diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63183-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-0.txt | 31370 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 31370 deletions
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. - |