarding the responsibility -of the Defendant Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am also convinced that the Tribunal, in its findings, will -examine carefully any document relevant to the question of guilt, -even if the Defense does not submit such documents, and even if -the Defense cannot submit a comprehensive presentation in view -of the extremely large number of documents—there are thousands -relating to the Defendant Keitel—and even if the Defense cannot -deal with all these documents in the final speeches.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, I should like to submit to the Tribunal another -question which is important for the presentation of evidence on -behalf of the Defendant Keitel and which is of great importance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the session of 1 February 1946, the French Prosecutor -made the following statement, and I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Chapter 4 and the last will bear the heading, ‘The Administrative -Organization of Criminal Action’. . . . for the fourth -chapter I might point out that the French Delegation examined -more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original German -documents of which I have kept only about 50.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='231' id='Page_231'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the opening address of the United States Chief -Prosecutor, there can be no doubt that these 50 documents were -selected merely from the point of view of incriminating the defendant. -On 11 February, if I remember correctly, I addressed myself -to the French Prosecution with a request to place at my disposal -for examination the remaining 1,950 documents, which the French -Prosecution did not use.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To date I have received no answer. The Tribunal will appreciate -the difficulties of my position. I know there are documents there -which I am sure contain also exonerating facts. Yet I am not able -to specify these documents. I beg the Tribunal, therefore, for a -ruling in this matter—that the Prosecution should place at my -disposal those documents for my perusal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents -that you are asking for, are you going to say anything about them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I -know only that the French Prosecution have these 2,000 documents. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I -will ask the French Prosecutor to answer what you have said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: If Your Honor pleases, I leave it to the Tribunal -whether they wish to examine this question or whether it can be -dealt with now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the -French Prosecutor now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French -Republic): A certain number of documents of doubtful origin were -in our hands at the time that we were beginning to prepare our -prosecution. We have eliminated all documents which could not -bear serious critical examination. We undertook a critical task and -rejected all those that were considered to be insufficient proof. At -the end of this task about fifty documents remained which have -been referred to by my colleagues and which appeared relevant. -These 50 documents have, moreover, not all been accepted by the -Tribunal, which has rejected some, and if I remember rightly, -3 or 4 of whose origin we were not quite sure. In these conditions, -it is absolutely incorrect to say that we have kept 1,950 documents -from the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We handed over to the Court, and therefore to the Defense, the -50 documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient -probative value.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If I understand this request of the Defense they wish the Court -to ask to have handed to them documents of which some have been -rejected by the Court itself as not having sufficient probative value -<span class='pageno' title='232' id='Page_232'></span> -or as not being sufficiently authenticated. The Tribunal will decide -whether this request should be granted. As far as I am concerned, -I must oppose this application with all my might because it would -mean taking into account documents which did not offer a sufficiently -authentic character for the examination we made, and which the -Tribunal itself also made when we submitted to it some of these -documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but M. Dubost, the position is this: -There were a large number of documents which the Counsel for -the French Prosecution said that they had examined; and the -French Prosecution, in the exercise of their discretion, thought it -unnecessary to refer to more than a certain number of them; but -it is only the French Prosecution which has exercised their discretion -about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is asking is to -see them for the purpose of seeing whether there is anything in -the documents which assists his case. Would the French Prosecution -have any objection to that? I mean—it may be that some of the -documents are no longer in the possession of the French Prosecution, -but those that are in their possession, would the French -Prosecution object to Dr. Nelte’s seeing those?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. DUBOST: May I remind the Tribunal that the documents -which we rejected were not rejected as useless in the beginning, -but as not presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin, as to -the conditions under which we obtained them and as to their -probative value.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of -these documents were rejected by the Court itself. Those which -we did not consider are of the same character as those documents -which were rejected. We did not submit them because we could -not tell you where, when, and how they had been discovered. For -the most part, they are documents that fell into the hands of -combat troops in battle, and under the terms of jurisprudence do -not offer sufficient guarantee to be retained.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as they are still in my possession I am ready to communicate -them to Defense Counsel, it being clearly understood that -they will not attach to them any higher merit, any higher value -than I did.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all -Dr. Nelte wants is to see any documents which you have brought -to see whether he can find anything in them that he thinks may -help the case of the defendant for whom he appears, and I understand -you would not have any objection to his doing that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. DUBOST: I would only answer the Defense Counsel that -some of those documents were rejected by your Tribunal when I -presented them. -<span class='pageno' title='233' id='Page_233'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it would not apply to documents -which have been rejected by the Court. Very well. We -will not decide the matter now. We will consider it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Would the Tribunal announce its decision regarding -the first question which I brought up, namely, whether it is -sufficient that I refer to documents which have been presented -by the Prosecution without submitting them myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to -support Dr. Nelte’s suggestion. If a document has already been put -in, I should have thought it was right and convenient that Counsel -for the Defense could comment on it without putting it in again, -and should have full right of comment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of -occasions that any document which has been put in evidence, or a -part of which has been put in evidence, can, of course, be used -by the Defense in order to explain or criticize the part that has -been put in. It may be that as a matter of informing the Tribunal -as to the document, it may be necessary to have part of the document, -which has not been put in evidence, put in now in order -that it may be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it -would be convenient if I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the -Prosecution on his list of documents, or whether he would like to -develop it himself. I can quite shortly do that if it would be -convenient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the -documents in the list fall into that category which has just been -mentioned. Documents 3 to 9, 17 and 29, 30 and 31 all appear to -be in, and therefore Dr. Nelte may comment in accordance with -your ruling.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are a number of documents which are affidavits, -either of defendants or intended witnesses: Documents 12, 13, 22, -23, 24, 25, and 28.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal may remember that in the case of the witness, -Dr. Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the -witness, “Is your affidavit true?” and then reading the affidavit -to save time. The Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s -pursuing that course, should he so desire; but, of course, where -a witness is going to be called as a witness, he will have to verify -his affidavit on oath, in the submission of the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='234' id='Page_234'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness -is here, you have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s reading the affidavit -and the witness being then liable to cross-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, “I agree; -I verify the facts that are in my affidavit.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might save considerable time -in the examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate -in that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? -Is that what he means?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Entirely.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were -presented to the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they -did not wish to cross-examine. That would save the witnesses being -here or being brought here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of -Dr. Lehmann. I think all the other cases are either defendants or -witnesses with regard to whom there are certain points which the -Prosecution would like to ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are three documents to which there are no objections -to their being used: 18, 26, and 27.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That leaves a number of documents as to whose use I am not -quite sure at the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain -how he wishes to use them, and that may remove the difficulty -of the Prosecution. If the Tribunal will be good enough to look -at 1 and 2, 1 is an expert’s opinion on state laws concerning the -Führer state, and the importance of the Führer order, and Document -2 is an order of the Führer, Number 1.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If it is desired to use these so as to controvert Article 8 of the -Charter, the Prosecution will object. That is a question of superior -orders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain -the backgrounds as a matter of history, that may be a different -matter. Now, the next one is Document 10—a need for a ministry -of rearmament, taken from. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, -ought we to accept the opinion of an expert on such a point?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We do not at -all. I am afraid that my second remark really applied to the order -of the Führer. That might be used as a background or it might be -<span class='pageno' title='235' id='Page_235'></span> -used for purposes of mitigation or explanation of how a thing took -place, but I respectfully agree that the expert’s opinion on state -laws cannot be used with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. -Of course, the law of any other state may be a question of fact -as far as the Tribunal is concerned just as it would be a question -of fact in an English court: “What is the law of another state?” -As I say, I want to reserve emphatically the position of Article 8 -with regard to these two documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 -deal with rearmament in other countries. I do not want to prevent -the Defense using illustrations, but again I reserve the position most -emphatically that rearmament in other countries cannot be an -excuse for aggressive war and would be irrelevant on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, 15 and 16 refer to books by Major General Fuller and -Major General Temperley, who are both ex-officers, who were -journalists during this period. As far as any question of fact that -is stated in these books, if Dr. Nelte will let us know what the -passage is, we shall see whether we could admit it, but the general -views of Major General Fuller and Major General Temperley we -would submit to be irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, 19, 20, and 21 are books about Austria. Again the -Prosecution reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion -in Austria with regard to an Anschluss is irrelevant when considering -the question of the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 -which took place in 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents -and, as I say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to -three of which there is nothing really between us in principle, -and with regard to the fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve -these various points which I have mentioned. Again I want to make -clear that the Prosecution does not object to Dr. Nelte’s obtaining -any of these books for the purpose of preparing his case, but we -want them to make clear at the earliest opportunity what their -position is with regard to their use.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: With respect to the first three categories, the Prosecution -agrees with me that I can confine myself to the last category -which begins with Documents 1 and 2. One of the fundamental -questions of this Trial, which at first glance appears a purely legal -problem, is the question of the so-called Führer state (Führerstaat) -and Führer order (Führerbefehl). This question has, however, important -actual significance here at this Trial, also of a factual -importance. For instance, the Defendant Keitel, as a result of his -particular position, was to the utmost degree affected by this Führer -<span class='pageno' title='236' id='Page_236'></span> -state principle and acted accordingly as he was continuously in -personal contact with the incarnation of this principle, namely, -Hitler. It is not as if Article 8 of the Charter remained unaffected -by it. It will, however, so I assume, be possible to prove that -Article 8 of the Charter is not applicable here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the Führer Order Number 1, Document Number 2, the -Tribunal itself will, upon hearing the order, be able to judge -whether it bears any relevance. This order, Führer Order Number -1, from Keitel Document Book Number 1, reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“a) No one is to have any knowledge of secret matters which -do not fall within his sphere.</p> - -<p>“b) No one is to obtain more information than he needs for -the fulfillment of the task set him.</p> - -<p>“c) No one is to receive information earlier than is necessary -for the duties assigned to him.</p> - -<p>“d) No one is to pass on to subordinates more secret orders or -at an earlier date than is indispensable for the attainment -of the purpose.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number 1, that is, the expert opinion on the Führer -state and Führer order, in connection with this Führer Order -Number 1, is to serve as proof for the fact that there can be no -question of conspiracy in the sense of the Indictment. Therefore, -I request the Tribunal to admit those two documents as relevant. -Documents Number 10 and Number 11, and also to a certain -degree, Number 16, are submitted as proof that the principles -which the Defendant Keitel, as a soldier and a German, considered -to be important, namely, rearmament up to a point of securing -a respectable position for Germany among the council of nations, -were not only postulated by the German people, but also appreciated -and approved by important persons abroad. This subject is -to be proved by submission of articles by a British, a French, and -an American author, military men, all of whom hold a high -reputation for their writings on military matters. Among these is -the article “Total War,” by Major General Fuller, my Document 15, -as well as the book by the British Major General Temperley, -<span class='it'>The Whispering Gallery of Europe</span>. Mr. Fuller, for instance, writes -in his article, that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is nonsense to state that he”—Hitler—“wanted war. War -could not bring him the rebirth of his nation. What he needed -was an honorable, secure peace.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The point to be proved here is that any aggressive intentions -would of themselves be incompatible with the pronouncements of -Hitler and the leading Nazis, if one believes in their sincerity. The -defendant believed in the sincerity of these pronouncements and to -this end he referred to the opinion of important persons abroad. -<span class='pageno' title='237' id='Page_237'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think those are the documents to which the Prosecution raised -certain objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You have not mentioned 19 to 21, which -documents are said to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents—Number 19, “The Cultural -and Political Importance of the Anschluss,” and Document 20, “The -Way Toward the Anschluss,” and the third, “The Anschluss in the -International Press,” dated 1931—are to prove the defendant could -assume, and was justified in so doing, that the overwhelming -majority of Austrian people welcomed the Anschluss with Germany. -These are articles and memoranda of the Austro-German Peoples -Union, the chairman of which was the Social Democrat Reichstag -President Loebe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I should like to make only one additional application -to the Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have -been unable to mention earlier since they were not submitted until -the sitting of 22 February. I shall now submit this application. -It refers to 11 documents, all of which were presented during the -Friday sitting in order to prove the complicity of Keitel in the -destruction during the retreat and in regard to forced labor of -prisoners of war and civilian population. From the contents of -these documents submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes apparent -that, according to evidence I have already offered, a large number -of the accusations of the Prosecution are to be attributed to the -fact that every document which dealt in any way with military -matters was simply charged to the OKW and Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents -have already been put in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to -which Sir David agreed. They could be touched on by you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: That is correct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is no need to make any fresh application -in connection with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: When I made this additional application I had not -yet received Sir David’s consent. Besides this seems to be a particularly -singular and convincing case because, on one day, 11 documents -were submitted, all of which were used as accusations -against Keitel, but which all showed by their contents that they do -not apply to him or the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. There is only one other thing -that I wanted to ask you. You asked at an earlier stage for the -<span class='pageno' title='238' id='Page_238'></span> -evidence from Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg and in -both, cases the Tribunal granted you interrogatories. I do not know -whether you are withdrawing your application in respect to those -cases or whether you have seen the answers to the interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I have, in accordance with the suggestion, sent those -interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith as well as to Otto Wettberg. -Depending on the reply I shall receive from those two -witnesses, I shall or shall not submit them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You have submitted the one for Otto Wettberg, -have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, but I have not received it back.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Exhibit Number 1, would you -explain a little bit more what Number 1 is going to be? It appears -to be the opinion of an expert witness on the meaning of the Führer -precept. Is that what you intend?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes. It is an article in the field of constitutional -law on the structure and significance of what is known as the Leader -State (Führerstaat).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant -Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, it is my -duty to submit to the Tribunal evidence on the last count of the -Indictment. “Crimes against Humanity” are dealt with in Count -Four of the Indictment, and by Article 6, and particularly Subparagraph -C of Article 6, of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit evidence of crimes which the Hitlerites committed -on the territories of the temporarily occupied areas of the Soviet -Union, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Crimes against Humanity—just as the other crimes of the -German fascists for which evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal -by my colleagues—originated in the criminal nature of -fascism, in its endeavors to dominate the world by predatory seizure -of whole states in the East and in the West, and by enslavement and -mass extermination of people. These crimes were put into effect by -adoption of the cannibalistic theories of German fascism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Elements forming the concept of Crimes against Humanity are -to be found in nearly all the criminal acts of the Hitlerites. For -instance, a considerable amount of probative facts in corroboration -of the gravity of the crimes committed by the German fascists has -already been submitted to the Tribunal during the presentation of -the Count concerning War Crimes against the civilian population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The criminal violation by the Hitlerites of the laws and customs -of war, as well as the mass extermination of prisoners of war, are -<span class='pageno' title='239' id='Page_239'></span> -some of the gravest Crimes against Humanity. At the same time, -the concept Crimes against Humanity is considerably broader in -scope than any definition of German fascist crimes, of which proofs -have been hitherto submitted to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Together with the arrival of German forces and the appearance -of the swastika on official buildings, life of the inhabitants of the -temporarily occupied eastern European countries seemed to stop. -The merciless fascist machine tried to force them to be deprived of -all that which, as a result of centuries of human development, had -become an integral part of humanity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, death hung over them constantly, but on their way to -death they were forced to pass through numerous and agonizing -phases, insulting to human dignity, which constitute, in their -entirety, the charge entitled in the Indictment “Crimes against -Humanity.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Attempts were made to force them to forget their own names by -hanging a number around their necks or by sewing a classification -mark on their sleeves. They were deprived of the right to speak or -to read in their mother tongue. They were deprived of their homes, -their families, their native country, forcibly deported hundreds and -thousands of kilometers away. They were deprived of the right to -procreate. They were daily scoffed at and insulted. Their feelings -and beliefs were jeered at and ridiculed. And, finally, they were -deprived of their last right—to live.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The numerous investigations noted not only the state of extreme -physical exhaustion of the victims of German fascist atrocities; they -also usually mentioned the state of deep moral depression of those -who, by the hazards of fate, escaped the fascist hell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A long period of time was necessary for these victims of German -fascism to return once again to a world of normal conceptions and -activities and to man’s conventions for human society. All this is -very hard to express in legal formula, but, in my opinion, it is very -important in the Indictment of the major war criminals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Polish Government -which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). The -quotation which I should like now to read is on Page 10 of the document -book. On Page 70 of the Russian text of this report, there is -a quotation from the statement of Jacob Vernik, a carpenter from -Warsaw, who spent a year in the extermination camp of Treblinka 2. -Sometimes the official German documents refer to “Treblinka 2” as -“Treblinka B,” but it is one and the same. This was one of the most -terrible centers for mass extermination of people, created by German -fascists. In my statement, I shall submit to Your Honors evidence -connected with the existence of this camp. -<span class='pageno' title='240' id='Page_240'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is what Vernik said in presenting a report on Treblinka to -the Polish Government; a report which, as he stressed in his -foreword, was his only reason “to continue his pitiful life”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Awake or asleep I see terrible visions of thousands of people -calling for help, begging for life and mercy.</p> - -<p>“I have lost my family, I have myself led them to death; I -have myself built the death chambers in which they were -murdered.</p> - -<p>“I am afraid of everything, I fear that everything I have seen -is written on my face. An old and broken life is a heavy -burden, but I must carry on and live to tell the world what -German crimes and barbarism I saw.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The persons who came to Treblinka entered, as I said, the ante-chamber -of death. But were they the only victims of this fate? An -analysis of probative facts connected with the crimes of the German -fascists irrefutably testifies to the fact that the same fate was shared -not only by those who were sent to special extermination camps, but -also all those who became the victims of these criminals in the -temporarily occupied countries of Eastern Europe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the Tribunal’s permission to bring in evidence a short -quotation from a document already submitted to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-46—the report of the Extraordinary State -Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes committed in the -city and region of Orel. In the text of this document there is a -special communication of a famed Russian scientist, a doctor, the -President of the Academy of Medical Science and member of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, Academician -Burdenko. The Tribunal will find this communication on Page 14 -of the document book, Paragraph 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The scenes I had to witness”—says Burdenko—“surpassed -the wildest imagination. Our joy at the sight of the delivered -people was dimmed by the expression of stupor on their faces.</p> - -<p>“This led one to reflect—what was the matter? Evidently the -sufferings they had undergone had stamped upon them -equality of life and death. I observed these people during -3 days. I bandaged them, I evacuated them, but their physical -stupor did not change. Something similar could be noticed -during the first days on the faces of the doctors.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not, Your Honors, waste time in drawing attention to the -long and well-known extracts from <span class='it'>Mein Kampf</span> or the <span class='it'>Myth of the -Twentieth Century</span>. We are interested, in the first place, in the -criminal practices of the German fascist fiends.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already said above, that death constantly hung over the -people who became the victims of fascism. Death could come -<span class='pageno' title='241' id='Page_241'></span> -unexpectedly, together with the appearance in one or another place -of a Sonderkommando; but at the same time, a death sentence would -be pronounced for any act in these special decisions so mockingly -called German fascist “laws.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I and other members of the Soviet Prosecution already have -given numerous examples of these terroristic laws, directives, and -decrees of the German fascist authorities. I do not wish to repeat -myself, but I beg the Tribunal’s permission to quote one of these -documents as it concerns all the temporarily seized eastern territories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The only justification for the publication of this document for its -author, the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, is that these temporarily -occupied districts were populated by non-Germans. This document -is a characteristic evidence of the persecution of people for racial, -national, or political motives. I beg the Tribunal to enter in the -record, as Exhibit Number USSR-395 (Document Number USSR-395), -the photostat of the so-called third decree supplementing the penal -directives for the Eastern territories which was issued by Alfred -Rosenberg on 17 February 1942. Your Honors will find this document -on Pages 19 and 20 of the document book. I shall read in -full, beginning with Paragraph 1:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The death penalty, or, in lesser cases, penal servitude will -be inflicted upon: Those who undertake to use violence against -the German Reich or against the high authority established in -the occupied territories; those who undertake to commit -violence against a Reich citizen or a person of German -nationality for his or her belonging to this German nationality; -those who undertake to use violence against a member of the -Wehrmacht or its followers, the German police including its -auxiliary forces, the Reich Labor Service, a German authority -or institution, or the organizations of the NSDAP; those who -appeal or incite to disobedience of orders or directives issued -by the German authorities; those who with premeditation -damage the furniture of German authorities and institutions -or things used by the latter for their work or in the public -interest; those who undertake to assist anti-German movements -or to maintain the organizational connection of groups -prohibited by the German authorities; those who participate -in or incite hostile activity and thus reveal anti-German -mentality or who by their behavior lower or injure the -authority or the welfare of the German State and people; -those who premeditatively commit arson and thereby damage -German interests in general or the property . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you read this before?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I checked the transcript, and I -do not think that this has been read into the record. -<span class='pageno' title='242' id='Page_242'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It may be that similar orders -were read; maybe those of Frank or some other orders. They are -all alike. In any case I could not find any mention of this document -in the transcript.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . damage German interests in general or the property of a -Reich citizen or persons of German nationality.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 2 is very characteristic:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Furthermore, the death penalty and, in lesser cases, penal -servitude is to be inflicted upon: Those who agree to commit -any punishable action as foreseen by Paragraph 1; those who -enter into serious negotiations on that subject; those who offer -their services to commit such an action or accept such an -offer; or those who possess credible information on such an -action or its intention at a moment when the danger can still -be averted, and willfully refrain from warning the German -authorities or the menaced person in due time.</p> - -<p>“Paragraph 3. An offense not coming under Paragraphs 1 and 2 -is to be punished by death, even if this penalty is not provided -for by the general German criminal laws and by decrees of -German authorities, if the offense is of a particularly base -type or for other reasons is particularly serious. In such cases -the death penalty is also permissible for juvenile hard -criminals.</p> - -<p>“Paragraph 4. (1) If there is insufficient justification for -turning the case over to competent courts-martial, the special -courts are competent. (2) The special instructions issued for -the Armed Forces are not hereby affected.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip Paragraph 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This decree of Rosenberg’s was only one link in the chain of -crimes committed by the leaders of the German fascism directed -toward exterminating the Slav peoples.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the first part of my statement, which is entitled, -“Extermination of Slav Peoples.” In this part I shall show how this -criminal purpose of the Hitlerites to exterminate the Slav peoples -was carried out. I shall quote data from the report of the Yugoslav -Government, which is to be found on Page 56 of the Russian text or -on Page 76, Paragraph 3, document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Apart from the thousands of Yugoslavs who died in battle, -the occupants exterminated at least one and a half to two -million people, mostly women, children, and aged persons. Of -the 15 million prewar Yugoslav population, in the relatively -<span class='pageno' title='243' id='Page_243'></span> -short period of 4 years, almost 14 percent of the entire -population was exterminated.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Czechoslovak Government, on Pages 36 and -37 of the Russian text, there is proof of a plan conceived by the -Hitlerite criminals for the forceful expulsion of all Czechs and the -settling of German colonists in Czechoslovakia. The report quotes -an excerpt from a statement of Karl Hermann Frank, who admitted -the existence of this plan and declared that he, Frank, had compiled -a memorandum in which he objected to a similar plan. I quote the -excerpt from the statement of Karl Hermann Frank, which the Tribunal -can find on Page 37 in the document book, fourth paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I considered this plan senseless as, in my opinion, the vacuum -created by these measures would have seriously upset the -vital functioning of Bohemia and Moravia for various reasons -of geopolitical, traffic, industrial, and other character; and the -immediate filling of this vacuum with new German settlers -was impossible.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In Poland a regime of extermination of the Slav population was -put into effect by diverse criminal methods, among which driving -people to an extreme state of exhaustion by excessive labor and -subsequent death from hunger, was most prevalent. The criminals -quite consciously embarked upon the extermination of millions of -people by hunger, which is attested by a number of documents -already quoted by me and my colleagues in part, namely, the diary -of Hans Frank.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote a few short extracts from this document. Here is -an excerpt concerning the minutes of a conference held by the -Governor General on 7 December 1942 in Kraków. The Tribunal -will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 89 of the document -book, in the first column of the text, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Should the new food supply plan be put into effect, it means -that for the city of Warsaw and its surroundings alone 500,000 -people will no longer receive food relief.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And here is another short excerpt from the minutes of a governmental -conference held on 24 August 1942. The Tribunal will find -it on Page 90 of the document book, first paragraph of the text. Dr. -Frank states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“With all the difficulties which arise from the illness of -workers, or the breaking down of your co-operatives, you -must always bear in mind that it is much better if a Pole -collapses than if the Germans are defeated. The fact that we -shall be condemning 1,200,000 Jews to death by starvation -should be mentioned incidentally. Of course, if the Jews do -not die from starvation, it is to be hoped that anti-Jewish -measures will be expedited in the future.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='244' id='Page_244'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third short quotation is an excerpt from the minutes of a -labor conference held by the political leaders of the Labor Front of -the NSDAP in the Government General, on 14 December 1942. The -Tribunal will find it on the reverse of Page 89 of the document book, -second column, second paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . we are faced with the following problem: Shall we be -able, as from February, to exclude from general food supply -2 million persons of non-German nationality or not?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In his preliminary speech, the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., -while speaking of Crimes against Humanity, referred to the notes of -Martin Bormann. The notes of Martin Bormann were presented to -the Court under Exhibit Number USSR-172 (Document Number -USSR-172) in particular. The Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. quoted -the following lines, which the Tribunal can find on Page 97 of the -document book, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In summing up, the Führer once more stated: The least German -workman and the least German peasant must always -stand economically 10 percent higher than any Pole.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>How were things in reality? I should like to show that, with full -approval, the Defendant Frank put these Hitler orders into effect in -Polish territory. I beg the Tribunal to take for evidence an original -German document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Among the other fascist institutions carrying out various pseudo-scientific -experiments, the German criminals created a special -institute for economic research. This institute issued a document -entitled, “What the Polish Problem Means for War Economy of -Upper Silesia.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fascist “scientific” institute decided to make such investigations -in order to clarify the reason why the output of Polish workers -became considerably reduced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Two short excerpts will testify to the aims of this investigation -better than anything else. On Page 39 of this original document we -read—the Tribunal will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 101, -of the document book, second paragraph. I submit this document as -Exhibit Number USSR-282 (Document Number USSR-282). I begin -the quotation which is on Page 101 of the document book, second -paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“This investigation is in no way to be construed as propaganda -to arouse pity.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 149 of the quoted document—the Tribunal will find this -on Page 101, third paragraph, of the document book—it is said:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“We raise our voices not to defend the Poles, but to protect -the war production for the Armed Forces.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='245' id='Page_245'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Quoting these two short excerpts characterizing the aims and -nature of this investigation, I further quote a few excerpts which -show the status of the Polish worker and the practical realization -by the Defendant Frank of the above-mentioned directives of Hitler. -I quote on Page 38 of the original of the document, which corresponds -to Page 101, Paragraph 7 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Information concerning the situation of the Polish population -and considerations as to which measures would be the most -suitable in this connection disagree on many points; but there -is general agreement on one point, which can be summed up -here in three words: The Poles are starving! Already some -passing observations corroborate these conclusions. One of our -investigators visited a war production plant during the lunch -recess. The workers are standing or sitting apathetically, -warming themselves in the sun, and here and there smoking. -The investigator reports that of 80 persons, only one has a -piece of bread for lunch. The others, although all working 10 -to 12 hours a day, have nothing.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass to Page 72 of the original, which corresponds to Page 102 -of the document book; there is this quotation.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Observations made in the factories prove that the present -rations of the Polish workers do not allow them enough food -to take with them to work. In many cases, the workers do not -even have a piece of bread. When some do bring breakfast, it -is only coffee and one or two pieces of dry bread or raw -potatoes; at the worst time, they did not even have this, but -raw carrots, which were then roasted on a stove during work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue my quotation on Page 150 of the same document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In this connection it could be stated that on visiting the -mines, it appeared that nearly 10 percent of the Polish -workers went to work underground with only dry bread, or -raw potatoes cut in slices which they warmed afterwards on -a stove.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The institute began its “scientific calculations” with a comparison -of the calories received by the Poles in Upper Silesia and the calories -received by the German population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not quote large excerpts from the document, but will limit -myself to short facts only. I start on Page 63 of this report, which -corresponds to Page 102, last paragraph of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Comparison of the number of calories received by the Poles -in Upper Silesia with the number of calories allocated to the -German population indicates that the Poles receive 24 percent -less than the Germans. This difference reaches 26 percent on -<span class='pageno' title='246' id='Page_246'></span> -food ration cards of nonworking Poles. For youths from 14 -to 20, the difference in rations allocated to Germans and to -Poles reached almost 33 percent. However, it must be stressed -that this only applies to working youths over 14.</p> - -<p>“The difference between what Polish and German children -from 10 to 14 receive is even more striking. The difference -here is not less than 65 percent. The looks of these underfed -youths already testify to this. In a similar way Polish children -under 10 receive up to 60 percent less than German children.</p> - -<p>“If on the other hand the doctors state that the food conditions -of the babies are not so unfavorable, it is only an -imaginary contradiction. As long as a mother nurses her child, -the child gets everything from that source. The consequences -of the underfeeding are felt in this period not by the child but -by the mother. Her health and working capacity are impaired -considerably from the undernourishment.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue on Page 178 of the original which corresponds to -Page 103, Paragraph 2 in the second document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In all categories the Polish youth in comparison with the -German is more wretched. The difference in rations of the -Poles and Germans reaches 60 percent.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Extracts from the report of the German Labor Front cited in this -investigation also offer some interest. Particularly on Page 76 are -quoted excerpts from the report of the German Labor Front, dated -10 October 1941, after a visit to one of the coal mines in Poland:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It was established that daily in various villages Polish -miners fall from exhaustion. . . . As the workers constantly -complained of stomach pains, doctors were consulted, who -answered that this was a symptom of undernourishment.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would conclude the description of the Polish workers’ physical -condition drawn by the German criminals themselves, and, what is -more, by the “learned” criminals, by a short quotation from the same -report which the Tribunal will find on Page 106, Paragraph 6 of the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The management of the factories constantly stresses that it -is no longer possible by threats of deportation to concentration -camps to incite to work underfed people incapable of physical -effort. Sooner or later there comes a day when the weakened -body can no longer work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>There is also in this document a descriptive sketch of the legal -status of the Polish worker during the German occupation which -bears no possibility of double interpretation. This descriptive sketch -is all the more valuable because, as was already stressed above, -<span class='pageno' title='247' id='Page_247'></span> -the authors of the investigation report expressly emphasized that -“all humanitarian tendencies whatsoever were alien to them.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I begin the quotation of the produced document on Page 127 -which corresponds to Page 110, second paragraph of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The law does not recognize any legal claim of any member -of the Polish nation in any sphere of life. Whatever is -granted a Pole is done voluntarily by the German masters. -This legal situation is perhaps most clearly mirrored in -‘the Pole’s lack of possession in the eyes of the law.’ In the -administration of justice Poles are not permitted to conduct -their cases before a court. In criminal procedure the viewpoint -of obedience dominates. The execution of legal regulations -is in the first place the task of the police, who can -decide at their discretion or refer individual cases to the -courts.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>According to an order, dated 26 August 1942 Polish as well as -German workers were obliged to take out insurance against illness, -accidents, and disability. The deductions from the wages for this -purpose were larger for the Poles than for the German. However, -the German workers profited by this insurance, whereas, in -actuality, the Poles were deprived of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As proof of this I shall present to the Tribunal two short -excerpts from the same investigation report which Your Honors -will find on Page 111 in the document book, Paragraph 4. It corresponds -to Page 134 of the original text of the investigation report -quoted above:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Insurance against accidents, which is incumbent on the trade -unions, involved particularly stringent measures for the -Poles. The recognition of disability caused by an accident -is much more limited than in the case of Germans. Disability -for the loss of an eye is 30 percent for a German and -25 percent for a Pole. The payment of a subvention depends -on 33⅓ percent disability.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue my quotation on Page 135 of the original document, -that is to say, on Page 111, last paragraph of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The most stringent measures are provided for the dependents -of fatally injured persons. The maximum a widow -can receive is half of that granted by the insurance to -Germans—and this only in case she has to support four -children under 15 years of age, or is herself an invalid.</p> - -<p>“The restriction on the rights of Poles is illustrated by an -example: A German widow with three children receives -80 percent of the yearly salary of her fatally injured -<span class='pageno' title='248' id='Page_248'></span> -husband; from an annual income of 2,000 marks she receives -1,600 marks per year, but a Pole in a similar situation would -receive nothing.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The major German fascist war criminals not only sent into the -temporarily occupied Eastern territories soldiers and the SS, but -specially appointed fascist “scientists,” “consultants in economic -problems,” and all sorts of “investigators” followed after. Some -of them were detached from Ribbentrop’s office; some others were -sent by Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to enter into the record as evidence one of -these documents. I submit it under Document Number USSR-218. -I mean the report of the representative attached by the Ministry -of Foreign Affairs to the command of the 17th Army, Captain -Pfleiderer, and addressed to his colleague Von Rantzau from the -information service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These -documents were discovered by units of the Red Army on the -Dirksen estate in Upper Silesia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of a reading of these documents, it can be -concluded that in 1941-42 Pfleiderer made a trip covering the -following route through the occupied territories on the route -Yaroslavl in the Ukraine, Lvov, Tarnopol, Proskurov, Vinnitza, -Uman, Kirovograd, Alexandria, and Krementshoug on the Dnieper.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The purpose of this trip was to study economic and political -conditions in the occupied territories of the Ukraine. That the -author of this document was also completely free of so-called -humanitarian tendencies, can be seen from the short excerpt from -his report dated 28 October 1941, where Pfleiderer writes—the -Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 113, second paragraph -of the document book. I quote only one line:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . there is the urgent necessity to press out of the country -everything to secure the food supply of Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But even with such proclivity to cruelty and rapacity, Pfleiderer -evidently was abashed by the conduct of his compatriots to the -extent that he deemed it necessary to bring it to the attention of -the highest authorities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I quote -the report of Pfleiderer which is entitled:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Conditions for the Guarantee of Supply and for Producing -the Largest Possible Food Surplus in the Ukraine.</p> - -<p>“. . . 3) Frame of mind and living conditions of the population -by the end of October 1941.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will find this part on Page 114, third paragraph -of the document book: -<span class='pageno' title='249' id='Page_249'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The frame of mind of the population generally became worse -a few weeks after the occupation of the territory by our -troops. The reason for it? We display . . . inner hostility and -even hatred toward this country, and arrogance toward the -people. . . . The third year of war and the necessity of -wintering in an unfriendly country causes many difficulties, -but they must be surmounted with courage and self-discipline. -We must not work off our discontent over this -country on the population. . . . How often it happened that, -acting against the rules of psychology and committing -mistakes that we could easily have avoided, we lost all -sympathy of the population. The people cannot understand -the shooting of exhausted prisoners of war in villages and -larger localities and the leaving of their bodies there. As the -troops are entrusted with a broad authority for self-provisioning, -the <span class='it'>kolkhozes</span> along the main roads and near the -larger towns for the most part lack pedigree cattle, seeds, -seed potatoes (Poltava). Evidently, the supplying of our own -troops stands first; however, the system of supply in itself is -not immaterial: Psychologically, requisitioning the last hen is -as unreasonable as it is economically unreasonable to kill -the last pig or the last calf.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue my quotation, Paragraph 3, Page 115 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The population . . . is without leadership. It stands apart and -feels that we look down on it, that we see sabotage in their -tempo and methods of work, that we do not take any steps -to find a way to an understanding.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>A similar document is the document submitted as Exhibit Number -USSR-439, which was graciously given to us by our United States -colleagues. It was registered by the American Prosecution as -Document Number 303-PS, but was not filed. It is a political report -of the German professor, Doctor Paul W. Thomsen, written on -the forms of the State University of Posen Biological Paleontological -Institute and was indexed by the author himself, “Not for -publication.” Your Honors will find this document on Page 116 of -the document book. This document also introduces us into this -field of complete lawlessness and tyrannical arbitrariness toward -the local population of the temporarily occupied districts of the -Soviet Union. These observations were made by this fascist -professor during his trip through the temporarily occupied territories -of the Soviet Union “from Minsk to the Crimea.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I refer to two short excerpts from this document. The quotation -which I have read into the record testifies to the absence of any -humanitarian tendencies on the part of that author and if -<span class='pageno' title='250' id='Page_250'></span> -Paul Thomsen brought back from his trip only “the most depressing -impression” that is only further proof of the depths of cruelty and -brutality to which the German fascists were willing to go. The -Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page 116 of the document book. -I begin the quotation. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 26 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='251' id='Page_251'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY</span><br/> Tuesday, 26 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to explain the Tribunal’s decision -with reference to General Halder and General Warlimont.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Would Dr. Nelte kindly come to the Tribunal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nelte, whether you were the only one -of the defendants’ counsel who wished to call General Halder and -General Warlimont?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: No, besides myself, so far as I know, my colleagues -Dr. Laternser, Professor Dr. Kraus, and Professor Dr. Exner have -called both General Halder and General Warlimont.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I understand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the Tribunal’s decision is this: The Tribunal ordered, when -the Soviet prosecutor wished to put in the affidavits of these two -generals, that if they were put in, the witnesses must be produced -for cross-examination. But in view of the fact that defendants’ -counsel have asked to call these witnesses themselves, the Tribunal -is willing that the defendants’ counsel should decide whether they -prefer that those two generals should be produced now, during -the Prosecution’s case, for cross-examination, or should be called -thereafter during the defendants’ case for examination by the -defendants, in which case, of course, they would be liable to cross-examination -on behalf of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But it must be clearly understood, in accordance with the order -which the Tribunal made the other day—either yesterday or the -previous day, I forgot which it was—that these witnesses, like -other witnesses, can only be called once, and when they are called, -each of the defendants’ counsel who wishes to put questions to -them must do so at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if there were any difference of opinion among defendants’ -counsel, one defendant’s counsel wishing to have these two generals -produced now during the Prosecution’s case for cross-examination, -and other defendants’ counsel wishing to have them called hereafter -as witnesses on their behalf during the course of their case, -then the Tribunal consider that in view of the order which they -have already made, Generals Halder and Warlimont ought to be -produced and called now. And the same rule would apply then. -<span class='pageno' title='252' id='Page_252'></span> -They could only be called once, and any questions which the other -defendants’ counsel wish to be put to them should be put to them -then. But the decision as to whether they should be called now or -whether they should be called during the course of the defendants’ -case is accorded to defendants’ counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is that clear?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I request to hear the decisions of the various -Defense Counsel at the beginning of the afternoon session. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, certainly. You can let us -know during the afternoon session, at the beginning of the afternoon -session, what the decision of defendants’ counsel is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation of the -political report of Professor Paul Thomsen, which was already submitted -at yesterday’s afternoon session to the Tribunal. Your -Honors will find it on Page 116 of the document book. I start -quoting—and quote only two short excerpts from this political -report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I consider it is my duty, although I am only here in the East -on a specific scientific mission, to add a general political -outline to my actual reports. I must admit, openly and in all -honesty, that I return home with the most grievous impressions.</p> - -<p>“In this fateful hour of our nation every mistake we make -may result in the most disastrous consequences. A Polish or -a Czech problem can be crushed because the biological forces -of our people are sufficient for that purpose.</p> - -<p>“Remnants of people like Estonians, Lithuanians, and Letts -have to adapt themselves to us or they will perish. Things -are quite different in the immense Russian area, of vital -necessity to us as a basis for raw materials.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Here I interrupt my quotation and continue on Page 117 of the -document book, Paragraphs 10 and 11—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I do not dare to voice an opinion on the economic measures, -such as, for instance, the abolition of the free market in Kiev, -which has been taken as a heavy blow by the population, -since I am in no position to observe the entire situation. The -‘sergeant major attitude,’ the beatings and shouting in the -streets, the senseless destruction of scientific institutions -which is still going on as strong as ever in Dniepropetrovsk, -should cease immediately and be punished severely.</p> - -<p>“Kiev, 19 October 1942; Professor Dr. Paul W. Thomsen.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='253' id='Page_253'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The German fascist theory of Germanization, already well -known to the Tribunal, announced that not the people but the -territories were to be germanized.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal that a similar Hitlerite -crime was to have been committed in Yugoslavia. This crime could -not be perpetrated because of the liberation movement which flared -up all over Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a short excerpt from the statement of the Yugoslav -Government, which is on Page 68, Paragraph 7 in the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Immediately after the entry of the German troops into Slovenia, -the Germans began to put into effect their long premeditated -plan for the Germanization of the annexed regions -of Slovenia. It was perfectly clear to the leading Nazi circles -that a successful Germanization of Slovenia could not be -realized unless the greater part of the nationally and socially -conscious elements had previously been removed; and in -order to weaken the resistance of the mass of the people -towards the Nazi authorities engaged in the task of Germanization, -it would be essential to lessen them numerically and -destroy them economically.</p> - -<p>“The German plan foresaw the complete removal of all the -Slovenes from certain regions of Slovenia, and their repopulation -by Germans”—Germans from Bessarabia and so-called -“Gottscheer” Germans.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a passage and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“A few days after the seizure of Slovenia, central offices were -organized for resettlement control. The headquarters staff -was established in Maribor (Marburg on the Drava) and Bled -(Veldes).</p> - -<p>“At the same time, on 22 April 1941, a ‘Decree for the -Strengthening of German Folkdom’ was published. The -immediate aim of this decree was the confiscation of property -of all persons and institutions antagonistically inclined -towards the Reich. Naturally, all those, who in accordance -with the aforesaid plan were to be deported from Slovenia, -were included in this category.</p> - -<p>“The Hitlerites proceeded to the practical realization of this -plan. They arrested a large number of persons registered for -deportation to Serbia and Croatia. The treatment of the -arrested persons was extremely cruel. Their entire property -was confiscated in the interest of the Reich. Numerous -assembly points were organized and practically turned into -concentration camps, in Maribor, Zelie, and other localities.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='254' id='Page_254'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>As regards the treatment of arrested persons in these points, the -statement of the Yugoslav Government reads as follows—the members -of the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 69, Paragraph 4, -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The internees were left without food; in unhygienic conditions; -the personnel of the camp subjected them to bodily -and mental torture. All the camp commanders and personnel -belonged to the SS. Among them were Germans from Carinthia -and Styria who hated anything connected with Slovenia -in particular, and Yugoslavia in general.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following sentence is typical:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The members of the so-called Kulturbund”—Cultural Union—“particularly -distinguished themselves for their cruelty.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In corroboration of this Hitlerite crime, I submit to the Tribunal, -as Exhibit Number USSR-139 (Document Number USSR-139), a -letter from the German Command in Smeredov, addressed to the -Yugoslav quisling, Commissioner Stefanovitch, ordering him to -report what the possibilities were for transferring to Serbia a large -number of Slovenes. Your Honors will find this document on -Page 119 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Yugoslav Government, Page 49 of the Russian -text, which corresponds to Page 59, Paragraph 7, of the document -book of the Tribunal, it is stated that the Germans primarily -intended to transfer 260,000 Slovenes to Serbia. However, the realization -of this plan met with a number of difficulties. In this connection -I should like to quote a paragraph from the report of the -Yugoslav Government:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“But in view of the fact that the transportation to Serbia of -such a very large number of Slovenes has encountered a -great many difficulties, negotiations were opened shortly -afterwards between the German authorities and the quisling -Oustachi administration in Zagreb concerning the transit of -the expelled Slovenes through Croatian territory and the -resettling of a certain number of these Slovenes in Croatia -proper, while the Serbs in Croatia were deported from the -country.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-195 (Document -Number USSR-195), the minutes of a conference held on -4 June 1941 at the German Legation in Zagreb and presided over -by SA Obergruppenführer Siegfried Kasche, German Minister in -Zagreb. These minutes, in the Serbian translation, were seized in -the archives of the Refugee Commission of the so-called Government -of Milan Neditch. They give the subject matter of the conference, -that is, “The Expulsion of the Slovenes from Germany to Croatia -<span class='pageno' title='255' id='Page_255'></span> -and Serbia, as well as of the Serbs from Croatia to Serbia.” The -Tribunal will find this document on Page 120 of the document book. -The passage in question literally reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The conference was approved by the Reich Ministry for Foreign -Affairs by Telegram Number 389, dated 31 May. The -Führer’s approval for the deportation was received by Telegram -Number 344, dated 25 May.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>We are thus able to prove that the direct responsibility for this -crime against humanity rests on the Defendant Von Ribbentrop.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We gather, at the same time, from the report of the Yugoslav -Government, that the deportation of a considerable number of -Slovenes to Germany was put into effect. I quote a paragraph -from the report of the Yugoslav Government, which Your Honors -will find on Page 70, last paragraph of the document book. I begin -the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Shortly afterwards the deportation itself began. In the -morning German trucks would arrive in the villages. Soldiers -and Gestapo men, armed with machine guns and rifles, -broke into the houses and ordered the inhabitants to leave, -each man being allowed to take with him only as much as he -could carry. The unfortunate people were given only a few -minutes in which to quit and they were forced to leave all -their property behind them. The trucks drove them to the -Roman Catholic Trappist monastery of Reichenberg. The -transports started from the monastery. Each transport consisted -of 600 to 1,200 persons to be taken to Germany. The -district of Bregiza was almost completely depopulated, the -district of Krshko up to 90 percent; 56,000 inhabitants were -deported from these two districts. Over and above this 4,000 -were deported from the communities of Zirkovsky and Ptuya.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They were forced to perform the very hardest tasks and to -live under the most horrible conditions. The mortality rate -assumed enormous proportions in consequence. The harshest -penalties were applied for the slightest offense.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not enumerate other passages in the report of the Yugoslav -Government in connection with the same subject. I do not -quote this document; I merely ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence -the supplementary official report of the Yugoslav Government -which I am submitting as Document Number USSR-357.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Similar crimes were committed by the German criminals on the -territory of occupied Poland. I quote a few excerpts from the official -report of the Polish Republic. Your Honors will find the passage -I wish to quote on Page 3, Paragraph 3 of the document book. The -<span class='pageno' title='256' id='Page_256'></span> -passage is in Subparagraph A and is entitled, “The Germanization -of Poland”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Clear indications concerning the program are found in a -publication distributed among members of the National -Socialist Party in Germany in 1940. It contained the principles -of German policy in the East. Here are some quotations -from this document:</p> - -<p>“ ‘In a military sense the Polish question has been settled, -but from the point of view of national policy it is only now -beginning for Germany. The national political conflict between -the Germans and Poles must be carried forward to a degree -never yet seen in history.</p> - -<p>“ ‘The aim which confronts German policy in the territory of -the former Polish State is twofold: Firstly, to see that a certain -portion of space in this area is cleared of the alien -population and colonized by German nationals; secondly, by -imposing German leadership, in order to guarantee that in -that area no fresh conflagrations should flare up against Germany. -It is clear that this aim can never be achieved with, -but only against, the Poles.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt this quotation and continue on Page 15 of the report -of the Polish Republic, which corresponds to Page 5, Paragraph 5 of -the document book. This part is entitled, “The Colonization of -Poland by German Settlers.” I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The policy, in this respect, was clearly expressed by the -official German authorities. In the <span class='it'>Ostdeutscher Beobachter</span> -of 7 May 1941 the following proclamation is printed:</p> - -<p>“For the first time in German history we can exploit our -military victories in a political sense. Never again will even -a centimeter of the earth which we have conquered belong -to the Pole.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such was the plan. The facts which were put into practice were -the following:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Locality after locality, village after village, hamlets and -cities in the incorporated territories were cleared of the Polish -inhabitants. This began in October 1939, when the locality of -Orlov was cleared of all the Poles who lived and worked -there. Then came the Polish port of Gdynia. In February -1940 about 40,000 persons were expelled from the city of -Posen. They were replaced by 36,000 Baltic-Germans, families -of soldiers and of German officials.</p> - -<p>“The Polish population was expelled from the following -towns: Gnesen, Kulm, Kostian, Neshkva, Inovrotzlav. . .”—and -many other towns. -<span class='pageno' title='257' id='Page_257'></span></p> - -<p>“The German newspaper <span class='it'>Grenzzeitung</span> reported that in February -1940 the entire center of the city of Lodz was cleared -of Poles and reserved for the use of future German settlers. -By September 1940 the total number of Poles deported from -Lodz was estimated at 150,000.</p> - -<p>“But it was not only that the persons living in these places -were ordered to leave—they were forbidden to take their -property with them; everything was to be left behind. The -German newcomers took the place of the Poles evicted from -their homes, business shops, and farms. By January 1941 -more than 450,000 Germans had been settled in this manner.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next part of this report which I wished to quote and -I would request the Tribunal only to pay attention to the part entitled, -“Germanization of Polish Children.” This is a short quotation. -Just two small paragraphs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Thousands of Polish children (between the ages of 7 and 14) -were ruthlessly torn from their parents and families and -carried off to Germany. The purpose of this most brutal -measure was explained by the Germans themselves in the -<span class='it'>Kölnische Zeitung</span> Number 1584, 1940 issue. We read:</p> - -<p>“ ‘They will be taught German. They will be inculcated with -the German spirit so that later they can be brought up as -model German boys and girls.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to explain the methods adopted by the German fascists -in the execution of their cannibalistic plan for the extermination -of the Soviet people—peaceful citizens of my motherland, women, -children, and old people—I request the Tribunal to call and question -witness Grigoriev, Jacob Grigorievitch, a peasant from the -village of Pavlov, village soviet of Shkvertovsk, region of Porkhovsk, -district of Pskov. He has arrived from the district of Pskov, -a district near Leningrad and, according to my information, is now -in the courtbuilding. I ask the permission of the Tribunal to -examine this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Grigoriev took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>JACOB GRIGORIEV (Witness): Jacob Grigoriev.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I—Jacob Grigoriev—citizen of the Union of the Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and -swear—in the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but -the truth—about everything I know in regard to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath in Russian.</span>] -<span class='pageno' title='258' id='Page_258'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, in which -village did you live before the war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo, Porkhov region, -district of Pskov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In which village were you overtaken -by the outbreak of war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this village currently exist?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: It does not exist.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal what -happened.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: On the memorable day of 28 October 1943, German -soldiers suddenly raided our village and started murdering the -peaceful citizens, shooting them, chasing them into the houses. On -that day I was working on the threshing floor with my two sons, -Alexei and Nikolai. Suddenly a German soldier came up to us and -ordered us to follow him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. When you -see the light on that desk there or here, it means you are going -too fast. You understand?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: I understand, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly, Witness. -Continue, please.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You said you were working with your two -sons in the field.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: Yes; my own two sons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continue.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: We were led through the village to the last house -at the outskirts. There were 19 of us, all told, in that house. So -there we sat in that house. I sat close to the window and looked -out of it. I saw German soldiers herd together a great number of -people. I noticed my wife and my 9-year-old boy. They were -chased right up to the house and then led back again—where to, I -did not know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A little later three German machine gunners came in, accompanied -by a fourth carrying a heavy revolver. We were ordered -into another room. So we went, all 19 of us, and were lined up -against a wall, including my two sons, and they began shooting at -<span class='pageno' title='259' id='Page_259'></span> -us from their machine guns. I stood right up to the wall, bending -slightly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>After the first volley I fell to the floor, where I lay, too frightened -to move. When they had shot all of us they left the house. -When I came to, I looked round and saw my son Nikolai who had -been shot and had fallen, face downwards. My second son I could -not find anywhere.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, when some time had passed, I began to think how I could -escape. I straightened my legs out from under the man who had -fallen on me and began to think how I could get away. And -instead of that, instead of planning my escape, I lost my head and -called out, at the top of my voice, “Can I really go now?” At that -moment my small son, who had remained alive, recognized me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That would be your second son?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: The second. The first had been killed and was -lying by my side. My little son called out, “Daddy, are you still -alive?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He was wounded?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: He was wounded in the leg. I calmed him down: -“Do not fear, my small son. I shall not leave you here. Somehow -or other, we shall get away from here. I shall carry you out.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A little later the house began to burn. Then I opened the window -and threw myself out of it, carrying my little boy who had been -wounded in the leg. We began to creep out of the house, hiding so -that the Germans could not see us, but on our way from the house -we suddenly saw a high fence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We could not move the lattice apart so we began to break it up. -At that moment we were noticed by the German soldiers and they -began to shoot at us. Then I whispered to my little son to hide -while I would run away. I was unable to carry him and he ran a -short distance and hid in the undergrowth, while I ran off. I ran a -short distance and then jumped into a building near the burning -house.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There I sat for a while and then decided to run farther on. So -I escaped into a nearby forest, not far from our village, where I -spent the night. In the morning I met Alexei N. from the neighboring -village, who told me, “Your son, Aljosha, is alive; he started -to crawl to the neighboring village.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then on the second day, from the same village, Kuznetzov, I -met the boy Vitya who had escaped from Leningrad and was living -in our village during the time of the occupation. He had also been -saved by a miracle. He escaped from the fire. He told me what had -happened in the second hut where my wife and son had been taken. -<span class='pageno' title='260' id='Page_260'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>There matters were carried out as follows: The German soldiers, -having driven the people into the hut, opened the door into the -passage and proceeded to shoot from their machine guns across the -threshold.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Vitya’s words, people who were still half alive -were burning, including my little boy, Petya, who was only -9 years old. When he ran out of the hut he saw that my Petya -was still alive. He was sitting under a bench, having covered his -ears with his little hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How old was the oldest inhabitant -of this village destroyed by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: The oldest inhabitant, a woman aged 108 years, -was Ustinia Artemieva.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, how old was -the youngest victim murdered by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: Four months.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many villagers were destroyed -all told?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: Forty-seven, excluding those who were saved by -a miracle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why did the Germans destroy -the population of your village?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: The reason was not known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what did the Germans -themselves say?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: When a German soldier came to our threshing floor -we asked him, “Why are you killing us?” He replied, “Do you -know the village of Maximovo?” This is the village next to our -village community. I said, “Yes.” Then he told me, “This village -of Maximovo is kaput—the inhabitants are kaput, and you too will -be kaput.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And why kaput?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: “Because,” said he, “partisans were hiding in your -village.” But his words were untruthful because we had no partisans -in the village; nobody indulged in any partisan activities since -there was nobody left. Only old people and small children were -left in the village; the village had never seen any partisans and did -not know who these partisans were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were there many adult men in -your village? -<span class='pageno' title='261' id='Page_261'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: There was one man, 27 years old, but he was a -sick man, half-witted and paralytic. We had only old men and -small children. All the rest of the men were in the Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, witness, were the -inhabitants of your village alone in suffering this fate?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: No, they were not alone. The German soldiers -shot 43 persons in Kurysheva, 47 in Vshivova, and in the village -of Pavlovo, where I now live, they burned 23 persons. And in a -number of villages where, according to our village community, -there were some four hundred inhabitants, they shot all the -peaceful citizens, both young and old.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please repeat that figure. How -many persons were destroyed in your village community?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: About four hundred people in our village community -alone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, who remained -alive in your family?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: In my family only I and my boy remained alive. -In my family they shot my wife, in her sixth month of pregnancy, -my son Nikolai, aged 16 years, my youngest boy, Petya, aged -9 years, and my sister-in-law—my brother’s wife—with her two -infants, Sasha and Tonya.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to -ask this witness, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to ask -the witness any questions? Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish -to ask the witness any questions? The witness may retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I pass on to the -next count of my statement, the discrimination against the Soviet -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Discrimination against the Soviet population was the usual -method of the Hitlerite criminals. It was carried out by the criminals -continuously and everywhere.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this part of my presentation I shall refer to the documents of -the German criminals themselves, which have only now been -obtained and placed at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution. They -were seized by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union in the prisoner-of-war camp at Lamsdorf.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-415 (Document -Number USSR-415), a communication of the Extraordinary -State Commission on the crimes committed by the German Government -and the German Supreme Command against Soviet prisoners -<span class='pageno' title='262' id='Page_262'></span> -of war in the camp of Lamsdorf. A number of original documents -of the German fascist criminals, discovered in the camp archives -are attached to the report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall be able to submit some of these documents to Your -Honors. Their value consists in the fact that they prove that even -in the murderous regime established in one of the largest and most -cruel of the German concentration camps, the criminals, true to the -cannibalistic principles of their theories, shamelessly discriminated -against Soviet nationals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote a few brief excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission. The passage, Your Honors, to which -I refer, you will find on Page 123 of the document book, Paragraph -4. It sets forth the general characteristics of the camp. -I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subsequent to investigations made, the Extraordinary State -Commission proved that in Lamsdorf, in the district of the -town of Oppeln, there existed, from 1941 to May 1945, a -German stationary camp, Number 344.</p> - -<p>“In 1940-41 this camp contained Polish prisoners of war; from -the end of 1941 Soviet, English, and French prisoners of war -began to come in.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next two sentences and continue the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The prisoners of war were deprived of their outer clothing -and boots. Even in winter they had to go barefoot. No fewer -than 300,000 prisoners of war passed through the camp during -the years of its existence, including 200,000 Soviet and 100,000 -Polish, English, French, Belgian, and Greek prisoners.</p> - -<p>“The prevalent method for the extermination of Soviet prisoners -in Lamsdorf camp was the sale of the captives to German -undertakings for work in various German firms where -they were mercilessly exploited until, their strength completely -lost, they died of exhaustion.</p> - -<p>“In contrast to the numerous German labor exchanges, where -Sauckel’s representatives sold enslaved Soviet citizens by -retail to German housewives, a wholesale business in internees -was organized in Lamsdorf camp where the captives -were formed into labor commands. There were 1,011 such -labor commands in the camp.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>When presenting the subsequent documents, I should like to ask -the Tribunal to understand correctly the statements in corroboration -of which I am submitting evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not in the least wish to say that the regime established by -the Germans for British, French, or other prisoners of war was -at all distinguished for humanity or kindness and that, alone, the -<span class='pageno' title='263' id='Page_263'></span> -Soviet prisoners of war were exterminated by the camp administration -by various criminal methods.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Not at all. Lamsdorf Camp factually pursued its object, which -was the extermination of prisoners of war regardless of their -nationality or citizenship. Nevertheless, even in this death camp, -in these most grievous conditions created for prisoners of war of -all nationalities, the German fascists, committing crimes against -humanity and faithful to the principles of their theories, created -particularly excruciating conditions for the people of the Soviet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit to the Tribunal, in a few brief excerpts, a series -of documents taken from the archives of this camp and presented -to the Tribunal in the original version. All these documents point -to the manifest discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, -carried out by the camp administration pursuant to orders of the -Reich Government and of the Supreme Command of the Armed -Forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-421 (Document -Number USSR-421), a memorandum on the utilization of the -labor of Soviet prisoners of war, addressed by the chief of the -prisoner-of-war department for the 8th Military District for the -administration of industrial concerns to which the prisoners of war -were sent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to accept this document as evidence. It -is submitted in the original. I quote Point 10 of this memorandum. -Your Honors will find the passage quoted in the last paragraph -of Page 150 of the document book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The following directives have been issued for the treatment -of Russian prisoners of war:</p> - -<p>“The Russian prisoners of war have all passed through the -school of Bolshevism, they must be looked upon as Bolsheviks -and treated as such. According to their own instructions -they must, even in captivity, struggle actively against the -state which has captured them. Therefore, we must from the -very beginning treat all Russian prisoners of war with -ruthless severity, if they give us the slightest cause for so -doing.</p> - -<p>“Complete separation of prisoners of war from the civilian -population must be carried out strictly, in work as well as -during recreation.</p> - -<p>“Civilians attempting, some way or another, to approach the -Russian prisoners of war, to exchange ideas with them, to -hand them money, food supplies, <span class='it'>et alia</span>, will be arrested -without warning, questioned, and handed over to the police.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='264' id='Page_264'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I further quote the introduction to this memorandum. Your -Honors will find it on Page 149 of the document book, Paragraph 2:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued directives -regulating the utilization of Soviet prisoner-of-war -labor. According to these directives the utilization of Russian -prisoners of war could be tolerated only if carried out under -far harsher conditions than those applied to prisoners of war -of other nationalities.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus the instructions for a specially cruel regime, to be applied -to Soviet prisoners of war merely because they were Soviet people, -were not the result of any arbitrary action on the part of the -Lamsdorf Camp administration. They were dictated by the Supreme -Command of the Armed Forces. In drafting this memorandum, -the Lamsdorf Camp administration was only carrying out direct -orders from the Supreme Command.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote two more, fairly characteristic points from the memorandum. -I quote Point 4, which Your Honors will find on Page 149 -of the document book, last paragraph. I begin the quotation—it -is a very brief one:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In contrast to the increased requirements for the safeguarding -of the Russian billets, these—from the viewpoint of comfort—must -be reduced to the most modest requirements.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall endeavor to explain later on what this means. I shall -next quote Point 7, which Your Honors will find on Page 150 of -the document book, Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The food rations for Russian prisoners of war at work will -differ from the rations allocated to prisoners of other nationalities. -More detailed information on this subject will be -given later.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such was the memorandum addressed to the industrialists to -whose concerns the Soviet prisoners of war were sent to work as -slaves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-431 (Document -Number USSR-431), which is another memorandum about guarding -the Soviet prisoners of war. The document is submitted in the -original and I request the Tribunal to accept it as evidence into -the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the permission of the Tribunal to quote a few brief -excerpts from this document. First I quote that part of the document -which proves its origin. The first page of the text indicates it -is an appendix to a “Directive of the OKW—General Office, Armed -Forces, POW Section.” Next follow number and document, which -are not so important. I now read the introduction to this memorandum, -which is on Page 150 of the document book: -<span class='pageno' title='265' id='Page_265'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For the first time in this war the German soldier is faced -with an adversary who is educated both in a military and in -a political sense, whose ideal is communism and who sees in -National Socialism his very worst enemy.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Even in captivity, the Soviet soldier—however harmless -he may appear outwardly—will seize every occasion to show -his hatred for all that is German. We must reckon with the -fact that the prisoners will have received suitable instructions -on their behavior if captured and imprisoned.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, has already denounced the -absurdity of these so-called special instructions and I therefore do -not consider it necessary to dwell on this passage. I continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is therefore absolutely essential, when dealing with them, -to exercise the greatest caution and prudence, and to nourish -the deepest suspicions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following directives were issued to the guard on watch -over the Soviet prisoners:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Firstly—ruthless action at the slightest sign of resistance or -disobedience. Merciless use of firearms to break any resistance. -Escaping prisoners to be shot at immediately, without challenge, -with firm intent to hit. “Without challenge” is characteristic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the two following paragraphs and quote the second -part, Point 3 of the memorandum, which Your Honors will find -on Page 153, Paragraph 2 of the document book. From this Subparagraph -I quote three lines:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Kindness is out of place, even when dealing with willing -and obedient prisoners of war. They will ascribe it to -weakness and draw their own conclusions from your -kindness.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit Point 4 and end my quotation from this document on -Subparagraph 5 of the memorandum—Your Honors will find this -passage on Page 153, last paragraph of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“5. Never must the apparent inoffensiveness of the Bolshevik -prisoner of war tempt you to deviate from the above-mentioned -instructions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I have, a very short time ago, quoted Point 4 of the memorandum -for the industrial, regarding the utilization of the work of Soviet -prisoners. It stated that the requirements respecting billets for the -Soviet captives should, from the viewpoint of living facilities, be -of a minimum nature.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The meaning of this will be clear to Your Honors from a report -of the Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve -<span class='pageno' title='266' id='Page_266'></span> -Army, dated 17 October 1941, addressed to the acting corps commanders -and to the administrative authorities of military districts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-422 (Document -Number USSR-422). This too is presented in the original and I -beg that it be entered as documentary evidence into the record. -It was issued in Berlin and dated as far back as 17 October 1941. -I quote one paragraph of the text. Your Honors will find this -paragraph on Page 154 of the document book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subject: Quarters for Soviet prisoners of war.</p> - -<p>“At a conference held on 19 September 1941 at the office of -the Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve -Army (V-6), it was decided that by the construction of several -tiers of superimposed wooden bunks in lieu of bedsteads, a -RAD”—Reich Labor Service—“barrack for 150 prisoners could -be built according to specifications for Soviet prisoners’ -permanent barracks to hold 840 prisoners in permanent -billets.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not quote the remainder of this document since I consider -this paragraph sufficiently clear in itself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to accept two documents in evidence -which are also presented in the original. They testify to the fact -that the extermination, in the camp, of Soviet prisoners of war was -practiced for political reasons. It was the practice of murder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall first submit, as Exhibit Number USSR-432 (Document -Number USSR-432), an order addressed to Camp Number 60. The -document is in the original and I request that it be added to the -record as evidence. Your Honors will find the paragraph which -I wish to quote on Page 155 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote one passage only -of the document already submitted. The passage which I ask the -permission of the Tribunal to read is on Page 155. Point 4 of the -order runs as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Behavior at the shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner -of war. (Legal Officer)</p> - -<p>“Every case of shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner -of war should be reported as a special occurrence. If you are -dealing with British, French, Belgian, or American prisoners -of war you should also act in accordance with instructions -of the OKW, Code Number F-24.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This order was dated 2 August 1943. -<span class='pageno' title='267' id='Page_267'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>But on 5 November 1943 another order followed, which changed -even this arrangement where the Soviet prisoners of war were -concerned. I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the document -which I am submitting as Number 433, pertaining to Camp -Number 86. From this document I quote one paragraph only, -that is, Paragraph 12:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war. (Legal Officer)</p> - -<p>“The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war and other fatal -accidents need no longer be reported by phone to the Prisoner -of War Commander as an ‘unusual occurrence.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In certain cases, the Supreme Command of the German Armed -Forces agreed to the payment of a miserably small sum for the work -done by the prisoners of war, but here too the Soviet prisoners -of war were placed in conditions which were twice as bad as those -of the prisoners of other nationalities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To confirm this, I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a -directive of the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces -dated 1 March 1944. The document will be submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-427 (Document Number USSR-427).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request that the Tribunal attach it as evidence to the documentation -of the case. From this document I shall quote two -sentences only. These sentences Your Honors will find on Page 274 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Prisoners of war working all day will receive for one full -working day the following basic salary: Non-Soviet prisoners -of war, RM 0.70; Soviet prisoners of war, RM 0.35.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second sentence is at the end of the document, on Page 275 -of the document book, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The minimum daily wage for non-Soviet prisoners will -consist of 0.20 RM, and 0.10 for Soviet prisoners of war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Here I end my quotation from this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If other prisoners received from the German fascist murderers -the right to a few breaths of fresh air a day, the Soviet people -were deprived of even this privilege. I request the Tribunal to -accept in evidence an original order, Exhibit Number USSR-424 -(Document Number USSR-424), referring to Camp Number 44. I -request the permission of the Tribunal to quote one sentence from -Paragraph 7, entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of War.” I begin -to quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In special cases, when prisoners of war, engaged on work, -have their living quarters at the same place where they work -and therefore have no access to the open air, they should be -allowed to be taken out into the fresh air in order to -maintain their working strength.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='268' id='Page_268'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I further request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the original -order addressed to Camp Number 46. This document is submitted -as Exhibit Number USSR-425 (Document Number USSR-425). I -would remind the Tribunal that the directive ruling the preceding -order, “Walks for Prisoners of War,” was listed under Point 7.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I cite one sentence from Point 10 of Order Number 46. This -Point 10 is also entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of War,” and the -basis for this point is Order Number 1259, Part 5, of the Chief of -the Section for Prisoner-of-War Affairs, dated 2 June 1943. -I quote one sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In complement to Point 7 of the order addressed to Camp -Number 44, dated 8 June 1943, it is explained that the order -does not apply to Soviet prisoners of war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I further request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the original -request of the labor office of Mährisch-Schönberg. This request -concerns the utilization of prisoners of war for nonagricultural -work. I quote two sentences from this document. The passage -which I have asked permission to quote is on Page 160 of the -document book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The replacement of 104 English prisoners of war from Labor -Brigade for Prisoners of War E 351, currently employed in -the Heinrichsthal paper mills, by 160 Soviet prisoners of war, -has been rendered necessary by the labor shortage which has -developed in this factory. An additional allocation of English -prisoners, to raise the number to the required figure of 160, -is impossible, since after the last check of camp conditions, -undertaken a few months ago by competent Wehrmacht -authorities, it was decided that billets in the camp were only -sufficient for 104 English prisoners of war, whereas the same -space would accommodate 160 Russian prisoners of war -without any difficulties whatsoever.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I request Your Honors’ permission to quote one more document, -namely Directive Number 8 regarding this camp, dated 7 May 1942. -It is entitled, “The Utilization of Soviet Prisoners of War for Work.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit this document in the original as Exhibit Number -USSR-426 (Document Number USSR-426), and I request that it be -added as evidence to the record of the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote the section entitled, “Measures for the restoration of -full working capacities.” I think that the boundless cynicism and -the cruelty of this document require no further comment:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Soviet prisoners of war are, almost without exception, -in a state of acute malnutrition, which currently renders them -unfit for a normal output of work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='269' id='Page_269'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The General Staff of the German Armed Forces was particularly -concerned over two questions: Firstly, with blankets for Soviet -prisoners of war, and secondly, in what form the mercilessly -murdered Soviet victims of the concentration camps should be -buried. Both questions found their solution in one document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-429 (Document -Number USSR-429), and request that it be added as evidence -to the record. Your Honors will find it on Page 162 of the document -book. This is a directive of the 8th Military District, dated -28 October 1941. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Re: Soviet Russian prisoners of war. The following arrangements -were decided during a conference of the OKW:</p> - -<p>“1. Blankets. The Soviet Russians will receive paper blankets, -which they will have to manufacture themselves, in the form -of quilts, from paper tissue, filled with crumpled paper and -similar material. The material will be procured by the OKW.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second part, as Your Honors will notice, is as follows—the -heading reads, “Burial of Soviet Russians”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Soviet prisoners of war are to be buried naked, without -a coffin, wrapped in packing paper. Coffins will be used only -for transports. In the labor commands the burial will be -attended to by the competent authorities. Burial expenses -will be met by the competent M-Stalag for prisoners of war. -The stripping of the bodies will be done by the camp guards. -Signed: by order, Grossekettler.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But not only the administration of the military district was -concerned with the methods for burying Soviet prisoners of war; -the Ministry of the Interior was also concerned with this question, -and an urgent letter was addressed to the camp specially marked, -“Not for publication in the press, even in excerpts.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to accept this document in evidence as -Exhibit Number USSR-430. The members of the Tribunal can find -this passage on Page 276 of the document book. I quote a few -sentences from this fairly voluminous document—five sentences. -I begin to quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For the transport of the bodies (procurement of vehicles) -offices of the Wehrmacht should be contacted. For transportation -and burial a coffin is not to be requested. The -bodies should be completely wrapped up in paper, preferably -in oiled paper, tarpaulin, corrugated paper, or some other -suitable material. Both transportation and burial should be -done unostentatiously. When many corpses come in at the -same time, burial should take place in a common grave. The -corpses should be laid at the usual depth, side by side, not -overlapping each other. As a site for the burial a distant part -<span class='pageno' title='270' id='Page_270'></span> -of the cemetery should be chosen. Any burial service and -any decoration of the graves should be disallowed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the following sentence: “It is necessary to keep expenses -as low as possible.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But even in the special organizations of German fascism, -specially created for the extermination of human life, the criminals -still continued in their policy of racial and political discrimination. -Actually, this discrimination could mean one thing only, namely, -that one part of the camp prisoners came to their inevitable end, -death, more rapidly than the other part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And the criminals even tried to make the inevitable end more -of a torment for those of their victims whom they, following the -Nazi man-hating theories, designated as subhumans or considered -capable of active resistance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record -one paragraph from a document already submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-415. This is a report of the Extraordinary State -Commission of the Soviet Union on the “Crimes at Lamsdorf Camp” -and the quotation will testify to the extent of the criminal Hitlerite -activities. It concludes the presentation of evidence regarding this -camp. Your Honors will find the passage in question on Page 146 -of the document book, Paragraph 3. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“According to the findings of the special commission during -the existence of the Lamsdorf Camp, the Germans tortured -to death more than 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Most of -these died in the mines, in the various economic enterprises, -or during transportation back to the camp. Some were crushed -to death in the dugouts, many were killed during the evacuation -of the camp. Forty thousand prisoners of war were -tortured to death in the Lamsdorf Camp proper.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, the Soviet Prosecution begs to present one more -witness, Doctor Kivelisha. He is a physician and his evidence is -particularly important in establishing that there existed a special -regime for Soviet prisoners of war in the camps. The Soviet -Prosecution requests your permission to question this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Kivelisha took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EUGENE ALEXANDROVICH KIVELISHA (Witness): Kivelisha, -Eugene Alexandrovich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I, and -then state your name—a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and -<span class='pageno' title='271' id='Page_271'></span> -swear—in the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but -the truth about everything I know in regard to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish. Will you -spell your name; will you spell your surname?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It is K-i-v-e-l-i-s-h-a.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Please, Colonel Pokrovsky.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the -U.S.S.R.): What was your position in the ranks of the Red Army -at the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite Germany?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: At the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by -Hitlerite Germany I was junior physician in the 305th Regiment of -the 44th Rifle Division.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did your unit of the 305th Regiment of the -44th Rifle Division take part in battles against the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, our 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division -participated in the battles from the first day of the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: On what date and under what circumstances -were you captured by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I was captured by the Germans on 9 August 1941, -in the district of the City of Uman, in the Kirovograd region. I was -captured at the moment when our unit and two Russian armies to -which our unit belonged were surrounded by the Germans after -prolonged fighting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the treatment -applied by the Germans to Red Army soldiers who were captured -by the Hitlerite troops? What was the position of these prisoners -of war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I know only too well every form of barbarous -mockeries applied to the Russian prisoners of war by the Hitlerite -authorities and the Army, for the reason that I was a prisoner of -war myself, for a very long time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the day I was captured, I was sent in convoy in a large -column of prisoners of war to one of the transient camps. En route, -talking to the prisoners with whom I marched—I stress the fact that -this was on the very first day—I learned that the greater part of -the prisoners had been captured 3 or 4 days before the small group -to which I myself belonged.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During these 3 or 4 days the prisoners had been kept in a shed, -under a reinforced German guard and were given nothing at all to -eat or drink. Later, when we passed through the villages, the -prisoners, on seeing wells and water, passed their tongues over their -<span class='pageno' title='272' id='Page_272'></span> -parched lips and made involuntary swallowing movements when -their eyes fell on the water.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Later on in the same day we finished the march toward nighttime -and the column of prisoners, 5,000 strong, was billeted in a -farm yard where we had no possibility of resting after the long -journey, and we were forced to spend the night in the open. This -continued on the following day, and on this day too we were -deprived of food and water.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Was there no case when the prisoners, -passing by water tanks or wells, stepped two or three paces out of -line and tried to get at the water themselves?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, I remember a few such cases and shall tell -you of one particular incident which occurred on the first day of -our march. It happened like this:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We were passing the outskirts of a little village. The peaceful -civilian population came to meet us, and tried to supply us with -water and bread. However, the Germans would not allow us to -approach the citizens, nor would they let the population approach -the column of prisoners. One of the prisoners stepped 5 or 6 meters -out of the column, and without any warning was killed by a German -soldier shooting from a tommy gun. Several of his comrades -rushed to help him thinking that he was still alive, but they too -were immediately fired on without warning. Some of them were -wounded and two of them were killed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Was that the only incident you witnessed, -or, during your transfer from one place to another, did you observe -other cases of a similar nature?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: No, this was not an individual occurrence. Almost -every transfer from one camp to another was accompanied by the -same kind of shootings and murders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did they shoot only the prisoners of war, -or were measures of repression adopted toward the peaceful citizens -as well, toward the citizens who had tried to give bread and water -to the captives?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Measures of repression were applied not only to -the prisoners of war; they were also applied to the peaceful citizens. -I remember once, during one of our transfers, a group of women -and children attempted to give us bread and water, like the others, -only the Germans would not allow them to come anywhere near us. -Then one woman sent a little girl, about 5 years old, evidently her -daughter, to the prisoners’ column. This little child came quite close -to the place where I had passed and when she was five or six steps -away from the column, she was killed by a German soldier. -<span class='pageno' title='273' id='Page_273'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: But perhaps the prisoners of war didn’t -need the food which the population tried to give them; perhaps they -were sufficiently well fed by the German authorities?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The prisoners of war on the transfer marches -suffered from hunger to an exceptional extent. The Germans -provided no food whatsoever en route from one camp to the other.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: So that these gifts from the local population -were the only practical means possible to sustain the strength of -the soldiers in German captivity?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did the Germans shoot them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: You understand me correctly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: In which prisoner-of-war camps were you -interned? Name some of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The first camp in which I was interned was in the -open, in a field, in the district of the small hamlet of Tarnovka. The -second camp was situated on the site of a brick yard and former -poultry farm on the outskirts of the town of Uman. The third camp -was situated in the suburbs of Ivan-Gora. The fourth camp was -situated on the territory pertaining to the stables of some military -unit or other in the region of the town of Gaisen. The fifth camp -was in the region of the small garrison town of Vinnitza. The sixth -camp was in the suburbs of the small town of Dzemerinka and the -last camp, where I stayed the longest time, was in the village of -Rakovo, 7 kilometers from the town of Proskurov, in the Kamenetz-Podolsk -district.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: So that you yourself, from your own -personal experience, could realize the state of affairs prevalent in -this series of camps?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, in all the camps I was personally and completely -acquainted with all the conditions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Are you a physician by profession?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I am a physician by profession.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Tell the Tribunal how matters stood insofar -as medical attention and food for the prisoners of war were -concerned in the camps you have just enumerated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: When I was transported under convoy to the camp -near the hamlet of Tarnovka, I was, for the first time and in -company with other Russian doctors, separated from the rest of the -prisoners’ column, and sent to the so-called infirmary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This infirmary was in a shed with a concrete floor, without any -equipment for the care of the wounded. And on this concrete floor -<span class='pageno' title='274' id='Page_274'></span> -lay a large number of wounded Soviet prisoners, mostly officers. -Many had been captured 10 to 12 days before my arrival at -Tarnovka. During all that time they had received no medical attention -although many of them were in need of surgical aid, with -simultaneous and frequent dressings and a number of drugs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They were systematically left without water; food too was administered -without any system at all; at least, at the time of my -arrival in the camp there was no equipment to prove that food had -ever been prepared or cooked for these wounded soldiers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There were about 15,000 to 20,000 wounded in Uman Camp -where I found myself on the second day after my arrival in Tarnovka. -They were all lying in the open, dressed in their summer -uniforms and a great many of them were incapable of moving.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Food and water were supplied to them in the same way as to the -other captives in the camp. There they lay, without any medical -attention, their dust-covered dressings soaked in blood, often in pus. -Dressings, surgical instruments, equipment for an operating theater -just did not exist in the camp at Uman.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Gaisen prisoners of war, sick and wounded, were herded into -one of the stables. This stable had no wooden floors and lacked every -facility for human habitation. The prisoners of war were lying on -the earthen floor, and here, too, as in the preceding camp, they did -not have even an iota of medical attention. As before, dressings, -drugs, and surgical instruments were unobtainable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: You mentioned the Uman Camp. Look at -this photograph and tell me, is it a photograph of one of the camps -where you were interned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I see on this photograph the camp which was -situated in the grounds of the brick yard at the city of Uman. -I know this picture very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal that the -photograph I have just shown the witness is a photograph of Uman -Camp and was submitted by me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-345. It shows the camp concerning which witness Bingel has -already testified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Turning to the witness.</span>] This means that you recognize Uman -Camp situated in the grounds of the brick yard from this photograph?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, in the grounds of the brick yard. It is a part -of the camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What was the prevailing regime in Uman -Camp? Tell us just the main points, very briefly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Almost all the captives in the camp were kept in -the open air. The food was extremely bad. In the grounds of the -<span class='pageno' title='275' id='Page_275'></span> -Uman Camp, where I spent 8 days, twice a day a few fires would -be lit out of doors and a thin pea soup was cooked in vats over -these fires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There was no special routine for distributing food to the prisoners -of war, and the boiled soup would then be set down amongst the -whole mass of people. No control whatsoever was exercised over -the distribution. The starving prisoners rushed up in the hope of -obtaining even a minute portion of this thin, unsalted soup, cooked -without fat and served without bread.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Disorder and crowding arose. The German guards, all armed -with clubs as well as with rifles and automatic guns, beat up all the -prisoners of war within range of their blows for the purpose of -maintaining order. The Germans would often intentionally set down -a small barrel of soup among a great number of people, and once -again, to restore order, they would beat up the absolutely innocent -people with laughter, oaths, insults, and threats.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Please tell me, Witness: In the camp -situated in the village of Rakovo, was the quality of the food better -or was it approximately the same as in other camps? And how did -the food situation affect the health of the prisoners?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo the food was exactly the -same in quality as that of the other camps where I had been -previously interned. It consisted of beets, cabbage, and potatoes -frequently served half-cooked. Owing to this poor quality of food -the prisoners developed severe gastric trouble accompanied by -dysentery, which rapidly exhausted them and resulted in a very high -rate of mortality from hunger.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: You talked about the guards often beating -the prisoners on the slightest provocation and time and again -without any provocation at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What kind of traumatic lesions did the -prisoners receive as a result of these beatings? Were there any -cases of severe traumatic injuries caused by heavy beatings or did -the whole matter result in a few kicks only?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In Rakovo Camp I was in the so-called hospital, -where I worked in the surgical section. Frequently, after dinner or -supper in the hospital, prisoners were brought in with most grievous -physical injuries. I frequently had to do all I could to help people -who were so terribly injured by these beatings that they would die -without regaining consciousness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remember a second case when two prisoners were beaten over -the head with some hard object till the brains oozed out from the -<span class='pageno' title='276' id='Page_276'></span> -gaping head wound. I remember yet another incident, only too well, -when an athlete from Moscow had an eye knocked out with a whip. -The athlete then contracted meningitis and died soon after.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: How high was the mortality rate among -the prisoners of war in Rakovo Camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The history of Rakovo Camp can be divided into -two periods. There was the first which lasted about 2 years and -ended in November 1941. At that time the number of prisoners was -not very great and consequently the rate of mortality was not so -high. Then there was the second period, from November 1941 to -March 1942, at which time I was in Rakovo myself. During this -second period the mortality rate was exceptionally high: there were -days when 700, 900, and even 950 persons died in the camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What disciplinary measures were there in -Rakovo Camp and for what reasons were the prisoners punished? -Do you know?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes. I know that there was, in the camp grounds, -a cell for prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. Prisoners -of war guilty of attempting to escape from the terrible conditions -created for them in captivity, or with offenses such as stealing food -products in the kitchen, were locked up in this cell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was in the cellar; it had a cement floor and windows with iron -bars instead of panes. The prisoner was stripped to the skin, -deprived of food and water, and locked up in solitary confinement -for 14 days. I do not know of a single case where a prisoner survived -this confinement; all of them died in that particular cell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Evidently the conditions which you have -described to the Tribunal increased the number of persons suffering -from exhaustion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did this condition result in a decreased -number of prisoners capable of working? Did their number decrease; -what was done to those prisoners who could not work?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: An immense number of prisoners were kept, in -Rakovo Camp, in stables which were quite unfit for human beings -to live in during the winter period. At first everybody was made -to work. I can safely say that most of this work was entirely -aimless, since it consisted in pulling down houses and then paving -the camp grounds with bricks from the demolished buildings. After -some time, when severe gastric troubles had set in, troubles which -I have already mentioned, fewer and fewer prisoners came out to -work.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Many of them, who had lost all control of their movements, -never even left the stables for the appointed meal times, and if a -<span class='pageno' title='277' id='Page_277'></span> -great many people were discovered to have lost their strength, a -so-called quarantine was established. In such a stable all the exits -and entries would be blocked and the patients would be completely -isolated from the outer world. Having kept them locked up for -4 or 5 days on end, the stable would be opened and the dead -brought out by the hundreds.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Can you tell us, Witness, on what medical -or sanitary work you and the other doctors were employed in the -camp by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the camps we were not employed by the -Germans on any work connected with the prisoners. All the -Germans were interested in was the separation of people who could -work from those of the prisoners who were incapable of working. -We could not render the prisoners any purely medical services -because of the conditions in which we ourselves existed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did your duties in any of these camps -include sanitary supervision? And what exactly was understood by -sanitary supervision?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The duties of sanitary supervision were entrusted -to us in the camp of the town of Gaisen. It only meant that we, -the captured military doctors, had to be on duty in the vicinity of -the general latrine in the camp, which was nothing more than a -ditch dug for this purpose, and as and when the ditch was filled up -with excrement, we were forced to clean up the ground.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: The doctors?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, the doctors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did you really consider this function as a -form of sanitary supervision, or did you consider it as straightforward -mockery by the Germans at the expense of the captured -Soviet army doctors?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I consider that it was straightforward mockery at -the expense of the captured Soviet doctors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I have no more questions to -ask this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the other prosecutors got any -questions to ask?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: No, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to -ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you have stated that in August 1941 . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly announce your name for -whom you appear. -<span class='pageno' title='278' id='Page_278'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Dr. Laternser, Defense Counsel for the -General Staff and the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness, you have just stated that in August 1941 you were -brought to captivity in the district of Uman. Do you know whether -the Germans had taken many prisoners at that time?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, I do know. About 100,000 prisoners were -captured at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether German troops had -advanced very rapidly into Russian territory at that time?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything about this. The German -armies moved very rapidly, but before our units were surrounded -we fought obstinately and we retreated, fighting, right up to -9 August.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: How great was the number of prisoners in -the column in which you marched?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Four thousand to five thousand persons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: When did you first get any food from the -German troops?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I personally, and for the first time, received food -from the German troops when I reached the town of Uman.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: How much time had passed between the -moment you were captured and your first meal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: When I was first fed I had been a prisoner of war -for about 4 or 5 days.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: You were a Red Army doctor and must have -been quite aware that the feeding of armies is not so simple a -matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I could not imagine this, especially as the Germans -had then at their disposal time and many possibilities for supplying -the prisoners of war with food. Further, to my previous statements -I shall again repeat that if the German authorities were unable -to provide the prisoners of war with food, the peaceful population -did everything in their power to feed the Russian prisoners. -However, obviously neither the German authorities nor the German -Command issued any instructions on this matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already reported that no opportunity was given for -friendly relations between the prisoners of war and the peaceful -citizens. On the contrary, any persons who tried to bring food to -the prisoners or any prisoner who accepted the food from the -citizens was promptly shot.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: But you can certainly imagine that it must -have presented immense difficulties if, as you have just testified, -100,000 prisoners had been taken at that time in the area of Uman? -<span class='pageno' title='279' id='Page_279'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Not all the prisoners of war were concentrated at -Uman at one and the same time. There were several stationary -and permanent camps, only several of them were at Uman.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I was not speaking about the food problem -in Uman Camp. We are still talking about the feeding during the -first days after their capture.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: When I was brought into captivity I was not -singled out in any way from among the other prisoners of war. -I was fed and I was supplied in exactly the same way as all the -others. I was one of the general crowd and the general column of -the prisoners of war. The German Command made no distinction -in the first days of captivity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: But you will have to admit that there were -certain difficulties connected with food supplies which would arise -if quite unexpectedly a column, such as yours, 5,000 men strong, -had to be fed by rapidly advancing troops.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Even if the German Command had been faced -with this particular difficulty, the problem could always have been -solved by allowing the prisoners to accept the food products which -the peaceful population, the Soviet citizens, were offering them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: We shall talk about that immediately. You -say you were in a column of 5,000 prisoners. Can you tell me how -strong the guard was, the German guard, under whom this column -of 5,000 marched?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I cannot state the exact figures. But there were -a great many German machine gunners. The column was too drawn -out in length and I am unable to state the figure.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I understand that you cannot give the exact -figures. But can you describe to the Tribunal how great the -distance was between individual guards marching alongside the -column?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The distance would be as follows: two or three -soldiers, walking in a row, would march approximately five or six -steps behind a second row of the same number.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Thus, every 50 to 60 meters, on either side -of the column, or perhaps only on one side of the column, German -troops marched in groups of two and three soldiers, as you say, or -have I not understood you correctly?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Not 50 to 60 meters; 5 to 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Were the guards elderly men or were there -younger soldiers among them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: They were soldiers of the German Army. They -were of every age. -<span class='pageno' title='280' id='Page_280'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Were the Russian prisoner-of-war columns -informed, before they started, that they would be shot if they left -the ranks?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I have already said, and I repeat once again, there -were no warnings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Not even when the column set off?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be a good time to break -off till 2 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='281' id='Page_281'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the -witnesses and documents to be called and produced on behalf of -the first four defendants and that decision will be communicated -as soon as possible this afternoon to counsel for those defendants -and will also be posted in the Defendants’ Information Center.