diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63183-h/63183-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63183-h/63183-h.htm | 35438 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 35438 deletions
diff --git a/old/63183-h/63183-h.htm b/old/63183-h/63183-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index bdc11c7..0000000 --- a/old/63183-h/63183-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,35438 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. VIII by Various</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg"/> - <meta name="cover" content="images/cover.jpg" /> - <meta name="DC.Title" content="Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. 8"/> - <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Various"/> - <meta name="DC.Language" content="en"/> - <meta name="DC.Created" content="1947"/> - <meta name="DC.Subject" content="Law"/> - <meta name="DC.date.issued" content="1947"/> - <meta name="Tags" content="World War II, Germany, law, non-fiction"/> - <meta name="DC.Publisher" content="Project Gutenberg"/> - <meta name="generator" content="fpgen 4.62a"/> - <meta name="Series" content="Blue Series [8]"/> - <style type="text/css"> - body { margin-left:8%;margin-right:10%; } - .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: silver; - text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; - border:1px solid silver; padding:1px 3px; font-style:normal; - font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration:none; } - .pageno:after { color: gray; content: attr(title); } - .it { font-style:italic; } - .gesp { letter-spacing:0.2em; } - p { text-indent:0; margin-top:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em; - text-align: justify; } - div.lgc { } - div.lgc p { text-align:center; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; } - h1 { - text-align:center; - font-weight:normal; - page-break-before: always; - font-size:1.2em; margin:2em auto 1em auto - } - - h2 { - text-align:center; - font-weight:normal; - font-size:1.1em; - margin:1em auto 0.5em auto; - } - - hr.tbk100{ border:none; border-bottom:2px solid black; width:40%; margin-top:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em; text-align:center; margin-left:30%; margin-right:30% } - hr.tbk101{ border:none; border-bottom:2px solid black; width:40%; margin-top:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em; text-align:center; margin-left:30%; margin-right:30% } - hr.pbk { border:none; border-bottom:1px solid silver; width:100%; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:2em } - .figcenter { - text-align:center; - margin:1em auto; - page-break-inside: avoid; - } - - div.blockquote { margin:1em 2em; text-align:justify; } - .nobreak { page-break-before: avoid; } - p.line { text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; } - table { page-break-inside: avoid; } - table.center { margin:0.5em auto; border-collapse: collapse; padding:3px; } - table.flushleft { margin:0.5em 0em; border-collapse: collapse; padding:3px; } - table.left { margin:0.5em 1.2em; border-collapse: collapse; padding:3px; } - .tab1c1 { } - .tab1c2 { } - .tab1c3 { } - .tab1c1-col2 { border-right: 0px solid black; } - .tab1c1-col3 { border-right: 0px solid black; } - .tdStyle0 { - padding: 0px 5px; text-align:center; vertical-align:top; - } - .tdStyle1 { - padding: 0px 5px; text-align:left; vertical-align:top; - } - .tdStyle2 { - padding: 0px 5px; text-align:right; vertical-align:top; - } - .pindent { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-indent:1.5em; } - .noindent { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-indent:0; } - .hang { padding-left:1.5em; text-indent:-1.5em; } - .literal-container { text-align:center; margin:0 0; } - .literal { display:inline-block; text-align:left; } - </style> - <style type="text/css"> - h1 {font-size:1.2em; text-align:center; - line-height:150%; margin-top:4em;} - h2 {font-size:1.2em; text-align:center; margin-top:2em;} - .literal-container { margin-top:.5em; margin-bottom:.5em } - div.lgc { margin-top:.5em; margin-bottom:.5em } - p { text-indent:0; margin-top:0.3em; margin-bottom:0.3em; text-align: justify; } - div.blockquote { margin-top:0em; margin-bottom:0em; } - .pindent {margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0em;} - </style> - </head> - <body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the -International Military Tribunal, by Various - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Volume 8) - -Author: Various - -Release Date: September 12, 2020 [EBook #63183] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS, VOL 8 *** - - - - -Produced by John Routh, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Project Gutenberg team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net. - - - - - - -</pre> - -<div class='figcenter' style='width:80%'> -<img src='images/cover.jpg' alt='' id='iid-0000' style='width:100%;height:auto;'/> -</div> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='lgc' style=''> <!-- rend=';' --> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:2em;font-size:1.5em;'>TRIAL</p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:.2em;margin-bottom:.2em;font-size:.7em;'>OF</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.5em;'>THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.7em;'>BEFORE</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'>THE INTERNATIONAL</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'>MILITARY TRIBUNAL</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.7em;'><span class='gesp'>NUREMBERG</span></p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:.2em;margin-bottom:2em;font-size:.7em;'>14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<div class='figcenter'> -<img src='images/title.jpg' alt='' id='iid-0001' style='width:80px;height:auto;'/> -</div> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:4em;font-size:.7em;'><span class='gesp'>PUBLISHED AT NUREMBERG, GERMANY</span></p> -<p class='line' style='margin-top:.2em;font-size:.7em;'><span class='gesp'>1947</span></p> -</div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='literal-container' style='margin-top:4em;margin-bottom:20em;'><div class='literal'> <!-- rend=';fs:.8em;' --> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>This volume is published in accordance with the</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>direction of the International Military Tribunal by</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.</p> -</div></div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='lgc' style='margin-top:8em;margin-bottom:4em;'> <!-- rend=';' --> -<p class='line'>VOLUME VIII</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<hr class='tbk100'/> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'><span class='gesp'>OFFICIAL TEXT</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'><span class='gesp'>IN THE</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'>ENGLISH LANGUAGE</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<hr class='tbk101'/> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:1.2em;'><span class='gesp'>PROCEEDINGS</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>20 February 1946-7 March 1946</p> -</div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div class='literal-container' style='margin-top:4em;margin-bottom:17em;'><div class='literal'> <!-- rend=';fs:.8em;' --> -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-bottom:2em;font-size:.8em;'><span class='gesp'>EDITOR’S NOTE</span></p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>On 1 July 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed Deputy</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal.</p> -<p class='line'> </p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>On 30 September 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed</p> -<p class='line' style='font-size:.8em;'>Editor of the Record in addition to his other duties.</p> -</div></div> <!-- end rend --> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<table id='tab1' summary='' class='center'> -<colgroup> -<col span='1' style='width: 6em;'/> -<col span='1' style='width: 17.5em;'/> -<col span='1' style='width: 2.5em;'/> -</colgroup> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col3 tdStyle0' colspan='3'><span style='font-size:larger'>CONTENTS</span></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-third Day, Wednesday, 20 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_1'>1</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_31'>31</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-fourth Day, Thursday, 21 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_53'>53</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_81'>81</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-fifth Day, Friday, 22 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_105'>105</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_125'>125</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-sixth Day, Saturday, 23 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_159'>159</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_186'>186</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-seventh Day, Monday, 25 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_202'>202</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_230'>230</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-eighth Day, Tuesday, 26 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_251'>251</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_281'>281</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Sixty-ninth Day, Wednesday, 27 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_300'>300</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_324'>324</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventieth Day, Thursday, 28 February 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_353'>353</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_383'>383</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-first Day, Friday, 1 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_409'>409</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_431'>431</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-second Day, Saturday, 2 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_468'>468</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-third Day, Monday, 4 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_489'>489</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_517'>517</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-fourth Day, Tuesday, 5 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_532'>532</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-fifth Day, Wednesday, 6 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_554'>554</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_578'>578</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'> </td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tab1c1-col2 tdStyle1' colspan='2'>Seventy-sixth Day, Thursday, 7 March 1946,</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Morning Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_597'>597</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class='tab1c1 tdStyle1'></td><td class='tab1c2 tdStyle1'>Afternoon Session</td><td class='tab1c3 tdStyle2'><a href='#Page_621'>621</a></td></tr> -</table> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='1' id='Page_1'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-THIRD DAY</span><br/> Wednesday, 20 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): -Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, evidence on the -count “Despoliation and Plunder of Private, Public, and National -Property” will be presented by the State Counsellor of Justice, -Second Class, L. R. Shenin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS -L. R. SHENIN (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please -Your Honors, my task consists in presenting to the Tribunal evidence -of the criminal and predatory motives of Hitlerite aggression -and of the monstrous plundering of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, -Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleagues have already proved that the attack on the U.S.S.R., -as well as on other European countries, was planned and prepared -beforehand by the criminal Hitlerite Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit to the Tribunal a number of the conspirators’ -original documents, statements, and speeches, which in the aggregate -will prove that the despoliation and plunder of private, public, and -national property in the occupied territories was also premeditated, -planned, and prepared on a large scale, and that thus, simultaneously -with the development of their purely military and strategic -plans of attack, the Hitlerites with the cold-blooded deliberateness -of professional robbers and murderers also developed and prepared -beforehand the plan of organized plunder and marauding, after -having minutely and accurately calculated their future profits, their -criminal gains, their robbers’ spoils.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The official report of the Czechoslovak Government on the crimes -committed by the Hitlerites on the territory of Czechoslovakia, the -first victim of German aggression, has already been submitted to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document Number USSR-60).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the third section of this report there is a short extract from -an article by Ley, published on 30 January 1940 in the <span class='it'>Angriff</span>. -I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is our destiny to belong to a superior race. A lower race -needs less room, less clothing, less food, and less culture, than -a superior race.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='2' id='Page_2'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This promise, this program of action, found its concrete expression -in the fact that the Hitlerite conspirators subjected all territories -occupied by them to unrestrained plunder, highly varied in -form and method and entirely shameless in its devastating results. -The report of the Czechoslovak Government contains a large number -of examples corroborating the corresponding counts of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read this section into the record starting with the first -paragraph on Page 72 of the Russian translation. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German plan of campaign against Czechoslovakia was -aimed not only against the republic as a political and military -unit, but also against the very existence of the Czechoslovak -people, who were to be robbed not only of all political -rights and cultural life, but of their wealth and their financial -and industrial resources.</p> - -<p>“(1) Immediate Plunder.</p> - -<p>“(a) After Munich.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after Munich the Germans seized all the industrial -and commercial concerns belonging to the Czechs and -Jews in the seized areas of the republic; this was done -without any compensation. Czechs and Jews were robbed of -their property and of their office and plant equipment, usually -by violence and bloodshed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following characteristic fact is mentioned in the report, -namely, the way in which Hitler became acquainted with Czechoslovakia, -which he had just seized. I shall read into the record -Subparagraph B of this section, entitled, “After the Invasion of -15 March 1939.” The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Pages 3 -and 4 of the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Hitler entered Prague at nightfall on 15 March 1939, and -spent the night there in the famous Hradschin castle. He left -on the following day, taking with him a number of valuable -tapestries. We mention this robbery not because of the value -of the stolen objects, but as an example set by the head of -the Party and of the German State on the very first day of -invasion.</p> - -<p>“The German troops who invaded Prague brought with them -a staff of German economic experts, that is, experts in economic -looting.</p> - -<p>“Everything that could be of some value to Germany was -seized, especially large stocks of raw materials, such as copper, -tin, iron, cotton, wool, great stocks of food, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p>“Rolling stock, carriages, engines, and so on were removed to -the Reich. All the rails in the Protectorate which were in -good condition were lifted and sent to Germany; later they -<span class='pageno' title='3' id='Page_3'></span> -were replaced by old rails brought from Germany. New cars -fresh from the factory which were on order for the Prague -municipal tramways and had just been completed were -deflected from their purpose and sent to the Reich.</p> - -<p>“The vessels belonging to the Czechoslovak Danube Steam -Navigation Company (the majority of shares belonged to the -Czechoslovak State) were divided between the Reich and -Hungary.</p> - -<p>“Valuable objects of art and furniture disappeared from public -buildings, without even an attempt at any legal justification -of such robbery; pictures, statues, tapestries were taken to -Germany. The Czech National Museum, the Modern Art -Gallery, and public and private collections were plundered.</p> - -<p>“The German Reich Commissioner of the Czechoslovak -National Bank stopped all payments of currency abroad and -seized all the gold reserve and foreign currency in the Protectorate. -Thus the Germans took 23,000 kilograms of gold of -a nominal value of 737,000 million crowns (5,265,000 pounds -sterling) and transferred the gold from the Bank of International -Settlement to the Reichsbank.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the methods of thorough—I should say total—plunder -was the so-called economic Germanization. I submit to the Tribunal -as evidence of these crimes the following extract from the -official Czechoslovak report. This extract the Tribunal will find on -Pages 4 and 5 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“(2) Economic Germanization.</p> - -<p>“A. Rural. Expropriation.</p> - -<p>“(aa) After Munich.</p> - -<p>“In the areas occupied by the German Army in October 1938 -Germany began to settle her nationals on all the farms -formerly belonging to Czechs or Jews who had fled for political -or racial reasons.</p> - -<p>“The Czechoslovak Land Reform Act of 1919, insofar as it -benefited Czech nationals, was declared invalid; Czech farmers -were expelled from their land and compelled to relinquish -their cattle, agricultural implements, and furniture.</p> - -<p>“On paper the Czechs received compensation; in fact, however, -they were burdened with taxes in order to make good -the so-called ‘deliberate damage’ they were alleged to have -caused by their flight. These taxes far exceeded the compensation.</p> - -<p>“The large agricultural and government estates of the Czechoslovak -Republic automatically became Reich property and -came under the jurisdiction of the Reich ministries concerned. -<span class='pageno' title='4' id='Page_4'></span></p> - -<p>“(bb) After the invasion of 15 March 1939.</p> - -<p>“After the invasion, German directors, supervisors, and -foremen replaced Czech nationals in state-owned enterprises -of the Czechoslovak Republic.</p> - -<p>“Germanization of private property began, of course, under -the slogan ‘Aryanization.’</p> - -<p>“The Germanization of rural Bohemia and Moravia was -entrusted to a special body called ‘Deutsche Siedlungsgesellschaft’ -located in Prague.</p> - -<p>“Czech peasants were offered compensation for their food -products but at entirely inadequate prices.</p> - -<p>“Rural Germanization, apart from Germanization pure and -simple, aimed at pauperizing as many well-to-do Czech -nationals as possible.</p> - -<p>“The Nazis did their utmost to squeeze as much as possible -out of Czech agriculture. Here too their aim was twofold: -On the one hand to obtain as much foodstuffs as possible, and -on the other, to carry the process of Germanization as far as -possible.</p> - -<p>“Farmers were turned out of their farms to make way for -German settlers—entire agricultural districts were in this -way cleared of Czechs. Agricultural co-operative societies in -control of production were transformed into auxiliary organizations -and were gradually germanized.</p> - -<p>“The looting of property and wealth was followed by the -pillaging of products of the soil. Heavy fines and frequently -even the death penalty were imposed on Czech peasants for -intentional failure to comply with orders regarding production, -delivery, and rationing.</p> - -<p>“B. Expropriation of banks and their funds.</p> - -<p>“In Czechoslovakia industrial undertakings were directly -financed by the banks, which often owned or controlled the -majority of shares. Having obtained control of the banks, the -Nazis thus secured control of industry.</p> - -<p>“(a) After Munich.</p> - -<p>“After Munich, two important German banks, the Dresdner -Bank and the Deutsche Bank took over the branches of Prague -banks, situated in the ceded territory. Thus among the enterprises -taken over by the Dresdner Bank were 32 branches of -the Bohemian Discount Bank and among those taken over by -the Deutsche Bank were 25 branches of Bohemian Union Bank.</p> - -<p>“As soon as these two banks obtained control of the branch -banks in the Sudetenland they also endeavored to gain -<span class='pageno' title='5' id='Page_5'></span> -influence on the respective head offices of these banks in -Prague.</p> - -<p>“The Czechoslovak banks were joint stock companies. Every -joint stock company with even one Jewish director was considered -to be Jewish. In this manner the non-Jewish property -was also taken over.</p> - -<p>“(b) After the invasion of 15 March 1939.</p> - -<p>“After the invasion several Czechoslovak banks in Bohemia, -in consequence of their Aryanization, became the property of -the Dresdner Bank. Among other enterprises, this German -bank took over the Union Bank of Bohemia. In this way -all the financial interests which these banks had in Czech -industry, as well as the entire share capital, fell into German -hands.</p> - -<p>“From that time on German capital began to infiltrate into -the Czech banks; their expropriation and incorporation into -the German bank system began. The Dresdner Bank (the -establishment which administered the funds of the National -Socialist Party) and the Deutsche Bank were officially -entrusted with the task of expropriating the funds belonging -to the Czechoslovak banking concerns.</p> - -<p>“By means of various ‘transactions,’ by gaining influence -through the branch banks in the Sudetenland over their -respective head offices in Prague, by reducing the share -capital, which was later increased with German assistance, -by appropriating industrial holdings and in this way acquiring -influence over the controlling banks which were thus deprived -of their industrial interests, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, the two Berlin banks -achieved complete control of the banks of the Protectorate. -Gestapo terror helped them.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip one paragraph of this report and pass on to the next count:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“C. Destruction of National Industry.</p> - -<p>“(a) Compulsory organization.</p> - -<p>“After the invasion the Germans introduced into the Protectorate -the compulsory organization of Czech industry on the -German model.</p> - -<p>“They appointed a committee for every new association and -all the industrial ‘groups’ appointing at least one Nazi as -chairman or vice chairman or, just as an ordinary member. -However, all the Czech members actually were mere puppets.</p> - -<p>“(b) Armament factories.</p> - -<p>“The Dresdner Bank acquired the most important armament -factories in Czechoslovakia, that is, the Skoda Works in Pilsen -and the Czechoslovak ‘Zborjobka’ in Brünn. The private -<span class='pageno' title='6' id='Page_6'></span> -share-holders were forced to surrender their shares at prices -far below their actual value; the bank paid for these shares -with coupons which had been withdrawn from circulation, -and confiscated by the Germans in the districts previously -ceded in accordance with the Munich agreement.</p> - -<p>“(c) The Hermann Göring Werke.</p> - -<p>“The seizure by the Germans of the Czechoslovak banks and -thus of the industry, through the big Berlin banks, was -accomplished with the help of the gigantic Hermann Göring -Werke which seized the greatest Czechoslovak industries, one -by one, at the smallest financial cost, that is to say, under -the pretext of Aryanization, by pressure from the Reich, by -financial measures, and finally by threatening Gestapo measures -and concentration camps.</p> - -<p>“Finally, all the large Czechoslovak enterprises, factories, and -armament plants, and the coal and iron industries fell into -German hands. The huge chemical industry was seized by -the German concern, I. G. Farben Industrie.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip the paragraph concerning the same methods adopted in -the case of light industry and pass on to the next count of the -report, “Financial Spoliation.”</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“After the occupation of the territory, ceded apparently in -accordance with the Munich agreement, the Germans refused -to take over part of the Czechoslovak State debt, although -they acquired very valuable State property in the districts -taken away from Czechoslovakia. Government bonds of low -denominations amounting to a total of 1,600 million crowns -were in circulation in the occupied territory.</p> - -<p>“The Germans reserved the right to use these obligations in -Czechoslovakia as legal tender.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Gentlemen, further on in this report we find a detailed account -of the Hitlerite campaign of spoliation directed against the financial -economy of the Czechoslovak Republic. With a view to saving time -I shall refrain from quoting this excerpt and shall merely submit -the balance sheet of the Czechoslovak National Bank.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The balance sheet of the Czech National Bank showed the -following figures for ‘other assets’ in million of crowns: -31 December 1938, 845; 31 December 1939, 3,576; 31 December -1942, 17,366.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I now quote an excerpt from the section entitled, “Taxes”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“When war broke out the Nazis fixed the war contribution -of the Protectorate at an annual sum of 2,000 million crowns -(14.2 million pounds sterling). The Nazis claimed that they -<span class='pageno' title='7' id='Page_7'></span> -were entitled to this on the grounds that the Czechs did not -have to fight, because the Germans fought for them.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation the Germans seized the -proceeds of various indirect taxes and diverted them into the -Reich Treasury.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Gentlemen, the excerpt which I just read from the report of the -Czechoslovak Government gives an adequate picture of the manner -in which, after having seized Czechoslovakia, the Hitlerites subjected -it to wanton plunder in every field of its economic life—agriculture, -industry, and finance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having seized the entire economic resources of the Czechoslovak -Republic, the Hitlerite Government forced this economy to serve -their criminal interests, extracting everything possible in order to -prepare for further aggression against the peoples of Europe and -for new military attacks with the monstrous aim of achieving world -domination by the German “master race.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now pass to the reading of the fourth section of the -official report of the Polish Government dealing with crimes committed -by the Hitlerites in occupied Poland. This report has already -been presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document -Number USSR-93) and, according to Article 21 of the Charter, -constitutes irrefutable evidence. I quote an excerpt from this report -which the Tribunal will find on Page 14 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Expropriation and plunder of public and private property.</p> - -<p>“a) On 27 September 1939 the German military authorities -issued a decree concerning the sequestration and confiscation -of Polish property in the western provinces. ‘The property of -the Polish State, Polish public institutions, municipalities and -unions, individuals, and corporations can be sequestered and -confiscated,’ stated Paragraph 1 of the said decree.</p> - -<p>“b) The right of the military authorities to dispose of Polish -property in the incorporated provinces passed to the ‘Haupttreuhandstelle -Ost’ (created by Göring on 1 November 1939) -with headquarters in Berlin and branch offices in Poland. It -was entrusted with the administration of confiscated property -of the Polish State, as well as with the general policy in -Poland in accordance with the plan devised by the Reich -Government.</p> - -<p>“c) By a decree of 15 January 1940, the entire property of the -Polish State was placed under ‘protection,’ which practically -meant confiscation of all State property in the incorporated -territories. A special decree of 12 February 1940 dealt with -agriculture and forestry in the same way. -<span class='pageno' title='8' id='Page_8'></span></p> - -<p>“d) The confiscation of private property in the western -provinces was initiated by a decree of 31 January 1940. Special -permission was required for acquisition of property and -transfer of ownership rights in all enterprises in the incorporated -territory. By another decree of 12 June 1940, Göring -authorized the ‘Haupttreuhandstelle Ost’ to seize and administer, -not only State property, but also the property of citizens -of the ‘former Polish State.’</p> - -<p>“e) The process of confiscation, however, went further. The -property of Polish citizens became liable to seizure and confiscation -unless the owner acquired German citizenship in -accordance with Hitler’s decree of 8 October 1939.</p> - -<p>“Other decrees dealt with the repayment of debts, because -the sequestrators were authorized to repay debts to privileged -creditors only. These were members of the ‘Deutsche Volksliste’ -so far as war debts were concerned, as well as citizens -of the Reich or the free city of Danzig, as regards debts -incurred after 1 September 1939.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip two pages of this report enumerating the companies which -were specially created for carrying out of this plunder activity and -also for plundering the Polish-Jewish population, which as is already -known to the Tribunal, was later exterminated. I pass on to the -end of the Polish Government report. The Tribunal will find this -excerpt on Page 17 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mere quotations from these and other decrees may create a -wrong impression as to the means used by the defendants in the -case of the Jewish property in Poland. But it should be pointed -out that steps concerning Jewish property were only preliminaries -to infinitely greater crimes in the future. At the end of this section -of the report is justly stated—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Aside from the crimes which have been proved and described -here, there are thousands of others which fade into insignificance -beside the numberless crimes of mass murder, mass -plunder, and mass destruction.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>It is impossible to enumerate all the crimes committed in Poland -under the direct leadership of the Defendant Frank, who was the -head of all the administration in the so-called Government General.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Frank’s diaries which were found and became part of the evidence -in this case, give a clear and concrete idea of the crimes -committed by the Hitlerites in Poland under his direction. In these -diaries, Your Honors, are entries which have a direct bearing on the -subject of my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore I should like, with your permission, to quote excerpts -from this diary which have not yet been quoted. -<span class='pageno' title='9' id='Page_9'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote from the volume entitled “Conference of Departmental -Heads for 1939-1940” (Document Number USSR-223), Pages 11 and 12. -In your document book, gentlemen, this excerpt is on Page 21:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“My relationship with the Poles resembles that between an -ant and a plant louse. When I treat the Poles helpfully, tickle -them in a friendly manner, so to speak, I do it in the expectation -that I shall profit by their labor output. This is not -a political, but a purely tactical and technical problem. In -cases where, in spite of all measures, the output does not -increase, or where I have the slightest reason to step in, I -would not hesitate to take even the most Draconian action.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the volume entitled “Diary 1942” I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Dr. Frank: ‘We must remember that notes issued by the -Bank of Poland to the value of 540,000,000 zlotys were taken -over in Occupied Eastern Territory by the Governor General -without any compensation being made by the Reich. This -represents a contribution of more than 500 million exacted -from the Government General by Germany, in addition to -other payments.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the same volume, Page 1277—this concerns the Governor’s -conference which took place on 7 December 1942, in Kraków—measures -for increasing production for the years 1942-43 were discussed. -A certain Dr. Fischer stated:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“If the new food scheme is carried out, it would mean that in -Warsaw and its suburbs alone 500,000 people would be deprived -of food.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the same volume on Page 1331, Frank speaks:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I shall endeavor to squeeze out from the reserves of this -province everything that it is still possible to squeeze out. . . . -If you recall that I was able to send to Germany 600,000 tons -of grain and that an additional 180,000 tons were reserved -for local troops, as well as many thousands of tons of seed, -fats, vegetables, besides the export to Germany of 300 million -eggs, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, you will understand how important work -in this region is for Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This same Frank on Page 1332 states the following—the Tribunal -will find this quotation on Page 27 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“These consignments to the Reich had, however, one definite -drawback to them, since the quantities we were responsible -for delivering exceeded the actual food supplies required by -the region. We now have to face the following problem. Can -we, as from February, cut 2 million non-German inhabitants -of the region out of the general rationing scheme?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='10' id='Page_10'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the volume entitled “Workers Conferences for 1943,” we find -an excerpt concerning the conference of 14 April 1943, which took -place in Kraków. On Page 28 of the document book, the Tribunal -will find the excerpt which I wish to read into the record.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“President Naumann is speaking, and he quotes the figures -estimated for 1943-44:</p> - -<p>“One thousand five hundred tons of sweets for the Germans, -36 million liters of skimmed fresh milk; 15,100,000 liters of -full cream milk for the Germans.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 24 the same person continues—this total account is on -Page 28 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Last year, more than 20 percent of the total amount of live -stock in the Government General was requisitioned. Cattle -which were really required for the production of milk and -butter were slaughtered last year so that the Reich and the -armed forces could be supplied and the meat ration maintained -to a certain extent. If we want 120,000 tons of meat, -we must sacrifice 40 percent of the remaining live stock.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In answer to a question by the Governor General, President -Naumann replied that 383,000 tons of grain were requisitioned -in 1940, 685,000 tons in 1941, and 1.2 million tons in 1942. -It appears from these figures that requisitions have increased -from year to year and have steadily approached the limits -of possibility. Now they are preparing to increase the requisitions -by another 200,000 tons which will bring them to the -extreme bounds of possibility. The Polish peasant cannot be -allowed to starve beyond the point where he will still be able -to cultivate his fields and carry out any further tasks imposed -upon him, such as carting wood for the forestry authorities.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>However, the quotation which I have read from Naumann’s -reply in no way influenced the policy of the merciless plundering -of the Polish people, whose fate, to use Frank’s own words, interested -him from one angle only.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the volume entitled “Diary, From 1 January to 28 February -1944” there is the following statement by Frank made at the conference -of the leaders of German agriculture on 12 January 1944. -The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 30 of the document -book.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Once we have won the war, the Poles, Ukrainians, and all -other people living around can be made into mincemeat, or -anything else, as far as I am concerned.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe, Your Honors, that after this quotation there is no -need for me, as a representative of the Soviet Prosecution, to add -<span class='pageno' title='11' id='Page_11'></span> -anything more to that section of my statement which deals with -the crimes committed by the Hitlerite criminals on the territory -of the Polish State. Indeed, any one of the sentences quoted is -more than sufficient to give us an exact picture of the regime in -Poland created by Frank, and of Frank himself, who created this -regime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Turning now to the plunder and pillage of private and public -property by the Hitlerites in Yugoslavia, I must, Your Honors, read -the appropriate extracts of the official report of the Yugoslav Government, -submitted to the International Military Tribunal by the Soviet -Prosecution as Exhibit USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). -This report, in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter, is submitted -as irrefutable evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Count 6 of this report, entitled “Plunder of Public and Private -Property,” reads as follows—this count is on Page 32 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“6. Plunder of public and private property.</p> - -<p>“Along with the exploitation of manpower the plundering -of public and private property was systematically carried out -in Yugoslavia. This plunder was carried out in various ways -and within the scope of the different measures taken. In -this way, too, Germany succeeded in completely exhausting -the economic and financial forces in occupied Yugoslavia and -in destroying her almost completely from the economic point -of view.</p> - -<p>“We shall cite here only a few examples of this systematic -plunder:</p> - -<p>“A. Currency and credit measures.</p> - -<p>“Just as in other occupied countries, the Germans, immediately -after their entry into Yugoslavia, carried out a series of -currency measures which enabled them to take out of Yugoslavia -in great quantities goods and other valuables at an -insignificant price. As early as 14 April 1941”—that is to say, -even before the occupation of Yugoslavia was actually completed—“the -Commander-in-Chief of the Army, ‘on the basis -of the authority received from the Führer and Supreme -Commander of the German Armed Forces,’ issued the ‘Proclamation -Concerning Occupied Yugoslav Territory.’</p> - -<p>“Article 9 of this proclamation fixes an obligatory rate of -exchange of 20 Yugoslav dinars for 1 German mark. Thus the -value of the dinar in relation to the Reichsmark was artificially -and by force lowered. The real rate of exchange before -the war was much more favorable to the Yugoslav currency.</p> - -<p>“This proves clearly the violation of the appropriate regulations -of the Hague Convention, as well as the existence of -<span class='pageno' title='12' id='Page_12'></span> -a plan prepared in advance for the depreciation of Yugoslav -currency.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal a certified photographic copy of the -aforementioned proclamation as Exhibit Number USSR-140 (Document -Number USSR-140).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The second predatory measure in the field of currency policy -was the introduction of German bonds (Reichskreditkassenschein) -as an obligatory means of payment in the occupied -territory of Yugoslavia. This measure was also mentioned -in Paragraph IX of the proclamation submitted to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-140. These so-called occupation -marks, which were without any economic foundation and -without any value whatsoever in Germany itself, were printed -in Yugoslavia in accordance with the needs of the German -forces of occupation and authorities and in this way served -as a means for enabling them to make purchases at a very -low price.</p> - -<p>“On 30 June 1942”—that is to say, more than a year later—“these -Reich bonds were withdrawn. This took place after -the Germans had already bought up almost everything that -could be purchased in Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav State -Bank had been liquidated and all its properties plundered. -In its stead the Germans created the so-called Serbian National -Bank.</p> - -<p>“However, so that the Germans would suffer no loss through -this measure, the Serbian National Bank was forced to exchange -the so-called occupation marks for new dinars. The -marks thus exchanged were simply withdrawn from the -Serbian National Bank by the Germans against receipt. In -this way one of the most shameless plunders was carried out, -which cost Yugoslavia many thousands of millions of dinars.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-194 (Document -Number USSR-194), “the German decree of 30 June 1942 -concerning the withdrawal of notes issued by the Reichskreditkasse -and also a certified copy of the decree concerning the Serbian -National Bank, of 29 May 1941,” as Exhibit Number USSR-135 -(Document Number USSR-135).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It can be seen from these documents that the German occupation -authorities carried out by force the illegal liquidation -of the Yugoslav State Bank, under the pretext that Yugoslavia -no longer existed, and that they took advantage of -this liquidation in order to plunder the country on an enormous -scale.</p> - -<p>“The Germans established the so-called Serbian National -Bank exclusively for the purpose of creating an instrument -<span class='pageno' title='13' id='Page_13'></span> -for their predatory economic and currency policy in Serbia. -The bank was administered by officials whom they themselves -appointed.</p> - -<p>“The measures taken with regard to Yugoslav metal coins are -also very characteristic. The Yugoslav coinage, which -contained a certain percent of silver and brass, was withdrawn, -and replaced by coins of very poor metal alloy. Naturally, -the Germans carried to Germany a large quantity of the -most valuable Yugoslav coins.</p> - -<p>“B. Requisitions and fines.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 40 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Reich Minister Speer, head of the Armament and War Production -Ministry, declared that fixed prices were the Magna -Carta of the Armament Program.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Göring, on 26 March 1943, issued a decree -demanding a further decrease in the prices of all goods imported -from the occupied countries.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“This lowering of prices was attained by means of currency -measures as well as by means of requisitioning, confiscation, -fines, and in particular, through a special price policy.</p> - -<p>“By means of requisitioning, a policy of fixed low prices, and -compulsory sales, the Government of the Reich was enabled -to plunder thoroughly the Yugoslav people. This went so -far that even the quisling institutions collaborating with the -Germans frequently had to declare that the quotas of goods -demanded by the Germans could not be filled.</p> - -<p>“Thus, a report made by the district chief, for the Moravski -District”—quisling administration of Milan Nedic—“on 12 -February 1942, stated:</p> - -<p>“1. If they are deprived of so many cattle, the peasants will -not be able to cultivate their fields. On the one hand, they -are ordered to cultivate every inch of ground, on the other -hand, their cattle are ruthlessly confiscated.</p> - -<p>“2. The cattle are purchased at such a low price that the -peasants feel that they are hardly compensated at all for the -loss of their cattle.</p> - -<p>“Similar examples from other regions or districts of Yugoslavia -are very numerous.</p> - -<p>“In order to plunder the country, the Germans often reverted -to the systematic imposition of money fines. For instance -the cash fines imposed by the ‘Feldkommandantur’ in Belgrade -during 1943 alone amounted to 48,818,068 dinars. In -Nish, during the first 3½ months of 1943, the cash fines -amounted to 5,065,000 dinars. -<span class='pageno' title='14' id='Page_14'></span></p> - -<p>“Finally, we should like to give here a few details regarding -the clearing accounts through which the export of Yugoslav -goods to Germany was carried out. As early as 1 March -1943 the clearing balance in favor of Serbia amounted to -219 million Reichsmark, or 4,380 million dinars. By the end -of the occupation Germany owed Serbia 10,000 million dinars.</p> - -<p>“The situation was the same in all the other provinces of -Yugoslavia, and only the methods of plundering varied -according to local conditions.</p> - -<p>“C. Confiscations.</p> - -<p>“Confiscations were one of the most widespread and effective -means of plundering Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p>“Before the occupation of Yugoslavia was completed in 1941, -a decree on confiscation was issued by the Germans in the -combat zone. Pursuant to this decree the Germans confiscated -enormous quantities of agricultural products, raw materials, -semi-manufactured, and other goods.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal a certified copy of the above-mentioned -decree as Exhibit Number USSR-206 (Document Number USSR-206).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation of the country, the German -occupation authorities introduced by means of numerous -decrees, the system of confiscation of private and public -property.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to save time I skip a part of this section of the document -which quotes concrete examples of the confiscation of property -belonging to the Yugoslav population, and I pass on to the -next count, which is entitled, “Other Methods of Plunder.” The -members of the Tribunal will find this section on Page 52:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Together with the aforesaid methods of plunder, which were -carried out on the basis of various decrees, laws, and regulations, -more primitive methods of looting were practiced throughout -the Yugoslav territory. They were not sporadic incidents -but constituted a part of the German system for enslavement -and exploitation.</p> - -<p>“The Germans plundered everything from industrial and -economic undertakings, down to cattle, food, and even simplest -objects for personal use.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall cite a few examples:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. Immediately after their entry into Yugoslavia, the Germans -looted all the bigger firms and storehouses. They -generally engaged in this form of looting at night, after the -so-called curfew hours.</p> - -<p>“2. The order of Major General Kuebler”—which has already -been submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as -<span class='pageno' title='15' id='Page_15'></span> -Document Number USSR-132—“contains the following passage:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Troops must treat these members of the population who -maintain an unfriendly attitude toward the occupation forces -in a brutal and ruthless manner, depriving the enemy of every -means of existence by the destruction of localities which -have been abandoned and by seizing all available stocks.’</p> - -<p>“On the basis of this and similar orders, the Germans -ceaselessly looted the country under the pretext of so-called -‘control of existing stocks,’ using the opportunities afforded -by the ‘destruction of localities which had been abandoned.’</p> - -<p>“3. Punitive expeditions, which became an everyday event -during the occupation, were, naturally, always accompanied -by the looting of the victims’ property. In the same way they -robbed their prisoners and the bodies of those who had fallen -fighting in the Free National Army, as well as all the internees -in the concentration camps.</p> - -<p>“4. Not even churches were spared. Thus, for example, the -German unit ‘Konrad-Einheit,’ which operated in the vicinity -of Sibenik, looted the Church of St. John in Zablad.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>There are numerous examples of the same kind.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During the 4 years the whole of Yugoslavia was systematically -looted. This was carried out either through numerous -so-called ‘legal measures,’ or through mass looting on the -part of the Germans. The Nazi occupation forces showed -great inventive ability and applied to Yugoslavia the experience -which they had gained in other occupied countries.</p> - -<p>“These criminal measures damaged the Yugoslav State and -its citizens to such an extent that one can consider it simply -as economic destruction of the country.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From this Your Honors may see that the plunder of public and -private property in Yugoslavia was conducted by the Hitlerites -according to a preconceived plan, that it affected every class and -every branch of the country’s economy, and caused enormous -material loss to the Yugoslav State and to its citizens.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I believe -this would be a convenient time to recess.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: After the invasion of Greece, the -Hitlerite conspirators pursued their policy of merciless despoliation -of the occupied countries and immediately began to plunder her -national property. The official report of the Greek Government on -<span class='pageno' title='16' id='Page_16'></span> -the crimes committed by the Hitlerites has already been submitted -to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The appropriate section of this report entitled, “Exploitation,” -gives the concrete facts of the plunder of public and private property -in Greece. I quote the following excerpts from the part, -“Exploitation,” from this report of the Greek Government, which -will be found on Page 59 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Owing to her geographical position, Greece was used by the -Germans as a base of operations for the war in North Africa. -They also used Greece as a rest center for thousands of their -troops from the North African and Eastern fronts, thus concentrating -in Greece much larger forces than were actually -necessary for purpose of occupation.</p> - -<p>“A large part of the local supplies of fruit, vegetables, -potatoes, olive oil, meat, and dairy products were confiscated -to supply these forces. As current production was not sufficient -for these needs, they resorted to the requisitioning of livestock -on a large scale, with the result that the country’s livestock -became seriously depleted.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to requisitioning supplies for their armies, the Hitlerite -conspirators exacted enormous sums of money from Greece -to cover the so-called cost of occupation. In the report of the Greek -Government the following remark is made on the subject—this -is on Page 60 of the document book—I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Between August 1941 and December 1941 the sum of -26,206,085,000 drachmas was paid to the Germans, representing -a sum of 60 percent more than the estimated national -income during the same period. In fact, according to the -estimates of two Axis experts, Dr. Barberin, from Germany, -and Dr. Bartoni, an Italian, the national income for that year -amounted to only 23,000 million drachmas. In the following -year, as the national income decreased, this money was taken -from national funds.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Another method of plundering Greece which the Hitlerites -applied on a vast scale was the so-called requisitions and confiscations. -In order to save time, I shall, with the permission of the -Tribunal, merely read into the record a brief excerpt from the -Greek report dealing with this question. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“One of the enemy’s first measures on occupying Greece was -to seize all the existing stocks in the country by requisition -or open confiscation. Among other goods, they requisitioned -from the wholesale and retail trade 71,000 tons of currants -and 10,000 tons of olive oil; they confiscated 1,435 tons of -<span class='pageno' title='17' id='Page_17'></span> -coffee, 1,143 tons of sugar, 2,520 tons of rice, and a whole -shipload of wheat valued at 530,000 dollars.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As the country was divided among three occupying powers, the -Hitlerites blockaded that part of Greece which was occupied by -their own troops and forbade the export of food supplies from -that zone. The Hitlerites began to confiscate all existing stocks -of food and other goods, a measure which reduced the population to a -state of extreme misery and starvation. This plundering had such -catastrophic consequences for the Greek nation that, finally, even -the Germans themselves were forced to realize that they had gone -too far. The practical result of this was that towards the end of -1942 the German authorities promised the International Commission -of the Red Cross that they would return to the population all the -local products confiscated and exported by the armies of occupation. -The Germans also undertook to replace them by the importation of -products of the same caloric value. This pledge was not fulfilled.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As in all the occupied countries, the Germans issued and put into -circulation an unlimited amount of currency. It should be noted -that this currency represented the so-called occupation marks -without any security. I quote an excerpt from this report, which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 63 in the document -book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“From the very first they”—the Germans—“put into circulation -10,000 million occupation marks, a sum equal to half the -money in circulation at that date. By April 1944 the monetary -circulation had reached 14,000 million drachmas, that is, it had -increased 700 percent since the start of the occupation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Germans, after causing great inflation in that way, purchased -all goods at prices fixed before the occupation. All goods purchased, -as well as valuables, articles of gold, furniture, and so forth, were -shipped by the Germans to Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, as in every country they occupied, the Hitlerites put -into operation in Greece also the so-called “clearing system.” Under -this system, all goods earmarked for export were first confiscated or -put under embargo by the military authorities. Then they were -bought up by German firms at arbitrarily fixed prices. The price of -the goods established in this one-sided way was then credited to -Greece. The prices for merchandise imported from Germany were -fixed at from 200 to 500 percent higher than their normal value. -Finally, Greece was also debited with the price of merchandise -imported from Germany for the needs of the occupation forces. The -Germans called this cynical method of plundering “clearing.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Greek Government -which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 64 of the -document book. I read: -<span class='pageno' title='18' id='Page_18'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In consequence, notwithstanding the fact that Greece -exported the whole of her available resources to Germany, -the clearing account showed a credit balance of 264,157,574.03 -marks in favor of Germany when the Germans left. At the -time of their arrival the credit balance in favor of Greece was -4,353,428.82 marks.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In this way, Your Honors, the Hitlerites plundered the Greek -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, I pass on to the statement of the -facts of the monstrous plunder and pillage to which private, public, -and state property was subjected by the Hitlerite usurpers in the -temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union. The irrefutable -original documents which I shall have the honor to present for your -consideration, Your Honors, will prove that long before their attack -on the U.S.S.R., the fascist conspirators had conceived and prepared -their criminal plans for the plunder and spoliation of its riches and -of its national wealth.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Like all other military crimes committed by the Hitlerites in -countries occupied by them, the plunder and pillage of these -territories was planned and organized beforehand by the major war -criminals whom the determination and valor of the Allied nations -have brought to justice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The crimes committed by those who carried out the conspirators’ -criminal plans over wide areas of the Soviet land, on the fertile -steppes of the Ukraine, in the fields and forests of Bielorussia, in the -rich cornfields of the Kuban and the Don, in the blossoming gardens -of the Crimea, in the approaches to Leningrad and in the Soviet -Baltic States—all these monstrous crimes, all this mass plunder and -wholesale pillage of the sacred wealth created by the peaceable and -honest work of the Soviet peoples, Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, -and others—all these crimes were directly planned, designed, -prepared, and organized by the criminal Hitlerite Government and -the Supreme Command of Armed Forces—the major war criminals, -now occupying the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall begin with evidence as to the premeditated nature of the -crimes committed on U.S.S.R. territory. I shall prove that the -wholesale indiscriminate pillage of private, public, and state property -committed by the German fascist usurpers was not an isolated -occurrence, not a local phenomenon. It was not the result of the -disintegration or the thefts of individual army units but was, on the -contrary, an essential and indissoluble part of the general plan of -attack on the U.S.S.R. and represented, moreover, the fundamental -purpose, the chief motive underlying this criminal aggression.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal if, in stating the facts -connected with the preparations for this type of crimes, I am -<span class='pageno' title='19' id='Page_19'></span> -obliged to refer very briefly also to several of the documents already -submitted to the Tribunal by my American colleagues. I shall -endeavor, however, to avoid repetitions and shall mainly quote -such extracts from these documents as have not been previously -read into the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is known that simultaneously with the elaboration of “Plan -Barbarossa,” which provided for all strategic questions connected -with the attack on the U.S.S.R., purely economic problems arising -from the plan were elaborated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the document known under the title, “Conference of 29 April -1941 with Branches of the Armed Forces,” and presented to the Tribunal -by the American prosecution on 10 December as Document -Number 1157-PS, we read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Purpose of the conference: Explanation of the administrative -organization of the economic section of undertaking ‘Barbarossa-Oldenburg’. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further on in this document it is indicated that the Führer, -contrary to previous practice in the preparation measures envisaged, -ordered that all economic questions were to be worked out by one -center and that this center is to be “the special-purpose economic -staff Oldenburg under the direction of Lieutenant General Schubert” -and that it is to be under the Reich Marshal, that is, Göring. Thus, as -early as April 1941, the Defendant Göring was in charge of all -preparations for plundering the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To finish with this document, I should like to recall that provision -is made in it, even at that early date, for the organization of special -economic inspectorates and commands at Leningrad, Murmansk, -Riga, Minsk, Moscow, Tula, Gorki, Kiev, Baku, Yaroslavl, and many -other Soviet industrial towns. The document points out that the -tasks of these inspectorates and commands included “the economic -utilization of suitable territory” that is, as is explained below, “all -questions of food supply and rural economy, industrial economy, -including raw materials and manufactured articles; forestry, finance -and banking, museums, commerce, trade, and manpower.” As you -see, Your Honors, the tasks were extremely wide and extraordinarily -concrete.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Plan Barbarossa-Oldenburg was further developed in the -so-called “directives for economic management of the newly occupied -eastern territories” which were also elaborated and issued secretly -before the attack on the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Before passing on to the “Green File” I should like to present to -the Tribunal and read but in part another document—the so-called -“File of the District Agricultural Leader,” which was submitted to -the Tribunal by my colleague Colonel Smirnov as Document Number -USSR-89. These very detailed instructions for future district -<span class='pageno' title='20' id='Page_20'></span> -agricultural leaders which were also worked out and published in -advance, bore the title of “District Agricultural Leaders File,” and -were dated 1 June 1941. Naturally this document, too, is also marked -“top secret.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This instruction begins, “12 Commandments for the Behavior of -Germans in the East and Their Attitude towards Russians.” My -colleague, Colonel Smirnov, read into the record only one of those -commandments: and I, with the Tribunal’s permission, shall read -into the record the other commandments. The first commandment -states—the members of the Tribunal will find it on Page 69 of the -document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Those of you who are sent to work in the East must adopt as -your guiding principle the rule that output alone is decisive. -I must ask you to devote your hardest and most unsparing -efforts to this end.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>What sort of “work” is meant is clearly shown by the following -commandments. I quote extracts from this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“5th commandment: It is essential that you should always -bear in mind the end to be attained. You must pursue this -aim with the utmost stubbornness; but the methods used may -be elastic to a degree. The methods employed are left to the -discretion of the individual. . . .</p> - -<p>“6th commandment: Since the newly incorporated territories -must be secured permanently to Germany and Europe, much -will depend on how you establish yourself there. . . . Lack of -character in individuals will constitute a definite ground for -removing them from their work. Anyone recalled for this -reason can never again occupy a responsible position in the -Reich proper.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In this way the future “agricultural leaders” were not only ordered -to be implacable, merciless, and cruel in their plundering activities, -but were also warned of what would happen to them if they were -not implacable enough or if they showed “lack of character.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following commandments develop the same idea:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“7th commandment: Do not ask, ‘How will this benefit the -peasants?’ but ‘How will it benefit Germany?’</p> - -<p>“8th commandment: Do not talk—act! You can never talk a -Russian around or persuade him with words. He can talk -better than you can, for he is a born ‘dialectic’. . . .</p> - -<p>“Only your will must decide, but this will must be directed -to the execution of great tasks. Only in this case will it be -ethical even in its cruelty. Keep away from the Russians—they -are not Germans, they are Slavs. -<span class='pageno' title='21' id='Page_21'></span></p> - -<p>“9th commandment: We do not wish to convert the Russians -to National Socialism; we wish only to make them a tool in -our hands. You must win the youth of Russia by assigning -their task to them—by taking them firmly in hand and -administering ruthless punishment to those who practice -sabotage or fail to accomplish the work expected of them.</p> - -<p>“The investigation of personal records and pleas takes up time -which is needed for your German task. You are neither -investigating magistrates nor yet the Wailing Wall.</p> - -<p>“11th commandment: . . . his (Russian) stomach is elastic, -therefore—no false pity for him!”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such were these commandments for agricultural leaders, which -one should—to be more exact—call “commandments for cannibals.” -The file begins with these “commandments,” which are followed by -a perfectly clear-cut program for the plundering of U.S.S.R. agriculture. -At the beginning of this program we read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Fundamental economical directives for the Organization of -Economic Policy in the East, Agricultural Group.</p> - -<p>“As regards food policy, the aim of this campaign is:</p> - -<p>“1. To guarantee food supplies for many years ahead for the -German Armed Forces and the German civilian population.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As you see, Your Honors, a perfectly clear and candid formulation -of the aims of the attack on the U.S.S.R. is given. Of course, it does -not exhaust these aims. This aim was not confined to the stealing of -provisions, and provisions were far from being the only thing stolen. -This is only an extract from the agricultural leaders’ file, and they -were not the only people to be entrusted with tasks of pillage and -to perform these tasks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The file as a whole contains the following sections of a carefully -thought out and extremely concrete program for the plunder of the -Soviet Union’s agriculture. I read the table of contents. Your -Honors will find this document on Page 67 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. 12 commandments. 2. General economic directives. 3. Organization -chart. 4. Instructions for the regional agricultural -leader. 5. Instructions for securing personnel. 6. State farms: -Directives on the taking over and management of State farms. -7. Directives for taking over and managing collective farms. -8. Agriculture machine depots, directives regarding administration. -9. Directives for registration. 10. Furnishing food -supplies for the cities. 11. Schedules for agricultural work. -12. Price lists.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not, Your Honor, going to take up your time by reading the -whole of this document, which consists of 98 typewritten pages. I -<span class='pageno' title='22' id='Page_22'></span> -am presenting it to the Tribunal in its entirety, to be included in the -files of the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read from this document, already presented to the Tribunal -by my American colleagues on 10 December of last year as -Exhibit Number USA-147 (Document 1058-PS), only a few short -lines. It is a note of the record of a speech made by Rosenberg at -a secret conference on 20 June 1941, dealing with questions of the -East. In his speech, Rosenberg stated particularly:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The problem of feeding German nationals undeniably heads -the German demands on the East just now, and here the -southern regions and the northern Caucasus must help to -balance the German food situation. We certainly do not -consider ourselves obliged to feed the Russian people as well -from the produce of these fertile regions. We know that this is -a cruel necessity, which has nothing to do with any humane -feelings. It will undoubtedly be necessary to carry out -evacuation on a large scale and the Russians are doomed to -live through some very hard years.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus did the leaders of Hitlerite Germany formulate the tasks -they set themselves when preparing their attack on the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Already in August 1942—that is, from 26 to 28 August—Gauleiter -Koch, who had just arrived from Hitler’s headquarters, spoke at the -conference in Rovno. The record of this conference was found in -Rosenberg’s archives. This document was kindly put at our disposal -by our American colleagues. It is registered as Document Number -264-PS, but it has not been presented to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read into the record an excerpt from this record. The members -of the Tribunal will find it on Page 72 in the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“He”—Koch—“explained the political situation and his tasks -as Reich Commissioner”—in the following way—“ ‘There is -no free Ukraine. We must aim at making the Ukrainians work -for Germany, and not at making the people here happy. The -Ukraine will have to make good the German shortages. This -task must be accomplished without regard for losses. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘The Führer has ordered 3 million tons of grain from the -Ukraine for the Reich, and they must be delivered. . . .’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall show later how far this original figure—3 million tons of -grain—was exceeded by the Hitlerite plunderers, whose avid -appetites grew from month to month.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these aims of plunder had been planned in advance by the -criminal Hitlerite Government, who worked out an organized scheme -for carrying out organized plunder and practical methods of pillaging -the occupied territories. -<span class='pageno' title='23' id='Page_23'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>With the Tribunal’s permission I shall read extracts from a secret -document by Reich Marshal Göring which was captured by units of -the Red Army. This document bears the title, “Directives for -Economic Management in the Newly Occupied Areas in the East -(Green File),” and extracts of it have already been mentioned by my -colleagues. This document is presented by the Soviet Prosecution as -Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document Number USSR-10).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The title page of the document reads—Page 76 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Eastern Staff for Economic Leadership; top secret.</p> - -<p>“Note: The present directives are to be considered as top-secret -documents (documents of State importance) until -X-Day; after X-Day they will no longer be secret and will be -treated as open documents for official use only.</p> - -<p>“Directives on the subject of economic management in the -newly occupied areas in the East (Green File).</p> - -<p>“Part I. Economic tasks and organization, Berlin, June 1941; -printed by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As is clear from the text of the document, these directives were -published immediately before Germany’s attack on the U.S.S.R. “for -the information of military and economic authorities regarding -economic tasks in the eastern territories to be occupied.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In setting forth the “main economic tasks” the directives state in -the first paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I. According to the Führer’s order, it is essential in the -interests of Germany that every possible measure for the -immediate and complete exploitation of the occupied territories -be adopted. Any measure liable to hinder the achievement of -this purpose should be waived or cancelled.</p> - -<p>“II. The exploitation of the regions to be occupied immediately -should be carried out primarily in the economic field controlling -food supplies and crude oil. The main economic -purpose of the campaign is to obtain the greatest possible -quantity of food and crude oil for Germany. In addition, other -raw materials from the occupied territories must be supplied -to the German war economy as far as is technically possible -and as far as the claims of the industries to be maintained -outside the Reich permit.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next part of the excerpt, and I pass on to the following -excerpt, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 78:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The idea that order should be restored in the occupied -territories and their economic life re-established as soon as -possible is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, the treatment -of the different parts of the country must be a very different -<span class='pageno' title='24' id='Page_24'></span> -one. Order should only be restored and industry promoted in -regions where we can obtain considerable reserves of -agricultural products or crude oil.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of this quotation in order to save time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, the plan devised in advance for the organized plunder -of the Soviet Union provided in detail for the removal from the -U.S.S.R. to Germany of all raw materials, supplies, and stocks of -goods available. In confirmation of this I cite excerpts from this -document so that I shall not have to read it in full. The members of -the Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page 83, 87, and 88 of the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“All raw materials, semi-manufactured, or finished products of -which we can make use are to be withdrawn from commerce. -This will be done by IV Wi and by the economic authorities -by means of appeals and orders, by ordering confiscation or -by military supervision, or both.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Page 88—from the section “Raw Material and the Exploitation of -Commercial Resources”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Platinum, magnesium, and rubber are to be secured at once -and transported to Germany as soon as possible.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Back of Page 87:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Food products, articles for personal use, and clothing -discovered in combat and rear zones are to be placed at the -disposal of IV A for immediate military requirements.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Back of Page 83—in the section of the directives entitled -“Economic Organization” we find a project of an apparatus with -wide ramifications which was to carry out this organized plunder of -the U.S.S.R. I shall read a series of excerpts from this section, which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 79 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“A. General questions.</p> - -<p>“To guarantee undivided economic leadership in the theater of -military activities, as well as in the administrative areas to be -established at a later date, the Reich Marshal has organized -the ‘Staff for Economic Leadership East’ directly under -himself and headed by his representative, State Secretary -Körner.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The orders of the Reich Marshal apply to all economic -spheres, including food supply and rural economy.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In directing your attention to these two excerpts, Your Honors, -I consider it definitively proved that the Defendant Göring not only -had personal charge of the preparations for the plunder of private, -<span class='pageno' title='25' id='Page_25'></span> -public, and state property, but later on directed personally the vast -apparatus specially set up for these criminal purposes. You can -judge of the projected organization of this apparatus, by the following -extracts from the Green File. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Organization of Economic Administration in the operational -area.</p> - -<p>“1. The economic establishments, subordinated to the Economic -Staff East, insofar as their activities cover the theater of -military activities, are incorporated in the army staffs and are -subordinate to them in military matters, namely:</p> - -<p>“A. In the rear area: One economic inspectorate at each of the -chief commands of the rear area; one or several mobile units -of the economic section with the security divisions; one IV Wi -group at each of the field command headquarters.</p> - -<p>“B. In the army administration district: One IV Wi group -(liaison officer Wi Rü Amt) with the army commander. One -IV Wi group for each of the field commands attached to the -army of the region; in addition, as and when necessary, -economic units are sent forward to the armies in the field. -These units are subordinate in military matters to the army -command.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further on, in Paragraph 4 of this same section, under the title -“Structure of the Individual Economic Institutions” the whole plan -of construction of the Economic Staff East is described. I shall cite -it in my own words in order to save time. The members of the -Tribunal will find the document to which I refer at the back of -Page 79 in the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Chief of the Economic Staff with the leadership group (field of -activity, leadership questions, also manpower); Group IA, in charge -of food and agriculture, running the entire agricultural production -and also the assembling of supplies for the army; Group W, in -charge of industry, raw materials, forestry, finance, banking -property, and trade; Group M, in charge of troop requirements, -armaments, and transport; economic inspectorates attached to army -groups, in charge of the economic exploitation of the rear area. -Economic task forces organized in the zone of each security division -and consisting of one officer as commander, and several specialists -in different branches of the work. Economic groups attached to the -field commands, who are responsible for supplying the immediate -requirements of the troops stationed within the sphere of activity of -the field command and for preparing the economic exploitation of -the country in the interests of war economy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To these economic groups were attached experts on manpower, -food production and agriculture, industrial economy and general -economic questions; the economic section, attached to the army -<span class='pageno' title='26' id='Page_26'></span> -command, with special technical battalions and platoons as well as -special intelligence subsections for industrial research, particularly -in the field of raw materials and crude oil, and subsections for -discovering and securing agricultural produce and machines, -including tractors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This same plan also provides for special technical units for crude -oil—battalions and companies—and also the so-called mining -battalions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, under the direct control of the Defendant Göring, a whole -army of plunderers of all ranks and branches was provided, prepared, -trained, and drilled in advance for the organized pillage and looting -of the national property of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I will not take up your time by reading the whole -text of the Green File; I shall limit myself to enumerating its -remaining sections, which bear the following titles—Page 77 in the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Execution of individual economic tasks; Economic transport; -Problems of military protection of economy; Procuring of -supplies for the troops out of the resources of the country; -Utilization of manpower, particularly of the local population; -War booty, paid labor, captured material, prize courts; -Economic objectives of war industries; Raw materials and -utilization of goods available; Finance and credit; Foreign -trade and clearings; Price control.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Thus the plunder of all branches of the U.S.S.R.’s national economy -was foreseen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To conclude I shall read into the record Keitel’s order, dated -16 June 1941, 6 days before the attack on the U.S.S.R., in which he -instructed all military units of the German Army to be ready to -execute all the directives of the Green File. I shall now read this -order—you will find this, Your Honors, at the back of Page 89 of -the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By the Führer’s order, the Reich Marshal has issued ‘Directives -for the Guidance of the Economic Administration of the -Territories To Be Occupied.’</p> - -<p>“These directives (Green File) are intended for the guidance -of the military command and economic authorities in the -economic tasks within the territories to be occupied in the -immediate future. They contain directives for supplying the -army from the resources of the country and give orders to -army units to assist the economic authorities. Army units -must comply with these directions and orders.</p> - -<p>“The immediate and thorough exploitation of the territories -to be occupied in the immediate future in the interest of -<span class='pageno' title='27' id='Page_27'></span> -Germany’s war economy, especially in the field of fuel and -food supply, is of the highest importance for the further -conduct of the war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the second part of this order which contains detailed -instructions as to how the directives of the Green File should be -executed, and I read only the last paragraph of Keitel’s order:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The exploitation of the country must be carried out on a -wide scale, with the help of field and local headquarters, in -the most important agricultural and oil-producing districts.</p> - -<p>“Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The concluding provision of this document, which says that “the -exploitation of the country must be carried out on a wide scale” -was strictly observed by units of the German Army; and the -occupied regions of the U.S.S.R., from the very first day of the war, -were subjected to the most merciless plunder. In confirmation of -this, I shall later present to the Tribunal a series of original German -documents, orders, directives, instructions, decrees, and so forth, -issued by German military authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Meanwhile, to finish with the Green File, I may state in conclusion -that this striking document is definite evidence of the -remarkable qualifications for plunder and the vast experience in -brigandage of the Hitlerite conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The program for plundering the occupied territories of the -Soviet Union, conceived on a wide scale and elaborated in detail by -the conspirators, was put into practice by the Hitlerite aggressors -from the very first days of their attack on the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from the organized plunder carried out by the vast -apparatus specially formed for this purpose—an apparatus consisting -of all kinds of agricultural leaders, inspectors, specialists in -economics, technical and intelligence battalions and companies, -economic groups and detachments, military agronomists, and so -forth—the so-called “material interest” of the German soldiers and -officers, who had unlimited possibilities of robbing the civilian -population and sending their booty to Germany, was widely -encouraged by the Hitlerite Government and the High Command of -the German Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The universal plundering of the population of the towns and -villages of the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. and the mass -removal to Germany of the personal property of Soviet citizens, -the property taken from the collective farms and co-operative unions -and the property of the State itself, was carried out according to a -prearranged plan wherever the German fascist aggressors appeared.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I turn, Your Honors, to the presentation of individual Soviet -Government documents on this question. A few months after -<span class='pageno' title='28' id='Page_28'></span> -Hitlerite Germany’s treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the Soviet -Government had already received irrefutable data about the war -crimes committed by the Hitlerite armies in the Soviet territories -they occupied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleagues have already presented to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-51 a note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs of the U.S.S.R., Molotov, dated 6 January 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to avoid repetition and to save time, I shall read only -a few excerpts from this note which have a direct bearing on the -subject of my presentation. You will find the quoted extracts, -underlined on Page 100 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Every step which the German fascist army and its allies took -on the occupied Soviet territory of the Ukraine and Moldavia, -Bielorussia and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the Karelo-Finnish -territory and the Russian districts and regions is -marked by the ruin or destruction of countless objects of -material and cultural value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The last paragraph of this quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the villages occupied by German authorities, the peaceful -peasant population is subjected to unrestrained depredation -and robbery. The farmers are robbed of their property, -acquired through whole decades of persistent toil, robbed of -their houses, cattle, grain, clothing—of everything, down to -their children’s last little garments and the last handful of -grain. In many cases, the Germans drive the rural population, -including old people, women, and children, out of their -dwellings as soon as the village is occupied and they are -compelled to seek shelter in mud huts, dugouts, forests, or -even under the open sky. In broad daylight the invaders -strip the clothing and footgear from anyone they meet on the -road, including children, savagely ill-treating those who try to -protest against, or offer any kind of resistance to, such highway -robbery.</p> - -<p>“In the villages liberated by the Red Army in the Rostov -and Voroshilovgrad regions in the Ukraine, the peasants were -plundered again and again by the invaders. As successive -German army units passed through these areas each of them -renewed their searches, lootings, arsons, and executions for -failure to deliver up provisions. The same thing took place in -the Moscow, Kalinin, Tula, Orel, Leningrad, and other regions, -from which the remnants of the German troops are now being -driven by the Red Army.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to save time I shall not read the next paragraphs of -this note, but shall give an account of them to the Tribunal in my -<span class='pageno' title='29' id='Page_29'></span> -own words. They contain a whole series of concrete facts of the -looting of the peaceful population in different regions of the Soviet -Union and the names of the victims as well as the list of such -things and belongings as were taken from these peaceful citizens. -Further, this note reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The marauding orgies of the German officers and soldiers -have spread to all the Soviet areas they have seized. The -German authorities have legitimatized marauding in their -armies and encouraged looting and violence. The German -Government sees in this practice the realization of their -bandit principle that every German combatant must have -‘a personal interest in the war.’ Thus, in a confidential order -of 17 July 1941, addressed to all commanders of propaganda -squads in the German Army and discovered by Red Army -units when the 68th German Infantry Division was routed, -explicit instructions are given to foster in every officer and -soldier of the German Army the feeling that he has a material -interest in the war. Similar orders inciting the army to mass -looting and murder of the civil population are also issued -by the armies of the countries fighting on the German side.</p> - -<p>“On the German-Soviet front, and especially in the vicinity -of Moscow, more and more fascist officers and soldiers can be -met dressed in pilfered clothes, their pockets crammed with -stolen goods and their tanks stuffed with women’s and -children’s wearing apparel torn from their victims’ bodies. -The German Army is becoming more and more an army of -ravenous thieves and marauders, who are looting and sacking -flourishing towns and villages of the Soviet Union, ravaging -and destroying the property and belongings of the laboring -population of our villages and towns, the fruit of its honest -toil. These are facts testifying to the extreme moral depravity -and degeneracy of the Hitlerite Army, whose looting, thievery, -and marauding have earned it the contempt and the curses -of the entire Soviet nation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Several months later, on 27 April 1942, in connection with the -information which continued to come in regarding the crimes committed -by the German fascist armies, Molotov, People’s Commissar -for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., published for the second time a -note on the monstrous misdeeds, atrocities, and acts of violence of -the German fascist invaders in occupied Soviet territories and on -the responsibility of the German Government and the High Command -for these crimes. This second note is also submitted to the -Tribunal. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General, what do you mean by “published”? -<span class='pageno' title='30' id='Page_30'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: What I mean is that this note -was first sent to all the governments with whom the U.S.S.R. -Government maintained diplomatic relations. The text of the note -was also published in the Soviet official press.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document has already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution -as Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). -I shall read a few brief excerpts from this document which have -a direct bearing on the subject of my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now, and you -can read it after the adjournment.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='31' id='Page_31'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court: -I desire to announce that the Defendant Streicher will be absent on -account of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I shall read now excerpts from the -note of the People’s Commissar. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the -interpreting system.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Owing to the delay the Tribunal will sit until -half past 5 tonight without further adjournment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Colonel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I am reading into the record -excerpts from the note by the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs dated 27 April 1942, and in order to save time I shall, with -your permission, quote only a few of the most necessary excerpts -from this note. They are very short. In this note, attention was -drawn to the fact that the documents captured by the Soviet authorities -and put at the disposal of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs are evidence of the premeditated nature of the plunder -carried out by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the following excerpts; last paragraph on Page 44 of my -statement, Russian text.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The appendix to Special Order Number 43761/41 of the Operations -Department of the General Staff of the German Army, -states:</p> - -<p>“ ‘It is urgently necessary that articles of clothing be acquired -by means of forced levies on the population of the occupied -regions enforced by every possible means. It is necessary -above all to confiscate woolen and leather gloves, coats, vests, -and scarves, padded vests and trousers, leather and felt boots, -and puttees.’</p> - -<p>“In several places liberated in the districts of Kursk and Orel, -the following orders have been found:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Property such as scales, sacks, grain, salt, kerosene, benzine, -lamps, pots and pans, oilcloth, window blinds, curtains, -rugs, phonographs, and records must be turned in to the commandant’s -office. Anyone violating this order will be shot.’ -<span class='pageno' title='32' id='Page_32'></span></p> - -<p>“In the town of Istra, in the Moscow region, the invaders -confiscated decorations for Christmas trees and toys. In the -Shakhovskaya railway station they organized the ‘delivery’ -by the inhabitants of children’s underwear, wall clocks, and -samovars. In districts still under the rule of the invaders, -these searches are still going on; and the population, already -reduced to the utmost poverty by the thefts which have been -perpetrated continually since the first appearance of the German -troops, is still being robbed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of the quotation from Mr. Molotov’s note and -conclude with the last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The general character of the campaign of robbery planned -by the Hitler Government, on which the German Command -tried to base its plans for supplying its Army and the districts -in its rear, is indicated by the following facts: In 25 districts -of the Tula region alone the invaders robbed Soviet citizens of -14,048 cows, 11,860 hogs, 28,459 sheep, 213,678 chickens, geese, -and ducks, and destroyed 25,465 beehives.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of this quotation which gives an inventory -of all property, cattle, and fowl confiscated by the invaders from -25 districts of the Tula region.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, the notes which I have read, mention only a few -of the innumerable crimes and cases of plunder committed by the -Hitlerites on Soviet soil.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With the permission of the Tribunal I shall now present several -German documents from which you will see how the German commanders -and officials themselves described their soldiers’ behavior. -Later I shall read candid statements by the German fascist leaders -saying that German soldiers and officers must not be hindered in -their marauding activities. It is natural that under these conditions -the moral disintegration of the German fascist armies should reach -its culminating point. Things reached such a point that the Hitlerites -begin to plunder each other, thereby proving the truth of the well-known -Russian proverb, “A thief stole a cudgel from a thief.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I now quote from the document which I present to the -Tribunal as Document Number USSR-285. This is an extract from -a report of the German District Commissioner of Zhitomir to the -Commissioner General of Zhitomir dated 30 November 1943. You -will find the document to which I refer on Page 93 in the document -book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Even before the German administration left Zhitomir, troops -stationed there were seen to break into the apartments of -Reich Germans and to appropriate everything that had any -value. Even the personal luggage of Germans still working in -<span class='pageno' title='33' id='Page_33'></span> -their offices was stolen. When the town was reoccupied it -was established that the houses where the Germans lived -were hardly touched by the local population, but that the -troops just entering the town had already started to loot the -houses and business premises. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the second excerpt from the same document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The soldiers are not satisfied with taking the articles they -can use, but they destroyed some of the remaining items; -valuable furniture was used for fires, although there was -plenty of wood.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I shall read into the record an excerpt from a report of -the German District Commissioner of the town of Korostyshev to -the Commissioner General of Zhitomir. The members of the Tribunal -will find this excerpt on Page 94 of the document book.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Unfortunately the German soldiers behaved badly. Unlike -the Russians they broke into the storehouses even when the -front line was still far away. Enormous quantities of grain -were stolen, including large quantities of seed. That might -have been tolerated in the case of combat units. . . . Upon the -return of our troops to Popelnaya, the warehouses were again -broken into immediately. The ‘Gebiets- und Kreislandwirt’ -nailed up the doors again, but the soldiers broke in once -more.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read into the record other excerpts from the same document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Kreislandwirt reported to me that the dairy farm was -plundered by retreating units; the soldiers carried away with -them butter, cheese, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And the second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The co-operative store was plundered before the eyes of the -Ukrainians. Among other things the soldiers took with them -all the cash in the store.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the third excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On the 9th and 10th of this month the guards of the field -gendarmerie were posted at the co-operative store in Korostyshev. -These guards could not repel the onslaught of the -soldiers. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And the last excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Pigs and fowls were slaughtered to the most irresponsible -degree and taken away by the soldiers. . . . The appearance of -the troops themselves can only be described as catastrophic.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In these towns; Your Honors, is the conduct of the German -soldiers depicted by a German commissioner in his official report. -<span class='pageno' title='34' id='Page_34'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is no doubt that this description is an objective one, -especially since it is supplemented by an official report of the -German Ukrainian company for supplying agriculture in the Commissariat -General, addressed to the Commissioner General of -Zhitomir. This is how the report describes the results of a raid by -German soldiers on the company’s premises, “. . . The office was in -a horrifying and incredible condition.” Second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . A 20-room private house at Hauptstrasse Number 57 -had an appalling appearance. Carpets and stair carpets were -missing, and all the upholstered armchairs, couches, beds with -spring or other mattresses, chairs, and wooden benches.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I skip a few lines:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The condition of the living rooms generally is almost indescribable.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit two more excerpts from the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Such, Your Honors, is the heartcry of the German brigands of -the company for the economic adoption of the Ukraine, who themselves -complain of the brigands in the German Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show that it was not only in Zhitomir and Korostyshev -that such things took place, I shall quote yet another report, this -time by the Commissioner of the Kazatinsky district, which contains -the following statement, “. . . The German soldiers stole food, -cattle, and vehicles.” This laconic but significant introduction is -followed by no less significant details:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Threatening him with a pistol, the corporal demanded the -keys of the granary from the District Commissioner. . . . -When I said that the key was in my pocket, he yelled, ‘Give -me the key.’ With these words he pulled out his pistol, stuck -it against my chest, and shouted, ‘I’m going to shoot you—you -are a shirker.’ He followed up this remark by a few -more specimens of invective, thrust his hand into my pocket -and grabbed the key, saying, ‘I am the only person who gives -orders here.’ This occurred in the presence of numerous -Germans and Ukrainians.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The chief of the main department, Dr. Moisich, relates the -same story in a report to the Commissioner General of Zhitomir, -dated 4 December 1943. All these documents are being presented in -their original form to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now, Your Honors, proceed to read excerpts from the -official reports and communiques of the Extraordinary State Commission -of the Soviet Union for the investigation and establishment -of crimes committed by the German intruders and their accomplices. -In order to save time, I ask the Tribunal to permit me to read -<span class='pageno' title='35' id='Page_35'></span> -only a few excerpts from these documents, and to give you the -contents of the rest in my own words.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the -looting and crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites in the city and -district of Rovno has already been submitted to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-45. The corresponding section of this -report reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During their stay in Rovno and the district, Hitlerite officers -and soldiers unrestrainedly plundered the peaceful Soviet -citizens and thoroughly looted the property of cultural and -educational institutions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not quote all the data mentioned in this report of the -Extraordinary State Commission. The report made by the Extraordinary -State Commission on the atrocities committed by the -Hitlerites in Kiev, and submitted to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-9, emphasizes the fact that the Hitlerites plundered -the peaceful population of Kiev. I quote a brief extract, “The -German occupation forces in the city of Kiev looted factory equipment -and carried it off to Germany.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Following the directives of the criminal German Government -and the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces, the -satellite states also joined in plundering and other crimes. Romanian -troops who temporarily occupied Odessa along with German Armed -Forces plundered this flourishing city in accordance with instructions -from their German masters. The report of the Extraordinary -State Commission concerning the crimes committed by German and -Romanian invaders in Odessa reads in part as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . The Romanians damaged Odessa considerably from the -economic and industrial point of view during the occupation.</p> - -<p>“German-Romanian aggressors have confiscated and removed -to Romania 1,042,013 centners of grain, 45,227 horses, 87,646 -head of cattle, 31,821 pigs, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, belonging to co-operative -farms and co-operative farmers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the -damages inflicted by the German fascist invaders on industry, urban -economy, and cultural and educational institutions in the Stalino -region, already presented to the Tribunal as Document Number -USSR-2, also gives a good deal of data on the looting and removal to -Germany of the factory equipment of this important industrial -region.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have quoted only a few of the reports compiled by the Extraordinary -State Commission on certain districts of the Ukraine. This -flourishing Soviet republic was subjected to unrestrained looting -by the Hitlerites. The Hitlerite conspirators considered the Ukraine -<span class='pageno' title='36' id='Page_36'></span> -a tidbit and plundered her with exceptional voracity. I should like -to read several documents in proof of the above.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Rosenberg’s letter to Reichsleiter Bormann dated 17 October -1944. This document which has already been submitted on 17 December -by the United States Prosecution under Exhibit Number -USA-338 (Document Number 327-PS) states that the Central Trading -Company for the East for marketing of agricultural produce sent -the following goods to Germany in the period between 1943 and -31 March 1944 only:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Cereals, 9,200,000 tons; meat and meat products, 622,000 tons; -oil seed, 950,000 tons; butter, 208,000 tons; sugar, 400,000 tons; -fodder, 2,500,000 tons; potatoes, 3,200,000 tons, and so forth.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Rosenberg reported his “agricultural achievements” -to Hitler’s closest assistant in these terms.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It should be noted that during the first year of the war the -voracity shown by the Hitlerites in plundering the Ukraine was so -great, that it awakened certain misgivings even in themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read an excerpt from a letter addressed by the Inspector -of Armaments in the Ukraine to the Infantry General Thomas, Chief -of the Economic Armament Office of the OKW. The letter is dated -2 December 1941. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by -the United States Prosecution on 14 December as Document Number -3257-PS. I read a short excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The export of agricultural surpluses from the Ukraine for -the purpose of feeding the Reich is only possible if the internal -trade in the Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. This can be -attained by the following measures:</p> - -<p>“1. Elimination of unwanted consumers (Jews; the populations -of the large Ukrainian towns, which, like Kiev, receive no -food allocation whatsoever).</p> - -<p>“2. Reduction as far as possible of food rations allocated to -the Ukrainians in other towns.</p> - -<p>“3. Reduction of food consumption by the peasant population.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Having outlined this program, the author explains further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“If the Ukrainian is to be made to work, we must look after -his physical existence, not for sentimental motives, but for -purely business reasons.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraphs of this quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>However, the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Koch, went -steadily on with his policy of ruthlessly plundering the Ukraine. -In due course I shall submit to you numerous further documents, -also in the original, in confirmation of the above. Koch’s policy met -with the approbation of the Hitlerite Government. -<span class='pageno' title='37' id='Page_37'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is worthy of note that at the beginning of the war the plundering -of the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. was organized in -accordance with the directives contained in the Green File, already -mentioned. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-13 -(Document Number USSR-13), a letter by Göring dated 6 September -1941 on the subject of inspection for the seizure and utilization of -raw materials, in which, among other things, the following passage -occurs—the Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 131 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The war emergency demands that the supplies of raw -materials found in the recently captured eastern territories -be put at the disposal of the German war economy as quickly -as possible. The Directives for the Economic Management of -the Occupied Eastern Territories (Green File) are to be taken -as authoritative.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the last part of the quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Later however, when the Germans set up their so-called civil -administration and organized a number of special economic bodies -in various occupied territories including the Ukraine, in particular, -disputes arose among the numerous German military and civil -bodies and organizations, all of whom were engaged in plundering -the occupied territories. Rosenberg, as Reich Minister for the Eastern -Occupied Territories, began to insist that all military and economic -organizations in the Ukraine were to be liquidated and their functions -transferred to German civil administrations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal a draft report for State Secretary -Körner on this subject, dated 3 December 1943, as Exhibit Number -USSR-180 (Document Number USSR-180). I read from it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subject, 1. Economic administration in the Occupied Eastern -Territories; 2. General economic staff for the occupied territories.</p> - -<p>“In a letter to the Reich Marshal, dated 20 November 1943, -copies of which were sent to the Chief of Staff of the OKW, -and the Leader of the Party Chancellery, Minister Rosenberg -made the following demands:</p> - -<p>“1. For the Ukraine,</p> - -<p>“a. Military economic establishment still in existence to be -dissolved.</p> - -<p>“b. The office of Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments -to be abolished and the military functions of the latter -to be taken over again by the Chief Quartermaster.</p> - -<p>“c. In case of the retention of the office of the Chief of the -Army Group Economic Departments the practice of the same -specialists working both in the Reich Commissariat and under -<span class='pageno' title='38' id='Page_38'></span> -the Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments to be -discontinued.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest. In the same draft are detailed objections made -by General Stapf and submitted by him to Keitel. He criticizes -Rosenberg’s suggestion and advises the retention of the Economic -Staff East.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I present as -Exhibit Number USSR-174 (Document Number USSR-174), another -original document which is a covering letter from the Permanent -Deputy of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories -to State Secretary Körner on the same subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Written suggestions by Rosenberg were appended to this letter -in which Rosenberg insists that the entire economic activities be -placed under the control of his ministry once more. As this is a -rather long document and I am presenting it in the original, I ask -your permission not to read it since it is mainly concerned with -Rosenberg’s proposal, which I have already described to the Tribunal. -For the information of the interpreters—I omit two pages -of my presentation and pass to Page 62.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Evidently Rosenberg did not receive the answer he wanted, so -on 24 January 1944 he again wrote to Göring on the same subject. -I submit this letter as Exhibit Number USSR-179 (Document Number -USSR-179). In this letter Rosenberg suggests—I shall read into the -record a short quotation, which the Tribunal will find on Page 151 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . in the interest of smooth working and economy of staff, -I would request that the Economic Staff East and its subordinate -agencies be abolished and that the economic administration -in the Occupied Eastern Territories and even in -those districts where fighting is still going on, be transferred -to my sphere of authority.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Göring replied to this in a letter dated 14 February, which I offer -in evidence as part of the same Exhibit Number USSR-179. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Dear Party Member Rosenberg:</p> - -<p>“I received your letter of 24 January 1944 regarding economic -administration in the Occupied Eastern Territories. Since the -Reich Commissariat Ukraine is now almost entirely army -administrative territory”—this is a reference to the Red -Army offensive—“I consider it advisable to postpone our -conference on the future organization of the economic administration -until the military situation is completely clarified.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Your Honors, Rosenberg’s claims met with resistance on -the part of other German authorities who stubbornly refused to -give up such a choice “economic activity.” -<span class='pageno' title='39' id='Page_39'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Rosenberg in his turn refused to yield and continued to press -his demands. I now offer in evidence the following document, -Exhibit Number USSR-173 (Document Number USSR-173)—this is -a letter from Rosenberg to Göring dated 6 March 1944. In this -letter, Rosenberg refers to his experience in Bielorussia and again -urges his proposals. It is a long document and I shall not read it, -as it is presented to the Tribunal <span class='it'>in toto</span>. But Göring still had his -doubts and decided against Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 6 April 1944, a month after the above-mentioned letter was -sent off, Rosenberg again wrote to Göring. This document I submit -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-176 (Document Number -USSR-176). May I omit reading it into the record, since in substance -it is like the last; and the arguments advanced in it are not -such as to interest us greatly now. I omit Page 65 and pass on to -Page 66.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Your Honors, even when the Red Army was delivering its -last crippling blows against the German fascist hordes, the Hitlerite -brigands went on quarreling about the spoils. I think there is no -need to prove that while this haggling continued, the occupied -territories were looted in feverish haste by the German authorities, -both military and civil.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Your Honors, I shall read some brief excerpts from the -report made by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union on the crimes committed by the Hitlerite invaders in the -Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republics, which -were also mercilessly plundered by the German fascist aggressors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these reports have been already presented to the Tribunal -by the Soviet Prosecution. The report of the Extraordinary State -Commission on the crimes of the Hitlerites in the Lithuanian Soviet -Socialist Republic contains the following statement:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“As the result of the way in which the Hitlerite invaders -managed affairs, even according to incomplete data, the -number of livestock and poultry in all the 14 districts of the -Lithuanian S.S.R. decreases in comparison with the year -1940-41 by 136,140 horses, 565,995 cattle, 463,340 pigs. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now quote excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission on the crimes committed by the German invaders -in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. For the information of -the interpreters—this quotation is on Page 68, second paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans plundered the depots of tractors and agricultural -machinery throughout Latvia; and according to figures -which are far from complete, they sent to Germany 700 tractors, -180 motor vehicles, 4,057 ploughs, 2,815 cultivators, 3,532 -harrows.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='40' id='Page_40'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Second quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In consequence of the despoliation of Latvian rural economy -by the German invaders, the livestock in Latvia was decreased -by 127,300 horses, 443,700 head of cattle, 318,200 pigs, and -593,800 sheep.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, I shall read a short excerpt from the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission on the Estonian S.S.R.: I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German invaders plundered the rural population of -Estonia without restraint. This plunder took the form of -forcing the peasants to hand over various kinds of farm -produce.</p> - -<p>“The quantities of farm produce to be delivered as ordered -by the Germans were very high.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit part of the quotation and I read the second paragraph -on the next page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans confiscated and drove to Germany 107,000 -horses, 31,000 cows, 214,000 pigs, 790,000 head of poultry. -They plundered about 50,000 beehives.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one more paragraph and I read the last quotation from -this report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites took away 1,000 threshing machines, 600 -threshing machine motors, 700 motors for driving belts, 350 -tractors, and 24,781 other agricultural machines which were -the personal property of individual peasants.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, a similar policy of plundering private, public, and -national property was also carried out by the German fascist -invaders in the occupied territories of Bielorussia, Moldavia, the -Karelo-Finnish S.S.R. and the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist -Republic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Various military units and organizations in different districts of -the U.S.S.R. employed the same methods of plunder at all stages -of the war in accordance with the same criminal plan and in pursuit -of the same criminal aims. This plan was worked out, these aims -were determined, these crimes were organized by the major war -criminals who are now in the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The U.S.S.R. Prosecution has at its disposal tens of thousands of -documents on this subject. The presentation of all these numerous -documents to the Tribunal would require such a long time that it -would only complicate the Trial. For this reason, with the Tribunal’s -permission, I shall not quote any further documents or -reports of the Extraordinary State Commission on separate regions -and republics, but I shall read into the record the statistical report -of the Extraordinary State Commission relative to the material -damage done by the German fascists to state enterprises and -<span class='pageno' title='41' id='Page_41'></span> -establishments, collective farms, public organizations, and individual -citizens of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is being presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35). I shall read into -the record only those extracts from the report which have a direct -bearing on the subject of my presentation. They are stated as -follows—Page 71 of the statement:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist aggressors destroyed and pillaged 98,000 -collective farms, 1,876 State farms, and 2,890 machine and -tractor stations. Seven million horses, 17 million head of -cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep and goats, and -110 million poultry were slaughtered or shipped to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Extraordinary State Commission calculates the damage done -to the national economy of the Soviet Union and to individual -villagers and townspeople at 679,000 millions of rubles reckoned at -the official prices current in 1941 as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. State concerns and institutions, 287,000 million rubles; -2. collective farms, 181,000 million rubles; 3. villagers and -townspeople, 192,000 million rubles; 4. co-operatives, trade -unions, and other public organizations, 19,000 million rubles.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the following sections of this report, which describe how -this damage is divided among separate Soviet Republics, and I pass -on to the fourth paragraph, which describes the destruction of collective -farms, State farms, and machine tractor stations. In order -to save time, I shall confine myself to a few separate excerpts:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“While burning the villages and hamlets, the German fascists -plundered completely the inhabitants of these villages. Those of -the peasants who offered resistance were brutally murdered.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, some concrete data are given on the plundering in the -Kamenetz-Podolsk and the Kursk region, the collective farm “For -Peace and Work” in the region of Krasnodar, the collective farms -“For the Times” in the Stalino region, as well as collective farms -in Mogilev and Zhitomir districts and others. The German fascist -invaders inflicted great damage on the State farms of the U.S.S.R. -They shipped out of collective farms all stocks of agricultural products -and destroyed farm and other buildings belonging to the -state farms.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Horse Farm Number 62 in the Poltava district lost its stock -of Russo-American trotting brood mares through the German -occupation. Up to the war, this stud farm had 670 brood -mares. The Germans acted in the same way in regard to -other breeding farms.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='42' id='Page_42'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remaining excerpt of this section; and I pass on to -Paragraph 6, which deals with the mass looting of Soviet citizens’ -property by the Germans:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In all the republics, districts, and territories of the Soviet -Union which were occupied, the fascist German invaders -looted the property of the rural and urban population, -stealing valuables, property, clothing, and household articles, -and imposing fines, taxes, and contributions on the peaceful -population.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The same section contains a whole series of concrete facts of -the plunder of Soviet citizens in Smolensk, Orel and Leningrad -Provinces; the Dniepropetrovsk and Sumsky Provinces, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. -With the Tribunal’s permission, I omit two pages of my presentation, -and I read the following paragraph at the bottom of Page 76:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The plundering of the Soviet population was being carried -out by the German aggressors throughout the whole of the -occupied Soviet territory.</p> - -<p>“The Extraordinary State Commission has undertaken the -task of estimating the damage done to the Soviet citizens -by the occupation authorities and has established that the -German fascist invaders burned down and destroyed approximately -four million dwelling houses which were the personal -property of collective farmers, workers, and employees; -confiscated 1½ million horses, 9 million head of cattle, -12 million pigs, 13 million sheep and goats; and took away -an enormous quantity of household goods and chattel of all -kinds.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The above documents and reports of the Extraordinary State -Commission depict the crimes committed by the Hitlerites in the -occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. These crimes had been organized -by the defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that Göring, in his capacity as Reich Marshal and -Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan of the Hitlerite Government, -was directly in charge of all the operations of the German -military and civil authorities for the preparation and execution of -despoliation of the occupied territories, is clearly shown by the -documents which I have already presented. Nevertheless, I beg the -indulgence of the Tribunal to read the final document on this matter, -that is, the decree issued by Hitler on 29 June 1941.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A copy of this decree was kindly put at our disposal by the -American Prosecution, and it has not yet been presented. I, therefore, -present it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-287 (Document -Number USSR-287). This decree reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, as Plenipotentiary for -the Four Year Plan, will employ, within the scope of the -<span class='pageno' title='43' id='Page_43'></span> -power allotted to him for the purpose, all means necessary -for exploiting to the fullest extent supplies and economic -resources discovered in the newly occupied eastern territories -and for developing all their economic possibilities for -the benefit of the German war economy.</p> - -<p>“2. For this purpose he is also authorized to give direct orders -to military authorities in the newly occupied eastern territories.</p> - -<p>“3. This decree will become effective as from today. It must -first be made public by special order.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>However, Your Honors, the granting of extraordinary powers -to Göring does not, in any way, mean that the other defendants -took only a passive interest in organizing the looting of the -occupied territories. All of them, jointly and separately, worked -feverishly in this direction. Frank robbed the Poles; Rosenberg -managed affairs in the Ukraine and in the other occupied territories -of the U.S.S.R.; Sauckel and Seyss-Inquart were busy here -and there; Speer and Funk made schemes for and carried out -predatory measures within the scope of the Ministry of Economics -and the Ministry for Armament and War Production, while Keitel -acted in the field of the Armed Forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this connection I should like to submit to the Tribunal two -more documents relating to Keitel’s economic activities. These -documents, Your Honors, are presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-175 (Document Number USSR-175). On 29 August -1942 Keitel, in his capacity of Chief of the Supreme Command -of the Armed Forces, issued the following order under “Number -002865/42-g.Kdos. regarding securing of supplies for the Armed -Forces.” I shall read only two short excerpts from this order. Your -Honors will find them on Page 181 of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The food situation of the German people is such that it is -necessary for the Armed Forces to contribute as far as -possible towards alleviating it. All the necessary means of -doing so exist in the combat zones and in the occupied -territories both in the East and in the West.</p> - -<p>“It is essential, above all, that much greater quantities of -supplies and forage . . . should be secured in the occupied -territories of the East than has been the case up to now.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“All establishments should consider it their pride as well -as their duty to attain this goal at all costs so that in this -field, too, they may play a decisive part in achieving victory.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In a memorandum by section chiefs Klare and Dr. Bergmann, -dated, “19 November 1942, most secret, subject: Procurement of -<span class='pageno' title='44' id='Page_44'></span> -Supplies for the Armed Forces”—I submit this memorandum in -the original to the Tribunal under the same number, Document -Number USSR-175—we find the following estimate of the results -achieved by the above-mentioned order from Keitel. I now read -into the record only the first paragraph of this memorandum.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By order of the Führer, the Chief of the OKW has decreed -in the attached order of 29 August 1942 that the Armed -Forces must, as far as possible, contribute towards the task -of ensuring food supplies for the German people and that -they must themselves make every effort, not only to obtain -sufficient food supplies locally to cover the needs of the -armies, but also to ensure that the quantities required by -the Reich are secured in addition.</p> - -<p>“As the result of this order co-operation between the Army -and the economic authorities has fortunately grown closer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Now with Your Honor’s permission, I shall read into the record -one more document, namely, a telegram sent by Keitel on 8 September -1944. This document was kindly put at our disposal by -the American Prosecution and registered as Document Number -743-PS. It was not presented to the Tribunal before; I therefore -submit it now as Exhibit Number USSR-286, and I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General Quartermaster, -Office of Chief of Staff, (Anna).</p> - -<p>“2. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General Quartermaster, -Army Administration Office, (Anna-Bu).</p> - -<p>“3. To Commanding General, Army Group North.</p> - -<p>“4. To Commanding General, Army Group Center.</p> - -<p>“5. To Economic Staff East.</p> - -<p>“6. To Military District H.Q.I.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read this text as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. The Führer has entrusted Gauleiter Koch with the utilization -of local resources in the parts of Reichskommissariat -Ostland occupied by troops of Army Group Center. Furthermore, -the Führer has ordered that all German and local -administrative authorities be subordinated to Gauleiter Koch. -In securing economic resources, Gauleiter Koch is to maintain -contact with competent Supreme Reich agencies.</p> - -<p>“2. All authorities of the Armed Forces will give Gauleiter -Koch every assistance in their power in executing this order.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Your Honors, even at the end of 1944, when under the -blows of the Red Army and its allies Hitlerite Germany was -precipitated towards its final defeat and only a few months before -its final military and political collapse, Hitler, Keitel, Koch, and -<span class='pageno' title='45' id='Page_45'></span> -many others were still stretching out their already stiffening fingers -to grab the property and wealth of others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is the evidence I have to show regarding the looting and -marauding perpetrated by the Hitlerite hordes in the occupied -territories of the Soviet Union. But they plundered not only the -living, they also plundered the dead. My colleague, Colonel -Smirnov, has already presented comprehensive evidence on this -question. I do not wish to quote it again, but I refer to it only -to show how closely interlocked and all-embracing was the circle -of their crimes. As Rauschning testifies in his book, which has -already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution to the Tribunal, -Hitler once said:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I need people with strong fists whose principles will not -prevent them from taking human life if necessary; and if on -occasion they swipe a watch or a jewel, I don’t care a tinker’s -damn.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And Hitler actually found these men in the persons of the -defendants and their numerous accomplices.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As the documents which I have just presented show, the -Defendant Göring, on account of his position in Hitler’s Government -as Reich Marshal and Plenipotentiary for the Four Year -Plan and as head of the whole criminal system for the plundering -of the occupied territories, was guilty of these crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For this reason the stenographic record of a secret conference -of German administrative leaders (Reich Commissioners) for the -occupied countries, which took place on 6 August 1942, is of -particular interest. Göring presided over the meeting. This -document, like many other original documents which I had the -honor of presenting today to the Tribunal, was found by Soviet -military authorities in September 1945 in one of the municipal -buildings of the town of Jena, in Thuringia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This extraordinary document contains a long speech by Göring -and the replies of the Hitlerite rulers of the occupied countries. -And, Your Honors, many of the people who are sitting in the -dock now took part in this conference. The contents of this document -are such that any comment on my part is unnecessary. -Therefore, if it pleases the Tribunal, I shall proceed to read from -this document.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Stenographic notes; Thursday, 6 August 1942, 4 p. m., in -the Hermann Göring Hall in the Air Ministry.</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘The Gauleiter stated their views here -yesterday. Although they may have differed in tone and -manner, it was evident that they all feel that the German -people have too little to eat. Gentlemen, the Führer has -<span class='pageno' title='46' id='Page_46'></span> -given me general powers exceeding any hitherto granted -within the Four Year Plan.</p> - -<p>“ ‘At this moment Germany commands the richest granaries -that ever existed in the European area, stretching from the -Atlantic to the Volga and the Caucasus, lands more highly -developed and fruitful than ever before, even if a few of -them cannot be described as granaries. I need only remind -you of the fabulous fertility of the Netherlands, the unique -paradise that is France. Belgium too is extraordinarily fruitful -and so is the province of Posen. Then, above all, the -Government General has to a great extent the rye and wheat -granary of Europe, and along with it the amazingly fertile -districts of Lemberg (Lvov) and Galicia, where the harvest -is exceptionally good. Then there comes Russia, the black -earth of the Ukraine on both shores of the Dnieper, the -Don region, with its remarkably fertile districts which have -scarcely been destroyed. Our troops have now occupied, or -are in process of occupying, the excessively fertile districts -between the Don and the Caucasus.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Göring then goes on to say:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘God knows, you are not sent out there to work for the -welfare of the people in your charge but to squeeze the -utmost out of them, so that the German people may live. -That is what I expect of your exertions. This everlasting -concern about foreign peoples must cease now, once and for all.</p> - -<p>“ ‘I have here before me reports on what you expect to be -able to deliver. It is nothing at all when I consider your -territories. It makes no difference to me if you say that your -people are starving.</p> - -<p>“ ‘One thing I shall certainly do. I will make you deliver -the quantities asked of you; and if you cannot do so, I will -set forces to work that will force you to do so whether -you want to or not.</p> - -<p>“ ‘The wealth of Holland lies close to the Ruhr. It could -send a much greater quantity of vegetables into this stricken -area now than it has done so far. What do I care what -the Dutchmen think of it.</p> - -<p>“ ‘The only people in whom I am interested in the occupied -territories are those who work to provide armaments and -food supplies. They must receive just enough to enable them -to continue working. It is all one to me whether Dutchmen -are Germanic or not. They are only all the greater blockheads -if they are; and more important persons than they have -shown in the past how Germanic numskulls sometimes have -<span class='pageno' title='47' id='Page_47'></span> -to be treated. Even if you receive abuses from every quarter, -you will have acted rightly, for it is the Reich alone that -counts.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And now I come to the next excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘I am still discussing the western territories. Belgium -has taken care of herself extraordinarily well. That was -very sensible of Belgium. But there, too, gentlemen, rage -incarnate could seize me. If every plot of ground in Belgium -is planted with vegetables, then they must surely have had -vegetable seed. When Germany wanted to start a big -campaign last year for utilizing uncultivated land, we did -not have nearly as much seed as we needed. Neither Holland -nor Belgium nor France have delivered it, although I myself -was able to count 170 sacks of vegetable seed on a single -street in Paris. It is all very well for the French to plant -vegetables for themselves. They are accustomed to doing -this. But, gentlemen, these people are all our enemies and -you will not win over any of them by humane measures. The -people are polite to us now because they have to be polite. -But let the English once force their way in and then you will -see the real face of the Frenchman. The same Frenchman -who dines with you and in turn invites you to dine with him -will at once make it plain to you that the Frenchman is a -German-hater. That is the situation, and we do not want -to see it any other way than it is.</p> - -<p>“ ‘It is a matter of indifference to me how many courses are -served every day at the table of the Belgian king. The -king is a prisoner of war; and if he is not treated as such, I -will see to it that he is taken to some other place where this -can be made clear to him. I am really fed up with the -business.</p> - -<p>“ ‘I have forgotten one country because nothing is to be had -there except fish; that is Norway.</p> - -<p>“ ‘With regard to France, I say that it is still not cultivated -to the greatest possible extent. France can be cultivated in -a very different way if the peasants there are forced to work -in a different manner. Secondly, inside France itself the -population is gorging itself to a scandalous degree. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘Besides, Heaven help a German car parked outside a -French tavern in Paris! it is reported. But a whole row of -French gasoline-driven vehicles parked there doesn’t bother -anyone.</p> - -<p>“ ‘I would say nothing at all, on the contrary, I would not -think much of you if we didn’t have a marvelous restaurant -in Paris where we could get the best food obtainable. But -<span class='pageno' title='48' id='Page_48'></span> -I do not want the French to be able to saunter into it. Maxim -must have the best food for us.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, I see one of the German Defense Counsel -wishes to take the floor. I shall, therefore, give him an -opportunity to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. -President, I have only a short question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The prosecutor has not told us where this document can be -found, in which document book and what number it has. He -mentioned only the page on which the Court can find that -document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: This document was presented to -the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-170. The photostatic -copy was turned over to Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I continue, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It comes from the archives of the Defendant -Göring, does it not? You have so stated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: Yes.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘For German officers and men three or four first-class -restaurants—excellent, but not for the French.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote the next excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘Furthermore, you should be like bloodhounds on the track -of anything the German people can use; that stuff should be -brought here out of the warehouses like lightning. Whenever -I issued a decree, I stated repeatedly that soldiers are entitled -to buy as much as they want and whatever they want, as -much as they can carry. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now you will say—Laval’s foreign policy. Herr Laval -calms down Herr Abetz and as far as I am concerned, may -go to Maxim’s, although it is out of bounds. But the French -will soon have to learn. You have no idea of the impudence -they have. When our friends hear that a German is interested -they charge fantastic prices. They charge three times the -normal price and if they hear that the Reich Marshal is in -the market, they charge five times the normal price. I -wanted to buy a tapestry. Two million francs was asked. -The woman was told that the buyer wanted to see the -tapestry. She said she did not wish to let it out of her -sight. Well, then she would have to go with it. She was -told that she was going to see the Reich Marshal. When she -arrived the tapestry was priced at 3 million francs. I reported -it. Do you think anything was done? I submitted the case -to the French court and they taught milady that it is -inadvisable to profiteer when dealing with me. -<span class='pageno' title='49' id='Page_49'></span></p> - -<p>“ ‘All that interests me is what we can squeeze out of the -territory now under our control with the utmost application -and by straining every nerve; and how much of that can -be diverted to Germany. I don’t give a damn about import -and export statistics of former years.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now, regarding shipments to the Reich. Last year France -shipped 550,000 tons of grain, and now I demand 1.2 million -tons. Two weeks from now a plan will be submitted for -handling it. There will be no more discussion about it. -What happens to the Frenchmen is of no importance. One -million two hundred thousand tons will be delivered. Fodder—last -year 550,000 tons, now 1 million; meat—last year 135,000 -tons, now 350,000; fats—last year 23,000, this year 60,000.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And so on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next excerpt from this address concerns the quotas to be -fixed for deliveries from countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, -Norway, and the Government General. In reply to Göring’s -questions and instructions definite figures were quoted by those -attending the meeting. I omit one page and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘So much for the West. A special -order will be issued concerning purchasers who buy up all -the clothes, shoes, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, that are to be had.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now comes the East. I have settled this point with the -Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht waives the demands it made -on the home country. How much hay was required?’</p> - -<p>“Backe: ‘1.5 million tons. Over 1 million tons straw and -1½ million tons oats. We can’t manage that.(?)’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Now, gentlemen, there is only one -thing more regarding Wehrmacht supplies. I want to hear -nothing more about you until further notice. No more -requests. The country—with its sour cream, apples, and -white bread—will feed us abundantly. The Don valley will -take care of the rest.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Passing to the next quotation—Göring is speaking:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘The Wehrmacht in France will, of course, be supplied -with food by France. That is a matter of course, and I did -not even mention it before.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now about Russia: There is no doubt of her fertility. The -position there is almost incredibly good. . . .’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The next quotation—Göring is still speaking:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘I was glad to hear that the Reich Commissioner in Ostland -is doing just as well, and the people are just as fat and -chubby and puff a little when they work. Nevertheless, I -shall see to it, no matter how carefully certain groups are -<span class='pageno' title='50' id='Page_50'></span> -treated, that some contribution is made from the inexhaustible -fertility of this area.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>After this Lohse, Reich Commissioner for Bielorussia, addressed -the meeting:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘May I state my opinion in a few words? I should like -to give you more but certain conditions have to be observed. -The harvest is certainly excellent but in more than half of -the area of Bielorussia which is well cultivated, it is scarcely -possible to get in the crops, unless we can put a stop to the -disturbances caused by guerrillas and partisans. I have already -been crying out for help for 4 months.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Lohse goes on to describe the activities of the partisans in -Bielorussia. In this connection Göring interrupts him and says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘My dear Lohse, we have known each other for a long -time. I know well enough that you are a great poet.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And Lohse answered:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘I won’t stand for that; I have never written poetry.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion I quote the last three quotations from Göring’s -speech. He said:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘We must have buyers from the Ministry of Economics, -Funk, in the Ukraine and elsewhere. We must send them to -Venice to buy odds and ends, those frightful alabaster things -and cheap jewelry, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. I don’t think there is any -other place except Italy where one gets quite such junk.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Now let us see what Russia can deliver. I think, Riecke, -we should be able to get 2 million tons of cereals and fodder -out of the whole of Russia.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘That can be done.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘That means that we must get 3 million, -apart from Wehrmacht supplies.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘No, all that is in the front areas goes for the Wehrmacht -only.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Then we bring 2 million.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘No.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘A million and a half then.’</p> - -<p>“Riecke: ‘Yes.’</p> - -<p>“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘All right.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The discussion went on in the same way. Göring’s speech ends -with the following sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘Gentlemen, I would just like to say one thing more. I have -a very great deal to do and a very great deal of responsibility. -I have no time to read letters and memoranda informing -<span class='pageno' title='51' id='Page_51'></span> -me that you cannot supply my requirements. I have only -time to ascertain from time to time through short reports -from Backe whether the commitments are being fulfilled. If -not, then we shall have to meet on a different level.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As Your Honors have heard, besides Göring this conference was -attended by the Defendants Rosenberg, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, -Frank, Funk, and others. As you have heard, Göring finished his -speech with a direct threat against the participants in this conference, -by saying that “we shall have to meet on a different level.” -This threat came true. The matter has, in every sense of the term, -been met on a different level—from the level of the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus the whole volume of evidence submitted establishes beyond -all doubt:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. That simultaneously with their well-laid preparations for the -military invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, -and the U.S.S.R., the criminal Hitlerite Government and the -Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces worked out a plan -for the mass plunder and spoliation of private, public, and state-owned -property in the territories belonging to these countries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. That having worked out this criminal plan, the conspirators -carried out all the preliminary measures necessary for its execution -by training special bodies of officers and officials for the despoliation -of the territories they meant to seize by preparing and issuing -special instructions, reference books, and orders for this purpose, -and by creating a special and very complicated organization of all -sorts of “economic inspectorates,” “detachments,” “groups,” “joint -stock companies,” “plenipotentiaries,” <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, and by calling in -a large number of specialists in different branches, military experts -on agriculture, agricultural leaders, economic spies, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. That in accordance with this long-prepared plan, they subsequently -plundered and despoiled private, public, and State -property in the occupied territories and also robbed the peaceful -population of these territories, having recourse to atrocities, violence, -and arbitrary practices of the most appalling nature.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. That in order to make the soldiers and the officers of the -German Army “economically interested” in the war, the conspirators -not only failed to prosecute cases of marauding and -robbery committed, by German soldiers and officers, but even -encouraged these crimes and incited their men to commit wholesale -looting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. That by the commission of all these crimes the conspirators -caused enormous economic damage to the people of the occupied -territories, exposing them to starvation and suffering, and that they -profited by their criminal activities for the personal gain and -enrichment of themselves and their adherents. -<span class='pageno' title='52' id='Page_52'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>6. That having thus planned, prepared, and initiated wars of -aggression against the freedom-loving nations, the conspirators -aimed at the predatory despoliation of these nations and thereafter -achieved these criminal ends by means of equally criminal and -predatory methods.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the strength of the above, the defendants have consciously -and deliberately violated Article 50 of the Hague Convention of -1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal -law accepted by the penal codes of all civilized nations, as well as -the national law of those countries in which these crimes were -committed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For these criminal acts, Your Honors, each and all of which are -covered by Article 6(b) of the Charter of the International Military -Tribunal, all the defendants must be found guilty; all of them -without exception must be held responsible both individually and -as members of the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, the documents which I have presented -to the Tribunal and which I have read into the record are silent -witnesses to the crimes organized and committed by the defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the conscience of the Judges will hear the testimony of -these silent witnesses, who relate truthfully the story of the -arbitrary practices and crimes of the Hitlerite brigands and the -boundless sufferings of their innumerable victims.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 21 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='53' id='Page_53'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-FOURTH DAY</span><br/> Thursday, 21 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MARSHAL: The Defendant Hess will be absent from today’s -session on account of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to inform Your Honor that in -accordance with the plan of the Soviet Prosecution presented to the -Tribunal and with the permission of the Tribunal, we shall start -presenting evidence on that section entitled, “The Destruction and -Plunder of Cultural and Scientific Treasures, Cultural Institutions, -Monasteries, Churches, and Other Religious Institutions, as well as -the Destruction of Cities and Villages.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The evidence on this section will be presented by State Counsellor -of Justice of the Second Class, Raginsky.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS -M. Y. RAGINSKY (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it -please Your Honors, among the numerous and grievous war crimes -committed by the Hitlerite conspirators—crimes enumerated in -detail in Count Three of the Indictment—crimes against culture -occupy a definite place of their own. These crimes expressed all the -abomination and vandalism of German fascism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators considered culture of the mind and -of humanity as an obstacle to the fulfillment of their monstrous -designs against mankind, and they removed this obstacle with their -own typical cruelty. In working out their insane plans for world -domination, the Hitlerite conspirators, side by side with the initiation -and prosecution of predatory wars, prepared a campaign against -world culture. They dreamed of turning Europe back to the days of -her domination by the Huns and Teutons. They tried to set mankind -back.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is unnecessary to quote the numerous pronouncements of the -fascist ringleaders on this subject. I shall permit myself merely to -refer to one pronouncement of Hitler’s quoted on Page 80 of Rauschning’s -book, and already presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet -Prosecution. “We,” said Hitler, “are barbarians and we wish to be -barbarians. It is an honorable calling.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On behalf of the Soviet Prosecution, I shall present to the Tribunal -evidence of how the defendants put into practice these orders -of Hitler, which found concrete expression in the wrecking of -<span class='pageno' title='54' id='Page_54'></span> -cultural institutions, the looting and destruction of cultural treasures, -and the suffocation of the national cultural life of the peoples in the -territories temporarily occupied by the German armies, that is, the -territories of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall present to the Tribunal evidence of the Hitlerites’ -preparations and planning for the looting of cultural treasures; how, -long before the treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the so-called -Einsatzstab Rosenberg prepared for pillage, how the predatory -activity of the Defendant Rosenberg was co-ordinated with Göring, -Heydrich, and the Supreme Command, and how this pillage was -disguised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is now generally known to what monstrous lies and provocations -the Hitlerites resorted in the camouflaging of their crimes. -While annihilating millions of people in the extermination camps -they had set up, they spoke, in their orders, of “filtration” and -“cleansing.” While destroying and plundering cultural treasures, the -fascist vandals sought shelter behind the terms “collection of -materials” and the “study of problems,” and shamelessly referred to -themselves as “bearers of culture.