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief -Prosecutor for France with reference to the calling of two additional -witnesses. The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to -call any witnesses after closing the case on behalf of any of the -chief prosecutors, that a written application should be made to the -Tribunal for the calling of such witnesses, and the Tribunal also -desires me to draw the attention of Counsel for the Prosecution -and Counsel for the Defense to the terms of Article 24, Subsection (e), -which refers to rebutting evidence. In the event of Counsel for the -Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense wishing to call rebutting -evidence when the proper time comes, after the case for the Prosecution -and the Defense has been closed, such application to call -rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in writing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the -Tribunal would allow me to say something on a matter on which -I promised to get information yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn -edition of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> of the 31st of August 1939, -and I promised the Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had -a telegram from the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>, which I received this morning, -and it says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“No edition of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> withdrawn on 31 August -1939 or any other day thereabouts. The <span class='it'>Telegraph</span> of the -31st gave a brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop -had taken place but without details.</p> - -<p>“On 1st September carried summary of Germany’s 16 points -for Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text -of the note did not appear until September 2, when extracted -from the Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information, -that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose -to send a copy of that to Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may -necessitate a slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was -proposing to make. -<span class='pageno' title='282' id='Page_282'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and -Warlimont as witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to -answer one question; namely, to tell me if the Court has decided -yet that the Generals Halder and Warlimont, whom I have named -as witnesses, and whose relevancy has been admitted by the -Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for Keitel so that we -can count with certainty on their appearing in the proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this -morning was that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they -wanted to have them to cross-examine them now or call them as -witnesses on behalf of one or other of the defendants, and therefore -that was a decision that the Defense Counsel would be able to call -them on behalf of one of the defendants if they determined to -do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they -were called before. If the Defendant Göring wanted to call them -then they would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when -they were called for Göring, because of the fundamental rule that -a witness is only to be called once.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel -who are interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and -Warlimont are agreed that these generals should be called in the -course of the presentation of evidence by the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Colonel Smirnov . . . I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march -to the camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were -accommodated in a stable. Was this stable roofed?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and -since the farm had previously been evacuated, the shed had not -been cleaned for a very long time and was in a state of complete -neglect. And if we add to this state of neglect the fact that it had -been pouring with rain all that day, we must also add that it was -half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite impossible to settle down -in the stables and barns since they were filled with left-over -manure, so that all the people stayed out of doors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate -these prisoners in a better way?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, -for I am not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, -and, on the other hand, we were brought to this village late at -<span class='pageno' title='283' id='Page_283'></span> -night and I do not know whether there were more convenient -places where the prisoners could have been quartered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you -entered this village, you yourself saw no possibility for better -accommodations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but -because it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, -although it was a rather large village and it seems to me that there -was a sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people -might have easily been billeted more conveniently for the night.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that -in the prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as -a physician. Did the German prisoner-of-war administration ever -place any medical supplies at your disposal so that you could treat -your sick comrades?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated -step by step from one camp to another, we received no medical -equipment at all from the Germans; but subsequently when I was -in a stationary camp, Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, -though never in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of -all the wounded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have -only one question. The witness has stated that the stable was -evacuated. What do you mean by that term?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had -been driven off beyond the zone of military operations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: By whom was this done?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had -entered and who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army -units who had not been surrounded as we were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back -to Russian territory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: From this village, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask -questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of -war whilst you were prisoner of war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo; in the district of the town -of Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying -<span class='pageno' title='284' id='Page_284'></span> -of labor Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, -at that time, were named the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until -you got to that stationary camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since -I did not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything -in re-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to -ask the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept -as one of the proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the -prisoner-of-war camps certain documents which I should like to -submit to the Tribunal at the request of our honorable British -colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does this all the more readily in -that it considers this documentation of the British Prosecution of -essential importance in establishing the criminal contravention by -the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and customs of war -accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of prisoners of war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial -the documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as -Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding -the cruel murder of 50 prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air -Force, who were captured while attempting to escape en masse from -Stalag Luft III at Sagan and shot after their capture by the German -criminals in the night of 24-25 March 1944.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite -crimes, signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British -Armed Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held -in Sagan by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and -forwarded to the protecting power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Included with these documents are the statements of the -following Allied witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant -Tonder, Flight Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, -<span class='pageno' title='285' id='Page_285'></span> -Flight Lieutenant Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant -Nelson, Flight Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P. S. -M. Hicks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The material evidence is also corroborated by statements -taken from the following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs und -Kriminalrat Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of -those who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to -the Swiss Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the -representative of the protecting power during his visit to Stalag -Luft III on 5 June 1944.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous -crime of the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier -Shapcott. Your Honors will find the passage which I am about to -quote on Page 163, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped -from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been -confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and -returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained -by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining -50 officers the following information was given by the German -authorities. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following information was given by the German authorities -who stated that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting -to escape. Actually this statement was the customary routine -lie of the Hitlerites, since the very thorough investigation carried -out by the British military authorities proved indubitably that the -British R.A.F. officers had been vilely murdered after recapture by -the German police.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented -by the British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was -committed by order of Göring and Keitel. The passage which I wish -to submit to the Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, -Russian text.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing -the witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here -once before. The Prosecution at the time—I do not have the document -here now—submitted a report regarding the interrogation of -Major General Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my -objection, refused to have this document read in Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the -testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document -which the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it -<span class='pageno' title='286' id='Page_286'></span> -concerns a new document which I do not know as yet. I draw your -attention to the fact that General Westhoff is here in person; in -other words, he could be called as a witness on this question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. -Nelte said. As I understood it—I am not sure if I got the name -right—but he referred to General Westhoff’s evidence which has -been tendered, and which had been rejected because the Tribunal -thought that if that evidence was to be given, General Westhoff -ought to be called. Is it right that the document you are putting in -has got nothing to do with General Westhoff at all, has it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only -one part of the official British report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, -is it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am -now submitting an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one -passage in the text of the official British report mentions Major -General Westhoff, but this mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory -of Major General Westhoff which will be brought up later.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): -My Lord, perhaps I might assist in this matter—because I am partly -responsible for that report—with the kind indulgence of my learned -friend, my Russian colleague.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British -official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the -original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that General -Westhoff’s name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a -different document to the document which my French colleagues -tendered and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official -government report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been -saying, Your Honor. This is an official report of the British -Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Roberts—I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte—why -do you say that it is an official government report so as to come -within Article 21 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it -has been certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military -Department of the Judge Advocate General’s office. I think you have -the original. -<span class='pageno' title='287' id='Page_287'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom -was it made, this report?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the -collection of evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it -is headed, “German War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for -the Killing of 50 R.A.F. Officers,” and then it starts to say—then it -states the sources on which the material has been based. Your -Lordship will see on the last page of the report the appendix, -“Material upon which the foregoing report is based”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan. . . . 2. Statements -of the following Allied witnesses. . . . 3. Statements -taken from the following German. . . . 4. Photostat copy of -the official list of dead, transmitted by the German Foreign -Office to the Swiss Legation. . . . 5. Report of the Representative -of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag Luft III on -5th June 1944.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for -the Tribunal or for the War Crimes Commission?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British -Delegation for this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British -general made to the British Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept -the phrase “report of a British general.” I would say “a report of a -government department.” It is signed and certified by a British -general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My -Lords may exactly read in Article 21: “The Tribunal shall take -judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the -United Nations. . . .”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental -document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, -a government department, for the purpose of this Trial. -<span class='pageno' title='288' id='Page_288'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was -collected and sent in by the government will be official evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I -read it and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis -of testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also -Major General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of -this document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under -the terms of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is -involved here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, -who is at the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including -his testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would -not comply with the Tribunal’s desire that it should represent the -best method to discover the truth.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain -literally what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which -is subject to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I -believe the Defense must also have an opportunity in their turn, to -hear and examine a witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the -witnesses who had been examined by one of the committees set up -by the government had not made a report to the government at all, -but an affidavit or something of that sort; and that had been offered -to the Court and the witness had been available, the Court might -very possibly have refused to entertain that affidavit or report. But if -that report was the foundation for a government report or for a -government official document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is -directed to entertain such a report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they -wouldn’t have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff -unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a -question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit -comes within Article 21.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship’s view is correct. -I should merely like to bring up the question whether, when one -has two different types of evidence, namely, the report and the -possibility of examining a witness, it should not be taken into consideration -to question the witness, not in order to correct the official -report, but in order to clarify what the witness actually said, because -from the report we cannot know what he actually said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance -for the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the -<span class='pageno' title='289' id='Page_289'></span> -escaped fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is -available, this witness should be heard instead of an official report -which already actually contains an evaluation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not -proceed only or even substantially upon the evidence of General -Westhoff. There are a number of other origins of the report, and -the second thing is that the whole object of Article 21 was to make -government reports admissible and not to necessitate the calling of -the witnesses upon whose evidence they proceeded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other -matters, namely, the shooting. . . The other witnesses who were mentioned -were questioned on other facts. On the question of whether -Keitel issued such an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one -mentioned in the report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my -earphones on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I said, in that report other witnesses are also mentioned -but, as far as I know, they did not make a statement on the -question of whether or not Keitel issued an order to shoot the fliers. -Westhoff was the only one among the witnesses listed who could -and did make a statement on that question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further in -argument upon the admissibility of the document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It appears to me, Mr. President, -that that part of the document which refers to Major General -Westhoff occupies merely one paragraph, namely, Paragraph 7, of -the document in question. This part deals with the initial stage of -the perpetration of the crime, namely, with the stage of the conception, -the stage of the planning of the crime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The document also speaks of other stages in the commission of -this crime. Moreover, it is an official document, presented according -to Article 21 of the Charter. It seems to me that I have thereby -said all that is necessary, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, -Dr. Nelte?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I merely ask the Court to decide; in -that case I should have to request that General Westhoff be admitted -as a witness to testify that the conclusion drawn in this report does -not correspond with what he said. -<span class='pageno' title='290' id='Page_290'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen -and for the Reich Cabinet): May I make a few legal remarks, -a few generally legal remarks regarding Article 21 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In all criminal procedure of every country we find the primary -principle of oral court proceedings. Only if this cannot be carried -out are part of the proceedings, so to say, transferred outside the -court. In most codes of criminal procedure of the various countries -we have a provision similar to that of Article 21 of the Charter that -previous decisions of a court should not be re-examined in new -proceedings, but that such decisions should be binding.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this Trial the Charter extends this provision further to cases -which obviously, because of their scope, should not be further discussed -here. Therefore the decision that government reports should -be considered as evidence is clearly taken up in Paragraph 21. It -is clear to every jurist that this provision in itself is to an extent -a flaw in proceedings because through it certain rights are lost to -the defendants. On the other hand one cannot, of course, ignore the -argument that there is subject matter which, because of its extent, -cannot be practically discussed in a trial in which the time is limited.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 21 of the Charter therefore gave the Tribunal the -possibility of accepting such reports as valid evidence. But this -provision is not compulsory for the Tribunal. So far as I can see -from the German text before me it is provided that the Tribunal -should accept these reports, but it does not say that the Tribunal -must do so. Therefore it is in every case left to the discretion of -the Tribunal whether the nature of the report makes it advisable -to accept such a report in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We now have here a rather striking case which, in my opinion, -clearly shows that the Tribunal can make use of its discretion and -reject this document. The Defense have taken the position that this -subject of evidence could be taken care of by a witness. The examination -of the witness would have provided the Defense with the -right of cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Since, for tactical reasons inherent in the nature of the Trial, -the witness will not be called, the subsequent transfer of his evidence -into a government report means curtailing the right of the defendant -to cross-examination, and is thus contrary to the corresponding -article of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: It was not until today that the accusation was -made that Göring knew of or ordered the execution of these fliers. -I could not take this act into consideration when I recently offered -my evidence, because I did not know of it; and I must, therefore, -reserve the right to call additional witnesses on this question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words, -Mr. President? -<span class='pageno' title='291' id='Page_291'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: On the question of the admissibility?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I consider the arguments put -forward by the second Defense Counsel as entirely incomprehensible -from a legal point of view since he introduces certain numerical -and quantitative criteria into the legal nature of the evidence. -According to this Counsel, Article 21 of the Charter deals only with -evidence of crimes committed on an enormous scale, but cannot -touch crimes of a smaller caliber.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To me, viewing the matter from a legal point of view, this -argumentation appears rotten from the root upwards and I consider -that Article 21 of the Charter applies, <span class='it'>in toto</span>, to any crime committed -by the Hitlerites, regardless of the fact if they be committed -on a very large or on a slightly smaller scale. That is all I wish to -say, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal would like to -know where these appendices which are referred to in Paragraph 9 -of the report are.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: I think they are in the Tribunal now, in the -charge of the Officer of the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: They are in the court now? You can undertake, -I suppose, to produce them all if they are not any of them -there?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, most certainly. I understood the whole -of the material is not necessary—the original, of course—but I -understood the whole of the material to be there, all in the original, -of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then the Tribunal decides that the -document will be admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is -available—and we think he is—General Westhoff; and that will be, -in effect, granting the defendants’ application to call General -Westhoff, and also to call the officer mentioned in Paragraph 3(b) -of the appendix, whose surname appears to be Wielen. I do not -know whether you know where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I can assure the -Tribunal that we will do everything in our power to get the -witnesses that are required for the defense, namely, General -<span class='pageno' title='292' id='Page_292'></span> -Westhoff, who is in Nuremberg, I understand, and General Wielen. -I am not certain where he is, but I will find out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant -Schacht): Mr. President, you made a remark during the session with -which the Defense Counsel are very much concerned. If we understood -this remark, it was said that private affidavits would not be -accepted by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that we must offer -our evidence now, this question of affidavits is very urgent. That -is why I am forced to clarify that question. The Defense Counsel -has. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, I do not think I said that affidavits -could not be admitted. What I said was, it might be that affidavits -would not be admitted, if the witness was available to give direct -evidence. That is the rule which we have enforced throughout the -Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: Yes, I understand you, Mr. President, to say that -in principle we may offer affidavits, whether certified by notary -public or by a lawyer or whether bearing only the signature of the -person who makes the statement. These are the three forms we -have: The simple letter written with the statement, “I declare under -oath.” The second type is that in which the signature has been -certified by a lawyer; and the third type is the one which has been -declared before and certified by a notary public.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have procured many documents of that kind, in order to -expedite matters, and we would like to know whether or not we may -expect to present them as evidence in order to avoid the calling of -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will -be considered when you present the applications for giving evidence -by affidavit. We have, today, in dealing with the first four defendants, -allowed, in a variety of instances, interrogatories to be administered -to various witnesses where it appeared appropriate that that -should be done in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will -apply when you come to submit your applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient -to you to go on with your presentation now on this document -which we have admitted, or do you wish to present a film?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to -finish the presentation of this proof, that is, to read into the record -the passages from the document I have quoted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; but the Tribunal, I think, desire -that these two witnesses, Major General Westhoff and Wielen, -<span class='pageno' title='293' id='Page_293'></span> -whatever his rank may be, should be produced for examination as -soon as possible afterwards. I don’t mean this afternoon, because -that would not be possible, but, if possible, tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I shall -request the representative of the British Delegation to reply to this -question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he -would ask you to answer, because I was saying that the Tribunal -would like to have the witnesses called as soon as possible after the -report was read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about, so I heard, Sir, and I -am trying to make inquiries now where Wielen is. If Your Lordship -will give me a few minutes I will try to find out where Wielen can -be located.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the Court, then, My -Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One minute, please.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Colonel Smirnov, would not it be equally convenient to go on -with the film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can -be presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Otherwise, supposing Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wielen this -afternoon, it might be that if you read the report now, there might -be a week possibly—or even more—between the reading of the -report and the evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with -the film now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What we are showing the -Tribunal cannot be called a film in the full sense of the word. It -is a series of photographic evidence, of photographs taken by the -Germans themselves on the site where the crimes were committed, -which were then rephotographed and transferred to a reel. It is not -a film—it is a photo-document. We are presenting these photo-documents -as Exhibit Number USSR-442 (Document Number -USSR-442), and we are presenting only one part of these photo-documents. -The fact of the matter is that the Government of Yugoslavia -presented photo-documents for every section of the report. -We have excluded the part dealing with the other sections and show -only that part which deals with Crimes against Humanity. Thus, -only a section of the documents is being shown to the Tribunal. May -I show these photo-documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The photographic document was then projected on the screen.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue with the presentation -of the documentary evidence? -<span class='pageno' title='294' id='Page_294'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in order to allow -the British Prosecution to settle the question as to when the two -witnesses will be summoned before the Tribunal, I take the liberty -of passing to the next part of my statement. Have I your permission -to do so?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I pass on to that part which -deals with the persecution of the Jews, Page 37 of the text. The -excessive anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which assumed a -perfectly zoological aspect, is only too well known. I shall not quote -from the so-called theoretical works of the major war criminals—from -Himmler and Göring to Papen and Streicher. In the Eastern -European countries all the anti-Semitism of the Hitlerites was put -into full effect and mostly in one way only—in the physical extermination -of innocent people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The United States Prosecution, in its own time, submitted to the -Tribunal one of the reports of a special German fascist organization, -the so-called Einsatzgruppe A, which was submitted as Exhibit -USA-276 (Document Number L-180). Our American colleagues submitted -this particular report which covered the period up to -15 October 1941. The Soviet Prosecution submits another report of -this criminal German fascist organization, covering a further period -of time and which might almost be considered as a continuation of -the first document, namely the report on Einsatzgruppe A, from -10 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I submit to the Tribunal -a photostatic copy of this report as Exhibit Number USSR-57 (Document -Number USSR-57). I request the permission of the Tribunal -to read into the record a very brief excerpt from Chapter 3 of the -report of Einsatzgruppe A, entitled “The Jews,” and I would invite -the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data presented in -this report refer exclusively to one organization—Einsatzgruppe A. -I quote one paragraph from Page 170 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The systematic task of purging the East was, according to -fundamental orders, the liquidation of the Jews to the fullest -possible extent. This objective has been practically realized, -with the exception of Bielorussia, by the execution of 229,052 -Jews. . . . The surviving Jews in the Baltic provinces are -urgently needed for work, and have been quartered in -ghettos.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt the quotation and read two further excerpts from a -subparagraph, “Estonia,” on Page 2 of the Russian text, which -corresponds to Page 171, Paragraph 2 of your document book. I -begin the quotation: -<span class='pageno' title='295' id='Page_295'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The execution of the Jews, insofar as they were not indispensable -for working purposes, was carried out gradually -by forces of the Sipo and the SD. At present there are no Jews -left in Estonia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a few brief excerpts from the subparagraphs entitled -“Latvia.” I quote one line from the last paragraph on the second -page of the Russian text, Page 171, Paragraph 5 of the document -book. I begin:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still -70,000 Jews left there.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I break off the quotation and read one line on Page 3, Paragraph -2 of the Russian text, Page 171, last paragraph of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By October 1941 the Sonderkommandos had executed about -30,000 Jews.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I again break off and continue with the following paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Further executions were later carried out. Thus, for instance, -11,034 Jews were executed on 9 November 1941 in Dünaburg. -In the beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation -carried out in Riga and following the order of the Higher -Chief of the SS and Police, 27,800 persons were executed, and -in mid-December 1941, in Libau, 2,350 Jews were executed. -At present there are in ghettos, besides the Jews from -Germany, about 2,500 Latvian Jews in Riga, about 950 in -Dünaburg, and about 300 in Libau.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come -from? Are they in an official report, or are they German figures?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These are the data published by -the Germans themselves. This particular document was discovered -in the Gestapo archives. It was brought out of Latvia by troops of -the Red Army. I request Your Honors to take note that this document -covers only the period between 16 October 1941 and 31 January -1942. This is therefore not conclusive data but merely data -connected with one German operational group during this particular -period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Have I your permission to proceed, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote one line only from the -subparagraph entitled “Lithuania,” which is on Page 173 of the -document book, Paragraph 3:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In numerous individual operations, 136,421 persons were -liquidated all told.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='296' id='Page_296'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to allow me to quote in greater detail from -the next subparagraph of the “A” group report, entitled “White -Ruthenia.” I quote the last paragraph on Page 5 of the Russian text; -Page 174, last paragraph, of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The final and definite liquidation of the Jews remaining in -the territory of White Ruthenia, after the arrival of the -Germans, presented certain difficulties. As a matter of fact, -it is precisely in this territory that the Jews constitute a high -percentage of specialists and are indispensable for lack of -other reserves. Moreover, Einsatzgruppe A took over the -territory only after the hard frosts had set in, a fact which -hampered the carrying out of the mass executions very -seriously indeed. A further difficulty consists in the circumstance -that the Jews are scattered all over the territory. -Bearing in mind the fact that distances are vast, road conditions -bad, transportation and petrol lacking, and the forces of -the Security Police and SD insignificant, the executions could -be carried out only by a maximum effort. Nevertheless, -41,000 Jews have already been shot. This figure does not -include the persons executed by former Einsatzkommandos.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt once more and proceed to read from the following -paragraph—this corresponds to Page 175, Paragraph 2 of the document -book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Chief of Police in White Ruthenia, despite the difficult -situation, has been given orders to solve the Jewish question -as soon as possible. All the same, this calls for about two -months’ time, according to the weather.</p> - -<p>“The distribution of the remaining Jews in special ghettos of -White Ruthenia is nearing its end.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show how mass executions of the Jews by the German -criminals were carried out, I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-119(a) (Document Number USSR-119(a)) a photostatic -copy, certified by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union of an original German document. This is the conclusive -report of the commander of one of the companies of the 12th Regiment -of Police, which carried out the mass extermination of the -Jews assembled in the ghetto of the town of Pinsk. On 29 and -30 October 1942, the criminal elements from the 15th Regiment of -Police murdered 26,200 Jews in Pinsk. This is how Company Commander -Sauer described the crime. I shall not quote the document -<span class='it'>in toto</span> since it is rather long, but I shall quote a few excerpts. The -passage I am about to read—and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to -read it into the record—is on Page 177 of your document book, -Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation: -<span class='pageno' title='297' id='Page_297'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The ordered encirclement of the districts was accomplished -at 0430 hours; owing to the personal investigations made by -the commanders and to the manner in which the secret was -kept, the encirclement was carried out in the shortest time -imaginable and it was impossible for the Jews to flee.</p> - -<p>“The combing of the ghetto was to begin at 0600 hours, but -owing to the darkness it was postponed for another half-hour. -The Jews had noticed the proceedings and began to assemble -voluntarily in all the streets. With the aid of two Wachtmeister -(Staff Sergeants) it was possible to bring several -thousand Jews to the assembly point within the very first -hour. When the remaining Jews realized what was coming, -they too joined this column, so that the screening planned by -the SD at the assembly point could not be carried out in view -of the enormous multitude which had gathered. (For the first -day of the comb-out only one to two thousand persons had -been counted on.) The first comb-out ended at 1700 hours -without any incident. About 10,000 persons were executed on -this first day. That night the company was standing by, ready -for action, in a soldiers’ club.</p> - -<p>“On 30 October 1942 the ghetto was combed a second time. -On 31 October it was combed for the third time and on -1 November for the fourth time. About 15,000 Jews were -rounded up, all told. Sick Jews and children left behind in -the houses were executed on the spot in the yard of the -ghetto. About 1,200 Jews were executed in the ghetto.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the permission of the Tribunal to allow me to continue -quoting the second page of the document which corresponds to -Page 178 of the document book, Paragraph 6. I quote two points -from the section “Experiences.” I begin to quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“3) Where there are no cellars and a considerable number of -persons are huddled together in the small space between the -floor and the ground, these places must be broken into from -the outside, or else police dogs sent in (one police dog, Asta, -put up a remarkably good performance in Pinsk), otherwise -a hand grenade should be thrown in, after which the Jews -invariably come out into the open.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I further quote Point 5:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“We recommend persuading half-grown persons to disclose -these hiding places by promising to spare their lives. This -method has fully justified its application.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This example of this police regiment, which I have just read into -the record, is typical of the methods applied for the extermination -of Jews who had been rounded up in the ghetto. But the German -<span class='pageno' title='298' id='Page_298'></span> -fascist invaders did not always apply this method when proceeding -to the extermination of the peaceful Jewish population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another, similarly criminal device was the assembling of Jews in -a given spot under the pretext of transferring them to some other -locality. The assembled Jews would then be shot. I submit to the -Tribunal an original poster which had been put up in the town of -Kislovodsk by Kommandantur Number 12. Your Honors will find -the text (Document Number USSR-434) quoted on Page 180. I shall -quote some extracts from this poster which is a comparatively long -one. I start with the first part:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To all Jews! For the purpose of colonizing sparsely populated -districts of the Ukraine, all Jews residing in Kislovodsk and -all Jews who have no permanent abode are ordered to present -themselves on Wednesday, 9 September 1942, at 5 a. m. Berlin -time (6 a. m. Moscow time), at the goods’ station in Kislovodsk; -the transport will take off at 6 a. m. (7 a. m. Moscow time).</p> - -<p>“Every Jew is to bring luggage not exceeding 20 kilograms -in weight, including food for a minimum of 2 days. Further food -will be supplied by the German authorities at the railway -stations.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit the next paragraph and only quote one line:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Also subjected to transfer are the Jews who have been -baptized.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I break off the quotation at this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to ascertain what happened to the Jewish population in -the town of Kislovodsk—the same happened to the Jews in many -other towns—I would request the Tribunal to refer to the contents -of a document which has already been submitted to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1). It is a -report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Stavropol -region.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The part which I wish to read, in brief, is on Page 187 of your -document book. It states there that the 2,000 Jews who had assembled -at the Kislovodsk station were sent to the station of Mineralniye -Vody and shot in an antitank trench 2½ kilometers distant from the -town. Here too, thousands of Jews, transferred from the towns of -Essentuki and Piatigorsk, were shot on the same site.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show the extent of the criminal extermination of the -peaceful Jewish population in Eastern Europe, I now refer to the -contents of reports received from the governments of the respective -Eastern European countries, which have already been submitted to -the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a report of the Polish Government, on Page 136 of the -Russian text of this document. I begin the quotation: -<span class='pageno' title='299' id='Page_299'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The official statistical yearbook of Poland, in 1931, estimates -the number of Jews at 3,115,000.</p> - -<p>“According to unofficial figures collected in 1939 there were in -Poland 3,500,000 Jews.</p> - -<p>“After the liberation of Poland the Jews in that country -numbered less than 100,000, and 200,000 Polish Jews are still -in the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p>“Thus, about 3 million Jews perished in Poland.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In Czechoslovakia, as seen from the data published on Pages 82-83 -of the Russian text of the report, the Jews numbered 118,000. At -present, in the entire country, they number only 6,000 all told. Of -the total number of 15,000 Jewish children, only 28 have returned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Can we leave off here?</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='300' id='Page_300'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-NINTH DAY</span><br/> Wednesday, 27 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I -wonder if the Tribunal would allow me to make a very short -explanation as to the source of the document with regard to Stalag -Luft III which the Tribunal discussed yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position was that when evidence -for this Trial was being collected, each government that might -be concerned was written to and asked if they would produce -government reports, and they have produced government reports -which have been put before the Tribunal by the various sections of -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The document with regard to the shooting of the prisoners in -Stalag Luft III was a British Government report of the same type. -It was compiled from various information, which is included in the -appendices; that information included the interrogation of General -Westhoff, which had been sent to the United Nations War Crimes -Commission as thousands of other documents were sent, for that -Commission to consider whether any action should be taken from -the matters disclosed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That document was then sent from the United Nations War -Crimes Commission to the British Government and dealt with as -part of the material on which the British Government report was -based. The British Government report is certified by myself to be -a Government report, and I have specific authority from His -Majesty’s Government in Britain to perform such certification. It -is very short, and it might be convenient if I read it so that it -appears in the record. I have the copy, which was sent to me on -the official Cabinet paper, purporting to be signed by Sir Edward -Bridges, the Secretary to the Cabinet. The original was sent to the -Attorney General, and the document is jointly to us both; but there -is no doubt as to its authenticity; and the original can be produced, -if necessary. The document reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great -Britain and Northern Ireland has authorized the Right Honorable -Sir Hartley Shawcross, K. C., M. P., the Chief Prosecutor -<span class='pageno' title='301' id='Page_301'></span> -for the United Kingdom, appointed under Article 14 of the -Charter, annexed to the agreement dated the 8th day of -August 1945, and the Right Honorable Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, -K. C., M. P., the Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United -Kingdom, to certify those documents to be produced at the -trial of war criminals before the International Military Tribunal -which are documents of His Majesty’s Government in -the United Kingdom.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>My respectful submission is, therefore, that on my certification -the document becomes a governmental document within Article 21, -and it is thereupon a mandatory injunction to the Tribunal that -it shall take judicial notice of such a document. At that point the -document, in my respectful submission to the Tribunal, should be -taken into evidence. And it is then, of course, a matter for the -Defense, if they wish to call any witness, to make such application -as they desire and for the Tribunal to rule on it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But as a point of construction, I respectfully submit that once -a document is certified as a government document, as all these -government reports are, the Charter enjoins the Tribunal to take -judicial notice of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal did admit the document -yesterday; but they are glad of your explanation. Nothing in -the order that they made is in any way inconsistent with what you -have now said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I would like to -recall to you certain figures which I mentioned yesterday afternoon. -I am speaking about the number of Jews who were exterminated -in Poland and Czechoslovakia. I allow myself to remind -the Tribunal that the figures I mentioned yesterday, which were -based on the report of the Polish Government, show that 3 million -Jews in Poland have been exterminated. In Czechoslovakia out of -118,000 Jews only 6,000 remain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would now like to pass on to the report of the Yugoslav -Government and will quote one paragraph, which the Tribunal will -find on Page 75 of the document book, third paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Out of 75,000 Yugoslav Jews and about 5,000 Jewish emigrées -from other countries who were in Yugoslavia at the -time of the attack—that is to say, out of a total number of -about 80,000 Jews—only some 10,000 persons survived the -German occupation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='302' id='Page_302'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to call to this Court a witness who will confirm -these data. He is Abram Gerzevitch Suzkever, a Jewish writer, -who together with his family became a victim of the German -fascist criminals who had temporarily occupied the territory of the -Lithuanian Soviet Republic. I beg the Tribunal to allow me to question -this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness, Suzkever, took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ABRAM GERZEVITCH SUZKEVER (Witness): Suzkever.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you a Soviet citizen?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat after me: I—and mention -your name—citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—summoned -as a witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in the -presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but the truth—about -everything I know in regard to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath in Russian.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, Witness, where -did the German occupation find you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: In the town of Vilna.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stayed in this town for a -long time during the German occupation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: I stayed there from the first to nearly the last day -of the occupation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You witnessed the persecution -of the Jews in that city?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the -Court about this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: When the Germans seized my city, Vilna, about -80,000 Jews lived in the town. Immediately the so-called Sonderkommando -was set up at 12 Vilenskaia Street, under the command -of Schweichenberg and Martin Weiss. The man-hunters of the -Sonderkommandos, or as the Jews called them, the “Khapun,” -broke into the Jewish houses at any time of day or night, dragged -away the men, instructing them to take a piece of soap and a towel, -and herded them into certain buildings near the village of Ponari, -about 8 kilometers from Vilna. From there hardly one returned. -When the Jews found out that their kin were not coming back, a -<span class='pageno' title='303' id='Page_303'></span> -large part of the population went into hiding. However, the Germans -tracked them with police dogs. Many were found, and any -who were averse to going with them were shot on the spot.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have to say that the Germans declared that they were exterminating -the Jewish race as though legally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 8 July an order was issued which stated that all Jews should -wear a patch on their back; afterwards they were ordered to wear -it on their chest. This order was signed by the commandant of the -town of Vilna, Zehnpfennig. But 2 days later some other commandant -named Neumann issued a new order that they should not -wear these patches but must wear the yellow Star of David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what does this yellow Star -of David mean?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: It was a six-pointed patch worn on the chest and -on the back, in order to distinguish the Jews from the other -inhabitants of the town. On another day they were ordered to -wear a blue band with a white star. The Jews did not know which -insignia to wear as very few lived in the town. Those who did not -wear this sign were immediately arrested and never seen again.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 17 July 1941 I witnessed a large pogrom in Vilna on Novgorod -Street. The inciters of this pogrom were the forenamed -Schweichenberg and Martin Weiss, a certain Herring, and Schönhaber, -a German Gestapo chief. They surrounded this district with -Sonderkommandos. They drove all the men into the street, told -them to take off their belts and to put their hands on their heads -like this [<span class='it'>demonstrating</span>]. When that order had been complied with, -all the Jews were driven along into the Lukshinaia prison. When -the Jews started to march off, their trousers fell down and they -couldn’t walk. Those who tried to hold up their trousers with their -hands were shot then and there in the street. When we walked in -a column down the street, I saw with my own eyes the bodies of -about 100 or 150 persons who had been shot in the street. Blood -streamed through the street as if a red rain had fallen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the first days of August 1941 a German seized me in the -Dokumenskaia Street. I was then going to visit my mother. The -German said to me, “Come with me, you will act in the circus.” -As I went along I saw that another German was driving along an -old Jew, the old rabbi of this street, Kassel, and a third German -was holding a young boy. When we reached the old synagogue on -this street I saw that wood was piled up there in the shape of a -pyramid. A German drew out his revolver and told us to take off -our clothes. When we were naked, he lit a match and set fire to -this stack of wood. Then another German brought out of the synagogue -three scrolls of the Torah, gave them to us, and told us to -<span class='pageno' title='304' id='Page_304'></span> -dance around this bonfire and sing Russian songs. Behind us stood -the three Germans; with their bayonets they forced us toward the -fire and laughed. When we were almost unconscious, they left.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must say that the mass extermination of the Jewish people in -Vilna began at the moment when District Commissar Hans Fincks -arrived, as well as the referant, or reporter on the Jewish problems, -Muhrer. On 31 August, under the direction of District Commissioner -Fincks and Muhrer. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which year?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: 1941.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Under the direction of Fincks and Muhrer, the -Germans surrounded the old Jewish quarter of Vilna, taking in -Rudnitskaia and Jewish Streets, Galonsky Alley, the Shabelsky and -Strashouna Streets, where some 8 to 10 thousand Jews were living.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I was ill at the time and asleep. Suddenly I felt the lash of a -whip on me. When I jumped up from my bed I saw Schweichenberg -standing in front of me. He had a big dog with him. He was -beating everybody and shouting that we must all run out into the -courtyard. When I was out in the courtyard, I saw there many -women, children, and aged persons—all the Jews who lived there. -Schweichenberg had the Sonderkommando surround all this crowd -and said that they were taking us to the ghetto. But, of course, like -all their statements, this was also a lie. We went through the town -in columns and were led toward Lutishcheva Prison. All knew that -we were going to our death. When we arrived at Lutishcheva -Prison, near the so-called Lutishkina market, I saw a whole double -line of German soldiers with white sticks standing there to receive -us. While we had to pass between them they beat us with sticks. -If a Jew fell down, the one next to him was told to pick him up -and carry him through the large prison gates which stood open. -Near the prison I took to my heels. I swam across the River Vilia -and hid in my mother’s house. My wife, who was put in prison -and then managed to escape later on, told me that there she saw -the well-known Jewish scientist Moloch Prilutzky, who was almost -dead, the president of the Jewish Society of Vilna, Dr. Jacob -Wigotzky, and the young Jewish historian, Pinkus Kohn. The -famous artists Hash and Kadisch were lying dead. The Germans -flogged, robbed, then drove away all their victims to Ponari.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 6 September at 6 o’clock in the morning thousands of Germans, -led by District Commissar Fincks, by Muhrer, Schweichenberg, -Martin Weiss, and others, surrounded the whole town, broke -into the Jewish houses, and told the inhabitants to take only that -which they could carry off in their hands and get out into the -<span class='pageno' title='305' id='Page_305'></span> -street. Then they were driven off to the ghetto. When they were -passing by Wilkomirowskaia Street where I was, I saw the Germans -had brought sick Jews from the hospitals. They were all in blue -hospital gowns. They were all forced to stand while a German -newsreel operator, who was driving in front of the column, filmed -this scene.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must say that not all the Jews were driven into the ghetto. -Fincks did this on purpose. He drove the inhabitants of one street -to the ghetto and the inhabitants of another street to Ponari. Previously -the Germans had set up two ghettos in Vilna. In the first -were 29,000 Jews, and in the second some 15,000 Jews. About half -the Jewish population of Vilna never reached the ghetto; they were -shot on the way. I remember how, when we arrived at the ghetto. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Just a moment, Witness. Did I -understand you correctly, that before the ghetto was set up, half -the Jewish population of Vilna was already exterminated?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, that is right. When I arrived at the ghetto -I saw the following scene: Martin Weiss came in with a young -Jewish girl. When we went in farther, he took out his revolver -and shot her on the spot. The girl’s name was Gitele Tarlo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, how old was this girl?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Eleven. I must state that the Germans organized -the ghetto only to exterminate the Jewish population with greater -ease. The head of the ghetto was the expert on Jewish questions, -Muhrer, and he issued a series of mad orders. For instance, Jews -were forbidden to wear watches. The Jews could not pray in the -ghetto. When a German passed by, they had to take off their hats -but were not allowed to look at him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were these official orders?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, issued by Muhrer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were they posted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, they were posted in the ghetto. The same -Muhrer, when he visited the ghetto, went into the shops where the -Jews were working for him and ordered all workers to fall down -on the ground and bark like dogs. On Atonement Day in 1941 -Schweichenberg and the same Sonderkommando broke into the -second ghetto and seized all the old men who were praying in -the synagogues and drove them to Ponari. I remember when -Schweichenberg went to the second ghetto and the man-hunters -seized the Jews.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Who were these hunters?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: The soldiers of the Sonderkommando who seized -the Jews and whom the population called the hunters. -<span class='pageno' title='306' id='Page_306'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So they were soldiers of the -Sonderkommando, whom the population called hunters?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, that is so. These hunters dragged the Jews -out of the cellars and tried to drive them to Ponari. But the -Jews knew that nobody returned alive and did not want to go. -Then Schweichenberg began to shoot at the inhabitants of the -ghetto. I remember that there was a big dog at his side; and when -this dog heard the shots, it jumped at Schweichenberg and began -to bite his throat like a mad dog. Then Schweichenberg killed this -dog and told the Jews to bury it and to cry over its grave. We -really cried then—we cried because it was not Schweichenberg but -the dog that had been buried.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the end of December 1941 an order was issued in the ghetto -which stated that the Jewish women must not bear children.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell us how, -or in what form, this order was issued by the German fascists.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Muhrer came to the hospital in Street Number 6 -and said that an order had come from Berlin to the effect that -Jewish women should not bear children and that if the Germans -found out that a Jewish woman had given birth, the child would -be exterminated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Towards the end of December in the ghetto my wife gave birth -to a child, a boy. I was not in the ghetto at that time, having -escaped from one of these so-called “actions.” When I came to the -ghetto later I found that my wife had had a baby in a ghetto -hospital. But I saw the hospital surrounded by Germans and a -black car standing before the door. Schweichenberg was standing -near the car, and the hunters of the Sonderkommando were dragging -sick and old people out of the hospital and throwing them like logs -into the truck. Among them I saw the well-known Jewish writer -and editor, Grodnensky, who was also dragged and dumped into -this truck.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the evening when the Germans had left, I went to the hospital -and found my wife in tears. It seems that when she had had her -baby, the Jewish doctors of the hospital had already received the -order that Jewish women must not give birth; and they had hidden -the baby, together with other newborn children, in one of the rooms. -But when this commission with Muhrer came to the hospital, they -heard the cries of the babies. They broke open the door and -entered the room. When my wife heard that the door had been -broken, she immediately got up and ran to see what was happening -to the child. She saw one German holding the baby and smearing -something under its nose. Afterwards he threw it on the bed and -laughed. When my wife picked up the child, there was something -<span class='pageno' title='307' id='Page_307'></span> -black under his nose. When I arrived at the hospital, I saw that -my baby was dead. He was still warm.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the next day I went to my mother in the ghetto, and I found -her room empty. A prayer book was still open on the table and -a glass of tea, not yet touched. I learned that in the night the -Germans had surrounded this house, seized all the inhabitants, and -driven them off to Ponari. In the last days of December 1941 -Muhrer gave a present to the ghetto. A carload of shoes belonging -to the Jews executed at Ponari was brought into the ghetto. He -sent these old shoes as a gift to the ghetto. Among them I recognized -my mother’s.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Shortly afterwards the second ghetto was liquidated, and the -German newspaper in Vilna announced that the Jews from this -district had died of an epidemic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 23 December 1941, in the night, Muhrer came and distributed -among the population 3,000 yellow tickets, the so-called Ausweise. -Those who had these tickets were allowed to register their relatives; -that meant some 9,000 persons. At that time about 18 to 20 thousand -people lived in the ghetto. Those who had these yellow tickets went -to work the next day; and the others, who remained in the ghetto -without these tickets and did not want to go to their death, were -slaughtered in the ghetto itself. The rest were driven away to -Ponari.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have a document which I found after the liberation of the -town of Vilna, concerning the Jewish clothing from Ponari. If this -document interests you I can show it to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I do not know of this document -either, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: [<span class='it'>Continuing.</span>] This document reads as follows—I -will read only a few lines. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness read the document in German, and only part of it -was translated. It was later identified as Document USSR-444.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, as you have read this -document, you must hand it over to the Tribunal, as otherwise we -cannot judge this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us first of all where the document -was found?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: I found this document at the district commissioner’s -building in Vilna, in July 1944, when our city was already liberated -from the German invaders. -<span class='pageno' title='308' id='Page_308'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say it was found?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: In the building of the District Commissar in Vilna -on the Gedemino Street.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was that the building occupied by the -Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, it was the headquarters of the German District -Commissioner of Vilna. Hans Fincks and Muhrer lived there.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, read the part of the document you were -reading just now; we did not hear it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Certainly.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To the District Commissioner at Vilna: Pursuant to your -order, the old Jewish clothing from Ponari is at present being -disinfected by this establishment and delivered to the administration -of Vilna.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand it in, please?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please, Witness, I am interested -in the following question: You said that at the beginning of the -German occupation 80,000 Jews lived in Vilna. How many remained -after the German occupation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: After the occupation about 600 Jews remained -in Vilna.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thus, 79,400 persons were exterminated?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I have no further -questions to ask of the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Chief Prosecutor want to ask -any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: No questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the defendants’ counsel -wish to ask any questions? No? Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to -modify the plan of my statement and leave out just now that chapter -of my statement which is entitled, “Religious Persecutions,” to which -I shall come back a little later. I would now like, with your permission, -to take up that part of my statement which is entitled, -“Experiments on Living Persons.” It is on Page 47 of the Russian -text. -<span class='pageno' title='309' id='Page_309'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Before reading this part of my statement, I would like to quote -a few short extracts from a document which has not as yet been -read into the record by our United States colleagues, because the -main part of this document refers to experiments which were described -in detail by the United States Prosecution with the help of -other documents. This document is registered under Document -Number 400-PS (Exhibit Number USSR-435). It refers to experiments -by Dr. Rascher. It is submitted to the Tribunal as a photostat -copy, which includes a series of documents. I quote two paragraphs -only from this Document Number 400-PS. These two paragraphs -testify to the predilection of Dr. Rascher for the Auschwitz Camp. -This extract is on Page 149 of the document book, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It would be simpler if I were soon transferred to the -Waffen-SS and could visit the Auschwitz Camp with Neff, -where I could, by a series of large scale experiments, solve -the problem of reviving people who had been frozen on land. -For these experiments Auschwitz is in every respect better -adapted than Dachau, for the climate is colder there and, as -the camp area is larger, less attention will be attracted. The -victims yell when they are being frozen.</p> - -<p>“If it is agreeable to you, esteemed Reichsführer, to have these -experiments—so important for our land forces—quickly carried -out at Auschwitz (or in Lublin or any other Eastern -camp), I would respectfully beg you to give the necessary -orders in the near future so that we could yet profit by the -last cold, winter weather. With most obedient greetings I am, -in sincere gratitude, Heil Hitler, your always devoted servant, -S. Rascher.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like to remind the Tribunal that this special interest of -Dr. Rascher in the Auschwitz Camp—I remind the Tribunal that -Auschwitz was the central section of the camp situated near the -town of Oswieczim—was not accidental. In Auschwitz cruel experiments -on live persons were carried out on a scale greatly exceeding -all that was done in Dachau or other concentration camps of -the Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Our Exhibit Number USSR-8 (Document Number USSR-8) has -already been added to the file of the case. It is the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the monstrous -crimes of the German Government in Oswieczim. The introductory -part of this report contains the following excerpt, which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 196 of the document -book. I read one paragraph only:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Special hospitals, surgical blocks, histological laboratories, -and other departments were set up in the camp. But they -were intended not for the treatment but for the extermination -<span class='pageno' title='310' id='Page_310'></span> -of people. Here German professors and doctors carried out -mass experiments on men, women, and children who were in -perfectly good health. They carried out experiments on -sterilization of women, on castration of men, experiments on -children, artificial infection with cancer, typhus, and malaria, -of masses of people who were afterward subjected to observation. -They tested the action of poisonous substances on -living persons.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like to stress that experiments on the sterilization and -castration of women and men were carried out on a particularly -large scale. Whole blocks in the camp were especially designated -for experiments using particularly effective methods of sterilization -and castration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I will read two short excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission, which the Tribunal will find on the back of -Page 196 of the document book, Paragraph 5. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Experiments on women were carried out in the hospital -blocks of the Oswieczim Camp. Up to four hundred women -were detained simultaneously in Block 10 of the camp, and -experiments on sterilization were carried out on them by -means of X-rays and subsequent removal of the ovaries, -experiments in engrafting cancer in the neck of the uterus -and forced abortion, and on testing countermeasures against -injuries to the uterus by X-ray.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit three sentences and proceed with the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In Block 21”—that is another block, the women’s block was -Number 10—“mass experiments on castration of men were -carried out for the purpose of studying the possibility of -sterilization by X-ray. The castration itself was carried out -some time later after the X-ray process. These experiments -on X-raying and castration were carried out by Professor -Schumann and Dr. Dering. It frequently happened that after -treatment by X-ray, one or both testicles of the subject were -removed for examination.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to allow me, in order to show the extent of -these experiments, to read short excerpts from the testimony of the -Dutch Doctor De Vind. It is contained in the Exhibit Number -USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52) already presented to the -Court. I will not read the testimony in full but will just quote the -statistics, which the Tribunal may find on the back of Page 203 of -the document book, last paragraph, first column. I repeat that these -numbers refer only to one block, Block 10. The following women -were interned in this block: -<span class='pageno' title='311' id='Page_311'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Fifty women of different nationalities who arrived in March -1943; 100 Greek women who arrived in March 1943; 110 Belgian -women who arrived in April 1943; 50 French women -who arrived in July 1943; 40 Dutch women who arrived in -August 1943; 100 Dutch women who arrived on 15 September -1943; and 100 Dutch women who arrived one week later; and -finally 12 Polish women.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I will quote a further excerpt from the statement of the Dutch -Doctor De Vind, which has also been submitted previously to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52), -I quote that part of the statement in which he speaks of experiments -carried out by a certain Professor Schumann on 15 young girls. -Your Honors will find this excerpt on Page 204 of the document -book, first column of the text, third paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Professor Schumann (a German). These experiments were -carried out on 15 girls of 17 to 18 years of age, including -Shimmi Bella, from Salonika (Greece) and Buena Dora, from -Salonika (Greece). Only a few of them survived; but unfortunately -they are still in the German hands, and we have -consequently no objective data on these brutal experiments. -However, the following has been established beyond doubt: -The girls were placed between two plates within the field of -ultra-short waves; one electrode was placed on the abdomen -and the other on the buttocks. The focus of the rays was -directed on the ovaries which were consequently burned out. -As a result of the irregular dosage, serious burns appeared -on the abdomen and on the buttocks. One girl died of these -terrible sufferings; the other girls were sent to Birkenau to -the medical unit or to working kommandos.</p> - -<p>“A month later they were returned to Oswieczim, where they -were subjected to two operations for checking the results; one, -longitudinal, the other, a horizontal incision. The reproductive -organs were removed for study. As a result of the destruction -of hormones, the girls completely changed in appearance and -resembled old women.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>With this I end the quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Experiments on sterilization of women and castration of men -were carried out in Oswieczim on a mass scale beginning in 1942, -and some time after the sterilization the men were castrated for -a special study of the tissues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You can find a confirmation of this fact in the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on Oswieczim, -where numerous statements of individual internees who underwent -such operations have been quoted. The Tribunal will find the -excerpt which I wish to read on Page 197 of the document book, -<span class='pageno' title='312' id='Page_312'></span> -second paragraph, second column of the text. I quote two paragraphs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Valigura, who was subjected to such experiments, stated:</p> - -<p>“ ‘A few days after I had been brought to Birkenau, I believe -it was in the first days of December 1942, all the young men -from 18 to 30 years of age were sterilized by X-raying the -scrotum. I myself was among those sterilized. Eleven months -later, that is to say, on the 1st of November 1943, I was -castrated. Together with me on that same day 200 men were -sterilized.’</p> - -<p>“Witness David Sures, from the town of Salonika (Greece), -stated the following:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Toward July 1943 I myself and 10 other Greeks were placed -on some kind of list and sent to Birkenau. There we were -stripped and subjected to sterilization by X-rays. A month -later we were summoned to a central section of the camp -where all those sterilized underwent an operation of castration.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that it was not by accident that the experiments on -people began with sterilization and castration. This was a quite -natural result of the theories of German fascism, interested in -lowering the birthrate of those people whom they considered to be -vanquished. It was a part of Hitler’s depopulation technique; and -in confirmation of this I would now like to quote a very short -excerpt from Rauschning’s book, <span class='it'>The Voice of Destruction</span>, which -has already been submitted to the Tribunal. This extract has not -yet been read into the record, and the Tribunal will find it on -Page 207 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Hitler said to Rauschning:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“And by ‘destruction’ I do not necessarily mean extermination -of these people—I shall simply take systematic measures to -prevent their procreation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I skip the next three sentences and quote one more sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“There are many means by which a systematic and comparatively -painless extinction of undesirable races can be -attained, at any rate without blood being shed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>This excerpt is on Page 137 of the original book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sterilization and castration became a criminal practice of the -Hitlerites in the occupied territories in Eastern Europe. I beg the -Tribunal’s permission to draw its attention to two of these documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, perhaps that would be a -convenient time to break off. -<span class='pageno' title='313' id='Page_313'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal would like to know how long you think you will -take before you conclude your statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that I -will finish the presentation of evidence today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like the Tribunal to allow me to question three more -witnesses today and I still have about one hour of reading. But it -is very difficult for me to determine the time exactly, as that sometimes -depends on other factors, known to you, which may force me -to change my intentions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask the permission of the Tribunal -to draw its attention to two very short German documents, -which are submitted under Exhibit Number USSR-400 (Document -Number USSR-400) in photostats certified by the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union. They are two communications -from Lieutenant Frank, head of a Security Police division, -regarding the conditions under which a gypsy woman, Lucia -Strasdinsch had the right to reside in the town of Libau.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Libau, 10 December 1941.</p> - -<p>“Security Police Post, Town of Libau; to the Prefect of the -Town of Libau.</p> - -<p>“It has been decided that the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch will be -allowed to take up residence here again only on the condition -that she submits to being sterilized. She is to be informed -accordingly and a report on the result is to be rendered to -this office.</p> - -<p>“Frank, Lieutenant, Security Police and O. C. Security Police -Station.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document is a memorandum from the Prefecture of -Libau, H. Grauds, to the head of the Security Police Post. The text:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I herewith return your letter of 10 December 1941 regarding -the sterilization of the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch and beg to -report that this person was sterilized in the local hospital on -9 January 1942. Pertinent letter Number 850 of 12. 1. 42 from -the hospital is attached.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show the extent of the experiments which were performed -on live persons, I would ask Your Honors to turn to the -report of the Extraordinary State Commission on Oswieczim. The -extract which I should like to quote, the members of the Tribunal -may find on Page 197 of the book of documents, first column, second -<span class='pageno' title='314' id='Page_314'></span> -paragraph. It is stated there that a statistical report by the commandant -of the camp has been discovered in the archives of the -camp. This report is signed by the deputy commander of the camp, -Sella. It has a column under the heading, “Internees designated for -experiments.” This column reads as follows; “Women subject to -experiments: on 15 May 1944—400, on 15 June—413, on 19 June—348, -and so on.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like to conclude this chapter on experiments on live -persons, by the following: I would like to quote the memorandum -of the judicial and medical report, an excerpt of which is in the -report on Oswieczim Camp. The members of the Tribunal may find -the passage which I should like to quote on Page 197 of the document -book, first column, Paragraph 5. I omit the part which refers -to sterilization and castration because I think that this question has -been sufficiently elucidated. I will quote only Points 4, 6, and 7 of -the memorandum, indicating that in Oswieczim:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Researches were carried out with various chemical preparations -of German firms. According to the testimony of one -German physician, Dr. Valentin Erwin, there was a case -where the representatives of the chemical industry of Germany, -a gynecologist, Glauber, from Königshütte, and a -chemist, Gebel, bought from the administration of the camp -150 women for such experiments.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit Point 5 and I quote Point 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Experiments on men by applying irritant chemical substances -on the skin of the calf in order to create ulcers and -phlegmons.</p> - -<p>“7) A series of other experiments—artificial infection with -malaria, artificial insemination, and so forth.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next three pages of my statement which give the -particulars of these experiments. I would like only to draw the -attention of the Tribunal to other crimes perpetrated by the German -doctors and, in particular, to the extermination of patients in mental -hospitals. I am not going to quote all the examples which the Tribunal -will find in the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -but will dwell on one crime only, which was perpetrated in the -town of Kiev. I quote a paragraph from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission on the town of Kiev, which the members -of the Tribunal will find on Page 212 of the document book, first -column, Paragraph 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 14 October 1941 an SS detachment under the leadership -of the German garrison physician Rikowsky, entered the -mental hospital. The Hitlerites drove 300 patients into one -building, kept them there without food and water, and then -<span class='pageno' title='315' id='Page_315'></span> -shot them in a gully of the Kirilov wood. The remaining -patients were exterminated on 7 January, 27 March, and -17 October 1942.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the subsequent part of the Extraordinary State Commission’s -report a statement is quoted, a statement made by Professor -Kapustianski, by a woman doctor Dzevaltovska, and the nurse -Troepolska. I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-249 -(Document Number USSR-249) the photostat of this testimony, and -I request that it be included in the files of the case as evidence. -I am quoting some of the extracts from this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During the German occupation of the city of Kiev, the Kiev -Psychiatric Clinic had to experience tragic days, which culminated -in the complete ruin and destruction of the hospital. -A crime was committed against the unfortunate mentally sick -people, the like of which had not been known in history up -to this time.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next part and I quote further on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the course of the years 1941-42, 800 patients were killed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next two paragraphs and I read on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 7 January 1942 the Gestapo came to the hospital. They -posted guards everywhere in the grounds of the hospital. To -enter or leave the hospital was forbidden. A representative -of the Gestapo requested the selection of the incurably sick -people to be sent to Zhitomir.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip the next sentence.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“What was in store for the sick people was carefully concealed -from the medical staff. After that, special cars arrived at the -hospital. The sick people were pushed into them, some 60 to -70 persons into each car. Everyone could see these atrocities -which were perpetrated in front of the ward windows. The -patients were pushed into the cars and murdered there. Their -corpses were thrown out on the spot. This awful deed went -on for two days, during which 365 patients were exterminated. -The patients who had not completely lost their -minds soon realized the truth. There were heart-rending -scenes. Thus, a young girl, patient Y, in spite of all of the -efforts of the doctor, understood that death was awaiting her. -She came out of the ward, embraced the doctor, and quietly -asked him, ‘Is this the end?’ Pale as death, she went to the -car and, refusing any assistance, climbed inside. The entire -staff was told that any criticism or any expression of displeasure -would be completely out of place and would be -regarded as sabotage.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote one more sentence from this report: -<span class='pageno' title='316' id='Page_316'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is a characteristic detail that these murders—unprecedented -by their abomination—were committed on Christmas -Day, when Christmas trees were being distributed to the -German soldiers; and the inscription ‘God is with us’ sparkled -on the belts of the executioners.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Herewith I end my quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it possible to omit the following four pages of my speech -because they deal with similar cases of the murder of mental -patients in other parts of the country. Similar methods were used -for these murders as those used in Kiev. I will request the Tribunal -to accept as evidence the photostats of three German documents, -certified by the Extraordinary State Commission, which -testify to the fact that special standard forms of documents were -worked out for the report on the murder of the insane by the -German fascists.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit these documents. The first document is submitted as -Exhibit Number USSR-397 (Document Number USSR-397.) The -members of the Tribunal may find it on Page 218 of the document -book. I am quoting the text of the document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To the Registrar’s office in the Town of Riga:”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby certify that 368 incurably insane patients, whose -names appear on the annexed list, died on 29 January 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, -SS Sturmbannführer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-410 -(Document Number USSR-410). This is a report of the head of the -Security Police and SD in Latvia, Number 357/42g, dated 28 May -1942. I am quoting the one paragraph from this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby certify that 243 incurably insane patients, whose -names appear on the enclosed list, died on 14 April 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, -SS Sturmbannführer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The third document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-398 -(Document Number USSR-398). This is a report by the head of the -Security Police and SD, Latvia, dated 15 March 1943. I will read -into the record the one paragraph of this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby certify that 98 incurably insane patients, whose -names appear on the enclosed list, died on 22 October 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, -SS Sturmbannführer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I think I can also omit the next one and a half pages of my -statement; but I would request the Tribunal to accept as evidence -the following document without reading it, as proof of the experiments -carried out on live persons. I submit as Exhibit Number -<span class='pageno' title='317' id='Page_317'></span> -USSR-406 (Document Number USSR-406) the data about the experiments -carried out in another camp, the Ravensbrück Camp. It contains -the results of the investigation by the Polish State Commission. -The photographs contained therein are very characteristic and I -need not comment on them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would now request the Tribunal’s permission to summon as -witness a Polish woman, Shmaglevskaya, to have her testify regarding -only one question, the attitude of the German fascists toward -the children in the concentration camps. Would the President permit -the calling of this witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness, Shmaglevskaya, took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you first of all tell me your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SEVERINA SHMAGLEVSKAYA (Witness): Severina Shmaglevskaya.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby -swear before God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal -nothing but the truth—concealing nothing that is known to -me—so help me God, Amen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, were you an -internee of Oswieczim Camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During what period of time -were you in the camp of Oswieczim?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: From 7 October 1942 to January 1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you have any proof that you -were an internee of this camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I have the number which was tattooed on -my arm, right here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is what the Oswieczim -inmates call the “visiting cards”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, please, Witness, were -you an eyewitness of German SS men’s attitude toward children?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please tell the Tribunal -about this?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I could tell about the children who were -born in the concentration camp, about the children who were brought -to the concentration camp with the Jewish transports and who were -<span class='pageno' title='318' id='Page_318'></span> -taken directly to the crematories, as well as about those children -who were brought to concentration camps and there interned. -Already in December 1942 when I went to work about 10 kilometers -from Birkenau. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me. May I interrupt -you? Then, you were in the Birkenau section of the camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, I was in the Camp Birkenau, which -is a part of the Oswieczim Camp, which was called Oswieczim -Number 2.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I noticed then a woman in the last month -of pregnancy. It was obvious from her appearance. This woman, -together with the others, had to walk 10 kilometers to the place of -work and there she toiled the whole day, shovel in hands, digging -trenches. She was already ill and she asked the German superintendent, -a civilian, for permission to rest. He refused, laughed at -her, and together with another SS man, started beating her. He -scrutinized her work very strictly. Such was the situation of all -the women who were pregnant. And only during the very last -minutes were they permitted to stay away from work. The newborn -children, if Jewish, were immediately put to death.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Pardon me, Witness, what do -you mean by “were immediately put to death”? When was it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: They were immediately taken away from -their mother.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When the transport arrived?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, I am speaking of the children who -were born in the concentration camps. A few minutes after delivery -the child was taken from the mother, who never saw it again. After -a few days the mother had to return to work. In 1942 there were -no special blocks in the camp for the children. At the beginning of -1943, when they started to tattoo the internees, the children born in -the concentration camps were also branded. The number was -tattooed on their legs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why on the leg?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Because the child is very small and there -was not enough room on their tiny arms for the number, which contained -five digits. The children did not have special numbers but -bore the same numbers as the grown-ups; that is to say, they were -given serial numbers. The children were placed in a special block -and after a few weeks, sometimes after a month, they were taken -away from the camp. -<span class='pageno' title='319' id='Page_319'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Where to?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: We were never able to find out where these -children were taken. They were taken away all the time this camp -existed; that is to say, in 1943 and 1944. The last convoy of children -left the camp in January 1945. These were not only Polish children, -because, as you know, in Birkenau there were women from all over -Europe. Even today we don’t know whether these children are alive.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like, in the name of all the women of Europe who -became mothers in concentration camps, to ask the Germans today, -“Where are these children?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, did you yourself -see the children being taken to gas chambers?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I worked very close to the railway which -led to the crematory. Sometimes in the morning I passed near the -building the Germans used as a latrine, and from there I could -secretly watch the transport. I saw many children among the Jews -brought to the concentration camp. Sometimes a family had several -children. The Tribunal is probably aware of the fact that in front -of the crematory they were all sorted out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Selection was made by the -doctors?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always by doctors; sometimes by -SS men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And doctors with them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes, by doctors, too. During -such a sorting, the youngest and the healthiest Jewish women in -very small numbers entered the camp. Women carrying children in -their arms or in carriages, or those who had larger children, were -sent into the crematory together with their children. The children -were separated from their parents in front of the crematory and -were led separately into gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At that time, when the greatest number of Jews were exterminated -in the gas chambers, an order was issued that the children -were to be thrown into the crematory ovens or the crematory ditches -without previous asphyxiation with gas.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How should we understand that? -Were they thrown into the ovens alive or were they killed by other -means before they were burned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: The children were thrown in alive. Their -cries could be heard all over the camp. It is hard to say how many -there were. -<span class='pageno' title='320' id='Page_320'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Nevertheless, there was some -reason why this was done. Was it because the gas chambers were -overworked?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: It is very difficult to answer this question. -We don’t know whether they wanted to economize on the gas or -whether there was no room in the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also add that it is impossible to determine the number -of these children—like that of the Jews—because they were driven -directly to the crematory, were not registered, were not tattooed, -and very often were not even counted. We, the internees, often -tried to ascertain the number of people who perished in gas chambers; -but our estimates of the number of children executed could -only be based on the number of children’s prams which were brought -to the storerooms. Sometimes there were hundreds of these carriages, -but sometimes they sent thousands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In one day?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always the same. There were days -when the gas chambers worked from early morning until late -at night.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also like to tell you about the children—and their -number is large—who were interned in concentration camps. At -the beginning of 1943 Polish children from Zamoishevna arrived at -the concentration camp with their parents. At the same time -Russian children from territories occupied by the Germans began -to arrive. The Jewish children were added to these. In smaller -numbers, one could also meet Italian children in the concentration -camp. The conditions were as difficult for the children as for adults; -perhaps even more onerous. These children didn’t receive any parcels -because there was no one to send them. Red Cross packages -never reached the internees. In 1944 a great number of Italian and -French children arrived at the concentration camp. All these children -suffered from skin diseases, lymphatic boils, and malnutrition; -they were badly clad, often without shoes, and had no possibility of -washing themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the Warsaw uprising captured children from Warsaw -were brought to the concentration camp. The youngest of the children -was a little 6-year-old boy. The children were quartered in -special barracks. When the systematic deportation of internees from -Birkenau to the interior of Germany commenced, these children -were used for heavy labor. At the same time there arrived in the -concentration camps the children of Hungarian Jews, who had to -work together with the children who were brought after the Warsaw -uprising. These children worked with two carts which they had to -<span class='pageno' title='321' id='Page_321'></span> -pull themselves to transport coal, iron machines, wood for floors, -and other heavy things from one camp to the other. They also -labored at dismantling barracks during the liquidation of the camp. -These children remained in the concentration camp until the very -end. In January 1945 they were evacuated and had to march to -Germany on foot under conditions as difficult as those of the front, -under an SS guard, without food, covering about 30 kilometers a day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During this march the children -died of exhaustion?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I wasn’t in the group where there were -children, as I managed to escape on the second day after this evacuation -march.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also like to add a few words regarding the methods of -demoralization of the people who were interned in concentration -camps. Everything that we had to suffer was the result of a whole -system for degrading human beings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The concentration camp cars in which the internees were transported -had previously been used for cattle. When the transports -were about to move the cars were nailed shut. In each one of these -cars there was a great number of people. The convoy of SS men -never considered that human beings have physical needs. Some of -these people happened to have necessary pots with them, and they -often had to use them for physical needs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For some time I worked at the store, where kitchen utensils of -internees were brought.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you mean that you worked -in the warehouse where the belongings of these who were murdered -were brought. Did I understand you correctly?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, only the kitchen utensils of people -who arrived at the concentration camps were brought to this -warehouse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These things were taken away -from them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: What I want to say is that in some cases -the kitchen utensils and pots contained remains of food, and in -others there was human excrement. Each of the workers received -a pail of water, and had to wash a great number of these kitchen -utensils during one half of the day. These kitchen utensils, which -were sometimes very badly washed, were given to people who had -just arrived at the concentration camp. From these pots and pans -they had to eat, so that often they caught dysentery and other -diseases from the first day. -<span class='pageno' title='322' id='Page_322'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I don’t think the Tribunal -wants quite so much of the detail with reference of these domestic -matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The witness was called here -with a view to describing the attitude of the Germans toward the -children in the camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you keep her to the part of her testimony -which you wish to bring out?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, can you add -anything else to your description of the attitude of the Germans -towards the children in the camp? Have you already told us about -all of the facts which you know regarding this question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I should like to say that the children, as -well as the adults, were also subjected to the system of demoralization -and degradation through famine. Often starvation caused the -children to look for potato peels in garbage heaps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, do you certify -in your testimony, that sometimes the number of carriages remaining -after the murder of the children amounted to a thousand per day?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes there were such days.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further -question to ask of the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the chief prosecutors wish to ask -any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to -take up the next section of my presentation which deals with the -organization, by German fascism, of secret centers for the extermination -of people. These cannot even be considered concentration -camps because the human beings in these places rarely survived -more than 10 minutes or 2 hours at the most. Out of all these terrible -centers, organized by the German fascists, I would submit to -the Tribunal evidence on two such places, that is to say, on Kwelmno -center (Kwelmno is a village in Poland) and on the Treblinka Camp. -In connection with this I would ask the Tribunal to summon one -witness, whose testimony is interesting, because he can be considered -a person who returned from “the other world,” for the road -<span class='pageno' title='323' id='Page_323'></span> -to Treblinka was called by the German executors themselves “The -Road to Heaven.” I am speaking of the witness Rajzman, a Polish -national, and I beg the Tribunal’s permission to bring this witness -here for examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is just a quarter to 1 now, so we had better -have this witness at 2 o’clock. We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='324' id='Page_324'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that the -witness who was referred to yesterday, Wielen, is in a prisoner-of-war -camp or in prison near London, England; and he can, therefore, -be brought over here to be examined at short notice. The Tribunal, -therefore, wishes defendants’ counsel to make up their minds -whether they wish Colonel Westhoff and this man Wielen to be -brought here during the Prosecution’s case for them to cross-examine -those witnesses or whether they prefer that they should -be brought when the defendants are presenting their case. But, as -I have stated with reference to all witnesses, they can only be called -once. If they are examined as part of the Prosecution’s case, then -all the defendants must exercise their rights, if they wish to do so, -of interrogating the witnesses at that time. If, on the other hand, -the defendants’ counsel decide that they would prefer that these -witnesses should be called during the defendants’ case, then similarly, -the witnesses will be called only once, and the right of examining -them must then be exercised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the same time, the statement or the report which was presented -yesterday and which the Tribunal ruled was admissible, will -be read in the course of the Prosecution’s case at such time as the -Prosecution decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to postpone making -a statement until after discussion with my colleagues. I hope this -will be possible in the course of the afternoon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I understand you want to consult the other -defendants’ counsel before you let us know. Very well; you will let -us know at your convenience. Go on, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to -proceed with the interrogation of the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Rajzman took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SAMUEL RAJZMAN (Witness): Rajzman, Samuel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby -swear before God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal—nothing -but the truth—concealing nothing of what is known -to me—so help me God, Amen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness Rajzman, will you please -tell the Tribunal what was your occupation before the war? -<span class='pageno' title='325' id='Page_325'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Before the war I was an accountant in an export firm.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When and under what circumstances -did you become an internee of Treblinka Number 2?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: In August 1942 I was taken away from the Warsaw -ghetto.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How long did you stay in -Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: I was interned there for a year—until August 1943.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means you are well -acquainted with the rules regulating the treatment of the people -in this camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes, I am well acquainted with these rules.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg you to describe this camp -to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Transports arrived there every day; their number -depended on the number of trains arriving; sometimes three, four, -or five trains filled exclusively with Jews—from Czechoslovakia, -Germany, Greece, and Poland. Immediately after their arrival, the -people had to leave the trains in 5 minutes and line up on the platform. -All those who were driven from the cars were divided into -groups—men, children, and women, all separate. They were all forced -to strip immediately, and this procedure continued under the lashes -of the German guards’ whips. Workers who were employed in this -operation immediately picked up all the clothes and carried them -away to barracks. Then the people were obliged to walk naked -through the street to the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the Tribunal -what the Germans called the street to the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: It was named Himmelfahrt Street.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say, the “street to -heaven”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes. If it interests the Court, I can present a plan -of the camp of Treblinka which I drew up when I was there, and -I can point out to the Tribunal this street on the plan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to put in a plan -of the camp, unless you particularly want to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I also believe that it is not -really necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Please tell us, how long did a person live after he had arrived -in the Treblinka Camp? -<span class='pageno' title='326' id='Page_326'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: The whole process of undressing and the walk down -to the gas chambers lasted, for the men 8 or 10 minutes, and for the -women some 15 minutes. The women took 15 minutes because they -had to have their hair shaved off before they went to the gas -chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why was their hair cut off?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: According to the ideas of the masters, this hair was -to be used in the manufacture of mattresses for German women.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that there was only 10 minutes -between the time when they were taken out of the trucks and the -time when they were put into the gas chambers?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: As far as men were concerned, I am sure it did not -last longer than 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Including the undressing?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes, including the undressing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, were the -people brought to Treblinka in trucks or in trains?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: They were brought nearly always in trains, and only -the Jews from neighboring villages and hamlets were brought in -trucks. The trucks bore inscriptions, “Expedition Speer,” and came -from Vinegrova Sokolova and other places.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, what was the -subsequent aspect of the station at Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: At first there were no signboards whatsoever at the -station, but a few months later the commander of the camp, one -Kurt Franz, built a first-class railroad station with signboards. The -barracks where the clothing was stored had signs reading “restaurant,” -“ticket office,” “telegraph,” “telephone,” and so forth. There -were even train schedules for the departure and the arrival of trains -to and from Grodno, Suwalki, Vienna, and Berlin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did I rightly understand you, -Witness, that a kind of make-believe station was built with signboards -and train schedules, with indications of platforms for train -departures to Suwalki, and so forth?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: When the persons descended from the trains, they -really had the impression that they were at a very good station from -where they could go to Suwalki, Vienna, Grodno, or other cities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what happened later on to -these people?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: These people were taken directly along the Himmelfahrtstrasse -to the gas chambers. -<span class='pageno' title='327' id='Page_327'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And tell us, please, how did the -Germans behave while killing their victims in Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: If you mean the actual executions, every German -guard had his special job. I shall cite only one example. We had -a Scharführer Menz, whose special job was to guard the so-called -“Lazarett.” In this “Lazarett” all weak women and little children -were exterminated who had not the strength to go themselves to -the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps, Witness, you can -describe this “Lazarett” to the Tribunal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: This was part of a square which was closed in with -a wooden fence. All women, aged persons, and sick children were -driven there. At the gates of this “Lazarett,” there was a large Red -Cross flag. Menz, who specialized in the murder of all persons -brought to this “Lazarett,” would not let anybody else do this job. -There might have been hundreds of persons who wanted to see and -know what was in store for them, but he insisted on carrying out -this work by himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Here is just one example of what was the fate of the children -there. A 10-year-old girl was brought to this building from the -train with her 2-year-old sister. When the elder girl saw that Menz -had taken out a revolver to shoot her 2-year-old sister, she threw -herself upon him, crying out, and asking why he wanted to kill her. -He did not kill the little sister; he threw her alive into the oven and -then killed the elder sister.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another example: They brought an aged woman with her -daughter to this building. The latter was in the last stage of -pregnancy. She was brought to the “Lazarett,” was put on a grass -plot, and several Germans came to watch the delivery. This spectacle -lasted 2 hours. When the child was born, Menz asked the -grandmother—that is the mother of this woman—whom she preferred -to see killed first. The grandmother begged to be killed. But, -of course, they did the opposite; the newborn baby was killed first, -then the child’s mother, and finally the grandmother.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, does the -name Kurt Franz mean anything to you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: This man was deputy of the camp commander, -Stengel, the biggest murderer in the camp. Kurt Franz was known -for having published in January 1943, a report to the effect that -a million Jews had been killed in Treblinka—a report which had -procured for him a promotion from the rank of Sturmbannführer -to that of Obersturmbannführer. -<span class='pageno' title='328' id='Page_328'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please tell -how Kurt Franz killed a woman who claimed to be the sister of -Sigmund Freud. Do you remember this incident?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: A train arrived from Vienna. I was standing on the -platform when the passengers left the cars. An elderly woman -came up to Kurt Franz, took out a document, and said that she was -the sister of Sigmund Freud. She begged him to give her light -work in an office. Franz read this document through very seriously -and said that there must be a mistake here; he led her up to the -train schedule and said that in 2 hours a train would leave again for -Vienna. She should leave all her documents and valuables and then -go to a bathhouse; after the bath she would have her documents and -a ticket to Vienna. Of course, the woman went to the bathhouse -and never returned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, why was -it that you yourself remained alive in Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: I was already quite undressed, and had to pass -through this Himmelfahrtstrasse to the gas chambers. Some 8,000 -Jews had arrived with my transport from Warsaw. At the last -minute before we moved toward the street an engineer, Galevski, -an old friend of mine, whom I had known in Warsaw for many -years, caught sight of me. He was overseer of workers among the -Jews. He told me that I should turn back from the street; and as -they needed an interpreter for Hebrew, French, Russian, Polish, and -German, he managed to obtain permission to liberate me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You were therefore a member -of the labor unit of the camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: At first my work was to load the clothes of the murdered -persons on the trains. When I had been in the camp 2 days, -my mother, my sister, and two brothers were brought to the camp -from the town of Vinegrova. I had to watch them being led away -to the gas chambers. Several days later, when I was loading clothes -on the freight cars, my comrades found my wife’s documents and -a photograph of my wife and child. That is all I have left of my -family, only a photograph.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons -were brought daily to the Treblinka Camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Between July and December 1942 an average of -3 transports of 60 cars each arrived every day. In 1943 the transports -arrived more rarely.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons -were exterminated in the camp, on an average, daily?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: On an average, I believe they killed in Treblinka -from ten to twelve thousand persons daily. -<span class='pageno' title='329' id='Page_329'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In how many gas chambers did -the killings take place?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN? At first there were only 3 gas chambers, but then -they built 10 more chambers. It was planned to increase this -number to 25.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But how do you know that? -Why do you say, Witness, that they planned to increase the number -of gas chambers to 25?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Because all the building material had been brought -and put in the square. I asked, “Why? There are no more Jews.” -They said, “After you there will be others, and there is still a big -job to do.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What was the other name of -Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: When Treblinka became very well known, they hung -up a huge sign with the inscription “Obermaidanek.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What do you mean by “very -well known”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: I mean that the persons who arrived in transports -soon found out that it was not a fashionable station, but that it was -a place of death.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, why was this -make-believe station built?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: It was done for the sole reason that the people on -leaving the trains should not be nervous, should undress calmly, and -that there should not be any incidents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I understand you correctly, -this criminal device had only one purpose—a psychological purpose -of reassuring the doomed during the first moments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes, exclusively this psychological purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to -ask this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other chief prosecutors wish -to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Do the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to submit to the -Tribunal a very short excerpt from a document which is submitted -<span class='pageno' title='330' id='Page_330'></span> -as an appendix to the Polish Government report. I mean an -affidavit. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, have you got any more -witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I still have a request to call -one more witness on the last count of my statement. In connection -with the presentation of evidence on this last count I would request -the Tribunal’s permission to summon as witness the Archdeacon of -Leningrad Churches and Rector of the Leningrad Seminary, the -Permanent Dean of Nikolai Bogoiavlensky Cathedral in Leningrad, -Nikolai Lomakin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and you will be able to include -his evidence today and conclude your statement; is that right?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I should -like to read another short excerpt from this report of the Polish -examining magistrate, which I have submitted to the Tribunal -(Document Number USSR-340). I shall read only that excerpt which -demonstrates the scale of the crimes. The number of victims murdered -at the Treblinka Camp, according to the Polish magistrate’s -estimate, is about 781,000 persons. At the same time he mentions -that the witnesses interrogated by him testified to the fact that -when the clothes of the internees were sorted out, they even found -British passports and diplomas of Cambridge University. This means -that the victims of Treblinka came from every European country.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like further to quote, as proof of the existence of another -secret extermination center, the depositions of Wladislav Bengash, -the district examining magistrate in the city of Lodz, made before -the Chief Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in -Poland. This testimony is also an official appendix to the Polish -Government report. I should like to read two excerpts from this -statement which would give us an idea of the methods of extermination -practiced in the village of Helmno. The two paragraphs -are on the back of Page 223 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the village of Helmno there was an abandoned mansion -surrounded by an old park—the property of the state. -Nearby . . . there was a pine forest with a nursery and dense -undergrowth. At this point the Germans built an extermination -camp. The park was closed in by a high wooden fence, -and one could not see what was going on in the park nor -in the house itself. The inhabitants of the village of Helmno -were all evacuated.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt the quotation and pass on to Page 226 of the document -book, first paragraph. I quote: -<span class='pageno' title='331' id='Page_331'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The whole organization set up for the extermination of -people was so cunningly devised and carried out that right -up to the last moment the next transport of doomed persons -could not guess the fate of the group which had preceded -them. The departure of transports—consisting of 1,000 to -2,000 persons—from the village of Sawadki to the extermination -camp and the extermination of the arrivals lasted -until 2 o’clock.</p> - -<p>“The cars loaded with Jews arrived in the camp and stopped -before the mansion. A representative of the Sonderkommando -made a short speech to the new arrivals. He assured them -that they were going to work in the East. He promised them -just treatment by the authorities and adequate food and, at -the same time, instructed them to take a bath before leaving, -while their clothing was disinfected. From the courtyard the -Jews were then brought to a big warm room on the second -floor of the mansion. There they had to undress, and, clad in -underclothes only, they went downstairs, passed through a -corridor with signs such as ‘To the medical officer’ and ‘To -the bath’ on the walls. The arrow which showed the way -‘To the bath’ pointed toward the exit. The Germans told the -Jews who came out into the yard that they would go to the -bath in a closed car; and, true enough, a large car was -brought up to this door so that the Jews coming out of the -house found themselves on a ladder leading straight inside -the car. The loading of the Jews into the car lasted a very -short time. Police were on guard in the corridor and near the -car. With blows and shouts they forced the Jews to enter the -car, stunning them, so that they could not attempt any -resistance. When all the Jews were piled inside the car, the -doors were carefully locked, and the chauffeur switched on -the motor, so that those in the car were poisoned by the -exhaust gas.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider it unnecessary to quote that part of the report which -testifies that the car in question was the “murder van” already well -known to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I will just quote one sentence from Page 10 of this document, -Paragraph 3:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Thus, at least 340,000 men, women, and children, from newborn -babies to aged persons, were exterminated in Helmno.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that I can end here that part of my statement which -concerns the secret exterminating centers. And now I pass on to -the part of my statement dealing with religious persecutions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the Soviet Union as well as in the occupied countries of -Eastern Europe, the German fascist criminals brought shame upon -<span class='pageno' title='332' id='Page_332'></span> -themselves by their mockery of the religious feelings and faith of -the people, by persecuting and murdering the priesthood of all -religious creeds. In proof of this I shall read a few excerpts from -the pertinent reports of the various governments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 70 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 80 of -the document book, we find the description of the persecution of the -Czech Orthodox Church by the German fascist criminals. I quote -only one paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The hardest blow was directed against the Czech Orthodox -Church. The Orthodox parishes in Czechoslovakia were -ordered by the Berlin Ministry for Church Affairs to leave -the jurisdiction of Belgrade and Constantinople dioceses and -to become subordinate to the Berlin bishop. The Czech Bishop -Gorazd was executed together with two other priests of the -Orthodox Church. By a special order of the Protector Daluege, -issued in September 1942, the Orthodox Church of Serbian-Constantinople -jurisdiction was dissolved on Czech territory, -its religious activity forbidden, and its property confiscated.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 69 of the same report, which corresponds to Page 79 -of the document book, in the last paragraph, there is a description -of the persecutions of the Czech National Church, which was -persecuted by the German fascists, according to the report, “Just -because of its name, because of its sympathy for the Hus movement, -the democratic constitution, and because of the role it played in -founding the Czech Republic.” The Czech national church in -Slovakia was prohibited and its property confiscated by the Germans -in 1940.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Protestant church in Czechoslovakia was also persecuted. -The excerpt which I would like to read may be found on Page 80 -of the document book, Paragraph 2:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Protestant churches were deprived of the freedom to -preach the Gospel. The German Secret State Police watched -carefully to see that the clergy observed the restrictions -imposed on it. Nazi censorship went so far as to prohibit the -singing of hymns which praised God for liberating the nation -from the enemy. Some passages from the Bible were not -allowed to be read in public at all. The Nazis strongly -opposed the promulgation of certain Christian doctrines, -especially those which proclaimed the equality of all men -before God, the universal character of Christ’s Church, the -Hebraic origins of the Gospel, et cetera. Any reference to Hus, -Ziska, the Hussites, and their achievements, as well as to -Masaryk and his doctrines, were strictly forbidden. Even -religious text books were confiscated. Church leaders were -especially persecuted. Scores of ministers were thrown into -<span class='pageno' title='333' id='Page_333'></span> -concentration camps, among them the general secretary of -the Christian Student Movement in Czechoslovakia. One of -the assistants of their president was executed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 68 of this report we find information as to the persecution -of the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. This excerpt is -on Page 79 of the document book, second paragraph. I quote a -short excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the territory annexed to Germany after the Munich Pact -a number of Czech priests were robbed of their property and -expelled. . . . Pilgrimages to national shrines were prohibited -in 1939.</p> - -<p>“At the outbreak of the war 437 Catholic priests were among -the thousands of Czech patriots arrested and sent to concentration -camps as hostages. Venerable church dignitaries were -dragged to concentration camps in Germany. It was a common -thing to see on the road near the concentration camps a -priest, dressed in rags, exhausted, pulling a cart, and behind -him a youth in the SS uniform, whip in hand.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The believers and clergy in Poland also suffered most ruthless -persecution. I quote short excerpts from the Polish Government -report, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 10 of -the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By January 1941 about 700 priests were killed; 3,000 were -in prisons or in concentration camps.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The persecution of the clergy began immediately after the -capture of Polish territory by the Germans, according to Page 42 -of the Polish report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The day after the occupation of Warsaw the Germans -arrested some 330 priests. . . . In Kraków the closest collaborators -of Archbishop Sapieha were arrested and sent to -Germany. The Reverend Canon Czeplicki, 75 years of age, -and his assistant were executed in November 1939.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Polish Government quotes the following words -of Cardinal Hlond:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The clergy were persecuted very violently. Those who were -permitted to stay were subjected to humiliation, were paralyzed -in the exercise of their pastoral duties and were stripped -of parochial benefices and of all their rights. They were -entirely at the mercy of the Gestapo. . . . It is like the -Apocalyptic vision of the <span class='it'>Fides Depopulata</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On the territory of the Soviet Union the persecution of religion -and clergy took the form of sacrilegious desecration of churches, -destruction of shrines connected with the patriotic feelings of the -Russian people, and the murder of priests. -<span class='pageno' title='334' id='Page_334'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to call the witness of the Soviet Prosecution, -the Archdean of the churches of the City of Leningrad, the Very -Reverend Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Lomakin took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell me your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE VERY REVEREND NIKOLAI IVANOVITCH LOMAKIN -(Witness): Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is it the practice for you to take an oath -before giving evidence or not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I am an Orthodox priest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you take the oath?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I belong to the Orthodox Church, and when I -entered the priesthood in 1917 I took the oath to tell the truth all -my life. This oath I remember even to the present day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You can sit, if you wish.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, are you -the Archdean of the Churches of the City of Leningrad? Does that -mean that all the churches in that city are subordinate to you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, all the churches are directly subordinate to me. -I am obliged to visit them periodically to inspect their condition -and the life of the parish. I must then make my report to His Grace -the Metropolitan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The churches of the Leningrad -region were also under your authority?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: They are not subordinated to me at the present time, -but during the siege of Leningrad by the Germans and the occupation -of the Leningrad region they were under my authority.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: After the liberation of the -Leningrad region from the German occupation, were you obliged to -visit and inspect the churches throughout the region on the request -of the Patriarch?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Not by request of the Patriarch, but by request of -the Metropolitan Alexei, who was then at the head of the Leningrad -Eparchy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak more slowly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Not by request of Patriarch Alexei—the Patriarch -was then Sergei—but by request of Metropolitan Alexei, who -administered the Eparchy and later became Patriarch of Moscow -and all Russia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, where -were you during the siege of Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I was all the time in Leningrad. -<span class='pageno' title='335' id='Page_335'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I am not mistaken, you were -decorated with the medal “For the Defense of Leningrad”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, on my birthday I was awarded this high government -medal for my participation in the heroic defense of Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, at the beginning -of the siege of Leningrad, at which church did you officiate?