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators endeavored to change into serfs, bereft -of all their rights, the peoples of the territories seized; and, for this -purpose, they destroyed the national culture of these peoples.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The destruction of the national culture of the Slav peoples and -particularly of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Bielorussian cultures, -the destruction of national monuments, schools, literature, and the -compulsory Germanization of the population, followed the German -occupation everywhere, in obedience to the same criminal principle -which governed the ensuing pillage, rape, arson, and mass murders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit, Mr. President, the end of Page 3 and Page 4 of my -presentation, and I proceed to the presentation of Section 2, Page 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I have already indicated, the destruction of the national -culture of the peoples in the occupied territories was a fundamental -part of the general plan for world domination established by Hitler’s -conspirators. It is difficult to determine whether destruction or -plunder was the prevalent factor in these plans. But there is no -disputing the fact that both plunder and destruction were aimed at -one goal only—extermination; and this extermination was carried -out everywhere, in all the territories occupied by the Germans, and -on an enormous scale.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Convention laid down, I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The property of municipalities, of Church institutions and -establishments dedicated to charity and education, arts and -sciences, even when belonging to the State, shall be considered -as private property. All premeditated seizure of, and destruction -or damage to, institutions of this character, to historic -<span class='pageno' title='55' id='Page_55'></span> -monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden and should -be made the subject of legal proceedings.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites consciously and systematically scoffed at the -principles and demands laid down in Article 56. All the conspirators -are guilty of this, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the first place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Rosenberg had an organization with widespread ramifications for -the plunder of cultural treasures and with numerous staffs and -representatives. The Einsatzstab Rosenberg and Rosenberg’s chief -of staff, Utikal, were the central point of the network co-ordinating -the criminal activities of many predatory organizations inspired and -directed by the Hitlerite Government together with the German -Supreme Command. Rosenberg was officially placed in charge of -plundering the cultural treasures in the occupied territories by a -decree of Hitler of 1 March 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have in mind Document Number 149-PS presented to the Tribunal -on 18 December of last year by the United States Prosecution -and accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-369. With -your permission, Mr. President, I shall quote only two paragraphs -of this document. You will find this document on Page 3 of your -document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“His”—Rosenberg’s—“Einsatzstab for the occupied territories -has the right to investigate libraries, archives, and every other -kind of cultural establishment for corresponding materials, -and to confiscate these materials for the realization of the -ideological aims of the National Socialist Party. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph of this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The regulations for the co-operation with the Armed Forces -are issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of the -Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.</p> - -<p>“The necessary measures for the eastern territories under -German administration will be taken by Reichsleiter Rosenberg -in his capacity as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern -Territories.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This decree of Hitler’s was issued, as is clear from the document -quoted, to all departments of the Armed Forces, the Party, and the -Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But it is not 1 March 1942 which should be considered as the -beginning of Rosenberg’s predatory activities. I shall submit several -excerpts from a letter of Rosenberg to Reichsleiter Bormann in -confirmation. The letter is dated 23 April 1941. This document was -presented to the Tribunal on 18 December 1945 by the United States -Prosecution, and it was accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USA-371 (Document Number 071-PS). -<span class='pageno' title='56' id='Page_56'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document—which Your Honors will find on Page 4 of your -document book—is interesting also for the fact that the plunder, -referred to as “confiscation” in the letter, was carried out by the -Defendant Rosenberg in close collaboration and contact, based on a -written agreement, between the departments of Rosenberg and -Himmler. I cite extracts from Page 1 of the Russian translation of -this letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I have”—wrote Rosenberg—“transmitted to you a photostatic -copy of my agreement with the Security Police (SD), concluded -with the express approval of Gruppenführer Heydrich.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further—you will find this on Page 5 in your document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Questions bearing on works of art”—as stated in this letter—“were -considered of secondary importance. Of primary importance -was the Führer’s directive regarding the twice-issued -order from the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed -Forces, for the occupied territories of the West, to the effect -that all archives and all scientific property belonging to our -ideological opponents, be placed at my disposal. This, too, was -carried out on a wide scale and in close co-operation with the -SD and the military leaders.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The importance attached by the Hitlerite conspirators to Rosenberg’s -predatory staffs is shown in Göring’s special circular of -1 May 1941, addressed to all Party, Government, and military -institutions, which had been ordered to co-operate with the Einsatzstab -Rosenberg. This document was presented by our American -colleagues on 18 December of last year and accepted by the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USA-384 (Document Number 1117-PS).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even at that time the scale on which the pillage was conducted -was already enormous. As Rosenberg stated in his letter of 23 April -1941, at that time, that is, in April 1941, 7,000 cases of looted works -of art had already been dispatched to Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To conclude with this document I shall, with your permission, -read one further brief quotation into the record. It consists of one -paragraph only. You will find this paragraph on Page 6 of the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“And thus”—wrote Rosenberg—“these problems practically -solved themselves and the work has followed its own course. -Here I would like to ask for a confirmation that these -decisions, already adopted in the West, should, in the present -circumstances, be rendered valid in the other occupied -territories, or in those which are to be occupied.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This document, in which pillage is referred to as “work,” proves -that Rosenberg’s criminal activities were carried out in close contact -with the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces; and, finally, that -<span class='pageno' title='57' id='Page_57'></span> -as early as April 1941 plans were being made for plundering the -territories about to be occupied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The speech of the Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, -and the speech of the representative of the United States -Prosecution, Mr. Alderman, defined what Rosenberg meant in his -letter by “territories about to be occupied” at that time. That was -the period of the practical realization of the evil Hitlerite schemes, -planned in the so-called Plan Barbarossa, the period when the German -fascist hordes were hurled against the frontiers of the Soviet -Union, the period of the attack on the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Lastly, it is necessary to point out that, in April 1941, the Defendant -Rosenberg placed Utikal at the head of all operational staffs, -“the creation of which may become necessary during the course of -this war.” In this connection Rosenberg referred to the “successful -work” and to the “experience gained” by his operational staff in the -western occupied territories and in the Netherlands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This fact is confirmed by a certificate issued to Utikal, dated -1 April 1941, and signed by Rosenberg. The authenticity of this document—which -bears Document Number 143-PS—was confirmed by -Rosenberg at his interrogation on 26 September 1945. I present this -document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-371.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In reporting on the organization for the looting and destruction -of cultural treasures, it is necessary to indicate yet another department -which combined diplomacy with pillage. I have in mind the -German Ministry for Foreign Affairs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, in his -opening speech pointed out that the general pillage in the occupied -regions of the U.S.S.R., carried out on the direct orders of the German -Government, was directed not only by the Defendants Göring -and Rosenberg and by the various “staffs” and “commands” subordinated -to them; the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, headed by the -Defendant Ribbentrop, also participated through a “special formation.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The creation of such a formation—the so-called “Ribbentrop -Battalion”—and its practical activities in the looting of cultural -treasures in the territory of the U.S.S.R. are testified to in a written -statement of 10 November 1942 by Obersturmführer Dr. Förster, -who was captured by Red Army units in the region of Mosdok. In -this statement Förster likewise indicated the task of Rosenberg’s -staff in the plunder or, as he expressed it, in the “withdrawal” of -museum treasures and antiques. A certified photostat of this statement -I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-157 (Document -Number USSR-157).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is stated in Förster’s statement, I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In August 1941 while in Berlin, I, with the assistance of my -old acquaintance from the University of Berlin, Dr. Focke, -<span class='pageno' title='58' id='Page_58'></span> -then employed in the press section of the Foreign Office, was -transferred from the 87th Tank Destroyer Division to the -special purpose battalion attached to the Foreign Office. This -battalion had been created on the initiative of the Reich -Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, and was under his -direction. The officer commanding the battalion is Major of -the Waffen-SS, Von Künsberg.</p> - -<p>“The task of the special purpose battalion was to seize and to -secure, immediately after the fall of large cities, their cultural -treasures and all objects of great historic value, to select -valuable books and films, and finally to dispatch them all to -Germany.</p> - -<p>“The special purpose battalion consists of four companies. The -first company is attached to the German Expeditionary Corps -in Africa, the second company to Army Group North, the -third to Army Group Center, and the fourth to Army Group -South. The first company is located at present in Italy, in -Naples, awaiting possible deployment to Africa. Battalion staff -headquarters are in Berlin, Hermann Göring Strasse, Number -104. The confiscated material is stored in the premises of -the Adler firm, in the Hardenbergstrasse.</p> - -<p>“Prior to our departure for Russia, Major Von Künsberg -transmitted to us Ribbentrop’s order, thoroughly to ‘comb out’ -all scientific establishments, institutions, libraries, and all the -palaces, to search all the archives, and to lay our hands on -anything of a definite value.</p> - -<p>“I heard from my comrades that the second company of our -battalion had removed valuable objects from the palaces in -the Leningrad suburbs. I myself was not there at the time. -At Zarskoje Selo the company seized and secured the property -belonging to the palace-museum of the Empress Catherine. -The Chinese silk draperies and the carved gilt ornaments were -torn from the walls. The floor of artistic ornaments was -dismantled and taken away. From the palace of the Emperor -Alexander antique furniture and a large library containing -some 6,000 to 7,000 volumes in French and over 5,000 volumes -and manuscripts in Russian, were removed.</p> - -<p>“The fourth company, to which I was attached, confiscated the -Kiev laboratory of the Medical and Scientific Research Institute. -The entire equipment, as well as scientific material, documents -and books, was shipped to Germany.</p> - -<p>“We reaped a rich harvest in the library of the Ukrainian -Academy of Science, treasuring the rarest manuscripts of -Persian, Abyssinian, and Chinese literature, Russian and -Ukrainian chronicles, the first edition books printed by the first -<span class='pageno' title='59' id='Page_59'></span> -Russian printer, Ivan Fjodorov, and rare editions of the works -of Shevtchenko, Mickiewicz, and Ivan Franko.</p> - -<p>“From the Kiev museums of Ukrainian art, Russian art, -Western and Eastern art and from the central Shevtchenko -museum numerous exhibits which still remained there, -including paintings, portraits by Repin, canvases by Vereschagin, -Fedotoff, Goe, sculptures by Antokolsky and other -masterpieces of Russian and Ukrainian painters and sculptors -were dispatched to Berlin.</p> - -<p>“In Kharkov several thousand valuable books in de luxe -editions were seized from the Korolenko library and sent to -Berlin. The remaining books were destroyed. From the Kharkov -picture gallery several hundred pictures were secured, -including 14 pictures by Aivasovsky, works by Repin and -many paintings by Polienov, Schischkin, and others. Antique -sculptures and the entire scientific archive of the museum -were also taken away. Embroideries, carpets, Gobelin tapestries, -and other exhibits were appropriated by the German -soldiers.</p> - -<p>“I also knew”—testified Dr. Förster in his statement—“that -the staff of Alfred Rosenberg used special kommandos for the -confiscation of valuable antique and museum pieces in the -occupied countries of Europe and in the territories of the East. -Civilian experts were in charge of these kommandos.</p> - -<p>“After the occupation of any big city, the leaders of these -kommandos arrive, accompanied by various art experts. They -inspect museums, picture galleries, exhibitions, and institutions -of art and culture, they determine their condition and confiscate -everything of value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit the last paragraph of this statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission, Your Honors, I shall read two more -excerpts into the record from a letter of the Reich Minister for the -Occupied Territories, dated 7 April 1942, and signed by order of -the Minister, by Laibrandt, closest assistant of the Defendant -Rosenberg. This letter, Your Honors, is in your document book, on -Pages 12 and 13, and was submitted on 18 December last year by -the United States Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-408 (Document -Number USSR-408).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is very revealing in that it indicates the scale of -the projected pillage and disguises this pillage which, in the document, -is shamelessly referred to as “the preservation of objects of -culture, research material, and of scientific institutions in the -Occupied Eastern Territories.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is also characteristic in that Rosenberg, fearing -that he might miss some of the booty, established his own monopoly -<span class='pageno' title='60' id='Page_60'></span> -to plunder and only made concessions to the quartermaster general -of the Army, in conjunction with whom—as the letter reveals—Operational -Staff Rosenberg carried on its “work.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the first excerpt of this letter. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I have entrusted the Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the Occupied -Territories with the listing and detailed handling of all cultural -valuables, research materials, and scientific work in -libraries, archives, research institutions, museums, et cetera, -found in public and religious establishments, as well as in -private houses. The Einsatzstab, instructed once again by -the Führer’s order of 1 March 1942, begins its work jointly -with the quartermaster general of the Army immediately -after the occupation of the territories by combat troops and -executes this work after the establishment of civil government, -in co-operation with the competent Reich Commissioner, -until such time as the task is completed. I request all the -authorities of my department to support, as far as possible, -the representatives of the Einsatzstab in the execution of -these measures and to supply them with all essential information, -especially in connection with the registration of -objects in the occupied territories, whether or not they have -been removed, and if so, where this material is located at -the present time.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As you see, Your Honors, the looting of libraries, archives, -scientific research institutes, museums—both public and private—and -even of church treasures, was already being planned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that this is not a question of preserving cultural treasures, -but of plunder, is revealed by the following excerpt from the -letter mentioned. You will find it on Page 12 of your document -book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Insofar as seizures or transports have already taken place -contrary to these provisions . . . Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab, -Berlin-Charlottenburg (2), Bismarckstrasse 1, must be -informed without delay.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not burden you by enumerating the many addresses to -whom copies of this letter were sent. I shall merely name some of -them: OKH, the Reich Minister of Economics, the Plenipotentiary -for the Four Year Plan, the Reich Commissioners for the Baltic -regions, the Ukraine, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. Thus this document reconfirms -that both Göring and Funk, as well as the representatives of the -OKH, actively participated in this pillage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The priceless works of art plundered in the occupied countries -were removed to Germany, now transformed by the Hitlerites into -a robber’s den. -<span class='pageno' title='61' id='Page_61'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union -established that, in January 1943, the Commander of the 1st Tank -Army, Cavalry General Mackensen, in the presence of the head -of the propaganda department of the 1st Tank Army, Müller, -removed from the Rostov Museum of Pictorial and Plastic Art, -which had been evacuated to the town of Piatigorsk and which -was then on the premises of the Lermontov Museum, the most -valuable canvases of Ribera, Rubens, Murillo, Jordaens, Vereshtshagin, -Korovine, Kramskoy, Polenov, Repin, Lagorio, Aivasovsky, -and Shishkin, sculptures by Donatello, and other exhibits.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This statement, Your Honors, has already been presented to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-37 (Document Number USSR-37). -With your permission I should like to read into the record only -one paragraph on Page 5 of this document. The quotation is on -Page 18 of your document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Rostov Museum of Pictorial Art had been looted and its -contents carried off into Germany by the commander of the -1st Tank Army, Cavalry General Mackensen, and by the -chief of the propaganda section of the 1st Tank Army, Müller.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>From the affidavit of the Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government, -Stefan Kurovsky, it has been established that the Defendant -Frank, in looting the cultural treasures of the Polish State, was also -striving after his own personal gain. Pictures, porcelain, and other -works of art from the plundered museums of Warsaw and Kraków, -particularly from Vavel Castle, were transferred to the estate of the -Defendant Frank.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The affidavit to which I referred is an appendix to the report -of the Polish Government and is presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-302 (Document Number USSR-302). This -document, Your Honors, is to be found on Pages 19-20 of your -document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this document registered under Document Number 055-PS, -which is a letter from the head of the Political Leadership Group -P4 of the Reich Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, -dated 14 September 1944, there are indications as to where the -looted treasures were taken and stored. This letter, addressed to -the “Reich Minister through the Chief of the Political Leadership -Staff” is headed, “Objects of Art Evacuated from the Ukraine.” -This letter is to be found in your document book on Page 21. I -present this letter as documentary evidence and, submit it as -Exhibit Number USSR-372 and I quote the text. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine has stored the -objects of art and the pictures evacuated from Kiev and -Kharkov, in the following shelters in East Prussia: 1. The -<span class='pageno' title='62' id='Page_62'></span> -Richau family estate, near Wehlau; 2. Wildenhoff Manor -(owner, Count Schwerin).”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I read further from the text of this letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“There are 65 cases, the exact contents of which are enumerated -on the attached list. As to the other 20 cases, 57 portfolios, -and one roll of engravings, their inventory has not -been taken to date. Among the pictures there are a great -number of very ancient icons, works by famous masters of -the German, Italian, and Dutch schools of the 16th, 17th, and -18th centuries, as well as the works of the best Russian -masters of the 18th and 19th centuries. On the whole, this -property consists of extremely valuable works of art, which -had been removed from public Ukrainian museums and whose -value, even at a rough estimate, amounts to a sum of many -millions. In addition, this is the sole collection of such international -value on German territory. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the last paragraph of this letter since it has no material -bearing on the subject, and will continue by quoting an excerpt -from Page 2 of Rosenberg’s letter, of which I have already read -one quotation earlier in the day. You will, Your Honors, find it on -Page 5 of the document book. I quote. Rosenberg wrote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the process of these confiscations we have, of course, -found also many other works of art. Among them there are -some of great value and, in order to preserve them, the Chief -of the High Command of the Army, at my request and in -accordance with the Führer’s directives, ordered me to draw -up a catalogue of these works of art and to keep them for the -Führer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>You have heard, Your Honors, of Hitler’s attitude towards the -property of the people and the works of art in the countries seized -by the Germans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This episode is to be found in the Czechoslovakian Government -report, presented to the Tribunal; excerpts from this report were -read yesterday into the record. Therefore, I consider there is no -necessity for reading it into the record once more. However, it is -necessary to note that not only Hitler but Göring was an ardent -adherent of this policy of “acquisitions.” You also heard, Your -Honors, yesterday how Göring acquired valuable Gobelin tapestries -in France. However, Göring did not acquire Gobelin tapestries only. -He wrote in one of his letters to Rosenberg—I refer to Document -Number 1985-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-373, and which is in your document book on Pages 156 to -158—Göring wrote that he “by means of purchases, presents, -bequests, and barter owns perhaps the most important private -collection, at least in Germany, if not in Europe.” The document -<span class='pageno' title='63' id='Page_63'></span> -presented is a copy of a typewritten letter and includes a series -of corrections and notes in ink, evidently in Göring’s own hand. -This copy was captured, together with Göring’s other correspondence, -by units of the American Army, a fact which was confirmed -and in due time presented to the Tribunal by our American -colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document, Your Honors, reveals, to a remarkable extent, -the nature of the “acquisitions” effected by Göring and also confirms -Ribbentrop’s part in the “preservation” of cultural treasures in the -occupied territories. For this reason, I shall, with your permission, -read a few extracts from this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read the extract from the first page of this letter. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“After prolonged search”—wrote Göring to Rosenberg—“I -was much gratified that an office was at last charged with -the collection of these things although I want to point out -that other departments are also claiming the authority of the -Führer. First of these was the Reich Minister for Foreign -Affairs, who, several months ago, sent a circular to all -departments, in which he, inter alia, stated that he had -received full authority for the preservation of cultural objects -in occupied territories.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I now read an extract from Page 2 of the letter, the last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In order to avoid misconceptions regarding these articles, -part of which I want to claim for myself, part of which I -have purchased, and part of which I wish to acquire, I want to -inform you as follows:</p> - -<p>“1. I have now obtained by means of purchase, presents, -bequests, and barter, perhaps the greatest private collection -in Germany at least, if not in Europe.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and I read Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the -next one. Subparagraph 2 enumerates the objects which Göring -would like to acquire. It refers to a very extensive and highly -valued collection of Dutch artists of the 17th century, while Subparagraph -3 mentions “a comparatively small though very good -collection of French artists from the 18th century, and finally, a -collection of Italian masters.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You have heard, Your Honors, what was meant, in practice, by -“the personal material interest of soldiers in the war.” All this -established irrevocably that the Hitlerites engaged in pillage and -brigandage and that everybody, from the privates to the criminal -leaders of Hitlerite Germany, participated in the plunder. The same -must be said regarding the destruction of cultural treasures. Decrees -and directives concerning the destruction of cultural treasures came -from the leaders of Hitlerite Germany and from the highest ranks -of the Military Command. -<span class='pageno' title='64' id='Page_64'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall refer, as evidence, to the order of the Commander of the -German 6th Army, signed by Field Marshal Von Reichenau, -approved by Hitler and entitled, “On the Behavior of the Troops -in the East.” This order was presented to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-12. This document, contrary to the usual -Hitlerite custom, contains direct and entirely undisguised instructions -for the destruction and suppression of culture in the occupied -territories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission, I shall quote just one paragraph of this -order. It is on Page 161 of your document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Army is interested in extinguishing fires only in such -buildings as may be used for Army billets. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>All the rest to be destroyed; no historical or artistic buildings in -the East to be of any value whatsoever.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote one more document which establishes that the -destruction and pillage of cultural treasures, universally carried out -by the Hitlerites in the territories occupied by them, was inspired -and directed by the Hitlerite Government. I refer to the diary of -the Defendant Frank, extracts of which have already been submitted -to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-223. In the first volume -of Frank’s diary, on Page 38—Page 169 in your document book—there -appears an entry dated 4 October 1939 which reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Berlin. Conference with the Führer. The Führer discussed -the general situation with the Governor General and approved -the activity of the Governor General in Poland, particularly -in the demolition of the Warsaw Palace, the non-restoration -of this city, and the evacuation of the art treasures.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider that the documents, now submitted and read into the -record, are fully sufficient to enable us to draw the following -conclusions:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) The pillage and destruction of the cultural treasures of the -peoples in the German occupied territories were carried out in -accordance with previously elaborated and carefully prepared plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) The fascist Government and German High Command directed -the pillage and destruction of cultural treasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) The most active role in the organization of the pillage and -destruction of cultural treasures was taken by the participants in -the conspiracy, the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, Frank, and -Göring.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next section of my presentation, entitled, -“Destruction and Pillage of Cultural Treasures in Czechoslovakia, -Poland, and Yugoslavia.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I reported to the Tribunal on the general plans of the Hitlerite -conspirators for strangling national cultural life in the countries -<span class='pageno' title='65' id='Page_65'></span> -occupied by them. I now pass on to report on the actual materialization -of the criminal plans of the Hitlerite conspirators in Czechoslovakia, -Poland, and Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall refer only to such irrefutable proofs as the official reports -of the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, -already submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution. I -shall read into the record a few parts of the relevant sections of -these reports directly concerning the theme expounded by me, -which have not been quoted by my colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I begin by quoting extracts from the Czechoslovak Government -reports. These excerpts, Your Honors, are to be found in your -document book, on Pages 81 to 88. I quote from Page 81:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“K. H. Frank, who was appointed Secretary of State and -Deputy to Reich Protector Von Neurath in March 1939 and in -August 1943 became Minister of State and head of the German -Executive in the Protectorate, said, ‘The Czechs are fit to be -used only as workers or farm laborers.’</p> - -<p>“K. H. Frank replied to a Czech delegation which, in 1942, -requested the Czech universities and colleges to be reopened, -‘If the war is won by England, you will open your schools -yourselves; if Germany wins, an elementary school with five -grades will be enough for you.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>The Germans seized all colleges and hostels for students.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass to a quotation on Page 83 of the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They immediately seized the most valuable apparatus, instruments, -and scientific equipment in many of the occupied -institutions. The scientific libraries were systematically and -methodically damaged. Scientific books and films were separated -and taken away, the archives of the Academy Senate -(the highest university authority) were torn up or burned, -the card indexes destroyed and scattered.</p> - -<p>“Suppression of Czech schools. . . .</p> - -<p>“K. H. Frank, in November 1939, personally ordered the -closing of all Czech higher educational institutions.</p> - -<p>“Such university students as were still at liberty were -forbidden to exercise any intellectual profession and were -invited to find manual occupation within 48 hours, failing -which they would be sent to labor camps in Germany.</p> - -<p>“The closing of the universities was aggravated by the -closing of the great scientific libraries and of all institutions -capable of offering intellectual sustenance to the students -expelled from the universities. The library of the University -of Prague was henceforth accessible to Germans only. -<span class='pageno' title='66' id='Page_66'></span></p> - -<p>“Suppression of all scientific activities:</p> - -<p>“The closing down of Czech universities and colleges was -merely a preliminary step towards the complete suppression -of the entire Czech scientific life. The buildings of scientific -institutions were converted either into German universities -and colleges or placed at the disposal of the German military -and civil authorities. The Germans removed all scientific -instruments and books and even complete laboratories to -Germany, on the pretext that the Czechs would no longer -need them. The number of works of art, pictures, statues, and -rare manuscripts stolen from the library of the University -of Prague and from private collections cannot be calculated, -nor can their value be estimated. Scientific collections were -also given to German schools, provided they had not been -stolen piecemeal.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I pass on to the excerpts on Page 86 of the Czechoslovakian report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Hundreds of Czech elementary and secondary schools were -closed in 1939, and so rapid was the systematic closing of -Czech schools during the first year of the war that, by the -end of 1940, 6,000 of the 20,000 Czech teachers were unemployed.</p> - -<p>“By September 1942 some 60 percent of the Czech elementary -schools had been closed by the Germans.</p> - -<p>“All Czech books published during the republican regime -have been confiscated, and the glorification of Greater -Germany and its Führer became the basis of all teaching at -Czech elementary schools. In 1939 the number of pupils -permitted to enter Czech secondary schools had diminished -by 50 percent as compared with 1938. About 70 percent of -the Czech secondary schools had been closed by the end of -1942. Girls have been entirely excluded from the secondary -schools.</p> - -<p>“Nursery schools for children between 3 and 6 were completely -germanized and employed only German teachers.</p> - -<p>“Other crimes in cultural spheres.</p> - -<p>“Monuments:</p> - -<p>“In many towns the ‘Masaryk Houses,’ which for the most -part contain libraries, halls for the showing of educational -films, and for the performance of plays and concerts, have -been confiscated and transformed into barracks or offices for -the Gestapo. The statues they contained, sometimes of great -artistic value, were spoiled and broken. . . . A number of -monuments in Prague, among them Bilek’s ‘Moses’ and -<span class='pageno' title='67' id='Page_67'></span> -Mardjatka’s ‘Memorial to the Fallen Legionaries,’ have been -melted down. . . .</p> - -<p>“A decree of the autumn of 1942 ordered all university -libraries to hand over all early printed Czech works and first -editions to the Germans. The collections in the National -Museum were pillaged; and the Modern Art Gallery, containing -a unique collection of Czech art of the 19th and 20th -centuries with some precious specimens of foreign (mainly -French) art, was closed.</p> - -<p>“The crown jewels of the ancient Czech kings had to be -handed over to Heydrich.</p> - -<p>“Literature:</p> - -<p>“Translations of works by English, French, and Russian -authors, both classic and modern, were withdrawn from -circulation. The severest censorship was applied to the works -of modern Czech authors. The Germans liquidated many -leading publishing firms.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: This is a good opportunity to adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “The entire political literature -of the free republic, as well as the works of the participants -in the Czech revival of the 18th and 19th centuries, -were withdrawn. The books of Jewish authors were prohibited, -as well as those of politically unreliable writers. The -Germans withdrew the Czech classics, as well as the works -of the 15th century reformer John Hus, of Alois Erassek, the -author of historical novels, the poet Victor Dieck, and others.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus the Hitlerites destroyed the national culture of the peoples -of Czechoslovakia, plundered and pillaged works of art, literature, -and science.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Poland, as in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the German -fascist invaders carried out a large-scale liquidation of national -culture with exceptional cruelty. The Hitlerite conspirators -destroyed the Polish intelligentsia, closed educational establishments, -prohibited the publication of Polish books, looted works of -art, blew up and burned national monuments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am reading into the record relevant extracts from the Polish -Government report, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). These excerpts, -Your Honors, are on Pages 197-200 of the document book: -<span class='pageno' title='68' id='Page_68'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Annihilation of the Polish intelligentsia:</p> - -<p>“In the incorporated regions the intelligentsia were deprived -of all means of livelihood. Many of them, professors, teachers, -lawyers, and judges, were interned in concentration camps -or murdered.</p> - -<p>“In the Government General about 80 percent of the intelligentsia -were deprived of all means of subsistence. Owing -to the liquidation of the press, journalists and writers were -unable to earn a living. The publication of new books was -prohibited.</p> - -<p>“Four universities and twelve schools of the university type -ceased to exist. Their average attendance before September -1939 reached 45,000.</p> - -<p>“Secondary schools:</p> - -<p>“There were about 550 secondary schools in the German -occupied territory. Their closing was ordered. In the incorporated -territories they were completely closed down. In -the Government General they were allowed to continue their -activity, but in November 1939 an order was issued to cease -teaching. The only schools which were allowed to continue -work were commercial or trade schools. Educated Poles were -not needed; the Poles were to become artisans and workmen. -Such was the official line of policy.</p> - -<p>“Elementary schools:</p> - -<p>“In the incorporated territories Polish schools were completely -abolished. They were replaced by German schools. Polish -children were educated in the German tongue and German -spirit.</p> - -<p>“On the eve of war there were about 2,000 periodicals -published in Poland, among them 170 newspapers. By order -of the Germans the press was almost entirely eradicated.</p> - -<p>“The publication, printing, and distributing of Polish books -was prohibited as early as October 1939.</p> - -<p>“On 5 November 1940 the German <span class='it'>Verordnungsblatt</span> published -the following decree:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Until further notice, the publication, without exception, -of all books, pamphlets, periodicals, journals, calendars, and -music is prohibited, unless published by the authority of the -Government General.’</p> - -<p>“Theaters, music, and radio:</p> - -<p>“The principles of German policy in Poland were outlined -in a circular of a special branch of national education and -<span class='pageno' title='69' id='Page_69'></span> -propaganda in the German Government General. It read as -follows:</p> - -<p>“ ‘It is understood that not a single German official will assist -in the development of Polish cultural life in any way whatsoever.’</p> - -<p>“The sole purpose which was to be followed, in the words of -the circular, was to ‘satisfy the primitive demands for entertainment -and amusement, all the more as this was a question -of diverting as far as possible the attention of the intellectual -circles from conspiracy or political debates which encouraged -the development of an anti-German feeling.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip the last paragraph and pass on to the next page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Looting, spoliation, and carrying away of works of art, -libraries, and collections from Poland.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The excerpts are on Pages 207 and 208 of the document book.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 13 December 1939 the Gauleiter of the Warthegau issued -an order that all public and private libraries and collections -in the incorporated territories were to be registered. Upon -completion of registration, libraries and book collections were -confiscated and transported to the ‘Buchsammelstelle.’ There -special experts carried out a selection. The final destination -was either Berlin or the newly constituted State Library -(Staatsbibliothek) in Posen. Books which were considered -unsuitable were sold, destroyed, or thrown away as waste -paper.</p> - -<p>“The best and largest libraries of the country were victims -of the organized looting in the Government General. Among -them were the university libraries in Kraków and Warsaw. -One of the best, though not the largest, was the library of -the Polish Parliament. It consisted of about 38,000 volumes -and 3,500 periodical publications. On 15 and 16 November -1939 the main part of this library was transported to Berlin -and Breslau. Ancient documents, such as, for instance, a -collection of parchments—the property of the central archives—were -also seized.</p> - -<p>“The Diocesan Archives in Pelilin, containing 12th century -documents, were burned in the furnaces of a sugar refinery.</p> - -<p>“The first art treasure removed from Poland was the well-known -altar of Veit Stoss from the Kraków Cathedral. It -was taken to Germany on 16 December 1939. The Defendant -Frank issued a decree concerning the confiscation of works of -art.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip a few paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph on -Page 221: -<span class='pageno' title='70' id='Page_70'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Three valuable pictures were removed from the galleries -of the Czartoryski in Sieniawa. Frank seized and kept them -until 17 January 1945, and then transferred them to Silesia, -and thence, as his personal property, to Bavaria.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>National monuments:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the process of destroying everything that was connected -with Polish history and culture, many monuments and works -of art were destroyed and demolished.</p> - -<p>“The monument of the eminent Polish King, Boleslaw, the -Valiant, in Gniezno, was first wound round with ropes and -chains with a view to throwing it off its pedestal. After an -unsuccessful attempt, acetylene was used: the head was cut -off and the pedestal broken in pieces. The same fate befell -the monument of the Sacred Heart in Posen, the monuments -to Chopin, the poet Slowacki, the composer Moniuszko, the -Polish national hero Kósciuszko, President Wilson, the greatest -Polish poet Mickiewicz, and many others.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>To the report of the Polish Government is attached a list of -public libraries, museums, books and other collections sacrificed to -plunder and looting. These lists of objects are available on -Pages 254 and 255 of the document book. In the first list we find -the names of 30 libraries and in the second 21 museums and collections -of works of art which were plundered and destroyed. I shall -not read these lists in full, but shall mention only some of the -museums and collections which were a subject of national pride -and constituted the treasure of the Polish State.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following objects became the booty of the fascist vandals: -The treasure house of the Wawelski Cathedral in Kraków, the -Potocki Collection in Jablonna, the Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, -the National Museum in Kraków, the Museum of Religious Art in -Warsaw, the State Numismatic Collections in Warsaw, the Palace -of King Stanislaw-August in the Lazienkowski Park, the Palace of -King Jan Sobieski in Willanow, the collection of Count Tarnowski -in Sukhaya, the Religious Museum in Posen, and many others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite invaders also plundered monasteries, churches, and -cathedrals. On Page 43 of the report of the Polish Government, -corresponding to Page 223 of the document book, there are final -notes by the Polish Primate, Cardinal Hlond. They concern a -written communication from Cardinal Hlond to Pope Pius XII. -I shall read into the record only two paragraphs of these concluding -notes. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Monasteries have been methodically suppressed, as well as -their flourishing institutions for education, press, social welfare, -charity, and care of the sick. Their houses and institutions -have been seized by the army of the Nazi Party. -<span class='pageno' title='71' id='Page_71'></span></p> - -<p>“Then the invaders confiscated or sequestrated the patrimony -of the Church, considering themselves the owners of this -property. The cathedrals, the episcopal palaces, the seminaries, -the canons’ residence, the revenues and endowments -of episcopates and chapters, the funds of the seminaries, all -were pillaged by the invaders.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 29 and pass on to Page 30: Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The destruction of the national culture of the peoples of Yugoslavia -was carried out by the Hitlerites by various means and -methods. I shall not, Your Honors, enumerate them in detail. These -means and methods are already known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Yugoslavia the same thing occurred as in Poland and Czechoslovakia. -We need only stress that, in the destruction of the culture -of the peoples of Yugoslavia, the German fascist occupants showed -great ingenuity and utilized the vast experiences acquired in other -countries occupied by them. The system of destruction of the -national culture of the peoples of Yugoslavia starts with attack and -pillage and ends with mass murder, camps, and the ovens of the -crematories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Jugoslav Government, presented to the Tribunal -as Document Number USSR-36, there are quoted a large -number of facts and documents which establish, without any possibility -of doubt, the criminal deeds of the defendants. But even -these numerous facts quoted in the report do not exhaust all the -crimes committed by the Hitlerites. The report of the Yugoslav -Government quotes only typical cases as examples. I shall cite a -few excerpts from this report. These excerpts, Your Honors, are -on Page 303 of the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Immediately after the invasion of Slovenia, the Germans -started to fulfill their plans, thought out long beforehand, to -germanize the ‘annexed’ territories of Slovenia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further, on Page 307:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The occupiers closed all the schools in Slovenia, exiled all -the Slovene teachers, destroyed all Slovene libraries and -books, and forbade the use of the Slovene language, which -was considered as an act of sabotage.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The German barbarians destroyed and plundered not only schools -and libraries, they also destroyed universities and broadcasting stations, -cultural establishments, and sanatoria. On Page 23 of the -report, corresponding to Page 278 of the document book, we find, -for instance, the following facts concerning Belgrade. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Without any military need, the Germans premeditatively -destroyed and burned a great number of public buildings and -cultural institutions, such as the New University, the People’s -<span class='pageno' title='72' id='Page_72'></span> -University ‘Koloraz,’ the first high school for boys, the second -high school for girls, the ancient royal palace, the broadcasting -station, the Russian Home of Culture, the sanatorium -of Dr. Jivkovich, and so forth. In the university building -valuable and highly important collections of scientific works -and research matter were destroyed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As is established by the report of the Jugoslav State Commission, -which is Document Number J-39(a), and which I submit under -Exhibit Number 364, Page 313(a) of our document book—the Hitlerites -razed to the ground the National Library in Belgrade and -burned hundreds of thousands of books and manuscripts, which -constituted the basic stock of Serbian culture. They completely -destroyed 71 and partially destroyed 41 scientific institutes and -laboratories of Belgrade University. They razed to the ground the -State Academy of Art, and they burned and looted thousands of -schools.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 31 and pass on to Page 32. Your Honors -will find this passage on Page 303 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the 4 years of German domination, the people of Yugoslavia -experienced great sufferings and sorrow. The Germans looted -the economic wealth of the country and caused great material -damage. But the damage they caused to the culture of the people -of Yugoslavia was even greater.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In concluding this chapter of my report, I consider it essential, -Your Honors, to quote yet another excerpt from the diary of the -Defendant Frank. I have in mind the calico-bound volume of the -diary entitled, “Conferences of the Leaders of Departments of -1939-1940,” which contains an entry regarding the conference of the -departmental leaders of 19 January 1940 in Kraków. This excerpt -is on Page 169 of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 15 September 1939, I was entrusted with the administration -of the conquered eastern territories, and received a special -order pitilessly to devastate this district regarding it as -a combat zone and a prize of war, and to reduce its economic, -social, cultural, and political structure to a heap of ruins.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>To this statement of Frank’s, we need only add that the Defendant -Frank zealously performed this task in Poland and that the Reich, -Gau, and other leaders acted with equal zeal in the occupied territories -of the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am now going to present, Your Honors, proof of crimes committed -by the defendants against the culture of the peoples of the -Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have heard in this court what brutality was used and on how -vast a scale the Hitlerites conducted the destruction and spoliation -<span class='pageno' title='73' id='Page_73'></span> -of the cultural wealth of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and -Yugoslavia. The crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerite conspirators in -the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. were graver still. The criminal -organization, known as the Hitler Government, aimed not only -at plundering the people of the Soviet Union, at destroying their -towns and villages, and at extirpating the culture of the peoples of -the U.S.S.R., but also at enslaving the people of the Soviet Union -and of transforming our native country into a fascist colony of serfs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the second part of my statement I have proved how the -destruction of the cultural monuments of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. -was planned and perpetrated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. M. -Molotov, dated 27 April 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)), -documents and facts are quoted which establish beyond dispute that -the destruction of historic and cultural monuments and the vile -mockery of national feelings, beliefs, and convictions constituted a -part of the monstrous plan evolved and put into practice by the -Hitlerite Government, which strove to liquidate the national culture -of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. Later I shall refer again to this -document, but at present I wish, with your permission, to read -into the record the following excerpt which is on Page 321 of your -document book. I omit the first and quote the second paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The desecration and destruction of historical and cultural -memorials in occupied Soviet territories, as well as the devastation -of the numerous cultural establishments set up by -the Soviet authorities, are a part of the monstrously senseless -plan conceived and pursued by the Hitlerite Government -which strives to liquidate Russian national culture and the -national cultures of the peoples of the Soviet Union, forcibly -to germanize the Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, Lithuanian, -Latvian, Estonian and other peoples of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p>“In Order Number 0973/41, General Hodt, commander of the -German 17th Army, demands that his subordinates thoroughly -assimilate that misanthropic notion so typical of the thick-skulled -fascists, that the ‘sound feeling of vengeance and -repulsion towards everything Russian should not be suppressed -among the men but, on the contrary, encouraged in -every way.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>True to their custom of destroying universally recognized cultural -valuables, the Hitlerites everywhere on the Soviet territory -occupied by them, devastated and mostly burned libraries, from the -small club and school libraries up to and including the most valuable -collections of manuscripts and books, containing unique bibliographical -valuables. -<span class='pageno' title='74' id='Page_74'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a paragraph and continue the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites looted and then set on fire the famous Borodino -Museum, the historical exhibits of which related to the -struggle against the armies of Napoleon in 1812, particularly -dear to the Russian people. The invaders looted and set fire -to the Pushkin House Museum in the hamlet of Polotnyany -Zavod.</p> - -<p>“In Kaluga the Hitlerites assiduously destroyed the exhibits -in the house-museum in which the eminent Russian scientist -K. E. Tsiolkovsky, whose services in the field of aeronautics -enjoy world-wide fame, lived and worked.</p> - -<p>“The fascist vandals used Tsiolkovsky’s portrait as a target -for revolver practice. Extremely valuable models of dirigibles, -together with plans and instruments, were trampled underfoot. -One of the museum rooms was turned into a hen coop -and the furniture burned. One of the oldest agricultural institutions -in the U.S.S.R., the Shatilov selection station in the -Orel district, was destroyed by the invaders, who blew up -and consigned to the flames 55 buildings of this station, -including the agrochemical and other laboratories, the museum, -the library containing 40,000 volumes, the school, and other -buildings. Even greater frenzy was shown by the Hitlerites -when looting the cultural institutions and historical monuments -of the Ukraine and of Bielorussia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph of this -quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“There was no limit to the desecration by the Hitlerite vandals -of the monuments and homes representing Ukrainian -history, culture, and art. Suffice to mention, as an example -of the constant attempts to humiliate the national dignity of -the Ukrainian people, that after plundering the Korolenko -Library in Kharkov, the occupiers used the books as paving -stones for the muddy street in order to facilitate the passage -of German motor vehicles.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The German vandals treated with particular hatred these cultural -monuments which were most dear to the Soviet people. I shall -quote several instances:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites plundered Yasnaya Polyana, where one of the -greatest writers, Leo Tolstoy, was born, lived, and worked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They plundered and despoiled the house where the great Russian -composer, Tschaikovsky, lived and worked. In this house Tschaikovsky -created the world-famous operas <span class='it'>Eugen Onegin</span> and <span class='it'>The -Queen of Spades</span>. -<span class='pageno' title='75' id='Page_75'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Taganrog they destroyed the house where the great Russian -writer Chekhov lived; in Tikhvin they destroyed the residence of -the Russian composer Rimsky-Korsakov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As evidence, Your Honors, I shall read into the record an -excerpt from the note of Foreign Commissar Molotov, dated 6 January -1942. This document has already been submitted to the Tribunal -as Document Number 51(2). This excerpt is on Page 317 of -the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For a period of 6 weeks, the Germans occupied the world-famous -property of Yasnaya Polyana where Leo Tolstoy, one -of the greatest geniuses of mankind, was born, lived, and -created. This glorious memorial to Russian culture was -wrecked, profaned, and finally set on fire by the Nazi vandals. -The grave of the great writer was desecrated by the -invaders. Irreplaceable relics relating to the life and work of -Leo Tolstoy, including rare manuscripts, books, and paintings, -were either plundered by the German soldiers or thrown -away and destroyed. A German officer named Schwartz, in -reply to a request of one of the museum’s staff collaborators -to stop using the personal furniture and books of the great -writer for firewood and to use wood available for this purpose, -answered, ‘We don’t need firewood; we shall burn everything -connected with the name of your Tolstoy.’</p> - -<p>“When the town of Klin was liberated by the Soviet troops -on 15 December, it was ascertained that the house in which -P. I. Tschaikovsky, the great Russian composer, had lived and -worked and which the Soviet State had turned into a museum, -had been wrecked and plundered by fascist officers and soldiers. -In the museum building proper, the Germans set up a -garage for motorcycles, heating this garage with manuscripts, -books, furniture, and other museum exhibits, part of which -had in any case been stolen by the German invaders. In doing -this, the Nazi officers knew perfectly well that they were -defiling one of the finest monuments of Russian culture.</p> - -<p>“During the occupation of the town of Istra, the German -troops established an ammunition dump in the famous ancient -Russian monastery known as the New Jerusalem Monastery, -founded as far back as 1654. The New Jerusalem Monastery -was an outstanding historical and religious monument of the -Russian people and was known as one of the most beautiful -specimens of religious architecture. This did not, however, -prevent the German fascist vandals from blowing up their -ammunition dump in the New Jerusalem Monastery on their -retreat from Istra, thereby reducing this irreplaceable monument -of Russian church history to a heap of ruins.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='76' id='Page_76'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph and close this quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Acting upon directions of the German Military Command, the -Hitlerites destroyed and annihilated the cultural-historic monuments -of the Russian people connected with the life and work of the great -Russian poet, Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union, the original copy of which is now submitted to the Tribunal -as Document Number USSR-40 (Exhibit Number USSR-40), reads -as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To preserve the cultural and historical memorials of the -Russian people connected with the life and creations of the -gifted Russian poet and genius, Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin, -the Soviet Government, on 17 March 1922, declared the poet’s -estate at Mikhailovskoye, as well as his tomb at the monastery -of Svyatogorsky and the neighboring villages of Trigorskoye, -Gorodischtsche, and Voronitch, a state reservation.</p> - -<p>“The Pushkin reservation, and especially the poet’s estate at -Mikhailovskoye, was very dear to the Russian people. Here -Pushkin finished the third and created the fourth, fifth, and -sixth chapters of <span class='it'>Eugen Onegin</span>. Here, too, he finished his -poem <span class='it'>Gypsies</span>, and wrote the drama <span class='it'>Boris Godunov</span>, as well -as a large number of epic and lyrical poems.</p> - -<p>“In July 1941 the Hitlerites forced their way into the Pushkin -reservation. For 3 years they made themselves at home there, -ruined everything, and destroyed the Pushkin memorials.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall omit the beginning of Page 1 of the report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The plundering of the museum had already begun in August -1941.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I shall also omit the next paragraph. I read on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the autumn of 1943 the commander of the Pushkin Military -Kommandantur, Treibholz, urged Director K. V. Afanassiev -to prepare for the evacuation of all the museum -valuables. All these valuables were packed into cases by the -German authorities, loaded into trucks, and sent to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit the next paragraph and read on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At the end of February 1944 the Germans turned Mikhailovskoye -into a military objective and into one of the strongpoints -of the German defense. The park area was dug up -for combat and communication trenches; shelters were constructed. -The cottage of Pushkin’s nurse was taken to pieces -and next to it, and partly on its former site, the Germans -constructed a large dugout, protected by five layers of timber. -The Germans built a similar dugout near the former museum -building. -<span class='pageno' title='77' id='Page_77'></span></p> - -<p>“Prior to their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the Germans -completed the destruction and desecration of the Pushkin -estate. The house-museum erected on the foundation of Pushkin’s -former residence was burned down by the Germans and -nothing remained but a heap of ruins. The marble plate of -the Pushkin monument was smashed to pieces and thrown -onto the pile of ashes. Of the other two houses standing at the -entrance to the Mikhailovskoye estate, one was burned down -by the Germans, the other severely damaged. The German -vandals put three bullets into the large portrait of Pushkin -hanging in an archway at the entrance to the Mikhailovskoye -park; then they destroyed the archway.</p> - -<p>“After their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the fascists bombarded -the village with mine throwers and artillery fire. The -wooden stairs leading to the River Soret were destroyed by -German mines. The old lime trees of the circular alley leading -to the house were broken down; the giant elm tree in front -of the house was damaged by shell fire and splinters.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of this page and pass on to Page 41 of the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the village of Voronitch the wooden church was burned -down which dated back to Pushkin’s times and where Pushkin -had a requiem sung on 7 April 1825 to commemorate the death -of the great English poet, Byron. The churchyard near the -church where V. P. Hannibal, one of Pushkin’s relatives, and -the priest, Rayevsky, close friend of the poet, lay buried, was -criss-crossed by trenches, mined, and devastated. The historical -aspect of the reservation, in which the Russian people -saw a symbol of Pushkin, was disfigured beyond all recognition -by the Germans.</p> - -<p>“The sacrileges perpetrated by the Germans against the -national sanctuaries of the Russian people are best demonstrated -by the desecration of Pushkin’s tomb. In an attempt to -save the Pushkin reservation from destruction, the units of -the Red Army did not defend this district, but withdrew to -Novorzhev. Nevertheless, on 2 July 1941 the Germans bombarded -the monastery of Svyatiye-Gory, at the adjoining -walls of which is Pushkin’s tomb.</p> - -<p>“In March 1943, long before the battle line approached the -Pushkinskiye hills, the Germans began the systematical demolition -of the Svyatiye-Gory monastery.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of this page, and I pass on to Page 42:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The poet’s tomb was found completely covered with refuse. -Both stairways leading down to the grave were destroyed. -The platform surrounding the grave was covered with refuse, -rubble, wooden fragments of icons, and pieces of sheet metal.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='78' id='Page_78'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a paragraph and quote further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The marble balustrade surrounding the platform was -damaged by fragments of artillery shells and by bullets. -The monument itself inclined at an angle of 10 to 12 degrees -eastwards, as a result of a landslide following the shelling, -and of the shocks caused by the explosions of German mines.</p> - -<p>“The invaders knew perfectly well that, on entering the -Pushkinskiye hills, the officers and soldiers of the Red Army -would first of all visit the grave of the poet, and therefore -converted it into a trap for the patriots. Approximately 3,000 -mines were discovered and removed from the grounds of the -monastery and its vicinity by the engineers of the Soviet -Army. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The destruction of works of art and architecture in the towns of -Pavlovsk, Tzarskoe-Selo, and Peterhof, figure among the worst -anti-cultural crimes of the Hitlerites. The magnificent monuments -of art and architecture in these towns, which had been turned into -“museum towns,” are known throughout the civilized world. These -art and architectural monuments were created in the course of -2 centuries. They commemorated a whole series of outstanding -events in Russian history.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Celebrated Russian and foreign architects, sculptors, and artists -created masterpieces which were kept in these “museum towns” -and, together with valuable masterpieces of Russian and foreign -art, they had been blown up, burned, robbed, or destroyed by the -fascist vandals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read into the record Exhibit Number USSR-49 (Document -Number USSR-49) which includes a statement of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union dated 3 September 1944. -The excerpts which I shall quote, Your Honors, are on Pages 330-332 -of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 43 and the whole of Page 44 of this -statement, and begin my quotation in the middle of Page 45:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At the time the German invaders broke into Petrodvoretz -(in Peterhof) there still remained, after the evacuation, 34,214 -museum exhibits (pictures, works of art, and sculptures), as -well as 11,700 extremely valuable books from the palace -libraries. The ground floor rooms of the Ekaterininsky and -Alexandrovsky Palaces in the town of Pushkin contained -assorted furniture suites of Russian and French workmanship -of the middle of the 18th century, 600 items of artistic -porcelain of the late 19th and 20th centuries, as well as a large -number of marble busts, small sculptures, and about 35,000 -volumes from the palace libraries. -<span class='pageno' title='79' id='Page_79'></span></p> - -<p>“On the basis of documentary materials, the statements and -testimony of eyewitnesses, the evidence of German prisoners -of war and as a result of careful investigation, it has been -established that: Breaking into Petrodvoretz on 23 September -1941, the German invaders immediately proceeded to loot the -treasures of the palace-museums and in the course of several -months removed the contents of these palaces.</p> - -<p>“From the Big, Marly, Monplaisir, and Cottage Palaces, -they looted and removed to Germany some 34,000 museum -exhibits, among them 4,950 unique items of furniture of -Italian, English, French, and Russian workmanship from the -periods of Catherine the Great, Alexander I, and Nicholas I, -as well as many rare sets of porcelain of foreign and Russian -manufacture of the 18th and 19th centuries. The German -barbarians stripped the walls of the palace rooms of the -silks, Gobelin tapestries, and other decorative materials which -adorned them.</p> - -<p>“In November 1941 the Germans removed the bronze statue -of Samson, the work of the sculptor Koslovsky, and took it -away. Having looted the museum treasures, the Hitlerites -set fire to the Big Palace, created by the famous and gifted -architect Bartolomeo Rastrelli.</p> - -<p>“Upon their withdrawal from Petrodvoretz”—I have skipped -a paragraph—“the Germans wrecked the Marly Palace by -delayed-action mines. This palace contained very delicate -carvings and stucco moldings. The Germans wrecked the -Monplaisir Palace of Peter the Great. They destroyed all -the wooden parts of the pavilion and of the galleries, the -interior decorations of the study, the bedroom and the -Chinese room.</p> - -<p>“During their occupation, they turned the central parts of -the palace, that is, the most valuable from the historical -and artistic viewpoint, into bunkers. They turned the western -pavilion of the palace into a stable and a latrine. In the -premises of the Assembly Building the Germans tore up the -floor, sawed through the beams, destroyed the doors and -windowframes, and stripped the panelling off the ceiling.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip one paragraph and quote the last one on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the northern part of the park, in the so-called Alexander -Park, they blew up the villa of Nicholas II, completely -destroyed the frame cottage which served as billet for officers, -the Alexander gates, the pavilions of the Adam fountain, the -pylons of the main gates of the upper park and the Rose -Pavilion.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='80' id='Page_80'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip one paragraph on Page 47:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans wrecked the fountain system of the Petrodvoretz -parks. They damaged the entire pipe-line system for -feeding the fountains, a system extending from the dam of -the Rose Pavilion to the upper park.</p> - -<p>“After the occupation of New Petrodvoretz, units of the 291st -German Infantry Division, using heavy artillery fire, -completely destroyed the famous English Palace at Old -Petrodvoretz, built on the orders of Catherine II by the -architect Quarenghi. The Germans fired 9,000 rounds of -heavy artillery shells into the palace; together with the -Palace they destroyed the picturesque English park and all -the park pavilions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has appreciated the successful -efforts which the other members of the Soviet Delegation have -made to shorten their addresses, and they would be glad if you -could possibly summarize some of the details with which you -have to deal in the matter of destruction and spoliation and perhaps -omit some of the details.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is all for this morning.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='81' id='Page_81'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The looting and destruction -of historical and artistic palaces in the town of Pushkin (Tzarskoe-Selo) -was carried out with malice aforesight by order of the -highest German authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 47 and the beginning of Page 48:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“A considerable part of the Catherine Palace was burned -down by the Germans. The famous ceremonial halls, 300 -meters long and designed by Rastrelli, perished in the flames. -The famous antechambers”—waiting rooms—“decorated by -Rastrelli were likewise ruined.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Great Hall—outstanding creation of the genius of -Rastrelli—presented a terrible spectacle. The unique ceilings, -work of Torelli, Giordano, Brullov, and other famous Italian -and Russian masters, were destroyed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit another paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Equally ruined and pillaged was the Palace Church, one of -Rastrelli’s masterpieces, famous for the exquisite workmanship -of the interior decoration.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one more paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In January 1944 the retreating German invaders prepared -the complete destruction of all that was left of the Catherine -Palace and adjoining buildings. For this purpose, on the -ground floor of the remaining part of the palace, as well as -under the Cameron Gallery, 11 large delayed-action aerial -bombs were laid, weighing from 1 to 3 tons.</p> - -<p>“In Pushkin the Hitlerite bandits destroyed the Alexander -Palace, constructed at the end of the 18th century by the -famous architect Giacomo Quarenghi.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“All the museum furniture, stored in the basements of the -Catherine and Alexander Palaces, items of artistic porcelain, -and books from the palace libraries were sent to Germany.</p> - -<p>“The famous painted ceiling, ‘Feast of the Gods on Olympus,’ -in the main hall of the Hermitage pavilion was removed -and shipped to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Great destructions were caused by the Hitlerites in the -magnificent Pushkin parks, where thousands of age-old trees -were cut down. -<span class='pageno' title='82' id='Page_82'></span></p> - -<p>“Ribbentrop’s special purpose battalion and the Kommandos -Staff Rosenberg shipped to Germany from the Pavlovsky -Palace extremely valuable palace furniture, designed by -Veronikhin and by the greatest masters of the 18th century.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 49 and the beginning of Page 50 of the -report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During their retreat the fascist invaders set fire to the -Paul’s Palace. The greater part of the palace building was -entirely burned down.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next two paragraphs and quote the last paragraph, -which concludes this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Extraordinary State Commission established that the -destruction of art monuments in Petrodvoretz, Pushkin, and -Pavlovsk was carried out by the officers and soldiers of the -German Army on the direct instructions of the German -Government and the High Command.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Many large towns were destroyed by the German fascist invaders -in the occupied U.S.S.R. territories. But they destroyed with particular -ruthlessness the ancient Russian cities containing monuments -of ancient Russian art. I quote as an example the destruction of the -cities of Novgorod, Pskov, and Smolensk. Novgorod and Pskov belong -to these historical centers where the Russian people laid the foundation -of their state; here, in the course of centuries flourished a -highly developed and individual culture. It left a rich heritage -which constitutes a valuable possession of our people. Thanks to -the survival of numerous monuments of ecclesiastic and civil -architecture, murals, paintings, sculpture, and handicraft, Novgorod -and Pskov were rightly considered the seat of Russian history.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite barbarians destroyed, in Novgorod, many valuable -monuments of Russian and foreign art of the 11th and 12th -centuries. They not only destroyed the monuments but they -reduced the entire city to a heap of ruins.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By way of proof, I shall read into the record some excerpts -from the document presented to the Tribunal as Document Number -USSR-50. You will, Your Honors, find these excerpts on Pages 333 -and 334 of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The ancient Russian city of Novgorod was reduced to a heap -of ruins by the German fascist invaders. They destroyed -the historical monuments and dismantled some of them for -use in the construction of defense fortifications. . . .</p> - -<p>“The German fascist vandals destroyed and obliterated, in -Novgorod, the greatest monuments of ancient Russian art. -The fascists destroyed the vaults and walls of the Saint -George Cathedral tower of the Yuryev Monastery. This -<span class='pageno' title='83' id='Page_83'></span> -cathedral was built in the early part of the 12th century, -was decorated by 12th century frescoes.</p> - -<p>“The Cathedral of Saint Sophia, built in the 11th century, -was one of the oldest monuments of Russian architecture -and an outstanding monument of world art. The Germans -destroyed the cathedral building. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Hitlerites robbed the cathedral entirely of all its interior -decorations; they carried off all the icons from the iconostasis -and the ancient chandeliers, including one which belonged to -Boris Godunov. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Church of the Annunciation on the Arkage, dating back -to the 12th century, was converted by the fascists into a -fortified position and barracks.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Church of the Assumption on Volotov Field, a monument -of Novgorod architecture of the 14th-15th centuries, -was turned by the Germans into a heap of stones and bricks.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one sentence.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Church of the Transfiguration of our Lord, in Ilyin -Street, was destroyed. It was one of the finest specimens -of Novgorod architecture of the 14th century, particularly -famed for its frescoes, painted in the same period by the -great Byzantine master, Theofan, the Greek.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the rest of this page and pass on to Page 54, of my -report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Over 2 years of Hitlerite rule in Novgorod brought about the -ruin of many other wonderful, ancient monuments of Russian -architecture. . . . By order of the commanding general of the -18th German Army, Generaloberst Lindemann, the German -barbarians dismantled and prepared for removal to Germany -the monument to ‘a thousand years of Russia.’ This monument -was erected in the Kremlin Square in 1862 and represented, -in artistic images, the main stages of the development -of our native land up to the sixties of the 19th century. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Hitler barbarians dismantled the monument and smashed -the statuary. They did not, however, succeed in shipping -it off and melting down the metal.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Citizen Youri Nikolaievich Dimitriev, in his affidavit, gives a -very detailed account of the barbarous destruction by the Germans -of the monuments of ancient Russian art in the cities of Novgorod -and Pskov. Dimitriev, since 1937, was the custodian of the Ancient -Russian Art Section of the Russian State Museum in Leningrad. -He began the study of the historical monuments of Novgorod and -Pskov in 1926. As a great expert in this particular sphere of art, -<span class='pageno' title='84' id='Page_84'></span> -he was asked by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union to participate in the investigation of the crimes of the -German fascist invaders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal the original of Dimitriev’s depositions, -duly certified, in accordance with legal procedure in the U.S.S.R., -as Document Number USSR-312 (Exhibit Number USSR-312). You -will find it, Your Honors, on Pages 335 and 347 in your document -book. In submitting his affidavit, I shall omit facts already known -to the Tribunal from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -previously read into the record. I quote only a few short -excerpts which will be found on Pages 336 and 339. Mr. Dimitriev -stated as follows—I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The greater part of Novgorod is razed to the ground; only -a few districts were left by the Germans and even these -were in ruins. Pskov was also left in ruins by the Germans; -during their retreat they blew up the buildings and monuments. -Of 88 buildings of historical and artistic value in -Novgorod only two buildings are without grave damages. . . . -Only a few isolated monuments in Pskov were left -undamaged.</p> - -<p>“In Novgorod and Pskov the Germans deliberately destroyed -monuments of historical and artistic value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German Army, while destroying and damaging monuments -of historical and artistic value, plundered and carried -off works of art and valuable objects which formed part of, -or were contained in, these monuments.</p> - -<p>“At the same time the German troops profaned and -desecrated several ecclesiastical monuments of historic and -artistic value in Novgorod and Pskov.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Day by day for 26 months, the Hitlerites systematically -destroyed one of the most ancient Russian cities, Smolensk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Soviet Prosecution has presented to the Tribunal a document -as Document Number USSR-56, containing the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union. I shall not quote -this document; but I shall only refer to it and endeavor, in my -own words, to emphasize the fundamental points of this document, -dealing with the reported theme now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Smolensk, the German fascist invaders plundered and -destroyed the most valuable collections in the museums. They -desecrated and burned down ancient monuments; they destroyed -schools and institutes, libraries, and sanatoriums. The report also -mentions the fact that in April 1943, the Germans needed rubble -to pave the roads. For this purpose, they blew up the intermediate -<span class='pageno' title='85' id='Page_85'></span> -school. The Germans burned down all the libraries of the city -and 22 schools; 646,000 volumes perished in the library fires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass on to Page 57 of my report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Prior to the German occupation Smolensk contained four -museums with extremely valuable collections.</p> - -<p>“The museum of art possessed most valuable collections, -primarily of Russian historic-artistic, historic-sociological, -ethnographic, and other valuables: paintings, icons, bronzes, -porcelains, metal castings, and textiles. These collections -were of international value and had been exhibited in France. -The invaders destroyed the museums and took the most -valuable exhibits to Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote only one last paragraph on Page 57:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the confiscation and exportation -of valuables from the occupied regions of the East had -a special branch in Smolensk, headed by Dr. Norling, the -organizer for the plunder of museums and historical -monuments.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such are some of the numerous facts of the crimes committed -by the fascist barbarians. They demonstrate how the criminal -schemes of the Hitlerite conspirators were actually materialized.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is known how mercilessly the German fascist invaders carried -out the economic plunder of the Ukrainian people. But destruction -and plunder of Ukrainian cultural and historical treasures -played no lesser part in the plans of the Hitlerite conspirators, and -was carried out with the same savage zeal. In accordance with -their criminal plans for the enslavement of the freedom-loving -Ukrainian people, the Hitlerite conspirators endeavored to annihilate -its culture. From the very first days of their invasion of the -Ukraine the Hitlerites, in execution of their criminal designs, -embarked upon the systematic destruction of schools, higher educational -institutions, scientific establishments, museums, libraries, -clubs, and theaters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The historical and cultural treasures in the cities of Kiev, Kharkov, -Odessa, in the Provinces of Stalino and Rovno, and many -other larger and smaller cities, were subjected to plunder and -destruction.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution under -Document Number USSR-32, containing the sentence pronounced by -the military tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front between 15-18 -December 1943, it is evident that the German fascist armies of -Kharkov, in the Province of Kharkov, acting on direct instructions -of Hitler’s Government, burned, plundered, and destroyed the -<span class='pageno' title='86' id='Page_86'></span> -material and cultural treasures of the Soviet people. These excerpts, -Your Honors, you will find on Page 359 in your document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now proceed to the evidence of crimes committed by the -Hitlerites in the capital of the Ukrainian Republic, Kiev. I quote -one paragraph of the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution -under Document Number USSR-248. You will find it on Page 363 -of your document book. It is an extract from the records of the -Extraordinary State Commission “about the destruction and plunder -by the fascist aggressors of Kiev’s Psychiatric Hospital.” Among -other destructions they—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . burned the archives of the institute, priceless from a -scientific point of view, destroyed the magnificent hospital -library of 20,000 volumes, plundered the especially protected -and priceless monument of the 11th century—the famous -Cathedral of Saint Cyryl situated in the institute grounds.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I next pass on to several excerpts from the Extraordinary State -Commission’s report which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9). The excerpts quoted -are on Pages 365-366 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Before the German invasion, Kiev possessed 150 secondary -and elementary schools. Of this number, 77 schools were -used by the Germans as military barracks. Nine served as -warehouses and workshops, two were occupied by military -staffs and eight were turned into stables. During their -retreat from Kiev, the German barbarians destroyed 140 -schools.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German invaders stole more than 4 million volumes -from the book stocks of the Kiev libraries. From the library -of the Ukrainian S.S.R. Academy of Science alone the -Hitlerites sent to Germany over 320,000 various valuable and -unique books, magazines, and manuscripts.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg Your Honors to note that Dr. Förster, SS Obersturmführer, -who served in the special purpose battalion, established on the -initiative of the Defendant Ribbentrop and acting under his orders, -testified to the plunder of the library of the Ukrainian S.S.R., -Academy of Science, in his deposition of 10 November 1942, which I -have already read into the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and pass on to a further reading from -the report of the Extraordinary State Commission:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 5 September 1943 the Germans burned and blew up one -of the most ancient centers of Ukrainian culture, the T. G. -Shevtchenko State University in Kiev, founded in 1834. In -<span class='pageno' title='87' id='Page_87'></span> -the fire perished the greatest of cultural treasures which for -centuries had represented the scientific and educational bases -on which the work of the university was founded; perished, -the priceless documents from the historical archives of ancient -manuscripts; perished, the library containing over 1,300,000 -books; destroyed, the zoological museum of the university -with over 2 million exhibits, together with a whole series of -other museums. . . .</p> - -<p>“. . . The German occupiers also destroyed other institutions -of higher learning in Kiev; they burned and looted the -majority of the medical institutions.</p> - -<p>“In Kiev the fascist barbarians burned down the building -of the Red Army Dramatic Theater . . . , the Theatrical -Institute, the Academy of Music, where the instruments were -burned together with the very wealthy library and all the -equipment; they blew up the beautiful circus building; they -burned down, with its entire equipment, the M. Gorki Theater -for Juvenile Audiences; they destroyed the Jewish theater. . . .</p> - -<p>“In the Museum of Western European and Eastern Art only -some large canvases were left; the robbers had not had time -to remove them from the high walls of the stairway shafts. -From the Museum of Russian Art the Hitlerites carried off, -together with all the other exhibits, a collection of Russian -icons of inestimable value. They looted the Museum of -Ukrainian Art; only 1,900 exhibits of the National Art Section -of this museum were left of the original 41,000.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of this page and pass to Page 62 of my -report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites plundered the T. G. Shevtchenko Museum and -the historical museum. They looted the greatest monument -to the Slav peoples—the Cathedral of Saint Sophia—from -which they removed 14 12th century frescoes.”</p> - -<p>I omit one paragraph.</p> - -<p>“By order of the German Command the troops plundered, -blew up, and destroyed a very ancient cultural monument—the -Kievo-Pecherskaya Abbey. . . .</p> - -<p>“The Uspenski Cathedral, built in 1075-89 by the order of -Grand Duke Svjatoslav, with murals painted in 1897 by the -famous painter V. V. Vereshchiagin, was blown up by the -Germans on 3 November 1941.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of Page 62 and pass on to Page 63 of the -report: -<span class='pageno' title='88' id='Page_88'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“We cannot gaze without sorrow”—states Nicholas, Metropolitan -of Kiev and Galicia, and member of the Extraordinary -State Commission—“on the heaps of rubble of the -Uspenski Cathedral, founded in the 11th century by the -genius of its immortal builders. The explosions formed -several huge craters in the area surrounding the cathedral, -and, beholding them, it would appear that the very earth -had shuddered at the sight of the atrocities committed by -those who no longer had a right to be called human beings. -It was as if a terrible hurricane had passed over the abbey, -overturning everything, scattering and destroying the mighty -buildings of the abbey. For over 2 years Kiev lay shackled -in the German chains. Hitler’s executioners brought death -to Kiev, together with ruins, famine, and executions. In -time all this will pass from the near present to the far distant -past; but never will the people of Russia and the Ukraine, -or honest men all the world over, forget these crimes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, may I dwell on two more documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first, Document Number 035-PS, is entitled, “A Brief Report -on Security Measures of the Chief Labor Group in the Ukraine -during the Withdrawal of the Armed Forces.” It was presented -to the Tribunal by our American colleagues on 18 December 1945. -A characteristic peculiarity of this document is that it openly -testifies to the looting. It is quite clear to all that reference is -made to a gang of robbers, although the Hitlerites still persist in -referring to robbery as work. They shipped the most valuable -exhibits of the Ukrainian Museum to Germany as “miscellaneous -textiles.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report begins with the description of the creation of safe -quarters for the Einsatzstab establishments, a purpose for which -the inhabitants of an entire district were thrown out of their -quarters. There then follows, in this document, a list of booty -removed from the plundered museums of Kharkov and Kiev, from -archives, and even from private libraries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote one brief excerpt only from this document, dealing -with the contents of the Ukrainian and the prehistorical museum -of Kiev. You will find this excerpt on Page 368 of the document -book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“October 1943, materials of the Ukrainian museum in Kiev.</p> - -<p>“On the basis of the general evacuation orders of the city -commissioner, the following were sorted out by us and -loaded for shipment to Kraków:</p> - -<p>“Miscellaneous textiles; collections of valuable embroidery -patterns; collections of brocades; numerous wooden utensils, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>. -<span class='pageno' title='89' id='Page_89'></span></p> - -<p>“Moreover, a large part of the prehistoric museum was carried -away.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second, Document Number 1109-PS of 17 June 1944, is -headed, “Note for the Director of Operation Group P4,” and is -addressed to Von Milde-Schreden. I shall quote it completely -because it is really a short excerpt which you will find on Page 369 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“2. The removal of cultural property.</p> - -<p>“A great deal of material from museums, archives, institutions, -and other cultural establishments was in an orderly -manner removed from Kiev in the autumn of 1943.</p> - -<p>“These actions to safeguard the material were carried out by -Einsatzstab RR, as well as by the individual directors of -institutes, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, at the instigation of the Reich Commissioner.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Here, Your Honors, I would point out that Einsatzstab Rosenberg -in some documents is also referred to as the “Task Staff RR.” -These initials stand for Reichsleiter Rosenberg.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At first, a great deal of the property that was to be evacuated -was taken only to the areas of the rear; later on, this -material was forwarded to the Reich. When the undersigned, -towards the end of September, received the order from the -cultural division of the Reich Commissioner to take out of -Kiev the remaining cultural effects, the materials most valuable -from a cultural point of view had already been removed. -During October some 40 carloads of cultural effects were -shipped to the Reich. In this case it was chiefly a question of -valuables which belonged to the research institutions of the -national research center of the Ukraine. These institutions, -at present, are continuing their work in the Reich and are -being directed in such a manner that at any given moment -they can be brought back to the Ukraine. The cultural values -which could not be promptly safeguarded incurred plunder. -In this case, however, it was always a question of less valuable -material, as the essential assets had been removed in an -orderly manner.</p> - -<p>“In October 1943 factories, workshops, plants, and other -equipment were removed from Kiev by the order of the -town commander, but where it was taken, I do not know.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This letter ends with the following sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“At the time the Soviets entered the city there was nothing -valuable, in this respect, left in the city.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, from the documents submitted by -the Soviet Prosecution, the Tribunal has already learned about the -<span class='pageno' title='90' id='Page_90'></span> -criminal conspiracy between Hitler and Antonescu. As a reward -for supplying Germany with cannon fodder, oil, wheat, cattle, <span class='it'>et -cetera</span>, Antonescu’s criminal clique received from Hitler’s Government -authorization to plunder the civilian population between the -Bug and the Dniester. German and Romanian invaders plundered -and destroyed many objects of cultural value, health resorts, and -medical institutions in Odessa. The Hitlerites also plundered on -their own account, as well as in co-operation with Antonescu’s -clique. To prove this, I shall now read into the record a few -excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -of the Soviet Union, presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-47 (Document Number USSR-47). These excerpts are taken -from Page 372 of your document book. I omit one paragraph and -begin to quote from the penultimate paragraph on this page of -my report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German Military Command plundered the museums of -Odessa, carrying away hundreds of unique objects.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, I here omit two paragraphs and quote the last line of -Page 66:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“According to a plan, drawn up in advance, the German -fascist invaders . . . blew up or burned 2,290 of the largest -buildings of architectural, artistic, and historical value. Included -in these were the house of A. S. Pushkin . . . the Saban -barracks, built in 1827, and others, representing in themselves -valuable monuments to the material culture of the beginning -of the 19th century.</p> - -<p>“In Odessa the German-Romanian invaders destroyed: The -first hospital for contagious diseases, the second district hospital, -the somatological hospital, the psychiatric hospital, and -two children’s hospitals, a children’s polyclinic, seven infant -consulting centers, 55 day nurseries, two maternity homes, -one dispensary, one leprosarium, six polyclinics, and research -institutions for the study of tuberculosis, for studying conditions -in spas and others. They destroyed 29 sanatoria located -around Odessa.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites committed crimes on an exceptionally large scale -in the Stalino Province. I omit the rest of this page and pass to -Page 68 of my report. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission, -presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number -USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2), relates an enormous number -of facts. I shall not quote all of those, Your Honors; but I shall -confine myself only to several excerpts from the above-mentioned -document which have not yet been read into the record by my -colleagues. They can be found on Pages 374 and 375 in your document -book. I quote: -<span class='pageno' title='91' id='Page_91'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During their retreat from Stalino, the Hitlerites completely -destroyed . . . 113 schools, 62 kindergartens, 390 shops, the -winter and summer theaters, the Palace of the Pioneers, the -radio theater, the Museum of the Revolution, the picture -gallery and the Dzerjinsky Club of the city.</p> - -<p>“Special Engineer detachments went from school to school, -pouring incendiary liquid over them and setting them on fire. -Such Soviet people who tried to extinguish the fires were -immediately shot by the fascist scoundrels. . . .</p> - -<p>“Exceptionally severe damages were caused by the invaders -to the medical establishments of the city.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit three paragraphs of the report, and I quote the penultimate -paragraph on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Medical Institute, a model scientific establishment for -2,000 students, was destroyed on the orders of Oberfeldarzt -Roll, chief medical officer of Belindorf, and the chief medical -officer of Kuchendorf.</p> - -<p>“Of a total of 600,000 books on science and art, 530,000 -volumes were burned by the Hitlerites. . . .</p> - -<p>“In the town of Makeyewka the German fascist invaders blew -up and burned down the city theater, seating 1,000 persons; -the circus, seating 1,500 persons; 49 schools, 20 day nurseries, -and 44 kindergarten schools. By order of the Town Commander, -Vogler, 35,000 volumes from the central Gorky -library were destroyed on a pyre.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not enumerate all the cities. These facts were mentioned -in a document which, according to Article 21 of the Charter, -provides irrefutable evidence. In agreement with the rulings of -the Tribunal, this document will not be read into the record in -full. I must, however, draw your attention to the fact that in all -industrial towns of the Province of Stalino the Hitlerites burned -down schools, theaters, day nurseries, hospitals, and even churches. -Thus in the town of Gorlovka:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . they destroyed 32 schools, attended by some 21,649 children, -burned down the town hospital, five polyclinics, a -church, and the Palace of Culture. . . .</p> - -<p>“In the city of Konstantinovka the occupational authorities -blew up and burned down all the 25 city schools, two cinemas, -the central city library with 35,000 volumes, the Pioneers’ -Club, the children’s technical center, the city hospital, and the -day nurseries.</p> - -<p>“Before their retreat from Mariupol the German occupational -authorities burned down all the 68 schools of the city, -17 kindergarten schools . . . and the Palace of the Pioneers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='92' id='Page_92'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now quote a few excerpts from the document presented -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR 45 (Document Number -USSR-45). These excerpts are found on Page 378 of your document -book. The document deals with the Hitlerite crimes in Rovno and -the region of Rovno. The city of Rovno was of special importance. -It was the residence of Reich Minister Erich Koch, the closest collaborator -of the Defendant Rosenberg. Numerous conferences of the -Hitlerite leaders for elaborating their plan for the enslavement of -the Ukrainian people took place in this city. The above-mentioned -report of the Extraordinary State Commission established the following -facts:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites, on the Ukrainian territory they had seized, -endeavored to establish a regime of slavery and serfdom and -to annihilate the Ukrainian sovereignty and culture. . . .</p> - -<p>“The considerable material in possession of the Extraordinary -State Commission, based on documents, testimonies of witnesses, -and personal inspection by members of the commission, -and their acquaintance with conditions prevailing in -various cultural and educational establishments on Ukrainian -territory liberated by the Red Army, leaves no doubt that the -German fascist barbarians had for their aim the destruction -of Ukrainian culture and the extermination of the best representatives -of Ukrainian art and science who had fallen into -their hands.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the penultimate paragraph -on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist aggressors closed down nearly all the -cultural and educational establishments in Rovno. On 30 November -1941 the closing down of schools in the General Commissariat -of Volhynia and Podolia was officially announced -in the newspaper <span class='it'>Volyn</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 70, and I quote the last paragraph of -this document on Page 71 of my report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The fact that all these crimes were committed in the residence -of the former Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, -Erich Koch, serves as additional proof that all the crimes of -the Hitlerite bandits were perpetrated in execution of a plan -for the extermination of the Soviet people and the devastation -of the Soviet territories temporarily occupied by the Hitlerites, -a plan conceived and executed by the Hitlerite Government.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In Section 5 of his opening statement, General Rudenko, Chief -Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., quoted an extract from a letter of the -<span class='pageno' title='93' id='Page_93'></span> -Commissioner General for Bielorussia, Kube, addressed to the -Defendant Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is a typewritten letter, signed in ink by Kube. -It has several notations in pencil, evidently by the hand of Rosenberg; -and it has a stamp, “Ministerial Bureau,” and is dated -3 October 1941. This document, identified as Document Number -1099-PS, I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-374 in -evidence of the enormous proportions assumed by the plundering -of historical treasures, carried out everywhere by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission I shall now take the liberty of quoting -some additional extracts from this document, which discloses the -fact that not only were the plundered treasures sent to Germany -but that they had also been stolen by individual generals of Hitler’s -Army. Kube’s letter reveals at the same time the existence of a -previously elaborated plan for the plunder of the cultural treasures -in Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine. The vandalism of the -Hitlerites reached such proportions that even Kube, that hangman -of the Bielorussian people, was roused to indignation. He was afraid -of allowing a profitable deal to slip through his hands and sought -compensation from Rosenberg. I quote the second paragraph from -the beginning of the letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Minsk possessed a large and, in part, a very valuable collection -of art treasures and paintings which have now been -removed almost in their entirety from the city. By order of -Reichsführer SS, Reichsleiter Heinrich Himmler, most of the -paintings, some still during my term of office, were packed -by the SS and sent to the Reich. They are worth several -millions which were withdrawn from the general district of -White Ruthenia. The paintings were supposedly sent to Linz -and to Königsberg in East Prussia. I beg to have this valuable -collection—as far as it is not needed in the Reich—placed -once more at the disposal of the general district of White -Ruthenia or, in any case, to place the monetary value of these -collections with the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Kube, as well as the Defendant Rosenberg, was of the opinion -that he had the right to monopolize the stolen treasures and complained—I -quote the second part of the second paragraph of this -letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“General Stubenrauch has taken a valuable part of this collection -and has carried it off to the area of military operations. -Sonderführer, whose names have not yet been reported to -me, have carried off three truckloads (without receipt) of -furniture, paintings, and objects of art.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='94' id='Page_94'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having, along with other fascist leaders, robbed the people of -Bielorussia, and taken a direct part in the mass ill-treatment and -extermination of the Soviet population, Kube hypocritically declared—I -quote the last paragraph of this letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Bielorussia, already poor in itself, has suffered heavy losses -through these actions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And Kube recommended to Rosenberg—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hope that experts will be appointed beforehand to prevent -such happenings in Leningrad and Moscow, as well as in -some of the ancient Ukrainian cultural centers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>That was the ultimate goal of their ideas. It is now universally -known what meaning the Hitlerites attached to the word “measures” -when applied to the occupied territories. It meant a regime -of bloody terror and violence, of unrestricted plunder, and arbitrariness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On breaking into Minsk, capital of the Bielorussian Republic, -the German fascist invaders attempted to destroy the culture of -the Bielorussian people and to turn the Bielorussians into obedient -German slaves. As has been established by a special investigation, -the Hitlerite military authorities, acting on direct orders from the -German Government, ruthlessly destroyed scientific research institutes -and schools, theaters and clubs, hospitals and polyclinics, -kindergartens and day nurseries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am reading into the record an excerpt from the document -which was presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number -USSR-38 (Document Number USSR-38).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For 3 years the German fascist invaders in Minsk set out -to destroy, systematically, the scientific research institutes, -institutions of higher education, libraries, museums, institutions -of the academy of science, theaters, and clubs.</p> - -<p>“The Lenin library in Minsk was a foundation more than -20 years old. In 1932 the work was completed by the construction -of a special new building with a large and well-equipped -depository for storing books. From this library the -Germans carried off to Berlin and Königsberg 1½ million -extremely valuable books on the history of Bielorussia. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 73 of my report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In their attempt to eradicate the culture of the Bielorussian -people, the German fascist invaders destroyed every cultural -and educational institution in Minsk. . . . The libraries of the -Academy of Science, containing 30,000 volumes, of the State -University, of the Polytechnical Institute, and the medico-scientific -library and the public library of the city, A. S. -Pushkin, were carried away to Germany. -<span class='pageno' title='95' id='Page_95'></span></p> - -<p>“The Hitlerites destroyed the Bielorussian State University -together with the Zoological, the Geological, and Mineralogical, -the Historical, and Archaeological Museums as well -as the Medical Institute with all its clinics. They also demolished -the Academy of Sciences with its nine institutes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remainder of this paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They destroyed the State Art Gallery and carried away to -Germany paintings and sculptures by Russian and Bielorussian -masters. . . . They plundered the Bielorussian State -Theater of Opera and Ballet, the First Bielorussian Dramatic -Theater, the House of National Creative Art, together with -the houses of the unions of writers, artists, and composers.</p> - -<p>“In Minsk the fascists destroyed 47 schools, 24 kindergarten -schools, the Palace of the Pioneers, 2 lying-in hospitals, 3 children’s -hospitals, 5 municipal polyclinics, 27 nurseries, and -4 children’s welfare centers; the Institution of Infant and -Maternity Welfare was reduced to a heap of ruins.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has at its disposal Document Number 076-PS -which is a report entitled, “On Minsk Libraries,” by a German -private first class, Abel. This private had investigated all the -libraries in Minsk and stated in his report that nearly all of them -had been destroyed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present this report as Exhibit Number USSR-375 (Document -Number USSR-375). I consider, Mr. President, that it will be quite -sufficient to read into the record individual excerpts from this -report. There is no need to read the report in its entirety. It is -stated, on Page 75 of my report, that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Lenin library was the central library of Bielorussia. It -is difficult to estimate the number of volumes, but the -number of books is approximately 5 millions. . . . The depositories -for storing books present a desolate picture. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs of my report, and I quote further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The library of the Polytechnical Institute in the basement -of the left wing, as well as a great number of laboratories, -were devastated beyond hope and left in complete disorder.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The report concludes with the following sentence, which I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The purpose of this report”—wrote the German private—“can -be achieved only if submitted to the Supreme Command -and when the command will issue the necessary orders plainly -forbidding the German soldier from behaving like a barbarian.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But such orders never followed and never could follow, since -fascism and barbarism are inseparable; fascism, in fact, means -barbarism. -<span class='pageno' title='96' id='Page_96'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What were you proposing to do after the -adjournment this afternoon?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: After the recess I shall present -several written documents pertaining to the destruction of cultural -valuables in the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Republics and -later, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to present -a documentary film, so that at the close of the session all presentation -of evidence would be completed and my report finished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: How long will the film take?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The presentation of the documentary -film will take about 30 to 35 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think that after the vast amount -of damage and spoliation to which you have drawn our attention -in some detail it would be sufficient if you were to summarize by -telling us the countries in which similar spoliation had taken place? -It is difficult to assimilate all this vast amount of detail.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have in mind, Mr. President, -to present to the Tribunal a document which will serve as a summary -and in which all the general totals will be given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now for 10 -minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I wish to draw the attention of -the Tribunal for a few minutes to the fact that before presenting -the conclusion of this document I should like to read into the -record a German document referring to the subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having occupied the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Soviet -Republics, the German fascist invaders attempted to reduce the -Soviet Baltic provinces to the status of a German colony and to -enslave the people of these republics. This criminal design of the -Hitlerite Government found its full expression in universal plunder, -general ruin, violence, degradation, and in the mass murder of old -men, women, and children.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to germanize the people of the Lithuanian, Estonian, -and Latvian Soviet Socialist Republics, the Hitlerites destroyed, by -all possible means, the culture of the peoples of these republics. I -skip the remainder of Pages 76, 77, and 78, and from Page 79 -I quote one paragraph only:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The capital of Soviet Latvia, Riga, was declared by the occupational -authorities as the capital of ‘Ostland’ (Eastern -Territory) and the seat of Staff Rosenberg.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='97' id='Page_97'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the documents presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution -as Document Number USSR-7, Document Number USSR-39, -and Document Number USSR-41, there are a number of facts -which do not and cannot exhaust the crimes perpetrated by the -German fascist invaders in the Soviet Baltic provinces. Among the -monstrous crimes against the peoples of the Baltic provinces, the -Defendant Rosenberg, the former Reich Minister, played a major part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I read from Page 81. Even at the time when it was quite evident -that the downfall of fascist Germany was fast approaching, when -the hour of just and stern retribution was facing the Hitler -criminals, the Defendant Rosenberg still continued in his plundering. -As late as the end of August 1944, Rosenberg organized and -executed the plundering of cultural resources in Riga and Reval, -in Dorpat, and in a number of towns in the Estonian Republic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document Number -161-PS, dated 23 August 1944, entitled “Assignment” and signed by -Rosenberg’s Chief of Staff, Utikal. This document is submitted to -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-376 (Document Number -USSR-376), which Your Honors will find on Page 400 of the document -book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Order. On 21 August 1944, Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg -requested Haupteinsatzführer Friedrich Schueller from the -Einsatzstab RR to report on the possibilities still existing for -the evacuation of cultural treasures from the eastern territories. -On the basis of this report the Reichsleiter has ruled -that the most precious cultural riches of the Ostland could -still be removed by his staff, insofar as this can be done -without interfering with the interests of the fighting forces. -The Reichsleiter specified the following cultural objects as -having particular value:</p> - -<p>“From Riga—the city archives, the state archives (the major -part of these were in Edwahlen);</p> - -<p>“From Reval—the city archives, the Estonian Literary Society, -and small collections from Schwarzhäupterhaus, the town -hall, Evangelical Lutheran consistory, and Nicolas’ Church.</p> - -<p>“From Dorpat—the university library; collections evacuated to -Estonian estates—Jerlep, Wodja, Weissenstein, and Lachmes.</p> - -<p>“Haupteinsatzführer Schueller, in his capacity as acting -director of the main working group of the Einsatzstab RR, -is commissioned with the carrying out of the removal and -shipment.</p> - -<p>“He is advised to maintain special contact with Army Group -North in order to co-ordinate the execution of this mission -<span class='pageno' title='98' id='Page_98'></span> -of the Reichsleiter, with the transportation requirements of -the field forces.</p> - -<p>“Utikal, chief of Einsatzstab”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to another -peculiar circumstance. In this case, too, the looting was carried out -by Rosenberg together with the High Command, and as late as the -fall of 1944, “future chiefs” of Staff Rosenberg were selected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An analysis of all these circumstances permits us categorically -to reassert that the destruction and looting of cultural valuables -was inspired, directed, and executed by a central organization, and -that this central organization was the criminal Hitler Government -and the High Command, the representatives of which, in the persons -of all the defendants in this Trial, should suffer punishment in -accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of the International -Military Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, when we deal with a system of -wholesale destruction and plunder, it is impossible, and scarcely -necessary, to enumerate all the facts, even if these facts are, <span class='it'>per -se</span>, of great importance. In the occupied territories of the Soviet -Union the Hitlerites carried out precisely such a system of wholesale -and manifold destruction and plunder of cultural treasures of the -peoples of the U.S.S.R. At this moment it is not yet possible to -draw up an exhaustive balance of the defendants’ crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I shall, with the permission of the Tribunal, submit a document -containing data which, although only of a preliminary nature, -are absolutely accurate and bear witness to the tremendous damage -inflicted by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have in view the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -of the Soviet Union, submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35). This document -is on Pages 404 and 405 of your document book. From this I shall -only quote individual excerpts concerning the subject which I am -presenting and which have not yet been read into the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Destruction of Cultural-Social Institutions, Public Organizations, -and Co-operatives.</p> - -<p>“The German plunderers destroyed various establishments, -clubs, stadia, rest homes, and sanatoria belonging to consumer -and industrial co-operatives, trade unions, and other -public organizations . . . in the occupied territory of the -U.S.S.R. They destroyed over 87,000 industrial buildings -belonging to co-operatives, trade unions, and other social -organizations; 10,000 residential buildings and 1,839 cultural -and social institutions. They carried off to Germany about -8,000,000 books. . . . -<span class='pageno' title='99' id='Page_99'></span></p> - -<p>“Of the property of the trade unions the German invaders -completely destroyed 120 sanatoria and 150 rest homes in -which over 3 million workers, engineers, technicians, and other -employees spent their annual rest leave. Of this total figure -they destroyed, in the Crimea 59 sanatoria and rest homes. . . -in the spas of the Caucasus 32 sanatoria and rest homes; in -the Leningrad area 33 sanatoria and rest homes; in the -Ukraine 88 sanatoria and rest homes.</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders destroyed the buildings of -46 pioneer camps and children’s convalescent institutions -belonging to the trade unions. They destroyed 189 clubs and -palaces of culture.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph on this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the territory of the Soviet Union which was occupied -by the Germans, at the beginning of 1941, there were 82,000 -elementary and secondary schools with 15 million pupils. All -the secondary schools possessed libraries, each with from -2,000 to 25,000 volumes; many schools possessed auditoria for -physics, chemistry, biology, and others. . . .</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders burned, destroyed, and plundered -these schools with their entire property and equipment. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of this paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders entirely or partially destroyed -334 colleges at which 233,000 students were studying; they -removed to Germany the equipment of the laboratories and -lecture rooms together with the exhibits, unique of their -kind, from the collections of the universities, institutes, and -libraries.</p> - -<p>“Great damage was inflicted on the medical colleges. . . .</p> - -<p>“The occupants destroyed or looted 137 pedagogical institutions -and teachers’ colleges. . . . They removed historical material -and ancient manuscripts from special libraries, and stole or -destroyed over 100 million volumes in the public libraries.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They destroyed, on the whole, 605 scientific research institutes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 85 of my report and the first paragraph -of Page 86.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Enormous damage was inflicted by the Germans on the -medical establishments of the Soviet Union. They destroyed -or plundered 6,000 hospitals, 33,000 polyclinics, dispensaries, -and out-patient departments, 976 sanatoria and 656 rest -homes.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='100' id='Page_100'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next three paragraphs.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Destruction of Museums and Historical Monuments.</p> - -<p>“In the occupied territories the German fascist invaders destroyed -427 out of a total of 992 museums of the Soviet -Union.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of this page and quote the beginning of Page 87 -of the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Germans also destroyed the museum of the peasant poet -S. D. Drozhzhin, in the village of Zavidovo, the museum of -the people’s poet I. S. Nikitin, in Voronezh, and the museum -of the famous Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, at Novogrudka -in the Bielorussian S.S.R. At Alagir they burned the manuscript -of the national singer Osetij Kosta Khetagurov.</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders destroyed 44,000 theaters, clubs, -and so-called ‘Red corners.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Now with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit -a documentary film and a certificate testifying to the documentary -character of this film. The film is entitled, “Destruction of -Art and Museums of National Culture perpetrated by the Germans -on the Territory of the U.S.S.R.” This film and the documents -testifying to the documentary nature of these reels are submitted -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-98 (Document Number -USSR-98). In this film, besides documentary photographs taken between -1941-45, there are also extracts made in 1908, showing Yasnaya -Polyana and Leo Tolstoy. Subsequent photographs show what -the German invaders did to this cultural relic of the Soviet people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I proceed with the presentation of the film, Your Honor?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Moving pictures were then shown.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I must dwell, Your Honors, -on one more category of crimes committed by the Hitlerites—the -spoliation and destruction of churches, convents, and other places -of religious worship.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By destroying monasteries, churches, mosques, and synagogues -and robbing their property, the German invaders sadistically mocked -the religious feelings of the people. These blasphemous crimes -assumed a general appearance in all the territories which were -under German rule. Soldiers and officers organized bloody orgies -in places of worship, kept horses and dogs in the churches, donned -the church vestments, and made sleeping bunks out of the icons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not trespass on your time by reading all the numerous -documents at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution, and shall -merely dwell on some of these, in particular on the documentary -<span class='pageno' title='101' id='Page_101'></span> -photographs, an album of which I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-99 (Document Number USSR-99).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With your permission, I should like to read a few more documents -and particularly a short extract from the document which -has already been presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)). You can find this -extract in your document book on the back of Page 321. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerite invaders do not spare the religious sentiments -of the believing section of the Soviet population either. They -have burned, looted, blown up, and desecrated hundreds of -churches on Soviet territory, including several irreplaceable -monuments of ancient church architecture.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the next one:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The priest Amvrosy Ivanov writes from the village of -Iklinskoye, in the Moscow region:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Before the arrival of the Germans the church was in complete -order. A German officer ordered me to take everything -out of the church. . . . At night troops arrived, occupied the -church, brought in their horses. . . . Then they began to smash -and break everything in the church and to build bunks. They -threw out everything: the altar, the holy gates and banners, -and the holy shroud. In a word, the church was turned into -a robbers’ den.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the remaining part of Page 88, and I read Page 89 of -the report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the village of Gosteshevo, the Germans plundered the -church, broke up the holy banners, threw the books about, -robbed the Reverend Mikhail Strakhov and carried him off -with them to another district. In the village of Kholm, near -Mozhaisk, the Germans robbed and beat up the 82-year-old -local priest. In retreating from Mozhaisk, the Germans blew -up the Church of the Ascension, the Church of the Holy -Trinity, and the Cathedral of Nicholas, the miracle worker. -As a rule, before retreating, the Germans would drive part -of the population of the villages destroyed by fire into the -churches, lock them up, and then set fire to these churches.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I am now reading into the record a short excerpt from Exhibit -Number USSR-312 (Document Number USSR-312), submitted to the -Tribunal:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In a north side-altar of the Znamensky Cathedral, the Germans -set up a latrine for the soldiers living in the crypt of -the cathedral.</p> - -<p>“The Church of the Prophet Elijah on the Slavna was transformed -into a stable. -<span class='pageno' title='102' id='Page_102'></span></p> - -<p>“Stables were built in the following Pskov churches: Bogoyavlenie -on Zapskovie, Kozma and Demian on the Gremiatchy -Hill, Constantine and Helen, and in the Church of Saint John -the Evangelist.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The document which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279) describes facts of -blasphemous mockery which took place in the town of Gjatsk where -the churches were transformed by the Germans into stables and warehouses. -In the Church of the Annunciation the Germans set up a -slaughterhouse for horned cattle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The document which I am now presenting to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-246 (Document Number USSR-246) is a -report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union -and contains general data relating to the churches, chapels, and -other institutions of religious worship which have been destroyed -or damaged. This document states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders completely destroyed or partly -damaged 1,670 churches, 69 chapels, 237 Roman Catholic -churches, four mosques, 532 synagogues, and 254 other buildings -for religious worship.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors will find in the document, submitted to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), -these general data on the subject. I will not burden the Tribunal’s -attention by reading the document into the record in full, but I -should like to quote a few very short excerpts from it. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The material responsibility by the Germans cannot make -complete amends for the destruction of ecclesiastical buildings, -and of the most ancient historical monuments; the majority -of these can never be restored.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Omitting the remainder of the page, as well as the first four -paragraphs of Page 91 of the report, I read the last paragraph -of this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Many churches, historical monuments of antiquity, were -destroyed by the German invaders in Bielorussia. Thus, in -the city of Vitebsk, they destroyed the Church of the Nativity, -an interesting monument of Bielorussian architecture of the -12th century. They completely destroyed the wooden Apostle -and Saint Nicholas Churches, built in the 18th century.</p> - -<p>“Almost irreparable damage was done to the Voskresenko-Zaruchjevsky -Church, built in the 18th century. This church -was an interesting example of the Bielorussian classic style -of architecture. In the same area, in the city of Vitebsk, the -Germans destroyed a Roman Catholic church built in the 18th -century. . . . -<span class='pageno' title='103' id='Page_103'></span></p> - -<p>“In the town of Dyesna, of the Polotsk region, the Germans -burned a Roman Catholic church founded in the 17th century, -after plundering its property.</p> - -<p>“Timoschel Rudolf, German garrison commandant of the town -of Rozhnyatov, in the Stanislav region, used three synagogues -for barracks and later on destroyed the buildings after plundering -the property contained therein.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Before destroying buildings of various religious cults the -Germans plundered and destroyed all their equipment. A -great number of icons and church decorations were removed -from ecclesiastical buildings to Germany.</p> - -<p>“The Joseph-Volokalamsky Monastery was plundered and -the ancient shrouds of the monastery, together with the -personal belongings of Joseph Volotsky, founder of the monastery, -have disappeared. . . .</p> - -<p>“In 1941 German soldiers and officers stole from the Staritzki -Church all the vessels, altar crosses, crowns, miters, and -tabernacles.</p> - -<p>“In the town Dokshitza, in the Polotsk region, the Germans -looted and took away all the property of the local mosque. -The same fate was shared by nearly all the churches in the -territories occupied by the Germans.</p> - -<p>“Everywhere the Germans plundered Orthodox and Catholic -churches, synagogues, mosques, and other buildings of -religious worship.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators not only actually plundered, tortured, -and murdered, but they also strove to humiliate the believers -morally and to rob them of their spiritual treasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Such, Your Honors, is the conclusive evidence concerning the -crimes against culture, committed by Rosenberg, Frank, Göring, -Ribbentrop, Keitel, and the other participants in the conspiracy. -The crimes of the defendants against culture are terrible indeed -in their consequences. Even though it be possible, by a tremendous -effort, to rebuild the cities and villages destroyed by the Hitlerites, -even though it be possible to restore the factories and plants blown -up or burned down by them, mankind has lost for all time the irreplaceable -art treasures which the Hitlerites so ruthlessly destroyed, -as it has lost forever the millions of human beings sent to their -death in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Babye-yar, or Kerch.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Having inherited the savage hatred of all mankind from the -dim ages of the past, the modern Huns have far surpassed, in -cruelty and vandalism, the darkest pages of history. While arrogantly -challenging the future of mankind, they trampled under -<span class='pageno' title='104' id='Page_104'></span> -foot the finest heritage of mankind’s past. Themselves without faith -or ideals, they sacrilegiously destroyed both the churches and the -relics of the saints.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But in this unparalleled struggle between culture and obscurantism, -between civilization and barbarism, culture and civilization -prevailed. The Hitlerite conspirators who had aspired to world -domination, who had dreamed of destroying the culture of the Slavs -and of all other nations, now stand in the defendants’ dock. May a -just punishment be theirs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you continue until 5 o’clock?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As you wish, Your Honor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes; will you go on until 5 o’clock?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I should only like to ask for -a few minutes’ interval in order to collect some documents. It will -literally take only a few moments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It would be hardly worth while if you want -a short interval. We shall stop at 5 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It would perhaps be more -convenient to begin again at 1000 hours tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then we will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 22 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='105' id='Page_105'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-FIFTH DAY</span><br/> Friday, 22 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MARSHAL: May it please the Court: The Defendant Fritzsche -will be absent until further notice on account of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: May it please Your Honors, -may I begin the submission of evidence to prove the charge that the -defendants are guilty of the destruction of towns and villages and -of the perpetration of other kinds of destruction. This charge is laid -down in Section C of Count Three of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We shall present evidence proving that the destruction of cities -and towns was brought about neither by the hazards of war nor by -military expediencies. We shall submit evidence that this deliberate -destruction was carried out in accordance with the thoroughly -elaborated plans of the Hitlerite Government and orders of the German -military command; that the destruction of towns and cities, of -industry and transportation was an integral part of the conspiracy -which aimed at enslaving the peoples of Europe and other countries, -and establishing a world hegemony of Hitlerite Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Wherever the German fascist invaders appeared, they brought -death and destruction. In the flames of the fires were lost the most -valuable machines devised by the genius of mankind; factories and -dwellings giving work and shelter to millions were blown up. People -themselves perished, especially old men, women, and children, left -without a roof over their heads or any means of existence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With particular ruthlessness the Hitlerites annihilated and -destroyed the towns and cities in the territories of the Soviet Union -which they temporarily occupied, where, acting on direct orders of -the German High Command, they created a desert zone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As proof, I read into the record an excerpt from the document -which had been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(2) (Document Number USSR-51(2)). This excerpt the -Members of the Tribunal will find on Page 3 of the document book. -I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“An order recently seized near the town of Verkhovye, Orel -region, issued to the 512th German Infantry Regiment and -signed by Colonel Schittnig, stated with unparalleled brazenness: -<span class='pageno' title='106' id='Page_106'></span></p> - -<p>“ ‘A zone which, in view of the circumstances, is to be -evacuated, upon withdrawal of the troops should present a -desert zone. In order to carry out a complete destruction, all -the houses shall be burned. To this end they should first be -filled with straw, particularly stone houses. Structures of -stone are to be blown up, particularly cellars. Measures for -the creation of desert zones . . . are to be prepared beforehand -and carried out ruthlessly and in their entirety.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>So runs the order to the 512th German Infantry Regiment.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In razing our towns and villages, the German command -demands of its troops that a desert zone be created in all -Soviet localities from which the invaders are successfully -expelled by the Red Army.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This order to the 512th Regiment, which is mentioned in the -document I just quoted, is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-168 -(Document Number USSR-168).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you know the date of it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The date of this order is -10 December 1941. From this document it is clear that the German -military command underwrote a ruthless and complete destruction -of inhabited localities and that this destruction was planned and -prepared in advance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A large number of documents and facts concerning this question -are in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution. I shall limit myself -to reading into the record an excerpt from the verdict of the -regional military court in the case of the German war criminals -Lieutenant General Bernhardt and Major General Hamann. I submit -this verdict to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-90 (Document -Number USSR-90).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The military court established that the generals, Bernhardt and -Hamann, had acted in accordance with the common plans and -directives of the High Command of the German Army and that -they—I quote a short excerpt from the verdict which Your Honors -will find on Pages 24 and 25 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . had carried out a planned destruction of towns and -inhabited localities, determined in advance, along with the -destruction of industrial buildings, hospitals, sanatoria, -educational institutions, museums, and other cultural educational -institutions, as well as dwellings. The latter were -blown up without any previous warning to the Soviet citizens -living in them, with the result that people as well perished.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>As in the case of the destruction of inhabited localities, plants, -and factories, power-stations and mines were also destroyed with -premeditation. -<span class='pageno' title='107' id='Page_107'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>For confirmation I shall draw the attention of the Tribunal to -the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2). This document is on Page 28 -of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this report is quoted the secret directive of the leader of the -department of economics (Wirtschaftsoffizier) of Army Group South -of 2 September 1943, under Number 1/313/43, which ordered army -leaders and leaders of the economics detachments to carry out a -thorough annihilation of industrial institutions, emphasizing particularly -that “. . . the destruction must be carried out not at the last -moment when the troops may be engaged in combat or in retreat, -but ahead of time.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The note by V. M. Molotov, the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs of the U.S.S.R. of 27 April 1942, deals with the orders of the -German Supreme Command and with the manner in which these -orders were executed. This note was submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now quote several excerpts from Part II of the note just -mentioned, which is entitled, “The Devastation of Cities and Towns,” -excerpts which were not read into the record before. These excerpts -will be found on Pages 6, the reverse side, and 7 of the document -book which is in the hands of the Tribunal. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By direct order of its High Command the German fascist -Army has subjected Soviet towns and villages to unparalleled -devastation upon seizure and in the course of the army’s -occupation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 4 and the beginning of Page 5 of my -report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you ought to omit the first four -lines of Page 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I omitted it inasmuch as I read -this document into the record yesterday, but if the Tribunal -wishes—I shall gladly do it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you read it yesterday, do not read it again. -I do not remember. Was it read yesterday?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, I read this into the record -yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am told that—and I think—that you did not read those lines -“from 10 October 1941” at the top of Page 5. I think you had better -read them. I am referring to the order of 10 October 1941, which is -set out in your exposé. -<span class='pageno' title='108' id='Page_108'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This is the excerpt from the -order given to the 6th German Army, on 10 October 1941, signed -by Von Reichenau. This document is presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-12 (Document Number USSR-12). I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The troops have an interest in extinguishing fires only -inasmuch as military quarters have to be conserved. Otherwise -the disappearance . . . also of buildings, is within the -limits of the fight of extermination.</p> - -<p>“At the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 the German -command issued a number of orders instructing German army -units to destroy, in the course of their retreat under the -pressure of the Red Army, everything that had remained -unscathed during the occupation. Thousands of villages and -hamlets, whole city blocks, and even entire cities are reduced -to ashes, blown up, or razed to the ground by the retreating -German fascist army. The organized destruction of Soviet -towns and villages has become a special branch of the criminal -activity of the German invaders on Soviet territory; special -instructions and detailed orders of the German command are -devoted to methods of devastating Soviet populated centers; -special detachments, trained in this criminal profession, are -set up for this purpose. Here are some of the many facts -which are at the disposal of the Soviet Government:”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Once again I refer to the order addressed to the 512th Infantry -Regiment already presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-168 (Document Number USSR-168).</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“This order . . . is an exposition, consisting of seven typed -pages of the most precisely detailed plan for the methodical -destruction of village after village, from 10 December to -14 December inclusive, in the regiment’s area. This order, -which follows a model used throughout the German Army, -states:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Preparations for the destruction of populated centers must -be carried out in such a way that:</p> - -<p>“ ‘(a) No suspicions whatever be aroused among the civilian -population prior to its announcement;</p> - -<p>“ ‘(b) The destruction should begin and be carried out in a -single blow at the appointed time. On the day in question -particularly strict watch must be kept to see that no civilians -leave this place, especially after the destruction has been -announced.’</p> - -<p>“An order of the commander of the 98th German Infantry -Division, dated 24 December 1941, after listing 16 Soviet -villages designated to be burned down, states: -<span class='pageno' title='109' id='Page_109'></span></p> - -<p>“ ‘Available stocks of hay, straw, foodstuffs, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, are to -be burned. All the stoves in dwelling houses are to be -wrecked by placing hand grenades in them, thus making -further use of them impossible. This order under no circumstances -is to fall into the hands of the enemy.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following order of 3 January 1942, issued by Hitler, is of the -same nature. The order states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“ ‘Cling to every populated center; do not retreat a single -step; defend yourself to the last soldier, to the last grenade. -That is the requirement of the present moment. Every point -occupied by us must be turned into a base, which must not be -surrendered under any circumstances, even if outflanked by -the enemy. If, however, the given point must be abandoned -on superior orders, it is imperative that everything be razed -to the ground, the stoves blown up. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘(Signed): Adolf Hitler.’</p> - -<p>“Hitler felt no embarrassment about publicly admitting that -the devastation of Soviet towns and villages was carried out -by his Army. In his speech. . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That order of 3 January 1942, signed by -Hitler, is that in the official Soviet State report? Where did it -come from?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This order is incorporated in -the note of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov. I quote -an excerpt from it, a document which was presented to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is Mr. Molotov’s report?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, this is a note of the -Foreign Commissar, Molotov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: All right.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “. . . In his speech of 30 January -1942, Hitler stated:</p> - -<p>“ ‘In those places where the Russians have succeeded in -making a break-through and where they thought that they -would once again be in possession of populated centers, these -populated centers no longer exist; they are but a heap of -ruins.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>While retreating from the Kuban under the thrust of the Red -Army, the German High Command worked out a detailed plan of -operations which bore the code name of “Movement Krimhild,” and -a considerable part of this plan, a whole section, in fact, is devoted -to the demolition plan. I omit one paragraph of my report. -<span class='pageno' title='110' id='Page_110'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This plan is mentioned in a two-page secret document transmitted -by telegraph to the chiefs of the higher staffs. The document is -signed by Hitler and has the following heading on the first page: -“Top secret (A) 2371; 17 copies.” The document which we submit to -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-115 is the 17th copy of the -Hitler order. This document is listed as Document Number C-177; -in your document book it is contained on Pages 31 to 33. I shall -read into the record the second point of this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“2. Demolitions in case of retreat.</p> - -<p>“(a) All structures, quartering facilities, roads, constructions, -dams, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, which may be useful to the adversary have -to be thoroughly destroyed.</p> - -<p>“(b) All railroads and field railways are to be either removed -or completely destroyed.</p> - -<p>“(c) All constructed corduroy roads must be torn up and -rendered useless.</p> - -<p>“(d) All oil wells in the Kuban bridgehead must be entirely -destroyed.</p> - -<p>“(e) The harbor of Novorossiysk will be so demolished and -obstructed as to render it useless to the Russian fleet for a -long time.</p> - -<p>“(f) Extensive sowing of mines, delayed-action mines, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, -also come under the heading of destruction.</p> - -<p>“(g) The enemy must take over a completely useless, uninhabitable -desert land where mine detonation will occur for -months hence.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Many other documents bear witness of similar orders, but I want -to draw the attention of the Tribunal to just two of them. I refer to -an entry in the diary of the Defendant Frank which dealt with this -subject in particular, as well as a directive issued by the commanding -general of 118th German Jäger Division which operated in -Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Frank’s diary, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal, -there is the following entry for 17 April 1944, contained in -the volume which was started on 1 March 1944 and ended on 31 May -1944, entitled, “The Business Meeting at Kraków on 12 April 1944.” -Your Honors will find the quotation on Page 45 of the document -book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is important that the troops be given an order to leave -only scorched earth to the Russians. In cases when it becomes -necessary to withdraw from a certain area, no distinction -should be made between the territory of the Government General -and any other territory.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='111' id='Page_111'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I remind the Tribunal that according to Exhibit Number -USSR-132 (Document Number USSR-132), which is a secret instruction -issued to the 118th German Jäger Division with the signature -of Major General Kübler and was captured in June 1944 by units -of the Yugoslav People’s Liberation Army, the troops were to treat -the population “ruthlessly with cruel firmness” and to destroy the -inhabited localities which were abandoned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please Your Honors, in concluding this part of my report -I deem it necessary to draw your attention to another circumstance. -The destruction of peaceful towns and villages was not only planned, -not only carried out deliberately and with exceptional ruthlessness, -but was executed by special detachments created by the German -High Command for that very purpose. By way of evidence I shall -quote several excerpts not yet read into the record from official -Soviet Government documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the note of 27 April 1942 is stated—I quote an excerpt which -is on Page 9 of your document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The special detachments set up by the German Command for -the purpose of setting fire to Soviet populated centers and for -the mass extermination of the civilian population during the -retreat of the Hitlerite Army, are perpetrating their sanguinary -deeds with the cold-bloodedness of professional criminals. -Thus, for instance before their retreat from the village of -Bolshekrepinskaya, Rostov region, the Germans sent down -the streets of the village special flame-throwing machines -which burned 1,167 buildings, one after the other. The large, -flourishing village was turned into flaming bonfires which -consumed the dwellings, the hospital, the school, and various -other public buildings. At the same time machine gunners, -without any warning, shot at inhabitants who approached -their burning houses; some of the residents were bound, -sprayed with gasoline and thrown into the burning buildings.