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: At the beginning of the siege I was in charge of the -Georgievsky Cemetery—I was rector of the church of the cemetery -of St. Nicholas.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It was, therefore, a cemetery -church?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Maybe you will be able to relate -to the Tribunal the observations you made during your office in -this church?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: In 1941 and at the beginning of 1942 I was rector of -the cemetery church, and I witnessed certain tragic scenes which -I should like to relate in detail to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A few days after the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union by -Hitlerite Germany I witnessed the rapid increase of masses for the -dead. The dead were mostly children, women, and old people—victims -of the air raids on the city by German planes—peaceful -citizens of our town. Before the war the number of dead varied -from 30 to 50 persons a day, but during the war this number rose -quickly to several hundred a day. It was physically impossible to -bring the bodies inside the church. Long rows of boxes and coffins -with remnants of the victims stood outside the church; the horribly -mutilated bodies of Leningrad’s peaceful citizens—victims of barbarous -air raids of the German planes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Side by side with the increasing number of funeral masses for -the deceased, there grew up the practice of saying the so-called -requiems in absence. The faithful could not bring to the church the -bodies of their relatives or friends, as they lay buried under the -ruins and the debris of the houses destroyed by the Germans. The -church was each day surrounded by masses of coffins—100, 200 -coffins—over which one priest used to sing a funeral service.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Forgive me—it is difficult for me to speak of all this, for as the -Tribunal already knows, I lived through the whole siege. I, myself, -was dying of hunger. I saw the terrible, uninterrupted air raids of -the German planes. I was hurt several times. -<span class='pageno' title='336' id='Page_336'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the winter of 1941-42 the situation of besieged Leningrad was -particularly terrible. The ceaseless air raids of the Luftwaffe, the -shelling of the city, the lack of light, of water, of transportation, of -sewerage in the city, and finally the terrible starvation—from all -this, the peaceful citizens of the town suffered privations unique in -the history of mankind. They were indeed heroes, who suffered for -their country, these innocent, peaceful citizens.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Together with all that I have just told you, I could describe other -terrible scenes which I witnessed during the period when I was the -rector of this cemetery church. The cemetery was very often bombed -by German planes. Please imagine the scene when people who have -found eternal rest—their coffins, bodies, bones, skulls—all this is -thrown out on the ground. Tombstones and crosses lay scattered in -disorder, and people who had just suffered the loss of their kin, had -to suffer once more seeing the huge craters made by bombs sometimes -on the very spot where they had just buried their relatives -or friends, had to suffer once more, knowing that they had no peace.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, during the -period of hunger, in what proportion did the number of burial -services at this cemetery church increase?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I have already said that as a result of the terrible -conditions imposed by the siege, as a result of the nonstop air raids, -as a result of the shelling of the city, the number of burial services -reached an incredible figure—up to several thousand a day. I would -especially like to relate to the Tribunal the facts which I observed -on 7 February 1942. A month earlier, quite exhausted by hunger -and the long walk from my house which I had to the church every -day, I fell ill. Two of my assistant priests replaced me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 7 February, on the Parents’ Saturday before the beginning of -Lent I came for the first time since my illness to my church. A -horrifying picture was before my eyes. The church was surrounded -by piles of bodies, some of which even blocked the entrance. These -piles numbered from 30 to 100 bodies. They were not only at the -church door, but also around the church. I witnessed people, exhausted -from starvation, who, in their desire to bring the bodies of their -relatives to the cemetery, would fall down themselves and die on -the spot beside the body. Such scenes I witnessed quite frequently.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please answer -the following question: What damage was done to the Leningrad -churches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Your Honors, as I have already reported to you, my -duty as Archdean of these churches was to observe from time to -time the condition of the churches in the city and to report in detail -to the metropolitan. The following were my personal observations -and impressions: -<span class='pageno' title='337' id='Page_337'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Church of the Resurrection on Griboiedov Canal, which is a -very remarkable artistic church, was very seriously damaged by -shelling from the German enemy. The domes were destroyed, the -roofs pierced by shells, numerous frescos were either partly damaged -or entirely destroyed. The Holy Trinity Cathedral in the Ismailovskaya -Fortress, a memorial ornamented by beautiful artistic -friezes commemorating the heroic siege of Izmailovskaya Fortress, -was severely damaged by systematic shelling and bombing by the -Germans. The roof was broken in. All the sculpture was broken; -only a few fragments remained.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many -churches were destroyed and how many were severely damaged in -Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: The Church of the Serafimov Cemetery was almost -completely destroyed by artillery fire; this church was not only hit -by shells, but great damage was caused to it by air raids. The Luftwaffe -caused great damage to churches. I must first of all mention -two churches which suffered most from the Leningrad siege. To -begin with, the Church of Prince Vladimir, where, by the way, -I have the honor of officiating at the present time. In 1942 from -February until the first of July, I was rector of this church; and -I should like to acquaint Your Honors with the following very -interesting but terrible incident which occurred on Easter Eve of 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On Easter Saturday, at 5 p. m. Moscow time, the Luftwaffe carried -out a mass raid over the city. At 5:30 two bombs fell on the southwestern -part of the Church of Prince Vladimir. The faithful were -at that moment waiting to approach the picture of our Lord’s -interment. There was an enormous mass of faithful, who wished to -fulfill their Christian duty. I saw some 30 persons lying wounded -in the portico and in different places about the church. They lay -helpless for some time, until we could give them medical aid.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was a scene of utter confusion. People who had had no time -to enter the church tried to run away and hide in the air-raid -ditches, while the others who had entered scattered in terror against -the walls of the church, awaiting death. The concussion of the -bombs was so heavy that for some period of time there was a -constant fall of shattered glass, mortar, and pieces of stucco. When -I came down from a room on the second floor, I was quite astounded -by the scene before me. People flocked around me:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Little father, are you alive? Little father, how can we -understand this? How can we believe what was said about -the Germans—that they believe in God, that they love Christ, -that they will not harm those who believe in God? Where is -their faith then, if they can shoot about like this on Easter eve?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='338' id='Page_338'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must add that the air-raid lasted right through the night until -Easter morning; this night of love, this night of Christian joy, the -Resurrection Night, was turned by the Germans into a night of -blood, a night of destruction, and a night of suffering for innocent -people. Two or three days passed. In the Church of Prince Vladimir—it -was obvious to me, as rector—and in other churches and cemeteries -the victims of the Luftwaffe Easter raid appeared: women, children, -and aged. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, you also visited -the Leningrad region to verify the condition of the churches. Were -you not a witness to. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, if your examination is -going on, I think perhaps we’d better adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, can you let the Tribunal know -what your wishes are about General Westhoff and Wielen?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: In reply to the suggestion by the Court, as to calling -the witnesses Westhoff and Wielen, I should like to make the -following statement after discussion with my colleagues:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, we abstain from calling both witnesses at this stage of the -proceedings provided that the Prosecution also abstains at present -from reading out Documents RF-1450 and USSR-413 at this stage of -the Trial. Second, I call General Westhoff as witness; and I gather, -from the Court’s suggestion, that this witness has been allowed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Roberts, could Sir David attend here in the course of a -short time, do you think?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: He is at the Chief Prosecutors’ meeting now, but -I can get him in a few moments if there is a question which I -couldn’t answer on his behalf.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think perhaps it will be best if he -were here. It is only a question, really, as to whether the document -should be read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am told the meeting has just ended. I -didn’t quite get what Your Lordship said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I said that the question was whether the -document is to be read by the Prosecution. Dr. Nelte, as I understand -it, was suggesting that perhaps the Prosecution would forego -their right to read the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, speaking for myself, I feel quite -certain that so far as the British Delegation is concerned we should -<span class='pageno' title='339' id='Page_339'></span> -not forego reading that document. We do put it forward, or our -Russian colleagues put it forward, as a very cold-blooded murder -of brave men; and we are most anxious that the document should -be read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have not made it a condition that -the documents should not be submitted at all, but only at this stage -of the proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you see, the Prosecution want it -read as part of the Prosecution case. If it is postponed until your -case begins, it will not be read as part of the Prosecution case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I think that the Prosecution, when cross-examining -the witness, could present the documents they want to submit now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we can’t get Wielen over here tomorrow, -and the case of the Prosecution, we hope, will close tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, the document must be read -tomorrow. We will then get General Westhoff and Wielen over for -you at any time that is convenient to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I think the Prosecution has reserved the right to -adduce, at any time during the proceedings, other charges and documents. -This follows from the Indictment. It therefore seems to me -that the Prosecution, without prejudice to its case, could postpone -the presentation of this charge until I have examined the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GENERAL RUDENKO: I should like to add something to what -my colleague, Mr. Roberts, has said. The point is that the document -presented to the Tribunal was put at our disposal by the British -Delegation and was submitted by us in accordance with Article 21 -of the Charter. This document, being an irrefutable proof, can be -read into the record or not, in accordance with the decision of the -Tribunal of 17 December 1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Defense, as Sir David already stated this morning, intends -to oppose this document by summoning witnesses, it is their right. -This is what I wanted to add to Mr. Roberts’ statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps Your Lordship would allow me to add -one thing. The Tribunal has ruled that this document is admissible, -and it has been admitted, as I understand; and therefore, I would -submit that it ought to be read as part of the Prosecution case, or -perhaps it might be equally convenient after the discussion on -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, yes, I see that Sir David has just come -into court. -<span class='pageno' title='340' id='Page_340'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David, I think the view the Tribunal take is that it is a -matter for the Prosecution to decide when they put in this document; -and if they wish to put it in now, or as Mr. Roberts suggested, -after the argument on organizations, they are at liberty to do so. -Then these witnesses can be called at a later stage when the -defendants’ counsel wish them to be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I entirely agree with -what I am told Mr. Roberts has put forward. We consider that this -document ought to be put in as part of the case for the Prosecution. -If it will be of any assistance to counsel for the defendants, I shall -be glad to take up the matter of the time that shall be fixed, after -the organizations; but the reading of the document certainly should -be part of the Prosecution’s case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The document may be read, then, at the end -of the Prosecution’s case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I apologize to the Tribunal for being absent. There was -other business, connected with the Trial, in which I was engaged.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal would like you to let us know -when you wish those witnesses called, so that we can communicate -with London in order that the witness, Wielen, may be brought -over here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: As to when exactly during my presentation the -witnesses should appear I cannot say, for I cannot say when the -stage for the presentation of my witnesses will be reached. I think -the Court is in a better position to judge when it will be my turn -for the presentation of evidence. In the course of the examination -of those witnesses who will be granted to me, I shall also question -this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you see these witnesses not only -affect your client, but they affect the Defendant Göring and the -Defendant Kaltenbrunner; and therefore, what the Tribunal wish -is that you, in consultation with Dr. Stahmer and counsel for -Kaltenbrunner, should let the Tribunal know what would be the -most appropriate time for those two witnesses to be called, so that -time may be given for summoning Wielen here and letting the -prison authorities know about Westhoff.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: We spoke about that and have agreed that the -witnesses be called during my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I just understand from Sir David that we are all agreed that the -documents be presented after the case against the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='341' id='Page_341'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue my questioning, -Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Continue, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have one last question to put -to you, Witness. Tell me, when you left the city to go into the country -to inspect the churches, did you sometimes witness instances of -derision of religion and desecration of churches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, I did.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Would you be kind enough to -relate this to the Tribunal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: In June 1943, by order of Metropolitan Alexei, I -went to visit the district of Old Peterhof and Oranienbaum. From -personal observations and from my conversations with the members -of the church I learned the following, which I know to be true, and -which was all corroborated later on when New Peterhof was freed -from the German occupation. All that I shall now relate may be -verified by inspection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Old Peterhof soon after the Germans occupied New Peterhof, -exactly within 10 days, all churches were destroyed by the enemy’s -artillery fire and aircraft. At the same time the Luftwaffe and -German artillery forces timed their raids so that not only would -the churches be demolished, but the peaceful worshipers who sought -refuge there from the fighting and the artillery fire would be killed -as well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All the churches in Old Peterhof, namely the Znamenskaya -Church, the Holy Trinity Cemetery Church, and the small Church of -Lazarus attached to it, the church museum at the Villa of Empress -Maria Feodorovna, the Serafimovskij Church and the church of the -military cemetery—all these were destroyed by the Germans. I can -state with certainty that under the ruins of the Cemetery Church of -the Holy Trinity and the Lazarus Church, in their crypts, as well -as in the cemetery tombs and vaults of the Znamenskaya Church, -up to 5,000 persons perished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Germans wouldn’t let the survivors come outside. It is easy -to picture the sanitary conditions and the general state of the people -confined in those church crypts—air fouled by the breathing and -excrements of these unfortunate people, frightened to death. They -fainted, they grew dizzy, but their slightest attempt to leave the -church and come out into fresh air was punished by shots from the -inhuman fascists.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Much time has already passed since that time, but I remember -especially well one instance which a close relative of the people -about whom I am now going to speak related to me. A little girl -<span class='pageno' title='342' id='Page_342'></span> -came out of the crypt of Trinity Church for a breath of fresh air; -she was immediately shot by a German sniper. The mother followed -in order to pick her up, but she also fell down bleeding at the side -of her child. The citizen Romashova, who related this to me, is still -alive, and I have seen her many times—she recalls this incident -with horror. And many were the incidents of that kind.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, in the other -districts of the Leningrad region did you ever witness the desecration -of shrines and sacred objects?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, for example in Pskov. Pskov presented a -horrible picture of ruins and devastation. I feel that I must recall -to Your Honors that Pskov is a museum city, a shrine of the Orthodox -faith, ornamented by numerous churches, and situated on -the Velikaya River and its tributaries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In that city, there were no less then 60 churches of various sizes -and various denominations. Of these 39 were not only priceless -monuments of church architecture of high artistic value, with -beautiful icons and frescos, but also wonderful historical monuments, -reflecting all the greatness and century-old multiform history of the -Russian people. The Kremlin (walled city)—the Cathedral of the -Holy Trinity. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, what did the Germans do -to those churches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: That is just what I want to relate. The Kremlin—the -whole Holy Trinity Cathedral, with its remarkable altar screen, -was plundered by the German soldiers. Everything was carried -out of it as well as out of all the other churches in the city. You -won’t find even a single tiny icon left, not a single church vestment -or sacramental vessel—all has been taken away by the Germans. -The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity—I speak again of this Cathedral. -I almost paid with my life for my visit there. Just half an hour -before my arrival a mine exploded right in front of the altar gates. -The gates were destroyed; the altar was blood-spattered. Before -my own eyes I saw three of our Soviet soldiers who had perished -in the explosion, right in front of the altar.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mines were also laid in other places. I could give another -interesting detail. Pskov was liberated in August 1944, but on -Epiphany, in January 1946, another mine exploded, killing two -persons. Likewise the church of St. Vasili-on-the-Hill was also -mined. There a mine was laid at the very entrance to the church. -In all the churches the abundance of all kinds of refuse, dirt, bottles, -cans, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, was strikingly noticeable. The Cathedral of St. John’s -Monastery was turned by the Germans into a stable. In another -church, the Church of the Epiphany, they set up a wine cellar. In -<span class='pageno' title='343' id='Page_343'></span> -a third church I saw a depot of fuel—coal, peat, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. But why -speak of individual churches? Wherever we turn, our hearts bleed -at the spectacle of all the suffering, all the plunder, brought about -by people who shouted all over Europe about their culture, who -despised mankind, while some proclaimed their belief in God. What -kind of faith is theirs!</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more -questions to ask the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I should like to ask the Prosecutor’s permission to -say a few more words about what happened in Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With regard to that, you must -ask the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I am slightly diverging from the usual order. I beg -your permission, Your Honors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: The Church of Nikolai Bogoiavlensky is the Cathedral -of Leningrad. The present Patriarch Alexei lived at this church -during the siege. Since I served there from July 1942 to the end -of the war, I witnessed on numerous occasions artillery fire directed -at the cathedral. One wonders what kind of military objectives -those heroic warriors could seek in our holy church! On high feast -days or ordinary Sundays immediately the artillery would begin -fire. And what a fire! In the first week of Lent in 1943, from the -early morning and until late at night, neither we, the clergy, nor -the worshipers praying in the church could possibly leave it. -Outside was death and destruction. With my own eyes I saw some -fifty persons—I don’t know exactly how many—members of my -congregation, killed right near the church. They tried to leave in -haste before the “all clear” signal, and death met them near the -church. In this sacred cathedral I had to bury thousands of peaceful -citizens torn to pieces, victims of the predatory raids of the air -force and artillery. An ocean of tears was shed here during the -memorial services. During one of the bombardments His Grace, our -Metropolitan Alexei, escaped death by a hair’s breadth, as several -shell fragments smashed his cell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should just like to add, not wishing to take up too much of -your time, that it is a remarkable thing that most of the intensive -artillery fire on Leningrad always took place on feast days; the -houses of God, tramway stops, and hospitals were put under fire, -and destroyed with all means. The homes of peaceful citizens were -bombed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would take too long, Your Honors, to relate everything which -I have seen during these grim war days of blood and sorrow of the -Leningradians. But I just want to say in conclusion that the Russian -<span class='pageno' title='344' id='Page_344'></span> -people and the people of Leningrad have fulfilled their duty to -their fatherland to the very end. In spite of the heavy artillery fire -and raids of the Luftwaffe there was organized efficiency and order, -and the Orthodox Church shared this suffering. By prayer and -preaching of God’s word, she brought consolation and gave courage -to the hearts of the faithful. She has laid an unsparing sacrifice on -the altar of the fatherland.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no more questions to ask -the witness, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other members of the Prosecution -wish to ask any question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Each indicated that he had no question.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Each indicated that he had no question.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words by way -of concluding my report?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, in his note of -6 January 1942 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the -U.S.S.R. declared that the Soviet Government considered it their -duty to inform the “entire civilized world and all honest people -throughout the world” of the monstrous crimes committed by the -Hitlerite bandits.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the battles of this war, the greatest ever fought by men, -millions of honest people achieved victory over fascist Germany. -The will of millions of honest people created this International Tribunal -for the purpose of judging the main criminals of war. Behind -him each representative of the Prosecution feels the invisible support -of these millions of honest people, in whose name he accuses the -leaders of the fascist conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The honor of concluding the presentation of the evidence submitted -by the Soviet Prosecution has fallen to my lot. I know that -at this very moment millions of citizens of my country and with -them millions of honest persons throughout the world await a just -and speedy verdict. Your Honors, may I conclude with this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, I have a few matters -that will take just a very few minutes, with respect to the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the course of the presentation of the 23rd day of November -1945, pertaining to the economic aspects of the conspiracy, certain -documents were read from; but they were not formally offered -in evidence. At the time, the Tribunal indicated that sufficient -<span class='pageno' title='345' id='Page_345'></span> -time had not been allowed Counsel for the Defense to make an -examination of these documents, and we did not offer them and -said instead that we would make them available in the defendants’ -Information Center. We did so, and they have been there all of -the time since. They should be offered formally and, as the extracts -were read, there is no necessity for going through that again. They -are as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first one referred to in the record was one bearing the -Document Number EC-14, which we offer as Exhibit USA-758. -Extracts from this document were quoted on Page 297 of the record -(Volume II, Page 233).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next one is Document Number EC-27, which we offer as -Exhibit Number USA-759. Extracts from this document were quoted -on Pages 279 and 280 of the record (Volume II, Page 221).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third one is Document Number EC-28, which we offer as -Exhibit Number USA-760. Extracts from this document were -quoted on Page 275 of the record (Volume II, Pages 218, 219). On -that page the document was erroneously referred to as USA -Exhibit 23, but the correct number is Exhibit Number USA-760.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-174 was quoted from on pages 303 and -304 of the record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer that as Exhibit -Number USA-761.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-252—extracts from it were quoted on -Page 303 of the record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer it as Exhibit -Number USA-762.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-257—extracts from this document were -quoted on Page 303 of the record (Volume II, Page 237). We offer -it as Exhibit Number USA-763.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-404—we summarized and quoted from -this document on Pages 291 and 292 of the record (Volume II, -Page 229). We now offer it as Exhibit Number USA-764.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-157 was read from, on Page 288 of the -record (Volume II, Page 227), and we now offer it as Exhibit -Number USA-765.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-167 was summarized and extracts were -quoted from it on Page 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), -and we offer it as Exhibit Number USA-766.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-203—extracts from it were quoted on Pages -283 to 286 of the record (Volume II, Pages 224-226), and we offer -it as Exhibit Number USA-767.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-204, which was quoted from on Pages 286 -and 287 of the record (Volume II, Pages 226-227), is offered as -Exhibit Number USA-768. -<span class='pageno' title='346' id='Page_346'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-206—extracts from this paper were -quoted on Pages 297 and 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), -and it is offered as Exhibit Number USA-769.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-317—extracts were quoted from it on -Pages 289 and 290 of the record (Volume II, Page 227), and we -offer it as Exhibit Number USA-770.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now in addition to these documents, Lieutenant Bryson, who -presented the case for the Prosecution against the individual -Defendant Schacht, offered in evidence Documents EC-437 and 258 -in their entirety, on the condition that the French and Russian -translations subsequently be filed with the Tribunal. Now, EC-437 -was assigned as Exhibit Number USA-624 and EC-258 was assigned as -Exhibit Number USA-625, and the Tribunal ruled on Page 2543 of -the record (Volume V, Page 129) that the documents would be -received in their entirety only after the translations had been -completed. Copies of these documents in all four languages have -been filed with the Tribunal and in the defendants’ Information -Center, and that was done a few weeks ago and in accordance -therefore with the ruling of the Tribunal. We now offer these -documents in evidence in their entirety, and we assume that they -will retain the numbers Exhibit Number USA-624 and Exhibit Number -USA-625.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Also in the trial brief on the individual responsibility of the -Defendant Schacht, which was recently submitted to the Tribunal -and to the defendants’ counsel, reference is made to a few documents -which have not already, or heretofore, been offered in evidence. -I think there is no necessity for taking the time of the -Tribunal to read from these documents, and instead we have had -pertinent extracts made available in German, French, Russian, and -English; copies in all the four languages have already been distributed -to the Tribunal and placed in the defendants’ Information -Center. They are these documents, and we ask that they be received -in evidence:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They are: Document Number EC-384, which we offer as Exhibit -Number USA-771; Document Number EC-406, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-772; Document Number EC-456, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-773; Document Number EC-495, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-774; Document Number EC-497, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-775; and in addition an interrogation of the Defendant -Schacht, dated 11 July 1945, which is one of those referred to in the -trial brief as Exhibit Number USA-776; and, finally, with respect to this -economic aspect of this person, we respectfully ask that the secret -minutes of the meeting of the ministers, dated 30 May 1936, which -are included in the set of documents, Number 1301-PS, and assigned -Exhibit Number USA-123, be received in evidence in their entirety. -<span class='pageno' title='347' id='Page_347'></span> -These minutes have been made available to the Tribunal and the -defendants’ counsel in all four languages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also wish to refer to Document Number 1639-PS, which we -offer as. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: The Prosecution has just made the motion to accept -in supplementary evidence a number of documents concerning the -Defendant Schacht. These documents are contained in a supplementary -volume which we received after the special case against -the Defendant Schacht had been finished, even a considerable time -afterwards.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not intend to protest against this procedure; but in my -opinion this procedure, if admitted by the Court, has some consequences -for Defense Counsel. If this procedure is approved, we -ought also to be permitted to offer evidential material on behalf -of our clients after this case has been concluded and until the end -of the entire presentation of evidence, if we feel that such evidential -material, that is, mainly documents, should still be submitted on -behalf of our clients.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is necessary that we should be in a position also to present -witnesses later on, and I should like to ask the Tribunal for clarification -of this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal thinks that the -Prosecution are entitled to apply, as they have applied, to have -these documents admitted in evidence and, similarly, that the -defendants will be entitled to apply to have any evidence which -they wish offered in evidence even after the individual defendants’ -case has come to an end.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: Thank you, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Now I wish to refer to the document bearing -our Number 1639-PS, which we wish to offer as Exhibit Number -USA-777. For the benefit of the Tribunal, this document is entitled -<span class='it'>Mobilization Book for the Civil Administrations</span> and is the 1939 -edition. It was published in February—or put out in February 1939, -over the signature of the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW. -It is classified “top secret” and was distributed in 125 copies to the -highest Reich Ministries, as well as to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In its original German the document runs to some 150 pages. -We have had translated into English, Russian, and French Pages 2 -to 18, which give the essential text of the document. It appears -from statements in the document itself that the <span class='it'>Mobilization Book</span> -had previously been issued and was revised annually. This particular -book which we introduce, or offer to introduce, was effective -the 1st day of April 1939 and thus was the operative basis, we say, -for the mobilization calendar at the time the Nazis launched their -<span class='pageno' title='348' id='Page_348'></span> -aggression against Poland. However, we wish to relate it back -primarily to that part of the record dealing with the Nazi plans -and preparations for aggression, because the <span class='it'>Mobilization Book</span>, or -such a <span class='it'>Mobilization Book</span>, had been in effect for years prior to 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, we say it fits in with the secret Nazi Defense Laws of -1935 and 1938, which are contained in Documents 2261-PS and -2194-PS, introduced before the Tribunal as Exhibits USA-24 and 36 -respectively.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, it is another clear indication, we submit, of the Nazi -plans and preparations for aggressive war. That portion of the -Prosecution’s case dealing with Nazi preparations for aggression was -presented by Mr. Alderman of the American prosecution staff at -the morning and afternoon sessions of the Tribunal on 27 November -1945 and may be found at Pages 399 to 464 of the record (Volume II, -Pages 303-347).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Inasmuch as this document has been translated into all four -languages, we assume that it is not necessary to read it into the -record; but we do wish to quote, however, directly two extracts—rather, -we will withdraw that. They are included in the translation -and I see no necessity for reading it into the translation system.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document was also, I might say, referred to by the Chief -Prosecutor for the United States in his opening address, and it is -the only document therein referred to which has not been offered -formally to the Tribunal in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, I should like to take up one other matter. I wish to -move to strike out one piece of evidence offered by an American -member of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Mr. Dodd then quoted the evidence in question.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Has the Defendant Rosenberg’s counsel any -objection to this being struck out of the record?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I have no objection, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then it will be struck out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: I have only one last matter, which I am sure I can -conclude before the usual recess time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the course of the presentation of the individual case against -the Defendant Ribbentrop, our distinguished colleague Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe, the Deputy Chief British Prosecutor, introduced -Document Number 3358-PS as Exhibit GB-158. This was on the -9th day of January 1946 and may be found at Page 2380 of the -record (Volume V, Page 17).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is a German Foreign Office circular dated the -25th day of January 1939, and it is on the subject of the “Jewish -Question as a Factor in German Foreign Policy in the Year 1938.” -<span class='pageno' title='349' id='Page_349'></span> -Sir David read portions of this document into the record, including -the first sentence of the full paragraph appearing on Page 3 of the -English translation of the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have discussed the matter with Sir David, and he has very -graciously agreed that we might ask the permission of the Tribunal -to add two more sentences to the quotation which he read, because -we feel, and Sir David feels with us, that the additional two -sentences which follow immediately the sentence which he read add -something to the proof with reference to the persecution of the Jews -as related to Crimes against Peace. It is desired, therefore, by the -Prosecution that the entire paragraph on Page 3 of the English -translation of this document be considered as in evidence by the -Tribunal, and in accordance with the ruling of the Tribunal generally -made as to other such situations we submit now an English, German, -French, and Russian translation of that entire paragraph to obviate -the necessity for reading it; and the original, of course, is in the -German language.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a very brief paragraph, but I don’t think that the Tribunal -would care to have me read it, even to take a minute or two. It -is in the record. There are only two additional sentences. It does -not wrench anything from the text; in our opinion, it only adds a -little to the proof. If you would like to have it read, I can do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: The sentence read by Sir David reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 -brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question simultaneously -with the realization of the ‘idea of Greater -Germany,’ since the Jewish policy was both the basis and -consequence of the events of the year 1938.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>That is the end of the sentence, and that is what was quoted -by Sir David on the 9th day of January, at Page 2380 (Volume V, -Page 17). We wish to add the following, beginning right after -that sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The advance made by Jewish influence and the destructive -Jewish spirit in politics, economy, and culture paralyzed the -strength and the will of the German people to rise again, -perhaps even more than the political antagonism of the -former Allied enemy powers of the World War.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And this second sentence which follows immediately, as well:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The curing of this malady of the people was therefore -certainly one of the most important prerequisites for exerting -the force which, in the year 1938, resulted in the consolidation -of the Great German Reich against the will of the world.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='350' id='Page_350'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>We felt that that would add something to our proof with respect -to this persecution of the Jews. Those are the only matters I have -to bring up with reference to the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Some time ago I wrote to Mr. Justice Jackson -on behalf of the Tribunal, asking whether a list of the persons who -formed the German Staff could be submitted to the Tribunal. Has -that been done?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: I am familiar with that communication. I recall -Mr. Justice Jackson’s showing it to me. If it has not, it shall be -directly. It may have been overlooked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I had a letter back from Mr. Justice Jackson -saying that it should be done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Yes, I recall it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal will be glad for you to -verify that it has been done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: I am afraid I must say that if it hasn’t been done, -it is probably my fault. I recall the Justice’s handing it to me, and -I think I passed it to Colonel Taylor’s organization, but I will check -up on it directly and see that it is delivered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It will be an appropriate time for it to be -done, I should think, during the course of the argument on the -organizations, if it hasn’t been done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and an affidavit accompanying it, -showing how it has been made up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Lieutenant Margolies tells me that he thinks it has been sent in -2 days ago, but he is not certain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He thinks it has been done?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: He thinks so, but we will look into it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then tomorrow morning at 10, Counsel for the Prosecution will -be ready, will they, to argue the case of the organizations which -they have asked the Tribunal to be declared criminal under -Article 9 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: The Prosecution is prepared to be heard tomorrow -morning at 10 o’clock on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the various organizations -are prepared to argue against that? So that is understood that at -10 o’clock tomorrow the Tribunal will sit for that purpose and will -continue until the argument is concluded. -<span class='pageno' title='351' id='Page_351'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Counsel for the organizations are prepared, -according to the Tribunal’s suggestion, to join in the discussion -of the new argument to be put forward by the Prosecution -tomorrow. The Prosecution has helped us by making available to -us a copy of the factual points which so far had not been submitted -as a basis of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the Tribunal’s suggestion not only these factual -points would be discussed tomorrow but also new legal questions -which have arisen recently, inasmuch as they have bearing on the -scope and relevancy of the evidence. The Defense Counsel for the -organizations would be obliged if the Prosecution would beforehand -make available to us the speech they are going to give on legal -questions tomorrow so that we are in the position to answer immediately.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know, but we haven’t had any copy -of any written argument presented to us. I don’t know whether -Counsel for the Prosecution would say whether they have any -written argument?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Well, Sir David can speak much better for himself. -What I was going to say is what I said previously, that I am informed -that he has already presented his outline both to the -Tribunal and to counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Justice Jackson is still working on his remarks, and while -he did hope to submit a draft, late communications received only -this morning from interested persons in the War Department have -made it necessary for him to work right up to now, and therefore -we think that the practical difficulty results in not having a prepared -statement to submit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I -have prepared two appendices which endeavor to cover the first two -points in the Tribunal’s statement of January, the elements of -criminality and the connected defendants mentioned in Article 9 of -the Charter. I arranged that copies in German should be given to -all the Defense Counsel. I hope everyone has got a copy. I have -also arranged that copies be submitted to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have added to that an addendum showing the references to the -transcript, and in some cases to the documents, on each of the points, -and I am afraid that is in English; but it is reference to paragraphs, -so it shouldn’t be difficult for the Defense Counsel to fit it into their -document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am afraid that it would be impossible to give a copy of the -Justice’s speech and mine. What I intended to add was largely on -<span class='pageno' title='352' id='Page_352'></span> -the facts which I have endeavored to put before the Defense Counsel -already, but if the Defense Counsel for the organizations would -care to hear informally what is the sort of general line, I should be -very pleased to tell them, if it would be any help. I want to help -in every way I can.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. We will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 28 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='353' id='Page_353'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTIETH DAY</span><br/> Thursday, 28 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, on Monday, when I wished to give -my reasons for the application to call Winston Churchill as witness, -the Tribunal asked me to submit this in writing so that the Tribunal -could make a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The decision that Winston Churchill should not be called as -witness was, however, made already on the 26th of February, before -the Tribunal received my written application. I assume a mistake -has been made, and I ask the Tribunal to reconsider the question -in the light of the reasons set out in my written application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reconsider the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Justice Jackson. Did you propose, Mr. Justice Jackson, to -argue first on the question of the organizations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief Counsel for the United -States): If that is agreeable to the Tribunal, that’s definitely our . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We are taking up, as I understand it, the deferred subject of -the rules which should guide in determining the criminality of -organizations, partly upon our initiative and partly an response to -the questions propounded by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The unconditional surrender of Germany created for the victors -novel and difficult problems of law and administration. Being the -first such surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, -precedents and past experiences are of little help in guiding our -policy toward the vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding -and accepting capitulation of a whole people certainly must -include a duty to discriminate justly and intelligently between the -opposing elements of that population, which bore dissimilar relations -to the policies and conduct which led to the catastrophe. This -differentiation is the objective of those provisions of the Charter -which authorize this Tribunal to declare organizations or groups to -be criminal. Understanding of the problem with which the instrument -attempts to deal is essential to its interpretation and application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time -of the surrender was that the state itself played only a subordinate -role in the exercise of political power, while the really drastic -<span class='pageno' title='354' id='Page_354'></span> -controls over German society were organized outside of the nominal -government. This was accomplished through an elaborate network -of closely knit and exclusive organizations of selected volunteers, -both bound to execute without delay and without question the -commands of the Nazi leaders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The -country was subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about -50 households each, and every such community had its recognized -Party leaders, Party police, and its undercover, planted spies. These -were combined into larger units with higher ranking leaders, executioners, -and spies, the whole forming a pyramid of power outside -of the law, with the Führer at its apex, the local Party officials -constituting its broad base, which rested heavily on the German -population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of these individual -defendants alone. A thousand little Führers dictated; a thousand -imitation Görings strutted; a thousand Schirachs incited the youth; -a thousand Sauckels worked slaves; a thousand Streichers and -Rosenbergs stirred up hate; a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks -tortured and killed; a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks -administered and supported and financed this movement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi movement was an integrated force in every city and -county and hamlet. The party power resulting from this system of -organizations first rivaled and then dominated the power of the -state itself. The primary vice of this web of organizations was that -they were used to transfer the power of coercing men from the -government and the law to the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, -and security of person and property do not exist except -where the power of coercion is possessed only by the state and is -exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis, however, set up this -private system of coercion outside of and immune from the law, -with Party-controlled concentration camps and firing squads to -administer privately decreed sanctions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Without responsibility to law and without warrant from any -court, they were enabled to seize property and take away liberty -and even take life itself. These organizations had a calculated -part—and a decisive part—in the barbaric extremes of the Nazi -movement. They served primarily to exploit mob psychology and -to manipulate the mob. Multiplying the number of persons in a -common enterprise always tends to diminish the individual’s sense -of moral responsibility and to increase his sense of security. The -Nazi leaders were masters of that technique. They manipulated -these organizations to make before the German populace impressive -exhibitions of numbers and of power, which have already been -shown on the screen. They were used to incite a mob spirit and -<span class='pageno' title='355' id='Page_355'></span> -then riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and -the Germanic ambition they had inflated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and -terrorism. They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined -execution throughout Germany and the occupied countries -of the plan for crimes which we have proven. The flowering of this -system is represented in the fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who -told this Tribunal without shame or trace of pity how he personally -directed the putting to death of 90,000 men, women, and children. No -tribunal ever listened to a recital of such wholesale murder as this -Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a fellow officer of -the SS. Their own testimony shows the SS responsibility for the -extermination program which took the lives of 5 million Jews—a -responsibility that that organization welcomed and discharged -methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes with -which we deal are unprecedented, first because of the shocking -number of victims. They are even more shocking and unprecedented -because of the large number of people who united their efforts to -perpetrate them. All scruple or conscience of a very large segment -of the German people was committed to the keeping of these -organizations, and their devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as -they went from one extreme to another. On the other hand, they -developed a contest in cruelty and a competition in crime. Ohlendorf, -from the witness stand, accused other SS commanders whose killings -exceeded his of “exaggerating” their figures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy -of Germany which imposed upon passive, unorganized, and inarticulate -Germans the same burdens as upon those who voluntarily -banded themselves together in these powerful and notorious gangs. -One of the basic requirements both of justice and of successful -administration of the occupation responsibility of our four countries -is a segregation of the organized elements from the masses of -Germans for separate treatment. That is the fundamental task with -which we must deal here. It seems beyond controversy that to -punish a few top leaders but to leave this web of organized bodies -in the midst of postwar society would be to foster the nucleus of -a new Nazidom. These members are accustomed to an established -chain of centralized command. They have formed a habit and -developed a technique of both secret and open co-operation. They -still nourish a blind devotion to the suspended, but not abandoned, -Nazi program. They will keep alive the hates and ambitions which -generated the orgy of crime we have proven. These organizations -are the carriers from this generation to the next of the infection of -aggressive and ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen -how easily an assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor -force can in fact be a military outfit training with shovels. The -<span class='pageno' title='356' id='Page_356'></span> -next war and the next pogroms will be hatched in the nests of these -organizations as surely as we leave their membership with its -prestige and influence undiminished by condemnation and punishment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when -we consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be -years before there can be established in the German State any -political authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It -cannot quickly acquire the stability of a government aided by long -habit of obedience and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, -and possible overthrow which older and established governments -always fear from conspiratorial groups is a real and present danger to -any stable social order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of -retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized -instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case I -said that the United States does not seek to convict the whole -German people of crime. But it is equally important that this Trial -shall not serve to absolve the whole German people except 21 men -in the dock. The wrongs that have been done to the world by these -defendants and their top confederates were not done by their will -and their strength alone. The success of their designs was made -possible because great numbers of Germans organized themselves -to become the fulcrum and the lever by which the power of these -leaders was extended and magnified. If this Trial fails to condemn -these organized confederates for their share of the responsibility for -this catastrophe, it will be construed as their exoneration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. -It manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and -preventive considerations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The primary objective of requiring that the surrender of -Germany be unconditional was to clear the way for a reconstruction -of German society on such a basis that it will not again threaten -the peace of Europe and of the world. Temporary measures of the -occupation authorities may by necessity, and I mean no criticism of -them, have been more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination -than befits a permanent policy. For example, under existing denazification -policy, no member of the Nazi Party or its formations may -be employed, in any position—other than ordinary labor—in any -business enterprise, unless he is found to have been only a nominal -Nazi. Persons in certain categories whose standing in the community -is one of prominence or influence are required to be, and others -may be, denied further participation in their businesses or professions. -It is mandatory to remove or exclude from public office -and from positions of importance in quasi-public and private -<span class='pageno' title='357' id='Page_357'></span> -enterprises persons falling within about 90 specified categories, -deemed to consist of either active Nazis, Nazi supporters, or militarists. -Property of such persons is blocked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, it is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the -framers of this Charter, that a permanent long-term program should -be based on a more careful and more individual discrimination -than was possible with sweeping temporary measures. There is a -movement now within the Control Council for reconsideration of -its whole denazification policy and procedure. The action of this -Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to declare, an accused organization -criminal has a vital bearing on this future occupation policy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes -of this Tribunal and its judgment to identify and condemn those -Nazi and militaristic forces that were so strongly organized as to -constitute a continuing menace to the long-term objectives for -which our respective countries have spent their young lives. It is -in the light of this great purpose that we must examine the -provisions of this Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could -not, without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system -of jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for -handling a great number of common charges against a great -multitude of accused persons. The number of individual defendants -that fairly can be tried in a single proceeding probably does not -greatly exceed the number now in your dock. Also, the number of -separate trials in which the same voluminous evidence as to a -common plan must be repeated is very limited in actual practice. -Yet, adversary proceedings of the type in which we are engaged are -the best assurance the law has ever evolved that decisions will be -well-considered and just. The task of the framers of the Charter -was to find some way to overcome the obstacles to practicable and -early decision without sacrificing the fairness implicit in hearings. -The solution prescribed by the Charter is certainly not faultless, but -not one of its critics has ever proposed an alternative that would -not either deprive the individual of all hearing or contemplate such -a multitude of long trials that it would break down and be impracticable. -In any case, this Charter is the plan adopted by our -respective governments and our duty here is to make it work.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a -severance of the general issues which would be common to all -individual trials from the particular issues which would differ in -each trial. The plan is comparable to that employed in certain -wartime legislation of the United States, dealt with in the case of -<span class='it'>Yakus versus United States</span>, in which questions as to the due process -quality of the order must be determined in a separate tribunal and -<span class='pageno' title='358' id='Page_358'></span> -cannot be raised by a defendant when he is defending on indictment. -Those countries which do not have written constitutions and -constitutional issues may find it difficult to follow the logic of that -decision, but essentially the plan was to separate general issues -relative to the order as a whole from specific issues which would -arise when an individual was confronted with a charge of guilt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The general issues under this Charter are to be determined with -finality in one trial before the International Tribunal, and in that -trial every accused organization must be defended by counsel and -must be represented by at least one leading member, and other -individuals may apply to be heard. Their applications may be -granted if the Tribunal thinks justice requires it. The only issue -in this trial concerns the collective criminality of the organization -or group. It is to be adjudicated by what amounts to a declaratory -judgment. It does not decree any punishment either against the -organization or against individual members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration -that an organization is criminal is contained in Article 10, -which, if you will bear with me, I will read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal -by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any -Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial -for membership therein before national, military, or occupation -courts.</p> - -<p>“In any such case the criminal nature of the group or -organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Unquestionably, it would have been competent for the Charter -to have declared flatly that membership in any of these named -organizations is criminal and should be punished accordingly. If -there had been such an enactment, it would not have been open to -an individual, who was being tried for membership, to contend that -the organization was not in fact, criminal. But the framers of the -Charter, acting last summer at a time before the evidence which has -been adduced here was even available to us, did not care to find -organizations criminal by fiat. They left that issue to determination -after relevant facts were developed by adversary proceedings. -Plainly, the individual is better off because of the procedure of the -Charter, which leaves that finding of criminality to this body after -hearings at which the organization must, and the individual may, -be represented. It is at least the best assurance that we could devise, -that no mistake would be made in dealing with these organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under the Charter, the groups and organizations named in the -Indictment are not on trial in the conventional sense of that term. -They are more nearly under investigation as they might be before -a grand jury in Anglo-American practice. Article 9 recognizes a -<span class='pageno' title='359' id='Page_359'></span> -distinction between the declaration of a group or organization as -criminal and “the trial of any individual member thereof.” The -power of the Tribunal to try is confined to “persons,” and the -Charter does not expand that term by definition, as statutes sometimes -do, to include other than natural persons. The groups or -organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities served -with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any sentence -upon them as entities. For example, it may not levy a fine upon -them even though they have property of the organization, nor -convict any person because of membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is also to be observed that the Charter does not require -subsequent proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the -competent national authorities shall have the right to bring individuals -to trial for membership therein.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter is silent as to the form that these subsequent trials -should take. It was not deemed wise, on the information then -available, that the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. -Nor was it necessary to do so. There is a continuing legislative -authority, representing all four signatory nations, competent to take -over where the Charter leaves off. Legislative supplementation of -the Charter, of course, would be necessary in any event to confer -jurisdiction on local courts, to define their procedures, and to prescribe -different penalties for different forms of activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence -as to future proceedings means that great numbers of members will -be rounded up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration -that an organization is criminal. It also has been suggested -that this is, or may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control -Council Act Number 10, which defines as a crime “membership in -categories of a criminal group or organization declared criminal by -the International Military Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishment -without a right of hearing cannot be spelled out of this -Charter and would be offensive to both its letter and its spirit. And -I do not find in Control Council Act Number 10 any inconsistency -with the Charter. Of course, to reach all individual members would -require numerous hearings, but they will involve only narrow -issues. Many persons will have no answers to charges if they are -carefully prepared; and the proceedings should be expeditious, -nontechnical, and held in the locality where the person accused -resides, and, incidentally, may be conducted in two languages -at most.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And I think it is clear that before any person is punishable -for membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a -hearing on the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize -the national authorities to punish membership without hearing—it -<span class='pageno' title='360' id='Page_360'></span> -gives them only the right to “bring individuals to trial.” That -means what it says. A trial means there is something to try.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter denies only one of the possible defenses of an -accused; he may not relitigate the question in a subsequent trial -whether the organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes -him from denying that his participation was voluntary and -proving that he acted under duress; he may prove that he was -deceived or tricked into membership; he may show that he had -withdrawn or he may prove that his name on the rolls is a case -of mistaken identity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act -make criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving -the volition of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization -must have been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion -or illegal duress, actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim has -never been thought to be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust -result is not to be implied now. The extent of the member’s knowledge -of the criminal character of the organization is, however, -another matter. He may not have known on the day he joined but -may have remained a member after learning the facts. And he is -chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of which he -was reasonably put on notice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are safeguards to assure that this program will be carried -out in good faith. Prosecution under this declaration is discretionary. -If there were purpose on the part of the Allied Powers to punish -these persons without trial, it would have been already done before -this Tribunal was set up, and without waiting for its declaration. -We think that the Tribunal will presume that the signatory powers -which have voluntarily submitted to this process will carry it out -faithfully.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Control Council Act applies only to categories of membership -declared criminal. This language on the part of the Control Council -recognizes a power in this Tribunal to limit the effect of its declaration. -I do not think, for reasons which I will later state, that -this should be construed or availed of to try any issue here as to -subgroups or sections or individuals which can be tried in later -proceedings. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not the sort -of limitation which must be defined by evidence of details, but -limitations of principle such as those I have already outlined, such -as duress, involuntary membership, or matters of that kind, which -the Tribunal can recognize and deal with without taking detailed -evidence. It does not require this Tribunal to delve into evidence -to condition its judgment to apply only to intentional and voluntary -membership. This does not supplant later trials by the declaration -of this Tribunal but guides them. -<span class='pageno' title='361' id='Page_361'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It certainly cannot be said that such a plan—such as we have -here for severance of the general issues common to many cases from -the particular issues applicable only to individual defendants for litigation -in separate tribunals specially adapted for the different kinds -of issues—is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it -presents unusual procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents -any insurmountable ones. I will discuss the question of the criteria -and the principles and the precedents for declaring collective -criminality before coming to the procedural questions involved. The -substantive law which governs the inquiry into criminality of -organizations is, in its large outline, old and well settled and fairly -uniform in all systems of law. It is true that we are dealing here -with a procedure which would be easy to abuse and one that is -often feared as an interference with liberty of assembly or as an -imposition of guilt by association. It also is true that proceedings -against organizations are closely akin to the conspiracy charge, -which is the great dragnet of the law and rightly watched by courts -lest it be abused.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact is, however, that every form of government has considered -it necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not -even the most tolerant of governments can permit an accumulation -of private power in organizations to a point where it rivals, -obstructs, or dominates the government itself. To do so would be -to grant designing men a liberty to destroy liberty. The very -complacency and tolerance, as well as the impotence, of the Weimar -Republic towards the growing organization of Nazi power spelled -the death of German freedom.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Protection of the citizen’s liberty has required even free governments -to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power -which threaten to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every -one of the nations signatory to this Charter has laws making certain -types of organizations criminal. The Ku Klux Klan in the United -States flourished at about the same time as the Nazi movement in -Germany. It appealed to the same hates, practiced the same extra-legal -coercions, and likewise terrorized by the same sort of weird -nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it was composed of a -core of fanatics, but it enlisted the support of respectabilities who -knew it was wrong but thought it was winning. It eventually -provoked a variety of legislative acts directed against such organizations -as organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Congress of the United States also has enacted legislation -outlawing certain organizations. A recent example was on the -28th of June 1940, when the Congress provided that it shall be -unlawful for any person, among other things, to organize or help -to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons to teach, -<span class='pageno' title='362' id='Page_362'></span> -advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any government -in the United States by force or violence, or to be or become -a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group, or assembly -of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is much legislation by states of the American Union -creating analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the act -of California dealing with criminal syndicalism, which, after defining -it, makes criminal any person who organizes, assists in organizing, -or is, or knowingly becomes, a member of such organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Precedents in English law for outlawing organizations and -punishing membership therein are old and consistent with the -Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the first is the British India Act Number 30, enacted in -1836, which, among other things, provides:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have -belonged, either before or after the passing of this Act, to any -gang of thugs, either within or without the territories of the -East India Company, shall be punished with imprisonment for -life with hard labor.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And the history is that this was a successful act in suppressing -violence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Other precedents in English legislation are the Unlawful Societies -Act of 1799, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817, the Seditious -Meetings Act of 1846, the Public Order Act of 1936, and Defense -Regulations 18(b). The latter, not without opposition, was intended -to protect the integrity of the British Government against the fifth-column -activities of this same Nazi conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Soviet Russia punishes as a crime the formation of and membership -in a criminal gang. Criminologists of the Soviet Union call -this crime the “crime of banditry,” a term altogether appropriate to -these German organizations. General Rudenko will advise this -Tribunal more in detail as to the Soviet law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>French criminal law makes membership in subversive organizations -a crime. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in -itself. My distinguished French colleague will present you more -detail on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, I would not contend that the law of a single country, -even one of the signatory powers, was governing here, but it is clear -that this is not an act or a concept of a single system of law, that -all systems of law agree that there are points at which organizations -become intolerable in a free society.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For German precedents, it is neither seemly nor necessary to go -to the Nazi regime, which, of course, suppressed all their adversaries -ruthlessly. However, under the Empire and the Weimar Republic -<span class='pageno' title='363' id='Page_363'></span> -German jurisprudence deserved respect, and it presents both -statutory and juridical examples of declaring organizations to be -criminal. Statutory examples are: The German Criminal Code -enacted in 1871. Section 128 was aimed against secret associations, -and 129 against organizations inimical to the State. A law of March -22, 1921, against paramilitary organizations. A law of July 1922 -against organizations aimed at overthrowing the constitution of the -Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. -It reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The participation in an organization, the existence, constitution, -or purposes of which are to be kept secret from the -government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or -unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is -punishable by imprisonment.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>It would be difficult to draw an act that would more definitely -condemn the organizations with which we are dealing here than this -German Criminal Code of 1871. I recall to your attention that it -condemns organizations in which obedience to unknown superiors -or unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged. It is -exactly the sort of danger and menace with which we are dealing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under the Empire various Polish national unions were the -subject of criminal prosecutions. Under the Republic, in 1927 and -1928, judgments held criminal the entire Communist Party of -Germany. In 1922 and 1928, judgments of the courts ran against -the political leadership corps of the Communist Party, which -included all of its so-called body of functionaries. This body of -functionaries in that organization corresponded somewhat in their -powers to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, which we have -accused here. The judgment against the Communist Party rendered -by the German courts included every cashier, every employee, every -delivery boy and messenger, and every district leader. In 1930 a -judgment of criminality against what was called “The Union of Red -Front Fighters” of the Communist Party made no distinction -between leaders and ordinary members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Most significant of all is the fact that on the 30th of May 1924 -judgment of the German courts was rendered that the whole Nazi -Party was a criminal organization. Evidently there was a lack of -courage to enforce that judgment, or we might not have been here. -This decision referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we -are indicting here, but to all other members as well. The whole rise -of the Nazi Party to power was in the shadow of this judgment of -illegality by the German courts themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The German courts, in dealing with criminal organizations, -proceeded on the theory that all members were held together by a -<span class='pageno' title='364' id='Page_364'></span> -common plan in which each one participated, even though at -different levels. Moreover, fundamental principles of responsibility -of members as stated by the German Supreme Court are strikingly -like the principles that govern our Anglo-American law of conspiracy. -Among the statements by the German courts are these:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That it is a matter of indifference whether all the members -pursued the forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the -forbidden activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And again, that it is a matter of indifference whether the members -of the group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of -working, and means of fighting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And again, that the real attitude of mind of the participants is -a matter of indifference. Even if they had the intention of not -participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this cannot -eliminate their responsibility from real membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in -the nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged -by application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are -offensive to law-governed people has been succinctly stated by an -American legal authority as follows, and I quote from <span class='it'>Miller on -Criminal Law</span>:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a combination -to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means, -where none would exist, even though the act contemplated -were actually committed by an individual, is that a combination -of persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a -means to an end, is so much more dangerous, because of its -increased power to do wrong, because it is more difficult to -guard against and prevent the evil designs of a group of -persons than of a single person, and because of the terror -which fear of such a combination tends to create in the minds -of the people.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter in Article 6 provides that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating -in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or -Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible -for all acts performed by any persons in execution -of such plan.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>That, of course, is a statement of the ordinary law of conspiracy. -The individual defendants are arraigned at your bar on this charge -of conspiracy which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts -of others in execution of the common plan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others -in terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in nontechnical -but inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and -<span class='pageno' title='365' id='Page_365'></span> -executing a common plan, as well as participating in a conspiracy. -It was feared that to do otherwise might import into the proceedings -technical requirements and limitations which have grown up around -the term “conspiracy.” There are some divergencies between the -Anglo-American concept of a conspiracy and that of either French, -Soviet, or German jurisprudence. It was desired that concrete cases -be guided by the broader considerations inherent in the nature of -the problem I have outlined, rather than to be controlled by -refinements of any local law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude, -there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization -accused here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part -of the conspiracy under Article 6, even if the Charter had never -mentioned organizations at all. To become voluntarily affiliated was -an act of adherence to some common plan or purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations did not pretend to be merely social or -cultural groups; admittedly, the members were united for action. -In the case of several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation -was evidenced by formal induction into membership, -the taking of an oath, the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the -submission to a discipline. That all members of each Nazi organization -did combine under a common plan to achieve some end by combined -efforts is abundantly established.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The criteria for determining whether these ends were guilty ends -are obviously those which would test the legality of any combination -or conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or purpose illegal -ends? If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi -organizations for the acts of every other member is not essentially -different from the liability for conspiracy enforced in the courts of -the United States against businessmen who combine in violation of -the anti-trust laws, or other defendants accused under narcotic-drugs -acts, sedition acts, or other Federal penal enactments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Among the principles every day enforced in courts of Great -Britain and the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these -sweeping principles:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No formal meeting or agreement is necessary. It is sufficient, -although one performs one part and other persons other parts, if -there be concert of action and working together understandingly -with a common design to accomplish a common purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, one may be liable even though he may not have known -who his fellow conspirators were or just what part they were to -take or what acts they committed, and though he did not take -personal part in them or was absent when the criminal acts occurred.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Third, there may be liability for acts of fellow conspirators -although the particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if -<span class='pageno' title='366' id='Page_366'></span> -they were done in execution of the common plan. One in effect -makes a fellow conspirator his agent with blanket authority to -accomplish the ends of the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Fourth, it is not necessary to liability that one be a member of -a conspiracy at the same time as other actors, or at the time of the -criminal acts. When one becomes a party to a conspiracy, he adopts -and ratifies what has gone before and remains responsible until he -abandons the conspiracy with notice to his fellow conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, those are sweeping principles, but no society has been able -to do without these defenses against the accumulation of power -through aggregations of individuals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who personally -commit crimes, of course, are individually punishable for those -crimes exactly as are those who commit the same offenses without -organizational backing. The very essence of the crime of conspiracy -or membership in a criminal association is liability for acts one did -not personally commit, but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The -crime is to combine with others and to participate in the unlawful -common effort, however innocent the personal acts of the participants, -considered by themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to tie one -into a conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal -plan. And we have multitudinous examples in the jurisprudence of -the United States where the mailing of a letter brought one not -only within the orbit of the definition of crime, but within Federal -jurisdiction.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are countless examples of this doctrine that innocent acts -in the performance of a common purpose render one liable for the -criminal acts of others performed to that same end.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration -in determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the -vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership, -formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose -and submission to discipline and chain of command, cannot be less -than that vicarious liability which follows from informal co-operation -with a nebulous group, as is sufficient in case of a conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This meets the suggestions that the Prosecution is required to -prove every member, or every part, fraction, or division of the -membership to be guilty of criminal acts. That suggestion ignores -the conspiratorial nature of the charge against organizations. Such -an interpretation also would reduce the Charter to an unworkable -absurdity. To concentrate in one International Tribunal inquiries -requiring such detailed evidence as to each member or as to each -subsection would set a task not possible of completion within the -lives of living men. -<span class='pageno' title='367' id='Page_367'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as -that “one should be convicted for his activities and not for his -membership.” But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi -bodies was an activity. It was not something passed out to a passive -citizen like a handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and -abet a movement greatly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Does anyone believe that the picture of Hjalmar Schacht sitting -in the front row of the Nazi Party Congress, which you have seen, -wearing the insignia of the Nazi Party, was included in the propaganda -film of the Nazi Party merely for artistic effect? The great -banker’s mere loan of his name to this shady enterprise gave it a -lift and a respectability in the eyes of every hesitating German. -There may be instances in which membership did not aid and abet -organizational ends and means, but individual situations of that kind -are for appraisal in the later hearings and not by this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By and large, the use of organizational affiliation is a quick and -simple, but at the same time fairly accurate, outline of the contours -of a conspiracy to do what the organization actually did. It is the -only workable one at this stage of the Trial. It can work no -injustice because before any individual can be punished, he can -submit the facts of his own case to further and more detailed -judicial scrutiny.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary -legal principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of -criminality is, of course, upon the Prosecution. It is discharged, we -think, when we establish the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation -of persons associated in identifiable relationship with a collective, -general purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that -membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. -This does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. -Nor does it mean that an organization is not to be considered -voluntary if the Defense proves that some minor fraction or small -percentage of its membership was compelled to join. The test is a -commonsense one: Was the organization on the whole one which -persons were free to join or to stay out of? Membership is not made -involuntary by the fact that it was good business or good politics to -identify one’s self with the movement. Any compulsion must be of -the kind which the law normally recognizes, and threats of political -or economic retaliation would be of no consequence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was -designed to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the -Charter. No other act would authorize conviction of an individual -<span class='pageno' title='368' id='Page_368'></span> -and no other act would authorize conviction of the organization in -connection with the conviction of the individual.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have -been of such a character that its membership in general may -properly be charged with knowledge of them. This again is not -specifically required by the Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent -on the Prosecution to establish the individual knowledge of every -member of the organization or to rebut the possibility that some -may have joined in ignorance of its true character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the -organization and must be convicted of some act on the basis of -which the organization was declared to be criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now take up the subject of the issues, as we see it, which -are for trial before this Tribunal, and some discussion of those which -seem to us not to be for trial before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Progress of this Trial will be expedited by a clear definition of -the issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be -proper criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are -not relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in -the specific questions asked by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. -That is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized -as criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that -does not bear on a question that would be common to the case of -every member. Any matter that would be exculpating for some -members but not for all is, as we see it, irrelevant here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that -one or many members were conscripted if in general the membership -was voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good -defense for an individual charged with membership in a criminal -organization, but an organization can have criminal purpose and -commit criminal acts even if a portion of its membership consists -of persons who were compelled to join it. The issue of conscription -is not pertinent to this proceeding, but it is pertinent to the trials -of individuals for membership in organizations declared to be -criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Also, we think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or -more members of the named organizations were ignorant of its -criminal purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open -or notorious. An organization may have criminal purposes and -commit criminal acts although one or many of its members were -without personal knowledge thereof. If a person joined what he -thought was a social club, but what in fact turned out to be a gang -of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of knowledge would not -exonerate the gang considered as a group, although it might possibly -<span class='pageno' title='369' id='Page_369'></span> -be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality brought against -him for mere membership in the organization. Even then, the test -would be not what the man actually knew, but what, as a person -of common understanding he should have known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members -of the named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful -acts. This proposition is basic in the entire theory of the declaration -of organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality -of organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for -aiding crimes, although the precise perpetrators can never be found -or identified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We know that the Gestapo and the SS, as organizations, were -given principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish -people in Europe, but beyond a few isolated instances, we can -never establish which members of the Gestapo or SS actually -carried out the murders. Most of them were concealed by the -anonymity of the uniform, committed their crimes, and passed on. -Witnesses know that it was an SS man or a Gestapo man, but to -identify him is impossible. Any member guilty of direct participation -in such crimes, if we can find and identify him, can be tried on -the charge of having committed the specific crimes in addition to -the general charge of membership in a criminal organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of -the organizations were themselves allegedly innocent of specific -wrongdoing. The purpose of this proceeding is not to reach -instances of individual criminal conduct, even in subsequent trials, -and therefore such considerations are irrelevant here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time -during which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment -are claimed by the Prosecution to have been criminal. The -Prosecution believes that each organization should be declared -criminal for the period stated in the Indictment. We do not contend -that the Tribunal is without power to condition its declaration so as -to cover a lesser period of time than that set forth in the Indictment. -The Indictment is specific as to each organization. We think that the -record at this time affords adequate evidence to support the charge -of criminality with respect to each of the organizations during the -full time set forth in the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes -of persons included within the accused groups or organizations -should be excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of -course, necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some -identifiable group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not -expected or required to be bound by formalities of organization. In -framing the Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or -<span class='pageno' title='370' id='Page_370'></span> -concepts which would involve this Trial in legal technicalities about -juristic persons or entities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the refinements of -these fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is a nontechnical -one. “Group” or “organization” should be given no artificial or -sophistical meaning. The word “group” was used in the Charter as -a broader term, implying a looser and less formal structure or -relationship than is implied in the term “organization.” The terms -mean in the context of the Charter what they mean in the ordinary -speech of people. The test to identify a group or organization is a -natural and commonsense one.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal has, no -doubt, power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare -criminal, the precise composition and membership of groups and -organizations is not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter -requirement and no practical need for the Tribunal to define a -group or organization with such particularity that its precise composition -or membership is thereby determined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues was a -recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive of -such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend -persons who, on more detailed inquiry, will prove to be outside of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Any effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of -individuals, be they few or many, would unduly protract the Trial, -transgress the limitations of the Charter, and quite likely do some -mischief by attempting to adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence -which is not directed to that purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time for you to -break off for a few moments?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Prosecution stands upon the -language of the Indictment and contends that each group or organization -should be declared criminal as an entity and that no inquiry -should be entered upon and no evidence entertained as to the exculpation -of any class or classes of persons within such descriptions. -Practical reasons of conserving the Tribunal’s time combine with -practical considerations for defendants. A single trial held in one -city to deal with the question of excluding thousands of defendants -living all over Germany could not be expected to do justice to each -member unless it was expected to endure indefinitely. Provision for -later local trials of individual relationships protects the rights of -<span class='pageno' title='371' id='Page_371'></span> -members better than possibly can be done in proceedings before this -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With respect to the Gestapo, the United States and, I believe -all of my colleagues consent to exclude persons employed in purely -clerical, stenographic, janitorial, or similar unofficial routine tasks. -As to the Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by the position taken at -the time of submission of the evidence, that the following should -be included: The Führer, the Reichsleiter, main departments and -office holders, the Gauleiter and their staff officers, the Kreisleiter -and their staff officers, the Ortsgruppenleiter, the Zellenleiter, and -the Blockleiter, but not members of the staff of the last three -officials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the declaration -expressly exclude: (1) Wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) the SA-controlled -home-guard units, which were not, as we view it on the -evidence, strictly a part of the SA, and there also be excluded the -National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans and the SA Reserve, -so as to include only the active parts of that organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the -severability of any class or classes of persons within the organizations -accused which would justify any further concessions, and -that no other part of the named groups should be excluded. In this -connection, we would again stress the principles of conspiracy. The -fact that a section of an organization itself committed no criminal -act, or may have been occupied in technical or administrative -functions, does not relieve that section of criminal responsibility if -its activities contributed to the over-all accomplishment of the -criminal enterprise. I should like to discuss the question of the -further steps to be taken procedurally before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to the -Tribunal asking to be heard in connection with the accusations -against organizations. The volume of these applications has caused -apprehension as to further proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties -yet to be overcome, but my study indicates that the difficulties -are greatly exaggerated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will -entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be -anxious, of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, -not only to do justice, but to avoid appearance of doing anything -less than justice. And we do not consider that expediting this Trial -is so important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really -pertinent facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood -of applications indicated that their significance is not proportionate -to their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of -<span class='pageno' title='372' id='Page_372'></span> -the right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied -prisoner-of-war and internment camps. The notice was published in -all German language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the -radio. Investigation shows that the notice was posted in all barracks -of the camps, and it also shows that in many camps it was read -to the prisoners, in addition. The 45,000 persons who responded -with applications to be heard came principally from about -15 prisoner-of-war and internment camps in British or United -States control. Those received included an approximate 12,000 from -Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser, 7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from -Staumühle, 2,500 from Garmisch and several hundred from each -of the others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have made some investigation of these applications, as well -as of the sending out of the notices, and we would be glad to place -any information that we have at the disposal of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An investigation was made of the Auerbach Camp in the United -States zone, principally to determine the reason for these applications -and the method by which they came. That investigation was -conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Smith Brookhart, Captain Drexel -Sprecher, and Captain Krieger, all of whom are known to this -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Auerbach camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly SS -members. Its prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923 officers. -The notice of the International Military Tribunal was posted in -each of the barracks and was read to all inmates. All applications -to the Tribunal were forwarded without censorship of any kind. -Applications to defend were made by 7,500 SS members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to -the notice, and that no action was directed or inspired from any -other source within or without the camp. All who were interrogated -professed that they had no knowledge of any SS crimes or of SS -criminal purpose, but they expressed interest only in their individual -fate, rather than any concern to defend the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Our investigators report no indication that they had any additional -evidence or information to submit on the general question -of the criminality of the SS as an organization. They seemed to -think it was necessary to protect themselves to make the application -here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Turning then to examination of the applications, these, on their -face, indicate that most of the members do not profess to have -evidence on the general issue triable here. They assert almost -without exception that the writer has neither committed nor -witnessed nor known of the crimes charged against the organization. -On a proper definition of the issues such an application is insufficient, -on its face, to warrant a personal intervention. -<span class='pageno' title='373' id='Page_373'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>A careful examination of the notice to which these applications -respond will indicate, I believe, that the notice contains no word -which would inform a member, particularly if he were a layman, -of the narrowness of the issues which are to be considered here, -or that he will have a later opportunity, if and when prosecuted, -to present personal defenses. On the other hand the notice, it seems -to me, creates the impression, particularly to a layman, that every -member may be convicted and punished by this Tribunal and that -his only chance to be heard is here. I think a careful examination -of these notices will bear out that impression and a careful examination -of the applications will show that they are in response to -that impression.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, among lawyers there is usually a difference of opinion -as to how best to proceed and this case presents no exception to -that; there are different ideas. But I shall advance certain views -as to how we should proceed from here to obtain a fair and proper -adjudication of these questions. In view of these facts we suggest -a consideration of the following program for completion of this -Trial as to organizations:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope -of the issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation -of the issues and the opportunity later to be individually tried -be sent to all applicants and published in the same manner as the -original notice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. That a panel of masters be appointed, as authorized in -Article 17(e) of the Charter, to examine applications and to report -those that are insufficient on their own statements and to go to the -camps and supervise the taking of any relevant evidence. Defense -Counsel and Prosecution representatives should, of course, attend -and be heard before the masters. The masters should reduce any -evidence to deposition form and report the whole to this Tribunal, -to be introduced as a part of its record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify -the task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps -might well be invited to choose one or more to represent them in -presenting evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and the Defense -Counsel that the Prosecution has omitted from evidence many -relevant documents which show repetition of crimes by these -organizations in order to save time by avoiding cumulative evidence. -It is not too much to expect that cumulative evidence of a negative -character will likewise be limited. -<span class='pageno' title='374' id='Page_374'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons -who might be affected by the declarations of criminality which we -have asked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some people seem more susceptible to the shock of a million -punishments than to shock from 5 million murders. At most the -number of punishments will never catch up with the number of -crimes. However, it is impossible to state, even with approximate -accuracy, the number of persons who might be affected by the -declaration of criminality which we have asked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Figures from the German sources seriously exaggerate the -number, because they do not take account of heavy casualties in -the latter part of the war, and make no allowance for duplication -of membership which was large. For example, the evidence is to -the effect that 75 percent of the Gestapo men also were members -of the SS. We know that the United States forces have a roughly -estimated 130,000 detained persons who appear to be members of -accused organizations. I have no figure from other Allied forces. -But how many of these actually would be prosecuted, instead of -being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can -foretell. Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: It is -so large that a thorough inquiry by this Tribunal into each case -would prolong its session beyond endurance. All questions as to -whether individuals or subgroups of accused organizations should -be excepted from the declaration of criminality should be left for -local courts, located near the home of the accused and near the -source of evidence. The courts can work in one or at most in two -languages, instead of four, and can hear evidence which both -parties direct to the specific issues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is not the time to review the evidence against each particular -organization which, we take it, should be reserved for -summation after the evidence is all presented. But it is timely to -say that the selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment -was not a matter of chance. The chief reasons they were -chosen are these: Collectively they were the ultimate repositories -of all power in the Nazi regime; they were not only the most -powerful, but the most vicious organizations in the regime; and -they were organizations in which membership was generally -voluntary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal -executors of the Nazi Party, and the Nazi Party was the force lying -behind and dominating the whole German State. The Reich Cabinet -was the facade through which the Nazi Party translated its will -into legislative, administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars -on which the security of the regime rested were the Armed Forces, -directed and controlled by the General Staff and High Command, -<span class='pageno' title='375' id='Page_375'></span> -and the police forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. -These organizations exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations were also selected because, while representative, -they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable -that innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up -in the same net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, -but not all the administrative officials or department heads or civil -servants; only the Reich Cabinet, the very heart of Nazidom within -the government, is named. The Armed Forces are accused, but not -the average soldier or officer, no matter how high-ranking. Only -the top policy makers—the General Staff and the High Command—are -named. The police forces are accused—but not every policeman, -not the ordinary police which performed only the normal police -functions. Only the most terroristic and repressive police elements—the -Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi Party is accused—but -not every Nazi voter, not even every member, only the leaders. -And not even every Party official or worker is included; only “the -bearers of sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the Party, -who were the actual commanding officers and their staff officers -on the highest levels.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it is important that we observe, in reference to the Nazi -Party, just what it is that we are doing here and compare it with -the denazification program in effect without any declaration of -criminality, in order to see in its true perspective the indictment -which we bring against the Nazi Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some charts have been prepared. This is a mere graphic -representation of the proportions of persons that we have accused, -and which we ask this Tribunal to declare as constituting criminal -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the first column are the 79 million German citizens. We make -no accusation against the citizenry of Germany. The next is the -48 million voters, who at one time voted to keep the Nazi Party -in power. They voted in response to the referendum. We make no -charge against those who supported the Nazi Party, although in -some aspects of the denazification program the supporters are -included. Then come the 5 million Nazi members, persons who -definitely joined the Nazi Party by an act of affiliation, by an oath -of fealty. But we do not attempt to reach that entire 5 million -persons, although I have no hesitation in saying that there would -be good grounds for doing so; but as a mere matter of practicality -of this situation it is not possible to reach all of those who are -technically and perhaps morally well within the confines of this -conspiracy. So the voters are disregarded, the 48 million, the -5 million members are disregarded, and the first that we propose -to reach are the Nazi leaders, starting with Blockleiter, which are -<span class='pageno' title='376' id='Page_376'></span> -shown in the last small block, and piled together, amounting to the -fourth block on the diagram.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is true that we start with the local block leader, but he -had responsibilities—responsibilities for herding into the fold his -50 households, responsibilities for spying upon them and reporting -their activities; responsibilities, as this evidence shows, for disciplining -them and for leading them. No political movement can -function in the drawing rooms and offices. It has to reach the -masses of the people and these block leaders were the essential -elements in making this program effective among the masses of the -people and in terrorizing them into submission.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit that on this diagram the accusation which we bring -here is a moderate one reaching only persons of admitted leadership -responsibilities and not trying to reach people who may have been -beguiled into following in an unorganized fashion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have also accused the formations, Party formations, such as -the SA and the SS. These were the strong arms of the Party. These -were the formations that the Blockleiter was authorized to call in -to help him if he needed to discipline somebody in his block of -50 houses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But we do not accuse every one of the formations of the Party, -nor do we accuse any of the 20 or more supervised or affiliated -Party groups, Nazi organizations in which membership was compulsory, -either legally or in practice, such as the Hitler Youth and -the Student League. We do not accuse the Nazi professional organizations, -although they were Nazi dominated, like the civil servants’ -organization, the teachers’ organization, and the National Socialist -lawyers’ organization, although I should show them as little charity -as any group. We do not accuse any Nazi organizations which have -some legitimate purpose, like welfare organizations. Only two of -these Party formations are named, the SA and the SS, the oldest -of the Nazi organizations, groups which had no purpose other than -carrying out the Nazi schemes, and which actively participated in -every crime denounced by the Charter and furnished the manpower -for most of the crimes which we have proved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling -repetition of the Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, -and War Crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these -organizations than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual -defendants in the box. These defendants’ power for harm is past. -They are discredited men. That of these organizations goes on. -If these organizations are exonerated here, the German people will -infer that they did no wrong, and they will easily be regimented -in reconstituted organizations under new names, behind the same -program. -<span class='pageno' title='377' id='Page_377'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In administering retributive justice it would be possible to -exonerate these organizations only by concluding that no crimes -have been committed by the Nazi regime. For these organizations’ -sponsorship of every Nazi purpose and their confederation to execute -every measure to attain these ends is beyond denial. A failure -to condemn these organizations under the terms of the Charter can -only mean that such Nazi ends and means cannot be considered -criminal and that the Charter of the Tribunal declaring them so is -a nullity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think my colleagues, who have somewhat different aspects of -the case to deal with, would like to be heard on this subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, -the Tribunal thinks the most convenient course would be to -hear argument on behalf of all the chief prosecutors and then to -hear argument on behalf of such of the defendants’ counsel as wish -to be heard, and after that the Tribunal will probably wish to ask -some questions of the chief prosecutors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That will be very agreeable to us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Mr. Justice Jackson has dealt with the general principles under -which the organizations named in the Charter should, in the view -of the Prosecution, be dealt with. It is not my purpose to repeat -or even to underline his arguments. My endeavor is to comply with -Paragraph 4 of the statement of the Tribunal made on the 14th of -January of this year. This involves:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) Summarizing, in respect of each named organization, the -elements which, in our opinion, justify the charge of their being -criminal organizations. For convenience I shall refer to these as -the elements of criminality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Indicating what acts on the part of individual defendants in -the sense used in Article 9 of the Charter justified declaring the -groups or organizations of which they are members to be criminal -organizations. Again for convenience, I shall refer to such defendants -in the wording of the Charter, as connected defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) I shall submit that what I have put forward in writing under -(a) and (b) will form the necessary summary of proposed findings -of fact under the Tribunal’s third point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I say one word about the mechanics of the position? I -thought that it would be convenient if the Tribunal and the Defense -Counsel had copies of these suggestions before I address the -Tribunal. In pursuance of this, copies have been given to the -members of the Tribunal, of course to the court interpreters, and -copies in German have been provided for counsel for the organizations -and also for counsel for each of the individual defendants. -<span class='pageno' title='378' id='Page_378'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>For the convenience of the Tribunal and of counsel, I have -circulated two addenda, which contain further references to the -transcript and documents on a number of points in the original -appendices. These addenda are compiled under the numbers of -paragraphs and, although they are in English, should be readily -usable by Counsel for the Defense. The result is that there is the -summary in Appendices (A) and (B), which I put in, and full reference -in all the points in the summary to the transcript and in some -cases to documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is my intention not to read in full all the matters contained -in my Appendix (A) and Appendix (B) but to indicate how they fit -in with the conception of the Prosecution on this aspect of the case. -I shall, of course, be only too ready to read any portions which may -be convenient to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it would be best to start from the essential <span class='it'>probanda</span> -which Mr. Justice Jackson has indicated, and perhaps the Tribunal -will bear with me while I repeat his five points:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation -of persons, (a) in some identifiable relationship, (b) with a -collective general purpose. That was Mr. Justice Jackson’s first test.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. Membership in such organization must be generally voluntary, -although a minor proportion of involuntary members will not affect -the position.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. The aims of the organizations must be criminal in the sense -that its objects included the performance of acts denounced as -crimes by Article 6 of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have -been of such a character that a reasonable man would have constructive -knowledge of the organization which he was joining; that -is, that he ought to have known what type of organization he was -joining.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. Some individual defendants, at least one, must have been a -member of the organization and must be convicted of some act on -the basis of which a declaration of the criminality of the organization -can be made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not think that I can avoid applying these tests to each of -the organizations, but I conceive that this can be done with brevity, -and I therefore propose to deal with the organizations <span class='it'>seriatim</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I take first the Reichsregierung. Under Appendix B of the -Indictment this group is defined as consisting of three classes:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. Members of the ordinary cabinet after the 30th of January -1933. The term “ordinary cabinet” is in turn used as meaning: -(a) Reich ministers that is, heads of departments; (b) Reich ministers -<span class='pageno' title='379' id='Page_379'></span> -without portfolio; (c) State ministers acting as Reich ministers, -(d) other officials entitled to take part in meetings of the cabinet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second division is members of the Council of Ministers for -the Defense of the Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third division, members of the Secret Cabinet Council.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is submitted that, on the evidence placed before the Tribunal, -there is no doubt that the first of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, -Point 1, is complied with in that there is an identifiable relationship -with a collective general purpose, and that this organization is -generally voluntary, within Point 2.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The aims of the organization are set out in Paragraph 4 of -Section A of my Appendix A and the broad submission of the -Prosecution is shown in Paragraph 2. Perhaps, as that is short, I -might be allowed to read it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Owing to their legislative powers and functions the members -of the Reichsregierung gave statutory effect to the policy of -the Nazi conspirators and collectively formed a combination -of persons carrying out the executive and administrative -decisions of the Nazi conspirators.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution apply that general submission to the crimes -constituted by Article 6 of the Charter in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 -of that appendix. If the Tribunal would like me to deal further -with these paragraphs I should be pleased to read and comment -on any that are desired.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When it is remembered that the Reichsregierung possessed policymaking, -legislative, administrative, and executive powers and -functions, and that many of its members held at the same time -important positions in the Party and in governmental activities -outside the cabinet, enormous political power was concentrated in -this group. As I said, the Reichsregierung implemented and gave -statutory effect to the program of the conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to my Appendix B -they will see that 17 of the 21 defendants before the Court were -members of the Reichsregierung. The Prosecution have submitted -an enormous body of evidence against these 17 defendants, and -they now submit that it is sufficient to say that these 17 defendants -should be convicted under each count of the Indictment, and therefore -under each portion of Article 6 of the Charter, and that they -form the connected defendants with the Reichsregierung, under -Mr. Justice Jackson’s Point Number 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The acts which I have mentioned and which are set out in -Paragraph 4 of my Appendix A and the other paragraphs are of -such a character that no one in a ministerial capacity could fail to -have constructive knowledge of their nature and intent. -<span class='pageno' title='380' id='Page_380'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. -Mr. Justice Jackson has indicated that the conspirators required -wide instruments of support. Hitler boasted of the complete -domination of the Reich and of its institutions and of its organizations, -internally and externally, by the National Socialist Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the Nazi Party, based on the Führerprinzip, its policies and -operations were determined not by the membership as a whole but -by the corps of bearers of sovereignty and their staff. These leaders -were all political deputies, obliged to support and carry out the -doctrines of the Party. At every level regular and frequent conferences -were held to discuss questions of policy and working -measures. The leaders held the Party together, but they also kept -the entire populace firmly in the grip of the conspirators through -the control of the descending hierarchy of leaders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that all these leaders are within the -organization which they claim to be criminal, and as Mr. Justice -Jackson pointed out the staffs of the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and -Kreisleiter, which are set out in the volumes of the <span class='it'>National Socialist -Organization Yearbook</span> as being in these positions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will note that we have omitted the staffs of the -more junior Hoheitsträger, as Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out. -On that the Prosecution again says that there is no doubt that -Points 1 and 2 of Mr. Justice Jackson’s criteria are complied with, -and they indicate in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section B of my -Appendix A the elements of criminality; they indicate in my -Appendix B the defendants who are involved; and in a latter -portion of Appendix B they submit that from the position of these -defendants as members of the Leadership Corps and in the Government -and the Nazi Party, and further, from the close interconnection -between the Government of the Reich and the Party, it is -clear that the Leadership Corps is a criminal organization connected -with all the crimes charged against all the defendants in the Indictment, -including those who were in the Leadership Corps and -elaborated before the Tribunal in the individual presentations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi Party is the core of the conspiracy and criminality -alleged, and the defendants are the core of the Nazi Party. Again -the Prosecution say that no one living in Germany and taking part -in the management, which in this case means literally the ordering -of the Nazi Party, could fail to have constructive knowledge of the -intentions of its leaders and the methods of carrying these out. -This inner circle is in a different position from even the best-informed -opinion outside Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass to the SS, including the SD. The Prosecution -respectfully remind the Tribunal of the statements regarding the -composition of the SS and its history, set out shortly in Appendix B -<span class='pageno' title='381' id='Page_381'></span> -of the Indictment, on Page 36 (Volume I, Page 81) of the English -text. The Prosecution stands by these statements, which it submits -are clear. I do not intend to read them at the present moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal has heard in the case regarding the SS—the -transcript Pages 1787 to 1889 (Volume IV, Pages 161-230)—and the -case regarding concentration camps—Pages 1399 to 1432 (Volume III, -Pages 496-518)—and also the evidence as to the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner, of which the reference is given in the addendum. -They have also heard in the cases of the French and Soviet delegations -additional mountains of evidence with regard to the SS. -It is submitted that there is no difficulty on the first three of -Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, and that the criminality of the SS has -been proved several times over.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the fourth point I venture to submit the submission in -Paragraph 4 of Section C of my Appendix A, that the crimes of -the SS were committed, first, on such a vast scale, and, secondly, -over such a vast area that the criminal aims and methods of the -SS, which have staggered humanity since this Trial opened, must -have been known to its members. It was difficult to drive from -one city of Germany to another without passing near to a concentration -camp, and every concentration camp contained its SS crimes. -In my Appendix B the Tribunal will find the members of the SS -who are defendants set out, and, in the second part, a summary of -the crimes of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. The Prosecution gives -to him a sinister particularity, while relying also on the crimes -of the other defendants who were members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): -May I point out that in the appendix the Defendant Frick has -apparently been included by mistake; among the offices held by -the Defendant Frick this is not listed as one of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean? Do you mean not a -member of the SS?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: The appendix says that Frick was a -member of the SS. This is not the case, and he has also made a -statement to this effect in his affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: In the appendix just read out by the prosecutor -the Defendant Frank too is included as a member of the SS. Already -earlier in the Trial the American prosecutor submitted Document -2979-PS as Exhibit Number USA-7. This document shows -that at no time was Frank a member of the SS or, as is asserted -in the Indictment, an SS general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore I should like to point out to the Tribunal that -several months ago, when the Indictment was lodged against the SS -as a criminal organization, the name of the Defendant Frank was -<span class='pageno' title='382' id='Page_382'></span> -not mentioned. May I therefore take it that in the drawing up of -this appendix a mistake has been made?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I should like to make the same statement as that -made by my colleague Doctor Seidl on behalf of the Defendant -Rosenberg. In Appendix A, which lists the indicted elements, -Rosenberg is shown as a member of the SA. He was never a -member of the SA, and he has already made a statement to this -effect in the course of an interrogation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The defendants will have the -opportunity of disproving these allegations, which are all contained -in the Indictment; but in view of what has been said, I shall -personally check the matter myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I proceed to deal with the Gestapo. Again, the Tribunal will -find the construction and history of the Gestapo set out in Appendix -B of the Indictment, and the criminality alleged is set out in -Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Section D of my appendix. The second -addendum, the Tribunal may care to note, gives the most detailed -references to each of these alleged acts of criminality. And the -Prosecution submit that from these points which are mentioned -it is clear that the first four of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points are -complied with. The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, -in the submission of the Prosecution, make it impossible for the -Defense to rely on the official background of the Gestapo, and -therefore, as I say, we submit that this clearly comes within the -first four of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points. If the Tribunal will refer -to my Appendix B they will see that the Defendants Göring, Frick, -and Kaltenbrunner are alleged to be members, and in the latter -part of that appendix we allege, as is the fact, that the crimes of -these defendants were committed in their capacities as responsible -chiefs of this organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to the SA. I again refer to Paragraphs 1 and 2 -of Section E of my Appendix A, and I ask the Tribunal to note that, -apart from the correct statement of its phases and periods of -activity, each of the elements of criminality contained references -to the transcript where these matters are proved. I remind the -Tribunal of Mr. Justice Jackson’s statement, which shows that the -Prosecution have omitted all connected bodies—even including -those who had only been members of the reserve—about which -there can be any argument, even a sentimental argument, as to -their full connection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It might be convenient if I reminded the Tribunal of these -sections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='383' id='Page_383'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, before -the Tribunal adjourned, I was about to mention again the bodies -on the fringe of the SA, which the Prosecution did not seek to have -included in the organizations:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, wearers of the SA Sports Badge. The Tribunal may -remember that Colonel Storey explained that they were not strictly -members. He wanted to have that point quite clear. Secondly, -SA Wehrmannschaften, who were internal defense or home-guard -units, controlled by the SA but not members of the SA. Thirdly, -SA members who were never in any part of the SA other than the -reserve. Fourthly, the NSKOV, the National Socialist League for -Disabled Veterans, who were apparently incorporated in the SA; -but from the names that have been given—and the membership—we -do not ask for their inclusion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Appendix B the Tribunal will find the eight defendants alleged -to be connected with the SA, and it is alleged by the Prosecution -that the connection of the SA with the conspiracy was so intimate -that all the acts of the Defendant Göring would justify the declaration -asked for.