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit part of Page 9 of my report and pass on to the next, to the -last paragraph on that page of my report. The report of the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union which was presented -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-46 (Document Number -USSR-46) states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In their insane fury against the Soviet people, which was -caused by defeats suffered at the front, the commanding -general of the 2d German Panzer Army, General Schmidt, -and the commander of the Orel administrative region and -military commander of that city, Major General Hamann, had -created special demolition commandos for the destruction of -towns, villages, and collective farms of the Orel region. These -commandos, plunderers, and arsonists destroyed everything -<span class='pageno' title='112' id='Page_112'></span> -in the path of their retreat. They destroyed cultural monuments -and works of art of the Russian people, burned down -cities, towns, and villages.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279), the following facts are -described—I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In Viazma and Gjatsk, the commanding generals—Major -General Merker of the 35th Infantry Division, Major General -Schäfer of the 252d Infantry Division, and Major General -Roppert of the 7th Infantry Division—organized special -incendiary and demolition commandos to set on fire and blow -up dwellings, schools, theaters, clubs, museums, libraries, -hospitals, churches, stores, and industrial plants, so that only -ashes and ruins would be left in the wake of their retreat.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the document which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2) there are several -depositions of German prisoners of war. I shall quote one of these -depositions. I read at the end of the page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Herman Verholtz, a private first class, from the 597th Infantry -Regiment of the 306th Division of the German Army, -deposes as follows:</p> - -<p>“ ‘As a member of a demolition squad I took part in setting -fire to and blowing up government buildings and dwellings -on First Line, the main street of Stalino. My job was to place -the explosives, which I then ignited and thus blew up the -buildings. Altogether I participated in the demolition of five -large houses and in the burning of several others.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, one could go on with the same kind of quotations. -I repeat that scores of them are contained in the documents and -depositions which we presented to the Tribunal, but I consider that -there is no necessity to do that. What has already been read into -the record permits us to conclude that the premeditated and -deliberate devastations which were carried out by the Hitlerites in -the occupied territories were really a system and not individual acts, -and that those devastations were not perpetrated only at the hand -of individual officers and soldiers of the German Army, but that -these devastations were carried out on the orders of the German -Supreme Command. Therefore, I omit Page 11 of my report, and -I begin with Page 12.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the criminal plans of the fascist conspirators, the devastation -of the capitals of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Poland occupied -a particular place. Among these plans the destruction of Moscow -and Leningrad received special attention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Intoxicated by the first military successes, the Hitlerites -elaborated insane plans for the destruction of the greatest cultural -<span class='pageno' title='113' id='Page_113'></span> -and industrial centers dear to the Soviet people. For this purpose -they prepared special task forces. They even hurried to advertise -their “decision” to refuse the capitulation of the cities which never -even took place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is necessary to note that such expressions as “raze to the -ground” or “wipe from the face of the earth” were used quite frequently -by the Hitlerite conspirators. These were not only threats -but criminal acts as well. As we shall see from the subsequent -presentation, in some places they did succeed in razing flourishing -towns and villages to the ground.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph of my report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now present two documents which reveal the intentions -of the Hitlerite conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first document is a secret directive of the naval staff, numbered -I-a 1601/41, dated 22 September 1941. It is entitled, “The -Future of the City of Petersburg.” (Document Number C-124, -Exhibit Number USSR-113). Therefore, as we are in possession -of the original of this document, which was distributed in several -copies, I believe that it does not have to be read into the record. -With your permission, Mr. President, I shall remind the Tribunal of -the contents of this directive. In this directive it is stated, “The -Führer has decided to wipe the city of Petersburg from the face of -the earth,” that it is planned to blockade the city securely, to subject -it to artillery bombardment of all calibers, and by means of constant -bombing from the air to raze Leningrad to the ground. It is also -decreed in the order that should there be a request for capitulation, -such request should be turned down by the Germans. Finally, it is -stated in this document that this directive emanates not only from -the naval staff, but also from the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit Page 13 of my report and begin with the last paragraph -of the page.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document, bearing the number Document C-123, -presented to the Court as Exhibit Number USSR-114, is also a top -secret order of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, dated -7 October 1941, Number 44/1675/41, and signed by the Defendant -Jodl. This document, Your Honors, is to be found on Pages 69 and -70 in the document book. I read into the record the text of this -document, or rather a few excerpts from this letter on Page 14 of -my presentation. I read the first paragraph of the letter:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Führer has again decided that a capitulation of Leningrad -or, later, of Moscow is not to be accepted even if it is -offered by the enemy.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And further the last but one paragraph of this page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Therefore, no German soldier is to enter these cities. By our -fire we must force all who try to leave the city through our -<span class='pageno' title='114' id='Page_114'></span> -lines to turn back. The exodus of the population through the -smaller, unguarded gaps toward the interior of Russia is only -to be welcomed. Before the cities are taken, they are to be -weakened by artillery fire and air attacks, and their population -should be caused to flee.</p> - -<p>“We cannot take the responsibility of endangering our soldiers’ -lives in order to save Russian cities from fire, nor that of -feeding the population of these cities at the expense of the -German homeland. . . .</p> - -<p>“All commanding officers shall be informed of this will of the -Führer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators began to put their criminal ideas about -the destruction of Leningrad into effect with unprecedented ferocity. -In the report of the Leningrad city commission for the investigation -of the atrocities of the German fascist invaders, the monstrous -crimes of the Hitlerites are described in detail.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document had been presented to the Court as Exhibit Number -USSR-85. I shall read into the record only a general summary -of the data presented on Page 1 of the report, which is on Page 71 -of the document book. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“As a result of the barbarous activities of the German fascist -invaders in Leningrad and its suburbs, 8,961 household and -annexed buildings, sheds, baths, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, with a total -volume of 5,192,427 cubic meters were completely destroyed, -and 5,869 buildings with a total volume of 14,308,288 cubic -meters were partially destroyed. Completely destroyed were -20,627 dwellings, with a total volume of 25,429,780 cubic -meters, and 8,788 buildings, with a total volume of 10,081,035 -cubic meters were partially demolished. Six buildings -dedicated to religious cults were completely, and 66 such buildings -partially, destroyed. The Hitlerites destroyed, ruined, -and damaged various kinds of institutions valued at more -than 718 million rubles, as well as more than 1,043 million -rubles’ worth of industrial equipment and agricultural -machinery and implements.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This document establishes that the Hitlerites bombed and shelled, -methodically and according to plan, day and night, streets, dwelling -houses, theaters, museums, hospitals, kindergartens, military -hospitals, schools, institutes, and streetcars, and ruined most valuable -monuments of culture and art. Many thousands of bombs and shells -hammered the historical buildings of Leningrad, and at its quays, -gardens, and parks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 16.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion, I shall permit myself to quote one of the many -German depositions which are quoted in the document, namely -<span class='pageno' title='115' id='Page_115'></span> -paragraph 4 on Page 14. Your Honors will find this deposition I am -quoting on Page 84 of the document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Sergeant Fritz Köpke, commanding Number 2 gun of the 2d -battery of the 2d Detachment of the 910th Artillery Regiment -stated:</p> - -<p>“ ‘For the bombardment of Leningrad, there was in the -batteries a special stock of munitions supplied over and above -the limit to an unlimited amount. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘All the gun crews know that the bombardments of Leningrad -were aimed at ruining the town and annihilating its -civilian population. They therefore regarded with irony the -bulletins of the German Supreme Command which spoke of -shelling the “military objectives” of Leningrad.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerite conspirators aimed at the complete destruction of -the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remind you of Document Number 1746-PS, presented to the -Tribunal on 7 December 1945; it is an order by Hitler, dated -27 March 1941, dealing with the attack on Yugoslavia. It is known -that this order, entitled “Instruction Number 25,” gives in detail the -military strategy for the attack and, besides, decrees that all the -Yugoslav Air Force ground installations and the city of Belgrade -shall be destroyed by means of continuous day and night air raids.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the first paragraph of Page 18 of my report, inasmuch as -the facts which are mentioned in this paragraph have been read -into the record on 11 February. I shall read a few excerpts from -Pages 22 and 23 of the official report of the Yugoslav Government. -This corresponds to Pages 111 and 112 in your document book. -I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The planned and systematic execution of these crimes, based -on the orders of the Government of the Reich and of the -OKW, is confirmed by the fact that the destruction of inhabited -localities and of the population did not cease even at the time -of the retreat of the German troops from Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p>“Typical for thousands of such cases is the destruction of Belgrade -and extermination of its citizens in October 1944.</p> - -<p>“The fights for the liberation of Belgrade lasted from 15 to 20 -October 1944. Even before the fighting started, the Germans -prepared a plan for the systematic destruction of the city. -They sent into the city a large number of specially trained -units whose duties consisted of mining houses and killing the -population. Though, because of the swift advance of the Red -Army and of the Yugoslav National Liberation Forces, they -failed to carry out their task as ordered by the German commanders, -they succeeded in destroying a large number of -<span class='pageno' title='116' id='Page_116'></span> -houses in the southern part of the city and in killing a -considerable number of its inhabitants.</p> - -<p>“To a still greater extent, this happened in the northern part -of the city, on the Rivers Sava and Danube. The Germans -went from house to house, herded the inhabitants, unclothed -and unshod, into the streets, sprayed inflammable chemical -explosives into every apartment, and set fire to all the buildings. -If a house happened to be made of a very solid -material, they mined it. They fired at the inhabitants, killing -defenseless people; in several large houses the inhabitants -were locked in, and were destroyed by fire and by mine -explosions. The entire damage thus caused in the city of Belgrade -totals the sum of 1,127,129,069 dinars at prewar value.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, the destruction of Belgrade was prescribed by Hitler’s -order of 27 March 1941 and was carried out on direct orders of the -Defendant Göring; in October 1944 it was carried out by the same -methods as those employed by the Hitlerites in the occupied territories -of the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now present evidence of the intentional and unexampled -destruction by the Hitlerites of the capital of the Polish nation, -Warsaw.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote three documents which reveal the criminal intentions -of the fascist conspirators to raze this city. As the first document, -Exhibit Number USSR-128 (Document Number USSR-128), -I present to the Tribunal a telegram Number 13265, addressed to the -Defendant Frank, and signed by the Governor of the Warsaw -District, Dr. Fischer. This document can be found on Page 148 of -the document book. I read into the record the text of this telegram:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To the Governor General and Reich Minister, Dr. Frank, at -Kraków.</p> - -<p>“Warsaw, Number 13265; 11. X. 44; 10.40, HE.</p> - -<p>“Subject: New Policy with Regard to Poland.</p> - -<p>“As a result of the visit of SS Obergruppenführer Von dem -Bach to the Reichsführer SS, I wish to inform you of the -following:</p> - -<p>“. . . 2) Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach again received an -order to pacify Warsaw—that is, to raze Warsaw to the ground -while the war is still on, if there is nothing against this from -the military point of view (construction of fortresses). Prior to -destruction, all raw materials, textiles, and furniture should -be taken out of Warsaw. The main role in performing this -task should be assumed by the civilian administration. -<span class='pageno' title='117' id='Page_117'></span></p> - -<p>“I am informing you of these facts because this new order of -the Führer regarding the destruction of Warsaw is of the -greatest importance for the future policy toward Poland.</p> - -<p>“The Governor of the Warsaw District, temporarily at Sochaczew, -signed: Dr. Fischer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Von dem Bach, mentioned in the telegram just read into the -record, is already known to you, Your Honors; he testified in the -afternoon session of the Tribunal on 7 January.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>How SS Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach carried out Hitler’s -order regarding the destruction of Warsaw can be seen from the -written evidence given by him on oath on 28 January 1946, during -his interrogation by the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic, -M. Savitzky.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Court the original record of the interrogation in -German, duly signed by Von dem Bach. I shall read two extracts -from this record. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Dr. Seidl approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will hear the objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): I object to -the reading of the interrogation of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. -The witness was heard before the Court, and it would -have been possible at that time to hear the witness about the matter -of the interrogation right here before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Should the Soviet Prosecution not wish to forgo the presentation -of this material, then I request that the witness, Von dem Bach-Zelewski, -who is still here in Nuremberg, be summoned before the -Tribunal again, so that the Defense may have an opportunity to -cross-examine the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, do you want to say -anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this record of -the interrogation of Von dem Bach-Zelewski was given under oath, -and it was presented to the Soviet Delegation by the representatives -of the Polish Government. The record of the interrogation is -formulated according to the laws of procedure and was given under -oath. Therefore, we consider it imperative and possible to present it -to the Tribunal without calling Von dem Bach-Zelewski for a -second interrogation before the Tribunal. If the Tribunal decides -that the testimony of Bach-Zelewski cannot be read into the record -without his being called again before the Tribunal, then, in the -interests of expediting the Trial, and in order not to protract the -presentation of our evidence, we agree not to read this testimony -into the record inasmuch as evidence regarding these facts is contained -in other documents which I shall later present to the Tribunal. -<span class='pageno' title='118' id='Page_118'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you then, General: If the evidence -given before the Polish Commission is the same as the evidence -which Bach-Zelewski gave in court, it would be cumulative; if it is -different, then surely the defendants’ counsel ought to have the -opportunity of cross-examining him upon it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The testimony which was given -by Bach-Zelewski to the prosecutor of the Polish Republic is -supplementary. Bach-Zelewski was not examined before the Tribunal -about the devastations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, the Tribunal understood -you to say that you would be prepared to withdraw this evidence -in view of the fact that the witness had given evidence already and -the Tribunal considers that that is the proper course to take. So -then the evidence will be withdrawn and struck from the record -so far as it has been put on the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think this would be a good time to adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As a result of the decision of -the Tribunal, I exclude Page 21 from my report and pass on to -Page 22. I shall read into the record an extract from the diary of -the Defendant Frank, which was presented to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-223 (Document Number USSR-223). This -extract is on Page 45 of the document book. I have in mind the file -which was begun on 1 August 1944 and brought to 14 December -1944, entitled “Diary,” where there is a note which mentions the -contents of a telegram sent by Frank to Reich Minister Lammers. -I read—on 5 August 1944:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Governor General sends the following telegram to Reich -Minister Dr. Lammers:</p> - -<p>“ ‘. . . The city of Warsaw is, for the most part, engulfed in -flames. Burning of the houses is the surest way to rob the -insurgents of any shelter. . . .</p> - -<p>“ ‘After this uprising and its suppression, Warsaw will justly -be committed to its deserved fate of being completely -destroyed.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>These documents prove, thus, that the fascist conspirators set for -themselves the aim of razing to the ground the capital of the Polish -State, Warsaw, and that the Defendant Frank played an active part -in this crime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In all the territories of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece, -and Czechoslovakia which they occupied, the German fascist invaders -<span class='pageno' title='119' id='Page_119'></span> -systematically destroyed inhabited localities according to plan, under -the pretense of fighting the partisans. Punitive expeditions, detachments, -and commandos, specially detailed by the German military -command, burned down and blew up tens of thousands of villages, -hamlets, and other inhabited localities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip a paragraph of my report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From the numerous documents in the possession of the Soviet -Prosecution I shall quote, as examples, a few which are typical and -which characterize the whole system developed by the Hitlerites.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of Captain Kasper, a company commander, dated -27 September 1942 and entitled, “Conclusive Report on the Results -of the Punitive Expedition Carried out in the Village of Borisovka -from 22 to 26 September 1942,” starts as follows: “Tasks: Company 9 -must destroy the band-infested village of Borisovka.” This document -has been presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-119 -(Document Number USSR-119).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the beginning of Page 42 of my report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In January 1942, in the Rezeknes district of the Latvian Socialist -Soviet Republic, the Germans destroyed the village of Audrini with -its entire population, ostensibly for having aided members of the -Red Army. In the towns of Latvia a notice to this effect was posted -by the chief of the German State Security Police in Latvia, SS Obersturmbannführer -Strauch, in German, Latvian, and Russian.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Tribunal a certified photostatic copy of this notice -as Exhibit Number USSR-262 (Document Number USSR-262), and -I read into the record an excerpt from this document. This excerpt -is on Page 158:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The commander of the Security Police in Latvia hereby -announces the following:</p> - -<p>“. . . 2) The inhabitants of the village of Audrini, in the Rezeknes -district, concealed members of the Red Army for over -one-quarter of a year, armed them, and assisted them in every -way in their anti-government activities. . . .</p> - -<p>“As punishment I ordered the following:</p> - -<p>“a) That the village of Audrini be wiped from the face of the -earth.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Hitlerites widely practiced punitive expeditions in the -occupied districts of the Leningrad region. As can be seen from a -verdict of the military tribunal of the Leningrad Military District, -which is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-91 -(Document Number USSR-91), the Hitlerites burned down, in -February 1944, 10 inhabited localities in the Dedovitch, Pozherevitz, -and Ostrov districts. The Hitlerite punitive expeditions also burned -<span class='pageno' title='120' id='Page_120'></span> -down the villages of Strashevo and Zapolye in the Plyuss district, -and the villages of Bolshye, Lyady, Ludoni, and others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Numerous punitive detachments, acting on the orders of the German -Supreme Command, burned down many hundreds of inhabited -localities in the Yugoslav territory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I refer, as evidence, to the third section of the report of the -Yugoslav State Commission for establishment of the crimes of the -German invaders, which has been presented to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-36, and also to the special memorandum of the -Yugoslav State Commission, numbered 2697 (45) and signed by Professor -Nedelkovitsch, which I present to the Tribunal as Document -Number USSR-309. This document is on Pages 165 to 167 of the -document book. In these documents we find a number of facts -concerning the burning and destruction of villages and hamlets by -the special punitive expeditions of the Hitlerites. As examples, the -localities of Zagnezdye, Udora, Mechkovatz, Marsich, Grashniza, -Rudnika, Krupnya, Rastovach, Orakh, Grabovica, Drachich, Lozinda, -and many others can be named. Whole districts of Yugoslavia were -completely devastated after the Germans had been there.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also present to the Tribunal the original copy of a notice by -the so-called Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, which I beg the Tribunal -to accept as evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-200 (Document -Number USSR-200). This notice was captured in Serbia by troops -of the Yugoslav Army of Liberation, which fact is duly certified by -the Yugoslav State Commission in Belgrade. I read into the record -only one paragraph: “The Commander-in-Chief of Serbia announces: -The village of Skela has been burned and razed to the ground.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>German punitive detachments also destroyed inhabited localities -in Poland. As evidence I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number -USSR-368 (Document Number USSR-368), which is an affidavit of -the Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government, Dr. Stefan Kurovsky. -This affidavit is an appendix to the report of the Polish Government -and is on Page 169 of your document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document ascertains that in the spring of 1943 in the territory -of Zamoisk, Bilgoraisk, Khrubeshovsk, and Krasnitzk the -Germans burned down a number of inhabited localities under the -orders of the SS leader, Globocznik; and in February 1944 five -villages were destroyed in the Krasnitzk district with the help of -the air force.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Germans burned and razed to the ground a considerable -number of inhabited localities in Greece. As examples we shall -name the settlements of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Ano-Kerzilion, -and Kato-Kerzilion in the Salonika district, and the settlements of -Mesovunos and Selli in the Korzani district, and others. -<span class='pageno' title='121' id='Page_121'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-103 (Document -Number USSR-103), certified photostatic copies of three telegraphic -reports of the 164th German Infantry Division to the Chief -of Staff of the 12th Army. These reports, Your Honors, are on -Page 170 of your document book. Each of these reports consists of -nine to ten lines. They are uniform in type and standardized. But -these short official documents reveal in essence the monstrous system -generally employed by the Hitlerites in the territories occupied -by them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall read into the record one of these reports. I read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“18 October 1941; to the Chief of Staff of the 12th Army, Athens.</p> - -<p>“Daily report.</p> - -<p>“1. The villages of Ano-Kerzilion and Kato-Kerzilion (75 kilometers -east of Salonika on the mouth of the Struma) which -had been ascertained to be the base of a considerable guerrilla -band in this area, were razed to the ground by troops of the -division on 17 October. The male inhabitants between 16 and -60 years of age—(totalling 207 persons)—were shot, women -and children evacuated.</p> - -<p>“2. No other special incidents.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Surely, there is no need for a comment regarding this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also like to refer to the official report of the Greek -Government, which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-379 (Document Number UK-82). On pages 29 and 30 of the -report, which correspond to Page 207 of your document book, we -find numerous facts concerning the burning and destruction of -villages on the Island of Crete. Thus, the villages of Skiki, Prassi, -and Kanados were completely burned down in retaliation for the -murder of some German parachutists carried out by the employees -of the local police at the time of the attack on the Island of Crete. -Certain villages were demolished by the Germans for the sole reason -that they were in the partisans’ zone of operations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is stated in the report that 1,600 out of 6,500 villages were -completely or partially demolished. It should also be noted that the -Germans intentionally bombed undefended towns and caused heavy -damage to 23 Greek towns, among which the towns of Yanina, Arta, -Preveza, Tukkala, Larissa, and Canea were almost completely -destroyed. This is mentioned on Page 21 of the report of the Greek -Government. It is on Page 190 of your document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, the whole world knows about the Hitlerites’ crimes -at Lidice. The 10th of June 1942 was the last day of Lidice and of -its inhabitants. The fascist barbarians left irrefutable evidence of -their monstrous crime. They made a film of the annihilation of -Lidice, and we are able to show this evidence to the Tribunal. Upon -<span class='pageno' title='122' id='Page_122'></span> -orders from the Czechoslovak Government, a special investigation -was carried out which established that the filming of the tragedy of -Lidice was entrusted by the so-called Protector to an adviser on -photography of the NSDAP, one Franz Treml, and was carried out -by him in conjunction with Miroslav Wagner. Among the documents -which we present to the Tribunal are photographs of the operators -who filmed the phases of the destruction of Lidice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present these documents to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-370 (Document Number USSR-370). I should like to remark, -Your Honors, that this film is a German documentary film. It was -filmed a few years ago. The technical state of this reel is not very -satisfactory, and therefore when we present it, there may be a few -defects.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal beforehand and request -permission to show this film.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Moving pictures were then shown.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What the Germans perpetrated -in Lidice was repeated a short time later in another inhabited point -of Czechoslovakia in the village of Lezhaky. I shall refer as evidence -to the Czechoslovak Government’s report, Pages 126-127. This report -is presented to the Court as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document -Number USSR-60). This report states, “Lezhaky, like Lidice, was -totally destroyed and the ground where it stood is now covered over -with rubble.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next section of my report, the destruction of -villages and towns, industry, and transport in the territory of the -U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I have quoted above the general directives of the -criminal Hitler Government and the German Supreme Command -concerning the destruction of inhabited centers, industry, and means -of communications in the U.S.S.R. Now I pass on to the presentation -of evidence of those destructions which were carried out in execution -of these directives by the Hitlerites everywhere on the territory of -the Soviet Union which they temporarily occupied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the evidence regarding the destruction of single towns of -the Soviet Union and pass on to the presentation of my report -beginning on Page 42.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are a large number of documents at the disposal of the -Soviet Prosecution which incriminate the Hitlerite criminals in -premeditated and systematic, calculated and cruel annihilation and -destruction of cities and towns, plants and factories, railways and -means of communication.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The presentation of all this documentation would seriously -delay the Trial. Therefore, I consider it possible to pass on to -the presentation of the general conclusive data established by the -<span class='pageno' title='123' id='Page_123'></span> -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union instead of -presenting separate documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), -I shall read into the record only those sections and data which have -not been read into the record previously and only those which -directly concern my subject. These extracts, Your Honors, are on -Pages 223-224 of your document book. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders totally or partially destroyed -and burned 1,710 towns and more than 70,000 villages and -hamlets. They burned and destroyed more than 6 million -buildings and rendered some 25 million persons homeless. -Among the destroyed towns which suffered most are the -greatest industrial and cultural centers: Stalingrad, Sevastopol, -Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, -Orel, Kharkov, Voronezh, Rostov-on-the-Don, and many others.</p> - -<p>“The German fascist invaders destroyed 31,850 industrial works -which employed some 4 million workers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the end of Page 43, Pages 44 and 45, and the beginning of -Page 46 of my report.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Hitlerites destroyed . . . 36,000 postal and telegraphic -offices, telephone centers, and other communication centers. . . . -During their occupation of a part of the territory of the Soviet -Union, and especially during their retreat, the German fascist -invaders caused great damage to the railway system, waterways, -and river transport.</p> - -<p>“They used special machines for the destruction of roads and -thus put out of action 26, and partially destroyed eight, main -railway lines. They destroyed 65,000 kilometers of rails and -500,000 kilometers of cables for the automatic railroad controls, -signals, and communication lines. They blew up 13,000 -railway bridges, 4,100 railway stations, and 1,600 water -pressure stations. They destroyed 317 locomotive depots and -129 locomotive and wagon repair shops, as well as railway -machine works.</p> - -<p>“They destroyed, damaged, or evacuated to Germany 15,800 -locomotives, and Diesel locomotives, and 428,000 railway cars.</p> - -<p>“The enemy caused great damage to the buildings, enterprises, -and institutions and ships of the shipping lines operating in -the Arctic Ocean, in the White Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black, -and the Caspian Seas. They sank or partially damaged more -than 1,400 passenger, cargo, and special ships.</p> - -<p>“The sea ports of Sevastopol, Mariupol, Kerch, Novorossisk, -Odessa, Nikolaiev, Leningrad, Murmansk, Lepaya, Tallinn, -and other ports equipped with modern technical installations -suffered greatly. -<span class='pageno' title='124' id='Page_124'></span></p> - -<p>“The invaders sank or captured 4,280 passenger and cargo -ships and steam tugs of the river shipping and auxiliary -services, as well as 4,029 barges. They destroyed 479 harbor -and quay installations, as well as 89 dockyards and machine -factories.</p> - -<p>“While retreating under the pressure of the Red Army, German -troops blew up and destroyed 91,000 kilometers of -highways and 90,000 road bridges of a total length of 930 kilometers.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>With this I conclude my statement, Your Honors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents which were read into the record and presented -to the Tribunal clearly demonstrate how the Hitlerite conspirators, -in all the territories seized by them in the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, -Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Greece, violated the laws and customs -of war, the fundamental principles of criminal law, and the direct -provisions of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents submitted also prove that the German invaders -contemplated complete destruction of cities and villages from which -the Hitlerites were compelled to retreat under the blows of the -Armed Forces of the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally these documents show with what bestial cruelty and -mercilessness the Hitlerites carried out their criminal plans in -reducing to dust and ashes the largest cultural and industrial -centers. Over a wide area from the White to the Black and the -Aegean Seas, in the territory temporarily occupied by the German -troops, the Hitlerites purposely and according to plan reduced to -ruins densely populated and flourishing Russian, Bielorussian, Yugoslavian, -Greek, and Czechoslovakian cities, towns, and villages. All -this was the result of the criminal activity of the Hitlerite Government -and of the German High Command, the representatives of -which are now in the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion I should like, Mr. President, to present as evidence -and as Exhibit Number USSR-401 (Document Number USSR-401) a -documentary film concerning the destruction perpetrated by the -Germans on the territories of the Soviet Union. Documents certifying -the authenticity of this film are now being submitted to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Moving pictures were then shown.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until 1410 hours.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='125' id='Page_125'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, in order to -exhaust fully the presentation of evidence on the subject matter -of my report I ask your permission to examine witness Joseph -Abgarovitch Orbeli who has been brought to the courthouse. Orbeli -will testify to the destruction of the monuments of culture and art -in Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Dr. Servatius approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any objections to make?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel and -for the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): I would like to ask -the Court to decide whether the witness can be heard on this subject, -whether this single piece of evidence is relevant. Leningrad -was never in German hands. Leningrad was only fired upon with -the regular combat weapons of the troops and also attacked from -the air, just as it is done regularly by all the armies of the world. -It must be established what is to be proved by this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that there is no -substance in the objection that has just been made, and we will -hear the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Orbeli took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>JOSEPH ABGAROVITCH ORBELI (Witness): Joseph Abgarovitch -Orbeli.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the oath after me—state -your name again: I—Orbeli, Joseph, a citizen of the Union of -Soviet Socialist Republics—summoned as a witness in this Trial—in -the presence of the Court—promise and swear—to tell the -Court nothing but the truth—about everything I know in regard -to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath in Russian.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit if you wish.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Witness, will you tell us, -please, what position do you occupy?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Director of the State Hermitage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What is your scientific title?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I am a member of the Academy of Science of the -Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, an active member of the -Academy of Architecture of the U.S.S.R., an active member and -president of the Armenian Academy of Science, an honorable -Member of the Iran Academy of Science, member of the Society -<span class='pageno' title='126' id='Page_126'></span> -of Antiquarians in London, and a consultant member of the -American Institute of Art and Archeology.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you in Leningrad at the -time of the German blockade?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Yes, I was.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Do you know about the -destruction of monuments of culture and art in Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Can you tell the Tribunal the -facts that are known to you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Besides general observations which I was able to make -after the cessation of hostilities around Leningrad, I was also an -eyewitness of the measures undertaken by the enemy for destruction -of the Hermitage Museum, and the buildings of the Hermitage -and the Winter Palace, where the exhibits from the Hermitage -Museum were displayed. During many long months these buildings -were under systematic air bombardment and artillery shelling. -Two air bombs and about 30 artillery shells hit the Hermitage. -Shells caused considerable damage to the building, and air bombs -destroyed the drainage system and water conduit system of the -Hermitage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>While observing the destruction done to the Hermitage I could -also see, across the river, the buildings of the Academy of Science, -namely: the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the -Zoological Museum, and right next to it the Naval Museum, in the -building of the former Stock Exchange. All these buildings were -under especially heavy bombardment of incendiary bombs. I saw -the effect of these hits from a window in the Winter Palace.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Artillery shells caused considerable damage to the Hermitage. -I shall mention the most important. One shell broke the portico -of the main building of the Hermitage, facing the Millionnaya -Street and damaged the piece of sculpture “Atlanta.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other shell went through the ceiling of one of the most -sumptuous halls in the Winter Palace and caused considerable -damage there. The former stable of the Winter Palace was hit -by two shells. Among court carriages of the 17th and 18th centuries -that were there displayed, four from the 18th century of high -artistic value, and one 19th century gilt carriage were shattered -to pieces by one of these shells. Furthermore, one shell went -through the ceiling of the Numismatic Hall and of the Hall of -Columns in the main building of the Hermitage, and a balcony of -this hall was destroyed by it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the same time, a branch building of the Hermitage Museum -on Solyanoy Lane, namely the former Stieglitz Museum was hit -<span class='pageno' title='127' id='Page_127'></span> -by a bomb from the air which caused very great damage to the -building. The building was absolutely unfit for use, and a large -part of the exhibits in this building suffered damage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Please tell me, Witness, do I -understand you correctly? You spoke about the destruction of the -Hermitage and you mentioned the Winter Palace. Is that only one -building? Where was the Hermitage located, the one you mentioned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Before the October Revolution, the Hermitage occupied -a special building of its own facing Millionnaya Street, and the -other side facing the Palace Quay of the Neva. After the Revolution, -the Little Hermitage, the building of the Hermitage Theater, -the building which separated the Hermitage proper from the -Winter Palace, and later even the entire Winter Palace were -incorporated into the Hermitage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, at the present moment the series of buildings -comprising the Hermitage consist of the Winter Palace, the Little -Hermitage, and Great Hermitage, which was occupied by the -museum prior to the Revolution, and also the building of the -Hermitage Theater, which was built during the reign of Catherine II -by the architect Quarenghi and which was hit by the incendiary -bomb which I mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides the destruction of the -Winter Palace and the Hermitage, do you know any other facts -about the destruction of other cultural monuments?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I observed a series of monuments of Leningrad which -suffered damage from artillery shelling and bombing from the air. -Among them damage was caused to the Kazan Cathedral, which -was built in 1814 by Architect Voronikhin, Isaak’s Cathedral, whose -pillars still bear the traces of damage pitted in the granite.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Within the city limits considerable damage was done to the -Rastrelli Wing near the Smolny Cathedral, which was built by -Rastrelli. The middle part of the gallery was blown up. Furthermore, -considerable damage by artillery fire was done to the surface -of the walls of the Fortress of Peter and Paul, which cannot now -be considered a military objective.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides Leningrad proper do -you know anything about the destruction and devastation of the -suburbs of Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I had the chance to acquaint myself in detail with -the condition of the monuments of Peterhof, Tzarskoye Ssyelo, and -Pavlovsk; in all those three towns I saw traces of the monstrous -damage to those monuments. And all the damage which I saw, and -which is very hard to describe in full because it is too great, all of -it showed traces of premeditation. -<span class='pageno' title='128' id='Page_128'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>To prove, for instance, that the shelling of the Winter Palace -was premeditated, I could mention that the 30 shells did not hit -the Hermitage all at once but during a longer period and that not -more than one shell hit it during each shooting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Peterhof, besides the damage caused to the Great Palace by -fire which completely destroyed this monument, I also saw gold -sheetings torn from the roofs of the Great Palace, the dome of -Peterhof Cathedral, and the building at the opposite end of this -enormous palace. It was obvious that the gold sheetings could not -fly off because of the fire alone, but were intentionally torn off.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Monplaisir, the oldest building of Peterhof, built by Peter -the Great, the damage showed also signs of long and gradual -ravages, and was not a result of a catastrophe. The precious oak -carvings covering the walls were torn off. The ancient Dutch tile -stoves, of the time of Peter the Great, disappeared without trace, -and temporary, roughly-built stoves were put in their place. The Great -Palace, built by Rastrelli in Tsarskoye Ssyelo, shows indubitable -traces of intentional destruction. For example, the parquet floors -in numerous halls were cut out and carried away, while the -building itself was destroyed by fire. In Catherine’s Palace, an -auxiliary munition plant was installed, and the precious carved -18th century fireplace was used as a furnace and was rendered -absolutely worthless.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paul’s Palace, which was also destroyed by fire, showed many -a sign that the valuable property that once could be found in its -halls was carried out before the Palace had been set on fire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Tell me, please, you said the -Winter Palace as well as the other cultural monuments that you -mentioned were intentionally destroyed. Upon what facts do you -base that statement?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The fact that the shelling of the Hermitage by artillery -fire during the siege was premeditated was quite clear to me and -to all my colleagues because damage was caused not casually by -artillery shelling during one or two raids, but systematically, -during the methodical shelling of the city, which we witnessed for -months. The first shells did not hit the Hermitage or the Winter -Palace—they passed near by; they were finding the range and -after this they would fire in the same direction, with just a little -deviation from the straight line. Not more than one or two shells -during one particular shelling would actually hit the Palace. Of -course, this could not be accidental in character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no more questions for -the witness. -<span class='pageno' title='129' id='Page_129'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Prosecuting Counsel -want to ask any questions? Do any of the Defense Counsel want -to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and -High Command of the German Armed Forces): Witness, you have -just said that through artillery shelling and also through aerial -bombs, the Hermitage, the Winter Palace, and also the Peterhof -Palace were destroyed. I would be very much interested to know -where these buildings are located; that is, as seen from Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage, which stands -right next to it, are in the center of Leningrad on the banks of -the Neva on the Palace Quay, not far from the Palace Bridge, -which during all the shelling, was hit only once. On the other -side, facing the Neva, next to the Winter Palace and the Hermitage, -there are the Palace Square and Halturin Street. Did I answer -your question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I meant the question a little differently. In -what part of Leningrad were these buildings—in the south, the -north, the southwest, or southeast section? Will you inform me -on that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage are right in -the center of Leningrad on the banks of the Neva, as I have -already mentioned before.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: And where is Peterhof?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: Peterhof is on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, -southwest of the Hermitage, if you consider the Hermitage as the -starting point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Can you tell me whether near the Hermitage -Palace and Winter Palace there are any industries, particularly -armament industries?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: So far as I know, in the vicinity of the Hermitage, -there are no military enterprises. If the question meant the -building of the General Staff, that is located on the other side of -the Palace Square, and it suffered much less from shelling than -the Winter Palace. The General Staff building, which is on the -other side of Palace Square was, so far as I know, hit only by -two shells.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether there were artillery -batteries, perhaps, near the buildings which you mentioned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: On the whole square around the Winter Palace and -the Hermitage there was not a single artillery battery, because -from the very beginning steps were taken to prevent any unnecessary -vibration near the buildings where such precious -museum pieces were. -<span class='pageno' title='130' id='Page_130'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Did the factories, the armament factories, -continue production during the siege?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I do not understand the question. What factories are -you talking about—the factories of Leningrad in general?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: The Leningrad armament factories. Did they -continue production during the siege?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: On the grounds of the Hermitage, the Winter Palace, -and in the immediate neighborhood, no military enterprise worked. -They were never there and during the blockade no factories were -built there. But I know that in Leningrad munitions were being -made, and were successfully used.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Winter Palace is on the Neva -River. How far from the Winter Palace is the nearest bridge -across the Neva River?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: The nearest bridge, the Palace Bridge, is 50 meters -from the Palace, at a distance of the breadth of the quay, but, -as I have already said, only one shell hit the bridge during the -shellings; that is why I am sure that the Winter Palace was -deliberately shelled. I cannot admit that while shelling the bridge, -only one shell hit the bridge and 30 hit the near-by building. The -other bridge, the Stock Exchange Bridge, connecting Vasilievsky -Island with the Petrograd side, is on the opposite bank of the -Great Neva. Only a few incendiary bombs were dropped from -planes on this bridge. The fires which broke out on the Stock -Exchange Bridge were extinguished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, those are conclusions that you are -drawing. Have you any knowledge whatever of artillery from -which you can judge whether the target was the palace or the -bridge beside it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I never was an artillery man, but I suppose that if -German artillery was aiming only at the bridge then it could not -possibly hit the bridge only once and hit the palace, which is across -the way, with 30 shells. Within these limits—I am an artillery man.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: That is your conviction as a non-artillery -man. I have another question. The Neva River was used by the -fleet. How far from the Winter Palace were the ships of the Red -Fleet?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: In that part of the Neva River there were no battleships -which were firing or were used for such kind of service. The -Neva ships were anchored in another part of the river, far from -the Winter Palace. -<span class='pageno' title='131' id='Page_131'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: One last question. Were you in Leningrad -during the entire period of the siege?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ORBELI: I was in Leningrad from the first day of the war -until 31 March 1942. Then I returned to Leningrad when the -German troops were driven out of the suburbs of Leningrad and -had a chance to inspect Peterhof, Tsarskoye Ssyelo, and Pavlovsk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you. I have no more questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General, do you want to ask the witness any -questions in re-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: We have no further questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE 3RD CLASS -MAJOR GENERAL N. D. ZORYA (Assistant Prosecutor for the -U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, I want to begin to submit -documentary evidence on the part of the Soviet Prosecution with -regard to the employment of compulsory slave labor practiced by -the Hitlerite conspirators on an enormous scale.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Fascism, with its plans for world domination, with its denial of -law, ethics, mercy, and humane considerations, foresaw the enslavement -of the peaceful population of the temporarily occupied territories, -the deportation of millions of people to fascist Germany, -and the compulsory utilization of their labor power. Fascism and -slavery—these two concepts are inseparable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall begin, Your Honors, the presentation of documents -relating to this count with the report of the Yugoslav Republic, -which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). I shall ask you -to look at Page 40 of the report, which is on Page 41 of the document -book at the disposal of the Tribunal. I read into the record -extracts from the report of the Yugoslav Republic, which is -entitled, “Forced Labor of Civilians.” I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Nazi policy of the wholesale exploitation of the occupied -territories has also been applied in Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia the Reich -Government and the OKW introduced obligatory labor -service for the population of the occupied territory. The -exploitation of manpower in Yugoslavia has been carried out -within the framework of the general German plan. The -Defendant Göring, as the leader of the German economic -plan, issued directives to his subordinates concerning the -systematic exploitation of manpower of the occupied territories. -<span class='pageno' title='132' id='Page_132'></span></p> - -<p>“In a report from Berlin, written by one of the head -functionaries of the economic service of the German Kommandantur -in Belgrade, named Ranze, instructions by Göring -are communicated, according to which the economic measures -in the occupied territories do not aim at the protection of -the local population, but at the exploitation of manpower -of the occupied countries for the benefit of the German war -economy.</p> - -<p>“Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia, the Germans -established offices for enlisting workers for ‘voluntary’ -labor in Germany. They also used the organizations which -already existed in Yugoslavia for arranging employment of -workers, and began to carry out their plans through these -organizations. Thus, for example, in Serbia they used the -central office for arranging employment of workers as well -as the labor exchange. Through these organizations, until -the end of February 1943, and from Serbia alone the Germans -sent 47,500 workers to Germany. Later on this number -considerably increased but the relative data in this respect -have not yet been fully established. These workers were -employed in agriculture and various industries in Germany, -mostly in the heaviest work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Yugoslav Republic it is stated that the -Gestapo and a special commission used pressure and force. This went -so far that these “volunteer” workers were hunted in the streets, -collected in units, and herded into Germany by force.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Apart from these so-called ‘volunteer’ workers, the Germans -sent into forced labor in Germany a large number of prisoners -from various camps, as well as politically ‘suspicious’ -persons, who had to perform the heaviest kinds of work -under disgusting living and working conditions. As early as -1942 many innocent victims of the Banyitza, Saimishte, and -other camps, were sent into Germany.</p> - -<p>“The first transport of them left on 24 April 1942, and these -transports continued without interruption until 26 September -1944. Old and young, men and women, farmers, workers, -intellectuals, and others were taken not only to Germany, -but to other countries under German occupation as well.</p> - -<p>“According to the registers of Banyitza Camp, which are -far from giving an exact picture, over 10,000 prisoners were -sent for forced labor from this camp alone.</p> - -<p>“The German authorities in Serbia issued a series of orders, -aiming at maximum exploitation of manpower. Among the -first measures two decrees were passed: The Decree for -General Labor Service and Restriction of the Freedom of -<span class='pageno' title='133' id='Page_133'></span> -Labor, of 14 December 1941, and the Decree for the National -Labor Service for the Reconstruction of Serbia, of 5 November -1941. According to the first decree all persons between -17 and 45 years of age could be called up for compulsory -labor in certain enterprises and branches of economy. -According to the second order, such persons could be called -up for civilian service in the National Reconstruction, which -in fact meant that they had to work for the strengthening -of the German economic and war effort.</p> - -<p>“The persons eligible for labor in accordance with these two -laws, although remaining in the country, worked in fact for -the aims and benefit of the Germans’ economic exploitation. -They were primarily used for work in the mines (Bor, Kostolac, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>), for road building and railway line repairs, -in the water transport, and so on.</p> - -<p>“On 26 March 1943 the German Commander of Serbia, -Befehlshaber Serbien, in a special order introduced the -so-called war economy measures of the Reich in the occupied -territory of Serbia, and by this act imposed the general -mobilization of manpower in Serbia. . . .</p> - -<p>“By this decree, therefore, the entire population of occupied -Serbia was mobilized for the German war economy. The -Germans exploited Serbian manpower, in fact, to the greatest -possible extent. . . .</p> - -<p>“The situation was in no way different in the other occupied -areas of Yugoslavia. Without entering into numerous details -of this planned exploitation, we shall quote here only one -example from occupied Slovenia.</p> - -<p>“According to an official announcement of the German -Farmers’ Union in Carinthia (Landesbauernschaft Kärnten) -of 10 August 1944, issued in Klagenfurt, every case of -pregnancy of non-German women was to be reported, and -in all such cases these women were to be obliged to have -their child ‘removed by operation in a hospital.’ The -announcement itself explains that in cases when non-German -women give birth to their children this ‘creates difficulties -for their use in work,’ and besides, it is also ‘a danger for -the population policy.’ Furthermore, this announcement states -that the Office of Labor Service should try to influence these -women to commit an abortion.</p> - -<p>“As another proof of the exploitation of manpower, we quote -the circular instructions of the German Landrat for the -Marburg (Maribor) district, of 12 August 1944. This circular -deals with the question of enlisting everybody eligible -according to that decree into the armed forces and into the -<span class='pageno' title='134' id='Page_134'></span> -labor service, and it calls upon all the inhabitants of Lower -Styria, and not only upon the indigenous population, but -also upon the Dutchmen, Danes, Swedes, Luxembourgers, -Norwegians, and Belgians who may find themselves living -there.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall pass on now to the Report of the Polish Government -which was presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as -Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). First -we should note the special role of the Defendant Frank in organizing -deportations of the Polish population for compulsory labor -to Germany. I shall read into the record several excerpts from -a document known under the title “Frank’s Diary,” which is at the -disposal of the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-223 (Document -Number USSR-223).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Frank described his attitude toward the Poles at the meeting -of the section chiefs which took place in Kraków, 12 April 1940, -as follows—I shall quote an excerpt on Page 62 of the document -book, to be exact, on the reverse side of the page. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Under pressure from the Reich, it had now been decreed -that, since sufficient labor did not present itself voluntarily -for service in the German Reich, compulsion could be used. -This compulsion meant the possibility of arresting male and -female Poles. A certain amount of unrest had been caused by -this, which, according to some reports, had spread very widely -and which could lead to difficulties in all spheres. Field -Marshal Göring had once pointed out, in his big speech, the -necessity for sending a million workers to the Reich. One -hundred and sixty thousand had been delivered to date. . . . -To arrest young Poles as they left church or the cinema would -lead to ever-increasing nervousness among the Poles. Fundamentally -Frank had no objections to removing people capable -of work who were lounging about in the streets. But the best -way would be to organize a round-up, and one was absolutely -justified in stopping a Pole in the street and asking him what -work he did, where he was employed, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>During his conversation with Defendant Sauckel, 18 August 1942, -the Defendant Frank stated—I quote the part which is on Page 67 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I am pleased to be able . . . to inform you officially that we -have now supplied more than 800,000 workers for the Reich. . . .</p> - -<p>“You recently requested the supply of a further 140,000 -workers. I am pleased to be able to inform you that, in accordance -with our agreement of yesterday’s date, we shall deliver -60 percent of these newly requested workers to the Reich by -<span class='pageno' title='135' id='Page_135'></span> -the end of October and the remaining 40 percent by the end -of the year. . . .</p> - -<p>“Over and above the present figure of 140,000, you can, -however, count on a further number of workers from the -Government General next year, as we are going to use the -police to recruit them.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Frank fulfilled his promise given to the Defendant Sauckel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the conference of the political leaders of the Labor Front in -the Government General, 14 December 1942, Frank stated in his -address—this is on the same page of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“You know that we have delivered more than 940,000 Polish -workers to the Reich. The Government General thereby stands -absolutely and relatively at the head of all European countries. -This achievement is enormous and has also been recognized -as such by Gauleiter Sauckel.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Will you kindly permit me to quote that section of the report of -the Government of the Polish Republic which is entitled, “Deportation -of the Civilian Population for Forced Labor.” This document is on -Page 72 and 73 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“a) As early as on 2 October 1939 a decree was issued by -Frank concerning the introduction of forced labor for the -Polish civilian population within the Government General. -By virtue of the said decree Polish civilians were under the -obligation to work in agricultural establishments, on the -maintenance of public buildings, road construction, regulation -of rivers, highways, and railways.</p> - -<p>“b) A further decree of 12 December 1939 extended the groups -of those liable to forced labor to children from the age of -14 years. And a decree of 13 May 1942 gave the authorities -the right to use forced labor even outside the Government -General.</p> - -<p>“c) The practice which developed on the basis of those decrees -turned into mass deportation of civilians from Poland to -Germany.</p> - -<p>“Throughout the Government General, in towns and villages, -posters were continually inviting Poles to go ‘voluntarily’ to -work in Germany. At the same time however every town and -village was told how many workers it was to supply.</p> - -<p>“The result of the ‘voluntary’ recruitment was usually very -disappointing. As a result of that the German authorities -invited the people to go or arranged round-ups in the streets, -restaurants, and other places, and those caught were sent -straight to Germany. There was a particular hunt for young -workers of both sexes. The families of those deported received -<span class='pageno' title='136' id='Page_136'></span> -no news from them for months and only after some time -postcards arrived describing the poor conditions in which they -were forced to live. Often, after several months, the workers -used to return home in a state of spiritual depression and -complete physical exhaustion.</p> - -<p>“There is substantial evidence that while on that forced labor -thousands of men were sterilized, while young girls were -forced into public houses.</p> - -<p>“d) These laborers were either sent to live with German -farmers to work on their land, to work in factories, or to -special work in forced labor camps. The conditions in those -camps were terrible.</p> - -<p>“e) According to provisional estimates, in 1940 alone 100,000 -women and men were sent to Germany as laborers.</p> - -<p>“f) To this great army of slave workers thousands of Poles -deported from the incorporated territories have to be added -and also 200,000 Polish prisoners of war who, by a decree -issued by Hitler in August 1940, were ‘released’ from camps, -but only to be sent to forced labor into various parts of -Germany.</p> - -<p>“g) These deportations continued throughout the years of war. -The total number of those workers reached at a certain point -a figure of 2 million.</p> - -<p>“Exact figures are obviously not available. But if one considers -that in spite of the very high death rate among those people, -there are now about 835,000 Polish citizens registered in -western Germany, the estimate appears correct.</p> - -<p>“The whole chapter concerning the deportations to forced -labor is presented here in a very condensed form. Behind -these few lines lies the history of hundreds of thousands of -Polish families destroyed, tragedy, death, and sorrow. The -history of each of these laborers was a continuous tragedy: -fathers leaving their families without means; husbands their -wives with no possibility of maintaining them, with no protection -and little hope of return. The quoted number of 2 million -conceals an ocean of broken lives, involving, at the least, -10 percent of the total population of Poland.</p> - -<p>“This was a terrible crime. Deportation and forced labor were -a flagrant violation of the laws and customs of war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Greek Report on German atrocities, submitted to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-369 (Document Number USSR-369) -states the following—I beg you to refer to Page 74 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“As in all the other occupied territories, the Germans pursued -two main objectives in their occupational policy in Greece: -<span class='pageno' title='137' id='Page_137'></span> -the maximum exploitation of the country’s resources in the -interests of the German military economy, and the enslavement -of the population by means of systematic terror and -general repression. The Germans pursued their two-sided -policy of plunder and revenge, violating commonly accepted -laws.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The section of the report of the Greek Government entitled -“Recruitment of Manpower” contains two paragraphs which I intend -to read into the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“One of the problems confronting the German administration -was that of recruiting labor. All males between 16 and 50 -years of age were liable to labor conscription. Strikes were -declared illegal, and severe penalties enforced for resort -thereto. Persons who organized and directed a strike were -liable to the death penalty. Strikers were tried by military -courts.</p> - -<p>“At first the Germans, by propaganda and various forms of -indirect pressure, tried to recruit Greek labor to work within -Germany. They promised high wages and better conditions of -life. As this kind of ‘voluntary’ recruitment failed to produce -the expected results they abandoned it and confronted the -workers with the dilemma either of being taken as hostages -or else of being sent to Germany to work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Similar measures of deportation of manpower to Germany were -applied by the fascists also in Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the deportation by the fascist criminals of the peaceful -populations into slave labor reached its climax in the temporarily -occupied territories of the Soviet Union. I would like now to dwell -briefly on the preparatory measures taken by the Hitlerite criminals -for the utilization of forced labor in the temporarily occupied territories -of the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even before their attack on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, -in a document which is known to the Tribunal as the “Green -File” of the Defendant Göring, Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document -Number EC-472), a whole chapter was dedicated to the problem of -organizing compulsory labor in the Soviet territories which the war -criminals intended to occupy; the chapter was called “Allocation of -Labor and Recruitment of Indigenous Population.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This chapter—Pages 17 and 18 of the Russian text of the Green -File, which is on Page 83 of the document book—lays down the -Principle of compulsory labor for the peaceful Soviet population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraphs 3 and 2 of Subsection A in the second part of that -chapter entitled, “Recruitment of the Local Population,” point -out that: -<span class='pageno' title='138' id='Page_138'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The workers in public utilities—gas, water, electricity, oil -drilling, oil distilling, and oil storage, as well as emergency -work in important industries . . . will be ordered to continue -their work under threat of punishment, if necessary.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And several lines above that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In case of necessity, the workers will be organized into labor -gangs.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The nonpayment of wages for the compulsory labor of Soviet -citizens had already been provided for in this so-called Göring’s -Green File. It was presupposed that the problem of payment was -reduced to the question of providing the workers with food. The -fascist slave owners were only interested in maintaining the working -potential of the people and nothing more—Page 18 of the Russian -text of the Green File. This is the back of Page 83 of the document -book. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: This document has already been read into the -record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I think that this particular part of the document -has not been read into the record. This is a document of the Soviet -Prosecution, which was published completely for the first time in the -note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, -in May 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you say that it has not yet been read into -the record, please go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: On Page 18 of the Russian text of the Defendant -Göring’s Green File it is mentioned at least three times that food -was to be the only payment. I do not wish to take more time of the -Tribunal with this document, but will proceed with my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Defendant Göring, who signed this directive for the plunder of -the Soviet Union—for how else could we refer to the above-mentioned -document—continued to organize forced labor in the -temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As evidence I present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-386 -(Document Number USSR-386), a document which discloses this -phase of the Defendant Göring’s activity. This document, or to be -precise, these two documents are the record of the conference of -7 November 1941, on “Allocation of Russians,” in which Göring -participated, and a covering letter to this record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One hundred copies of the document were originally prepared -and mailed to the 14 addresses which are listed, as Your Honors -may see, on Page 5 of the Russian text of the document, at the end -of the covering letter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The covering letter attached to the record bears the signature of -the Chief, Military Administration, Economic Staff East, Dr. Rachner. -<span class='pageno' title='139' id='Page_139'></span> -The minutes of the conference in question have been written by one -Von Normann who was evidently an official of the same organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it will promote clarification if I read into the record -certain parts of these minutes. I quote Page 6 of the Russian text -of the document which corresponds to Pages 95 and 96 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Conference of 7 November 1941 on the allocation of Russian -manpower. The Reich Marshal gave the following directives -for the utilization of Russian manpower:</p> - -<p>“I. Russian labor has demonstrated its capacity for production -in building up the gigantic industry of Russia. It must now -be successfully allocated in the Reich. In the face of such an -order of the Führer, objections are of secondary importance. -The disadvantages that may result from the employment of -Russian labor must be reduced to a minimum, and this is -primarily the concern of the counterintelligence service (Abwehr) -and the Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei).</p> - -<p>“II. Russians in the operational zone. The Russians are to be -used primarily in the construction of roads and railroads, for -clearing work, clearing out mine fields, and in the construction -of air fields. The German construction battalions are largely -to be dissolved (for example in the Air Force). German skilled -workmen belong in war industry. Digging and stone breaking -is not their work. The Russian is there for that.</p> - -<p>“III. Russians in the territories of the Reich commissioners -and of the Government General. Here the same principle -applies as in the second paragraph. In addition, increased use -in agriculture; if machines are lacking, manpower must produce -what the Reich will have to demand in the agrarian -sector from the Eastern territories. Further local manpower -should be made available for the ruthless exploitation of the -Russian coal deposits.</p> - -<p>“IV. Russians in the territory of the Reich, including the -Protectorate. The number to be employed is to be determined -by the need. Need is to be decided from the standpoint that -foreign workers who eat much and produce little are to be -sent away from the Reich and that in the future the German -woman is not to be used as extensively in the field of labor as -hitherto. Along with Russian prisoners of war, free Russian -manpower is also to be utilized.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now omit one page of this document and refer to Page 7. -In the middle of the page there is Section B, entitled “The Free -Russian Worker.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, already mentioned the fact that -the Hitlerites considered the civilian population as prisoners of war. -<span class='pageno' title='140' id='Page_140'></span> -This gave them the opportunity to increase for propaganda purposes -the number of the allegedly captured Red Army soldiers in their -reports on military operations, on the one hand, and to draw on -them for manpower, on the other hand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The section to which I just referred begins as follows, “Employment -and treatment is not actually to be other than that given to -Russian prisoners of war.” It should here be noted that the minutes -of the conference end with the following statement by Göring—you -will find this excerpt on Page 98 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Enlistment of workers and the utilization of prisoners of war -are to be carried on in a uniform manner, and they must be -organizationally combined.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Coming back to Page 7 of the same minutes we come across the -following eloquent statement by Göring on the subject of labor -conditions for Russian workers and particularly their wages. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Zorya, can you tell the Tribunal -whether you think you will be able to finish the presentation of -your documents this afternoon?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: My intention is to finish my presentation today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I would like to read into the record statements -by Göring which concern the labor conditions of Russian workers -and particularly their wages, from the document I have just -presented:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In connection with the labor conditions of the free Russians -it is to be kept in mind that:</p> - -<p>“1. He may receive a little pocket money. . . .</p> - -<p>“3. Since his labor is available to the employer cheaply, financial -compensation from the employer is to be given attention.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>To clarify the above statement the Defendant Göring makes -further the following suggestion—I quote on Page 8 of the Russian -text of the document, Paragraph B, Subparagraph 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The allocation of Russians must under no circumstance be -allowed to prejudice the wage problem in the eastern -territories. Every financial measure in this sphere must -proceed from the standpoint that lowest wages in the East—according -to a specific Führer decree—are a prerequisite for -the equal distribution to balance war costs and the clearing of -war debts by the Reich at the end of the war. -<span class='pageno' title='141' id='Page_141'></span></p> - -<p>“Infractions are subject to the severest penalties.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This is followed by two lines which are of interest, not only -because they incriminate the Defendant Göring for introducing the -system of forced labor. Having expressed himself so categorically -against the “prejudice of the wage problem in the eastern territories,” -Göring stated at the same conference as follows—Page 98 of the -document book, “The same applied in substance to every encouragement -of ‘social aspirations’ in the Russian colonial territory.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The covering letter appended to the minutes of the meeting -consists of comments which really do not add anything new to the -facts already presented to the Tribunal. Therefore I shall not quote -this letter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next document which I consider necessary to submit to the -Tribunal and which I beg you to accept as evidence under Exhibit -Number USSR-379 (Document Number UK-82) is a decree issued by -the Defendant Göring on 10 January 1942. I will quote only the first -18 lines of this decree, which are on Page 100 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the coming months the employment of manpower will -acquire still greater importance. On the one hand, the -recruiting situation of the Armed Forces necessitates the -release of all members of the younger age groups for this task. -On the other hand, urgent armament production and other -phases of the war economy, and also of agriculture, must -be provided with the manpower urgently needed by them. -For this, the utilization of prisoners of war, especially from -Soviet Russia, plays an important role.</p> - -<p>“The measures that will be necessary in this field in the -future promise success only under unified leadership, and I -shall use every means to attain it.</p> - -<p>“For that reason I have now granted my manpower commission—which -had already been dealing with all the manpower -questions of the Four Year Plan—the unlimited power -to direct . . . the entire manpower program.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Later on, Your Honors, the criminal activity of the fascist conspirators -in organizing and extending the system of forced labor -acquired such magnitude that on 21 March 1942 Hitler issued a -decree creating a special department under the Defendant Sauckel, -who developed these activities on a large scale. I shall not dwell -any longer on these historical facts as they have already been -covered by our American, English, and French colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The vital bond between fascism and the system of forced labor -is especially apparent when we consider the part played in this -field not only by the fascist government machine but by the fascist -Party itself. I should like to submit to the Tribunal a few documents -which illustrate this fact. -<span class='pageno' title='142' id='Page_142'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-365 (Document -Number USSR-365) a printed edition entitled, “Report of the -Delegate of the Four Year Plan—Plenipotentiary for the Allocation -of Labor.” This document is on Page 101 of the document book. -The copy of the report, which I present, has the order Number 1 -and it is dated 1 May 1942. The first page of the report contains -Hitler’s decree of 21 March 1942, appointing Sauckel to this post. -On the second page there is an order of the Defendant Göring -dated 27 March of the same year, explaining the duties of the -Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor within the framework of -the Four Year Plan organizational structure. And on the third page -of this report there is a program prepared by Sauckel for the -“Führer’s birthday” in 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, the above-mentioned documents have already been -submitted to the Tribunal by the Prosecution of the United States. -But I wish to draw your attention to Page 17 of the Russian -translation of this document, where you will find an order of the -Defendant Sauckel, dated 6 April 1942: Order Number 1. This -order is presented for the first time and is entitled, “Concerning -Appointment of Gauleiter as Commissioners for the Allocation of -Labor in the Gaue. This order begins as follows—I quote Page 118 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby appoint the Gauleiter of the NSDAP my commissioners -for allocation of labor in the Gaue administered by -them.</p> - -<p>“A. Their tasks are:</p> - -<p>“1) The achievement of smooth co-operation between all -offices set up by the State, the Party, the Wehrmacht, and -the economic authorities to deal with questions of manpower; -and by means of this, the regulation of different interpretations -and claims in such a way as to utilize manpower -to the best possible effect.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit some points.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“4) Investigation of the results obtained by utilizing the labor -of all foreign male and female workers. Special regulations -will be issued with regard to these.</p> - -<p>“5) Investigation of the correct feeding, housing, and treatment -of all foreign workers and prisoners of war engaged -in work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In his program for the allocation of labor, presented—as I have -already pointed out—for Hitler’s birthday in 1942, the Defendant -Sauckel wrote—this part of the program was not read into the -record by the United States Prosecution; it is on Page 105 of the -document book: -<span class='pageno' title='143' id='Page_143'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“IV. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor will, therefore, -with a very small personal staff of his own choice, make -exclusive use of existing institutions set up by the Party, -State, and industry, and the goodwill and co-operation of all -will assure the quickest success of his measures.</p> - -<p>“V. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor has, therefore, -with consent of the Führer and in agreement with the -Reich Marshal of Greater Germany and the Chief of the -Party Chancellery, appointed all the Gauleiter of Greater -Germany as his commissioners in the Gaue of the National -Socialist Labor Party (NSDAP).</p> - -<p>“VI. The commissioners for allocation of labor will use the -competent offices of the Party in their Gaue. The chiefs of -the highest competent State and economic offices in their -Gaue will advise and instruct the Gauleiter in all-important -questions relative to labor allocation.</p> - -<p>“Especially important for that purpose are the following: The -President of the State Labor Office, the Trustee for Labor, -the State Peasant Leader, the Gau Economic Adviser, the -Gau Trustee of the German Labor Front, the Gau Women’s -Leader, the District Hitler Youth Leader, the highest -representative of the Interior and General Administration, -especially if the Office for Agriculture falls within his jurisdiction.</p> - -<p>“VII. The most elevated and most essential task of the Gauleiter -of the NSDAP in their capacity of commissioners in -their Gaue is to secure the maximum agreement between all -offices dealing with questions of manpower in their Gau.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In this document Sauckel addressed himself to the Gauleiter -asking them repeatedly to give him all possible assistance in every -respect. I would like to draw Your Honors’ attention to only one -of Sauckel’s assertions in this document. He mentions the decision -of Hitler to send to the Reich “in order to help the German peasant -women, four or five hundred thousand selected, healthy, and strong -girls from the eastern territories,” thus to relieve German women -and girls of labor duty. Apparently in order to explain the advantage -of this measure, Sauckel wrote, “Please trust me as an old and -fanatical National Socialist Gauleiter when I say that in the end -the decision could not be different.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The importance of the part played by the fascist Party in the -organization of compulsory slave labor and how far this Party went -into the matter, is shown by the following document which I am -submitting to the Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit Number USSR-383 -(Document Number USSR-383). This document is a letter of the -Defendant Sauckel, dated 8 September 1942, and is entitled, “Special -<span class='pageno' title='144' id='Page_144'></span> -Action of the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor for the Purpose -of Procuring Female Workers from the East for the Benefit of -Town and Country Households with Many Children.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the course of my presentation I shall have the opportunity -to refer once more to this document. In the meantime I wish to -draw your attention to the passage which has direct bearing on -the role of the fascist Party in this measure. On Page 3 of the -Russian text of the document, which I hereby submit, there is a -section entitled, “Viewpoints for Selecting Households.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does it matter whether these women were -brought into a house where they ought not to have been brought -and whether a particular German housewife was entitled to a -woman worker or not? The whole point, it would seem, is whether -they were deported—and forcibly deported.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, I just had it in view to abridge -this passage which you mentioned. But now I am talking about -something else. I would like to show the part which the fascist -Party played in organizing slave labor inside Germany and in -particular in the distribution of those Soviet women who were -transported for this purpose to Germany. Here are two short documents -which I consider necessary to submit to the Tribunal. As for -the rest, which concerns the regime which has already been -described sufficiently by the United States and British Prosecutions, -I do not intend to dwell upon it and contemplated cutting down -this part to the minimum.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to dwell on this part of the document which says that -applications for obtaining an eastern woman worker for household -duties, are to be examined by the Labor Department which would -decide whether there is a real need for the worker and are then -to be forwarded for final approval to the corresponding leader of -NSDAP. Should the district leader object to granting a woman -worker to the household, the Labor Department declines to send -an eastern woman worker to the applicant and accordingly declines -the permission for the employment of such. The refusal need not -be motivated, and the decision is final.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You may find this on Page 129 of the document book. It is -followed by the application form. You will find this in the appendix -to Exhibit Number USSR-383 (Document Number USSR-383). This -application form contains a brief questionnaire about the family -which would like to employ a domestic worker in the household. -This application form also contains the reply form of the corresponding -fascist Party organization whether it recommends or not -the use of an eastern slave in this household.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to pay attention to the appendix to -Exhibit Number USSR-383. This appendix is entitled, “Memo for -<span class='pageno' title='145' id='Page_145'></span> -Housewives Regarding Employment of Eastern Woman Workers -in Urban and Rural Households.” This memo has already been -mentioned by Mr. Dodd. I will not dwell upon it in detail, but -will only draw the attention of the Tribunal to the subtitle which -is on Page 133.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg Your Honors to pay attention to the subtitle of this slave -owner’s memo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The statement between brackets announces that this memo is -published by the Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor in -agreement with the chief of the Party Chancellery and other corresponding -authorities. It is difficult to state it more precisely. -Millions of foreign slaves were languishing in Germany. A German -could become a slave-owner with the sanction and under the -supervision of the fascist Party. Apparently this also constituted -one of the elements of the New Order in Europe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I deem it indispensable to refer also to the order of the Defendant -Göring, dated 27 March 1942. I do not submit this document, as -it is already at the disposal of the Tribunal, having been presented -by the United States Prosecution:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, in order to -carry out his tasks, herewith receives the power which the -Führer has given me to issue directives to the superior Reich -authorities and to their subordinate offices, to Party authorities -and to Party organizations and attached units.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This order of the Defendant Göring does not only determine -the special part of the fascist Party in the execution of the compulsory -labor system, but also emphasizes the extraordinary powers -of Defendant Sauckel in this field.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents to which I have been referring thus far give -grounds for the Soviet Prosecution to assert that within the general -framework of the fascist State the fascist Party was the center of -all measures for the organization of compulsory slave labor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like now to turn to the part taken by the German -High Command in the organization of compulsory labor and deportation -into slavery of Soviet people. With this object in view, I -submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-367 (Document -Number USSR-367), an OKH document regarding—I am using the -words of the document itself—the “Enlistment of Russian Manpower -for the Reich.” I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page 138 of the -document book in which this document is to be found.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, let us look at the source from which this document -emanates. In the upper left-hand corner of the first page you will -find, “High Command of the Army, General Staff of the Army, -Quartermaster General, Office of Military Administration, (EC) -<span class='pageno' title='146' id='Page_146'></span> -Number II 3210/42—secret.” In the upper right-hand corner: “Headquarters, -High Command of the Army, 10 May 1942,” and again -the stamp “secret.” After the title it states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subject: OKH, Gen Qu/Ec/II, Number 2877/42, secret, -25 April 1942; OKH, Gen Qu/Section Mil. Adm. Number -3158/1942, secret, 6 May 1942.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Therefore, the document which I intend to quote here originates -from the OKH and is based on orders previously issued by the -OKH. At the end of the document there is a list of addresses to -which it was distributed. I will not quote this list in full, but it -leaves no doubt as to who were the executors of the orders contained -in the above document. These executors were the military -authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Let us now turn to the contents of the submitted document. First -of all, what induced the OKH when it issued this letter? The -reply to this question is contained in the first paragraph of our -document, which I shall now read into the record. I abridge the -quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor appointed by -the Führer, Gauleiter Sauckel . . . in consideration of the -increased armament requirements of the Reich and in order -to secure the manpower requirements of the German war and -armament economy, has ordered that the enlisting and transferring -into the Reich of Russian manpower be speeded up -and considerably increased.</p> - -<p>“For the execution of this recruiting action . . . influence of -the military and local administrative authorities (field Kommandantura, -local Kommandantura, I A—organization of the -Economic Staff East, district administrations, town mayors, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>) . . . is necessary. This is a task of decisive importance -for the outcome of the war. The labor situation of the Reich -makes it necessary that the ordered measures are carried out -on a priority basis and in a large scale manner. This must be -the chief task of all organizations.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The next two paragraphs of the quoted document, part of which -is entitled, “Priority of Manpower Needs in the Armed Forces and -Economy in the East,” contain the following statement—I quote -Page 139 of your document book which runs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The immediate manpower needs of the Army must be satisfied -in the highest priority inasmuch as the need is actually -inescapable . . . and unalterable. The scale of the needs of the -Army is to be determined by the armies, the commanders -of the front areas, and the Wehrmacht commanders. However, -in consideration of the urgent labor needs of the Reich . . . -the severest standard is to be applied, and especially the scale -<span class='pageno' title='147' id='Page_147'></span> -of the troops’ own manpower needs is to be most carefully -examined.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t it sufficient to say that this document -provides for the speeding up of the mobilization of manpower and -slave labor for the purposes of the necessities of the Reich? Does -it do anything more than that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Yes, you are quite right, Mr. President. It would -be enough if we add that this document contains the demand not -only to accelerate the mobilization of manpower but also the demand -for immediate participation by the military authorities who had -to arrange a suitable machinery in the form of suitable officers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next document which I submit to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would be a mistake to think that the OKH gave orders only -of such general character. In July 1941 the Defendant Keitel learned -that the subdepartments of the Organization Todt in the Lvov -district paid the local workers a wage of 25 rubles. This fact made -Keitel indignant. Todt immediately received an appropriate -reprimand. And so we come to the next document, which I present -to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-366 (Document Number -USSR-366).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Reich Minister directly refers, in this document, to the fact -that Field Marshal Keitel expressed his displeasure that the subdepartments -of the Organization Todt in the suburbs of Lvov paid -the local workers wages of 25 rubles and that the subdepartments -of the O.T. were making use of the factories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Todt declares that during his last trip he had explained in detail -to all members of the staff that the rules for the allocation of labor -in Russian territory were different from those in Western Europe. -Further in this document Todt categorically prohibits the paying -of any sums of money at all. He concludes this document in the -following terms:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“No compensation shall be given to the firms for payments -not in conformity with the above principles.</p> - -<p>“This order is to be brought to the attention of all subordinate -labor allocation offices and to all firms.</p> - -<p>“Signed: Dr. Todt.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The German Government and the High Command ordered the -use of peaceful Soviet citizens for work which endangered life. -This was mentioned by Göring at a conference on 7 November 1941. -I now submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-106 (Document -Number USSR-106), which contains the translation of the -Führer’s directive, signed by him on 8 September 1942. This directive -concerns the allocation of labor for the construction of fortifications -on the Eastern Front. This document comes from the -<span class='pageno' title='148' id='Page_148'></span> -German archives captured by the Allied armies in the West. The -covering letter to this document states that this document “is top -secret, and that copies of it will be sent to staffs and divisions and -are to be returned to the Army staffs and destroyed.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the second page of the document, we find Hitler’s order. I -read it into the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“HQu, 8 September 1942.</p> - -<p>“The heavy defensive battles in the area of Army Groups -Center and North induce me to fix my views on some -fundamental tasks of the defense.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The next Paragraphs, 1 and 2 on Pages 1 to 7, concern general -principles of defense, which do not interest us today. On Page 148 -of the document book is the following passage which I read into -the record:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The enemy carries on construction to a far greater extent -than do our own troops. I know that it will be argued that -the enemy has at his disposal more labor for construction of -such positions. But it is therefore an absolute necessity at -exactly this point to make use, with ruthless energy, especially -of prisoners of war and the population for these tasks. Only -in this respect is the Russian superior to us in his brutal way. -By this means, however, the German soldier, too, can be -spared to a large extent from labor on defensive works behind -the front lines, in order that he may be kept free and fresh -for his real duties. Frequently the necessary ruthlessness -which the present fateful battle demands is not yet being -employed here, for in it not a victory but the existence and -survival of our people is contested. Besides, it is in all -circumstances still always more humane to drive the Russian -population to work, with every means, as it has always been -accustomed to be driven, than to sacrifice our most precious -possession, our own blood.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>This order is signed by Hitler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Units of the Red Army also captured a decree issued by the -German occupation authorities, which referred to an order of the -General Staff about forced labor in combat zones. I submit this -document as Exhibit Number USSR-407 (Document Number -USSR-407), and I deem it necessary to quote a few sentences from -Page 149 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Decree: In accordance with the regulations of the Chief of -the OKW, dated 6 February 1943, regarding transfer for -labor in the combat zone of the newly occupied eastern -territory, all women born in 1924 and 1925 are hereby -summoned for labor in Germany. -<span class='pageno' title='149' id='Page_149'></span></p> - -<p>“Point V of this order provides that: . . . those who do not -present themselves on the given dates shall be held responsible -as saboteurs in accordance with military laws.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I am summarizing this section.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The High Command of the German Armed Forces and the -Defendant Keitel took a direct part in the execution of this system -of forced slave labor. For the realization of this criminal objective -they used on a large scale from bottom to top, the entire machinery -of the military administration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I beg to refer to the next document which I am -now presenting as Exhibit Number USSR-381 (Document Number -USSR-381).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General, was that last order that you gave -us Keitel’s order? It is signed apparently by the Chief of the -General Staff of the Military Command.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: This is not an order of Keitel. This document -which was submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-381 is entitled -“Instruction to the Economic Offices, ‘Section Labor,’ on the Organization -of Labor Allocation in the East.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that was by Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: The preceding document which was submitted to -the Tribunal was actually one of Keitel’s orders, but now I wish to -speak of this instruction. I beg Your Honors to pay attention to -the date on which this instruction was issued, namely 26 January -1942. In this instruction, on Page 150 of the document book, it is -stated that the hopes which the Reich Marshal had placed in the -office for the allocation of labor must be justified at all costs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The task of the economic organizations and the office for -the allocation of labor in the East consists in bridging, during -the coming months, the gaps in the economy which arose -owing to the departure into the army of men of younger -conscription age due to the universal enlistment of Russian -manpower. This is of decisive importance for the war and -must therefore be achieved. If the number of volunteers does -not come up to expectations, then the enlistment measures -already ordered should be reinforced by all available means.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The United States Prosecution has submitted to the Tribunal a -document of the Soviet Prosecution, Exhibit Number USSR-381 -(Document Number USSR-381), entitled, “Memo on the Treatment -of Foreign Civilian Workers in the Reich.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not wish to quote this document again, but consider it -necessary only to show. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The President -has just now asked about the Document Number USSR-407 and the -<span class='pageno' title='150' id='Page_150'></span> -prosecutor has presented it here as a document of Keitel. I have -only just now found this document. If it is a question of the same -document that I have marked as USSR-407, then it is signed by a -local commander and by a chief of the labor office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is this document the same as that presented to you as USSR-407?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out, have I not, that -it was not by Keitel?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, Sir. But the Prosecutor has thereupon repeatedly -said that this Document 407 represents an order by Keitel. -That is why I wanted to clarify it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Perhaps the Tribunal will allow me to clarify -this matter. Apparently a misunderstanding arose through faulty -translation. I said that troops of the Red Army had seized a German -order, and added that the order had been issued by the German -occupational authorities—you can verify this by looking up the stenographic -record—which referred to an order of Keitel regarding -forced labor in the combat zones. This order begins with the -following words, “In accordance with the regulations of the Chief -of the OKW, dated 6 February 1943, transfer for labor in the -combat zone,” and so forth. I shall not quote any further.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If I may beg the Tribunal to consider once more a document -which I have already submitted previously, that is, the document -of the High Command of the Army, Number II/3210/42, it is because -this order refers to corresponding orders of the General Staff of -the Army on questions of allocation of labor in the East. This -order of the occupational authorities, which I submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-407, refers to one of these orders. It states quite -clearly, “In accordance with the regulations of the Chief of the -OKW.” That is why I submitted this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I really don’t understand you. -What I have got in the translation before me is this, “The units -of the Red Army captured a copy of the German decree which -mentioned Keitel’s order on forced labor in the combat zone,” and -continues further that those persons refusing to work shall be -apprehended as saboteurs. This document is submitted as Exhibit -USSR something or other.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It may be useful to read a few excerpts of it, “By order of the -Chief of the General Staff of the Military Command, of 6 February -1943, concerning the compulsory labor service . . . in the combat -zone”—and then it goes on to deal with persons who don’t present -themselves being considered saboteurs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Well, I thought you were saying that the Chief of the General -Staff of the Military Command was Keitel. He was the Chief of -<span class='pageno' title='151' id='Page_151'></span> -the OKW. Are you still saying that he was the Chief of the Military -Command?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I quote only that which is in the document: “In -accordance with the regulations of the Chief of the General Staff -of the Military Command.” That is in the document, and I do not -wish to add anything.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think it is worth taking any more -time over it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I will now go back to that document which was -submitted to the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution and -which was entitled, “Memo for the Treatment of Foreign Civilian -Laborers in the Reich.” I will not quote this document in detail; I -would like to stress only that it established a special regime for -Eastern Workers. They lived in camps surrounded by guards and -under supervision of a camp commander. The latter forbade a -normal life for workers from the East. They were thus forbidden -to visit churches or public places and they were obliged to wear -special insignia—a rectangle with pale blue edges, and in the middle -the word “Ost” in white letters on the dark blue background.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the memorandum to housewives regarding the employment of -women from the East in town and rural households it was stated -that—Page 131 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Every foreigner judges the standard of our entire people -by the personal and political conduct of the individual. The -foreign workers must see in the housewife and the members -of her family worthy representatives of the German people.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I proceed further:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“If, in exceptional cases, German and eastern female domestic -workers are employed in the same household, the German -domestic workers must be given mainly tasks of serving the -family and must also be given the supervision of the Eastern -woman worker. The German living in the household must -always have precedence.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>General conditions of work did not apply to the women workers -from the East. Their labor was regulated only by the discretion -of their masters. This was expressed in Paragraph 4 of the same -memorandum. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Eastern women workers are employed in the households in -a special labor relation. German regulations on working conditions -and on labor protection refer to them only insofar as -this is specifically decreed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The character of these special instructions can be seen in Paragraph -9, Section B of the memorandum, which states quite openly: -<span class='pageno' title='152' id='Page_152'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“No claim to leisure time is given. Eastern women domestic -workers may leave the household only when on duty connected -with the needs of the household. . . . Visiting the -theaters, restaurants, cinemas, and similar . . . institutions is -forbidden.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 10 of the memorandum states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Eastern female domestic workers are enlisted for indefinite -time.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 12 of the memorandum states that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Germans may not share a room with the Eastern woman -worker.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 14 states that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Clothing as a rule cannot be supplied.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>These two documents just mentioned by me, “Memo on the -Treatment of Foreign Civilian Laborers” and “Memorandum for -Housewives on the Employment of Eastern Female Workers,” -reflect the inhuman conditions of work for the forcibly mobilized -Soviet citizens. The Soviet Prosecution has at its disposal numerous -documents, the testimonies of persons who themselves experienced -the terror of fascist slavery. The enumeration of all these documents -would take too much time. The Soviet Government had at -its disposal, already in the early phases of the war against fascist -Germany, many proofs of the crimes of the fascist conspirators in -this field.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first document of this kind published by the Soviet Government -is the note of the People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, -Molotov, dated 6 January 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal -by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-51(2), (Document -USSR-51(2)) and this note stated that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The peaceful citizens forcibly deported for compulsory labor -were proclaimed ‘prisoners of war’ by the German authorities -and treated as such as far as their maintenance is concerned. -It has been established by reports of Staffs of the German -Army that peasants and other peaceful citizens seized by the -Germans and deported for compulsory labor were automatically -put on the list as prisoners of war. Thus the number -of prisoners of war was artificially and unlawfully increased.</p> - -<p>“In the vicinity of the town of Plavsk, in the region of Tula, -a camp was established where Soviet war prisoners and the -civilian population from neighboring villages were interned -at the same time. The Soviet citizens were there subjected -to inhuman tortures and sufferings. There were young boys -and girls, women, and old men among them. Their only food -consisted of two potatoes and some barley grits each day. The -death rate reached 25 to 30 persons daily. -<span class='pageno' title='153' id='Page_153'></span></p> - -<p>“After the occupation of Kiev, the Germans drove into slave -labor all the civilian population from 11 to 60 years of age, -irrespective of their profession, their sex, state of health, or -nationality.</p> - -<p>“People who were too ill to stand on their feet were fined -by the Germans for every day of work they missed.</p> - -<p>“In Kharkov the German invaders decided to make the local -Ukrainian intellectuals an object of their mockery. On 5 November -1941 all actors were ordered to appear at the -Shevtshenko Theater for registration. When they had -gathered, they were surrounded by German soldiers who -harnessed them to carts and drove them along the most -frequented streets to the river for water.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document of the Soviet Government was the Foreign -Commissar’s note, dated 27 April 1942. This note is submitted to -the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). -Section 3 of this note is entitled, “Installation of a Regime of -Slavery and Bondage in the Occupied Territories of the Soviet -Union and Deportation of Civilian Population as Prisoners of War.” -This note states that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the Ukraine and Bielorussia the Germans introduced a -14- or 16-hour workday, in most cases without any compensation -and in some cases with ridiculously low wages.</p> - -<p>“In the secret instructions entitled, ‘On Current Tasks in the -Eastern Regions,’ captured by Red Army troops at the -beginning of March 1942, the chief of the Military Economic -Inspectorate Central Front, Lieutenant General Weigang, -admits that:</p> - -<p>“ ‘It has proved impossible to maintain industrial production -with the labor of semi-starved and semi-clad people,’ that ‘the -devaluation of money and the commodity crisis coincide with -a dangerous lack of confidence in the German authorities on -the part of the local population,’ and that ‘this constitutes a -danger to the peace in the occupied regions which cannot be -permitted in the rear of the combat troops.’ The German -general in this document presumes to call these occupied -regions ‘our new eastern colonial possession.’</p> - -<p>“Acknowledging that the complete collapse of industrial production -in the occupied districts has led to mass unemployment, -the German General Weigang issued the following -orders for speeding up the forcible dispatch of the Russian, -Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and other workers to Germany.</p> - -<p>“ ‘Only the shipping to Germany of some millions of Russian -workers and only the inexhaustible reserves of healthy and -<span class='pageno' title='154' id='Page_154'></span> -strong people in the Occupied Eastern Territories . . . can solve -the urgent problem of manpower shortage and therewith meet -the lack of labor in Germany.’</p> - -<p>“In an order . . . seized by units of the Red Army, recruiting -the entire civilian population of the occupied districts for all -kinds of heavy labor was ordered; and it was stated that this -forced labor was not to be paid for; and it was insolently -declared that by this unpaid labor the population would -atone for its guilt for the acts of sabotage already committed -as well as for the acts of sabotage which might be committed -by them in the future.</p> - -<p>“In Kaluga, on 20 November 1941, an announcement was -posted, signed by the German commandant, Major Portatius, -which ran as follows:</p> - -<p>“ ‘1. Citizens who do poor work or do not work the specified -number of hours will be subject to a monetary fine. In the -event of nonpayment, delinquents will be subjected to corporal -punishment.</p> - -<p>“ ‘2. Citizens who have received a work assignment and who -have not reported for work will be subject to corporal punishment -and will receive no food rations from the municipality.</p> - -<p>“ ‘3. Citizens evading work in general will, in addition, be -expelled from Kaluga. Citizens shirking work will be attached -to labor detachments and columns, and billeted in barracks. -They will be used for heavy labor.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>This note indicated also that land would be transferred to German -landowners. This was established by a land law which was promulgated -at the end of April 1942 by the Hitlerite Gauleiter Alfred -Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the next note of People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs Molotov which was published a year after the note dated -27 April 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 11 May 1943 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, -Molotov, sent to all Ambassadors and Ministers of all the countries -with which the U.S.S.R. had diplomatic relations a note, “Concerning -the Wholesale Forcible Deportation of Peaceful Soviet Citizens -to German Fascist Slavery and Concerning the Responsibility Borne -for this Crime by German Authorities and Individuals.” This note -is submitted to the Tribunal as evidence as Exhibit Number -USSR-51(4) (Document Number USSR-51(4)).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider it necessary to read a few quotations from this note. -On Page 165 of the document book there is a reference to a -declaration of Göring of 7 November 1941, which has already been -mentioned by me. I will not again repeat all that Göring said at -<span class='pageno' title='155' id='Page_155'></span> -that conference. I will only stress that Göring issued a blood-thirsty -order “not to spare the Soviet people deported into Germany and -to handle them in the most cruel manner under any excuse.” This -order is included in section IV-A7 of the above-mentioned note. It -reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In applying measures for the maintenance of order, the main -principle must be swiftness and severity. Only the following -forms of punishment must be employed, without intermediary -grades: deprivation of food and death by sentence of field -court-martial.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>On 31 March 1942 Sauckel issued the following order by telegraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The enlistment, for which you are responsible, must be -speeded up by every available means, including the stern -application of the principle of labor service.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Soviet Government is in possession of the complete text of -a report by the Chief of the Political Police and Security Service -with the Chief of the SS in Kharkov, headed, “The Situation in -the City of Kharkov from 23 July to 9 September 1942.”</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The recruiting of labor power”—states this document—“is -causing the competent bodies disquietude, for the population -is displaying extreme reluctance to go to work in Germany. -The situation at present is that everybody does his -utmost to evade enlistment. Voluntary departure to Germany -has long been entirely out of the question.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I must stress that the Defendant Sauckel, as Plenipotentiary -for the Allocation of Labor, actively pursued criminal -activity, as it is pointed out in the note of the People’s Commissar -for Foreign Affairs, which I just presented. On 31 March 1942 -Sauckel sent to his subordinate departments a telegraphic instruction -regarding the utilization of Russians and the work of the -enlistment committee. I submit this telegram of Sauckel to the -Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit Number USSR-382 (Document Number -USSR-382). In this telegram Sauckel writes:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The rate of mobilization must be increased immediately and -under all circumstances to insure, in the shortest possible -time, that is to say, by April, that a three-fold increase in -the number of dispatched workers is achieved.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Sauckel’s efforts were appreciated by the Defendant Göring at -the time when he was Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I refer -now to the conference which Göring held on 6 August 1942. This -protocol has been submitted by the Soviet Prosecution to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-170 (Document Number USSR-170). -I beg you to refer to Pages 12 and 13 of this document, Page 184 -of the document book. Göring came forth with the following words, -<span class='pageno' title='156' id='Page_156'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I have to say one thing to this. I do not wish to praise the Gauleiter -Sauckel; he does not need it.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: All this was read the other day. The actual -words were read yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I am quite sure, Mr. President, that my colleague, -who read into the record this document, did not read this particular -passage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I still think that he read this excerpt -which you have got set out in your document, “I do not wish to -praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.” He certainly -referred to the excerpt which you have just summarized about -Lohse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: I do not wish to argue but I had the information -that this excerpt had not been read into the record. If you like, -I will not read this passage into the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you are right. I don’t know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: Then, I will read it into the record very briefly:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I do not wish to praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need -it. But what he has done in such a short time to collect -workers so quickly from the whole of Europe and supply -them to our undertakings is a unique achievement. I must -tell that to all these gentlemen; if each of them used in their -sphere of activity a tenth of the energy used by Gauleiter -Sauckel, the tasks laid upon them would indeed easily be -carried out. This is my sincere conviction and in no way -fine words.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I return again to the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign -Affairs, V. M. Molotov, dated 11 May 1943. This note further gives -data concerning the number of Soviet people who were deported -to Germany. This note states that the deportation of Soviet people -to German slavery was accompanied nearly everywhere by bloody -repressive measures against Soviet citizens seeking refuge from -slave merchants who were hunting for them. It has been established -that in Gjatsk 75 peaceful inhabitants of the town were shot and -that in Poltava 65 railroad men were hanged. The same thing in -other towns also—executions, shootings, and hangings were carried -out on the same scale.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I understood from you at the beginning of -your speech that you were going to finish this afternoon your -presentation. It is now 5 minutes past 5. Is there any chance of -your finishing today?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: If I had not been interrupted by Defense Counsel -for 10 minutes in connection with a discussion about the order of -<span class='pageno' title='157' id='Page_157'></span> -the German occupational authorities, I would have finished my -statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think will it take you now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: A maximum of 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. ZORYA: The note states that the Soviet citizens in the -territories captured by the Germans are, with growing frequency -and organization, offering courageous resistance to the slave owners. -The growth of the partisan movement in connection with the -resistance the Soviet citizens are offering to forcible transportation -into German slavery is admitted with alarm in a number of secret -reports from German army and police administrations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This note quotes further a number of testimonies of Soviet -people who had escaped German slavery. I will only quote one -of these testimonies of Kolkhoz member Varvara Bakhtina of the -village of Nikolayevka, Kursk region, who stated:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In Kursk we were pushed into cattle wagons, 50 to 60 persons -in each wagon. Nobody was permitted to leave. Every -now and then the German sentry hustled and punched us. -In Lgov we had to get out and be examined by a special -commission there. In the presence of the soldiers we were -compelled to undress quite naked and have our bodies -examined. The nearer we got to Germany, the fewer were -the people left in the train. From Kursk they took 3,000 -persons but at nearly every station the sick and those dying -from hunger were thrown out. In Germany we were put into -a camp with Soviet prisoners of war. This was in a forest -section surrounded by a high barbed-wire fence. Four days -later we were taken to different places. I, my sister Valentina, -and 13 other girls were sent to an armament factory.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The third section of this report describes further the treatment -under which the Soviet workers lived in German slavery. This -part of the report also mentions the statement made by Göring -concerning Russian workers. Göring states in the above-mentioned -directives:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Russian is not fastidious and, therefore, it is easy to -feed him without affecting our food stocks to any appreciable -degree. He must not be spoiled or allowed to get accustomed -to German food.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally the note quotes a number of letters from home to the -German soldiers on the Eastern Front, which describe the humiliation -to which the Soviet workers were subjected. I will quote a -passage from one of such letters. A letter from his mother in -<span class='pageno' title='158' id='Page_158'></span> -Chemnitz was found on the body of Wilhelm Bock, killed German -private, of the 221st German Infantry Division. This letter reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Many Russian women and girls are working at the Astra -Works. They are compelled to work 14 and more hours a day. -Of course, they receive no pay whatever. They go to and -from the factory under escort. The Russians literally drop -from exhaustion. The guards often whip them. They have -no right to complain about the bad food or ill-treatment. The -other day my neighbor obtained a servant. She paid some -money at an office and was given the opportunity to choose -any woman she pleased from a number here from Russia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Letters also mention mass suicides of Russian women and men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The note ends with a declaration of the Soviet Government, -which states that it places responsibility for atrocities in this domain -on the leading Hitlerite clique and the High Command of the -German fascist Army:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Soviet Government also places full responsibility for -the above enumerated crimes upon the Hitlerite officials who -are engaged in recruiting, abducting, transporting in camps, -selling into slavery, and inhumanly exploiting peaceful Soviet -civilians who have been forcibly transported from their -native land to Germany. . . . The Soviet Government holds that -stern responsibility should be borne by such already exposed -criminals as . . . Fritz Sauckel and . . . Alfred Rosenberg.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And finally the note points out:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Soviet Government expresses the conviction that all -the Governments concerned are unanimous on the point that -the Hitler Government and its agents must bear full -responsibility and receive stern punishment for the monstrous -crimes they have committed, for the privation and suffering -they have inflicted upon millions of peaceful citizens who -have been forcibly deported into German fascist slavery.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This is the end of People’s Commissar Molotov’s note. Kindly -allow me to close my statement also with these words.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 23 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='159' id='Page_159'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-SIXTH DAY</span><br/> Saturday, 23 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before we deal with the applications, I am -going to read the Tribunal’s order upon Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum -of 4 February 1946 and the Prosecution’s motion of the 11th of -February 1946. This is the order:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal makes no order with regard to Paragraphs 2 to -5 of the Prosecution’s motion as to the evidence of the defendants, -dated the 11th of February 1946.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Paragraphs 2 and 7 of Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum -on defense procedure, dated the 4th of February 1946, the Tribunal -makes the following order:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The defendants’ cases will be heard in the order in which the -defendants’ names appear in the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. (a) During the presentation of a defendant’s case, defendant’s -counsel will read documents, will question witnesses, and will make -such brief comments on the evidence as are necessary to insure a -proper understanding of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) The defendant’s counsel may be assisted in the courtroom -by his associate counsel or by another defendant’s counsel. Such -other counsel may help the defendant’s counsel in handling documents, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>, but shall not address the Tribunal or examine witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. Documentary evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) Defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary the -original of any document which he offers in evidence if the original -is in his possession. If the original is in the possession of the Prosecution, -counsel will request the Prosecution to make the original of -the document available for introduction in evidence. If the Prosecution -declines to make the original available, the matter shall be -referred to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Should the original of any such document be in the possession -of the Tribunal, defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary -a copy of the whole or relevant part of such document, together -with a statement of the document number and the date upon which -it was received in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) Should counsel wish to offer in evidence a document, the -original of which is not in his possession or otherwise available to -<span class='pageno' title='160' id='Page_160'></span> -the Tribunal, he will hand to the General Secretary a copy of the -whole or relevant part of such document, together with an explanation -as to where and in whose possession the original is located -and the reason why it cannot be produced. Such copy shall be certified -as being correct by an appropriate certificate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. Each defendant’s counsel will compile copies of the documents -or parts of documents which he intends to offer in evidence into -a document book, and six copies of such document book will be -submitted to the General Secretary 2 weeks, if possible, before the -date on which the presentation of the defendant’s case is likely to -begin. The General Secretary will arrange for the translation of -the document book into the English, French, and Russian languages, -and the defendant’s counsel will be entitled to receive one copy of -each of these translations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. (a) Defendant’s counsel will request the General Secretary to -have the witnesses named by him and approved by the Tribunal -available in Nuremberg; such request being made, if possible, at -least 3 weeks before the date on which the presentation of a defendant’s -case is likely to begin. The General Secretary will, as far as -possible, have the witnesses brought to Nuremberg 1 week before -this date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Defendant’s counsel will notify the General Secretary not -later than noon on the day before he wishes to call each witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>6. (a) A defendant who does not wish to testify cannot be compelled -to do so, but may be interrogated by the Tribunal at any -time under Articles 17(b) and 24(f) of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) A defendant can only testify once.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) A defendant who wishes to testify on his own behalf shall -do so during the presentation of his own defense. The right of -Defense Counsel and of the Prosecution under Article 24(g) of the -Charter to interrogate and cross-examine a defendant who gives -testimony shall be exercised at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(d) A defendant who does not wish to testify on his own behalf -but who is willing to testify on behalf of a co-defendant may do so -during the presentation of the case of the co-defendant. Counsel for -other codefendants and for the Prosecution shall examine and -cross-examine him when he has concluded his testimony on behalf -of the co-defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(e) Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not limit the power of -the Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony -in exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the Tribunal the -interest of justice so requires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>7. In addition to the addresses of each defendant’s counsel under -Article 24(h), one counsel representing all the defendants will be -<span class='pageno' title='161' id='Page_161'></span> -permitted to address the Tribunal on legal issues arising out of the -Indictment and the Charter which are common to all defendants, -but in making such address he will be held to strict compliance -with Article 3 of the Charter. This address will take place at the -conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence on behalf of the -defendants, but must not last more than half a day. If possible, a -copy of the written text of the address shall be delivered to the -General Secretary in time to enable him to have translations made -in the English, French, and Russian languages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>8. In exercising his right to make a statement to the Tribunal -under Article 24(j), a defendant may not repeat matters which -already have been the subject of evidence or already have been -dealt with by his counsel when addressing the Court under -Article 24(h), but will be limited to dealing with such additional -matters as he may consider necessary before the judgment of the -Tribunal is delivered and sentence pronounced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>9. The procedure prescribed by this order may be altered by -the Tribunal at any time if it appears to the Tribunal necessary in -the interest of justice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now the Tribunal will deal with the application for witnesses -and documents on behalf of the Defendant Göring, and the procedure -which the Tribunal proposes to adopt is to ask counsel for -the defendant whose case is being dealt with to deal, in the first -instance, with his first witness, and then to ask Counsel for the -Prosecution to reply upon that witness and then, when that has -been done, to ask defendant’s counsel to deal with his second application -for a witness, and then for the Prosecution Counsel to deal -with that witness; that is to say, to hear the defendant’s counsel -and the Prosecution Counsel upon each witness in turn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That procedure will probably not be necessary when the Tribunal -comes to deal with documents. Probably it will be more -convenient for defendant’s counsel to deal with the documents -together and prosecuting counsel to deal in answer to the documents -together. But, so far as the witnesses are concerned, each -will be taken in turn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I call upon Dr. Stahmer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): -Before we go into these details I ask to be informed why the Court -has the intention of treating the Defense in a fundamentally different -manner from the Prosecution. In Article 24 of the Charter -it is stated that the Tribunal will ask the Prosecution and the -Defense whether they will submit evidence to the Tribunal and if -so, what evidence. This decision has so far not been applied by the -Tribunal in relation to the Prosecution. I am glad that today the -Defense has been granted the possibility to name to the Tribunal -<span class='pageno' title='162' id='Page_162'></span> -those documents and witnesses, which up to now have been difficult -to obtain. I am prepared today to tell the Tribunal the essential -points which establish the necessity of calling the witnesses and the -relevancy of the documents. I ask the Court, therefore on the basis -of past practice, not to allow the Prosecution to take part in judging -whether a document should be considered relevant or not. As -Defense Counsel I am convinced that I would have to submit to a -sort of precensorship by the Prosecution which would impair the -unity of my entire evidence. I may point out that the protests of -the Defense have constantly been postponed with the remark that -the Defense would be heard about these points at a later date. If -selection of evidence, on the basis of objections by the Prosecution, -takes place here today the danger arises that protests which have -been postponed will not be able to be treated later. For the reasons -stated, therefore, I request the Court to proceed according to past -practice, and decide as to the right of the Prosecution to protest -against the procurement of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel for Ribbentrop come back to -the rostrum? The Tribunal is not altogether clear what motion you -are making.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I propose that the Prosecution should not, at this -stage of the Trial, be entitled to make a decision about the calling -of witnesses and the relevancy of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, I should like to plead further on that point. I -meant by making a decision that the Prosecution should not yet, at -this time, have anything to say about the question of the admissibility -or nonadmissibility of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that your motion -cannot be granted, for this reason: It is true that the Defense is -being asked to apply for witnesses and documents now, in accordance -with Article 24(d).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One principal reason for that is that the Tribunal has got to -bring all your witnesses here. The Tribunal has been, for many -weeks, attempting to find your witnesses and to produce them here, -and to produce the documents which you want. The relevancy of -those witnesses and of those documents has got to be decided by -the Tribunal; but it is obvious that Counsel for the Prosecution must -be allowed to argue upon the question of relevancy, just as counsel -for the defendants have been allowed to argue upon the relevancy -of every witness and every document which has been introduced -by the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Exactly the same procedure is being adopted now for the defendants -as has been adopted for the Prosecution, with the sole exception -that the defendants are being asked to make applications for -<span class='pageno' title='163' id='Page_163'></span> -the witnesses and documents and to deal with the matter at one -time, rather than to deal with it as each witness or document is -produced. The reason for that is that the Tribunal, as I have stated, -have got to find and bring the witnesses here for the defendants, -and also to produce the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your motion was that the Prosecution should not receive any -possibility to decide on the calling of witnesses. The Prosecution, -of course, will not decide upon it; the Tribunal will decide upon it. -The Prosecution must have the right to argue upon it, to argue that -the evidence of a certain witness is irrelevant or cumulative, and -to argue that any document is not relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And I am reminded that all of these documents have got to be -translated for the purposes of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, many of the defendants’ counsel, -myself included, have, so far, not been able to question decisive -witnesses for the purpose of obtaining information. Therefore, in -decisive points we often do not even know exactly what a witness -can prove.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If, now, we already have to deal with the Prosecution before we -know definitely how far it is desirable to fight or not to fight for a -witness, we are in an essentially worse situation than the Prosecution, -which, whenever the defendants’ counsel made protests, -knew exactly for what their witness or their evidence was important. -In this regard the Defense is, for the most part, in a considerably -worse situation, and I am of the opinion that this situation will -become even worse if here, besides the Tribunal, the Prosecution -can also make protests against the evidence at this stage of the -Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is true that it is impossible to decide finally -upon the admissibility of any piece of evidence until the actual -question is asked; and for that reason the Tribunal has already, in -deciding provisionally upon the application for witnesses, acted in -the most liberal way. If it appears that there is any possible relevancy -in the evidence to be given by a witness, they have allowed -that witness to be alerted. Therefore, if there is any witness whose -evidence appears to be, by any possibility, relevant, the Tribunal -will allow that witness, subject, of course, to the directions of the -Charter to hold the Trial expeditiously.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Subject to those limitations, the Tribunal will allow any witness -to be called whose evidence appears to be possibly relevant. That -is all the Tribunal can do because, as I have already stated, it is -the Tribunal who has to undertake the difficult task of securing -these witnesses for the defendants, who cannot secure them themselves. -<span class='pageno' title='164' id='Page_164'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Stahmer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Mr. President, -I do not wish to repeat, but I believe that the objection of -Dr. Horn has not been understood quite rightly. Dr. Horn wanted -only to complain about the fact that the Defense in no case has been -asked previously whether an item of evidence that the Prosecution -has presented was relevant or not, but we have always been surprised -when a witness was brought in and we had no possible -opportunity to make any material objections relative to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as objections against documents were concerned, that is, -as to their relevance, the Defense has always been told that for such -an objection the time had not yet come for the Defense. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you have -misunderstood. The Defense have never been told that objections to -the admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every -objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at -the time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be -dealt with now, during the course of the Defense. I don’t mean -today, but during the course of the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is a fundamental distinction between the admissibility of -a document and the weight of a document, and all questions of -admissibility have been dealt with at the time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I fully understood that distinction. -Nor did I want to say that objections against admissibility -were turned down, but rather objections against relevancy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents—that -is to say, their admissibility—that is the governing consideration -under this Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If -they are relevant, they are admissible. That is what the Charter -says. And any objection which has been made to documents or to -evidence by defendants’ counsel has been heard by the Tribunal and -has been decided at the time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to the defendants’ -counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, -long notice that under Article 24(d) they were going to be -called upon to specify or name their witnesses and the documents -which they wish to produce, and to state what the relevancy of the -witnesses and the documents would be.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It seems to the Tribunal obvious that that procedure is really -necessary when one remembers that it is for the Tribunal, with -very great difficulty and at considerable expense, to find these witnesses -and to bring them to Nuremberg, and to find the documents, -if possible, and to bring them to Nuremberg. -<span class='pageno' title='165' id='Page_165'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, as to your or to Dr. Horn’s objections to the procedure -which has been adopted with reference to the Prosecution, it is open -to defendants’ counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply -to strike from the record any document which they think ought not -to have been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your -objection, appeared to be that defendants’ counsel have not had -sufficient time to consider whether a particular document or a -particular witness was relevant, and therefore admissible. You have -had ample time now to consider the point and if now you wish to -apply to strike out any document or to strike out any evidence, you -will make that application in writing and the Tribunal will consider -it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the -defendants and their counsel. And it is a necessary procedure -because the defendants are unable, naturally, and defendants’ -counsel are unable, naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses -here in Nuremberg, and in some cases to procure the production -of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order that we should do so, on their behalf, it is necessary -that we should know whom they want to have produced here, what -documents they want to have produced here; and, in order that -time should not be wasted and money should not be unduly wasted, -it is necessary to know whether the witnesses and the documents -have any shadow of relevancy to the issues raised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Then I shall begin with the naming of those -witnesses whose interrogation before the Tribunal I consider -necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I name first General of the Air Force Karl Bodenschatz.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal does not desire you -to read your application. If you will just say in your own words, -as shortly as you can, why you want the particular witness, they -will then consider it. And if Counsel for the Prosecution wish to -object, they will do so. Then the Tribunal will finally decide the -matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The witness I have named, General of the Air -Force Bodenschatz, who is here in the Nuremberg prison, was with -the Defendant Göring since 1933, first as adjutant and later as minister, -as Chief of the Ministerial Office. He is, therefore, informed -about all the principal events of that time. I have named him as -a witness for a number of facts which are individually contained -in my written statement, but especially that he took part in a conference -which took place at the beginning of August 1939 in Soenke -Nissen Koog, at which Göring met with English negotiators in order -to bring about, with them, the possibility of a peaceful solution of -<span class='pageno' title='166' id='Page_166'></span> -the difficulties already existing at that time between Germany and -Poland. At that time he declared to the English negotiators that a -war must not take place under any circumstances, and that they -must endeavor to settle these differences peacefully.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, he has made known statements, made by Göring -during the past years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which it can -be seen that the intention of the Defendant Göring was to avoid a -war, if possible. He declared that the policy of the Reich should be -conducted in such a way that a war could not break out under any -circumstances.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, this witness knows about the attitude of Göring -when he first heard from Hitler that Hitler intended to attack -Russia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally he is also informed about the social attitude of Göring, -whom he had ample opportunity to know very well, particularly -after 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Those are, generally, the facts about which Bodenschatz could -testify here as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the -United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general -word about the procedure of the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleagues in all the delegations have asked me to deal -primarily with these particular applications. There will be some -of them, if the Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues -would like to add a word as they have special interest in them. But -in general, and on the whole, I shall deal with the applications for -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I say that the Prosecution has proceeded on this principle, -that if there is any point of relevance in a witness for whom application -is made, they will not, of course, object. But they want to -make it quite clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are -not, by making no objections, accepting the position that every -point set out in the document or mentioned by counsel is admitted -to be relevant. By making no objection they are simply admitting -that there is some relevant point in the matter put forward.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On that basis—and the Tribunal will understand why I have to -be careful in the matter—the Prosecution makes no objection in the -case of General Bodenschatz.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I further name as a witness the former Gauleiter, -Dr. Uiberreither, who is at present here in the prison at -Nuremberg. Uiberreither is to offer the following evidence. He can -give information about a speech . . . -<span class='pageno' title='167' id='Page_167'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I say this to Sir David that perhaps, in -view of what you have said, you might be able to indicate at the -opening of Dr. Stahmer’s motion in respect to each witness whether -the Prosecution has any objection to the witness. Perhaps that -would make it easier for him to deal shortly with it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection -to Dr. Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if Counsel for the Prosecution -indicate to us that they have no objection to a particular -witness, then Dr. Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Surely.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the -evidence is, but do it shortly because the Prosecution has got no -objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, would -it not be equally convenient to the Defense, for the purpose of -shortening things, to have this evidence taken either out of an affidavit -or by interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no -objections if I have the possibility of getting a statement from the -witness himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us -what the substance of the evidence is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Göring, in the -summer of 1938, delivered a speech before the new Gauleiter of -Austria in which he dealt with the policy of the Reich and in which -he spoke about the goal and purpose of the Four Year Plan. The -witness, furthermore, was present when Göring, some time after -10 November 1938, that is, after the demonstration against the Jews, -called all the Gauleiter to Berlin and there criticized those actions -very severely. Those are the two subjects of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number -3 now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The witness is Lord Halifax. Referring to this -witness . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate—the interrogatories -have been served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The -Prosecution has no objection to the interrogatories. Of course, it -objects to his being called as a witness, but we understand that the -Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to Lord Halifax being dealt with -by means of interrogatories, and we have no objections. -<span class='pageno' title='168' id='Page_168'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I am satisfied with the reply to my interrogatories -which I have already received and I do not insist on summoning -the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may -say that also in this case the submission of an interrogatory was -approved and the interrogatory, as far as I have been able to determine, -has been sent out already. I have not yet received an answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to -Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I -will do my best to see that the answer will be forthcoming as soon -as possible. My recollection—I wasn’t able to check it—is that Sir -George is at a foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the -answers are brought and certainly will do everything to help on -the point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Whether I can ultimately forego him I shall -naturally be able to judge only when I have the interrogatory -before me. It may be that in regard to some questions he has given -an insufficient answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Dahlerus or Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Forbes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted -to you as soon as they are answered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. -Interrogatories have been granted for him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: With regard to the testimony of Dahlerus I have -to say the following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so -important that an interrogatory could not exhaust all his knowledge -and therefore I ask to have the witness called so that he can -be interrogated here in court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If this should not be possible, I ask for the opportunity to question -him personally at Stockholm. Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus -personally, and he will make a statement concerning this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I have -known Mr. Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has -written to me about the fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him -as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus, in principle, is prepared to come to -Nuremberg without further ado if the Court approves. As soon as -the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus, as far as I can deduce from his -letter, will certainly be ready to come personally. -<span class='pageno' title='169' id='Page_169'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to say something else, as a matter of principle. In the -case of important witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could -answer questions which are of far-reaching historic importance, most -probably not only one defendant’s counsel will want to ask questions, -but the subject concerns several Defense Counsels. Therefore, an -interrogatory which comes only from Dr. Stahmer, would, in my -opinion, not be sufficient in such a case. I therefore ask the admission -of the witness also from this point of view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -position as to the Witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put in -interrogatories consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of -that at all. I only bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show -that Dr. Stahmer has certainly covered the ground.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer’s -application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is -Dahlerus’ book—if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish—<span class='it'>Sista -Forsoket</span>, (<span class='it'>The Last Attempt</span>). That is a quite lengthy book, dealing -in detail with this point, and it is desired, and the Tribunal has -allowed, that Dr. Stahmer will use it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of -interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign -Minister, and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor -in Berlin, and on the main point of the matter, that Dr. Dahlerus -had certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no -dispute.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my respectful submission, the defendant is well covered by -the interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax -and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes; and the book, and the evidence of -the Defendant Göring himself; and it is unnecessary to investigate -this matter further as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and -can come and should come from Sweden.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, has the Prosecution -administered cross-interrogatories to Dahlerus?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the Defendant -Raeder’s counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that -I know of is by the Defendant Ribbentrop’s counsel on a limited -point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Before the Court makes a decision about the witness -Dahlerus, I would like to inform the Tribunal that I have asked for -that witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus, -in the decisive hours before the outbreak of World War II in -1939, played a decisive role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can -<span class='pageno' title='170' id='Page_170'></span> -give important evidence about the last document which contained -the conditions for further negotiations with Poland. This document -was the cause of the second World War. I believe that this should -be sufficient reason to call the witness Dahlerus to come here, especially -since Dr. Siemers has declared that he knows that the witness -is prepared to come on his own initiative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: In view of the importance of this motion to me, -may I in addition state the following: I have sent an interrogatory -with 52 questions; but I do not believe that these questions really -exhaust the subject matter of the evidence. For it is impossible, as -I said before, to summarize everything that the witness knows -strategically and to bring it out in such sequence that the Tribunal -can have a complete picture of the important function which -Dahlerus exercised at that time in the interests of England as -well as of Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that -point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have named Dr. Baron -Von Hammerstein, who was Judge Advocate General in the Air -Force and who is at this time a prisoner of war either in American -or British hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, -the Tribunal allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February; -and Dr. Stahmer has not yet submitted the interrogatories; and the -witness is not yet located. I have no objection to interrogatories. -It seems as if this is essentially the type of witness that interrogatories -would be most helpful with. He was the equivalent, as I -understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and -interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in this application, -would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no objection at -all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer the interrogatories -as soon as he likes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: As far as I can find out, I have not received -any resolution that an interrogatory should be submitted, but I -would nevertheless like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You must be mistaken about that, Dr. Stahmer, -because upon our documents the right to administer interrogatories -was granted on the 9th of February.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I cannot find it at the moment. I must check -on it first; but in any case I am making the request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Hammerstein has known the defendant for many years, specifically -in a field which is of greatest importance for the forming of -an opinion concerning the defendant’s attitude towards justice and -<span class='pageno' title='171' id='Page_171'></span> -also towards the treatment of the population in occupied territory -and of prisoners of war, and here also in my opinion, it will be -decisively important that the witness should give to the Tribunal -detailed information about these facts and describe them in a -manner which cannot possibly be expressed in an interrogatory or -in answer to an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the -interrogatories have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat -a day or two ago. I don’t want to add to my point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I believe that is correct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Werner von Brauchitsch, -Jr., colonel in the Air Force, son of General Field Marshal Von -Brauchitsch, who is here in the courthouse prison in Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel -Von Brauchitsch.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: This witness is to give information about the -attitude of the defendant with regard to lynch justice, to terror -fliers, and with regard to his attitude towards enemy fliers in -general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Next, General of the Air Force Kammhuber, who is a prisoner -of war either in American or British captivity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber, -interrogatories were also allowed on the 9th of February of -this year, and they have not been submitted, as far as my information -goes, and again the witness has not been located. I have no objection -to interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably -Dr. Stahmer could decide whether it is necessary to call the -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remind the Tribunal that this sketch was introduced in quite -guarded terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to -me the sort of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed -statement could be put in about this?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the -interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that, -because as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan -showing the Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts -outside Germany, and Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said -that he was not stating positively that it had been placed before the -Defendant Göring. Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be -most ready to consider it, and, if possible, agree on the point. -<span class='pageno' title='172' id='Page_172'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, a prisoner of -war in American hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection -to General Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he -should be alerted. He has not yet been located, but if he is located, -then clearly the matters suggested are relevant in the view of the -Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, a prisoner of war in -English hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection -to this witness. If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I have -not had the chance to take this particular point up with my French -colleague. As far as I know there is no objection. I would like to -verify that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. Champetier -de Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the -courthouse prison in Nuremberg at the present time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and -the Prosecution takes the same attitude: No objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We would like to hear some explanation from -you, Dr. Stahmer, on what the evidence—what is the relevance of -Field Marshal Kesselring’s evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant -because the Prosecution has declared that Rotterdam had been -attacked without military necessity, and that the attack, in addition, -took place at a time when negotiations were already under way for -the capitulation of the city.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but -General Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, -as I understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field -Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn’t it be sufficient -to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Dr. Von Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, -whose whereabouts are unknown to me, but who has presumably -been released from captivity and may be at his home in -Hamburg now. -<span class='pageno' title='173' id='Page_173'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are -really on the same point. As I understand it, I thought that—my -copy is very bad, but I read it—the defendant was not informed -of the experiments conducted by two doctors—the first one must be -Rascher, I think, and Dr. Romberg—on inmates of Dachau and other -places; that the defendant himself never arranged for any experiments -whatsoever on prisoners, and Field Marshal Milch—Paragraph -A—said that the defendant was not informed of the letters exchanged -between the witness and Wolff concerning the experiments conducted -by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were employed, and -the witness did not even inform the defendant of this subject; and -that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau, withdrew from -the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We have no -objection to the witness being called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Von Ondarza, -that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should -be alerted on 26 January. Field Marshal Milch is in the prison. -Again I should have thought that in these circumstances we would -make no objection to Field Marshal Milch being called on this point, -and if the surgeon, Von Ondarza can be located, then I shall agree -to interrogatories, but I don’t feel very. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, -if we were to grant the application to call Field Marshal Milch on -this point and were to allow an interrogatory for the other witness -when he has been located?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I have also examined the question whether the -evidence would be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence -to be offered by Milch is slightly different, and the Defendant Göring -considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. -Ondarza was his physician for many years and therefore is well -informed, and he is furthermore to tell us that the Defendant Göring -did not know anything about the experiments which were made -with these 500 brains. That is not yet in my application, but I have -just found out about that. There was a long deposition which was -submitted by the Prosecution concerning these 500 brains. I protested -against that at the time and I was told that I should make this -objection at a specified time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what -you say upon that. You can turn now to Körner.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Körner, who is here in -Nuremberg in the courthouse prison. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection on the part -of the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='174' id='Page_174'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, in our documents it is stated -that the suggested witness Paul Körner is not located, but in the -document of your application you say that he is in the Nuremberg -prison.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I did receive that information at one time. At -this moment I cannot say where my information comes from.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I -could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the matter can -be checked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a -roster of internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear -to be in that list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr. -Stahmer?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Körner was a state secretary since 1933 and he -can testify about the purpose behind the establishment of concentration -camps in 1933, about the treatment of the people -imprisoned there, and that Göring was in charge of these camps -only until 1934. He can also testify about the measures and -regulations, the purpose and aim of the Four Year Plan, and also -about the attitude of the defendant after he had been informed in -November 1938, about the anti-Jewish incidents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English or -an American camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, is -that interrogatories were allowed on the 9th of February. They have -not yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I have -no objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr. Lohse or the next -witness, Dr. Bunjes, who deals with the same point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems -to me important—considering the weight of the accusations which -have been made here against the defendant—so important that I ask -to hear him as witness here before this Tribunal. The question is a -very short one: He is to testify as to what the defendant’s attitude -<span class='pageno' title='175' id='Page_175'></span> -was toward the acquisition of art objects in the occupied territories. -That is, to be sure, a very short subject, but for the judgment of -the defendant it is extremely important; and the accusation made by -the Prosecution in this respect is extremely serious.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing now with Dr. Bunjes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal; the -interrogatories apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, -and the Prosecution respectfully submits that we should see what -Dr. Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and then Dr. -Stahmer can, if necessary, renew the application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about -Dr. Bunjes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He seems to be, My Lord, in -exactly the same position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not think I need -repeat what I said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Except that he may be located. I do not know -where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference -to Dr. Bunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find -out whether he can be located or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps Dr. Stahmer knows.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp -at Hersbruck. That is here in the vicinity of Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall have inquiries made -about him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bunjes—do you know where he can be -located?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No; his home is in Trier, but whether he is there -I do not know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses, -does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are those all the witnesses that you are -applying for?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list? -<span class='pageno' title='176' id='Page_176'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I cannot yet foresee how far the Prosecution, -which has not finished the presentation of its case, will make it -necessary for me to make further applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider your documents the Tribunal -will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents -more as a whole. Have you anything to say about them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning -the two witnesses, Koller and Körner? I was just told that -Koller was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Körner a lower staff -officer. Both were repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces. -This indication may make it easier and more possible to locate the -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of -course, we will do our best to help in locating them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Koller and Körner. They are -both witnesses to whom I made no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the -Tribunal please, if I were to explain the general position of the -Prosecution with regard to the documents, and then Dr. Stahmer -could deal with these points because they fall into certain groups -which I can indicate quite shortly. There are three documents which -are not in evidence, but to which there is no objection: Number 19, -the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, -and the Court can take judicial cognizance of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the Constitution of the German -Reich, the Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919. Again I shall -assume the Court will take judicial cognizance of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Number 30, Hitler’s speech -of 21 May 1935.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which -are already in evidence as far as I know:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 4, the Rhine Pact of Locarno; Number 5, the Memorandum -to the Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935; Number 6, -<span class='pageno' title='177' id='Page_177'></span> -Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936; -Number 9, the Treaty of Versailles; Number 17, the speech by the -Defendant Von Neurath, of 16 October 1933; Number 18, the -proclamation by the Reich Government, of the 16th of March 1935. -And then Number 7 was referred to but not read. That is the speech -by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop before the League of Nations on -the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been referred to -and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the -moment referred to the whole book: Number 1, the late Lord -Rothermere’s book, <span class='it'>Warnings and Prophecies</span>; Number 2, the late -Sir Nevile Henderson’s <span class='it'>Failure of a Mission</span>; Number 3, the -references to a number of years of the <span class='it'>Dokumente der Deutschen -Politik</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, don’t they, in -the ones that follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, -are taken from those volumes, aren’t they, of the <span class='it'>Deutschen Politik</span>?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My -Lord. If I might just give Your Lordship the others so that you -have the group together:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 8, Mr. Fay’s book on the <span class='it'>Origin of the World War</span>, the -first World War; Number 20, Mr. Winston Churchill’s book, <span class='it'>Step by -Step</span>; Number 24, the Defendant Göring’s book, <span class='it'>Building up a Nation</span>; -Number 26, to which I have already referred, is Mr. Dahlerus’ book, -<span class='it'>The Last Attempt</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is -mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into -Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already; -secondly, the relevancy of the book cannot be decided until we see -the extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution -submits that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us -know what are the extracts on which he relies so that they can be -translated and we can decide as to whether they are relevant or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the -issue is not clear or insofar as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. -One to which I have already referred comes into this:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 8, Fay on <span class='it'>The Origin of the First World War</span>. Number -10, speech by President Wilson, of 8 January 1918—that is the -14-point speech; Number 11, the note of President Wilson, of 5 November -1918—that is the Armistice note; Number 12, a speech by -M. Paul Boncour, of 8 April 1927; Number 13, a speech by General -Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before 1921, because it is quoted in -<span class='it'>What Really Happened at Paris</span>, published in 1921; Number 14, a -speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November 1927; -<span class='pageno' title='178' id='Page_178'></span> -Number 15, an article by Lord Cecil, on the 1st of March 1924, and -another on the 18th of November 1926; Number 16, Lord Lloyd -George’s memorandum for the peace conference of 25 March 1919.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only -relevancy of these books and documents is to the issue of whether -the Treaty of Versailles accorded with the 14 Points of President -Wilson. The Prosecution submits that that is poles removed from -the issues of this Trial and is just one of the matters against which -the whole intendment of the Charter proceeds and which should not -be gone into by this Court. It may be that I am wrong, or so it -seems, difficult, in view of the collection of documents, to suppose -that there is another issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, -that Dr. Stahmer ought to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to -which these documents are directed and, where the document is -long, to indicate what extract he refers to. But if the issue be that -that I have referred to, then in the submission of the Prosecution—I -speak for all my colleagues—we submit that it is a completely -irrelevant matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Number -21 and 22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They -ought to be added.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I have already dealt with Number 20, Mr. Churchill’s book. -Apart from the question of extracts, again the Prosecution submits -that it ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book -has been quoted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 23 is a missive of M. Tchitcherin, stated to be the Foreign -Commissar of the U.S.S.R., to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the -Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to -which that is directed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Göring’s book, I have already dealt with, and I -ask that we should get extracts. Number 28, General Fuller’s book -on <span class='it'>Total War</span> or an essay on <span class='it'>Total War</span>—again the Prosecution does -not know the issue at which it is directed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then my fifth category, Number 27, which is the White Books of -the German Foreign Office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And I draw attention to Number 4, document to the Anglo-France -policy of extending the war; Number 5, further document as to the -western policy of extending the war; Number 6 are secret files of -the French General Staff; Number 29, documentations and reports -of the German Foreign Office regarding breaches of the Hague -regulations for land warfare and Crimes against Humanity committed -by the powers at war with the German Reich. These last -documents seem to raise quite clearly the issues of <span class='it'>tu quoque</span>: If the -Reich committed breaches of the laws and usages of war, other -people did the same thing. The submission of the Prosecution is -<span class='pageno' title='179' id='Page_179'></span> -that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the -conventions and it is no answer, even if it were true that someone -else had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional -reason, that it would be quite impracticable and intolerable if this -Tribunal were to embark on the further task of investigating every -allegation, however tenuously founded, that some one else had not -maintained these conventions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is in the submission of the Prosecution—again I speak for all -my colleagues—a matter which is completely irrelevant; and therefore -we object to any evidence, whether oral or documentary, -intended on that point. Of course, we all along have taken the view -that we have no objection to the Defense Counsel having access to -these documents in order to use them for refreshing their memory -as to the background, but we object to their introduction in evidence -for the reasons that I have given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, perhaps you could say in -the first instance whether you agree, that so far as the books are -concerned that you would be willing to provide the extracts upon -which you rely? You cannot expect the Prosecution or the Tribunal -to get the whole books translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: This was also not my intention, and I believe -that I prefaced my list of documents with a remark in which, under -Number 2 I had pointed out, and had declared myself willing to -specify the quotations. To that extent, of course, the objection in -itself is in order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Another topic the Prosecution has attacked is -the books which I have cited, and which refer to the Treaty of Versailles. -Here also I will state specifically to what extent I wish to -use quotations from these books. As a matter of principle, however, -the Defense must be granted the right to present its point of view -in this matter, since after all. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, all these books which Sir David -referred to, of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice, of course, -you can make comment upon them if you wish, as on any document -of which the Tribunal takes judicial notice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were referring to the -Treaty of Versailles.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No; with the literature concerning the Treaty of -Versailles.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with the ones which Sir -David itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22? -<span class='pageno' title='180' id='Page_180'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Since an essential accusation made by the Prosecution -is that the defendants violated the Treaty of Versailles, the -Defense naturally has to take a stand relative to the question as to -whether and to what extent the breach of the treaty took place and -whether and to what extent that treaty was still valid. To that -extent, at least, the books and dissertations which deal with these -questions are important. I believe that an understanding of this -question in detail can be reached only after I have submitted the -quotations, and that will take place at the beginning of the presentation -of testimony. I have not been able to accomplish the work.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you confusing the question of validity -with the question of justice?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this sphere also the Defense is -justified in demanding the presentation of the <span class='it'>White Books</span>, because -the contents of these <span class='it'>White Books</span> will, to a great extent, be of importance -in the question of the war of aggression; and to that extent -also a reference to these books has significance. Here also, I believe, -it will only be possible to make a decision after the individual -quotations from these <span class='it'>White Books</span> have been read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, the presentation of the reports concerning the -breaches of the Hague Convention has been demanded. I believe -that this motion cannot be rejected with the remark that it is not -concerned with the question whether such breaches were committed -on the other side too. This fact, in my opinion, is of importance in -two ways. First of all, to reach a just decision one has to make sure -whether the conduct on the other side was really correct and beyond -reproach and it is furthermore of importance because it involves the -question of whether the defendants were not resorting to retaliatory -measures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think you have dealt with each topic with -the exception of Numbers 20, 23, and 28. Number 20 is Mr. Winston -Churchill’s book; 23 is Tchitcherin’s, and 28 is General Fuller’s book. -We will take those.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Book Number 20, Churchill’s <span class='it'>Step by Step</span>—here -we are concerned with statements in which Churchill at one point -expresses his opinion as to whether England, by the Naval Treaty -of 1935, had not sanctioned Germany’s renunciation of the Versailles -Treaty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, this book is of importance as far as I can see it -now, in evaluating the extent to which England rearmed, and -<span class='pageno' title='181' id='Page_181'></span> -finally at various points in that book there are references to Hitler’s -personality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I say with the greatest respect -to Dr. Stahmer that he has reinforced my point, that if Dr. Stahmer -is putting forward the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision -on the matters before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate -whether other belligerents have committed breaches of conventions, -then, as I say, I join issue with him <span class='it'>in toto</span>. I cannot add to the -matter. But with regard to Mr. Churchill, Dr. Stahmer makes three -points; one, that some passages in the book give color to the idea -that by the naval agreement the validity of the Versailles Treaty -was affected. That is a point to which there are obviously many -answers, including the facts that France was a party to the treaty -and the United States was a party to a treaty in the same terms. -But clearly Mr. Churchill’s view expressed in a book, as to the legal -effect of one treaty or another, is in my submission irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Equally irrelevant is the British rearmament and the personality -of Mr. Churchill himself. And I respectfully submit, without going -into detail, that Dr. Stahmer has, by his examples, confirmed the -argument that these matters are irrelevant to the issues before the -Court. I do not wish to say more.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to know -if you would go back from this question, or if you like, deal with -anything you have to say about Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s observations -about Mr. Churchill’s book. If you prefer to do that, do that -now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these -documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further -about Document 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should -develop your argument as to how those documents can be relevant. -For instance, Document 10 and Document 11, the speeches and notes -of President Wilson. How can such documents as that have any -bearing upon this Trial or indeed upon the validity of the Treaty of -Versailles? But take it in your own order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: These speeches form the foundation of the Versailles -Treaty and they are significant therefore for the interpretation -of the treaty. Consequently it is important to refer to the speeches, -in order to judge the contents of the treaty and the question whether -Germany rightfully or wrongly renounced the treaty, that is, -whether thereby a breach of the treaty took place, or whether the -treaty actually gave Germany the right to withdraw.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything further -about Number 20, 23, or 28? -<span class='pageno' title='182' id='Page_182'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Number 23 refers to the -same questions regarding the interpretation and the contents of the -treaty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The statement by the Foreign Commissar of -the U.S.S.R. in 1924. . . . Very well, you say that it is relevant on the -interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles. And General Fuller’s -book. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: General Fuller also refers in this speech to the -personality of Hitler and to the question of rearmament.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that concludes them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will consider their decision upon your witnesses -and upon your documents. Have you anything further to say -upon it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Professor Dr. Franz Exner approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Exner?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): -May it please the Court, I take the liberty of adding something for -the specific reason that there is danger that evidence may be -refused which is of crucial importance for my client also. It concerns -evidence which will show that War Crimes and violations of international -law were committed by the other side too. The Prosecutor -has said that this is irrelevant as far as we are concerned here in -this Trial. The Defense certainly does not think of making -defendants of the prosecutors, but this point is certainly not -irrelevant, specifically because:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, it has to do with the concept of retaliation in international -law. Retaliation justifies an action, which under normal circumstances -would be illegal. That is to say, retaliation then has this -significance when the individual action is the answer to a violation -of international law committed by the other side. If, therefore one -wants to justify one’s own action from the point of view of -retaliation—one can only do so by proving that violations of law -have preceded it on the other side.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known -that this war in the beginning was conducted relatively humanely -and. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you will forgive me, the argument -which you are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer -and will, of course, be fully considered by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>] -<span class='pageno' title='183' id='Page_183'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you continue then, Dr. Exner?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known -that at the beginning of this war international law was respected -on both sides and that the war was conducted humanely. It was -only in the second phase of the war that a terrible bitterness among -the fighting powers developed and on both sides things occurred -which international law cannot sanction. In my opinion, it is -entirely important in the judgment of a crime, whatever crime that -may be, to consider the motive. If one does not know the motive -of the action, one cannot judge the action itself. And the bitterness -which was started, purely psychologically, by the manner in which -the war was conducted on one side and on the other, was the -motive for actions which normally cannot be justified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I therefore ask the Tribunal to consider carefully before this -evidence is declared irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I should like to mention a matter of principle -with reference to the manner in which the relevancy of evidence -is being discussed. If I understand the Tribunal correctly, then -we should talk today about the relevancy of those witnesses and -documents which are still to be brought here. That was exactly -what was stated in the Tribunal’s decision of 18 February.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, however, the Prosecution has brought the discussion round -to documents which we already have in our hands. I ask the -Tribunal to understand me correctly if I protest unequivocally to -this. In no case was it possible to discuss the relevancy of the -Prosecution’s documents weeks before they were presented. If I -have documents in my possession, as is the case with most of the -documents about which we have spoken, then, as defendant’s -counsel, I must be able to submit these documents without the -consent of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David has said that the relevancy of books which are here -in the building is to be examined after we have presented the -extracts, and then the Prosecution will decide whether they are -relevant. Sir David has also said that numerous books which are -here are not relevant. If this motion by the Prosecution is granted, -then that is an extraordinary limitation of the Defense which I -cannot accept without protest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court -has declared that each letter and each document could be presented -and therefore I do not understand why we are now arguing about -the relevancy of documents which are at hand, since, in my opinion, -the Court has already said that we will argue only about the -relevancy of documents which are still missing. -<span class='pageno' title='184' id='Page_184'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I -had explained this morning—in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn -on behalf of the Defendant Ribbentrop—what the Tribunal was -seeking to do today, was to follow the provision of Article 24(d), -which provides that the Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and -Defense what evidence, if any, they wish to submit to the Tribunal, -and the Tribunal shall rule on the admissibility of any such evidence, -and I pointed out that the reason why the Defense had been to -some extent treated in a different way from the Prosecution was -because in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has got to find all -the witnesses and bring them here, and the Tribunal has got, in -many instances, to find the documents or supply the documents; -and therefore it isn’t reasonable that the Tribunal should be asked -to bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance -with the Charter, until the Tribunal has heard argument upon the -admissibility of the witness or the document. And that is what it -is doing. I thought that I had fully explained that in answer to -Dr. Horn’s argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is perfectly true that you cannot rule finally on the admissibility -of a document or the admissibility of a witness until -you have actually heard the passage in the document which is -relied upon or the questions put to the witness which are said to be -relevant or irrelevant. Therefore, the final determination upon the -question of admissibility will be when the witness is put in the -witness-box and asked questions or the document or the passage -from the document is actually produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Excuse me, but I believe that this still does -not answer one point. It is undoubtedly true that we are arguing -here about documents and witnesses which are not at our disposal. -But it is a different thing in the case of those documents which are -already here in this building and which are at our disposal as -Defense Counsel. To give an example:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The <span class='it'>White Books</span> which Sir David has mentioned are here; why -should we argue now about the relevance of this evidence? This -question has nothing to do with the delay of the Trial, nor with -the procurement of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything, General -Rudenko?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Sir David has already -expressed the point of view of the Prosecution on the question -raised by the Defense Counsel. I should like to add to what has -already been said by Sir David regarding the statements made -here by the Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The position of Defense Counsel Exner is that the Defense would -not intentionally turn the prosecutor into a defendant and that the -<span class='pageno' title='185' id='Page_185'></span> -Defense will resort to a method of analysis and explanation of -events which will establish the motives, for in its opinion, the -motive is unknown, and in order to determine this motive it is -necessary to examine the question: Were the Geneva and Hague -Conventions at least violated by other powers at war with Germany? -It stands to reason in my opinion—and I believe that I am also -expressing the point of view of all the Prosecution—it is really -strange to hear such a statement on the part of a lawyer after a -3-months’ trial and after the presentation of a mass of evidence by -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense unquestionably has full right to submit proof—documents -and witnesses—on all counts of the charges lodged against the -defendants; and, as is evident from this morning’s session, when the -Prosecution examined the request on behalf of the Defendant -Göring, as is known to the esteemed Tribunal, the Prosecution, in -its opinion, gave its consent, in major part, to the calling of witnesses. -But in the question raised by Dr. Exner we have here -positive divergences of opinions and divergences of principle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution considers it impossible to diverge from the one -fundamental and decisive factor, that this is a trial of the major -German war criminals. The Tribunal is investigating atrocities -perpetrated by the Hitlerite fascists and as a result of this position, -and not losing sight of this fact, the Defense certainly could submit, -after examining and analyzing the evidence already presented by -the Prosecution, this or that evidence which in some manner could -change individual details. But it is, not admissible and it would -indeed be a grave violation of the Charter to transform examination -of these charges into a digression on questions having no relation -whatever to this particular Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution therefore so energetically objects to the requests -for and incorporation of such documents as have absolutely no -relevancy to this Trial and the examination of which, without a -doubt, would lead to a digression from the basic fact. This is what -I wanted to add to what Sir David has said on behalf of the -Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do -now, I want to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment -are required to name their witnesses and the subject matter of their -evidence, and the documents and the relevance of the documents, -by Wednesday next at 5 p. m. The Tribunal will hold a similar -session to the session it has been holding this morning with -reference to the defense of those defendants on Saturday next at -10 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will now adjourn until a quarter past 2.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='186' id='Page_186'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. With -reference to the announcement that I made this morning, the -Tribunal may hear the applications for witnesses and documents -of the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick -before Saturday. That will depend upon the progress of the case. -I have already stated that those applications must be deposited -with the General Secretary by 5 o’clock p. m. on Wednesday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, all the defendants, other than the first eight named -in the Indictment, must make application naming their witnesses -and the relevancy of their evidence, and the documents and the -relevancy of the documents, by Friday next at 5 p. m.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next -at 4 p. m.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Perhaps I also ought to say that this does not affect—it does not -refer directly to defendants’ counsel who represent the criminal -organizations. Those counsel will be heard after the close of the -Prosecution’s case, as has already been announced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Next would be Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the -Tribunal did desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, -which was raised by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the -Tribunal would care to hear further matter on it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal would like to hear that now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United -States): May it please the Tribunal, I wish to say at the very outset, -that I have made a rather hurried preparation during the noon -recess of the few notes on this subject based on some work which -we had done a little earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go -into the matter to any great extent at this time, but I did want to -call to the attention of the Tribunal a few of these notes that we -have prepared, and to say that, in view of Dr. Exner’s contention -that some of the documents which are offered by the Defense, or -which they intend or hope to offer, are admissible on the theory -or under the doctrine of reprisal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We would like to say to the Tribunal that the Convention of 1929 -concerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits -altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war. Parenthetically, -I might say that the United States prohibited in its Army -instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862 or 1863.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, I should like to point out that the Hague regulations -do not mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use -of so-called “reprisal action” against civilians. -<span class='pageno' title='187' id='Page_187'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It appears that the Brussels conference of 1874, which accepted -the unratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in international law—that -conference rejected or struck out several sections which were -proposed by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of -reprisal action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting -and indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the -matter of reprisals against civilians as early as then.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that it is -commonly said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal -action may be taken a notice of some character is usually required, -and this reprisal action is directed against some specific instance -which the first power believes to be offensive and which it believes -may call for or justify the use of reprisal action. So that some -notice of some kind seems to be required by the power which feels -it has been offended to the offending power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might say that in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief we specifically -avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war -of the shackling of prisoners of war, because there, there was some -color of notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These are the points that we have had in mind during this brief -recess this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us -do it, we shall be glad to prepare ourselves further, and to be -heard further on this subject at a later date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -position with regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl’s -communication to the Tribunal; and I have one or two comments -to make on that on behalf of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you comment upon that, Dr. Seidl? -Would it be convenient to follow the same course as we followed -with Dr. Stahmer, and perhaps Sir David may say if he has any -objection, first of all to the witnesses, one by one, that you are -asking for?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. ALFRED SEIDL: I should like, however, to request the -Court to permit me a short preparatory remark and to make a -motion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: My Lords, from what happened in this morning’s -session I gained the conviction that now the Trial has entered into -a decisive phase, at any rate as far as concerns the Defense. I -consequently feel myself obliged to make the following application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to ask that the Court, at this point in the Trial, -should, when examining the relevancy of the evidence submitted -<span class='pageno' title='188' id='Page_188'></span> -by the Defense, limit itself to the witnesses, and postpone examination -of the relevancy of documents until a later time. To establish -reason for this I permit myself to point out the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Court issued a ruling regarding the submission of evidence -by the Defense for the first time on 17 December 1945. In this -ruling only witnesses and not documents were discussed. A second -decision is that of 18 February in which the following introductory -remark is made, “In order to avoid delay in the securing of witnesses -and documents, Defense Counsel shall . . .” and then follow -the remaining contents of the ruling.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am of the opinion, My Lords, that the question as to whether -a document has relevancy or not can only be decided when I have -this document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar -with the precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a -summary proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the -admissibility of whole books is supposed to be decided on, to pass -appropriate judgment as to whether a particular passage in a document -has relevancy or not. This question can be decided clearly -and definitely only if the Prosecution and the Court as well have -the document in their hands in the form in which the Defense -wishes to submit it. I am convinced . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this -morning that the question of the final admissibility, whether of -witnesses as evidence, or documentary evidence, can only be finally -decided when the document is actually put in or when the witness -is actually asked a question. What we are now considering is -whether the document has any possibility of relevance and must, -therefore, be searched for, if necessary, or sent for.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, -it is not necessary . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal thinks that you had -better deal with your witnesses and documents now, and we do not -desire to hear any further general arguments on the subject. We -desire to hear you upon the documents and the witnesses which -you wish to call and produce.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is, then, a question of the documents I already -have in my possession and not of the documents which I wish to -obtain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to -mention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply -the documents that must first be procured. -<span class='pageno' title='189' id='Page_189'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for -certain witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you -upon that application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next -Wednesday for the Defendant Frank, and I should like to know -whether those documents should be brought up which I already -have in my hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with -your witnesses in the same way that Dr. Stahmer did.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I intend to hear is Fräulein -Ingeborg Berg, a former secretary to the Defendant Rudolf Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not seen this -list until a moment ago.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg; -is that right?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl tells me that this -lady was a private secretary to Hess, it seems to me, <span class='it'>prime facie</span>, -reasonable that there was a chance of discussing the matter. As a -general rule it seems to me reasonable that a private secretary -should be called who can corroborate the matters with which the -defendant was dealing. I do not think any of my colleagues will -disagree with that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: My second witness is the previous Gauleiter and -head of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle, who -is imprisoned here on remand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have not really adopted the -procedure which the Tribunal asked you to adopt. You have not -specified the relevance of the evidence which you wish to produce. -You have referred to some previous application. The Tribunal has -not got all these applications before it at the moment, and therefore -we wish to know in what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg -is relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The witness Ingeborg Berg was the secretary -of the Defendant Hess at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to -make statements regarding the time Hess began making preparations -for his flight to England, and what sort of preparations they were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>She is further to testify as to what Hess’s attitude was toward -the Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with -the Jewish pogrom of 8 November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nuremberg?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: She is here, in Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the second witness now, -if you like. -<span class='pageno' title='190' id='Page_190'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the -Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle. He is imprisoned -on remand in Nuremberg. He is to testify whether the Auslands-Organisation -developed any activity which might make it appear to -be a Fifth Column.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is -one of our allegations against the Auslands-Organisation, and -therefore it does seem relevant. I make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Walter Schellenberg is the third witness I mention. -Whether I shall be able to uphold his application I can only judge -after the Court has given me the opportunity to speak to this witness -who is here in Nuremberg. I do not know whether the witness can -give pertinent evidence concerning the time in question, prior to -10 May 1941. I should like to avoid occupying the time of the -Tribunal with the hearing of a witness whose hearing proves that -he cannot offer pertinent evidence. I consequently ask the Tribunal -first of all for permission to speak to this witness for the purpose -of getting information.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir -David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the -witness Schellenberg who was called for the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that it would be very -undesirable to have private conversations with witnesses before -cross-examination. If Dr. Seidl wishes to cross-examine the witness -Schellenberg further, then he ought to apply to the Court to cross-examine -him in open court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the -defendants’ counsel asked to postpone the further cross-examination -of Dr. Schellenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not -to the further cross-examination; that is a matter, of course, which -is entirely for the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my -recollection is that Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kauffmann also wanted to -cross-examine the witness further, and therefore I submit that, both -generally and on this particular occasion, it would be very undesirable -for any counsel who is going to cross-examine to have a -private conversation with the witness before he cross-examines. -That is the matter to which I object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants’ counsel finally -decide that they are not going to cross-examine the witness, I -<span class='pageno' title='191' id='Page_191'></span> -suppose then they would be able to examine him in chief if they -wanted to do so, to call him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, My -Lord, of that procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by -one side, then the other side must, in my respectful submission, do -what they can by way of cross-examination. The witness is before -the Court and, as the Prosecution have called the witness, then I -submit that the Defense should deal with the witness by way of -cross-examination. They have the additional rights which cross-examination -gives, which is a compensation for the other rights -which they would have if he were their own witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Perhaps we might find a solution whereby I would -renounce the right to cross-examination, and if the witness could -actually say something pertinent, I could let him give me an affidavit. -I do not believe that the Prosecution would object to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of -evidence applicable to this Trial, would it be objectionable, would -you say, if the Defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the -presence of a representative of the Prosecution, if that is satisfactory -to them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the Prosecution all -desire that only the interest of justice should be furthered, and if -the Tribunal consider that that would be a suitable method of -dealing with it, the Prosecution would raise no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Unless you wish to say something further -about Schellenberg, the Tribunal will consider your application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish -to refer to?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the -resolution of 18 February, every Defense Counsel has the right, -until the conclusion of the Trial, to ask permission to call further -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; -in accordance with the order of the Tribunal to which you are -referring, this is the time at which you are to apply for any witnesses -you want. The Tribunal always has the discretion, which it -would exercise, if you prefer to make any further applications. If -later you want to ask for further witnesses, the Tribunal will -always consider your application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Did you get that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. -<span class='pageno' title='192' id='Page_192'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the question of whether the Auslands-Organisation, the -Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland, and the Bund Deutscher -Osten had anything to do with the activities of a Fifth Column, a -further witness who would come into question is the brother of the -Defendant Rudolf Hess, Alfred Hess, who was formerly a deputy -Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation, and is at present in -Mergentheim in an internment camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got your application in -front of us with reference to that. If you want to make any further -application you may do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: I have made the application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application -now, since the Tribunal has asked me to speak. I am, of -course, prepared to submit that application in writing later.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you now, then, upon -this application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards -as a matter of record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What was the name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Hess, Alfred. His last official position was Deputy -Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP. At present -he is in the internment camp in Mergentheim.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because -he was going to speak as to Fifth Column activities; was that it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Regarding the Fifth Column and regarding the -question of whether the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP and -the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland and the Bund -Deutscher Osten have anything to do with a Fifth Column or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded -that this is a relevant issue, and therefore the only question -is cumulation. The Defendant Hess will himself be able to speak -on this point, and the witness further if the Tribunal allows it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal might well consider, in my submission, that an -affidavit or interrogatories from a third witness on the point would -be sufficient at the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in -which case Dr. Seidl could summon the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention first to read further -passages from individual documents in Rudolf Hess’s document -book which was submitted by the Prosecution in order to establish -<span class='pageno' title='193' id='Page_193'></span> -the connection. A further justification of the relevance of these -documents would be superfluous, since it is entirely a question of -documents submitted by the Prosecution which have already been -accepted in evidence by the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in -this form:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I intend to read pages from the following books: <span class='it'>Rudolf -Hess’s Speeches</span>; <span class='it'>Directives of the Deputy of the Führer</span>. The -relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply from the -fact that both have already been introduced in evidence by -the Prosecution.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as the documents are documents already before the -Tribunal, of course, Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment -on them as much as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches -and directives, documents of the same class, then the Prosecution -asks that he indicate which speeches and which directives he is -going to put in.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: What Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe just read was the -second point of my application. It is true that I also intend to read -certain passages from the book, <span class='it'>Rudolf Hess’s Speeches</span>, and also -from the book <span class='it'>Directives of the Deputy of the Führer</span>. But since the -Prosecution has already submitted passages from both these books -in evidence, which were likewise already accepted as evidence, I -believe I may say that there are at least passages in these books—and -that it is here a question of documents—that are most certainly -relevant. Whether those passages that I intend to read are relevant -or not can be decided only when I submit these documents and this -is exactly what I meant at the beginning of my remarks, that it -is possible to decide on the relevancy of a document only when one -has that document before one and knows its precise contents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hope Dr. Seidl will realize -that this is largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to -introduce new speeches and new directives, they have got to be -translated into English, Russian, and French; and therefore it will -be necessary, for the general progress of the Trial, that he should -indicate which passages he is going to put in so that they can be -translated as well as considered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am sure that Dr. Seidl will desire to use only relevant passages. -Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects, -and some of Hess’s speeches may well not be relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help -along the general progress of the Trial by the request that I have -made. -<span class='pageno' title='194' id='Page_194'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those -passages from the speeches, and few of them at that, which are -relevant. I have no intention of having whole sections of the book -translated if it is not necessary. I declare formally to the Tribunal -that neither as counsel for the Defendant Hess nor as counsel for the -Defendant Frank shall I submit one single document that could not -be considered as relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Sir David was saying was that -for the mechanics of the Trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that -we do not all understand German, it is necessary that these documents -which are in German should be translated. Therefore, it is -necessary for you to specify which speech and which part of the -speech you propose to rely upon, and then it will be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage -that I intend to read in a document book, and I shall, in good time, -submit to the Court and to the Prosecution every passage from a -speech which I intend to read, in a document book. It is not the -task of the Prosecution, nor of the General Secretary, to do work -which, of course, I shall attend to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is quite all right. -That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now you are coming to Paragraph 3.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report -of the conference between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord -Byron, who at that time, as I recall, was Lord Privy Seal, and which -took place on 9 June 1941. In this way the motives and aims which -caused the Defendant Hess’s flight to England are to be clarified. -The relevancy is derived directly from the fact that the Prosecution -has, for its part, submitted as evidence the reports of Mr. Kirkpatrick -concerning his conference with Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl thinks that that -conversation adds anything to the conversations with the Duke of -Hamilton and Mr. Kirkpatrick, I shall not object to his reading the -report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is in my possession.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean, -what authenticity has it? Who made it? Who wrote it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the -Defendant Hess which were given to him when he was brought -from England to Germany. It is a copy of the original, that is to -say a carbon copy, and a series of official stamps prove beyond -doubt that it is the carbon copy of an original. -<span class='pageno' title='195' id='Page_195'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you would let us have the document, we -will consider it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your presentation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn’t there? There are -two other documents referred to, but you are not asking us for -those? A document of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet, dated -10 May 1941?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: This application appears to have been made by my -predecessor, by the lawyer Dr. Rohrscheidt. I should like to have an -opportunity of examining the relevancy of this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir -David, about them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not got that document. -The Prosecution have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess -sent to Hitler, and we just simply cannot help on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, -it shall be submitted to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: It is my intention to call as the first witness for the -Defendant Ribbentrop the former Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at -present in a camp at Minden near Hanover. Ambassador Gaus was -for more than three decades the head of the legal department of -the German Foreign Office. I believe that this witness is necessary -in view of this function alone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the -same procedure as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he -has introduced the witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the -same way whether there is any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. HORN: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned, -there is no objection, subject to one point on what I may -call the Foreign Office group of witnesses; and I think it will be -convenient if I develop it now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with -the point in one moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who was the -defendant’s private secretary, and then witnesses 3 to 7, five Foreign -<span class='pageno' title='196' id='Page_196'></span> -Office officials, Herr Von Sonnleitner, Herr Von Rintelen, Gottfriedsen, -Hilger, and Bruns.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The position at the moment is that there is some doubt as to -whether Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two -of the witnesses, Von Sonnleitner and Bruns were granted on -5 December. Von Sonnleitner was granted as one of two and Herr -Bruns was granted <span class='it'>simpliciter</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution draws the attention of the Tribunal to the fact -that no special facts are stated as to which of these witnesses will -speak, and at the present moment, the applications are not within -the Rule of Procedure 4 (a), but what the Prosecution suggests is this:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That it is reasonable that the defendant should have certain -witnesses who will speak as to Foreign Office business and activities, -but they suggest that if he has Herr Gaus and his private secretary, -Miss Blank, that one other Foreign Office official to speak as to -general methods would be sufficient, and Von Sonnleitner is -obviously the sort of person who could help the defendant on general -Foreign Office matters. They suggest that to call seven witnesses to -deal with his general position in the business would be unduly -cumulative, and they suggest that three is sufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I hope the Tribunal will not mind my dealing with the seven -witnesses, but really my point involves the number of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: May I say something in reply to that? Dr. Gaus, in -all probability, will be my main witness for the Defense. Therefore, -since 10 November 1945, I and my predecessor have done everything -to find this witness, and after that had been accomplished, to bring -him here. I know that the witness, although he has now been located, -is not here. Consequently, I do not know on what matters he can -give us rebutting evidence. For this reason I would also prefer not -to commit myself yet as to the other witnesses from the Foreign -Office. I would like to demur only to the following extent: The -witnesses who have been listed in addition, these additional witnesses -of the Foreign Office, are not witnesses who are to give -testimony on routine questions, as Sir David expressed himself, -about general affairs of the Foreign Office; but they are witnesses -who can offer rebutting evidence concerning special topics which the -Prosecution has brought up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consequently suggest that a final decision should be reached as -to the calling of these other witnesses only after Ambassador Von -Gaus is here. In connection with this statement, I should like to -ask the Court again personally to assist me in the securing of this -extraordinarily valuable witness because I can submit my rebutting -evidence in writing to the General Secretary in time only if I have -him here soon. -<span class='pageno' title='197' id='Page_197'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will consider that. That deals -with 1 to 7, does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I remark that I should like to -omit Witness Number 2, Fräulein Margarete Blank. Consequently -not 2 to 7, but 3 to 7.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I make the following explanation: Fräulein Blank was for -many years secretary to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, -Von Ribbentrop, specifically since 1933. The witness Blank drew -up a whole series of decisive sketches and memoranda and also -discussed decisive points with Ribbentrop in connection with these -manuscripts. Thereby I mean memoranda which expressly relate to -the charges, and I therefore ask that the Tribunal’s original decision, -which granted us this witness, be upheld.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking, are you, that Ambassador -Gaus and Fräulein Blank should be brought here as soon as possible, -and that the consideration of the other witnesses 3 to 7, should be -deferred until you have had an opportunity of seeing Gaus and -Blank?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. As regards Fräulein Blank, I can -say that she is in an internment camp near Nuremberg, in Hersbruck.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean that Fräulein Blank was in a -camp so near Nuremberg that you could go and visit her and speak -to her there?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, that is possible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: May I interpret this as an authorization to visit -Fräulein Blank in order to interrogate her?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We understand that that is your application, -and we will consider it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As my next witness I name the former SS Gruppenführer and -personal adjutant to Hitler, at present in Nuremberg in solitary -confinement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, the -application says that there was a decisive conference between Hitler -and the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, and that he can speak as to -certain things that occurred. If that is so, if he can speak as one -attending the conference, the Prosecution have no objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They object—and this point will arise in regard to a number of -witnesses—to what I call self-created evidence. That is, if a witness -is merely coming to say that the defendant said that he had certain -<span class='pageno' title='198' id='Page_198'></span> -views, that, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not carry the -thing any further. If I understand, this witness is speaking as an -observer of the conference, and, as such, we take no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I should like to give Sir David my assurance that -this is a witness who has first-hand knowledge of decisive events and -can give such testimony.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My next witness is Adolph Von Steengracht, since 1943 Secretary -of the German Foreign Office. This witness is now in Nuremberg in -solitary confinement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal would be good -enough to look at the seventh line from the foot of this application, -it says that Steengracht will further testify that, contrary to the -assertions of the Chief Prosecutor of the United States, the protests -of the churches and of the Vatican were always processed, thus -obviating even worse excesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If it is meant by that—and the English is a little obscure—that -the Defendant Ribbentrop sent forward the protests of the churches -to Hitler, then the Prosecution would feel that they ought not to -object to the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I can say in regard to this, Mr. President, that these -protests were submitted not only to Hitler, but that furthermore, on -the initiative and orders of the defendant, other German offices -involved in these breaches of international law were approached for -the purpose of settling the difficulties arising from the protests of -the churches and the Vatican.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Can we go on to 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: My witness Number 10 is Dahlerus. Mr. Dahlerus -has already been discussed at length today, and I should like to -know whether further discussion as to procurement of this witness -is necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have already put my general -position with regard to Dahlerus. Apparently this defendant wants -him on one particular point, namely, an order from Hitler; and I -submit that the appropriate way would be if Dr. Horn added an -interrogatory on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='it'>Prima facie</span>, it seems highly improbable that Hitler communicated -his private order to a Swedish engineer, but in view of the fact that -interrogatories have been ordered, I suggest that Dr. Horn can send -a further interrogatory on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make a remark in this connection? -It is not, as was translated, a question in this case of a -command of Hitler, but a question of the decisive note that was the -beginning of the second World War. -<span class='pageno' title='199' id='Page_199'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My position goes into a great -deal of these requests. This is only evidence if Herr Dahlerus can -say what Hitler said, what Hitler told him. It is not evidence if -Herr Dahlerus can say, “Herr Ribbentrop told me that Hitler had -so ordered.” That does not add to the evidence of the defendant -himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, I think it is essential that before one can judge of the -evidential value at all, the matter should be submitted, as I -suggest, by way of interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, unless you have anything further -to add with reference to this witness, we will stop at this point, -because we think it is impossible to go further today, and apparently -it is impossible to finish the whole of your application this afternoon, -so do you wish to add anything more about Dahlerus?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make another short statement -in answer to what Sir David considers as decisive for the evidence. -Mr. Dahlerus will not say here what he heard from Ribbentrop; he -will testify to what he heard about Ribbentrop from an important -person and from Hitler himself, and that is why I consider him as -particularly decisive.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord, in the -case of the witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn; I had prepared -the comments of the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in -English. The Tribunal will realize that we received this application -only yesterday, and it had to be translated and is not ready by today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have not been able to get this translation, but I have given -Dr. Horn a copy quite informally so that he would be informed; and -it might be useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the -proceedings and also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the -consideration of these points. I do not know if that appeals to the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want to ask the Soviet Chief Prosecutor whether it would be -convenient to the Soviet Prosecution that we should continue on -Monday morning with this examination of witnesses and evidence. -I think it will probably take the whole of the morning if we deal -with the Defendant Ribbentrop’s applications and then the Defendant -Keitel’s, so that the Soviet Prosecution, if that course were adopted, -would come on at 2 o’clock. Would that be convenient for them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: If it is convenient for the Tribunal it will be -so for us, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is just one other point I should like to -ask you. I think the Tribunal were notified that there were two -<span class='pageno' title='200' id='Page_200'></span> -witnesses the Soviet Prosecution proposed to call. I think that we -said that the General Warlimont and, I think, General Halder, ought -to be called so as to give the Defense Counsel the opportunity of -cross-examining them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: If the Tribunal so wishes I shall report on this -question. I became acquainted with the transcript of the reports -made by General Zorya and Colonel Pokrovsky when the question -concerning witnesses Halder and Warlimont was discussed. The -Soviet Delegation consider there to be no basis for objections to the -Court examining the witnesses Generals Warlimont and Halder, at -the request of the Defense. But the Soviet Prosecution intended to -request that the Tribunal submit these witnesses as witnesses on -behalf of the Soviet Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like once again to report about the plan which the Soviet -Prosecution has in mind regarding the conclusion of the presentation -of evidence. There remains for us to present to the Tribunal the last -section, “Crimes against Humanity.” The presentation of this will -take approximately 3 to 4 hours.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, we shall ask the Tribunal to permit us to interrogate, -episode by episode, four witnesses, Soviet citizens who have been -specially brought and now are in Nuremberg. In such a way we -consider that if we start our presentation tomorrow at 2 o’clock, then -on Tuesday we will finish our presentation on all counts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will expect to have General -Warlimont and Halder presented here before the Soviet case finishes, -not for the Soviet Prosecution to ask them questions but for them -to be cross-examined by the Defense if the Defense want to, but that -may take place at any time that is convenient to you. If you wish, -they could be called at 2 o’clock on Monday; if you prefer, at the -end of the Soviet presentation, either on Tuesday afternoon or on -Wednesday morning, whichever is convenient to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: As I already stated, the Soviet Prosecution did -not think of introducing either Halder or Warlimont. The Soviet -Prosecution did not object that, on the request of the Defense -Counsel, Halder and Warlimont be subjected to cross-examination. -As far as I know, as far back as last December, the Tribunal granted -the application of the Defense to call Halder into court as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore it seems to me, and in order to expedite the exposition -of material of the Soviet Prosecution, this really will not influence -the examination of essential questions, that the examination of the -witnesses Warlimont and Halder be made in the Trial during the -presentation of evidence by Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as I know, in the application of the Defendant Keitel, -which was presented to the Tribunal, Halder and Warlimont are -<span class='pageno' title='201' id='Page_201'></span> -indicated as witnesses, and the Defendant Keitel and his attorney -applied for examination of them as witnesses on behalf of the -Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of this, I consider that the examination of these -witnesses should be made during the presentation of evidence by the -Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that both General -Warlimont and General Halder are here in Nuremberg. Is that so?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Probably the most convenient course would be -for the Tribunal to see exactly what order the Tribunal made with -reference to their being called. We will look up the shorthand notes -and see exactly what order we made and deal with the matter on -Monday morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the meantime, on Monday morning we will continue, as you -said is convenient to you, the applications by Dr. Horn for the Defendant -Ribbentrop and the applications by Dr. Nelte on behalf of -the Defendant Keitel; and we shall sit from 2 until 4 o’clock only -on Monday afternoon.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 25 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='202' id='Page_202'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY</span><br/> Monday, 25 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you dealt with Dahlerus last, I -believe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: That is right, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As the next witness, I ask the Tribunal to call General Koestring, -former military attaché at Moscow, and at present in prison in -Nuremberg. In this case I am willing to forego the personal appearance -of the witness if the submission of affidavit will be permitted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we object to this witness -and so Dr. Horn can develop it as far as he desires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You object to him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I wish nevertheless, to ask the Tribunal to call the -witness in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Originally, there was a possibility, as I was told, that the witness -might be called by the Prosecution. Since this has not taken -place, I ask that this witness be approved because he took part in -the German-Russian negotiations from August to September 1939 -at Moscow and, until the beginning of hostilities against the Soviet -Union, remained at that post. The witness, therefore, can tell us -about the attitude of authoritative German circles and personalities -toward the German-Russian pact. For these reasons I ask the Tribunal -to call the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: As it has already been stated by Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe, the Prosecution objects to the summoning of this -witness. I merely wish to define the position of the Prosecution in -this case. The fact that the witness participated or was present at -the August-September 1939 negotiations is scarcely of interest to -the Tribunal. The Tribunal primarily proceeds from the fact of the -existence of this agreement and its treacherous violation by Germany. -Consequently, the summoning of this witness to describe -these negotiations would merely delay the course of the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, I am sorry, I was not able to understand -the answer and the reasoning of the General. -<span class='pageno' title='203' id='Page_203'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat, General?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I was saying, with reference to Sir -David’s protest, on behalf of the Prosecution, against the summoning -of this witness, that I wished to explain that the summoning -of this witness in regard to his presence at the 1939 negotiations at -Moscow was of no interest whatsoever to the Tribunal. The Tribunal -proceeds from the facts that this agreement had been concluded -in 1939 and had been treacherously violated by Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider that the summoning of this witness before the Tribunal -is superfluous since the witness in question has no connection -whatsoever with the present case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal’s permission to point out that for -weeks General Koestring was in prison in Nuremberg at the disposal -of the Prosecution. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to grant him a -hearing as a witness for the reasons which I have mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. -Dr. Horn, the Tribunal does not understand the fact that General -Koestring is in prison at Nuremberg is any answer to the objection -which is made on behalf of the Prosecution, namely, that the -Tribunal is not interested in negotiations which took place in September -1939, but in the violation of the treaty. The Tribunal would -like to know whether you have any answer to make to that objection? -The only answer you have made up to date is that General -Koestring is here in Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, General Koestring is to testify that -the pact with Russia was drawn up with full intention of its being -kept on the part of Germany and on the part of my client.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would not like to say anything further on this point at the -moment and I ask the Court to call the witness on the basis of -this reason.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider your -request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is legation councillor for reports, -Dr. Hesse, who was formerly in the Foreign Office in Berlin and -now presumably is in the camp at Augsburg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection -to this witness. I do not know if Dr. Horn wants him in person or -if an affidavit would do. The Prosecution do not feel strongly on -the matter but they ask Dr. Horn whenever possible to accept an -affidavit and they suggest that he might consider it in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is the former ambassador in Bucharest, Fabricius, -presumably in Allied custody in the American zone of occupation -or possibly already discharged from custody. -<span class='pageno' title='204' id='Page_204'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this -case. Apparently this witness will speak as to an interview which -is already in evidence before the Court and will give a different -account of it. Prosecution makes no objection under the circumstances.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is Professor Karl Burckhardt, President -of the International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League -of Nations Commissioner at Danzig.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Dr. Burckhardt is obviously in a very special position. As President -of the International Red Cross he is a person to whom all belligerents, -irrespective of country, are indebted; and the point that -the Prosecution makes is that if he can speak of evidence coming -from Hitler himself, that is if he can prove either by saying that -he was informed by Hitler that the Defendant Ribbentrop had interceded; -or if he can say he saw letters received by Hitler from -Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no objection. If he is -merely going to say that Ribbentrop told him so, the Prosecution -would object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, we submit that the reasonable course would be that -he should make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge, and if -that is done and if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should -not think for a moment that the Prosecution would do anything but -accept the evidence of Dr. Burckhardt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second point, we submit, is irrelevant: the question of the -results of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position -in Danzig.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have already submitted -in my application, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt -visited Ribbentrop and Hitler in the year 1943 and therefore can -make detailed statements with reference to the reasons which I -have mentioned for calling him. That answers the first question by -Sir David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also agree, however, in this case that Professor Burckhardt -submit the necessary affidavit and thus be spared a personal examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is the Swiss Ambassador Feldscher, who was -finally, to our knowledge, Ambassador at Berlin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest, My Lord, that he -comes into the same position as Dr. Burckhardt. He should be dealt -with in the same way.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I agree, Mr. President. The next witness is the -former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Winston Churchill. -<span class='pageno' title='205' id='Page_205'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -Prosecution objects to this application and, with the greatest respect -to Dr. Horn, submits that there are no relevant reasons disclosed in -the application now before the Tribunal. The first part of it is -apparently an account of a conversation which does not touch the -facts of this case, and the second part is also a discussion of a conversation -which apparently took place some years before the war, -between the German Ambassador and a gentleman who at that time -was in no official position in England. But what relevancy the conversation -has to any of the issues in this case the Prosecution -respectfully submits is not only nonapparent but nonexistent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Against this statement of Sir David, I want first to -point out the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Prime Minister Winston Churchill was at that time Leader of -His Majesty’s Opposition in Parliament. In this capacity we may -attribute to him a sort of official position, particularly since he, to -my knowledge, as Leader of the Opposition is even paid a salary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure that Dr. Horn would -be the last person to rely on a point on which he has been misinformed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Churchill was not Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition at any -period and was certainly not from 1936 to 1938, when the Defendant -Ribbentrop was ambassador. Mr. Attlee was the Leader of the Opposition. -Mr. Churchill was not in office; was a back-bench member of -the Conservative Party, independent member of the Conservative -Party at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I did not want my friend to be under any misapprehension.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of -the statesmen best known in Germany. This statement, which -Churchill made at that time on the occasion of his visit to the embassy, -was immediately reported to Hitler by Ribbentrop and was, in all -probability, one of the reasons for Hitler’s making the statements -quoted in the so-called Hossbach document, submitted as -Document Number 386-PS, which contains statements and declarations -so surprising to the participants and in which the Prosecution -saw the first definite evidence of a conspiracy in the sense -of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, I should like to say that the British Prosecutor, -Jones, mentioned that, after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, -people in England and Poland became very concerned. Therefore -negotiations between England and Poland were started, and a -pact of guarantee concluded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of this statement of Churchill which has been mentioned, -and those of other important British statesmen, according to -<span class='pageno' title='206' id='Page_206'></span> -which England would bring about a coalition against Germany -within a few years in order to oppose Hitler with all available -means—as a result of these statements, Hitler became henceforth -more keenly anxious to increase his own armaments and to busy -himself with strategic plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For these reasons I consider Churchill’s statement extraordinarily -important and I ask that this witness be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point, My Lord; -I do not think I can add to it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have Dr. Horn’s -observations, which they have only heard through the microphone, -in writing on this subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, -Lord Kemsley, Lord Beaverbrook, and Lord Vansittart. Interrogatories -have already been sent out to these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt -with by interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral -Schuster; last address, Kiel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of -Admiral Schuster. The grounds for his being asked for are that -he took part in the negotiations which led to the German-English -Naval Treaty of 1935. Apparently the point that is desired to be -made is that the treaty was concluded on this defendant’s initiative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the -negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there -for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend -can find any argument which he desires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But in general, the Prosecution wish to stress that going into -negotiations anterior to old-standing treaties would be an intolerable -waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: In this Trial we are discussing straightforwardly the -problem of plans and preparations. In this connection it is certainly -not inappropriate to hear evidence as to what the German Government, -and especially Ribbentrop, had planned and prepared at that -time. This planning and preparations which took place within the -negotiations leading to the signing of the naval treaty was carried -further than just to the conclusion of that treaty. The treaty was -considered by Von Ribbentrop—and Admiral Schuster can bear -witness to the fact—the first cornerstone in a close treaty of alliance -between England and Germany. To make these intentions clear to -<span class='pageno' title='207' id='Page_207'></span> -the Tribunal, and thereby the policy which the Defendant Von -Ribbentrop pursued, I consider this witness important; and I ask -Sir David to modify his position.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues -and I have considered this matter very carefully and I have -put our general position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as -to treaties of long standing. With the greatest desire to be reasonable, -to help Dr. Horn, I am very sorry I cannot, at this point, accede -to his request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to complete what my colleague, -Sir David, has stated by the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Horn has requested us to justify the arguments of the Prosecution. -I believe that there is one fundamental divergence in this -matter between the Prosecution and the Defense. The Defense, in -calling witnesses, give evidence and try to prove the defendants’ -endeavors to conclude peace-promoting agreements. We proceed -from another fact, namely, the treacherous violation of concluded -agreements and the commission of crimes contravening these agreements. -And it seems to be quite superfluous to call witnesses to -prove that the defendants strove, in view of these considerations, to -sign peaceful agreements. The violation and treachery in the fulfillment -of these agreements are generally known facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of -this class of evidence, I should like to ask you this question:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Assume that Ribbentrop did want to make agreements with England -and did not wish that Germany should make war on England. -What relevancy would that have to the allegation that Germany -was planning to make war upon Poland?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, to be able to answer that question -decisively as far as the conduct of the Defense is concerned, I would -have to go back to the state of all the political and diplomatic affairs -of the period previous to the second World War. To explain the -reasons for calling witnesses, I would not like to enter into arguments -yet on such matters of principle before I have thoroughly -scrutinized all the possible evidence at my disposal and formed a -definite opinion—and a basis for my conduct of the Defense. The -ruling which the President gave regarding reasons for summoning -witnesses—that the Tribunal will help us to procure the witnesses -and the evidentiary material—I have understood to mean that for -the summoning of witnesses, we have only to state reasons which -in all probability would be confirmed by the witnesses themselves -after preliminary interrogation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself. -<span class='pageno' title='208' id='Page_208'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is a material question to consider in considering -what evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to -commit yourself upon the point, you can proceed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, -former interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time -probably at Oberursel in the interrogation camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the -application, they are desired to give evidence of the fact that this -defendant asked Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. -Again I make the point, which I have made several times to the -Tribunal, that if these witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler -side of these offers, then there would be no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If they merely give evidence of the fact that Von Ribbentrop -told them that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission -of the Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be -that there are letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen -saw; and if that is the purpose of their evidence, then the Prosecution -feel that it might be relevant, certainly on the question of -sentence; if not, then they would reserve all rights to say whether -it was a question of guilt or innocence in view of the provisions of -the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I therefore suggest that the reasonable course would be for both -these gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge -and that would deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather -than interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord; interrogatories -which would cover that point of means of knowledge -would be the best thing. I do not think, if I may put it that way, -that it would be worth while making two bites at the cherry, if I -may use a colloquialism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: We can talk about the next two witnesses at the -same time. I believe I can already say that Sir David will give the -same reasons against them as he did against the other witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, My Lord, -that my friend and I could agree that they stand or fall with the -Tribunal’s decision on Admiral Schuster.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two -witnesses, provided the Court will grant me Admiral Schuster.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is the former Chief Recorder at the Foreign -Office, Dörnberg, at present most probably interned at Augsburg. -<span class='pageno' title='209' id='Page_209'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr -Dörnberg’s views on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, -are not relevant. If we get into calling witnesses to express -their views as to the veracity of or other characteristics of the -statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal would embark on a course that -might well take a very long time and would not lead to any great -results, and I respectfully submit that this is not a class of testimony -or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal should entertain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, with reference to this matter I can -say that Ciano, himself, in his diary which has now been made -accessible to us, presents this proof—at least as to the decisive -point—which Mr. Dörnberg is supposed to bring; and we shall -submit it to the Court at the proper time and—I believe I can -say—in a conclusive form.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second point of Dörnberg’s statement deals with the matter -of decoration. The Russian Prosecution has accused Ribbentrop of -bartering Siebenbürgen for a high Romanian order. For this reason -I would like permission to question Mr. Dörnberg about this point -either here or in the form of an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Next I name Ambassador Schnurre, chief of the commercial -policy department of the Foreign Office, present whereabouts -unknown, presumably in custody in the British zone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, -the Prosecution again say that there is no need for a witness to be -called to give information that his political chief intended to keep -a treaty which he signed. The very grounds that are given for the -application seem to me to show that this is really a matter of comment -and argument, and we submit that a witness on this point is -both irrelevant and unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me this witness, because -the fact alone that the witness can testify about the sincerity or -insincerity or the intentions of his chief is not so important for me -as the fact that, on the basis of participation at the negotiations and -preliminary negotiations and his discussions with other important -persons about the background of this treaty, he can testify with -regard to an important point of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you again, with reference to the -relevance of this evidence, suppose it were true that in August 1939 -the German authorities intended to keep the treaty which was made -with Russia, that depended or might have depended upon whether -England supported Poland in the war which Germany was about -to begin with Poland; and it may very well be that the German -authorities intended to keep the treaty with Russia in order to keep -<span class='pageno' title='210' id='Page_210'></span> -Russia out of the war with Poland and England. Therefore, how -would the intention of Ribbentrop at that time be relevant?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, for determining the criminal facts -in this case in order to establish guilt, it is material to know the -extent to which the Defendant Ribbentrop, as a human being, strove -to keep the treaty; and it is a different question how far he may -have been compelled, by political necessity and other forces, to witness -how a treaty was not kept in the sense in which it was originally -signed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office, eventually -a liaison man with the OKW; at this time most probably in the -internment camp at Augsburg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The application for Ambassador -Ritter falls into two parts. One raises the point which we have -just been discussing with regard to the Russo-German Treaty of -23 August 1939, and I have indicated the view of the Prosecution -on that. The second deals with the defendant’s attitude with regard -to the treatment of Allied airmen. The position at the moment is -that I put in a document which was prepared by Ambassador Ritter -and another document in which Ambassador Ritter said that the -Defendant Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum from the -German Foreign Office dealing with the proposals for lynching -aviators and handing them over to the SD before they could become -prisoners of war and entitled to the rights under the Convention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If it is desired to say that Ambassador Ritter was wrong in -stating that Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum, then, of -course, it would be a relevant point. But at the moment these -documents are in, and I am not quite clear from this for what purpose -my friend wishes him called on the second point. If there is -any further purpose, then perhaps Dr. Horn will indicate it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Sir David has just stated the reason why I have -requested the witness. The witness is supposed to and will testify -that Von Ribbentrop was opposed to special treatment of terror -fliers—at least for acts covered by the Geneva Convention—without -previous notification to the signatory powers of that convention.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn says that he wants to -call Ambassador Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared -by Ambassador Ritter, which are already in evidence. Then I can’t -make any objection. That is obviously a relevant point, if he is -going to contradict his own document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it be acceptable to Dr. Horn to have -interrogatories administered to Ambassador Ritter, or would the -<span class='pageno' title='211' id='Page_211'></span> -Prosecution prefer that he should be called, if he is to give evidence -of any sort?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If he gives evidence, the Prosecution -would prefer that he should be called, because that is our -position. There are two documents in, prepared by this gentleman; -and if he is going to contradict them, then I suggest he should come -and do it in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I leave it up to the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador -in Oslo, Von Grundherr, at present presumably in Allied custody.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, I don’t want to go into -detail. The position is that there is a document before the Court -signed by the Defendant Rosenberg in which he says that 10,000 -pounds sterling a month were given to Quisling through an arrangement -with this gentleman. If Dr. Horn wishes to call Herr Von -Grundherr to contradict the statement of the Defendant Rosenberg, -again I suppose the Prosecution cannot make any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Regarding the witnesses which I have listed under -points 30 to 34, I can limit my statement to the fact that I want -to call them to testify that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, also -earnestly and constantly endeavored to bring about close relations -with France.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witnesses, above all M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of -France, can give substantive, detailed evidence about these efforts. -If the Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these -witnesses, could give their testimony in the form of affidavits, I -will submit relevant questions to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the submission of the Prosecution, -the grounds stated for calling these witnesses are too vague -and general to justify their being called before the Court. When -two countries are at peace, the fact that a foreign minister or an -ambassador has made statements saying that he hopes the good -relations between the two countries will continue, or words to that -effect, does not really take us any further; and it would, in the submission -of the Prosecution, be a waste of time for witnesses to be -called for such a purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from that, the first four witnesses, the Marquis and Marquise -De Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellane, as -far as the Prosecution know, have not been in any official position, -and there is, therefore, the additional objection that calling people -who may be the most admirable people but are in a position of -<span class='pageno' title='212' id='Page_212'></span> -general friendship to talk as to what really becomes their view of -the state of mind of a defendant, is not evidence which is relevant -or which the Tribunal should entertain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: With these witnesses the Defense wishes to prove -exactly the fact that the efforts of Ribbentrop with respect to France -went further than normal remarks which could not be called anything -more than <span class='it'>courtoisie internationale</span>. For this reason I ask that -one or the other of the witnesses in this group be granted me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, these witnesses seem to raise the -same question as to relevance as I put to you earlier on them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Assuming that it was the intention of the German Foreign Office -to try to keep France out of any war which Germany was preparing -to make, what relevance has that got to the question whether she -was about to make an aggressive war upon Poland?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I would like through these witnesses to produce -evidence that it was at least not the intention of the Defendant -Von Ribbentrop to plan and prepare wars but that he has tried for -years to improve relations with Germany’s neighboring states.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having -planned and carried out aggressive aims, war against England and -France. If the Prosecution will forego this point, I, of course, can -also forego these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give this the necessary -consideration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The next witness is Mr. Ernest Tennant of London.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, I -don’t know the gentleman, and I have never heard of him, and the -only information which is in the application is that he is a member -of the firm of Tennant and Company and a member of the Bath -Club, and also that he was well known to the Defendant Ribbentrop. -But the matters for which he is sought to be called are surely -the acme of irrelevance. It is submitted that the witness can testify -that in the early and middle 30’s the defendant asked him to bring -him in contact with Lord Baldwin, Mr. Macdonald, and Lord Davidson -for the purpose of negotiating with the latter toward paving the way -to good political relations, aiming at the conclusion of an alliance. -In 1936 the defendant was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. -Mr. Macdonald had just ceased being Prime Minister in 1935 and -was still, I think, Lord President of the Council. Lord Baldwin was -then Prime Minister and Lord Davidson, I think, was Chancellor of -the Duchy of Lancaster in the same administration. At any rate, -he held a comparatively less important office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But how it can be relevant to the issues before this Tribunal, -that at or shortly before that time the defendant asked a gentleman -<span class='pageno' title='213' id='Page_213'></span> -of no official position whether he could introduce him to the three -gentlemen I have just mentioned, I really suggest, cannot be stated; -and I submit that this witness should not be allowed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the naming of witnesses we always -come back to the same fundamental question. The Prosecution -always raises the question: What can this witness tell us about the -fact that Germany did or did not march against Poland, or is to -blame for the Polish-German war, inasmuch as the witness comes -from an entirely different country and has nothing to do with -Poland or Polish affairs?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense is of the opinion, on the other hand, that the entire -policy of Germany toward Poland can only be understood within -the framework of the whole of European politics. Therefore, the -Defense has called for witnesses whom the Prosecution would like -to exclude, because they can offer us material for the reconstruction -of the large picture. With this in mind, I also ask for Professor -Conwell-Evans of London.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal again -I have never heard of Professor Conwell-Evans, and he does not -appear in the Who’s Who, the British publication showing a very -large number of the citizens who have certain grades of distinction -or hold certain offices. But I would like Dr. Horn to consider this -point, which I respectfully put to the Tribunal:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Accepting that every word that is stated in this application with -regard to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in Court by Professor -Conwell-Evans, I submit that it would not advance the case at all -and that the Tribunal would be left in exactly the same position if -it had that evidence as it is in at the present moment. After all, -the defendant will be able to give evidence himself and to make -his own impression on the Tribunal as to his intentions and as to -his honesty of mind at various times. The submission of the Prosecution -is that the evidence of this gentleman would not help the -Trial at all and is not relevant to any issue before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: As next witness I name Wolfgang Michel, Oberstdorf -in Allgäu, the witness under Number 38.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman is stated to have -been a partner in the defendant’s former business. According to the -application, it is really desired that he should give his views of the -defendant’s general attitude and state of mind. Again, the Prosecution -fail to see to what issue he is relevant; but it may be that -it would please the defendant to have affidavits from an old business -partner to give his views on the defendant. If that is desired, -the Prosecution would be prepared to consider such an affidavit; -<span class='pageno' title='214' id='Page_214'></span> -but they really must take up the consistent attitude that a witness -of this kind is irrelevant—a witness who is going to say, “I have -known this defendant for 20 years; I have been in business with -him; and I have always had a high opinion of him.” That, in the -submission of the Prosecution, does not touch the issues before this -Tribunal and, therefore, is irrelevant. But, as I say, if my friend -cares to produce an affidavit, the Prosecution will consider it with -the greatest sympathy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I would be satisfied, in the case of the witness -Michel, with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, I would like to come back to the witness listed -under Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Aren’t you going to deal with -Number 38? You didn’t deal with 37. You are passing that over, -are you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I believe that the same objections would be raised -against him as were raised with reference to the other witnesses. -Since I assume that the Tribunal is going to decide in principle -about the question whether or not all the related facts should be -submitted here, I have left out the naming of this witness and ask -the Tribunal for a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you want to go back to Number 5?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: I would like to come back to Number 5, Legation -Counsellor Gottfriedsen. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen conducted -the entire official and private finances of the Defendant -Von Ribbentrop for many years.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Ribbentrop has been accused by various members of the Prosecution -of enriching himself with objects of art and similar things. -About this point Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen can give decisive -evidence which will invalidate these charges. I therefore ask for -approval of this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked -Dr. Horn on this point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen -to Herr Von Sonnleitner. I think Dr. Horn says that, if there was -a question of choice, he would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution do not want to be unreasonable. I made my -general statement that this group of witnesses, of seven foreign -office witnesses, ought to be restricted to three. If my friend thinks -that Herr Gottfriedsen will be more helpful, especially on this point, -I have no objection to the substitution, so long as some limitation is -made in the group of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it be satisfactory if interrogatories -were administered? -<span class='pageno' title='215' id='Page_215'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President; in this case I ask for the witness -Gottfriedsen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: My statement on the subject of summoning witnesses -is thereby concluded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: I have not named some witnesses because other -defendant’s counsel had asked for them. Among these is also the -interpreter Dr. Schmidt. I likewise have the greatest interest in the -questioning of this witness. Schmidt was Göring’s interpreter and -was present at almost all foreign political negotiations with statesmen. -Therefore I also ask for the summoning of this witness and -to that extent support the application made by Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will -adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring up one other point -having to do with the calling of witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have also named a number of the witnesses, because I must -ascertain when the conspiracy in general begins and when my client -could have joined this conspiracy. The Prosecution made things -relatively easy for itself as regards setting the time at which the -conspiracy begins, by stating in the general Indictment “sometime -before 8 May 1945.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if I can call no witnesses with regard to the years 1933 to -1938, then I must assume that the Prosecution admits that the -Defendant Ribbentrop could not have been a party to the conspiracy -at least before 1939. I should like this point of view to be -taken into consideration in the granting of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated -quite generally what Dr. Horn has to meet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th and 9th of January -I presented the individual case against this defendant. The first -point is the time of Hitler’s accession to power in 1933. It is the -case for the Prosecution that this defendant assisted in various ways -in that accession. After that, he held various positions in close touch -with Hitler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Dr. Horn will refer to the transcript of my presentation, he -will find that there is detailed, with a note of all the supporting -documents, the part which his client played in the aggression against -Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, England, France, Norway, -Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, -<span class='pageno' title='216' id='Page_216'></span> -and finally, the United States and Japan. All these matters are set -out with the supporting documents, and a reference to them will -show exactly what is alleged against the defendant on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts Three and -Four which are specially raised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, the defendant pressed that measures contrary to -international law and the conventions should be taken against -Allied aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence. -Second, there is General Lahousen’s evidence as to what the -defendant said with regard to the treatment of the population of -Poland. Third, there is the defendant’s responsibility for putting -the various Protectors of Bohemia and Moravia in office with unrestricted -powers, which resulted in the crimes against the populations -of these areas. Then there is a similar position with regard -to the Netherlands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third main category is the treatment of the Jews. Again, -there is an American official document, the report of Ambassador -Kennedy; there is a long Foreign Office statement on the policy -towards the Jews; and there is a document showing the preparation -for an anti-Semitic congress, of which this defendant was to be an -honorary member.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, there is the question of plunder, the evidence given by -my Soviet colleague on the Ribbentrop battalions for the collection -of plunder, which was given the other day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I don’t think that if Dr. Horn will consider various points, which -are practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of -January, except the last point, he will find that there is any difficulty -in deciding the commencement of these allegations or their -detailed and concrete constitution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know -whether the Prosecution allege any particular date at which the -conspiracy started; and second, they would like to know whether -you contend that defendants joining the conspiracy after it started -are responsible for the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What the Tribunal would like to know is whether a person who -joins the conspiracy after it started would be responsible for acts -committed by the conspirators before he joined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I might deal with the questions -in order, the position of the Prosecution on the question of -time is as set out in Count One of the Indictment. The Prosecution -say that the Nazi Party was the core of the conspiracy and that it -was an essential part of the conspiracy that the Nazi Party should -obtain political and economic control of Germany in order that they -might carry out the aims set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Nazi -<span class='pageno' title='217' id='Page_217'></span> -Party program. That part of the conspiracy started with the emergence -of the Nazi Party as a force in German politics and was -fully developed in January 1933. At that time it was the aim of -the Nazi Party to secure the breaches of the Treaty of Versailles -and the other matters set out in these articles, if necessary by force.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But, as is stated in the statement of offense under Count One of -the Indictment, the conspiracy was not static; it was dynamic. And, -in 1934, after Germany left the League of Nations and the Disarmament -Conference, the aggressive war aspect of the conspiracy -increased in momentum.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is the case for the Prosecution that from 1935, when conscription -was introduced and the Air Force came into being, through -1936 when the Rhineland was reoccupied, that the securing of Germany’s -objectives—the objectives of the Nazi Party—if necessary by -aggressive war, became a stronger, clearer, and more binding aim.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The position is crystallized by the meeting on the 5th of November -1937, when Hitler declared that Austria and Czechoslovakia -would be conquered at the earliest opportunity. That was succeeded -by the acquisition of Austria in March 1938, and the Fall Grün -against Czechoslovakia, which originated in May 1938, to be carried -out before October.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From that time the Prosecution say that the plan of aggressive -war followed the well-known and clear technique of attacking one -country or taking aggressive measures against one country, and -giving assurances to the country that was next on the list to be -attacked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From that time the succession and procession of aggressive wars -takes a clear course, which I have just mentioned in outlining the -accusation of aggression against the Defendant Ribbentrop. I may -summarize it by saying that the Prosecution submit that the Nazi -Party was always engaged in this agreement and concerted action -to get control of Germany and carry out its aims but that the aggression -crystallized and became clear from 1934 and the beginning of -1935 onwards.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United -States): Sir David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection -with this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, you must know either the date when the conspiracy -began, or you must not be able to give us the date. Now, is it the -contention that the Prosecution don’t know when the conspiracy -began? If you do know, would you tell us?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the -formation of the Nazi Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was that date? -<span class='pageno' title='218' id='Page_218'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1921.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): 1921? Now, was the conspiracy -to wage aggressive war begun on that date?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it was begun in this way -that Hitler had said, “I have certain objects, one of them being to -break the Treaty of Versailles—which means also breaking the -treaty of friendship with the United States which has the same -clauses—and I shall attain these objects, if necessary by using -force.” That was always one of the beliefs and aims of the Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if people agree to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by -illegal methods, that is, <span class='it'>ipso facto</span>, the committing of the offense of -conspiracy. Conspiracy is constituted by the agreement, not by the -acts carrying out the agreement. Therefore, in that way the conspiracy -starts in 1921. But, as Mr. Justice Jackson made clear in his -opening and as I have repeated this morning, the aims—and more -particularly the methods by which the conspirators sought to achieve -these aims—grew and acquired particular forms as the years went -on. They appear to have acquired the special form and to have -decided on the method of breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 -and bringing that to fruition in 1935.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not seeking to avoid answering the question of the learned -American Judge; but I am putting, in summary form, exactly what -is stated in both the statement of offense and the particulars of -offense under Count One, and I hope that I will not be thought to -be avoiding the question. I am not doing that. I am trying to put -it in the clearest and most accurate language.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I wouldn’t ask you, were -I clear about the matter in my own mind, Sir David. Let me ask -you a few more questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity—was that -begun in 1921?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To the extent that a general -readiness was adopted to use all methods, irrespective of the rights, -safety, and happiness of other people, it was commenced with the -start of the Nazi Party. Ruthlessness and disregard for the rights, -and safety, and happiness of others was a badge of the Nazi Party -program, insofar as the rights and happiness of others might interfere -with their aims, from the very start.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Again, the translation of that into practical methods developed as -the years went on, and in a period well before the war—Mr. Biddle -will not put it against me that I should remember exact documents -in an answer straight off the rule to his question, but well before -the war—there will be found again and again in the speeches of -Hitler to his associates that utter ruthlessness and disregard for -<span class='pageno' title='219' id='Page_219'></span> -non-German populations should be employed. That is the foundation -of the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, and it was initiated -and grew in the method which I have stated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you answer the President -with respect to the question of whether the conspirators joining -later became responsible? If that were true, then this defendant -would be responsible for acts running back to 1921.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There are two legal conceptions -which have to be borne in mind in considering that point. I can -only speak with knowledge on the law of England, but I understand -that the law of the United States is very much the same.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In England there is a common law offense of conspiracy. There -are also certain statutory offenses, but there is a common law -offense of conspiracy. The gist of that offense is, as I have already -stated, entering into an agreement to commit an illegal act or a -legal act by illegal means. As far as a conviction for conspiracy per se -is concerned, there is no doubt about the law of England. If someone -joins a conspiracy at a late state, a conspiracy to do any illegal -act, he can be convicted of conspiracy to do that act however late -he joins.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The usual analogy, with which I am sure the learned American -Judge is familiar, is that of a stage play. The fact that a character -does not come in until Act 3 does not mean that he is any the less -carrying out the design of the author of the play to present the -whole picture which the play embraces. It is a very useful analogy -because it shows the position. That is one aspect of the law, and -on that there is no doubt at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other aspect of the law is as to how far those who act in -consort to commit a crime are responsible for each other’s acts, that -is, irrespective of the substantive offense of conspiracy. If one may -take an example—a highly fantastic one but I think it raises the -point—assume that you had a conspiracy on the part of road operators -to wreck railway trains, and a number of road operators agreed -in December to wreck a train on the 1st of January and to wreck -a further train on the 1st of February. Between the 1st of January -and the 1st of February, another road operator joins the conspiracy. -I hope I have got rightly the point in My Lord’s mind and in the -mind of the learned American Judge. Then there is, as far as I can -see, some doubt as to whether that road operator would be liable -for a murder committed in the wrecking that took place on the -first of January.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I hope I have made my point clear. I am postulating someone -who joins a conspiracy on the 15th of January, after the first -wrecking has been carried out during which someone has been -<span class='pageno' title='220' id='Page_220'></span> -killed, and therefore those who consorted with regard to the first -wrecking are guilty of murder. But as to the person who joins -after that, there is some doubt as to whether he acquires retroactive -responsibility. In English law it would appear to be at least doubtful—it -certainly is arguable that in American law he would, as -I have been told the decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you have made that very -clear, Sir David, but what I am getting at is what the Prosecution -claim in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry if I have been -theoretical, but it has been rather a difficult point, and I wanted -to relate it to the law with which I am most familiar.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the present case, the Prosecution say that the -defendants do become responsible for the consequences of acts done -in pursuance of the conspiracy. It is rather difficult to speak entirely -in vacuo in the matter; but if one may take, for example—again I -speak from memory—the Defendant Speer, who comes on the scene -rather late, if my recollection is right, he then becomes minister -for production and armaments and makes the demands for the slave -labor which were fulfilled by the Defendant Sauckel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the submission of the Prosecution, there would not be any -difficulty in convicting the Defendant Speer on all counts, assuming -that the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Prosecution. By his -actions, he has conspired to commit a Crime against Peace; he has -joined and entered into the conspiracy to carry on aggressive war; -he has taken part in the waging of aggressive war by making the -demands for the slave labor; he has instigated a war crime, namely -the ill-treatment of populations of occupied countries; and also, by -instigating and procuring the action of the Defendant Sauckel, he -has committed Crimes against Humanity in that he has participated -in actions which are condemned by the criminal law of all civilized -countries; and probably—I am speaking from memory now—these -actions have taken place in countries where it is arguable whether -they were strictly occupied countries after an invasion, as in Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the method in which our Indictment is drawn, there is no -difficulty, the Prosecution submit, in convicting a defendant who -emerges in evidence at a later date on each of the counts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just one more question and then -I am through. You understand I am asking these questions only in -performance of what we are doing to determine what witnesses -should be called, and therefore the year 1921 as the beginning of -the conspiracy becomes a year obviously not remote in time when -we consider witnesses. Would that not follow? -<span class='pageno' title='221' id='Page_221'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A year not. . . ?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Not remote in time with relation -to the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it is part of the particular -Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make some brief remarks in -this connection?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have based myself on the general Indictment as regards the -time of the conspiracy. The general Indictment states simply and -solely that the definitive point of time which one can take as the -start of the conspiracy is any time before 8 May 1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Chief Prosecutor of the United States, in his opening statement, -described the Party program, in the form in which it was -framed in ’21 and revised, I believe, in ’25, and characterized it as -legitimate and unimpeachable—according to the German translation—insofar -as these aims were not to be attained by war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, assuming that the Party leadership was to pursue these -objectives by war, it is, first of all, not clear with what point of -view these goals were set; and the Defense as well as the Prosecution -must prove that from this time on these aims were to be -attained through war. Furthermore, it can hardly be denied that -only a very few people, and perhaps only one person, had knowledge -of war plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, as regards the various defendants, as well as my own -client, the times at which they came into contact with the Party are -quite different.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, they were ordinary Party members, so they had consequently -to assume, as the Chief Prosecutor did, that the Party -program of which they had become adherents, was legally unimpeachable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now the question arises for the Defense, and above all, for conducting -the defense: When did the individual client enter the sphere -in which it was known that the aims were to be attained by war, -aims which so far he had considered legitimate and unimpeachable, -that is, aims which according to his previous assumption, were not -to be pursued by recourse to war? Had the Defendant Ribbentrop -already entered the circle of conspirators when in 1932 he contacted -Party circles? Was he, as Ambassador in London, already “in the -know” and thereby a party to the conspiracy; or did he only realize, -at the time of the Hossbach document, that the political aims of the -Party were to be materialized through war? Or when?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense must be aware of the danger that the defendant -will be accused by the Prosecution that he joined the conspiracy -<span class='pageno' title='222' id='Page_222'></span> -the very earliest moment he came in contact with the Party and its -aims. In this connection I can refer to the words just spoken by -Sir David who said that the foundation of the conspiracy was laid -in 1921. I ask—or rather—is it my task or my duty to prove through -witnesses that my client, for instance, up to 1939 was striving for -peaceful relations in order to refute that he then already planned -or prepared wars or took a decisive part in these plans and -preparations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From this point of view, I ask the Tribunal to weigh the applications -for the witnesses and subjects of evidence as set forth in my -brief. Furthermore, I expressly maintain that this discussion has -not clarified the question: When does the conspiracy start?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I don’t want to repeat -any general argument. My desire is that Dr. Horn should know -what case Ribbentrop has to meet, and I have already stated that, -but I want to make it quite clear.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the entry in <span class='it'>Das Archiv</span> Ribbentrop entered the -service of the Nazi Party in 1930, and between 1930 and January -1933 was one of the instruments and vehicles by which the accession -of the Nazi Party to power took place. That semi-official -publication says that some meetings between Hitler and Von Papen -and the Nazis and representatives of President Von Hindenburg -took place in his house at Berlin-Dahlem. That is the first point. -It is quite clear and it is all set out in the transcript.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second stage is that he held certain offices between 1934 -and 1936 that show that he was an important and rising Nazi -politician and negotiator in the realm of foreign affairs. In 1936 he -justified the action of Germany in breaking the Versailles Treaty. -The defendant justified it before the League of Nations. Therefore, -he has to meet that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the same year he negotiated the Anticomintern Pact. He has -to explain that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From that time onwards, there are a succession of German documents, -all referred to in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, -which show exactly the part this defendant played in 10 sets -of aggression against 10 separate countries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that that is a perfectly -clear case which this defendant has to meet. There is no doubt -about it at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already summarized the case on the War Crimes and -Crimes against Humanity. Again Dr. Horn will find it dealt with, -with every document mentioned, in the transcript for the 9th of -January. -<span class='pageno' title='223' id='Page_223'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I respectfully submit that whatever else may be said, the particularity -and clarity of the case against the Defendant Ribbentrop is -manifest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, in my presentation of defense against -the charges lodged by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in his special plea -for the Prosecution, I have offered rebutting evidence in answer to -these charges. I have, however, not only to confine myself to -refuting those charges just mentioned, but I have—and thus I have -to repeat what I just said—to consider all these charges under the -point of view of conspiracy, as according to the submission of the -Prosecution, the Defendant Ribbentrop is party to this conspiracy; -and the question cannot be avoided: When did the conspiracy start? -Taking the supposition that my client took part in a conspiracy, -this participation did not start in 1930, as submitted by the Prosecution—I -shall be able to refute this—but only in 1932; but I should -like to prove through witnesses and otherwise that then and later -he did not join in any conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well now, perhaps you will get on with the -documents which you want.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the -documents, I have had the opportunity of discussing it informally -with Dr. Horn; and I understand that with regard to Documents -1 to 14, Dr. Horn really wants these books as working books which -he can read and use and, if necessary, take extracts from to -illustrate his argument and point at that time. Now, that is a -matter of course to which we make no objection at all. I have -consistently taken the view that there should be no objection to -any book for working purposes for the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What I do want to ask is this, that if Dr. Horn or any other -Defense Counsel wishes to use an extract from a book when it -comes to presenting his case, he will let us know what the extract -is and, if necessary, for what purpose he is going to use it. I say -“if necessary” because in many cases it will be quite apparent for -what purpose, but in some cases it may have special significance; -and if they let us know, then any question of relevance can be -argued when the matter is produced in court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But that seems to me to be necessary in -order that the documents should be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite; yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I mean that the part of the book or part of -the document which Dr. Horn wants to use should be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But as far as providing the -Defense with working copies, any co-operation that the Prosecution -<span class='pageno' title='224' id='Page_224'></span> -can do in that way they will gladly do. That is a matter on which -we should be anxious to help.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The last five documents named fall into rather a different category. -I haven’t discussed these with Dr. Horn; but I respectfully -submit—and it is the united view of the Prosecution—that complete -files of newspapers will be difficult to justify as evidence before the -Tribunal, but again, if Dr. Horn wants them for matter of reference, -then it just becomes a question of possibility.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not sure with regard to these whether it is desired to use -them or whether it is merely desired to have them to refer to. I -don’t know anything about Number 19, the withdrawn number of -the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>, but I suppose the Secretariat can make inquiries -about that from the proprietors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: The last item I should like to take up: Now that the -Trial has already progressed so far that I now require these documents -in order to be able to make use of them for rebutting evidence, -may I ask that copies of those newspapers—it is a matter of -three or four newspapers, which are bound in 1-month volumes—be -made available to me as soon as possible with the help of the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the withdrawn number -of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>? You haven’t yet indicated why it would be -relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: On the 30 or 31 of August 1939, an edition of the -<span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> was withdrawn because it contained extensive -details of the contents of the memorandum which the then Reich -Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, had read to the British Ambassador, -Henderson, in Berlin. It is asserted—also by the Prosecution—that -Ribbentrop read this note to Henderson so rapidly that the -latter was unable to understand the essential points. From the issue -of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> of 31 August 1939, it will thus appear to -what extent Ambassador Henderson was in a position to understand -Ribbentrop’s statements or the oral presentation of that memorandum -as Von Ribbentrop read it. I therefore ask that this number -of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> be procured, and I am convinced that the -Prosecution is able to obtain this issue by the means at their disposal -but not available to us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time -that I have heard of this withdrawn copy apart. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The first time you have heard there was any -copy withdrawn?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have never heard it except -from Dr. Horn that there was a copy withdrawn, and I shall -probably have to investigate the matter. -<span class='pageno' title='225' id='Page_225'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I only want to say one thing, that of course Dr. Horn has just -made one point about the question between this defendant and Sir -Nevile Henderson. It is the case for the Defendant Göring, as -expressed in Dr. Stahmer’s interrogatories, that the Defendant -Göring had caused the contents of this memorandum to be given -unofficially to Mr. Dahlerus behind the Defendant Ribbentrop’s -back. That is the case which he is making in the interrogatories, -so that it by no means follows that Sir Nevile Henderson’s account -of the interview was wrong, even if an account of the document -had come out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I don’t want to make a point of the memory of Sir Nevile, but -shall investigate this matter, which I have just heard now for the -first time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: May I add for the fuller information of the Tribunal -that the Defendant Göring made the memorandum available to -Ambassador Henderson only at a considerably later date. It is, -therefore, of decisive importance when and whether Henderson -acquired knowledge of this memorandum and whether it happened -in good time so that he could still communicate it to the Polish -Government within the proper time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I ask therefore for the procurement of this most important -edition of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We will continue with the evidence against the Defendant Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a remark -preliminary to the discussion about the evidence submitted for -Defendant Keitel. I hope the discussions about the various applications -for evidence will thereby be considerably shortened. From -my written application you will see that in respect to the majority -of the witnesses one main subject of evidence recurs again and -again, namely, the position of Defendant Keitel as Chief of the -OKW and in his other official functions, his personality, particularly, -also his relations to Hitler, and the clarification of the chain -of command within the Armed Forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall present evidence that the idea of the public and the -Prosecution regarding the personality of the Defendant Keitel, his -scope, and his activities is incorrect. No name has been so frequently -mentioned in the course of this proceeding as that of the Defendant -Keitel. Every document which dealt in any way with military matters -was identified with the OKW, and the OKW, in turn with Keitel. -The defendant believes, and I think with some justification. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal appreciates the general points -which you will probably want to argue on behalf of the Defendant -<span class='pageno' title='226' id='Page_226'></span> -Keitel when you come to make your final speech, but it does not -appear to the Tribunal to be necessary that you should do so now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I mention it only to make possible a comprehensive -appraisal of all witnesses offered for the presentation of evidence. -I think Sir David shares this opinion with me—he already discussed -it with me on Saturday—and it was my intention to expound in a -preliminary way the subject of evidence which otherwise had to be -presented in five or six different cases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Nelte, that you will be able -to deal with all your witnesses in one series of observations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Could you help us, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think I can help.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Apart from the witnesses who are codefendants that are mentioned -by Dr. Nelte, whom of course the Tribunal has already provided, -Dr. Nelte asks for Field Marshal Von Blomberg, General -Halder, General Warlimont, and the Chief Staff Judge of the OKW, -Dr. Lehmann. The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses, -because they are called to deal with the position of the Defendant -Keitel as head of the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the witness Erbe, who is, I think, a civil servant -called on a specific point as to his position in the Committee for -Reich Defense. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the interrogatories already been granted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; we have always said that -interrogatories would be sufficient and he should not be called as an -oral witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to the next witness, Roemer, whom Dr. Nelte -wishes to call to say that the decree for the branding of Soviet -Russian prisoners of war was announced by mistake and retracted -at once on the order of Keitel, that is obviously relevant to one -matter in the case, and we don’t object to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We don’t object to General Reinecke, who is called on various -matters relating to prisoners of war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Mr. Romilly, so long as it is confined to interrogatories -which have been allowed, and he is not called orally, -we have no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will have a word to say -about Ambassador Scapini. I have asked him to deal with that -matter in French.