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass to the sixth and last group or organization, the -General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces. -As in this case the Prosecution has drawn an arbitrary line, I may -perhaps be allowed to recall briefly its constitution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal will be good enough to look at Appendix B of -the Indictment, under this heading, Page 37 of the English text -(Volume I, Page 84), they will see that the first nine positions -enumerated are special command or chief-of-staff positions. There -were 22 holders of these positions between February 1938 and May -1945, of whom 18 are living. The 10th position, of Oberbefehlshaber, -includes 110 individual officers who held it. The whole group varied -from a membership of 20 at the beginning of the war to about 50 -in 1944 or 1945—that is, at any one time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remind the Tribunal, however, that the conjoining of these -positions is not artificial in reality, because on Page 2115 (Volume IV, -Page 399) and the following pages of Colonel Telford Taylor’s presentation—and -I refer especially to Pages 2125 and 2126 (Volume IV, -Pages 407, 408)—it will be seen how the holders of the positions -enumerated met in fact and in the flesh. This, in our submission, -clearly comes within the interpretation of “group” in the Charter -which, as Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out, has a wider connotation -than “organization”; and we submit that you cannot hold men in the -top command against their will. It would be impossible for them -to carry on such work on such a condition. -<span class='pageno' title='384' id='Page_384'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under Section F of my Appendix A, read with the first -addendum, there will be found not only the references in the -transcript but the references to the captured documents which -prove, out of the mouths of the members of this group, the criminality -alleged against them under each part of Article 6 of the -Charter. These documents also show their actual knowledge and -therefore, <span class='it'>a priori</span>, their constructive knowledge of the nature of -the act.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my Appendix B the five defendants involved are set out; and -in the latter part of that appendix the connection of the group, and -especially of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl, is emphasized. It is -submitted that these facts prevent any difficulty being encountered -with regard to this group on any of the five criteria which we say -should guide the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, may I repeat that, in our respectful submission, the facts -contained in Appendices A and B, which are before the Tribunal in -writing, clearly indicate the findings of fact for which the Prosecution -ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will address the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: May it please the Tribunal, -Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall be careful not to add anything -to the very complete statements of Mr. Justice Jackson and -Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In agreement with my fellow prosecutors, I should like respectfully -to draw the Tribunal’s attention only to two clauses of French -domestic law which deal with questions comparable to those which -we are considering today—and in connection with which I believe -the French legislature has had to solve some of the problems with -which the Tribunal is concerned—and especially to reply to the -question put by the Tribunal, namely, the definition of the criminal -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall merely mention Article 265 of the French Penal Code -which lays down the general principle of the association of criminals -by enacting that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Any organized association, whatever its structure or the -number of its members, any understanding made with the -object of preparing or committing crimes against persons or -against property, constitutes a crime against public peace.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to this -fact, that in the course of the last few years France has had occasion -to apply this general principle to organizations which greatly -resemble those which we are asking you to declare criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is known indeed, Gentlemen, that Nazism is a contagious -disease, the ravages of which threaten to go beyond the borders of -<span class='pageno' title='385' id='Page_385'></span> -the countries which it has definitely contaminated. Thus, during -the years 1934 to 1936 diverse groups had been formed in France -which, following the example of their German and Italian models, -were organized with the intention of substituting themselves for the -legal government in order to impose in the country what they called -“order” but which was in reality only disorder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The French Republic in 1936 did what the Weimar Republic -ought to have done. The law of 10 January 1936, promulgated on -12 January in the <span class='it'>Official Gazette</span>, which I submit to the Tribunal, -and a translation of which was given to the Defense, decreed the -dissolution of these groups and enacted severe penalties against their -members. With the Tribunal’s permission, I shall read the first two -clauses of this law:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Article I. By decree of the President of the Republic in -session with the Cabinet all associations or <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups -shall be dissolved which:</p> - -<p>“1. Might provoke armed demonstrations in public thoroughfares;</p> - -<p>“2. Or which, with the exception of societies for military -preparation sanctioned by the Government and societies for -physical education and sport, might by their structure and -their military organization have the character of a fighting -group or a private militia;</p> - -<p>“3. Or which might aim at jeopardizing the integrity of the -national territory or at attempting to alter by force the -republican form of government.</p> - -<p>“Article II. Any person who has taken part in the maintenance -or the reconstitution, direct or indirect, of the association -or group as defined in Article I, will be punished by a term -of 6 months’ to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 16 to 5,000 -francs.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will observe, in the first place, that by imposing -severe penalties on members of these associations for the mere fact -of having taken part “in the maintenance or the reconstitution, -direct or indirect, of the association,” the law of 10 January 1936 -has recognized and proclaimed the criminal character of the -association.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will observe, in the second place, that neither the -Penal Code nor the law of 10 January 1936 is concerned with giving -an exact definition of the association nor with the question as to -whether the incriminated association constitutes a moral entity or a -legal entity having a legal existence. Article 265 of the Penal Code -includes in its condemnation not only any association, which means -a legal entity, but also condemns any agreement entered into with -<span class='pageno' title='386' id='Page_386'></span> -the object of preparing or committing crimes. And the law of -10 January also mentions any association, or any <span class='it'>de facto</span> group. -Thus the law of 10 January in the same way as Article 265 of the -Penal Code, speaking of agreements entered into or <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups, -does not seek to define criminal organizations by law and refers to -the commonly accepted meaning and implication of the words -“group” or “organization” as we today ask you to define them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the same way, after the liberation of our country, the French -Government concerned itself with pursuing and punishing bad citizens -who, even without offending against an existing penal statute, -had been guilty of definite antinational activity; and issued the -decree of 26 August 1944, promulgated in the <span class='it'>Official Gazette</span> of -28 August. This decree, after having given a very general definition -of the offense, defined its extent by enumerating the essential facts -which it comprises.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Article I of the decree of 26 August 1944 states that the -crime of national unworthiness is constituted by the fact of having -participated in a collaborationist organization of any kind, and more -especially one of the following: le Service d’Ordre Legionnaire -(Legion of Order), la Milice (Militia), the group called “Collaboration,” -la Phalange Africaine (African Phalanx), and so on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The decree of 26 August 1944 is much less concerned with -defining the punishable offense than with enumerating the criminal -organizations to which the fact of having adhered voluntarily constitutes -the crime of national unworthiness; and whether these -organizations or these groups are legally constituted organizations -or simply agreements entered into, as mentioned in Article 265 of -the Penal Code, or merely <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups, as stated in the law of -1936, the decree does not define, it enumerates, the organizations -which are considered to be criminal. That is what we are asking -you to do with respect to the German organizations mentioned in -the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We are not asking you to condemn without having heard these -men who, on the contrary, will be able to put forward their personal -means of defense before a competent tribunal. We are asking -you only to declare criminal, as was allowed by the French laws of -1936 and 1944, <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups without which it would have been -impossible for one man in a few years to cause a great civilized -nation to sink to the lowest depths of barbarity, the more hateful -because it was scientific. It is the shame of our time that the -mastery of technique should have placed new methods at the disposal -of ancient barbarity, so true is it that technical progress is of -no avail unless accompanied by moral progress.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your sentence will signify for all nations in the world, and for -the good of Germany herself, that above human liberties there exists -<span class='pageno' title='387' id='Page_387'></span> -a moral law which imposes itself upon nations just as well as upon -individuals whether they be isolated or in groups and that it is -criminal to violate that moral law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, let me tell you first of all that -I accept the principle which has been expressed by my respected -colleagues Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the principle -with regard to the criminality of the organizations. It seems -to me that to clarify this question it is necessary to distinguish -clearly two interwoven problems: First, the problem of the material -law, just what organizations and what individual members or groups -of individual members can be considered criminal; and also the -problem of objective law, what evidence, what documents, what -witnesses, and in what order these can be presented to agree, to -declare, or to deny the criminality of this or that organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, as to the question of material law, it is necessary -to emphasize that the question of the criminal responsibility of an -organization does not stand before the Tribunal and never did; -neither does the question of the individual responsibility of the -various members of an organization, except those who are among -the defendants today or the various groups of these organizations, -stand before the Tribunal. The Charter of the Tribunal provides -as follows: According to Article 9, the examination or the trial of -any individual member of this or that group or of any organization -is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is within the jurisdiction -of the Tribunal to declare this or that organization criminal -if one of the defendants belongs to the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, we speak here about declaring an organization criminal, -and the Charter definitely provides the legal consequences of -declaring an organization criminal. As the Tribunal declares this -or that group or organization criminal, then the competent national -authorities of the signatory powers have a right to bring to trial -before the national military tribunals and occupational tribunals -members of organizations. In this case the criminal nature of -the organizations is considered clear and cannot be contradicted. -(Article 10 of the Charter.)</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Consequently the Charter provides two legal results of declaring -an organization criminal: First, the right, but not the obligation, of -the various national tribunals to bring to trial members or organizations -which the Tribunal declared criminal; and second, the obligation -of the national tribunals to consider an organization criminal -if such an organization was so declared by the International Military -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In such a manner, the result of declaring an organization criminal -by the International Military Tribunal does not automatically -mean that all members of the organization will also be declared -<span class='pageno' title='388' id='Page_388'></span> -criminal by the national tribunals; neither does it mean that without -exception all members of such an organization must be brought to -trial. The question of individual guilt and of individual responsibility -of the separate members of the criminal organizations is -wholly, and without exception, within the jurisdiction of the national -tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As has already been pointed out, in Article 10 of the Charter, -the Tribunal limits the jurisdiction of the national tribunal in just -one way. The national tribunal cannot deny or cannot argue the -criminality of any organizations which have already been declared -criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleague, Justice Jackson, has already tendered valuable information -about the legal codes of the respective countries concerning -the question of responsibility. Under English-American law, French -law, and also the Soviet legal code, it is provided that membership in -an organization which has criminal aims makes an individual liable. -There are two legal decrees on the subject—in U.S.S.R. penal code, -Articles 58-11 and 59-3. These laws provide for the responsibility -of members of criminal organizations. They are considered criminals, -not only for committing crimes, but also for belonging to an -organization which is considered criminal. The very fact of belonging -to an organization, the law states, makes a person liable to -prosecution. The law does not require formal proofs to decide if -a person is a member of a criminal organization. A person can be -a member of a criminal organization even though he does not formally -belong to the organization. The evidence is all the more -exhaustive if a person is formally put on the list of the membership -of a criminal organization. However, the formal membership of a -criminal organization is not the only basis of criminal responsibility -of a person. A member of the organization should know what is the -nature of the organization, what are its objectives. It is immaterial -whether an individual member knew all directives, all acts of the -organization or whether he knew personally all other members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One cannot help noting that on the basis of the general principles -of the law, especially in connection with the practice of fascist Germany, -where a whole network of criminal organizations functioned, -established by the usurpers of the supreme powers, the responsibility -of individual members of the organization does not necessarily -imply that they were aware of the penalties attaching to the -acts committed by the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of the legal code, especially in fascist Germany, -where there existed a whole series of organizations established by -the usurpers of powers now considered criminal, it is impossible to -demand that every member be acquainted with all the actions and -all the members and all the directives of the organization. -<span class='pageno' title='389' id='Page_389'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I now pass on to the next problem. It appears to me that -there is a certain degree of complexity attached to the problem of the -criminal organizations. There is very extensive correspondence by -members of various organizations, that has been submitted to the -Tribunal on the subject of these organizations. Such abundance of -discussion comes from an incorrect interpretation of legal proceedings -if an organization is declared criminal. As long as we know -the fact that the question of the individual responsibility of the -individual members is fully within the jurisdiction of the various -national courts, the general question of whether the organization is -declared criminal or not is much easier to follow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the Charter, on the question of declaring an organization -criminal the Tribunal will decide in connection with individual -defendants. Article 9 states that in examining the materials -with regard to each defendant the Tribunal can have the right to -declare—and so on. Therefore, the conclusion is that the facts which -decide the solution of the question as to whether an organization -is or is not criminal, consist of whether there is before us today -among the defendants a representative of this or that organization. -It is well known in the present Trial that all the organizations -which the Prosecution want to be declared criminal are represented -on the bench of the defendants. For that reason alone there has -passed through the hands of the Tribunal a great deal of material -and evidence relating to the criminal nature of the organizations -which these defendants have represented that can be used by the -Tribunal to draw a conclusion as to the criminal character of various -organizations. Under such conditions the necessity of calling special -witnesses to testify about this or that organization can take place -only as a source of supplementary and even eventual evidence. And -even then the Tribunal has stated in Article 9 that it is up to the -Tribunal to acquiesce in or to refuse the calling of witnesses or the -introduction of supplementary evidence. It is impossible to deny -the possibility or the necessity of supplementary evidence with -regard to any criminal organization. The Charter of the Tribunal -states very definitely that after the indictment has been made, the -Tribunal will do that which it considers necessary with regard to -the Prosecution’s request for declaring this or that organization -criminal. Any member of an organization has a right to request -that the Tribunal permit him to be heard on whether the organization -was criminal. However, this was introduced into the Charter -of the Tribunal for the sake of justice. It now appears that this -article is used for other purposes. If what has been provided for -in Article 9 extends widely enough and if it already provides for -calling witnesses with regard to the criminality of this or that -organization, in substance the evidence submitted by the prosecutors -of the four countries has already given enough exhaustive -<span class='pageno' title='390' id='Page_390'></span> -reasons for the Tribunal to recognize the organizations indicated in -the Indictment as criminal. At the same time it seems expedient -that the Tribunal should publish Article 10 of the Charter explaining -that to declare an organization criminal does not necessarily lead -to an automatic bringing to trial of all members of that organization -without exception. It means that all questions about bringing any -member to trial and about the responsibility of individual members -will be decided by the national tribunals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is all I wanted to state, in addition to what has been stated -by my colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants’ counsel arranged among -themselves in what order they wish to be heard?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: As counsel for the Reichsregierung, which -has first place in the Indictment as a “criminal organization,” I have, -according to the decision of the Court, the duty of presenting my -opinion in regard to the presentation of evidence. Since, in so doing, -I have to discuss general points of view which affect in the same -way all the six organizations under Indictment, it is probable that -my statements will in the main constitute the opinion of other -defendants’ counsel. However, they reserve for themselves the right -to express particular and supplementary opinion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense understand the decision of the Court of 14 January -1946 to mean that at this stage of the procedure the Defense should -not produce detailed arguments against the Indictment as it has -been lodged by the Prosecution and as it has been explained today, -also against the concept of criminal organizations in the sense of the -Charter or against other hypotheses of a declaration of criminality, -but should only express their opinion on the question of what evidence -is relevant and how the evidence shall be presented. Therefore, -I shall speak about the basic questions only insofar as this -seems necessary today in this particular connection. First of all, -I shall speak about the contents and the effect of the requested -verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The six organizations under Indictment are, according to the -request of the Prosecution, to be declared criminal organizations in -their entirety. A request of that kind and the proceedings pertaining -to it would represent something unprecedented in the jurisprudence -of all states.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As we know, this request is not uninfluenced by the fact that, -contrary to other nations, in England and even more so in the United -States, even companies and corporations as such can be prosecuted -in some cases for reasons of expediency. This is a legal development -called for by the dominant position which companies and corporations -have acquired, above all, in economic life. This position made -<span class='pageno' title='391' id='Page_391'></span> -their punishment seem desirable in certain cases. They were -affected by this punishment, however, only to the extent to which -they could be affected in their economic sphere, that is to say, by -the imposition of fines. This also concerns only definite offenses, -mostly in the field of administrative law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The American Chief Prosecutor and the other chief prosecutors -have cited a large number of precedents, even from German jurisprudence, -in which organizations are said to have been declared -criminal. In these precedents—and that is the decisive factor—the -defendants convicted as criminals were always individual persons, -never organizations as such. But a criminal procedure such as this -one would have to deal most seriously with the organizations as -such, as well as with all the members who are not indicted personally -that is—I now refer to Law Number 10 of the Allied Control -Council—would have to pronounce the most severe sentence, the -sentence of death; such a procedure has never before in the history -of jurisprudence been either discussed or applied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The organizations under Indictment are organizations which -differ greatly in their structure. I do not have to discuss further -today whether they always represented an organically constructed -unit. For this Trial the essential thing is that the organizations -under Indictment have been dissolved by a law of the Military -Government, and therefore, no longer exist. What still exists are -only the individual former members who, therefore, in reality are -the actual defendants and have simply been brought together under -the name of the former organization as a collective designation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But independent of this question of the nonexistence of the -organizations, it can be seen from the outcome of the procedure -that this is indeed a collective procedure against the individual -members of the organization, and this for the following reasons:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, to declare an organization criminal means the outlawing -and branding as criminal, not only of the organization as such, but, -above all, of each individual member. Such a declaration, therefore, -means a final sentencing of each individual member to a general -loss of honor. This effect of the outlawing and branding is unavoidable -and ineradicable, especially if that verdict is spoken by so -important a court as the International Military Tribunal before the -forum of the world public. The effect of the outlawing would apply -to each member of the organization and would cling to him, regardless -of whether the subsequent proceedings, as provided for in -Article 10 of the Charter, were carried out against the individual -members or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Second, in respect to legal procedure, the verdict that has been -asked for provides the possibility of a criminal penalty for each -<span class='pageno' title='392' id='Page_392'></span> -individual member of the organization. In the subsequent proceedings, -according to Article 10 of the Charter, the criminal -character of the organization will be considered conclusively -determined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In execution of this, Law Number 10 of the Allied Control -Council, of 20 December 1945, has in the meantime been issued. -According to this law the mere fact of having been a member of -an organization which has been declared criminal by the International -Military Tribunal renders liable to punishment as a -criminal each individual member. Penalties ranging from the -highest fines to compulsory labor for life and the death penalty are -provided.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The proceedings according to Law Number 10 are concerned -only with determining membership and bases the punishment on -this. In these proceedings only grounds for personal exoneration, -such as irresponsibility, error, or coercion can be discussed. But -these concern only the membership as such and will apply only in -a very few cases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Whatever concerns the character of the organization, the criminal -aims and actions of members of the organization, especially the -individual member’s knowledge of these—all these are matters -which will not be discussed in the proceedings any more according -to Law Number 10. In the proceedings against the organizations -a binding declaration has been made. Therefore, the proceedings -against the organizations anticipate the biggest and most important -part of the proceedings against every individual member, while the -subsequent proceedings, according to Law Number 10, to all -intents and purposes only draw conclusions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In connection with the question of the effect of the verdict, the -numerical aspect should also be touched upon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The SA at the beginning of the war in 1939 had about 2.5 million -active members, to which should be added, let us say, 1 to 2 million, -representing those who during the preceding 18 years, either quit -the SA or had to leave because of their military service; therefore, -in all, up to 4.5 million.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as the SS is concerned, my colleagues have not yet been -able to give a final estimate. It will have to be considered that the -Waffen-SS alone had an active membership of several hundred -thousand men at any given time. If we take into account the losses -due to the war, which were very considerable but which to a -certain extent were assessed in the proceedings, we find in the -case of the SS as well that the figure runs into millions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Leadership Corps always had, after 1933, a fixed membership -of about 600,000 to 700,000 members. Changes in the official -<span class='pageno' title='393' id='Page_393'></span> -personnel were very frequent. We have to take into account that -the membership changed at least twice during the entire period, -so that here also the complete figure will be about 2 million.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The entire figure covered by these proceedings is therefore -very large. The reduction which the Tribunal has today thought -fit to make would not reduce that number to any very large extent. -Basically, it will certainly make no difference whether this very -large number which I have just mentioned will include a half, -a third, or a quarter of the adult male population of Germany. -If we consider the war losses among these age groups, we can say -with great certainty that the Indictment will actually include a -very considerable part of the adult male German population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall speak now about the concept “criminal organization.” -The necessary condition for an organization’s being declared -criminal is the criminal character, as appears in Article 9, -Paragraph 2, of the Charter. The Charter does not interpret either -the concept “criminal character” or that of “criminal organization.” -If we ask by means of which legal system this gap in the Charter -should be filled, then, according to the general principle of <span class='it'>lex -loci</span>, German law first of all has to be considered. But that is of -no avail, because these two concepts, according to every legal code -in the world, also represent a <span class='it'>terra nova</span> in criminal law. Here, too, -the Defense reserve for themselves the right to express their -considered opinion at the time of the final pleadings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In any case, we are of the opinion that because of its already-mentioned, -far-reaching consequences the declaration asked for -can be made justly and fairly within the framework of the validity -of the Charter only if: (1) the original purpose—that is, the constitution -or the Charter of the organization—was directed to the -commission of crimes in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, and -if this purpose was known to all members; or (2) in case the original -purpose of the organization was not criminal, if all members during -a certain period of time knowingly participated in the planning and -perpetration of crimes in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. Here, -also, it is necessary that the development should have been such -that these crimes represent typical actions of the organization, for -only then can we speak of a criminal nature as applicable to an -organization as well as to an individual human being.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to this interpretation, the concept “criminal organization” -in the sense of Articles 9 to 11 of the Charter is in large -part identical with the concept “criminal conspiracy” which plays -an important role in the former German and Italian criminal law; -also with the concept “conspiracy,” with or without action for its -execution, in English or American common law; also with the concept -“Mordkomplott” (conspiracy for the purpose of committing -<span class='pageno' title='394' id='Page_394'></span> -murder) in the sense of Paragraph 49-b of the German Penal Code; -and, finally, with the concept of a “Common Plan or Conspiracy” in -the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, here also with or without -action for its execution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these penal codes have in common that judgment can be -delivered only against those persons who have taken part in the -criminal organization knowing its purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my opinion, negligence cannot be sufficient when passing -judgment subjectively because of the general principle that in cases -of serious crimes—and in this case the penalty may be death—there -must always be full proof, and that negligence cannot be sufficient. -Therefore, as a matter of principle, it has to be required in these -present proceedings that an organization under Indictment can be -declared criminal only if it has been ascertained that: Firstly, the -aims of the organization were criminal in the sense of Article 6 of -the Charter, and, furthermore, that all members at least knew of -these criminal aims. This is also necessary for the reason that, as -has just been said, this Trial before the International Military Tribunal -represents the essential main part of the criminal proceedings -which will ascertain the guilt of each individual member of the -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice does not permit that those members who did not possess -the aforementioned knowledge and who are therefore innocent be -included in a verdict. And this will not lead to that consequence -mentioned by Justice Jackson, namely, that a rejection of the verdict -would mean a triumph for those who are guilty. I am of the -opinion that the guilty ones, regardless of their number, should be -brought to punishment. Despite all considerations of expediency, -the issue should not be that along with the guilty ones an enormous -number of innocent persons also be punished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, to come to the core of the question, this is to be -regarded as relevant. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence -depends on a definition of the criminal organization and of its criminal -character. On the basis of my definition I contend that the -following points are relevant:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) That the organizations, according to their constitution or -statutes, did not have a criminal composition and did not pursue -any criminal aims in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) That within the organization, or in connection with it, crimes -in the sense of Article 6 were not, or at least not continuously, committed -during a certain period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) That a certain number of members had no knowledge of any -possible criminal constitution or criminal purpose, or the continuous -commission of crimes according to Article 6, and that they also did -not approve of these facts. -<span class='pageno' title='395' id='Page_395'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>(d) That a certain number of members or certain closed independent -groups joined these organizations under compulsion, or -pressure, or as the result of deception, or by order from higher -authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(e) That a certain number of members without any action on -their part became members of these organizations through the -bestowal of honorary membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Since I know that the questions to be decided represent a <span class='it'>terra -nova</span> in the field of criminal law, I believe that in the course of the -presentation of evidence we shall receive many other suggestions. -Therefore it will be expedient if the Tribunal at the present stage -of the Trial do not bind and limit themselves by a final definition. -I ask rather that evidence be admitted to the greatest extent. In -conclusion I come to the question of how the presentation of evidence -can be carried out in practice and how the legal hearing of -the member can be made possible according to Article 9, Paragraph -2, of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The principles valid in criminal procedure in all countries allow -every defendant before the court certain rights. The most important -principles are the principle of direct oral proceedings and the right -to defense and to a legal hearing. Since, according to my statements, -the real defendants are the members of the organizations, -these rights must be accorded to every member of the organization. -In spite of this basic point of view, which will be discussed in still -greater detail in our final pleadings, and with all legal reservations, -the Defense do not overlook the fact that for all practical purposes -that is impossible within the framework of this Trial. A solution -must be found, since the Prosecution have lodged the Indictment of -the organizations on the basis of the Charter in its present form.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This leads to the necessity of carrying out the proceedings, -whereby the aim of all people taking part in the Trial can be only -that of finding the best possible solution by getting as close as possible -to the universal and, in our opinion, inviolable points of view. -In this connection the Defense in the same way as the Prosecution -are gladly aware of their duty to work constructively towards a -decision by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If, now, the enormous number of people who are affected by the -Indictment gives rise to tremendous difficulties which prevent a -reasonable solution of this problem, an adequate basis for judgment -of the aims of the organizations, as well as of the actions and -the subjective attitude of the individual member of the organization, -must nevertheless be found.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to make any headway in these proceedings, an attempt -must be made to attain a result in respect to the collective membership -<span class='pageno' title='396' id='Page_396'></span> -by fixing certain types. We do not fail to recognize the great -difficulties which confront the passing of a just sentence when a -typical aspect is taken as the basis for judgment. Every attempt -to attain, on the basis of a large number of individual witnesses to -be brought before the Court, a clear picture of that which is typical -would be unavailing. The only way, in our opinion, is to separate -the presentation of individual evidence, in respect to time and place, -from this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One way of achieving this would be an exact interrogation of -the individual members at the places where—this would apply to -most of the organizations—at present large numbers of them are -being kept in internment in the various camps. We believe that the -best way to investigate individual cases, and the one most suitable -to the Court, would be to assign this work to one or more suitable -spokesmen in each camp, that is to say, of course, under the supervision -and with the assistance of the Defense Counsel or their -assistants, and then bring these spokesmen before the Court as -witnesses so that they may give a picture of the activity and attitude -of the individual members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We believe that the way to get as clearly and conscientiously -presented a picture as possible would be for these spokesmen to get -from the inmates of the camps affidavits about the main points of -Indictment which have been specified by the Prosecution. The -spokesmen could then, as witnesses, say under oath what percentage, -on the basis of these affidavits of the individual inmates of the -camps, had taken part in the criminal actions mentioned in the -Indictment or had known anything about them. Certainly there -are certain difficulties connected with this which will also have to -be considered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to get a true picture, one will have to relieve the individual -inmates of the suspicion that through a truthful testimony -submitted to the Prosecution they might be offering material which -could be used against them personally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We consider it therefore necessary that insofar as these affidavits -are to be presented to the Court as documentary evidence, the -Prosecution should make a statement that this material will not -be used for the purpose of criminal proceedings against persons. -This statement would naturally not involve any immunity for individual -members; but the individual inmate of the camp would be -assured that the affidavit made by him under oath does not establish -his guilt as far as future criminal proceedings are concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Prosecution do not want to accept this proposal, there -would still be the possibility, without submitting these documents, -of using the testimony of the spokesmen, who could give information -<span class='pageno' title='397' id='Page_397'></span> -as to the percentage of the people who took part or did not take -part in criminal activities or plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Since you have not finished, I think we had -better adjourn for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Before the recess I referred to a suggestion -for getting information about the actions and the attitude of the -members by means of typical facts. I continue.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This taking of evidence would have, for practical purposes, to -extend to a sufficient number of camps in all the zones of occupation. -From the results of this taking of evidence a conclusion -could then be drawn, on the basis of what is found to be typical, -as to the criminal activity and attitude of the individual member -of the organization, and at the same time, a conclusion as to whether -or not the organization had a criminal nature.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Prosecution are in agreement with the Defense so far, I -believe that I have perhaps found in this way a means of collecting -the relevant evidence, including all positive and negative elements.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To whatever extent the hearing of inmates of camps does not -suffice, which might be true of the one organization or the other, -the hearing of members of the organization who are not in custody -might have to be considered. Here, too, a proper way could probably -be found which would likewise make possible and easier the execution -of the tasks of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I, too, should like to take a stand on the questions -now being discussed before the Court. I am not at present in -a position to take a stand on the profound and well-presented statements -which Justice Jackson has made here. I should not like to -make a brief and less carefully thought-out answer, but the Court -will understand that I and a number of my colleagues desire to put -our case after studying the material and the laws. Perhaps the -Tribunal will give us the opportunity to do this very shortly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like now to take a stand on these questions along more -technical lines, in order to fulfill my duty and on behalf of the -Defense to take a clear stand on these clear questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the first question it was asked what evidence is to be admitted -and what particular evidence should be presented here in the main -trial before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The answer is this, that all evidence is relevant which is of -significance for the determination of criminality. If one examines -the concept “criminal” it is seen that there is no factual situation -<span class='pageno' title='398' id='Page_398'></span> -as defined by criminal law, nor can there be any, for it is not a -question of determining the factual elements but rather of a judgment -as to whether an act is criminal in the same way as judgment -as to whether something is good or bad. Consequently, the Charter -does not oblige the Tribunal to pass sentence and declare such-and-such -to be criminal, but rather it states that the Tribunal “may” -pass such a sentence, but not that it “must” reach such a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It can thus be seen that the Tribunal is here confronted with a -task which is basically different from the activity of a judge. A -judge is obliged, when certain facts determined by law are put -before him, to pass sentence, but this Tribunal is to determine the -culpability of a set of facts, on the basis of which the judge will -later pass sentence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Such a task is, however, that of a legislator and not of a judge. -The Tribunal here determines what is deserving of punishment and -thereby creates a law. In this way the Tribunal also creates that -basis for the procedure which Justice Jackson mentioned in a former -address of his—the basis for procedure in the subsequent individual -trials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is this basis for procedure which the legislator gives to the -judge who is to deliver judgment. In such a case the burden of -proof is likewise reversed, as Mr. Justice Jackson also has constantly -mentioned. It is as if a thief were before the court—his objection -that theft is not punishable, that “possession is theft,” would be -questioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That the activity of this Tribunal is legislative can also be seen -from the fact that, without setting up the Tribunal, the signatory -powers could just as successfully have determined that all members -of organizations could be brought before a court because of their -membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Law Number 10 of the Allied Control Council, that has often -been mentioned today, corroborates this interpretation, since it constitutes -the law for carrying out the skeleton law expected of this -Tribunal. The examples of the criminal nature of the organizations -that have been given here in Mr. Justice Jackson’s address today -show again and again that it is a question of laws and not of -judgments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is also characteristic of the legislative function, that in all discussions -considerations of expediency take first place and Justice -Jackson asked in a previous statement that the verdict should -provide the means to proceed against the members of the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is seen that the Court must deal with <span class='it'>de lege ferenda</span> considerations -on an ethical basis. But it must be proved that the -<span class='pageno' title='399' id='Page_399'></span> -members of the organizations are punishable, and “punishable” is -equivalent to “criminal.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to determine the factual elements, the judge brings -evidence. As legislator, the Tribunal must collect the material for -legislation. The judge can, on the basis of the legally proscribed -criteria, easily determine what is relevant as proof of these criteria -and what he therefore must admit as proof.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is characteristic that such a determination here in this matter -makes for difficulties. The legislator proceeds differently from the -judge. He studies the facts to see if they deserve punishment, and -for him all those facts are relevant which are of significance for the -contents of his law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this matter he must have an over-all picture of the entire -problem and must take into consideration both the good and bad -aspect of the matter to be judged.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The basic principle of justice is that only the guilty be punished. -If the legislator wishes to achieve this, he must examine whether -only guilty people will be affected by his laws. He must therefore -also investigate the objections which any person affected by his law -might make. The innocent person is protected in this way, that in -the individual case the guilt of the individual must be proved unless -the legislator actually has in mind responsibility without guilt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Every killing of a human being is punishable, but whether the -person is guilty has to be proved. He can avail himself of the -so-called objection that the death was not intentional. If the legislator -does not want to permit such an objection, then he must himself -examine the material that leads to such an extraordinary -measure. The extent of the material to be examined, that is, the -taking of evidence, depends on the contents of the law that is to -be passed. Inasmuch as in the subsequent individual trials all -objections remain open, the Tribunal does not have to concern itself -with them. But the Tribunal must consider to what extent the -innocent person in the individual trial will have legal guarantees -which protect him from an unjust punishment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is absolutely necessary for the Tribunal also to examine every -submission which the individual member cannot bring in the subsequent -proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In anticipation of these powers of the Tribunal, it has already -been determined by Law Number 10 mentioned above that every -member can be punished. Thereby these punishments, of which we -have heard in the previous speeches, have already been determined. -It thus appears as if the Tribunal could only pass a judgment -<span class='it'>en bloc</span> without having any right to modify it, and consequently -without possessing any influence on the legal effect of its verdict. -<span class='pageno' title='400' id='Page_400'></span> -But such a concept is in contradiction to the basic idea of the Yalta -Conference, which was that of transferring to the Tribunal the -legislative powers of the signatories, with the express purpose of -vindicating this principle of justice, namely, that only the guilty be -punished, on the basis of examination of the facts through the -hearing of the members in question. Consequently the Tribunal -must have a right to determine in individual cases the basic conditions -for punishability, and to determine the objections which -should remain open to the individual, and the Tribunal must also -be able to limit the effect of its judgment by regulation of the -punishments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that Mr. Justice Jackson expressed an opinion today -which does not contradict this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the sense of the Charter, the Tribunal is not permitted -to transfer its responsibility to the individual courts by -simply leaving for all practical purposes the decision to these courts -which because of their composition may have quite different legal -views.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The members of the organizations have been granted that very -right to be heard here before the International Military Tribunal -and particularly because of the significance of the judgment, which -in all cases contains a grave moral condemnation. To what extent -then should the Tribunal concern itself with the material for this -taking of evidence? I believe that the Tribunal, in order to determine -what is deserving of punishment, must investigate that which -is typical, while the purely individual can be left to the subsequent -proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This separation of the typical from the individual, however, is -not easy, for the submission of the members often has a double -significance. Thus the submission of a member that he did not know -about the criminal nature of the organization could mean, on the -one hand, that such purpose never existed, or, on the other hand, -that the member had no knowledge of that purpose which was -really there. The first is an objection which concerns the organization, -the second a purely personal objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of these arguments I should like to answer the -Tribunal’s first question as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The factual elements of criminality as defined by criminal law -cannot be found here; the determination of criminality is the determination -of punishability as a legislative task of the Tribunal. -Examination of evidence in the procedural sense is in reality the -examination of the legislative material including the objections of -the members of the groups and organizations. To what extent the -Tribunal itself must examine the material depends on the scope and -the effect which it intends to give and which it is able to give to -<span class='pageno' title='401' id='Page_401'></span> -the verdict. Only that which is not typical and which is not of -importance as far as <span class='it'>de lege ferenda</span> considerations are concerned, -only that can be left to the individual trials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To Questions 2 and 3: Under Point 2 and 3 the Tribunal puts -a question regarding the limiting of the groups of members and the -limiting of the length of time of the criminality. Both questions -touch the same problem, namely, whether such a limitation is dependent -on a motion on the part of the Prosecution, or whether the -Tribunal itself can limit the contents of its verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe Mr. Justice Jackson today expressed the opinion that -the Tribunal has the power to make such a limitation. But, as -regards the political leaders, the Prosecution reserve to themselves -the right, in the case of a limitation of the groups of members as -proposed by them, later to introduce other trials against these members -who are now being excluded or to take other measures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>However, such a right is not given to the Prosecution in the -Charter. It also stands in contradiction to the natural powers of -the Tribunal of including in its decision an acquittal—a power -which cannot be eliminated by reservation made by the Prosecution. -The evidence material to be examined also cannot be limited -through such a limitation as proposed, for the judgment delivered -on the indicted organizations must include these organizations as a -whole. It is not permissible to seize upon merely the unhealthy -elements of groups during a period which was not typical and still -declare the organization criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That which is to be considered a group or an organization does -not depend on the discretion of the Prosecution, as is also seen in -Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, according to which the criminal -character must stand in some relationship to the acts of one of -the main defendants. This can only be understood to mean that the -membership of the organization must be influenced by the actions -of one of the major defendants at a given time. However, this is -not for the Prosecution but for the Tribunal to decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Accordingly, I should like to answer Questions 2 and 3 as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Question 2: A limiting of the incriminating period does not -depend on a motion of the Prosecution. The Tribunal itself can and -must limit the length of time, if the organizations or groups were -not deserving of punishment throughout the whole period of their -existence. If the actions of the main defendant, as a member of the -organization, were not incriminating during the whole period of the -existence of the organization, then such a limitation must follow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Question 3: For the limiting of the groups of members the same -applies as for the limiting of the period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal can, on the basis of its own powers, limit the effect -that its verdict will have in the case of all groups and organizations. -<span class='pageno' title='402' id='Page_402'></span> -It must undertake this limitation, if the actions of the main defendant -in his capacity as a member of the organization are not to -incriminate certain groups of members. A limitation of the Indictment -or of the effect of the verdict does not limit the evidence -material which is the basis of the judgment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These were the remarks I wanted to make in answer to the -questions of the Tribunal. I should like now merely to take a stand -on a question that has also been brought up today, namely, the -application for a legal hearing, if the Tribunal permit me to discuss -this question. According to Article 10 of the Charter, every member -of an organization can be brought to trial, if the organization has -been declared criminal. The decision is left up to the Tribunal. The -essential task of the Tribunal is the hearing of the members. Without -this hearing a sentence is not possible. That is the basic condition -without which the proceedings cannot be carried out. So far, the -Defense has about 50,000 applications from the millions of members. -In order that the Tribunal should not draw the false conclusion that -the overwhelming majority of those affected admit their guilt by -remaining silent, I must emphasize that such guilt will be most -passionately denied by all those affected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall therefore go into the reasons why so few applications -have been submitted, and I shall show that this is not the fault of -those affected or the result of negligence. Not a lack of interest or -disrespect of the Court but rather certain clear facts are responsible -for this lack of response.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The announcement in the press and over the radio at the -beginning of the proceedings regarding the right to be heard was -made at a time when there were practically no newspapers in the -destroyed cities and radios were a rarity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, because of the paper shortage, it was made in small -print and for the most part was simply not understood. The Tribunal -ordered an announcement to be made in the internment -camps, where a great number of the people affected are concentrated. -To what extent this announcement actually was made, I -have not yet been able to determine. Mr. Justice Jackson showed -various documents this morning and from them I shall be able to -inform myself. The fact that so few applications have been made -gives cause for concern. But even those people who have obtained -knowledge of their right have apparently not been able as yet to -make applications to the Court. At the time of the announcement -there was no postal service between the various zones, and there -are still no postal connections with Austria, where there are probably -tens of thousands of men in custody.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the announcement to the organizations, because of the lack of -postal facilities, two additional ways were provided for submitting -<span class='pageno' title='403' id='Page_403'></span> -these applications. Both of them proved to be insufficient and are the -main reason why we have so few applications. Those members who -are not in custody were to submit their applications through the -nearest military office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I know of no case in which an application was made in this way. -The attempt to use this procedure failed because of the lack of -co-operation on the part of the offices. I could give an example -of this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The interned members were to submit their applications through -the commanding officer of their camp. Only in the case of a few -camps, weeks and months after the beginning of the Trial, were -applications, which had been made in November, received, and even -then only from some of the camps in the American and British zones -and from a camp in the United States. From the Soviet, Polish, and -French zones, as well as from Austria and other camps in foreign -countries where there are camps, no applications have as yet been -received, so far as I know. I shall leave it to the Tribunal to form -its opinion of these facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The uniformity of the circumstances shows, however, that it -cannot be the fault of the members of the organizations. Of the -many difficulties I should like to give only one striking example, -which will give an insight into the situation. In one camp about -4,000 members of various organizations asked in November 1945 to -be permitted to make use of their right. A few days ago I was told -in the camp by a guard officer that at that time no applications -were permitted since those in custody, according to the rules of the -camp, could not communicate with anyone outside the camp. An -army order would have been necessary for transmissions of the -applications, but there was no such order and present restrictions -were strictly adhered to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another reason for the nonarrival of applications is the fact that -those concerned feared certain disadvantages. There was the fear -that the CIC would take action against the applicants because of -their applications. This fear was inspired particularly by the fact -that the announcement of the right to make applications was accompanied -by the notice that the applicants would not be granted -immunity of any kind. The effect of this is seen particularly in the -case of those members not in custody, from whom only very few -applications have been received, and these very often submitted -anonymously or under false names.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would be welcome if the Tribunal could inform the public -that such fears are without foundation, and that the participation -of all is sought so that a false decision can be avoided. Thereby -the inadequacy of the present procedure for making applications -would be remedied. -<span class='pageno' title='404' id='Page_404'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>From all this it can be seen that the first stage of the making -of applications has already shown itself to be so inadequate that the -legal hearing is a mere illusion. But even those applications that -have been received are, with a few exceptions, worthless, and for -the following reasons: On the basis of the applications the Tribunal -is to decide whether persons should be heard. But for practical purposes -this can happen only if these applications state the reasons. -Such reasons are either entirely lacking in the applications or they -are useless. An application without contents or an application which -contains in the main mere asseverations and figures of speech can -form no basis for a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some of the applications do not even mention the official function -of the member in the organization or his civilian profession. This -faulty sort of application can obviously be traced back in the case -of the men in custody to an order issued by the camp commander -which permitted only collective or group applications or prescribed -certain forms to be followed. All those affected, whether in custody -or not, were not able to set out their reasons intelligently, because -those accused know only that their organization is said to have been -criminal, but they do not know in what this criminality consists. -Insofar as detailed statements were made, in single cases, they are -based on assumptions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to relieve the situation, Defense Counsel have visited -various camps known to them to clear up the matter and to get -practical information. I shall not go into the difficulties which had -to be overcome. I do not want to discuss the limitation placed on -the length of time that we could stay in the camp and similar -things; but I must mention that the visits to the camps have been -without success insofar as I have not yet received the sworn affidavits -and the other written statements of the members made subsequent -to our visit, although I know that in one case they were -handed over to the camp commander.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In these circumstances the fact is that today, 3 months after the -beginning of the Trial, the technical basis for the procedure for -hearing the members is not yet in existence. Defense Counsel for -the large organizations are also hardly in a position to make up -for this delay in a short period of time. On the other hand, the -actual material is extremely comprehensive, as in the case of the -political leaders, where there are about fifteen to twenty categories, -such as the Workers’ Front, Propaganda Section, Organization Section, -and so forth, which must be examined as to their functions and -as to their criminal character. None of this can be neglected, and -even the appearance of a less careful treatment must be avoided. -I shall not discuss the difficulties which confront the Defense Counsel -<span class='pageno' title='405' id='Page_405'></span> -as a result of the fact that Defense Counsel now for the first time -learn from the Prosecution of certain legal questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The members in custody are particularly interested that their -case be decided quickly. Nevertheless, I am compelled by prevailing -conditions to make a motion, namely, that the proceedings against -the groups and organizations that are to be declared criminal be -separated from the main trial and be carried out as a special subsequent -trial. This motion is also compatible with the particular -nature of the trial as I discussed it at the beginning of my remarks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to add to my motion a suggestion as to how the -legal hearing might be made possible. This proposal of mine is -occasioned by the proposal made this morning for carrying out the -hearing by means of a “master,” that is, I assume, a legal officer of -the Allied armies.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I cannot object too energetically to this suggestion. In my -opinion, it is one of the main rights of a Defense Counsel to collect -his own information, and it is the right of every defendant to speak -with his counsel. It would be incomprehensible that the Allies, who -are concerned with the prosecution, should at the same time work -for the Defense. One cannot expect that an officer, despite any -amount of objectivity, could be so objective in his feelings that he -would give information to the defendant and have an understanding -of the latter and his feelings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My proposal is this: That each camp should have a German -lawyer who receives his information from the main Defense -Counsel and instructs the members interned in the camp and -collects information. Then, in a relatively short period of time, a -selection of material can be made by the Defense Counsel—a -selection of the persons who can appear here as well as of the -material that can be submitted of the latter and his feelings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the proposal made here this morning by the Prosecution I see -an elimination of the Defense Counsel, and I should have to ponder -a long while as to what stand I, on behalf of the Defense, would -take to such a proposal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. RUDOLF MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Regarding the -general questions concerning the admissibility of declaring an -organization criminal, the technical procedure for the submission of -evidence, and the criminal character of the organizations in general, -I refer to what my colleagues Dr. Kubuschok and Dr. Servatius have -said. I have just a few additional statements to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding the question of applications, I can say from my own -experience that it has seemed strange to me, too, that the length of -time between the formulation of applications in the individual -camps and the arrival of these applications in the hands of the -Defense is so extremely long. -<span class='pageno' title='406' id='Page_406'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>To mention one example, a few days ago we received applications -from a camp in Schleswig-Holstein, some of which were drawn up -in November and December. I, myself, in order to get information, -sent letters to the camps. I sent them 5, 6, and 7 weeks ago and I -have so far received no answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Camp Hersbruck, for example, I know that in November an -application for a hearing, with reasons given in detail, is said to -have been sent by members of the SS and Gestapo to the Defense -Counsel—this has been confirmed to me by reliable sources. Neither -the Defense Counsel of the SS nor I have received this application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Very few applications have been received from members of the -Gestapo. In my opinion one of the reasons is that the far greater -number of internees doubtless do not know that they are being -represented and defended in this Trial, for the announcement sent -to the camps was made in November of last year. Defense Counsel -for the organizations were not appointed until the decision of -17 December 1945. The correctness of my opinion can be seen -conclusively, I believe, from the following: About three weeks ago -in a German newspaper, the <span class='it'>Neue Zeitung</span>, an article appeared -regarding this question of the organizations and in this article it -states, word for word: “The organizations, as is, of course, well-known, -are not represented in the Nuremberg Trial.” Thus, if not -even the press knows of the fact that Defense Counsel for the -organizations have been sitting here in the front row for months -and have often spoken here from the lectern, what can one expect -the individual internees, who are living in camps hermetically shut -off from contact with the rest of the world, to know about the facts -of the Defense? That is what has to be said on this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I, also, by the way take the point of view that the question -whether the organizations in their entirety can be indicted here is -an absolute <span class='it'>terra nova</span> in the history of jurisprudence and that it is -something which in its extent and its scope and in its effects shakes -the very foundations of jurisprudence. In addition, as has been -mentioned, organizations are to be judged which ceased to exist -almost a year ago. In the criminal procedure of all civilized countries -it is a basic condition that the defendant still be alive; proceedings -cannot take place against a dead defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Mr. Justice Jackson’s statements today, the organizations -of the Gestapo and SS, for example, are to be held -responsible for the liquidation of the Jews in the East; and it is -pointed out that because of the death of millions of Jews and the -impossibility of determining who the individual perpetrators were, -the organizations as such must be judged in order that the guilty be -punished. Of course, the Defense holds the conviction and takes the -point of view that the guilty must be punished, but only the guilty. -<span class='pageno' title='407' id='Page_407'></span> -It is a fact, for example, that an Einsatzgruppe of the SD, whose -task it was to solve the Jewish problem in the East, contained on the -average only about 250 members of the Gestapo. Considering the -total number of 45,000 to 50,000 members of the Gestapo, this figure -is thus a very small one. In the case of a general verdict against, -for instance, the Gestapo, more than 45,000 people would be affected -who had absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I refer to the -example of a mass murderer who cannot be captured, and whose -whole family is taken into custody in his stead and condemned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In view of the very important statements which have been made -today by the Prosecution regarding the question of the organizations, -I ask the Tribunal for permission, after the record has been received, -to state my attitude, if necessary, to just a few other points today; -first of all, to the question of the time during which the Gestapo is -to be considered criminal. In this connection I must assert that at -least until the year 1939 the Gestapo was a lawful, legally -established institution. It is also true that the Indictment refers to -crimes which can be charged to the Gestapo only after the autumn -of 1939, that is, after the beginning of the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Today the Prosecution have furthermore excluded secretarial and -office workers from the Indictment. I am in agreement with this. -It is in accordance with the motion made by me already in December. -I submit further that not only the secretarial and office personnel -but also all other employees be excepted, because the reason for -dropping the charges against the office personnel is doubtless that -the Prosecution are convinced that this office personnel had nothing -to do with the crimes of which the Gestapo is accused.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It should also be considered whether the administrative officials -of the Gestapo, who represented about 70 percent of the personnel -of the Gestapo, should be excluded from the Indictment. All of the -500 applications received so far are from such administrative officials. -These officials were trained only in the field of administration. They -had neither the training nor the knowledge for the making of -criminal investigators. They could not be used for the execution of -any criminal actions, because they had no executive power. They -were active only in matters of personnel and finance—personnel -matters such as the appointment of officials, promotions, dismissals, -and so forth; matters of finance such as the administering of budget -funds, figuring out and compiling salary and wage lists, renting of -offices, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. These are all things which have nothing to do with -executive power, and especially not with the crimes imputed to the -Gestapo by the Prosecution. In my opinion these people are just as -entitled to exemption as the secretarial and office personnel, who -have already been exempted by the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='408' id='Page_408'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to touch briefly on one other point of view, that is, -the question of voluntary joining of an organization—a question -which has played an important role. On 7 June 1945 Mr. Justice -Jackson, in his statement to the President of the United States, said, -among other things, the following: Units such as the Gestapo and -SS were fighting units and consisted of volunteers—people especially -suited for and fanatically inclined to the plans of violence of these -units. To what extent that is true of the SS, I do not know. As -far as the Gestapo is concerned, it certainly is not true, for the -Gestapo was a State organization founded by the Defendant Göring -on the basis of the law of 23 April 1933. It was a police authority -just as was the Criminal Police whose duty it was to track down -crimes or the Regular Police who were responsible for controlling -traffic. The personnel consisted mostly of life-long career officials, -some of whom had been in the police service many years before the -creation of the Gestapo, and who, when this police organization was -created and in the ensuing years, were ordered to, detailed to, or -transferred to this police authority. According to the German law -affecting civil servants these officials were obliged to follow such -orders. They had never come voluntarily to the Gestapo. At the -most there might perhaps have been 1 percent who were voluntary -members; but 99 percent of the members were forcibly ordered on -the basis of this law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is what I have to say at the moment. I should like, however, -to reserve for myself the right to speak some time later about today’s -discussions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 1 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='409' id='Page_409'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-FIRST DAY</span><br/> Friday, 1 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: At the conclusion of the argument on the -organizations, which the Tribunal anticipates will finish before the -end of today’s session, the Tribunal will adjourn into closed session. -Tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock the Tribunal will sit in open -session for consideration of the applications for witnesses and documents -by the second four defendants. Will the defendant’s counsel -who was in the middle of his argument now continue? Dr. Merkel, -had you finished?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MERKEL: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARTIN LÖFFLER (Counsel for the SA): May it please the -Tribunal: The objections and misgivings expressed yesterday by the -Defense regarding the criminal proceedings against the six accused -organizations are particularly applicable when judging the SA.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No other organization is so much exposed to the danger of a sentence -contrary to our sense of justice as is the SA. I ask the Tribunal’s -permission to submit the reasons for this fact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The demand of the Prosecution that the SA should be declared -a criminal organization affects at least 4 million people at a conservative -estimate. The limitation according to groups approved -yesterday by Justice Jackson was gratifying and welcome; but it -will have no appreciable effect on the numbers since the groups -eliminated yesterday, the armed SA units and the bearers of the -SA Sports Badge, were not full members of the SA. The only -persons so far eliminated, therefore, are the SA Reserves. As no -limitation according to time was made, these criminal proceedings -will include everyone who ever belonged to the SA, even for a very -short time, during the 24 years between its establishment in 1921 -and its dissolution in 1945, that is to say, during a period of almost -a quarter of a century.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We heard yesterday from the Prosecution that the criminal acts -charged to the organizations are the same as those charged to the -main defendants, namely, Crimes against Peace, crimes against the -laws or customs of war, and Crimes against Humanity, as well as -participation in the common conspiracy. -<span class='pageno' title='410' id='Page_410'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we now contemplate the possible participation of these 4 million -former SA men in these four important categories of crime, -we get the following picture:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Crimes against the laws or customs of war are not charged to -the SA. It is true that the Prosecution presented an affidavit saying -that the SA also took part in guarding concentration camps and -prisoner-of-war camps and in supervising forced labor; but, according -to the presentation of the Prosecution, this did not occur until -1944 within the framework of the total war raging at that time, and -it has not been charged that this activity of the SA involved any -excesses or ill-treatment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In none of the atrocities reported here by witnesses and documents -did the SA with its 4 million members participate. The few -offenses against humanity charged to the SA by the Prosecution -and committed by individual members in the course of almost a -quarter of a century can in no way be compared with the serious -crimes against humanity of which we have heard here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The occupation of the trade-union buildings by the SA, adduced -by the Prosecution as another point, took place on the order of -Reichsleiter Ley, who used the SA for this operation, and this -happened after the seizure of power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even the Prosecution did not assert that any outrages, ill-treatment, -or excesses occurred when this operation was carried out. The -fact that in connection with the seizure of power in the spring of -1933 individual excesses occurred, and that the American citizens -Rosemann and Klauber, according to the affidavits submitted by the -Prosecution, were beaten on this occasion is certainly regrettable. -However, such excesses on the part of individual persons are -unavoidable in organizations comprising millions of people and, -considered by themselves, are hardly proper grounds for declaring -the entire organization criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The participation, finally, of the SA as guard troops in concentration -camps is, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, -restricted to single exceptions and ended anyway in 1934. The -commandant of the Concentration Camp Oranienburg, according to -the presentation of the Prosecution, was an SA Führer. However -it is not asserted that he committed any atrocities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second case, the ill-treatment of prisoners in the camp of -Hohnstein by SA and SS members in 1934 led to criminal proceedings -and the SA men guilty were sentenced to imprisonment of -up to 6 years.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As a last individual act there remains the participation of the SA -in the excesses during the night of 10 and 11 November 1938, when -the windows of Jewish stores were broken and the synagogues were -burned. Here, too, the plan and the order did not originate with the -<span class='pageno' title='411' id='Page_411'></span> -SA. The SA was simply commissioned by the highest Party leadership -to carry out this order. Finally if we consider that during the -political struggles of 1921 to 1933 the old SA was involved in -brawls—often purely defensive—with political opponents and that -it did not develop into an organization with millions of members -until after the seizure of power, we arrive at the following conclusion, -expressed in figures:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of the presentation of the Prosecution at most -2 percent of all the indicted former SA members participated in -punishable individual actions; 98 percent of the 4 millions, according -to their conviction, kept their hands clean of any such punishable -individual acts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Here, too, the Prosecution will not want to insist that the -excesses of these 2 percent considered by themselves should brand -the entire organization as criminal. These 98 percent, that is in -round numbers 3,900,000 former SA members, must nevertheless -defend themselves here against the charge of having participated in -the preparation of the war of aggression or in the planning or -execution of the common conspiracy, or, formulated more strongly, -against the charge of having belonged to organizations which -pursued these criminal purposes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What is the result if we apply the definition of the criminal -nature of an organization as formulated yesterday by Justice Jackson -and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The SA members will acknowledge that the criteria under Points -1 and 2 as defined yesterday are also true for the SA, namely, that -the SA was an aggregation of numerous persons with collective aims -and a membership which was voluntary in principle. However, they -will strenuously deny the application of the Criteria 3, 4, and 5. -Point 3 requires that the organization pursued objectively criminal -aims in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. The millions of members, -if testifying here, would state that neither in the programs nor -in the speeches of their leaders had they been called upon to pursue -such criminal aims or methods. Whether the leaders of the SA -pursued such criminal aims in secret or not these people are not in -a position to judge. Whether such criminal aims were pursued -secretly by the leadership of the SA can be determined only by the -Tribunal, and only now when the archives have been opened, -witnesses can testify, and the documents are laid open to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Point 4 of the Prosecution’s definition, if I understood -Justice Jackson correctly yesterday, requires, beyond this, as an -element of crime involving subjective guilt, that the aims and -methods of this organization were of such character that a reasonable, -normal man may properly be charged with knowledge of them. -<span class='pageno' title='412' id='Page_412'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like at this point to emphasize particularly that I, in -agreement with my colleagues, do not consider this definition an -adequate protection, since it means that a member may be punished -even if he did not recognize the criminal nature of the organization -but ought to have recognized it by application of reasonable care. -I know of no system of penal law in any modern civilized state -which holds that negligence, even of a gross or serious nature, is -sufficient to constitute guilt of an infamous common crime, that is, -of a crime belonging to the group of severest offenses. A crime of -this category can be committed only with intention. Perhaps the -Prosecution can later discuss this question on the basis of their -knowledge of the particulars of Anglo-Saxon and other foreign legal -systems.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This point seems of particular importance to me because—if it is -neglected—there is the danger that the judges, particularly the -Anglo-Saxon judges, will apply the political standards of their -countries to German conditions. The sober political instinct that is -characteristic of the citizens of England and America is nonexistent -in the Germans. We are a politically immature people, credulous, -and consequently especially susceptible to political misguidance. The -Court should not overlook this dissimilarity when passing its -judgment on the good faith of the individual members of the -organizations. According to the impressions which the Defense of -the SA has received to date from its visits to camps and from -numerous letters, the majority of SA members are convinced that -they did not belong to any criminal organization. Among other -reasons are the following subjective ones:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was generally known and has been specifically stated in the -<span class='it'>Organization Book</span> of the Party—Document 1893-PS, Page 365—that -only a person whose character was unobjectionable could join -the SA. It is further stated verbatim, and I quote: “Unobjectionable -reputation and no criminal record.” The members of the SA maintain -that they know of no case in which a gang of criminals or -conspirators required in their statutes similar conditions for -membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Part of the essence of a conspiracy is the idea that its criminal -aims be kept secret from its opponents. An organization of several -millions is, by its very nature, not suited to carrying out a plot. The -leaders of the SA emphasized in numerous addresses that they -wanted to maintain peace under all circumstances. They pointed -out that Germany would be rather a danger to European peace if -she were without defense and arms in the heart of Europe and that -being in a state of preparedness was the best guarantee for securing -future peace in Europe. The simple members point again and again -to the fact that foreign powers gave diplomatic recognition to the -<span class='pageno' title='413' id='Page_413'></span> -leaders of National Socialism. They consider this fact not simply -an act of “international courtesy” but are convinced that foreign -governments would not have entered into relations with the German -Government if that German Government had consisted of open -criminals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might mention a particularly characteristic example: the Indictment -against the SA is substantiated by a number of documents. -These are Documents 2822- and 2823-PS. According to these documents, -as early as May 1933 Lieutenant Colonel Auleb, a deputy of -the Reich War Ministry of that time, was detailed to the high -command of the SA in order to assure liaison between the heads of -the two organizations. But the whole affair is treated as strictly -secret, and it is ordered that Auleb should wear the SA uniform for -the purpose of “camouflage.” How, I ask, should or could a simple -SA member have known anything of such affairs? I have mentioned -here only a few points put forward by SA members which, in the -opinion of the Defense, do not constitute unfounded subterfuges, but -which show that the majority of these people never thought of -participating in a criminal conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Also the fifth criterion set up yesterday by the Prosecution to -define a criminal organization—the close connection between the -main defendants and the SA—is in the case of no organization so -difficult to prove as in the case of the SA. This may, at first, sound -surprising; of the main defendants here, six were high-ranking -members of the SA. Nevertheless, a closer scrutiny shows that there -were no close connections at all. Except for Göring, none of the -main defendants ever exercised command authority over the entire -SA. The rank which these main defendants had in the SA was an -honorary rank; and, so to speak, merely decorative. Consequently, -the Prosecution has mentioned only Göring’s connection with the -SA in its recent list of the criminal elements. But even Göring’s -connection with the SA curiously enough is very slight and is -actually confined to a period of three quarters of a year—that is—9 -months, namely, from February 1923 to 9 November 1923, that is -to say, 23 years ago. Göring was never, as stated in Appendix A -of the Indictment, Reichsführer of the SA. That is an error. Rather, -in February 1923 Göring was commissioned to take over the command -of the then existing Party group for the protection of -meetings—the so-called Sturmabteilung. Göring led the SA until the -November Putsch of 9 November 1923. On that day his command -power over the SA came to an end and was never revived. Later -Göring was given by Hitler honorary command of the unit Feldherrnhalle. -He was the honorary commander, not the active commander -of this unit. I believe the difference between honorary and -active command of a regiment is known in all states. I do not have -<span class='pageno' title='414' id='Page_414'></span> -to give any further explanation. Honorary command has a purely -decorative significance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The task which the SA had to carry out under Göring in the -year 1923 was the protection of meetings. Anyway, it cannot be -charged that at that time the SA, in co-operation with Göring, -already planned the crimes stated in Article 6 of the Charter or that -these aims could have been anticipated at that time in any tangible -form. Neither can it be charged that Göring ever made use of the -SA after 1923 for carrying out any criminal plan. The man who led -the SA from 1930 to 1934, Ernst Röhm, was an embittered opponent -of Göring’s. After his death the SA was led by Victor Lutze from -1934 to 1943 and from 1943 until its dissolution, by Wilhelm -Schepmann.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, an organization -can be declared criminal only in connection with any act of -which a main defendant may be convicted. From a legal and factual -point of view I have the gravest doubts as to whether the facts of -the case in 1923, as described by me, are sufficient to comply with -the requirements of the Charter as far as the SA is concerned. This -could be done only if the Tribunal had reason now to pass sentence -on Göring’s activity as leader of the SA group for protecting -meetings 23 years ago, including the November Putsch, as a special -crime. This, however, would be at variance with the fact that this -entire action was settled with legal effect by the amnesty of the -democratic Reich Government, whereby the matter was, at the time, -disposed of in this fashion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, if it is a fact in the case of any -organization, then certainly it is a fact in the case of the SA, that -its being listed among the criminal organizations is contrary to the -real picture. Large circles abroad, particularly those who were -forced to leave Germany in 1933, knew nothing of the complete -change of structure which the SA underwent during the following -years. The foreign countries heard at every Reichstag session the -traditional song, “The SA Marches,” while, as a matter of fact, the -SA had long since lost all political influence and had been transformed -<span class='it'>en masse</span> into an association with a huge membership, the -very size of which rendered it harmless as far as conspiracy was -concerned and which showed all the characteristics of the so-called -German club-mindedness. I refer in full here to the statements made -by Colonel Storey, himself, in his speech for the Prosecution. This -is on Page 1546 of the Court’s Record (Volume IV, Page 138). The -organization through which the SA was then eliminated from -political life was, as is well known, the SS, and this happened on -the occasion of the so-called Röhm Putsch in 1934. That, indeed, -the SA and SS always confronted each other like rival brothers is -a fact which, in the interest of truth, should not remain unmentioned. -<span class='pageno' title='415' id='Page_415'></span> -For all these reasons the SA is judged on a completely different -basis, even by German opponents of National Socialism; and this -has already led to contradictory results, the speedy elimination of -which by the Prosecution or the Court would be highly desirable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At this opportunity the following facts should be pointed out: -The SA, up to the higher ranks, is not, as a matter of principle, -subject to arrest, which is at variance with probably all the other -organizations. The new denazification law which recently came into -force after thorough consultation between German circles and the -Military Government and which is now the law in force throughout -the entire American Zone, regards all SA members of a rank lower -than that of Sturmführer neither as active Nazis nor much less as -criminals. According to the electoral procedure now in force in the -American Zone of Occupation, which recently was the basis for -elections in thousands of German communities under the directives -of the Military Government, the ordinary SA members, insofar as -they were not Party members, were not only permitted to vote, but -were also eligible for election. The same people who are before the -Court accused of serious crimes may at the same time, according to -the law in force, be elected as community councillors, and, in fact, -are being so elected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I talked personally about two weeks ago to an SA man and -asked him whether, following the notice of the Court, he had -reported here for interrogation. He declared that he saw no reason -for doing that, because in the meantime he had been elected and -approved as community councillor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The regulations of Law Number 30, regarding the application of -the German community order of 20 December 1945, namely, Articles -36 and 37, which show that SA men are eligible for election, -also confirm the fact, which is known in Germany, but apparently -not in foreign countries, that an ordinary Party member had—only -by comparison, naturally—a more active political position than the -completely uninfluential SA member. Whoever was a Party member -before 1937 cannot vote, and whoever at any time was a Party -member cannot be elected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A comparison of Party members, who are not indicted here, and -SA members, who are indicted here, shows the following facts:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If at the time of National Socialism one was politically incriminated -or suspected one could, without difficulty, become an SA -member but under no circumstances a Party member, because in -regard to Party membership—and even ordinary Party membership—much -higher political qualifications were required than in the -case of SA members. There were certainly many SA members who -joined this organization only to escape to some extent the persecution -they had to expect because of their incriminating political -record in the past. -<span class='pageno' title='416' id='Page_416'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, I have tried by means of these -examples to show the extraordinary danger existing in the particular -case of the SA, if all its members, including its millions of ordinary -SA men, are legally declared criminals by the Tribunal. I am sorry -I cannot share the opinion expressed yesterday by Justice Jackson -that the verdict sought from this Court would be a purely declaratory -one with no penalties involved. On the contrary I know that -hundreds and thousands of SA members, who were simple followers -and were not even Party members, have been dismissed from their -positions, and their future and their existence will depend on the -verdict of this Court. A declaratory judgment of this Court is -sufficient to make them outlaws and to exclude them from positions -and professions in the future. Therefore the members of the SA -are correct in pointing out that they are denied the right of judicial -hearing. There is no direct evidence and no direct trial. A court -does not decide the fate of lifeless creatures of the law or formal -organizations that have long since ceased to exist; it passes judgment -on living human beings, and no court should forego the opportunity -of seeing in person those whom it is trying. A good judge is always -a good psychologist and soon can tell what kind of person is on -trial—whether he is a criminal or somebody who has been deceived -and misled.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No law on earth since time immemorial ever allowed the passing -of judgment against an organization instead of against its single -members. The laws and precedents quoted yesterday by the Prosecution -regarding criminal gangs and conspiracy certainly recognize -to a large extent the collective responsibility for acts of accomplices, -but two requirements must be fulfilled there too: Firstly, the -member must know that he is party to a criminal conspiracy or -criminal association; secondly, the indictment is not directed against -the conspiracy as such, and the conspiracy will not be judged, but -the persons of the individual participants. It is the conviction of -the Defense that the Charter did not intend to stand in contradiction -to these legal principles of all states.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The late President Roosevelt, whom Justice Jackson named the -spiritual father of the Charter, has in his great speeches, particularly -in those of 25 October 1941 and 7 October 1942, stated clearly that -the leaders and instigators shall be called to account. Permit me, -Mr. President, to read two sentences from the speech by President -Roosevelt taken from the official collection, <span class='it'>Speeches and Essays by -President Roosevelt</span>, published on order of the government of the -United States.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote from the speech of 25 October 1941:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Civilized peoples long ago adopted the basic principle that -no man should be punished for the deed of another.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='417' id='Page_417'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second quotation is from the speech of President Roosevelt -on 7 October 1942, and I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The number of persons eventually found guilty will undoubtedly -be extremely small compared to the total enemy -populations. It is not the intention of this Government or of -the Governments associated with us to resort to mass reprisals. -It is our intention that just and sure punishment -shall be meted out to the ringleaders responsible for the -organized murder of thousands of innocent persons and the -commission of atrocities which have violated every tenet -of the Christian faith.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to these fundamental objections to such a separation -of the proceedings there is also an important technical objection. -If the Tribunal passes a declaratory judgment against the organizations, -as requested, all these millions of members of the -organizations will automatically become outlaws pending the definite -legal decision in the subsequent trials. Until that date every -individual is under serious suspicion of being a criminal, since it -is questionable whether he will succeed in exonerating himself in -the subsequent trial. Since, however, an individual person, without -such exoneration will probably not be able to return to his -profession—and will also be excluded from the ranks of honorable -citizens until he is exonerated—the right to have such a subsequent -trial should not be denied to him. I believe that Justice Jackson -will agree with me in this. But if, as desired by the Prosecution, -7 million members of organizations, according to a conservative -estimate, are affected by the declaratory judgment of the Tribunal -and thus temporarily become outlaws, then millions of subsequent -trials will have to take place. We shall have to assume that in the -course of 1 year, perhaps 100,000 trials can be completed. I believe -that this is a very optimistic estimate, as our German courts will -not be able to participate; it is well known that they are completely -overworked since they have now only a small portion of their -former personnel. Of these millions of cases, the courts will -probably have to deal first with those of the most criminal nature. -The accused, whose existence is at stake, will defend themselves -during the subsequent trials with all legal means at their disposal. -There is the danger that the really innocent people will have to -wait for many years, even for decades, before they will have an -opportunity to rehabilitate themselves through a process of exoneration. -I believe that it would have been possible to find some sort -of solution. For instance, if the Control Council had passed a law -to the effect that, since there is the suspicion that offenses and -crimes against peace and humanity have been committed with the -aid of these organizations, the courts have the right and the duty -<span class='pageno' title='418' id='Page_418'></span> -to try those of whom it can be proved that they participated in -these crimes as principals or accessories in some way or other—if -such a formula could be found, then I believe that both the Prosecution -and the Defense would consider that a just solution. The -effect would be limited to those who are actually guilty. The -Defense objects in no way to the punishment of those who are -actually guilty, provided that their guilt is determined in regular -unobjectionable proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Should the Court, however, adhere to a verdict against the -organizations, as requested by the Prosecution, then I request for -all the reasons adduced, arising as they do from the presentation -of the Prosecution and from the impressions made by those applications -which have been filed, that judgment not be passed against -the entire SA. The point of view brought forward by Justice -Jackson in the case of the other organizations, namely, that in the -face of so many murders and atrocities the individual members -of an organization can no longer be determined as perpetrators, this -point of view, noteworthy as it is, does not apply to the SA. The -few excesses which, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, -took place here, happened in Germany in public. The -perpetrators are known. Some regional courts have already opened -proceedings of this kind. I have heard, for example, that the city -of Bamberg has opened proceedings against the destroyers of the -synagogue there and against the perpetrators of the action of 10 -and 11 November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But should the Tribunal be of the opinion that judgment is -nevertheless to be passed against the SA as an organization, then -I ask the Tribunal as far as possible to make use of the right to -provide certain limitations in regard to periods of time and categories -of members, as both the Prosecution and the Defense agree -that the Tribunal has the power to make such limitations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Very important distinctions are to be made here, first as to the -different periods of time. The SA men who joined the SA after -the seizure of power in 1933 joined an organization that on its face -bore the stamp of approval by the state. Admittedly not even a -state authority can declare crimes against humanity legal; but -when weighing the degree of guilt and the severity of the penalty -it is, nevertheless, of considerable importance whether the perpetrator -acted outside the bounds of the laws in force and committed -offenses against the positive law, or whether his acts, although -they may offend a higher moral order, are not contrary to the laws -of his country. Therefore an exemption should be made at any rate -of all those SA members who joined after 1933, and who can be -proved to have had no part in the events of 10 and 11 November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In regard to categories, I urgently request, in the interest of -justice, a double limitation: -<span class='pageno' title='419' id='Page_419'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. Simple SA members up to the rank of Sturmführer should be -exempted at any rate and, if possible, very soon. I mentioned -previously why this appears imperative in the interests of justice, -at least in the American Zone. Perhaps—and I should welcome -this tremendously—Justice Jackson would have the kindness to pay -special attention to this matter once more. The idea of such -limitation is also supported by the fact that it would considerably -reduce the numbers by eliminating the simple followers; and in -this way the technical difficulties, which seem almost insurmountable, -would also be considerably simplified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. It was gratifying that the Prosecution yesterday agreed to -separate proceedings against the SA Wehrmannschaften, the bearers -of the SA Sports Badge, and the members of the SA Reserve—or -rather, to exempt them altogether. In the interest of equality and -justice as recognized by the law and by this Tribunal, it would be -fair to separate from the SA all those special sport units which had -only a loose organizational connection with the SA. These are the -Navy SA (Marine-SA) and the Cavalry SA (Reiter-SA).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are a number of applications before the Court, and it is -well known in Germany to everybody involved that these particular -units were exclusively devoted to their respective sports, namely, -sailing and rowing on the one hand, and horsemanship and holding -of tournaments on the other hand. When in 1933 the Party came -to power, it attempted to take charge of all sport activities in -Germany. Consequently, the various navy clubs and the so-called -country riding clubs became affiliated with the Party, but both -clubs had hardly anything to do with the political SA, even after -their regrouping. Only their chiefs were, according to the organizational -system, subordinate to the SA. They are very well suited -for separate proceedings because they constituted a completely -closed group within the SA.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>None of the main defendants present here was ever a member -of one of these sport groups. Members of the Cavalry SA feel that -they are at a particular disadvantage because the Prosecution has -not indicted the NS Kraftfahrkorps (National Socialist Motor Corps) -and the NS Fliegerkorps (National Socialist Flier Corps), which -is perfectly justified, since it is known that they were by nature -sport organizations. The NS Kraftfahrkorps and the NS Fliegerkorps -were, however, until the year 1934, exactly like the Reiterkorps, -sport divisions of the SA. The NS Kraftfahrkorps succeeded in -gaining organizational independence since 1934 or 1935, due to the -political influence of its leader Hühnlein. The NS Fliegerkorps also -succeeded in doing so. The NS Reiterkorps, however, did not have -such influence and merely succeeded in 1936 in being recognized -as an independent NS Reiterkorps; but it still remained formally -<span class='pageno' title='420' id='Page_420'></span> -connected through its leadership with the SA, since Litzmann, the -Chief of the Reiterkorps, was subordinate to the Chief of the SA. -For this purely formal reason about 100,000 farmers and farmhands -who enjoyed education in horsemanship through these country -riding clubs are indicted here. It can be proved that they never -took part in politics or in any activities against Jews or people of -other beliefs. Likewise a pursuit of militaristic aims is out of -question in the case of the Cavalry SA. Already after the First -World War it was evident that the horse had no further role in -war. This charge would rather be in point as far as the Kraftfahrkorps -and the Fliegerkorps are concerned. The Prosecution stated -correctly that these organizations were by nature predominantly -sport organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For this reason I should be grateful to the Prosecution if they -would once more examine the cases I have mentioned in order to -find out whether or not the same conditions exist in this case as -in the case of the SA Reserve and the armed SA units.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As the last group I mention the SA university units (SA Hochschulstürme), -because they were almost without exception obligatory -organizations for those students who would not have been admitted -to the state examinations without a record of activity in such -organizations. The same thing applies to the SA health units (SA -Sanitätsstürme), which represented an obligatory activity for many -physicians who were applying for positions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to correct myself on one point, because it has been -called to my attention that I wanted to set a time limit for those -SA members joining after 1933. I should have said, “after 30 January -1933,” the day of the seizure of power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the hearing -of SA members. Most of the members of the SA are free. If only -a few so far have written to the Court, this is almost exclusively -due to the fact that, since the SA in this country is generally -considered inoffensive, they can hardly imagine that a Court with -the experience and the high standing of this Tribunal could reach -a decision which would differ from public opinion. Should the -Court, however, adhere to its conception of the SA, then I should -like to support the suggestion made yesterday by the Prosecution -to the effect that the notice be published once more for the members -to make an effort to defend their interests. However, I share the -opinion of counsel for the Leadership Corps, that it would not serve -the interests of the proceedings if the direct contact between the -Defense Counsel and his client were destroyed. In the case of the -SA men who are free, a technically simple method could be used -by having the main Defense Counsel in Nuremberg appoint deputies, -preferably lawyers, in every province, for example, Baden, Bavaria, -and Württemberg. The provincial press should make mention of -<span class='pageno' title='421' id='Page_421'></span> -these men. Every individual member of an organization could, -with the help of these lawyers, answer by means of an affidavit -those questions which the Court has found to be relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In a very gratifying manner the American Chief Prosecutor -stated yesterday, if I understood him correctly, that in the trial of -the organizations, because of its fateful importance for millions of -people, the principle of justice is much more important than the -question of speedy proceedings. I should therefore like to join in -the request made by Counsel for the Leadership Corps, that the -trial of the organizations, which is to be regarded from different -points of view, be separated from the trial of the main defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Members of the Tribunal, I am at the conclusion of my remarks. -I should like, however, to reply to the words, words worth heeding, -spoken by Justice Jackson yesterday at the beginning of his address. -He said that for the first time in history a modern state had completely -collapsed, and that this surrender created for the victorious nations -completely novel problems; that one of the most important tasks -was to destroy the structure of those organizations and to prevent -this country forever from waging wars of aggression or carrying -out pogroms. All people of good will must sincerely welcome this -aim and support Justice Jackson. It is, however, questionable -whether the right way toward that end is to defame all members -of organizations as such, involving millions of people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the Tribunal to consider that there is hardly a family in -this country which did not have near relatives in some one of these -organizations at some time. The organizations are dead, the system -of terror and falsehood has disintegrated, millions of misled and -deceived people have turned away from their leaders and seducers. -But if they find themselves ostracized and stigmatized along with -them the effect might easily be the opposite of that which we all -hope for.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson correctly pointed out in his speech yesterday -that the Control Council will possibly change the method of -denazification used so far, which has been rather mechanical, and -make it more individual. Present experience that mechanical treatment -evokes the feeling of injustice and thereby a false solidarity, -might contribute to this. The millions of simple misled camp -followers of the organizations would consider such a verdict an -act of revenge rather than a manifestation of justice. The ringleaders, -however, could conceal their actual guilt behind the backs -of millions of people. The educational and corrective effect of a -verdict as well as the idea of just atonement would consequently -be weakened.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='422' id='Page_422'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÖFFLER: I ask the Tribunal that I be permitted to make -one more remark.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my previous request I did not ask for the exemption of one -particular group, namely, the Stahlhelm; this was only because, -according to my information, the Stahlhelm was transferred in its -entirety to the SA Reserve after the seizure of power and therefore, -in my opinion, is included in the declaration made yesterday by -Justice Jackson exempting the SA Reserve.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: May it please the Tribunal, I should have considered -it appropriate in the interest of a speedy trial that the -Defense not answer the inquiries of the Tribunal and reply to the -arguments of the Prosecution until they have received in writing -the extensive and important arguments of the Prosecution and are -thereby in a position to deal with the whole complex of problems -comprehensively and conclusively.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Since a number of Defense Counsel for the organizations have -already spoken, I feel prompted to do the same, insofar as I am -in a position to do so at this time and consider it necessary and -appropriate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal desire to have a discussion in order to define the -legal concept of the criminal organization and desire in particular -to examine the question of which qualifying elements of a factual -nature are necessary in order to declare an organization criminal. -The Defense believe that a final and basic definition of this concept, -which is entirely new to any legal system, can be given only at the -end of the proceedings by means of a special hearing of evidence -after all necessary factual information has been collected and -examined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution have already presented a definition, which, -however, raises very serious objections, because it is derived from -legal ideas which have grown in countries other than Germany, -under different conditions and circumstances, and which involve -far less important legal consequences than those now considered -by the Tribunal, the public opinion of the world, the German people -and jurisprudence, and jurisdiction in general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The organizations now indicted are mostly large mass organizations, -without aims and ideas of their own, organizations whose -Party-political aims and purposes and Party activities developed to -national dimensions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A just and pertinent definition can be found for these organizations -only on the basis of the evidence to be presented concerning -the nature and aims of these organizations and the knowledge, -intentions, and activities of their members. Considering the basic -difference of the organizations which have been and are now being -investigated, it is more than questionable whether it will be possible -<span class='pageno' title='423' id='Page_423'></span> -to take the legal basis applied so far to single cases as a basis for -proceedings against political organizations comprising millions of -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution and the Defense are probably agreed that the -Indictment is actually not directed against the organizations, which -do not exist any more anyhow, but in fact against the former -membership. Likewise the opinion seems to be held unanimously -that the Tribunal as a matter of principle will give the members an -actual opportunity, not only a theoretical one, to be heard on the -question of the criminal character of the organizations; that follows -all the more since, according to Law Number 10, the possibility -seems to be excluded that the members may make essential objections -in regard to the organizations and their own person during -the subsequent individual trials. If the Tribunal does not measure -the responsibility of the entire organization on the basis of the -responsibility of the individuals comprising it, the danger of collective -liability arises, which would create such a degree of injustice -affecting individuals in such a way that it would be much worse -than the justly attacked Sippenhaftung of the Third Reich, which -in a criminal way aimed at involving innocent members of the -family in proceedings taken against any one of its members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to define a criminal organization, evidence and information -as to the knowledge, intentions, and actions of the members -of the organizations must be provided; similarly, before convicting -individuals, either singly or in the mass, justice and human dignity -alike demand that they should each be informed of the indictment -and should each have an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. -This requirement is imperative in view of the serious legal consequence -threatening the members of the organizations in case of -a verdict against them, such as loss of property, long-term imprisonment, -and even the death penalty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Last but not least, the hearing of all members of the organizations -is also necessary because the unrestricted compilation of -judicial evidence appears to be inevitable in order to work out the -legal definition of criminal character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense do not ignore the fact that, considering the scope -of the Trial, these basic demands are confronted with tremendous -difficulties. The scope of the Trial, however, should not reduce the -thoroughness of the procedure but, on the contrary, should increase it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, there are businessmen who are -owners of several firms. If, now, the owner uses one of these firms -to commit criminal acts, can we say that the other firms and their -employees are also criminal? On the basis of this principle, I -consider it necessary to point out which organizations, according to -<span class='pageno' title='424' id='Page_424'></span> -the reasons given by the Prosecution so far, are affected by the -Indictment as units of the SS. They are:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The General SS—strength at the beginning of the war, about -350,000 men. This number includes the variety of special units like -cavalry, motor, information, music, and medical units.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. The Waffen-SS, of which, at the end of the war, there were -still under arms about 600,000 men. In the over-all number of -Waffen-SS must be included about 36 divisions of the combat troops -and a large number of reserve units of the reserve of the Armed -Forces, as well as all those who were discharged from the Waffen-SS -or who left in some other way. The verdict in this Trial would -also affect the honor of the dead and the fate of their surviving -relatives, so that the dead also will have to be included in this -number which demonstrates the far-reaching significance of this -Trial. Consequently, the total number of members of the Waffen-SS, -especially when including those discharged as unfit for war service, -would be many times larger than the figure representing the final -strength.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of investigations under way the Defense will submit -still more accurate figures, unless this is to be done by the Prosecution, -which in my opinion ought to submit to the Court the information -necessary for a verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. The Death’s-Head Units—before 1939, about 6,000 men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. SS troops for special employment, including the Adolf Hitler -Bodyguard—before 1939, about 9,000 men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. Honorary Führer of the SS, whose number will probably turn -out to be very large, as, for instance, the Farmer Leaders (Bauernführer) -of the Reich Food Estate down to the District Farmer -Leaders (Kreisbauernführer) were for the most part appointed -honorary Führer of the SS. Similar conditions prevail with respect -to the chiefs of several branches of the state administration, who -were often made honorary Führer of the SS without any initiative -on their part and without being able to do anything about it. -Likewise many leaders of the Reich Veterans’ League received -honorary ranks in the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>6. The “supporting members” of the SS, among whom were also -many non-Party members; their number is not yet known but it -is certainly very considerable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>7. SS Front Line Auxiliaries of the Reich Post Office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>8. SS Construction Units.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>9. SS Front laborers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>10. The entire Regular Police, to which belonged:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) The Municipal Police of the Reich with several special units, -such as traffic squads, accident squads, information, cavalry, police -<span class='pageno' title='425' id='Page_425'></span> -dog squads, radio, and medical units; (b) the Gendarmerie with -innumerable stations and posts, distributed all over the country, -even in the smallest villages, which had rendered service without -essential changes since Napoleon’s time—the motorized Gendarmerie -supervised traffic; (c) the Municipal Police of smaller communities; -(d) the Water Police; (e) the Fire Police; (f) the Technical Auxiliary -Police Units, the Technical Emergency Service. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, you are going rather fast if you -want us to take down these categories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I shall submit a copy to the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Personally, I prefer to understand the -argument when I hear it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: I repeat: (f) the Technical Emergency Service, -the Compulsory, Industrial, and Voluntary Fire Brigades; (g) Police -and Gendarmerie Reserves; (h) the Air Raid Police, with security -and auxiliary service; (i) the Town and Country Guard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, there belonged to the Regular Police a great many -central institutions, such as the State Hospital for Police, the Police -Officers’ Schools, the Technical Police School, the Police Sports and -Cavalry Schools, Police and Gendarmerie Schools, the Water Police -School and the Reich Fire Brigade School, the Driving and Traffic -Schools, the Air Raid Precautions Teaching Staff, the School and -Experimental Station for Police Dogs, and the Horse Depot of the -Police.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In 1942 all the above-named units of the Regular Police, including -the police troop units, totaled about 570,000 men. If we -follow the presentation of the Prosecution, then all the groups, -institutions, and organizations enumerated so far belong to the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>11. All those units of the Security Police which did not belong -to the separately indicted Gestapo and SD, that is, offices and -officials of the Criminal Police.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>12. The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>13. The Offices of the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation -of German Nationality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>14. National Political Institutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>15. The Lebensborn Association.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>16. The SS women auxiliaries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these groups, institutions, and suborganizations were under -the administration and jurisdiction of the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By way of summary, the Defense estimate the group of persons -indicted as SS members at several millions. The verdict, however, -will also affect the members of the families of all SS members, at -<span class='pageno' title='426' id='Page_426'></span> -least indirectly, so that additional millions will be affected personally, -morally, and financially. Since, besides the SS, the mass -organizations of the SA and the Leadership Corps are also indicted, -a verdict against the indicted organizations would amount to a -considerable part of the German nation’s being considered criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Law Number 10 of the Control Council, of 20 December -1945, every member may be subject to any penalty, -including the death penalty, merely because he was a member of -an organization which has been declared criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The question put to discussion by the Court as to what objections -can be made in this collective Trial and what objections can be -made later in the individual trials has, in my opinion, been decided -already by Law Number 10 to the effect that in the individual objections -of a defendant, for example, ignorance of the criminal aims -of the organization, cannot be given any consideration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is, therefore, necessary that evidence in this present Trial -should be admitted to the widest extent possible. It should be -made possible for the Defense to rebut, by means of evidence of -the factual situation at the date of the respective act, the conclusions -drawn by the Prosecution retrospectively from individual acts and -facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When evidence on behalf of the individual defendants was -submitted, the Tribunal declared its readiness to admit evidence if -there is only the slightest degree of relevancy. Considering the -significance of the decision of this Court for the millions of people -affected and for their families, it appears to be an absolutely -necessary condition that evidence be admitted to the largest extent -possible in order to permit a just verdict, to clarify the facts, and -especially to find out to what extent members of the SS participated -in any criminal acts according to Article 6 of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To clarify the question of whether it is permissible to conclude -from the fact of the extent of the indicted actions, as maintained -by the Prosecution, that the members of the SS had knowledge of -these actions, it will also be necessary to admit evidence to the -widest extent possible about the question as to whether or not and, -if so, to what extent the members of the SS knew of these actions, -as well as evidence of the facts which prove that the members of -the SS, like the majority of the German people, did not know -anything about these matters, owing to the precautions taken to -keep them secret.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The discussions initiated by the Tribunal make it necessary to -anticipate essential parts of the final pleadings. A ruling by the -Tribunal on the question of evidence would at this time signify a -ruling by the Tribunal on an essential part of its future decisions, -without any hearing of the evidence on the objections of the Defense -<span class='pageno' title='427' id='Page_427'></span> -having taken place. The Charter has a gap, insofar as it has not -defined the facts which qualify an organization as criminal. This -gap cannot be filled by admitting evidence only in a certain direction. -By doing so the Tribunal would anticipate an essential part of its -final verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to what I have said, I believe that it will be necessary -for the evidence to include all elements which might influence the -decision of the question as to whether the organization of the SS -was criminal. This, however, would hardly be possible within the -framework of this Trial which, according to the Charter, is to be -conducted as expeditiously as feasible. Therefore, I consider it -necessary to separate the procedure against the SS and the SD from -the trial of the individual defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 15 January 1946, partly for other reasons, I made a motion -for separation. As far as I know, no ruling has yet been given. I -repeat this motion as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Judging from the course of the Trial and the procedure up to -now, I have come to the opinion that the Indictment against the -organizations of the SS and the SD—for which I have been appointed -Defense Counsel by an order of the International Military Tribunal -of 22 November 1945—and probably against the other indicted -organizations also, cannot be dealt with within the framework of -this Trial for factual and legal reasons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I restrict myself to a -few brief points reserving for myself the right to present additional -arguments at a later date:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) The International Military Tribunal has no jurisdiction. To -this point I should like to remark that a few days ago I learned from -a newspaper article that the objection of lack of jurisdiction has -already been raised during the session of 20 November 1945 and has -been overruled by the Court. I asked for a copy of the record of -20 November 1945—and also of the following days—but I have not -received it to date. Therefore, I could not take note either of the -motion and the reasons given or of the decision of the Tribunal and -its reasons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) A criminal procedure against an organization is not possible -or permissible, especially against an organization which has been -dissolved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) To appoint a Defense Counsel for a dissolved organization, -that is, for something non-existing, is not possible and admissible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. As to the facts, I am compelled to make more detailed statements -in support of my motion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 19 November 1945 I was told orally that the International -Military Tribunal intended my nomination as counsel for the -<span class='pageno' title='428' id='Page_428'></span> -organization of the Leadership Corps. After discussion I declared in -writing my agreement to take over the obligatory defense. On -20 November 1945 I was told orally that I should take over the -defense of the organizations of the SS and SD. On 21 November 1945 -I was told orally that I had been appointed counsel for the SS and -SD, and that I would receive the written appointment very soon. -On 23 November 1945 I received the letter of appointment, dated -22 November 1945, and in the English language, and a few days -later I received the German translation which I had requested. This -letter, in the translation which I received, reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Pursuant to the direction of the International Military Tribunal -you are hereby appointed to serve as counsel in the case -of <span class='it'>United States et al. v. Göring et al.</span> for the members of the -defendant organizations, the Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen -Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SS) -and the Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the SD), who -may make application to the General Secretary under the -order of the International Military Tribunal attached hereto.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>A few days later a file was handed to me with about 25 letters -addressed to the General Secretary of the International Military -Tribunal, partly from members of the SS and partly from relatives -of such members. When I asked about my position and the position -of these applicants in the Trial, I was told orally that these -applications were to be submitted by me to the Tribunal in proper -form.