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to two witnesses, Dr. Junod and Mr. Petersen. -At the moment the Prosecution cannot see how these witnesses are -needed in addition to General Reinecke. And of course they would -object if the purpose of the testimony is to show that the Soviet -<span class='pageno' title='227' id='Page_227'></span> -Union did not treat its prisoners of war properly. If that is the -purpose, they would object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the calling of Dr. Lammers has been granted by the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then finally, there are three witnesses who are all called in -order to show that at discussions between Hitler and the Defendant -Keitel, two stenographers had to be present. The Prosecution do -not regard that as a very vital part of the case, and if Dr. Nelte -will produce an affidavit from one of these gentlemen, then the -Prosecution are not in a position—and do not desire—to dispute -the point. Frankly, if I may say so, and with the greatest respect, -we are not at all interested in that point, and therefore will be -content with an affidavit if produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If I might summarize—and I hope I am merely trying to help -Dr. Nelte—the only matters which, as far as the Prosecution are -concerned, require further discussion is the matter of what the -French Delegation will have to say about Ambassador Scapini, and -my objection to Dr. Junod and Mr. Petersen, and my suggestion as -to an affidavit for the last three witnesses. There is very little -between us, if I may say so, with respect to Dr. Nelte’s witnesses; -on the whole they seem to the Prosecution to be obviously relevant -and in that case we make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is one rather sad fact with regard to the witness Blomberg, -of which I think Dr. Nelte has been informed. I understand that -Field Marshal Von Blomberg is very ill at the moment and cannot -be brought into court, so that I am sure, Dr. Nelte, the Defendant -Keitel will be the first to accept some method of getting his evidence -which will not necessitate that fact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I thank Sir David for his kindness, by which my -task has been made easier.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to state in addition that in respect to the witness, -Dr. Erbe, I shall put written questions. To the witness Petersen -I have already submitted written questions, and on the answers -received depends whether I shall call him in person. As to witness -Junod, I believe I may say that his examination is relevant because -the Soviet Prosecution has submitted that an offer to apply the -Geneva Convention had been rejected by Keitel. Dr. Junod is to -be examined as a witness that, by order of the OKW Department -of Prisoners of War, he contacted the Soviet Union in order to -secure the application of the Geneva Convention but that this could -not be brought about. I believe that if only General Reinecke is -to be examined as a witness on this question, it could perhaps be -objected that he, as chief of the Department of Prisoners of War, -cannot give sufficient testimony. Neither can General Reinecke -testify to what Dr. Junod actually did. Consequently I ask that -<span class='pageno' title='228' id='Page_228'></span> -this witness be approved. As far as the stenographers are concerned, -I ask approval to submit an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Ambassador Scapini, I should merely like to point out -that he was the permanent representative of the French Vichy -Government and that he was particularly concerned with the -question of caring for prisoners of war in Germany. I believe that -this is adequate reason for considering him relevant. To be sure, -I did not know his address, and hope that the French Prosecution -can help me in that regard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for -the French Republic): We see no objection to hearing the former -Ambassador Scapini, if his testimony can in our opinion have the -slightest bearing on the search for truth; but the very reasons which -Dr. Nelte gives for the calling of this witness seem to me to prove -the complete absence of relevance of this testimony. The former -Ambassador Scapini, says the honorable representative of the -Defense, could point out and say that he freely exercised his control -in the prisoner-of-war camps and moreover that these prisoners -of war had a representative, but this we are quite willing to grant -to the Defense. It is perfectly true that Germany had consented to -allow the former Ambassador Scapini—who we know was wounded -in the war of 1914 and blinded—to visit the camps of prisoners and -hear the French prisoners of war though he could not see them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the question is not to find out whether the Germans had -been willing to allow a blind inspector to visit the camps. The -only question presented by the Indictment is whether, in spite of -the visits of this inspector and in spite of the presence of a special -representative in the camps, there did not occur in these camps -acts contrary to the laws of war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On this point the former Ambassador Scapini could surely give -no answer, for obviously nothing happened in his presence. This -is why the French Prosecution considers that the testimony of the -former Ambassador Scapini would shed no light in this search for -truth.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: It was not known to me that Ambassador Scapini -was blind. Not he himself, but rather the delegation of which he -was head, made regular inspections of the prisoner-of-war camps -for French soldiers. It is certain that in prisoner-of-war camps -things happened which violated the Geneva Convention, but the -question at issue here is that the Defendant Keitel and the OKW, -as the supreme authority, did—or at any rate, tried to do—all that -they, as highest authority, had to do.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The OKW had no command jurisdiction in the individual camps. -It had only to issue instructions as to how prisoners of war were -<span class='pageno' title='229' id='Page_229'></span> -to be treated and had to permit the protecting powers to visit the -camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would interrogatories be satisfactory, supposing -we thought it proper to administer them to Mr. Scapini?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: An interrogation in Nuremberg? Could Ambassador -Scapini be heard in Nuremberg?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I was asking whether interrogatories would -be satisfactory. I imagine Mr. Scapini is not in Nuremberg. -Written interrogatories, I mean, of course, where I have mentioned -them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I ask for a ruling on whether the written questions -which I first should like to put will be sufficient or whether another -ruling will be necessary. So I assume that first I shall interrogate -Ambassador Scapini in writing and on his answer it will depend -whether. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in writing. Will that be satisfactory to -you, M. Champetier de Ribes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Yes, that will be quite satisfactory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps we might adjourn now, -Dr. Nelte, until a quarter past 2.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='230' id='Page_230'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished -with your witnesses, had you not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, I think so. I must only reserve the right on -what I may have to state, after the Soviet Prosecution have finished -presenting their case—whether I still may wish to call this or that -witness. As to the documents I should like to put a few questions -which are of particular interest for me—rather for the Defendant -Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: The Tribunal knows my main subject of evidence. -In order to prove that in many cases the Prosecution is wrong in -assuming the OKW and the Defendant Keitel to be responsible, -I can refer to a great many documents which have been presented -by the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I take it that these documents are not to be submitted by me as -evidential material, as they have already been put in. I ask the -Tribunal for examination of these documents and for a ruling that -in my pleadings on behalf of the defendant I may refer to such -documents without having to submit or quote them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to add that the Tribunal, having been informed -about the structure of the Armed Forces or parts of them and -about the competencies of the various commands, will itself be able -to judge which of the documents submitted are not suitable for -supporting the allegations of the Prosecution regarding the responsibility -of the Defendant Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am also convinced that the Tribunal, in its findings, will -examine carefully any document relevant to the question of guilt, -even if the Defense does not submit such documents, and even if -the Defense cannot submit a comprehensive presentation in view -of the extremely large number of documents—there are thousands -relating to the Defendant Keitel—and even if the Defense cannot -deal with all these documents in the final speeches.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, I should like to submit to the Tribunal another -question which is important for the presentation of evidence on -behalf of the Defendant Keitel and which is of great importance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the session of 1 February 1946, the French Prosecutor -made the following statement, and I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Chapter 4 and the last will bear the heading, ‘The Administrative -Organization of Criminal Action’. . . . for the fourth -chapter I might point out that the French Delegation examined -more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original German -documents of which I have kept only about 50.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='231' id='Page_231'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the opening address of the United States Chief -Prosecutor, there can be no doubt that these 50 documents were -selected merely from the point of view of incriminating the defendant. -On 11 February, if I remember correctly, I addressed myself -to the French Prosecution with a request to place at my disposal -for examination the remaining 1,950 documents, which the French -Prosecution did not use.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To date I have received no answer. The Tribunal will appreciate -the difficulties of my position. I know there are documents there -which I am sure contain also exonerating facts. Yet I am not able -to specify these documents. I beg the Tribunal, therefore, for a -ruling in this matter—that the Prosecution should place at my -disposal those documents for my perusal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents -that you are asking for, are you going to say anything about them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I -know only that the French Prosecution have these 2,000 documents. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I -will ask the French Prosecutor to answer what you have said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: If Your Honor pleases, I leave it to the Tribunal -whether they wish to examine this question or whether it can be -dealt with now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the -French Prosecutor now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French -Republic): A certain number of documents of doubtful origin were -in our hands at the time that we were beginning to prepare our -prosecution. We have eliminated all documents which could not -bear serious critical examination. We undertook a critical task and -rejected all those that were considered to be insufficient proof. At -the end of this task about fifty documents remained which have -been referred to by my colleagues and which appeared relevant. -These 50 documents have, moreover, not all been accepted by the -Tribunal, which has rejected some, and if I remember rightly, -3 or 4 of whose origin we were not quite sure. In these conditions, -it is absolutely incorrect to say that we have kept 1,950 documents -from the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We handed over to the Court, and therefore to the Defense, the -50 documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient -probative value.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If I understand this request of the Defense they wish the Court -to ask to have handed to them documents of which some have been -rejected by the Court itself as not having sufficient probative value -<span class='pageno' title='232' id='Page_232'></span> -or as not being sufficiently authenticated. The Tribunal will decide -whether this request should be granted. As far as I am concerned, -I must oppose this application with all my might because it would -mean taking into account documents which did not offer a sufficiently -authentic character for the examination we made, and which the -Tribunal itself also made when we submitted to it some of these -documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but M. Dubost, the position is this: -There were a large number of documents which the Counsel for -the French Prosecution said that they had examined; and the -French Prosecution, in the exercise of their discretion, thought it -unnecessary to refer to more than a certain number of them; but -it is only the French Prosecution which has exercised their discretion -about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is asking is to -see them for the purpose of seeing whether there is anything in -the documents which assists his case. Would the French Prosecution -have any objection to that? I mean—it may be that some of the -documents are no longer in the possession of the French Prosecution, -but those that are in their possession, would the French -Prosecution object to Dr. Nelte’s seeing those?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. DUBOST: May I remind the Tribunal that the documents -which we rejected were not rejected as useless in the beginning, -but as not presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin, as to -the conditions under which we obtained them and as to their -probative value.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of -these documents were rejected by the Court itself. Those which -we did not consider are of the same character as those documents -which were rejected. We did not submit them because we could -not tell you where, when, and how they had been discovered. For -the most part, they are documents that fell into the hands of -combat troops in battle, and under the terms of jurisprudence do -not offer sufficient guarantee to be retained.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as they are still in my possession I am ready to communicate -them to Defense Counsel, it being clearly understood that -they will not attach to them any higher merit, any higher value -than I did.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all -Dr. Nelte wants is to see any documents which you have brought -to see whether he can find anything in them that he thinks may -help the case of the defendant for whom he appears, and I understand -you would not have any objection to his doing that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. DUBOST: I would only answer the Defense Counsel that -some of those documents were rejected by your Tribunal when I -presented them. -<span class='pageno' title='233' id='Page_233'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it would not apply to documents -which have been rejected by the Court. Very well. We -will not decide the matter now. We will consider it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Would the Tribunal announce its decision regarding -the first question which I brought up, namely, whether it is -sufficient that I refer to documents which have been presented -by the Prosecution without submitting them myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to -support Dr. Nelte’s suggestion. If a document has already been put -in, I should have thought it was right and convenient that Counsel -for the Defense could comment on it without putting it in again, -and should have full right of comment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of -occasions that any document which has been put in evidence, or a -part of which has been put in evidence, can, of course, be used -by the Defense in order to explain or criticize the part that has -been put in. It may be that as a matter of informing the Tribunal -as to the document, it may be necessary to have part of the document, -which has not been put in evidence, put in now in order -that it may be translated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it -would be convenient if I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the -Prosecution on his list of documents, or whether he would like to -develop it himself. I can quite shortly do that if it would be -convenient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the -documents in the list fall into that category which has just been -mentioned. Documents 3 to 9, 17 and 29, 30 and 31 all appear to -be in, and therefore Dr. Nelte may comment in accordance with -your ruling.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are a number of documents which are affidavits, -either of defendants or intended witnesses: Documents 12, 13, 22, -23, 24, 25, and 28.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal may remember that in the case of the witness, -Dr. Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the -witness, “Is your affidavit true?” and then reading the affidavit -to save time. The Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s -pursuing that course, should he so desire; but, of course, where -a witness is going to be called as a witness, he will have to verify -his affidavit on oath, in the submission of the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='234' id='Page_234'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness -is here, you have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s reading the affidavit -and the witness being then liable to cross-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, “I agree; -I verify the facts that are in my affidavit.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might save considerable time -in the examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate -in that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? -Is that what he means?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Entirely.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were -presented to the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they -did not wish to cross-examine. That would save the witnesses being -here or being brought here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of -Dr. Lehmann. I think all the other cases are either defendants or -witnesses with regard to whom there are certain points which the -Prosecution would like to ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are three documents to which there are no objections -to their being used: 18, 26, and 27.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That leaves a number of documents as to whose use I am not -quite sure at the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain -how he wishes to use them, and that may remove the difficulty -of the Prosecution. If the Tribunal will be good enough to look -at 1 and 2, 1 is an expert’s opinion on state laws concerning the -Führer state, and the importance of the Führer order, and Document -2 is an order of the Führer, Number 1.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If it is desired to use these so as to controvert Article 8 of the -Charter, the Prosecution will object. That is a question of superior -orders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain -the backgrounds as a matter of history, that may be a different -matter. Now, the next one is Document 10—a need for a ministry -of rearmament, taken from. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, -ought we to accept the opinion of an expert on such a point?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We do not at -all. I am afraid that my second remark really applied to the order -of the Führer. That might be used as a background or it might be -<span class='pageno' title='235' id='Page_235'></span> -used for purposes of mitigation or explanation of how a thing took -place, but I respectfully agree that the expert’s opinion on state -laws cannot be used with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. -Of course, the law of any other state may be a question of fact -as far as the Tribunal is concerned just as it would be a question -of fact in an English court: “What is the law of another state?” -As I say, I want to reserve emphatically the position of Article 8 -with regard to these two documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 -deal with rearmament in other countries. I do not want to prevent -the Defense using illustrations, but again I reserve the position most -emphatically that rearmament in other countries cannot be an -excuse for aggressive war and would be irrelevant on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, 15 and 16 refer to books by Major General Fuller and -Major General Temperley, who are both ex-officers, who were -journalists during this period. As far as any question of fact that -is stated in these books, if Dr. Nelte will let us know what the -passage is, we shall see whether we could admit it, but the general -views of Major General Fuller and Major General Temperley we -would submit to be irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, 19, 20, and 21 are books about Austria. Again the -Prosecution reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion -in Austria with regard to an Anschluss is irrelevant when considering -the question of the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 -which took place in 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents -and, as I say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to -three of which there is nothing really between us in principle, -and with regard to the fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve -these various points which I have mentioned. Again I want to make -clear that the Prosecution does not object to Dr. Nelte’s obtaining -any of these books for the purpose of preparing his case, but we -want them to make clear at the earliest opportunity what their -position is with regard to their use.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: With respect to the first three categories, the Prosecution -agrees with me that I can confine myself to the last category -which begins with Documents 1 and 2. One of the fundamental -questions of this Trial, which at first glance appears a purely legal -problem, is the question of the so-called Führer state (Führerstaat) -and Führer order (Führerbefehl). This question has, however, important -actual significance here at this Trial, also of a factual -importance. For instance, the Defendant Keitel, as a result of his -particular position, was to the utmost degree affected by this Führer -<span class='pageno' title='236' id='Page_236'></span> -state principle and acted accordingly as he was continuously in -personal contact with the incarnation of this principle, namely, -Hitler. It is not as if Article 8 of the Charter remained unaffected -by it. It will, however, so I assume, be possible to prove that -Article 8 of the Charter is not applicable here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the Führer Order Number 1, Document Number 2, the -Tribunal itself will, upon hearing the order, be able to judge -whether it bears any relevance. This order, Führer Order Number -1, from Keitel Document Book Number 1, reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“a) No one is to have any knowledge of secret matters which -do not fall within his sphere.</p> - -<p>“b) No one is to obtain more information than he needs for -the fulfillment of the task set him.</p> - -<p>“c) No one is to receive information earlier than is necessary -for the duties assigned to him.</p> - -<p>“d) No one is to pass on to subordinates more secret orders or -at an earlier date than is indispensable for the attainment -of the purpose.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number 1, that is, the expert opinion on the Führer -state and Führer order, in connection with this Führer Order -Number 1, is to serve as proof for the fact that there can be no -question of conspiracy in the sense of the Indictment. Therefore, -I request the Tribunal to admit those two documents as relevant. -Documents Number 10 and Number 11, and also to a certain -degree, Number 16, are submitted as proof that the principles -which the Defendant Keitel, as a soldier and a German, considered -to be important, namely, rearmament up to a point of securing -a respectable position for Germany among the council of nations, -were not only postulated by the German people, but also appreciated -and approved by important persons abroad. This subject is -to be proved by submission of articles by a British, a French, and -an American author, military men, all of whom hold a high -reputation for their writings on military matters. Among these is -the article “Total War,” by Major General Fuller, my Document 15, -as well as the book by the British Major General Temperley, -<span class='it'>The Whispering Gallery of Europe</span>. Mr. Fuller, for instance, writes -in his article, that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is nonsense to state that he”—Hitler—“wanted war. War -could not bring him the rebirth of his nation. What he needed -was an honorable, secure peace.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The point to be proved here is that any aggressive intentions -would of themselves be incompatible with the pronouncements of -Hitler and the leading Nazis, if one believes in their sincerity. The -defendant believed in the sincerity of these pronouncements and to -this end he referred to the opinion of important persons abroad. -<span class='pageno' title='237' id='Page_237'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think those are the documents to which the Prosecution raised -certain objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You have not mentioned 19 to 21, which -documents are said to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents—Number 19, “The Cultural -and Political Importance of the Anschluss,” and Document 20, “The -Way Toward the Anschluss,” and the third, “The Anschluss in the -International Press,” dated 1931—are to prove the defendant could -assume, and was justified in so doing, that the overwhelming -majority of Austrian people welcomed the Anschluss with Germany. -These are articles and memoranda of the Austro-German Peoples -Union, the chairman of which was the Social Democrat Reichstag -President Loebe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I should like to make only one additional application -to the Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have -been unable to mention earlier since they were not submitted until -the sitting of 22 February. I shall now submit this application. -It refers to 11 documents, all of which were presented during the -Friday sitting in order to prove the complicity of Keitel in the -destruction during the retreat and in regard to forced labor of -prisoners of war and civilian population. From the contents of -these documents submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes apparent -that, according to evidence I have already offered, a large number -of the accusations of the Prosecution are to be attributed to the -fact that every document which dealt in any way with military -matters was simply charged to the OKW and Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents -have already been put in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to -which Sir David agreed. They could be touched on by you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: That is correct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is no need to make any fresh application -in connection with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: When I made this additional application I had not -yet received Sir David’s consent. Besides this seems to be a particularly -singular and convincing case because, on one day, 11 documents -were submitted, all of which were used as accusations -against Keitel, but which all showed by their contents that they do -not apply to him or the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. There is only one other thing -that I wanted to ask you. You asked at an earlier stage for the -<span class='pageno' title='238' id='Page_238'></span> -evidence from Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg and in -both, cases the Tribunal granted you interrogatories. I do not know -whether you are withdrawing your application in respect to those -cases or whether you have seen the answers to the interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I have, in accordance with the suggestion, sent those -interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith as well as to Otto Wettberg. -Depending on the reply I shall receive from those two -witnesses, I shall or shall not submit them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You have submitted the one for Otto Wettberg, -have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, but I have not received it back.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Exhibit Number 1, would you -explain a little bit more what Number 1 is going to be? It appears -to be the opinion of an expert witness on the meaning of the Führer -precept. Is that what you intend?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes. It is an article in the field of constitutional -law on the structure and significance of what is known as the Leader -State (Führerstaat).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant -Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, it is my -duty to submit to the Tribunal evidence on the last count of the -Indictment. “Crimes against Humanity” are dealt with in Count -Four of the Indictment, and by Article 6, and particularly Subparagraph -C of Article 6, of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit evidence of crimes which the Hitlerites committed -on the territories of the temporarily occupied areas of the Soviet -Union, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Crimes against Humanity—just as the other crimes of the -German fascists for which evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal -by my colleagues—originated in the criminal nature of -fascism, in its endeavors to dominate the world by predatory seizure -of whole states in the East and in the West, and by enslavement and -mass extermination of people. These crimes were put into effect by -adoption of the cannibalistic theories of German fascism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Elements forming the concept of Crimes against Humanity are -to be found in nearly all the criminal acts of the Hitlerites. For -instance, a considerable amount of probative facts in corroboration -of the gravity of the crimes committed by the German fascists has -already been submitted to the Tribunal during the presentation of -the Count concerning War Crimes against the civilian population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The criminal violation by the Hitlerites of the laws and customs -of war, as well as the mass extermination of prisoners of war, are -<span class='pageno' title='239' id='Page_239'></span> -some of the gravest Crimes against Humanity. At the same time, -the concept Crimes against Humanity is considerably broader in -scope than any definition of German fascist crimes, of which proofs -have been hitherto submitted to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Together with the arrival of German forces and the appearance -of the swastika on official buildings, life of the inhabitants of the -temporarily occupied eastern European countries seemed to stop. -The merciless fascist machine tried to force them to be deprived of -all that which, as a result of centuries of human development, had -become an integral part of humanity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, death hung over them constantly, but on their way to -death they were forced to pass through numerous and agonizing -phases, insulting to human dignity, which constitute, in their -entirety, the charge entitled in the Indictment “Crimes against -Humanity.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Attempts were made to force them to forget their own names by -hanging a number around their necks or by sewing a classification -mark on their sleeves. They were deprived of the right to speak or -to read in their mother tongue. They were deprived of their homes, -their families, their native country, forcibly deported hundreds and -thousands of kilometers away. They were deprived of the right to -procreate. They were daily scoffed at and insulted. Their feelings -and beliefs were jeered at and ridiculed. And, finally, they were -deprived of their last right—to live.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The numerous investigations noted not only the state of extreme -physical exhaustion of the victims of German fascist atrocities; they -also usually mentioned the state of deep moral depression of those -who, by the hazards of fate, escaped the fascist hell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A long period of time was necessary for these victims of German -fascism to return once again to a world of normal conceptions and -activities and to man’s conventions for human society. All this is -very hard to express in legal formula, but, in my opinion, it is very -important in the Indictment of the major war criminals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Polish Government -which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as -Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). The -quotation which I should like now to read is on Page 10 of the document -book. On Page 70 of the Russian text of this report, there is -a quotation from the statement of Jacob Vernik, a carpenter from -Warsaw, who spent a year in the extermination camp of Treblinka 2. -Sometimes the official German documents refer to “Treblinka 2” as -“Treblinka B,” but it is one and the same. This was one of the most -terrible centers for mass extermination of people, created by German -fascists. In my statement, I shall submit to Your Honors evidence -connected with the existence of this camp. -<span class='pageno' title='240' id='Page_240'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is what Vernik said in presenting a report on Treblinka to -the Polish Government; a report which, as he stressed in his -foreword, was his only reason “to continue his pitiful life”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Awake or asleep I see terrible visions of thousands of people -calling for help, begging for life and mercy.</p> - -<p>“I have lost my family, I have myself led them to death; I -have myself built the death chambers in which they were -murdered.</p> - -<p>“I am afraid of everything, I fear that everything I have seen -is written on my face. An old and broken life is a heavy -burden, but I must carry on and live to tell the world what -German crimes and barbarism I saw.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The persons who came to Treblinka entered, as I said, the ante-chamber -of death. But were they the only victims of this fate? An -analysis of probative facts connected with the crimes of the German -fascists irrefutably testifies to the fact that the same fate was shared -not only by those who were sent to special extermination camps, but -also all those who became the victims of these criminals in the -temporarily occupied countries of Eastern Europe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the Tribunal’s permission to bring in evidence a short -quotation from a document already submitted to the Tribunal as -Document Number USSR-46—the report of the Extraordinary State -Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes committed in the -city and region of Orel. In the text of this document there is a -special communication of a famed Russian scientist, a doctor, the -President of the Academy of Medical Science and member of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, Academician -Burdenko. The Tribunal will find this communication on Page 14 -of the document book, Paragraph 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The scenes I had to witness”—says Burdenko—“surpassed -the wildest imagination. Our joy at the sight of the delivered -people was dimmed by the expression of stupor on their faces.</p> - -<p>“This led one to reflect—what was the matter? Evidently the -sufferings they had undergone had stamped upon them -equality of life and death. I observed these people during -3 days. I bandaged them, I evacuated them, but their physical -stupor did not change. Something similar could be noticed -during the first days on the faces of the doctors.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not, Your Honors, waste time in drawing attention to the -long and well-known extracts from <span class='it'>Mein Kampf</span> or the <span class='it'>Myth of the -Twentieth Century</span>. We are interested, in the first place, in the -criminal practices of the German fascist fiends.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already said above, that death constantly hung over the -people who became the victims of fascism. Death could come -<span class='pageno' title='241' id='Page_241'></span> -unexpectedly, together with the appearance in one or another place -of a Sonderkommando; but at the same time, a death sentence would -be pronounced for any act in these special decisions so mockingly -called German fascist “laws.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I and other members of the Soviet Prosecution already have -given numerous examples of these terroristic laws, directives, and -decrees of the German fascist authorities. I do not wish to repeat -myself, but I beg the Tribunal’s permission to quote one of these -documents as it concerns all the temporarily seized eastern territories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The only justification for the publication of this document for its -author, the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, is that these temporarily -occupied districts were populated by non-Germans. This document -is a characteristic evidence of the persecution of people for racial, -national, or political motives. I beg the Tribunal to enter in the -record, as Exhibit Number USSR-395 (Document Number USSR-395), -the photostat of the so-called third decree supplementing the penal -directives for the Eastern territories which was issued by Alfred -Rosenberg on 17 February 1942. Your Honors will find this document -on Pages 19 and 20 of the document book. I shall read in -full, beginning with Paragraph 1:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The death penalty, or, in lesser cases, penal servitude will -be inflicted upon: Those who undertake to use violence against -the German Reich or against the high authority established in -the occupied territories; those who undertake to commit -violence against a Reich citizen or a person of German -nationality for his or her belonging to this German nationality; -those who undertake to use violence against a member of the -Wehrmacht or its followers, the German police including its -auxiliary forces, the Reich Labor Service, a German authority -or institution, or the organizations of the NSDAP; those who -appeal or incite to disobedience of orders or directives issued -by the German authorities; those who with premeditation -damage the furniture of German authorities and institutions -or things used by the latter for their work or in the public -interest; those who undertake to assist anti-German movements -or to maintain the organizational connection of groups -prohibited by the German authorities; those who participate -in or incite hostile activity and thus reveal anti-German -mentality or who by their behavior lower or injure the -authority or the welfare of the German State and people; -those who premeditatively commit arson and thereby damage -German interests in general or the property . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you read this before?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I checked the transcript, and I -do not think that this has been read into the record. -<span class='pageno' title='242' id='Page_242'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It may be that similar orders -were read; maybe those of Frank or some other orders. They are -all alike. In any case I could not find any mention of this document -in the transcript.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . damage German interests in general or the property of a -Reich citizen or persons of German nationality.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 2 is very characteristic:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Furthermore, the death penalty and, in lesser cases, penal -servitude is to be inflicted upon: Those who agree to commit -any punishable action as foreseen by Paragraph 1; those who -enter into serious negotiations on that subject; those who offer -their services to commit such an action or accept such an -offer; or those who possess credible information on such an -action or its intention at a moment when the danger can still -be averted, and willfully refrain from warning the German -authorities or the menaced person in due time.</p> - -<p>“Paragraph 3. An offense not coming under Paragraphs 1 and 2 -is to be punished by death, even if this penalty is not provided -for by the general German criminal laws and by decrees of -German authorities, if the offense is of a particularly base -type or for other reasons is particularly serious. In such cases -the death penalty is also permissible for juvenile hard -criminals.</p> - -<p>“Paragraph 4. (1) If there is insufficient justification for -turning the case over to competent courts-martial, the special -courts are competent. (2) The special instructions issued for -the Armed Forces are not hereby affected.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip Paragraph 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This decree of Rosenberg’s was only one link in the chain of -crimes committed by the leaders of the German fascism directed -toward exterminating the Slav peoples.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass on to the first part of my statement, which is entitled, -“Extermination of Slav Peoples.” In this part I shall show how this -criminal purpose of the Hitlerites to exterminate the Slav peoples -was carried out. I shall quote data from the report of the Yugoslav -Government, which is to be found on Page 56 of the Russian text or -on Page 76, Paragraph 3, document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Apart from the thousands of Yugoslavs who died in battle, -the occupants exterminated at least one and a half to two -million people, mostly women, children, and aged persons. Of -the 15 million prewar Yugoslav population, in the relatively -<span class='pageno' title='243' id='Page_243'></span> -short period of 4 years, almost 14 percent of the entire -population was exterminated.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Czechoslovak Government, on Pages 36 and -37 of the Russian text, there is proof of a plan conceived by the -Hitlerite criminals for the forceful expulsion of all Czechs and the -settling of German colonists in Czechoslovakia. The report quotes -an excerpt from a statement of Karl Hermann Frank, who admitted -the existence of this plan and declared that he, Frank, had compiled -a memorandum in which he objected to a similar plan. I quote the -excerpt from the statement of Karl Hermann Frank, which the Tribunal -can find on Page 37 in the document book, fourth paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I considered this plan senseless as, in my opinion, the vacuum -created by these measures would have seriously upset the -vital functioning of Bohemia and Moravia for various reasons -of geopolitical, traffic, industrial, and other character; and the -immediate filling of this vacuum with new German settlers -was impossible.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In Poland a regime of extermination of the Slav population was -put into effect by diverse criminal methods, among which driving -people to an extreme state of exhaustion by excessive labor and -subsequent death from hunger, was most prevalent. The criminals -quite consciously embarked upon the extermination of millions of -people by hunger, which is attested by a number of documents -already quoted by me and my colleagues in part, namely, the diary -of Hans Frank.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote a few short extracts from this document. Here is -an excerpt concerning the minutes of a conference held by the -Governor General on 7 December 1942 in Kraków. The Tribunal -will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 89 of the document -book, in the first column of the text, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Should the new food supply plan be put into effect, it means -that for the city of Warsaw and its surroundings alone 500,000 -people will no longer receive food relief.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And here is another short excerpt from the minutes of a governmental -conference held on 24 August 1942. The Tribunal will find -it on Page 90 of the document book, first paragraph of the text. Dr. -Frank states:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“With all the difficulties which arise from the illness of -workers, or the breaking down of your co-operatives, you -must always bear in mind that it is much better if a Pole -collapses than if the Germans are defeated. The fact that we -shall be condemning 1,200,000 Jews to death by starvation -should be mentioned incidentally. Of course, if the Jews do -not die from starvation, it is to be hoped that anti-Jewish -measures will be expedited in the future.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='244' id='Page_244'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third short quotation is an excerpt from the minutes of a -labor conference held by the political leaders of the Labor Front of -the NSDAP in the Government General, on 14 December 1942. The -Tribunal will find it on the reverse of Page 89 of the document book, -second column, second paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . we are faced with the following problem: Shall we be -able, as from February, to exclude from general food supply -2 million persons of non-German nationality or not?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In his preliminary speech, the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., -while speaking of Crimes against Humanity, referred to the notes of -Martin Bormann. The notes of Martin Bormann were presented to -the Court under Exhibit Number USSR-172 (Document Number -USSR-172) in particular. The Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. quoted -the following lines, which the Tribunal can find on Page 97 of the -document book, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In summing up, the Führer once more stated: The least German -workman and the least German peasant must always -stand economically 10 percent higher than any Pole.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>How were things in reality? I should like to show that, with full -approval, the Defendant Frank put these Hitler orders into effect in -Polish territory. I beg the Tribunal to take for evidence an original -German document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Among the other fascist institutions carrying out various pseudo-scientific -experiments, the German criminals created a special -institute for economic research. This institute issued a document -entitled, “What the Polish Problem Means for War Economy of -Upper Silesia.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fascist “scientific” institute decided to make such investigations -in order to clarify the reason why the output of Polish workers -became considerably reduced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Two short excerpts will testify to the aims of this investigation -better than anything else. On Page 39 of this original document we -read—the Tribunal will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 101, -of the document book, second paragraph. I submit this document as -Exhibit Number USSR-282 (Document Number USSR-282). I begin -the quotation which is on Page 101 of the document book, second -paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“This investigation is in no way to be construed as propaganda -to arouse pity.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 149 of the quoted document—the Tribunal will find this -on Page 101, third paragraph, of the document book—it is said:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“We raise our voices not to defend the Poles, but to protect -the war production for the Armed Forces.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='245' id='Page_245'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Quoting these two short excerpts characterizing the aims and -nature of this investigation, I further quote a few excerpts which -show the status of the Polish worker and the practical realization -by the Defendant Frank of the above-mentioned directives of Hitler. -I quote on Page 38 of the original of the document, which corresponds -to Page 101, Paragraph 7 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Information concerning the situation of the Polish population -and considerations as to which measures would be the most -suitable in this connection disagree on many points; but there -is general agreement on one point, which can be summed up -here in three words: The Poles are starving! Already some -passing observations corroborate these conclusions. One of our -investigators visited a war production plant during the lunch -recess. The workers are standing or sitting apathetically, -warming themselves in the sun, and here and there smoking. -The investigator reports that of 80 persons, only one has a -piece of bread for lunch. The others, although all working 10 -to 12 hours a day, have nothing.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I pass to Page 72 of the original, which corresponds to Page 102 -of the document book; there is this quotation.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Observations made in the factories prove that the present -rations of the Polish workers do not allow them enough food -to take with them to work. In many cases, the workers do not -even have a piece of bread. When some do bring breakfast, it -is only coffee and one or two pieces of dry bread or raw -potatoes; at the worst time, they did not even have this, but -raw carrots, which were then roasted on a stove during work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue my quotation on Page 150 of the same document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In this connection it could be stated that on visiting the -mines, it appeared that nearly 10 percent of the Polish -workers went to work underground with only dry bread, or -raw potatoes cut in slices which they warmed afterwards on -a stove.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The institute began its “scientific calculations” with a comparison -of the calories received by the Poles in Upper Silesia and the calories -received by the German population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not quote large excerpts from the document, but will limit -myself to short facts only. I start on Page 63 of this report, which -corresponds to Page 102, last paragraph of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Comparison of the number of calories received by the Poles -in Upper Silesia with the number of calories allocated to the -German population indicates that the Poles receive 24 percent -less than the Germans. This difference reaches 26 percent on -<span class='pageno' title='246' id='Page_246'></span> -food ration cards of nonworking Poles. For youths from 14 -to 20, the difference in rations allocated to Germans and to -Poles reached almost 33 percent. However, it must be stressed -that this only applies to working youths over 14.</p> - -<p>“The difference between what Polish and German children -from 10 to 14 receive is even more striking. The difference -here is not less than 65 percent. The looks of these underfed -youths already testify to this. In a similar way Polish children -under 10 receive up to 60 percent less than German children.</p> - -<p>“If on the other hand the doctors state that the food conditions -of the babies are not so unfavorable, it is only an -imaginary contradiction. As long as a mother nurses her child, -the child gets everything from that source. The consequences -of the underfeeding are felt in this period not by the child but -by the mother. Her health and working capacity are impaired -considerably from the undernourishment.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue on Page 178 of the original which corresponds to -Page 103, Paragraph 2 in the second document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In all categories the Polish youth in comparison with the -German is more wretched. The difference in rations of the -Poles and Germans reaches 60 percent.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Extracts from the report of the German Labor Front cited in this -investigation also offer some interest. Particularly on Page 76 are -quoted excerpts from the report of the German Labor Front, dated -10 October 1941, after a visit to one of the coal mines in Poland:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It was established that daily in various villages Polish -miners fall from exhaustion. . . . As the workers constantly -complained of stomach pains, doctors were consulted, who -answered that this was a symptom of undernourishment.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would conclude the description of the Polish workers’ physical -condition drawn by the German criminals themselves, and, what is -more, by the “learned” criminals, by a short quotation from the same -report which the Tribunal will find on Page 106, Paragraph 6 of the -document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The management of the factories constantly stresses that it -is no longer possible by threats of deportation to concentration -camps to incite to work underfed people incapable of physical -effort. Sooner or later there comes a day when the weakened -body can no longer work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>There is also in this document a descriptive sketch of the legal -status of the Polish worker during the German occupation which -bears no possibility of double interpretation. This descriptive sketch -is all the more valuable because, as was already stressed above, -<span class='pageno' title='247' id='Page_247'></span> -the authors of the investigation report expressly emphasized that -“all humanitarian tendencies whatsoever were alien to them.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I begin the quotation of the produced document on Page 127 -which corresponds to Page 110, second paragraph of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The law does not recognize any legal claim of any member -of the Polish nation in any sphere of life. Whatever is -granted a Pole is done voluntarily by the German masters. -This legal situation is perhaps most clearly mirrored in -‘the Pole’s lack of possession in the eyes of the law.’ In the -administration of justice Poles are not permitted to conduct -their cases before a court. In criminal procedure the viewpoint -of obedience dominates. The execution of legal regulations -is in the first place the task of the police, who can -decide at their discretion or refer individual cases to the -courts.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>According to an order, dated 26 August 1942 Polish as well as -German workers were obliged to take out insurance against illness, -accidents, and disability. The deductions from the wages for this -purpose were larger for the Poles than for the German. However, -the German workers profited by this insurance, whereas, in -actuality, the Poles were deprived of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As proof of this I shall present to the Tribunal two short -excerpts from the same investigation report which Your Honors -will find on Page 111 in the document book, Paragraph 4. It corresponds -to Page 134 of the original text of the investigation report -quoted above:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Insurance against accidents, which is incumbent on the trade -unions, involved particularly stringent measures for the -Poles. The recognition of disability caused by an accident -is much more limited than in the case of Germans. Disability -for the loss of an eye is 30 percent for a German and -25 percent for a Pole. The payment of a subvention depends -on 33⅓ percent disability.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue my quotation on Page 135 of the original document, -that is to say, on Page 111, last paragraph of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The most stringent measures are provided for the dependents -of fatally injured persons. The maximum a widow -can receive is half of that granted by the insurance to -Germans—and this only in case she has to support four -children under 15 years of age, or is herself an invalid.</p> - -<p>“The restriction on the rights of Poles is illustrated by an -example: A German widow with three children receives -80 percent of the yearly salary of her fatally injured -<span class='pageno' title='248' id='Page_248'></span> -husband; from an annual income of 2,000 marks she receives -1,600 marks per year, but a Pole in a similar situation would -receive nothing.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The major German fascist war criminals not only sent into the -temporarily occupied Eastern territories soldiers and the SS, but -specially appointed fascist “scientists,” “consultants in economic -problems,” and all sorts of “investigators” followed after. Some -of them were detached from Ribbentrop’s office; some others were -sent by Rosenberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to enter into the record as evidence one of -these documents. I submit it under Document Number USSR-218. -I mean the report of the representative attached by the Ministry -of Foreign Affairs to the command of the 17th Army, Captain -Pfleiderer, and addressed to his colleague Von Rantzau from the -information service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These -documents were discovered by units of the Red Army on the -Dirksen estate in Upper Silesia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of a reading of these documents, it can be -concluded that in 1941-42 Pfleiderer made a trip covering the -following route through the occupied territories on the route -Yaroslavl in the Ukraine, Lvov, Tarnopol, Proskurov, Vinnitza, -Uman, Kirovograd, Alexandria, and Krementshoug on the Dnieper.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The purpose of this trip was to study economic and political -conditions in the occupied territories of the Ukraine. That the -author of this document was also completely free of so-called -humanitarian tendencies, can be seen from the short excerpt from -his report dated 28 October 1941, where Pfleiderer writes—the -Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 113, second paragraph -of the document book. I quote only one line:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“. . . there is the urgent necessity to press out of the country -everything to secure the food supply of Germany.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But even with such proclivity to cruelty and rapacity, Pfleiderer -evidently was abashed by the conduct of his compatriots to the -extent that he deemed it necessary to bring it to the attention of -the highest authorities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I quote -the report of Pfleiderer which is entitled:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Conditions for the Guarantee of Supply and for Producing -the Largest Possible Food Surplus in the Ukraine.</p> - -<p>“. . . 3) Frame of mind and living conditions of the population -by the end of October 1941.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will find this part on Page 114, third paragraph -of the document book: -<span class='pageno' title='249' id='Page_249'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The frame of mind of the population generally became worse -a few weeks after the occupation of the territory by our -troops. The reason for it? We display . . . inner hostility and -even hatred toward this country, and arrogance toward the -people. . . . The third year of war and the necessity of -wintering in an unfriendly country causes many difficulties, -but they must be surmounted with courage and self-discipline. -We must not work off our discontent over this -country on the population. . . . How often it happened that, -acting against the rules of psychology and committing -mistakes that we could easily have avoided, we lost all -sympathy of the population. The people cannot understand -the shooting of exhausted prisoners of war in villages and -larger localities and the leaving of their bodies there. As the -troops are entrusted with a broad authority for self-provisioning, -the <span class='it'>kolkhozes</span> along the main roads and near the -larger towns for the most part lack pedigree cattle, seeds, -seed potatoes (Poltava). Evidently, the supplying of our own -troops stands first; however, the system of supply in itself is -not immaterial: Psychologically, requisitioning the last hen is -as unreasonable as it is economically unreasonable to kill -the last pig or the last calf.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I continue my quotation, Paragraph 3, Page 115 of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The population . . . is without leadership. It stands apart and -feels that we look down on it, that we see sabotage in their -tempo and methods of work, that we do not take any steps -to find a way to an understanding.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>A similar document is the document submitted as Exhibit Number -USSR-439, which was graciously given to us by our United States -colleagues. It was registered by the American Prosecution as -Document Number 303-PS, but was not filed. It is a political report -of the German professor, Doctor Paul W. Thomsen, written on -the forms of the State University of Posen Biological Paleontological -Institute and was indexed by the author himself, “Not for -publication.” Your Honors will find this document on Page 116 of -the document book. This document also introduces us into this -field of complete lawlessness and tyrannical arbitrariness toward -the local population of the temporarily occupied districts of the -Soviet Union. These observations were made by this fascist -professor during his trip through the temporarily occupied territories -of the Soviet Union “from Minsk to the Crimea.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I refer to two short excerpts from this document. The quotation -which I have read into the record testifies to the absence of any -humanitarian tendencies on the part of that author and if -<span class='pageno' title='250' id='Page_250'></span> -Paul Thomsen brought back from his trip only “the most depressing -impression” that is only further proof of the depths of cruelty and -brutality to which the German fascists were willing to go. The -Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page 116 of the document book. -I begin the quotation. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 26 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='251' id='Page_251'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY</span><br/> Tuesday, 26 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to explain the Tribunal’s decision -with reference to General Halder and General Warlimont.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Would Dr. Nelte kindly come to the Tribunal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nelte, whether you were the only one -of the defendants’ counsel who wished to call General Halder and -General Warlimont?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: No, besides myself, so far as I know, my colleagues -Dr. Laternser, Professor Dr. Kraus, and Professor Dr. Exner have -called both General Halder and General Warlimont.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I understand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the Tribunal’s decision is this: The Tribunal ordered, when -the Soviet prosecutor wished to put in the affidavits of these two -generals, that if they were put in, the witnesses must be produced -for cross-examination. But in view of the fact that defendants’ -counsel have asked to call these witnesses themselves, the Tribunal -is willing that the defendants’ counsel should decide whether they -prefer that those two generals should be produced now, during -the Prosecution’s case, for cross-examination, or should be called -thereafter during the defendants’ case for examination by the -defendants, in which case, of course, they would be liable to cross-examination -on behalf of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But it must be clearly understood, in accordance with the order -which the Tribunal made the other day—either yesterday or the -previous day, I forgot which it was—that these witnesses, like -other witnesses, can only be called once, and when they are called, -each of the defendants’ counsel who wishes to put questions to -them must do so at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if there were any difference of opinion among defendants’ -counsel, one defendant’s counsel wishing to have these two generals -produced now during the Prosecution’s case for cross-examination, -and other defendants’ counsel wishing to have them called hereafter -as witnesses on their behalf during the course of their case, -then the Tribunal consider that in view of the order which they -have already made, Generals Halder and Warlimont ought to be -produced and called now. And the same rule would apply then. -<span class='pageno' title='252' id='Page_252'></span> -They could only be called once, and any questions which the other -defendants’ counsel wish to be put to them should be put to them -then. But the decision as to whether they should be called now or -whether they should be called during the course of the defendants’ -case is accorded to defendants’ counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is that clear?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I request to hear the decisions of the various -Defense Counsel at the beginning of the afternoon session. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, certainly. You can let us -know during the afternoon session, at the beginning of the afternoon -session, what the decision of defendants’ counsel is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation of the -political report of Professor Paul Thomsen, which was already submitted -at yesterday’s afternoon session to the Tribunal. Your -Honors will find it on Page 116 of the document book. I start -quoting—and quote only two short excerpts from this political -report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I consider it is my duty, although I am only here in the East -on a specific scientific mission, to add a general political -outline to my actual reports. I must admit, openly and in all -honesty, that I return home with the most grievous impressions.</p> - -<p>“In this fateful hour of our nation every mistake we make -may result in the most disastrous consequences. A Polish or -a Czech problem can be crushed because the biological forces -of our people are sufficient for that purpose.</p> - -<p>“Remnants of people like Estonians, Lithuanians, and Letts -have to adapt themselves to us or they will perish. Things -are quite different in the immense Russian area, of vital -necessity to us as a basis for raw materials.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Here I interrupt my quotation and continue on Page 117 of the -document book, Paragraphs 10 and 11—I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I do not dare to voice an opinion on the economic measures, -such as, for instance, the abolition of the free market in Kiev, -which has been taken as a heavy blow by the population, -since I am in no position to observe the entire situation. The -‘sergeant major attitude,’ the beatings and shouting in the -streets, the senseless destruction of scientific institutions -which is still going on as strong as ever in Dniepropetrovsk, -should cease immediately and be punished severely.</p> - -<p>“Kiev, 19 October 1942; Professor Dr. Paul W. Thomsen.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='253' id='Page_253'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The German fascist theory of Germanization, already well -known to the Tribunal, announced that not the people but the -territories were to be germanized.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal that a similar Hitlerite -crime was to have been committed in Yugoslavia. This crime could -not be perpetrated because of the liberation movement which flared -up all over Yugoslavia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a short excerpt from the statement of the Yugoslav -Government, which is on Page 68, Paragraph 7 in the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Immediately after the entry of the German troops into Slovenia, -the Germans began to put into effect their long premeditated -plan for the Germanization of the annexed regions -of Slovenia. It was perfectly clear to the leading Nazi circles -that a successful Germanization of Slovenia could not be -realized unless the greater part of the nationally and socially -conscious elements had previously been removed; and in -order to weaken the resistance of the mass of the people -towards the Nazi authorities engaged in the task of Germanization, -it would be essential to lessen them numerically and -destroy them economically.</p> - -<p>“The German plan foresaw the complete removal of all the -Slovenes from certain regions of Slovenia, and their repopulation -by Germans”—Germans from Bessarabia and so-called -“Gottscheer” Germans.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit a passage and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“A few days after the seizure of Slovenia, central offices were -organized for resettlement control. The headquarters staff -was established in Maribor (Marburg on the Drava) and Bled -(Veldes).</p> - -<p>“At the same time, on 22 April 1941, a ‘Decree for the -Strengthening of German Folkdom’ was published. The -immediate aim of this decree was the confiscation of property -of all persons and institutions antagonistically inclined -towards the Reich. Naturally, all those, who in accordance -with the aforesaid plan were to be deported from Slovenia, -were included in this category.</p> - -<p>“The Hitlerites proceeded to the practical realization of this -plan. They arrested a large number of persons registered for -deportation to Serbia and Croatia. The treatment of the -arrested persons was extremely cruel. Their entire property -was confiscated in the interest of the Reich. Numerous -assembly points were organized and practically turned into -concentration camps, in Maribor, Zelie, and other localities.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='254' id='Page_254'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>As regards the treatment of arrested persons in these points, the -statement of the Yugoslav Government reads as follows—the members -of the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 69, Paragraph 4, -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The internees were left without food; in unhygienic conditions; -the personnel of the camp subjected them to bodily -and mental torture. All the camp commanders and personnel -belonged to the SS. Among them were Germans from Carinthia -and Styria who hated anything connected with Slovenia -in particular, and Yugoslavia in general.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following sentence is typical:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The members of the so-called Kulturbund”—Cultural Union—“particularly -distinguished themselves for their cruelty.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In corroboration of this Hitlerite crime, I submit to the Tribunal, -as Exhibit Number USSR-139 (Document Number USSR-139), a -letter from the German Command in Smeredov, addressed to the -Yugoslav quisling, Commissioner Stefanovitch, ordering him to -report what the possibilities were for transferring to Serbia a large -number of Slovenes. Your Honors will find this document on -Page 119 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the report of the Yugoslav Government, Page 49 of the Russian -text, which corresponds to Page 59, Paragraph 7, of the document -book of the Tribunal, it is stated that the Germans primarily -intended to transfer 260,000 Slovenes to Serbia. However, the realization -of this plan met with a number of difficulties. In this connection -I should like to quote a paragraph from the report of the -Yugoslav Government:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“But in view of the fact that the transportation to Serbia of -such a very large number of Slovenes has encountered a -great many difficulties, negotiations were opened shortly -afterwards between the German authorities and the quisling -Oustachi administration in Zagreb concerning the transit of -the expelled Slovenes through Croatian territory and the -resettling of a certain number of these Slovenes in Croatia -proper, while the Serbs in Croatia were deported from the -country.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-195 (Document -Number USSR-195), the minutes of a conference held on -4 June 1941 at the German Legation in Zagreb and presided over -by SA Obergruppenführer Siegfried Kasche, German Minister in -Zagreb. These minutes, in the Serbian translation, were seized in -the archives of the Refugee Commission of the so-called Government -of Milan Neditch. They give the subject matter of the conference, -that is, “The Expulsion of the Slovenes from Germany to Croatia -<span class='pageno' title='255' id='Page_255'></span> -and Serbia, as well as of the Serbs from Croatia to Serbia.” The -Tribunal will find this document on Page 120 of the document book. -The passage in question literally reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The conference was approved by the Reich Ministry for Foreign -Affairs by Telegram Number 389, dated 31 May. The -Führer’s approval for the deportation was received by Telegram -Number 344, dated 25 May.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>We are thus able to prove that the direct responsibility for this -crime against humanity rests on the Defendant Von Ribbentrop.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We gather, at the same time, from the report of the Yugoslav -Government, that the deportation of a considerable number of -Slovenes to Germany was put into effect. I quote a paragraph -from the report of the Yugoslav Government, which Your Honors -will find on Page 70, last paragraph of the document book. I begin -the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Shortly afterwards the deportation itself began. In the -morning German trucks would arrive in the villages. Soldiers -and Gestapo men, armed with machine guns and rifles, -broke into the houses and ordered the inhabitants to leave, -each man being allowed to take with him only as much as he -could carry. The unfortunate people were given only a few -minutes in which to quit and they were forced to leave all -their property behind them. The trucks drove them to the -Roman Catholic Trappist monastery of Reichenberg. The -transports started from the monastery. Each transport consisted -of 600 to 1,200 persons to be taken to Germany. The -district of Bregiza was almost completely depopulated, the -district of Krshko up to 90 percent; 56,000 inhabitants were -deported from these two districts. Over and above this 4,000 -were deported from the communities of Zirkovsky and Ptuya.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit one paragraph and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“They were forced to perform the very hardest tasks and to -live under the most horrible conditions. The mortality rate -assumed enormous proportions in consequence. The harshest -penalties were applied for the slightest offense.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not enumerate other passages in the report of the Yugoslav -Government in connection with the same subject. I do not -quote this document; I merely ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence -the supplementary official report of the Yugoslav Government -which I am submitting as Document Number USSR-357.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Similar crimes were committed by the German criminals on the -territory of occupied Poland. I quote a few excerpts from the official -report of the Polish Republic. Your Honors will find the passage -I wish to quote on Page 3, Paragraph 3 of the document book. The -<span class='pageno' title='256' id='Page_256'></span> -passage is in Subparagraph A and is entitled, “The Germanization -of Poland”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Clear indications concerning the program are found in a -publication distributed among members of the National -Socialist Party in Germany in 1940. It contained the principles -of German policy in the East. Here are some quotations -from this document:</p> - -<p>“ ‘In a military sense the Polish question has been settled, -but from the point of view of national policy it is only now -beginning for Germany. The national political conflict between -the Germans and Poles must be carried forward to a degree -never yet seen in history.</p> - -<p>“ ‘The aim which confronts German policy in the territory of -the former Polish State is twofold: Firstly, to see that a certain -portion of space in this area is cleared of the alien -population and colonized by German nationals; secondly, by -imposing German leadership, in order to guarantee that in -that area no fresh conflagrations should flare up against Germany. -It is clear that this aim can never be achieved with, -but only against, the Poles.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt this quotation and continue on Page 15 of the report -of the Polish Republic, which corresponds to Page 5, Paragraph 5 of -the document book. This part is entitled, “The Colonization of -Poland by German Settlers.” I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The policy, in this respect, was clearly expressed by the -official German authorities. In the <span class='it'>Ostdeutscher Beobachter</span> -of 7 May 1941 the following proclamation is printed:</p> - -<p>“For the first time in German history we can exploit our -military victories in a political sense. Never again will even -a centimeter of the earth which we have conquered belong -to the Pole.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such was the plan. The facts which were put into practice were -the following:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Locality after locality, village after village, hamlets and -cities in the incorporated territories were cleared of the Polish -inhabitants. This began in October 1939, when the locality of -Orlov was cleared of all the Poles who lived and worked -there. Then came the Polish port of Gdynia. In February -1940 about 40,000 persons were expelled from the city of -Posen. They were replaced by 36,000 Baltic-Germans, families -of soldiers and of German officials.</p> - -<p>“The Polish population was expelled from the following -towns: Gnesen, Kulm, Kostian, Neshkva, Inovrotzlav. . .”—and -many other towns. -<span class='pageno' title='257' id='Page_257'></span></p> - -<p>“The German newspaper <span class='it'>Grenzzeitung</span> reported that in February -1940 the entire center of the city of Lodz was cleared -of Poles and reserved for the use of future German settlers. -By September 1940 the total number of Poles deported from -Lodz was estimated at 150,000.</p> - -<p>“But it was not only that the persons living in these places -were ordered to leave—they were forbidden to take their -property with them; everything was to be left behind. The -German newcomers took the place of the Poles evicted from -their homes, business shops, and farms. By January 1941 -more than 450,000 Germans had been settled in this manner.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next part of this report which I wished to quote and -I would request the Tribunal only to pay attention to the part entitled, -“Germanization of Polish Children.” This is a short quotation. -Just two small paragraphs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Thousands of Polish children (between the ages of 7 and 14) -were ruthlessly torn from their parents and families and -carried off to Germany. The purpose of this most brutal -measure was explained by the Germans themselves in the -<span class='it'>Kölnische Zeitung</span> Number 1584, 1940 issue. We read:</p> - -<p>“ ‘They will be taught German. They will be inculcated with -the German spirit so that later they can be brought up as -model German boys and girls.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to explain the methods adopted by the German fascists -in the execution of their cannibalistic plan for the extermination -of the Soviet people—peaceful citizens of my motherland, women, -children, and old people—I request the Tribunal to call and question -witness Grigoriev, Jacob Grigorievitch, a peasant from the -village of Pavlov, village soviet of Shkvertovsk, region of Porkhovsk, -district of Pskov. He has arrived from the district of Pskov, -a district near Leningrad and, according to my information, is now -in the courtbuilding. I ask the permission of the Tribunal to -examine this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Grigoriev took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>JACOB GRIGORIEV (Witness): Jacob Grigoriev.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I—Jacob Grigoriev—citizen of the Union of the Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and -swear—in the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but -the truth—about everything I know in regard to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath in Russian.</span>] -<span class='pageno' title='258' id='Page_258'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, in which -village did you live before the war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo, Porkhov region, -district of Pskov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In which village were you overtaken -by the outbreak of war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this village currently exist?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: It does not exist.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal what -happened.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: On the memorable day of 28 October 1943, German -soldiers suddenly raided our village and started murdering the -peaceful citizens, shooting them, chasing them into the houses. On -that day I was working on the threshing floor with my two sons, -Alexei and Nikolai. Suddenly a German soldier came up to us and -ordered us to follow him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. When you -see the light on that desk there or here, it means you are going -too fast. You understand?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: I understand, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly, Witness. -Continue, please.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You said you were working with your two -sons in the field.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: Yes; my own two sons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continue.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: We were led through the village to the last house -at the outskirts. There were 19 of us, all told, in that house. So -there we sat in that house. I sat close to the window and looked -out of it. I saw German soldiers herd together a great number of -people. I noticed my wife and my 9-year-old boy. They were -chased right up to the house and then led back again—where to, I -did not know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A little later three German machine gunners came in, accompanied -by a fourth carrying a heavy revolver. We were ordered -into another room. So we went, all 19 of us, and were lined up -against a wall, including my two sons, and they began shooting at -<span class='pageno' title='259' id='Page_259'></span> -us from their machine guns. I stood right up to the wall, bending -slightly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>After the first volley I fell to the floor, where I lay, too frightened -to move. When they had shot all of us they left the house. -When I came to, I looked round and saw my son Nikolai who had -been shot and had fallen, face downwards. My second son I could -not find anywhere.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, when some time had passed, I began to think how I could -escape. I straightened my legs out from under the man who had -fallen on me and began to think how I could get away. And -instead of that, instead of planning my escape, I lost my head and -called out, at the top of my voice, “Can I really go now?” At that -moment my small son, who had remained alive, recognized me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That would be your second son?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: The second. The first had been killed and was -lying by my side. My little son called out, “Daddy, are you still -alive?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He was wounded?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: He was wounded in the leg. I calmed him down: -“Do not fear, my small son. I shall not leave you here. Somehow -or other, we shall get away from here. I shall carry you out.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A little later the house began to burn. Then I opened the window -and threw myself out of it, carrying my little boy who had been -wounded in the leg. We began to creep out of the house, hiding so -that the Germans could not see us, but on our way from the house -we suddenly saw a high fence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We could not move the lattice apart so we began to break it up. -At that moment we were noticed by the German soldiers and they -began to shoot at us. Then I whispered to my little son to hide -while I would run away. I was unable to carry him and he ran a -short distance and hid in the undergrowth, while I ran off. I ran a -short distance and then jumped into a building near the burning -house.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There I sat for a while and then decided to run farther on. So -I escaped into a nearby forest, not far from our village, where I -spent the night. In the morning I met Alexei N. from the neighboring -village, who told me, “Your son, Aljosha, is alive; he started -to crawl to the neighboring village.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then on the second day, from the same village, Kuznetzov, I -met the boy Vitya who had escaped from Leningrad and was living -in our village during the time of the occupation. He had also been -saved by a miracle. He escaped from the fire. He told me what had -happened in the second hut where my wife and son had been taken. -<span class='pageno' title='260' id='Page_260'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>There matters were carried out as follows: The German soldiers, -having driven the people into the hut, opened the door into the -passage and proceeded to shoot from their machine guns across the -threshold.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Vitya’s words, people who were still half alive -were burning, including my little boy, Petya, who was only -9 years old. When he ran out of the hut he saw that my Petya -was still alive. He was sitting under a bench, having covered his -ears with his little hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How old was the oldest inhabitant -of this village destroyed by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: The oldest inhabitant, a woman aged 108 years, -was Ustinia Artemieva.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, how old was -the youngest victim murdered by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: Four months.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many villagers were destroyed -all told?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: Forty-seven, excluding those who were saved by -a miracle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why did the Germans destroy -the population of your village?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: The reason was not known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what did the Germans -themselves say?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: When a German soldier came to our threshing floor -we asked him, “Why are you killing us?” He replied, “Do you -know the village of Maximovo?” This is the village next to our -village community. I said, “Yes.” Then he told me, “This village -of Maximovo is kaput—the inhabitants are kaput, and you too will -be kaput.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And why kaput?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: “Because,” said he, “partisans were hiding in your -village.” But his words were untruthful because we had no partisans -in the village; nobody indulged in any partisan activities since -there was nobody left. Only old people and small children were -left in the village; the village had never seen any partisans and did -not know who these partisans were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were there many adult men in -your village? -<span class='pageno' title='261' id='Page_261'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: There was one man, 27 years old, but he was a -sick man, half-witted and paralytic. We had only old men and -small children. All the rest of the men were in the Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, witness, were the -inhabitants of your village alone in suffering this fate?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: No, they were not alone. The German soldiers -shot 43 persons in Kurysheva, 47 in Vshivova, and in the village -of Pavlovo, where I now live, they burned 23 persons. And in a -number of villages where, according to our village community, -there were some four hundred inhabitants, they shot all the -peaceful citizens, both young and old.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please repeat that figure. How -many persons were destroyed in your village community?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: About four hundred people in our village community -alone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, who remained -alive in your family?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GRIGORIEV: In my family only I and my boy remained alive. -In my family they shot my wife, in her sixth month of pregnancy, -my son Nikolai, aged 16 years, my youngest boy, Petya, aged -9 years, and my sister-in-law—my brother’s wife—with her two -infants, Sasha and Tonya.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to -ask this witness, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to ask -the witness any questions? Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish -to ask the witness any questions? The witness may retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I pass on to the -next count of my statement, the discrimination against the Soviet -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Discrimination against the Soviet population was the usual -method of the Hitlerite criminals. It was carried out by the criminals -continuously and everywhere.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this part of my presentation I shall refer to the documents of -the German criminals themselves, which have only now been -obtained and placed at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution. They -were seized by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union in the prisoner-of-war camp at Lamsdorf.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-415 (Document -Number USSR-415), a communication of the Extraordinary -State Commission on the crimes committed by the German Government -and the German Supreme Command against Soviet prisoners -<span class='pageno' title='262' id='Page_262'></span> -of war in the camp of Lamsdorf. A number of original documents -of the German fascist criminals, discovered in the camp archives -are attached to the report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall be able to submit some of these documents to Your -Honors. Their value consists in the fact that they prove that even -in the murderous regime established in one of the largest and most -cruel of the German concentration camps, the criminals, true to the -cannibalistic principles of their theories, shamelessly discriminated -against Soviet nationals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote a few brief excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission. The passage, Your Honors, to which -I refer, you will find on Page 123 of the document book, Paragraph -4. It sets forth the general characteristics of the camp. -I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subsequent to investigations made, the Extraordinary State -Commission proved that in Lamsdorf, in the district of the -town of Oppeln, there existed, from 1941 to May 1945, a -German stationary camp, Number 344.</p> - -<p>“In 1940-41 this camp contained Polish prisoners of war; from -the end of 1941 Soviet, English, and French prisoners of war -began to come in.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next two sentences and continue the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The prisoners of war were deprived of their outer clothing -and boots. Even in winter they had to go barefoot. No fewer -than 300,000 prisoners of war passed through the camp during -the years of its existence, including 200,000 Soviet and 100,000 -Polish, English, French, Belgian, and Greek prisoners.</p> - -<p>“The prevalent method for the extermination of Soviet prisoners -in Lamsdorf camp was the sale of the captives to German -undertakings for work in various German firms where -they were mercilessly exploited until, their strength completely -lost, they died of exhaustion.</p> - -<p>“In contrast to the numerous German labor exchanges, where -Sauckel’s representatives sold enslaved Soviet citizens by -retail to German housewives, a wholesale business in internees -was organized in Lamsdorf camp where the captives -were formed into labor commands. There were 1,011 such -labor commands in the camp.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>When presenting the subsequent documents, I should like to ask -the Tribunal to understand correctly the statements in corroboration -of which I am submitting evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not in the least wish to say that the regime established by -the Germans for British, French, or other prisoners of war was -at all distinguished for humanity or kindness and that, alone, the -<span class='pageno' title='263' id='Page_263'></span> -Soviet prisoners of war were exterminated by the camp administration -by various criminal methods.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Not at all. Lamsdorf Camp factually pursued its object, which -was the extermination of prisoners of war regardless of their -nationality or citizenship. Nevertheless, even in this death camp, -in these most grievous conditions created for prisoners of war of -all nationalities, the German fascists, committing crimes against -humanity and faithful to the principles of their theories, created -particularly excruciating conditions for the people of the Soviet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall submit to the Tribunal, in a few brief excerpts, a series -of documents taken from the archives of this camp and presented -to the Tribunal in the original version. All these documents point -to the manifest discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, -carried out by the camp administration pursuant to orders of the -Reich Government and of the Supreme Command of the Armed -Forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-421 (Document -Number USSR-421), a memorandum on the utilization of the -labor of Soviet prisoners of war, addressed by the chief of the -prisoner-of-war department for the 8th Military District for the -administration of industrial concerns to which the prisoners of war -were sent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to accept this document as evidence. It -is submitted in the original. I quote Point 10 of this memorandum. -Your Honors will find the passage quoted in the last paragraph -of Page 150 of the document book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The following directives have been issued for the treatment -of Russian prisoners of war:</p> - -<p>“The Russian prisoners of war have all passed through the -school of Bolshevism, they must be looked upon as Bolsheviks -and treated as such. According to their own instructions -they must, even in captivity, struggle actively against the -state which has captured them. Therefore, we must from the -very beginning treat all Russian prisoners of war with -ruthless severity, if they give us the slightest cause for so -doing.</p> - -<p>“Complete separation of prisoners of war from the civilian -population must be carried out strictly, in work as well as -during recreation.</p> - -<p>“Civilians attempting, some way or another, to approach the -Russian prisoners of war, to exchange ideas with them, to -hand them money, food supplies, <span class='it'>et alia</span>, will be arrested -without warning, questioned, and handed over to the police.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='264' id='Page_264'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I further quote the introduction to this memorandum. Your -Honors will find it on Page 149 of the document book, Paragraph 2:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued directives -regulating the utilization of Soviet prisoner-of-war -labor. According to these directives the utilization of Russian -prisoners of war could be tolerated only if carried out under -far harsher conditions than those applied to prisoners of war -of other nationalities.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus the instructions for a specially cruel regime, to be applied -to Soviet prisoners of war merely because they were Soviet people, -were not the result of any arbitrary action on the part of the -Lamsdorf Camp administration. They were dictated by the Supreme -Command of the Armed Forces. In drafting this memorandum, -the Lamsdorf Camp administration was only carrying out direct -orders from the Supreme Command.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote two more, fairly characteristic points from the memorandum. -I quote Point 4, which Your Honors will find on Page 149 -of the document book, last paragraph. I begin the quotation—it -is a very brief one:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In contrast to the increased requirements for the safeguarding -of the Russian billets, these—from the viewpoint of comfort—must -be reduced to the most modest requirements.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall endeavor to explain later on what this means. I shall -next quote Point 7, which Your Honors will find on Page 150 of -the document book, Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The food rations for Russian prisoners of war at work will -differ from the rations allocated to prisoners of other nationalities. -More detailed information on this subject will be -given later.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Such was the memorandum addressed to the industrialists to -whose concerns the Soviet prisoners of war were sent to work as -slaves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-431 (Document -Number USSR-431), which is another memorandum about guarding -the Soviet prisoners of war. The document is submitted in the -original and I request the Tribunal to accept it as evidence into -the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the permission of the Tribunal to quote a few brief -excerpts from this document. First I quote that part of the document -which proves its origin. The first page of the text indicates it -is an appendix to a “Directive of the OKW—General Office, Armed -Forces, POW Section.” Next follow number and document, which -are not so important. I now read the introduction to this memorandum, -which is on Page 150 of the document book: -<span class='pageno' title='265' id='Page_265'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For the first time in this war the German soldier is faced -with an adversary who is educated both in a military and in -a political sense, whose ideal is communism and who sees in -National Socialism his very worst enemy.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph and continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Even in captivity, the Soviet soldier—however harmless -he may appear outwardly—will seize every occasion to show -his hatred for all that is German. We must reckon with the -fact that the prisoners will have received suitable instructions -on their behavior if captured and imprisoned.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, has already denounced the -absurdity of these so-called special instructions and I therefore do -not consider it necessary to dwell on this passage. I continue:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is therefore absolutely essential, when dealing with them, -to exercise the greatest caution and prudence, and to nourish -the deepest suspicions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following directives were issued to the guard on watch -over the Soviet prisoners:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Firstly—ruthless action at the slightest sign of resistance or -disobedience. Merciless use of firearms to break any resistance. -Escaping prisoners to be shot at immediately, without challenge, -with firm intent to hit. “Without challenge” is characteristic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the two following paragraphs and quote the second -part, Point 3 of the memorandum, which Your Honors will find -on Page 153, Paragraph 2 of the document book. From this Subparagraph -I quote three lines:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Kindness is out of place, even when dealing with willing -and obedient prisoners of war. They will ascribe it to -weakness and draw their own conclusions from your -kindness.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit Point 4 and end my quotation from this document on -Subparagraph 5 of the memorandum—Your Honors will find this -passage on Page 153, last paragraph of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“5. Never must the apparent inoffensiveness of the Bolshevik -prisoner of war tempt you to deviate from the above-mentioned -instructions.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I have, a very short time ago, quoted Point 4 of the memorandum -for the industrial, regarding the utilization of the work of Soviet -prisoners. It stated that the requirements respecting billets for the -Soviet captives should, from the viewpoint of living facilities, be -of a minimum nature.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The meaning of this will be clear to Your Honors from a report -of the Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve -<span class='pageno' title='266' id='Page_266'></span> -Army, dated 17 October 1941, addressed to the acting corps commanders -and to the administrative authorities of military districts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-422 (Document -Number USSR-422). This too is presented in the original and I -beg that it be entered as documentary evidence into the record. -It was issued in Berlin and dated as far back as 17 October 1941. -I quote one paragraph of the text. Your Honors will find this -paragraph on Page 154 of the document book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Subject: Quarters for Soviet prisoners of war.</p> - -<p>“At a conference held on 19 September 1941 at the office of -the Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve -Army (V-6), it was decided that by the construction of several -tiers of superimposed wooden bunks in lieu of bedsteads, a -RAD”—Reich Labor Service—“barrack for 150 prisoners could -be built according to specifications for Soviet prisoners’ -permanent barracks to hold 840 prisoners in permanent -billets.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall not quote the remainder of this document since I consider -this paragraph sufficiently clear in itself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to accept two documents in evidence -which are also presented in the original. They testify to the fact -that the extermination, in the camp, of Soviet prisoners of war was -practiced for political reasons. It was the practice of murder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall first submit, as Exhibit Number USSR-432 (Document -Number USSR-432), an order addressed to Camp Number 60. The -document is in the original and I request that it be added to the -record as evidence. Your Honors will find the paragraph which -I wish to quote on Page 155 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote one passage only -of the document already submitted. The passage which I ask the -permission of the Tribunal to read is on Page 155. Point 4 of the -order runs as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Behavior at the shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner -of war. (Legal Officer)</p> - -<p>“Every case of shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner -of war should be reported as a special occurrence. If you are -dealing with British, French, Belgian, or American prisoners -of war you should also act in accordance with instructions -of the OKW, Code Number F-24.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This order was dated 2 August 1943. -<span class='pageno' title='267' id='Page_267'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>But on 5 November 1943 another order followed, which changed -even this arrangement where the Soviet prisoners of war were -concerned. I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the document -which I am submitting as Number 433, pertaining to Camp -Number 86. From this document I quote one paragraph only, -that is, Paragraph 12:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war. (Legal Officer)</p> - -<p>“The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war and other fatal -accidents need no longer be reported by phone to the Prisoner -of War Commander as an ‘unusual occurrence.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In certain cases, the Supreme Command of the German Armed -Forces agreed to the payment of a miserably small sum for the work -done by the prisoners of war, but here too the Soviet prisoners -of war were placed in conditions which were twice as bad as those -of the prisoners of other nationalities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To confirm this, I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a -directive of the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces -dated 1 March 1944. The document will be submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-427 (Document Number USSR-427).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request that the Tribunal attach it as evidence to the documentation -of the case. From this document I shall quote two -sentences only. These sentences Your Honors will find on Page 274 -of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Prisoners of war working all day will receive for one full -working day the following basic salary: Non-Soviet prisoners -of war, RM 0.70; Soviet prisoners of war, RM 0.35.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second sentence is at the end of the document, on Page 275 -of the document book, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The minimum daily wage for non-Soviet prisoners will -consist of 0.20 RM, and 0.10 for Soviet prisoners of war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Here I end my quotation from this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If other prisoners received from the German fascist murderers -the right to a few breaths of fresh air a day, the Soviet people -were deprived of even this privilege. I request the Tribunal to -accept in evidence an original order, Exhibit Number USSR-424 -(Document Number USSR-424), referring to Camp Number 44. I -request the permission of the Tribunal to quote one sentence from -Paragraph 7, entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of War.” I begin -to quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In special cases, when prisoners of war, engaged on work, -have their living quarters at the same place where they work -and therefore have no access to the open air, they should be -allowed to be taken out into the fresh air in order to -maintain their working strength.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='268' id='Page_268'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I further request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the original -order addressed to Camp Number 46. This document is submitted -as Exhibit Number USSR-425 (Document Number USSR-425). I -would remind the Tribunal that the directive ruling the preceding -order, “Walks for Prisoners of War,” was listed under Point 7.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I cite one sentence from Point 10 of Order Number 46. This -Point 10 is also entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of War,” and the -basis for this point is Order Number 1259, Part 5, of the Chief of -the Section for Prisoner-of-War Affairs, dated 2 June 1943. -I quote one sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In complement to Point 7 of the order addressed to Camp -Number 44, dated 8 June 1943, it is explained that the order -does not apply to Soviet prisoners of war.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I further request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the original -request of the labor office of Mährisch-Schönberg. This request -concerns the utilization of prisoners of war for nonagricultural -work. I quote two sentences from this document. The passage -which I have asked permission to quote is on Page 160 of the -document book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The replacement of 104 English prisoners of war from Labor -Brigade for Prisoners of War E 351, currently employed in -the Heinrichsthal paper mills, by 160 Soviet prisoners of war, -has been rendered necessary by the labor shortage which has -developed in this factory. An additional allocation of English -prisoners, to raise the number to the required figure of 160, -is impossible, since after the last check of camp conditions, -undertaken a few months ago by competent Wehrmacht -authorities, it was decided that billets in the camp were only -sufficient for 104 English prisoners of war, whereas the same -space would accommodate 160 Russian prisoners of war -without any difficulties whatsoever.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I request Your Honors’ permission to quote one more document, -namely Directive Number 8 regarding this camp, dated 7 May 1942. -It is entitled, “The Utilization of Soviet Prisoners of War for Work.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit this document in the original as Exhibit Number -USSR-426 (Document Number USSR-426), and I request that it be -added as evidence to the record of the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote the section entitled, “Measures for the restoration of -full working capacities.” I think that the boundless cynicism and -the cruelty of this document require no further comment:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Soviet prisoners of war are, almost without exception, -in a state of acute malnutrition, which currently renders them -unfit for a normal output of work.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='269' id='Page_269'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The General Staff of the German Armed Forces was particularly -concerned over two questions: Firstly, with blankets for Soviet -prisoners of war, and secondly, in what form the mercilessly -murdered Soviet victims of the concentration camps should be -buried. Both questions found their solution in one document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-429 (Document -Number USSR-429), and request that it be added as evidence -to the record. Your Honors will find it on Page 162 of the document -book. This is a directive of the 8th Military District, dated -28 October 1941. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Re: Soviet Russian prisoners of war. The following arrangements -were decided during a conference of the OKW:</p> - -<p>“1. Blankets. The Soviet Russians will receive paper blankets, -which they will have to manufacture themselves, in the form -of quilts, from paper tissue, filled with crumpled paper and -similar material. The material will be procured by the OKW.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second part, as Your Honors will notice, is as follows—the -heading reads, “Burial of Soviet Russians”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Soviet prisoners of war are to be buried naked, without -a coffin, wrapped in packing paper. Coffins will be used only -for transports. In the labor commands the burial will be -attended to by the competent authorities. Burial expenses -will be met by the competent M-Stalag for prisoners of war. -The stripping of the bodies will be done by the camp guards. -Signed: by order, Grossekettler.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But not only the administration of the military district was -concerned with the methods for burying Soviet prisoners of war; -the Ministry of the Interior was also concerned with this question, -and an urgent letter was addressed to the camp specially marked, -“Not for publication in the press, even in excerpts.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to accept this document in evidence as -Exhibit Number USSR-430. The members of the Tribunal can find -this passage on Page 276 of the document book. I quote a few -sentences from this fairly voluminous document—five sentences. -I begin to quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“For the transport of the bodies (procurement of vehicles) -offices of the Wehrmacht should be contacted. For transportation -and burial a coffin is not to be requested. The -bodies should be completely wrapped up in paper, preferably -in oiled paper, tarpaulin, corrugated paper, or some other -suitable material. Both transportation and burial should be -done unostentatiously. When many corpses come in at the -same time, burial should take place in a common grave. The -corpses should be laid at the usual depth, side by side, not -overlapping each other. As a site for the burial a distant part -<span class='pageno' title='270' id='Page_270'></span> -of the cemetery should be chosen. Any burial service and -any decoration of the graves should be disallowed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the following sentence: “It is necessary to keep expenses -as low as possible.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But even in the special organizations of German fascism, -specially created for the extermination of human life, the criminals -still continued in their policy of racial and political discrimination. -Actually, this discrimination could mean one thing only, namely, -that one part of the camp prisoners came to their inevitable end, -death, more rapidly than the other part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And the criminals even tried to make the inevitable end more -of a torment for those of their victims whom they, following the -Nazi man-hating theories, designated as subhumans or considered -capable of active resistance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record -one paragraph from a document already submitted as Exhibit -Number USSR-415. This is a report of the Extraordinary State -Commission of the Soviet Union on the “Crimes at Lamsdorf Camp” -and the quotation will testify to the extent of the criminal Hitlerite -activities. It concludes the presentation of evidence regarding this -camp. Your Honors will find the passage in question on Page 146 -of the document book, Paragraph 3. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“According to the findings of the special commission during -the existence of the Lamsdorf Camp, the Germans tortured -to death more than 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Most of -these died in the mines, in the various economic enterprises, -or during transportation back to the camp. Some were crushed -to death in the dugouts, many were killed during the evacuation -of the camp. Forty thousand prisoners of war were -tortured to death in the Lamsdorf Camp proper.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, the Soviet Prosecution begs to present one more -witness, Doctor Kivelisha. He is a physician and his evidence is -particularly important in establishing that there existed a special -regime for Soviet prisoners of war in the camps. The Soviet -Prosecution requests your permission to question this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Kivelisha took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EUGENE ALEXANDROVICH KIVELISHA (Witness): Kivelisha, -Eugene Alexandrovich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I, and -then state your name—a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist -Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and -<span class='pageno' title='271' id='Page_271'></span> -swear—in the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but -the truth about everything I know in regard to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish. Will you -spell your name; will you spell your surname?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It is K-i-v-e-l-i-s-h-a.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Please, Colonel Pokrovsky.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the -U.S.S.R.): What was your position in the ranks of the Red Army -at the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite Germany?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: At the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by -Hitlerite Germany I was junior physician in the 305th Regiment of -the 44th Rifle Division.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did your unit of the 305th Regiment of the -44th Rifle Division take part in battles against the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, our 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division -participated in the battles from the first day of the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: On what date and under what circumstances -were you captured by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I was captured by the Germans on 9 August 1941, -in the district of the City of Uman, in the Kirovograd region. I was -captured at the moment when our unit and two Russian armies to -which our unit belonged were surrounded by the Germans after -prolonged fighting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the treatment -applied by the Germans to Red Army soldiers who were captured -by the Hitlerite troops? What was the position of these prisoners -of war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I know only too well every form of barbarous -mockeries applied to the Russian prisoners of war by the Hitlerite -authorities and the Army, for the reason that I was a prisoner of -war myself, for a very long time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the day I was captured, I was sent in convoy in a large -column of prisoners of war to one of the transient camps. En route, -talking to the prisoners with whom I marched—I stress the fact that -this was on the very first day—I learned that the greater part of -the prisoners had been captured 3 or 4 days before the small group -to which I myself belonged.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During these 3 or 4 days the prisoners had been kept in a shed, -under a reinforced German guard and were given nothing at all to -eat or drink. Later, when we passed through the villages, the -prisoners, on seeing wells and water, passed their tongues over their -<span class='pageno' title='272' id='Page_272'></span> -parched lips and made involuntary swallowing movements when -their eyes fell on the water.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Later on in the same day we finished the march toward nighttime -and the column of prisoners, 5,000 strong, was billeted in a -farm yard where we had no possibility of resting after the long -journey, and we were forced to spend the night in the open. This -continued on the following day, and on this day too we were -deprived of food and water.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Was there no case when the prisoners, -passing by water tanks or wells, stepped two or three paces out of -line and tried to get at the water themselves?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, I remember a few such cases and shall tell -you of one particular incident which occurred on the first day of -our march. It happened like this:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We were passing the outskirts of a little village. The peaceful -civilian population came to meet us, and tried to supply us with -water and bread. However, the Germans would not allow us to -approach the citizens, nor would they let the population approach -the column of prisoners. One of the prisoners stepped 5 or 6 meters -out of the column, and without any warning was killed by a German -soldier shooting from a tommy gun. Several of his comrades -rushed to help him thinking that he was still alive, but they too -were immediately fired on without warning. Some of them were -wounded and two of them were killed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Was that the only incident you witnessed, -or, during your transfer from one place to another, did you observe -other cases of a similar nature?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: No, this was not an individual occurrence. Almost -every transfer from one camp to another was accompanied by the -same kind of shootings and murders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did they shoot only the prisoners of war, -or were measures of repression adopted toward the peaceful citizens -as well, toward the citizens who had tried to give bread and water -to the captives?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Measures of repression were applied not only to -the prisoners of war; they were also applied to the peaceful citizens. -I remember once, during one of our transfers, a group of women -and children attempted to give us bread and water, like the others, -only the Germans would not allow them to come anywhere near us. -Then one woman sent a little girl, about 5 years old, evidently her -daughter, to the prisoners’ column. This little child came quite close -to the place where I had passed and when she was five or six steps -away from the column, she was killed by a German soldier. -<span class='pageno' title='273' id='Page_273'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: But perhaps the prisoners of war didn’t -need the food which the population tried to give them; perhaps they -were sufficiently well fed by the German authorities?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The prisoners of war on the transfer marches -suffered from hunger to an exceptional extent. The Germans -provided no food whatsoever en route from one camp to the other.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: So that these gifts from the local population -were the only practical means possible to sustain the strength of -the soldiers in German captivity?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did the Germans shoot them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: You understand me correctly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: In which prisoner-of-war camps were you -interned? Name some of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The first camp in which I was interned was in the -open, in a field, in the district of the small hamlet of Tarnovka. The -second camp was situated on the site of a brick yard and former -poultry farm on the outskirts of the town of Uman. The third camp -was situated in the suburbs of Ivan-Gora. The fourth camp was -situated on the territory pertaining to the stables of some military -unit or other in the region of the town of Gaisen. The fifth camp -was in the region of the small garrison town of Vinnitza. The sixth -camp was in the suburbs of the small town of Dzemerinka and the -last camp, where I stayed the longest time, was in the village of -Rakovo, 7 kilometers from the town of Proskurov, in the Kamenetz-Podolsk -district.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: So that you yourself, from your own -personal experience, could realize the state of affairs prevalent in -this series of camps?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, in all the camps I was personally and completely -acquainted with all the conditions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Are you a physician by profession?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I am a physician by profession.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Tell the Tribunal how matters stood insofar -as medical attention and food for the prisoners of war were -concerned in the camps you have just enumerated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: When I was transported under convoy to the camp -near the hamlet of Tarnovka, I was, for the first time and in -company with other Russian doctors, separated from the rest of the -prisoners’ column, and sent to the so-called infirmary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This infirmary was in a shed with a concrete floor, without any -equipment for the care of the wounded. And on this concrete floor -<span class='pageno' title='274' id='Page_274'></span> -lay a large number of wounded Soviet prisoners, mostly officers. -Many had been captured 10 to 12 days before my arrival at -Tarnovka. During all that time they had received no medical attention -although many of them were in need of surgical aid, with -simultaneous and frequent dressings and a number of drugs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They were systematically left without water; food too was administered -without any system at all; at least, at the time of my -arrival in the camp there was no equipment to prove that food had -ever been prepared or cooked for these wounded soldiers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There were about 15,000 to 20,000 wounded in Uman Camp -where I found myself on the second day after my arrival in Tarnovka. -They were all lying in the open, dressed in their summer -uniforms and a great many of them were incapable of moving.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Food and water were supplied to them in the same way as to the -other captives in the camp. There they lay, without any medical -attention, their dust-covered dressings soaked in blood, often in pus. -Dressings, surgical instruments, equipment for an operating theater -just did not exist in the camp at Uman.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Gaisen prisoners of war, sick and wounded, were herded into -one of the stables. This stable had no wooden floors and lacked every -facility for human habitation. The prisoners of war were lying on -the earthen floor, and here, too, as in the preceding camp, they did -not have even an iota of medical attention. As before, dressings, -drugs, and surgical instruments were unobtainable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: You mentioned the Uman Camp. Look at -this photograph and tell me, is it a photograph of one of the camps -where you were interned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I see on this photograph the camp which was -situated in the grounds of the brick yard at the city of Uman. -I know this picture very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal that the -photograph I have just shown the witness is a photograph of Uman -Camp and was submitted by me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number -USSR-345. It shows the camp concerning which witness Bingel has -already testified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Turning to the witness.</span>] This means that you recognize Uman -Camp situated in the grounds of the brick yard from this photograph?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, in the grounds of the brick yard. It is a part -of the camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What was the prevailing regime in Uman -Camp? Tell us just the main points, very briefly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Almost all the captives in the camp were kept in -the open air. The food was extremely bad. In the grounds of the -<span class='pageno' title='275' id='Page_275'></span> -Uman Camp, where I spent 8 days, twice a day a few fires would -be lit out of doors and a thin pea soup was cooked in vats over -these fires.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There was no special routine for distributing food to the prisoners -of war, and the boiled soup would then be set down amongst the -whole mass of people. No control whatsoever was exercised over -the distribution. The starving prisoners rushed up in the hope of -obtaining even a minute portion of this thin, unsalted soup, cooked -without fat and served without bread.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Disorder and crowding arose. The German guards, all armed -with clubs as well as with rifles and automatic guns, beat up all the -prisoners of war within range of their blows for the purpose of -maintaining order. The Germans would often intentionally set down -a small barrel of soup among a great number of people, and once -again, to restore order, they would beat up the absolutely innocent -people with laughter, oaths, insults, and threats.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Please tell me, Witness: In the camp -situated in the village of Rakovo, was the quality of the food better -or was it approximately the same as in other camps? And how did -the food situation affect the health of the prisoners?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo the food was exactly the -same in quality as that of the other camps where I had been -previously interned. It consisted of beets, cabbage, and potatoes -frequently served half-cooked. Owing to this poor quality of food -the prisoners developed severe gastric trouble accompanied by -dysentery, which rapidly exhausted them and resulted in a very high -rate of mortality from hunger.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: You talked about the guards often beating -the prisoners on the slightest provocation and time and again -without any provocation at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What kind of traumatic lesions did the -prisoners receive as a result of these beatings? Were there any -cases of severe traumatic injuries caused by heavy beatings or did -the whole matter result in a few kicks only?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In Rakovo Camp I was in the so-called hospital, -where I worked in the surgical section. Frequently, after dinner or -supper in the hospital, prisoners were brought in with most grievous -physical injuries. I frequently had to do all I could to help people -who were so terribly injured by these beatings that they would die -without regaining consciousness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remember a second case when two prisoners were beaten over -the head with some hard object till the brains oozed out from the -<span class='pageno' title='276' id='Page_276'></span> -gaping head wound. I remember yet another incident, only too well, -when an athlete from Moscow had an eye knocked out with a whip. -The athlete then contracted meningitis and died soon after.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: How high was the mortality rate among -the prisoners of war in Rakovo Camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The history of Rakovo Camp can be divided into -two periods. There was the first which lasted about 2 years and -ended in November 1941. At that time the number of prisoners was -not very great and consequently the rate of mortality was not so -high. Then there was the second period, from November 1941 to -March 1942, at which time I was in Rakovo myself. During this -second period the mortality rate was exceptionally high: there were -days when 700, 900, and even 950 persons died in the camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: What disciplinary measures were there in -Rakovo Camp and for what reasons were the prisoners punished? -Do you know?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes. I know that there was, in the camp grounds, -a cell for prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. Prisoners -of war guilty of attempting to escape from the terrible conditions -created for them in captivity, or with offenses such as stealing food -products in the kitchen, were locked up in this cell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was in the cellar; it had a cement floor and windows with iron -bars instead of panes. The prisoner was stripped to the skin, -deprived of food and water, and locked up in solitary confinement -for 14 days. I do not know of a single case where a prisoner survived -this confinement; all of them died in that particular cell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Evidently the conditions which you have -described to the Tribunal increased the number of persons suffering -from exhaustion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did this condition result in a decreased -number of prisoners capable of working? Did their number decrease; -what was done to those prisoners who could not work?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: An immense number of prisoners were kept, in -Rakovo Camp, in stables which were quite unfit for human beings -to live in during the winter period. At first everybody was made -to work. I can safely say that most of this work was entirely -aimless, since it consisted in pulling down houses and then paving -the camp grounds with bricks from the demolished buildings. After -some time, when severe gastric troubles had set in, troubles which -I have already mentioned, fewer and fewer prisoners came out to -work.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Many of them, who had lost all control of their movements, -never even left the stables for the appointed meal times, and if a -<span class='pageno' title='277' id='Page_277'></span> -great many people were discovered to have lost their strength, a -so-called quarantine was established. In such a stable all the exits -and entries would be blocked and the patients would be completely -isolated from the outer world. Having kept them locked up for -4 or 5 days on end, the stable would be opened and the dead -brought out by the hundreds.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Can you tell us, Witness, on what medical -or sanitary work you and the other doctors were employed in the -camp by the Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the camps we were not employed by the -Germans on any work connected with the prisoners. All the -Germans were interested in was the separation of people who could -work from those of the prisoners who were incapable of working. -We could not render the prisoners any purely medical services -because of the conditions in which we ourselves existed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did your duties in any of these camps -include sanitary supervision? And what exactly was understood by -sanitary supervision?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The duties of sanitary supervision were entrusted -to us in the camp of the town of Gaisen. It only meant that we, -the captured military doctors, had to be on duty in the vicinity of -the general latrine in the camp, which was nothing more than a -ditch dug for this purpose, and as and when the ditch was filled up -with excrement, we were forced to clean up the ground.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: The doctors?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, the doctors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Did you really consider this function as a -form of sanitary supervision, or did you consider it as straightforward -mockery by the Germans at the expense of the captured -Soviet army doctors?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I consider that it was straightforward mockery at -the expense of the captured Soviet doctors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I have no more questions to -ask this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the other prosecutors got any -questions to ask?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: No, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to -ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you have stated that in August 1941 . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly announce your name for -whom you appear. -<span class='pageno' title='278' id='Page_278'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Dr. Laternser, Defense Counsel for the -General Staff and the OKW.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness, you have just stated that in August 1941 you were -brought to captivity in the district of Uman. Do you know whether -the Germans had taken many prisoners at that time?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, I do know. About 100,000 prisoners were -captured at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether German troops had -advanced very rapidly into Russian territory at that time?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything about this. The German -armies moved very rapidly, but before our units were surrounded -we fought obstinately and we retreated, fighting, right up to -9 August.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: How great was the number of prisoners in -the column in which you marched?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Four thousand to five thousand persons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: When did you first get any food from the -German troops?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I personally, and for the first time, received food -from the German troops when I reached the town of Uman.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: How much time had passed between the -moment you were captured and your first meal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: When I was first fed I had been a prisoner of war -for about 4 or 5 days.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: You were a Red Army doctor and must have -been quite aware that the feeding of armies is not so simple a -matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I could not imagine this, especially as the Germans -had then at their disposal time and many possibilities for supplying -the prisoners of war with food. Further, to my previous statements -I shall again repeat that if the German authorities were unable -to provide the prisoners of war with food, the peaceful population -did everything in their power to feed the Russian prisoners. -However, obviously neither the German authorities nor the German -Command issued any instructions on this matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already reported that no opportunity was given for -friendly relations between the prisoners of war and the peaceful -citizens. On the contrary, any persons who tried to bring food to -the prisoners or any prisoner who accepted the food from the -citizens was promptly shot.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: But you can certainly imagine that it must -have presented immense difficulties if, as you have just testified, -100,000 prisoners had been taken at that time in the area of Uman? -<span class='pageno' title='279' id='Page_279'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Not all the prisoners of war were concentrated at -Uman at one and the same time. There were several stationary -and permanent camps, only several of them were at Uman.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I was not speaking about the food problem -in Uman Camp. We are still talking about the feeding during the -first days after their capture.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: When I was brought into captivity I was not -singled out in any way from among the other prisoners of war. -I was fed and I was supplied in exactly the same way as all the -others. I was one of the general crowd and the general column of -the prisoners of war. The German Command made no distinction -in the first days of captivity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: But you will have to admit that there were -certain difficulties connected with food supplies which would arise -if quite unexpectedly a column, such as yours, 5,000 men strong, -had to be fed by rapidly advancing troops.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Even if the German Command had been faced -with this particular difficulty, the problem could always have been -solved by allowing the prisoners to accept the food products which -the peaceful population, the Soviet citizens, were offering them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: We shall talk about that immediately. You -say you were in a column of 5,000 prisoners. Can you tell me how -strong the guard was, the German guard, under whom this column -of 5,000 marched?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I cannot state the exact figures. But there were -a great many German machine gunners. The column was too drawn -out in length and I am unable to state the figure.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I understand that you cannot give the exact -figures. But can you describe to the Tribunal how great the -distance was between individual guards marching alongside the -column?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: The distance would be as follows: two or three -soldiers, walking in a row, would march approximately five or six -steps behind a second row of the same number.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Thus, every 50 to 60 meters, on either side -of the column, or perhaps only on one side of the column, German -troops marched in groups of two and three soldiers, as you say, or -have I not understood you correctly?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Not 50 to 60 meters; 5 to 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Were the guards elderly men or were there -younger soldiers among them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: They were soldiers of the German Army. They -were of every age. -<span class='pageno' title='280' id='Page_280'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Were the Russian prisoner-of-war columns -informed, before they started, that they would be shot if they left -the ranks?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I have already said, and I repeat once again, there -were no warnings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Not even when the column set off?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be a good time to break -off till 2 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='281' id='Page_281'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the -witnesses and documents to be called and produced on behalf of -the first four defendants and that decision will be communicated -as soon as possible this afternoon to counsel for those defendants -and will also be posted in the Defendants’ Information Center.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief -Prosecutor for France with reference to the calling of two additional -witnesses. The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to -call any witnesses after closing the case on behalf of any of the -chief prosecutors, that a written application should be made to the -Tribunal for the calling of such witnesses, and the Tribunal also -desires me to draw the attention of Counsel for the Prosecution -and Counsel for the Defense to the terms of Article 24, Subsection (e), -which refers to rebutting evidence. In the event of Counsel for the -Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense wishing to call rebutting -evidence when the proper time comes, after the case for the Prosecution -and the Defense has been closed, such application to call -rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in writing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the -Tribunal would allow me to say something on a matter on which -I promised to get information yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn -edition of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> of the 31st of August 1939, -and I promised the Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had -a telegram from the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span>, which I received this morning, -and it says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“No edition of the <span class='it'>Daily Telegraph</span> withdrawn on 31 August -1939 or any other day thereabouts. The <span class='it'>Telegraph</span> of the -31st gave a brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop -had taken place but without details.</p> - -<p>“On 1st September carried summary of Germany’s 16 points -for Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text -of the note did not appear until September 2, when extracted -from the Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information, -that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose -to send a copy of that to Dr. Horn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may -necessitate a slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was -proposing to make. -<span class='pageno' title='282' id='Page_282'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and -Warlimont as witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to -answer one question; namely, to tell me if the Court has decided -yet that the Generals Halder and Warlimont, whom I have named -as witnesses, and whose relevancy has been admitted by the -Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for Keitel so that we -can count with certainty on their appearing in the proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this -morning was that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they -wanted to have them to cross-examine them now or call them as -witnesses on behalf of one or other of the defendants, and therefore -that was a decision that the Defense Counsel would be able to call -them on behalf of one of the defendants if they determined to -do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they -were called before. If the Defendant Göring wanted to call them -then they would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when -they were called for Göring, because of the fundamental rule that -a witness is only to be called once.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel -who are interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and -Warlimont are agreed that these generals should be called in the -course of the presentation of evidence by the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Colonel Smirnov . . . I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march -to the camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were -accommodated in a stable. Was this stable roofed?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and -since the farm had previously been evacuated, the shed had not -been cleaned for a very long time and was in a state of complete -neglect. And if we add to this state of neglect the fact that it had -been pouring with rain all that day, we must also add that it was -half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite impossible to settle down -in the stables and barns since they were filled with left-over -manure, so that all the people stayed out of doors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate -these prisoners in a better way?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, -for I am not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, -and, on the other hand, we were brought to this village late at -<span class='pageno' title='283' id='Page_283'></span> -night and I do not know whether there were more convenient -places where the prisoners could have been quartered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you -entered this village, you yourself saw no possibility for better -accommodations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but -because it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, -although it was a rather large village and it seems to me that there -was a sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people -might have easily been billeted more conveniently for the night.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that -in the prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as -a physician. Did the German prisoner-of-war administration ever -place any medical supplies at your disposal so that you could treat -your sick comrades?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated -step by step from one camp to another, we received no medical -equipment at all from the Germans; but subsequently when I was -in a stationary camp, Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, -though never in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of -all the wounded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have -only one question. The witness has stated that the stable was -evacuated. What do you mean by that term?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had -been driven off beyond the zone of military operations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: By whom was this done?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had -entered and who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army -units who had not been surrounded as we were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back -to Russian territory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: From this village, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask -questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of -war whilst you were prisoner of war?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo; in the district of the town -of Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying -<span class='pageno' title='284' id='Page_284'></span> -of labor Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, -at that time, were named the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until -you got to that stationary camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since -I did not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything -in re-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to -ask the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept -as one of the proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the -prisoner-of-war camps certain documents which I should like to -submit to the Tribunal at the request of our honorable British -colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does this all the more readily in -that it considers this documentation of the British Prosecution of -essential importance in establishing the criminal contravention by -the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and customs of war -accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of prisoners of war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial -the documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as -Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding -the cruel murder of 50 prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air -Force, who were captured while attempting to escape en masse from -Stalag Luft III at Sagan and shot after their capture by the German -criminals in the night of 24-25 March 1944.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite -crimes, signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British -Armed Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held -in Sagan by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and -forwarded to the protecting power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Included with these documents are the statements of the -following Allied witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant -Tonder, Flight Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, -<span class='pageno' title='285' id='Page_285'></span> -Flight Lieutenant Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant -Nelson, Flight Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P. S. -M. Hicks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The material evidence is also corroborated by statements -taken from the following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs und -Kriminalrat Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of -those who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to -the Swiss Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the -representative of the protecting power during his visit to Stalag -Luft III on 5 June 1944.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous -crime of the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier -Shapcott. Your Honors will find the passage which I am about to -quote on Page 163, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped -from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been -confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and -returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained -by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining -50 officers the following information was given by the German -authorities. . . .”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The following information was given by the German authorities -who stated that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting -to escape. Actually this statement was the customary routine -lie of the Hitlerites, since the very thorough investigation carried -out by the British military authorities proved indubitably that the -British R.A.F. officers had been vilely murdered after recapture by -the German police.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented -by the British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was -committed by order of Göring and Keitel. The passage which I wish -to submit to the Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, -Russian text.