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 23 November 1945 there was a conference, during which a -number of questions and suggestions were brought up concerning -the position and rights of these members of the indicted organizations, -who had applied for and been granted leave to be heard, and of the -defense counsel provided for them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From 28 November 1945 until 11 December 1945 I was not able -to obtain the applications filed by members of the SS and SD -although I asked for them several times each day. At that time about -25 applications were handed to me each day, upon request, and I -had to return them in the evening of the same day. I was told every -time that the Tribunal needed them and that they had not yet been -returned. When I received the folder again on 11 December 1945 -the number of petitions had increased considerably.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By notice of 10 December 1945, according to the German translation -which I received on 11 December 1945, the Tribunal made -known its view that a member of an indicted organization who has -applied to be heard on the question of the criminal character of the -organization is not to be considered a defendant but will have the -individual status of a witness only, although he will be permitted to -give evidence; furthermore, that counsel representing any group or -<span class='pageno' title='429' id='Page_429'></span> -organization may, for this group or organization, exercise the rights -accorded by the Charter to counsel for individual defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>After a closed session of the Court on 11 December 1945, in -which counsel for the indicted organizations also took part, the Tribunal -by notice of 17 December 1945—of which I did not receive a -German translation until a few days later—directed that the -respective counsel, that is, counsel for the organizations, should -represent only the indicted groups and organizations and not individual -applicants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Not until this date was the extent of my duties unambiguously -stated and defined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know what your -application now is. The object of this session is to have an argument -from Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense in -order that the legal questions with reference to these organizations -should be clear, and what your personal experience during November -and December of 1945 has to do with it the Tribunal is unable to see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, before I started reading this -motion, I pointed out that already on 15 January of this year I made -a motion to separate the procedure, and to my knowledge no ruling -has yet been given. I have tried to repeat in part the reasons for -this motion which I made at the time. If the Court does not think -it desirable or necessary, I shall refrain from doing so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t see any relevance in what you have -been reading to us now, either to the question of whether there -should be a separate trial or to any other questions with reference -to the criminal organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, under these circumstances I shall -not read those further arguments, which may be known to the Court -from my written motion, and I shall come to the conclusion of what -I still wish to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, the Court will, of course, consider -the suggestion which has been made, I think, by other counsel for -the organizations as well as the suggestion which I understand you -are now making, that it is necessary to have a separate trial. The -Court will consider that. But what you have been saying to us does -not appear to me to have any relevance to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, in my former motion I merely -wanted to point out the difficulties I had—since I was still alone and -had no assistance—before I was in a position to devote myself to -my real assignment; for that reason also, in my opinion, my motion -for separating the trial was well founded at that time. Part, or the -greater part, of what I said then has been repeated now. What I -have read just now, and the remainder of my motion, might have -<span class='pageno' title='430' id='Page_430'></span> -more significance today, but I shall refrain from reading it, since the -question of the separation of the trial has already been brought up -and argued by others. Therefore, for the rest, I can also join in the -arguments brought forward by my colleagues in this regard. In this -connection I should like to point out that on 19 January 1946 I made -a motion to be relieved of the defense of the SD because of conflicting -interests.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe I ought to call this to your attention as I do not plead -today for the SD, because I have been waiting for a ruling on my -motion. I reserve for myself the right to make further statements -after I receive a copy of the record of 28 February, in particular on -the question of the membership of individuals and groups of persons -in the SS, on the definition of the lines of demarcation between the -SS and the governmental sector, on limitations as to periods and -organizations, on the question of voluntary membership, on limitation -of responsibility for other reasons according to criminal law, and -on the jurisdiction of the SS courts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In view of the tremendous amount of work which I had to do so -far, I have to this date not yet been able to take a stand on all these -points. I wish to make the remark that the suggestions made by the -Prosecution and several of the Defense Counsel as to the presentation -of evidence seem untenable to me. They would entail a -considerable restricting of the Defense. To carry them out seems to -be impossible also for reasons of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This concludes my argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='431' id='Page_431'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided to alter the order -of procedure, and they will therefore not sit in open session tomorrow -but sit in closed session tomorrow, Saturday; and sit on Monday -in order to hear the applications for witnesses and documents by -the next four defendants in order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, there is another counsel for the organizations to be heard, -is there not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: The main subject of the discussion which, by -request of the Tribunal, has taken place today and yesterday is the -question as to what is relevant evidence in the case against the -indicted organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As a preliminary question the concept of the criminal organization -in particular must be clarified. Consequently it is not the -task of counsel for the organizations to plead in detail; that should -be reserved for the later final address by Defense Counsel, but rather -the subject of discussion is definitely limited, as far as the Defense -is concerned, to the above-mentioned question of the relevancy of -evidence and also to certain fundamental issues which must be -touched upon in order to judge the relevancy of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the sequence provided by the Indictment, our colleague -Dr. Kubuschok spoke first as defense counsel for the Reich -Government. In his address he dealt with the general issues in compliance -with Point Number 1 of the decision of the Tribunal of -14 January 1946. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, I should -like to make the legal arguments of my colleague Kubuschok, to -their full extent, part of my own argument. At the same time I -submit the request that the Tribunal pay particular attention to the -contents of these arguments presented yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the definition of the concept “criminal organization,” -I should like to make a few short remarks and additional -statements. It is obviously a well-considered provision of the Charter -that the Tribunal can declare the indicted organizations criminal; it -is thus not obliged to do so but can exercise its free and conscientious -judgment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the declaration of -the group as criminal can or has to lead to impossible, untenable, -and unjust consequences, then the rejection of the Prosecution’s -demand would as a matter of course be mandatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It has already been stated by those who have just spoken what -grave legal consequences would result, as far as the members are -concerned, from a declaration of the criminality of the groups and -how the undoubtedly vast number of innocent members would also -<span class='pageno' title='432' id='Page_432'></span> -be affected by that declaration. As far as these consequences for -the members are concerned, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough -that all the members of the groups and organizations will be affected -directly by a declaration of criminality, insofar as by the verdict of -the Tribunal it would irrefutably be established that they are accused -of a crime, namely, the crime of having belonged to a group or -organization which has been declared criminal. That this membership -is a crime already follows clearly from Articles 10 and 11 of -the Charter. In Article 10 it is stated that the competent courts of -the individual occupation zones have the right to put all members -on trial because of their membership in groups or organizations -which have been declared criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is further enacted that in those trials the criminal nature of -the group or organization shall not be questioned. Thus, the members -can be indicted because of membership in the group or organization; -and, if every indictment before a court can, of course, deal -only with a crime, then it is already established that membership -in the group or organization is a crime. Furthermore, in Article 11 -of the Charter membership in a group or organization declared -criminal is specifically designated a crime. That follows from the -very words of the article, which reads: “. . . with a crime other than -of membership in a criminal group or organization. . . .”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the same way in the law of 20 December 1945, issued to -implement the Charter, membership in a group or organization -declared criminal is specifically declared a crime. Consequently the -finding of the criminal character of the group or organization by -the Tribunal will state with immediate effect that all members, -because of their membership in the group or organization, have -committed a crime, and this must necessarily lead to untenable -consequences.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is not correct to say that these members can exculpate themselves -in the subsequent trials before the individual military courts. -If mere membership in the organization is defined as a crime, they -can take exception to the charged guilt only by declaring that they -were not members of the group or organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Justice Jackson is of the opinion that in the subsequent trials -they could plead that they had become members under duress or -by fraud, the admissibility of this plea nevertheless seems to be -highly questionable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson himself pointed out that a plea of personal or -economic disadvantages cannot serve as grounds for duress. What -other kind of duress could be considered relevant? According to -German criminal law only physical coercion would be left for consideration, -and that only for the period of its duration. In this case -also fear of personal or economic disadvantage is no ground for -<span class='pageno' title='433' id='Page_433'></span> -exculpation as far as remaining in the group or organization later -on is concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus a member of a group or organization declared criminal has -in the subsequent trial only the possibility of pleading certain -extenuating circumstances which might influence the degree of -penalty. The question is now whether, according to the principles -of justice, these inevitable consequences are tolerable; so far as -innocent members are concerned, this question can be definitely -answered only in the negative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson is further of the opinion that there probably are -no innocent members of the organizations concerned, because it is -simply incomprehensible to sound common sense that anyone joined -the indicted groups or organizations without having known from the -very beginning, or at least very soon after, what aims and methods -these groups and organizations were pursuing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This point of view may appear comprehensible to the retrospective -observer, after the crimes charged to the groups and organizations -have collectively been brought to light. That the mental attitude -of the members to the aims and tasks was or could have been -entirely different at that time cannot be doubted by anyone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If one were to subscribe to Justice Jackson’s interpretation, then -the provision of Article 9 of the Charter providing for a hearing of -members on the question of the criminal character of the organizations -would make no sense at all. It would then be entirely superfluous -to admit any sort of evidence in respect to this, and it would -furthermore be unnecessary to discuss the criminal character, as -the Tribunal itself has suggested.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we follow the Prosecutor’s line of thought that, according to -sound common sense, it is obvious that all the members took part -in the crimes mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter, then the provisions -regarding the Common Plan or Conspiracy would suffice -altogether as grounds for prosecuting and punishing these members -who, without exception, are to be considered guilty. In this case -the structure of the declaration of criminality and the stipulation -of its consequences would in no way have been necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From the following deliberation it is to be inferred that the -declaration of the criminality of the organizations is not necessary -and can be dispensed with altogether.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson declared that, of course, no one intended an -indictment of the innumerable members of the groups and organizations, -which would result in a flood of trials which could not -possibly be dealt with in one generation. What will be done is to -seek out and find only those who are actually guilty and have them -brought to trial. -<span class='pageno' title='434' id='Page_434'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus it is not in any way necessary to create such a large circle -of members through the declaration of criminality and to select -the guilty from this circle. This selection can take place without -creating this circle. That in a group or organization of many members -there were obviously a number of innocent members is a fact -of common experience which cannot be disputed, and this thought -is taken into consideration not only by the Charter, but also by the -Prosecution in that they want to exempt from one of the organizations -the category of those with low-grade routine tasks, obviously -because of the conviction that these had nothing to do with crimes, -for otherwise they would have been members of or participants in -the criminal conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Besides this category, however, a number of other members -come into consideration whom one cannot speak of as guilty in the -legal sense of the term; for instance, those people who did not give -any thought at all to the aims of the group. All these people would -of necessity not only be dishonored by a declaration of the criminality -of the group or organization but, if indicted, would also be -punishable because of mere membership. Incidentally it might -be mentioned that eventually their economic existence would be -menaced or destroyed because of their membership in the group -or organization and the defamation brought about by the declaration -of criminality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But again it must be asked whether all these consequences have -been weighed and can be justified in view of the basic principle of -all criminal law systems, according to which only the guilty are to -be punished, and in view of the principle of substantive justice. That -ought to be answered in the negative all the more if these members -who would necessarily be affected by the verdict of the Tribunal -were not granted any legal hearing in this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It has already been pointed out that granting a legal hearing to -the vast majority of the members is unfeasible for technical reasons. -Thus the unique situation arises that the Tribunal would pass verdict -on all those members without knowing whether or not numerous -innocent members would be affected thereby.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Justice Jackson further pointed out that the issue under dispute -is nothing new, but can be found in the penal codes of all other -states and in particular also in Germany, this view likewise can in -no wise be supported. The German laws and precedents quoted are -of a character entirely different from the structure of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Germany, as in almost all other states, the punishment of -groups and organizations is not known at all, only the punishment -of individuals is known. No German judgment has yet been passed -by which a group or organization as such was subjected to penalty -or was declared criminal. It is very well possible, though, that in -<span class='pageno' title='435' id='Page_435'></span> -the trials against members of criminal organizations the criminal -character of the organization was stated in the opinion. This statement, -however, had effect only on the convicted members and not -on other members who were neither indicted nor convicted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The provisions quoted of Articles 128 and 129 of the German -Penal Code are provisions which corroborate exactly the view of the -Defense, because they threaten only the participants in an illegal -association with penalties and not the association itself. Also, the -French laws quoted deal merely with the threat of punishment for -participation and membership in certain associations with punishable -pursuits. A possibility for declaring the association itself criminal -is not to be found in these legal sources either.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The French Prosecutor quoted, first of all, Articles 265 and 266 -of the Penal Code. The first provision forbids the forming of associations -with a punishable pursuit; the second subjects only the participants -to penalty. Likewise, the French law concerning armed -groups and private militia, of 10 January 1936, provides only for -the punishment of the participants. The same is true of the other -law quoted, that of 26 August 1944, which provides only for individual -responsibility. None of the above-mentioned laws allows the -punishment of organizations. Consequently, they can support only -the legal view of the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If in England and America—as exceptions—associations as such -can be punished, that can be done only on account of certain groups -of offenses and only to the effect that either the dissolution of the -corporation may be pronounced or fines imposed. Naturally in such -proceedings it is a necessary condition for the Prosecution and the -Defense that the corporation as such be represented during the -proceedings by its functionaries and representatives and be able to -defend itself; whereas in this Trial the groups and organizations as -such are summoned before the Court, although they do not exist -any longer and although their functionaries are absent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It has never been the case in any country that groups and organizations -are declared guilty or criminal and that on the basis of this -declaration of the Court all members of the groups or organizations -can be or must be indicted and punished because of their mere -membership. This is the completely novel and odd feature which -stands in contrast to the existing law of any country.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe it is permissible to say that neither England nor -America would ever be willing to pass such a law for their own -population. If all this proves that the declaration of criminality -demanded must automatically result in grave and completely -untenable consequences as demonstrated, then the demand of the -Prosecution should be denied in the name of justice. The Charter, -which in no way obliges the Tribunal to make such a declaration, -<span class='pageno' title='436' id='Page_436'></span> -would also not be violated thereby. In this way an injustice which -could only injure the integrity of the judgment of the Tribunal -in the eyes of our contemporaries and of posterity would be avoided.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My arguments lead to the following conclusion:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The Tribunal should, because of the legal arguments presented, -as a matter of principle, refuse to declare any group or -organization criminal; it is within the Tribunal’s power to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. If this is not done, the concept of the criminal organization -must be so defined that the innocent members are protected from -serious consequences. This can be done only by means of a definition, -as suggested yesterday by my colleague, Kubuschok. Accordingly, -those subjects of evidence proposed by him should also be -admitted if they are not <span class='it'>a priori</span> irrelevant because of the fact that, -for legal reasons, the Prosecution’s demand of a verdict against the -groups and organizations cannot be granted. It is necessary that -the following additional evidence be admitted for the group of the -General Staff and the OKW, which I represent:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(1) The group included under the designation “General Staff and -OKW” is not such a group and is not an organization. My explanation -of this subject of proof is as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) Justice Jackson is of the opinion that the concept of “group” -is more comprehensive than that of “organization,” that it does not -have to be defined but can be understood by common sense. To this -I must object that those who occupied the highest and the higher -command posts represent the heads of a military hierarchy as it is -to be found in every army in the world. There was no relationship -whatsoever evident among the members of this group. Nor can such -relations be assumed merely because of the official connections -between the various offices or because of the channels which actually -existed. Moreover, since the circle of people whom the Prosecution -wish to include in this group is admittedly composed in a -completely arbitrary way, simply on the basis of official positions -occupied within a period of 8 years, there is no evident tie which -could justify the assumption of the existence of a group. But to -form a group it is absolutely necessary to have some connecting -element in addition to the purely official contact between offices.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Aside from the Chiefs of the General Staffs of the Army and -the Air Force, none of the individual persons in the group belonged -to the General Staff. The German General Staff of the Army and -the Air Force—the Navy had no admiral staff—was headed by the -Chief of the General Staff and consisted of the General Staff officers -who acted as operational assistants to the higher military leaders. -For these reasons the designation or name given by the Prosecution -to this fictitious group under indictment is false and misleading -as well. -<span class='pageno' title='437' id='Page_437'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>(2) The following subject of evidence, in addition to those -advanced by my colleague, Kubuschok, should be admitted for -the group of the General Staff and OKW: The holders of the offices -forming the group did not join a group voluntarily, nor did they -remain in it voluntarily. The admission of this subject of evidence -is necessary for the following reasons: Justice Jackson stated yesterday -that joining a group, or membership in it, must be voluntary. -This condition is not present in the case of the group which I -represent. The vast majority of the indicted higher military leaders -had come from the Imperial Army and Navy; all of them had -served in the Reichswehr long before 1933. They did not join any -group, but were officers of the Armed Forces and got their positions, -which they were not at liberty to choose, only on the basis of their -military achievements. They also were not at liberty to withdraw -from these positions without violating their duty of military -obedience.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(3) All evidence is to be admitted which refers to the charge -against the group of the General Staff and the OKW as contained -in the summary of arguments. Evidence on these points could be -presented in the following way:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(1) A number of people concerned should make sworn affidavits -from the contents of which conclusions could be drawn regarding -the typical attitude of a certain number of those involved. (2) Some -typical representatives of the group ought to testify before this -Court about the subjects of evidence submitted. (3) Every other sort -of evidence having some probative value should be admitted to the -extent necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We request that this evidence should be admitted at present to -a full extent for the time being without prejudice to a subsequent -decision on the weight of this evidence, just as Justice Jackson -suggested the same thing on 14 December 1945 with regard to the -evidence offered by the Prosecution, for at present a binding decision -on the relevancy of the evidence offered cannot be reached.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Whether this evidence is necessary at all and whether or -not and to what extent it is relevant depends on the following: -(1) Whether the Tribunal, following the arguments of justice and -fairness as submitted and by authority of the power given it, will -decline to declare these groups and organizations criminal. (2) Or, -if this is not done, in what way it defines the concept of criminal -groups and organizations. These two points cannot be definitely -decided at present, since there is still a great deal to be said about -these thoroughly difficult and significant and completely novel -problems, as well as about the impressive address delivered by -Justice Jackson. One of my colleagues has undertaken to work out -a comprehensive memorandum on all these problems and questions -<span class='pageno' title='438' id='Page_438'></span> -which will be ready in about two or three weeks. I request that -additional arguments pertaining thereto be reserved for me and my -colleagues at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One last point: The Tribunal ought also to reach a ruling as to -what is to be done about the last word for the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would be -glad to hear you in reply.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think there is not much that I care -to say in reply, but there are one or two points which I would like -to cover. It has been suggested that there be a separation of the -trial of the issues as to the organizations from the Trial now -pending. I think that is impossible under the Charter. I think the -Trial must proceed as a unit. Of course, it is possible to take up at -separate times different parts of the Trial, but the jurisdiction conferred -by Article 9 for the trial of organizations is limited.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is at the trial of any individual member, of any group, <span class='it'>et -cetera</span>, that this decision must be reached and it must be in connection -with any act of which the individual may be convicted. So -I think that any separation, in anything more than a mere separation -of days or separation of weeks of our time, is impossible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I find some difficulty in understanding the argument which has -been advanced by several of the representatives of the organizations -that there would be some great injustice in dishonoring the members -of these organizations or branding the members of these organizations -with the declaration of criminality. I should have thought -that if they were not already dishonored by the evidence that has -been produced here, dishonor would be difficult to achieve by mere -words of the declaration. It isn’t we who are dishonoring the members -of those organizations. It is the evidence in this case, originating -largely with these defendants, that may well bring dishonor to the -members of these organizations. But the very purpose of this -organizational investigation is to determine that part of German -society which did actively participate in the promulgation of these -offenses and that those elements may be condemned; and, of course, -if it carries some discredit with it, I think we must say that the -discredit was not originated by any of our countries; the dishonor -originated mainly with those in this dock, together with those whom -the fortunes of war have removed from our reach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There seems to be some misunderstanding as to just what we -mean, or at least we do not agree as to what is to be meant by -treating these organizations as generally voluntary. The test which -has been advanced by the counsel for the organizations would, it -seems to me, completely nullify any practicable procedure.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now let us contrast the Wehrmacht and the SS to get at what -I mean by regarding an organization as generally voluntary. The -<span class='pageno' title='439' id='Page_439'></span> -Wehrmacht was generally a conscript organization, but it may have -had a good many volunteers in it. I do not think we would be -justified, because there were volunteers, in calling the Wehrmacht -a voluntary organization. The SS, on the other hand, was generally -a voluntary organization, but it did have some conscripts, and I do -not think it would be any more just to carry the SS into the class -of conscript organizations because of a few members than it would -to classify the Wehrmacht as <span class='it'>voluntary</span> because of a few members. -In other words, in neither case would we be justified in allowing, -as we might say, the “tail to wag the dog.” It is a question of the -general character of the over-all organization that decides what -these organizations are.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, of course, if the Tribunal saw fit to say that its declaration -was not intended to apply to any groups, sections, or individuals -who were conscripts, that is one thing. I have no quarrel with that. -From the very beginning I have insisted that of course we were not -trying to reach conscripts. But if you sit here week after week -determining who is a conscript and just where that principle leads, -that, I think, would be quite apart from what we ought to do here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A great deal of argument is addressed to the fact that proof is -lacking—or that here should be stronger proof—that these organizations’ -real criminality was known to the members; and the inference -seems to be that we must prove that every member—or, at -least—that we cannot hold members who did not know this criminal -program on the part of these organizations. I think this gets -into a question, perhaps, of the sufficiency of proof rather than one -of principle, but it seems to me again that we have the common -sense division.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If someone organized a literary society for the study of German -literature and accumulated some funds and had a home, a house, -and some of the defendants became its officers and secretly diverted -its funds to a criminal purpose, while all the time to the public it -was presenting only the appearance of being a literary society, it -might very well be that a member should not be held unless we -proved actual knowledge. Or, if a labor union, ostensibly for the -purpose of improving the welfare of its members, has its funds or -properties or the prestige of its name diverted by those who -happened to gain control of it to criminal purposes, then you -have a situation where the members might not be chargeable with -knowledge.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But when I speak of knowledge sufficient to charge members, -as I did, I do not mean the state of mind of each individual member. -That would be an absurd test in any court of law. In the first -place, it is never a satisfactory thing to explore the state of mind -of an individual; and, in the second place, it is impossible to explore -<span class='pageno' title='440' id='Page_440'></span> -the state of mind of a million individuals. So we might as well -drop this from consideration, if that were to be the test.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But let us look at this over-all program. How did these few -men who were the heads of this Nazi regime kill 5 million Jews, -as they boast they did? Now, they didn’t do it with their hands; -and it took disciplined, organized, systematic manpower to do it. -That manpower wasn’t casually assembled. It was organized, -directed, and used. Can the killing of 5 million Jews in Europe -be a secret? Weren’t the concentration camps known in every one -of our countries? Were they not a byword in every land in the -world—the German concentration camps—and yet we have to hear -that the German people themselves had no knowledge about it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Our public officials were protesting against the slaughter of Jews -diplomatically and in every other way, and yet we are told this -was a secret in Germany. The name of the Gestapo was known -throughout the world, and there isn’t a man among counsel who -would not have turned white if, in the night at his door, someone -rapped and said he was representing the Gestapo. The name of that -organization was known—unless we are to assume that it was -singularly secret in Germany, but known to the rest of the world.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That sort of thing bears on this question of what men who joined -these organizations ought to know. There was no declared and -ostensible purpose of the SS, SA, and several of these organizations, -except to carry into effect the Nazi program. They would make -themselves masters of the streets.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The story is all in the evidence, and I won’t go on to repeat it. -The program was an open, notorious program, and these were the -strong-arm organizations. So it seems to me that we get down to -the situation where, as Chief Justice Taft once said to the Supreme -Court of the United States on a somewhat similar question: “We as -judges are not obliged to close our eyes to things that all other men -can see.” And this was notorious and open.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a little hard, if Your Honors please, for an American -patiently to listen to the arguments made here again and again, -that there is some plan here to punish with death penalties or -extremely severe penalties people who innocently got caught in this -web of organizations. If there were the slightest purpose to go -through Germany with death we wouldn’t have bothered to set up -this Tribunal and stand here openly before the world with our -evidence. We were not out of ammunition when the surrender took -place, and the physical power to execute anyone was present.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These powers have voluntarily, in their hour of victory, submitted -to the judgment of this Tribunal the question of the criminality of -these organizations. And it seems to me a little trying on the -patience of representatives of those powers to be told that in back of -<span class='pageno' title='441' id='Page_441'></span> -this is some purpose to wreak vengeance on innocent people. I think -it is difficult for those who have survived this Nazi regime to understand -how reluctant we are to kill any human being. It is a commentary -on the state of mind that survived this Nazi regime, rather -than upon us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Control Council Act Number 10—I don’t know whether Your -Honors have copies of that—Control Council Act Number 10, does -make membership in the categories which may be convicted a -crime, and I think it ought to. It ought to be sufficient to bring -before a Tribunal inquiring into the detail of each individual any -individual as a member, and that is all that we have here in a -declaration, in substance, an indictment which enables you to put -the individual on trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is true that the punishment may include a death penalty, -and so long as the death penalty is imposed by any society for -anything, the penalty of death ought to follow in some of these -cases; the SS men who were responsible for the destruction of the -Warsaw Ghetto, for example, or SS men who are shown to have -been responsible for the top planning, even though they did not -actually participate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I call your attention to the fact that in Provision Number 3 -of Act Number 10 the slightest penalties are also provided. The -restitution of property wrongfully acquired is one of the penalties -that may be imposed. The deprivation of some or all civil rights -is another. And during this period of reconstruction of German -society, those minor penalties may very well be imposed upon -people who entered into these organized plans. If not, you have the -situation that the people who organized themselves to force this -Nazi program, first on the German people and then on the world, -are treated exactly the same as the German who was the victim -of it. Now, isn’t it our duty as occupying powers of a prostrate -country to draw some distinction between those who organized to -bring on this catastrophe and those who were passive and helpless -in the face of overwhelming power?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Counsel for one of the defendants has already shown that, in -administering the affairs, an SA man has been made a councillor -in one of the districts. There is no purpose, because a man happened -to get into the SA, to take his life or to take his property or to -condemn him to hard labor for life. There is a purpose to have -the basis for bringing these people in for what the military people -call a “screening” and find out what kind of people they are and -what they have been up to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This Control Council Act—while I am frank enough to say I -would not have drafted it in the language it is drafted in—this -Control Council Act leaves, in the first place, discretion as to whether -<span class='pageno' title='442' id='Page_442'></span> -prosecutions will take place, in the hands of the occupying powers. -I do not share the fears of counsel that millions—I have forgotten -how many millions it was estimated—would be brought to trial. -I know that the United States has worries enough over manpower -to bring to trial 130,000, so we do not want to bring to trial millions. -And it is for that reason that we have consented to the exclusion -of some of these categories where it seemed we could exclude them -very safely without jeopardizing the over-all program of dealing -with these people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, I want to make clear why it is that we do not want to -go, in this Trial, into this question of each of these many subdivisions -of these Nazi organizations and the functions of each. You -have heard some of them named. They are innumerable. Some of -them existed a short time and then disappeared.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The trial of each of these subdivisions would take—I would not -venture to say how long. We do not want to see this Court trivialized. -This is not a police court. This was not set up to be a police -court; and this is a police court function, after this Court has laid -down the general principles, to take up the case of individuals or -of many individuals and to determine whether they are within or -outside the definition.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know whether a mounted group of SS men are any -less dangerous than an unmounted group. I had always associated -the equestrian art with warfare, but I do know it will take a long -time to determine it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know whether SS motorcycle mounted traffic officers -are less dangerous than those who do not have motorcycles, or were -less criminal, but I should have a suspicion that the greater the -mobility, the more active the group was in carrying out these -widespread offenses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know about the physicians. I do not think it is up -to us to try it in this case, but I suspect that a medical corps meant -there might be some casualties; and this thing isn’t innocent on its -face, as it appears. This will require a great deal of evidence, if -we go into each of these things, and it seems to me that it would -be out of keeping with the character of this Tribunal to go into that -kind of question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is not necessary to go into the group any more than it is the -individual, and if you go into the group I know of no reason why -you should not go into the individual, because if the group is within -the general contour, each one member of that group is entitled to -his hearing before he is condemned. It may very well be that the -occupying authorities will decide that the whole group is not worth -prosecuting. We have no illusions about this thing. We are never -going to catch up with all the people who are guilty, let alone -<span class='pageno' title='443' id='Page_443'></span> -prosecuting the innocent. If they are prosecuted, however, it may -very well be that the group would be treated together in some way, -so that there could be a single determination as to each group.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In any event, since each individual has to have a hearing, there -can be no point in having a hearing for subgroups between the individual -and the principal organization that we ask to have declared -guilty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If there were any point in our fully trying this question and -deciding just who is in and who is out of the circle of guilt, there -would be no reason why the Charter would not have given you -power to sentence. There would be no reason for further trials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It seems to me that we must look at this matter somewhat in -the light of an indictment. It is true it is an accusation against all -members of the group. It has no effect unless it is followed by a -trial and a conviction, any more than an indictment that is never -followed by a trial would have effect. The effect of the declaration -is that the occupying power may bring these individual members to -trial. Administrative considerations will enter into it—the degree of -connection. It may very well be that it will be decided that those -who were mere members and not of officer rank of any capacity -should not be punished. We cannot say just what will be necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Frankly, I do not know just what manpower is going to be available -for the United States’ part in the follow-up of these trials. -There are difficulties which I do not underestimate, but I do know -that the idea that this means a wholesale slaughter or a wholesale -punishment of people in Germany is a figment of imagination and -is not in accordance with either the spirit of this Trial or the purpose -of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think that is all that I care to say unless the Tribunal has some -question, which I will be glad to answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, there are one or two -questions I should like to put up to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, in your submission, do the words in Article 11 have -any bearing, the words at the end of Article 11, where it is provided -that “such court”—in the last three lines—“may, after convicting -him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to -the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the -criminal activity of such groups or organizations.” Do the words -“for participation in the criminal activity of such groups or organizations” -add anything to the definition of the word “membership“ -in Article 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think they add anything. -Frankly, the wording of this article has bothered me as to just -what it does mean, since no punishment is imposed by this Tribunal -<span class='pageno' title='444' id='Page_444'></span> -at all for participation in the activities of the group. The purpose -of the language was to make clear that the punishment for an individual -crime, if one committed a murder individually or was guilty -of aggressive warfare planning, is not to interfere with the punishment -for being a member of a criminal organization or <span class='it'>vice versa</span>, -to make clear that they are not mutually exclusive. But the language -I am not proud of.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Secondly, would an individual who was being -tried before a national court be heard on the question whether, in -fact, he knew of the criminal objects of those groups?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think he would be heard on -that subject, but I do not think it would be what we in the United -States would call a complete defense. It would perhaps be a partial -defense or mitigation. I should think that the tribunal might -well—the court trying it—might well have felt that he should have -known under the circumstances what his organization was, despite -his denial that he did not; and that his denial, if believed, will -weigh in mitigation rather than in complete defense. In other words, -I do not believe that you can make as a decisive criterion of guilt -the state of mind of one of these members where you have no power -whatever, no ability whatever, to controvert his statement of that -state of mind. I think you have to have some more objective test -than his mere declaration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then I understood you to say that it was not -for the Tribunal to limit or define the groups which were to be -declared criminal; but, as the Charter does not define them, isn’t it -necessary for the Tribunal to define what the group is?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is necessary for the Tribunal -to identify the groups which it is condemning, sufficiently so that it -would afford a basis for bringing the members to trial for membership. -I do not think it is necessary to define the exact contours of -guilt. It is defined in reference to membership rather than in terms -of guilt or innocence. That is to say, it may be that there is some -little section of the SS that on trial would be said to be not guilty -of participating in the crimes of the organization. I do not think it -is up to this Tribunal to take evidence, because if you take evidence -as to some you must as to all, to separate out those elements. The -SS is a well-known organization. Its contour is easily defined by -membership, and within those contours it does not seem to me -necessary to make exceptions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But if there were to be an essential distinction -on the question of criminality between the main body of the -SS and, for instance, the Waffen-SS, would it not be the duty of the -Tribunal to make that distinction? -<span class='pageno' title='445' id='Page_445'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think that would be necessary. -I think when the member was brought to trial—one may be -a conscript and still have remained in on a voluntary basis, or he -may have gone beyond his duty as a conscript. I do not think it is -necessary at this stage of the proceeding, where the individual is -not here, to eliminate him. I do think that the principle that acts -performed under conscription are not within the condemnation of -the Tribunal is quite a different thing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible for this Tribunal to limit the -powers of the national courts under Article 10 by either defining -the group or giving a definition of the word “membership” in -Article 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, if Your Honor pleases, I think -every tribunal in its judgment has a right to include, in its judgment, -provisions which will prevent its abuse. And I do not think -this Tribunal is lacking in power to protect its decision against -distortion or abuse. I take it that is the question rather than the -question of if the national courts brought these persons to trial and -paid no attention to the declaration—I do not suppose that there -would be any power in this Tribunal to stop them from doing it. -But I assume you mean as a consequence of this declaration, and -I think that the declaration can be circumscribed or limited. I certainly -would insist that the Court had inherent power to protect its -judgment against abuse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you think this Court could direct the -national court to take any particular defenses into consideration?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know that it could put it in -just that way, but I suppose it could define the categories in a way -that the declaration would not reach any except those included -within it. In other words, I think the declaration that this Tribunal -will make is within this Tribunal’s control. When you get away -from the declaration, I think you would have no control over the -national courts. But insofar as they relied on the declaration, you -would have power to control the effect of the declaration, provided -the effect was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You did, I think, make some suggestions for -obtaining such evidence as you thought was necessary. Do you wish -to add anything to that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have nothing to add to that, Your -Lordship. I realize that the defendants’ counsel have great difficulty -in getting evidence, great difficulty in communication. I have it -myself—great difficulty in getting letters delivered, great difficulty -in all of these things. But I will state to this Tribunal categorically—I -do not know what camp it is that was referred to yesterday as -<span class='pageno' title='446' id='Page_446'></span> -substantially refusing counsels’ application to see their clients—but -so far as the American Zone is concerned, counsel, if they are -properly cleared to go there, will be given every facility to get -every kind of evidence that is available in that camp. If they are -there at mealtimes they will be fed, and if they are there at night -they will be sheltered. We will put everything in their way to help -them that is possible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, there are security problems involved, and counsel -cannot just walk into a camp and make himself at home. He will -have to be cleared in advance so that he meets the security requirements; -but there is no purpose to obstruct, and there is every purpose -to assist.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I should like -to ask you a few questions. Some of them will be somewhat repetitious -of what the President has already said. You will excuse me -if I repeat one or two of those. Most of them are directed for the -purposes of this argument, which, I take it, is to form some kind -of definition of the organizations, which may, of course, not be final -but will at least give us a view of what should be relevant to the -defendants’ making up their cases. So the questions are addressed -to that, rather than any ultimate theory of definition.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You said that you would suggest excluding clerks, stenographers, -and janitors in the Gestapo. Well, now, if we accepted that, would -we not be obliged to exclude such categories from other criminal -organizations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not at all, Your Honor. I think there -is a difference between a concession by the Prosecution and the -necessity for the Tribunal’s making a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It might appear logical that if we conceded clerks, stenographers, -and janitors of the Gestapo were not to be included, that no clerks, -stenographers, or janitors should be included. It does not follow. -The relationships in different organizations differ.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From what we know about the Gestapo situation, we are satisfied -that clerks, stenographers, and janitors in that organization -ought not to be included, and we do not want to waste any -time on it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was the reason for that, that -those clerks would not have had knowledge of what was going on -in the Gestapo?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think either that they had -sufficient knowledge, in general, to be held or that they had sufficient -power to do anything about it if they did. -<span class='pageno' title='447' id='Page_447'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, this question of dealing with minor people—and it is one -of the questions that the Court inevitably gets into, if it undertakes -to draw these lines itself rather than letting them be drawn -administratively by what we choose to prosecute—is illustrated by -just this sort of thing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the difficulties with the Court is that it tries to be logical, -and ought to be logical perhaps. I have always thought that was -the great merit of the jury system, that juries do not have to be, -and in prosecuting we do not have to be. It may look illogical to -exempt small people in one organization and not in another, but -there were differences in them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For example—I think it is in evidence; if not, it will be—it was -pointed out at one meeting by the Defendant Göring that chauffeurs -to certain officers had profited to the extent of half a million Reichsmark -from Jewish property that they had gotten their hands on. -Now, I suppose ordinarily you would say that a chauffeur for an -official was not a man who had much discretion and not a man who -was expected to know much about what his employer was doing, -but you have a great deal of difference in their relations to -these men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>So far as I am concerned, I want to make perfectly clear—and -I think it will be assumed—the United States is not interested in -coming over here 3,500 miles to prosecute clerks and stenographers -and janitors. That is not the class of crime, even if they did have -some knowledge, that we are after, because that is not the class of -offender that affects the peace of the world. I think there is little -reason to fear that that sort of person—unless there is some reason -to feel that some guilty connection exists beyond merely performing -routine tasks—will be prosecuted in as big a problem as we have -on hand here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But in spite of that, you would -include them in the SS, let us say?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not exclude them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it that would include them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If they were members, they would be -included; if they were merely employees, that is something different; -but if they took the oath and became a part of the SS organization, -I think they stand in a different relation to the employed clerks of -a government agency.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, somewhat along those same -lines, you stated, in trying to define what a criminal organization -was, that its membership must have been—I am quoting your words—“generally -voluntary” and its criminal purpose or methods open -<span class='pageno' title='448' id='Page_448'></span> -and notorious and “of such character that its membership in general -may properly be charged with knowledge of them.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I am going to ask you a question which is somewhat repetitious -of what the President asked you, but perhaps you can specify -a little more. Would it not be inconsistent with that test which you -suggest for criminality, if we decline to consider whether any substantial -segment of the organization—I mean a section or segment -might comprise a third of the whole organization or even more, like -the Waffen-SS within the general SS—was either conscripted, which -is one test, or ignorant of the criminal purpose? Because if such a -substantial segment could be shown to be innocent under these tests, -would it not be necessary either to decline a declaration on that -ground—that the criteria were not generally satisfied as to the -accused organization—or else to exclude the innocent segments from -the deposition of the criminal organization?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, that is a rather involved question but it seems to me, if -the test is the knowledge or assumed knowledge, that evidence -that a very large segment did not and probably could not have had -knowledge would be relevant and would be relevant not only for -the purposes of evidence, but for the purposes of definition?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think you have at least two -ideas in the question that must be dealt with separately. The first -is that conscription and knowledge, to my way of thinking, present -a very different problem.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to conscription, as I said before, I think, if the Tribunal saw -fit to condition its judgment not to apply to conscripted members -of any organization, I shall have no quarrel with it. I have always -conceded we did not seek to reach conscripted men. If the overwhelming -power of the state puts them in that position, I do not -think we should pursue them for it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal says that the Waffen-SS must be excluded -because it was conscripted, that raises a question of fact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it raises a question of fact that -we would be 3 weeks trying and that is what I want to avoid, -because there were Waffen-SS and other Waffen-SS and there were -different periods of time and there were different conditions; and -we get into a great deal of difficulty if we undertake to apply the -principle that the conscript is not to be punished; and that, it seems -to me, is what is properly left to the future course, the question as -to whether an individual or a number of individuals comes within -that principle. In other words, I think this Court should lay down -principles and not undertake what I call “police court administration” -of those principles as applied to individuals. -<span class='pageno' title='449' id='Page_449'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I interrupt you for a moment -on the first point? I take it, then, that you would think it appropriate -to express a general limitation with respect to conscription in -the declaration, but not to designate to whom that applies?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would have no objection to such a -designation as far as I am concerned. Now, the other question is -a question of knowledge, which is infinitely more difficult. We do -not want to set up a trap for innocent people. We are not so hard -up for somebody to try that we have to seek and to catch people who -had no criminal purpose in their hearts; but there can be no doubt -that every person affiliated with this movement at any point knew -that it was aimed at war and aggressive war. There can be no -doubt that they knew that these formations under the Nazi Party -were maintaining concentration camps to beat down their political -opposition and to imprison Jews and the terrible things that were -going on in these camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To ask us to prove individual knowledge or to ask us to accept -the man’s own statement of his state of mind is to say that there -can be no convictions, of course. It seems to me that the scale of -this crime and the universality of it, going on all over Germany, -concentration camps dotting the landscape, and the vast population, -is sufficient to charge with knowledge the principal organizations of -the Nazi Party which were responsible for those things. The test -that I think applies as to knowledge is not what some member now -on the witness stand may say he knew or did not know; but what, -in the light of the conditions of the times, he ought to have known—what -he is chargeable with.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wouldn’t it follow from that that -there was no taking of any evidence on what was generally known?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think the proof of what was -going on establishes the point as to chargeability with knowledge.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the defendants -should not be permitted to give any evidence as to that which was -generally known with respect to what was going on?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: To what was generally known, I do -not think the defendant’s denial that he knew what was going on -has any materiality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was not my question. My -question was whether a witness could be permitted to testify that -the acts of the particular organizations were not generally known -to its members. Would you exclude that evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly would, and if I heard it I -would not believe it; but perhaps my . . . -<span class='pageno' title='450' id='Page_450'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Excuse me. Although on your -test of knowledge, you wouldn’t permit the defendants to meet -that test?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should say that that is just exactly -the situation, that the Court would take judicial notice, from the -evidence that is in, that this was a thing that must have been known -in Germany; and I would not think that it would be permissible for -a citizen of the United States to testify that he did not know the -United States was at war, a fact of which he is chargeable with -knowledge; and it seems to me that the magnitude of these things -is so equally established and the repeated daily connection between -the organizations and this criminal program is so equally clear.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I only have -two or three more questions. One is directed to the General Staff. -Does the particular date when an individual accused—I beg your -pardon—when an individual assumed one of the commands listed -in Appendix B of the Indictment have any bearing on whether he -is a member of the organization? Now, I am going to bring that -question down to the General Staff.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Perhaps I should warn you of this—that -I am not a military man. I have not specialized on that subject -and I shall want to refer your question to someone whose knowledge -is more reliable than mine.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I shall ask the question directed -to you as a lawyer and not an expert in military matters. Assume -that one of these individuals became an army group commander -after the wars of aggression had been planned, proposed, initiated—roughly, -that would be after 1942; let us say, after Pearl Harbor—and -had reached the stage when Germany was on the defensive; is -his acceptance of a command at that date sufficient to make him -a member of the organization?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should think it would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The reason I asked you that, -Mr. Jackson, is that I thought you had rather indicated in your -opening address that the starting of the war was the essence of the -crime rather than the waging of war, and I was wondering whether -in that case there would be any difference which we should consider?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think when one joins, he ratifies -what has gone before, and it would seem to me that when he -came into the picture at that point, it was a ratification of all that -had gone before on the ordinary principles of conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I think it is a difficult question, whether a man had not -had any prior connection with the Nazi Party—if you take the -<span class='pageno' title='451' id='Page_451'></span> -example of a man who disapproved all that the Nazi Party had -done, who never became a member of it, who stood out against it -and publicly his position was clear, and he took no part in the war -until the day his country was being invaded and he said, “I don’t -care what happened before; my country is being invaded and I shall -now go to its defense,” I would have difficulty convicting that man. -I do not know such a man.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, there is only -one more question I should like to address in connection with Law -Number 10. I am a little puzzled myself on Law Number 10, the -Control Council Law of December 20—I think that was the date. -You spoke of one reason for declaring the organizations criminal -and bringing persons into the Control Council for screening. I take -it they can do that easily without any help on our part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you said something very -interesting. You said the act would not have been so, if you would -have drafted it. How would you have drafted it, if that is not an -improper question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think I would not have made -these penalties of this act apply to all of the crimes. You have one -lumping of a whole list of crimes which, to my mind, range from -the very serious to the very minor. Then you have applicable to all -of those crimes, penalties from death down to deprivation of the -right to vote in the next election.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): For instance, you would not have -made the death penalty applicable to the members of the SA who -might have resigned in 1922?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not; and I think that in that -way I would have been more explicit with the penalties. Like the -Mikado, I would try to make the punishment fit the crime, rather -than leave it wide open.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, what defenses -do you think are expressly permitted under the Control Council -Law? Don’t we have to assume that the members of the Tribunal -will permit certain defenses or are any defenses expressly permitted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No; no defense is expressly permitted. -I take it that any defense which goes to the genuineness of membership, -as the volition of the individual, duress, fraud—and by duress -I mean legal duress—I do not think that the fact that it is good -business, that the man’s customers may leave him if he does not -join the Party—that is not duress; but anything which goes to the -genuineness of his membership. -<span class='pageno' title='452' id='Page_452'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only one more question. If the -Tribunal were of the view that a declaration of criminality of the -organization is an essentially legislative matter, as suggested by some -of the defense lawyers, rather than a judicial one—if we were of -that view, would it be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the -legislative authority of the Control Council, to make such a declaration, -which undoubtedly we could do in exercising that discretion -which is conferred on us under Article 9 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not think so, Your Honor. I -think that this Tribunal was constituted by the powers for the purpose -of determining on the record—after hearing the evidence, after -knowing the facts—determining what organizations were of such a -character that the members ought to be put to trial for membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that some other group which does not have hearing -processes and which is not constituted as this might, either administratively -or some other way, reach that same result, I do not think -is a proper consideration. I should think it was rather a way of -avoiding the duty—there are other ways of doing it, but this is the -way our governments have agreed upon. I should think it would -not be a proper consideration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, you could punish these members without anything. -We have them in our power and in our camps. But our governments -have decided they want this thing done after a full consideration of -the record, and in this matter I think that. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But you have no doubt of the -power of the Control Council to do it, irrespective of what we do, -do you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know of any limitations on -the power of the Control Council. There is no constitution. It is a -case of the victor and the vanquished, and I think that is one of -the reasons why, however, we should be very careful to observe the -request of our governments to proceed in this way. In a position -where there was no restraint on their power except their physical -power, and mighty little of that today, they have voluntarily submitted -to this process of trial and hearing, and it seems to me that -nothing should be done, by us as members of the legal profession -at least, to discredit that process or to avoid it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Those are all the questions I -have to ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Professeur Donnedieu de Vabres, Member for -the French Republic): I would like to ask Mr. Jackson a few details -on the consequences of the declaration of the criminality of an -organization. Suppose an individual belonging to one of the organizations -classified as criminal—for instance, an SS man or a member -<span class='pageno' title='453' id='Page_453'></span> -of the Gestapo—is brought before the military jurisdiction of an -occupying power. According to what has been said so far, he will -be able to justify himself by proving that his membership in the -group was a forced membership. He was not a volunteer and if I -have understood correctly, he will also be able to justify himself by -proving that he never knew of the criminal purpose of the association. -That, at least, is the interpretation which has been adopted -and defended by the Prosecution, and which we consider exact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I suppose that the tribunal in question has a different conception. -I suppose that it considers the condemnation of the individual -who was a member of the criminal organization, obligatory -and automatic. Strictly speaking, the interpretation which has been -advocated by Mr. Jackson is not written in any text. It does not -appear in the Charter. Consequently, by virtue of what texts would -the tribunal in question be obliged to conform to this interpretation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The control of the future tribunal is -the control of the effect of the declaration of this Tribunal. This -Tribunal’s effect, when brought before a subsequent tribunal, is -defined by the Charter, and it has only the effect that the issue as -to whether the organization is criminal cannot be retried. There -could be no such thing as automatic condemnations, because the -authority given in the Charter is to bring persons to trial for -membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would, of course, be incumbent on the prosecutor on ordinary -principles of jurisprudence to prove membership. I think proof -that one had joined would be sufficient to discharge that burden, -but then the question could be raised by the defendant that he -had defenses, such as duress, force against his person, threats of -force, and would have to be tried; but the Charter does not authorize -any use of the declaration of this Tribunal except as a basis for -bringing members to trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): If I am not mistaken, the -authority of the International Military Tribunal will be imposed on -the respective jurisdictions of the states, and will oblige them to -adopt the interpretation in question. But in that case I conclude -that, in the opinion of the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, the judgment -of the International Military Tribunal, the judgment which we -shall pass, will have to contain a precise definition of this subject. -Mr. Jackson said, however, a few moments ago, in agreement I think -with Mr. Biddle, that the statute of the Charter permits us to define -a criminal organization. Our judgment would not only contain a -determination of the groups which we consider criminal, but also -a definition of a criminal organization; and in the same way there -would be precise definitions concerning the cases of irresponsibility, -for example, the case of forced membership. There would be precise -<span class='pageno' title='454' id='Page_454'></span> -definitions which the tribunals of the respective states would be -forced to respect. Do I understand Mr. Jackson’s thought correctly?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But, in that case, the question I ask is the following, and it is -somewhat similar to that of Mr. Biddle: Briefly, would it not mean -conferring on our judgment a certain legislative character? We are -not an ordinary court, since we are adopting provisions, such as the -definition of a criminal organization, which are generally included -in a law, and at the same time our judgment contains provisions -which limit the cases of individual responsibility. That is to say, in -brief, we are to a certain extent legislators, as it was argued -yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is true, that there is in -this something in the nature of legislation or of the nature of an -indictment. You may draw either analogy. But I do not see anything -about that, as I understand it, which complicates the problem. -In the United States we have a strict separation of legislative from -judicial power, but there is nothing in that matter which controls -this Tribunal, and whether you draw the analogy of an indictment -in which you are accusing by your finding, your declaration, or -whether you draw the analogy of legislation, it would be equally -valid as the act of the Four Powers, since they are not required to -withhold any power from the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Yes, yes. The question which -I have just asked seems to be of theoretical interest only. This is, -however, the practical consequence which I should consider, which -I should be tempted to draw, and on which I would like to hear -your opinion:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we have some legislative power, in that we are able to limit -the indicting of persons and admit causes of irresponsibility or -excuses, does this absolutely exclude our limiting at the same time -the punishment?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Earlier, Mr. Biddle and Mr. Jackson were considering Article 10, -and Mr. Jackson expressed some criticism concerning the penalties, -which are not individualized penalties, since they can extend as far -as the death penalty, as far as capital punishment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are, of course, some crimes for which capital punishment -seems justified, such as Crimes against Humanity. But is it not -going too far, to consider imposing the death penalty as the maximum -for a crime which in France would perhaps be considered -purely “material”—the crime of belonging to a criminal organization? -Would it not be too severe for us to impose the death -penalty? And might not the International Military Tribunal be -forced to reduce unduly the notion of a criminal organization, precisely -because we consider the possibility of this penalty being too -<span class='pageno' title='455' id='Page_455'></span> -severe? In other words, does Mr. Jackson absolutely exclude for the -International Military Tribunal the power to fix a penalty, or at -least a maximum penalty, for the crime of belonging to a criminal -organization?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should not think that it was within -the proper sphere of the Tribunal to deal with the question of -penalties, for the reason that no power to sentence anyone other -than the defendants on trial is given to this Tribunal; I mean, no -power to sentence for membership in the organizations. Therefore, -I think no incidental power to control penalties is given, but the -power to declare an organization criminal does, incidentally, confer -power to determine what that organization is, and I have not been -disposed to question the power of the Tribunal to carry that definition -to great detail, although I would question the wisdom of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The power, however, of sentence for membership is not even -remotely conferred upon the Tribunal, and I would think that that -would be a rather drastic expansion of its power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Those were the only questions -I wished to ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, did you want to add a reply or did -you come in order that we might ask you some questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: First, if the Tribunal will allow -me, there are three or four points on which I should like to add -a word.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that the procedure -of asking for a declaration against the organizations was objectionable -for two reasons: First, because it was founded on the limited -phenomenon in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, that a corporation may -be convicted in certain limited spheres; and secondly, that the -organizations were in fact dissolved some time ago.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it is important to stress that that is not the legal conception -which underlies this portion of the Charter. It is really -based, in my submission, on a doctrine found in most systems of -law, either <span class='it'>res adjudicata</span> or the conception of the judgment <span class='it'>in rem</span> -as opposed to the judgment <span class='it'>in personam</span>. That is, that it is in the -general and public interest that litigation on a particular point -should not be interminable, and that, if the appropriate tribunal -has come to a decision on a point of general interest and importance, -that point should not thereafter be litigated many times. -<span class='pageno' title='456' id='Page_456'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is the essential view of the Prosecution here that this Tribunal, -having had the advantage of evidence dealing with the whole -period and functioning of the Nazi conspiracy, is the appropriate -and, indeed, the only suitable tribunal for deciding the question of -criminality. It is a prospect which would be quite impracticable -and beggars the imagination as to time to consider that every -military government or military court should decide one after the -other the question of criminality of great organizations like these. -And therefore we have in the Charter adopted the procedure that -that preliminary question will be decided once and for all by this -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that the organizations have been administratively -dissolved is irrelevant. What is important is, what was the nature -of the organizations when they did function? And that is the issue -which the Tribunal has to determine. And we submit and indeed -say that it is a clear implication, if not indeed expressly within -the words of Article 9, that it must be at the trial of the individual -defendants that the question of this criminality should be decided, -and we say that apart from considerations of practicality the -wording of Article 9 is a clear guide against separation of these -issues as suggested by two or three of the Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I only want to add one word about what has been said on the -argument on Law Number 10. Dr. Kubuschok made the point that -this procedure really acted entirely against the individual. There -are at least two answers: The first, which I have endeavored to -give, as to the legal concept behind the idea of a declaration, and -the second, the one which has been canvassed before the Tribunal, -as to the rights of defense. May I say that, in my submission, -membership in an organization is a question of fact and therefore -these defenses of duress, fraud, or mistake—to take three -examples—must clearly be permissible and good defenses on that -question of fact. The third is that every document such as the -Charter—the same would apply to every piece of legislation—always -contemplates intelligent and reasonable administration in -carrying out its requirements, and it would be, in my submission, -idle to take the view that where you have a permissive enactment -like Law Number 10—and it is clearly permissive as to prosecution—intelligent -administration should prosecute every one who could -be prosecuted under the act.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In our candid proverb, hard cases make bad law; and in my -submission, it would be wrong to decide or interpret on an extremely -unlikely hard case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want, if I may, to say just one or two words on the argument -so interestingly put forward by Dr. Servatius and mentioned a few -moments ago by the learned French judge. -<span class='pageno' title='457' id='Page_457'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my submission there is no legislative function for this -Tribunal whatsoever. There is a clearly judicial function, and I -want to make it quite clear; I do not qualify it by “quasi-judicial” -or any qualification at all. It is a simple judicial duty. The first -portion of that duty is to define what is criminal. In my submission, -as Mr. Justice Jackson argued yesterday, that presents no difficulties. -It occurs in Article 9, three articles after Article 6, and “criminal“ -in that context means an organization whose aims, objects, methods, -or activities involved the committing of the crimes set out in -Article 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When “criminal” has been defined, it is a matter of judicial -weighing of evidence to decide whether there is evidence of these -crimes being committed by the organization or being the aim or -object of the organization, as I have stated. But I respectfully ask -the Tribunal to hesitate long before it accepts the argument of -Dr. Servatius that this Tribunal should decide the interpretation -of “criminal” on its own <span class='it'>a priori</span> basis, to use Dr. Servatius’ own -words, of politics and ethics. That would be introducing a new, -dangerous, and unchartered factor into the Trial. There is, in my -submission, a clear line of guidance for the judicial approach, and -nothing in the Charter to support the <span class='it'>prima facie</span>, unexpected idea -that a body established as a tribunal should delegate to itself -legislative powers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Again, if I may add just one word as to the conclusions which -Dr. Kubuschok drew on the question of criminality as a ground -for deciding the relevancy of evidence, his first conclusion was that -the organization in question, according to its constitution or charter, -did or did not have a criminal aim or purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I accept, of course, the test of aim and purpose, but I do not -accept the limitation as to charter or constitution. The criminal -aim or purpose may be shown by the declarations or publications -of the leaders of the organizations, and also, as I submitted, by its -course of conduct in method and action. I agree with Dr. Kubuschok -that aim or purpose is the first test, but I do not agree with his -limitation as to establishing it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>His second point was that crimes under Article 6 were not -committed within or in connection with the organization or were -not committed continuously over a period. The first part of that -would seem fairly clear, that, if the crimes were not committed -within or in connection with the organization, the organization is -obviously in a very favorable position. But I first answer the second -part by saying that it does not come into the picture of this case -that there is any instance of isolated crimes with regard to every -organization. The crimes alleged are, in fact, spread over the period -alleged in the Indictment, but I suggest that the adoption of such -<span class='pageno' title='458' id='Page_458'></span> -a criterion does not really help. One comes back to the first point -of Dr. Kubuschok, that aims or purposes, as disclosed by declarations, -methods, or activities, are the primary and most important tests.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the third point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that an -appreciable number of members had no knowledge of the criminal -aims or of the continuous commission of crimes. I endeavored to -stress, as did Mr. Justice Jackson, that the Prosecution’s test is -constructive knowledge. That is, ought a reasonable person in the -position of a member to have known of these crimes? And that -really is the answer, in my respectful submission, to the relevancy -of individual knowledge of one particular member.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is only too true that during the period under discussion a very -large number of people made a habit of sticking their heads in the -sand and endeavoring to abstain from acquiring knowledge of things -that were unpleasant. In my respectful submission, that sort of -conduct on the part of a member would not help him at all, and -the only answer to that is to adopt the test which we have -suggested: Ought a person in that position reasonably to have -known of the commission of the crimes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Kubuschok’s fourth point is that an appreciable number of -members or certain independent groups joined the organization -under compulsion or illusion or superior orders. Shortly we answer -that by saying that that is only relevant to the defense of an -individual member in the subsequent proceedings, and, of course, it -is only a defense where he can show that he has taken no personal -part in the criminal acts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the last point which Dr. Kubuschok made was that an -appreciable number of members were honorary members. Again we -say that that is only relevant to the defense of the individual -member, and it does not really alter or increase the defenses open -to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The only other point of Dr. Kubuschok’s which I do think -requires mention is that in considering how evidence could be -presented, he said that certain rights of defense are universal. The -first of these which he claimed was direct oral testimony, and he -said that each individual defendant should have this right. He then -admitted that that was practically impossible and suggested as a -solution that we must typify, that is, that representatives of groups -in the various camps should make affidavits showing what -percentage took part in criminal actions or knew about them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want to point out to the Tribunal that it is expressly laid down -in the Charter that members of the organization are entitled to -apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard, but the Tribunal shall -have power to allow or reject the application. As a point of -construction no less than of sense, there would have been no point -<span class='pageno' title='459' id='Page_459'></span> -in giving the Tribunal the power to reject the application, if it were -implicit that everyone should have the right to be heard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The answer is that the Tribunal has complete discretion to decide -what line and what course shall be taken to procure the evidence. -The Prosecution, through Mr. Justice Jackson, has indicated that it -makes no objection to any reasonable form of collecting relevant -evidence. What the Prosecution objects to is evidence being -tendered on the issue before the Tribunal which is only relevant -to the question of individual innocence or guilt of the member.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I could have dealt, and indeed was prepared to deal, -with a number of points raised by the other Counsel for the Defense. -I hope they would not think that it is any disrespect to their -arguments that I have not dealt with them, but I know that the -Tribunal wishes to ask certain questions, and I do not want to -trespass on that time. I only want to deal with one point, because -it kills with one stone two birds that have flown against our -argument in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It will be remembered that when I dealt with the SA yesterday, -Dr. Seidl—and I am sorry he is not here—raised the question that -the Defendant Frank was not a member of the SA; and Dr. Löffler, -in dealing with the SA today, raised the question that its activities -no doubt did not really extend after 1939, and not importantly after -the purge in 1934.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I find an interesting quotation from the semi-official publication, -<span class='it'>Das Archiv</span>, for April 1942, and as it is very short and deals with -these points I venture to read it to the Tribunal, so that it may -appear on the record. At Page 54 it says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“SA Unit, Government General. At the order of the Chief of -Staff of the SA, there took place the foundation of the SA -unit, Government General, whose command Governor General -SA Obergruppenführer Dr. Frank took over.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I only quote that to finish my argument to show, as indeed all -the evidence shows, that with regard to the SA, no less than any -other of the organizations, the Prosecution have provided evidence -of crimes reaching over the period which they have stated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I deliberately have cut out anything further that I might say, -My Lord, because I do not want to shorten unduly the time, if the -Tribunal wishes to ask me any questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think there is only one question that I -should like to ask you. As I understand it, you say that the -Prosecution have proved facts from which one must conclude that -every reasonable person who joined any of these organizations -would know that they were criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='460' id='Page_460'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You would agree, would you not, that proof -of any fact which went to contradict the facts from which you have -presumed knowledge of criminality could be proved by the Defense?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. If the Defense sought -to prove, to take an extreme example, that the conduct of the SS -with regard to, first of all, concentration camps and, secondly, -killing Jews and political commissars on the Russian front, was -done in such a way, despite the vast territory over which these -crimes have been proved to have been carried on, was done in such -a way that nobody knew about it—if there was relevant evidence -on that point, then they could call it, on the general point that it -was not a matter of imparted constructive knowledge, but of -memory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I only asked you that question because there -were certain observations by Mr. Justice Jackson, which did not -seem altogether to accord with the answer which you have just -given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that, as I understood -Mr. Justice Jackson, he was saying that it might not be relevant to -prove that one member did not know of the crimes, and I thought -that our two approaches really did fit in with each other.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it then, Sir David, that -you would say that evidence with respect to general knowledge by -any very substantial segment of an organization would be relevant, -would it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think it would be -relevant if it were not absurd. I mean, a disclaimer of knowledge -of certain acts may be so absurd that the Tribunal should not take -the time of inquiring into it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That would apply to any evidence, -of course. But my point was: You have said that evidence -with respect to general knowledge over a whole organization would -clearly be relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And now I ask you whether -that would be true with respect to any substantial segment of an -organization such as the Waffen-SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am trying to relate it to the -practical position. That is where I find it very difficult.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, to take your example, it is difficult to imagine. Let us -take four divisions that were very well known: the Totenkopf, the -<span class='pageno' title='461' id='Page_461'></span> -Polizei, Das Reich, or the 12th Panzer Division. I should have -thought that, as a matter of discretion, if it were sought to show -that these divisions, about which there is so much evidence as to -their participation in crime, did not know of the crimes, the -Tribunal would be right in rejecting that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, the question would come -up more whether the acts of the members of certain divisions were -known generally throughout the whole Waffen-SS, would it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, I -find it very difficult to see how the knowledge or absence of -knowledge of a particular division in the Waffen-SS could affect -the question of criminality of the SS as a whole.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, again, I am not asking you -as to knowledge in a particular division; I am asking you as to -general knowledge, throughout the entire Waffen-SS, of the acts of -a particular unit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if someone is prepared to -say, “I knew every division of the Waffen-SS, and in my opinion -no one in the Waffen-SS had any knowledge or had any opportunity -of knowing of the crimes,” then the evidence would be admissible. -Its weight would be so negligible that, I should submit, -it would not detain the Tribunal long.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I concede that if someone is prepared, laying the proper -ground for his evidence, to say, “I can speak; I have the grounds -for and the opportunity of speaking on the general position,” then -I do not see how the Tribunal could exclude it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The matter is very practical -because we have to advise Counsel for the Defendants what -material they can introduce, and do that very soon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now let me ask you a few other -questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On what basis, Sir David, do you contend that the Reich Cabinet -was a criminal organization as of January 30, 1933, when, if I -remember correctly; there were only three members of the Nazi -Party who were in the Cabinet: Göring, Hitler, and Frick? Do you -think that if three out of a very much larger number, some twenty -odd, could be said to be part of a criminal organization, that makes -the entire Cabinet criminal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, on the facts. It must -be remembered that Hitler had refused to take office as vice -chancellor during the months before that, before the date that you -put to me. He had refused on the ground that, as vice chancellor, -<span class='pageno' title='462' id='Page_462'></span> -he would not be in a position to carry out his Party program. On -that basis the Defendant Von Papen and Hitler negotiated, and -Hitler came into power on the 30th of January. It is the case for -the Prosecution that those who formed part of that Cabinet knew -that they were forming part of a cabinet in which Hitler was going -to work out his program, as has been declared on so many occasions. -That is the first point. Secondly, it is the case for the Prosecution -that the Defendant Von Papen did join in introducing the Nazi -conspirators into the Government with that knowledge and with -the purpose of letting them have their way in Germany. And the -same must apply—it has not been investigated to the same extent, -because they are not defendants—to the industrialists and the Party, -who were acting with them in the Cabinet. They must be taken to -have known, just as Gustav Krupp knew and supported, just as -Kurt von Schröder knew and supported, the aims of the Nazis whom -they introduced and co-operated with in the Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, the personalities of the Nazis in the Government—Hitler -himself, and the Defendants Göring, Frick, and Dr. Goebbels, who -I think became Propaganda Minister either at the same time or -very shortly afterwards—show that these people, they have shown -it by their acts, were not persons to take second place. They -introduced at once the Führerprinzip into operation in the states, -and these other people in the Cabinet at that time accepted the -Führerprinzip and united in placing Hitler and the Defendant -Göring and the other conspirators in the position of power and -authority which enabled them to carry out their monstrous crimes -that are charged against them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I will give you one other reference. It was within a few months -of that period that the Defendant Schacht became Plenipotentiary -for War Economy and began the preparations for the economic side -of the creation of Germany’s war potential.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For all these reasons I submit that the actions of the Reich -Cabinet at that date were deliberate. The same applies to the -Defendant Von Neurath; it is the whole case of the Prosecution, as -to the case against Von Neurath, that he sold his respectability and -reputation to the Nazis in order to help them buy with that -reputation and respectability a position of power in Germany, with -the conservative circles in Germany, and with the diplomatic -circles in Europe with whom he came in touch. For all these reasons, -Your Honor, I submit that the Reichsregierung at that time was -thoroughly infected with the criminality which we suggest in this -case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In relation to the political leaders, -let me ask you this, Sir David: -<span class='pageno' title='463' id='Page_463'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In your opinion, would it be necessary to establish the -responsibility of political leaders of lower grades to show that, as -a group, they were informed of plans to wage aggressive war or to -commit War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity? In other words, -I take it there is some obligation to show that information. Does -that rest simply on the fact that these crimes were being perpetrated, -or is there any evidence of that information?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is evidence—and if I -might just indicate the kind of evidence there is—on the first stage -of the acquisition of totalitarian control in Germany, which is the -first stage in the conspiracy, that is, apart from the Party program, -there are the extracts from the Hoheitsträger magazine. You remember, -Hoheitsträger are all the political leaders. On the anti-Semitic -part of that there are documents, which are Exhibit USA-240 (Document -Number 3051-PS) and Exhibit USA-332 (Document Number -3063-PS), which are shown in the transcript at Pages 1621 and 1649 -(Volume IV, Pages 47 and 66). On the question of war crimes against -Allied airmen you will remember that a document was circulated -to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, with instructions that Ortsgruppenleiter -were to be informed verbally with regard to the -lynching of Allied airmen. That document is Document Number -057-PS, shown in the transcript at Page 1627 (Volume IV, Page 50). -And that the hint was taken by at least one Gauleiter is shown by -Document L-154, Exhibit USA-325, at Page 1628 (Volume IV, Page 51).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, there is a Himmler order to senior SS officers, to be -passed orally to the Gauleiter, that the police are not to interfere -in the clashes between Germans and aviators. That is Document -Number R-110, Exhibit USA-333, shown at Page 1624 (Volume IV, -Page 49). Then there is a declaration by Goebbels inciting the -people to murder Allied airmen, which is shown at Page 1625 -(Volume IV, Page 50). Similarly, with regard to foreign labor, there -is a telegram from Rosenberg to the Gauleiter asking them not to -interfere with the confiscation of certain companies and banks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is Jodl’s lecture to Reichsleiter and Gauleiter at a later -stage. There is an undated letter from Bormann to all Reichsleiter -and Gauleiter, informing them that the OKW had instructed guards -to enforce obedience of prisoners of war refusing to obey orders, -if necessary, with weapons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Sir David, if I may interrupt -you for a moment. I was familiar with the evidence with respect -to the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. My question, you will remember, -was addressed to the lower levels, the Blockleiter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think one can summarize -it that even as far as lower levels are concerned you have -<span class='pageno' title='464' id='Page_464'></span> -the four points: You have <span class='it'>Mein Kampf</span>, the <span class='it'>Party Program</span>, <span class='it'>Der -Hoheitsträger</span>, and the fact that conferences were constantly held -throughout the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I say, I have dealt with the evidence on the Jews, the -lynching of Allied airmen, and I think I mentioned the letter from -Bormann to the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter about -assisting in increasing the output of prisoners of war. And there -is an instruction from Bormann down to the Kreisleiter about the -burial of Russian prisoners of war. There is a decree for insuring -the output of foreign workers that goes down towards the Gruppenleiter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these matters are in evidence, and we submit that there is -particular evidence on practically every point. And on the general -point, as I said, you have these publications, coupled with the -evidence that conferences were held, apart from the general Führerprinzip -which would, and did, make the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter -the final weapon in order to ensure that the people acted in -accordance with the leader’s wishes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you just two questions, -and then I will finish with regard to the SA. Would you say that -a member of the SA who had joined, let us say, in 1921, and -resigned the next year, was guilty of conspiring to wage aggressive -war and guilty of War Crimes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may -recall, I answered a question that you were good enough to put to -me a day or two ago as to when the conspiracy started. A man who -took an active and voluntary part as a member of the SA in 1921 -certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party, was supporting the -published program of the Party which had the aims which you -have just put to me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is certainly put clearly in Article 2 of the Party Program -as the getting rid of the dictate of Versailles and the Anschluss, -getting the Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a -polite way of saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, that man had these aims in view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to War Crimes, I respectfully repeat the answer -that I put to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the -Nazi Party that they should disregard the life and safety of any -other people who stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. -A person who deliberately joins an organization with that aim, -and with that aim getting more and more clearly related to -practical problems as week succeeded week, was taking part in a -first essential step of involving mankind in the miseries that we -have seen; because it is that tenet, applied to every facet of human -<span class='pageno' title='465' id='Page_465'></span> -life and human suffering, which has caused the crimes which this -Tribunal is investigating.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I can see how you might -say that with respect to conspiracy in War Crimes, but I want to -be perfectly clear also that you say, on the substantive crime of -committing War Crimes, that a man joining the SA in 1921 and -leaving in 1922 would have committed those War Crimes in the -beginning of 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive -War Crimes, I respectfully remind you that under Article 6 -the last words are:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating -in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan -or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are -responsible for all acts performed by any person in the -execution of such a plan.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Under the Charter, in my respectful submission, that is enough to -make them responsible for the crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now only one other question. -What do you contend was the function of the SA after the Röhm -purge?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The function was still to support -all Nazi manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember -that Dr. Löffler was careful to except—very frankly and fairly he -excepted the 10th of November 1938. The SA—and I gave another -example how they were formed in the Government General—we -have also given examples, which I think you will find in my -appendix, of the participation—limited participation, but still a -participation—in the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the main point of the SA after that time was to show that -here were 3 million people who had come into the organization -which had provided the force to bring the Nazis into power, and -it had the forceful size needed to bring the Nazis into power in -those days. They were then joined by 2½ million people, which -brought their numbers up at that time very high. They went down -again later on, but they were high in 1939, and they provided a -great immoral force behind the Nazi Party. They provided strong -support and were ready on all occasions; whenever a demonstration -had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support. They -were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over -the German Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, -in your opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? -Would you say that? -<span class='pageno' title='466' id='Page_466'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim did not change. It did -not need to do half as much, because, of course, by the end of -1933 all the other political parties were broken. Part of the SA’s -original task, as I think Dr. Löffler put it, had been to safeguard -the Defendant Göring when he was making a speech—I should -have put it that it was to prevent the other people from having a -free run when they made speeches—and to deal with the clashes -between the various groups. That was unnecessary, because all -political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they became -rather—I forget the exact term—a sort of cheer leader or a collection -of people who would always be ready to give vociferous support.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You must have heard, Your Honor, of the meetings coming -over the wireless with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, -rather than dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was -the same, to keep the grip.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, it is now nearly quarter past 5. Do -you think that this discussion can be closed this evening before -6 o’clock?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, -I believe I can finish in 5 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do the other prosecutors wish to -add anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, -Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General -Rudenko?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I think about 10 minutes; no more.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add -anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Ribes): I have nothing to add.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what I really want to know is -whether there is any prospect of our finishing this discussion -tonight. General Rudenko wishes to speak for about 10 minutes, -and if the defendant’s counsel—of course, you will understand -that a discussion of this sort, an argument of this sort, cannot go -on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears counsel on one -side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one does not -go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants’ counsel -want to speak?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think probably the best thing would be -if we were to adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, -<span class='pageno' title='467' id='Page_467'></span> -and then we shall probably be able to conclude this argument in -about an hour tomorrow. Do you agree with that, General Rudenko?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I agree.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants’ counsel think we shall be -able to conclude it in about an hour tomorrow morning?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Several counsel nodded assent.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn now and sit at -10 o’clock tomorrow morning.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='468' id='Page_468'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-SECOND DAY</span><br/> Saturday, 2 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, permit me to make a few supplementary -remarks concerning the criminal organizations, a problem -to which the Tribunal has devoted much attention in the last few -days.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider it essential, in the first instance, to clarify completely -the legal aspect of this problem. There is in the Charter of the -Tribunal a marked absence of any statement to the effect that the -recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature would -automatically entail the bringing to trial and, further, the condemning -of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, -the Charter contains a definite indication of an opposite nature. Article -10 of the Charter, repeatedly quoted at this Trial, states that the -national courts have the right, though not the obligation, to bring to -trial members of organizations declared as criminal. Consequently, -the question of the problem of the trial and the punishment of -individual members of criminal organizations lies exclusively within -the scope of the national tribunals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The legal sovereignty of every country that has adopted the -Charter of the Tribunal is thus limited in one respect only: The -national courts cannot deny the criminal character of an organization, -once it has been declared to be criminal. The Tribunal can impose -no further limitation on the legal sovereignty of the contracting -parties.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, Justice Jackson has stated here—and with reason—that -the recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature -and therefore automatically entailing the mass condemnation of all -its members, is a mere figment of the imagination; I would add, that -has not sprung from legal grounds but from some entirely different -source.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It appears to me that this legal problem is also based on a definite -misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, -was speaking here of the legislative authority of the Tribunal. -The authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by -four states in the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous; -<span class='pageno' title='469' id='Page_469'></span> -but, of course, this Tribunal, as a legal organization, does not and -cannot possess any legislative authority. When solving the problem -of the criminal character of an organization, the Tribunal is only -exercising the right entrusted to it by the Charter, that is, to solve -independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. -Of course, the verdict of this Tribunal, when coming into force, -acquires the value of a law, but that is the value attached to any of -the verdicts of the courts once it has been delivered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Counsel for the Defense Kubuschok has stated here that the -decision of the Charter with regard to the criminal organizations is -a legal innovation. This, to a certain extent, is true. The innovation -consists in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and -all its articles, whose creation, <span class='it'>per se</span>, is an innovation in the first -instance. But should the Defense consider it possible to deplore this -fact, I would consider it opportune to remind them of the causes of -these legal innovations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The very evil deeds committed by the defendants and their -associates, deeds hitherto unknown in the history of mankind, have, -of necessity, imposed new legislative measures for protecting the -peace, the liberty, and the lives of the nations against criminal -attempts. Moreover, the states which created this Tribunal and all -peace-loving people remain invariably faithful to the ideals of law -and to the principles of justice. Therefore, responsibility for participation -in criminal organizations will be established only when -personal guilt has been proved. In reality, the national courts will -decide the problems of individual responsibility.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A few words now on the tactical side of the problem: It has been -stated here that several detachments of the SS did not follow any -criminal objective. It is difficult, Your Honors, to find within the -fascist machinery neutral organizations which did not follow -criminal objectives. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Mr. Babel, -mentioned the existence of a research department for dog breeding -within the SS. It would appear that this was an organization of -general utility. It seems, however, that the learned dog breeders in -this organization were engaged in training hounds to attack human -beings and to tear their appointed victims to pieces. Can we isolate -these dog breeders from the SS?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Danzig another scientific research institute was engaged in -the preparation of soap from human fat. Perhaps we should -exonerate these soap boilers as well from all criminal responsibility?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At this point two practical suggestions have been put forward -by the Defense Counsel: The isolation, as a separate activity, of the -case of the criminal organizations and the establishment in the -various camps of a Defense organization having as its purpose the -collection of information and evidence. In practice, however, both -<span class='pageno' title='470' id='Page_470'></span> -proposals would create insoluble difficulties for the Tribunal in the -execution of the immense task imposed upon it by the nations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This task is precisely formulated in the Charter which instructs -the Tribunal to solve the problem of the investigation of concrete -facts concerning members of these organizations. Therefore an -appeal to the Tribunal to isolate and consider the case of the -criminal organizations as an independent activity is tantamount to -an appeal to the Tribunal to infringe the articles of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Article 9 of the Charter decides the problem of the criminal -organizations when investigating the case of any one particular -member, but it also has one other meaning for the Trial. It shows, -as I have already mentioned, that the fact on which the statements -and the solution of the question of the criminality of the organization -are based is the presence in the dock of the accused representatives -from the corresponding organizations. As is known, in the present -case all the organizations which the Prosecution suggests should be -considered as criminal are represented in the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is evidence in this case which amply suffices to admit the -criminality of these organizations. Therefore the calling of special -witnesses, capable of giving evidence on these organizations, can -appear only as a supplementary source of evidence. I am bringing -these matters to a close, Your Honors, and in closing I cannot omit -one argument of the Defense. It was stated here by the Defense that -as a result of the admission of the criminality of these organizations -millions of Germans, members of these organizations, would be -brought to trial. Together with my colleagues of the Prosecution -I am not of this opinion, but there is something more I would like -to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By this reference to hypothetical millions the Defense is attempting -to hinder the progress of justice. However, before us, the -representatives of the nations who have borne the burden and the -suffering of the struggle against Hitlerite aggression, before the -conscience and consciousness of all freedom-loving people, appear -other figures, other millions of victims irrevocably lost, tortured to -death in Treblinka, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Maidanek and -Kiev. It is our duty to spare no effort to crush the criminal system -directed by the fascist organizations against humanity. Your Honors, -the extent of the crimes committed by the Hitlerite brigands cannot -be imagined. However, we are not blinded by sentiments of revenge -and have no intention of destroying the entire German people in -retaliation. But justice does not permit us to swerve and thus give -free play to the committing of new crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We are deeply convinced that the Tribunal will unswervingly -follow the path towards a just and rapid verdict and that it will, in -full measure, chastise those whose crimes have shattered the earth. -<span class='pageno' title='471' id='Page_471'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): General Rudenko, may I ask you -a few questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>General Rudenko, you remember that Mr. Justice Jackson -suggested certain tests that we should use before we found an -organization criminal, whether the tasks and the purpose of the -organization were open and notorious, in order to show that the -members knew what they were doing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if we find that any organization is criminal we would -necessarily find, I presume, on that test, that its actions were open -and notorious. Now, if a member of that organization found to be -criminal was then tried by one of the national courts, I suppose -under that finding he would not have any right to show that he did -not know about it, because we would have found that the knowledge -was so open and notorious that he must have known, so he could -not raise as a defense that he had no knowledge of the criminal -acts, could he?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: That is quite true. But we are bearing in mind -the fact that the national courts investigating the problem of the -individual responsibility of individual members of the organizations -will, of course, proceed from the principle of individual guilt, since, -naturally, we cannot exclude the possibility that in the organization -of the SA, which fundamentally and in an overwhelming majority -was aware of its criminal purpose, there might yet be individual -members who might have been lured into the organization, either -by deception or by some other reasons, and have been unaware of -its criminal purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be any defense -to him, would it? He could not say he had no knowledge, because -we would have already found that the knowledge was so open and -notorious that he must have known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Why? I personally proceed from the standpoint -that if the national court investigates the case of members who -plead ignorance of the criminal purpose of the organization to which -they belonged, the national court must examine these arguments -submitted in their defense and estimate them accordingly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could they consider that, if -we make a rule that the activities of the organization are so notorious -that he must have known? How can he then say he did not know?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I still maintain the point of view, and I still -interpret and understand the Charter to mean that the judgment of -the International Military Tribunal should determine and decide the -question of the criminal character of the organizations, but where -the question of individual responsibility and guilt of every member -<span class='pageno' title='472' id='Page_472'></span> -of this organization is concerned, the decision falls exclusively -within the competence of the national courts. It is therefore extremely -difficult to foresee all the possible individual cases and the -eventualities which might arise when investigating a category of -individual defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You yesterday submitted a question to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe -concerning a member of the SA who had joined the organization in -1921 and left a year later. These, of course, are special cases and I -cannot state how numerous they are; they are unavoidable, and -when we come to the question of the extent of his information, the -reasons for his entering and the reasons for his leaving this -organization, when we come to estimate the value of his actions, it -seems to me that it should be done by a national court which will -examine the findings of the defense and appreciate them accordingly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can you say now what defense -he would have before the national court, except the defense that he -was never a member? Does he have any other defenses so far as -we know? Does the Law Number 10 permit him any other defenses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: It is difficult for me, at the present moment, -to say what arguments the members of these organizations may put -forward, for were I to speak, it would be on assumption. But I, for -instance, consider, that the argument produced—if produced—which -might be considered sufficient to exonerate this member of the -organization would be that he had been coerced into joining.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I ask you two more questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You used the expression that any evidence given by the defendants -would be merely supplementary. That expression is not known to -our law, and I would be very interested in your telling us what you -meant by supplementary evidence. I do not know what the term -means.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I did not put it that way. This is perhaps an -inaccuracy of translation. What I did say, speaking of questions -connected with further investigations of the matter of the criminal -organizations, was that this investigation should be carried out -together with the investigation of the case of any one member of -this organization, inasmuch as representatives of those criminal -institutions are now in the dock. But I do say that this is already -conclusive material for the recognition, or the denial, of the criminal -nature of this organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the Tribunal can, of course, consider this evidence as inadequate, -or, shall we say, the Defense may consider that further -supplementary evidence may be needed. In this connection, I consider -that the calling of witnesses capable of submitting special evidence -on the problem of the criminal or non-criminal character of these -<span class='pageno' title='473' id='Page_473'></span> -organizations may be presented to the Tribunal as supplementary -evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One other question on the SA, -which I asked Sir David yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What do you consider was the function of the SA after the -Röhm Purge, or, to put it a little differently, what criminal act do -you believe the SA was engaged in?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I consider that the SA after the Röhm incident -committed the same criminal acts as the other organizations of -Hitlerite Germany. I wish in confirmation of this evidence to refer -to facts like the seizure of the Sudeten territory. As is well known, -detachments of the SA played an active part in this affair.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All the subsequent events which occurred in Germany in connection -with the Jews and, later, in the territories seized by Germany—Czechoslovakia -and others—these criminal events took place with -the connivance of this organization—the SA.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic -wish to say anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: I have, as counsel for the Defendant Schacht, an indirect -interest in the question of the criminality of the group Reich Cabinet -(Reichsregierung) because Schacht was a member of the Reich -Cabinet. I want to point out, however, at the very beginning that -I do not want to make detailed statements now either of a legal -nature or in regard to the facts of the case. I shall do that rather -at the time of my concluding speech.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What I want and seek now, and for which I ask the support of -the Tribunal, is a clarification and amplification of those answers -which Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe gave yesterday -to your questions, Mr. Biddle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to point out that it is, of course, clear to me that I -have no right to ask any questions of the members of the Prosecution. -Formally speaking, I could at the most ask the Tribunal to supplement -the questions which were put yesterday by the Tribunal. I -believe, however, that this formal objection has no practical significance, -because I am convinced that Sir David, who will see the -pertinence of my request to have his answer extended, will be -prepared to amplify the answer given to the question by Mr. Biddle -without discussing the theoretical question, whether he is under -any obligation to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was asked yesterday whether he considers -the Reichsregierung, that is to say, the Reich Cabinet, as it -<span class='pageno' title='474' id='Page_474'></span> -was composed on 30 January 1933, in view of the then relatively -small number of National Socialist cabinet members, criminal even -at that time and if so, whether he is of the opinion that this -hypothetic criminal character was at that time discernible to other -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David answered this question of Mr. Biddle’s in the affirmative -and based this answer (1) on the contents of the Party program -and (2) on the fact that already at that time the Leadership -Principle had been set forth in the program.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to ask if Sir David would supplement his answers -along the following lines: Does Sir David really mean to say that -the Leadership Principle as such, that is to say, purely as an abstract -theory, is not only to be rejected politically or for other reasons -but is also to be considered criminal? I want to make it understood -that I am speaking about the abstract principle, without considering -any factual developments in the ensuing period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Concerning his second answer, that the Party program occasions -him to declare that even at that time the Reich Cabinet is to be -considered criminal and was recognizable as such, this answer—not -directly in response to Mr. Biddle’s first question put in the course -of further questions addressed to him by the Tribunal—he added to -and substantiated by declaring that the aim expressed in the Party -program of eliminating the Treaty of Versailles and the announcement -therein of the desire for the annexation of Austria were the -criminal points in this program.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I ask Sir David to state, first, whether these two points -of the Party program, that is to say, the abrogation of the Treaty -of Versailles and the Anschluss, were with the exception of the -Leadership Principle, the only points of the Party program which -caused him to consider that program criminal, that is, to consider -a government criminal which knew that program? Secondly, I -should like to ask whether he really wants to put forward the -opinion that an attempt to attain a revision or an abrogation in a -peaceful fashion, that is, by way of negotiations, of a treaty found -to be oppressive, very oppressive, by a nation, can be considered -criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, I should like to ask him to state whether, considering -the great democratic principle of the right of self-determination -of nations and considering the history of the annexation -movement in Austria itself—and I remind him of the plebiscite -of 1919 when this Anschluss was demanded by, one may safely say, -100 percent of the Austrian population—he as a politician would -consider a political party or a political program criminal which -aimed at reaching this goal in a peaceful fashion. And here I should -like to stress, again in order not to be misunderstood, that the later -<span class='pageno' title='475' id='Page_475'></span> -development and everything which actually happened and anything -which might not have happened in accordance with the Party -program is to be left out of consideration and only the Party -program as such taken into consideration. Upon that, of course, the -sense of his answer depended when he said, “Yes, the Party -program is the basis of the criminal character.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, finally, to come to the end, it would be consistent with -the logical course of my explanations, to wait until Sir David has -decided on this question, an answer to which I should like to -request from Sir David and also from Mr. Justice Jackson, who -is not here today. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: [<span class='it'>Interposing.</span>] Dr. Dix, the Tribunal will, of -course, consider anything that you have said insofar as it refers to -matters of principle, but they do not think that this is the proper -time for Counsel for the Defense to pose questions to counsel for the -Prosecution. The matter has already been fully dealt with, and -the Tribunal do not propose to ask any further questions of the -Prosecution unless the Prosecution wish to say anything in answer -to what you have to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Your Lordship, that was what I took the liberty of -saying at the beginning. I realize that it is Sir David’s free will -and decision as to whether he cares to comply with my request -to add to his answer to the questions posed by Mr. Justice Jackson. -That I have to leave to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have only a short question, which is intended to prevent our -misunderstanding each other. It is always well not to be misunderstood.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remember—but I may be mistaken, and that is why I wish -to ask Sir David what Mr. Justice Jackson declared as his opinion—that -he did not consider the Party program, as such, criminal. As -I have said, this is what I remember. I did not take any notes on -it, because it did not strike me particularly at that time, since I -considered it self-evident. Therefore I may be mistaken. But if my -memory is correct, I should like to ask Sir David to state whether -there is any uniform attitude on the part of the Prosecution toward -this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal asked the Prosecution -to present their arguments in principle on the question of these -organizations, and they wished also to hear counsel for the organizations -in order that these matters should be cleared up, with a -view to any possible evidence which might have to be given. They -have heard counsel for all four prosecutors. They have asked them -questions which they thought right to ask them in order to clear -up any points. They have heard counsel for all the organizations -<span class='pageno' title='476' id='Page_476'></span> -and they have heard Counsel for the Prosecution in reply. They -do not propose to ask any further questions of the Prosecution at -this stage. Of course Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for -the Defense will be fully heard at a later stage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: I have come to the end of my statement. I leave it to -the Court and Sir David as to whether he wants to answer these -questions now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I should like to give a short explanation -to the question as to which of the indicted organizations, -the Defendant Frank belonged. Is that possible at this moment?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal do not think this -is an appropriate time for any of the counsel for individual defendants -to go into matters connected with the charges against the organizations. -They will, of course, be heard in the course of their own -defense, but this is not the appropriate time. This is only a preliminary -discussion for the purpose of clarifying the issues which relate to -the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, but I should like to use this opportunity to -clarify a mistake which slipped in the day before yesterday. The -day before yesterday I protested against the statement that the -Defendant Frank was a member of the SS and this seems to have -been translated incorrectly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Seidl, won’t it appear in the shorthand -notes? You have not seen the shorthand notes yet?