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing -the witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here -once before. The Prosecution at the time—I do not have the document -here now—submitted a report regarding the interrogation of -Major General Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my -objection, refused to have this document read in Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the -testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document -which the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it -<span class='pageno' title='286' id='Page_286'></span> -concerns a new document which I do not know as yet. I draw your -attention to the fact that General Westhoff is here in person; in -other words, he could be called as a witness on this question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. -Nelte said. As I understood it—I am not sure if I got the name -right—but he referred to General Westhoff’s evidence which has -been tendered, and which had been rejected because the Tribunal -thought that if that evidence was to be given, General Westhoff -ought to be called. Is it right that the document you are putting in -has got nothing to do with General Westhoff at all, has it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only -one part of the official British report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, -is it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am -now submitting an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one -passage in the text of the official British report mentions Major -General Westhoff, but this mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory -of Major General Westhoff which will be brought up later.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): -My Lord, perhaps I might assist in this matter—because I am partly -responsible for that report—with the kind indulgence of my learned -friend, my Russian colleague.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British -official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the -original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that General -Westhoff’s name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a -different document to the document which my French colleagues -tendered and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official -government report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been -saying, Your Honor. This is an official report of the British -Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Roberts—I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte—why -do you say that it is an official government report so as to come -within Article 21 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it -has been certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military -Department of the Judge Advocate General’s office. I think you have -the original. -<span class='pageno' title='287' id='Page_287'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom -was it made, this report?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the -collection of evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it -is headed, “German War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for -the Killing of 50 R.A.F. Officers,” and then it starts to say—then it -states the sources on which the material has been based. Your -Lordship will see on the last page of the report the appendix, -“Material upon which the foregoing report is based”:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan. . . . 2. Statements -of the following Allied witnesses. . . . 3. Statements -taken from the following German. . . . 4. Photostat copy of -the official list of dead, transmitted by the German Foreign -Office to the Swiss Legation. . . . 5. Report of the Representative -of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag Luft III on -5th June 1944.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for -the Tribunal or for the War Crimes Commission?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British -Delegation for this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British -general made to the British Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept -the phrase “report of a British general.” I would say “a report of a -government department.” It is signed and certified by a British -general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My -Lords may exactly read in Article 21: “The Tribunal shall take -judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the -United Nations. . . .”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental -document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, -a government department, for the purpose of this Trial. -<span class='pageno' title='288' id='Page_288'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was -collected and sent in by the government will be official evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I -read it and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis -of testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also -Major General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of -this document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under -the terms of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is -involved here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, -who is at the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including -his testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would -not comply with the Tribunal’s desire that it should represent the -best method to discover the truth.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain -literally what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which -is subject to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I -believe the Defense must also have an opportunity in their turn, to -hear and examine a witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the -witnesses who had been examined by one of the committees set up -by the government had not made a report to the government at all, -but an affidavit or something of that sort; and that had been offered -to the Court and the witness had been available, the Court might -very possibly have refused to entertain that affidavit or report. But if -that report was the foundation for a government report or for a -government official document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is -directed to entertain such a report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they -wouldn’t have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff -unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a -question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit -comes within Article 21.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship’s view is correct. -I should merely like to bring up the question whether, when one -has two different types of evidence, namely, the report and the -possibility of examining a witness, it should not be taken into consideration -to question the witness, not in order to correct the official -report, but in order to clarify what the witness actually said, because -from the report we cannot know what he actually said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance -for the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the -<span class='pageno' title='289' id='Page_289'></span> -escaped fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is -available, this witness should be heard instead of an official report -which already actually contains an evaluation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not -proceed only or even substantially upon the evidence of General -Westhoff. There are a number of other origins of the report, and -the second thing is that the whole object of Article 21 was to make -government reports admissible and not to necessitate the calling of -the witnesses upon whose evidence they proceeded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other -matters, namely, the shooting. . . The other witnesses who were mentioned -were questioned on other facts. On the question of whether -Keitel issued such an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one -mentioned in the report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my -earphones on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I said, in that report other witnesses are also mentioned -but, as far as I know, they did not make a statement on the -question of whether or not Keitel issued an order to shoot the fliers. -Westhoff was the only one among the witnesses listed who could -and did make a statement on that question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further in -argument upon the admissibility of the document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It appears to me, Mr. President, -that that part of the document which refers to Major General -Westhoff occupies merely one paragraph, namely, Paragraph 7, of -the document in question. This part deals with the initial stage of -the perpetration of the crime, namely, with the stage of the conception, -the stage of the planning of the crime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The document also speaks of other stages in the commission of -this crime. Moreover, it is an official document, presented according -to Article 21 of the Charter. It seems to me that I have thereby -said all that is necessary, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, -Dr. Nelte?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I merely ask the Court to decide; in -that case I should have to request that General Westhoff be admitted -as a witness to testify that the conclusion drawn in this report does -not correspond with what he said. -<span class='pageno' title='290' id='Page_290'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen -and for the Reich Cabinet): May I make a few legal remarks, -a few generally legal remarks regarding Article 21 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In all criminal procedure of every country we find the primary -principle of oral court proceedings. Only if this cannot be carried -out are part of the proceedings, so to say, transferred outside the -court. In most codes of criminal procedure of the various countries -we have a provision similar to that of Article 21 of the Charter that -previous decisions of a court should not be re-examined in new -proceedings, but that such decisions should be binding.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this Trial the Charter extends this provision further to cases -which obviously, because of their scope, should not be further discussed -here. Therefore the decision that government reports should -be considered as evidence is clearly taken up in Paragraph 21. It -is clear to every jurist that this provision in itself is to an extent -a flaw in proceedings because through it certain rights are lost to -the defendants. On the other hand one cannot, of course, ignore the -argument that there is subject matter which, because of its extent, -cannot be practically discussed in a trial in which the time is limited.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 21 of the Charter therefore gave the Tribunal the -possibility of accepting such reports as valid evidence. But this -provision is not compulsory for the Tribunal. So far as I can see -from the German text before me it is provided that the Tribunal -should accept these reports, but it does not say that the Tribunal -must do so. Therefore it is in every case left to the discretion of -the Tribunal whether the nature of the report makes it advisable -to accept such a report in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We now have here a rather striking case which, in my opinion, -clearly shows that the Tribunal can make use of its discretion and -reject this document. The Defense have taken the position that this -subject of evidence could be taken care of by a witness. The examination -of the witness would have provided the Defense with the -right of cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Since, for tactical reasons inherent in the nature of the Trial, -the witness will not be called, the subsequent transfer of his evidence -into a government report means curtailing the right of the defendant -to cross-examination, and is thus contrary to the corresponding -article of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STAHMER: It was not until today that the accusation was -made that Göring knew of or ordered the execution of these fliers. -I could not take this act into consideration when I recently offered -my evidence, because I did not know of it; and I must, therefore, -reserve the right to call additional witnesses on this question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words, -Mr. President? -<span class='pageno' title='291' id='Page_291'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: On the question of the admissibility?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I consider the arguments put -forward by the second Defense Counsel as entirely incomprehensible -from a legal point of view since he introduces certain numerical -and quantitative criteria into the legal nature of the evidence. -According to this Counsel, Article 21 of the Charter deals only with -evidence of crimes committed on an enormous scale, but cannot -touch crimes of a smaller caliber.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To me, viewing the matter from a legal point of view, this -argumentation appears rotten from the root upwards and I consider -that Article 21 of the Charter applies, <span class='it'>in toto</span>, to any crime committed -by the Hitlerites, regardless of the fact if they be committed -on a very large or on a slightly smaller scale. That is all I wish to -say, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal would like to -know where these appendices which are referred to in Paragraph 9 -of the report are.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: I think they are in the Tribunal now, in the -charge of the Officer of the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: They are in the court now? You can undertake, -I suppose, to produce them all if they are not any of them -there?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, most certainly. I understood the whole -of the material is not necessary—the original, of course—but I -understood the whole of the material to be there, all in the original, -of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then the Tribunal decides that the -document will be admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is -available—and we think he is—General Westhoff; and that will be, -in effect, granting the defendants’ application to call General -Westhoff, and also to call the officer mentioned in Paragraph 3(b) -of the appendix, whose surname appears to be Wielen. I do not -know whether you know where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I can assure the -Tribunal that we will do everything in our power to get the -witnesses that are required for the defense, namely, General -<span class='pageno' title='292' id='Page_292'></span> -Westhoff, who is in Nuremberg, I understand, and General Wielen. -I am not certain where he is, but I will find out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant -Schacht): Mr. President, you made a remark during the session with -which the Defense Counsel are very much concerned. If we understood -this remark, it was said that private affidavits would not be -accepted by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that we must offer -our evidence now, this question of affidavits is very urgent. That -is why I am forced to clarify that question. The Defense Counsel -has. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, I do not think I said that affidavits -could not be admitted. What I said was, it might be that affidavits -would not be admitted, if the witness was available to give direct -evidence. That is the rule which we have enforced throughout the -Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: Yes, I understand you, Mr. President, to say that -in principle we may offer affidavits, whether certified by notary -public or by a lawyer or whether bearing only the signature of the -person who makes the statement. These are the three forms we -have: The simple letter written with the statement, “I declare under -oath.” The second type is that in which the signature has been -certified by a lawyer; and the third type is the one which has been -declared before and certified by a notary public.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have procured many documents of that kind, in order to -expedite matters, and we would like to know whether or not we may -expect to present them as evidence in order to avoid the calling of -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will -be considered when you present the applications for giving evidence -by affidavit. We have, today, in dealing with the first four defendants, -allowed, in a variety of instances, interrogatories to be administered -to various witnesses where it appeared appropriate that that -should be done in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will -apply when you come to submit your applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient -to you to go on with your presentation now on this document -which we have admitted, or do you wish to present a film?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to -finish the presentation of this proof, that is, to read into the record -the passages from the document I have quoted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; but the Tribunal, I think, desire -that these two witnesses, Major General Westhoff and Wielen, -<span class='pageno' title='293' id='Page_293'></span> -whatever his rank may be, should be produced for examination as -soon as possible afterwards. I don’t mean this afternoon, because -that would not be possible, but, if possible, tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I shall -request the representative of the British Delegation to reply to this -question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he -would ask you to answer, because I was saying that the Tribunal -would like to have the witnesses called as soon as possible after the -report was read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about, so I heard, Sir, and I -am trying to make inquiries now where Wielen is. If Your Lordship -will give me a few minutes I will try to find out where Wielen can -be located.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the Court, then, My -Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One minute, please.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Colonel Smirnov, would not it be equally convenient to go on -with the film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can -be presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Otherwise, supposing Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wielen this -afternoon, it might be that if you read the report now, there might -be a week possibly—or even more—between the reading of the -report and the evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with -the film now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What we are showing the -Tribunal cannot be called a film in the full sense of the word. It -is a series of photographic evidence, of photographs taken by the -Germans themselves on the site where the crimes were committed, -which were then rephotographed and transferred to a reel. It is not -a film—it is a photo-document. We are presenting these photo-documents -as Exhibit Number USSR-442 (Document Number -USSR-442), and we are presenting only one part of these photo-documents. -The fact of the matter is that the Government of Yugoslavia -presented photo-documents for every section of the report. -We have excluded the part dealing with the other sections and show -only that part which deals with Crimes against Humanity. Thus, -only a section of the documents is being shown to the Tribunal. May -I show these photo-documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The photographic document was then projected on the screen.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue with the presentation -of the documentary evidence? -<span class='pageno' title='294' id='Page_294'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in order to allow -the British Prosecution to settle the question as to when the two -witnesses will be summoned before the Tribunal, I take the liberty -of passing to the next part of my statement. Have I your permission -to do so?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I pass on to that part which -deals with the persecution of the Jews, Page 37 of the text. The -excessive anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which assumed a -perfectly zoological aspect, is only too well known. I shall not quote -from the so-called theoretical works of the major war criminals—from -Himmler and Göring to Papen and Streicher. In the Eastern -European countries all the anti-Semitism of the Hitlerites was put -into full effect and mostly in one way only—in the physical extermination -of innocent people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The United States Prosecution, in its own time, submitted to the -Tribunal one of the reports of a special German fascist organization, -the so-called Einsatzgruppe A, which was submitted as Exhibit -USA-276 (Document Number L-180). Our American colleagues submitted -this particular report which covered the period up to -15 October 1941. The Soviet Prosecution submits another report of -this criminal German fascist organization, covering a further period -of time and which might almost be considered as a continuation of -the first document, namely the report on Einsatzgruppe A, from -10 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I submit to the Tribunal -a photostatic copy of this report as Exhibit Number USSR-57 (Document -Number USSR-57). I request the permission of the Tribunal -to read into the record a very brief excerpt from Chapter 3 of the -report of Einsatzgruppe A, entitled “The Jews,” and I would invite -the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data presented in -this report refer exclusively to one organization—Einsatzgruppe A. -I quote one paragraph from Page 170 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The systematic task of purging the East was, according to -fundamental orders, the liquidation of the Jews to the fullest -possible extent. This objective has been practically realized, -with the exception of Bielorussia, by the execution of 229,052 -Jews. . . . The surviving Jews in the Baltic provinces are -urgently needed for work, and have been quartered in -ghettos.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt the quotation and read two further excerpts from a -subparagraph, “Estonia,” on Page 2 of the Russian text, which -corresponds to Page 171, Paragraph 2 of your document book. I -begin the quotation: -<span class='pageno' title='295' id='Page_295'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The execution of the Jews, insofar as they were not indispensable -for working purposes, was carried out gradually -by forces of the Sipo and the SD. At present there are no Jews -left in Estonia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a few brief excerpts from the subparagraphs entitled -“Latvia.” I quote one line from the last paragraph on the second -page of the Russian text, Page 171, Paragraph 5 of the document -book. I begin:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still -70,000 Jews left there.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I break off the quotation and read one line on Page 3, Paragraph -2 of the Russian text, Page 171, last paragraph of the document -book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By October 1941 the Sonderkommandos had executed about -30,000 Jews.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I again break off and continue with the following paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Further executions were later carried out. Thus, for instance, -11,034 Jews were executed on 9 November 1941 in Dünaburg. -In the beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation -carried out in Riga and following the order of the Higher -Chief of the SS and Police, 27,800 persons were executed, and -in mid-December 1941, in Libau, 2,350 Jews were executed. -At present there are in ghettos, besides the Jews from -Germany, about 2,500 Latvian Jews in Riga, about 950 in -Dünaburg, and about 300 in Libau.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come -from? Are they in an official report, or are they German figures?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These are the data published by -the Germans themselves. This particular document was discovered -in the Gestapo archives. It was brought out of Latvia by troops of -the Red Army. I request Your Honors to take note that this document -covers only the period between 16 October 1941 and 31 January -1942. This is therefore not conclusive data but merely data -connected with one German operational group during this particular -period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Have I your permission to proceed, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote one line only from the -subparagraph entitled “Lithuania,” which is on Page 173 of the -document book, Paragraph 3:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In numerous individual operations, 136,421 persons were -liquidated all told.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='296' id='Page_296'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the Tribunal to allow me to quote in greater detail from -the next subparagraph of the “A” group report, entitled “White -Ruthenia.” I quote the last paragraph on Page 5 of the Russian text; -Page 174, last paragraph, of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The final and definite liquidation of the Jews remaining in -the territory of White Ruthenia, after the arrival of the -Germans, presented certain difficulties. As a matter of fact, -it is precisely in this territory that the Jews constitute a high -percentage of specialists and are indispensable for lack of -other reserves. Moreover, Einsatzgruppe A took over the -territory only after the hard frosts had set in, a fact which -hampered the carrying out of the mass executions very -seriously indeed. A further difficulty consists in the circumstance -that the Jews are scattered all over the territory. -Bearing in mind the fact that distances are vast, road conditions -bad, transportation and petrol lacking, and the forces of -the Security Police and SD insignificant, the executions could -be carried out only by a maximum effort. Nevertheless, -41,000 Jews have already been shot. This figure does not -include the persons executed by former Einsatzkommandos.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt once more and proceed to read from the following -paragraph—this corresponds to Page 175, Paragraph 2 of the document -book. I begin the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Chief of Police in White Ruthenia, despite the difficult -situation, has been given orders to solve the Jewish question -as soon as possible. All the same, this calls for about two -months’ time, according to the weather.</p> - -<p>“The distribution of the remaining Jews in special ghettos of -White Ruthenia is nearing its end.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show how mass executions of the Jews by the German -criminals were carried out, I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit -Number USSR-119(a) (Document Number USSR-119(a)) a photostatic -copy, certified by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet -Union of an original German document. This is the conclusive -report of the commander of one of the companies of the 12th Regiment -of Police, which carried out the mass extermination of the -Jews assembled in the ghetto of the town of Pinsk. On 29 and -30 October 1942, the criminal elements from the 15th Regiment of -Police murdered 26,200 Jews in Pinsk. This is how Company Commander -Sauer described the crime. I shall not quote the document -<span class='it'>in toto</span> since it is rather long, but I shall quote a few excerpts. The -passage I am about to read—and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to -read it into the record—is on Page 177 of your document book, -Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation: -<span class='pageno' title='297' id='Page_297'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The ordered encirclement of the districts was accomplished -at 0430 hours; owing to the personal investigations made by -the commanders and to the manner in which the secret was -kept, the encirclement was carried out in the shortest time -imaginable and it was impossible for the Jews to flee.</p> - -<p>“The combing of the ghetto was to begin at 0600 hours, but -owing to the darkness it was postponed for another half-hour. -The Jews had noticed the proceedings and began to assemble -voluntarily in all the streets. With the aid of two Wachtmeister -(Staff Sergeants) it was possible to bring several -thousand Jews to the assembly point within the very first -hour. When the remaining Jews realized what was coming, -they too joined this column, so that the screening planned by -the SD at the assembly point could not be carried out in view -of the enormous multitude which had gathered. (For the first -day of the comb-out only one to two thousand persons had -been counted on.) The first comb-out ended at 1700 hours -without any incident. About 10,000 persons were executed on -this first day. That night the company was standing by, ready -for action, in a soldiers’ club.</p> - -<p>“On 30 October 1942 the ghetto was combed a second time. -On 31 October it was combed for the third time and on -1 November for the fourth time. About 15,000 Jews were -rounded up, all told. Sick Jews and children left behind in -the houses were executed on the spot in the yard of the -ghetto. About 1,200 Jews were executed in the ghetto.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I request the permission of the Tribunal to allow me to continue -quoting the second page of the document which corresponds to -Page 178 of the document book, Paragraph 6. I quote two points -from the section “Experiences.” I begin to quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“3) Where there are no cellars and a considerable number of -persons are huddled together in the small space between the -floor and the ground, these places must be broken into from -the outside, or else police dogs sent in (one police dog, Asta, -put up a remarkably good performance in Pinsk), otherwise -a hand grenade should be thrown in, after which the Jews -invariably come out into the open.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I further quote Point 5:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“We recommend persuading half-grown persons to disclose -these hiding places by promising to spare their lives. This -method has fully justified its application.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>This example of this police regiment, which I have just read into -the record, is typical of the methods applied for the extermination -of Jews who had been rounded up in the ghetto. But the German -<span class='pageno' title='298' id='Page_298'></span> -fascist invaders did not always apply this method when proceeding -to the extermination of the peaceful Jewish population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another, similarly criminal device was the assembling of Jews in -a given spot under the pretext of transferring them to some other -locality. The assembled Jews would then be shot. I submit to the -Tribunal an original poster which had been put up in the town of -Kislovodsk by Kommandantur Number 12. Your Honors will find -the text (Document Number USSR-434) quoted on Page 180. I shall -quote some extracts from this poster which is a comparatively long -one. I start with the first part:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To all Jews! For the purpose of colonizing sparsely populated -districts of the Ukraine, all Jews residing in Kislovodsk and -all Jews who have no permanent abode are ordered to present -themselves on Wednesday, 9 September 1942, at 5 a. m. Berlin -time (6 a. m. Moscow time), at the goods’ station in Kislovodsk; -the transport will take off at 6 a. m. (7 a. m. Moscow time).</p> - -<p>“Every Jew is to bring luggage not exceeding 20 kilograms -in weight, including food for a minimum of 2 days. Further food -will be supplied by the German authorities at the railway -stations.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I omit the next paragraph and only quote one line:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Also subjected to transfer are the Jews who have been -baptized.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I break off the quotation at this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to ascertain what happened to the Jewish population in -the town of Kislovodsk—the same happened to the Jews in many -other towns—I would request the Tribunal to refer to the contents -of a document which has already been submitted to the Tribunal -as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1). It is a -report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Stavropol -region.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The part which I wish to read, in brief, is on Page 187 of your -document book. It states there that the 2,000 Jews who had assembled -at the Kislovodsk station were sent to the station of Mineralniye -Vody and shot in an antitank trench 2½ kilometers distant from the -town. Here too, thousands of Jews, transferred from the towns of -Essentuki and Piatigorsk, were shot on the same site.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show the extent of the criminal extermination of the -peaceful Jewish population in Eastern Europe, I now refer to the -contents of reports received from the governments of the respective -Eastern European countries, which have already been submitted to -the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote a report of the Polish Government, on Page 136 of the -Russian text of this document. I begin the quotation: -<span class='pageno' title='299' id='Page_299'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The official statistical yearbook of Poland, in 1931, estimates -the number of Jews at 3,115,000.</p> - -<p>“According to unofficial figures collected in 1939 there were in -Poland 3,500,000 Jews.</p> - -<p>“After the liberation of Poland the Jews in that country -numbered less than 100,000, and 200,000 Polish Jews are still -in the U.S.S.R.</p> - -<p>“Thus, about 3 million Jews perished in Poland.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In Czechoslovakia, as seen from the data published on Pages 82-83 -of the Russian text of the report, the Jews numbered 118,000. At -present, in the entire country, they number only 6,000 all told. Of -the total number of 15,000 Jewish children, only 28 have returned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Can we leave off here?</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='300' id='Page_300'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SIXTY-NINTH DAY</span><br/> Wednesday, 27 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I -wonder if the Tribunal would allow me to make a very short -explanation as to the source of the document with regard to Stalag -Luft III which the Tribunal discussed yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position was that when evidence -for this Trial was being collected, each government that might -be concerned was written to and asked if they would produce -government reports, and they have produced government reports -which have been put before the Tribunal by the various sections of -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The document with regard to the shooting of the prisoners in -Stalag Luft III was a British Government report of the same type. -It was compiled from various information, which is included in the -appendices; that information included the interrogation of General -Westhoff, which had been sent to the United Nations War Crimes -Commission as thousands of other documents were sent, for that -Commission to consider whether any action should be taken from -the matters disclosed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That document was then sent from the United Nations War -Crimes Commission to the British Government and dealt with as -part of the material on which the British Government report was -based. The British Government report is certified by myself to be -a Government report, and I have specific authority from His -Majesty’s Government in Britain to perform such certification. It -is very short, and it might be convenient if I read it so that it -appears in the record. I have the copy, which was sent to me on -the official Cabinet paper, purporting to be signed by Sir Edward -Bridges, the Secretary to the Cabinet. The original was sent to the -Attorney General, and the document is jointly to us both; but there -is no doubt as to its authenticity; and the original can be produced, -if necessary. The document reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great -Britain and Northern Ireland has authorized the Right Honorable -Sir Hartley Shawcross, K. C., M. P., the Chief Prosecutor -<span class='pageno' title='301' id='Page_301'></span> -for the United Kingdom, appointed under Article 14 of the -Charter, annexed to the agreement dated the 8th day of -August 1945, and the Right Honorable Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, -K. C., M. P., the Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United -Kingdom, to certify those documents to be produced at the -trial of war criminals before the International Military Tribunal -which are documents of His Majesty’s Government in -the United Kingdom.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>My respectful submission is, therefore, that on my certification -the document becomes a governmental document within Article 21, -and it is thereupon a mandatory injunction to the Tribunal that -it shall take judicial notice of such a document. At that point the -document, in my respectful submission to the Tribunal, should be -taken into evidence. And it is then, of course, a matter for the -Defense, if they wish to call any witness, to make such application -as they desire and for the Tribunal to rule on it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But as a point of construction, I respectfully submit that once -a document is certified as a government document, as all these -government reports are, the Charter enjoins the Tribunal to take -judicial notice of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal did admit the document -yesterday; but they are glad of your explanation. Nothing in -the order that they made is in any way inconsistent with what you -have now said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I would like to -recall to you certain figures which I mentioned yesterday afternoon. -I am speaking about the number of Jews who were exterminated -in Poland and Czechoslovakia. I allow myself to remind -the Tribunal that the figures I mentioned yesterday, which were -based on the report of the Polish Government, show that 3 million -Jews in Poland have been exterminated. In Czechoslovakia out of -118,000 Jews only 6,000 remain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would now like to pass on to the report of the Yugoslav -Government and will quote one paragraph, which the Tribunal will -find on Page 75 of the document book, third paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Out of 75,000 Yugoslav Jews and about 5,000 Jewish emigrées -from other countries who were in Yugoslavia at the -time of the attack—that is to say, out of a total number of -about 80,000 Jews—only some 10,000 persons survived the -German occupation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='302' id='Page_302'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to call to this Court a witness who will confirm -these data. He is Abram Gerzevitch Suzkever, a Jewish writer, -who together with his family became a victim of the German -fascist criminals who had temporarily occupied the territory of the -Lithuanian Soviet Republic. I beg the Tribunal to allow me to question -this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness, Suzkever, took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>ABRAM GERZEVITCH SUZKEVER (Witness): Suzkever.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you a Soviet citizen?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat after me: I—and mention -your name—citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—summoned -as a witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in the -presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but the truth—about -everything I know in regard to this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath in Russian.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, Witness, where -did the German occupation find you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: In the town of Vilna.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stayed in this town for a -long time during the German occupation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: I stayed there from the first to nearly the last day -of the occupation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You witnessed the persecution -of the Jews in that city?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the -Court about this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: When the Germans seized my city, Vilna, about -80,000 Jews lived in the town. Immediately the so-called Sonderkommando -was set up at 12 Vilenskaia Street, under the command -of Schweichenberg and Martin Weiss. The man-hunters of the -Sonderkommandos, or as the Jews called them, the “Khapun,” -broke into the Jewish houses at any time of day or night, dragged -away the men, instructing them to take a piece of soap and a towel, -and herded them into certain buildings near the village of Ponari, -about 8 kilometers from Vilna. From there hardly one returned. -When the Jews found out that their kin were not coming back, a -<span class='pageno' title='303' id='Page_303'></span> -large part of the population went into hiding. However, the Germans -tracked them with police dogs. Many were found, and any -who were averse to going with them were shot on the spot.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have to say that the Germans declared that they were exterminating -the Jewish race as though legally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 8 July an order was issued which stated that all Jews should -wear a patch on their back; afterwards they were ordered to wear -it on their chest. This order was signed by the commandant of the -town of Vilna, Zehnpfennig. But 2 days later some other commandant -named Neumann issued a new order that they should not -wear these patches but must wear the yellow Star of David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what does this yellow Star -of David mean?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: It was a six-pointed patch worn on the chest and -on the back, in order to distinguish the Jews from the other -inhabitants of the town. On another day they were ordered to -wear a blue band with a white star. The Jews did not know which -insignia to wear as very few lived in the town. Those who did not -wear this sign were immediately arrested and never seen again.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 17 July 1941 I witnessed a large pogrom in Vilna on Novgorod -Street. The inciters of this pogrom were the forenamed -Schweichenberg and Martin Weiss, a certain Herring, and Schönhaber, -a German Gestapo chief. They surrounded this district with -Sonderkommandos. They drove all the men into the street, told -them to take off their belts and to put their hands on their heads -like this [<span class='it'>demonstrating</span>]. When that order had been complied with, -all the Jews were driven along into the Lukshinaia prison. When -the Jews started to march off, their trousers fell down and they -couldn’t walk. Those who tried to hold up their trousers with their -hands were shot then and there in the street. When we walked in -a column down the street, I saw with my own eyes the bodies of -about 100 or 150 persons who had been shot in the street. Blood -streamed through the street as if a red rain had fallen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the first days of August 1941 a German seized me in the -Dokumenskaia Street. I was then going to visit my mother. The -German said to me, “Come with me, you will act in the circus.” -As I went along I saw that another German was driving along an -old Jew, the old rabbi of this street, Kassel, and a third German -was holding a young boy. When we reached the old synagogue on -this street I saw that wood was piled up there in the shape of a -pyramid. A German drew out his revolver and told us to take off -our clothes. When we were naked, he lit a match and set fire to -this stack of wood. Then another German brought out of the synagogue -three scrolls of the Torah, gave them to us, and told us to -<span class='pageno' title='304' id='Page_304'></span> -dance around this bonfire and sing Russian songs. Behind us stood -the three Germans; with their bayonets they forced us toward the -fire and laughed. When we were almost unconscious, they left.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must say that the mass extermination of the Jewish people in -Vilna began at the moment when District Commissar Hans Fincks -arrived, as well as the referant, or reporter on the Jewish problems, -Muhrer. On 31 August, under the direction of District Commissioner -Fincks and Muhrer. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which year?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: 1941.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Under the direction of Fincks and Muhrer, the -Germans surrounded the old Jewish quarter of Vilna, taking in -Rudnitskaia and Jewish Streets, Galonsky Alley, the Shabelsky and -Strashouna Streets, where some 8 to 10 thousand Jews were living.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I was ill at the time and asleep. Suddenly I felt the lash of a -whip on me. When I jumped up from my bed I saw Schweichenberg -standing in front of me. He had a big dog with him. He was -beating everybody and shouting that we must all run out into the -courtyard. When I was out in the courtyard, I saw there many -women, children, and aged persons—all the Jews who lived there. -Schweichenberg had the Sonderkommando surround all this crowd -and said that they were taking us to the ghetto. But, of course, like -all their statements, this was also a lie. We went through the town -in columns and were led toward Lutishcheva Prison. All knew that -we were going to our death. When we arrived at Lutishcheva -Prison, near the so-called Lutishkina market, I saw a whole double -line of German soldiers with white sticks standing there to receive -us. While we had to pass between them they beat us with sticks. -If a Jew fell down, the one next to him was told to pick him up -and carry him through the large prison gates which stood open. -Near the prison I took to my heels. I swam across the River Vilia -and hid in my mother’s house. My wife, who was put in prison -and then managed to escape later on, told me that there she saw -the well-known Jewish scientist Moloch Prilutzky, who was almost -dead, the president of the Jewish Society of Vilna, Dr. Jacob -Wigotzky, and the young Jewish historian, Pinkus Kohn. The -famous artists Hash and Kadisch were lying dead. The Germans -flogged, robbed, then drove away all their victims to Ponari.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 6 September at 6 o’clock in the morning thousands of Germans, -led by District Commissar Fincks, by Muhrer, Schweichenberg, -Martin Weiss, and others, surrounded the whole town, broke -into the Jewish houses, and told the inhabitants to take only that -which they could carry off in their hands and get out into the -<span class='pageno' title='305' id='Page_305'></span> -street. Then they were driven off to the ghetto. When they were -passing by Wilkomirowskaia Street where I was, I saw the Germans -had brought sick Jews from the hospitals. They were all in blue -hospital gowns. They were all forced to stand while a German -newsreel operator, who was driving in front of the column, filmed -this scene.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must say that not all the Jews were driven into the ghetto. -Fincks did this on purpose. He drove the inhabitants of one street -to the ghetto and the inhabitants of another street to Ponari. Previously -the Germans had set up two ghettos in Vilna. In the first -were 29,000 Jews, and in the second some 15,000 Jews. About half -the Jewish population of Vilna never reached the ghetto; they were -shot on the way. I remember how, when we arrived at the ghetto. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Just a moment, Witness. Did I -understand you correctly, that before the ghetto was set up, half -the Jewish population of Vilna was already exterminated?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, that is right. When I arrived at the ghetto -I saw the following scene: Martin Weiss came in with a young -Jewish girl. When we went in farther, he took out his revolver -and shot her on the spot. The girl’s name was Gitele Tarlo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, how old was this girl?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Eleven. I must state that the Germans organized -the ghetto only to exterminate the Jewish population with greater -ease. The head of the ghetto was the expert on Jewish questions, -Muhrer, and he issued a series of mad orders. For instance, Jews -were forbidden to wear watches. The Jews could not pray in the -ghetto. When a German passed by, they had to take off their hats -but were not allowed to look at him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were these official orders?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, issued by Muhrer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were they posted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, they were posted in the ghetto. The same -Muhrer, when he visited the ghetto, went into the shops where the -Jews were working for him and ordered all workers to fall down -on the ground and bark like dogs. On Atonement Day in 1941 -Schweichenberg and the same Sonderkommando broke into the -second ghetto and seized all the old men who were praying in -the synagogues and drove them to Ponari. I remember when -Schweichenberg went to the second ghetto and the man-hunters -seized the Jews.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Who were these hunters?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: The soldiers of the Sonderkommando who seized -the Jews and whom the population called the hunters. -<span class='pageno' title='306' id='Page_306'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So they were soldiers of the -Sonderkommando, whom the population called hunters?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, that is so. These hunters dragged the Jews -out of the cellars and tried to drive them to Ponari. But the -Jews knew that nobody returned alive and did not want to go. -Then Schweichenberg began to shoot at the inhabitants of the -ghetto. I remember that there was a big dog at his side; and when -this dog heard the shots, it jumped at Schweichenberg and began -to bite his throat like a mad dog. Then Schweichenberg killed this -dog and told the Jews to bury it and to cry over its grave. We -really cried then—we cried because it was not Schweichenberg but -the dog that had been buried.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the end of December 1941 an order was issued in the ghetto -which stated that the Jewish women must not bear children.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell us how, -or in what form, this order was issued by the German fascists.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Muhrer came to the hospital in Street Number 6 -and said that an order had come from Berlin to the effect that -Jewish women should not bear children and that if the Germans -found out that a Jewish woman had given birth, the child would -be exterminated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Towards the end of December in the ghetto my wife gave birth -to a child, a boy. I was not in the ghetto at that time, having -escaped from one of these so-called “actions.” When I came to the -ghetto later I found that my wife had had a baby in a ghetto -hospital. But I saw the hospital surrounded by Germans and a -black car standing before the door. Schweichenberg was standing -near the car, and the hunters of the Sonderkommando were dragging -sick and old people out of the hospital and throwing them like logs -into the truck. Among them I saw the well-known Jewish writer -and editor, Grodnensky, who was also dragged and dumped into -this truck.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the evening when the Germans had left, I went to the hospital -and found my wife in tears. It seems that when she had had her -baby, the Jewish doctors of the hospital had already received the -order that Jewish women must not give birth; and they had hidden -the baby, together with other newborn children, in one of the rooms. -But when this commission with Muhrer came to the hospital, they -heard the cries of the babies. They broke open the door and -entered the room. When my wife heard that the door had been -broken, she immediately got up and ran to see what was happening -to the child. She saw one German holding the baby and smearing -something under its nose. Afterwards he threw it on the bed and -laughed. When my wife picked up the child, there was something -<span class='pageno' title='307' id='Page_307'></span> -black under his nose. When I arrived at the hospital, I saw that -my baby was dead. He was still warm.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the next day I went to my mother in the ghetto, and I found -her room empty. A prayer book was still open on the table and -a glass of tea, not yet touched. I learned that in the night the -Germans had surrounded this house, seized all the inhabitants, and -driven them off to Ponari. In the last days of December 1941 -Muhrer gave a present to the ghetto. A carload of shoes belonging -to the Jews executed at Ponari was brought into the ghetto. He -sent these old shoes as a gift to the ghetto. Among them I recognized -my mother’s.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Shortly afterwards the second ghetto was liquidated, and the -German newspaper in Vilna announced that the Jews from this -district had died of an epidemic.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 23 December 1941, in the night, Muhrer came and distributed -among the population 3,000 yellow tickets, the so-called Ausweise. -Those who had these tickets were allowed to register their relatives; -that meant some 9,000 persons. At that time about 18 to 20 thousand -people lived in the ghetto. Those who had these yellow tickets went -to work the next day; and the others, who remained in the ghetto -without these tickets and did not want to go to their death, were -slaughtered in the ghetto itself. The rest were driven away to -Ponari.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have a document which I found after the liberation of the -town of Vilna, concerning the Jewish clothing from Ponari. If this -document interests you I can show it to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I do not know of this document -either, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: [<span class='it'>Continuing.</span>] This document reads as follows—I -will read only a few lines. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness read the document in German, and only part of it -was translated. It was later identified as Document USSR-444.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, as you have read this -document, you must hand it over to the Tribunal, as otherwise we -cannot judge this document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us first of all where the document -was found?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: I found this document at the district commissioner’s -building in Vilna, in July 1944, when our city was already liberated -from the German invaders. -<span class='pageno' title='308' id='Page_308'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say it was found?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: In the building of the District Commissar in Vilna -on the Gedemino Street.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was that the building occupied by the -Germans?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes, it was the headquarters of the German District -Commissioner of Vilna. Hans Fincks and Muhrer lived there.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, read the part of the document you were -reading just now; we did not hear it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Certainly.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To the District Commissioner at Vilna: Pursuant to your -order, the old Jewish clothing from Ponari is at present being -disinfected by this establishment and delivered to the administration -of Vilna.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand it in, please?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please, Witness, I am interested -in the following question: You said that at the beginning of the -German occupation 80,000 Jews lived in Vilna. How many remained -after the German occupation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: After the occupation about 600 Jews remained -in Vilna.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thus, 79,400 persons were exterminated?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SUZKEVER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I have no further -questions to ask of the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Chief Prosecutor want to ask -any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: No questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the defendants’ counsel -wish to ask any questions? No? Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to -modify the plan of my statement and leave out just now that chapter -of my statement which is entitled, “Religious Persecutions,” to which -I shall come back a little later. I would now like, with your permission, -to take up that part of my statement which is entitled, -“Experiments on Living Persons.” It is on Page 47 of the Russian -text. -<span class='pageno' title='309' id='Page_309'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Before reading this part of my statement, I would like to quote -a few short extracts from a document which has not as yet been -read into the record by our United States colleagues, because the -main part of this document refers to experiments which were described -in detail by the United States Prosecution with the help of -other documents. This document is registered under Document -Number 400-PS (Exhibit Number USSR-435). It refers to experiments -by Dr. Rascher. It is submitted to the Tribunal as a photostat -copy, which includes a series of documents. I quote two paragraphs -only from this Document Number 400-PS. These two paragraphs -testify to the predilection of Dr. Rascher for the Auschwitz Camp. -This extract is on Page 149 of the document book, last paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It would be simpler if I were soon transferred to the -Waffen-SS and could visit the Auschwitz Camp with Neff, -where I could, by a series of large scale experiments, solve -the problem of reviving people who had been frozen on land. -For these experiments Auschwitz is in every respect better -adapted than Dachau, for the climate is colder there and, as -the camp area is larger, less attention will be attracted. The -victims yell when they are being frozen.</p> - -<p>“If it is agreeable to you, esteemed Reichsführer, to have these -experiments—so important for our land forces—quickly carried -out at Auschwitz (or in Lublin or any other Eastern -camp), I would respectfully beg you to give the necessary -orders in the near future so that we could yet profit by the -last cold, winter weather. With most obedient greetings I am, -in sincere gratitude, Heil Hitler, your always devoted servant, -S. Rascher.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like to remind the Tribunal that this special interest of -Dr. Rascher in the Auschwitz Camp—I remind the Tribunal that -Auschwitz was the central section of the camp situated near the -town of Oswieczim—was not accidental. In Auschwitz cruel experiments -on live persons were carried out on a scale greatly exceeding -all that was done in Dachau or other concentration camps of -the Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Our Exhibit Number USSR-8 (Document Number USSR-8) has -already been added to the file of the case. It is the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the monstrous -crimes of the German Government in Oswieczim. The introductory -part of this report contains the following excerpt, which -the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 196 of the document -book. I read one paragraph only:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Special hospitals, surgical blocks, histological laboratories, -and other departments were set up in the camp. But they -were intended not for the treatment but for the extermination -<span class='pageno' title='310' id='Page_310'></span> -of people. Here German professors and doctors carried out -mass experiments on men, women, and children who were in -perfectly good health. They carried out experiments on -sterilization of women, on castration of men, experiments on -children, artificial infection with cancer, typhus, and malaria, -of masses of people who were afterward subjected to observation. -They tested the action of poisonous substances on -living persons.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like to stress that experiments on the sterilization and -castration of women and men were carried out on a particularly -large scale. Whole blocks in the camp were especially designated -for experiments using particularly effective methods of sterilization -and castration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I will read two short excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission, which the Tribunal will find on the back of -Page 196 of the document book, Paragraph 5. I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Experiments on women were carried out in the hospital -blocks of the Oswieczim Camp. Up to four hundred women -were detained simultaneously in Block 10 of the camp, and -experiments on sterilization were carried out on them by -means of X-rays and subsequent removal of the ovaries, -experiments in engrafting cancer in the neck of the uterus -and forced abortion, and on testing countermeasures against -injuries to the uterus by X-ray.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit three sentences and proceed with the quotation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In Block 21”—that is another block, the women’s block was -Number 10—“mass experiments on castration of men were -carried out for the purpose of studying the possibility of -sterilization by X-ray. The castration itself was carried out -some time later after the X-ray process. These experiments -on X-raying and castration were carried out by Professor -Schumann and Dr. Dering. It frequently happened that after -treatment by X-ray, one or both testicles of the subject were -removed for examination.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to allow me, in order to show the extent of -these experiments, to read short excerpts from the testimony of the -Dutch Doctor De Vind. It is contained in the Exhibit Number -USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52) already presented to the -Court. I will not read the testimony in full but will just quote the -statistics, which the Tribunal may find on the back of Page 203 of -the document book, last paragraph, first column. I repeat that these -numbers refer only to one block, Block 10. The following women -were interned in this block: -<span class='pageno' title='311' id='Page_311'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Fifty women of different nationalities who arrived in March -1943; 100 Greek women who arrived in March 1943; 110 Belgian -women who arrived in April 1943; 50 French women -who arrived in July 1943; 40 Dutch women who arrived in -August 1943; 100 Dutch women who arrived on 15 September -1943; and 100 Dutch women who arrived one week later; and -finally 12 Polish women.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I will quote a further excerpt from the statement of the Dutch -Doctor De Vind, which has also been submitted previously to the -Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52), -I quote that part of the statement in which he speaks of experiments -carried out by a certain Professor Schumann on 15 young girls. -Your Honors will find this excerpt on Page 204 of the document -book, first column of the text, third paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Professor Schumann (a German). These experiments were -carried out on 15 girls of 17 to 18 years of age, including -Shimmi Bella, from Salonika (Greece) and Buena Dora, from -Salonika (Greece). Only a few of them survived; but unfortunately -they are still in the German hands, and we have -consequently no objective data on these brutal experiments. -However, the following has been established beyond doubt: -The girls were placed between two plates within the field of -ultra-short waves; one electrode was placed on the abdomen -and the other on the buttocks. The focus of the rays was -directed on the ovaries which were consequently burned out. -As a result of the irregular dosage, serious burns appeared -on the abdomen and on the buttocks. One girl died of these -terrible sufferings; the other girls were sent to Birkenau to -the medical unit or to working kommandos.</p> - -<p>“A month later they were returned to Oswieczim, where they -were subjected to two operations for checking the results; one, -longitudinal, the other, a horizontal incision. The reproductive -organs were removed for study. As a result of the destruction -of hormones, the girls completely changed in appearance and -resembled old women.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>With this I end the quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Experiments on sterilization of women and castration of men -were carried out in Oswieczim on a mass scale beginning in 1942, -and some time after the sterilization the men were castrated for -a special study of the tissues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You can find a confirmation of this fact in the report of the -Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on Oswieczim, -where numerous statements of individual internees who underwent -such operations have been quoted. The Tribunal will find the -excerpt which I wish to read on Page 197 of the document book, -<span class='pageno' title='312' id='Page_312'></span> -second paragraph, second column of the text. I quote two paragraphs:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Valigura, who was subjected to such experiments, stated:</p> - -<p>“ ‘A few days after I had been brought to Birkenau, I believe -it was in the first days of December 1942, all the young men -from 18 to 30 years of age were sterilized by X-raying the -scrotum. I myself was among those sterilized. Eleven months -later, that is to say, on the 1st of November 1943, I was -castrated. Together with me on that same day 200 men were -sterilized.’</p> - -<p>“Witness David Sures, from the town of Salonika (Greece), -stated the following:</p> - -<p>“ ‘Toward July 1943 I myself and 10 other Greeks were placed -on some kind of list and sent to Birkenau. There we were -stripped and subjected to sterilization by X-rays. A month -later we were summoned to a central section of the camp -where all those sterilized underwent an operation of castration.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that it was not by accident that the experiments on -people began with sterilization and castration. This was a quite -natural result of the theories of German fascism, interested in -lowering the birthrate of those people whom they considered to be -vanquished. It was a part of Hitler’s depopulation technique; and -in confirmation of this I would now like to quote a very short -excerpt from Rauschning’s book, <span class='it'>The Voice of Destruction</span>, which -has already been submitted to the Tribunal. This extract has not -yet been read into the record, and the Tribunal will find it on -Page 207 of the document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Hitler said to Rauschning:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“And by ‘destruction’ I do not necessarily mean extermination -of these people—I shall simply take systematic measures to -prevent their procreation.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>I skip the next three sentences and quote one more sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“There are many means by which a systematic and comparatively -painless extinction of undesirable races can be -attained, at any rate without blood being shed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>This excerpt is on Page 137 of the original book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sterilization and castration became a criminal practice of the -Hitlerites in the occupied territories in Eastern Europe. I beg the -Tribunal’s permission to draw its attention to two of these documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, perhaps that would be a -convenient time to break off. -<span class='pageno' title='313' id='Page_313'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal would like to know how long you think you will -take before you conclude your statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that I -will finish the presentation of evidence today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like the Tribunal to allow me to question three more -witnesses today and I still have about one hour of reading. But it -is very difficult for me to determine the time exactly, as that sometimes -depends on other factors, known to you, which may force me -to change my intentions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask the permission of the Tribunal -to draw its attention to two very short German documents, -which are submitted under Exhibit Number USSR-400 (Document -Number USSR-400) in photostats certified by the Extraordinary -State Commission of the Soviet Union. They are two communications -from Lieutenant Frank, head of a Security Police division, -regarding the conditions under which a gypsy woman, Lucia -Strasdinsch had the right to reside in the town of Libau.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Libau, 10 December 1941.</p> - -<p>“Security Police Post, Town of Libau; to the Prefect of the -Town of Libau.</p> - -<p>“It has been decided that the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch will be -allowed to take up residence here again only on the condition -that she submits to being sterilized. She is to be informed -accordingly and a report on the result is to be rendered to -this office.</p> - -<p>“Frank, Lieutenant, Security Police and O. C. Security Police -Station.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document is a memorandum from the Prefecture of -Libau, H. Grauds, to the head of the Security Police Post. The text:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I herewith return your letter of 10 December 1941 regarding -the sterilization of the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch and beg to -report that this person was sterilized in the local hospital on -9 January 1942. Pertinent letter Number 850 of 12. 1. 42 from -the hospital is attached.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to show the extent of the experiments which were performed -on live persons, I would ask Your Honors to turn to the -report of the Extraordinary State Commission on Oswieczim. The -extract which I should like to quote, the members of the Tribunal -may find on Page 197 of the book of documents, first column, second -<span class='pageno' title='314' id='Page_314'></span> -paragraph. It is stated there that a statistical report by the commandant -of the camp has been discovered in the archives of the -camp. This report is signed by the deputy commander of the camp, -Sella. It has a column under the heading, “Internees designated for -experiments.” This column reads as follows; “Women subject to -experiments: on 15 May 1944—400, on 15 June—413, on 19 June—348, -and so on.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would like to conclude this chapter on experiments on live -persons, by the following: I would like to quote the memorandum -of the judicial and medical report, an excerpt of which is in the -report on Oswieczim Camp. The members of the Tribunal may find -the passage which I should like to quote on Page 197 of the document -book, first column, Paragraph 5. I omit the part which refers -to sterilization and castration because I think that this question has -been sufficiently elucidated. I will quote only Points 4, 6, and 7 of -the memorandum, indicating that in Oswieczim:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Researches were carried out with various chemical preparations -of German firms. According to the testimony of one -German physician, Dr. Valentin Erwin, there was a case -where the representatives of the chemical industry of Germany, -a gynecologist, Glauber, from Königshütte, and a -chemist, Gebel, bought from the administration of the camp -150 women for such experiments.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit Point 5 and I quote Point 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Experiments on men by applying irritant chemical substances -on the skin of the calf in order to create ulcers and -phlegmons.</p> - -<p>“7) A series of other experiments—artificial infection with -malaria, artificial insemination, and so forth.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next three pages of my statement which give the -particulars of these experiments. I would like only to draw the -attention of the Tribunal to other crimes perpetrated by the German -doctors and, in particular, to the extermination of patients in mental -hospitals. I am not going to quote all the examples which the Tribunal -will find in the report of the Extraordinary State Commission -but will dwell on one crime only, which was perpetrated in the -town of Kiev. I quote a paragraph from the report of the Extraordinary -State Commission on the town of Kiev, which the members -of the Tribunal will find on Page 212 of the document book, first -column, Paragraph 6:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 14 October 1941 an SS detachment under the leadership -of the German garrison physician Rikowsky, entered the -mental hospital. The Hitlerites drove 300 patients into one -building, kept them there without food and water, and then -<span class='pageno' title='315' id='Page_315'></span> -shot them in a gully of the Kirilov wood. The remaining -patients were exterminated on 7 January, 27 March, and -17 October 1942.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In the subsequent part of the Extraordinary State Commission’s -report a statement is quoted, a statement made by Professor -Kapustianski, by a woman doctor Dzevaltovska, and the nurse -Troepolska. I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-249 -(Document Number USSR-249) the photostat of this testimony, and -I request that it be included in the files of the case as evidence. -I am quoting some of the extracts from this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“During the German occupation of the city of Kiev, the Kiev -Psychiatric Clinic had to experience tragic days, which culminated -in the complete ruin and destruction of the hospital. -A crime was committed against the unfortunate mentally sick -people, the like of which had not been known in history up -to this time.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next part and I quote further on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the course of the years 1941-42, 800 patients were killed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next two paragraphs and I read on:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“On 7 January 1942 the Gestapo came to the hospital. They -posted guards everywhere in the grounds of the hospital. To -enter or leave the hospital was forbidden. A representative -of the Gestapo requested the selection of the incurably sick -people to be sent to Zhitomir.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I skip the next sentence.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“What was in store for the sick people was carefully concealed -from the medical staff. After that, special cars arrived at the -hospital. The sick people were pushed into them, some 60 to -70 persons into each car. Everyone could see these atrocities -which were perpetrated in front of the ward windows. The -patients were pushed into the cars and murdered there. Their -corpses were thrown out on the spot. This awful deed went -on for two days, during which 365 patients were exterminated. -The patients who had not completely lost their -minds soon realized the truth. There were heart-rending -scenes. Thus, a young girl, patient Y, in spite of all of the -efforts of the doctor, understood that death was awaiting her. -She came out of the ward, embraced the doctor, and quietly -asked him, ‘Is this the end?’ Pale as death, she went to the -car and, refusing any assistance, climbed inside. The entire -staff was told that any criticism or any expression of displeasure -would be completely out of place and would be -regarded as sabotage.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall quote one more sentence from this report: -<span class='pageno' title='316' id='Page_316'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is a characteristic detail that these murders—unprecedented -by their abomination—were committed on Christmas -Day, when Christmas trees were being distributed to the -German soldiers; and the inscription ‘God is with us’ sparkled -on the belts of the executioners.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Herewith I end my quotation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it possible to omit the following four pages of my speech -because they deal with similar cases of the murder of mental -patients in other parts of the country. Similar methods were used -for these murders as those used in Kiev. I will request the Tribunal -to accept as evidence the photostats of three German documents, -certified by the Extraordinary State Commission, which -testify to the fact that special standard forms of documents were -worked out for the report on the murder of the insane by the -German fascists.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit these documents. The first document is submitted as -Exhibit Number USSR-397 (Document Number USSR-397.) The -members of the Tribunal may find it on Page 218 of the document -book. I am quoting the text of the document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“To the Registrar’s office in the Town of Riga:”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I omit the next paragraph.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby certify that 368 incurably insane patients, whose -names appear on the annexed list, died on 29 January 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, -SS Sturmbannführer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The second document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-410 -(Document Number USSR-410). This is a report of the head of the -Security Police and SD in Latvia, Number 357/42g, dated 28 May -1942. I am quoting the one paragraph from this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby certify that 243 incurably insane patients, whose -names appear on the enclosed list, died on 14 April 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, -SS Sturmbannführer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The third document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-398 -(Document Number USSR-398). This is a report by the head of the -Security Police and SD, Latvia, dated 15 March 1943. I will read -into the record the one paragraph of this document:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I hereby certify that 98 incurably insane patients, whose -names appear on the enclosed list, died on 22 October 1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, -SS Sturmbannführer.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I think I can also omit the next one and a half pages of my -statement; but I would request the Tribunal to accept as evidence -the following document without reading it, as proof of the experiments -carried out on live persons. I submit as Exhibit Number -<span class='pageno' title='317' id='Page_317'></span> -USSR-406 (Document Number USSR-406) the data about the experiments -carried out in another camp, the Ravensbrück Camp. It contains -the results of the investigation by the Polish State Commission. -The photographs contained therein are very characteristic and I -need not comment on them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I would now request the Tribunal’s permission to summon as -witness a Polish woman, Shmaglevskaya, to have her testify regarding -only one question, the attitude of the German fascists toward -the children in the concentration camps. Would the President permit -the calling of this witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness, Shmaglevskaya, took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you first of all tell me your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SEVERINA SHMAGLEVSKAYA (Witness): Severina Shmaglevskaya.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby -swear before God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal -nothing but the truth—concealing nothing that is known to -me—so help me God, Amen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, were you an -internee of Oswieczim Camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During what period of time -were you in the camp of Oswieczim?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: From 7 October 1942 to January 1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you have any proof that you -were an internee of this camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I have the number which was tattooed on -my arm, right here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is what the Oswieczim -inmates call the “visiting cards”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, please, Witness, were -you an eyewitness of German SS men’s attitude toward children?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please tell the Tribunal -about this?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I could tell about the children who were -born in the concentration camp, about the children who were brought -to the concentration camp with the Jewish transports and who were -<span class='pageno' title='318' id='Page_318'></span> -taken directly to the crematories, as well as about those children -who were brought to concentration camps and there interned. -Already in December 1942 when I went to work about 10 kilometers -from Birkenau. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me. May I interrupt -you? Then, you were in the Birkenau section of the camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, I was in the Camp Birkenau, which -is a part of the Oswieczim Camp, which was called Oswieczim -Number 2.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please go on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I noticed then a woman in the last month -of pregnancy. It was obvious from her appearance. This woman, -together with the others, had to walk 10 kilometers to the place of -work and there she toiled the whole day, shovel in hands, digging -trenches. She was already ill and she asked the German superintendent, -a civilian, for permission to rest. He refused, laughed at -her, and together with another SS man, started beating her. He -scrutinized her work very strictly. Such was the situation of all -the women who were pregnant. And only during the very last -minutes were they permitted to stay away from work. The newborn -children, if Jewish, were immediately put to death.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Pardon me, Witness, what do -you mean by “were immediately put to death”? When was it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: They were immediately taken away from -their mother.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When the transport arrived?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, I am speaking of the children who -were born in the concentration camps. A few minutes after delivery -the child was taken from the mother, who never saw it again. After -a few days the mother had to return to work. In 1942 there were -no special blocks in the camp for the children. At the beginning of -1943, when they started to tattoo the internees, the children born in -the concentration camps were also branded. The number was -tattooed on their legs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why on the leg?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Because the child is very small and there -was not enough room on their tiny arms for the number, which contained -five digits. The children did not have special numbers but -bore the same numbers as the grown-ups; that is to say, they were -given serial numbers. The children were placed in a special block -and after a few weeks, sometimes after a month, they were taken -away from the camp. -<span class='pageno' title='319' id='Page_319'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Where to?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: We were never able to find out where these -children were taken. They were taken away all the time this camp -existed; that is to say, in 1943 and 1944. The last convoy of children -left the camp in January 1945. These were not only Polish children, -because, as you know, in Birkenau there were women from all over -Europe. Even today we don’t know whether these children are alive.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like, in the name of all the women of Europe who -became mothers in concentration camps, to ask the Germans today, -“Where are these children?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, did you yourself -see the children being taken to gas chambers?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I worked very close to the railway which -led to the crematory. Sometimes in the morning I passed near the -building the Germans used as a latrine, and from there I could -secretly watch the transport. I saw many children among the Jews -brought to the concentration camp. Sometimes a family had several -children. The Tribunal is probably aware of the fact that in front -of the crematory they were all sorted out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Selection was made by the -doctors?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always by doctors; sometimes by -SS men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And doctors with them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes, by doctors, too. During -such a sorting, the youngest and the healthiest Jewish women in -very small numbers entered the camp. Women carrying children in -their arms or in carriages, or those who had larger children, were -sent into the crematory together with their children. The children -were separated from their parents in front of the crematory and -were led separately into gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At that time, when the greatest number of Jews were exterminated -in the gas chambers, an order was issued that the children -were to be thrown into the crematory ovens or the crematory ditches -without previous asphyxiation with gas.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How should we understand that? -Were they thrown into the ovens alive or were they killed by other -means before they were burned?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: The children were thrown in alive. Their -cries could be heard all over the camp. It is hard to say how many -there were. -<span class='pageno' title='320' id='Page_320'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Nevertheless, there was some -reason why this was done. Was it because the gas chambers were -overworked?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: It is very difficult to answer this question. -We don’t know whether they wanted to economize on the gas or -whether there was no room in the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also add that it is impossible to determine the number -of these children—like that of the Jews—because they were driven -directly to the crematory, were not registered, were not tattooed, -and very often were not even counted. We, the internees, often -tried to ascertain the number of people who perished in gas chambers; -but our estimates of the number of children executed could -only be based on the number of children’s prams which were brought -to the storerooms. Sometimes there were hundreds of these carriages, -but sometimes they sent thousands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In one day?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always the same. There were days -when the gas chambers worked from early morning until late -at night.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also like to tell you about the children—and their -number is large—who were interned in concentration camps. At -the beginning of 1943 Polish children from Zamoishevna arrived at -the concentration camp with their parents. At the same time -Russian children from territories occupied by the Germans began -to arrive. The Jewish children were added to these. In smaller -numbers, one could also meet Italian children in the concentration -camp. The conditions were as difficult for the children as for adults; -perhaps even more onerous. These children didn’t receive any parcels -because there was no one to send them. Red Cross packages -never reached the internees. In 1944 a great number of Italian and -French children arrived at the concentration camp. All these children -suffered from skin diseases, lymphatic boils, and malnutrition; -they were badly clad, often without shoes, and had no possibility of -washing themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the Warsaw uprising captured children from Warsaw -were brought to the concentration camp. The youngest of the children -was a little 6-year-old boy. The children were quartered in -special barracks. When the systematic deportation of internees from -Birkenau to the interior of Germany commenced, these children -were used for heavy labor. At the same time there arrived in the -concentration camps the children of Hungarian Jews, who had to -work together with the children who were brought after the Warsaw -uprising. These children worked with two carts which they had to -<span class='pageno' title='321' id='Page_321'></span> -pull themselves to transport coal, iron machines, wood for floors, -and other heavy things from one camp to the other. They also -labored at dismantling barracks during the liquidation of the camp. -These children remained in the concentration camp until the very -end. In January 1945 they were evacuated and had to march to -Germany on foot under conditions as difficult as those of the front, -under an SS guard, without food, covering about 30 kilometers a day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During this march the children -died of exhaustion?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I wasn’t in the group where there were -children, as I managed to escape on the second day after this evacuation -march.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should also like to add a few words regarding the methods of -demoralization of the people who were interned in concentration -camps. Everything that we had to suffer was the result of a whole -system for degrading human beings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The concentration camp cars in which the internees were transported -had previously been used for cattle. When the transports -were about to move the cars were nailed shut. In each one of these -cars there was a great number of people. The convoy of SS men -never considered that human beings have physical needs. Some of -these people happened to have necessary pots with them, and they -often had to use them for physical needs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For some time I worked at the store, where kitchen utensils of -internees were brought.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you mean that you worked -in the warehouse where the belongings of these who were murdered -were brought. Did I understand you correctly?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, only the kitchen utensils of people -who arrived at the concentration camps were brought to this -warehouse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These things were taken away -from them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: What I want to say is that in some cases -the kitchen utensils and pots contained remains of food, and in -others there was human excrement. Each of the workers received -a pail of water, and had to wash a great number of these kitchen -utensils during one half of the day. These kitchen utensils, which -were sometimes very badly washed, were given to people who had -just arrived at the concentration camp. From these pots and pans -they had to eat, so that often they caught dysentery and other -diseases from the first day. -<span class='pageno' title='322' id='Page_322'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I don’t think the Tribunal -wants quite so much of the detail with reference of these domestic -matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The witness was called here -with a view to describing the attitude of the Germans toward the -children in the camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you keep her to the part of her testimony -which you wish to bring out?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, can you add -anything else to your description of the attitude of the Germans -towards the children in the camp? Have you already told us about -all of the facts which you know regarding this question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I should like to say that the children, as -well as the adults, were also subjected to the system of demoralization -and degradation through famine. Often starvation caused the -children to look for potato peels in garbage heaps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, do you certify -in your testimony, that sometimes the number of carriages remaining -after the murder of the children amounted to a thousand per day?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes there were such days.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further -question to ask of the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the chief prosecutors wish to ask -any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to -take up the next section of my presentation which deals with the -organization, by German fascism, of secret centers for the extermination -of people. These cannot even be considered concentration -camps because the human beings in these places rarely survived -more than 10 minutes or 2 hours at the most. Out of all these terrible -centers, organized by the German fascists, I would submit to -the Tribunal evidence on two such places, that is to say, on Kwelmno -center (Kwelmno is a village in Poland) and on the Treblinka Camp. -In connection with this I would ask the Tribunal to summon one -witness, whose testimony is interesting, because he can be considered -a person who returned from “the other world,” for the road -<span class='pageno' title='323' id='Page_323'></span> -to Treblinka was called by the German executors themselves “The -Road to Heaven.” I am speaking of the witness Rajzman, a Polish -national, and I beg the Tribunal’s permission to bring this witness -here for examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is just a quarter to 1 now, so we had better -have this witness at 2 o’clock. We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='324' id='Page_324'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that the -witness who was referred to yesterday, Wielen, is in a prisoner-of-war -camp or in prison near London, England; and he can, therefore, -be brought over here to be examined at short notice. The Tribunal, -therefore, wishes defendants’ counsel to make up their minds -whether they wish Colonel Westhoff and this man Wielen to be -brought here during the Prosecution’s case for them to cross-examine -those witnesses or whether they prefer that they should -be brought when the defendants are presenting their case. But, as -I have stated with reference to all witnesses, they can only be called -once. If they are examined as part of the Prosecution’s case, then -all the defendants must exercise their rights, if they wish to do so, -of interrogating the witnesses at that time. If, on the other hand, -the defendants’ counsel decide that they would prefer that these -witnesses should be called during the defendants’ case, then similarly, -the witnesses will be called only once, and the right of examining -them must then be exercised.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At the same time, the statement or the report which was presented -yesterday and which the Tribunal ruled was admissible, will -be read in the course of the Prosecution’s case at such time as the -Prosecution decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to postpone making -a statement until after discussion with my colleagues. I hope this -will be possible in the course of the afternoon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I understand you want to consult the other -defendants’ counsel before you let us know. Very well; you will let -us know at your convenience. Go on, Colonel Smirnov.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to -proceed with the interrogation of the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Rajzman took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SAMUEL RAJZMAN (Witness): Rajzman, Samuel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby -swear before God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal—nothing -but the truth—concealing nothing of what is known -to me—so help me God, Amen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness repeated the oath.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness Rajzman, will you please -tell the Tribunal what was your occupation before the war? -<span class='pageno' title='325' id='Page_325'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Before the war I was an accountant in an export firm.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When and under what circumstances -did you become an internee of Treblinka Number 2?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: In August 1942 I was taken away from the Warsaw -ghetto.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How long did you stay in -Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: I was interned there for a year—until August 1943.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means you are well -acquainted with the rules regulating the treatment of the people -in this camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes, I am well acquainted with these rules.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg you to describe this camp -to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Transports arrived there every day; their number -depended on the number of trains arriving; sometimes three, four, -or five trains filled exclusively with Jews—from Czechoslovakia, -Germany, Greece, and Poland. Immediately after their arrival, the -people had to leave the trains in 5 minutes and line up on the platform. -All those who were driven from the cars were divided into -groups—men, children, and women, all separate. They were all forced -to strip immediately, and this procedure continued under the lashes -of the German guards’ whips. Workers who were employed in this -operation immediately picked up all the clothes and carried them -away to barracks. Then the people were obliged to walk naked -through the street to the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the Tribunal -what the Germans called the street to the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: It was named Himmelfahrt Street.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say, the “street to -heaven”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes. If it interests the Court, I can present a plan -of the camp of Treblinka which I drew up when I was there, and -I can point out to the Tribunal this street on the plan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to put in a plan -of the camp, unless you particularly want to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I also believe that it is not -really necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Please tell us, how long did a person live after he had arrived -in the Treblinka Camp? -<span class='pageno' title='326' id='Page_326'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: The whole process of undressing and the walk down -to the gas chambers lasted, for the men 8 or 10 minutes, and for the -women some 15 minutes. The women took 15 minutes because they -had to have their hair shaved off before they went to the gas -chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why was their hair cut off?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: According to the ideas of the masters, this hair was -to be used in the manufacture of mattresses for German women.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that there was only 10 minutes -between the time when they were taken out of the trucks and the -time when they were put into the gas chambers?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: As far as men were concerned, I am sure it did not -last longer than 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Including the undressing?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes, including the undressing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, were the -people brought to Treblinka in trucks or in trains?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: They were brought nearly always in trains, and only -the Jews from neighboring villages and hamlets were brought in -trucks. The trucks bore inscriptions, “Expedition Speer,” and came -from Vinegrova Sokolova and other places.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, what was the -subsequent aspect of the station at Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: At first there were no signboards whatsoever at the -station, but a few months later the commander of the camp, one -Kurt Franz, built a first-class railroad station with signboards. The -barracks where the clothing was stored had signs reading “restaurant,” -“ticket office,” “telegraph,” “telephone,” and so forth. There -were even train schedules for the departure and the arrival of trains -to and from Grodno, Suwalki, Vienna, and Berlin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did I rightly understand you, -Witness, that a kind of make-believe station was built with signboards -and train schedules, with indications of platforms for train -departures to Suwalki, and so forth?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: When the persons descended from the trains, they -really had the impression that they were at a very good station from -where they could go to Suwalki, Vienna, Grodno, or other cities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what happened later on to -these people?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: These people were taken directly along the Himmelfahrtstrasse -to the gas chambers. -<span class='pageno' title='327' id='Page_327'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And tell us, please, how did the -Germans behave while killing their victims in Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: If you mean the actual executions, every German -guard had his special job. I shall cite only one example. We had -a Scharführer Menz, whose special job was to guard the so-called -“Lazarett.” In this “Lazarett” all weak women and little children -were exterminated who had not the strength to go themselves to -the gas chambers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps, Witness, you can -describe this “Lazarett” to the Tribunal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: This was part of a square which was closed in with -a wooden fence. All women, aged persons, and sick children were -driven there. At the gates of this “Lazarett,” there was a large Red -Cross flag. Menz, who specialized in the murder of all persons -brought to this “Lazarett,” would not let anybody else do this job. -There might have been hundreds of persons who wanted to see and -know what was in store for them, but he insisted on carrying out -this work by himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Here is just one example of what was the fate of the children -there. A 10-year-old girl was brought to this building from the -train with her 2-year-old sister. When the elder girl saw that Menz -had taken out a revolver to shoot her 2-year-old sister, she threw -herself upon him, crying out, and asking why he wanted to kill her. -He did not kill the little sister; he threw her alive into the oven and -then killed the elder sister.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another example: They brought an aged woman with her -daughter to this building. The latter was in the last stage of -pregnancy. She was brought to the “Lazarett,” was put on a grass -plot, and several Germans came to watch the delivery. This spectacle -lasted 2 hours. When the child was born, Menz asked the -grandmother—that is the mother of this woman—whom she preferred -to see killed first. The grandmother begged to be killed. But, -of course, they did the opposite; the newborn baby was killed first, -then the child’s mother, and finally the grandmother.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, does the -name Kurt Franz mean anything to you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: This man was deputy of the camp commander, -Stengel, the biggest murderer in the camp. Kurt Franz was known -for having published in January 1943, a report to the effect that -a million Jews had been killed in Treblinka—a report which had -procured for him a promotion from the rank of Sturmbannführer -to that of Obersturmbannführer. -<span class='pageno' title='328' id='Page_328'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please tell -how Kurt Franz killed a woman who claimed to be the sister of -Sigmund Freud. Do you remember this incident?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: A train arrived from Vienna. I was standing on the -platform when the passengers left the cars. An elderly woman -came up to Kurt Franz, took out a document, and said that she was -the sister of Sigmund Freud. She begged him to give her light -work in an office. Franz read this document through very seriously -and said that there must be a mistake here; he led her up to the -train schedule and said that in 2 hours a train would leave again for -Vienna. She should leave all her documents and valuables and then -go to a bathhouse; after the bath she would have her documents and -a ticket to Vienna. Of course, the woman went to the bathhouse -and never returned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, why was -it that you yourself remained alive in Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: I was already quite undressed, and had to pass -through this Himmelfahrtstrasse to the gas chambers. Some 8,000 -Jews had arrived with my transport from Warsaw. At the last -minute before we moved toward the street an engineer, Galevski, -an old friend of mine, whom I had known in Warsaw for many -years, caught sight of me. He was overseer of workers among the -Jews. He told me that I should turn back from the street; and as -they needed an interpreter for Hebrew, French, Russian, Polish, and -German, he managed to obtain permission to liberate me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You were therefore a member -of the labor unit of the camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: At first my work was to load the clothes of the murdered -persons on the trains. When I had been in the camp 2 days, -my mother, my sister, and two brothers were brought to the camp -from the town of Vinegrova. I had to watch them being led away -to the gas chambers. Several days later, when I was loading clothes -on the freight cars, my comrades found my wife’s documents and -a photograph of my wife and child. That is all I have left of my -family, only a photograph.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons -were brought daily to the Treblinka Camp?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Between July and December 1942 an average of -3 transports of 60 cars each arrived every day. In 1943 the transports -arrived more rarely.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons -were exterminated in the camp, on an average, daily?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: On an average, I believe they killed in Treblinka -from ten to twelve thousand persons daily. -<span class='pageno' title='329' id='Page_329'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In how many gas chambers did -the killings take place?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN? At first there were only 3 gas chambers, but then -they built 10 more chambers. It was planned to increase this -number to 25.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But how do you know that? -Why do you say, Witness, that they planned to increase the number -of gas chambers to 25?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Because all the building material had been brought -and put in the square. I asked, “Why? There are no more Jews.” -They said, “After you there will be others, and there is still a big -job to do.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What was the other name of -Treblinka?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: When Treblinka became very well known, they hung -up a huge sign with the inscription “Obermaidanek.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What do you mean by “very -well known”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: I mean that the persons who arrived in transports -soon found out that it was not a fashionable station, but that it was -a place of death.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, why was this -make-believe station built?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: It was done for the sole reason that the people on -leaving the trains should not be nervous, should undress calmly, and -that there should not be any incidents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I understand you correctly, -this criminal device had only one purpose—a psychological purpose -of reassuring the doomed during the first moments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>RAJZMAN: Yes, exclusively this psychological purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to -ask this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other chief prosecutors wish -to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Do the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>There was no response.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to submit to the -Tribunal a very short excerpt from a document which is submitted -<span class='pageno' title='330' id='Page_330'></span> -as an appendix to the Polish Government report. I mean an -affidavit. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, have you got any more -witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I still have a request to call -one more witness on the last count of my statement. In connection -with the presentation of evidence on this last count I would request -the Tribunal’s permission to summon as witness the Archdeacon of -Leningrad Churches and Rector of the Leningrad Seminary, the -Permanent Dean of Nikolai Bogoiavlensky Cathedral in Leningrad, -Nikolai Lomakin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and you will be able to include -his evidence today and conclude your statement; is that right?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I should -like to read another short excerpt from this report of the Polish -examining magistrate, which I have submitted to the Tribunal -(Document Number USSR-340). I shall read only that excerpt which -demonstrates the scale of the crimes. The number of victims murdered -at the Treblinka Camp, according to the Polish magistrate’s -estimate, is about 781,000 persons. At the same time he mentions -that the witnesses interrogated by him testified to the fact that -when the clothes of the internees were sorted out, they even found -British passports and diplomas of Cambridge University. This means -that the victims of Treblinka came from every European country.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like further to quote, as proof of the existence of another -secret extermination center, the depositions of Wladislav Bengash, -the district examining magistrate in the city of Lodz, made before -the Chief Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in -Poland. This testimony is also an official appendix to the Polish -Government report. I should like to read two excerpts from this -statement which would give us an idea of the methods of extermination -practiced in the village of Helmno. The two paragraphs -are on the back of Page 223 of the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the village of Helmno there was an abandoned mansion -surrounded by an old park—the property of the state. -Nearby . . . there was a pine forest with a nursery and dense -undergrowth. At this point the Germans built an extermination -camp. The park was closed in by a high wooden fence, -and one could not see what was going on in the park nor -in the house itself. The inhabitants of the village of Helmno -were all evacuated.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I interrupt the quotation and pass on to Page 226 of the document -book, first paragraph. I quote: -<span class='pageno' title='331' id='Page_331'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The whole organization set up for the extermination of -people was so cunningly devised and carried out that right -up to the last moment the next transport of doomed persons -could not guess the fate of the group which had preceded -them. The departure of transports—consisting of 1,000 to -2,000 persons—from the village of Sawadki to the extermination -camp and the extermination of the arrivals lasted -until 2 o’clock.</p> - -<p>“The cars loaded with Jews arrived in the camp and stopped -before the mansion. A representative of the Sonderkommando -made a short speech to the new arrivals. He assured them -that they were going to work in the East. He promised them -just treatment by the authorities and adequate food and, at -the same time, instructed them to take a bath before leaving, -while their clothing was disinfected. From the courtyard the -Jews were then brought to a big warm room on the second -floor of the mansion. There they had to undress, and, clad in -underclothes only, they went downstairs, passed through a -corridor with signs such as ‘To the medical officer’ and ‘To -the bath’ on the walls. The arrow which showed the way -‘To the bath’ pointed toward the exit. The Germans told the -Jews who came out into the yard that they would go to the -bath in a closed car; and, true enough, a large car was -brought up to this door so that the Jews coming out of the -house found themselves on a ladder leading straight inside -the car. The loading of the Jews into the car lasted a very -short time. Police were on guard in the corridor and near the -car. With blows and shouts they forced the Jews to enter the -car, stunning them, so that they could not attempt any -resistance. When all the Jews were piled inside the car, the -doors were carefully locked, and the chauffeur switched on -the motor, so that those in the car were poisoned by the -exhaust gas.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider it unnecessary to quote that part of the report which -testifies that the car in question was the “murder van” already well -known to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I will just quote one sentence from Page 10 of this document, -Paragraph 3:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Thus, at least 340,000 men, women, and children, from newborn -babies to aged persons, were exterminated in Helmno.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that I can end here that part of my statement which -concerns the secret exterminating centers. And now I pass on to -the part of my statement dealing with religious persecutions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the Soviet Union as well as in the occupied countries of -Eastern Europe, the German fascist criminals brought shame upon -<span class='pageno' title='332' id='Page_332'></span> -themselves by their mockery of the religious feelings and faith of -the people, by persecuting and murdering the priesthood of all -religious creeds. In proof of this I shall read a few excerpts from -the pertinent reports of the various governments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 70 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 80 of -the document book, we find the description of the persecution of the -Czech Orthodox Church by the German fascist criminals. I quote -only one paragraph:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The hardest blow was directed against the Czech Orthodox -Church. The Orthodox parishes in Czechoslovakia were -ordered by the Berlin Ministry for Church Affairs to leave -the jurisdiction of Belgrade and Constantinople dioceses and -to become subordinate to the Berlin bishop. The Czech Bishop -Gorazd was executed together with two other priests of the -Orthodox Church. By a special order of the Protector Daluege, -issued in September 1942, the Orthodox Church of Serbian-Constantinople -jurisdiction was dissolved on Czech territory, -its religious activity forbidden, and its property confiscated.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 69 of the same report, which corresponds to Page 79 -of the document book, in the last paragraph, there is a description -of the persecutions of the Czech National Church, which was -persecuted by the German fascists, according to the report, “Just -because of its name, because of its sympathy for the Hus movement, -the democratic constitution, and because of the role it played in -founding the Czech Republic.” The Czech national church in -Slovakia was prohibited and its property confiscated by the Germans -in 1940.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Protestant church in Czechoslovakia was also persecuted. -The excerpt which I would like to read may be found on Page 80 -of the document book, Paragraph 2:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The Protestant churches were deprived of the freedom to -preach the Gospel. The German Secret State Police watched -carefully to see that the clergy observed the restrictions -imposed on it. Nazi censorship went so far as to prohibit the -singing of hymns which praised God for liberating the nation -from the enemy. Some passages from the Bible were not -allowed to be read in public at all. The Nazis strongly -opposed the promulgation of certain Christian doctrines, -especially those which proclaimed the equality of all men -before God, the universal character of Christ’s Church, the -Hebraic origins of the Gospel, et cetera. Any reference to Hus, -Ziska, the Hussites, and their achievements, as well as to -Masaryk and his doctrines, were strictly forbidden. Even -religious text books were confiscated. Church leaders were -especially persecuted. Scores of ministers were thrown into -<span class='pageno' title='333' id='Page_333'></span> -concentration camps, among them the general secretary of -the Christian Student Movement in Czechoslovakia. One of -the assistants of their president was executed.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On Page 68 of this report we find information as to the persecution -of the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. This excerpt is -on Page 79 of the document book, second paragraph. I quote a -short excerpt:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In the territory annexed to Germany after the Munich Pact -a number of Czech priests were robbed of their property and -expelled. . . . Pilgrimages to national shrines were prohibited -in 1939.</p> - -<p>“At the outbreak of the war 437 Catholic priests were among -the thousands of Czech patriots arrested and sent to concentration -camps as hostages. Venerable church dignitaries were -dragged to concentration camps in Germany. It was a common -thing to see on the road near the concentration camps a -priest, dressed in rags, exhausted, pulling a cart, and behind -him a youth in the SS uniform, whip in hand.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The believers and clergy in Poland also suffered most ruthless -persecution. I quote short excerpts from the Polish Government -report, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 10 of -the document book:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“By January 1941 about 700 priests were killed; 3,000 were -in prisons or in concentration camps.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The persecution of the clergy began immediately after the -capture of Polish territory by the Germans, according to Page 42 -of the Polish report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The day after the occupation of Warsaw the Germans -arrested some 330 priests. . . . In Kraków the closest collaborators -of Archbishop Sapieha were arrested and sent to -Germany. The Reverend Canon Czeplicki, 75 years of age, -and his assistant were executed in November 1939.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The report of the Polish Government quotes the following words -of Cardinal Hlond:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The clergy were persecuted very violently. Those who were -permitted to stay were subjected to humiliation, were paralyzed -in the exercise of their pastoral duties and were stripped -of parochial benefices and of all their rights. They were -entirely at the mercy of the Gestapo. . . . It is like the -Apocalyptic vision of the <span class='it'>Fides Depopulata</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>On the territory of the Soviet Union the persecution of religion -and clergy took the form of sacrilegious desecration of churches, -destruction of shrines connected with the patriotic feelings of the -Russian people, and the murder of priests. -<span class='pageno' title='334' id='Page_334'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to call the witness of the Soviet Prosecution, -the Archdean of the churches of the City of Leningrad, the Very -Reverend Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness Lomakin took the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell me your name?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE VERY REVEREND NIKOLAI IVANOVITCH LOMAKIN -(Witness): Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is it the practice for you to take an oath -before giving evidence or not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I am an Orthodox priest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Will you take the oath?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I belong to the Orthodox Church, and when I -entered the priesthood in 1917 I took the oath to tell the truth all -my life. This oath I remember even to the present day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You can sit, if you wish.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, are you -the Archdean of the Churches of the City of Leningrad? Does that -mean that all the churches in that city are subordinate to you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, all the churches are directly subordinate to me. -I am obliged to visit them periodically to inspect their condition -and the life of the parish. I must then make my report to His Grace -the Metropolitan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The churches of the Leningrad -region were also under your authority?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: They are not subordinated to me at the present time, -but during the siege of Leningrad by the Germans and the occupation -of the Leningrad region they were under my authority.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: After the liberation of the -Leningrad region from the German occupation, were you obliged to -visit and inspect the churches throughout the region on the request -of the Patriarch?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Not by request of the Patriarch, but by request of -the Metropolitan Alexei, who was then at the head of the Leningrad -Eparchy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak more slowly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Not by request of Patriarch Alexei—the Patriarch -was then Sergei—but by request of Metropolitan Alexei, who -administered the Eparchy and later became Patriarch of Moscow -and all Russia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, where -were you during the siege of Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I was all the time in Leningrad. -<span class='pageno' title='335' id='Page_335'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I am not mistaken, you were -decorated with the medal “For the Defense of Leningrad”?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, on my birthday I was awarded this high government -medal for my participation in the heroic defense of Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, at the beginning -of the siege of Leningrad, at which church did you officiate?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: At the beginning of the siege I was in charge of the -Georgievsky Cemetery—I was rector of the church of the cemetery -of St. Nicholas.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It was, therefore, a cemetery -church?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Maybe you will be able to relate -to the Tribunal the observations you made during your office in -this church?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: In 1941 and at the beginning of 1942 I was rector of -the cemetery church, and I witnessed certain tragic scenes which -I should like to relate in detail to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A few days after the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union by -Hitlerite Germany I witnessed the rapid increase of masses for the -dead. The dead were mostly children, women, and old people—victims -of the air raids on the city by German planes—peaceful -citizens of our town. Before the war the number of dead varied -from 30 to 50 persons a day, but during the war this number rose -quickly to several hundred a day. It was physically impossible to -bring the bodies inside the church. Long rows of boxes and coffins -with remnants of the victims stood outside the church; the horribly -mutilated bodies of Leningrad’s peaceful citizens—victims of barbarous -air raids of the German planes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Side by side with the increasing number of funeral masses for -the deceased, there grew up the practice of saying the so-called -requiems in absence. The faithful could not bring to the church the -bodies of their relatives or friends, as they lay buried under the -ruins and the debris of the houses destroyed by the Germans. The -church was each day surrounded by masses of coffins—100, 200 -coffins—over which one priest used to sing a funeral service.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Forgive me—it is difficult for me to speak of all this, for as the -Tribunal already knows, I lived through the whole siege. I, myself, -was dying of hunger. I saw the terrible, uninterrupted air raids of -the German planes. I was hurt several times. -<span class='pageno' title='336' id='Page_336'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the winter of 1941-42 the situation of besieged Leningrad was -particularly terrible. The ceaseless air raids of the Luftwaffe, the -shelling of the city, the lack of light, of water, of transportation, of -sewerage in the city, and finally the terrible starvation—from all -this, the peaceful citizens of the town suffered privations unique in -the history of mankind. They were indeed heroes, who suffered for -their country, these innocent, peaceful citizens.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Together with all that I have just told you, I could describe other -terrible scenes which I witnessed during the period when I was the -rector of this cemetery church. The cemetery was very often bombed -by German planes. Please imagine the scene when people who have -found eternal rest—their coffins, bodies, bones, skulls—all this is -thrown out on the ground. Tombstones and crosses lay scattered in -disorder, and people who had just suffered the loss of their kin, had -to suffer once more seeing the huge craters made by bombs sometimes -on the very spot where they had just buried their relatives -or friends, had to suffer once more, knowing that they had no peace.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, during the -period of hunger, in what proportion did the number of burial -services at this cemetery church increase?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I have already said that as a result of the terrible -conditions imposed by the siege, as a result of the nonstop air raids, -as a result of the shelling of the city, the number of burial services -reached an incredible figure—up to several thousand a day. I would -especially like to relate to the Tribunal the facts which I observed -on 7 February 1942. A month earlier, quite exhausted by hunger -and the long walk from my house which I had to the church every -day, I fell ill. Two of my assistant priests replaced me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 7 February, on the Parents’ Saturday before the beginning of -Lent I came for the first time since my illness to my church. A -horrifying picture was before my eyes. The church was surrounded -by piles of bodies, some of which even blocked the entrance. These -piles numbered from 30 to 100 bodies. They were not only at the -church door, but also around the church. I witnessed people, exhausted -from starvation, who, in their desire to bring the bodies of their -relatives to the cemetery, would fall down themselves and die on -the spot beside the body. Such scenes I witnessed quite frequently.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please answer -the following question: What damage was done to the Leningrad -churches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Your Honors, as I have already reported to you, my -duty as Archdean of these churches was to observe from time to -time the condition of the churches in the city and to report in detail -to the metropolitan. The following were my personal observations -and impressions: -<span class='pageno' title='337' id='Page_337'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Church of the Resurrection on Griboiedov Canal, which is a -very remarkable artistic church, was very seriously damaged by -shelling from the German enemy. The domes were destroyed, the -roofs pierced by shells, numerous frescos were either partly damaged -or entirely destroyed. The Holy Trinity Cathedral in the Ismailovskaya -Fortress, a memorial ornamented by beautiful artistic -friezes commemorating the heroic siege of Izmailovskaya Fortress, -was severely damaged by systematic shelling and bombing by the -Germans. The roof was broken in. All the sculpture was broken; -only a few fragments remained.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many -churches were destroyed and how many were severely damaged in -Leningrad?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: The Church of the Serafimov Cemetery was almost -completely destroyed by artillery fire; this church was not only hit -by shells, but great damage was caused to it by air raids. The Luftwaffe -caused great damage to churches. I must first of all mention -two churches which suffered most from the Leningrad siege. To -begin with, the Church of Prince Vladimir, where, by the way, -I have the honor of officiating at the present time. In 1942 from -February until the first of July, I was rector of this church; and -I should like to acquaint Your Honors with the following very -interesting but terrible incident which occurred on Easter Eve of 1942.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On Easter Saturday, at 5 p. m. Moscow time, the Luftwaffe carried -out a mass raid over the city. At 5:30 two bombs fell on the southwestern -part of the Church of Prince Vladimir. The faithful were -at that moment waiting to approach the picture of our Lord’s -interment. There was an enormous mass of faithful, who wished to -fulfill their Christian duty. I saw some 30 persons lying wounded -in the portico and in different places about the church. They lay -helpless for some time, until we could give them medical aid.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was a scene of utter confusion. People who had had no time -to enter the church tried to run away and hide in the air-raid -ditches, while the others who had entered scattered in terror against -the walls of the church, awaiting death. The concussion of the -bombs was so heavy that for some period of time there was a -constant fall of shattered glass, mortar, and pieces of stucco. When -I came down from a room on the second floor, I was quite astounded -by the scene before me. People flocked around me:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Little father, are you alive? Little father, how can we -understand this? How can we believe what was said about -the Germans—that they believe in God, that they love Christ, -that they will not harm those who believe in God? Where is -their faith then, if they can shoot about like this on Easter eve?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='338' id='Page_338'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must add that the air-raid lasted right through the night until -Easter morning; this night of love, this night of Christian joy, the -Resurrection Night, was turned by the Germans into a night of -blood, a night of destruction, and a night of suffering for innocent -people. Two or three days passed. In the Church of Prince Vladimir—it -was obvious to me, as rector—and in other churches and cemeteries -the victims of the Luftwaffe Easter raid appeared: women, children, -and aged. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, you also visited -the Leningrad region to verify the condition of the churches. Were -you not a witness to. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, if your examination is -going on, I think perhaps we’d better adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, can you let the Tribunal know -what your wishes are about General Westhoff and Wielen?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: In reply to the suggestion by the Court, as to calling -the witnesses Westhoff and Wielen, I should like to make the -following statement after discussion with my colleagues:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, we abstain from calling both witnesses at this stage of the -proceedings provided that the Prosecution also abstains at present -from reading out Documents RF-1450 and USSR-413 at this stage of -the Trial. Second, I call General Westhoff as witness; and I gather, -from the Court’s suggestion, that this witness has been allowed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Roberts, could Sir David attend here in the course of a -short time, do you think?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: He is at the Chief Prosecutors’ meeting now, but -I can get him in a few moments if there is a question which I -couldn’t answer on his behalf.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think perhaps it will be best if he -were here. It is only a question, really, as to whether the document -should be read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am told the meeting has just ended. I -didn’t quite get what Your Lordship said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I said that the question was whether the -document is to be read by the Prosecution. Dr. Nelte, as I understand -it, was suggesting that perhaps the Prosecution would forego -their right to read the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, speaking for myself, I feel quite -certain that so far as the British Delegation is concerned we should -<span class='pageno' title='339' id='Page_339'></span> -not forego reading that document. We do put it forward, or our -Russian colleagues put it forward, as a very cold-blooded murder -of brave men; and we are most anxious that the document should -be read.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have not made it a condition that -the documents should not be submitted at all, but only at this stage -of the proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you see, the Prosecution want it -read as part of the Prosecution case. If it is postponed until your -case begins, it will not be read as part of the Prosecution case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I think that the Prosecution, when cross-examining -the witness, could present the documents they want to submit now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we can’t get Wielen over here tomorrow, -and the case of the Prosecution, we hope, will close tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, the document must be read -tomorrow. We will then get General Westhoff and Wielen over for -you at any time that is convenient to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: I think the Prosecution has reserved the right to -adduce, at any time during the proceedings, other charges and documents. -This follows from the Indictment. It therefore seems to me -that the Prosecution, without prejudice to its case, could postpone -the presentation of this charge until I have examined the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GENERAL RUDENKO: I should like to add something to what -my colleague, Mr. Roberts, has said. The point is that the document -presented to the Tribunal was put at our disposal by the British -Delegation and was submitted by us in accordance with Article 21 -of the Charter. This document, being an irrefutable proof, can be -read into the record or not, in accordance with the decision of the -Tribunal of 17 December 1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Defense, as Sir David already stated this morning, intends -to oppose this document by summoning witnesses, it is their right. -This is what I wanted to add to Mr. Roberts’ statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps Your Lordship would allow me to add -one thing. The Tribunal has ruled that this document is admissible, -and it has been admitted, as I understand; and therefore, I would -submit that it ought to be read as part of the Prosecution case, or -perhaps it might be equally convenient after the discussion on -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, yes, I see that Sir David has just come -into court. -<span class='pageno' title='340' id='Page_340'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David, I think the view the Tribunal take is that it is a -matter for the Prosecution to decide when they put in this document; -and if they wish to put it in now, or as Mr. Roberts suggested, -after the argument on organizations, they are at liberty to do so. -Then these witnesses can be called at a later stage when the -defendants’ counsel wish them to be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I entirely agree with -what I am told Mr. Roberts has put forward. We consider that this -document ought to be put in as part of the case for the Prosecution. -If it will be of any assistance to counsel for the defendants, I shall -be glad to take up the matter of the time that shall be fixed, after -the organizations; but the reading of the document certainly should -be part of the Prosecution’s case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The document may be read, then, at the end -of the Prosecution’s case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I apologize to the Tribunal for being absent. There was -other business, connected with the Trial, in which I was engaged.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal would like you to let us know -when you wish those witnesses called, so that we can communicate -with London in order that the witness, Wielen, may be brought -over here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: As to when exactly during my presentation the -witnesses should appear I cannot say, for I cannot say when the -stage for the presentation of my witnesses will be reached. I think -the Court is in a better position to judge when it will be my turn -for the presentation of evidence. In the course of the examination -of those witnesses who will be granted to me, I shall also question -this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you see these witnesses not only -affect your client, but they affect the Defendant Göring and the -Defendant Kaltenbrunner; and therefore, what the Tribunal wish -is that you, in consultation with Dr. Stahmer and counsel for -Kaltenbrunner, should let the Tribunal know what would be the -most appropriate time for those two witnesses to be called, so that -time may be given for summoning Wielen here and letting the -prison authorities know about Westhoff.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: We spoke about that and have agreed that the -witnesses be called during my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I just understand from Sir David that we are all agreed that the -documents be presented after the case against the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='341' id='Page_341'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue my questioning, -Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Continue, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have one last question to put -to you, Witness. Tell me, when you left the city to go into the country -to inspect the churches, did you sometimes witness instances of -derision of religion and desecration of churches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, I did.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Would you be kind enough to -relate this to the Tribunal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: In June 1943, by order of Metropolitan Alexei, I -went to visit the district of Old Peterhof and Oranienbaum. From -personal observations and from my conversations with the members -of the church I learned the following, which I know to be true, and -which was all corroborated later on when New Peterhof was freed -from the German occupation. All that I shall now relate may be -verified by inspection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Old Peterhof soon after the Germans occupied New Peterhof, -exactly within 10 days, all churches were destroyed by the enemy’s -artillery fire and aircraft. At the same time the Luftwaffe and -German artillery forces timed their raids so that not only would -the churches be demolished, but the peaceful worshipers who sought -refuge there from the fighting and the artillery fire would be killed -as well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All the churches in Old Peterhof, namely the Znamenskaya -Church, the Holy Trinity Cemetery Church, and the small Church of -Lazarus attached to it, the church museum at the Villa of Empress -Maria Feodorovna, the Serafimovskij Church and the church of the -military cemetery—all these were destroyed by the Germans. I can -state with certainty that under the ruins of the Cemetery Church of -the Holy Trinity and the Lazarus Church, in their crypts, as well -as in the cemetery tombs and vaults of the Znamenskaya Church, -up to 5,000 persons perished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Germans wouldn’t let the survivors come outside. It is easy -to picture the sanitary conditions and the general state of the people -confined in those church crypts—air fouled by the breathing and -excrements of these unfortunate people, frightened to death. They -fainted, they grew dizzy, but their slightest attempt to leave the -church and come out into fresh air was punished by shots from the -inhuman fascists.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Much time has already passed since that time, but I remember -especially well one instance which a close relative of the people -about whom I am now going to speak related to me. A little girl -<span class='pageno' title='342' id='Page_342'></span> -came out of the crypt of Trinity Church for a breath of fresh air; -she was immediately shot by a German sniper. The mother followed -in order to pick her up, but she also fell down bleeding at the side -of her child. The citizen Romashova, who related this to me, is still -alive, and I have seen her many times—she recalls this incident -with horror. And many were the incidents of that kind.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, in the other -districts of the Leningrad region did you ever witness the desecration -of shrines and sacred objects?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: Yes, for example in Pskov. Pskov presented a -horrible picture of ruins and devastation. I feel that I must recall -to Your Honors that Pskov is a museum city, a shrine of the Orthodox -faith, ornamented by numerous churches, and situated on -the Velikaya River and its tributaries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In that city, there were no less then 60 churches of various sizes -and various denominations. Of these 39 were not only priceless -monuments of church architecture of high artistic value, with -beautiful icons and frescos, but also wonderful historical monuments, -reflecting all the greatness and century-old multiform history of the -Russian people. The Kremlin (walled city)—the Cathedral of the -Holy Trinity. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, what did the Germans do -to those churches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: That is just what I want to relate. The Kremlin—the -whole Holy Trinity Cathedral, with its remarkable altar screen, -was plundered by the German soldiers. Everything was carried -out of it as well as out of all the other churches in the city. You -won’t find even a single tiny icon left, not a single church vestment -or sacramental vessel—all has been taken away by the Germans. -The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity—I speak again of this Cathedral. -I almost paid with my life for my visit there. Just half an hour -before my arrival a mine exploded right in front of the altar gates. -The gates were destroyed; the altar was blood-spattered. Before -my own eyes I saw three of our Soviet soldiers who had perished -in the explosion, right in front of the altar.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mines were also laid in other places. I could give another -interesting detail. Pskov was liberated in August 1944, but on -Epiphany, in January 1946, another mine exploded, killing two -persons. Likewise the church of St. Vasili-on-the-Hill was also -mined. There a mine was laid at the very entrance to the church. -In all the churches the abundance of all kinds of refuse, dirt, bottles, -cans, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>, was strikingly noticeable. The Cathedral of St. John’s -Monastery was turned by the Germans into a stable. In another -church, the Church of the Epiphany, they set up a wine cellar. In -<span class='pageno' title='343' id='Page_343'></span> -a third church I saw a depot of fuel—coal, peat, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. But why -speak of individual churches? Wherever we turn, our hearts bleed -at the spectacle of all the suffering, all the plunder, brought about -by people who shouted all over Europe about their culture, who -despised mankind, while some proclaimed their belief in God. What -kind of faith is theirs!</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more -questions to ask the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I should like to ask the Prosecutor’s permission to -say a few more words about what happened in Leningrad.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With regard to that, you must -ask the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: I am slightly diverging from the usual order. I beg -your permission, Your Honors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>LOMAKIN: The Church of Nikolai Bogoiavlensky is the Cathedral -of Leningrad. The present Patriarch Alexei lived at this church -during the siege. Since I served there from July 1942 to the end -of the war, I witnessed on numerous occasions artillery fire directed -at the cathedral. One wonders what kind of military objectives -those heroic warriors could seek in our holy church! On high feast -days or ordinary Sundays immediately the artillery would begin -fire. And what a fire! In the first week of Lent in 1943, from the -early morning and until late at night, neither we, the clergy, nor -the worshipers praying in the church could possibly leave it. -Outside was death and destruction. With my own eyes I saw some -fifty persons—I don’t know exactly how many—members of my -congregation, killed right near the church. They tried to leave in -haste before the “all clear” signal, and death met them near the -church. In this sacred cathedral I had to bury thousands of peaceful -citizens torn to pieces, victims of the predatory raids of the air -force and artillery. An ocean of tears was shed here during the -memorial services. During one of the bombardments His Grace, our -Metropolitan Alexei, escaped death by a hair’s breadth, as several -shell fragments smashed his cell.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should just like to add, not wishing to take up too much of -your time, that it is a remarkable thing that most of the intensive -artillery fire on Leningrad always took place on feast days; the -houses of God, tramway stops, and hospitals were put under fire, -and destroyed with all means. The homes of peaceful citizens were -bombed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would take too long, Your Honors, to relate everything which -I have seen during these grim war days of blood and sorrow of the -Leningradians. But I just want to say in conclusion that the Russian -<span class='pageno' title='344' id='Page_344'></span> -people and the people of Leningrad have fulfilled their duty to -their fatherland to the very end. In spite of the heavy artillery fire -and raids of the Luftwaffe there was organized efficiency and order, -and the Orthodox Church shared this suffering. By prayer and -preaching of God’s word, she brought consolation and gave courage -to the hearts of the faithful. She has laid an unsparing sacrifice on -the altar of the fatherland.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no more questions to ask -the witness, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other members of the Prosecution -wish to ask any question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Each indicated that he had no question.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Each indicated that he had no question.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the witness can retire.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The witness left the stand.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words by way -of concluding my report?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You may, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, in his note of -6 January 1942 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the -U.S.S.R. declared that the Soviet Government considered it their -duty to inform the “entire civilized world and all honest people -throughout the world” of the monstrous crimes committed by the -Hitlerite bandits.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the battles of this war, the greatest ever fought by men, -millions of honest people achieved victory over fascist Germany. -The will of millions of honest people created this International Tribunal -for the purpose of judging the main criminals of war. Behind -him each representative of the Prosecution feels the invisible support -of these millions of honest people, in whose name he accuses the -leaders of the fascist conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The honor of concluding the presentation of the evidence submitted -by the Soviet Prosecution has fallen to my lot. I know that -at this very moment millions of citizens of my country and with -them millions of honest persons throughout the world await a just -and speedy verdict. Your Honors, may I conclude with this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, I have a few matters -that will take just a very few minutes, with respect to the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the course of the presentation of the 23rd day of November -1945, pertaining to the economic aspects of the conspiracy, certain -documents were read from; but they were not formally offered -in evidence. At the time, the Tribunal indicated that sufficient -<span class='pageno' title='345' id='Page_345'></span> -time had not been allowed Counsel for the Defense to make an -examination of these documents, and we did not offer them and -said instead that we would make them available in the defendants’ -Information Center. We did so, and they have been there all of -the time since. They should be offered formally and, as the extracts -were read, there is no necessity for going through that again. They -are as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first one referred to in the record was one bearing the -Document Number EC-14, which we offer as Exhibit USA-758. -Extracts from this document were quoted on Page 297 of the record -(Volume II, Page 233).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next one is Document Number EC-27, which we offer as -Exhibit Number USA-759. Extracts from this document were quoted -on Pages 279 and 280 of the record (Volume II, Page 221).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third one is Document Number EC-28, which we offer as -Exhibit Number USA-760. Extracts from this document were -quoted on Page 275 of the record (Volume II, Pages 218, 219). On -that page the document was erroneously referred to as USA -Exhibit 23, but the correct number is Exhibit Number USA-760.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-174 was quoted from on pages 303 and -304 of the record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer that as Exhibit -Number USA-761.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-252—extracts from it were quoted on -Page 303 of the record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer it as Exhibit -Number USA-762.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-257—extracts from this document were -quoted on Page 303 of the record (Volume II, Page 237). We offer -it as Exhibit Number USA-763.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number EC-404—we summarized and quoted from -this document on Pages 291 and 292 of the record (Volume II, -Page 229). We now offer it as Exhibit Number USA-764.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-157 was read from, on Page 288 of the -record (Volume II, Page 227), and we now offer it as Exhibit -Number USA-765.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-167 was summarized and extracts were -quoted from it on Page 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), -and we offer it as Exhibit Number USA-766.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-203—extracts from it were quoted on Pages -283 to 286 of the record (Volume II, Pages 224-226), and we offer -it as Exhibit Number USA-767.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-204, which was quoted from on Pages 286 -and 287 of the record (Volume II, Pages 226-227), is offered as -Exhibit Number USA-768. -<span class='pageno' title='346' id='Page_346'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-206—extracts from this paper were -quoted on Pages 297 and 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), -and it is offered as Exhibit Number USA-769.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document Number D-317—extracts were quoted from it on -Pages 289 and 290 of the record (Volume II, Page 227), and we -offer it as Exhibit Number USA-770.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now in addition to these documents, Lieutenant Bryson, who -presented the case for the Prosecution against the individual -Defendant Schacht, offered in evidence Documents EC-437 and 258 -in their entirety, on the condition that the French and Russian -translations subsequently be filed with the Tribunal. Now, EC-437 -was assigned as Exhibit Number USA-624 and EC-258 was assigned as -Exhibit Number USA-625, and the Tribunal ruled on Page 2543 of -the record (Volume V, Page 129) that the documents would be -received in their entirety only after the translations had been -completed. Copies of these documents in all four languages have -been filed with the Tribunal and in the defendants’ Information -Center, and that was done a few weeks ago and in accordance -therefore with the ruling of the Tribunal. We now offer these -documents in evidence in their entirety, and we assume that they -will retain the numbers Exhibit Number USA-624 and Exhibit Number -USA-625.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Also in the trial brief on the individual responsibility of the -Defendant Schacht, which was recently submitted to the Tribunal -and to the defendants’ counsel, reference is made to a few documents -which have not already, or heretofore, been offered in evidence. -I think there is no necessity for taking the time of the -Tribunal to read from these documents, and instead we have had -pertinent extracts made available in German, French, Russian, and -English; copies in all the four languages have already been distributed -to the Tribunal and placed in the defendants’ Information -Center. They are these documents, and we ask that they be received -in evidence:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They are: Document Number EC-384, which we offer as Exhibit -Number USA-771; Document Number EC-406, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-772; Document Number EC-456, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-773; Document Number EC-495, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-774; Document Number EC-497, offered as Exhibit -Number USA-775; and in addition an interrogation of the Defendant -Schacht, dated 11 July 1945, which is one of those referred to in the -trial brief as Exhibit Number USA-776; and, finally, with respect to this -economic aspect of this person, we respectfully ask that the secret -minutes of the meeting of the ministers, dated 30 May 1936, which -are included in the set of documents, Number 1301-PS, and assigned -Exhibit Number USA-123, be received in evidence in their entirety. -<span class='pageno' title='347' id='Page_347'></span> -These minutes have been made available to the Tribunal and the -defendants’ counsel in all four languages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also wish to refer to Document Number 1639-PS, which we -offer as. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: The Prosecution has just made the motion to accept -in supplementary evidence a number of documents concerning the -Defendant Schacht. These documents are contained in a supplementary -volume which we received after the special case against -the Defendant Schacht had been finished, even a considerable time -afterwards.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not intend to protest against this procedure; but in my -opinion this procedure, if admitted by the Court, has some consequences -for Defense Counsel. If this procedure is approved, we -ought also to be permitted to offer evidential material on behalf -of our clients after this case has been concluded and until the end -of the entire presentation of evidence, if we feel that such evidential -material, that is, mainly documents, should still be submitted on -behalf of our clients.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is necessary that we should be in a position also to present -witnesses later on, and I should like to ask the Tribunal for clarification -of this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal thinks that the -Prosecution are entitled to apply, as they have applied, to have -these documents admitted in evidence and, similarly, that the -defendants will be entitled to apply to have any evidence which -they wish offered in evidence even after the individual defendants’ -case has come to an end.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KRAUS: Thank you, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Now I wish to refer to the document bearing -our Number 1639-PS, which we wish to offer as Exhibit Number -USA-777. For the benefit of the Tribunal, this document is entitled -<span class='it'>Mobilization Book for the Civil Administrations</span> and is the 1939 -edition. It was published in February—or put out in February 1939, -over the signature of the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW. -It is classified “top secret” and was distributed in 125 copies to the -highest Reich Ministries, as well as to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In its original German the document runs to some 150 pages. -We have had translated into English, Russian, and French Pages 2 -to 18, which give the essential text of the document. It appears -from statements in the document itself that the <span class='it'>Mobilization Book</span> -had previously been issued and was revised annually. This particular -book which we introduce, or offer to introduce, was effective -the 1st day of April 1939 and thus was the operative basis, we say, -for the mobilization calendar at the time the Nazis launched their -<span class='pageno' title='348' id='Page_348'></span> -aggression against Poland. However, we wish to relate it back -primarily to that part of the record dealing with the Nazi plans -and preparations for aggression, because the <span class='it'>Mobilization Book</span>, or -such a <span class='it'>Mobilization Book</span>, had been in effect for years prior to 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, we say it fits in with the secret Nazi Defense Laws of -1935 and 1938, which are contained in Documents 2261-PS and -2194-PS, introduced before the Tribunal as Exhibits USA-24 and 36 -respectively.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, it is another clear indication, we submit, of the Nazi -plans and preparations for aggressive war. That portion of the -Prosecution’s case dealing with Nazi preparations for aggression was -presented by Mr. Alderman of the American prosecution staff at -the morning and afternoon sessions of the Tribunal on 27 November -1945 and may be found at Pages 399 to 464 of the record (Volume II, -Pages 303-347).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Inasmuch as this document has been translated into all four -languages, we assume that it is not necessary to read it into the -record; but we do wish to quote, however, directly two extracts—rather, -we will withdraw that. They are included in the translation -and I see no necessity for reading it into the translation system.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document was also, I might say, referred to by the Chief -Prosecutor for the United States in his opening address, and it is -the only document therein referred to which has not been offered -formally to the Tribunal in evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, I should like to take up one other matter. I wish to -move to strike out one piece of evidence offered by an American -member of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Mr. Dodd then quoted the evidence in question.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Has the Defendant Rosenberg’s counsel any -objection to this being struck out of the record?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I have no objection, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then it will be struck out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: I have only one last matter, which I am sure I can -conclude before the usual recess time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the course of the presentation of the individual case against -the Defendant Ribbentrop, our distinguished colleague Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe, the Deputy Chief British Prosecutor, introduced -Document Number 3358-PS as Exhibit GB-158. This was on the -9th day of January 1946 and may be found at Page 2380 of the -record (Volume V, Page 17).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document is a German Foreign Office circular dated the -25th day of January 1939, and it is on the subject of the “Jewish -Question as a Factor in German Foreign Policy in the Year 1938.” -<span class='pageno' title='349' id='Page_349'></span> -Sir David read portions of this document into the record, including -the first sentence of the full paragraph appearing on Page 3 of the -English translation of the document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have discussed the matter with Sir David, and he has very -graciously agreed that we might ask the permission of the Tribunal -to add two more sentences to the quotation which he read, because -we feel, and Sir David feels with us, that the additional two -sentences which follow immediately the sentence which he read add -something to the proof with reference to the persecution of the Jews -as related to Crimes against Peace. It is desired, therefore, by the -Prosecution that the entire paragraph on Page 3 of the English -translation of this document be considered as in evidence by the -Tribunal, and in accordance with the ruling of the Tribunal generally -made as to other such situations we submit now an English, German, -French, and Russian translation of that entire paragraph to obviate -the necessity for reading it; and the original, of course, is in the -German language.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a very brief paragraph, but I don’t think that the Tribunal -would care to have me read it, even to take a minute or two. It -is in the record. There are only two additional sentences. It does -not wrench anything from the text; in our opinion, it only adds a -little to the proof. If you would like to have it read, I can do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: The sentence read by Sir David reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 -brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question simultaneously -with the realization of the ‘idea of Greater -Germany,’ since the Jewish policy was both the basis and -consequence of the events of the year 1938.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>That is the end of the sentence, and that is what was quoted -by Sir David on the 9th day of January, at Page 2380 (Volume V, -Page 17). We wish to add the following, beginning right after -that sentence:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The advance made by Jewish influence and the destructive -Jewish spirit in politics, economy, and culture paralyzed the -strength and the will of the German people to rise again, -perhaps even more than the political antagonism of the -former Allied enemy powers of the World War.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And this second sentence which follows immediately, as well:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The curing of this malady of the people was therefore -certainly one of the most important prerequisites for exerting -the force which, in the year 1938, resulted in the consolidation -of the Great German Reich against the will of the world.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='350' id='Page_350'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>We felt that that would add something to our proof with respect -to this persecution of the Jews. Those are the only matters I have -to bring up with reference to the record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Some time ago I wrote to Mr. Justice Jackson -on behalf of the Tribunal, asking whether a list of the persons who -formed the German Staff could be submitted to the Tribunal. Has -that been done?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: I am familiar with that communication. I recall -Mr. Justice Jackson’s showing it to me. If it has not, it shall be -directly. It may have been overlooked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I had a letter back from Mr. Justice Jackson -saying that it should be done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Yes, I recall it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal will be glad for you to -verify that it has been done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: I am afraid I must say that if it hasn’t been done, -it is probably my fault. I recall the Justice’s handing it to me, and -I think I passed it to Colonel Taylor’s organization, but I will check -up on it directly and see that it is delivered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It will be an appropriate time for it to be -done, I should think, during the course of the argument on the -organizations, if it hasn’t been done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and an affidavit accompanying it, -showing how it has been made up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Lieutenant Margolies tells me that he thinks it has been sent in -2 days ago, but he is not certain.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He thinks it has been done?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: He thinks so, but we will look into it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then tomorrow morning at 10, Counsel for the Prosecution will -be ready, will they, to argue the case of the organizations which -they have asked the Tribunal to be declared criminal under -Article 9 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: The Prosecution is prepared to be heard tomorrow -morning at 10 o’clock on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the various organizations -are prepared to argue against that? So that is understood that at -10 o’clock tomorrow the Tribunal will sit for that purpose and will -continue until the argument is concluded. -<span class='pageno' title='351' id='Page_351'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Counsel for the organizations are prepared, -according to the Tribunal’s suggestion, to join in the discussion -of the new argument to be put forward by the Prosecution -tomorrow. The Prosecution has helped us by making available to -us a copy of the factual points which so far had not been submitted -as a basis of the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the Tribunal’s suggestion not only these factual -points would be discussed tomorrow but also new legal questions -which have arisen recently, inasmuch as they have bearing on the -scope and relevancy of the evidence. The Defense Counsel for the -organizations would be obliged if the Prosecution would beforehand -make available to us the speech they are going to give on legal -questions tomorrow so that we are in the position to answer immediately.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know, but we haven’t had any copy -of any written argument presented to us. I don’t know whether -Counsel for the Prosecution would say whether they have any -written argument?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Well, Sir David can speak much better for himself. -What I was going to say is what I said previously, that I am informed -that he has already presented his outline both to the -Tribunal and to counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Justice Jackson is still working on his remarks, and while -he did hope to submit a draft, late communications received only -this morning from interested persons in the War Department have -made it necessary for him to work right up to now, and therefore -we think that the practical difficulty results in not having a prepared -statement to submit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I -have prepared two appendices which endeavor to cover the first two -points in the Tribunal’s statement of January, the elements of -criminality and the connected defendants mentioned in Article 9 of -the Charter. I arranged that copies in German should be given to -all the Defense Counsel. I hope everyone has got a copy. I have -also arranged that copies be submitted to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have added to that an addendum showing the references to the -transcript, and in some cases to the documents, on each of the points, -and I am afraid that is in English; but it is reference to paragraphs, -so it shouldn’t be difficult for the Defense Counsel to fit it into their -document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am afraid that it would be impossible to give a copy of the -Justice’s speech and mine. What I intended to add was largely on -<span class='pageno' title='352' id='Page_352'></span> -the facts which I have endeavored to put before the Defense Counsel -already, but if the Defense Counsel for the organizations would -care to hear informally what is the sort of general line, I should be -very pleased to tell them, if it would be any help. I want to help -in every way I can.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. We will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 28 February 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='353' id='Page_353'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTIETH DAY</span><br/> Thursday, 28 February 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HORN: Mr. President, on Monday, when I wished to give -my reasons for the application to call Winston Churchill as witness, -the Tribunal asked me to submit this in writing so that the Tribunal -could make a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The decision that Winston Churchill should not be called as -witness was, however, made already on the 26th of February, before -the Tribunal received my written application. I assume a mistake -has been made, and I ask the Tribunal to reconsider the question -in the light of the reasons set out in my written application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reconsider the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. Justice Jackson. Did you propose, Mr. Justice Jackson, to -argue first on the question of the organizations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief Counsel for the United -States): If that is agreeable to the Tribunal, that’s definitely our . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We are taking up, as I understand it, the deferred subject of -the rules which should guide in determining the criminality of -organizations, partly upon our initiative and partly an response to -the questions propounded by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The unconditional surrender of Germany created for the victors -novel and difficult problems of law and administration. Being the -first such surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, -precedents and past experiences are of little help in guiding our -policy toward the vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding -and accepting capitulation of a whole people certainly must -include a duty to discriminate justly and intelligently between the -opposing elements of that population, which bore dissimilar relations -to the policies and conduct which led to the catastrophe. This -differentiation is the objective of those provisions of the Charter -which authorize this Tribunal to declare organizations or groups to -be criminal. Understanding of the problem with which the instrument -attempts to deal is essential to its interpretation and application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time -of the surrender was that the state itself played only a subordinate -role in the exercise of political power, while the really drastic -<span class='pageno' title='354' id='Page_354'></span> -controls over German society were organized outside of the nominal -government. This was accomplished through an elaborate network -of closely knit and exclusive organizations of selected volunteers, -both bound to execute without delay and without question the -commands of the Nazi leaders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The -country was subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about -50 households each, and every such community had its recognized -Party leaders, Party police, and its undercover, planted spies. These -were combined into larger units with higher ranking leaders, executioners, -and spies, the whole forming a pyramid of power outside -of the law, with the Führer at its apex, the local Party officials -constituting its broad base, which rested heavily on the German -population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of these individual -defendants alone. A thousand little Führers dictated; a thousand -imitation Görings strutted; a thousand Schirachs incited the youth; -a thousand Sauckels worked slaves; a thousand Streichers and -Rosenbergs stirred up hate; a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks -tortured and killed; a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks -administered and supported and financed this movement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi movement was an integrated force in every city and -county and hamlet. The party power resulting from this system of -organizations first rivaled and then dominated the power of the -state itself. The primary vice of this web of organizations was that -they were used to transfer the power of coercing men from the -government and the law to the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, -and security of person and property do not exist except -where the power of coercion is possessed only by the state and is -exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis, however, set up this -private system of coercion outside of and immune from the law, -with Party-controlled concentration camps and firing squads to -administer privately decreed sanctions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Without responsibility to law and without warrant from any -court, they were enabled to seize property and take away liberty -and even take life itself. These organizations had a calculated -part—and a decisive part—in the barbaric extremes of the Nazi -movement. They served primarily to exploit mob psychology and -to manipulate the mob. Multiplying the number of persons in a -common enterprise always tends to diminish the individual’s sense -of moral responsibility and to increase his sense of security. The -Nazi leaders were masters of that technique. They manipulated -these organizations to make before the German populace impressive -exhibitions of numbers and of power, which have already been -shown on the screen. They were used to incite a mob spirit and -<span class='pageno' title='355' id='Page_355'></span> -then riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and -the Germanic ambition they had inflated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and -terrorism. They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined -execution throughout Germany and the occupied countries -of the plan for crimes which we have proven. The flowering of this -system is represented in the fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who -told this Tribunal without shame or trace of pity how he personally -directed the putting to death of 90,000 men, women, and children. No -tribunal ever listened to a recital of such wholesale murder as this -Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a fellow officer of -the SS. Their own testimony shows the SS responsibility for the -extermination program which took the lives of 5 million Jews—a -responsibility that that organization welcomed and discharged -methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes with -which we deal are unprecedented, first because of the shocking -number of victims. They are even more shocking and unprecedented -because of the large number of people who united their efforts to -perpetrate them. All scruple or conscience of a very large segment -of the German people was committed to the keeping of these -organizations, and their devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as -they went from one extreme to another. On the other hand, they -developed a contest in cruelty and a competition in crime. Ohlendorf, -from the witness stand, accused other SS commanders whose killings -exceeded his of “exaggerating” their figures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy -of Germany which imposed upon passive, unorganized, and inarticulate -Germans the same burdens as upon those who voluntarily -banded themselves together in these powerful and notorious gangs. -One of the basic requirements both of justice and of successful -administration of the occupation responsibility of our four countries -is a segregation of the organized elements from the masses of -Germans for separate treatment. That is the fundamental task with -which we must deal here. It seems beyond controversy that to -punish a few top leaders but to leave this web of organized bodies -in the midst of postwar society would be to foster the nucleus of -a new Nazidom. These members are accustomed to an established -chain of centralized command. They have formed a habit and -developed a technique of both secret and open co-operation. They -still nourish a blind devotion to the suspended, but not abandoned, -Nazi program. They will keep alive the hates and ambitions which -generated the orgy of crime we have proven. These organizations -are the carriers from this generation to the next of the infection of -aggressive and ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen -how easily an assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor -force can in fact be a military outfit training with shovels. The -<span class='pageno' title='356' id='Page_356'></span> -next war and the next pogroms will be hatched in the nests of these -organizations as surely as we leave their membership with its -prestige and influence undiminished by condemnation and punishment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when -we consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be -years before there can be established in the German State any -political authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It -cannot quickly acquire the stability of a government aided by long -habit of obedience and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, -and possible overthrow which older and established governments -always fear from conspiratorial groups is a real and present danger to -any stable social order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of -retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized -instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case I -said that the United States does not seek to convict the whole -German people of crime. But it is equally important that this Trial -shall not serve to absolve the whole German people except 21 men -in the dock. The wrongs that have been done to the world by these -defendants and their top confederates were not done by their will -and their strength alone. The success of their designs was made -possible because great numbers of Germans organized themselves -to become the fulcrum and the lever by which the power of these -leaders was extended and magnified. If this Trial fails to condemn -these organized confederates for their share of the responsibility for -this catastrophe, it will be construed as their exoneration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. -It manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and -preventive considerations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The primary objective of requiring that the surrender of -Germany be unconditional was to clear the way for a reconstruction -of German society on such a basis that it will not again threaten -the peace of Europe and of the world. Temporary measures of the -occupation authorities may by necessity, and I mean no criticism of -them, have been more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination -than befits a permanent policy. For example, under existing denazification -policy, no member of the Nazi Party or its formations may -be employed, in any position—other than ordinary labor—in any -business enterprise, unless he is found to have been only a nominal -Nazi. Persons in certain categories whose standing in the community -is one of prominence or influence are required to be, and others -may be, denied further participation in their businesses or professions. -It is mandatory to remove or exclude from public office -and from positions of importance in quasi-public and private -<span class='pageno' title='357' id='Page_357'></span> -enterprises persons falling within about 90 specified categories, -deemed to consist of either active Nazis, Nazi supporters, or militarists. -Property of such persons is blocked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, it is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the -framers of this Charter, that a permanent long-term program should -be based on a more careful and more individual discrimination -than was possible with sweeping temporary measures. There is a -movement now within the Control Council for reconsideration of -its whole denazification policy and procedure. The action of this -Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to declare, an accused organization -criminal has a vital bearing on this future occupation policy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes -of this Tribunal and its judgment to identify and condemn those -Nazi and militaristic forces that were so strongly organized as to -constitute a continuing menace to the long-term objectives for -which our respective countries have spent their young lives. It is -in the light of this great purpose that we must examine the -provisions of this Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could -not, without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system -of jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for -handling a great number of common charges against a great -multitude of accused persons. The number of individual defendants -that fairly can be tried in a single proceeding probably does not -greatly exceed the number now in your dock. Also, the number of -separate trials in which the same voluminous evidence as to a -common plan must be repeated is very limited in actual practice. -Yet, adversary proceedings of the type in which we are engaged are -the best assurance the law has ever evolved that decisions will be -well-considered and just. The task of the framers of the Charter -was to find some way to overcome the obstacles to practicable and -early decision without sacrificing the fairness implicit in hearings. -The solution prescribed by the Charter is certainly not faultless, but -not one of its critics has ever proposed an alternative that would -not either deprive the individual of all hearing or contemplate such -a multitude of long trials that it would break down and be impracticable. -In any case, this Charter is the plan adopted by our -respective governments and our duty here is to make it work.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a -severance of the general issues which would be common to all -individual trials from the particular issues which would differ in -each trial. The plan is comparable to that employed in certain -wartime legislation of the United States, dealt with in the case of -<span class='it'>Yakus versus United States</span>, in which questions as to the due process -quality of the order must be determined in a separate tribunal and -<span class='pageno' title='358' id='Page_358'></span> -cannot be raised by a defendant when he is defending on indictment. -Those countries which do not have written constitutions and -constitutional issues may find it difficult to follow the logic of that -decision, but essentially the plan was to separate general issues -relative to the order as a whole from specific issues which would -arise when an individual was confronted with a charge of guilt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The general issues under this Charter are to be determined with -finality in one trial before the International Tribunal, and in that -trial every accused organization must be defended by counsel and -must be represented by at least one leading member, and other -individuals may apply to be heard. Their applications may be -granted if the Tribunal thinks justice requires it. The only issue -in this trial concerns the collective criminality of the organization -or group. It is to be adjudicated by what amounts to a declaratory -judgment. It does not decree any punishment either against the -organization or against individual members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration -that an organization is criminal is contained in Article 10, -which, if you will bear with me, I will read:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal -by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any -Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial -for membership therein before national, military, or occupation -courts.</p> - -<p>“In any such case the criminal nature of the group or -organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Unquestionably, it would have been competent for the Charter -to have declared flatly that membership in any of these named -organizations is criminal and should be punished accordingly. If -there had been such an enactment, it would not have been open to -an individual, who was being tried for membership, to contend that -the organization was not in fact, criminal. But the framers of the -Charter, acting last summer at a time before the evidence which has -been adduced here was even available to us, did not care to find -organizations criminal by fiat. They left that issue to determination -after relevant facts were developed by adversary proceedings. -Plainly, the individual is better off because of the procedure of the -Charter, which leaves that finding of criminality to this body after -hearings at which the organization must, and the individual may, -be represented. It is at least the best assurance that we could devise, -that no mistake would be made in dealing with these organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under the Charter, the groups and organizations named in the -Indictment are not on trial in the conventional sense of that term. -They are more nearly under investigation as they might be before -a grand jury in Anglo-American practice. Article 9 recognizes a -<span class='pageno' title='359' id='Page_359'></span> -distinction between the declaration of a group or organization as -criminal and “the trial of any individual member thereof.” The -power of the Tribunal to try is confined to “persons,” and the -Charter does not expand that term by definition, as statutes sometimes -do, to include other than natural persons. The groups or -organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities served -with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any sentence -upon them as entities. For example, it may not levy a fine upon -them even though they have property of the organization, nor -convict any person because of membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is also to be observed that the Charter does not require -subsequent proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the -competent national authorities shall have the right to bring individuals -to trial for membership therein.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter is silent as to the form that these subsequent trials -should take. It was not deemed wise, on the information then -available, that the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. -Nor was it necessary to do so. There is a continuing legislative -authority, representing all four signatory nations, competent to take -over where the Charter leaves off. Legislative supplementation of -the Charter, of course, would be necessary in any event to confer -jurisdiction on local courts, to define their procedures, and to prescribe -different penalties for different forms of activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence -as to future proceedings means that great numbers of members will -be rounded up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration -that an organization is criminal. It also has been suggested -that this is, or may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control -Council Act Number 10, which defines as a crime “membership in -categories of a criminal group or organization declared criminal by -the International Military Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishment -without a right of hearing cannot be spelled out of this -Charter and would be offensive to both its letter and its spirit. And -I do not find in Control Council Act Number 10 any inconsistency -with the Charter. Of course, to reach all individual members would -require numerous hearings, but they will involve only narrow -issues. Many persons will have no answers to charges if they are -carefully prepared; and the proceedings should be expeditious, -nontechnical, and held in the locality where the person accused -resides, and, incidentally, may be conducted in two languages -at most.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And I think it is clear that before any person is punishable -for membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a -hearing on the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize -the national authorities to punish membership without hearing—it -<span class='pageno' title='360' id='Page_360'></span> -gives them only the right to “bring individuals to trial.” That -means what it says. A trial means there is something to try.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter denies only one of the possible defenses of an -accused; he may not relitigate the question in a subsequent trial -whether the organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes -him from denying that his participation was voluntary and -proving that he acted under duress; he may prove that he was -deceived or tricked into membership; he may show that he had -withdrawn or he may prove that his name on the rolls is a case -of mistaken identity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act -make criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving -the volition of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization -must have been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion -or illegal duress, actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim has -never been thought to be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust -result is not to be implied now. The extent of the member’s knowledge -of the criminal character of the organization is, however, -another matter. He may not have known on the day he joined but -may have remained a member after learning the facts. And he is -chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of which he -was reasonably put on notice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are safeguards to assure that this program will be carried -out in good faith. Prosecution under this declaration is discretionary. -If there were purpose on the part of the Allied Powers to punish -these persons without trial, it would have been already done before -this Tribunal was set up, and without waiting for its declaration. -We think that the Tribunal will presume that the signatory powers -which have voluntarily submitted to this process will carry it out -faithfully.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Control Council Act applies only to categories of membership -declared criminal. This language on the part of the Control Council -recognizes a power in this Tribunal to limit the effect of its declaration. -I do not think, for reasons which I will later state, that -this should be construed or availed of to try any issue here as to -subgroups or sections or individuals which can be tried in later -proceedings. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not the sort -of limitation which must be defined by evidence of details, but -limitations of principle such as those I have already outlined, such -as duress, involuntary membership, or matters of that kind, which -the Tribunal can recognize and deal with without taking detailed -evidence. It does not require this Tribunal to delve into evidence -to condition its judgment to apply only to intentional and voluntary -membership. This does not supplant later trials by the declaration -of this Tribunal but guides them. -<span class='pageno' title='361' id='Page_361'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It certainly cannot be said that such a plan—such as we have -here for severance of the general issues common to many cases from -the particular issues applicable only to individual defendants for litigation -in separate tribunals specially adapted for the different kinds -of issues—is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it -presents unusual procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents -any insurmountable ones. I will discuss the question of the criteria -and the principles and the precedents for declaring collective -criminality before coming to the procedural questions involved. The -substantive law which governs the inquiry into criminality of -organizations is, in its large outline, old and well settled and fairly -uniform in all systems of law. It is true that we are dealing here -with a procedure which would be easy to abuse and one that is -often feared as an interference with liberty of assembly or as an -imposition of guilt by association. It also is true that proceedings -against organizations are closely akin to the conspiracy charge, -which is the great dragnet of the law and rightly watched by courts -lest it be abused.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact is, however, that every form of government has considered -it necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not -even the most tolerant of governments can permit an accumulation -of private power in organizations to a point where it rivals, -obstructs, or dominates the government itself. To do so would be -to grant designing men a liberty to destroy liberty. The very -complacency and tolerance, as well as the impotence, of the Weimar -Republic towards the growing organization of Nazi power spelled -the death of German freedom.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Protection of the citizen’s liberty has required even free governments -to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power -which threaten to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every -one of the nations signatory to this Charter has laws making certain -types of organizations criminal. The Ku Klux Klan in the United -States flourished at about the same time as the Nazi movement in -Germany. It appealed to the same hates, practiced the same extra-legal -coercions, and likewise terrorized by the same sort of weird -nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it was composed of a -core of fanatics, but it enlisted the support of respectabilities who -knew it was wrong but thought it was winning. It eventually -provoked a variety of legislative acts directed against such organizations -as organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Congress of the United States also has enacted legislation -outlawing certain organizations. A recent example was on the -28th of June 1940, when the Congress provided that it shall be -unlawful for any person, among other things, to organize or help -to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons to teach, -<span class='pageno' title='362' id='Page_362'></span> -advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any government -in the United States by force or violence, or to be or become -a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group, or assembly -of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is much legislation by states of the American Union -creating analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the act -of California dealing with criminal syndicalism, which, after defining -it, makes criminal any person who organizes, assists in organizing, -or is, or knowingly becomes, a member of such organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Precedents in English law for outlawing organizations and -punishing membership therein are old and consistent with the -Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the first is the British India Act Number 30, enacted in -1836, which, among other things, provides:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have -belonged, either before or after the passing of this Act, to any -gang of thugs, either within or without the territories of the -East India Company, shall be punished with imprisonment for -life with hard labor.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>And the history is that this was a successful act in suppressing -violence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Other precedents in English legislation are the Unlawful Societies -Act of 1799, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817, the Seditious -Meetings Act of 1846, the Public Order Act of 1936, and Defense -Regulations 18(b). The latter, not without opposition, was intended -to protect the integrity of the British Government against the fifth-column -activities of this same Nazi conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Soviet Russia punishes as a crime the formation of and membership -in a criminal gang. Criminologists of the Soviet Union call -this crime the “crime of banditry,” a term altogether appropriate to -these German organizations. General Rudenko will advise this -Tribunal more in detail as to the Soviet law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>French criminal law makes membership in subversive organizations -a crime. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in -itself. My distinguished French colleague will present you more -detail on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, I would not contend that the law of a single country, -even one of the signatory powers, was governing here, but it is clear -that this is not an act or a concept of a single system of law, that -all systems of law agree that there are points at which organizations -become intolerable in a free society.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For German precedents, it is neither seemly nor necessary to go -to the Nazi regime, which, of course, suppressed all their adversaries -ruthlessly. However, under the Empire and the Weimar Republic -<span class='pageno' title='363' id='Page_363'></span> -German jurisprudence deserved respect, and it presents both -statutory and juridical examples of declaring organizations to be -criminal. Statutory examples are: The German Criminal Code -enacted in 1871. Section 128 was aimed against secret associations, -and 129 against organizations inimical to the State. A law of March -22, 1921, against paramilitary organizations. A law of July 1922 -against organizations aimed at overthrowing the constitution of the -Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. -It reads:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The participation in an organization, the existence, constitution, -or purposes of which are to be kept secret from the -government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or -unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is -punishable by imprisonment.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>It would be difficult to draw an act that would more definitely -condemn the organizations with which we are dealing here than this -German Criminal Code of 1871. I recall to your attention that it -condemns organizations in which obedience to unknown superiors -or unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged. It is -exactly the sort of danger and menace with which we are dealing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under the Empire various Polish national unions were the -subject of criminal prosecutions. Under the Republic, in 1927 and -1928, judgments held criminal the entire Communist Party of -Germany. In 1922 and 1928, judgments of the courts ran against -the political leadership corps of the Communist Party, which -included all of its so-called body of functionaries. This body of -functionaries in that organization corresponded somewhat in their -powers to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, which we have -accused here. The judgment against the Communist Party rendered -by the German courts included every cashier, every employee, every -delivery boy and messenger, and every district leader. In 1930 a -judgment of criminality against what was called “The Union of Red -Front Fighters” of the Communist Party made no distinction -between leaders and ordinary members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Most significant of all is the fact that on the 30th of May 1924 -judgment of the German courts was rendered that the whole Nazi -Party was a criminal organization. Evidently there was a lack of -courage to enforce that judgment, or we might not have been here. -This decision referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we -are indicting here, but to all other members as well. The whole rise -of the Nazi Party to power was in the shadow of this judgment of -illegality by the German courts themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The German courts, in dealing with criminal organizations, -proceeded on the theory that all members were held together by a -<span class='pageno' title='364' id='Page_364'></span> -common plan in which each one participated, even though at -different levels. Moreover, fundamental principles of responsibility -of members as stated by the German Supreme Court are strikingly -like the principles that govern our Anglo-American law of conspiracy. -Among the statements by the German courts are these:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That it is a matter of indifference whether all the members -pursued the forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the -forbidden activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And again, that it is a matter of indifference whether the members -of the group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of -working, and means of fighting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And again, that the real attitude of mind of the participants is -a matter of indifference. Even if they had the intention of not -participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this cannot -eliminate their responsibility from real membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in -the nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged -by application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are -offensive to law-governed people has been succinctly stated by an -American legal authority as follows, and I quote from <span class='it'>Miller on -Criminal Law</span>:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a combination -to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means, -where none would exist, even though the act contemplated -were actually committed by an individual, is that a combination -of persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a -means to an end, is so much more dangerous, because of its -increased power to do wrong, because it is more difficult to -guard against and prevent the evil designs of a group of -persons than of a single person, and because of the terror -which fear of such a combination tends to create in the minds -of the people.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter in Article 6 provides that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating -in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or -Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible -for all acts performed by any persons in execution -of such plan.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>That, of course, is a statement of the ordinary law of conspiracy. -The individual defendants are arraigned at your bar on this charge -of conspiracy which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts -of others in execution of the common plan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others -in terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in nontechnical -but inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and -<span class='pageno' title='365' id='Page_365'></span> -executing a common plan, as well as participating in a conspiracy. -It was feared that to do otherwise might import into the proceedings -technical requirements and limitations which have grown up around -the term “conspiracy.” There are some divergencies between the -Anglo-American concept of a conspiracy and that of either French, -Soviet, or German jurisprudence. It was desired that concrete cases -be guided by the broader considerations inherent in the nature of -the problem I have outlined, rather than to be controlled by -refinements of any local law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude, -there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization -accused here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part -of the conspiracy under Article 6, even if the Charter had never -mentioned organizations at all. To become voluntarily affiliated was -an act of adherence to some common plan or purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations did not pretend to be merely social or -cultural groups; admittedly, the members were united for action. -In the case of several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation -was evidenced by formal induction into membership, -the taking of an oath, the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the -submission to a discipline. That all members of each Nazi organization -did combine under a common plan to achieve some end by combined -efforts is abundantly established.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The criteria for determining whether these ends were guilty ends -are obviously those which would test the legality of any combination -or conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or purpose illegal -ends? If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi -organizations for the acts of every other member is not essentially -different from the liability for conspiracy enforced in the courts of -the United States against businessmen who combine in violation of -the anti-trust laws, or other defendants accused under narcotic-drugs -acts, sedition acts, or other Federal penal enactments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Among the principles every day enforced in courts of Great -Britain and the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these -sweeping principles:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No formal meeting or agreement is necessary. It is sufficient, -although one performs one part and other persons other parts, if -there be concert of action and working together understandingly -with a common design to accomplish a common purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, one may be liable even though he may not have known -who his fellow conspirators were or just what part they were to -take or what acts they committed, and though he did not take -personal part in them or was absent when the criminal acts occurred.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Third, there may be liability for acts of fellow conspirators -although the particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if -<span class='pageno' title='366' id='Page_366'></span> -they were done in execution of the common plan. One in effect -makes a fellow conspirator his agent with blanket authority to -accomplish the ends of the conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Fourth, it is not necessary to liability that one be a member of -a conspiracy at the same time as other actors, or at the time of the -criminal acts. When one becomes a party to a conspiracy, he adopts -and ratifies what has gone before and remains responsible until he -abandons the conspiracy with notice to his fellow conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, those are sweeping principles, but no society has been able -to do without these defenses against the accumulation of power -through aggregations of individuals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who personally -commit crimes, of course, are individually punishable for those -crimes exactly as are those who commit the same offenses without -organizational backing. The very essence of the crime of conspiracy -or membership in a criminal association is liability for acts one did -not personally commit, but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The -crime is to combine with others and to participate in the unlawful -common effort, however innocent the personal acts of the participants, -considered by themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to tie one -into a conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal -plan. And we have multitudinous examples in the jurisprudence of -the United States where the mailing of a letter brought one not -only within the orbit of the definition of crime, but within Federal -jurisdiction.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are countless examples of this doctrine that innocent acts -in the performance of a common purpose render one liable for the -criminal acts of others performed to that same end.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration -in determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the -vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership, -formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose -and submission to discipline and chain of command, cannot be less -than that vicarious liability which follows from informal co-operation -with a nebulous group, as is sufficient in case of a conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This meets the suggestions that the Prosecution is required to -prove every member, or every part, fraction, or division of the -membership to be guilty of criminal acts. That suggestion ignores -the conspiratorial nature of the charge against organizations. Such -an interpretation also would reduce the Charter to an unworkable -absurdity. To concentrate in one International Tribunal inquiries -requiring such detailed evidence as to each member or as to each -subsection would set a task not possible of completion within the -lives of living men. -<span class='pageno' title='367' id='Page_367'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as -that “one should be convicted for his activities and not for his -membership.” But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi -bodies was an activity. It was not something passed out to a passive -citizen like a handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and -abet a movement greatly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Does anyone believe that the picture of Hjalmar Schacht sitting -in the front row of the Nazi Party Congress, which you have seen, -wearing the insignia of the Nazi Party, was included in the propaganda -film of the Nazi Party merely for artistic effect? The great -banker’s mere loan of his name to this shady enterprise gave it a -lift and a respectability in the eyes of every hesitating German. -There may be instances in which membership did not aid and abet -organizational ends and means, but individual situations of that kind -are for appraisal in the later hearings and not by this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By and large, the use of organizational affiliation is a quick and -simple, but at the same time fairly accurate, outline of the contours -of a conspiracy to do what the organization actually did. It is the -only workable one at this stage of the Trial. It can work no -injustice because before any individual can be punished, he can -submit the facts of his own case to further and more detailed -judicial scrutiny.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary -legal principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of -criminality is, of course, upon the Prosecution. It is discharged, we -think, when we establish the following:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation -of persons associated in identifiable relationship with a collective, -general purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that -membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. -This does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. -Nor does it mean that an organization is not to be considered -voluntary if the Defense proves that some minor fraction or small -percentage of its membership was compelled to join. The test is a -commonsense one: Was the organization on the whole one which -persons were free to join or to stay out of? Membership is not made -involuntary by the fact that it was good business or good politics to -identify one’s self with the movement. Any compulsion must be of -the kind which the law normally recognizes, and threats of political -or economic retaliation would be of no consequence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was -designed to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the -Charter. No other act would authorize conviction of an individual -<span class='pageno' title='368' id='Page_368'></span> -and no other act would authorize conviction of the organization in -connection with the conviction of the individual.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have -been of such a character that its membership in general may -properly be charged with knowledge of them. This again is not -specifically required by the Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent -on the Prosecution to establish the individual knowledge of every -member of the organization or to rebut the possibility that some -may have joined in ignorance of its true character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the -organization and must be convicted of some act on the basis of -which the organization was declared to be criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall now take up the subject of the issues, as we see it, which -are for trial before this Tribunal, and some discussion of those which -seem to us not to be for trial before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Progress of this Trial will be expedited by a clear definition of -the issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be -proper criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are -not relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in -the specific questions asked by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. -That is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized -as criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that -does not bear on a question that would be common to the case of -every member. Any matter that would be exculpating for some -members but not for all is, as we see it, irrelevant here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that -one or many members were conscripted if in general the membership -was voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good -defense for an individual charged with membership in a criminal -organization, but an organization can have criminal purpose and -commit criminal acts even if a portion of its membership consists -of persons who were compelled to join it. The issue of conscription -is not pertinent to this proceeding, but it is pertinent to the trials -of individuals for membership in organizations declared to be -criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Also, we think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or -more members of the named organizations were ignorant of its -criminal purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open -or notorious. An organization may have criminal purposes and -commit criminal acts although one or many of its members were -without personal knowledge thereof. If a person joined what he -thought was a social club, but what in fact turned out to be a gang -of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of knowledge would not -exonerate the gang considered as a group, although it might possibly -<span class='pageno' title='369' id='Page_369'></span> -be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality brought against -him for mere membership in the organization. Even then, the test -would be not what the man actually knew, but what, as a person -of common understanding he should have known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members -of the named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful -acts. This proposition is basic in the entire theory of the declaration -of organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality -of organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for -aiding crimes, although the precise perpetrators can never be found -or identified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We know that the Gestapo and the SS, as organizations, were -given principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish -people in Europe, but beyond a few isolated instances, we can -never establish which members of the Gestapo or SS actually -carried out the murders. Most of them were concealed by the -anonymity of the uniform, committed their crimes, and passed on. -Witnesses know that it was an SS man or a Gestapo man, but to -identify him is impossible. Any member guilty of direct participation -in such crimes, if we can find and identify him, can be tried on -the charge of having committed the specific crimes in addition to -the general charge of membership in a criminal organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of -the organizations were themselves allegedly innocent of specific -wrongdoing. The purpose of this proceeding is not to reach -instances of individual criminal conduct, even in subsequent trials, -and therefore such considerations are irrelevant here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time -during which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment -are claimed by the Prosecution to have been criminal. The -Prosecution believes that each organization should be declared -criminal for the period stated in the Indictment. We do not contend -that the Tribunal is without power to condition its declaration so as -to cover a lesser period of time than that set forth in the Indictment. -The Indictment is specific as to each organization. We think that the -record at this time affords adequate evidence to support the charge -of criminality with respect to each of the organizations during the -full time set forth in the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes -of persons included within the accused groups or organizations -should be excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of -course, necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some -identifiable group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not -expected or required to be bound by formalities of organization. In -framing the Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or -<span class='pageno' title='370' id='Page_370'></span> -concepts which would involve this Trial in legal technicalities about -juristic persons or entities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the refinements of -these fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is a nontechnical -one. “Group” or “organization” should be given no artificial or -sophistical meaning. The word “group” was used in the Charter as -a broader term, implying a looser and less formal structure or -relationship than is implied in the term “organization.” The terms -mean in the context of the Charter what they mean in the ordinary -speech of people. The test to identify a group or organization is a -natural and commonsense one.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal has, no -doubt, power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare -criminal, the precise composition and membership of groups and -organizations is not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter -requirement and no practical need for the Tribunal to define a -group or organization with such particularity that its precise composition -or membership is thereby determined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues was a -recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive of -such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend -persons who, on more detailed inquiry, will prove to be outside of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Any effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of -individuals, be they few or many, would unduly protract the Trial, -transgress the limitations of the Charter, and quite likely do some -mischief by attempting to adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence -which is not directed to that purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time for you to -break off for a few moments?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Prosecution stands upon the -language of the Indictment and contends that each group or organization -should be declared criminal as an entity and that no inquiry -should be entered upon and no evidence entertained as to the exculpation -of any class or classes of persons within such descriptions. -Practical reasons of conserving the Tribunal’s time combine with -practical considerations for defendants. A single trial held in one -city to deal with the question of excluding thousands of defendants -living all over Germany could not be expected to do justice to each -member unless it was expected to endure indefinitely. Provision for -later local trials of individual relationships protects the rights of -<span class='pageno' title='371' id='Page_371'></span> -members better than possibly can be done in proceedings before this -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With respect to the Gestapo, the United States and, I believe -all of my colleagues consent to exclude persons employed in purely -clerical, stenographic, janitorial, or similar unofficial routine tasks. -As to the Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by the position taken at -the time of submission of the evidence, that the following should -be included: The Führer, the Reichsleiter, main departments and -office holders, the Gauleiter and their staff officers, the Kreisleiter -and their staff officers, the Ortsgruppenleiter, the Zellenleiter, and -the Blockleiter, but not members of the staff of the last three -officials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the declaration -expressly exclude: (1) Wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) the SA-controlled -home-guard units, which were not, as we view it on the -evidence, strictly a part of the SA, and there also be excluded the -National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans and the SA Reserve, -so as to include only the active parts of that organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the -severability of any class or classes of persons within the organizations -accused which would justify any further concessions, and -that no other part of the named groups should be excluded. In this -connection, we would again stress the principles of conspiracy. The -fact that a section of an organization itself committed no criminal -act, or may have been occupied in technical or administrative -functions, does not relieve that section of criminal responsibility if -its activities contributed to the over-all accomplishment of the -criminal enterprise. I should like to discuss the question of the -further steps to be taken procedurally before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to the -Tribunal asking to be heard in connection with the accusations -against organizations. The volume of these applications has caused -apprehension as to further proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties -yet to be overcome, but my study indicates that the difficulties -are greatly exaggerated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will -entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be -anxious, of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, -not only to do justice, but to avoid appearance of doing anything -less than justice. And we do not consider that expediting this Trial -is so important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really -pertinent facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood -of applications indicated that their significance is not proportionate -to their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of -<span class='pageno' title='372' id='Page_372'></span> -the right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied -prisoner-of-war and internment camps. The notice was published in -all German language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the -radio. Investigation shows that the notice was posted in all barracks -of the camps, and it also shows that in many camps it was read -to the prisoners, in addition. The 45,000 persons who responded -with applications to be heard came principally from about -15 prisoner-of-war and internment camps in British or United -States control. Those received included an approximate 12,000 from -Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser, 7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from -Staumühle, 2,500 from Garmisch and several hundred from each -of the others.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have made some investigation of these applications, as well -as of the sending out of the notices, and we would be glad to place -any information that we have at the disposal of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An investigation was made of the Auerbach Camp in the United -States zone, principally to determine the reason for these applications -and the method by which they came. That investigation was -conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Smith Brookhart, Captain Drexel -Sprecher, and Captain Krieger, all of whom are known to this -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Auerbach camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly SS -members. Its prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923 officers. -The notice of the International Military Tribunal was posted in -each of the barracks and was read to all inmates. All applications -to the Tribunal were forwarded without censorship of any kind. -Applications to defend were made by 7,500 SS members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to -the notice, and that no action was directed or inspired from any -other source within or without the camp. All who were interrogated -professed that they had no knowledge of any SS crimes or of SS -criminal purpose, but they expressed interest only in their individual -fate, rather than any concern to defend the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Our investigators report no indication that they had any additional -evidence or information to submit on the general question -of the criminality of the SS as an organization. They seemed to -think it was necessary to protect themselves to make the application -here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Turning then to examination of the applications, these, on their -face, indicate that most of the members do not profess to have -evidence on the general issue triable here. They assert almost -without exception that the writer has neither committed nor -witnessed nor known of the crimes charged against the organization. -On a proper definition of the issues such an application is insufficient, -on its face, to warrant a personal intervention. -<span class='pageno' title='373' id='Page_373'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>A careful examination of the notice to which these applications -respond will indicate, I believe, that the notice contains no word -which would inform a member, particularly if he were a layman, -of the narrowness of the issues which are to be considered here, -or that he will have a later opportunity, if and when prosecuted, -to present personal defenses. On the other hand the notice, it seems -to me, creates the impression, particularly to a layman, that every -member may be convicted and punished by this Tribunal and that -his only chance to be heard is here. I think a careful examination -of these notices will bear out that impression and a careful examination -of the applications will show that they are in response to -that impression.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, among lawyers there is usually a difference of opinion -as to how best to proceed and this case presents no exception to -that; there are different ideas. But I shall advance certain views -as to how we should proceed from here to obtain a fair and proper -adjudication of these questions. In view of these facts we suggest -a consideration of the following program for completion of this -Trial as to organizations:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope -of the issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation -of the issues and the opportunity later to be individually tried -be sent to all applicants and published in the same manner as the -original notice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. That a panel of masters be appointed, as authorized in -Article 17(e) of the Charter, to examine applications and to report -those that are insufficient on their own statements and to go to the -camps and supervise the taking of any relevant evidence. Defense -Counsel and Prosecution representatives should, of course, attend -and be heard before the masters. The masters should reduce any -evidence to deposition form and report the whole to this Tribunal, -to be introduced as a part of its record.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify -the task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps -might well be invited to choose one or more to represent them in -presenting evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and the Defense -Counsel that the Prosecution has omitted from evidence many -relevant documents which show repetition of crimes by these -organizations in order to save time by avoiding cumulative evidence. -It is not too much to expect that cumulative evidence of a negative -character will likewise be limited. -<span class='pageno' title='374' id='Page_374'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons -who might be affected by the declarations of criminality which we -have asked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some people seem more susceptible to the shock of a million -punishments than to shock from 5 million murders. At most the -number of punishments will never catch up with the number of -crimes. However, it is impossible to state, even with approximate -accuracy, the number of persons who might be affected by the -declaration of criminality which we have asked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Figures from the German sources seriously exaggerate the -number, because they do not take account of heavy casualties in -the latter part of the war, and make no allowance for duplication -of membership which was large. For example, the evidence is to -the effect that 75 percent of the Gestapo men also were members -of the SS. We know that the United States forces have a roughly -estimated 130,000 detained persons who appear to be members of -accused organizations. I have no figure from other Allied forces. -But how many of these actually would be prosecuted, instead of -being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can -foretell. Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: It is -so large that a thorough inquiry by this Tribunal into each case -would prolong its session beyond endurance. All questions as to -whether individuals or subgroups of accused organizations should -be excepted from the declaration of criminality should be left for -local courts, located near the home of the accused and near the -source of evidence. The courts can work in one or at most in two -languages, instead of four, and can hear evidence which both -parties direct to the specific issues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is not the time to review the evidence against each particular -organization which, we take it, should be reserved for -summation after the evidence is all presented. But it is timely to -say that the selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment -was not a matter of chance. The chief reasons they were -chosen are these: Collectively they were the ultimate repositories -of all power in the Nazi regime; they were not only the most -powerful, but the most vicious organizations in the regime; and -they were organizations in which membership was generally -voluntary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal -executors of the Nazi Party, and the Nazi Party was the force lying -behind and dominating the whole German State. The Reich Cabinet -was the facade through which the Nazi Party translated its will -into legislative, administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars -on which the security of the regime rested were the Armed Forces, -directed and controlled by the General Staff and High Command, -<span class='pageno' title='375' id='Page_375'></span> -and the police forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. -These organizations exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These organizations were also selected because, while representative, -they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable -that innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up -in the same net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, -but not all the administrative officials or department heads or civil -servants; only the Reich Cabinet, the very heart of Nazidom within -the government, is named. The Armed Forces are accused, but not -the average soldier or officer, no matter how high-ranking. Only -the top policy makers—the General Staff and the High Command—are -named. The police forces are accused—but not every policeman, -not the ordinary police which performed only the normal police -functions. Only the most terroristic and repressive police elements—the -Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi Party is accused—but -not every Nazi voter, not even every member, only the leaders. -And not even every Party official or worker is included; only “the -bearers of sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the Party, -who were the actual commanding officers and their staff officers -on the highest levels.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it is important that we observe, in reference to the Nazi -Party, just what it is that we are doing here and compare it with -the denazification program in effect without any declaration of -criminality, in order to see in its true perspective the indictment -which we bring against the Nazi Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some charts have been prepared. This is a mere graphic -representation of the proportions of persons that we have accused, -and which we ask this Tribunal to declare as constituting criminal -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the first column are the 79 million German citizens. We make -no accusation against the citizenry of Germany. The next is the -48 million voters, who at one time voted to keep the Nazi Party -in power. They voted in response to the referendum. We make no -charge against those who supported the Nazi Party, although in -some aspects of the denazification program the supporters are -included. Then come the 5 million Nazi members, persons who -definitely joined the Nazi Party by an act of affiliation, by an oath -of fealty. But we do not attempt to reach that entire 5 million -persons, although I have no hesitation in saying that there would -be good grounds for doing so; but as a mere matter of practicality -of this situation it is not possible to reach all of those who are -technically and perhaps morally well within the confines of this -conspiracy. So the voters are disregarded, the 48 million, the -5 million members are disregarded, and the first that we propose -to reach are the Nazi leaders, starting with Blockleiter, which are -<span class='pageno' title='376' id='Page_376'></span> -shown in the last small block, and piled together, amounting to the -fourth block on the diagram.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is true that we start with the local block leader, but he -had responsibilities—responsibilities for herding into the fold his -50 households, responsibilities for spying upon them and reporting -their activities; responsibilities, as this evidence shows, for disciplining -them and for leading them. No political movement can -function in the drawing rooms and offices. It has to reach the -masses of the people and these block leaders were the essential -elements in making this program effective among the masses of the -people and in terrorizing them into submission.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I submit that on this diagram the accusation which we bring -here is a moderate one reaching only persons of admitted leadership -responsibilities and not trying to reach people who may have been -beguiled into following in an unorganized fashion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have also accused the formations, Party formations, such as -the SA and the SS. These were the strong arms of the Party. These -were the formations that the Blockleiter was authorized to call in -to help him if he needed to discipline somebody in his block of -50 houses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But we do not accuse every one of the formations of the Party, -nor do we accuse any of the 20 or more supervised or affiliated -Party groups, Nazi organizations in which membership was compulsory, -either legally or in practice, such as the Hitler Youth and -the Student League. We do not accuse the Nazi professional organizations, -although they were Nazi dominated, like the civil servants’ -organization, the teachers’ organization, and the National Socialist -lawyers’ organization, although I should show them as little charity -as any group. We do not accuse any Nazi organizations which have -some legitimate purpose, like welfare organizations. Only two of -these Party formations are named, the SA and the SS, the oldest -of the Nazi organizations, groups which had no purpose other than -carrying out the Nazi schemes, and which actively participated in -every crime denounced by the Charter and furnished the manpower -for most of the crimes which we have proved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling -repetition of the Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, -and War Crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these -organizations than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual -defendants in the box. These defendants’ power for harm is past. -They are discredited men. That of these organizations goes on. -If these organizations are exonerated here, the German people will -infer that they did no wrong, and they will easily be regimented -in reconstituted organizations under new names, behind the same -program. -<span class='pageno' title='377' id='Page_377'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In administering retributive justice it would be possible to -exonerate these organizations only by concluding that no crimes -have been committed by the Nazi regime. For these organizations’ -sponsorship of every Nazi purpose and their confederation to execute -every measure to attain these ends is beyond denial. A failure -to condemn these organizations under the terms of the Charter can -only mean that such Nazi ends and means cannot be considered -criminal and that the Charter of the Tribunal declaring them so is -a nullity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think my colleagues, who have somewhat different aspects of -the case to deal with, would like to be heard on this subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, -the Tribunal thinks the most convenient course would be to -hear argument on behalf of all the chief prosecutors and then to -hear argument on behalf of such of the defendants’ counsel as wish -to be heard, and after that the Tribunal will probably wish to ask -some questions of the chief prosecutors.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That will be very agreeable to us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Mr. Justice Jackson has dealt with the general principles under -which the organizations named in the Charter should, in the view -of the Prosecution, be dealt with. It is not my purpose to repeat -or even to underline his arguments. My endeavor is to comply with -Paragraph 4 of the statement of the Tribunal made on the 14th of -January of this year. This involves:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) Summarizing, in respect of each named organization, the -elements which, in our opinion, justify the charge of their being -criminal organizations. For convenience I shall refer to these as -the elements of criminality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Indicating what acts on the part of individual defendants in -the sense used in Article 9 of the Charter justified declaring the -groups or organizations of which they are members to be criminal -organizations. Again for convenience, I shall refer to such defendants -in the wording of the Charter, as connected defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) I shall submit that what I have put forward in writing under -(a) and (b) will form the necessary summary of proposed findings -of fact under the Tribunal’s third point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I say one word about the mechanics of the position? I -thought that it would be convenient if the Tribunal and the Defense -Counsel had copies of these suggestions before I address the -Tribunal. In pursuance of this, copies have been given to the -members of the Tribunal, of course to the court interpreters, and -copies in German have been provided for counsel for the organizations -and also for counsel for each of the individual defendants. -<span class='pageno' title='378' id='Page_378'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>For the convenience of the Tribunal and of counsel, I have -circulated two addenda, which contain further references to the -transcript and documents on a number of points in the original -appendices. These addenda are compiled under the numbers of -paragraphs and, although they are in English, should be readily -usable by Counsel for the Defense. The result is that there is the -summary in Appendices (A) and (B), which I put in, and full reference -in all the points in the summary to the transcript and in some -cases to documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is my intention not to read in full all the matters contained -in my Appendix (A) and Appendix (B) but to indicate how they fit -in with the conception of the Prosecution on this aspect of the case. -I shall, of course, be only too ready to read any portions which may -be convenient to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it would be best to start from the essential <span class='it'>probanda</span> -which Mr. Justice Jackson has indicated, and perhaps the Tribunal -will bear with me while I repeat his five points:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation -of persons, (a) in some identifiable relationship, (b) with a -collective general purpose. That was Mr. Justice Jackson’s first test.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. Membership in such organization must be generally voluntary, -although a minor proportion of involuntary members will not affect -the position.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. The aims of the organizations must be criminal in the sense -that its objects included the performance of acts denounced as -crimes by Article 6 of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have -been of such a character that a reasonable man would have constructive -knowledge of the organization which he was joining; that -is, that he ought to have known what type of organization he was -joining.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. Some individual defendants, at least one, must have been a -member of the organization and must be convicted of some act on -the basis of which a declaration of the criminality of the organization -can be made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not think that I can avoid applying these tests to each of -the organizations, but I conceive that this can be done with brevity, -and I therefore propose to deal with the organizations <span class='it'>seriatim</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I take first the Reichsregierung. Under Appendix B of the -Indictment this group is defined as consisting of three classes:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. Members of the ordinary cabinet after the 30th of January -1933. The term “ordinary cabinet” is in turn used as meaning: -(a) Reich ministers that is, heads of departments; (b) Reich ministers -<span class='pageno' title='379' id='Page_379'></span> -without portfolio; (c) State ministers acting as Reich ministers, -(d) other officials entitled to take part in meetings of the cabinet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second division is members of the Council of Ministers for -the Defense of the Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third division, members of the Secret Cabinet Council.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is submitted that, on the evidence placed before the Tribunal, -there is no doubt that the first of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, -Point 1, is complied with in that there is an identifiable relationship -with a collective general purpose, and that this organization is -generally voluntary, within Point 2.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The aims of the organization are set out in Paragraph 4 of -Section A of my Appendix A and the broad submission of the -Prosecution is shown in Paragraph 2. Perhaps, as that is short, I -might be allowed to read it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Owing to their legislative powers and functions the members -of the Reichsregierung gave statutory effect to the policy of -the Nazi conspirators and collectively formed a combination -of persons carrying out the executive and administrative -decisions of the Nazi conspirators.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution apply that general submission to the crimes -constituted by Article 6 of the Charter in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 -of that appendix. If the Tribunal would like me to deal further -with these paragraphs I should be pleased to read and comment -on any that are desired.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When it is remembered that the Reichsregierung possessed policymaking, -legislative, administrative, and executive powers and -functions, and that many of its members held at the same time -important positions in the Party and in governmental activities -outside the cabinet, enormous political power was concentrated in -this group. As I said, the Reichsregierung implemented and gave -statutory effect to the program of the conspirators.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to my Appendix B -they will see that 17 of the 21 defendants before the Court were -members of the Reichsregierung. The Prosecution have submitted -an enormous body of evidence against these 17 defendants, and -they now submit that it is sufficient to say that these 17 defendants -should be convicted under each count of the Indictment, and therefore -under each portion of Article 6 of the Charter, and that they -form the connected defendants with the Reichsregierung, under -Mr. Justice Jackson’s Point Number 5.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The acts which I have mentioned and which are set out in -Paragraph 4 of my Appendix A and the other paragraphs are of -such a character that no one in a ministerial capacity could fail to -have constructive knowledge of their nature and intent. -<span class='pageno' title='380' id='Page_380'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. -Mr. Justice Jackson has indicated that the conspirators required -wide instruments of support. Hitler boasted of the complete -domination of the Reich and of its institutions and of its organizations, -internally and externally, by the National Socialist Party.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the Nazi Party, based on the Führerprinzip, its policies and -operations were determined not by the membership as a whole but -by the corps of bearers of sovereignty and their staff. These leaders -were all political deputies, obliged to support and carry out the -doctrines of the Party. At every level regular and frequent conferences -were held to discuss questions of policy and working -measures. The leaders held the Party together, but they also kept -the entire populace firmly in the grip of the conspirators through -the control of the descending hierarchy of leaders.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that all these leaders are within the -organization which they claim to be criminal, and as Mr. Justice -Jackson pointed out the staffs of the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and -Kreisleiter, which are set out in the volumes of the <span class='it'>National Socialist -Organization Yearbook</span> as being in these positions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will note that we have omitted the staffs of the -more junior Hoheitsträger, as Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out. -On that the Prosecution again says that there is no doubt that -Points 1 and 2 of Mr. Justice Jackson’s criteria are complied with, -and they indicate in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section B of my -Appendix A the elements of criminality; they indicate in my -Appendix B the defendants who are involved; and in a latter -portion of Appendix B they submit that from the position of these -defendants as members of the Leadership Corps and in the Government -and the Nazi Party, and further, from the close interconnection -between the Government of the Reich and the Party, it is -clear that the Leadership Corps is a criminal organization connected -with all the crimes charged against all the defendants in the Indictment, -including those who were in the Leadership Corps and -elaborated before the Tribunal in the individual presentations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Nazi Party is the core of the conspiracy and criminality -alleged, and the defendants are the core of the Nazi Party. Again -the Prosecution say that no one living in Germany and taking part -in the management, which in this case means literally the ordering -of the Nazi Party, could fail to have constructive knowledge of the -intentions of its leaders and the methods of carrying these out. -This inner circle is in a different position from even the best-informed -opinion outside Germany.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass to the SS, including the SD. The Prosecution -respectfully remind the Tribunal of the statements regarding the -composition of the SS and its history, set out shortly in Appendix B -<span class='pageno' title='381' id='Page_381'></span> -of the Indictment, on Page 36 (Volume I, Page 81) of the English -text. The Prosecution stands by these statements, which it submits -are clear. I do not intend to read them at the present moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal has heard in the case regarding the SS—the -transcript Pages 1787 to 1889 (Volume IV, Pages 161-230)—and the -case regarding concentration camps—Pages 1399 to 1432 (Volume III, -Pages 496-518)—and also the evidence as to the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner, of which the reference is given in the addendum. -They have also heard in the cases of the French and Soviet delegations -additional mountains of evidence with regard to the SS. -It is submitted that there is no difficulty on the first three of -Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, and that the criminality of the SS has -been proved several times over.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the fourth point I venture to submit the submission in -Paragraph 4 of Section C of my Appendix A, that the crimes of -the SS were committed, first, on such a vast scale, and, secondly, -over such a vast area that the criminal aims and methods of the -SS, which have staggered humanity since this Trial opened, must -have been known to its members. It was difficult to drive from -one city of Germany to another without passing near to a concentration -camp, and every concentration camp contained its SS crimes. -In my Appendix B the Tribunal will find the members of the SS -who are defendants set out, and, in the second part, a summary of -the crimes of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. The Prosecution gives -to him a sinister particularity, while relying also on the crimes -of the other defendants who were members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): -May I point out that in the appendix the Defendant Frick has -apparently been included by mistake; among the offices held by -the Defendant Frick this is not listed as one of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean? Do you mean not a -member of the SS?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: The appendix says that Frick was a -member of the SS. This is not the case, and he has also made a -statement to this effect in his affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: In the appendix just read out by the prosecutor -the Defendant Frank too is included as a member of the SS. Already -earlier in the Trial the American prosecutor submitted Document -2979-PS as Exhibit Number USA-7. This document shows -that at no time was Frank a member of the SS or, as is asserted -in the Indictment, an SS general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore I should like to point out to the Tribunal that -several months ago, when the Indictment was lodged against the SS -as a criminal organization, the name of the Defendant Frank was -<span class='pageno' title='382' id='Page_382'></span> -not mentioned. May I therefore take it that in the drawing up of -this appendix a mistake has been made?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I should like to make the same statement as that -made by my colleague Doctor Seidl on behalf of the Defendant -Rosenberg. In Appendix A, which lists the indicted elements, -Rosenberg is shown as a member of the SA. He was never a -member of the SA, and he has already made a statement to this -effect in the course of an interrogation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The defendants will have the -opportunity of disproving these allegations, which are all contained -in the Indictment; but in view of what has been said, I shall -personally check the matter myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I proceed to deal with the Gestapo. Again, the Tribunal will -find the construction and history of the Gestapo set out in Appendix -B of the Indictment, and the criminality alleged is set out in -Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Section D of my appendix. The second -addendum, the Tribunal may care to note, gives the most detailed -references to each of these alleged acts of criminality. And the -Prosecution submit that from these points which are mentioned -it is clear that the first four of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points are -complied with. The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, -in the submission of the Prosecution, make it impossible for the -Defense to rely on the official background of the Gestapo, and -therefore, as I say, we submit that this clearly comes within the -first four of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points. If the Tribunal will refer -to my Appendix B they will see that the Defendants Göring, Frick, -and Kaltenbrunner are alleged to be members, and in the latter -part of that appendix we allege, as is the fact, that the crimes of -these defendants were committed in their capacities as responsible -chiefs of this organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to the SA. I again refer to Paragraphs 1 and 2 -of Section E of my Appendix A, and I ask the Tribunal to note that, -apart from the correct statement of its phases and periods of -activity, each of the elements of criminality contained references -to the transcript where these matters are proved. I remind the -Tribunal of Mr. Justice Jackson’s statement, which shows that the -Prosecution have omitted all connected bodies—even including -those who had only been members of the reserve—about which -there can be any argument, even a sentimental argument, as to -their full connection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It might be convenient if I reminded the Tribunal of these -sections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='383' id='Page_383'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, before -the Tribunal adjourned, I was about to mention again the bodies -on the fringe of the SA, which the Prosecution did not seek to have -included in the organizations:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, wearers of the SA Sports Badge. The Tribunal may -remember that Colonel Storey explained that they were not strictly -members. He wanted to have that point quite clear. Secondly, -SA Wehrmannschaften, who were internal defense or home-guard -units, controlled by the SA but not members of the SA. Thirdly, -SA members who were never in any part of the SA other than the -reserve. Fourthly, the NSKOV, the National Socialist League for -Disabled Veterans, who were apparently incorporated in the SA; -but from the names that have been given—and the membership—we -do not ask for their inclusion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Appendix B the Tribunal will find the eight defendants alleged -to be connected with the SA, and it is alleged by the Prosecution -that the connection of the SA with the conspiracy was so intimate -that all the acts of the Defendant Göring would justify the declaration -asked for.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now pass to the sixth and last group or organization, the -General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces. -As in this case the Prosecution has drawn an arbitrary line, I may -perhaps be allowed to recall briefly its constitution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal will be good enough to look at Appendix B of -the Indictment, under this heading, Page 37 of the English text -(Volume I, Page 84), they will see that the first nine positions -enumerated are special command or chief-of-staff positions. There -were 22 holders of these positions between February 1938 and May -1945, of whom 18 are living. The 10th position, of Oberbefehlshaber, -includes 110 individual officers who held it. The whole group varied -from a membership of 20 at the beginning of the war to about 50 -in 1944 or 1945—that is, at any one time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remind the Tribunal, however, that the conjoining of these -positions is not artificial in reality, because on Page 2115 (Volume IV, -Page 399) and the following pages of Colonel Telford Taylor’s presentation—and -I refer especially to Pages 2125 and 2126 (Volume IV, -Pages 407, 408)—it will be seen how the holders of the positions -enumerated met in fact and in the flesh. This, in our submission, -clearly comes within the interpretation of “group” in the Charter -which, as Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out, has a wider connotation -than “organization”; and we submit that you cannot hold men in the -top command against their will. It would be impossible for them -to carry on such work on such a condition. -<span class='pageno' title='384' id='Page_384'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under Section F of my Appendix A, read with the first -addendum, there will be found not only the references in the -transcript but the references to the captured documents which -prove, out of the mouths of the members of this group, the criminality -alleged against them under each part of Article 6 of the -Charter. These documents also show their actual knowledge and -therefore, <span class='it'>a priori</span>, their constructive knowledge of the nature of -the act.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my Appendix B the five defendants involved are set out; and -in the latter part of that appendix the connection of the group, and -especially of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl, is emphasized. It is -submitted that these facts prevent any difficulty being encountered -with regard to this group on any of the five criteria which we say -should guide the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, may I repeat that, in our respectful submission, the facts -contained in Appendices A and B, which are before the Tribunal in -writing, clearly indicate the findings of fact for which the Prosecution -ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will address the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: May it please the Tribunal, -Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall be careful not to add anything -to the very complete statements of Mr. Justice Jackson and -Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In agreement with my fellow prosecutors, I should like respectfully -to draw the Tribunal’s attention only to two clauses of French -domestic law which deal with questions comparable to those which -we are considering today—and in connection with which I believe -the French legislature has had to solve some of the problems with -which the Tribunal is concerned—and especially to reply to the -question put by the Tribunal, namely, the definition of the criminal -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall merely mention Article 265 of the French Penal Code -which lays down the general principle of the association of criminals -by enacting that:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Any organized association, whatever its structure or the -number of its members, any understanding made with the -object of preparing or committing crimes against persons or -against property, constitutes a crime against public peace.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>But I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to this -fact, that in the course of the last few years France has had occasion -to apply this general principle to organizations which greatly -resemble those which we are asking you to declare criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is known indeed, Gentlemen, that Nazism is a contagious -disease, the ravages of which threaten to go beyond the borders of -<span class='pageno' title='385' id='Page_385'></span> -the countries which it has definitely contaminated. Thus, during -the years 1934 to 1936 diverse groups had been formed in France -which, following the example of their German and Italian models, -were organized with the intention of substituting themselves for the -legal government in order to impose in the country what they called -“order” but which was in reality only disorder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The French Republic in 1936 did what the Weimar Republic -ought to have done. The law of 10 January 1936, promulgated on -12 January in the <span class='it'>Official Gazette</span>, which I submit to the Tribunal, -and a translation of which was given to the Defense, decreed the -dissolution of these groups and enacted severe penalties against their -members. With the Tribunal’s permission, I shall read the first two -clauses of this law:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Article I. By decree of the President of the Republic in -session with the Cabinet all associations or <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups -shall be dissolved which:</p> - -<p>“1. Might provoke armed demonstrations in public thoroughfares;</p> - -<p>“2. Or which, with the exception of societies for military -preparation sanctioned by the Government and societies for -physical education and sport, might by their structure and -their military organization have the character of a fighting -group or a private militia;</p> - -<p>“3. Or which might aim at jeopardizing the integrity of the -national territory or at attempting to alter by force the -republican form of government.</p> - -<p>“Article II. Any person who has taken part in the maintenance -or the reconstitution, direct or indirect, of the association -or group as defined in Article I, will be punished by a term -of 6 months’ to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 16 to 5,000 -francs.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will observe, in the first place, that by imposing -severe penalties on members of these associations for the mere fact -of having taken part “in the maintenance or the reconstitution, -direct or indirect, of the association,” the law of 10 January 1936 -has recognized and proclaimed the criminal character of the -association.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will observe, in the second place, that neither the -Penal Code nor the law of 10 January 1936 is concerned with giving -an exact definition of the association nor with the question as to -whether the incriminated association constitutes a moral entity or a -legal entity having a legal existence. Article 265 of the Penal Code -includes in its condemnation not only any association, which means -a legal entity, but also condemns any agreement entered into with -<span class='pageno' title='386' id='Page_386'></span> -the object of preparing or committing crimes. And the law of -10 January also mentions any association, or any <span class='it'>de facto</span> group. -Thus the law of 10 January in the same way as Article 265 of the -Penal Code, speaking of agreements entered into or <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups, -does not seek to define criminal organizations by law and refers to -the commonly accepted meaning and implication of the words -“group” or “organization” as we today ask you to define them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the same way, after the liberation of our country, the French -Government concerned itself with pursuing and punishing bad citizens -who, even without offending against an existing penal statute, -had been guilty of definite antinational activity; and issued the -decree of 26 August 1944, promulgated in the <span class='it'>Official Gazette</span> of -28 August. This decree, after having given a very general definition -of the offense, defined its extent by enumerating the essential facts -which it comprises.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, Article I of the decree of 26 August 1944 states that the -crime of national unworthiness is constituted by the fact of having -participated in a collaborationist organization of any kind, and more -especially one of the following: le Service d’Ordre Legionnaire -(Legion of Order), la Milice (Militia), the group called “Collaboration,” -la Phalange Africaine (African Phalanx), and so on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The decree of 26 August 1944 is much less concerned with -defining the punishable offense than with enumerating the criminal -organizations to which the fact of having adhered voluntarily constitutes -the crime of national unworthiness; and whether these -organizations or these groups are legally constituted organizations -or simply agreements entered into, as mentioned in Article 265 of -the Penal Code, or merely <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups, as stated in the law of -1936, the decree does not define, it enumerates, the organizations -which are considered to be criminal. That is what we are asking -you to do with respect to the German organizations mentioned in -the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We are not asking you to condemn without having heard these -men who, on the contrary, will be able to put forward their personal -means of defense before a competent tribunal. We are asking -you only to declare criminal, as was allowed by the French laws of -1936 and 1944, <span class='it'>de facto</span> groups without which it would have been -impossible for one man in a few years to cause a great civilized -nation to sink to the lowest depths of barbarity, the more hateful -because it was scientific. It is the shame of our time that the -mastery of technique should have placed new methods at the disposal -of ancient barbarity, so true is it that technical progress is of -no avail unless accompanied by moral progress.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your sentence will signify for all nations in the world, and for -the good of Germany herself, that above human liberties there exists -<span class='pageno' title='387' id='Page_387'></span> -a moral law which imposes itself upon nations just as well as upon -individuals whether they be isolated or in groups and that it is -criminal to violate that moral law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, let me tell you first of all that -I accept the principle which has been expressed by my respected -colleagues Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the principle -with regard to the criminality of the organizations. It seems -to me that to clarify this question it is necessary to distinguish -clearly two interwoven problems: First, the problem of the material -law, just what organizations and what individual members or groups -of individual members can be considered criminal; and also the -problem of objective law, what evidence, what documents, what -witnesses, and in what order these can be presented to agree, to -declare, or to deny the criminality of this or that organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, as to the question of material law, it is necessary -to emphasize that the question of the criminal responsibility of an -organization does not stand before the Tribunal and never did; -neither does the question of the individual responsibility of the -various members of an organization, except those who are among -the defendants today or the various groups of these organizations, -stand before the Tribunal. The Charter of the Tribunal provides -as follows: According to Article 9, the examination or the trial of -any individual member of this or that group or of any organization -is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is within the jurisdiction -of the Tribunal to declare this or that organization criminal -if one of the defendants belongs to the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, we speak here about declaring an organization criminal, -and the Charter definitely provides the legal consequences of -declaring an organization criminal. As the Tribunal declares this -or that group or organization criminal, then the competent national -authorities of the signatory powers have a right to bring to trial -before the national military tribunals and occupational tribunals -members of organizations. In this case the criminal nature of -the organizations is considered clear and cannot be contradicted. -(Article 10 of the Charter.)</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Consequently the Charter provides two legal results of declaring -an organization criminal: First, the right, but not the obligation, of -the various national tribunals to bring to trial members or organizations -which the Tribunal declared criminal; and second, the obligation -of the national tribunals to consider an organization criminal -if such an organization was so declared by the International Military -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In such a manner, the result of declaring an organization criminal -by the International Military Tribunal does not automatically -mean that all members of the organization will also be declared -<span class='pageno' title='388' id='Page_388'></span> -criminal by the national tribunals; neither does it mean that without -exception all members of such an organization must be brought to -trial. The question of individual guilt and of individual responsibility -of the separate members of the criminal organizations is -wholly, and without exception, within the jurisdiction of the national -tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As has already been pointed out, in Article 10 of the Charter, -the Tribunal limits the jurisdiction of the national tribunal in just -one way. The national tribunal cannot deny or cannot argue the -criminality of any organizations which have already been declared -criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My colleague, Justice Jackson, has already tendered valuable information -about the legal codes of the respective countries concerning -the question of responsibility. Under English-American law, French -law, and also the Soviet legal code, it is provided that membership in -an organization which has criminal aims makes an individual liable. -There are two legal decrees on the subject—in U.S.S.R. penal code, -Articles 58-11 and 59-3. These laws provide for the responsibility -of members of criminal organizations. They are considered criminals, -not only for committing crimes, but also for belonging to an -organization which is considered criminal. The very fact of belonging -to an organization, the law states, makes a person liable to -prosecution. The law does not require formal proofs to decide if -a person is a member of a criminal organization. A person can be -a member of a criminal organization even though he does not formally -belong to the organization. The evidence is all the more -exhaustive if a person is formally put on the list of the membership -of a criminal organization. However, the formal membership of a -criminal organization is not the only basis of criminal responsibility -of a person. A member of the organization should know what is the -nature of the organization, what are its objectives. It is immaterial -whether an individual member knew all directives, all acts of the -organization or whether he knew personally all other members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One cannot help noting that on the basis of the general principles -of the law, especially in connection with the practice of fascist Germany, -where a whole network of criminal organizations functioned, -established by the usurpers of the supreme powers, the responsibility -of individual members of the organization does not necessarily -imply that they were aware of the penalties attaching to the -acts committed by the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of the legal code, especially in fascist Germany, -where there existed a whole series of organizations established by -the usurpers of powers now considered criminal, it is impossible to -demand that every member be acquainted with all the actions and -all the members and all the directives of the organization. -<span class='pageno' title='389' id='Page_389'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I now pass on to the next problem. It appears to me that -there is a certain degree of complexity attached to the problem of the -criminal organizations. There is very extensive correspondence by -members of various organizations, that has been submitted to the -Tribunal on the subject of these organizations. Such abundance of -discussion comes from an incorrect interpretation of legal proceedings -if an organization is declared criminal. As long as we know -the fact that the question of the individual responsibility of the -individual members is fully within the jurisdiction of the various -national courts, the general question of whether the organization is -declared criminal or not is much easier to follow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the Charter, on the question of declaring an organization -criminal the Tribunal will decide in connection with individual -defendants. Article 9 states that in examining the materials -with regard to each defendant the Tribunal can have the right to -declare—and so on. Therefore, the conclusion is that the facts which -decide the solution of the question as to whether an organization -is or is not criminal, consist of whether there is before us today -among the defendants a representative of this or that organization. -It is well known in the present Trial that all the organizations -which the Prosecution want to be declared criminal are represented -on the bench of the defendants. For that reason alone there has -passed through the hands of the Tribunal a great deal of material -and evidence relating to the criminal nature of the organizations -which these defendants have represented that can be used by the -Tribunal to draw a conclusion as to the criminal character of various -organizations. Under such conditions the necessity of calling special -witnesses to testify about this or that organization can take place -only as a source of supplementary and even eventual evidence. And -even then the Tribunal has stated in Article 9 that it is up to the -Tribunal to acquiesce in or to refuse the calling of witnesses or the -introduction of supplementary evidence. It is impossible to deny -the possibility or the necessity of supplementary evidence with -regard to any criminal organization. The Charter of the Tribunal -states very definitely that after the indictment has been made, the -Tribunal will do that which it considers necessary with regard to -the Prosecution’s request for declaring this or that organization -criminal. Any member of an organization has a right to request -that the Tribunal permit him to be heard on whether the organization -was criminal. However, this was introduced into the Charter -of the Tribunal for the sake of justice. It now appears that this -article is used for other purposes. If what has been provided for -in Article 9 extends widely enough and if it already provides for -calling witnesses with regard to the criminality of this or that -organization, in substance the evidence submitted by the prosecutors -of the four countries has already given enough exhaustive -<span class='pageno' title='390' id='Page_390'></span> -reasons for the Tribunal to recognize the organizations indicated in -the Indictment as criminal. At the same time it seems expedient -that the Tribunal should publish Article 10 of the Charter explaining -that to declare an organization criminal does not necessarily lead -to an automatic bringing to trial of all members of that organization -without exception. It means that all questions about bringing any -member to trial and about the responsibility of individual members -will be decided by the national tribunals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is all I wanted to state, in addition to what has been stated -by my colleagues.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants’ counsel arranged among -themselves in what order they wish to be heard?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: As counsel for the Reichsregierung, which -has first place in the Indictment as a “criminal organization,” I have, -according to the decision of the Court, the duty of presenting my -opinion in regard to the presentation of evidence. Since, in so doing, -I have to discuss general points of view which affect in the same -way all the six organizations under Indictment, it is probable that -my statements will in the main constitute the opinion of other -defendants’ counsel. However, they reserve for themselves the right -to express particular and supplementary opinion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense understand the decision of the Court of 14 January -1946 to mean that at this stage of the procedure the Defense should -not produce detailed arguments against the Indictment as it has -been lodged by the Prosecution and as it has been explained today, -also against the concept of criminal organizations in the sense of the -Charter or against other hypotheses of a declaration of criminality, -but should only express their opinion on the question of what evidence -is relevant and how the evidence shall be presented. Therefore, -I shall speak about the basic questions only insofar as this -seems necessary today in this particular connection. First of all, -I shall speak about the contents and the effect of the requested -verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The six organizations under Indictment are, according to the -request of the Prosecution, to be declared criminal organizations in -their entirety. A request of that kind and the proceedings pertaining -to it would represent something unprecedented in the jurisprudence -of all states.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As we know, this request is not uninfluenced by the fact that, -contrary to other nations, in England and even more so in the United -States, even companies and corporations as such can be prosecuted -in some cases for reasons of expediency. This is a legal development -called for by the dominant position which companies and corporations -have acquired, above all, in economic life. This position made -<span class='pageno' title='391' id='Page_391'></span> -their punishment seem desirable in certain cases. They were -affected by this punishment, however, only to the extent to which -they could be affected in their economic sphere, that is to say, by -the imposition of fines. This also concerns only definite offenses, -mostly in the field of administrative law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The American Chief Prosecutor and the other chief prosecutors -have cited a large number of precedents, even from German jurisprudence, -in which organizations are said to have been declared -criminal. In these precedents—and that is the decisive factor—the -defendants convicted as criminals were always individual persons, -never organizations as such. But a criminal procedure such as this -one would have to deal most seriously with the organizations as -such, as well as with all the members who are not indicted personally -that is—I now refer to Law Number 10 of the Allied Control -Council—would have to pronounce the most severe sentence, the -sentence of death; such a procedure has never before in the history -of jurisprudence been either discussed or applied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The organizations under Indictment are organizations which -differ greatly in their structure. I do not have to discuss further -today whether they always represented an organically constructed -unit. For this Trial the essential thing is that the organizations -under Indictment have been dissolved by a law of the Military -Government, and therefore, no longer exist. What still exists are -only the individual former members who, therefore, in reality are -the actual defendants and have simply been brought together under -the name of the former organization as a collective designation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But independent of this question of the nonexistence of the -organizations, it can be seen from the outcome of the procedure -that this is indeed a collective procedure against the individual -members of the organization, and this for the following reasons:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First, to declare an organization criminal means the outlawing -and branding as criminal, not only of the organization as such, but, -above all, of each individual member. Such a declaration, therefore, -means a final sentencing of each individual member to a general -loss of honor. This effect of the outlawing and branding is unavoidable -and ineradicable, especially if that verdict is spoken by so -important a court as the International Military Tribunal before the -forum of the world public. The effect of the outlawing would apply -to each member of the organization and would cling to him, regardless -of whether the subsequent proceedings, as provided for in -Article 10 of the Charter, were carried out against the individual -members or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Second, in respect to legal procedure, the verdict that has been -asked for provides the possibility of a criminal penalty for each -<span class='pageno' title='392' id='Page_392'></span> -individual member of the organization. In the subsequent proceedings, -according to Article 10 of the Charter, the criminal -character of the organization will be considered conclusively -determined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In execution of this, Law Number 10 of the Allied Control -Council, of 20 December 1945, has in the meantime been issued. -According to this law the mere fact of having been a member of -an organization which has been declared criminal by the International -Military Tribunal renders liable to punishment as a -criminal each individual member. Penalties ranging from the -highest fines to compulsory labor for life and the death penalty are -provided.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The proceedings according to Law Number 10 are concerned -only with determining membership and bases the punishment on -this. In these proceedings only grounds for personal exoneration, -such as irresponsibility, error, or coercion can be discussed. But -these concern only the membership as such and will apply only in -a very few cases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Whatever concerns the character of the organization, the criminal -aims and actions of members of the organization, especially the -individual member’s knowledge of these—all these are matters -which will not be discussed in the proceedings any more according -to Law Number 10. In the proceedings against the organizations -a binding declaration has been made. Therefore, the proceedings -against the organizations anticipate the biggest and most important -part of the proceedings against every individual member, while the -subsequent proceedings, according to Law Number 10, to all -intents and purposes only draw conclusions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In connection with the question of the effect of the verdict, the -numerical aspect should also be touched upon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The SA at the beginning of the war in 1939 had about 2.5 million -active members, to which should be added, let us say, 1 to 2 million, -representing those who during the preceding 18 years, either quit -the SA or had to leave because of their military service; therefore, -in all, up to 4.5 million.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as the SS is concerned, my colleagues have not yet been -able to give a final estimate. It will have to be considered that the -Waffen-SS alone had an active membership of several hundred -thousand men at any given time. If we take into account the losses -due to the war, which were very considerable but which to a -certain extent were assessed in the proceedings, we find in the -case of the SS as well that the figure runs into millions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Leadership Corps always had, after 1933, a fixed membership -of about 600,000 to 700,000 members. Changes in the official -<span class='pageno' title='393' id='Page_393'></span> -personnel were very frequent. We have to take into account that -the membership changed at least twice during the entire period, -so that here also the complete figure will be about 2 million.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The entire figure covered by these proceedings is therefore -very large. The reduction which the Tribunal has today thought -fit to make would not reduce that number to any very large extent. -Basically, it will certainly make no difference whether this very -large number which I have just mentioned will include a half, -a third, or a quarter of the adult male population of Germany. -If we consider the war losses among these age groups, we can say -with great certainty that the Indictment will actually include a -very considerable part of the adult male German population.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall speak now about the concept “criminal organization.” -The necessary condition for an organization’s being declared -criminal is the criminal character, as appears in Article 9, -Paragraph 2, of the Charter. The Charter does not interpret either -the concept “criminal character” or that of “criminal organization.” -If we ask by means of which legal system this gap in the Charter -should be filled, then, according to the general principle of <span class='it'>lex -loci</span>, German law first of all has to be considered. But that is of -no avail, because these two concepts, according to every legal code -in the world, also represent a <span class='it'>terra nova</span> in criminal law. Here, too, -the Defense reserve for themselves the right to express their -considered opinion at the time of the final pleadings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In any case, we are of the opinion that because of its already-mentioned, -far-reaching consequences the declaration asked for -can be made justly and fairly within the framework of the validity -of the Charter only if: (1) the original purpose—that is, the constitution -or the Charter of the organization—was directed to the -commission of crimes in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, and -if this purpose was known to all members; or (2) in case the original -purpose of the organization was not criminal, if all members during -a certain period of time knowingly participated in the planning and -perpetration of crimes in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. Here, -also, it is necessary that the development should have been such -that these crimes represent typical actions of the organization, for -only then can we speak of a criminal nature as applicable to an -organization as well as to an individual human being.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to this interpretation, the concept “criminal organization” -in the sense of Articles 9 to 11 of the Charter is in large -part identical with the concept “criminal conspiracy” which plays -an important role in the former German and Italian criminal law; -also with the concept “conspiracy,” with or without action for its -execution, in English or American common law; also with the concept -“Mordkomplott” (conspiracy for the purpose of committing -<span class='pageno' title='394' id='Page_394'></span> -murder) in the sense of Paragraph 49-b of the German Penal Code; -and, finally, with the concept of a “Common Plan or Conspiracy” in -the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, here also with or without -action for its execution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these penal codes have in common that judgment can be -delivered only against those persons who have taken part in the -criminal organization knowing its purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my opinion, negligence cannot be sufficient when passing -judgment subjectively because of the general principle that in cases -of serious crimes—and in this case the penalty may be death—there -must always be full proof, and that negligence cannot be sufficient. -Therefore, as a matter of principle, it has to be required in these -present proceedings that an organization under Indictment can be -declared criminal only if it has been ascertained that: Firstly, the -aims of the organization were criminal in the sense of Article 6 of -the Charter, and, furthermore, that all members at least knew of -these criminal aims. This is also necessary for the reason that, as -has just been said, this Trial before the International Military Tribunal -represents the essential main part of the criminal proceedings -which will ascertain the guilt of each individual member of the -organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice does not permit that those members who did not possess -the aforementioned knowledge and who are therefore innocent be -included in a verdict. And this will not lead to that consequence -mentioned by Justice Jackson, namely, that a rejection of the verdict -would mean a triumph for those who are guilty. I am of the -opinion that the guilty ones, regardless of their number, should be -brought to punishment. Despite all considerations of expediency, -the issue should not be that along with the guilty ones an enormous -number of innocent persons also be punished.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, to come to the core of the question, this is to be -regarded as relevant. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence -depends on a definition of the criminal organization and of its criminal -character. On the basis of my definition I contend that the -following points are relevant:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) That the organizations, according to their constitution or -statutes, did not have a criminal composition and did not pursue -any criminal aims in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) That within the organization, or in connection with it, crimes -in the sense of Article 6 were not, or at least not continuously, committed -during a certain period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) That a certain number of members had no knowledge of any -possible criminal constitution or criminal purpose, or the continuous -commission of crimes according to Article 6, and that they also did -not approve of these facts. -<span class='pageno' title='395' id='Page_395'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>(d) That a certain number of members or certain closed independent -groups joined these organizations under compulsion, or -pressure, or as the result of deception, or by order from higher -authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(e) That a certain number of members without any action on -their part became members of these organizations through the -bestowal of honorary membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Since I know that the questions to be decided represent a <span class='it'>terra -nova</span> in the field of criminal law, I believe that in the course of the -presentation of evidence we shall receive many other suggestions. -Therefore it will be expedient if the Tribunal at the present stage -of the Trial do not bind and limit themselves by a final definition. -I ask rather that evidence be admitted to the greatest extent. In -conclusion I come to the question of how the presentation of evidence -can be carried out in practice and how the legal hearing of -the member can be made possible according to Article 9, Paragraph -2, of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The principles valid in criminal procedure in all countries allow -every defendant before the court certain rights. The most important -principles are the principle of direct oral proceedings and the right -to defense and to a legal hearing. Since, according to my statements, -the real defendants are the members of the organizations, -these rights must be accorded to every member of the organization. -In spite of this basic point of view, which will be discussed in still -greater detail in our final pleadings, and with all legal reservations, -the Defense do not overlook the fact that for all practical purposes -that is impossible within the framework of this Trial. A solution -must be found, since the Prosecution have lodged the Indictment of -the organizations on the basis of the Charter in its present form.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This leads to the necessity of carrying out the proceedings, -whereby the aim of all people taking part in the Trial can be only -that of finding the best possible solution by getting as close as possible -to the universal and, in our opinion, inviolable points of view. -In this connection the Defense in the same way as the Prosecution -are gladly aware of their duty to work constructively towards a -decision by the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If, now, the enormous number of people who are affected by the -Indictment gives rise to tremendous difficulties which prevent a -reasonable solution of this problem, an adequate basis for judgment -of the aims of the organizations, as well as of the actions and -the subjective attitude of the individual member of the organization, -must nevertheless be found.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to make any headway in these proceedings, an attempt -must be made to attain a result in respect to the collective membership -<span class='pageno' title='396' id='Page_396'></span> -by fixing certain types. We do not fail to recognize the great -difficulties which confront the passing of a just sentence when a -typical aspect is taken as the basis for judgment. Every attempt -to attain, on the basis of a large number of individual witnesses to -be brought before the Court, a clear picture of that which is typical -would be unavailing. The only way, in our opinion, is to separate -the presentation of individual evidence, in respect to time and place, -from this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One way of achieving this would be an exact interrogation of -the individual members at the places where—this would apply to -most of the organizations—at present large numbers of them are -being kept in internment in the various camps. We believe that the -best way to investigate individual cases, and the one most suitable -to the Court, would be to assign this work to one or more suitable -spokesmen in each camp, that is to say, of course, under the supervision -and with the assistance of the Defense Counsel or their -assistants, and then bring these spokesmen before the Court as -witnesses so that they may give a picture of the activity and attitude -of the individual members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We believe that the way to get as clearly and conscientiously -presented a picture as possible would be for these spokesmen to get -from the inmates of the camps affidavits about the main points of -Indictment which have been specified by the Prosecution. The -spokesmen could then, as witnesses, say under oath what percentage, -on the basis of these affidavits of the individual inmates of the -camps, had taken part in the criminal actions mentioned in the -Indictment or had known anything about them. Certainly there -are certain difficulties connected with this which will also have to -be considered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to get a true picture, one will have to relieve the individual -inmates of the suspicion that through a truthful testimony -submitted to the Prosecution they might be offering material which -could be used against them personally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We consider it therefore necessary that insofar as these affidavits -are to be presented to the Court as documentary evidence, the -Prosecution should make a statement that this material will not -be used for the purpose of criminal proceedings against persons. -This statement would naturally not involve any immunity for individual -members; but the individual inmate of the camp would be -assured that the affidavit made by him under oath does not establish -his guilt as far as future criminal proceedings are concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Prosecution do not want to accept this proposal, there -would still be the possibility, without submitting these documents, -of using the testimony of the spokesmen, who could give information -<span class='pageno' title='397' id='Page_397'></span> -as to the percentage of the people who took part or did not take -part in criminal activities or plans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Since you have not finished, I think we had -better adjourn for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Before the recess I referred to a suggestion -for getting information about the actions and the attitude of the -members by means of typical facts. I continue.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This taking of evidence would have, for practical purposes, to -extend to a sufficient number of camps in all the zones of occupation. -From the results of this taking of evidence a conclusion -could then be drawn, on the basis of what is found to be typical, -as to the criminal activity and attitude of the individual member -of the organization, and at the same time, a conclusion as to whether -or not the organization had a criminal nature.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Prosecution are in agreement with the Defense so far, I -believe that I have perhaps found in this way a means of collecting -the relevant evidence, including all positive and negative elements.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To whatever extent the hearing of inmates of camps does not -suffice, which might be true of the one organization or the other, -the hearing of members of the organization who are not in custody -might have to be considered. Here, too, a proper way could probably -be found which would likewise make possible and easier the execution -of the tasks of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I, too, should like to take a stand on the questions -now being discussed before the Court. I am not at present in -a position to take a stand on the profound and well-presented statements -which Justice Jackson has made here. I should not like to -make a brief and less carefully thought-out answer, but the Court -will understand that I and a number of my colleagues desire to put -our case after studying the material and the laws. Perhaps the -Tribunal will give us the opportunity to do this very shortly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like now to take a stand on these questions along more -technical lines, in order to fulfill my duty and on behalf of the -Defense to take a clear stand on these clear questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the first question it was asked what evidence is to be admitted -and what particular evidence should be presented here in the main -trial before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The answer is this, that all evidence is relevant which is of -significance for the determination of criminality. If one examines -the concept “criminal” it is seen that there is no factual situation -<span class='pageno' title='398' id='Page_398'></span> -as defined by criminal law, nor can there be any, for it is not a -question of determining the factual elements but rather of a judgment -as to whether an act is criminal in the same way as judgment -as to whether something is good or bad. Consequently, the Charter -does not oblige the Tribunal to pass sentence and declare such-and-such -to be criminal, but rather it states that the Tribunal “may” -pass such a sentence, but not that it “must” reach such a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It can thus be seen that the Tribunal is here confronted with a -task which is basically different from the activity of a judge. A -judge is obliged, when certain facts determined by law are put -before him, to pass sentence, but this Tribunal is to determine the -culpability of a set of facts, on the basis of which the judge will -later pass sentence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Such a task is, however, that of a legislator and not of a judge. -The Tribunal here determines what is deserving of punishment and -thereby creates a law. In this way the Tribunal also creates that -basis for the procedure which Justice Jackson mentioned in a former -address of his—the basis for procedure in the subsequent individual -trials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is this basis for procedure which the legislator gives to the -judge who is to deliver judgment. In such a case the burden of -proof is likewise reversed, as Mr. Justice Jackson also has constantly -mentioned. It is as if a thief were before the court—his objection -that theft is not punishable, that “possession is theft,” would be -questioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That the activity of this Tribunal is legislative can also be seen -from the fact that, without setting up the Tribunal, the signatory -powers could just as successfully have determined that all members -of organizations could be brought before a court because of their -membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Law Number 10 of the Allied Control Council, that has often -been mentioned today, corroborates this interpretation, since it constitutes -the law for carrying out the skeleton law expected of this -Tribunal. The examples of the criminal nature of the organizations -that have been given here in Mr. Justice Jackson’s address today -show again and again that it is a question of laws and not of -judgments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is also characteristic of the legislative function, that in all discussions -considerations of expediency take first place and Justice -Jackson asked in a previous statement that the verdict should -provide the means to proceed against the members of the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is seen that the Court must deal with <span class='it'>de lege ferenda</span> considerations -on an ethical basis. But it must be proved that the -<span class='pageno' title='399' id='Page_399'></span> -members of the organizations are punishable, and “punishable” is -equivalent to “criminal.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to determine the factual elements, the judge brings -evidence. As legislator, the Tribunal must collect the material for -legislation. The judge can, on the basis of the legally proscribed -criteria, easily determine what is relevant as proof of these criteria -and what he therefore must admit as proof.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is characteristic that such a determination here in this matter -makes for difficulties. The legislator proceeds differently from the -judge. He studies the facts to see if they deserve punishment, and -for him all those facts are relevant which are of significance for the -contents of his law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this matter he must have an over-all picture of the entire -problem and must take into consideration both the good and bad -aspect of the matter to be judged.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The basic principle of justice is that only the guilty be punished. -If the legislator wishes to achieve this, he must examine whether -only guilty people will be affected by his laws. He must therefore -also investigate the objections which any person affected by his law -might make. The innocent person is protected in this way, that in -the individual case the guilt of the individual must be proved unless -the legislator actually has in mind responsibility without guilt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Every killing of a human being is punishable, but whether the -person is guilty has to be proved. He can avail himself of the -so-called objection that the death was not intentional. If the legislator -does not want to permit such an objection, then he must himself -examine the material that leads to such an extraordinary -measure. The extent of the material to be examined, that is, the -taking of evidence, depends on the contents of the law that is to -be passed. Inasmuch as in the subsequent individual trials all -objections remain open, the Tribunal does not have to concern itself -with them. But the Tribunal must consider to what extent the -innocent person in the individual trial will have legal guarantees -which protect him from an unjust punishment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is absolutely necessary for the Tribunal also to examine every -submission which the individual member cannot bring in the subsequent -proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In anticipation of these powers of the Tribunal, it has already -been determined by Law Number 10 mentioned above that every -member can be punished. Thereby these punishments, of which we -have heard in the previous speeches, have already been determined. -It thus appears as if the Tribunal could only pass a judgment -<span class='it'>en bloc</span> without having any right to modify it, and consequently -without possessing any influence on the legal effect of its verdict. -<span class='pageno' title='400' id='Page_400'></span> -But such a concept is in contradiction to the basic idea of the Yalta -Conference, which was that of transferring to the Tribunal the -legislative powers of the signatories, with the express purpose of -vindicating this principle of justice, namely, that only the guilty be -punished, on the basis of examination of the facts through the -hearing of the members in question. Consequently the Tribunal -must have a right to determine in individual cases the basic conditions -for punishability, and to determine the objections which -should remain open to the individual, and the Tribunal must also -be able to limit the effect of its judgment by regulation of the -punishments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that Mr. Justice Jackson expressed an opinion today -which does not contradict this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the sense of the Charter, the Tribunal is not permitted -to transfer its responsibility to the individual courts by -simply leaving for all practical purposes the decision to these courts -which because of their composition may have quite different legal -views.