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: I have not seen the transcript yet, but I believe that -by error “SS” was translated as “SA.” The Defendant Frank has -never denied that he was an SA Obergruppenführer. What I -wanted to point out is only that the statement in the Indictment -that he was an SS general is not correct and also that the statement -in Annex B about the nature of the criminal element is not -pertinent, because it is said there that he was an SS general. But -I attach importance to the fact that the Defendant Frank has never -denied that he was an SA Obergruppenführer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, but you will have an opportunity -to develop the whole case of Frank when your turn comes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, but the question is merely this, as to whether -the Defendant Frank was a member of the SS or not. As long as -the Prosecution do not present any definite proof of the membership -of the Defendant Frank in the SS, I have to contradict this statement. -I do not believe that it is the task of the Defense to prove -that the Defendant Frank was not a member of the SS. I am -convinced that, on the other hand, this is one of the tasks of the -Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='477' id='Page_477'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; I have heard what you said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for the Leadership Corps. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal are prepared to -hear counsel for the organizations very shortly in the rebuttal, but -only very shortly, as otherwise we may go on interminably.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I do not want to make a speech, but merely -to speak for about 5 minutes, in order to define my attitude towards -a few matters of evidence. First, I have two questions to ask concerning -the limitation of the proceedings to certain groups of -members. I should be grateful if the Prosecution could give a -statement as to whether the exception of certain parts of the -organizations, as has taken place, is a final one or whether other -procedures and steps are being held in reserve. This was stated -originally in reference to the Leadership Corps. Concerning the -limitation of the proceedings to certain groups of members in -reference to the Leadership Corps, I do not wish to make any -further motion inasmuch as that limitation has already been effected. -I should be glad, however, if a decision could still be reached -concerning the women. The female technical aides who were -employed in the offices cannot, in my opinion, be included in the -staffs. At any rate, they do not belong to the Leadership Corps, -although they worked with the staffs. These women themselves -are of this opinion, and also the officers in the camps shared this -opinion. Accordingly not a single application for leave to be heard -has been made by any woman in the British zone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I presume it is known that women, as a matter of principle, -were kept away from politics in the National Socialist State; and -therefore, they can hardly be connected with the crimes stated in -Article 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I should like to speak about two points concerning questions -of evidence. As every profession creates the tools which it needs, -so the jurist creates concepts to solve his problems. These concepts -are not created for their own sake; thus the concept of the criminal -organization shall serve to call guilty persons to account who would -otherwise possibly evade this responsibility of theirs. In establishing -the Charter the procedure was this, that one did away with the -traditional structure of the state in order to reach the individual -organs. But in order to be able to seize these organs, one brought -them together again through the concept of the guilt of conspiracy. -In this way, however, only a relatively small circle can be reached, -since its members would have to be bound to each other by means -of an agreement. In order to enlarge this circle by means of legal -technique, the concept of a criminal group or organization was -created. This organization is involved in the agreement of conspiracy -only at the very top, while the members automatically, -<span class='pageno' title='478' id='Page_478'></span> -without their own knowledge, are included in the conspiracy. Such -a definition of the concept of a criminal organization is justifiable -only insofar as it is useful in getting hold of the really guilty -persons and only the guilty ones.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to define the limits of this concept, I should like to -discuss two further points concerning the determination of guilt and -therefore necessarily relevant to the question of admissibility of -evidence. First, there is the question of the members’ lack of knowledge -of this criminality—the lack of knowledge resulting from -secrecy—and then the attitude of the members after they had -recognized the offenses being committed. In my opinion, the examination -of guilt cannot be dismissed by pointing to the alleged -knowledge of foreign countries about the real conditions. In foreign -countries a propaganda was effective which exaggeratedly brought -these things to light. In Germany all these facts remained secret, -since because of their very nature they had to be secret—for -instance, what was going on in the extermination camps—and -because they had to be kept secret for political reasons. Moreover, -the things which have become known here were so unimaginable -that even in Germany one could not have believed them, had they -become known during the war. It must be relevant to determine -not whether a single individual member had no knowledge, but -that 99 percent of the individual members acted in good faith. In -this case, the organization is not criminal, but there could have -been a criminal in it. If this is determined, then the legal construction -of the criminal organization is superfluous and thereby -false. The legal concepts existing until now will then be sufficient -for bringing the guilty to trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next viewpoint: The criminal nature or the criminal -character of which the Charter speaks shows that that must be something -which concerns the entire organization, and that it must be a -continuous state of affairs. Individual acts which were rejected as -wrong by the organization or the overwhelming majority of its -members cannot establish the criminal character of the organization. -The attitude of all the members to the incriminating acts is therefore -of decisive importance and thus of evidentiary relevancy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We do not need the concept of the criminal organization in -order to punish individual criminals whose acts were rejected by -the majority. Among such individual cases, in organizations which -comprise millions of members, there may be cases in which smaller -or even larger groups or merely certain local districts took part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that it is really a major task of the Tribunal to define, -with the objectivity of the judge, the nature of this guilt as applied -to the entire organization. I am of the opinion that the points I -have mentioned, the secrecy of these facts and the attitude of the -<span class='pageno' title='479' id='Page_479'></span> -members after gaining knowledge, must form the basis for the -collecting of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I want to ask some questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Servatius, I would like to ask you—and I will ask other -counsel for the organizations—whether in general you accept -the definition of criminal organizations suggested by Mr. Justice -Jackson, which is found on Pages 19 and 20 of his statement? You -will remember that he made five general tests. Now, in order to -determine what evidence should be taken, we must determine what -is relevant. Now, the test of what is relevant depends on a general -definition of what is common to all organizations for that purpose. -Now, do you or could you now say whether in a general way you -accept those tests for the purpose of taking evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I have not yet thought about that and have -not had a chance to discuss it with my colleagues. I should be -grateful if we would be given such an opportunity. Perhaps this -afternoon a representative of the Defense Counsel for the organizations -could report to the Court about this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you another question. -What, in your mind, are the tests that should be applied for the -purpose of taking evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand the question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I said that Mr. Justice Jackson -had suggested a definition from which the relevancy of certain -evidence could be established. Now, have you got any suggestion -to offer for that same purpose?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I should not like to commit myself without -having spoken to my colleagues. It is a question of great importance -which I should not like to deal with by myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, but it is the basis of this -entire argument. The very purpose of the argument was to develop -that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the course of yesterday’s debate the -problem was discussed as to whether the task set before the -Tribunal by the Charter can be considered a legislative act. The -question was brought up as to whether, if we answer the preliminary -question in the affirmative, the Court has the possibility of -giving any binding instructions to the national court which has to -try individuals, according to Law Number 10. That concerns, above -all, the extent of the examination of the guilt of the individual -member and the limitation of the scope of punishment for minor -cases. I believe that if we follow up this deliberation we shall be -led from a play upon words into a labyrinth when it comes to the -<span class='pageno' title='480' id='Page_480'></span> -practical application. Actually the task given the Court is not a -legislative act. It is not a procedural innovation, if the national -court in subsequent proceedings is bound by the previous decision -of this Tribunal. Such cases are quite plausible and legally -admissible. If elsewhere in criminal procedure a criminal court is -bound by a previous decision, say of an administrative court, we -consider these cases quite in order and unobjectionable. Likewise -a criminal court could, for instance, be bound in judging a case of -embezzlement to wait for the previous decision of the civil court as -to whether the object embezzled was the property of somebody else.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Here, too, nobody would think that the civil judge was undertaking -an act of legislation. That another court’s decision is binding -on the criminal court and is the premise for its sentence does not -in any way mean that the author of the criminal code has not -completed his legislative task and that this has now to be done by -the court which takes the preceding decision. In my opinion we -therefore do not have to consider this point any further, for Article 9, -Paragraph 1, of the Charter demands of the Tribunal a clear and -unequivocal decision of the question whether the organization is -criminal or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>More cannot be read either into the Charter or into Law -Number 10. Yesterday Sir David defined his attitude to the five -points which were submitted by me for consideration as to relevancy -of evidence. In regard to the two last points he raised the objection -that they were to be dealt with in the subsequent trials envisaged -by Law Number 10. It was a question of the grounds for exonerating -persons—for instance, coercion, deception, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. I want -to avoid repetition and point out only the following: It is quite -correct that the question of coercion and deception and other -reasons for the exoneration of persons be discussed in subsequent -trials. In connection with this, Sir David also called the attention -of the Court to a really noteworthy problem—that is, the problem -of a deception by the state, that is, a problem of mass suggestion. -This is really a very important problem. It affects many members, -as far as their joining is concerned. But it leads to the broadest -deduction as to the guilt of the entire membership and the character -of the total organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have therefore to pay particular attention as to how the -problem of deception on the part of the state affected the member -and thereby was characteristic of the organization. All grounds for -the exoneration of persons are therefore also to be examined by -the Tribunal in judging the question of the character of the organization. -Furthermore, evidence must be taken on the broadest basis.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal were to make any limitation now, there would -be the possibility that later, at the end of the Trial, in contrast to -<span class='pageno' title='481' id='Page_481'></span> -its present opinion, it might consider as relevant material now -excluded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In yesterday’s debate the importance of the question was discussed, -in regard to the proposed declaration of criminality, as to -what should be considered as constituting knowledge on the part -of the single member. Sir David here applied the standard of a -person of average intelligence and wants to consider as guilty anybody -who was above that standard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already recently explained that in regard to laws -threatening such a severe punishment as in this case, all systems of -penal law require that willful intent on the part of the perpetrator -be proved. Offenses of negligence are punishable only in exceptional -cases, and then only with minor penalties. At any rate in a case of -an offense by negligence it must be clear to the offender that he -is under an obligation to examine his action from the point of -view of penal law. Law Number 10—and now in connection with it -the proposed verdict of this Court—represents an ex post facto law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the case of the main defendants the Prosecution have justified -the deviation from the generally recognized principle <span class='it'>nulla poena -sine lege</span> on the ground that they themselves did not act in accordance -with this principle and cannot, therefore, base themselves on -it now. This, however, does not in any way apply to the organizations, -quite apart from the question whether this argument can -be accepted at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At any rate, however, in considering the element of negligence -one should also not overlook the fact that the obligation to exercise -attention differs in the case of <span class='it'>ex post facto</span> laws from what it -would be in the case of existing laws.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this connection I should like to refer to the fact that the -question of whether the statutes of the Party organizations were -illegal or not has often been examined already, even earlier, at the -time of the Weimar Republic. Political considerations definitely -favored such a declaration. Apparently, legal considerations at that -time did not let the carrying out of such a procedure seem practical. -What measure should we then apply to the individual member’s -ability to judge such matters, if the legal problem is so difficult -and lends itself so very much to discussion?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has restricted the motion so as to exclude the -auxiliary workers in the case of the Gestapo. The reason for this -can only have been that in the case of these members knowledge -cannot be assumed to be self-evident. I ask that the conclusions -drawn in this individual case be applied to the members of other -organizations. Should not the individual member of an organization -comprising millions who had far less contact with the executive -<span class='pageno' title='482' id='Page_482'></span> -organ than did an auxiliary worker of the Gestapo—should not this -member be judged much more favorably, as far as knowledge is -concerned, than this group which has been excepted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Are we not in particular obliged to use the best methods possible -to inform ourselves as to the knowledge or lack of knowledge of -the individual member? Sir David, in discussing the problem of -negligence, suddenly spoke of an ostrich policy. But here we have -to consider that the person who sticks his head into the sand in -order not to see has actually seen something and therefore does not -want to see any more. It is quite different in the case of this -member who from the sources at his disposal can gain no knowledge -of individual actions; who, in particular, has no knowledge -of whether possibly only. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Forgive my interrupting you, but the Tribunal -have already heard and listened with attention to your interesting -argument, and the argument that they now are prepared to listen to -is only a very short argument in rebuttal. As I have already pointed -out, it seems to me that the greater part of what you are now -saying is what you have already said. We cannot go on hearing -these arguments at great length.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Since I have arrived at the end of my -remarks, I should like in conclusion just to introduce one point of -view which concerns the defense of the Reich Cabinet. The number of -members of the Reich Cabinet is very limited. One half are in the -defendants’ dock. Is it really necessary to consider the other half -cumulatively as an organization, since the small number of those -concerned makes possible an individual trial, with all the legal -guarantees given therein? To this extent I should like to refer to the -remarks made by my colleague, Dr. Laternser, who mentioned the -provision of the Charter that the Tribunal is not compelled to reach -a decision but that for reasons of expediency it can refrain from -doing so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Biddle wants to ask you some questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have just one question. Will -you listen to this very carefully?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal find that an organization was being used for a -criminal purpose, and certainly, with respect to some organizations, -there is ample evidence that might justify such a finding, why, -then, would the Tribunal not be justified in holding that organization -as a criminal organization insofar as it was composed of persons -who had knowledge that it was being so used and voluntarily -remained members of the organization? In other words, the definition -would state that it consisted of members who had actual knowledge -that the organization was engaged in the commission of crime. -<span class='pageno' title='483' id='Page_483'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: The organization cannot be separated from -the total number of its members. The declaration of criminality in -connection with Law Number 10 is to affect each individual member. -The task of the Tribunal would not be fulfilled if it limited that -task and excluded from the organization unspecified individuals. -In the task which I have mentioned we cannot overlook the practical -purpose, and that will not be guaranteed if such a limitation -is made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will ask just one more -question. I do not think you have answered my question. I will -put it very simply again.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>How would that definition be unfair to any individual?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: If only a limited circle of persons in connection -with the organization is branded as criminal, this necessarily -results in an injustice to the other members of the organization. The -declaration naturally affects the name of the entire organization, -and, therefore, the declaration of criminality affects each individual -member, even if one tries to limit the definition.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think in view of the time we had better -adjourn for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, it was not my intention to -make statements today about the concept of the criminal organizations, -because I believe that my statements of yesterday on this -point were comprehensive. I should merely like to state briefly my -attitude to the second question put by Mr. Biddle to my colleague, -Kubuschok.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second question, if I understood it correctly, was as follows: -Why is it unfair to the individuals who were members of an -organization, or why can it be unfair to them, if this organization -is declared criminal? This declaration of the criminality of an -organization is certainly unfair to all those members who had no -knowledge of any supposedly criminal purpose and aims. For in -this question one has to. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You misunderstood the question, -I think; so, to save time—the question was a very simple one. I -do not want to go into it unless you want to. I will repeat it again. -I said this: If an organization was being used for criminal purposes—and -I added that there was very great evidence that such was the -case in certain instances—why would it not be proper to hold it -<span class='pageno' title='484' id='Page_484'></span> -a criminal organization insofar as it was composed of persons who -had knowledge that it was being so used and voluntarily remained -members? Of course, that would exclude from the organization -everybody who did not have knowledge that it was engaged in -criminal purposes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Then I did not understand the question quite -correctly, and further statements in regard to these questions, which -have now been settled, are unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÖFFLER: I should like first of all to correct a misunderstanding. -Sir David stated yesterday in his reply that I had admitted -that the SA had participated in the 10th and 11th of November -1938. I emphasize expressly that I stated that only 2 percent -of the SA at the most were involved in individual actions, and that -obviously applies to this event as well. This example occasions me -to underscore what my colleague, Servatius, has previously stated -about taking into consideration the so-called mistake of an organization, -in a case where an organization deviates from its path and -commits an error—which should be avoided. The 98 percent who did -not participate, as well as the 2 percent who did participate there, -with few exceptions, all regarded this action with aversion and -disgust and were not inwardly in agreement with it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is therefore an error on the part of the Indictment if on the -basis of this single event, on the basis of this exceptional case, -general conclusions are drawn as to the general character of the -organization. For it is rightfully protested that the very rejection -of this action is a proof that this is an exception to the general -tendency of the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If, then, it is asserted as a second point that the SA was also -concerned with concentration camps, that is also a further typical -proof of the false conclusion to which one can come in the case of -judgment against the organizations. Of 4 millions there were -1,000 men at the most, that is, only 0.5 percent. The remaining -3,999,000 had no knowledge of this, and this can be proved. No -one will wish to claim that the fact that 0.5 percent were involved -in something about which the others knew nothing at all allows a -conclusion to be drawn as to the question of criminal character. -But this small percentage, as such, is not an answer to the question -which is being raised at this point. Rather we are, as before, of -the opinion that the explanation which was made by attorney -Kubuschok absolutely covers the criminal character as formulated -by the Defense, if the basic conditions are met, as set down by -attorney Kubuschok in agreement with all defense counsel for the -organizations. On the basis of this formulation, that question which -Justice Biddle previously put to counsel for the various organizations -can readily be answered. -<span class='pageno' title='485' id='Page_485'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to emphasize that yesterday Mr. Justice Jackson -made the suggestion that, instead of having countless witnesses, -experts be heard on the subject of what willful intent can be -assumed in the case of the single organizations. I should like to -oppose this emphatically. One cannot hear any witness or any -expert who can tell the Court what, so to speak, that “common -sense” was on the basis of which the question is to be judged—what -knowledge the single members had.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The members, as far as intelligence is concerned, vary greatly. -There are those of average intelligence and there are less intelligent -members of the organizations. If a judgment is to be passed here which -also affects less intelligent members of the organizations and condemns -them, then it is a basic principle of law that this should not -be done on the basis of what the intelligent members of the organizations -might and could have known; that would be an injustice -to the average persons and the less intelligent. Not even the average -persons can be taken as a basis, since this would be an injustice -to the still less intelligent, who would be included in and affected -by this judgment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion I should like to point out that yesterday’s debate -on the question of the effect of the judgment which this Court is to -pass confirmed in full measure the fears of the Defense Counsel. -Mr. Justice Jackson declared that this judgment would have the -character of a declaration. This is not compatible with the statement -which Lieutenant General Clay, the Deputy Military Governor of -the American occupied zone, made yesterday in an interview for -the <span class='it'>Neue Zeitung</span>, the American paper for the German population. -I should like to quote a sentence from the latest issue which refutes -Justice Jackson’s opinion. Lieutenant General Clay declares in -regard to the question of the fate of these interned in the United -States zone of occupation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal will decide what -will happen to them. Their number is at present 280,000 to -300,000. Should the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, -however, consider all the members of the indicted National -Socialist organizations war criminals, then the number will -be increased to 500,000 or 600,000.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The declaration made by Justice Jackson yesterday that no mass -retribution is intended could be made only in reference to the -present standpoint of his Government. But there is no guarantee -that other governments will not take another stand or that his -Government, which is not bound to Justice Jackson’s opinion, will -not alter its stand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to conclude with this remark: Justice Jackson -mentioned the shock which the combination of the Charter and decision -<span class='pageno' title='486' id='Page_486'></span> -desired by the Prosecution—in connection with Law Number 10—has -been to the Defense. I believe that the effect of this shock is not -confined to the Defense alone but affects all people who are interested -in justice, for if the combination of these various laws gives -the national courts the opportunity to call millions of members of -organizations to account—among whom, as Justice Jackson also -could not deny yesterday, there are innocent people—and if punishments -for mere membership ranging from a fine to the death -sentence are provided, then it is the duty of the Defense to point -out that the procedure here obviously threatens to deviate from the -basis of law and will necessarily lead to arbitrary action.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Justice Jackson then in answer to this refers to the effect of -shock in connection with the death of many Jews, one can say that -those things happened outside the law and in the name of force. -This Charter and this Tribunal, however, want to do away with -force and put justice in its place. But justice must be clear and it -must be sure.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -Tribunal said earlier that certain questions had been asked of me. -I am perfectly prepared to answer the three questions if the Tribunal -desire their time to be occupied by my so doing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the Tribunal wish to hear any -further arguments unless you particularly want to answer anything.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not intend to argue at all. -It was only that Dr. Dix put two questions to me on which he asked -my view, and Dr. Servatius one, but I am in the hands of the -Tribunal. I do not want it to be thought that the Prosecution are -not prepared to answer the questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you can answer them shortly, we should be -quite glad to hear them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first question that Dr. Dix -asked me was to clarify what I had said about the Führerprinzip in -relation to the Reichsregierung. I can answer that in two sentences. -I said that, in addition to the ordinary support which members of -the Reichsregierung in 1933 gave to Hitler under the Führerprinzip, -they entrusted their consciences and wills to him and adopted -completely his points of view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order that Dr. Dix may be under no misapprehension with -regard to his client, the case for the Prosecution may be put in the -words of Dr. Goebbels, one of the conspirators, on the 21st of November -1934, in conversation with Dr. Schacht:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I assured myself that he absolutely represents our point of -view. He is one of the few who accepts the Führer’s position -entirely.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='487' id='Page_487'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second point was on the question of the Party program in -relation to the Treaty of Versailles and the Anschluss. Dr. Dix asked -me to deal with those who desired to effect the aims of the Party -program in a peaceful way. The Prosecution say that does not arise, -that the Party program must be considered in the background of -Hitler and other publications as to the use of force and also as to -the existing state of things in the relationship of Germany with the -Western Powers and also of treaty obligation to Austria and -Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third question that was put to me was by Dr. Servatius, -about the Leadership Corps. You will remember, My Lord, that in -the statement of the Tribunal the Prosecution were asked, if they -were making any limitation, to make it now. That is contained in -the statement of the Tribunal. The limitation which we have -made—that is, only including the staff in the case of the Reichsleitung, -Gauleitung, and Kreisleitung, and excluding the staff in the -case of the Ortsgruppenleiter, Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter—is the -view to which the Prosecution adhere and which has been agreed -upon by the different delegations. I wanted Dr. Servatius to know -that that was the position. I don’t intend to repeat the reasons for -it which were given by my friend, Mr. Justice Jackson.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is only one thing I should like to say. -I think it might be useful to the Tribunal, if you have them, to let -us have copies of the British statutes to which Mr. Justice Jackson -referred and also of certain judgments of the German courts—if you -have copies available.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They will be found for the Tribunal -and the Tribunal will receive them within the shortest possible -time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I understand that you have an -affidavit which you wish to put in with reference to the High -Command?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Yes, we do have it. We located this affidavit on -Thursday; the Tribunal had inquired about it on the afternoon of -the day before—on Wednesday, I believe it was. We have prepared -for the Tribunal a list of the offices comprising the German General -Staff and High Command as defined by the Indictment in Appendix B. -The list was compiled from official sources in the Admiralty Office -of Great Britain, the War Office of Great Britain, and the Air -Ministry of Great Britain, and supplemental information was -obtained from senior German officers, now prisoners of war in England -and in Germany. The list is attached to this affidavit, as we -intended to submit it this morning to the Tribunal; and the affidavit -describes the source from which this information was obtained and -<span class='pageno' title='488' id='Page_488'></span> -it points out that the list does not purport to be exhaustive or necessarily -correct in every detail. It is, however, substantially a complete -list of the members of the General Staff and of the High Command -and of the High Command group, and on the basis of this compilation -there appear to have been a total of 131 members, of whom -114 are thought to be living at the present time. I wish to offer the -list formally, together with this affidavit, as Exhibit Number -USA-778 (Document Number 3739-PS), I ask that it be accepted -without reading. However, of course, if the Tribunal would like it -read over the public address system, I should be glad to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not think you need read it over. -Copies have been given to the Defense?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Yes, they have, Your Honor. They have been given -to the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Colonel Smirnov, if Your Honor pleases, is prepared -to read the document with reference to Stalag Luft III. If the -Tribunal would like, we will have him do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think that might perhaps be done on -Monday morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 4 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='489' id='Page_489'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-THIRD DAY</span><br/> Monday, 4 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Sir, a few days ago the Tribunal -issued instructions concerning the expedience of reading into the -record the official British report on the responsibility for the slaying -of 50 officers of the Royal Air Force coincidentally, as far as possible, -with the proposed interrogatory of General Westhoff and the senior -criminal counsel, Wielen. May I read into the record some of the -more essential passages from this report of the British Government? -I shall read into the record those parts of the document which, on -the one hand, testify to the general character of this criminal act -and, on the other hand, establish the responsibility for the crime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you are offering the document, -are you, as evidence? You are seeking to put the document in -evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document has already been -presented in evidence and has already been accepted by the -Tribunal. I wished only to read into the record certain extracts -from this document. It has been submitted as Exhibit Number -USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am quoting Paragraph 1 of the -official British report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers -escaped from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia, where they -had been confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were -recaptured and returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, -8 were detained by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate -of the remaining 50 officers the following information was -given by the German authorities:</p> - -<p>“(a) On 6th April 1944, at Sagan, the acting commandant of -Stalag Luft III (Oberstleutnant Cordes) read to the senior -British officer (Group Captain Massey) an official communication -of the German High Command that 41 officers (unnamed) -had been shot, ‘some of them having offered resistance -on being arrested, others having tried to escape on the transport -back to their camp.’ -<span class='pageno' title='490' id='Page_490'></span></p> - -<p>“(b) On 15th April 1944, at Sagan, a member of the German -camp staff (Hauptmann Pieber) produced to the new senior -British officer (Group Captain Wilson) a list of 47 names of -the officers who had been shot.</p> - -<p>“(c) On 18th May 1944, at Sagan, the senior British officer was -given three additional names, making a total of 50.</p> - -<p>“(d) On or about 12th June 1944, the Swiss Minister in Berlin -received from the German Foreign Office, in reply to his -enquiry into the affair, a note to the effect that 37 prisoners -of British nationality and 13 prisoners of non-British nationality -were shot when offering resistance when found or -attempting to re-escape after capture. This note also referred -to the return of urns containing the ashes of the dead to -Sagan for burial.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The official German version—the official version of the German -authorities—indicated that these officers were shot allegedly while -attempting to escape. As a matter of fact, as definitely proved by -the documentation of the investigation carried out by the British -authorities, the officers were murdered—and murdered by members -of the Gestapo on direct orders from Keitel and with the full -knowledge of Göring.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall, with your permission, read into the record in confirmation -of this fact two paragraphs—or rather two points—from the official -British report, that is, Point 7 and Point 8:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“7. General Major Westhoff at the time of the escape was in -charge of the general department relating to prisoners of war, -and on 15th June 1945 he made a statement in the course of -which he said that he and General Von Graevenitz, the -inspector of the German POW organization, were summoned -to Berlin a few days after the escape and there interviewed -by Keitel. The latter told them that he had been blamed by -Göring in the presence of Himmler for having let the prisoners -of war escape.</p> - -<p>“Keitel said, ‘Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must -set an example. We shall take very severe measures. I can -only tell you that the officers who have escaped will be shot; -probably the majority of them are dead already.’ When Von -Graevenitz objected, Keitel said, ‘I do not care a damn; we -discussed it in the Führer’s presence and it cannot be altered.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Point 8: I begin the quotation of the official British report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Max Ernst Gustav Friedrich Wielen was then the officer in -charge of the Criminal Police (Kripo) at Breslau, and he also -made a statement, dated 26th August 1945, in the course of -which he said that as soon as practically all the escaped R.A.F. -officers had been recaptured he was summoned to Berlin -<span class='pageno' title='491' id='Page_491'></span> -where he saw Arthur Nebe, the Chief of the Kripo head office, -who showed him a teleprint order signed by Kaltenbrunner, -which was to the effect that on the express order of the -Führer over half of the officers who had escaped from Sagan -were to be shot after their recapture. It was stated that -Müller had received corresponding orders and would give -instructions to the Gestapo. According to Wielen the Kripo, -who were responsible for collecting and holding all the recaptured -prisoners, handed over to the Gestapo the prisoners -who were to be shot, having previously provided the Gestapo -with a list of the prisoners regarded by the camp authorities -as ‘troublesome.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would also ask the Tribunal’s permission to read into the record -that part of the text of the official report of the British Government -which deals with the methods of investigation in regard to individual -officers. This documentation has been systematized and divided into -three parts. I take the liberty of reading into the record the data of -the findings referring to the three separate parts. I quote Page 3 of -the Russian text, beginning from Paragraph 2:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Flight Lieutenants Wernham, Kiewnarski, Pawluk, and -Skanziklas.</p> - -<p>“On or about 26th March 1944 . . .</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, are you going to read now -some of the evidence upon which the report is based?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to -read out only from the text proper and particularly those parts of -the report which testify to the methods of investigation applied -in the case of individual officers. I should like to begin reading -from the paragraph dealing with the three groups of officers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Paragraph 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: “On or about the 26th of -March 1944 these officers were interrogated at the police -station in Hirschberg and were then moved to the civil gaol -in that town. On the morning of 29th March Pawluk and -Kiewnarski were taken away and later in the day Skanziklas -and Wernham left. Both parties were escorted, but their -destination was unknown. They have not been seen since -and the urns later received at the Stalag showing their names -bear the date 30th March 1944.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And now the next group of British officers:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Squadron Leader Cross, Flight Lieutenants Casey, Wiley, and -Leigh, and Flight Officers Pohe and Hake. -<span class='pageno' title='492' id='Page_492'></span></p> - -<p>“Between 26th and 30th March 1944 these officers were interrogated -at the Kripo headquarters in Görlitz and then returned -to the gaol there. During the interrogation Casey was -told that ‘he would lose his head,’ Wiley that ‘he would be -shot,’ and Leigh that ‘he would be shot.’ Hake was suffering -from badly frostbitten feet and was incapable of traveling for -any distance on foot. On 30th March the officers left Görlitz -in three motor cars accompanied by 10 German civilians of -the Gestapo type. The urns later received at the Stalag bear -their names and show them to have been cremated at Görlitz -on 31st March 1944.</p> - -<p>“Flight Lieutenants Humpreys, McGill, Swain, Hall, Langford, -and Evans; Flight Officers Valenta, Kolanowski, Stewart, and -Birkland.</p> - -<p>“These officers were interrogated at the Kripo headquarters -in Görlitz between 26th and 30th March. Swain was told -that ‘he would be shot,’ Valenta was threatened and told that -‘he would never escape again.’ Kolanowski was very depressed -after his interview. On 31st March these officers were collected -by a party of German civilians, at least one of whom was -in the party which had come on the previous day. The urns -later received at the Stalag bore their names and show them -to have been cremated at Liegnitz on a date unspecified.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that -similar data also relate to different groups of British officers slain -by the Germans in Stalag Luft III.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following page of the text includes identical data relating to -Flight lieutenants Grisman, Gunn, Williams, and Milford, Flight -Officer Street and Lieutenant McGarr. Similar information is given -concerning Flight Lieutenant Long, Squadron Leader J. E. Williams, -Flight Lieutenants Bull and Mondschein, and Flight Officer Kierath. -The same information is given with reference to Flight Officer -Stower, Flight Lieutenant Tobolski, Flight Officer Krol, Flight -Lieutenants Wallen, Marcinkus, and Brettell, Flight Officer Picard -and Lieutenants Gouws and Stevens, Squadron Leader Bushell and -Lieutenant Scheidhauer, Flight Officer Cochran, Lieutenants Espelid -and Fugelsang, Squadron Leader Kirby-Green and Flight Officer -Kidder, Squadron Leader Catanach and Flight Officer Christensen, -and Flight Lieutenant Hayter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall, with your permission, read into the record one more -paragraph from this official report. I refer to Paragraph 6 of the -official British report and also to Paragraph 5, because it is of -essential importance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I was going to suggest you should read Paragraph 5. -<span class='pageno' title='493' id='Page_493'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am going to read Paragraph 5 -of the British text:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“According to the evidence of the survivors there was no -question of any officers having resisted arrest or of the recaptured -officers having attempted a second escape. All were -agreed that the weather conditions were against them and -that such an attempt would be madness. They were anxious -to be returned to the Stalag, take their punishment, and try -their luck at escaping another time.</p> - -<p>“6. The Swiss representative (M. Gabriel Naville) pointed out -on 9th June 1944 in his report on his visit to Sagan that the -cremation of deceased prisoners of war was most unusual (the -normal custom being to bury them in a coffin with military -honors) and that was the first case known to him where the -bodies of deceased prisoners had been cremated. Further it -may be noted that if, as the Germans alleged, these 50 officers -who were recaptured in widely scattered parts of Germany -had resisted arrest or attempted a second escape, it is probable -that some would have been wounded and most improbable -that all would have been killed. In this connection it is significant -that the German Foreign Office refused to give to the -protecting power the customary details of the circumstances -in which each officer lost his life.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Those are the parts of the official report of the British Government -which I had the honor to communicate to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think it would perhaps be better if you also -read the appendix so as to show the summary of the evidence upon -which the report proceeded, Paragraph 9.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I refrained from reading the -appendix because it had already been read in due course by Sir -David Maxwell-Fyfe. I shall read it once more with pleasure:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“9. The appendix attached hereto gives a list of the material -upon which this report is based. The documents referred to -are annexed to this report.</p> - -<p>“Appendix.</p> - -<p>“Material upon which the foregoing report is based:</p> - -<p>“(1) Proceedings of court of inquiry held at Sagan by order of -the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded by -the protecting power.</p> - -<p>“(2) Statements of the following Allied witnesses: (a) Wing -Commander Day, (b) Flight Lieutenant Tonder, (c) Flight -Lieutenant Dowse, (d) Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, -(e) Flight Lieutenant Green, (f) Flight Lieutenant Marshall, -<span class='pageno' title='494' id='Page_494'></span> -(g) Flight Lieutenant Nelson, (h) Flight Lieutenant Churchill, -(i) Lieutenant Neely, (k) P. S. M. Hicks.</p> - -<p>“(3) Statements taken from the following Germans: (a) Major -General Westhoff, (b) Oberregierungsrat und Kriminalrat -Wielen (two statements), (c) Oberst Von Lindeiner.</p> - -<p>“(4) Photostat copy of the official list of dead transmitted by -the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation in Berlin on -or about 15 June 1944.</p> - -<p>“(5) Report of the representative of the protecting power on -his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then, for the purposes of the record, you had -better read in the signature and the department at the bottom.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The document is signed by H. -Shapcott, Brigadier, Military Deputy, and is certified by the Military -Department, Judge Advocate General’s Office, London, 25 September -1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, so far as the Russian -Chief Prosecutor is concerned, does that conclude the case for the -Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Paragraph 9 of the report which -has just been read by the Prosecution mentions the documents -which served as a basis for it and says that they are attached to -the report. The individual documents on which the report is based -are listed in the appendix. I ask the Tribunal to decide whether -Document USSR-413 satisfies the requirements of Article 21 of the -Charter, since the material on which it was based, and which is -expressly mentioned in the report, has not been produced along -with it. I request that the Prosecution be asked to make the -appendix available to the Defense as well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you mean that you have only -had the report made by the Brigadier and have not seen any part -of the other evidence upon which the report proceeds?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the Tribunal decided during an -earlier phase of this Trial . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: [<span class='it'>Interposing.</span>] Yes, but I did not ask you -what we had decided. I asked what you had received. Have you -received from the Prosecution the whole of this document or only -the report made by the Brigadier?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Only the report, without the appendix.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal certainly intended that -the whole of the document should be furnished to defendant’s -<span class='pageno' title='495' id='Page_495'></span> -counsel, and that must be done so that you may have all the documents -before you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: But that has obviously not been done. The appendix -expressly mentions statements made by Major General Westhoff -and by Oberregierungsrat Wielen. I am not acquainted with either -of these statements. They were not attached to the report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You must have them. The Prosecution must -see that the whole of this document is furnished to the Defense -Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I do not -think the whole of it has been copied, but if Dr. Nelte will let us -know if he wants the whole of it, or a part, we will co-operate -the best way we can. The last thing we desire is that he should -not have it. We want him to have everything he wants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, will you inform the Tribunal -whether the Prosecution have now concluded their case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. That is the -conclusion of the case for the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we will now proceed with -the applications for witnesses and documents by the second four -of the defendants: Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): -The Defendant Kaltenbrunner wishes to call a number -of witnesses whom I will name now. First, Professor Dr. Burckhardt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if the Tribunal -approves, we will adopt the same procedure as was done on the -first four defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the three Swiss witnesses, Burckhardt, Brachmann, -and Meyer, the interrogatories were granted on the 15th of -December and submitted on the 28th of January. The Prosecution -considered that the interrogatories were rather on the vague side -and suggested that they might be made more precise. The Prosecution -have no objection to interrogatories in principle, and I am -sure that there would not be much difference between Dr. Kauffmann -and the Prosecution as to the form. That applies to the first -three witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We are informed that none of these three -witnesses has been located yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I respectfully agree, My -Lord. That is the position of the Prosecution, that we have no -objection in principle to these interrogatories, and if we can help -the Court in any way to locate the witnesses, we should be glad -to do so. -<span class='pageno' title='496' id='Page_496'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: When were the interrogatories furnished to -the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of January, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And were the Prosecution’s objections communicated -to the Defense Counsel shortly afterwards, or when?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, I am afraid I have -not got that date, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t the most sensible course be for the -Prosecution to try to agree upon a suitable form of interrogatory -whilst the General Secretary is continuing his inquiries to find the -witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if Dr. Kauffmann -will communicate with me, I have no doubt that we could agree on -a form that would be mutually acceptable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I think there is no need for -me to repeat the individual questions which I have listed in the -interrogatory. There are 19 of them. I do not think that I need -repeat them now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: No, certainly not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The fourth witness is the former German -Minister in Belgrade, Neubacher. At present he is in the internment -camp Oberursel near Frankfurt, in American custody.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection to this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the Tribunal want me to specify the -evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Neubacher will, in the opinion of the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner, be able to testify that the order given by -Hitler in October 1944 to stop the persecution of the Jews was -really given at Kaltenbrunner’s suggestion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, in the opinion of the defendant, he will be able -to testify that when Himmler was appointed Chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt -he put the defendant in charge of Amt III -and VI. This seems to me to be important, since so far the Indictment -has always been based on the defendant’s definite connection -with Amt IV, which is, indeed, borne out to a certain extent by the -evidence. Neubacher is expected to be able to testify to this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if those are the questions -which it is desired to interrogate Neubacher on, couldn’t they be -dealt with by interrogatories? -<span class='pageno' title='497' id='Page_497'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: According to the information given to me -by Kaltenbrunner, Kaltenbrunner attaches importance to the -personal appearance of this witness for reasons which are easy to -understand. I believe that Kaltenbrunner considers this witness one -of the most important witnesses, and he would like to see this -witness called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The next witness is Number 5, Wanneck, -at present in American custody in Heidelberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution suggests that -the witness Wanneck is cumulative. According to Dr. Kauffmann’s -application, he is going to deal with the point that the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner was actually occupied mainly with the task of the -intelligence service and that he objected to persecution of the Jews. -That is already covered by Neubacher, and it is also covered by -the cross-examination of the Prosecution’s witness Schellenberg, -who was the chief of Amt VI, which Dr. Kauffmann has set out -in his note on the witness Neubacher, Number 4, as being one of -the Intelligence Ämter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I leave it to the Tribunal to decide whether -this witness could be dealt with by means of an interrogatory. But -I do consider the evidence material relevant in the case of Wanneck -as well. In a certain sense it is cumulative, but some points in it -go further. But I agree to an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The sixth witness is Scheidler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think it would be unreasonable -to administer an interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. Generally I make -no objection to interrogatories at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Scheidler, he was, as I understand the application, -the Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s adjutant, and as such the Prosecution -would not make any objection. But I think it would be -convenient if I were to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the -fact that the next six witnesses, Numbers 6 to 11 inclusive, all deal -with concentration camps, and numbers 6, 8, 9, and 11 deal with -Mauthausen. I want to give Dr. Kauffmann warning that I shall -ask for some selectivity among these six witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution feel that the application for an adjutant is a -reasonable one, but it will be reflected in objections to later witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The defendant naturally considers it important -that the adjutant who served him for many years and who -accompanied him on every single trip, as Kaltenbrunner told me -himself, be called. He knows also, for instance, that the wireless -<span class='pageno' title='498' id='Page_498'></span> -message to Fegelein, which is part of the accusation, did not come -from Kaltenbrunner and that his radiogram was never sent. He -also knows that Kaltenbrunner had made all preparations for the -Theresienstadt camp to be made accessible to the Red Cross. These -are things which have not been mentioned by previous witnesses, -but which shed some light on the person of the defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of Scheidler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to -deal with the whole of that group together, and then Dr. Kauffmann -can answer what you say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With pleasure, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is Ohlendorf, who was called as a witness for -the Prosecution. The situation as I have found it is that Dr. Kauffmann -did cross-examine the witness Ohlendorf on the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner’s responsibility on concentration camps on the 3rd of -January of this year, at Page 2034 of the transcript (Volume IV, -Page 335).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Wisliceny, Number 12, who has not been cross-examined -on behalf of Kaltenbrunner by Dr. Kauffmann, would -be the natural person to deal with that point. But, of course, if -Dr. Kauffmann has any special point for the recalling of Ohlendorf, -he will tell the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is the position.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if you had the opportunity -of cross-examining General Ohlendorf and actually availed yourself -of the opportunity wasn’t that the appropriate time for you to put -any questions which you had on behalf of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to remind you that Kaltenbrunner -was ill for more than 12 weeks and that I could get almost -no information from him. At the session of 2 January the right of -cross-examining the witnesses at a later date was expressly -granted me by the Tribunal. I had, as the Court will remember, -made a motion to adjourn, and then I was permitted to cross-examine -the witnesses at a given time which would suit me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That appears in the transcript of 2 January 1946.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As these witnesses have all been called in Kaltenbrunner’s -absence, I should like to cross-examine now in his presence. I am, -however, prepared to forego the cross-examination, if I can talk -to the witnesses beforehand. Perhaps it will not be necessary to -call one or the other witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by one or the other -witness? Which is the other? Wisliceny? -<span class='pageno' title='499' id='Page_499'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Number 7, Ohlendorf, and then Number 11, -Höllriegel, and Number 12, Wisliceny, also Number 14, Schellenberg. -All these witnesses have been heard here, and Kaltenbrunner was -ill at the time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about it, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest that Dr. Kauffmann -cross-examine Number 11, Höllriegel, and Number 12, -Wisliceny, whom he has not cross-examined so far. And then, if -there is any special point which remains to be dealt with by the -witness Ohlendorf, Dr. Kauffmann can make a special application -to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the Tribunal would like to know -what position you take about the defendants’ counsel seeing these -witnesses and discussing with them their evidence before they call -them. I mean, there is a distinction between cross-examination -when defendants’ counsel cannot see them and calling them as their -own witnesses when they can see them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, the Prosecution feel that -they ought simply to cross-examine witnesses that have been called -by the Prosecution, unless there are very special circumstances. I -think that Dr. Seidl showed special circumstances with regard to -the case that he mentioned of one witness in special relation to the -Defendant Hess. But as a general rule, the Prosecution submit that -witnesses that they have called should be cross-examined without -prior consultation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, the Tribunal would like to -know your view. Of course, we are not deciding the point now, -but we should like to know your view as to whether it would be a -proper course to allow the defendants’ counsel to see the particular -witness in the presence of a representative of the Prosecution, -because it may be that that would lead to a shortening of the -proceeding, because the defendants’ counsel might after that not wish -to cross-examine the witness any further.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am afraid that would -require discussions with my colleagues on each particular witness. -I am afraid I have not covered that point; witnesses 11 and 12 -were called by my American colleagues and although I take the -general position which I put before the Tribunal, I have not discussed -that point; but I shall be pleased to discuss it with them and -perhaps to inform the Tribunal later on in the day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, you will appreciate the fact that there may be a -special point relating to a special witness that may come up in this -connection. -<span class='pageno' title='500' id='Page_500'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I can explain this. The witness -Ohlendorf was reserved for me for cross-examination. In accordance -with an agreement made with the American Prosecution, I -dispensed with a cross-examination of Ohlendorf and on this -condition was allowed to speak to him. I think it would be quite -fair if I could do the same with other witnesses. I forego the cross-examination -and can speak to the witnesses beforehand. Perhaps -one or the other will turn out to be unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure that you understand -the view being put to you, Dr. Kauffmann. The view is that when -a witness is called on behalf of the Prosecution the defendants’ -counsel certainly have the right to cross-examine the witness, not -to see the witness beforehand, but only to cross-examine him. If -on the other hand they are entitled to call that witness as their -own, then they are entitled to see him beforehand, which is. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, that is what I mean. But if I am -allowed to speak to the witness beforehand, then the Court will -understand that I should like to avoid as far as possible the presence -of a representative of the Prosecution, since the reasons which -might cause me to forego the calling of a witness would then be -known to the Prosecution. I think everyone will understand that, -and I also think it is fair.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to clarify what the difference in -view between you and the Prosecution is. The Prosecution said -that when the witness was called for the Prosecution the right of -the defendants is only to cross-examine. Can you help us further -with respect to this group, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. With regard to -Eigruber, Number 8, he is no longer in Nuremberg, and he is being -held as a probable defendant in the case concerning Mauthausen -Camp, which will be dealt with by a military court, and therefore -the Prosecution suggests that in these circumstances, as he is one -of this group dealing with concentration camps in general and -Mauthausen in particular, he ought to be dealt with by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to Höttl, Number 9, he deals with two aspects of -one point, that is, that Kaltenbrunner on his own initiative ordered -the surrender of the concentration camp of Mauthausen and that -he took steps to induce Himmler to release people from concentration -camps. These seem to be general points that again might -be conveniently dealt with by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And the same applies to the witness Von Eberstein, who deals -with the point that Kaltenbrunner is alleged not to have given -an order to destroy the concentration camp at Dachau, and that he -<span class='pageno' title='501' id='Page_501'></span> -did not give an order to evacuate Dachau. The Prosecution suggest -that these ought also to be interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the next witness, Höllriegel, the Prosecution -make no objection to further cross-examination, and respectfully -suggest to the Tribunal that he will be able to deal with the question -of Mauthausen, which is one of the main questions that this whole -group of witnesses is called to deal with.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: [<span class='it'>Interposing.</span>] Maybe I can say something -so that. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: [<span class='it'>To Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.</span>] Are you in -agreement with Number 12, in the same group?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 12 is not in the same -group, because he deals with the question of Kaltenbrunner’s -relations with Eichmann and with reports he received regarding -the action against the Jews. We have no objection to this witness -being called for cross-examination, as Dr. Kauffmann did not cross-examine -him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Concerning the witness Eigruber, Number 8, -may I point out that this witness is here in Nuremberg. However, -I agree that interrogatories be sent. The subject of the evidence -itself seems to me decidedly relevant, for what Eigruber is supposed -to testify is neither more nor less than the fact that the concentration -camp at Mauthausen was directly supervised by Himmler -through Pohl and the commander of the camp. Kaltenbrunner -denies the possession of exact knowledge regarding Mauthausen. The -witness Höttl. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You were in error in saying he was here -in town. Sir David said he has been removed from Nuremberg for -the purpose of trial by a military court. So perhaps you would not -object to interrogatories in that case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. The witness Höttl is, in my opinion, -an important witness. As we know, Kaltenbrunner is also accused -of having participated in the conspiracy against the peace. Here -I intend to prove that Kaltenbrunner conducted an active peace -campaign ever since 1943. An important name in this connection -is Mr. Dulles. He is, according to Kaltenbrunner, the late President -Roosevelt’s confidential agent. Mr. Dulles was in Switzerland. -According to Kaltenbrunner, meetings between them constantly took -place with this object. I believe that this subject of evidence is -relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Höttl in person, -not by way of interrogatories? -<span class='pageno' title='502' id='Page_502'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 10, General of the Police -Von Eberstein, is called to prove that the statement of another -witness by the name of Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will perhaps -remember that the Prosecution submitted an affidavit by a man -named Gerdes who was an important figure in Munich. He was -the confidential agent of the former Gauleiter of Munich. In his -affidavit, Gerdes accuses Kaltenbrunner of ordering the destruction -of Dachau through bombing. Kaltenbrunner emphatically denies -that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly -dealt with by interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did -give an order to destroy a concentration camp, or an order to -evacuate Dachau. Surely those are matters which admit of proof by -interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree. The same problem arises in connection -with the next witness, Number 11, the witness Höllriegel, -who has already been heard. Am I to have the opportunity of -speaking to this witness before he is cross-examined? Kaltenbrunner -denies that he ever saw gas chambers, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, isn’t Number 11 really -cumulative to Number 6, whom you particularly wanted to call?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the -question whether you ought to be given the right merely to cross-examine -or to recall as your own witness, with reference to -Numbers 11 and 12.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. Just a word about witness Number 12. -Eichmann, as is well known, was the man who carried out the whole -extermination operation against the Jews, and Kaltenbrunner’s -name has been mentioned in connection with this operation. -Kaltenbrunner denies it. For that reason I consider Wisliceny a -relevant witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the -other ones, Sir David? Are they in the same category?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite, but I think it might -be convenient if I deal with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner -did not authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders for protective -custody or internment, and I should submit that in view -of the previous evidence, of Scheidler and Number 4, Neubacher, -<span class='pageno' title='503' id='Page_503'></span> -Dr. Mildner’s evidence is cumulative and that interrogatories would -suffice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Schellenberg, Number 14, I have already said that the -Prosecution make no objection to his recall for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because the -object of his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended to the -Gauleiter of Austria not to oppose the advancing troops of the -Western Powers and not to organize Werewolf movements, is in our -submission irrelevant to the issues before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Kauffmann?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is -here in Nuremberg, in custody. I have asked to call this witness -because he has submitted an affidavit containing certain accusations -against Kaltenbrunner which Kaltenbrunner denies. I do not -think that an interrogatory can clear up these difficulties.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Number 14 . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner had submitted an affidavit?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Sir. There is a reference in the Indictment -to an affidavit made by Dr. Mildner. I believe it was on -3 January. The witness’ name was mentioned in connection -with the charges against Kaltenbrunner. There are one or two -affidavits. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit has not been produced -to the Court, what have we got to do with it? We have not seen -it, at least in my recollection. You know about it, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not been able to trace -this affidavit of Dr. Mildner’s. I do not remember it, but I will -willingly check the reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the Prosecution have used the -affidavit, then you would have no objection to the witness being -called for cross-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason -why I am rather surprised is that usually that point has been -taken when it is sought to use the affidavit. The Defense Counsel -involved has asked for the production of the witness—but I will -have it looked into, this particular point; but in general the Tribunal -may take it that unless we put forward a special point, where an -affidavit has been given, and where we have not argued to the -Court previously, it is a very good case for the witness’s being -brought here, if it is convenient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that Dr. Kauffmann -was saying that the affidavit had actually been put in by the -<span class='pageno' title='504' id='Page_504'></span> -Prosecution, but there was some reference made to it. Is that right, -Dr. Kauffmann?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: It would not take me long to look it up. I -have the files for 3 January here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, we will give you an opportunity -for looking that up. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The name of Mildner appears in the transcript -of 2 January, not in the form of an affidavit but in the form -of a letter written by a third person and this letter is only mentioned -in connection with Mildner’s name; it is not an affidavit. I should -like to request that Mildner be interrogated in writing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now turning to witness Number 15 . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFMANN: We have already dealt with Number 14.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very -well, then 15.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 15 is Rainer, who was a -Gauleiter. I should like to request that this witness be heard as -well. He is in Nuremberg. The subject of the evidence seems -important to me. In the case against Kaltenbrunner, he is not expressly -charged with the contrary; but if we are dealing with peace -and violations of peace, an effort on the part of the defendant to -prove that he has done everything in his power to prevent further -bloodshed seems to me relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that -witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I have not yet submitted any documents, Mr. -President. Later on, I may present some affidavits, but, as I have -not yet received them, I cannot present them at the moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, -that you wish to reserve for yourself the right to apply to put in -documents at a later stage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you -know when they make the order. -<span class='pageno' title='505' id='Page_505'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Dr. Thoma?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal -with the document list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the first six documents, -which are quotations from various books on philosophy, the Prosecution -submit that they are irrelevant to the question of the -ideology propounded by the Defendant Rosenberg, which the Prosecution -make part of the case against him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would quote -from such books in making his speech, and if he would let us know -the passages he wants to quote so they can be dealt with mechanically, -we do not make any anticipatory objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think that takes us up to Number 6—which are purely general -books on philosophy. The Prosecution view with some dismay all -these books being put in evidence and the Prosecutors having to -read them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr. Thoma -wishes to use them to illustrate the argument, and if he lets us -know the passage, we make no general objection, but we object to -their being put in as evidence, as not being relevant to the matters -before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I do not think that it is possible without a consideration -of world philosophy before Rosenberg’s time to understand -the morbid psychological state of the German people after their -defeat in the first World War. Unless this psychological condition is -appreciated, it is impossible to understand why Rosenberg believed -that his ideas could help them. I am extremely anxious to show that -Rosenberg’s theories were representative of a phase of contemporary -philosophy taught in similar form by many other philosophers both -at home and abroad. I am extremely anxious to refute the charges -made against Rosenberg’s ideology as degenerate and—I must quote -the expression—a “smutty ideology.” I have to bear in mind that -the members of the Prosecution, especially M. De Menthon, who has -made a special study of the National Socialist ideology, made the -very natural mistake of confusing the extravagances and abuses of -this ideology, usually dubbed “Nazism,” with its real philosophic -content. The French Revolution of 1789 was in the same way, I -believe, represented by neighboring peoples as a disaster of the first -magnitude, and all the rulers in Europe were called upon to fight -against it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that the Court was specially impressed by M. De Menthon’s -statements, which represented the Nazi ideology as having -no spiritual value and described it as a dangerous doctrine. I think -<span class='pageno' title='506' id='Page_506'></span> -we must allow the possibility of its being taught in other countries -as well at that time. I should like, therefore, to ask permission to -present the philosophical systems of the time in question, by which -I mean the views expressed by other philosophers on Rosenberg’s -main concepts, especially the question of blood or race, the soil as -a fact of nature and as political and economic living space. Science -declares that these ideas are based on the irrational presentation of -natural and historical facts. They cannot be dismissed for that reason -as unscientific, although they may be disturbing to rationalism and -humanism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like, in particular, to prove that these ideas have been -respected and developed by rational and empirical science on account -of their significance, and that they have been put into practice by -other countries in their policy—a fact which I think is important. -I need only remind you of the U.S.A. immigration laws, which also -give preference to particular races.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he -wants to use the teachings of other philosophers as illustrations and -arguments. If he is going to quote from them, then all that the -Prosecution ask is that he tell us which passages he is going to -quote, but we suggest that it is not relevant for us to go into an -examination of, say, M. Bergson’s book as a matter of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr. Thoma -will be well able to develop the point which he has just put with -the limitation which I have just suggested.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know -what it is that you actually propose. Are you proposing to put in -evidence certain passages from certain books and that the Tribunal -should read them or are you simply asking for the production of -books so that you may consult them, read them, and then incorporate -in your argument certain ideas which you may gather from -the books?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I ask the Tribunal to note—officially, at least—the -contents of the books which I shall submit. I shall not read all these -quotations from the books, but I shall ask the Tribunal to note the -outlines. I think it is important for the Tribunal to have the passages -quoted from these books actually before them, so that they may -have a clear picture of the philosophical—and particularly of the -ethical situation—of the German people after their defeat in the -World War.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But the books are not books of any legal -authority. You can only cite, surely, to a court of international law, -books that are authorities on international law. You can, of course, -<span class='pageno' title='507' id='Page_507'></span> -collect ideas from other books which you can incorporate in your -argument. You cannot cite them as authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, by submitting quotations from the -works of well-known philosophers who presented ideas similar to -Rosenberg’s, I propose to prove that this ideology is to be taken -quite seriously. In the second place I want to prove that those -features of Rosenberg’s ideology which have been branded as immoral -and harmful are extravagances and abuses of this ideology; -and in my opinion it is most important for the Tribunal to know -from a consideration of the history of philosophy, that even the best -ideas—such as the French Revolution—can degenerate. I should -like to point out these historical parallels to National Socialism and -to Rosenberg’s ideology.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also need these books to prove that Rosenberg was concerned -only with the spiritual combating of alien ideology and that he was -not in a position to protest any more energetically against the brutal -application of his ideology in National Socialism, but that as a -matter of principle he allowed scientific discussions of his works to -proceed freely and never called in the Gestapo against his theological -opponents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>He assumed that his ethnic ideas were not to be carried through -by force, but that every people should preserve its own racial -character and that intermingling was only permissible in the case -of kindred races. He believed that this ideology was for the good of -the German people and in the interest of humanity generally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For these reasons I believe that the Tribunal, in order to have -a vivid picture of the background of the development of National -Socialism, should inform itself of the spiritual conditions of that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the argument you -have addressed to it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document Number -7, that is, excerpts from certain books, the first five are from -Rosenberg’s own works, and the last is a book by another author -on Hitler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Again I submit that if Dr. Thoma wants to support the thesis -contained in the first half of his note—that “the Defendant Rosenberg -does not see individual and race, individual and community, -at contrast but represents the new romantical conception that the -personality finds its perfection and its inner freedom by having the -community of the racial spirit developed and represented within -itself”—if Dr. Thoma will give any of the extracts from Rosenberg’s -works on which he bases that argument, then he can present them -at whatever part of his case is convenient; and similarly, with regard -to the specific points set out in the second part of his note—there -<span class='pageno' title='508' id='Page_508'></span> -again, if he will give the relevant extracts, they can be considered -and their relevancy for the purpose of this Court dealt with when -he introduces them in his presentation. But again I take general -objection to the fact that either the Court or the Prosecution should -read all these works and treat them as evidence. I developed that -about the previous document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, if I quote Rosenberg’s actual words -and ask the Tribunal to take official notice of them, I shall be in the -fortunate position of being able to show that Rosenberg’s philosophy -and ideology differ basically from the extravagances and abuses -which were attributed to him and to which he took exception.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am in a position to show that it is clear from his works that -Rosenberg intended the Leadership Principle to be restricted by a -special council exercising an authoritative, advisory function. I shall -also be able to show that the <span class='it'>Myth of the Twentieth Century</span> was a -purely personal work of Rosenberg’s which Hitler did not by any -means accept without reserve. More especially, I am in a position -to prove that Rosenberg, as his works will show, would have nothing -to do with the physical destruction of the Jews and that, as far as -his writings show, he took no part in the psychological preparations -for war and that, as far as his writings show, he worked for a -peaceful international settlement, especially between the four great -European powers of the period. Therefore I beg the Tribunal to -allow me to submit the real, genuine quotations from his writings -as evidence material.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will consider the -whole question of the production of and the citation from these -books.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 8, My Lord, falls into -a rather different field. The first 11 documents seem to be books and -writings containing Jewish views of an antinational basis. The Prosecution -reminds the Tribunal that the questions at issue are: Did -the defendants as co-conspirators embark on a policy of persecution -of the Jews; secondly, did the defendants participate in the later -manifestations of that policy, the deliberate extermination of the -Jews? Within the submission of the Prosecution, it is remote and -irrelevant to these important and terrible accusations that certain -Jewish writings, spread over a period of years, contained matters -which were not very palatable to Christians.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I should like to reply to this point as -follows: I am not interested in showing that the Nazi measures -against the Jews were justified. I am interested only in making -clear the psychological reasons for anti-Semitism in Germany; and -I think I am justified in asking you to listen to some quotations of -<span class='pageno' title='509' id='Page_509'></span> -this kind taken from newspapers, since they must by their very -nature offend the patriotic and Christian susceptibilities of very -many people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must go rather more deeply into this question, too, in order to -show the reason for the existence of the so-called Jewish problem -in history and religion and the reason for the tragic opposition -between Jewry and other races. I should like to quote both Jewish -and theological literature on the point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the Tribunal -can take the remaining documents, 9 to 14, together. They seem to -deal with specific and, if I may say so without the least intention of -offense, more practical matters, in that they deal with the government -of the Eastern territories, for which this defendant was -responsible; and the Prosecution has no objection to my friend’s -using these documents in such a way as it seems fit to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I should like to mention the following points in -connection with the documents:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have had four additional documents allowed in part by the -Tribunal. I have not been able to submit them, because they have -not yet been handed over to me; but I would like to tell the Tribunal -what they are: First, a letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in 1924, -containing a request by Rosenberg not to be accepted as a candidate -for the Reichstag; second, a letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in -1931 regarding his dismissal from the post of editor in chief of the -<span class='it'>Völkischer Beobachter</span>, the reason being that Rosenberg’s <span class='it'>Myth of -the Twentieth Century</span> created a tremendous stir among the German -people. Rosenberg asked at the time that his work be considered a -purely personal work, something which it actually was, and that if -his writing was in any way detrimental to the Party, he would ask -to be released from his position as editor of the <span class='it'>Völkischer Beobachter</span>; -third, I should like to include a directive from Hitler to Minister for -the Eastern Occupied Territories Rosenberg, dated June 1943, in -which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit himself to matters of -principle; fourth, an eight-page letter from Hitler to Rosenberg, -written by hand and dating from the year 1925.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And the fourth one? Will you state the fourth -one, the fourth document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I am coming to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Point 4—a letter written by Hitler to Rosenberg in 1925, in which -Hitler stated his reasons for refusing on principle to take part in the -Reichstag elections. Rosenberg’s view at that time was that the -Party should enter the Reichstag and co-operate practically with the -other parties. -<span class='pageno' title='510' id='Page_510'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have just learned that this letter is dated 1923.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Gentlemen, this is something of decisive importance. From the -very beginning, Rosenberg wanted the NSDAP to co-operate with -the other parties. That could constitute the exact opposite of a -conspiracy from the start. May I present to the Court a copy of my -four applications?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these seem to be -individual documents whose relevancy can be finally dealt with -when Dr. Thoma shows their purpose in his exposition. I do not -stress that the Tribunal need not make any final decision on them at -the present time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I should like to refer to the fact that I have already -asked the General Secretary to admit these documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, have you the documents in your -possession?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Yes, My Lord. The only documents that are lacking -are the four I have just mentioned. They are still in the hands of -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: They are in the hands of the Prosecution, -are they?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not appreciated that. If -Dr. Thoma wants the documents we will do our best to find them. -The first time I heard of them, of course, was when Dr. Thoma -started speaking a few minutes ago. If the Prosecution have them -or can find them, they will let Dr. Thoma have them or have copies -of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Thoma, why it is that you -have not put in a written application for these four?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I have made such a request, My Lord, several days -or a week ago. I made the first request already in November.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: For these four documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: It is like this: The first two documents were -granted me already in November or December 1945, but I have not -as yet received them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider that. Well, that -finishes your documents, does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the -witnesses, it might be convenient if I indicated the view of the -Prosecution on the, say, first six. The Prosecution has no objection -<span class='pageno' title='511' id='Page_511'></span> -to the first witness, Riecke, the State Secretary of the Ministry of -Agriculture, or to Dr. Lammers, who is being summoned for a -number of the defendants, or to Ministerialrat Beil, who was the -deputy chief of the Main Department of Labor and Social Policy in -the East Ministry.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the next one, Number 4, Dr. Stellbrecht, the -Prosecution suggests that that is a very general matter which does -not seem very relevant, and they say that Dr. Stellbrecht should be -cut out, or at the most that that point be dealt with by a short -interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We also object to 5 and 6, General Dankers and Professor -Astrowski. General Dankers is sought to say that certain theaters -and museums of art in Latvia remained untouched, and that -hundreds of thousands of Latvians begged to be able to come into -the Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are papers about certain laws. The Prosecution submits -that that evidence does not really touch the matters that are alleged -against the Defendant Rosenberg and again they make objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Professor Astrowski, who is alleged to be the Chief of the White -Ruthenian Central Council and whose whereabouts are still -unknown, who was last in Berlin, is to be called to prove that the -Commissioner General in Minsk exerted all efforts in order to save -White Ruthenian cultural goods. There again the Prosecution says -that that is a very general and indefinite allegation and, if the -defendant and certain of his officials are called to give evidence as -to his policy and administration, it is suggested that the witnesses 5 -and 6 are really unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might also deal with Number 7, because the first seven witnesses -are the subject of a note by Dr. Thoma. Number 7 is Dr. Haiding, -who is the Chief of the Institute for German Ethnology, and it is -sought to call him in order to prove that in the Baltic countries -cultural institutions were advanced and new ones founded by -Rosenberg. That witness, the Prosecution submits, falls into the -same category as Dankers and Astrowski. But, with regard to him, -if there is any general point, they say that he could be dealt with -by interrogatories but certainly should not be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is relevant for the Tribunal to read the note under Number 8 -dealing with these witnesses. Dr. Thoma says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The witnesses can present evidence for the refutation of the -Soviet accusation that Rosenberg participated in the planning -of a world ideology for the extermination of the Slavs and -for the persecution of all dissenters.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>The Prosecution submits that the three witnesses that they have -suggested, coupled with the interrogatories, if necessary, in the case -of Stellbrecht and Haiding, should cover these points amply. -<span class='pageno' title='512' id='Page_512'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I agree with Sir David that as far as Dr. Haiding -and Dr. Stellbrecht are concerned an interrogatory will be sufficient. -Regarding witnesses Numbers 5 and 6, I was interested in bringing -in as witnesses people who actually lived in these countries and -who have their personal impressions of Rosenberg’s cultural activities; -and I request that these witnesses be granted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness Scheidt comes into -the story of the Defendant Rosenberg’s connection with Quisling, -and this has been dealt with by interrogatories by the Defense and -by certain cross-interrogatories by the Prosecution. This is obviously -an important part of the case, and I suggest that the Tribunal does -not decide as to the personal summoning of Scheidt until the answers -to the interrogatories are before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 10 is Robert Scholz, the department chief in the Special -Staff of creative art, and roughly the evidence is to show that the -defendant did not take the works of art for his personal benefit. The -Tribunal ordered the alerting of this witness on the 14th of January, -but on the 24th of January the application for this witness was -withdrawn and it is now renewed by Dr. Thoma. If the Tribunal -will look at the way in which it is put in Dr. Thoma’s application, -which is limited and guided by certain specific acts on which Mr. -Scholz can speak—the Prosecution suggest that the Tribunal might -think the most convenient way was again to get a set of interrogatories -on Mr. Scholz, and see how he can deal with the many -individual points put to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the case of the witness -Wilhelm Scheidt touches the question of Norway. Scheidt is the -decisive witness as to the reports made by Quisling of his own -volition without being invited to do so, either through the Amt Rosenberg -for foreign policy or through the Reich Ministry for Foreign -Affairs. I believe that a personal hearing, a cross-examination, of -this witness Scheidt is extremely important, because he can give a -great deal of detailed information which is decisive for the question -of whether or not Hitler conducted a war of aggression against -Norway.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have been granted an interrogatory for the witness, Departmental -Director Scheidt, and I have already taken steps to confer -with the Prosecution in this connection. The witness Wilhelm Scheidt -has not made an affidavit; but I must point out to the Tribunal that -I should have to be present when the affidavit is made and that I -should be allowed to question the witness myself, in common with -the Prosecution. I should like to repeat my request to cross-examine -this Wilhelm Scheidt as a witness. -<span class='pageno' title='513' id='Page_513'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, if the witness was granted to you -as a witness to give evidence in court, it would not be necessary for -you to have any representative of the Prosecution when you saw the -witness wherever he might be. The advance of a witness would -entitle you to see him yourself and to obtain proof of his evidence. -Is that clear?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: So far I have been granted only an affidavit. I -have not been granted him as a witness as yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to make clear to you the -difference between interrogatories and being allowed to call a witness -to give all the evidence. Of course, if you are submitting to -written interrogatories, you would not see the witness; but if, on the -other hand, you were going to call the witness as a witness or to -present an affidavit from him, you would then be at liberty to see -the witness before he made his affidavit or before he drew up his -proof.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Then I should like to put the request that Wilhelm -Scheidt be called as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you are making that request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: As far as Robert Scholz is concerned, I should like -to point out to the Tribunal that Scholz was the director of the -Special Staff entrusted with the practical application of measures -to be taken for the safekeeping of works of art in both eastern and -western districts and I should like to draw the special attention of -the Tribunal to the fact that a number of learned German experts -were members of this Special Staff and that they did a great deal -of very conscientious work in safeguarding, restoring, and protecting -these works of art and in preserving them for posterity. The way -in which this Special Staff did its work is of decisive importance, -therefore, for a good many men. Robert Scholz knows every detail -of the procedure. Robert Scholz can testify, in particular, to the fact -that Rosenberg did not appropriate for himself a single one of the -enormous wealth of art treasures that passed through his hands -and that he kept a careful record of those that went to Hitler and -Göring. He also knows that all these works of art—or, at least, the -greater part of them—were left where they were at first, especially -in the East, and were only brought to the Reich when it was no -longer safe to delay.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to hear this important witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application -was withdrawn on the 24th of January?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: It was said then—I think by the British or American -Prosecution—that the Special Staff would not be mentioned -<span class='pageno' title='514' id='Page_514'></span> -again during the proceedings. The French Prosecution, however, -have now given detailed accounts of the looting of France; and so -this witness is once more required.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, I think?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I have one other request. I want to call a further -witness, and I have already filed a request with the General Secretary -for this witness, ministerial Subdirector Bräutigam. Bräutigam -was Junior Assistant Secretary in the Ministry for the Occupied -Eastern Territories, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that -Rosenberg, in his capacity of Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern -Territories, did not persecute the churches but granted freedom to -all religious sects by the issue of an edict of tolerance; that, further, -Rosenberg himself consistently opposed the use of force, supported -a policy of promoting culture and represented the view that the -peasant class should be strengthened and established on a healthy -basis. Further—and this seems to me to be particularly significant—that -very many letters and telegrams of thanks from the clergy in -the Soviet Union arrived at the ministry for Occupied Eastern -Territories addressed to Rosenberg. Gentlemen, if Dankers and -Astrowski are not granted as witnesses, then I request permission -to go back to Bräutigam.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And then I have one further witness. To show how Rosenberg -behaved towards his academic opponents, I should like to call one -of these academic opponents, to wit, Dr. Kuenneth, a university -professor who wrote an important book attacking the <span class='it'>Mythos</span>. He -will testify that those who disagreed with Rosenberg’s philosophy -were not at all afraid of the Gestapo and that they had no cause -to fear the Gestapo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those -last two?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these -last two witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this -defendant which have been developed by the Prosecution. They are -general witnesses, and if I may put it—I hope the Tribunal will not -think it flippant to put it this way—they are really witnesses who -say that the Defendant Rosenberg would not hurt a fly; we have -often seen him doing it—not hurting flies. That really puts it quite -briefly as to what this class of evidence amounts to, and I respectfully -submit, on behalf of my colleagues, that that should not be the -subject of oral evidence, and it should be disallowed; or if there is -any special point raised, it should be dealt with by an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated -the persecution of churches? -<span class='pageno' title='515' id='Page_515'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took -part in antireligious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That -is one of the matters. And I think there was certain correspondence -between him and the Defendant Bormann, which was directed -towards his antireligious views. I do not remember at the moment -that there was any evidence that he had personally participated in -physical destruction of churches. That is my recollection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I am reminded that there is a general allegation in -Appendix A that he authorized, directed, and participated in the -War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, including a wide variety -of crimes against persons and property.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans -Bühler, State Secretary with the Chief of the Administration in the -Government General. This witness is detained here in Nuremberg, -pending trial; and he is the most important witness for the Defendant -Dr. Frank. He is called for Dr. Frank’s whole policy in the -Government General, since he was head of the government during -the entire period from the establishment of the Government General -up to the end.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to -Dr. Bühler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have not, My Lord. The -only point that I want to make clear is that the Defendant Frank -calls an enormous number of witnesses from his own officials; he -calls something like 15. And I am not going to object to Dr. Bühler; -I am going to ask the Tribunal to cut down substantially the witnesses -who were officials of the Government General. And it might -help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the adjournment that my suggestion -would be that the Tribunal would consider allowing Dr. Bühler, -an affidavit from Dr. Von Burgsdorff, and that they might consider -allowing Fräulein Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s secretary, and -Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of officials from -the Government General.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow -Dr. Bühler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bühler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow -Dr. Lammers—he is in the general list. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Allow the private secretary, -Fräulein Kraffczyk, Number 7, and allow Numbers 9 and 10. -<span class='pageno' title='516' id='Page_516'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What are the names?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed, I -should suggest that Numbers 13 to 20, who are various officials from -the office of the Government General, should not be allowed. If I -may say so, with the submission of the Prosecution, the height of -irrelevancy will be Number 18, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the -Forestry Department.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient -for Dr. Seidl to know what the views of the Prosecution were. Of -course, if he has any suggestions of any alternatives we should be -pleased to consider them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, -Dr. Seidl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Before the Tribunal rises, before the adjournment, I want to say -that the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at 3:30.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='517' id='Page_517'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, if I understand correctly, -Sir David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses -Dr. Hans Bühler, Dr. Bilfinger, and Fräulein Kraffczyk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The second witness named by me is Dr. Von Burgsdorff, -whose last appointment was that of Governor of Kraków. He -is at present in the Moosburg Internment Camp, which means that -he is close to Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff is the only one of the nine -governors whom I have named to the Court as a witness. Considering -the importance of the position of the governors in the -Government General and in view of the great difficulties which -these governors had to overcome, it seems proper to me that the -witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff should be heard personally by the Court -and not by means of an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is it necessary for me to read out the evidence material in detail -now, or is it enough to refer to the application for evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand -that, while Sir David suggests an affidavit, you want to insist -upon his coming personally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, since the Court approved the -calling of this witness at an earlier date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reich Minister and Chief of the -Reich Chancellery Dr. Lammers. This witness has already been -approved for the Defendant Keitel, so that no further discussion -is necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard -to the fact that this witness is called in connection with evidence -for which the witness Dr. Lammers was also named, I should like to -ask the Tribunal to allow an interrogatory unless this witness is -called for another defendant and can appear in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point -as far as I could from my records, and I could not find that he was -being called as a witness for any other defendant. And, as Dr. Seidl -very fairly says in his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for -the same evidence material as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is -my point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='518' id='Page_518'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, former -Chief of the Chancellery of the Government General, who, like -Dr. Von Burgsdorff, is in Moosburg. My written application shows -that this witness held a very important appointment. He received -all the correspondence of the administration of the Government -General and is acquainted in particular with the substance, with -suggestions and complaints addressed by the Defendant Dr. Frank -to the central government authorities in Berlin, and in particular -with the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank repeatedly made -to the Führer himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was likewise approved previously by the Tribunal, -and I think that considering the vast knowledge of this witness—he -worked in the Government General for several years—a personal -hearing before this Court seems advisable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not -approved as one out of a group of which Frank was to choose -three? There was a large group of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The witnesses Von Burgsdorff -and Dr. Max Meidinger were chosen from this group. Those are the -two witnesses who were selected from a group of 13.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The other one was witness Number 2, Dr. Von Burgsdorff. -Witness Number 6, whom I have named and whom I should -like to have called in person, is the witness Hans Gassner. His last -appointment was that of press chief of the Government General, and -he is also in the Moosburg Internment Camp. He was named, along -with some others, to give evidence that the Defendant Frank did -not hear of the existence of the camp of Maidanek and the conditions -prevailing there until 1944, and then only because the witness -informed him of reports published by the foreign press.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was also present—this is not stated in my application—when -Dr. Frank told a press reporter that the forests of -Poland would not be large enough to publish the death warrants. -The witness will also be able to describe the interview in detail, to -say what Frank meant by this remark, how he intended it to be -understood, and what his reasons were for making the remark.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I may add that the Court likewise approved this witness at an -earlier date. I may say also, generally speaking, that, according to -the wishes of the Tribunal, my applications for evidence will only -indicate the general lines on which the witnesses are to be questioned -and that I have consciously refrained from formulating the -separate questions which I intend to put to the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about -Number 6? -<span class='pageno' title='519' id='Page_519'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, it -seemed to the Prosecution that the second matter which Herr -Gassner was desired to speak about, that the Defendant Frank -learned from him only in 1944 about Maidanek, is really a matter -about which no witness can be as satisfactory as the defendant -himself. All the witness can say is, “I told the Defendant Frank -about Maidanek, and it appeared to me that he did not know anything -about it.” Well, that is not, in the view of the Prosecution, -satisfactory evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Court will be able to judge from the Defendant Frank himself -when he has been cross-examined on that point. If it is desired -that that interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submit -that it could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an -interrogatory. Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general -and again could be covered by a written statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already -expressed his views on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s last secretary. -If I understand correctly, there are no objections on the part -of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 8 is General Von Epp, the last Reich Governor -of Bavaria. He is at present in the internment camp at Oberursel. -The statements to be made by this witness will be mainly concerned -with the attitude of the Defendant Frank towards the concentration -camps in 1933. As the witness is at present in the -neighborhood of Frankfurt, I should be satisfied in this case with -an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that -General Ritter von Epp seems to cover the same incident as -Dr. Stepp. I said that I would not object to Dr. Stepp, but if -Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on some specific points from -General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, -late Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannführer in the Reich -Security Main Office. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. -The Prosecution apparently has no objection to the hearing of this -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Number 10. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [<span class='it'>Interposing</span>] My Lord, I would -just like to say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal -to understand what the Prosecution have in mind. The general plan -<span class='pageno' title='520' id='Page_520'></span> -for these witnesses is to show from both ends the relationship -between the Defendant Frank and the central agencies. The Prosecution -thought that it was right that the defendant should be -allowed to call two or three members of his own staff and a member -from headquarters, who was in the position of Dr. Bilfinger, to give -the other side of the picture. I just wanted the Tribunal to understand -the plan on which we were working.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, former chief judge -of the highest regional court of appeal in Munich. He is at present -in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I understand Sir David -correctly, he has no objection to the calling of this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the Court an -affidavit which is in my possession, and which will prove the veracity -of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take -a few minutes, if the Court would permit me to call another witness -instead, or if it would withdraw its objection to my calling another -witness. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; I have to ask for some notice as -to who the other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection -to Dr. Stepp, because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank’s position -in relation to other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I -cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues and accept just another -witness blindly until I know who the witness is and what he is -going to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as -possible. The reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was -because, as the Tribunal will see under Number 7, it is stated that -Fräulein Kraffczyk is called for positive facts for which the witness -Dr. Meidinger has already been named. It seemed to me that the -private secretary is probably the most useful witness, but I am -afraid that I cannot help Dr. Seidl any further. I have put my view, -but I shall not say anything further against him. I am afraid that -is as far as I can go on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 11, is Von dem Bach-Zelewski, -SS Obergruppenführer and general of the Waffen-SS, -who has already been heard by this Tribunal as a witness for the -Prosecution. The Court has already at an earlier date granted permission -for an interrogatory. In the meantime I have spoken to the -witness. He has made an affidavit, which I shall submit instead of -calling him in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it -would be most convenient if the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski -<span class='pageno' title='521' id='Page_521'></span> -came back, and then Dr. Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he -wanted. We might want to re-examine on the point. I do not know -what is in the affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity -to cross-examine him, and for that reason. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine -him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be -called by the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to -speak to the Defendant Frank about the questions which might have -been put to this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness -ought to be recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be -allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has -made, has that been submitted to the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the -following. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did -you see him with a representative of the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself -granted me permission to speak to the witness, and that was after -the Court had already approved the use of an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution -and you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you -were not ready to cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine -him at a later date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine -at that time, because you had not had any communication -with the Defendant Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked -to cross-examine at a later date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I -had thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. -I did not find out until later that the witness possessed any vital -information relevant to Frank’s case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The -difficulty of a cross-examination is just this, that we do not learn -of the intended calling of a witness by the Prosecution until the -witness is led into the courtroom, and we do not know the subject -of the evidence until the Prosecution start to examine the witness. -<span class='pageno' title='522' id='Page_522'></span> -It would have been much easier for us to cross-examine, if we had -received information about the witnesses and the subjects of evidence -as far in advance as the Prosecution—that is, as the Prosecution -is informed about the witnesses for the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is witness Number 12, Von Palezieux. His last -appointment was that of art expert in the Government General. In -regard to this witness I should like to suggest that an interrogatory -might be granted in this case too.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory, -I have no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a -written interrogatory. I do not want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you -not, Dr. Seidl?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes; I assume that in cases where a written interrogatory -is admitted the submission of an affidavit is also admitted -by the Court. The purpose is obviously to avoid bringing witnesses -here and thus to save time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is Number 13, Dr. Böpple. His last appointment -was that of State Secretary in the administration of the Government -General. He is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg -near Stuttgart. This witness seems to me to be one of the most -important because in the administration of the Government General -he answered a number of questions which play an important part -in the case against the Defendant Frank. I may refer to the details -in my list of evidence and should like to add, above all, that this -witness can give detailed information as to whether, during the -5 years of the Government General’s existence, the industrial equipment -of the area was exploited or whether in 1943 and 1944, as a -result of transfers from the Reich, the Government General did -not possess a considerably greater industrial potential than before.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submit that, as -is stated in the first sentence, Dr. Böpple is called for a number of -facts of evidence for which Dr. Bühler has been already generally -mentioned. Part of the evidence stated is the relationship with the -Government General agencies, and the remainder, as to the happenings -in the Government General, can be dealt with by the witness -already agreed to by the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr. Böpple -is to confirm are also to be testified to by Bühler. But in my opinion -it cannot be denied that the subject of evidence for which I have -named this witness is so important that one witness might not be -sufficient to convince the Court. -<span class='pageno' title='523' id='Page_523'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like furthermore to point out the following: The witness -Bühler was chief of the administration of the Government General. -He has already been interrogated many times by the Polish Delegation -as well. There is a danger that proceedings may be instituted -against this witness as well, on account of the importance of -the position he held. It is self-evident that under these circumstances -every conscientious Defense Counsel should take into account the -fact that the witness may try to shield himself when he answers -certain questions; and considering the importance of the evidence, -it seems proper that, in these difficult circumstances, the Defendant -Frank be granted additional witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include -any of the other witnesses who were cumulative to Bühler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from -Böpple and only Fräulein Kraffczyk on the general work of the -Government General. The others, I think, are on the different points -of the relationship with the central agencies.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Number 14, President Struve, -whose last appointment was that of chief of the main labor department -of the Government General. In other words, he was Minister -for Labor in the Government General. Since both the United States -Prosecution and the Russian Prosecution have made grave charges -against the Defendant Dr. Frank on this very point of the alleged -compulsory transfer of workers, it seems to me proper that one -witness at least—the competent official—should be examined on the -facts presented by the Prosecution so that he can say what orders -he received on the subject from the Government General. Information -as to the location of this witness has also been obtained. He -is in an internment camp near Paderborn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, My Lord, with -great deference, that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses -and show those to which he attaches special importance, it -would be convenient for the Tribunal; and if Dr. Seidl would be -good enough to say quite bluntly whether he attaches importance -to any of the others or if he does not, then it might be possible -for the Prosecution to reconsider the elimination of all these witnesses; -but the position at the moment is that there are requests -for all sections, all departments of the Government General, and -the Prosecution failed to see how these are necessary. If Dr. Seidl -would indicate any special purpose that he attaches to any of them, -then one might come back and consider President Struve again; but -the position at the moment is that the Prosecution do not see how -<span class='pageno' title='524' id='Page_524'></span> -it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank that each one of the -departmental chiefs should be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is not the case that all the officers or rather holders -of office, were named as witnesses. A good many others could have -been named. For instance, I have already said that out of nine -governors, each of whom was in charge of 3 to 3½ million people, -I have named only one: the witness Von Burgsdorff.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have also foregone witnesses whom I had previously named—for -instance, the various military commanders. If, however, the -Prosecution wishes to know which witnesses I consider of special -importance, I shall give the numbers of these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They are, besides State Secretary Dr. Bühler, witness Number 2, -Von Burgsdorff; Lammers has already been approved; further, the -witness Dr. Max Meidinger; the witness Gassner, Number 6; the -witness Number 7, Helene Kraffczyk; the witness Number 9, -Bilfinger—he was not a member of the administration of the -Government General; members of the Government General; Numbers -13, 14, 15, and 19. That does not mean, however, that I am -willing to forego the witnesses which I have not mentioned. Witness -Number 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important witness because -he was the chief of the main department for food and agriculture -and can give us detailed information about the Defendant Dr. Frank’s -policy with regard to the feeding of the Polish and Ukrainian peoples -and how he tried in particular, through the highest authorities of the -Reich, to have the demands of the Reich reduced. The witness’ -address was not known until now, but I understand that the chief -Polish public prosecutor, Dr. Sawicki, is supposed to know where he -is at present. The next witness is Number 16, President Ohlenbusch, -who is called mainly to testify to the cultural policy pursued by the -Defendant Frank in the Government General. He is not, however, -one of our most important witnesses; and I imagine that in his case -an interrogatory would suffice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same applies to witness Number 17. Witness Number 18 is -Dr. Eisfeldt whose last appointment was head of the main department -of forestry, and who will testify to the forestry policy of the -defendant and especially—this seems to me an essential point—to -the fact that there was so much trouble with the partisans in the -Government General that it was in the interest of the Polish and -Ukrainian people themselves to take strong measures against them. -Witness Number 19 is President Lesacker, lately head of the main -department of internal administration, whose last known place of -residence was Bad Tölz. His present address may now have become -known. Witness Number 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge, who, as my -application shows, is to testify to the efforts made by the Defendant -Dr. Frank in the field of public health. -<span class='pageno' title='525' id='Page_525'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -I have now had the advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl -has to say, and it seems to me that, so far as the witnesses from -the Government General itself are concerned, the position is that -Dr. Böpple, Number 13, does not add greatly to the general position -which would be explained by Dr. Bühler and Dr. Von Burgsdorff -and Fräulein Kraffczyk; that the witness Number 5, Dr. Meidinger, -seems to deal with very much the same problems as President -Struve, witness Number 14, and the witness Naumann, Number 15, -and that, on reconsideration, I think the Prosecution would be -prepared to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, -or Dr. Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, Dr. Senkowsky, -and Dr. Eisfeldt seem to speak about points that are really removed -from the issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general -attitude of the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is -covered by Dr. Bühler and Von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is -granted; and the last witness, Teitge, seems again to speak on a -really departmental point which is not a serious issue in the case. -And, therefore, in trying to apply our own principle of recommending -any witness where there is a real relevancy, the Prosecution -would be prepared to go as far as I said in their recommendation, -that, in addition to the witnesses that I have mentioned, they would -suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the witnesses Struve -or Naumann should be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: I ask for permission to add a few words -to that which has been said by my esteemed colleague, Sir David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: After listening very carefully to Dr. Seidl, -I have come to the conclusion that we must ask you to take notice -of our negative attitude towards a further summoning of the -witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation fears -that should the Tribunal deem it possible to grant Dr. Seidl’s -application—which, to my mind, appears completely unfounded—then -a very dangerous precedent would be created for the factual -annulment of the basic decision already accepted by the Tribunal -in this respect.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as I understand, the Tribunal are of opinion that every -witness can and must be called once only for purpose of cross-interrogation. -In reply to your question Dr. Seidl confirms that he -was present here during the cross-examination by my colleague, -Colonel Taylor, and myself. He saw and heard how the cross-examination -was progressing. His reference to the fact that he did -not have time enough to prepare for participation in this cross-examination -appears to me unworthy of the slightest attention. He -<span class='pageno' title='526' id='Page_526'></span> -was in the same position as the rest of us. The Tribunal will -remember that a number of the Defense Counsel participated in the -cross-examination of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. I see no -reason why a different attitude should be adopted for Dr. Seidl’s -sake and I do not see why, to gratify a wish of Dr. Seidl, which, -to me, is completely incomprehensible, the basic decision of the -Tribunal should be changed concerning the repeated calling of -witnesses for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected -colleague, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the desire to -hear an important witness is incomprehensible in itself, if the -cross-examination is rendered difficult for reasons over which we -have no control. In the first place, I have only asked the Court -for permission to submit an affidavit from this witness to the -Tribunal. If now the affidavit is such. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with Number 20?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: No, Sir. I am speaking about the witness Von dem -Bach-Zelewski.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said -about it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -with regard to the documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence -between the Governor General and the Reich Chancellery. I have -just verified that we do not have the other part of the correspondence. -Of course, if any of it comes into our possession, we -will be only too pleased to give it to Dr. Seidl. We do not have it, -and we also do not have the personal files of the Defendant Frank -in the Reich Security Main Office. The same applies to that—that -if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at once.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the -other documents which are asked for?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others -are the diary. Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he -desires as to the diary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Now counsel for the Defendant -Frick.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Your Honors, the first witness I have -named is Dr. Lammers, who has, however, already been approved -<span class='pageno' title='527' id='Page_527'></span> -for the Defendant Keitel. I believe, therefore, that I need make -no statement on this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As my second witness I have named the former State Secretary -of the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. He is one of the State -Secretaries of the Ministry of the Interior, and he is in custody -in Nuremberg. He was chief of the central office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the -Defendant Keitel?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that -it was certainly thought that on the 9th of February this witness -was to be so called by the Defendant Keitel, and on that basis he -was approved in connection with the Defendant Frick. That is not -directly my request to write it on the Defendant Keitel’s final list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, -Your Lordship.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, as witness Number 3 -I have named General Daluege, who was formerly general of the -Regular Police, and who is now in custody here in Nuremberg. He -is informed especially about the attitude of the Defendant Frick -to the anti-Jewish demonstration on 9 November 1938, and he also -knows the relations between Frick and Himmler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 4 I have named -Dr. Diels, who is now in an internment camp in the Hanover district. -The witness was chief of the Gestapo in Prussia in 1933-1934. He -is acquainted with the measures which the Defendant Frick, as -Reich Minister of the Interior, decreed for the supervision of the -provinces by the Reich, as well as about the concentration camps, -and also, in particular, about measures taken in individual cases -and about conditions in the camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness’ -evidence should be taken in writing. With regard to the earlier -part, the Tribunal will have the advantage of the Defendant Göring -who was concerned especially with the practices of the police in -Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with regard to the other points, as to -the measures of the Defendant Frick, these are either laws or orders -or administrative measures, which could be included, in the submission -of the Prosecution, as being dealt with by written testimony -supplemented by testimony of the Defendant Frick himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say something to that. -I believe that it would be more practical to hear the witness here -<span class='pageno' title='528' id='Page_528'></span> -before the Court. We can then have a talk with him beforehand -and find out the points on which he has detailed information, -whereas in an interrogatory these things could not be discussed -in detail.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 5 I have named the -former police commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber accompanied the -Defendant Frick on all his official trips as his police guard. He -therefore knows what trips Frick made and can therefore testify -that Frick never went to the Dachau Concentration Camp, which -contradicts the testimony given here by the witness Dr. Blaha.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, -to the Defendant Frick’s dealing with that point. The only difficulty -as to a witness of this sort is, I will say, the unfamiliarity with all -of his travels, because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost -certain to have periods of leave, and periods of interruption would -occur. I should have thought that this could have been dealt with -by affidavits, or an interrogatory, if necessary. When they are seen -the matter could be reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage -the interrogatories, indicating in the witness’ own account how -often he was with the Defendant Frick and what interruptions -would be most frequent in that period; therefore, it is for the Court -to decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next -point, I have a suggestion to make in regard to the witness—the -next witness, Denson. The point, as I understand it there, is that -the Witness Blaha said before the Tribunal that Frick had visited -Dachau, that it was, however, his evidence at the Dachau trial that -Frick did not come to Dachau. I should say the most satisfactory -way in dealing with that is to get the shorthand notes of the -Witness Blaha’s evidence at the Dachau trial and put in a certified -copy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that these notes. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified -copy of the shorthand notes of Blaha’s evidence here, and I also -say in fairness to the witness that it does show he did say that at -Dachau Frick visited the concentration camp, and I will show it to -Dr. Pannenbecker whenever he likes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 7 I have named -Dr. Messersmith. An affidavit from him has been read here by the -Prosecution. An interrogatory has already been approved for this -witness. We have not as yet received an answer. I should like for -<span class='pageno' title='529' id='Page_529'></span> -the time being to withhold the question as to whether a hearing of -this witness in person seems necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As an additional application I have also named the witness -Dr. Gisevius.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius’ -evidence might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an -affidavit in answer to interrogatories. He was consultant of the -Reich Minister of the Interior under the Defendant Frick and supposedly -went to Switzerland after 20 July 1944; he has exact knowledge -of the responsibility and actual authority of the Defendant -Frick to issue orders in police matters. I should think that such -matters might be conveniently dealt with in an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say that the Witness -Dr. Gisevius is also required as a witness by the Defendant Schacht, -as far as I know, about the events of 20 July 1944. I believe that -this witness will have to appear in person for the Defendant -Schacht. It would also be better if the witness could be heard here -in person for the Defendant Frick. In case of necessity an affidavit -would suffice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is one other point about it. You asked -earlier for the return of Colonel Ratke. I think that you were told -you could have him or Stuckart. Will you now leave him out of -your application because you have Stuckart?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it was like this. I had named three -witnesses for Dr. Blaha—Gillhuber, Ratke, and a third. We dropped -Ratke when I got Gillhuber.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I speak about the document book here?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: In order to give a general description of -the Defendant Frick’s character, I asked permission to refer to two -books. One of them is a small book, <span class='it'>We Build the Third Reich</span>, -which contains speeches made by Frick. I intend merely to quote -short excerpts from these speeches in the course of my presentation -of evidence. As regards the other book, <span class='it'>Inside Europe</span>, by John -Gunther, I want to read here, too, only a short excerpt, one sentence -about Frick.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I have offered further evidence material on the question -of whether Frick intervened by means of restrictive decrees against -arbitrary measures in imposing protective custody and have based -my observations mainly on documents originally submitted by the -Prosecution but not read in court. These documents I have listed -simply under Number 2a-c. -<span class='pageno' title='530' id='Page_530'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have further asked for permission to refer to the files of the -police department of the Ministry of the Interior, where restrictive -decrees issued by the Defendant Frick in regard to protective -custody are also to be found.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With reference to his intervention in individual cases, I request -permission to read a letter written to me by the former Reichstag -Deputy Wulle. I have listed it under Number 3. The Prosecution -has submitted an affidavit by Seger, in which the latter declares -that Frick, as chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the -Reichstag, had made statements on putting political opponents into -concentration camps as early as December 1932. In Number 4 -I have asked for the stenographic records of the Foreign Affairs -Committee to prove that such a statement was never recorded and -never made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 5 concerns the records of the Dachau trial in regard to -the Blaha incident already discussed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 6 concerns an affidavit by the Witness Dr. Stuckart, -which he made for the American Prosecution on 21 September 1945. -I could just as well ask this witness about these questions when he -is heard in person; but it would shorten the hearing if I could -read this affidavit, which was made for the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Frick’s position as Reich Protector of Bohemia -and Moravia, I should like to submit the Prosecution’s Document -Number 1368-PS, which contains details of the limitations imposed -on the Defendant Frick’s powers as Reich Protector at the time of -his appointment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have also made a supplementary application for Gisevius’ book, -<span class='it'>To the Bitter End</span>. I learned of this book through an extract -published in the <span class='it'>Süddeutsche Zeitung</span> on 26 February 1946 which -gave interesting details of the Röhm Putsch of 30 June 1934. This -extract states that for the events of 30 June 1934, police power was -assumed by Hitler and transferred to Göring and Himmler. The -book will give further details in precisely this field, since Gisevius -was at that time expert for police matters in the Reich Ministry -of the Interior. I request the Tribunal, therefore, to refer to this -book, which is not yet in my hands, or to assist me to procure a copy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say I do not think that -there is much disagreement between Dr. Pannenbecker and the -Prosecution. I might run through the documents asked for. In the -book, <span class='it'>We Build the Third Reich</span>, if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate -the excerpts he is going to use, the Prosecution will have no -objection to his quoting from them, and the same with regard to -the quotations from Mr. Gunther’s book, <span class='it'>Inside Europe</span>. To Paragraph -2 of the Document 779-PS and the excerpt from a newspaper, -<span class='pageno' title='531' id='Page_531'></span> -the Document 775-PS—to these there are no objections. The files of -the police division are not in the hands of the Prosecution. If we -do get any of them, then we shall let Dr. Pannenbecker know. As -far as the letter from the former representative Wulle is concerned, -there is no objection to that. I have not seen any letter yet, but -there is no objection to it in principle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 4, I think there is some misunderstanding -there. That is Document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-234, and the statement -referred to by Seger was that the Defendant Frick said to him, -“Don’t worry, when we are in power, we shall put all of you guys -into concentration camps.” This was alleged in the affidavit as said -by Frick to Seger during the course of a conversation. It is not -alleged to have been said in the Foreign Affairs Committee.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then Number 5—I say I have the shorthand notes, and it will be -shown to Dr. Pannenbecker. As to Number 6, I understand that -Dr. Stuckart is going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be -put to him and he can verify its truth. The Document 1336-PS will -be put at the disposal of the Defense and they can make such use of -it as they can. That covers the documents. As to Dr. Gisevius’ -book, I understand that Dr. Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. -Perhaps the Tribunal will see that a copy can be obtained for him. -I do not know whether we have a copy. We will see what we can -do and see that a copy is available.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As to Number 4, Dr. Seger, I still have -a brief comment to make on Document 83. Perhaps an interrogatory -could show whether or not Frick made the statement in question -in his capacity as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—in -other words whether or not that statement is in the stenographic -minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understood that it was not -in the minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that -it was made during the course of a conversation, and not in that -committee.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning -at 10 o’clock, if possible, with the further applications for -witnesses and documents, which the Tribunal understand have been -lodged on Friday evening.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='532' id='Page_532'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY</span><br/> Tuesday, 5 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hanns -Marx, one of the German counsel appearing in this case for the -Defense, to an article which was published in the newspaper -<span class='it'>Berliner Zeitung</span> for February 2, under the heading, “A Defense -Counsel.” The article, which I do not propose to read, criticizes -Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error in his cross-examination -of a witness when he deputized for Dr. Babel on behalf of the SS. -The article suggested that in asking the question he did he was -behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and -personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his -proper course was to remain silent in view of the character of the -evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The matter assumes a graver aspect still because the article -goes on to threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the -future and does so in language both violent and intimidating.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal desires to say in the plainest language that such -conduct cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be -represented by counsel is one of the most important elements in the -administration of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court, and he -must be permitted freely to make his defense without fear from -threats or intimidations. In conformity with the express provisions -of the Charter, the Tribunal was at great pains to see that all the -individual defendants and the named organizations should have the -advantage of being represented by counsel; and the Defense Counsel -have already shown the great service they are rendering in this -Trial, and their conduct in this regard should certainly not leave -them open to reproach of any kind from any quarter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal itself is the sole judge of what is proper conduct -in Court and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard -of professional conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of -their duties under the Charter, may count upon the fullest protection -which it is in the power of the Tribunal to afford. In the present -instance the Tribunal does not think that Dr. Marx in any way -exceeded his professional duty. -<span class='pageno' title='533' id='Page_533'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal regards the matter as one of such importance in -its bearing on the due administration of justice that they have -asked the Control Council for Germany to investigate the facts and -to report to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David, the first application is for the Defendant Streicher. -I call upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, -the Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, -that he was active in the planning and in the conspiracy for -preparation of aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against -Humanity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think -it necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, -during the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a -single document; neither can it be proved that he took part in any -of the intimate conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not -see fit to offer any proof. As to the second point, first of all I should -like to call the wife of the Defendant Streicher, Frau Adele Streicher -nee Tappe as witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient -for me to indicate the views of the Prosecution on these -witnesses; there are only six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could -make his comments on my suggestions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there -are six witnesses, and if it would take them in my order, I would -indicate the point of view of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 3, Ernst Hiemer, was the editor in chief of <span class='it'>Der Stürmer</span>, -and apparently the defendant’s principal lieutenant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 4, Wurzbacher, was an SA brigade leader in Nuremberg, -and is alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the -defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant’s chauffeur, and he -is to speak on one point, namely, the defendant’s annoyance at -violence being used on the 10th of November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And Number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, is to speak on the -same point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in -December 1938 of the measures taken in November.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are two members of the defendant’s family: Frau -Streicher, who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, -Lothar Streicher. -<span class='pageno' title='534' id='Page_534'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution would have no objection to Herr Hiemer, as -the defendant’s principal lieutenant, speaking, as suggested by -Dr. Marx, on what Dr. Marx calls the Defendant Streicher’s basic -attitude to the Jewish question. There are a number of matters -on which he is said to be able to speak, to which the Prosecution -would object as irrelevant. However, the time for so doing is later.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, with regard to Herr Wurzbacher, he is said to have always -been present at meetings where Streicher spoke, from the early -days. To that also the Prosecution would not make objection, but -they draw attention to the fact that in the earlier applications -Herr Wurzbacher was said to be able to speak as to the boycott -in 1933 and the events of November 1938. Therefore the Prosecution -respectfully remind the Tribunal that he can speak on the events -in 1938, and, in the view of the Prosecution, it is not necessary to -have oral testimony to repeat that point. They therefore suggest -that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant’s chauffeur, who -really speaks on one main point—that the defendant showed anger -with regard to the events of 1938—an affidavit would be sufficient. -They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, the -attorney who is mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Frau Streicher, Number 1, the Tribunal will see -that it is said that Frau Streicher was the defendant’s secretary -during the period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the -case against this defendant refers, of course, to a much earlier -period, both before and immediately after the rise to power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution suggest that the evidence which is desired from -Frau Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant -during the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered -by an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That leaves Lieutenant Lothar Streicher, the eldest son of the -defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters -mentioned in regard to him come into the case: In a report of the -Göring commission on the question of corruption in regard to -Aryanization, part of the report stated that this defendant paid a -visit to three boys in prison, and that certain disgusting and cruel -actions took place. The Prosecution, of course, submit that that is -not really a matter relevant to the charges against the defendant, -but they realize that it is a highly prejudicial matter; it has been -read and a bad effect has resulted from that evidence. Therefore -they feel it must be a matter for the Tribunal; and the Prosecution, -having put in the report including that, ought not to take objection, -except to point out that it is not strictly relevant. However, if the -Tribunal feel that this defendant ought to have the advantage of -his son’s counteracting that account of very unpleasant matters, -<span class='pageno' title='535' id='Page_535'></span> -the Prosecution would not take any objection, although they are -bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the Prosecution, would an -affidavit be suitable in that case?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the -Prosecution would suggest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, if I may summarize, what I am suggesting is that -the Prosecution would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr -Wurzbacher giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects with Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe. The Prosecution hold that the testimony to be -given by Frau Adele Streicher would not be specially relevant. -Opposing this I should like to state that this witness was for -5 years, that is from 1940 to 1945, close to the defendant, handled -his entire correspondence, and knows what contacts Streicher had -during the whole war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense is particularly anxious to prove that Streicher had -no connection with any of the leading men of the State or Party -while he lived in isolation in Pleikershof. There was no exchange -of letters or opinions with Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, or -Heydrich, or any other leading personalities, whatever their names -might be. Streicher was completely isolated and played no political -role whatsoever; neither had he any authority. In view of this, I, as -his counsel, cannot waive the evidence of this witness, as otherwise -the vital interests of the Defendant Streicher would be prejudiced. -I therefore suggest that my application to call Frau Streicher as -witness before the Tribunal be granted, so that the pertinent -questions may be put to her.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same applies to the witness Herrwerth. It cannot be said -that this witness can give information only on irrelevant matters -or on an insignificant incident. On the contrary the incident in -question is of decisive importance. This man Herrwerth was present -on the night of 9 November 1938, when SA Group Leader -Von Obernitz reported to the then Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations -against the Jewish population were being planned. He -therefore knows from personal experience what passed between -these two men, and that Streicher was opposed to this demonstration, -because he considered such a demonstration to be entirely -wrong.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, in opposition to the Führer’s will and order, Streicher kept -himself aloof from this demonstration against the Jewish population. -There can be no doubt that this incident is of particular -importance. It is clear that the behavior of Streicher, who at the -<span class='pageno' title='536' id='Page_536'></span> -time was already in bed and received Obernitz in his bedroom, -corroborated the stand taken by his defense, I therefore submit -that Fritz Herrwerth be called as witness before the Tribunal, -so that he can be examined by me and, if necessary, also by the -Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the witness Hiemer, the Prosecution and I seem to be in -agreement that he as well as Wurzbacher appear before the Tribunal. -I may mention that Wurzbacher is now in the Altenstaedt Camp -near Schongau, Camp Number 10.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the witness Lothar Streicher, the Defendant Streicher -attaches particular importance to having it confirmed by this -witness that what the Göring report mentions about the Defendant -Streicher’s indecent words or acts, when visiting the prison, is -untrue.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Prosecution are prepared to state that they will drop -this point and no longer use this report, then I would agree to -refrain from calling this witness. Otherwise, I consider it my -duty to insist on having this witness called before the Tribunal -to vindicate my client’s honor. An affidavit could not possibly -meet this purpose, and I therefore ask that the application of the -Defense be granted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, -I have indicated from the Prosecution that that incident is not -relevant to the charges against the Defendant Streicher. The -Prosecution, of course, produced the report and I thought I had -made it clear to the Tribunal that it is one of these collateral -matters that do come in, and the Prosecution for that reason would -not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the main case -of the Prosecution against this defendant is on the stirring up of -and consistent incitement to persecution of the Jews. I do not think -I can put it further than that. But I had hoped I had made clear -that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other -issue. The report under discussion was on the Aryanization of -Jewish properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report -itself is relevant to persecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I make a few additional -remarks?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This matter which is to be proved by Lothar Streicher forms -a part of the Göring report and cannot therefore be dealt with -separated from its context. The defendant contends that this Göring -report originates from a man who wanted to harm him, who, -after having received many favors from him, became his enemy -and used this Göring commission, which was originally meant for -<span class='pageno' title='537' id='Page_537'></span> -quite other purposes, to deal the defendant, whom he hated, a -sudden blow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a rather serious matter to say of a man that he indulged -in sadism in the presence of other persons in a disgusting manner. -That is why the defendant is so anxious to have the falsity of -this allegation exposed here publicly. I therefore request once -more that Lothar Streicher be brought before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the last witness, Attorney Strobel, I would be very -pleased to comply with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s wishes, but also -in this case I am afraid I cannot do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Attorney Strobel’s testimony is offered as proof for the following: -Sometime, approximately three weeks after the events on the night -of 9 November 1938, Streicher addressed a meeting of the Association -of Lawyers at Nuremberg. At that public meeting of lawyers, -Streicher defined his attitude to the events of 9 November 1938 -and made it clear that he had been against the demonstration and -the firing of synagogues. Attorney Strobel, as he said, was very -surprised at the time that Streicher so openly took a stand against -Hitler’s order and made no secret of what he had said to Obernitz, -that he would not take part in the demonstration and that he -considered the whole thing to be a mistake.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Strobel’s testimony may carry more weight than that of chauffeur -Herrwerth, since in the case of the latter the Prosecution can hold -against the Defense the fact that Herrwerth was an employee of -the defendant and may therefore be inclined to take the defendant’s -side. This argument, however, does not apply to Attorney Strobel, -as he, in a letter addressed to the Tribunal, wanted to express his -aversion to the defendant and mentioned the meeting only incidentally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Consequently, Strobel must be regarded as an impartial witness, -whereas one might say of Herrwerth that he is perhaps not wholly -disinterested. I therefore submit that Attorney Strobel also be -called before the Tribunal in order to enable the Defense and, -if necessary, also the Prosecution to put direct questions to this -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? -Now you can turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, -the Tribunal will consider your applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to -now it has not been possible for me to collect all the documents we -need. There are a number of newspaper articles which I should -like to submit to the Tribunal, and I ask for leave to submit the -list of documents later on. I shall get in touch with the Prosecution -beforehand as to which documents should be discarded and which -should be put in. -<span class='pageno' title='538' id='Page_538'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no -objection to your getting in touch with the Prosecution with -reference to documents later on, but you must understand that -no delay can be permitted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I call upon the Counsel for the Defendant Funk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Sauter would allow me, -I should like to say that, with regard to these applications, there -is so little between the applications and the views of the Prosecution -that it might shorten matters if I were to indicate the views -of the Prosecution, and then Dr. Sauter could add anything he has -to say. I could be extremely short, but I do not want to forestall -Dr. Sauter if he has any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would that meet with your view, Dr. Sauter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): That I -present my applications now and that the Prosecution then reply?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David meant that he should -first indicate any objections which he has, and then you could -explain your view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: I quite agree, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, the -witnesses fall into four groups. The first group is three witnesses -from the Ministry of Economics, Numbers 1, 2, and 10 on the -list. As I understand Dr. Sauter, he wishes to call Number 2, Herr -Hayler, as an oral witness, and to have affidavits from the witnesses -Landfried, Number 1, and Kallus, Number 10. The Prosecution -have no objection to this course, except that with regard to the -witness Landfried they may have some observation to make on -the form of the interrogatories, which could no doubt be settled -with Dr. Sauter, and then put to the Tribunal for their approval. -Secondly, they want to reserve the right to apply for further cross-interrogatories. -Apart from that, which I submit are really minor -points, they agree with that suggestion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second group is two witnesses from the Reichsbank, -Number 5, Herr Puhl, and Number 7, Dr. August Schwedler. -Again, as I understand Dr. Sauter, he wants an affidavit in the -form of answers to questions. The Prosecution have no objection -to that, only again they reserve the right to apply for cross-interrogatories, -if necessary; if the answers take a certain form, they -might have to apply to the Court that the witness be brought for -cross-examination. They simply want to reserve that right, but, -of course, they cannot take up their position until they have -seen the form of the answers. -<span class='pageno' title='539' id='Page_539'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the third group consists of one witness, who is Dr. Lammers, -who has been called by most of the defendants orally, and there -is no objection to that, and the Prosecution suggest that Dr. Sauter -will put his questions to Dr. Lammers when he is called by the -other defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the fourth group is a general one. There is Herr Oeser, -who is an editor, Number 6; Herr Amann, Number 8; and Number 9, -Herr Roesen; and lastly, Number 4, Frau Funk. As I understand -it, with regard to all these witnesses, Dr. Sauter wished either -an interrogatory or an affidavit. The Prosecution make no objection -to that, with the same understanding that they reserve their -rights to put cross-interrogatories or to ask the Tribunal to -summon any of them as witnesses if any point emerges. Subject -to the reservation of these points, there is nothing between us, -because the result is, if I have understood it all correctly, that -Dr. Sauter is asking for two oral witnesses and eight sets of -interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, don’t you draw any distinction -between an affidavit and interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I do, certainly. But, My -Lord, Dr. Sauter has shown in the case of most of the witnesses -the interrogatories which he is putting—apart from Dr. Lammers, -who, of course, will be dealt with orally, because he is being -produced as a witness. I understand that when Dr. Sauter says -“affidavit” he means an affidavit in the form of answers to -questions, such as those he has set out in the appendix.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, Sir David, so far as the Prosecution -are concerned, they would take the line that you have -suggested, meaning by an affidavit, interrogatories and, if necessary, -cross-interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Sauter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am in agreement with the suggestions -of the Prosecution as to the individual applications. As -to the wording of the individual interrogatories I shall come to -an agreement with the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Dr. Sauter, perhaps you -could tell us, dealing, for instance, with Number 6—you say there, -“I have in hand an affirmation from this witness with a supplement -thereto.” Does that mean answers to interrogatories, or does that -mean an affidavit, a statement? Have you got the passage?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have an affidavit from this witness, -Albert Oeser, Number 6, and this affidavit will be submitted to the -<span class='pageno' title='540' id='Page_540'></span> -Tribunal, together with my document book. I am already in possession -of this affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, that is not quite the same -as interrogatories. I do not know whether you have seen the -affidavit. I mean, it may be that at a later stage you would want -to cross-examine or to put cross-interrogatories to that witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that would be so, Your -Honor. I must reserve the right, until I have seen the affidavit, to -do that. The ones that are attached to Dr. Sauter’s application are -all in the interrogatory form, but where the document is in the -form of a statement, the Prosecution would have to reserve -these rights. Really, one cannot make any declaration until one -has seen that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before I put in evidence this affidavit -by the witness Oeser, Number 6, I shall, of course, pass it -to the Prosecution so that they have ample time to decide as to -whether they wish to cross-examine this witness. This goes without -saying.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where is that particular witness? Where -is he?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: He is witness Number 6, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but where is the man? Where is he -at the present moment? Is he in Nuremberg or where?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Witness Oeser is at Schramberg in the Black -Forest, in Baden, near the Rhine. It is some distance from Nuremberg. -Moreover, Mr. President, the points to which the witness is -to testify are comparatively so insignificant that it would hardly be -worth while to bring the witness himself to Nuremberg. I personally -do not know the witness, but an acquaintance of mine mentioned -him to me as a person who could give favorable information on -the conduct of the Defendant Funk. Thus we got to know about -witness Oeser and obtained from him an affidavit which I shall -pass to the Prosecution in good time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the documents, -My Lord, the first one is a biography of the Defendant Funk. The -extracts were submitted as part of the Prosecution’s case. I ask -that Dr. Sauter intimate what passages he desires to use, and then -the Prosecution can make such objections or comments as may -or may not be necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second request is, I think, the same as we had yesterday, -namely for the record of the Dachau trial and of the evidence of -the witness Dr. Blaha. The American prosecutors will be pleased -<span class='pageno' title='541' id='Page_541'></span> -to show Dr. Sauter the report that they have of Dr. Blaha’s -evidence at that trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the speeches of the Defendant Funk, there -again, if Dr. Sauter will intimate what they are and what he -intends to use, the Prosecution will consider them. <span class='it'>Prima facie</span> they -would be a relevant matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And with regard to Number 4, the copy of the newspaper with -a report of the defendant’s speech, that again would <span class='it'>prima facie</span> -be relevant, and we shall look into it. It is very unlikely that there -would be any objection, but we shall look into it; and, if necessary, -deal with it when Dr. Sauter makes his presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Sauter the newspaper?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper mentioned under -Number 4, and also the speeches mentioned under Number 3, are -now in my possession. I shall not use the entire text of the speeches -in my brief.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you would be prepared to indicate to -the Prosecution the passages in your Document 1 and the passages -in 3 and 4, which you wanted to use, so that they can have them -translated?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, My Lord. I shall include in the Document -Book from the book mentioned under Number 1 only a few—I -think two or three—pages and from the speeches and newspaper -articles only those passages which I am going to use, and submit -these to the Prosecution in time for translation. As to the record -of the Dachau trial, this request is settled by what the Prosecution -stated yesterday regarding the Defendant Frick. I believe -the Dachau stenographic report is already available. I shall peruse -it, so that this matter is settled.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then I call upon counsel for -Dr. Schacht.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: I am very pleased to be able to tell the Tribunal that -I believe I am in agreement with Sir David as to the compass of -evidence to be submitted by me, especially as to those applications -which I shall either withdraw or restrict. In order to facilitate -matters, may I therefore first tell the Tribunal which applications -on my list I withdraw and which ones I restrict, so that eventually -those will be left which I maintain. I withdraw application Number 5 -for the examination of Dr. Diels. I heard yesterday that Dr. Diels -has been called for as witness in another application. Should the -Tribunal grant yesterday’s application and order Diels to appear, -then I should like to reserve the right to examine. I myself shall, -however, not apply for him. -<span class='pageno' title='542' id='Page_542'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I should like to call your attention to applications -Number 6, Colonel Gronau; Number 7, Herr Von Scherpenberg; -Number 8, State Secretary Carl Schmid; Number 9, Consul General -Dr. Schniewind; Number 10, General Thomas of the armament staff; -Number 11, Dr. Walter Asmus; Number 12, Dr. Franz Reuter; and -Number 13, Dr. Berckemeyer. For all these witnesses I am willing -to accept an affidavit. I quite realize that I have to pass affidavits -to the Prosecution and that the latter have the right to apply for -these witnesses to be summoned for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following witnesses, therefore, remain to be called before -the Tribunal: Witness Number 1, Dr. Gisevius; witness Number 2, -Frau Strünck; witness Number 3, the former Reichsbank Director, -Vocke; and witness Number 4, the former Reichsbank Director, -Ernst Huelse. In respect to these witnesses, I must insist on my -application for their personal appearance. Schacht’s defense cannot -dispense with the oral examination of these witnesses. May I put -forward my reasons in each case. The testimony of these witnesses -is in no way cumulative. One witness knows things the other -does not. Vocke and Huelse were Schacht’s closest collaborators at -the Reichsbank and at the International Bank at Basel. They -know of events and developments which Schacht may not be able -to recall in detail. The oral examination of these witnesses cannot -therefore be replaced by interrogatories because he is no longer -sufficiently versed to draw up the relevant questions. These -witnesses must be informed of the theme of the evidence and be -given the opportunity to make a comprehensive statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same, namely that they still remember events in detail -which Schacht no longer recollects, applies to Frau Strünck and -Gisevius, who can testify particularly as to the plans for the -various attempts on Hitler’s life from 1938 to 1944.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is all I have to say regarding my application for these -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Dr. Dix and Professor Kraus were good enough to indicate to me -and my colleagues yesterday their proposals which Dr. Dix suggested -be put before the Tribunal. The Prosecution felt that by -limiting all the witnesses to the first point and Point 2, Dr. Dix -was making a reasonable suggestion. The Prosecution, of course, -reserve all rights as to the relevancy of the various points set out -as to these witnesses, but they felt that that, as I say, was a -reasonable suggestion. On Numbers 3 and 4 it means that the -Defense are limiting all the witnesses, on the general economic -course of conduct of the defendant, and again the Prosecution felt -that that was a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the others, -the Prosecution must, as I have said—and Dr. Dix agreed—reserve -<span class='pageno' title='543' id='Page_543'></span> -all rights by way of cross-interrogatories or of asking that the -witness should be summoned, but the Prosecution felt that they -could be in a position really to decide what their rights and proper -course should be only when they had seen the affidavits that were -put in. That is the reasoning of the Prosecution in the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: As to documents, Dr. Dix?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Regarding the documents, I should like to make it -clear that wherever in my list I have referred to books, published -speeches, and such like, especially under Number 2, this does not -mean that I intend to present to the Tribunal long extracts from -these books. Only short quotations will be made and these quotations -will be. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the -interpreting system.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The best course would be for us to adjourn -now and then this mechanical defect will be remedied.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Dr. Dix. I have one or -two announcements to make. In the first place, the application -which has been made on behalf of the defendants for a separate -trial of the organizations named under Articles 9 and 10 of the -Charter is denied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, with reference to the application made on behalf of -counsel for the Defendant Bormann, the Tribunal have considered -the application dated February 23, 1946, by Dr. Bergold, counsel -for the Defendant Bormann, in which he asks that Bormann’s case -should be heard last, at the end of the cases of all the other -defendants. The Tribunal have decided to grant this application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal also rule that the hearing of Dr. Bergold’s applications -on behalf of Bormann for witnesses and documents, in accordance -with Article 24(d), shall not take place at the present time, -when the Tribunal are hearing the applications of all the other -defendants, but at a later date to be fixed within the next three weeks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, with reference to the business of the Tribunal, the -Tribunal will sit in closed session after the conclusion of the -applications on behalf of the four defendants who are being heard -today. Tomorrow the Tribunal will continue the applications on -behalf of the next four defendants, and on Thursday the Tribunal -will hear the case on behalf of the Defendant Göring.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Dr. Dix. -<span class='pageno' title='544' id='Page_544'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Before the recess, I was about to tell the Tribunal, -as to Number 2 of the list of documents, that in my presentation I -would confine myself to really important and quite short quotations, -after having made them available to the Prosecution in our document -book. This disposes of Number 2.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 1 consists of extracts from copies already submitted -by the Prosecution. I shall give but one example, namely, the report -by Ambassador Bullitt to the Secretary of State in Washington. -The Prosecution presented the last part of this report, in which -they were interested, whereas I wish to reserve the right to present -the first part, which deals with Schacht’s peaceful intentions and -his lack of political influence on Hitler, and which is therefore of -importance to the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now turn, to Number 3, Subparagraph (a), which is the Schacht -memorandum to Hitler of 3 May 1935 concerning the legal rights -of Jews, dissolution of the Gestapo, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I again ask the Prosecution to see to it as far as possible -that this document, which has not been introduced so far, be -procured together with Document 1168-PS, which at the time of -Schacht’s interrogation by Colonel Gurfein was produced. As I -heard yesterday, the document has not yet been found, but perhaps -Colonel Gurfein, who has already gone back, can assist us in this -matter. These two documents are very important, as they constitute -parts of a Schacht memorandum which can be understood and -appreciated only in its entirety.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, here is a letter addressed by Schacht to General -Field Marshal Von Blomberg. It deals with restriction of armaments, -et cetera, and its relevancy is, I think, obvious.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Still a word about Subparagraph (c). This is a Hitler memorandum -of August 1936 regarding the Four Year Plan. This -memorandum, in which Hitler reproaches Schacht most bitterly, -even with sabotage, is of decisive importance to us. Contrary to -what appears in the list, I am not in a position to produce a reliable -copy of this memorandum, which under certain circumstances could -replace the original. What I have is an extract, which in no way -can be considered reliable and thus cannot be submitted to the -Tribunal as evidence. In order to ascertain the exact contents of -this memorandum, we must have the original. To my knowledge -the original was among the files of the Dustbin Camp in the -Taunus, and again I ask the Prosecution to assist in procuring it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there is the letter written by Schacht to Göring in November -1942. Göring’s answer was to dismiss Schacht for defeatism, -or rather in consequence of this letter Schacht was dismissed for -defeatism. A further consequence of this letter was that Göring -excluded him from the Prussian State Council. A copy of this -<span class='pageno' title='545' id='Page_545'></span> -letter was last seen by Schacht in the possession of one Von -Schlaberndorff, who worked with General Donovan, but who is no -longer here. Where Schlaberndorff is now, I do not know. May -I ask the Prosecution to assist us also in this matter. Furthermore, -there is a telegram of January 1943 from Göring to Schacht, -excluding him from the State Council.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Subparagraph (f), I have to ask the Russian Prosecution -to assist us in procuring this item. It is made up of miscellaneous -notes, records of Schacht’s reflections, written soliloquies and letters, -which were kept in a box at Schacht’s country seat, Guehlen, near -Lindow, Mark Brandenburg—that is in the Russian occupation -zone. According to information received, this box has been confiscated -by Soviet troops. I should be very much obliged to the -Russian Delegation if they would do their utmost to procure the -box with its contents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents under Number 4 are already in our possession. -I do not think it necessary to enumerate and comment on them -here; they will be included in our document book and the Prosecution -will then have the opportunity of making observations on -their relevancy. That is all I have to say now regarding the -documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the approval of the Tribunal -I shall confine the very few remarks I have to make to Paragraph 3 -of Dr. Dix’ memorandum. With regard to the document for which -Dr. Dix has made a request, it is not yet procured. I have asked -my colleagues to make inquiries, but at the moment they cannot -find certain of these documents, although a search has been made. -For example, (a), the note handed to Hitler on the same day, is -Document Number 1168-PS. Mr. Dodd tells me that an exhaustive -search was made by the American Delegation two months ago, and -they are convinced that that document is not in their possession, -and the same applies to the Soviet Delegation regarding (e).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Who was the interrogator, Judge Gurfein?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Colonel Gurfein is the one who -started the American Prosecution, who conducted the interrogations -at the earlier stages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where is he now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: New York. That point has been -borne in mind in the usual interrogations. If the document is used, -it is very carefully referred to, and the American Delegation -informs me that they took that line of search, and they had that -in mind, and that they have not been able to find it. Similarly, -in regard to Number (e), my Soviet colleagues told me that they -have no trace of the document there mentioned. -<span class='pageno' title='546' id='Page_546'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean there is no reference, to that -document in the interrogation conducted by Judge Gurfein?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, yes. They are unable -to find any reference, I am told, going through the interrogation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you any knowledge of any communication -that has been sent to Judge Gurfein?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure; he had gone when -the search was made two months ago. I am sure that the American -Delegation will look into that. What I was going to say in regard -to Number (e) was that my Soviet colleagues informed me that no -trace of this document has been discovered by the Russian authorities. -With regard to the others, the Prosecution would like some -further time to make further inquiries, and then they will report -to Dr. Dix and to the General Secretary if anything can be done. -With regard to the other documents, the ones which are referred to -by Dr. Dix, and the many extracts, his plan is one which entirely -suits the Prosecution if it suits the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Dönitz.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for -Defendant Dönitz): I should like to call the following witnesses: -First, Judge Admiral Kurt Eckhardt. He was expert on international -law in the Naval War Staff. He is to testify that the rules -of international law were considered when the German U-boat war -policy was laid down. This testimony is relevant in view of the -documents submitted by the Prosecution, according to which the -U-boat war was conducted without regard for international law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again it might help Dr. Kranzbühler -and the Tribunal, if I indicated the view of the Prosecution. -They consider that Number 1, Admiral Eckhardt, and Number 2, -Rear Admiral Wagner, and Number 4, Rear Admiral Godt, should -not be the subject of objections; they do not make objections to -these three. With regard to Commander Hessler, Number 3, it seems -to the Prosecution that he is really cumulative to Rear Admiral -Godt, as he ceased to be a U-boat commander at the end of 1941, -before most of the material orders were issued. That is really the -only point; as I said, we raise no objections to the other three. With -regard to the second portion, the interrogatories, the interrogatory -of Mr. Messersmith has been granted. With regard to the next three, -Vice Admiral Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren, -these were granted on 14 February, and a slight error crept into -the Prosecution’s action which was purely mechanical. The Prosecution -replied that they did not object in principle and did not wish -to file cross-interrogatories; they objected to two of the questions -to be addressed to Commander Suhren, Numbers 7 and 8. It was -<span class='pageno' title='547' id='Page_547'></span> -intended that the same objection to the same questions should be -made with regard to the other two. It appears that the document -only related to Commander Suhren, but in general there is no objection; -with regard to Number 5, that has been done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, have those mistakes been -rectified, in reference to 2 and 3?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not quite sure. I want to -mention that same objection, to narrow the issues of this objection -to two of the interrogatories, and in connection with all three sets -of interrogatories, I do not think this has been before the Tribunal -so far as I know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Captain Eck, -that evidence has been taken on commission, and so there is no -objection. Finally, with regard to Admiral Nimitz, the Prosecution -do object to that application; that is a new application, and if the -Tribunal will look at the grounds, they are that the United States -submarines attacked all ships apart from the United States and -Allied vessels without warning, and that the United States submarines -attacked all Japanese ships without warning, at the latest -from the time when it could be surmised that the Japanese ship -would resist being taken as a prize. And third, that the United -States submarines did not assist shipwrecked people in such waters -where the submarine would have endangered herself through such -assistance. The reason which Dr. Kranzbühler gives is that this -testimony proves that the United States Admiralty made the same -strategical and legal considerations in carrying out its submarine -warfare. In the submission of the Prosecution this is irrelevant. -That they followed the same legal considerations might have been -done as retaliation, and if so, the question whether the United -States broke the laws and usages of war is quite irrelevant; as -the question before the Tribunal is whether the German High -Command broke the laws and usages of war, it really raises the old -problem of evidence directed to <span class='it'>tu quoque</span>, an argument which this -Prosecution has always submitted throughout this Trial is irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I shall confine myself to -the points to which Sir David has raised objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, witness Number 3, Commander Hessler. I do not -consider his testimony to be cumulative. He is to testify as to when -Order 154, which has been submitted by the Prosecution, was -abrogated. This testimony is important because the Prosecution -contend that the order of September 1942 need not have been issued -at all but that it would have been sufficient to refer to the old -<span class='pageno' title='548' id='Page_548'></span> -Order 154. To counter this contention Hessler is to testify that -Order 154 was no longer in force at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Moreover, Captain Hessler, being on the staff of the U-boat commanders -from 1941 on, instructed nearly all U-boat commanders -putting to sea about the orders issued, particularly the orders -regarding treatment of shipwrecked persons. For these reasons, his -testimony is, in my opinion, indispensable as a check on the statement -of witness Moehle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now turn to the interrogatories for Numbers 2, 3, and 4: -Admiral Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren. I think -that the objections of the Prosecution to two of the questions asked -in my interrogatory can be dealt with only after these questions -have been answered. I heard only today that objections would be -raised, but I do not yet know on what grounds.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the Tribunal got the interrogatories and -the objections of the Prosecution to Number 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The Tribunal have -received only the interrogatories from me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution given us their objection -to one question? This, I understand, was an objection that was -made to the interrogatories put to Suhren, which should have been -an objection to a particular question on the other two as well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. It is very short. I will -indicate it, if Dr. Kranzbühler will allow me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The two questions were: “Is it known to you that in September -1942 German submarines saved shipwrecked people after torpedoing -the British steamer <span class='it'>Laconia</span> and while doing so were bombed by -an Allied plane?” Number 8, “Do you know whether this incident -was the reason for the commander of the U-boat fleets issuing an -order by which assistance at the risk of endangering one’s own boat -was prohibited, and for the declaration that this was not at variance -with the laws of sea warfare?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The objections—I will read them out: “Question 7. Objection is -entered on the ground that this question is unnecessary and the -facts are admitted.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>“Question 8: Objection entered. It is not seen how the witness -could possibly know the reason for the orders from the Defendant -Dönitz.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These are the objections that were made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: May I say something to -this? I think that the officers mentioned can testify as to the reasons -for the orders received by them from the commander of the U-boat -<span class='pageno' title='549' id='Page_549'></span> -fleet, because the events which led to the order of September 1942 -were generally known among the U-boat commanders, and U-boat -commanders in the various theaters of war may possibly have -picked up the wireless messages sent to the U-boats concerned with -the <span class='it'>Laconia</span> incident. That is all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now turn to the application regarding the interrogatory to be -put to Admiral Nimitz. The stand taken by the Prosecution differs -entirely from the conception on which my application is based. I in -no way wish to prove or even to maintain that the American -Admiralty in its U-boat warfare against Japan broke international -law. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that it acted strictly in -accordance with international law. In the United States’ sea war -against Japan, the same question arises as in Germany’s sea war -against England, namely the scope and interpretation of the London -Submarine Agreement of 1930. The United States and Japan were -also signatories to this agreement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My point is that, because of the order to merchant vessels to -offer resistance, the London Agreement is no longer applicable to -such merchantmen; further, that it was not applicable in declared -operational zones in which a general warning had been given to all -vessels, thus making an individual warning unnecessary before -the attack.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Through the interrogatory to Admiral Nimitz I want to establish -that the American Admiralty in practice interpreted the London -Agreement in exactly the same way as the German Admiralty, and -thus prove that the German conduct of sea warfare was perfectly -legal. The same applies to the treatment of shipwrecked persons -in waters where the U-boat would endanger herself by rescue -measures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kranzbühler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the -documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you are departing from Admiral Nimitz -I should like to ask a question of Sir David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understood you to submit that -these questions to Admiral Nimitz were entirely irrelevant?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it make any difference to your submission -whether the German Navy had attacked merchant ships -without warning in the first instance in the beginning of their war -against England? -<span class='pageno' title='550' id='Page_550'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that of course would be -a clearer breach of the treaty, as, at that time, there was no question -of armament, so far as I am aware; and there was certainly no -question that the German submarines thought that they were -attacking armed vessels which were really ships of war. Then, of -course, one comes to the position which the Prosecution developed -in evidence, that, the German Navy having indulged in the beginning -in that form of submarine warfare, the position changed, and -armament had to be installed in British ships. In my submission -it would make a difference even if one takes the argument as -Dr. Kranzbühler has put it now; he is saying that he is not alleging -breaches of the laws and usages of war, but is relying on his interpretation -of the London Agreement, that merchant ships that were -armed could be attacked. It really becomes a very difficult matter -if one is to construe these treaties by a sort of general investigation -of the interpretation by various commanders. Within the point that -Your Lordship put to me there is that very clear point which -appears in our documents that the arming of merchant ships was -the result of the attacks without warning which took place in the -first months of the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But would you say that these questions to -Admiral Nimitz are irrelevant because the United States came into -the war in December 1941 when the sea warfare between Germany -and England had developed to that stage, when attacks were being -made without warning?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord. That is -what I was saying. I am very grateful to Your Lordship for clarifying -the argument that I wanted to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear to you, Dr. Kranzbühler? The -argument which I understand Sir David is putting forward with -reference to these interrogatories is that they are truly irrelevant -because of the date at which the United States came into the war; -a date when the sea war between England and Germany had, for -reasons which must be investigated, arrived at the stage that submarines -were attacking merchant vessels without warning, and -merchant vessels were defending themselves against those attacks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President. It is, -however, my opinion that the conditions which developed in the -sea war between Germany and England do not necessarily have a -bearing on the measures applied in the sea war between the United -States and Japan, as here an entirely different theater of war was -involved, in which German forces did not operate. In my opinion, -the directives for sea warfare in the East Asia theater of war should -be based on the conditions prevailing there and not be derived from -experiences made in the European theater of war. -<span class='pageno' title='551' id='Page_551'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will consider these -arguments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How can what any navy did show -the proper construction of a law? It may show what a particular -admiral thought about it, but how are we interested in knowing -what one admiral or another admiral thought about the law? Isn’t -that for us to decide? How is that any evidence? Isn’t that your -point, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How does that really throw any -light on the meaning of a law?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not think that the -principles for the conduct of sea war originate from one admiral, -but that in view of their far-reaching implications they have become -a matter for the government. It is recognized in international law -that it springs not only from treaties, but also from acts of governments. -May I give as an example that Mr. Justice Jackson in his -first report to President Truman specially emphasized that international -law is developed by acts of governments. Consequently, if -the London Naval Agreement of 1930 did not originally imply that -merchant vessels which had orders to resist were excluded, then -acts to this effect on the part of the governments of all nations -would have been instrumental in creating new international law to -this end. I am therefore of the opinion that the attitude taken in -this question by the United States as one of the greatest sea powers -is decisive as to the interpretation of the London Agreement and -hence as to the legality of Germany’s conduct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the London -Agreement is ambiguous?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What words in the London Agreement -are ambiguous?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The term “merchant -vessels.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have not got the citation -there, have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Which is it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The phrase in the London Agreement -which you claim is ambiguous.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have not got it here, -but I can give a fairly accurate quotation. It says that submarines -<span class='pageno' title='552' id='Page_552'></span> -are subject to the same rules as surface vessels in their conduct -towards merchant vessels.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall later submit proof that the term “merchant vessel,” even -at the Washington Conference of 1922, was considered ambiguous, -and that also in books on international law published later it had -repeatedly been stressed that this term is ambiguous.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Dr. Kranzbühler, you want -Admiral Nimitz to give us his opinion of his construction of the -treaty, do you not? Isn’t that the purpose of these interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: No, I do not want to -hear Admiral Nimitz’ opinion, but the policy pursued by the United -States in its sea war against Japan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the arguments -you have addressed to them, Dr. Kranzbühler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the documents. -As I have just heard from Sir David, there are no objections -on the part of the Prosecution. I do not know whether I need give -my reasons for submitting the individual documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, there are the war diaries and the standing orders of -the Admiralty and of the commander of the U-boat fleet. They have -already been admitted, and the Prosecution do not raise any -objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under Number 3, I ask for the “British Confidential Fleet Orders” -and “Admiralty Merchant Shipping Instructions” of the British -Admiralty to be produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this matter came -up before the Tribunal in closed session on an application from -Dr. Kranzbühler. I have not heard definitely from the British -Admiralty whether they agreed to do this, but I have asked -Dr. Kranzbühler if he will leave this matter over for 10 days in -the hope that we may be able to meet him. If Dr. Kranzbühler will -not press it for 10 days, I shall, of course, let him know as soon as -I have any definite information.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I agree to that. Under -Number 4 I declare my intention to submit a number of statements -and letters I have received from German U-boat commanders and -officers, some of them through the General Secretariat. These statements -contain items from the lecture given at Gydnia by the Commander-in-Chief -of the Navy and referred to by witness Heisig, -including the instruction of U-boat commanders by witness Moehle -and the orders regarding the treatment of shipwrecked persons. I -understand the Prosecution have no objections. -<span class='pageno' title='553' id='Page_553'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any objection, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, many of these matters -may have to be considered when the actual document is put before -us. There are no class objections to them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I should like to mention -that I shall probably have to submit some further documents later, -after I have spoken to Judge Admiral Eckhardt. May I again ask -the Tribunal to allow me as soon as possible to call this witness, -who is particularly important for the defense of the methods -employed in U-boat warfare.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think the Tribunal would grant that, -subject, of course, to there being no delay regarding further applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 6 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='554' id='Page_554'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY</span><br/> Wednesday, 6 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I desire to announce a slight change in the -order of business.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Stahmer has submitted a motion in writing, stating that he -desired a little more time in the preparation of his documents and -for other reasons would be grateful if the case of the Defendant -Göring did not come on on Thursday, as announced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal realizes that the case of the first defendant to be -heard may present some difficulties in getting the documents translated -in time. As the Tribunal has announced that they would -continue the hearing of the applications for witnesses until they are -all completed, they will adhere to this decision. It is anticipated -that this will give Dr. Stahmer one day more, but at the conclusion -of the hearing of the applications for witnesses the case of the -Defendant Göring will come on without further delay.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal wishes to make it quite clear that no further -applications for delay or postponement on the part of the defendants -will be entertained, save in the most exceptional circumstances.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: For the Defendant Raeder, I should like to apply -first for a witness who will testify to the defendant’s character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if it would be convenient, -I might first indicate the views of the Prosecution, and -then Dr. Siemers can deal with this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has no objection to the following witnesses -being called for oral testimony: Number 3, the retired Minister -Severing; Number 5, Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting; Number 6 -has already been sought for and not objected to by the Prosecution—a -witness for the Defendant Dönitz; Number 10, Admiral Boehm.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, with regard to the following witnesses the Prosecution -suggest an affidavit as the suitable procedure: Number 2, Vice -Admiral Lohmann. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in this case I should prefer -an affidavit, because it is only a history of past events that is involved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Affidavit in which case? -<span class='pageno' title='555' id='Page_555'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the case of Number 2—Lohmann.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to Number 4—that is Admiral Albrecht—his -evidence covers the same ground as Number 5. It might be that -interrogatories would be more convenient, but that would be a -matter for my friends to decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the next, Number 7. That is Dr. Süchting, who is an -engineer, and it is desired to have him speak about the Anglo-German -Naval Treaty and technical questions. The Prosecution suggest -an affidavit there, because apparently it is desired that he speak on -technical matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg, I am told, is still ill. -I think that Dr. Siemers has already submitted questions and has -received the answers. He ought to be dealt with by interrogatories. -That is probably the easiest thing for the Field Marshal and the -most suitable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was that not suggested in the case of one of -the other defendants?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Von Blomberg, yes. I have a -note that the Defense Counsel have submitted questions. I was not -quite sure whether this was Dr. Siemers or another Defense counsel. -I think it was Dr. Nelte, for Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. That is Number 8.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then the next one, Von Weizsäcker, -who was the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. He is -asked for with regard to the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case. At the moment I cannot -see the point for which the Defense want this gentleman, but I -suggest that if they get an affidavit from Weizsäcker we should -know what he can speak about.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the other one is Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. It is desired -to give the results of the interrogation of certain British prisoners -of war at Lillehammer. It would appear that the object was merely -to give further evidence which would be cumulative to the statements -in the German <span class='it'>White Book</span>, and therefore the Prosecution -suggest an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are two witnesses that the Prosecution think are in the -border line between admissibility and affidavits. They are really, -in the submission of the Prosecution, not relevant witnesses, but the -Tribunal might like to consider the question. These are Number 1, -a naval chaplain who really speaks as to the general moral and -religious outlook of the Defendant Raeder. That is, in the submission -of the Prosecution, really irrelevant, and at the most it would be a -matter for an affidavit. The position of the Prosecution is that it is -<span class='pageno' title='556' id='Page_556'></span> -really irrelevant, but it certainly should not be more than an affidavit, -even if a different view was taken.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other is Number 16, Admiral Schultze. He speaks as to an -interview with the late Admiral Darlan, and the Prosecution submit -that that is irrelevant; if there are any approaches to relevance—which -the Prosecution have been unable to see—why then it could -only be a matter for an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that the following are unnecessary: -Number 11. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, dealing with Number 16, would -that not be more suitably dealt with by interrogatories? The -Tribunal granted interrogatories on 9 February in that case, but I -suppose they have not yet been produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Which one was that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Number 16.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if the Tribunal feel -that it is a matter that should be explored, I agree that interrogatories -would be suitable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, My Lord, the ones that the Prosecution make objection to -<span class='it'>in toto</span> are:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 11, Vice Admiral Bürckner, because he is cumulative to -Numbers 5 and 10; Number 12, Commander Schreiber, because on -21 February Dr. Siemers said that he was willing not to call this -witness if Number 5, Schulte-Moenting, was allowed; Number 13, -Lackorn, who is a Norwegian merchant, who is supposed to speak of -the Allied plans, without any means of knowledge being stated. This -witness was temporarily given up on 21 February; Number 15, Alf -Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling cabinet, as -I understand the application. There is no indication why this -witness should be competent to speak on the reputation of the -Defendant Raeder; and Number 16 has been dealt with; Number 17 -is Colonel Goldenberg, who was the interpreter at the meeting -between the Defendant Raeder and Darlan. The Defendant Raeder -gives evidence and Admiral Schultze answers an interrogatory. It -will appear that that interview is well covered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I thank Sir David for taking up the individual -points, as a consequence of which I can, as I presume, count on the -Tribunal’s approval of the points to which Sir David has agreed, -without giving specific reasons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the best course -would be for you to go through the ones upon which Sir David has -not agreed as to being called as oral witnesses, and then perhaps it -<span class='pageno' title='557' id='Page_557'></span> -may be necessary to deal with the ones where he has agreed. I -would begin in the order in which he took them up—2, 4, 7, 8, 9—if -that is convenient for you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the case of Number 2 he suggested an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 2 is the Vice Admiral Lohmann. In this -connection I refer to the last page of my brief, where I have discussed -the documents under “III.” There I have stated that I suggested -to the British Delegation that we come to some agreement as to the -figures with regard to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Treaty. -The British Delegation has promised me that such an agreement -may be possible and has in the meantime communicated with the -British Admiralty in London on this matter. If, as I expect, an -understanding is reached, I am agreeable to an affidavit from Vice -Admiral Lohmann, for then he is to testify on only a few points. -I ask, therefore, that he be approved for the time being, and I -undertake not to call him if the agreement mentioned is reached -with the Prosecution. If this understanding is not reached, the proof -of some important figures would be very difficult, and I could not -do without Lohmann who is well informed about the figures; -otherwise, I could.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about that, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have circulated Dr. Siemers’ -note and request for agreement to my colleagues, and I have also -sent it to the Admiralty, and I hope that we may be able to give -the information and probably to agree on these matters, but I am -waiting to get that confirmed from the Admiralty in Britain; so I -think if we could leave over the question of this witness until I see -if I can get an agreement which will satisfy Dr. Siemers on the -point. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then if you cannot make the agreement, -probably the witness would have to be called?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. I can let Dr. Siemers know -whether there is any controversy on the point, whether I am going -to challenge what he puts forward. If I am going to challenge it, -obviously I should not object to the witness being called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Under these circumstances, I shall be satisfied -with the submission of an affidavit. I have written to Vice Admiral -Lohmann, asking him to answer the other brief questions; and -regarding the main points the principles just stated by Sir David -will be adhered to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 4, Admiral Albrecht, was one of -the closest collaborators of Grand Admiral Raeder. From 1926 to 1928 -<span class='pageno' title='558' id='Page_558'></span> -he was Raeder’s Chief of Staff in Kiel; from 1928 to 1930, chief of -the Navy personnel office of the OKM. From then on he was commanding -admiral in Kiel, and finally Navy Group Commander East -in 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to remark in this connection that in this last year -he also joined, upon the suggestion of the Security Group commander, -this organization, and from this point of view also he -appears important to me. Admiral Albrecht has also, as I know, -written directly to the Tribunal for this reason.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Albrecht has known the Defendant Raeder so long that he is well -acquainted with his main ideas and thus orientated on the main -charges of the Indictment. He has known Raeder’s trend of thought -since 1928, that is to say, from the time in which the charges against -Raeder have their beginning. I ask that consideration be given to -the tremendous charges which are brought against Raeder covering -a period of 15 years. I cannot refute all the accusations with one or -two witnesses. The differences among the testimonies are so great -that in such a case one cannot speak of “cumulative.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore I ask that note be taken of the fact that so far I -have been unable to talk to Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting, who has -been approved by the Tribunal and the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal has also not yet informed me where Schulte-Moenting -is. I presume that he is in a prisoner-of-war camp in -England, but I do not know whether he will really be at my disposal, -and whether I will be able to talk with him in time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing with Admiral Konrad -Albrecht, are you not? You are dealing with Number 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: No; regarding Admiral Albrecht, we know that -he is in Hamburg. I simply pointed out that it would not be cumulative -if both Albrecht and Schulte-Moenting are heard by the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You see, what Sir David was suggesting was -an interrogatory in the case of Admiral Albrecht and an affidavit in -the case of Admiral Schulte-Moenting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will agree to Admiral Schulte-Moenting’s -being called orally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. I was mixing the numbers. -Yes, that is right, to call the one and have interrogatories from the -other. Have you any objection to that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I request that I be allowed to call both -witnesses because Schulte-Moenting is to testify about a later period -and Albrecht about the earlier period that was immediately subsequent -to the Versailles Treaty. The position of both is entirely -different. In addition, as I have just pointed out, the Tribunal has -<span class='pageno' title='559' id='Page_559'></span> -not yet informed me whether I can with absolute certainty count on -the witness Schulte-Moenting, whether he has been found, whether -it is known where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Our information is that Schulte-Moenting has -not been located.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I have no information as yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am not sure that is right. -Yes, he has been located in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United -Kingdom. At least I think so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, I have a document before me here which shows that he is in -a prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I thank you very much. I did not know that. -Under the circumstances I am prepared, in regard to Admiral -Albrecht, to accept an affidavit or an interrogatory, provided Schulte-Moenting -really appears.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 7, Dr. Süchting. In this connection Sir David suggests -an affidavit in order to speed up the Trial. I am satisfied with an -affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Again, however, with the one reservation that -the matter of the figures will be clarified between me and the -British Prosecution, in accordance with my letter as already discussed -in connection with Admiral Lohmann, I believe that Sir -David is agreeable to this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how you -suggest that these questions of shipbuilding in connection with the -German-English Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937 are relevant -to any charge made here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: The Defendant Raeder is accused of not having -adhered to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreement. Such -a treaty violation is mainly a question of the building of ships. -Consequently I must demonstrate what could be built according to -the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreement and what actually -was built and what thoughts and orders the Navy had in this connection. -As I said, however, I shall be satisfied with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the -arguments on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg. The -Prosecution have suggested an affidavit or an interrogatory. In consideration -of Von Blomberg’s state of health, I am agreeable to this -for the sake of simplicity. Since it does not involve any great -number of questions, I suggest an affidavit. -<span class='pageno' title='560' id='Page_560'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 9, Ambassador Baron Von Weizsäcker. I submitted the -application on 6 February and do not know thus far the position of -the Tribunal. At the time of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case Weizsäcker was State -Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. At that time, -in September 1939, Weizsäcker spoke with the American Ambassador -on the subject of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span>. Weizsäcker spoke with Hitler and -with Raeder. He knows the details and must be heard on these -details. I do not believe that an affidavit will suffice. First let me -remark that I do not know where Weizsäcker is. But aside from -that, the charge which has been made against the Defendant Raeder -in the case of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> is morally so grave that, although otherwise -it might not be such an important point, I have to put particular -stress on this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The British Delegation has given particular emphasis to the case -of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> and has made insulting attacks on the defendant in -connection with this case. In the interest of the absolutely irreproachable -life of my client I feel obliged to clarify this case completely. -That can only be done by Weizsäcker.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as far as the application goes, -there is nothing to show, beyond the position of the suggested witness, -that he knew anything about it at all. Under these circumstances -would not interrogatories be the most appropriate course? -You did not show whether he knew anything about it at all. All -you say in your application is that he was State Secretary in the -Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I may point out that I stated in my application -that the witness is informed regarding the events connected with -the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You say that he must know on the basis of -his position as State Secretary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: The American Ambassador approached Weizsäcker -immediately after the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case in order to clarify the case. -Thereupon Weizsäcker spoke with Raeder; however, only after he -had already told the American Ambassador that no German submarine -was involved. The question as to whether a German submarine -was involved in the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case was settled only after the -return of the German submarine. Prior to that the Defendant -Raeder had not known of it either. The German submarine returned -on 27 September; the sinking was on 3 September.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Did you state these facts about conversations -between the American Ambassador and State Secretary Weizsäcker -in one of your previous applications?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes, on 6 February I did submit the application, -and also mentioned in general terms the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case. I may add -<span class='pageno' title='561' id='Page_561'></span> -that Weizsäcker knows also the subsequent occurrences. Weizsäcker -knows exactly that the Navy, and particularly the Defendant -Raeder, had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the article which -the Propaganda Ministry published in the newspapers. Weizsäcker was -just as outraged about this article as was the Defendant Raeder. But -it is precisely this that the Prosecution charges against Raeder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider what you say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Let me add that I have made a mistake. I just -heard that Weizsäcker is still at the Vatican in Rome; in other -words, it is known where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. As far as I know, -Colonel Soltmann will be requested as a witness also by the Defendant -Jodl, and an affidavit or an interrogatory has already been sent -to him. I therefore concur with Sir David that an affidavit from -Soltmann will suffice, subject to the consent, or the applications of -the Defense Counsel for General Jodl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He does not appear to have been located yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes—the witness Soltmann? I have given his -address in my application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: It is Falkenberg near Moosach in Upper Bavaria.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 16, Admiral Schultze is in Hamburg, and it is an easy -matter to have him testify personally here in Nuremberg. The -Prosecution have accused the Defendant Raeder of participating in -the National Socialist policy of conquest. This accusation is unfounded. -Raeder, both in Norway and in France, constantly directed -his efforts towards bringing about peace; in other words, not towards -the effecting of any final conquest of the countries. In this Raeder -found himself in a strong opposition to Hitler, and only after much -urging did Raeder succeed in enabling himself to negotiate with -Darlan in Paris concerning the possible conclusion of a peace. I -believe that such a positive intervention for a quick termination of -the war with France is important enough, in a trial like this, to have -the witness testify personally. I cannot understand how Sir David, -in view of his accusation, can say that this point is irrelevant. The -Prosecution has constantly declared that the Defendant Raeder was -agitating for war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that Sir David did say it was -irrelevant. He suggested interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I made a note that Sir David said the witness was -irrelevant, but that he would, as a concession, agree to an affidavit. -<span class='pageno' title='562' id='Page_562'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then I was wrong.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I simply wanted to make my position clear on the -question as to whether or not this witness is irrelevant. I believe I -have shown that he is relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You want the witness? You would not agree -to an affidavit or an interrogatory? Is that right?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I ask the Tribunal to hear Schultze as a witness -here in Nuremberg, because, in my opinion in view of the principles -of the Indictment, it is a vital point that Raeder’s attitude toward -the entire problem is shown by facts prevailing at that time, and -not by present assertions and statements.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I come now to the witness to whom Sir David has objected, -witness Number 11, Admiral Bürckner. I asked for him on 31 January. -So far I have received no answer. I asked to be allowed to -speak to the witness Bürckner in order to acquaint myself with the -details. The interview is denied me so long as he has not been -approved as a witness. In order to speak with him therefore I am -dependent on his being approved first as a witness. Should it then -prove that this evidence is cumulative, I am willing to forego the -witness. I presume that Sir David is agreeable to this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal does not quite understand -why the counsel should not have seen this officer who is in -prison in Nuremberg, subject of course to security.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have no objection to the -counsel’s seeing Admiral Bürckner. I think up to now the Prosecution -have always taken the view that what Dr. Siemers wanted -to see him about was not relevant. I do not think the Tribunal has -ruled on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The view of the Tribunal is that Counsel for -the Defense ought to be in touch with the witnesses before, in order -to see whether they are able to give relevant evidence or not. They -cannot give the evidence or the relevancy of it unless they know -what the witness is going to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection will be made, and -Dr. Siemers can make arrangement, as far as the Prosecution are -concerned, to see Admiral Bürckner at the earliest date he likes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I am grateful to the Tribunal for clarifying this -point. This point has made the work of the Defense Counsel extremely -difficult. I have been waiting for more than a month to -speak to Bürckner. For four weeks I have not been able to speak to -Admiral Wagner for the same reason. I should like to speak to -others also who are in the courthouse prison. They were all denied -<span class='pageno' title='563' id='Page_563'></span> -me because the Tribunal had not yet approved them as witnesses. -I believe that the point is now clarified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Siemers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: It is quite possible that, after speaking with the -witness, I may not call him to the stand, particularly since I hear -today that Schulte-Moenting can be called, and provided that Boehm -is approved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That who is approved?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Boehm, Number 10.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. That was Sir David’s only objection -to Number 11, was it not, that it was cumulative to 5 and 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 12, Captain Schreiber. Sir David has -rightly pointed out that I have already stated the possibility that -I may give up this witness. This still stands. If the witness Schulte-Moenting -and the witness Boehm actually appear, the witness -Schreiber is not necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 13, the witness Lackorn, in Leipzig. Before the occupation -of Norway Lackorn was on business in Oslo. He had nothing -to do with the military. It was purely by accident that he learned, -in the Hotel Bristol in Oslo, that the landing of English troops was -imminent. This point is important because one can only judge the -defendant’s attitude toward the Norwegian undertaking if one considers -the general situation of Norway. The general situation of -Norway means, however, the relations of Norway with Germany, -England, Sweden, and all the other countries adjacent to Norway. -It is not proper, in such a decisive question, to state that only a -small part is relevant. I am agreed, however, that the witness is not -to be heard here. I have, therefore, while I was waiting for the -decision of the Prosecution, written to the witness in order to obtain -an affidavit. It is therefore agreeable to me if an affidavit only is -submitted here. He need not be approved as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you did not deal with that aspect -of the matter, with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid the -view of the Prosecution is that the story, which apparently started -in the bar of a hotel in Oslo, is not evidence which is really admissible, -relevant, or of any weight in a matter of this kind. That is -the view we have taken throughout.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, it appears from the application -which is before us that you originally made a request for this -witness on 19 January 1946, which appears to have been in perfectly -general terms, and that the Tribunal ordered, on 14 February, that -you should furnish supplementary details of the evidence which -<span class='pageno' title='564' id='Page_564'></span> -you wanted to obtain by calling this witness. Thereupon, on -21 February, you withdrew your application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You now submit the application again without giving any details -at all, simply saying that the witness had been in Oslo on business -and received information there of the imminent landing of Allied -forces in Norway. Well, that is a perfectly general statement, just -as general as the original statement. It does not seem to comply -with the orders of the Tribunal at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: On 21 February I withdrew my application -because of the basic point of view which I have also presented to -the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have pointed out that, in my opinion, the Defense cannot be -expected to give every single detail, when we have not for three -months after we were consulted had the slightest word, not one -word, about a single witness of the Prosecution. When we of the -Defense have not had the opportunity even of taking a stand on -the relevancy of their witnesses. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out on several occasions -that the reason why the defendants’ counsel have to submit -applications for their witnesses is because they are unable to get -their witnesses themselves and because they are applying to the -Tribunal to get their witnesses for them and their documents for -them. It is a work of very considerable magnitude to find and to -bring witnesses to Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I understand from you that with reference to this witness you -are trying now to get an affidavit from him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate I have been making the effort. -Whether I shall receive the answer in time from Leipzig, which is -in the Russian Zone, remains to be seen. In the meantime, in order -to facilitate matters and to avoid delay, I have written to the -witness Lackorn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For this reason I am willing to waive having him testify here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit, you will be able to -give the Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness -would give, and also to show it to the Prosecution, who will then -be able to say whether they wish to have the witness brought here -for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application. -<span class='pageno' title='565' id='Page_565'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 15 is a Norwegian, Alf Whist, -former Secretary of Commerce. By decision of the Court on -14 February he was rejected as irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Whist can testify that the reputation of the German Navy in -Norway was very good throughout the occupation, and that in -Norway the complaints were directed exclusively against the civil -administration and not against the German Navy. Whist knows -definitely, as does every other Norwegian, that the Navy was not -involved in a single illegal or criminal measure in Norway during -the occupation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If this is considered irrelevant, I presume that Sir David means -that the Navy, during the occupation of Norway, behaved correctly. -Of course this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from -the question which I shall discuss later, that is, the question of the -occupation and the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of -the time after the occupation had been carried out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is -this: That whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that -the facts were that the German Navy had behaved with meticulous -correctness on every point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was -Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling cabinet in Norway, as to how -the German Navy behaved would not have the slightest interest or -relevance or weight with anyone. That is the view of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I hoped that Sir David would make his position -clear as to whether charges in this connection will be made against -the Navy. Sir David speaks of the Germans in general. I draw -attention to the fact that the entire administration in Norway was -a civil administration, and that, in the Terboven jurisdiction, the -Navy had nothing to do with this administration; if I have named -a single witness where I might have named hundreds, I did this -only to give the Tribunal a picture of how Admiral Boehm, the Navy, -and Raeder conducted themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you have still Number 17, the interpreter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lieutenant Colonel Goldenberg, it is -Sir David’s point of view that he is unnecessary; if Admiral Schultze -is approved as witness, an affidavit from Goldenberg will suffice for -me. A short affidavit appears to me to be important, because -Goldenberg was present as an impartial interpreter at every conference -which took place between Darlan and Raeder. An affidavit -will suffice in this case. -<span class='pageno' title='566' id='Page_566'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents. -I ought to call your attention to an observation at the end of your -application, which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. -Who are they?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: The Tribunal has declared that the details about -a witness have to be submitted a long time in advance only because -the Tribunal must procure the witness. When it is a question of a -witness who comes to Nuremberg on his own initiative, I should -be obliged for a decision on the point in connection with my -defense, as to whether or not the Tribunal will admit such a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the -principal reasons why Defense Counsel have to make applications, -and another principal reason is a necessity for expedition in this -Trial—expedition and security. The question of security is important, -and therefore we must insist on being told who the witnesses -are that you wish to call, Dr. Siemers. Otherwise, you will not be -able to call them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Am I obliged to do this even when the witness is -already in the building?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there -are 20 or 21 defendants in the dock; and we have to try and make -this Trial expeditious and we therefore cannot allow them to call -as many witnesses as they choose to call. But if it is a question -of your not having the names of the witnesses in your mind at the -moment, you can certainly specify them after a short delay, or -tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I shall submit information on this matter shortly. -I do not want to name the witness before I have talked it over -with him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to -your applying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do -so by tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Very well, I know that, at the moment, the witness -in question is not in Nuremberg, so that I cannot talk to him -at the moment. I ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being so -cautious. The Tribunal will be cognizant of the fact that witnesses -have been taken into custody. I cannot take the responsibility for -somebody’s being taken into custody because I named him as a -witness. That is the reason. I shall, however, notify the Tribunal -as soon as the witness is in Nuremberg and I have had a chance to -speak to him. I shall do so within 24 hours. It is here a question -of a testimony which would take 10 minutes at the most of the -Court’s time. Therefore, I do not believe that this will burden the -Tribunal too much. -<span class='pageno' title='567' id='Page_567'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Then I should like to add that I can give the -address of the witness Severing, retired Reich Minister. I received -it yesterday by telegraph. Witness Severing is Number 3 and the -Prosecution is agreeable to his being heard. I shall submit the -address in writing to the General Secretary. He is in Bielefeld and -can be reached without trouble.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If you give it to the General Secretary, -that is all that is required. And now would probably be a convenient -time to break off for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Your Honor. There is the matter of Admiral -Bürckner. So far as we know, Dr. Siemers made one request about -Admiral Bürckner some time ago, and at that time he was told, as -I understand it, that Admiral Bürckner was to be called or that the -Prosecution intended to call him as a witness, and that therefore we -did not think it proper for him to talk to Admiral Bürckner until -after we had called him as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Up to a very late date in this presentation of our case, we still -had in mind calling Admiral Bürckner. I think some reference was -made to him, as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference -to the witness Lahousen. And it was for that reason that we told -Dr. Siemers that we did not think he should talk to the witness -until after he had testified or a decision had been made with -reference to his testimony. But we have at all times tried to -co-operate with the Defense and make available these people who -are here in custody so that they may talk with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: May I add something regarding the witnesses? -Concerning witness Number 1, Marinedekan Ronneberger, I agree -to use an affidavit as suggested by Sir David. Concerning the -witness Bürckner, I would like to mention that Mr. Dodd’s statement -is based on an error. I am not permitted to speak to the -witness, because he has not yet been approved by the Tribunal as -my witness. No other reason was given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We do not think any further discussion is -necessary about this witness. I have already stated what the -members of the Tribunal will act upon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I did not understand whether Mr. Dodd agreed -to my speaking with the witness Bürckner now. -<span class='pageno' title='568' id='Page_568'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the Prosecution -have closed their case, and they now have no longer any objection -to your seeing the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Then one last remark. The Tribunal will have -noticed that I have not requested any witness concerning naval -warfare and submarine warfare. The reason is that I have agreed -with Dr. Kranzbühler that Dr. Kranzbühler will deal with the entire -complex of naval warfare and submarine warfare, although, in this -respect, it not only affects Grossadmiral Dönitz, but also in a considerable -degree Grossadmiral Raeder in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief -of the Navy. Therefore, insofar as the interests of Grossadmiral -Raeder are concerned in this matter, Dr. Kranzbühler will -also represent him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to point out only that Dr. Kranzbühler’s very -important application regarding the questions to Admiral Nimitz -not only affects Grossadmiral Dönitz but, in particular, Grossadmiral -Raeder, and beyond that, the organization of the General Staff, -insofar as the Navy is concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I pass to the documents now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document -Number 1, The War Diaries of the Seekriegsleitung and the B.d.U., -Dr. Kranzbühler’s assistant Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work -on these at the Admiralty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 2, Weyer’s <span class='it'>Navy Diary</span>, and Nautikus’ -<span class='it'>Navy Year Book</span>, there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these. -He will indicate in the ordinary way the passages he intends to use.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to General Marshall’s report of 10 October 1945, I -cannot see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if Dr. Siemers -will indicate which part he intends to use, it can be discussed when -he actually presents it to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now Number 4, the British Admiralty documents, May 1939 to -April 1940, which are wanted as to the preparations of landing in -Scandinavia and Finland. Although, strictly, what is relevant is -what was known to the Defendant Raeder, I shall make inquiries -about these documents, and if the Tribunal will give me a short -time, I hope to be able to report to the Tribunal upon them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want to make it clear that I cannot, of course, undertake to -give details on Allied documents; but I hope to be able to produce -some documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal -with them authoritatively. I would rather not be pressed for details -at the moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, I hope that I will -receive the books which belong to Number 2 and Number 3 soon, -because otherwise a delay may be caused. The report of General -<span class='pageno' title='569' id='Page_569'></span> -Marshall of 10 October 1945 is, as far as I can judge from the -excerpts, important for the reason that General Marshall adopts, -on various points, an entirely different attitude from Justice -Jackson’s. I believe that a comparison of two such outstanding -opinions is of sufficient importance to have the report of General -Marshall also heard here. Concerning Number 4, I am waiting for -the final decision of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have only one more request, and I ask to be excused, since, by -error, I have not listed this Number 5. It is the following: The -Prosecution has repeatedly presented quotations from the book -<span class='it'>Mein Kampf</span> by Adolf Hitler and inferred from it that each one of -the defendants who held a leading position as early as 1933 should -have known from this book, even before 1933, that Hitler was contemplating -the launching of aggressive wars. I noticed that the -quotations in the document book which was presented in November -are all taken from an edition which was published only in 1933. -The edition of 1933, however, differs in many points from the -original edition. Unfortunately, I am personally only in possession -of an edition which was published after 1933. In order to check -these questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could -have read in this book in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution -to try to submit a copy of the first edition. As far as I know, -the first edition was published in 1925, and the second in 1927, by -the publishing firm of Franz Eher.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get an earlier -edition, so that Dr. Siemers can compare the passages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with Page 2 of your -document? Sir David, you have not dealt with this, have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I assume, Your Lordship, -that Dr. Siemers would, in due course, indicate what excerpts he -was going to use. We could discuss when he presents them, whether -the Prosecution have any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You intended, Dr. Siemers, I suppose, -to indicate the passages upon which you rely in your document -book?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have already discussed the -point on Page 3, that is the question of tonnages built, and so on—I -said I am making inquiries with regard to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: My attention is drawn, Sir David, to Paragraph -4 B on Page 2. Are you suggesting that the Tribunal supply -him with documents on German policy without any further reservation? -<span class='pageno' title='570' id='Page_570'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an -oversight. I took it that that was included in the words at the top -of the page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In addition, I shall submit documents and affidavits, some of -which are already in my possession, and some of which I -shall procure myself without having the assistance of the -Prosecution.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I took it that Dr. Siemers had certain documents on German -policy, and will indicate what passages he is going to use. I am -very sorry I did not refer to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, -with reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and -does not wish any further action to be taken with reference to them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von -Schirach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be -convenient if I indicate the view of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note -that Dr. Sauter is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, -as oral witnesses; that is, he is asking for seven oral witnesses, and -Numbers 5 and 9 to 13 by way of affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution suggest that, as far as oral witnesses are concerned, -the defendant might have Number 1 or Number 2. that is, -Wieshofer or Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the -same ground; that he might have Number 3, the witness Lauterbacher, -who was Chief of Staff of the Reich Youth Leadership -(Reichsjugendführung); and, also, that he might have Number 8, -that is Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, who, I think, is Schirach’s -father-in-law—since the description of his evidence takes up nine -pages of the application, he is obviously a very important witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the Prosecution suggest that there might be affidavits from -Number 5, Scharizer, who was the deputy Gauleiter of Vienna; -Number 11, who is Madame Vasso; Number 12, Herr Schneeberger; -and Number 13, Field Marshal Von Blomberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witnesses that the Prosecution find difficulty in perceiving -the necessity for are: First of all, Number 4, Frau Hoepken—there -are no details given in this application, except that she was secretary -to Von Schirach; Number 6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who -apparently repeats part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher -word for word; Number 7, Dr. Schlünder, who also repeats the -witness Lauterbacher word for word; and Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, -<span class='pageno' title='571' id='Page_571'></span> -who passes a personal view on the defendant, which, in the submission -of the Prosecution, is not really helpful evidence; and -finally, Dr. Roesen, Number 10, who speaks as to an isolated incident -of kindness on the part of the defendant to the family of the -musician Richard Strauss.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is the position which the Prosecution take with regard to -the witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have, in the case of Baldur -von Schirach also, limited my evidence as much as possible. For -a personal hearing, here before the Tribunal, I have proposed as -witnesses, Numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and I must earnestly request -you, Your Honors, to grant me these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The difficulty, in the case of Schirach, as regards the presentation -of evidence, is that evidence must be produced and offered -for two entirely separate complexes. One is the activity of the -Defendant Von Schirach in his capacity as Reich Youth Leader; and -the second is his activity in Vienna, during the period from 1940 to -1945, in which he still exercised certain functions in Youth Leadership -in addition to his main duties. Therefore, I need witnesses for -both these activities of the Defendant Von Schirach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to this difficulty there is still another one. The -Defendant Von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that implied -that practically without exception all his collaborators were relatively -young people who during the second World War served a -long time in the Army. Therefore it is quite possible that for a -few years during the World War one witness might know nothing -at all, because he did not work on the staff of the Defendant -Von Schirach during this time; and that therefore, for this time, -another collaborator of Schirach will have to be called upon, in -order to give information on his activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, in earlier written applications I had requested -more witnesses, but I have omitted these additional witnesses right -from the beginning in the application now submitted to you, in -order to contribute thus, as far as I can, to expediting the procedure. -But, Your Honors, these six witnesses that I have requested to have -brought before the Tribunal I really must have granted me for, if -a clear picture of Schirach’s activities is to be gained, I cannot -forego any one of them. I may also point out that all these six -witnesses that I have listed under the numbers given, for the -purpose of calling them, have already been approved by the -Tribunal, so that the new approval will consist only of a repetition -of your own earlier decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Wieshofer, Your Honors, who is listed under Number -1, was from 1940 to 1945 adjutant of the Defendant Von Schirach; -<span class='pageno' title='572' id='Page_572'></span> -that is to say, during the period that covers the activity of the -Defendant Von Schirach as Gauleiter of Vienna and Reichsstatthalter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This collaborator, who was with the Defendant Schirach daily -and who knew him very well, has been named by me particularly -for the purpose of testifying—although, of course, he will also -testify on other things—that Schirach, in his capacity as Gauleiter -of Vienna, pursued an entirely different policy to that of his -predecessor, the former Gauleiter Bürckel; that he, contrary to -Bürckel, endeavored to establish correct relations with the Catholic -Church, and that, with this aim in mind, he successfully influenced -and instructed also his collaborators and subordinates. I say successfully, -because these efforts by the Defendant Von Schirach to bring -about satisfactory relations with the Catholic Church have also been -repeatedly acknowledged on the part of the Church, as well as by -the Catholic population of Vienna.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Besides, the witness Wieshofer will also corroborate that the -Defendant Von Schirach had nothing at all to do with the deportation -of Jews from Vienna; that this matter of the Jews was. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do not Numbers 1 and 2, Wieshofer and -Hoepken, really deal substantially with the same subject? Would -it not be sufficient if one were called as a witness and if the other -one gave evidence by interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: I do not quite think so, Mr. President, because the -witness Hoepken, who is listed under Number 2, was a collaborator -of the Defendant Von Schirach as early as 1938, in the Reich Youth -Leadership, and because he is supposed to give information especially -about the activity of the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth -Leader and in particular also about his efforts to bring about understanding -and friendship with the youth of other nations, such as, -for instance, England and France. I believe, Your Honors, that -with regard to the specific importance of these particular questions, -the attitude of the Defendant Von Schirach in the naming of witnesses -should be given recognition here, and that not one witness -only, but both should be granted. I have submitted the addresses -of both witnesses to the Tribunal. They are in a camp, and I believe, -Your Honors, it is imperative to summon both witnesses to establish -the facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I still do not follow what the essential difference -is between the two.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have just pointed out that the -witness Number 2, Hoepken, had a leading position in the Reich -Youth Leadership, and that therefore the witness Number 2, Hoepken, -is in a position to give information especially about the activity of -the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader. -<span class='pageno' title='573' id='Page_573'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, -Number 1, was adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reichsleiter -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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, but youth education was Hoepken’s main -official task while the activity of the witness Wieshofer was limited -mainly to the job of adjutant to the Defendant Von Schirach, -primarily in his capacity as Gauleiter in Vienna. That is the main -difference, and the witnesses who could provide information about -his activity in Vienna are mainly the witness Wieshofer and, to a -small extent, also Hoepken. But I need Hoepken, by all means, as -I said, for the clarification of the activity of Schirach in the Reich -Youth Leadership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, may I also point out that much is at stake for the -Defendant Von Schirach, and that, from the point of view of the -Court, it should really not make much difference, in a matter so important -to Schirach, whether one witness or two witnesses are called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I could have suggested perhaps four witnesses in -the hope that two would then be granted. If now, in the name of -the Defendant Von Schirach, I am proposing to call only two witnesses, -I would not think it very just if one of these two witnesses -should be denied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have -said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, Your Honors, in the third place, I -have to request Hartmann Lauterbacher. If I have understood -correctly, the Prosecution agree to this; therefore, I can be brief.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff of the Reich -Youth Leadership, is in a position to supply information especially -about the fact that the Defendant Schirach in no way prepared the -youth psychologically and pedagogically for the war, and by no -means for an aggressive war. Furthermore, he can testify that the -allegations of a Polish report—presented by the Russian Prosecution -in one of the sessions during February, I believe on 9 February -1946—are definitely false. According to this report, the Hitler Youth -had used spies and parachute agents in Poland. And this is false -and the witness Lauterbacher will refute it. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not -object to Number 3 being called as a witness, but what he did -object to was 6 and 7, whom you are also asking for, as oral witnesses, -because he said that they repeated what Lauterbacher said—Numbers -6 and 7, that is Schmidt and Schlünder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there again is the difficulty which -I pointed out before. From the Polish Government report which -<span class='pageno' title='574' id='Page_574'></span> -was read by the Soviet Prosecution on 9 February 1946, it cannot -be seen in what period these activities concerning the Hitler Youth -agents and spies are to have taken place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now it may happen here that, if I have only one witness, it -will be alleged that it was at some other time, perhaps at a time -when this witness was in the Army; and that is why, in the interest -of a complete clarification of these facts, I have asked to have -witness Number 6 heard also. That is the witness Schmidt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that, -with reference to Schlünder, 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 only from 1933 to 1940, you would cover the whole period -and you could exclude Schmidt?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you -are referring to an interrogatory in the case of Lauterbacher.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: No, Sir David was prepared to have Lauterbacher -called as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher is to be called as a witness and -Schmidt is to receive an interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He said that Schmidt and Schlünder were -cumulative. Then 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 7 related 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 Schlünder and -left out Schmidt. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: You mean that an interrogatory is to be obtained -from Schmidt? I am agreeable to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The statements which you make with reference -to Schmidt and to Schlünder are practically identical.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different periods, as each -of them was in the Army. If one of them comes, he cannot say -anything, of course, about the time during which he served in the -Army. He cannot give any information as to whether, during his -military service, agents were used.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not know about that. You have stated -that they 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 cannot have been in the Army; they -cannot have taken an active part in the Army. -<span class='pageno' title='575' id='Page_575'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>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 Schlünder -were called, it would dispense with the necessity for Schmidt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: May I point out, Mr. President, that in any case -I need Schlünder, who, by the way, was arrested a few weeks ago, -because he was a specialist for physical training with the Reich -Youth Leadership, and because, therefore, I want to prove, especially -through Dr. Schlünder, that the education of the youth, as administered -by the Defendant Von Schirach, was absolutely neither extraordinary -nor militaristic. The Defendant Von Schirach has thus far, -during the entire procedure in his interrogations. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement -between you and Sir David that Number 1 and Number 3 -certainly should be called and that Number 7 might be called; but -I do not know whether Sir David agrees that an affidavit or an -interrogatory might be given by Number 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, -My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, -Dr. Sauter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us get on then.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have then, in addition, under -Number 4, listed an affidavit by a witness, Maria Hoepken. I shall -submit this affidavit, which is already in my possession, to the -Tribunal and to the Prosecution, along with my document book, -sufficiently in advance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I have also affidavits in my possession, if I may mention -that now, from two witnesses: Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, and -Number 10, Dr. Roesen. The same thing applies here. The Tribunal -and the Prosecution will receive these two affidavits in time, -together with my document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Concerning Number 8, the witness Hoffmann, the Prosecution -agree to having him called as a witness since this witness is here -in Nuremberg. Therefore I believe that I do not have to make any -detailed statements concerning this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same applies to Number 12 and Number 13. These are two -witnesses: One a Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, who, -primarily, is to inform us on the attitude of the defendant on the -question of foreign workers during the time of his activity as Gauleiter -in Vienna; and Number 13, Field Marshal Von Blomberg, who -is to inform us on the attitude of the Defendant Von Schirach on -<span class='pageno' title='576' id='Page_576'></span> -the question of the premilitary education of the youth, on the -question of physical training, and on the question of patriotic -education of youth. The Prosecution agree to interrogatories from -these two witnesses—which I have already suggested myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And now, Your Honors, I come to the one figure on my list which -is closest to the heart of my client and myself. It is Number 11; -that is the application to examine a French woman by the name of -Ida Vasso. Of this witness, Ida Vasso, we have heard in court for -the first time when the Soviet Prosecution submitted a commission -“Report on the Atrocities of the Fascist-German Invaders in the -Lvov Area,” as the title reads—Document Number USSR-6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document contains a sentence to the effect that a French -woman, Ida Vasso, who was working in a children’s home in Lvov, -had reported that the Hitler Youth had committed special atrocities -in Lvov. It was alleged that from the ghetto small children were -sold; however, it was not revealed by whom and to whom these -children were to have been sold; and yet, as a matter of course, it -is the Hitler Youth who are said to have used these children as -targets.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, we are fully aware that such happenings would -represent a quite extraordinary atrocity, and I can tell you that -none of all the presentations of the Prosecution during the last -three months has so distressed the Defendant Schirach, as has this -statement. The Defendant Schirach has always, even in his earlier -interrogations, maintained that he assumes full responsibility for -the education and training of the German Youth, as directed by -him; and that he is ready and willing, even as a defendant here, -to explain to the Tribunal what principles guided him, what aims he -had, and what successes he achieved. He has, for instance, never -denied that this youth training was based on patriotism. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses -now, are you not? You see, you agree in your application to -an affidavit. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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, “However, in consideration of the far distance -of the witness from Nuremberg, I agree that at first an affidavit -should be drawn up.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David agreed that an affidavit should be -drawn up. So you are in agreement, and I do not understand why -we should be troubled with further application. -<span class='pageno' title='577' id='Page_577'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: However, Mr. President, I have added something -to my application. I have written that a personal appearance of -this witness before the Tribunal would be useful so that she can be -questioned, because her testimony is important for the judging of -the Hitler Youth as a whole. I have also added. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Your application states that you reserve that -right. Well, you can prepare the affidavit and then 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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client attaches so much importance -to this particular case for the following reasons: The HJ, -that is the Hitler Youth, which he led, comprised about 8 million -members. It was therefore larger than. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal quite understands -why the defendant is interested in the matter. But it seems -to them it would be perfectly satisfactory if an affidavit were drawn -up and sent to the witness; and then you can see whether you want -the witness, whose present location is unknown, brought here -personally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client noticed one thing in particular, -that is, that among 8 million members only one single case -of atrocities occurred, of which he never heard anything at all in -the Reich Youth Leadership. However, I agree to the obtaining of -an affidavit for reasons of expediency; but for just this case I must -reserve the right to have the witness called, if the affidavit should -be insufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we had -better adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='578' id='Page_578'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They will have to look particularly closely at Number 9, the -book entitled, <span class='it'>Look, the Heart of Europe</span>, and the commentary on -it by the late Lord 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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I can state my position regarding -the documents very briefly. In the main, it is a question of books, -speeches, and essays by the Defendant Von Schirach. These literary -works are in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution -along with my document book. With the document book I -shall submit to the Tribunal and the Prosecution the individual -extracts which I propose to use as evidence, so that the Prosecution -will still be able to make any statements it wishes with regard to -the individual excerpts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that is all I have to say on that subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 28 February I made a supplementary -motion on behalf of the Defendant Hess. I should be -grateful if the Tribunal would inform me whether they wish to -hear the argument in regard to this motion now or later, since I do -not know whether the Tribunal have a translation of my motion in -their hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have not seen the application -yet, so I think you had better postpone making the argument until -the Tribunal has seen the application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: For the Defendant Sauckel I have suggested a -number of witnesses and in my preliminary remarks on the list -I have divided them into various groups.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The peculiarity of this evidence, as presented, lies in the fact -that in this case a mosaic of smaller facts has to be clarified. In its -case against Sauckel the Prosecution confined itself to the production -of incriminating material generally, and did not work out the -full details about SS assignments carried out under the auspices of -the Labor Service and similar matters. -<span class='pageno' title='579' id='Page_579'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Very few facts have been established at all with regard to -Sauckel’s sphere of activity generally. I am compelled, in consequence, -to present his staff, his collaborators, and their spheres -of activity. At first sight my list of witnesses may appear cumulative, -but closer inspection shows that they represent different fields. -Some of them are experts on Eastern affairs, others deal with -the West or South. There is the question of direction of manpower, -supplies, housing, and the authority exercised by individuals. The -recruitment of workers in foreign countries comes under another -head; and witnesses must be heard on this subject, too.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Sauckel’s case, the question of manpower is all-important -and that of conspiracy is a secondary matter. I believe I can rely -to a very great extent on the statements which may be expected -from others among the accused and from their witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -the Prosecution have endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering -the suggested witnesses under various heads.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by himself. -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 suggested that this witness is really irrelevant -to the main charges which have been made against the defendant. -My French colleagues will, however, if Dr. Servatius desires it, -let him know the effect of an interrogation of Ambassador Abetz -with regard to this subject. I do not want to comment on it at -the moment, because it is obviously a matter which Dr. Servatius -should consider before any comment is made on it in court. But, -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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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 eight for oral testimony, and two -more to give affidavits.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next three, Numbers 9, 10, and 11, were members of the -Defendant Sauckel’s staff, who are sought to be called to give -evidence as to his efforts to obtain good conditions. Again, the -Prosecution suggest a selection, and put forward one witness -and one affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 12, the witness Hoffmann, is called for the purpose of -saying that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, looked after the -welfare of foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. -<span class='pageno' title='580' id='Page_580'></span> -The Prosecution submit that that witness would be cumulative, -and object to him, as that subject is already covered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are a series of witnesses, Numbers 13 to 18, who -deal 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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Number 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals -with 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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of foreign -workers at the Gustloff works. That subject has been thoroughly -covered in general by previous witnesses, and the Prosecution -suggest that this particular witness is cumulative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for Labor, -he deals with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley -and the contention 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 his application -on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Darré, who was the former Reich Minister for -Food and 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 it will indicate a number of other -witnesses and documents which deal with this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Number 23, General Reinecke, there is no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought to say that French prisoners -of war were exchanged against voluntary workers. The Prosecution -object on the ground of irrelevance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Number 25, there is no objection to Dr. Lammers, who is -being called by, I think, every defendant, or practically every -defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next, 26, the witness Peuckert, again deals with the -administrative position and executive apparatus of Sauckel, which -has already been treated by witnesses at considerable length, and -the Prosecution object to this as cumulative. -<span class='pageno' title='581' id='Page_581'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jäger, is -asked for cross-examination on his affidavit. That is Exhibit -Number USA-202 (Document Number D-288), and the references -in the transcript are 1322 to 1327 (Volume III, Pages 441-446) and -3057 (Volume V, Page 509). No request was made at this time, -and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to explain his position before dealing -with this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, 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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the next three witnesses, 31, 32, and 33, I think the -position is that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute -certain evidence given by M. Dubost on 28 January that the -defendant authorized the evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked, -at Pages 3466 to 3492 of the transcript (Volume VI, Pages 242-263), -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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that the -defendant, as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, -we make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party -produced before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we -suggested that that be allowed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Frau Sauckel, who is desired in order that she -may speak as to the defendant’s charitable disposition, irrespective -of the Party, the Prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to -the issues before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it is impossible in this case, My Lord, to leave the -witnesses without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at the -documents, because the two are interrelated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is an application for 97 sets of documents and in general -they set out what we should call in England all the relevant -statutory rules and orders, that is, the subsidiary legislation made -with regard to the activities of this defendant. Frankly, I must say -to the Tribunal that I have not had the opportunity of reading the -original orders. I have read only 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 -<span class='pageno' title='582' id='Page_582'></span> -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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues and -myself take considerable objection, and I might just state two or -three of these.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, -and 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 comparison -of the caloric and other properties of the meat, it is going to be -extremely difficult to get any benefit from the evidence, if one is -going into that. It is unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before -the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal would then turn to Numbers 80 and 81; Dr. -Servatius wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, 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 this evidence indicate that there would have -to be extensive examination of the facts surrounding them and -they 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. But evidence of that -kind would, in my respectful submission, not be the basis of such -an argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then come Numbers 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. -There again it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged -consideration of the circumstances under which each affidavit was -made, to assess the values of bundles of affidavits of that kind.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I suggest that it -would be reasonable 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 arguments 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 will, I hope, consider that it is reasonable -that we should see the film before we are asked to comment on -it further.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have taken only certain examples in the documents because -obviously they will have to be considered in detail when we see -the text, and the Prosecution have to reserve their rights as to -objection. But I make the general point—and I hope the Tribunal -<span class='pageno' title='583' id='Page_583'></span> -will think that it is a fair point, and I hope Dr. Servatius will -not think that I am decrying his work; I am emphasizing the -industry and care which he has shown in doing it—that with this -immense body of documentation the witnesses in this case -will want careful pruning. That, as I have said, indicates our -general view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, -Dr. Servatius, I ought to say, for the information of other defendants’ -counsel and other persons concerned, that the Tribunal -proposes to adjourn today at 4 o’clock instead of 5 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. I did not. I am -sorry. I really have not made that distinction. It is written evidence -that I wish to refer to, either by affidavit or interrogatory, whichever -Dr. Servatius wishes to have.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And one other question: In view of what -you have said about the documents, would it not be a 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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be so, My Lord, -but Your Lordship will appreciate that we have been under considerable -pressure in the last few weeks and it is impossible to -cover them all, but we should be glad of a little time to go into -the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about -them after the adjournment some time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And in the course of a day or two, let us -know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we could do that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT; Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the -witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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 -<span class='pageno' title='584' id='Page_584'></span> -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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. What about witnesses 2 to 8?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius. First of all, you -will, no doubt, be calling the Defendant Sauckel himself?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>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?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: From a legal point of view, the witness -Beisiegel can be dispensed with, but the other witnesses are -necessary because they have actual knowledge of the use of manpower -abroad. So far, I have only one witness who can really -speak on the use of manpower in the East. This witness should -be able to describe the actual procedure followed; for laws have -little meaning in themselves, if we do not know how they were -applied. For the East, we have the witness Letsch—a highly -important witness—and for the West, the witness Hildebrandt, who -can testify how conditions gradually changed in France in consequence -of the resistance movement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Kaestner could not be found, and I will dispense -with him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 7, Dr. Geissler, is of the greatest importance -because he can testify regarding inspections. The main point is at -what period these workers were employed and what provision was -made by Sauckel for their well-being in Germany. To ensure that -Sauckel’s regulations—which, I maintain, were models of their -kind—were actually put into practice, a series of inspectorates -<span class='pageno' title='585' id='Page_585'></span> -existed. Witness Number 7, Geissler, was in charge of the Reich -inspectorate, a branch established by Sauckel. I consider him -indispensable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number 3 and Number 8 -cumulative?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number 8 in order to give special -emphasis to the wage question. So far the Prosecution have not -treated individual points in any very great detail. Otherwise I -should find myself in difficulties owing to lack of evidence when -the emphasis is transferred later to the question of wages. Only -witness Number 8 can testify to this question. Witness Number 3 -can testify regarding the regulations generally and in particular -that Sauckel constantly improved conditions to the last, so that -the situation of all foreign workers was considerably improved by -legislation and continued to improve. This can be seen from all the -regulations, which I have carefully collected for the purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 9, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel’s consultant, his -personal adviser, and conducted many negotiations, particularly -with France. For this reason I have named him as a substitute for -witness Number 1, Abetz. In particular he conducted negotiations -over the restrictions of the so-called Weisungsrecht, the restriction, -that is, Sauckel’s right to recruit workers. From the very start of -Sauckel’s activities, it was clear that no official administering a -zone would tolerate interference of this kind on Sauckel’s part, -that from a practical point of view it was impossible to tolerate -it and his powers were promptly curtailed through parleys. Witness -Stothfang will testify on that subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why are 9 and 10 not cumulative?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number 10. I wish to say -something on a rather different subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 11 knows the conditions. He -was the press expert, and if I must forego any witness, I would -dispense with him rather than anyone else. He really does know, -however, exactly what conditions were like. He wrote the book -<span class='it'>Europa Works in Germany</span> and made the film, and can say that -these pictures were not faked but are genuine photographs. For -this reason he is important, as his testimony is supplementary to -the book and the film.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witnesses belong to the Labor Front. The Labor Front -was responsible for the welfare of all foreign workers, as well -as for that of German workers. The situation never changed in -that respect; and the witnesses can testify now to the way in -<span class='pageno' title='586' id='Page_586'></span> -which the regulations were carried out in different cases, with -regard to the construction of the camps, supplies, clothing, and -everything else that took place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 13 would be the most important witness, but -he has not been found. For this reason I attach special importance -to witness Number 14, who worked with him. The witness Hoffmann -was practically in charge and knows what conditions were in the -camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Those were the witnesses who worked with Sauckel in liaison -with the Labor Front. The other witnesses will testify as to the -practical work done by the workers themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The situation is this: Dr. Ley no longer appears here, so that -the whole of Ley’s field now becomes part of the case against -Sauckel and forms a further charge against Sauckel unless the -question is clarified. There are a good many charges and they -must be clarified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between 15 and 16?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: 15 is a stenographer’s error; 15 is identical -with witness 12. Witness 16, Mende, of the head office is particularly -important because he had to look after the organizations -within the Labor Front.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean 15 comes out, does it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 15 comes out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness 17, Dr. Hupfauer, can testify as to the -origin of the code of regulations in general and about the direction -in which Sauckel worked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative with Number 14, -whom you wanted to have instead of 13? The charge of inhumanity -applies to both of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Because witness 14 deals with the practical -side, and witness 17 deals with the legislative side. Witness 18 was -responsible for the practical application within the Labor Front. -One must keep these various fields distinct from each other. Sauckel -had a small office, which was incorporated into the Ministry of -Labor. He issued regulations with the aim of steadily improving -matters. I offer evidence that they were of social value and will -prove on investigation to be irreproachable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We then have to consider the other side of the question—the -practical application, for which the Labor Front was responsible; -and the recruitment. I have special witnesses to deal with these -heads as well. -<span class='pageno' title='587' id='Page_587'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witnesses are members of Sauckel’s specialist staff. -Witness 19, Bank Director Goetz, can testify that billions of marks -were transferred to foreign countries for workers’ wages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 20, Beckurtz, was manager of the Gustloff works and -one of Sauckel’s closest collaborators. He will confirm that the -treatment and housing of workers in this very Gustloff factory was -exemplary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 21 will testify as to the degree of authority exercised by -Ley and Sauckel respectively. It is of great importance to know -whether Sauckel himself was responsible or whether some other -office was in charge of the practical side.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot this be dealt with by an affidavit -or interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I shall be satisfied here with an affidavit. I -have not yet spoken to the witness personally and for that reason -I had to list him as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture. He will -testify that from the moment Sauckel took up his appointment, he -made every effort to improve conditions for foreign workers and -that he continued to pay special attention to this point. That is of -particular importance in view of the accusation that the foreign -workers had been starved. Through it I shall be able to adduce -evidence that the foreign workers were in part—I say in part—better -off than German workers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 23. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another -defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I see. Then I can forego him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness has not yet been found. He will testify regarding -the exchange of prisoners of war for French workers. I understand -that Reich Minister Lammers has already been approved for -other defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can furnish -information on the way in which workers were recruited in the -Eastern territories. They can testify to the extent of Sauckel’s -powers, whether they were executive or otherwise, to the authority -given to the police, and to what extent the organization was distinct -from the SS. Witness 26 has not been found. Consequently, I shall -have to confine myself to witness Number 27, Governor Fischer, -who has been found and approved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What about an affidavit for 27? -<span class='pageno' title='588' id='Page_588'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I do not consider that I can forego calling him -as a witness. It is of the utmost importance to have a witness who -can say what conditions in the East actually were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 28, Dr. Jäger. We have a detailed affidavit, but it is -extremely inaccurate. It has been submitted as Document Number -D-288, Exhibit Number USA-202. I have also received the German -translation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was it not the proper course to -cross-examine Dr. Jäger when his affidavit was read?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I assumed that it was accurate, as at that time -I was not acquainted with conditions in the district in question. I -have since made inquiries and can bring evidence to show that his -statements were not only very much exaggerated, but in many cases -actually false. The truth emerged by degrees on studying in detail -some half dozen sworn statements which I obtained. Krupp had -60 camps. The witness deals with three or four of them at a time -when the aerial war was at its peak—a fact which he does not mention. -I do not anticipate much difficulty in proving his statements -incorrect. I should like to reserve the right to submit further affidavits -with which the witness can be confronted if he appears -here in person, I also made an application, which has not yet -been granted, for leave to make use of a number of medical -reports made in these very factories, which in themselves prove that -Dr. Jäger’s testimony is inaccurate. My chief difficulty was to obtain -possession of this evidence, hence the delay. Otherwise I should -have submitted it sooner. I attach great importance to Dr. Jäger as -a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, will testify on -the same subject, but each in connection with a different area. They -have attended the camps as doctors and can testify that the conditions -there were irreproachable and good. I could name many such -doctors if I had the time and opportunity to look them up. I know -both of these and they will confirm what conditions were really like.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an -affidavit about it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: They are in a camp. It is difficult for me to -contact them; it would be easier to bring the witnesses here. Perhaps -Dr. Voss can appear here so that one of the witnesses can -be heard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next three witnesses are named for this purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the explanation, -I have had a chance of comparing the English text with the -French text, and it would appear that an error has crept into the -English text, which says: -<span class='pageno' title='589' id='Page_589'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of -the gravity of the communication Shiedlauski had given. -Shiedlauski had given an order that no prisoner should -remain in Buchenwald.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The French text is, if I may translate it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given. -The Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order that -none of the detained persons should remain at Buchenwald.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could not -find this reference, I was dealing with the English text, and it -appears that there was such a reference in the French text. Since -M. Dubost was calling the witness, the probability is that the French -text is right, and as there is evidence that Sauckel had given this -order, I think it is only fair that I should say that one witness -should be permitted to deal with this point in the view of the Prosecution; -it is, of course, a matter for the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I agree with the Prosecutor and need only one -of the three witnesses. Should none of the witnesses be found, I -have in the document book an affidavit of one of Sauckel’s sons who -was also present at the conference.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 34, Skorzeny, will testify to the general connection -between the Gauleitung and the concentration camps; in other -words, to what extent the Gauleitung, by virtue of its official position, -had knowledge of what went on in the concentration camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 35, Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, Schwarz. This question -has been settled. I have received my interrogatory with the -answers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 36, Frau Sauckel, was previously approved by the Tribunal. -I can see that certain objections might be raised but the -essential point is this: Among other things, the witness repeatedly -heard that the Defendant Sauckel was criticized for treating foreign -workers too well and for manifesting an international rather than -a nationalistic attitude. That is one point. The other point is that -which concerns the conspiracy, namely, that Sauckel kept aloof and -had very little intercourse with other members of the Party. He -worked consequently on his own and knew very little about major -developments in policy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That concludes my remarks on the list of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you probably realize that you -have asked for a very much larger number of witnesses than other -counsel and I have, therefore, to ask you whom you regard as the -most important witnesses. It may be that it will be necessary to -limit the number, as you are aware that we are directed to hold an -<span class='pageno' title='590' id='Page_590'></span> -expeditious trial, and so would you kindly give me the list of those -witnesses whom you regard as the most essential.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: If I have time till tomorrow to think it over, -I shall try to reduce the number. It is difficult because the field is -so large. Also I did not receive a trial brief for Sauckel defining -charges in detail, so that I must be prepared for all eventualities. -I must define my position with regard to many points: food, wages, -leave, workers, transport, illness and there are many aspects to -which I must refer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You will not forget that many of the defendants -are concerned in various aspects and they have neither asked -for nor been allowed this very large number of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: May I turn to the documents now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I rather thought that perhaps Sir David -was going to get in touch with you after the adjournment and perhaps -you could then deal with the documents more successfully.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that would be time usefully -spent, My Lord, if the Tribunal would allow it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I call on Dr. Exner on behalf of the Defendant Jodl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Dr. Exner and Professor Jahrreiss were good enough to approach the -Prosecution on this matter and put forward certain considerations, -including the names of the witnesses to whom they attached the -greatest importance, and over a considerable part of the field there -is no difference between us. On certain matters there is a difference -of principle, which I shall point out to the Tribunal in a moment, -but the effect is, if I might run through the application, that the -Prosecution will not offer any objections to General Winter, who -speaks as to the organization of the OKW and the respective duties -of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl. They will not offer objections to -Major Professor Schramm, although the need for his evidence is -perhaps not so obvious. On the other hand, with regard to Number 3, -the evidence of Major Kipp, that the fettering or chaining of prisoners -took place at Dieppe and as to the cause of the shooting-of-Commandos -order, the Prosecution submit that these matters are -irrelevant. With regard to Major Büchs, Dr. Exner tells me that he -will be satisfied with interrogatories. The Prosecution do not object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 5, General Von Buttlar, Professor Exner -suggests that he should be a witness, and the Prosecution do not -object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 6, the Prosecution are content that there -should be interrogatories. -<span class='pageno' title='591' id='Page_591'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Vice Admiral Bürckner, the Prosecution are -prepared to take no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to Number 8, General Buhle, a questionnaire -has been sent off.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 9, it is suggested that there should be -interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 10, interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With reference to Numbers 11 to 21, the Tribunal has allowed an -interrogation in each case, and in many cases a questionnaire has -been sent off, and therefore the Prosecution could not object at this -stage when action has been taken on the Tribunal’s suggestion. That -would mean that the Defendant Jodl would have four oral witnesses, -apart from the interrogatories which have already been -largely approved by the Tribunal. The objection of the Prosecution -to Number 3 is maintained.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: I should like, first of all, to mention Number 3, -Kipp. The Prosecution have its objections to this witness. We need -him to give information as to how the Hitler order of 18 October -1942, that is, the Hitler order regarding Commandos, originated. -This order has been made the basis of a highly incriminating charge -against Jodl and it is of great importance to hear how this order -came to be given. It concerns the killing of Commandos dropped by -planes or landed from boats. As I understand it, the objection to -this witness and this subject generally is that it appears to concern -for the most part the events of Dieppe, in consequence of which this -order was admittedly issued. But we are not concerned with an -exact portrayal of what actually happened at Dieppe. The witness -Kipp is, in any case, unable to do so, since he was in the OKW and -was not a witness of those events. We are concerned with something -else, namely, the fact that certain reports were presented to -the OKW which caused this order to be made. We are furthermore -concerned with the following facts to which Kipp is in a position -to testify.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When these reports about the events at Dieppe arrived, the -Führer was enraged and ordered strict measures to be taken against -these Commandos. Jodl refused to issue or draft the order as -demanded by the Führer. When pressed, he said he did not know -what reason he could give for that order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Jodl then passed the matter to Major Kipp for investigation, as -it was peculiarly complicated from a legal point of view and Kipp, -being a professor of law, should know something about legal matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, a kind of poll was held in Jodl’s office in the -Wehrmacht Operations Staff and the opinions of other offices on the -matter in question were collected. Varying opinions were received -<span class='pageno' title='592' id='Page_592'></span> -from the Ausland Abwehr, the legal department, et cetera. As in -the meantime 10 days had passed, Hitler lost patience, sat down -and drew up the entire order himself, as well as a further decree, -establishing the reasons for the order. Jodl, therefore, was not the -author of this order. All that he did was to express his doubts -regarding it. The story of the origin of the order of 28 October -1942, which, as I have said, has been made the basis of a grave -accusation against Jodl, is of the utmost importance. Kipp will -testify to it. Further, it has already been said that there is no objection -to witness Number 5, Buttlar.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Number 4, I am satisfied with an affidavit or an interrogatory, -but I must reserve the right to call him as a witness, -should the interrogatory be inadequate or not clear. I hope, however, -that this can be avoided.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding witness Number 7, Vice Admiral Gottlieb Bürckner, -I should like to point out that he is the same Admiral Bürckner -who was the subject of discussion this morning in connection with -the witnesses for the Defendant Raeder. Perhaps that will clear up -the difficulty about Raeder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding Number 8, the interrogatory has already been sent -out. We have, however, distinctly, reserved the right to resort to -oral testimony should the interrogatory again prove unsatisfactory. -Otherwise, I have nothing further to say on the subject and the -Prosecution has no grounds for protest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have just received a note saying I was relying on the appearance -of Büchs as a witness and therefore why did I not ask for him. -This is on behalf of Göring, is it not? I shall have to leave the -decision to the Tribunal. I had in fact intended to call Büchs as a -witness and I only agreed to forego his personal appearance in the -course of the discussion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which witness were you talking about?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Witness Number 4.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you say you are asking for him as an -oral witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Göring has also asked for him as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Has he been allowed to the Defendant Göring?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: He had counted on my calling him as a witness, on -his being allowed and on being able to question him. He is here in -Nuremberg. May I now turn to the documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 1 and 4, the Prosecution has no -objections. I take this to mean that I put into my document book -an extract of the part I read. I submit the entire document to the -<span class='pageno' title='593' id='Page_593'></span> -Tribunal without a translation of anything except the part which -I am going to read; and which deals with an important point which -must be clarified. If I am dealing with a large document and I -need to quote only one paragraph, it is sufficient if I submit the -original document to the Tribunal in its entirety and include in my -document book only the particular paragraph in question and its -translation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is right.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 5 and 6, the Prosecution objects -and I withdraw these two documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Point 7 is a curious one. That is Document Number 532-PS, -submitted by the Prosecution and to which I made objection at the -time. The document was removed from the record, and now I -myself apply for this document to be submitted again. This is for -the following reason: The document is an order that was submitted -to Jodl in draft form. Jodl did not approve it, crossed it out, and -sent it back without signing it. This draft was submitted by the -Prosecution, and I objected to its being presented as if it were -actually an order signed by Jodl. I want to submit it now in order -to prove that Jodl, by making it impossible for this order to be -carried out, deprived an illegal order of its effectiveness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding Points 8 to 15, the Prosecution also has no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Points 16 and 17 are the subjects -of objection from the Prosecution. Point 16 relates to the -English “Close Combat Regulations” of the year 1942, and 17 is the -English order for the Operation Dieppe of the same year. With -regard to the “Close Combat Regulations,” the only relevance they -could seem to have would be in relation to an objection to this -form of training, and in the submission of the Prosecution it would -be irrelevant on the question of the Commando order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the question of shackling, I think the simplest -way of dealing with it is to point out that the Prosecution, as my -friend Mr. Dodd pointed out, have not introduced that matter into -their case, and therefore it would appear that, the English order in -question was not relevant. Apart from the two general objections, -neither of these matters seems connected with points in the case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might just indicate Number 20, which is another objection that -is on the same basis as the old document, which I think the Tribunal -has had before—the implication of the German Foreign Office on -breaches of international law, and it is sought for, as the Tribunal -will see, as evidence of the reports that were made to the High -Command of the Wehrmacht, and that gave occasion to take reprisal -measures. -<span class='pageno' title='594' id='Page_594'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then a similar ground of objection applies to Number 21, a -history of the White Russian partisan war, which is sought for as -evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave cause for undertaking -sweeping countermeasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These objections can be all grouped together. They fall under -the general objection to <span class='it'>tu quoque</span> evidence which the Prosecution -has maintained throughout the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: May I say something about this? As far as 16 and -17 are concerned, we just want to see these documents. We want -to see them first in order to judge whether or not we want to submit -them in evidence. I have stated so at the foot of the page.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to irrelevance, we do not say that we regard these orders as -illegal. But if for instance, in the “Close Combat Regulations,” -English soldiers are ordered to perform actions for which our soldiers -are censured, it would constitute a discrepancy of some -importance. For in that case it would be obvious that the British -Government regarded such methods of warfare as legitimate. If, -however, such methods are legitimate for them, they must also be -legitimate in our case, since it is impossible to have two standards -in these matters. In order to establish this, we wanted to see these -“Close Combat Regulations.” That is Number 18.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 19 is a similar case, but I can more readily understand -that that was refused, as it may be a secret order. Number 20, the -White Book. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David did not deal with 19, did he? He -only dealt with 16, 17, 20, and 21.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Yes. 18 and 19 have not been objected to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: As I understood it, his objection to 16 and 17 -was that there was no complaint against the German forces, either -with the reference to close combat or with reference to shackling, in -the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: If these “Close Combat Regulations” should happen -to include illustrations—there are actually pictures in there—of the -shackling of prisoners and orders for doing so, one would be obliged -to say that the British Government does not consider this kind of -treatment illegal and that if it happens on our side we cannot be -censured for it. It is difficult for me to estimate their importance -to us, because I have not had these “Close Combat Regulations” in -my own hands. If I had them, I could make my application. I -should like to know whether I have to include them in my evidence -or whether there is no need.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No objection has been raised to 18 and 19. As to 20, these are -the White Books already approved for Göring. Consequently, I need -not ask for them myself. -<span class='pageno' title='595' id='Page_595'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding Point 21, I am convinced that this cannot be settled -with a charge of <span class='it'>tu quoque</span>. It is a Russian book, describing partisan -warfare. The author of this book is a Russian who, himself, -participated in partisan warfare for several years as chief of staff -and he writes from personal experience.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We do not assert that the Russians did the same as we did, which -would be a <span class='it'>tu quoque</span> argument; I should like to have this book -for another reason. To understand and appreciate our regulations -regarding partisans, one must know these partisans. One must have -knowledge and experience of their methods, and be able to appreciate -the danger which they represented. This Russian book -describes all that, and is therefore important. The author himself, -as stated, played an active part in the warfare carried on against -the partisans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the Indictment it is stated, “The war against the partisans -was simply an excuse for the annihilation of Jews, Slavs, and so -on.” This book shows that the war against the partisans was a real -war and not an excuse on our part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the book is unobtainable, I ask permission to read the short -account of the contents recently published in The Stars and Stripes. -To conclude, it should be emphasized that the book was written by -a Soviet Russian and for this reason cannot be assumed to have an -anti-Russian bias.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therewith I have concluded my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know -what your argument is with reference to 21.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was opposing it for the reason -that was given. The book is asked for as evidence that the danger -of bandit warfare gave rise to undertaking sweeping countermeasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, broadly, the case for the Prosecution is that the countermeasures -against partisans constituted atrocities, and evidence of -that kind has been given. It is, in my submission, no defense to the -committing of atrocities against partisans, of the kind given in evidence, -that their warfare was of a great extent or very fiercely or -bravely waged. This is just the <span class='it'>tu quoque</span> argument in its nakedness—because -partisans fight you, therefore you can burn their villages, -shoot their women, and kill their children. That is the -argument which we say is irrelevant and is inadmissible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I should like to say that I have no objection, if any -of these documents can be obtained, to Dr. Exner’s looking at the -documents; on that point to which the Prosecution attached importance, -I thought it right—and I know my colleagues desired it—that -I should make our position clear. -<span class='pageno' title='596' id='Page_596'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your address, Dr. Exner, -does it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: May I add something concerning the last point. I -am, of course, perfectly aware that those atrocities, as described -here, cannot be justified by the activities of the partisans, but the -more violent the actions of the partisans became, the harsher—of -necessity—were the German military countermeasures, so that there -is, after all, a connection between these matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 7 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='597' id='Page_597'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY</span><br/> Thursday, 7 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von Papen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal approves, I shall -indicate the views of the Prosecution on the witnesses requested by -Dr. Kubuschok.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first witness is Von Lersner -and there is no objection. This witness is called to cover, among -other things, the period of the coming into power of the Hitler -Government, which is a time of material importance in the case -against Von Papen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal would consider the next three witnesses, there -is a minor point: The witness Tschirschky was, as I understand it, -Von Papen’s private secretary from 1933 to February 1935. That is, -he covered the period of the rise to power of the Nazi Party. And -he also covers some of the Austrian period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Von Kageneck, is also a private secretary. He -does not cover the period of the rise to power, but covers the whole -Austrian period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Erbach, was counsellor at the Embassy in -Vienna, that is, he covers the period 1934 to 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has always been reluctant to oppose the calling -of secretaries who could assist the memory of the defendant, but it -did seem to us that the witness Tschirschky was cumulative both on -the period of the rise to power and the Austrian period and that it -would be sufficient to have interrogatories in that case. Therefore, -the Prosecution, apart from that, would not object to Von Kageneck -and Erbach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is, you suggest interrogatories for 2 and -calling 3 and 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, interrogatories, -and calling of 3 and 4.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Number 5, -the witness Kroll, the Prosecution submits that he is irrelevant. He -<span class='pageno' title='598' id='Page_598'></span> -is called for the period when the defendant was an ambassador in -Turkey and he allegedly is able to say that Von Papen had no -aggressive thoughts with regard to Russia. The Prosecution would -submit that Von Papen is really the person who can speak on a -matter like that, and the Prosecution has had no evidence as to any -subversive activity of the Nazi Party in Turkey; which is the other -point that this witness is said to speak on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the next five witnesses, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: The Tribunal -granted interrogatories and, so long as the matter is limited to -interrogatories, the Prosecution will make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And Number 11, the Baroness De Nothomb: The Prosecution -object to evidence on acts of intercession on behalf of members of -the resistance movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the -opinion of the Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters -before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Archbishop Gröber, if the Tribunal would not -mind looking at Number 12 in the application, in the opinion of the -Prosecution the matters raised by the questions are not relevant. -The first is, “Were the Concordat negotiations between Germany and -the Holy See brought about by Defendant Von Papen’s own -initiative?” The second part of this question is, in short, “Did Von -Papen make efforts with Hitler regarding the conclusion of the -Concordat?” Well, the Concordat was made, and what the Tribunal -are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, of which -the Prosecution has given written evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second question—I am afraid that I do not understand that, -and in its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to -being vague—“Were the activities of the defendant directed by his -positive religious attitude after the conclusion of the Concordat also?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the third question: “Was the conclusion of the Concordat -welcomed by the German Episcopate?” I don’t think that really helps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And fourth: “Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church -during the latter’s religious struggles?” And, “Could the Church, in -the end, fall back on the Concordat?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and, as I say, the -issue in this case is the breaches of the Concordat, not its contents. -So we object to Number 12.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 13, the witness Von Beaulieu—that is very short, if the -Tribunal would be good enough to look at it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I shall submit an affidavit of the witness, which deals with -the intervention of the defendant as President of the Union -Club on behalf of Jews.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that the intervention in a racing club on -behalf of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, -even on the Jewish issue. -<span class='pageno' title='599' id='Page_599'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 14, the witness Josten—Dr. Kubuschok asks for the use -of a statement which has been sent to the Tribunal. The Prosecution -would prefer that to be in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, -if this is possible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is 14, is it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 14, My Lord, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then 15 is His Majesty, the King of Sweden. That is a new -application and general in its scope. It is difficult to judge how -much King Gustav could contribute, and, therefore, the Prosecution -do not object to interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in 14 Dr. Kubuschok says that he -requested that the statement made by the witness to the legal -department of the Military Government headquarters, Düsseldorf, -be furnished him. Are you objecting to that being furnished him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I thought that he had got it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: I got it this morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Kubuschok says that he -received it today, this morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to his offering it as evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only say that we should -prefer it in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if that can be -done. I do not make any great objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: In regard to the witnesses I should like to -say the following: Witness Number 1, Baron Lersner—the Tribunal -granted only an interrogatory at first. The prosecutor has today -agreed to have the witness called before this Tribunal. I also ask -very urgently that this witness be questioned before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was the president of the German peace delegation at -Versailles. He is a very well known German diplomat, who since -1932 has worked very closely with the Defendant Von Papen. A man -like Lersner had, of course, a particularly fine understanding for -every policy of aggression. Therefore, it is very important that this -co-worker of the Defendant Von Papen be heard and be allowed to -tell us how he has observed the defendant in his activities up to -1944. It is particularly important that Lersner, at the instigation of -Defendant Von Papen, could go to Turkey.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, Sir David agreed, I think, -with reference to Number 1.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, if the Tribunal also agrees, then the -matter is taken care of.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second witness, Tschirschky—Tschirschky was the private -secretary of the defendant from 1933 to 1935, the first private -<span class='pageno' title='600' id='Page_600'></span> -secretary during the time that the defendant was Vice Chancellor. -He is a man who was himself persecuted by the Gestapo and had to -go into exile in 1935, where he still is. He is a man who can give -exhaustive information on the whole period from 1933 to 1935 in -regard to the external activity of the defendant and his personal -attitude.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that, especially for the time from the beginning of 1933, -we shall not get a thorough picture if we do not hear this closest -co-worker of the defendant personally. The other witnesses concern -mostly different periods. Only in some cases do they overlap with -the activity of this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 5, Kroll. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Supposing that the Tribunal thought it right -to grant you Number 2 as an oral witness, would it not be possible -to dispense with one of 3 or 4 and have interrogatories from one of -them and call the other one? They deal with somewhat the same -period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: We definitely need 3 for the following -reasons:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Kageneck was present when Hitler entrusted Papen with -the Austrian mission. This is a very important point, since the -Prosecution alleges that he was entrusted with this mission for those -purposes of which he was accused. The witness will testify that -Papen accepted the mission only after a clear guarantee concerning -the purpose of the mission. Furthermore, Count Kageneck was also -in Vienna after 1935, that is to say, from 1935 until the Anschluss, -and for this period we should not have any other witness. Kageneck -can also confirm a very important point, that is, that he was -entrusted with taking diplomatic documents to Switzerland and -safeguarding them there, since from these documents the documentary -proof for the activity of the defendant in Vienna could be -deduced. Therefore, in my opinion, the witness Kageneck also cannot -be dispensed with.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we can dispense with any witness, it would be witness Number -4, Erbach, in regard to whom I might then ask for permission to -use an interrogatory, because here, too, questions are to be asked -which the other witnesses cannot answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 5, Minister Kroll—Papen is accused of a conspiracy -for aggressive war. The Indictment is not limited in respect -to time. For the largest part of the time in question, namely 1938 -to 1944, Papen was in a position which would have been particularly -designed for an activity directed at undermining the peace. Turkey -was for a long time an important pillar in military and, therefore, -political considerations. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest -<span class='pageno' title='601' id='Page_601'></span> -whether Papen used his position for any activity in the nature of -such a conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Moreover, I should like to bring proof of the opposite. The fact -was that his activity was directed at preserving the peace and that -he was, in particular, against any extension of the war by means of -military measures against Russia, and was against every political -measure for the destruction of the relations between Turkey and the -Allied Powers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was, during the Turkish period, the closest co-worker -of the defendant. He is, therefore, in a position to give us information -about the entire period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Baroness De Nothomb—I have asked in this case to be permitted -to present an affidavit or interrogatory. I want. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you dealing with?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are not dealing with 6 to 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we are in agreement about 6 to 10.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, 11.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11, Baroness De Nothomb—in this -case I asked for an interrogatory or for permission to submit an -affidavit. The subject of the evidence is:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the years 1940 to 1944 the defendant continuously supported -the witness in her intervention on behalf of persecuted members of -the French resistance movement. I want thereby to prove that the -Defendant Von Papen shows again, in this case, that he was greatly -interested in a peaceful shaping of German-French relations, and -that during the war he always had in mind the postwar time, when -the poison should be removed from these relations. The intervention -on the part of the defendant was also a result of general humanitarian -considerations. This is not without considerable importance -in connection with the charge of conspiratorial activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 12, Archbishop Gröber—the Indictment asserts that the -Defendant Von Papen used his position as a prominent German -Catholic for a dirty business of deception, and that the conclusion of -the Concordat, as such, was effected in the course of a policy directed -against the Church; that the conclusion of the Concordat was not -intended seriously, as one could see from the later violations of the -Concordat. Archbishop Gröber was, at the time of negotiations -concerning the Concordat, at the Holy See. He was present during -all the negotiations. He knows that the initiative for starting negotiations -came from Von Papen himself, who did not get Hitler’s -approval until later. He knows that the draft which had been made -by Von Papen for the Concordat was strongly disapproved by Hitler -<span class='pageno' title='602' id='Page_602'></span> -and that Papen was able to advance this draft only after long -struggles. The witness knows the Defendant Von Papen very well. -He also knows from what inner stand toward the Catholic question -the defendant approached the matter of the conclusion of the Concordat. -As an influential dignitary of the Church he can also judge -the consequences of the Concordat. He is in a position to judge that -the contents of the Concordat at a later time also were still a protection -for Church interests; and from his knowledge of the personal -relations of the defendant and all the relations of the Church in -Germany, he can testify as to whether the defendant had anything -at all to do with the violations of the Concordat.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness Number 2 deal -with the same subject? Where you say in your discussion of the -subject of the evidence, that witness Number 2 accompanied the -defendant to Rome to conclude the Concordat—can he testify that -against Hitler’s strong opposition he succeeded, at the last minute, -in concluding the Concordat? At that time was the witness present -at all the speeches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into -the negotiations concerning the Concordat by the defendant. It is -very important, in my opinion, to examine also a witness who was -present at the negotiations as representing the other side. In particular, -this witness, Archbishop Gröber, could also express an -opinion in regard to the later period, the violations of the Concordat. -He can judge the entire situation from the point of the Church -better than can the private secretary Tschirschky. He can also give -an essentially more reliable picture of Von Papen’s personality, -which in this matter is very closely connected with his political -activity. I have been very modest in my requests; but I should like -to ask urgently, in this case, that an interrogatory or an affidavit by -Archbishop Gröber be granted, for it is indeed clear that the accusation -that a prominent German Catholic uses his position for evil -purposes of deception is a very serious one, and the defendant also -is very greatly interested in having this question clarified, within -the framework of the Indictment and also beyond that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 13—an affidavit of Herr Von Beaulieu, who shall -testify that the defendant, in his position as president of a very -large and prominent German organization, intervened until the -very end for the non-Aryan members, as this term was used at that -time. Everything which is of importance in judging the Papen case -lies, for the most part, in the sphere of the subjective. We will see -very few actual actions in the Papen case. The accusations are, for -the most part, based on the fact that he was present. It is, therefore, -relatively difficult to bring proof and therefore the counterevidence -must to a large extent be subjective in nature. To judge a person’s -<span class='pageno' title='603' id='Page_603'></span> -character in its entirety, it is not unimportant to know what, for -instance, his attitude was in 1938 toward the question of the treatment -of Jews, for, if Papen here definitely deviated from a general -line followed by Hitler and the Nazis, one will certainly be able to -draw a conclusion as to whether he was really the faithful follower -of Hitler which the Indictment tries to picture him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 14—I received the statement today. I have not -yet had time to look through it. I shall submit either the statement -or an affidavit which I shall try to get.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 15—a questioning of His Majesty King Gustav of Sweden, -to be conducted in every way possible. This is a very important -question. It touches a major point of the Defense, namely, in how -far it was possible for a person not entangled in the ideas of Nazism -to collaborate to a certain extent. To what extent could he hope, by -his personal activity, to change things or at least to modify them? -If, on the basis of the evidence submitted, we prove that Von Papen -not only exhausted his means to serve this end within Germany, but -also, beyond this, used his foreign political connections for this -purpose, then this should, I believe, round out the picture of the -character of the defendant in an important way. This strong activity -in the interest of peace is such that, in my opinion, simply on the -basis of such activities, the absolute falsehood and untenability of -that charge of the Indictment that the defendant at any time could -have approved of the aims of an aggressive policy within the framework -of a conspiracy becomes apparent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the documents, Numbers 1 to 8, the Prosecution asks Dr. -Kubuschok to submit the extracts, and then we can consider the -relevancy at that time. I think that Dr. Kubuschok has Number 9.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have in my possession only the photostat -which I received from the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry. I should have said -he had a photostatic copy, but the Prosecution have certified the -photostat. The original is not obtainable at present. If it comes into -our possession we shall let Dr. Kubuschok see it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third point is that Dr. Kubuschok says that he may have to -make a supplementary application after Herr Von Papen, Jr. returns. -That is, of course, a matter for him and the Tribunal. The Prosecution -make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: With reference to 1 to 8, has Dr. Kubuschok -got the books?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then he will be prepared to -specify what parts of them. . . -<span class='pageno' title='604' id='Page_604'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Sir; yes, indeed. I should merely like to -add one point to the list. Yesterday I received from the Prosecution -a further report to Hitler by Von Papen at the time of his activity -in Vienna—Number 9, also a report to Hitler. I have also received -it in the form of a photostat. I shall also submit this report for -purposes of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May we state our position?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this defendant, the -position as to the first four witnesses is that they deal with the -Austrian part of the case. On the 2d of December the Tribunal -allowed this defendant a choice of four out of nine. He has chosen -Glaise-Horstenau, who was a minister in the Austrian Government; -Guido Schmidt, who was the Foreign Minister at the time of the -Schuschnigg-Hitler-Ribbentrop interview; Skubl, who was the Police -President and State Secretary for Security in Vienna; and Rainer, -who is a well-known Nazi and who was afterwards Gauleiter of -Carinthia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to the Holland period, and the Prosecution have -no objection to Wimmer and Schwebel, but they do object to Bolle’s -being called as an oral witness. The position is that he was refused -by the Tribunal on the 26th of January. After the refusal interrogatories -were submitted, but these seem to be almost entirely covered -by the interrogatories administered to the witness Von der Wense, -who is the second under the heading of affidavits. I think out of the -20 questions suggested for Bolle, there are only two that are not -covered by Von der Wense, which are Numbers 17 and 18, and two -others which seem to deal with very obvious points. So that is the -objection with regard to Bolle, and the Prosecution submit that he -would really be cumulative and is unnecessary. They make no -objection to Fischböck, who speaks on the Jews, financial administration, -art treasures, and forced labor. They make no objection to -Hirschfeld, who speaks about confiscations and destruction of factories -and the food situation. So, on the oral witnesses, the only -objection is regarding Bolle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the affidavits there is no objection—or rather, -they should be interrogatories. They were all granted by the Tribunal -on the 26th of January, and under these circumstances the Prosecution -make no objection to them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Steinbauer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): -Mr. President, Your Honors, my client, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, -<span class='pageno' title='605' id='Page_605'></span> -had at first asked for a large number of witnesses and then, at my -advice, and according to the desire of the Tribunal, reduced this -number considerably.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask that the witness, construction supervisor Bolle, be admitted -before the Tribunal because in my opinion the objection made by -the Prosecution, that this is a cumulative witness, is not quite -correct. Bolle was, before the occupation, Director of the Port of -Hamburg, and then during all the years of the occupation he was -director of the transportation department in Holland.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In particular he can testify about the railroad and shipping strike -in October 1944. This chapter of the history of the occupation is -extraordinarily important, because this strike resulted in a blocking of -traffic which led to an embargo. The Indictment asserts, moreover, that -the causes of the later famine catastrophe in Holland, as we may call it, -can in part be traced back to measures which the Defendant Seyss-Inquart -took in October 1944. Quite understandably, the Armed -Forces wanted to use the few means of transportation which were -still functioning, for their own purposes. The very examination of -the witness Bolle should prove, however, that Seyss-Inquart endeavored, -insofar as possible, to mitigate the effects of the measures -taken by the Wehrmacht in this matter. In an interrogatory this -complex of questions could not be treated exhaustively.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask you, Gentlemen, to realize that we are dealing here with -the examination of the administration of a kingdom of 9 million -within a period of 5 years. If we read through the report submitted -by the Dutch Delegation we see, in regard to the financial consequences, -alone, that it is alleged that the damage, which had been -brought about by the administration on the one hand and by the -events of war on the other hand, in short, by the occupation of -Holland by Germany, reaches a figure of 25,725,000,000 Dutch -guilders, to which, considering the difference in prices between 1938 -and now, we have to add a margin of 175 percent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to point out that we are dealing here with the examination -of administrative, legal, financial, and economic measures over a -period of 5 years. I therefore believe that the request of the defendant -that this witness be admitted is quite justified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Concerning the affidavits, I took the liberty of making two more -applications which have not yet been granted. This is on the last -page, a very short affidavit by Baron Lindhorst-Hormann. He was -formerly Commissioner of the Province of Groningen and should -in particular be examined in regard to one point, in regard to the -treatment of the so-called hostages in the hostage camp, and also in -regard to the fact that none of these hostages was shot.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to getting this affidavit, I have also asked that some -official announcements be obtained, announcements by the Higher -<span class='pageno' title='606' id='Page_606'></span> -Police and SS Leader Rauter regarding the executions in order to -prove who had done these things, that is, that the point of view of -the defendant is that these regrettable measures were taken by the -police and not by the civil administration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also intend to submit two affidavits which are already in my -possession. One of them is an affidavit by a German judge, Kammergerichtsrat -Rudolf Fritsch. In Seyss-Inquart’s administration in -Holland he was in charge of appeals. He can tell us how Seyss-Inquart -handled this important chapter of jurisdiction.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another affidavit which I have in my possession comes from a -Dr. Walter Stricker. It is cited as Document Number 30. Dr. Walter -Stricker was a lawyer in Vienna and emigrated in 1938 to Australia. -He served in the Australian Army and, without my asking, he sent -me an affidavit, notarized by an Australian notary public, in which -he testifies about conditions in Vienna in the critical days of October -and November 1938. I ask also that this affidavit be admitted. As -to the documents, as I have already told Sir David, I shall submit -an exact list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, before you deal with that. Sir -David said that with reference to the affidavits, which are mentioned -on Page 2, that these ought to be called interrogatories. I do not -know whether you wish to ask particularly for affidavits, which are -different from interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You want affidavits?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Interrogatories, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would there be any objection to the affidavit -from the lawyer in Australia being shown to the Prosecution, so -that they may see whether they wish to put cross-interrogatories to -that witness? Australia is too far away from here for him to be -brought here for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have just been handed that -affidavit from the witness Stricker and also Number 6, on the Dutch -questions, from Judge Fritsch; and if the same course could be -taken with regard to that from Baron Lindhorst-Hormann, I shall -be ready then to consider that, too.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the rest of the -documents in the usual course, I ask that the Defense make extracts -and show them to us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='607' id='Page_607'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one point I call to the -attention of the Tribunal. It may be helpful that Number 28, Document -Number D-571, is already in as Exhibit Number USA-112. I -do not know if the Defense really wants Number 3. I shall not deal -with it now, but the Prosecution will submit that it is really unnecessary -and irrelevant, but I think that is a matter that we can -more conveniently discuss when it comes up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then with reference to Number 2, under -the heading concerning the Dutch question, will it be satisfactory if -that is in the form of an affidavit and is submitted to you, so that -you can put cross-interrogatories if you want to?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be very satisfactory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, have you got the affidavit -mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the last heading?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; I have not received it yet. But I -have requested that the Tribunal question the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Could the interrogatories be in a more convenient -form?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not trouble you further about -the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: I have only the request that, if possible, two -books, which are not in my possession, be obtained: Document -Number 8, Guido Zernatto, <span class='it'>The Truth about Austria</span>, and Number 9, -the book <span class='it'>A Pact with Hitler—The Austria Drama</span> by Martin Fuchs. -I was told by Austrian people that both these books contain worthwhile -information on clarifying the events in 1937 and 1938. Both -books were, of course, prohibited in Austria during the Nazi regime -and therefore I cannot get them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second book is also on the list presented by the French -Prosecution, and from this I have learned that the book appeared -in the publishing firm of Plon in Paris. Perhaps it is possible, with -the assistance of the Prosecution, to get these books in time. All -other documents I have in my possession.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Did you say Number 2? You said 8 and 9, -but did you also say Number 2?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Number 2, <span class='it'>Three Times Austria</span>, by -Schuschnigg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I thought you mentioned the third book. You -said you have not got Numbers 8 and 9 and I thought you went on -to mention a third one.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; only these two books. -<span class='pageno' title='608' id='Page_608'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then, no doubt, the Prosecution -will help you to get them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make inquiries, My -Lord, and we will communicate with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -Defendant Speer has asked for 22 witnesses, who are all to answer -in writing. There are no oral witnesses. And he asked for 41 documents. -He has also asked that the Court appoint a panel of experts -to interrogate a number of witnesses on what are termed “economic -questions.” Now, I think it would be convenient if I summarize in -four sentences the points of defense that appear on Page 26 and -the following pages of the application, because if the Tribunal have -these in mind it will make consideration of the witnesses easier.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are four points. Number 1 is to show the responsibility -of Speer. The Defendant Speer says that he was not responsible -for the mobilization, allocation, or treatment of labor. The second -point is to prove that his functions were merely technical and not -political. The third point, to prove his actions to stop the importing -of foreign labor and the treatment of concentration camp labor in -the armament factories, which were his concern. The fourth point -is his efforts, at the end of the war, to stop destruction in Germany -and so to benefit the Allies and Germany after the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, of the witnesses, the following are from his own ministry, -Numbers 1 to 6, 8, 10, and 12. The Prosecution submit that nine is -rather a large number dealing with the position of the ministry. -They are cumulative on many points and we should suggest that, if -counsel would pick three, that that would cover that part of the -case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, the following witnesses, Numbers 15 to 21, are designed to -show the attitude of the defendant at the end of war. There are -a number of documents on this point, and again the Prosecution -submit that that number of witnesses could be cut down to two -or three.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, dealing with the remaining witnesses, Number 7, Field -Marshal Milch, has already been allowed to Defendant Göring, so -that point does not arise.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And Number 9, Dr. Malzacher, although not a member of the -defendant’s ministry, was in charge of armaments in the southeast, -and would appear to be cumulative as to the members of the -ministry.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 11 is the liaison officer between the ministry and the -OKW and also appears cumulative, unless counsel could indicate -any special point that escaped the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='609' id='Page_609'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 13 is really cumulative of Number 12, speaking on a -point on which Frau Kempf can speak.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 14 is the defendant’s doctor, to speak on a period of -illness. Again, unless there is some point that the Prosecution have -not appreciated, they would have thought that the defendant and -his secretary could speak on a period of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, Number 22, Gottlob Berger, is designated to inform the -Tribunal of Hitler’s general views on the situation at the end of -April 1945, and would appear to be irrelevant. I think the only -point that is made is to show that this had some effect on the radio -speech which this defendant wanted to make. These are the views -of the Prosecution as to the witnesses. With regard to the panel -of experts, the Prosecution respectfully say that these matters of -supply labor and armaments are matters which are very generally -familiar now and on which a great deal of evidence has been given, -and that they are essentially matters which can be dealt with by -the Tribunal which will decide other questions of fact. They are -not really sufficiently specialist matters to merit the Tribunal’s -setting up a special panel to deal with them. These are the views -of the Prosecution on the question of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flächsner.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): May -I start, Mr. President, with the last point which the prosecutor has -mentioned, namely, the question of whether the case of the Defendant -Speer might justify having his sphere of activity explained and -interpreted to the Court by an expert. The prosecutor is of the -opinion that the evidence presented so far is sufficient to inform the -Tribunal about the manner of work, the course of work, and its -consequences in regard to those questions, which came under the -jurisdiction of the Defendant Speer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I regret to have to say, however, that the description which the -Prosecution has given of the activity of the Defendant Speer up till -now is not correct, that is to say, not complete.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is very difficult to take account of a ministry and its manner -of work, which in normal times has no place in the state administration. -In all states at war the ministries of armament and production -are created during the war. The sphere of activities of -these ministries is determined from time to time; and that also -applies to the ministry which the Defendant Speer headed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Not only the ministry of the Defendant Speer, but especially -other authorities within the state administration were concerned -with that question, which the Prosecution has brought to the notice -of the Tribunal; and the authorities overlapped each other in regard -to jurisdiction. Many times the jurisdiction of a single authority -<span class='pageno' title='610' id='Page_610'></span> -could not be determined, so that from time to time a solution would -have to be found. These are all questions of importance, if the -Tribunal is to judge to what extent this or that accusation of the -Prosecution, especially concerning the employment of foreign -workers, is well founded. In addition we have to consider that that -defendant originally involved in this complex of economic questions, -who could have helped very much to clear up the question of jurisdiction—the -Defendant Ley, who, as head of the German Labor -Front, played an important role in the question of labor employment, -that is, the taking care of the laborers utilized—that this -Defendant Ley is no longer here. The question of the use of foreign -labor, of which the Defendant Speer is in the main accused by the -Prosecution, must be discussed further. For this reason I requested -that an expert be allowed to clear up these purely technical questions -of the labor employment as a help to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The selection of such an expert is not easy. I proposed that one -of the gentlemen who work in the economic branch in Washington -might have examined the question of Speer’s ministry; and might -appear as an expert before this Tribunal. I was told this office does -not exist any more and the persons of whom the Defendant Speer -had the impression, at the occasion of an interrogation, that they -really understood the situation, are no longer available. But, there -is still an Allied authority here, which is concerned with, in all -probability, economic questions; and perhaps it would be possible -to select a suitable person within the circle of gentlemen who are -working there, who would be in a position to clear up these questions -for the benefit of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I turn now to the question of witnesses. First of all I have to -correct a wrong impression which may have been formed by the -Prosecution. If it is said that witnesses 1 to 5—no, 1 to 6, 8 and 10 -and 12. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you are leaving now the question of the -panel of experts, this would be a convenient time to break off for -the recess.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I am now turning to the -question of witnesses and should like to make a general remark -before I start.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The evidence to be offered by the witnesses, as I have already -requested in writing, is somewhat more extensive for this reason, -that those very witnesses who would have had the most comprehensive -knowledge cannot be called. Those are the former Army -chiefs of armaments, General Fromm, and Schieber, who for many -<span class='pageno' title='611' id='Page_611'></span> -years was the chief of the central office in Speer’s ministry. The -names which I have included in my list are, in part, men who only -later were called to these tasks. Witness Hupfauer, for instance, -who is listed as Number 1, was active in this function only from -1 January 1945 on—that is barely 4 months—as chief of the central -office, an office formerly held by the previously mentioned Schieber.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I know very well that if I mention a number of witnesses who -were employed in Speer’s ministry the appearance is thereby -created that these witnesses might be cumulative because they are -questioned in regard to the same points. In reality that is not the -case. Indeed, although the witnesses concerned were active in -Speer’s ministry, they were not active as routine officials, that is, -as professional civil servants in an office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Speer’s ministry as a war institution was organized along lines -entirely different from those of a regular ministry. Main functions -were delegated to industrialists, who took care of them in a suboffice. -Rohland, witness Number 2, was, for instance, by profession -a director of the United Steel Works; witness Number 4 was director -of the Zellwell A.G.; witness Number 6, a manufacturer and owner -of a textile factory; witness Number 9, the director of the Upper -Silesian mining works and of Hütten A.G. In addition to these -functions they had special functions in Speer’s ministry. Therefore -they can testify only on a small section, namely, those functions -delegated to them. Therefore I cannot follow the suggestion of the -Prosecution, that only two of these gentlemen be selected by me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know just how far each of these gentlemen is informed -on the questions which I shall submit to him. I am not in the -fortunate position of the Prosecution, who can question their witnesses -in advance and find out what they know. I must rely on an -interrogatory and can only surmise that they are in a position to -answer the questions submitted to them. If I were to follow the -suggestion of the Prosecution and select only two or three of these -gentlemen, it may very well happen that I should select exactly -the wrong people, those who do not know anything. Therefore I -cannot say that I could dispense with any one of these witnesses -who are to be here on the main question in the case against Defendant -Speer, namely, the employment of foreign laborers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the list of witnesses I mentioned briefly the particulars about -which these witnesses are to be heard. I believe that it is unnecessary -for me to make further explanations in that regard; I -believe my reasons are self-explanatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I am turning to the question of witness Number 7. This -witness has already been granted me. I do not believe that further -explanations in regard to this are necessary. -<span class='pageno' title='612' id='Page_612'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as Malzacher, witness Number 9, is concerned, the Prosecution -asserts that this witness would be cumulative of witness -Number 1. But that is not so. The vital question which is to be -put to this witness is the question as to how the distribution of -manpower to the various industries was made by the labor office. -The second question is, whether and to what extent the offices of -Speer’s ministry and the industries had the opportunity of influencing -the distribution of available manpower. This witness is of -decisive importance in regard to this question. I have further -questions to put to this witness and I should include in the interrogatory -these questions which refer in particular to destruction, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wanted my list to be as concise as possible and therefore -mentioned only the main points. I therefore request that this witness -be admitted, since I shall make use of the interrogatory only -insofar as the witnesses can state therein something which is -really relevant. If an interrogatory comes back to me which does -not contain relevant material, I shall, of course, refrain from abusing -the time and the patience of the Tribunal by not presenting that -interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution is of the opinion that witnesses 12 and 13 are -cumulative. That is not correct. Perhaps I expressed myself too -concisely in regard to the facts on which these witnesses are to -testify.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution have, only incidentally to be sure, produced -a document, 3568-PS, which contained an interrogatory which gave -information regarding Speer’s membership in the SS. This document -did not, according to the Defendant Speer, come from him, -and therefore I name his secretary as a witness to this fact; that is, -she should receive an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 13 is to testify on an entirely different matter. The -Reichsführer SS Himmler had the intention of making Speer an SS -man and of taking him into his personal staff. Witness Wolff had -received from Himmler the official statement, which he was to hand -to Speer. And Wolff is to testify that this statement was never -forwarded to Speer, for which reason there is no question of Speer’s -membership in the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even if, in respect to the charge in the Indictment, this is a -very minor point, it must nevertheless be considered, since Document -3568-PS has been submitted by the Prosecution and used as -evidence for their case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I agree with the Prosecution that questioning of witness Number 22 -can be dispensed with and I can do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as the questioning of the other witnesses is concerned, -I ask to be allowed to use interrogatories. -<span class='pageno' title='613' id='Page_613'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what you have to say about 14? -Surely the secretary can speak as to the fact that the defendant -was ill in the spring of 1944?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: Yes, Mr. President; I did not include this -question in the interrogatory but I can add it, and we can dispense -with witness 14.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it, do you think, Sir David, expedite -matters or help the defendant’s counsel if he were to be allowed -to issue all these interrogatories and then were to consider them -with you and see what was then cumulative?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I should be quite prepared -to do that. They are all witnesses who are giving their evidence -in writing so that I shall be quite prepared to. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that aspect -of the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal saw fit I should -be very happy to co-operate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you can now deal with the documents, -Dr. Flächsner, or Sir David will.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents 1 to 8 -deal with the Defendant Speer’s being against the importation into -Germany of foreign labor and they seem relevant, apart from -Number 1, which seems rather a <span class='it'>non sequitur</span>, for the amount used -in the armament industry does not seem to have any connection, -as far as we can see, with the Prisoner-of-War Convention, 1929. -And Number 6, as to the calling up of women in Germany, seems -rather remote. But perhaps these matters can be more conveniently -dealt with when counsel seeks to introduce the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Numbers 9 to 13 show the general attitude of the Defendant -Speer to the treatment of foreign workers and therefore appear -relevant. Number 14 deals with the point on which I think it is -desired also to have evidence from the witness Milch.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Numbers 15 to 18 are reports showing the hopelessness of the -economic situation in Germany from June 1944 onwards. The Prosecution -makes no objection at the moment. Of course, all these -matters will have to be considered when the document is used. And -Numbers 19 to 41 all deal with the efforts of the Defendant Speer -to prevent destruction of bridges and railways and water transport -undertakings and the like, during the last few weeks of the war. -They might have a bearing on the sentence and therefore the Prosecution -make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Perhaps learned counsel will set out the quotations which he -wants admitted in that regard. It is not a matter on which the -<span class='pageno' title='614' id='Page_614'></span> -Prosecution have called any contrary evidence and therefore, if -counsel will indicate what the matters are that he wants submitted, -it may be that we shall be able to agree and shorten the presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Documents 38 to 41, these are said to be in the -possession of the French Delegation. They are not in the possession -of the French Delegation at the moment, but they have asked for -them to be sent here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think that covers our position as to documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: I should like to comment briefly on one -factor. Document Number 1 is of value only if the Tribunal decides -to call an expert on the general themes which I described to the -Tribunal before the recess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An expert—for practical purposes an industrial expert—can draw -from the old distribution plan conclusions which the jurist is -generally not in a position to draw. If the expert is considered -superfluous by the Tribunal, then Document Number 1 is also -superfluous—that I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other documents requested by me are of importance, but not -because, as the Prosecution seem to assume, I am trying to produce -evidence of the fact that we did not want any foreign laborers; this -should not be expressed so pointedly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Speer had the task of producing armaments and -needed workers for that. Nothing is farther from his intentions -than, in any way, to deny or lessen his responsibility in respect to -that. But what I have to consider important—and for this purpose -these documents, which I am requesting, are essential—is the task -of defining the extent to which the defendant is responsible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that this explains the question of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite clear as to whether you are -suggesting that the Tribunal should call the panel of experts or -whether you would like to designate the persons who would form -that panel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: The selection of experts I wish to place in -the hands of the Tribunal. At the moment I myself should not have -the opportunity of finding a suitable person. I am fully aware, -though, that in the department of economic warfare there were -persons who would be very suitable as experts and who have the -knowledge which is necessary in the judgment of these questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then, supposing that the Tribunal were not -to accept your contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there -is nobody whom you wish to add to your list of interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President. I have only one -more request. This expert should voice an opinion as to whether -<span class='pageno' title='615' id='Page_615'></span> -the figures given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit—Document Number -2520-PS—would stand up under close examination. In this -affidavit Mr. Deuss stated statistically how many of all the workers -employed in Germany were foreign workers in the armament industry, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Important technical objections can be raised to the method of -figuring used by Mr. Deuss. If the Tribunal is not to grant the use -of an expert in this matter, I wish to ask for permission to submit -certain questions to Mr. Deuss, in the form of an interrogatory, -naturally, in order to give him the opportunity of checking his figures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained -therein were considered relevant by the Prosecution at the time; -I assume that the objections made to Mr. Deuss’ figures will also be -considered relevant. I should then have to ask permission to call -Mr. Deuss’ attention, by means of an interrogatory, to these points -which in my opinion are technically incorrect.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Please forgive me. I have not had the time -to exchange opinions on the subject with my friend, Sir David, and -my other colleagues. Therefore, at the present time, I am merely -expressing the point of view of the Soviet Delegation on the subject -of experts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not consider that the appointment of a board of experts -would be a method of solving the problem which could be recognized -as correct. We would object to the introduction of experts for -the clarification of the circumstances interesting the Defendant Speer -and his counsel, as set forth in the document submitted by them. -We do not consider it right that a question like the procedure governing -the request for manpower for Speer’s ministry, and the -ratification of this request by Sauckel, as well as the allocation of -workers by the competent local labor offices should call for the -findings of a board of experts. We do not consider it right that -questions of technical productions, as emanating from Speer’s -ministry, should call for expert opinion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I could say as much with regard to all the subsequent points. We -are inclined to defend the point of view that all these problems can -be adequately elucidated by the high Tribunal, and this without the -intervention of experts. Therefore the Soviet Prosecution objects to -the granting of this claim and requests the Tribunal to reject the -application for a board of experts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Von -Neurath.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the witnesses of the Defendant Von Neurath, the Prosecution -<span class='pageno' title='616' id='Page_616'></span> -makes no objection to Number 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director -of the political division in the Foreign Office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, Number 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been -granted for the Defendant Ribbentrop.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the third, Dr. Dieckhoff, the Tribunal granted this -witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered -the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests -that it might be covered by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO FREIHERR VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant -Von Neurath): Mr. President, I agree, and I have already -worked out an interrogatory which will be submitted to the General -Secretary today; but I wish to reserve the right of asking under -certain circumstances that, when the interrogatory is returned to -me, the witness nevertheless be heard in person before the Tribunal. -In principle I agree, however, to his being heard by means of an -interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. And the same -view is taken by the Prosecution of Number 4, the witness Prüfer; -again it seemed to be largely a historical matter and they suggested -an interrogatory. There is no objection to the evidence of the witness -being brought before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been -submitted by me to the General Secretary several weeks ago. I -assume that it will be returned to me, answered, within a reasonable -period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Number 5 is Count -Schwerin von Krosigk, who was Finance Minister for a long period -of years in the Government of the Reich. If the Tribunal would be -good enough to look at the application which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen -has put in: He says this witness is most accurately informed about -the personality of the defendant, his political viewpoints as well as -the basic thoughts and aims of the policy of peace carried on by the -defendant, and his avoidance of all use of force as well as his -endeavors for the maintenance of peace, even after being Foreign -Minister, and about his opinion of National Socialism and about the -happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January 1937.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution felt that these matters were really emphasizing -points that the defendant would speak on, and that it was difficult -to see that Count Schwerin von Krosigk was being asked to speak on -any particular point that was an issue. Therefore, again, they would -suggest that an interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of -the defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory -will serve the purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several -<span class='pageno' title='617' id='Page_617'></span> -sectors of the activity of the Defendant Von Neurath are dealt with, -in regard to which the witness is to give us information.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For instance, the Indictment asserts that Defendant Von Neurath -acted as a sort of Fifth Column in the ranks of the conservative, -that is, the German National Party. In regard to the fact that this -is not true, the witness named by me, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, -can give extensive information; and I attach importance to having -this take place before the Tribunal in such a way that the Tribunal -may have an idea also of the atmosphere in the ranks of the parties -of the Right at the time these things took place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A further subject for his hearing is the question of the outstanding -manner in which the Defendant Von Neurath intervened, -although he was no longer Foreign Minister at the time, in order to -bring about the conference at Munich in September 1938, and the -measure in which he had an effect on the outcome of this conference -which, at that time, was generally considered a happy one.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should consider the summoning before the Tribunal of this -witness, who is present in Nuremberg, and who will therefore not -have to be brought from another city, important.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not desire to say anything -more on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, Field Marshal Von Blomberg is, we understand, ill, and -there will be an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 7, Dr. Guido Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt -with this morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart. He is an Austrian -ex-Foreign Minister. I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart -and I make no objection now, of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Lord Halifax has been the subject of interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The interrogatory has already been -sent to Lord Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czechoslovakian -Ambassador in Berlin, came into the case in that the -Prosecution put in a letter from Jan Masaryk describing a visit of -Dr. Mastny to the Defendant Von Neurath. Of course, if there is -any issue as to that report—its not being true—then there would be -some reason for calling him as a witness; but if it is merely a -question of clarifying it, I should believe an interrogatory would be -sufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this -case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next -witness, Dr. Stroelin—if the Tribunal would consider that along -with Number 12, Dr. Wurm—I understand that the Tribunal granted -<span class='pageno' title='618' id='Page_618'></span> -Number 12 on the 19th of December as an alternative to Stroelin, -giving the choice between the witness Stroelin and the witness -Wurm. Dr. Stroelin is Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart. I do not -know if Dr. Seidl can tell the Tribunal if it is the same Dr. Stroelin -he desires in the case of Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen tells me -that he is, so the Tribunal might note that point—that that witness -will also be asked for by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess—and therefore -I should suggest that we might leave that undecided for the -moment. If the Tribunal grant it in the case of Hess, of course, Dr. -Von Lüdinghausen will automatically have the advantage of this -witness; and if he is not granted—and I do not know whether Dr. -Von Lüdinghausen feels strongly about his personal presence—I am -not the Court—I do not feel very strongly on the point myself. Do -you want to be heard?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make -this decision at that time when the question is settled as to whether -the witness is granted to another defendant or not. I should like to -make the following remark. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Which witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 10, Dr. Stroelin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you -require Dr. Wurm at all, Number 12?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I do not insist on -Dr. Wurm’s being heard in person at Nuremberg. Bishop Wurm has -already told me that he would give me the information requested -in the form of an affidavit. I should ask for permission to submit -this affidavit to the Tribunal. I do not insist on his being heard -in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely cumulative, Number -10, but if it is felt that an affidavit would help—it will be along -the same lines—I shall not press an objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Number 11. The Prosecution felt, with regard to the -witness Zimmermann, that he was really speaking on the contents -of the defendant’s mind. If I might read the first five lines:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The witness is in a position to give information about the -personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant, -as well as about the fact that he entered the Cabinet only -at the express request of the Reich President Von Hindenburg, -and that he remained in the Cabinet after the latter’s death -because he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent -of any policy pointing toward force or war, and that because -<span class='pageno' title='619' id='Page_619'></span> -of this reason he handed in his resignation as Reich Foreign -Minister soon after 5 November 1937; also about the reasons -because of which he declared himself ready to take over the -office of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>It would appear that these are all matters which Dr. Zimmermann -has heard from the defendant. I do not really think it helps -the defendant’s case any further. The Prosecution therefore felt that -that witness was irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I should like to request that he be -heard here. The witness has been a very intimate friend of Defendant -Von Neurath for many, many years. The defendant considered -him somewhat as a father confessor and informed him of everything -which oppressed him. From this information the witness has a very -clear impression of events and happenings. Thus this lawyer, -Dr. Zimmermann, is very closely informed about the incidents that -took place in September 1932, when Von Neurath entered the newly-formed -Cabinet of Von Papen upon the express desire of the then -Reich President Von Hindenburg. The witness is informed of the -fact that Defendant Von Neurath did not wish to accept the call, -and that it took very earnest persuasion on the part of the Reich -President Von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal -duty, before the defendant could be moved to assume the office of -Reich Foreign Minister. This witness also knows the motives because -of which the defendant after the death of the Reich President considered -it his duty, in response to a wish expressed previously by -the Reich President, to remain in office, and in that way to fulfill -the wishes of the Reich President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>He also knows very well what a really devastating effect it had -on Von Neurath when, on 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time -came to the fore with martial intent. Witness Zimmermann also -knows very exactly the reasons which moved the defendant after -very long deliberation to assume the office of Reich Protector. The -witness also is very well informed not only about the difficulties -confronting the position of Reich Protector, but also about the attitude -of the defendant to the problems in the Reich Protectorate. -These matters are all of decisive importance so far as a judgment -of the defendant is concerned, and I do not believe that even an -affidavit or minutes of interrogation which has been worked out -with the greatest care can have the same weight as a personal -hearing of the witness. For these reasons I request that this witness, -who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come -here from Berlin, be granted me. We do not have to find him; he -is a practicing lawyer and notary in Berlin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not wish to add to that. -That leaves one point, My Lord, the two witnesses, 13 and 14. The -<span class='pageno' title='620' id='Page_620'></span> -first one, Dr. Völkers, was the chief of the Cabinet of Defendant Von -Neurath in Prague. He has not been located. The second, Von -Holleben, was. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment -camp at Neumünster, and I indicated the exact address.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of -the Prosecution is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that -it would be unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Völkers is -available. That is my point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I ask you to -consent to witness Consul Von Holleben’s being heard by means of -an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to 1; we will adjourn -until 2.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='621' id='Page_621'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will -finish the applications for witnesses and documents before the end -of the sitting today, but they do not propose to go on with the case -against the Defendant Göring until tomorrow. They will take that -case at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the documents applied for by the Defendant Von Neurath, -Paragraph 1 requires no comment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen -has in his possession. If they are treated in the usual way and -extracts are made, I have nothing further to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession. -Number 1 and Number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference -in 1932 and in May 1933 respectively. I am afraid I do not -know what the difficulty has been in obtaining those documents, -and if there is any way in which the Prosecution can help, they will.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Concerning Document Number 1 -I was able to find, in the meantime, in one of the documents which -referred to the Disarmament Conference, a copy of this document -which is important for me, namely, the resolution about Germany’s -equality of rights. If the document which I have asked for is not -here in time, I am nevertheless in the position of having to submit -an excerpt from this German book. However, that does not apply -to Number 4, and I should like to be able to get that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for -the interrogation of Karl Hermann Frank.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The ruling of the Tribunal was that only the portions of interrogations -of defendants used by the Prosecution might be re-used. -If any portions of this interrogation were used by the Soviet -Prosecution, and I confess. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please, Sir David. As I understood -you, you did not state our ruling quite accurately.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the Prosecution -put in any part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the -defendants would have the opportunity of using any other part of -the interrogation, treating the interrogation as one document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your -Lordship. That was the rule so far as defendants are concerned, -but Karl Hermann Frank is not a defendant. -<span class='pageno' title='622' id='Page_622'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been -used would have appeared in the ordinary way in the document -book of whichever delegation had used it. The general interrogation -was taken, of course, not only for the Prosecution’s purpose -at this Trial, but also for the purposes of the Czech Government, -in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank himself. Therefore, what I -suggest is that Dr. Lüdinghausen put interrogatories to Karl -Hermann Frank, on whatever points he wants to raise. The Prosecution -would have no objection to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I make the following -reply?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These minutes of the four interrogations of Karl Hermann -Frank are mentioned and discussed in Exhibit Number USSR-60, -which has been given to me and which contains the indictment -made by the Czech Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I cannot judge to what extent these interrogations are important -in reference to my client, the Defendant Von Neurath, as -Reich Protector, or whether they have to do with a later period. -For that reason I have asked that these protocols be made available -to me. I know that Karl Hermann Frank has also been questioned -about the document concerning the meeting in Prague on a policy -of Germanization of the Czech country. To this document, which -was presented, that is to say, which is contained in a report of -General Friderici, reference is made in the respective minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, I know that Frank once made a report to the Reich -Protector in which he labeled all the opinions and proposals—which -actually, however, were never put into actions—ridiculous and -declared them to be impossible. Therefore, it is important for me -to know just what is said in these minutes which the Czech indictment -has drawn on at this point. If nothing is contained therein, -then, of course, I shall dispense with these minutes, but I have to -examine them myself. It is, therefore, important for me to see -these minutes, at least, and then to present from them whatever -is of importance for me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to -counsel for Von Neurath seeing these interrogations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the -Czech Government before I could agree, because, frankly, I have -not gone through the parts which we were not concerned with -in this case, and I do not know on what subjects the interrogation -was based.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of -principle, if a certain document or a part of a document is used, -<span class='pageno' title='623' id='Page_623'></span> -ought it not to be open to the defendants to use the rest of the -document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a -matter of principle, My Lord, only if there were connected parts. -I think that is the general rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories -in the English courts. For example, supposing that one day -Karl Hermann Frank was examined about the early days of the -Protectorate, and then on another day he was examined on a -specific point at the end of the Protectorate. Then I should not -have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely connected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. -Barrington has just brought to my attention. These interrogatories -were the basis of the Czech Government report. They are not -introduced as interrogatories but—so I am told—as part of the -report by the person who drew it. It is not material that we are in -a position to introduce as interrogatories. They come in as a Government -report from the Czech Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): If it should develop later that -it is relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that -material being introduced?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, -but the material is the property of the Czech Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then your position is really that -it is not in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine -it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the -treaty between France and the Soviet Union, in 1935. This document -was authorized by the General Secretary on 29 January, and -if there is any difficulty in getting a copy, I will try to do anything -I can to help, subject to the reservation of objecting to its relevance -when I know what use is going to be made of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I add a few more words to this -point?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the very last few days I have received, from various -sides, suggestions of information which seem important to my -defense; but I have not yet had the opportunity of checking this -information and finding out whether it is really of importance to -the conduct of the Defense. May I therefore ask, if this should be -the case and if there should be one or two other witnesses or -documents which I can find out about only later, that I be permitted -<span class='pageno' title='624' id='Page_624'></span> -to make an application supplementary to the list of witnesses -and documents I have given today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant -Fritzsche.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>Dr. Fritz approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -there are only two witnesses applied for in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first of them is Von Schirmeister, who was an official of the -late Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have -no objection to that witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the application -says that he received his information and instructions from -the Defendant Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directives issued -to journalists. On the assumption that these were more or less -official directives that he gave in the course of his duty, again, I -do not think there can be any objection from the Prosecution. But -I do not know what Dr. Fritz would think about interrogatories, -or whether he has any strong views about calling Dr. Kriegk on -that point. As I understand it, it would be more or less a synopsis -of the directives given, but in view of the very modest proportions -of the applications in this case, I do not want to be unreasonable -if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Your -Honors, I have presented a very restricted list of evidence material -and I should be grateful if the personal appearance of the second -witness, Dr. Kriegk, were granted, for the following reasons: First -the witness Von Schirmeister has been named because he is to give -us information about the internal tasks which the Defendant -Fritzsche had in the Ministry for Propaganda, especially about his -relations to Dr. Goebbels. As far as the daily press conferences -which the Defendant Fritzsche held are concerned, this first witness, -Von Schirmeister, did not take part in them. From the subjective -angle, especially, it is important to know what directives the -Defendant Fritzsche gave the journalists, specifically the most -important German journalists who assembled daily at his press -conferences.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As a further reason for my request that the personal appearance -of this witness be granted, I point out that, of the collection of documents -or rather of the two document collections, 1 and 2 of my -list are not yet available to me, so that there are various points -which I had wanted to prove by presenting documents or quotations -therefrom which I now hope to prove by questioning these two -witnesses. -<span class='pageno' title='625' id='Page_625'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not press the point of an -affidavit. I leave it to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the documents, Number 1 is the broadcasts of -the Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from -the Prosecution to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 2 is the archives of the section German Express -Service. And again we make no objection at this stage. We will -perhaps have to consider the reports when we get them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is a little trouble about the third group, sworn testimony -or letters which contain objective observations on the part of -the writers about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche. If these are -official reports or anything of that kind, of course, there would -be no objection, if they were contemporaneous; but the course -which the Prosecution respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that -we wait and see these in the document book and then we can -consider them and make any objection when they come up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FRITZ: I agree to this procedure. I believe I need say -nothing more about Documents 1 and 2 after the statement Sir -David has just made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, some of the defense counsel want -to put in supplementary applications. It would be convenient to -deal with them now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will -allow me to confer with my colleagues as we deal with each one, -as we go along, in case they have any further views to express.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I think there are some supplementary -applications by Dr. Seidl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors, on 28 February -1946, I submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application -for the Defendant Rudolf Hess. The application was necessary for -the following reasons: In my first application I mentioned the -witness Bohle, the former Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation -of the NSDAP, for a number of subjects, among others in reference -to the German Foreign Institute and the activity of the League for -Germans Abroad. When I made that application to question the -witness Bohle I had not yet had any opportunity to speak to the -witness. After approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and -I found out that the witness Bohle, although he can make very -concrete statements about the Auslands-Organisation, does not have -any immediate first-hand information about the activity of the -German Foreign Institute and the activity of the League for -Germans Abroad. -<span class='pageno' title='626' id='Page_626'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I therefore ask that the following be approved as further witnesses: -First, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart -and finally President of the German Foreign Institute. The -witness is here in Nuremberg as a prisoner awaiting trial, and it -is the same witness who has also been requested by the Defendant -Von Neurath in his case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, -My Lord, if Dr. Seidl would indicate what the final position of -these witnesses is. As I understand it, he no longer wants Herr -Bohle. Is that right? I am not clear whether this witness is in -addition to or in substitution for Herr Bohle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, this is an -additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be needed as a -witness, but only concerning the matter of the activity of the -Auslands-Organisation. The witness Stroelin, since the witness -Bohle has not first-hand information about the Foreign Institute, -should speak about this latter point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would -mean that Dr. Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, -Dr. Haushofer, and an affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of witnesses -on what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, -from the point of view of the Prosecution. The Prosecution said that -the Auslands-Organisation was used for promoting Fifth Column -activities, but it was only put in this way: That by using the -Auslands-Organisation there was, first of all, complete record and -organization of Party members abroad; secondly, the intelligence -service of that organization, through the organization, reported on -all German officials of every section of the Government who came -abroad and kept check on them in their work, in addition to German -subjects; and because of this intelligence service, these Germans -were ready for use and in fact were used when there was a question -of invasion of the country.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for example, -to blow up bridges or commit acts of sabotage, given directly to -the organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning -of the organization that I have described.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I say that only because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to -know the case he has to meet. The Prosecution has never proved -direct orders for sabotage in this regard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The trial brief on his case has accused Rudolf -Hess of the fact that, under his leadership, the Auslands-Organisation -of the NSDAP, as well as the Foreign Institute and the -League for Germans Abroad had developed an activity which was -<span class='pageno' title='627' id='Page_627'></span> -almost equivalent to that of a Fifth Column. It is correct that in -the original indictment of the Defendant Hess, personally, there -were no details given by means of which the indictment meant to -show this activity and above all Hess’ guilt in regard to the -activities of these organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As long, however, as the Auslands-Organisation and the Foreign -Institute and the League for Germans Abroad are accused of -any connection with the activities of a Fifth Column, the Defendant -Hess has a reasonable interest in seeing explained, first, what -kind of activity these organizations had and, second, which orders -or directives he had given to these organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete statements -regarding the Auslands-Organisation. The same is necessary -for the German Foreign Institute about which Dr. Stroelin, who -is here in Nuremberg, can make authentic statements, and for the -League for Germans Abroad, about which the witness Dr. Haushofer -can speak.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of the -witness, Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be used for -this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogation -as far as Dr. Haushofer is concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir, a third one. Before I come to the third -witness, whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I should -like to inform the Tribunal that I do not insist on a personal -hearing of the witness Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been -approved by the Court. Instead of that, I shall submit a short -affidavit, which is already in the document book which I have -already given to the General Secretary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the place of the witness Sperr, I request, however, that the -witness Alfred Leitgen be called. Leitgen was for many years, -until the flight of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I have -found out only now where this witness is. I believe that a personal -hearing of this witness is so important that one should not dispense -with it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points which Dr. Seidl -specifies both seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact -that he is prepared to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution -will not take objection to that witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications? -<span class='pageno' title='628' id='Page_628'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will -allow me to say one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain -conversations with a member of my staff. I think they will prove -profitable and helpful on the lines that Your Lordship suggested, -and if the Tribunal will be good enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius’ -rights for a day or two, we hope to have something practical and -useful to put before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the -Defendant Sauckel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember -that you allowed the matter to stand over. We have been working -along the lines that Your Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that -I have not had time to go into it myself and see the final result.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: In discussing the witnesses, I proposed a -restriction which is being presented to the Court in writing. Concerning -the documents, I have also practically come to an agreement -as to how they should be handled. There are, however, two principal -applications which I should like to submit and which have not -been mentioned so far. But I believe that a decision will have -to be made by the Tribunal in respect to principle. The applications -are Documents 80 and 81.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document 80 is a photostat of a deportation order which had -been issued in the city of Oels by the Soviet local commander, -whereby the native male population had to report for deportation; -and it can be seen from this order that it is deportation for the -purpose of labor. I want to submit this to show that the Hague -agreement concerning land warfare has been considered obsolete -by the Soviet Army. I have only this one deportation order. I -should therefore like to suggest that the Tribunal make use of -Article 17(e) of the Charter and have a judge determine on the -spot to what extent this deportation took place, and I should like -thereby to have it shown that it is not only the town of Oels, but -that it was done similarly on a large scale in the cities of East -Prussia and Upper Silesia. The population was deported in large -numbers for purposes of work and, if the information which I -have received is correct, part of the population of Königsberg is -today still in the Ural Mountains. I am not in a position to submit -documents about all these things, because of the difficulties of -mailing, and the difficulties of receiving news from the East at -<span class='pageno' title='629' id='Page_629'></span> -all. But the Tribunal should be in a position, by asking the mayors -and other officials, to find out that what I have just said is correct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the city -of Saaz in Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants of the city -of Saaz were put into a camp and, until Christmas 1945, they -worked there without pay. I believe also that this is proof of -the fact that the Hague agreement concerning land warfare is -considered to be obsolete and outmoded in regard to labor -employment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91: These are two books with -affidavits meant as a substitute for an investigation. It would -be irrelevant if I were to produce one or two affidavits concerning -conditions in the labor camps. One could object to that as being -irrelevant because, in view of the large number of factories and -camps which exist, little proof would be afforded by these affidavits. -These mass conditions have somehow to be considered -juridically. Therefore, the Charter has admitted government reports. -I am not in a position to ask a government to help me in this -matter. Therefore I have to find a substitute by collecting affidavits -and grouping them in logical form in a notebook in order -to submit them to the Tribunal. This is the purpose of my -proposal to introduce a presentation of proof which is an innovation -and is difficult for me; but thereby the same objections are justified -which one might make to an investigation. An investigation has -great weaknesses, especially if it is conducted in a one-sided manner -without participation of those involved on the other side. In the -case of my affidavits, this danger is greatly reduced because it is -hard to find anybody who would fill out these affidavits unless -he has very serious reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the Tribunal -to decide about my application concerning these Documents 90 and -91. That is the matter I wanted to submit here; the rest I shall -discuss with the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -I have already intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution -object to Documents 80 and 81. To test their admissibility the -easiest way is to assume that Dr. Servatius has proved the facts -alleged. And if that is done they would not, in my opinion, come -within miles of proving that Article 52 had become obsolete; and -it is illustrative of the danger which I ventured to point out to the -Tribunal in regard to these two arguments—that vague and hypothetical -suggestion that there might be some evidence that Article 52 -had become obsolete. It is suggested that the Tribunal should try -the conduct of the Soviet Union with regard to labor conditions -and, as I understand, send a commission to collect evidence on that -<span class='pageno' title='630' id='Page_630'></span> -point; and I do not want to repeat the arguments, but the Prosecution -most strenuously object to the suggestion and say that -nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method -would be by <span class='it'>solvitur ambulando</span>. Let us see the affidavits and -get some idea of their contents and the source of knowledge -disclosed and then the Prosecution can make a decision regarding -them. At this stage I do not want to do anything to exclude them -and they will receive the most careful attention by my colleagues -and me when they are brought forward.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary -applications for the Defendant Schacht and for the Defendant -Keitel. I think there may be some mistake about that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is the Defendant Bormann’s counsel here?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. BERGOLD: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that -your applications would stand over for some application within -the next three weeks. So you are not ready yet? I am told your -documents are all here. Is that so?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far -as I know. However, since I have to collect my own information -from the books, I cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will -be all my documents. I therefore have asked permission to speak -to the secretary, Wunderlich, who was secretary for a long time, -and also to another woman secretary. Only from these two shall -we get satisfactory information. Bormann, I cannot reach. Therefore, -for practical reasons, I ask permission to present everything -at a later date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now—I -am told that there are applications from the Defendants Keitel, -Rosenberg. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, Defense Counsel for Keitel and -Rosenberg are not present at the moment. They probably did not -expect that their applications would be presented today. Maybe -that could be done tomorrow before the beginning of the Göring case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:4em;margin-bottom:2em;font-size:1.2em;'>TRANSCRIBER NOTES</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious -printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for -periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; -however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus -“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes -French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: -hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb -tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the -tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations -between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this -volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as -possible to the original document presentation and layout.</p> - -<p class='line'> </p> - -<p class='noindent'>[The end of <span class='it'>Trial of the Major War Criminals -Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. VIII</span>, -by Various.]</p> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals -Before the International Militar, by Various - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS, VOL 8 *** - -***** This file should be named 63183-h.htm or 63183-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/1/8/63183/ - -Produced by John Routh, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Project Gutenberg team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - - </body> - <!-- created with fpgen.py 4.62a on 2020-09-12 04:10:57 GMT --> -</html> diff --git a/old/63183-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/63183-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 97eddd2..0000000 --- a/old/63183-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/63183-h/images/title.jpg b/old/63183-h/images/title.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bbe4ad9..0000000 --- a/old/63183-h/images/title.jpg +++ /dev/null |