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The members of the organizations have been granted that very -right to be heard here before the International Military Tribunal -and particularly because of the significance of the judgment, which -in all cases contains a grave moral condemnation. To what extent -then should the Tribunal concern itself with the material for this -taking of evidence? I believe that the Tribunal, in order to determine -what is deserving of punishment, must investigate that which -is typical, while the purely individual can be left to the subsequent -proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This separation of the typical from the individual, however, is -not easy, for the submission of the members often has a double -significance. Thus the submission of a member that he did not know -about the criminal nature of the organization could mean, on the -one hand, that such purpose never existed, or, on the other hand, -that the member had no knowledge of that purpose which was -really there. The first is an objection which concerns the organization, -the second a purely personal objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of these arguments I should like to answer the -Tribunal’s first question as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The factual elements of criminality as defined by criminal law -cannot be found here; the determination of criminality is the determination -of punishability as a legislative task of the Tribunal. -Examination of evidence in the procedural sense is in reality the -examination of the legislative material including the objections of -the members of the groups and organizations. To what extent the -Tribunal itself must examine the material depends on the scope and -the effect which it intends to give and which it is able to give to -<span class='pageno' title='401' id='Page_401'></span> -the verdict. Only that which is not typical and which is not of -importance as far as <span class='it'>de lege ferenda</span> considerations are concerned, -only that can be left to the individual trials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To Questions 2 and 3: Under Point 2 and 3 the Tribunal puts -a question regarding the limiting of the groups of members and the -limiting of the length of time of the criminality. Both questions -touch the same problem, namely, whether such a limitation is dependent -on a motion on the part of the Prosecution, or whether the -Tribunal itself can limit the contents of its verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe Mr. Justice Jackson today expressed the opinion that -the Tribunal has the power to make such a limitation. But, as -regards the political leaders, the Prosecution reserve to themselves -the right, in the case of a limitation of the groups of members as -proposed by them, later to introduce other trials against these members -who are now being excluded or to take other measures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>However, such a right is not given to the Prosecution in the -Charter. It also stands in contradiction to the natural powers of -the Tribunal of including in its decision an acquittal—a power -which cannot be eliminated by reservation made by the Prosecution. -The evidence material to be examined also cannot be limited -through such a limitation as proposed, for the judgment delivered -on the indicted organizations must include these organizations as a -whole. It is not permissible to seize upon merely the unhealthy -elements of groups during a period which was not typical and still -declare the organization criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That which is to be considered a group or an organization does -not depend on the discretion of the Prosecution, as is also seen in -Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, according to which the criminal -character must stand in some relationship to the acts of one of -the main defendants. This can only be understood to mean that the -membership of the organization must be influenced by the actions -of one of the major defendants at a given time. However, this is -not for the Prosecution but for the Tribunal to decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Accordingly, I should like to answer Questions 2 and 3 as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Question 2: A limiting of the incriminating period does not -depend on a motion of the Prosecution. The Tribunal itself can and -must limit the length of time, if the organizations or groups were -not deserving of punishment throughout the whole period of their -existence. If the actions of the main defendant, as a member of the -organization, were not incriminating during the whole period of the -existence of the organization, then such a limitation must follow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Question 3: For the limiting of the groups of members the same -applies as for the limiting of the period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal can, on the basis of its own powers, limit the effect -that its verdict will have in the case of all groups and organizations. -<span class='pageno' title='402' id='Page_402'></span> -It must undertake this limitation, if the actions of the main defendant -in his capacity as a member of the organization are not to -incriminate certain groups of members. A limitation of the Indictment -or of the effect of the verdict does not limit the evidence -material which is the basis of the judgment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These were the remarks I wanted to make in answer to the -questions of the Tribunal. I should like now merely to take a stand -on a question that has also been brought up today, namely, the -application for a legal hearing, if the Tribunal permit me to discuss -this question. According to Article 10 of the Charter, every member -of an organization can be brought to trial, if the organization has -been declared criminal. The decision is left up to the Tribunal. The -essential task of the Tribunal is the hearing of the members. Without -this hearing a sentence is not possible. That is the basic condition -without which the proceedings cannot be carried out. So far, the -Defense has about 50,000 applications from the millions of members. -In order that the Tribunal should not draw the false conclusion that -the overwhelming majority of those affected admit their guilt by -remaining silent, I must emphasize that such guilt will be most -passionately denied by all those affected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall therefore go into the reasons why so few applications -have been submitted, and I shall show that this is not the fault of -those affected or the result of negligence. Not a lack of interest or -disrespect of the Court but rather certain clear facts are responsible -for this lack of response.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The announcement in the press and over the radio at the -beginning of the proceedings regarding the right to be heard was -made at a time when there were practically no newspapers in the -destroyed cities and radios were a rarity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, because of the paper shortage, it was made in small -print and for the most part was simply not understood. The Tribunal -ordered an announcement to be made in the internment -camps, where a great number of the people affected are concentrated. -To what extent this announcement actually was made, I -have not yet been able to determine. Mr. Justice Jackson showed -various documents this morning and from them I shall be able to -inform myself. The fact that so few applications have been made -gives cause for concern. But even those people who have obtained -knowledge of their right have apparently not been able as yet to -make applications to the Court. At the time of the announcement -there was no postal service between the various zones, and there -are still no postal connections with Austria, where there are probably -tens of thousands of men in custody.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the announcement to the organizations, because of the lack of -postal facilities, two additional ways were provided for submitting -<span class='pageno' title='403' id='Page_403'></span> -these applications. Both of them proved to be insufficient and are the -main reason why we have so few applications. Those members who -are not in custody were to submit their applications through the -nearest military office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I know of no case in which an application was made in this way. -The attempt to use this procedure failed because of the lack of -co-operation on the part of the offices. I could give an example -of this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The interned members were to submit their applications through -the commanding officer of their camp. Only in the case of a few -camps, weeks and months after the beginning of the Trial, were -applications, which had been made in November, received, and even -then only from some of the camps in the American and British zones -and from a camp in the United States. From the Soviet, Polish, and -French zones, as well as from Austria and other camps in foreign -countries where there are camps, no applications have as yet been -received, so far as I know. I shall leave it to the Tribunal to form -its opinion of these facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The uniformity of the circumstances shows, however, that it -cannot be the fault of the members of the organizations. Of the -many difficulties I should like to give only one striking example, -which will give an insight into the situation. In one camp about -4,000 members of various organizations asked in November 1945 to -be permitted to make use of their right. A few days ago I was told -in the camp by a guard officer that at that time no applications -were permitted since those in custody, according to the rules of the -camp, could not communicate with anyone outside the camp. An -army order would have been necessary for transmissions of the -applications, but there was no such order and present restrictions -were strictly adhered to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another reason for the nonarrival of applications is the fact that -those concerned feared certain disadvantages. There was the fear -that the CIC would take action against the applicants because of -their applications. This fear was inspired particularly by the fact -that the announcement of the right to make applications was accompanied -by the notice that the applicants would not be granted -immunity of any kind. The effect of this is seen particularly in the -case of those members not in custody, from whom only very few -applications have been received, and these very often submitted -anonymously or under false names.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would be welcome if the Tribunal could inform the public -that such fears are without foundation, and that the participation -of all is sought so that a false decision can be avoided. Thereby -the inadequacy of the present procedure for making applications -would be remedied. -<span class='pageno' title='404' id='Page_404'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>From all this it can be seen that the first stage of the making -of applications has already shown itself to be so inadequate that the -legal hearing is a mere illusion. But even those applications that -have been received are, with a few exceptions, worthless, and for -the following reasons: On the basis of the applications the Tribunal -is to decide whether persons should be heard. But for practical purposes -this can happen only if these applications state the reasons. -Such reasons are either entirely lacking in the applications or they -are useless. An application without contents or an application which -contains in the main mere asseverations and figures of speech can -form no basis for a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Some of the applications do not even mention the official function -of the member in the organization or his civilian profession. This -faulty sort of application can obviously be traced back in the case -of the men in custody to an order issued by the camp commander -which permitted only collective or group applications or prescribed -certain forms to be followed. All those affected, whether in custody -or not, were not able to set out their reasons intelligently, because -those accused know only that their organization is said to have been -criminal, but they do not know in what this criminality consists. -Insofar as detailed statements were made, in single cases, they are -based on assumptions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to relieve the situation, Defense Counsel have visited -various camps known to them to clear up the matter and to get -practical information. I shall not go into the difficulties which had -to be overcome. I do not want to discuss the limitation placed on -the length of time that we could stay in the camp and similar -things; but I must mention that the visits to the camps have been -without success insofar as I have not yet received the sworn affidavits -and the other written statements of the members made subsequent -to our visit, although I know that in one case they were -handed over to the camp commander.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In these circumstances the fact is that today, 3 months after the -beginning of the Trial, the technical basis for the procedure for -hearing the members is not yet in existence. Defense Counsel for -the large organizations are also hardly in a position to make up -for this delay in a short period of time. On the other hand, the -actual material is extremely comprehensive, as in the case of the -political leaders, where there are about fifteen to twenty categories, -such as the Workers’ Front, Propaganda Section, Organization Section, -and so forth, which must be examined as to their functions and -as to their criminal character. None of this can be neglected, and -even the appearance of a less careful treatment must be avoided. -I shall not discuss the difficulties which confront the Defense Counsel -<span class='pageno' title='405' id='Page_405'></span> -as a result of the fact that Defense Counsel now for the first time -learn from the Prosecution of certain legal questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The members in custody are particularly interested that their -case be decided quickly. Nevertheless, I am compelled by prevailing -conditions to make a motion, namely, that the proceedings against -the groups and organizations that are to be declared criminal be -separated from the main trial and be carried out as a special subsequent -trial. This motion is also compatible with the particular -nature of the trial as I discussed it at the beginning of my remarks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to add to my motion a suggestion as to how the -legal hearing might be made possible. This proposal of mine is -occasioned by the proposal made this morning for carrying out the -hearing by means of a “master,” that is, I assume, a legal officer of -the Allied armies.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I cannot object too energetically to this suggestion. In my -opinion, it is one of the main rights of a Defense Counsel to collect -his own information, and it is the right of every defendant to speak -with his counsel. It would be incomprehensible that the Allies, who -are concerned with the prosecution, should at the same time work -for the Defense. One cannot expect that an officer, despite any -amount of objectivity, could be so objective in his feelings that he -would give information to the defendant and have an understanding -of the latter and his feelings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My proposal is this: That each camp should have a German -lawyer who receives his information from the main Defense -Counsel and instructs the members interned in the camp and -collects information. Then, in a relatively short period of time, a -selection of material can be made by the Defense Counsel—a -selection of the persons who can appear here as well as of the -material that can be submitted of the latter and his feelings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the proposal made here this morning by the Prosecution I see -an elimination of the Defense Counsel, and I should have to ponder -a long while as to what stand I, on behalf of the Defense, would -take to such a proposal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. RUDOLF MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Regarding the -general questions concerning the admissibility of declaring an -organization criminal, the technical procedure for the submission of -evidence, and the criminal character of the organizations in general, -I refer to what my colleagues Dr. Kubuschok and Dr. Servatius have -said. I have just a few additional statements to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding the question of applications, I can say from my own -experience that it has seemed strange to me, too, that the length of -time between the formulation of applications in the individual -camps and the arrival of these applications in the hands of the -Defense is so extremely long. -<span class='pageno' title='406' id='Page_406'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>To mention one example, a few days ago we received applications -from a camp in Schleswig-Holstein, some of which were drawn up -in November and December. I, myself, in order to get information, -sent letters to the camps. I sent them 5, 6, and 7 weeks ago and I -have so far received no answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Camp Hersbruck, for example, I know that in November an -application for a hearing, with reasons given in detail, is said to -have been sent by members of the SS and Gestapo to the Defense -Counsel—this has been confirmed to me by reliable sources. Neither -the Defense Counsel of the SS nor I have received this application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Very few applications have been received from members of the -Gestapo. In my opinion one of the reasons is that the far greater -number of internees doubtless do not know that they are being -represented and defended in this Trial, for the announcement sent -to the camps was made in November of last year. Defense Counsel -for the organizations were not appointed until the decision of -17 December 1945. The correctness of my opinion can be seen -conclusively, I believe, from the following: About three weeks ago -in a German newspaper, the <span class='it'>Neue Zeitung</span>, an article appeared -regarding this question of the organizations and in this article it -states, word for word: “The organizations, as is, of course, well-known, -are not represented in the Nuremberg Trial.” Thus, if not -even the press knows of the fact that Defense Counsel for the -organizations have been sitting here in the front row for months -and have often spoken here from the lectern, what can one expect -the individual internees, who are living in camps hermetically shut -off from contact with the rest of the world, to know about the facts -of the Defense? That is what has to be said on this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I, also, by the way take the point of view that the question -whether the organizations in their entirety can be indicted here is -an absolute <span class='it'>terra nova</span> in the history of jurisprudence and that it is -something which in its extent and its scope and in its effects shakes -the very foundations of jurisprudence. In addition, as has been -mentioned, organizations are to be judged which ceased to exist -almost a year ago. In the criminal procedure of all civilized countries -it is a basic condition that the defendant still be alive; proceedings -cannot take place against a dead defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Mr. Justice Jackson’s statements today, the organizations -of the Gestapo and SS, for example, are to be held -responsible for the liquidation of the Jews in the East; and it is -pointed out that because of the death of millions of Jews and the -impossibility of determining who the individual perpetrators were, -the organizations as such must be judged in order that the guilty be -punished. Of course, the Defense holds the conviction and takes the -point of view that the guilty must be punished, but only the guilty. -<span class='pageno' title='407' id='Page_407'></span> -It is a fact, for example, that an Einsatzgruppe of the SD, whose -task it was to solve the Jewish problem in the East, contained on the -average only about 250 members of the Gestapo. Considering the -total number of 45,000 to 50,000 members of the Gestapo, this figure -is thus a very small one. In the case of a general verdict against, -for instance, the Gestapo, more than 45,000 people would be affected -who had absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I refer to the -example of a mass murderer who cannot be captured, and whose -whole family is taken into custody in his stead and condemned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In view of the very important statements which have been made -today by the Prosecution regarding the question of the organizations, -I ask the Tribunal for permission, after the record has been received, -to state my attitude, if necessary, to just a few other points today; -first of all, to the question of the time during which the Gestapo is -to be considered criminal. In this connection I must assert that at -least until the year 1939 the Gestapo was a lawful, legally -established institution. It is also true that the Indictment refers to -crimes which can be charged to the Gestapo only after the autumn -of 1939, that is, after the beginning of the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Today the Prosecution have furthermore excluded secretarial and -office workers from the Indictment. I am in agreement with this. -It is in accordance with the motion made by me already in December. -I submit further that not only the secretarial and office personnel -but also all other employees be excepted, because the reason for -dropping the charges against the office personnel is doubtless that -the Prosecution are convinced that this office personnel had nothing -to do with the crimes of which the Gestapo is accused.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It should also be considered whether the administrative officials -of the Gestapo, who represented about 70 percent of the personnel -of the Gestapo, should be excluded from the Indictment. All of the -500 applications received so far are from such administrative officials. -These officials were trained only in the field of administration. They -had neither the training nor the knowledge for the making of -criminal investigators. They could not be used for the execution of -any criminal actions, because they had no executive power. They -were active only in matters of personnel and finance—personnel -matters such as the appointment of officials, promotions, dismissals, -and so forth; matters of finance such as the administering of budget -funds, figuring out and compiling salary and wage lists, renting of -offices, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. These are all things which have nothing to do with -executive power, and especially not with the crimes imputed to the -Gestapo by the Prosecution. In my opinion these people are just as -entitled to exemption as the secretarial and office personnel, who -have already been exempted by the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='408' id='Page_408'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to touch briefly on one other point of view, that is, -the question of voluntary joining of an organization—a question -which has played an important role. On 7 June 1945 Mr. Justice -Jackson, in his statement to the President of the United States, said, -among other things, the following: Units such as the Gestapo and -SS were fighting units and consisted of volunteers—people especially -suited for and fanatically inclined to the plans of violence of these -units. To what extent that is true of the SS, I do not know. As -far as the Gestapo is concerned, it certainly is not true, for the -Gestapo was a State organization founded by the Defendant Göring -on the basis of the law of 23 April 1933. It was a police authority -just as was the Criminal Police whose duty it was to track down -crimes or the Regular Police who were responsible for controlling -traffic. The personnel consisted mostly of life-long career officials, -some of whom had been in the police service many years before the -creation of the Gestapo, and who, when this police organization was -created and in the ensuing years, were ordered to, detailed to, or -transferred to this police authority. According to the German law -affecting civil servants these officials were obliged to follow such -orders. They had never come voluntarily to the Gestapo. At the -most there might perhaps have been 1 percent who were voluntary -members; but 99 percent of the members were forcibly ordered on -the basis of this law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is what I have to say at the moment. I should like, however, -to reserve for myself the right to speak some time later about today’s -discussions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. We will adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 1 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='409' id='Page_409'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-FIRST DAY</span><br/> Friday, 1 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: At the conclusion of the argument on the -organizations, which the Tribunal anticipates will finish before the -end of today’s session, the Tribunal will adjourn into closed session. -Tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock the Tribunal will sit in open -session for consideration of the applications for witnesses and documents -by the second four defendants. Will the defendant’s counsel -who was in the middle of his argument now continue? Dr. Merkel, -had you finished?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MERKEL: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARTIN LÖFFLER (Counsel for the SA): May it please the -Tribunal: The objections and misgivings expressed yesterday by the -Defense regarding the criminal proceedings against the six accused -organizations are particularly applicable when judging the SA.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No other organization is so much exposed to the danger of a sentence -contrary to our sense of justice as is the SA. I ask the Tribunal’s -permission to submit the reasons for this fact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The demand of the Prosecution that the SA should be declared -a criminal organization affects at least 4 million people at a conservative -estimate. The limitation according to groups approved -yesterday by Justice Jackson was gratifying and welcome; but it -will have no appreciable effect on the numbers since the groups -eliminated yesterday, the armed SA units and the bearers of the -SA Sports Badge, were not full members of the SA. The only -persons so far eliminated, therefore, are the SA Reserves. As no -limitation according to time was made, these criminal proceedings -will include everyone who ever belonged to the SA, even for a very -short time, during the 24 years between its establishment in 1921 -and its dissolution in 1945, that is to say, during a period of almost -a quarter of a century.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We heard yesterday from the Prosecution that the criminal acts -charged to the organizations are the same as those charged to the -main defendants, namely, Crimes against Peace, crimes against the -laws or customs of war, and Crimes against Humanity, as well as -participation in the common conspiracy. -<span class='pageno' title='410' id='Page_410'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we now contemplate the possible participation of these 4 million -former SA men in these four important categories of crime, -we get the following picture:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Crimes against the laws or customs of war are not charged to -the SA. It is true that the Prosecution presented an affidavit saying -that the SA also took part in guarding concentration camps and -prisoner-of-war camps and in supervising forced labor; but, according -to the presentation of the Prosecution, this did not occur until -1944 within the framework of the total war raging at that time, and -it has not been charged that this activity of the SA involved any -excesses or ill-treatment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In none of the atrocities reported here by witnesses and documents -did the SA with its 4 million members participate. The few -offenses against humanity charged to the SA by the Prosecution -and committed by individual members in the course of almost a -quarter of a century can in no way be compared with the serious -crimes against humanity of which we have heard here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The occupation of the trade-union buildings by the SA, adduced -by the Prosecution as another point, took place on the order of -Reichsleiter Ley, who used the SA for this operation, and this -happened after the seizure of power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even the Prosecution did not assert that any outrages, ill-treatment, -or excesses occurred when this operation was carried out. The -fact that in connection with the seizure of power in the spring of -1933 individual excesses occurred, and that the American citizens -Rosemann and Klauber, according to the affidavits submitted by the -Prosecution, were beaten on this occasion is certainly regrettable. -However, such excesses on the part of individual persons are -unavoidable in organizations comprising millions of people and, -considered by themselves, are hardly proper grounds for declaring -the entire organization criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The participation, finally, of the SA as guard troops in concentration -camps is, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, -restricted to single exceptions and ended anyway in 1934. The -commandant of the Concentration Camp Oranienburg, according to -the presentation of the Prosecution, was an SA Führer. However -it is not asserted that he committed any atrocities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second case, the ill-treatment of prisoners in the camp of -Hohnstein by SA and SS members in 1934 led to criminal proceedings -and the SA men guilty were sentenced to imprisonment of -up to 6 years.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As a last individual act there remains the participation of the SA -in the excesses during the night of 10 and 11 November 1938, when -the windows of Jewish stores were broken and the synagogues were -burned. Here, too, the plan and the order did not originate with the -<span class='pageno' title='411' id='Page_411'></span> -SA. The SA was simply commissioned by the highest Party leadership -to carry out this order. Finally if we consider that during the -political struggles of 1921 to 1933 the old SA was involved in -brawls—often purely defensive—with political opponents and that -it did not develop into an organization with millions of members -until after the seizure of power, we arrive at the following conclusion, -expressed in figures:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of the presentation of the Prosecution at most -2 percent of all the indicted former SA members participated in -punishable individual actions; 98 percent of the 4 millions, according -to their conviction, kept their hands clean of any such punishable -individual acts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Here, too, the Prosecution will not want to insist that the -excesses of these 2 percent considered by themselves should brand -the entire organization as criminal. These 98 percent, that is in -round numbers 3,900,000 former SA members, must nevertheless -defend themselves here against the charge of having participated in -the preparation of the war of aggression or in the planning or -execution of the common conspiracy, or, formulated more strongly, -against the charge of having belonged to organizations which -pursued these criminal purposes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What is the result if we apply the definition of the criminal -nature of an organization as formulated yesterday by Justice Jackson -and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The SA members will acknowledge that the criteria under Points -1 and 2 as defined yesterday are also true for the SA, namely, that -the SA was an aggregation of numerous persons with collective aims -and a membership which was voluntary in principle. However, they -will strenuously deny the application of the Criteria 3, 4, and 5. -Point 3 requires that the organization pursued objectively criminal -aims in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. The millions of members, -if testifying here, would state that neither in the programs nor -in the speeches of their leaders had they been called upon to pursue -such criminal aims or methods. Whether the leaders of the SA -pursued such criminal aims in secret or not these people are not in -a position to judge. Whether such criminal aims were pursued -secretly by the leadership of the SA can be determined only by the -Tribunal, and only now when the archives have been opened, -witnesses can testify, and the documents are laid open to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Point 4 of the Prosecution’s definition, if I understood -Justice Jackson correctly yesterday, requires, beyond this, as an -element of crime involving subjective guilt, that the aims and -methods of this organization were of such character that a reasonable, -normal man may properly be charged with knowledge of them. -<span class='pageno' title='412' id='Page_412'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like at this point to emphasize particularly that I, in -agreement with my colleagues, do not consider this definition an -adequate protection, since it means that a member may be punished -even if he did not recognize the criminal nature of the organization -but ought to have recognized it by application of reasonable care. -I know of no system of penal law in any modern civilized state -which holds that negligence, even of a gross or serious nature, is -sufficient to constitute guilt of an infamous common crime, that is, -of a crime belonging to the group of severest offenses. A crime of -this category can be committed only with intention. Perhaps the -Prosecution can later discuss this question on the basis of their -knowledge of the particulars of Anglo-Saxon and other foreign legal -systems.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This point seems of particular importance to me because—if it is -neglected—there is the danger that the judges, particularly the -Anglo-Saxon judges, will apply the political standards of their -countries to German conditions. The sober political instinct that is -characteristic of the citizens of England and America is nonexistent -in the Germans. We are a politically immature people, credulous, -and consequently especially susceptible to political misguidance. The -Court should not overlook this dissimilarity when passing its -judgment on the good faith of the individual members of the -organizations. According to the impressions which the Defense of -the SA has received to date from its visits to camps and from -numerous letters, the majority of SA members are convinced that -they did not belong to any criminal organization. Among other -reasons are the following subjective ones:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was generally known and has been specifically stated in the -<span class='it'>Organization Book</span> of the Party—Document 1893-PS, Page 365—that -only a person whose character was unobjectionable could join -the SA. It is further stated verbatim, and I quote: “Unobjectionable -reputation and no criminal record.” The members of the SA maintain -that they know of no case in which a gang of criminals or -conspirators required in their statutes similar conditions for -membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Part of the essence of a conspiracy is the idea that its criminal -aims be kept secret from its opponents. An organization of several -millions is, by its very nature, not suited to carrying out a plot. The -leaders of the SA emphasized in numerous addresses that they -wanted to maintain peace under all circumstances. They pointed -out that Germany would be rather a danger to European peace if -she were without defense and arms in the heart of Europe and that -being in a state of preparedness was the best guarantee for securing -future peace in Europe. The simple members point again and again -to the fact that foreign powers gave diplomatic recognition to the -<span class='pageno' title='413' id='Page_413'></span> -leaders of National Socialism. They consider this fact not simply -an act of “international courtesy” but are convinced that foreign -governments would not have entered into relations with the German -Government if that German Government had consisted of open -criminals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might mention a particularly characteristic example: the Indictment -against the SA is substantiated by a number of documents. -These are Documents 2822- and 2823-PS. According to these documents, -as early as May 1933 Lieutenant Colonel Auleb, a deputy of -the Reich War Ministry of that time, was detailed to the high -command of the SA in order to assure liaison between the heads of -the two organizations. But the whole affair is treated as strictly -secret, and it is ordered that Auleb should wear the SA uniform for -the purpose of “camouflage.” How, I ask, should or could a simple -SA member have known anything of such affairs? I have mentioned -here only a few points put forward by SA members which, in the -opinion of the Defense, do not constitute unfounded subterfuges, but -which show that the majority of these people never thought of -participating in a criminal conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Also the fifth criterion set up yesterday by the Prosecution to -define a criminal organization—the close connection between the -main defendants and the SA—is in the case of no organization so -difficult to prove as in the case of the SA. This may, at first, sound -surprising; of the main defendants here, six were high-ranking -members of the SA. Nevertheless, a closer scrutiny shows that there -were no close connections at all. Except for Göring, none of the -main defendants ever exercised command authority over the entire -SA. The rank which these main defendants had in the SA was an -honorary rank; and, so to speak, merely decorative. Consequently, -the Prosecution has mentioned only Göring’s connection with the -SA in its recent list of the criminal elements. But even Göring’s -connection with the SA curiously enough is very slight and is -actually confined to a period of three quarters of a year—that is—9 -months, namely, from February 1923 to 9 November 1923, that is -to say, 23 years ago. Göring was never, as stated in Appendix A -of the Indictment, Reichsführer of the SA. That is an error. Rather, -in February 1923 Göring was commissioned to take over the command -of the then existing Party group for the protection of -meetings—the so-called Sturmabteilung. Göring led the SA until the -November Putsch of 9 November 1923. On that day his command -power over the SA came to an end and was never revived. Later -Göring was given by Hitler honorary command of the unit Feldherrnhalle. -He was the honorary commander, not the active commander -of this unit. I believe the difference between honorary and -active command of a regiment is known in all states. I do not have -<span class='pageno' title='414' id='Page_414'></span> -to give any further explanation. Honorary command has a purely -decorative significance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The task which the SA had to carry out under Göring in the -year 1923 was the protection of meetings. Anyway, it cannot be -charged that at that time the SA, in co-operation with Göring, -already planned the crimes stated in Article 6 of the Charter or that -these aims could have been anticipated at that time in any tangible -form. Neither can it be charged that Göring ever made use of the -SA after 1923 for carrying out any criminal plan. The man who led -the SA from 1930 to 1934, Ernst Röhm, was an embittered opponent -of Göring’s. After his death the SA was led by Victor Lutze from -1934 to 1943 and from 1943 until its dissolution, by Wilhelm -Schepmann.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, an organization -can be declared criminal only in connection with any act of -which a main defendant may be convicted. From a legal and factual -point of view I have the gravest doubts as to whether the facts of -the case in 1923, as described by me, are sufficient to comply with -the requirements of the Charter as far as the SA is concerned. This -could be done only if the Tribunal had reason now to pass sentence -on Göring’s activity as leader of the SA group for protecting -meetings 23 years ago, including the November Putsch, as a special -crime. This, however, would be at variance with the fact that this -entire action was settled with legal effect by the amnesty of the -democratic Reich Government, whereby the matter was, at the time, -disposed of in this fashion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, if it is a fact in the case of any -organization, then certainly it is a fact in the case of the SA, that -its being listed among the criminal organizations is contrary to the -real picture. Large circles abroad, particularly those who were -forced to leave Germany in 1933, knew nothing of the complete -change of structure which the SA underwent during the following -years. The foreign countries heard at every Reichstag session the -traditional song, “The SA Marches,” while, as a matter of fact, the -SA had long since lost all political influence and had been transformed -<span class='it'>en masse</span> into an association with a huge membership, the -very size of which rendered it harmless as far as conspiracy was -concerned and which showed all the characteristics of the so-called -German club-mindedness. I refer in full here to the statements made -by Colonel Storey, himself, in his speech for the Prosecution. This -is on Page 1546 of the Court’s Record (Volume IV, Page 138). The -organization through which the SA was then eliminated from -political life was, as is well known, the SS, and this happened on -the occasion of the so-called Röhm Putsch in 1934. That, indeed, -the SA and SS always confronted each other like rival brothers is -a fact which, in the interest of truth, should not remain unmentioned. -<span class='pageno' title='415' id='Page_415'></span> -For all these reasons the SA is judged on a completely different -basis, even by German opponents of National Socialism; and this -has already led to contradictory results, the speedy elimination of -which by the Prosecution or the Court would be highly desirable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At this opportunity the following facts should be pointed out: -The SA, up to the higher ranks, is not, as a matter of principle, -subject to arrest, which is at variance with probably all the other -organizations. The new denazification law which recently came into -force after thorough consultation between German circles and the -Military Government and which is now the law in force throughout -the entire American Zone, regards all SA members of a rank lower -than that of Sturmführer neither as active Nazis nor much less as -criminals. According to the electoral procedure now in force in the -American Zone of Occupation, which recently was the basis for -elections in thousands of German communities under the directives -of the Military Government, the ordinary SA members, insofar as -they were not Party members, were not only permitted to vote, but -were also eligible for election. The same people who are before the -Court accused of serious crimes may at the same time, according to -the law in force, be elected as community councillors, and, in fact, -are being so elected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I talked personally about two weeks ago to an SA man and -asked him whether, following the notice of the Court, he had -reported here for interrogation. He declared that he saw no reason -for doing that, because in the meantime he had been elected and -approved as community councillor.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The regulations of Law Number 30, regarding the application of -the German community order of 20 December 1945, namely, Articles -36 and 37, which show that SA men are eligible for election, -also confirm the fact, which is known in Germany, but apparently -not in foreign countries, that an ordinary Party member had—only -by comparison, naturally—a more active political position than the -completely uninfluential SA member. Whoever was a Party member -before 1937 cannot vote, and whoever at any time was a Party -member cannot be elected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A comparison of Party members, who are not indicted here, and -SA members, who are indicted here, shows the following facts:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If at the time of National Socialism one was politically incriminated -or suspected one could, without difficulty, become an SA -member but under no circumstances a Party member, because in -regard to Party membership—and even ordinary Party membership—much -higher political qualifications were required than in the -case of SA members. There were certainly many SA members who -joined this organization only to escape to some extent the persecution -they had to expect because of their incriminating political -record in the past. -<span class='pageno' title='416' id='Page_416'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, I have tried by means of these -examples to show the extraordinary danger existing in the particular -case of the SA, if all its members, including its millions of ordinary -SA men, are legally declared criminals by the Tribunal. I am sorry -I cannot share the opinion expressed yesterday by Justice Jackson -that the verdict sought from this Court would be a purely declaratory -one with no penalties involved. On the contrary I know that -hundreds and thousands of SA members, who were simple followers -and were not even Party members, have been dismissed from their -positions, and their future and their existence will depend on the -verdict of this Court. A declaratory judgment of this Court is -sufficient to make them outlaws and to exclude them from positions -and professions in the future. Therefore the members of the SA -are correct in pointing out that they are denied the right of judicial -hearing. There is no direct evidence and no direct trial. A court -does not decide the fate of lifeless creatures of the law or formal -organizations that have long since ceased to exist; it passes judgment -on living human beings, and no court should forego the opportunity -of seeing in person those whom it is trying. A good judge is always -a good psychologist and soon can tell what kind of person is on -trial—whether he is a criminal or somebody who has been deceived -and misled.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No law on earth since time immemorial ever allowed the passing -of judgment against an organization instead of against its single -members. The laws and precedents quoted yesterday by the Prosecution -regarding criminal gangs and conspiracy certainly recognize -to a large extent the collective responsibility for acts of accomplices, -but two requirements must be fulfilled there too: Firstly, the -member must know that he is party to a criminal conspiracy or -criminal association; secondly, the indictment is not directed against -the conspiracy as such, and the conspiracy will not be judged, but -the persons of the individual participants. It is the conviction of -the Defense that the Charter did not intend to stand in contradiction -to these legal principles of all states.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The late President Roosevelt, whom Justice Jackson named the -spiritual father of the Charter, has in his great speeches, particularly -in those of 25 October 1941 and 7 October 1942, stated clearly that -the leaders and instigators shall be called to account. Permit me, -Mr. President, to read two sentences from the speech by President -Roosevelt taken from the official collection, <span class='it'>Speeches and Essays by -President Roosevelt</span>, published on order of the government of the -United States.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I quote from the speech of 25 October 1941:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Civilized peoples long ago adopted the basic principle that -no man should be punished for the deed of another.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='417' id='Page_417'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second quotation is from the speech of President Roosevelt -on 7 October 1942, and I quote:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The number of persons eventually found guilty will undoubtedly -be extremely small compared to the total enemy -populations. It is not the intention of this Government or of -the Governments associated with us to resort to mass reprisals. -It is our intention that just and sure punishment -shall be meted out to the ringleaders responsible for the -organized murder of thousands of innocent persons and the -commission of atrocities which have violated every tenet -of the Christian faith.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to these fundamental objections to such a separation -of the proceedings there is also an important technical objection. -If the Tribunal passes a declaratory judgment against the organizations, -as requested, all these millions of members of the -organizations will automatically become outlaws pending the definite -legal decision in the subsequent trials. Until that date every -individual is under serious suspicion of being a criminal, since it -is questionable whether he will succeed in exonerating himself in -the subsequent trial. Since, however, an individual person, without -such exoneration will probably not be able to return to his -profession—and will also be excluded from the ranks of honorable -citizens until he is exonerated—the right to have such a subsequent -trial should not be denied to him. I believe that Justice Jackson -will agree with me in this. But if, as desired by the Prosecution, -7 million members of organizations, according to a conservative -estimate, are affected by the declaratory judgment of the Tribunal -and thus temporarily become outlaws, then millions of subsequent -trials will have to take place. We shall have to assume that in the -course of 1 year, perhaps 100,000 trials can be completed. I believe -that this is a very optimistic estimate, as our German courts will -not be able to participate; it is well known that they are completely -overworked since they have now only a small portion of their -former personnel. Of these millions of cases, the courts will -probably have to deal first with those of the most criminal nature. -The accused, whose existence is at stake, will defend themselves -during the subsequent trials with all legal means at their disposal. -There is the danger that the really innocent people will have to -wait for many years, even for decades, before they will have an -opportunity to rehabilitate themselves through a process of exoneration. -I believe that it would have been possible to find some sort -of solution. For instance, if the Control Council had passed a law -to the effect that, since there is the suspicion that offenses and -crimes against peace and humanity have been committed with the -aid of these organizations, the courts have the right and the duty -<span class='pageno' title='418' id='Page_418'></span> -to try those of whom it can be proved that they participated in -these crimes as principals or accessories in some way or other—if -such a formula could be found, then I believe that both the Prosecution -and the Defense would consider that a just solution. The -effect would be limited to those who are actually guilty. The -Defense objects in no way to the punishment of those who are -actually guilty, provided that their guilt is determined in regular -unobjectionable proceedings.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Should the Court, however, adhere to a verdict against the -organizations, as requested by the Prosecution, then I request for -all the reasons adduced, arising as they do from the presentation -of the Prosecution and from the impressions made by those applications -which have been filed, that judgment not be passed against -the entire SA. The point of view brought forward by Justice -Jackson in the case of the other organizations, namely, that in the -face of so many murders and atrocities the individual members -of an organization can no longer be determined as perpetrators, this -point of view, noteworthy as it is, does not apply to the SA. The -few excesses which, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, -took place here, happened in Germany in public. The -perpetrators are known. Some regional courts have already opened -proceedings of this kind. I have heard, for example, that the city -of Bamberg has opened proceedings against the destroyers of the -synagogue there and against the perpetrators of the action of 10 -and 11 November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But should the Tribunal be of the opinion that judgment is -nevertheless to be passed against the SA as an organization, then -I ask the Tribunal as far as possible to make use of the right to -provide certain limitations in regard to periods of time and categories -of members, as both the Prosecution and the Defense agree -that the Tribunal has the power to make such limitations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Very important distinctions are to be made here, first as to the -different periods of time. The SA men who joined the SA after -the seizure of power in 1933 joined an organization that on its face -bore the stamp of approval by the state. Admittedly not even a -state authority can declare crimes against humanity legal; but -when weighing the degree of guilt and the severity of the penalty -it is, nevertheless, of considerable importance whether the perpetrator -acted outside the bounds of the laws in force and committed -offenses against the positive law, or whether his acts, although -they may offend a higher moral order, are not contrary to the laws -of his country. Therefore an exemption should be made at any rate -of all those SA members who joined after 1933, and who can be -proved to have had no part in the events of 10 and 11 November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In regard to categories, I urgently request, in the interest of -justice, a double limitation: -<span class='pageno' title='419' id='Page_419'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. Simple SA members up to the rank of Sturmführer should be -exempted at any rate and, if possible, very soon. I mentioned -previously why this appears imperative in the interests of justice, -at least in the American Zone. Perhaps—and I should welcome -this tremendously—Justice Jackson would have the kindness to pay -special attention to this matter once more. The idea of such -limitation is also supported by the fact that it would considerably -reduce the numbers by eliminating the simple followers; and in -this way the technical difficulties, which seem almost insurmountable, -would also be considerably simplified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. It was gratifying that the Prosecution yesterday agreed to -separate proceedings against the SA Wehrmannschaften, the bearers -of the SA Sports Badge, and the members of the SA Reserve—or -rather, to exempt them altogether. In the interest of equality and -justice as recognized by the law and by this Tribunal, it would be -fair to separate from the SA all those special sport units which had -only a loose organizational connection with the SA. These are the -Navy SA (Marine-SA) and the Cavalry SA (Reiter-SA).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are a number of applications before the Court, and it is -well known in Germany to everybody involved that these particular -units were exclusively devoted to their respective sports, namely, -sailing and rowing on the one hand, and horsemanship and holding -of tournaments on the other hand. When in 1933 the Party came -to power, it attempted to take charge of all sport activities in -Germany. Consequently, the various navy clubs and the so-called -country riding clubs became affiliated with the Party, but both -clubs had hardly anything to do with the political SA, even after -their regrouping. Only their chiefs were, according to the organizational -system, subordinate to the SA. They are very well suited -for separate proceedings because they constituted a completely -closed group within the SA.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>None of the main defendants present here was ever a member -of one of these sport groups. Members of the Cavalry SA feel that -they are at a particular disadvantage because the Prosecution has -not indicted the NS Kraftfahrkorps (National Socialist Motor Corps) -and the NS Fliegerkorps (National Socialist Flier Corps), which -is perfectly justified, since it is known that they were by nature -sport organizations. The NS Kraftfahrkorps and the NS Fliegerkorps -were, however, until the year 1934, exactly like the Reiterkorps, -sport divisions of the SA. The NS Kraftfahrkorps succeeded in -gaining organizational independence since 1934 or 1935, due to the -political influence of its leader Hühnlein. The NS Fliegerkorps also -succeeded in doing so. The NS Reiterkorps, however, did not have -such influence and merely succeeded in 1936 in being recognized -as an independent NS Reiterkorps; but it still remained formally -<span class='pageno' title='420' id='Page_420'></span> -connected through its leadership with the SA, since Litzmann, the -Chief of the Reiterkorps, was subordinate to the Chief of the SA. -For this purely formal reason about 100,000 farmers and farmhands -who enjoyed education in horsemanship through these country -riding clubs are indicted here. It can be proved that they never -took part in politics or in any activities against Jews or people of -other beliefs. Likewise a pursuit of militaristic aims is out of -question in the case of the Cavalry SA. Already after the First -World War it was evident that the horse had no further role in -war. This charge would rather be in point as far as the Kraftfahrkorps -and the Fliegerkorps are concerned. The Prosecution stated -correctly that these organizations were by nature predominantly -sport organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For this reason I should be grateful to the Prosecution if they -would once more examine the cases I have mentioned in order to -find out whether or not the same conditions exist in this case as -in the case of the SA Reserve and the armed SA units.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As the last group I mention the SA university units (SA Hochschulstürme), -because they were almost without exception obligatory -organizations for those students who would not have been admitted -to the state examinations without a record of activity in such -organizations. The same thing applies to the SA health units (SA -Sanitätsstürme), which represented an obligatory activity for many -physicians who were applying for positions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to correct myself on one point, because it has been -called to my attention that I wanted to set a time limit for those -SA members joining after 1933. I should have said, “after 30 January -1933,” the day of the seizure of power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the hearing -of SA members. Most of the members of the SA are free. If only -a few so far have written to the Court, this is almost exclusively -due to the fact that, since the SA in this country is generally -considered inoffensive, they can hardly imagine that a Court with -the experience and the high standing of this Tribunal could reach -a decision which would differ from public opinion. Should the -Court, however, adhere to its conception of the SA, then I should -like to support the suggestion made yesterday by the Prosecution -to the effect that the notice be published once more for the members -to make an effort to defend their interests. However, I share the -opinion of counsel for the Leadership Corps, that it would not serve -the interests of the proceedings if the direct contact between the -Defense Counsel and his client were destroyed. In the case of the -SA men who are free, a technically simple method could be used -by having the main Defense Counsel in Nuremberg appoint deputies, -preferably lawyers, in every province, for example, Baden, Bavaria, -and Württemberg. The provincial press should make mention of -<span class='pageno' title='421' id='Page_421'></span> -these men. Every individual member of an organization could, -with the help of these lawyers, answer by means of an affidavit -those questions which the Court has found to be relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In a very gratifying manner the American Chief Prosecutor -stated yesterday, if I understood him correctly, that in the trial of -the organizations, because of its fateful importance for millions of -people, the principle of justice is much more important than the -question of speedy proceedings. I should therefore like to join in -the request made by Counsel for the Leadership Corps, that the -trial of the organizations, which is to be regarded from different -points of view, be separated from the trial of the main defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Members of the Tribunal, I am at the conclusion of my remarks. -I should like, however, to reply to the words, words worth heeding, -spoken by Justice Jackson yesterday at the beginning of his address. -He said that for the first time in history a modern state had completely -collapsed, and that this surrender created for the victorious nations -completely novel problems; that one of the most important tasks -was to destroy the structure of those organizations and to prevent -this country forever from waging wars of aggression or carrying -out pogroms. All people of good will must sincerely welcome this -aim and support Justice Jackson. It is, however, questionable -whether the right way toward that end is to defame all members -of organizations as such, involving millions of people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask the Tribunal to consider that there is hardly a family in -this country which did not have near relatives in some one of these -organizations at some time. The organizations are dead, the system -of terror and falsehood has disintegrated, millions of misled and -deceived people have turned away from their leaders and seducers. -But if they find themselves ostracized and stigmatized along with -them the effect might easily be the opposite of that which we all -hope for.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson correctly pointed out in his speech yesterday -that the Control Council will possibly change the method of -denazification used so far, which has been rather mechanical, and -make it more individual. Present experience that mechanical treatment -evokes the feeling of injustice and thereby a false solidarity, -might contribute to this. The millions of simple misled camp -followers of the organizations would consider such a verdict an -act of revenge rather than a manifestation of justice. The ringleaders, -however, could conceal their actual guilt behind the backs -of millions of people. The educational and corrective effect of a -verdict as well as the idea of just atonement would consequently -be weakened.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='422' id='Page_422'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÖFFLER: I ask the Tribunal that I be permitted to make -one more remark.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my previous request I did not ask for the exemption of one -particular group, namely, the Stahlhelm; this was only because, -according to my information, the Stahlhelm was transferred in its -entirety to the SA Reserve after the seizure of power and therefore, -in my opinion, is included in the declaration made yesterday by -Justice Jackson exempting the SA Reserve.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: May it please the Tribunal, I should have considered -it appropriate in the interest of a speedy trial that the -Defense not answer the inquiries of the Tribunal and reply to the -arguments of the Prosecution until they have received in writing -the extensive and important arguments of the Prosecution and are -thereby in a position to deal with the whole complex of problems -comprehensively and conclusively.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Since a number of Defense Counsel for the organizations have -already spoken, I feel prompted to do the same, insofar as I am -in a position to do so at this time and consider it necessary and -appropriate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal desire to have a discussion in order to define the -legal concept of the criminal organization and desire in particular -to examine the question of which qualifying elements of a factual -nature are necessary in order to declare an organization criminal. -The Defense believe that a final and basic definition of this concept, -which is entirely new to any legal system, can be given only at the -end of the proceedings by means of a special hearing of evidence -after all necessary factual information has been collected and -examined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution have already presented a definition, which, -however, raises very serious objections, because it is derived from -legal ideas which have grown in countries other than Germany, -under different conditions and circumstances, and which involve -far less important legal consequences than those now considered -by the Tribunal, the public opinion of the world, the German people -and jurisprudence, and jurisdiction in general.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The organizations now indicted are mostly large mass organizations, -without aims and ideas of their own, organizations whose -Party-political aims and purposes and Party activities developed to -national dimensions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A just and pertinent definition can be found for these organizations -only on the basis of the evidence to be presented concerning -the nature and aims of these organizations and the knowledge, -intentions, and activities of their members. Considering the basic -difference of the organizations which have been and are now being -investigated, it is more than questionable whether it will be possible -<span class='pageno' title='423' id='Page_423'></span> -to take the legal basis applied so far to single cases as a basis for -proceedings against political organizations comprising millions of -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution and the Defense are probably agreed that the -Indictment is actually not directed against the organizations, which -do not exist any more anyhow, but in fact against the former -membership. Likewise the opinion seems to be held unanimously -that the Tribunal as a matter of principle will give the members an -actual opportunity, not only a theoretical one, to be heard on the -question of the criminal character of the organizations; that follows -all the more since, according to Law Number 10, the possibility -seems to be excluded that the members may make essential objections -in regard to the organizations and their own person during -the subsequent individual trials. If the Tribunal does not measure -the responsibility of the entire organization on the basis of the -responsibility of the individuals comprising it, the danger of collective -liability arises, which would create such a degree of injustice -affecting individuals in such a way that it would be much worse -than the justly attacked Sippenhaftung of the Third Reich, which -in a criminal way aimed at involving innocent members of the -family in proceedings taken against any one of its members.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to define a criminal organization, evidence and information -as to the knowledge, intentions, and actions of the members -of the organizations must be provided; similarly, before convicting -individuals, either singly or in the mass, justice and human dignity -alike demand that they should each be informed of the indictment -and should each have an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. -This requirement is imperative in view of the serious legal consequence -threatening the members of the organizations in case of -a verdict against them, such as loss of property, long-term imprisonment, -and even the death penalty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Last but not least, the hearing of all members of the organizations -is also necessary because the unrestricted compilation of -judicial evidence appears to be inevitable in order to work out the -legal definition of criminal character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense do not ignore the fact that, considering the scope -of the Trial, these basic demands are confronted with tremendous -difficulties. The scope of the Trial, however, should not reduce the -thoroughness of the procedure but, on the contrary, should increase it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, there are businessmen who are -owners of several firms. If, now, the owner uses one of these firms -to commit criminal acts, can we say that the other firms and their -employees are also criminal? On the basis of this principle, I -consider it necessary to point out which organizations, according to -<span class='pageno' title='424' id='Page_424'></span> -the reasons given by the Prosecution so far, are affected by the -Indictment as units of the SS. They are:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The General SS—strength at the beginning of the war, about -350,000 men. This number includes the variety of special units like -cavalry, motor, information, music, and medical units.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. The Waffen-SS, of which, at the end of the war, there were -still under arms about 600,000 men. In the over-all number of -Waffen-SS must be included about 36 divisions of the combat troops -and a large number of reserve units of the reserve of the Armed -Forces, as well as all those who were discharged from the Waffen-SS -or who left in some other way. The verdict in this Trial would -also affect the honor of the dead and the fate of their surviving -relatives, so that the dead also will have to be included in this -number which demonstrates the far-reaching significance of this -Trial. Consequently, the total number of members of the Waffen-SS, -especially when including those discharged as unfit for war service, -would be many times larger than the figure representing the final -strength.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On the basis of investigations under way the Defense will submit -still more accurate figures, unless this is to be done by the Prosecution, -which in my opinion ought to submit to the Court the information -necessary for a verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>3. The Death’s-Head Units—before 1939, about 6,000 men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>4. SS troops for special employment, including the Adolf Hitler -Bodyguard—before 1939, about 9,000 men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>5. Honorary Führer of the SS, whose number will probably turn -out to be very large, as, for instance, the Farmer Leaders (Bauernführer) -of the Reich Food Estate down to the District Farmer -Leaders (Kreisbauernführer) were for the most part appointed -honorary Führer of the SS. Similar conditions prevail with respect -to the chiefs of several branches of the state administration, who -were often made honorary Führer of the SS without any initiative -on their part and without being able to do anything about it. -Likewise many leaders of the Reich Veterans’ League received -honorary ranks in the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>6. The “supporting members” of the SS, among whom were also -many non-Party members; their number is not yet known but it -is certainly very considerable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>7. SS Front Line Auxiliaries of the Reich Post Office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>8. SS Construction Units.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>9. SS Front laborers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>10. The entire Regular Police, to which belonged:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) The Municipal Police of the Reich with several special units, -such as traffic squads, accident squads, information, cavalry, police -<span class='pageno' title='425' id='Page_425'></span> -dog squads, radio, and medical units; (b) the Gendarmerie with -innumerable stations and posts, distributed all over the country, -even in the smallest villages, which had rendered service without -essential changes since Napoleon’s time—the motorized Gendarmerie -supervised traffic; (c) the Municipal Police of smaller communities; -(d) the Water Police; (e) the Fire Police; (f) the Technical Auxiliary -Police Units, the Technical Emergency Service. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, you are going rather fast if you -want us to take down these categories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I shall submit a copy to the -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Personally, I prefer to understand the -argument when I hear it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: I repeat: (f) the Technical Emergency Service, -the Compulsory, Industrial, and Voluntary Fire Brigades; (g) Police -and Gendarmerie Reserves; (h) the Air Raid Police, with security -and auxiliary service; (i) the Town and Country Guard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Further, there belonged to the Regular Police a great many -central institutions, such as the State Hospital for Police, the Police -Officers’ Schools, the Technical Police School, the Police Sports and -Cavalry Schools, Police and Gendarmerie Schools, the Water Police -School and the Reich Fire Brigade School, the Driving and Traffic -Schools, the Air Raid Precautions Teaching Staff, the School and -Experimental Station for Police Dogs, and the Horse Depot of the -Police.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In 1942 all the above-named units of the Regular Police, including -the police troop units, totaled about 570,000 men. If we -follow the presentation of the Prosecution, then all the groups, -institutions, and organizations enumerated so far belong to the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>11. All those units of the Security Police which did not belong -to the separately indicted Gestapo and SD, that is, offices and -officials of the Criminal Police.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>12. The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>13. The Offices of the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation -of German Nationality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>14. National Political Institutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>15. The Lebensborn Association.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>16. The SS women auxiliaries.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these groups, institutions, and suborganizations were under -the administration and jurisdiction of the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By way of summary, the Defense estimate the group of persons -indicted as SS members at several millions. The verdict, however, -will also affect the members of the families of all SS members, at -<span class='pageno' title='426' id='Page_426'></span> -least indirectly, so that additional millions will be affected personally, -morally, and financially. Since, besides the SS, the mass -organizations of the SA and the Leadership Corps are also indicted, -a verdict against the indicted organizations would amount to a -considerable part of the German nation’s being considered criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to Law Number 10 of the Control Council, of 20 December -1945, every member may be subject to any penalty, -including the death penalty, merely because he was a member of -an organization which has been declared criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The question put to discussion by the Court as to what objections -can be made in this collective Trial and what objections can be -made later in the individual trials has, in my opinion, been decided -already by Law Number 10 to the effect that in the individual objections -of a defendant, for example, ignorance of the criminal aims -of the organization, cannot be given any consideration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is, therefore, necessary that evidence in this present Trial -should be admitted to the widest extent possible. It should be -made possible for the Defense to rebut, by means of evidence of -the factual situation at the date of the respective act, the conclusions -drawn by the Prosecution retrospectively from individual acts and -facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When evidence on behalf of the individual defendants was -submitted, the Tribunal declared its readiness to admit evidence if -there is only the slightest degree of relevancy. Considering the -significance of the decision of this Court for the millions of people -affected and for their families, it appears to be an absolutely -necessary condition that evidence be admitted to the largest extent -possible in order to permit a just verdict, to clarify the facts, and -especially to find out to what extent members of the SS participated -in any criminal acts according to Article 6 of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To clarify the question of whether it is permissible to conclude -from the fact of the extent of the indicted actions, as maintained -by the Prosecution, that the members of the SS had knowledge of -these actions, it will also be necessary to admit evidence to the -widest extent possible about the question as to whether or not and, -if so, to what extent the members of the SS knew of these actions, -as well as evidence of the facts which prove that the members of -the SS, like the majority of the German people, did not know -anything about these matters, owing to the precautions taken to -keep them secret.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The discussions initiated by the Tribunal make it necessary to -anticipate essential parts of the final pleadings. A ruling by the -Tribunal on the question of evidence would at this time signify a -ruling by the Tribunal on an essential part of its future decisions, -without any hearing of the evidence on the objections of the Defense -<span class='pageno' title='427' id='Page_427'></span> -having taken place. The Charter has a gap, insofar as it has not -defined the facts which qualify an organization as criminal. This -gap cannot be filled by admitting evidence only in a certain direction. -By doing so the Tribunal would anticipate an essential part of its -final verdict.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to what I have said, I believe that it will be necessary -for the evidence to include all elements which might influence the -decision of the question as to whether the organization of the SS -was criminal. This, however, would hardly be possible within the -framework of this Trial which, according to the Charter, is to be -conducted as expeditiously as feasible. Therefore, I consider it -necessary to separate the procedure against the SS and the SD from -the trial of the individual defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 15 January 1946, partly for other reasons, I made a motion -for separation. As far as I know, no ruling has yet been given. I -repeat this motion as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Judging from the course of the Trial and the procedure up to -now, I have come to the opinion that the Indictment against the -organizations of the SS and the SD—for which I have been appointed -Defense Counsel by an order of the International Military Tribunal -of 22 November 1945—and probably against the other indicted -organizations also, cannot be dealt with within the framework of -this Trial for factual and legal reasons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I restrict myself to a -few brief points reserving for myself the right to present additional -arguments at a later date:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) The International Military Tribunal has no jurisdiction. To -this point I should like to remark that a few days ago I learned from -a newspaper article that the objection of lack of jurisdiction has -already been raised during the session of 20 November 1945 and has -been overruled by the Court. I asked for a copy of the record of -20 November 1945—and also of the following days—but I have not -received it to date. Therefore, I could not take note either of the -motion and the reasons given or of the decision of the Tribunal and -its reasons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) A criminal procedure against an organization is not possible -or permissible, especially against an organization which has been -dissolved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(c) To appoint a Defense Counsel for a dissolved organization, -that is, for something non-existing, is not possible and admissible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. As to the facts, I am compelled to make more detailed statements -in support of my motion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 19 November 1945 I was told orally that the International -Military Tribunal intended my nomination as counsel for the -<span class='pageno' title='428' id='Page_428'></span> -organization of the Leadership Corps. After discussion I declared in -writing my agreement to take over the obligatory defense. On -20 November 1945 I was told orally that I should take over the -defense of the organizations of the SS and SD. On 21 November 1945 -I was told orally that I had been appointed counsel for the SS and -SD, and that I would receive the written appointment very soon. -On 23 November 1945 I received the letter of appointment, dated -22 November 1945, and in the English language, and a few days -later I received the German translation which I had requested. This -letter, in the translation which I received, reads as follows:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Pursuant to the direction of the International Military Tribunal -you are hereby appointed to serve as counsel in the case -of <span class='it'>United States et al. v. Göring et al.</span> for the members of the -defendant organizations, the Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen -Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SS) -and the Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the SD), who -may make application to the General Secretary under the -order of the International Military Tribunal attached hereto.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>A few days later a file was handed to me with about 25 letters -addressed to the General Secretary of the International Military -Tribunal, partly from members of the SS and partly from relatives -of such members. When I asked about my position and the position -of these applicants in the Trial, I was told orally that these -applications were to be submitted by me to the Tribunal in proper -form.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On 23 November 1945 there was a conference, during which a -number of questions and suggestions were brought up concerning -the position and rights of these members of the indicted organizations, -who had applied for and been granted leave to be heard, and of the -defense counsel provided for them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From 28 November 1945 until 11 December 1945 I was not able -to obtain the applications filed by members of the SS and SD -although I asked for them several times each day. At that time about -25 applications were handed to me each day, upon request, and I -had to return them in the evening of the same day. I was told every -time that the Tribunal needed them and that they had not yet been -returned. When I received the folder again on 11 December 1945 -the number of petitions had increased considerably.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By notice of 10 December 1945, according to the German translation -which I received on 11 December 1945, the Tribunal made -known its view that a member of an indicted organization who has -applied to be heard on the question of the criminal character of the -organization is not to be considered a defendant but will have the -individual status of a witness only, although he will be permitted to -give evidence; furthermore, that counsel representing any group or -<span class='pageno' title='429' id='Page_429'></span> -organization may, for this group or organization, exercise the rights -accorded by the Charter to counsel for individual defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>After a closed session of the Court on 11 December 1945, in -which counsel for the indicted organizations also took part, the Tribunal -by notice of 17 December 1945—of which I did not receive a -German translation until a few days later—directed that the -respective counsel, that is, counsel for the organizations, should -represent only the indicted groups and organizations and not individual -applicants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Not until this date was the extent of my duties unambiguously -stated and defined.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know what your -application now is. The object of this session is to have an argument -from Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense in -order that the legal questions with reference to these organizations -should be clear, and what your personal experience during November -and December of 1945 has to do with it the Tribunal is unable to see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, before I started reading this -motion, I pointed out that already on 15 January of this year I made -a motion to separate the procedure, and to my knowledge no ruling -has yet been given. I have tried to repeat in part the reasons for -this motion which I made at the time. If the Court does not think -it desirable or necessary, I shall refrain from doing so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t see any relevance in what you have -been reading to us now, either to the question of whether there -should be a separate trial or to any other questions with reference -to the criminal organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, under these circumstances I shall -not read those further arguments, which may be known to the Court -from my written motion, and I shall come to the conclusion of what -I still wish to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, the Court will, of course, consider -the suggestion which has been made, I think, by other counsel for -the organizations as well as the suggestion which I understand you -are now making, that it is necessary to have a separate trial. The -Court will consider that. But what you have been saying to us does -not appear to me to have any relevance to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>HERR BABEL: Mr. President, in my former motion I merely -wanted to point out the difficulties I had—since I was still alone and -had no assistance—before I was in a position to devote myself to -my real assignment; for that reason also, in my opinion, my motion -for separating the trial was well founded at that time. Part, or the -greater part, of what I said then has been repeated now. What I -have read just now, and the remainder of my motion, might have -<span class='pageno' title='430' id='Page_430'></span> -more significance today, but I shall refrain from reading it, since the -question of the separation of the trial has already been brought up -and argued by others. Therefore, for the rest, I can also join in the -arguments brought forward by my colleagues in this regard. In this -connection I should like to point out that on 19 January 1946 I made -a motion to be relieved of the defense of the SD because of conflicting -interests.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe I ought to call this to your attention as I do not plead -today for the SD, because I have been waiting for a ruling on my -motion. I reserve for myself the right to make further statements -after I receive a copy of the record of 28 February, in particular on -the question of the membership of individuals and groups of persons -in the SS, on the definition of the lines of demarcation between the -SS and the governmental sector, on limitations as to periods and -organizations, on the question of voluntary membership, on limitation -of responsibility for other reasons according to criminal law, and -on the jurisdiction of the SS courts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In view of the tremendous amount of work which I had to do so -far, I have to this date not yet been able to take a stand on all these -points. I wish to make the remark that the suggestions made by the -Prosecution and several of the Defense Counsel as to the presentation -of evidence seem untenable to me. They would entail a -considerable restricting of the Defense. To carry them out seems to -be impossible also for reasons of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This concludes my argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='431' id='Page_431'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided to alter the order -of procedure, and they will therefore not sit in open session tomorrow -but sit in closed session tomorrow, Saturday; and sit on Monday -in order to hear the applications for witnesses and documents by -the next four defendants in order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, there is another counsel for the organizations to be heard, -is there not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: The main subject of the discussion which, by -request of the Tribunal, has taken place today and yesterday is the -question as to what is relevant evidence in the case against the -indicted organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As a preliminary question the concept of the criminal organization -in particular must be clarified. Consequently it is not the -task of counsel for the organizations to plead in detail; that should -be reserved for the later final address by Defense Counsel, but rather -the subject of discussion is definitely limited, as far as the Defense -is concerned, to the above-mentioned question of the relevancy of -evidence and also to certain fundamental issues which must be -touched upon in order to judge the relevancy of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>According to the sequence provided by the Indictment, our colleague -Dr. Kubuschok spoke first as defense counsel for the Reich -Government. In his address he dealt with the general issues in compliance -with Point Number 1 of the decision of the Tribunal of -14 January 1946. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, I should -like to make the legal arguments of my colleague Kubuschok, to -their full extent, part of my own argument. At the same time I -submit the request that the Tribunal pay particular attention to the -contents of these arguments presented yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the definition of the concept “criminal organization,” -I should like to make a few short remarks and additional -statements. It is obviously a well-considered provision of the Charter -that the Tribunal can declare the indicted organizations criminal; it -is thus not obliged to do so but can exercise its free and conscientious -judgment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the declaration of -the group as criminal can or has to lead to impossible, untenable, -and unjust consequences, then the rejection of the Prosecution’s -demand would as a matter of course be mandatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It has already been stated by those who have just spoken what -grave legal consequences would result, as far as the members are -concerned, from a declaration of the criminality of the groups and -how the undoubtedly vast number of innocent members would also -<span class='pageno' title='432' id='Page_432'></span> -be affected by that declaration. As far as these consequences for -the members are concerned, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough -that all the members of the groups and organizations will be affected -directly by a declaration of criminality, insofar as by the verdict of -the Tribunal it would irrefutably be established that they are accused -of a crime, namely, the crime of having belonged to a group or -organization which has been declared criminal. That this membership -is a crime already follows clearly from Articles 10 and 11 of -the Charter. In Article 10 it is stated that the competent courts of -the individual occupation zones have the right to put all members -on trial because of their membership in groups or organizations -which have been declared criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is further enacted that in those trials the criminal nature of -the group or organization shall not be questioned. Thus, the members -can be indicted because of membership in the group or organization; -and, if every indictment before a court can, of course, deal -only with a crime, then it is already established that membership -in the group or organization is a crime. Furthermore, in Article 11 -of the Charter membership in a group or organization declared -criminal is specifically designated a crime. That follows from the -very words of the article, which reads: “. . . with a crime other than -of membership in a criminal group or organization. . . .”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the same way in the law of 20 December 1945, issued to -implement the Charter, membership in a group or organization -declared criminal is specifically declared a crime. Consequently the -finding of the criminal character of the group or organization by -the Tribunal will state with immediate effect that all members, -because of their membership in the group or organization, have -committed a crime, and this must necessarily lead to untenable -consequences.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is not correct to say that these members can exculpate themselves -in the subsequent trials before the individual military courts. -If mere membership in the organization is defined as a crime, they -can take exception to the charged guilt only by declaring that they -were not members of the group or organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Justice Jackson is of the opinion that in the subsequent trials -they could plead that they had become members under duress or -by fraud, the admissibility of this plea nevertheless seems to be -highly questionable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson himself pointed out that a plea of personal or -economic disadvantages cannot serve as grounds for duress. What -other kind of duress could be considered relevant? According to -German criminal law only physical coercion would be left for consideration, -and that only for the period of its duration. In this case -also fear of personal or economic disadvantage is no ground for -<span class='pageno' title='433' id='Page_433'></span> -exculpation as far as remaining in the group or organization later -on is concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus a member of a group or organization declared criminal has -in the subsequent trial only the possibility of pleading certain -extenuating circumstances which might influence the degree of -penalty. The question is now whether, according to the principles -of justice, these inevitable consequences are tolerable; so far as -innocent members are concerned, this question can be definitely -answered only in the negative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson is further of the opinion that there probably are -no innocent members of the organizations concerned, because it is -simply incomprehensible to sound common sense that anyone joined -the indicted groups or organizations without having known from the -very beginning, or at least very soon after, what aims and methods -these groups and organizations were pursuing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This point of view may appear comprehensible to the retrospective -observer, after the crimes charged to the groups and organizations -have collectively been brought to light. That the mental attitude -of the members to the aims and tasks was or could have been -entirely different at that time cannot be doubted by anyone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If one were to subscribe to Justice Jackson’s interpretation, then -the provision of Article 9 of the Charter providing for a hearing of -members on the question of the criminal character of the organizations -would make no sense at all. It would then be entirely superfluous -to admit any sort of evidence in respect to this, and it would -furthermore be unnecessary to discuss the criminal character, as -the Tribunal itself has suggested.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we follow the Prosecutor’s line of thought that, according to -sound common sense, it is obvious that all the members took part -in the crimes mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter, then the provisions -regarding the Common Plan or Conspiracy would suffice -altogether as grounds for prosecuting and punishing these members -who, without exception, are to be considered guilty. In this case -the structure of the declaration of criminality and the stipulation -of its consequences would in no way have been necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From the following deliberation it is to be inferred that the -declaration of the criminality of the organizations is not necessary -and can be dispensed with altogether.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Justice Jackson declared that, of course, no one intended an -indictment of the innumerable members of the groups and organizations, -which would result in a flood of trials which could not -possibly be dealt with in one generation. What will be done is to -seek out and find only those who are actually guilty and have them -brought to trial. -<span class='pageno' title='434' id='Page_434'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus it is not in any way necessary to create such a large circle -of members through the declaration of criminality and to select -the guilty from this circle. This selection can take place without -creating this circle. That in a group or organization of many members -there were obviously a number of innocent members is a fact -of common experience which cannot be disputed, and this thought -is taken into consideration not only by the Charter, but also by the -Prosecution in that they want to exempt from one of the organizations -the category of those with low-grade routine tasks, obviously -because of the conviction that these had nothing to do with crimes, -for otherwise they would have been members of or participants in -the criminal conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Besides this category, however, a number of other members -come into consideration whom one cannot speak of as guilty in the -legal sense of the term; for instance, those people who did not give -any thought at all to the aims of the group. All these people would -of necessity not only be dishonored by a declaration of the criminality -of the group or organization but, if indicted, would also be -punishable because of mere membership. Incidentally it might -be mentioned that eventually their economic existence would be -menaced or destroyed because of their membership in the group -or organization and the defamation brought about by the declaration -of criminality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But again it must be asked whether all these consequences have -been weighed and can be justified in view of the basic principle of -all criminal law systems, according to which only the guilty are to -be punished, and in view of the principle of substantive justice. That -ought to be answered in the negative all the more if these members -who would necessarily be affected by the verdict of the Tribunal -were not granted any legal hearing in this Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It has already been pointed out that granting a legal hearing to -the vast majority of the members is unfeasible for technical reasons. -Thus the unique situation arises that the Tribunal would pass verdict -on all those members without knowing whether or not numerous -innocent members would be affected thereby.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Justice Jackson further pointed out that the issue under dispute -is nothing new, but can be found in the penal codes of all other -states and in particular also in Germany, this view likewise can in -no wise be supported. The German laws and precedents quoted are -of a character entirely different from the structure of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Germany, as in almost all other states, the punishment of -groups and organizations is not known at all, only the punishment -of individuals is known. No German judgment has yet been passed -by which a group or organization as such was subjected to penalty -or was declared criminal. It is very well possible, though, that in -<span class='pageno' title='435' id='Page_435'></span> -the trials against members of criminal organizations the criminal -character of the organization was stated in the opinion. This statement, -however, had effect only on the convicted members and not -on other members who were neither indicted nor convicted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The provisions quoted of Articles 128 and 129 of the German -Penal Code are provisions which corroborate exactly the view of the -Defense, because they threaten only the participants in an illegal -association with penalties and not the association itself. Also, the -French laws quoted deal merely with the threat of punishment for -participation and membership in certain associations with punishable -pursuits. A possibility for declaring the association itself criminal -is not to be found in these legal sources either.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The French Prosecutor quoted, first of all, Articles 265 and 266 -of the Penal Code. The first provision forbids the forming of associations -with a punishable pursuit; the second subjects only the participants -to penalty. Likewise, the French law concerning armed -groups and private militia, of 10 January 1936, provides only for -the punishment of the participants. The same is true of the other -law quoted, that of 26 August 1944, which provides only for individual -responsibility. None of the above-mentioned laws allows the -punishment of organizations. Consequently, they can support only -the legal view of the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If in England and America—as exceptions—associations as such -can be punished, that can be done only on account of certain groups -of offenses and only to the effect that either the dissolution of the -corporation may be pronounced or fines imposed. Naturally in such -proceedings it is a necessary condition for the Prosecution and the -Defense that the corporation as such be represented during the -proceedings by its functionaries and representatives and be able to -defend itself; whereas in this Trial the groups and organizations as -such are summoned before the Court, although they do not exist -any longer and although their functionaries are absent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It has never been the case in any country that groups and organizations -are declared guilty or criminal and that on the basis of this -declaration of the Court all members of the groups or organizations -can be or must be indicted and punished because of their mere -membership. This is the completely novel and odd feature which -stands in contrast to the existing law of any country.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe it is permissible to say that neither England nor -America would ever be willing to pass such a law for their own -population. If all this proves that the declaration of criminality -demanded must automatically result in grave and completely -untenable consequences as demonstrated, then the demand of the -Prosecution should be denied in the name of justice. The Charter, -which in no way obliges the Tribunal to make such a declaration, -<span class='pageno' title='436' id='Page_436'></span> -would also not be violated thereby. In this way an injustice which -could only injure the integrity of the judgment of the Tribunal -in the eyes of our contemporaries and of posterity would be avoided.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My arguments lead to the following conclusion:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>1. The Tribunal should, because of the legal arguments presented, -as a matter of principle, refuse to declare any group or -organization criminal; it is within the Tribunal’s power to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>2. If this is not done, the concept of the criminal organization -must be so defined that the innocent members are protected from -serious consequences. This can be done only by means of a definition, -as suggested yesterday by my colleague, Kubuschok. Accordingly, -those subjects of evidence proposed by him should also be -admitted if they are not <span class='it'>a priori</span> irrelevant because of the fact that, -for legal reasons, the Prosecution’s demand of a verdict against the -groups and organizations cannot be granted. It is necessary that -the following additional evidence be admitted for the group of the -General Staff and the OKW, which I represent:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(1) The group included under the designation “General Staff and -OKW” is not such a group and is not an organization. My explanation -of this subject of proof is as follows:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(a) Justice Jackson is of the opinion that the concept of “group” -is more comprehensive than that of “organization,” that it does not -have to be defined but can be understood by common sense. To this -I must object that those who occupied the highest and the higher -command posts represent the heads of a military hierarchy as it is -to be found in every army in the world. There was no relationship -whatsoever evident among the members of this group. Nor can such -relations be assumed merely because of the official connections -between the various offices or because of the channels which actually -existed. Moreover, since the circle of people whom the Prosecution -wish to include in this group is admittedly composed in a -completely arbitrary way, simply on the basis of official positions -occupied within a period of 8 years, there is no evident tie which -could justify the assumption of the existence of a group. But to -form a group it is absolutely necessary to have some connecting -element in addition to the purely official contact between offices.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(b) Aside from the Chiefs of the General Staffs of the Army and -the Air Force, none of the individual persons in the group belonged -to the General Staff. The German General Staff of the Army and -the Air Force—the Navy had no admiral staff—was headed by the -Chief of the General Staff and consisted of the General Staff officers -who acted as operational assistants to the higher military leaders. -For these reasons the designation or name given by the Prosecution -to this fictitious group under indictment is false and misleading -as well. -<span class='pageno' title='437' id='Page_437'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>(2) The following subject of evidence, in addition to those -advanced by my colleague, Kubuschok, should be admitted for -the group of the General Staff and OKW: The holders of the offices -forming the group did not join a group voluntarily, nor did they -remain in it voluntarily. The admission of this subject of evidence -is necessary for the following reasons: Justice Jackson stated yesterday -that joining a group, or membership in it, must be voluntary. -This condition is not present in the case of the group which I -represent. The vast majority of the indicted higher military leaders -had come from the Imperial Army and Navy; all of them had -served in the Reichswehr long before 1933. They did not join any -group, but were officers of the Armed Forces and got their positions, -which they were not at liberty to choose, only on the basis of their -military achievements. They also were not at liberty to withdraw -from these positions without violating their duty of military -obedience.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(3) All evidence is to be admitted which refers to the charge -against the group of the General Staff and the OKW as contained -in the summary of arguments. Evidence on these points could be -presented in the following way:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>(1) A number of people concerned should make sworn affidavits -from the contents of which conclusions could be drawn regarding -the typical attitude of a certain number of those involved. (2) Some -typical representatives of the group ought to testify before this -Court about the subjects of evidence submitted. (3) Every other sort -of evidence having some probative value should be admitted to the -extent necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We request that this evidence should be admitted at present to -a full extent for the time being without prejudice to a subsequent -decision on the weight of this evidence, just as Justice Jackson -suggested the same thing on 14 December 1945 with regard to the -evidence offered by the Prosecution, for at present a binding decision -on the relevancy of the evidence offered cannot be reached.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Whether this evidence is necessary at all and whether or -not and to what extent it is relevant depends on the following: -(1) Whether the Tribunal, following the arguments of justice and -fairness as submitted and by authority of the power given it, will -decline to declare these groups and organizations criminal. (2) Or, -if this is not done, in what way it defines the concept of criminal -groups and organizations. These two points cannot be definitely -decided at present, since there is still a great deal to be said about -these thoroughly difficult and significant and completely novel -problems, as well as about the impressive address delivered by -Justice Jackson. One of my colleagues has undertaken to work out -a comprehensive memorandum on all these problems and questions -<span class='pageno' title='438' id='Page_438'></span> -which will be ready in about two or three weeks. I request that -additional arguments pertaining thereto be reserved for me and my -colleagues at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One last point: The Tribunal ought also to reach a ruling as to -what is to be done about the last word for the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would be -glad to hear you in reply.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think there is not much that I care -to say in reply, but there are one or two points which I would like -to cover. It has been suggested that there be a separation of the -trial of the issues as to the organizations from the Trial now -pending. I think that is impossible under the Charter. I think the -Trial must proceed as a unit. Of course, it is possible to take up at -separate times different parts of the Trial, but the jurisdiction conferred -by Article 9 for the trial of organizations is limited.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is at the trial of any individual member, of any group, <span class='it'>et -cetera</span>, that this decision must be reached and it must be in connection -with any act of which the individual may be convicted. So -I think that any separation, in anything more than a mere separation -of days or separation of weeks of our time, is impossible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I find some difficulty in understanding the argument which has -been advanced by several of the representatives of the organizations -that there would be some great injustice in dishonoring the members -of these organizations or branding the members of these organizations -with the declaration of criminality. I should have thought -that if they were not already dishonored by the evidence that has -been produced here, dishonor would be difficult to achieve by mere -words of the declaration. It isn’t we who are dishonoring the members -of those organizations. It is the evidence in this case, originating -largely with these defendants, that may well bring dishonor to the -members of these organizations. But the very purpose of this -organizational investigation is to determine that part of German -society which did actively participate in the promulgation of these -offenses and that those elements may be condemned; and, of course, -if it carries some discredit with it, I think we must say that the -discredit was not originated by any of our countries; the dishonor -originated mainly with those in this dock, together with those whom -the fortunes of war have removed from our reach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There seems to be some misunderstanding as to just what we -mean, or at least we do not agree as to what is to be meant by -treating these organizations as generally voluntary. The test which -has been advanced by the counsel for the organizations would, it -seems to me, completely nullify any practicable procedure.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now let us contrast the Wehrmacht and the SS to get at what -I mean by regarding an organization as generally voluntary. The -<span class='pageno' title='439' id='Page_439'></span> -Wehrmacht was generally a conscript organization, but it may have -had a good many volunteers in it. I do not think we would be -justified, because there were volunteers, in calling the Wehrmacht -a voluntary organization. The SS, on the other hand, was generally -a voluntary organization, but it did have some conscripts, and I do -not think it would be any more just to carry the SS into the class -of conscript organizations because of a few members than it would -to classify the Wehrmacht as <span class='it'>voluntary</span> because of a few members. -In other words, in neither case would we be justified in allowing, -as we might say, the “tail to wag the dog.” It is a question of the -general character of the over-all organization that decides what -these organizations are.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, of course, if the Tribunal saw fit to say that its declaration -was not intended to apply to any groups, sections, or individuals -who were conscripts, that is one thing. I have no quarrel with that. -From the very beginning I have insisted that of course we were not -trying to reach conscripts. But if you sit here week after week -determining who is a conscript and just where that principle leads, -that, I think, would be quite apart from what we ought to do here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A great deal of argument is addressed to the fact that proof is -lacking—or that here should be stronger proof—that these organizations’ -real criminality was known to the members; and the inference -seems to be that we must prove that every member—or, at -least—that we cannot hold members who did not know this criminal -program on the part of these organizations. I think this gets -into a question, perhaps, of the sufficiency of proof rather than one -of principle, but it seems to me again that we have the common -sense division.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If someone organized a literary society for the study of German -literature and accumulated some funds and had a home, a house, -and some of the defendants became its officers and secretly diverted -its funds to a criminal purpose, while all the time to the public it -was presenting only the appearance of being a literary society, it -might very well be that a member should not be held unless we -proved actual knowledge. Or, if a labor union, ostensibly for the -purpose of improving the welfare of its members, has its funds or -properties or the prestige of its name diverted by those who -happened to gain control of it to criminal purposes, then you -have a situation where the members might not be chargeable with -knowledge.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But when I speak of knowledge sufficient to charge members, -as I did, I do not mean the state of mind of each individual member. -That would be an absurd test in any court of law. In the first -place, it is never a satisfactory thing to explore the state of mind -of an individual; and, in the second place, it is impossible to explore -<span class='pageno' title='440' id='Page_440'></span> -the state of mind of a million individuals. So we might as well -drop this from consideration, if that were to be the test.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But let us look at this over-all program. How did these few -men who were the heads of this Nazi regime kill 5 million Jews, -as they boast they did? Now, they didn’t do it with their hands; -and it took disciplined, organized, systematic manpower to do it. -That manpower wasn’t casually assembled. It was organized, -directed, and used. Can the killing of 5 million Jews in Europe -be a secret? Weren’t the concentration camps known in every one -of our countries? Were they not a byword in every land in the -world—the German concentration camps—and yet we have to hear -that the German people themselves had no knowledge about it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Our public officials were protesting against the slaughter of Jews -diplomatically and in every other way, and yet we are told this -was a secret in Germany. The name of the Gestapo was known -throughout the world, and there isn’t a man among counsel who -would not have turned white if, in the night at his door, someone -rapped and said he was representing the Gestapo. The name of that -organization was known—unless we are to assume that it was -singularly secret in Germany, but known to the rest of the world.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That sort of thing bears on this question of what men who joined -these organizations ought to know. There was no declared and -ostensible purpose of the SS, SA, and several of these organizations, -except to carry into effect the Nazi program. They would make -themselves masters of the streets.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The story is all in the evidence, and I won’t go on to repeat it. -The program was an open, notorious program, and these were the -strong-arm organizations. So it seems to me that we get down to -the situation where, as Chief Justice Taft once said to the Supreme -Court of the United States on a somewhat similar question: “We as -judges are not obliged to close our eyes to things that all other men -can see.” And this was notorious and open.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a little hard, if Your Honors please, for an American -patiently to listen to the arguments made here again and again, -that there is some plan here to punish with death penalties or -extremely severe penalties people who innocently got caught in this -web of organizations. If there were the slightest purpose to go -through Germany with death we wouldn’t have bothered to set up -this Tribunal and stand here openly before the world with our -evidence. We were not out of ammunition when the surrender took -place, and the physical power to execute anyone was present.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These powers have voluntarily, in their hour of victory, submitted -to the judgment of this Tribunal the question of the criminality of -these organizations. And it seems to me a little trying on the -patience of representatives of those powers to be told that in back of -<span class='pageno' title='441' id='Page_441'></span> -this is some purpose to wreak vengeance on innocent people. I think -it is difficult for those who have survived this Nazi regime to understand -how reluctant we are to kill any human being. It is a commentary -on the state of mind that survived this Nazi regime, rather -than upon us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Control Council Act Number 10—I don’t know whether Your -Honors have copies of that—Control Council Act Number 10, does -make membership in the categories which may be convicted a -crime, and I think it ought to. It ought to be sufficient to bring -before a Tribunal inquiring into the detail of each individual any -individual as a member, and that is all that we have here in a -declaration, in substance, an indictment which enables you to put -the individual on trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is true that the punishment may include a death penalty, -and so long as the death penalty is imposed by any society for -anything, the penalty of death ought to follow in some of these -cases; the SS men who were responsible for the destruction of the -Warsaw Ghetto, for example, or SS men who are shown to have -been responsible for the top planning, even though they did not -actually participate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I call your attention to the fact that in Provision Number 3 -of Act Number 10 the slightest penalties are also provided. The -restitution of property wrongfully acquired is one of the penalties -that may be imposed. The deprivation of some or all civil rights -is another. And during this period of reconstruction of German -society, those minor penalties may very well be imposed upon -people who entered into these organized plans. If not, you have the -situation that the people who organized themselves to force this -Nazi program, first on the German people and then on the world, -are treated exactly the same as the German who was the victim -of it. Now, isn’t it our duty as occupying powers of a prostrate -country to draw some distinction between those who organized to -bring on this catastrophe and those who were passive and helpless -in the face of overwhelming power?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Counsel for one of the defendants has already shown that, in -administering the affairs, an SA man has been made a councillor -in one of the districts. There is no purpose, because a man happened -to get into the SA, to take his life or to take his property or to -condemn him to hard labor for life. There is a purpose to have -the basis for bringing these people in for what the military people -call a “screening” and find out what kind of people they are and -what they have been up to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This Control Council Act—while I am frank enough to say I -would not have drafted it in the language it is drafted in—this -Control Council Act leaves, in the first place, discretion as to whether -<span class='pageno' title='442' id='Page_442'></span> -prosecutions will take place, in the hands of the occupying powers. -I do not share the fears of counsel that millions—I have forgotten -how many millions it was estimated—would be brought to trial. -I know that the United States has worries enough over manpower -to bring to trial 130,000, so we do not want to bring to trial millions. -And it is for that reason that we have consented to the exclusion -of some of these categories where it seemed we could exclude them -very safely without jeopardizing the over-all program of dealing -with these people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, I want to make clear why it is that we do not want to -go, in this Trial, into this question of each of these many subdivisions -of these Nazi organizations and the functions of each. You -have heard some of them named. They are innumerable. Some of -them existed a short time and then disappeared.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The trial of each of these subdivisions would take—I would not -venture to say how long. We do not want to see this Court trivialized. -This is not a police court. This was not set up to be a police -court; and this is a police court function, after this Court has laid -down the general principles, to take up the case of individuals or -of many individuals and to determine whether they are within or -outside the definition.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know whether a mounted group of SS men are any -less dangerous than an unmounted group. I had always associated -the equestrian art with warfare, but I do know it will take a long -time to determine it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know whether SS motorcycle mounted traffic officers -are less dangerous than those who do not have motorcycles, or were -less criminal, but I should have a suspicion that the greater the -mobility, the more active the group was in carrying out these -widespread offenses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know about the physicians. I do not think it is up -to us to try it in this case, but I suspect that a medical corps meant -there might be some casualties; and this thing isn’t innocent on its -face, as it appears. This will require a great deal of evidence, if -we go into each of these things, and it seems to me that it would -be out of keeping with the character of this Tribunal to go into that -kind of question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is not necessary to go into the group any more than it is the -individual, and if you go into the group I know of no reason why -you should not go into the individual, because if the group is within -the general contour, each one member of that group is entitled to -his hearing before he is condemned. It may very well be that the -occupying authorities will decide that the whole group is not worth -prosecuting. We have no illusions about this thing. We are never -going to catch up with all the people who are guilty, let alone -<span class='pageno' title='443' id='Page_443'></span> -prosecuting the innocent. If they are prosecuted, however, it may -very well be that the group would be treated together in some way, -so that there could be a single determination as to each group.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In any event, since each individual has to have a hearing, there -can be no point in having a hearing for subgroups between the individual -and the principal organization that we ask to have declared -guilty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If there were any point in our fully trying this question and -deciding just who is in and who is out of the circle of guilt, there -would be no reason why the Charter would not have given you -power to sentence. There would be no reason for further trials.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It seems to me that we must look at this matter somewhat in -the light of an indictment. It is true it is an accusation against all -members of the group. It has no effect unless it is followed by a -trial and a conviction, any more than an indictment that is never -followed by a trial would have effect. The effect of the declaration -is that the occupying power may bring these individual members to -trial. Administrative considerations will enter into it—the degree of -connection. It may very well be that it will be decided that those -who were mere members and not of officer rank of any capacity -should not be punished. We cannot say just what will be necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Frankly, I do not know just what manpower is going to be available -for the United States’ part in the follow-up of these trials. -There are difficulties which I do not underestimate, but I do know -that the idea that this means a wholesale slaughter or a wholesale -punishment of people in Germany is a figment of imagination and -is not in accordance with either the spirit of this Trial or the purpose -of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think that is all that I care to say unless the Tribunal has some -question, which I will be glad to answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, there are one or two -questions I should like to put up to you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, in your submission, do the words in Article 11 have -any bearing, the words at the end of Article 11, where it is provided -that “such court”—in the last three lines—“may, after convicting -him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to -the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the -criminal activity of such groups or organizations.” Do the words -“for participation in the criminal activity of such groups or organizations” -add anything to the definition of the word “membership“ -in Article 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think they add anything. -Frankly, the wording of this article has bothered me as to just -what it does mean, since no punishment is imposed by this Tribunal -<span class='pageno' title='444' id='Page_444'></span> -at all for participation in the activities of the group. The purpose -of the language was to make clear that the punishment for an individual -crime, if one committed a murder individually or was guilty -of aggressive warfare planning, is not to interfere with the punishment -for being a member of a criminal organization or <span class='it'>vice versa</span>, -to make clear that they are not mutually exclusive. But the language -I am not proud of.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Secondly, would an individual who was being -tried before a national court be heard on the question whether, in -fact, he knew of the criminal objects of those groups?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think he would be heard on -that subject, but I do not think it would be what we in the United -States would call a complete defense. It would perhaps be a partial -defense or mitigation. I should think that the tribunal might -well—the court trying it—might well have felt that he should have -known under the circumstances what his organization was, despite -his denial that he did not; and that his denial, if believed, will -weigh in mitigation rather than in complete defense. In other words, -I do not believe that you can make as a decisive criterion of guilt -the state of mind of one of these members where you have no power -whatever, no ability whatever, to controvert his statement of that -state of mind. I think you have to have some more objective test -than his mere declaration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then I understood you to say that it was not -for the Tribunal to limit or define the groups which were to be -declared criminal; but, as the Charter does not define them, isn’t it -necessary for the Tribunal to define what the group is?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is necessary for the Tribunal -to identify the groups which it is condemning, sufficiently so that it -would afford a basis for bringing the members to trial for membership. -I do not think it is necessary to define the exact contours of -guilt. It is defined in reference to membership rather than in terms -of guilt or innocence. That is to say, it may be that there is some -little section of the SS that on trial would be said to be not guilty -of participating in the crimes of the organization. I do not think it -is up to this Tribunal to take evidence, because if you take evidence -as to some you must as to all, to separate out those elements. The -SS is a well-known organization. Its contour is easily defined by -membership, and within those contours it does not seem to me -necessary to make exceptions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But if there were to be an essential distinction -on the question of criminality between the main body of the -SS and, for instance, the Waffen-SS, would it not be the duty of the -Tribunal to make that distinction? -<span class='pageno' title='445' id='Page_445'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think that would be necessary. -I think when the member was brought to trial—one may be -a conscript and still have remained in on a voluntary basis, or he -may have gone beyond his duty as a conscript. I do not think it is -necessary at this stage of the proceeding, where the individual is -not here, to eliminate him. I do think that the principle that acts -performed under conscription are not within the condemnation of -the Tribunal is quite a different thing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible for this Tribunal to limit the -powers of the national courts under Article 10 by either defining -the group or giving a definition of the word “membership” in -Article 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, if Your Honor pleases, I think -every tribunal in its judgment has a right to include, in its judgment, -provisions which will prevent its abuse. And I do not think -this Tribunal is lacking in power to protect its decision against -distortion or abuse. I take it that is the question rather than the -question of if the national courts brought these persons to trial and -paid no attention to the declaration—I do not suppose that there -would be any power in this Tribunal to stop them from doing it. -But I assume you mean as a consequence of this declaration, and -I think that the declaration can be circumscribed or limited. I certainly -would insist that the Court had inherent power to protect its -judgment against abuse.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you think this Court could direct the -national court to take any particular defenses into consideration?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know that it could put it in -just that way, but I suppose it could define the categories in a way -that the declaration would not reach any except those included -within it. In other words, I think the declaration that this Tribunal -will make is within this Tribunal’s control. When you get away -from the declaration, I think you would have no control over the -national courts. But insofar as they relied on the declaration, you -would have power to control the effect of the declaration, provided -the effect was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You did, I think, make some suggestions for -obtaining such evidence as you thought was necessary. Do you wish -to add anything to that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have nothing to add to that, Your -Lordship. I realize that the defendants’ counsel have great difficulty -in getting evidence, great difficulty in communication. I have it -myself—great difficulty in getting letters delivered, great difficulty -in all of these things. But I will state to this Tribunal categorically—I -do not know what camp it is that was referred to yesterday as -<span class='pageno' title='446' id='Page_446'></span> -substantially refusing counsels’ application to see their clients—but -so far as the American Zone is concerned, counsel, if they are -properly cleared to go there, will be given every facility to get -every kind of evidence that is available in that camp. If they are -there at mealtimes they will be fed, and if they are there at night -they will be sheltered. We will put everything in their way to help -them that is possible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, there are security problems involved, and counsel -cannot just walk into a camp and make himself at home. He will -have to be cleared in advance so that he meets the security requirements; -but there is no purpose to obstruct, and there is every purpose -to assist.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I should like -to ask you a few questions. Some of them will be somewhat repetitious -of what the President has already said. You will excuse me -if I repeat one or two of those. Most of them are directed for the -purposes of this argument, which, I take it, is to form some kind -of definition of the organizations, which may, of course, not be final -but will at least give us a view of what should be relevant to the -defendants’ making up their cases. So the questions are addressed -to that, rather than any ultimate theory of definition.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You said that you would suggest excluding clerks, stenographers, -and janitors in the Gestapo. Well, now, if we accepted that, would -we not be obliged to exclude such categories from other criminal -organizations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not at all, Your Honor. I think there -is a difference between a concession by the Prosecution and the -necessity for the Tribunal’s making a decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It might appear logical that if we conceded clerks, stenographers, -and janitors of the Gestapo were not to be included, that no clerks, -stenographers, or janitors should be included. It does not follow. -The relationships in different organizations differ.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>From what we know about the Gestapo situation, we are satisfied -that clerks, stenographers, and janitors in that organization -ought not to be included, and we do not want to waste any -time on it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was the reason for that, that -those clerks would not have had knowledge of what was going on -in the Gestapo?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think either that they had -sufficient knowledge, in general, to be held or that they had sufficient -power to do anything about it if they did. -<span class='pageno' title='447' id='Page_447'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, this question of dealing with minor people—and it is one -of the questions that the Court inevitably gets into, if it undertakes -to draw these lines itself rather than letting them be drawn -administratively by what we choose to prosecute—is illustrated by -just this sort of thing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>One of the difficulties with the Court is that it tries to be logical, -and ought to be logical perhaps. I have always thought that was -the great merit of the jury system, that juries do not have to be, -and in prosecuting we do not have to be. It may look illogical to -exempt small people in one organization and not in another, but -there were differences in them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For example—I think it is in evidence; if not, it will be—it was -pointed out at one meeting by the Defendant Göring that chauffeurs -to certain officers had profited to the extent of half a million Reichsmark -from Jewish property that they had gotten their hands on. -Now, I suppose ordinarily you would say that a chauffeur for an -official was not a man who had much discretion and not a man who -was expected to know much about what his employer was doing, -but you have a great deal of difference in their relations to -these men.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>So far as I am concerned, I want to make perfectly clear—and -I think it will be assumed—the United States is not interested in -coming over here 3,500 miles to prosecute clerks and stenographers -and janitors. That is not the class of crime, even if they did have -some knowledge, that we are after, because that is not the class of -offender that affects the peace of the world. I think there is little -reason to fear that that sort of person—unless there is some reason -to feel that some guilty connection exists beyond merely performing -routine tasks—will be prosecuted in as big a problem as we have -on hand here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But in spite of that, you would -include them in the SS, let us say?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not exclude them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it that would include them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If they were members, they would be -included; if they were merely employees, that is something different; -but if they took the oath and became a part of the SS organization, -I think they stand in a different relation to the employed clerks of -a government agency.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, somewhat along those same -lines, you stated, in trying to define what a criminal organization -was, that its membership must have been—I am quoting your words—“generally -voluntary” and its criminal purpose or methods open -<span class='pageno' title='448' id='Page_448'></span> -and notorious and “of such character that its membership in general -may properly be charged with knowledge of them.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I am going to ask you a question which is somewhat repetitious -of what the President asked you, but perhaps you can specify -a little more. Would it not be inconsistent with that test which you -suggest for criminality, if we decline to consider whether any substantial -segment of the organization—I mean a section or segment -might comprise a third of the whole organization or even more, like -the Waffen-SS within the general SS—was either conscripted, which -is one test, or ignorant of the criminal purpose? Because if such a -substantial segment could be shown to be innocent under these tests, -would it not be necessary either to decline a declaration on that -ground—that the criteria were not generally satisfied as to the -accused organization—or else to exclude the innocent segments from -the deposition of the criminal organization?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, that is a rather involved question but it seems to me, if -the test is the knowledge or assumed knowledge, that evidence -that a very large segment did not and probably could not have had -knowledge would be relevant and would be relevant not only for -the purposes of evidence, but for the purposes of definition?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think you have at least two -ideas in the question that must be dealt with separately. The first -is that conscription and knowledge, to my way of thinking, present -a very different problem.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to conscription, as I said before, I think, if the Tribunal saw -fit to condition its judgment not to apply to conscripted members -of any organization, I shall have no quarrel with it. I have always -conceded we did not seek to reach conscripted men. If the overwhelming -power of the state puts them in that position, I do not -think we should pursue them for it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal says that the Waffen-SS must be excluded -because it was conscripted, that raises a question of fact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it raises a question of fact that -we would be 3 weeks trying and that is what I want to avoid, -because there were Waffen-SS and other Waffen-SS and there were -different periods of time and there were different conditions; and -we get into a great deal of difficulty if we undertake to apply the -principle that the conscript is not to be punished; and that, it seems -to me, is what is properly left to the future course, the question as -to whether an individual or a number of individuals comes within -that principle. In other words, I think this Court should lay down -principles and not undertake what I call “police court administration” -of those principles as applied to individuals. -<span class='pageno' title='449' id='Page_449'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I interrupt you for a moment -on the first point? I take it, then, that you would think it appropriate -to express a general limitation with respect to conscription in -the declaration, but not to designate to whom that applies?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would have no objection to such a -designation as far as I am concerned. Now, the other question is -a question of knowledge, which is infinitely more difficult. We do -not want to set up a trap for innocent people. We are not so hard -up for somebody to try that we have to seek and to catch people who -had no criminal purpose in their hearts; but there can be no doubt -that every person affiliated with this movement at any point knew -that it was aimed at war and aggressive war. There can be no -doubt that they knew that these formations under the Nazi Party -were maintaining concentration camps to beat down their political -opposition and to imprison Jews and the terrible things that were -going on in these camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>To ask us to prove individual knowledge or to ask us to accept -the man’s own statement of his state of mind is to say that there -can be no convictions, of course. It seems to me that the scale of -this crime and the universality of it, going on all over Germany, -concentration camps dotting the landscape, and the vast population, -is sufficient to charge with knowledge the principal organizations of -the Nazi Party which were responsible for those things. The test -that I think applies as to knowledge is not what some member now -on the witness stand may say he knew or did not know; but what, -in the light of the conditions of the times, he ought to have known—what -he is chargeable with.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wouldn’t it follow from that that -there was no taking of any evidence on what was generally known?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think the proof of what was -going on establishes the point as to chargeability with knowledge.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the defendants -should not be permitted to give any evidence as to that which was -generally known with respect to what was going on?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: To what was generally known, I do -not think the defendant’s denial that he knew what was going on -has any materiality.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was not my question. My -question was whether a witness could be permitted to testify that -the acts of the particular organizations were not generally known -to its members. Would you exclude that evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly would, and if I heard it I -would not believe it; but perhaps my . . . -<span class='pageno' title='450' id='Page_450'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Excuse me. Although on your -test of knowledge, you wouldn’t permit the defendants to meet -that test?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should say that that is just exactly -the situation, that the Court would take judicial notice, from the -evidence that is in, that this was a thing that must have been known -in Germany; and I would not think that it would be permissible for -a citizen of the United States to testify that he did not know the -United States was at war, a fact of which he is chargeable with -knowledge; and it seems to me that the magnitude of these things -is so equally established and the repeated daily connection between -the organizations and this criminal program is so equally clear.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I only have -two or three more questions. One is directed to the General Staff. -Does the particular date when an individual accused—I beg your -pardon—when an individual assumed one of the commands listed -in Appendix B of the Indictment have any bearing on whether he -is a member of the organization? Now, I am going to bring that -question down to the General Staff.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Perhaps I should warn you of this—that -I am not a military man. I have not specialized on that subject -and I shall want to refer your question to someone whose knowledge -is more reliable than mine.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I shall ask the question directed -to you as a lawyer and not an expert in military matters. Assume -that one of these individuals became an army group commander -after the wars of aggression had been planned, proposed, initiated—roughly, -that would be after 1942; let us say, after Pearl Harbor—and -had reached the stage when Germany was on the defensive; is -his acceptance of a command at that date sufficient to make him -a member of the organization?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should think it would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The reason I asked you that, -Mr. Jackson, is that I thought you had rather indicated in your -opening address that the starting of the war was the essence of the -crime rather than the waging of war, and I was wondering whether -in that case there would be any difference which we should consider?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think when one joins, he ratifies -what has gone before, and it would seem to me that when he -came into the picture at that point, it was a ratification of all that -had gone before on the ordinary principles of conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I think it is a difficult question, whether a man had not -had any prior connection with the Nazi Party—if you take the -<span class='pageno' title='451' id='Page_451'></span> -example of a man who disapproved all that the Nazi Party had -done, who never became a member of it, who stood out against it -and publicly his position was clear, and he took no part in the war -until the day his country was being invaded and he said, “I don’t -care what happened before; my country is being invaded and I shall -now go to its defense,” I would have difficulty convicting that man. -I do not know such a man.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, there is only -one more question I should like to address in connection with Law -Number 10. I am a little puzzled myself on Law Number 10, the -Control Council Law of December 20—I think that was the date. -You spoke of one reason for declaring the organizations criminal -and bringing persons into the Control Council for screening. I take -it they can do that easily without any help on our part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you said something very -interesting. You said the act would not have been so, if you would -have drafted it. How would you have drafted it, if that is not an -improper question?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think I would not have made -these penalties of this act apply to all of the crimes. You have one -lumping of a whole list of crimes which, to my mind, range from -the very serious to the very minor. Then you have applicable to all -of those crimes, penalties from death down to deprivation of the -right to vote in the next election.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): For instance, you would not have -made the death penalty applicable to the members of the SA who -might have resigned in 1922?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not; and I think that in that -way I would have been more explicit with the penalties. Like the -Mikado, I would try to make the punishment fit the crime, rather -than leave it wide open.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, what defenses -do you think are expressly permitted under the Control Council -Law? Don’t we have to assume that the members of the Tribunal -will permit certain defenses or are any defenses expressly permitted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No; no defense is expressly permitted. -I take it that any defense which goes to the genuineness of membership, -as the volition of the individual, duress, fraud—and by duress -I mean legal duress—I do not think that the fact that it is good -business, that the man’s customers may leave him if he does not -join the Party—that is not duress; but anything which goes to the -genuineness of his membership. -<span class='pageno' title='452' id='Page_452'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only one more question. If the -Tribunal were of the view that a declaration of criminality of the -organization is an essentially legislative matter, as suggested by some -of the defense lawyers, rather than a judicial one—if we were of -that view, would it be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the -legislative authority of the Control Council, to make such a declaration, -which undoubtedly we could do in exercising that discretion -which is conferred on us under Article 9 of the Charter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not think so, Your Honor. I -think that this Tribunal was constituted by the powers for the purpose -of determining on the record—after hearing the evidence, after -knowing the facts—determining what organizations were of such a -character that the members ought to be put to trial for membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that some other group which does not have hearing -processes and which is not constituted as this might, either administratively -or some other way, reach that same result, I do not think -is a proper consideration. I should think it was rather a way of -avoiding the duty—there are other ways of doing it, but this is the -way our governments have agreed upon. I should think it would -not be a proper consideration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, you could punish these members without anything. -We have them in our power and in our camps. But our governments -have decided they want this thing done after a full consideration of -the record, and in this matter I think that. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But you have no doubt of the -power of the Control Council to do it, irrespective of what we do, -do you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know of any limitations on -the power of the Control Council. There is no constitution. It is a -case of the victor and the vanquished, and I think that is one of -the reasons why, however, we should be very careful to observe the -request of our governments to proceed in this way. In a position -where there was no restraint on their power except their physical -power, and mighty little of that today, they have voluntarily submitted -to this process of trial and hearing, and it seems to me that -nothing should be done, by us as members of the legal profession -at least, to discredit that process or to avoid it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Those are all the questions I -have to ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Professeur Donnedieu de Vabres, Member for -the French Republic): I would like to ask Mr. Jackson a few details -on the consequences of the declaration of the criminality of an -organization. Suppose an individual belonging to one of the organizations -classified as criminal—for instance, an SS man or a member -<span class='pageno' title='453' id='Page_453'></span> -of the Gestapo—is brought before the military jurisdiction of an -occupying power. According to what has been said so far, he will -be able to justify himself by proving that his membership in the -group was a forced membership. He was not a volunteer and if I -have understood correctly, he will also be able to justify himself by -proving that he never knew of the criminal purpose of the association. -That, at least, is the interpretation which has been adopted -and defended by the Prosecution, and which we consider exact.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I suppose that the tribunal in question has a different conception. -I suppose that it considers the condemnation of the individual -who was a member of the criminal organization, obligatory -and automatic. Strictly speaking, the interpretation which has been -advocated by Mr. Jackson is not written in any text. It does not -appear in the Charter. Consequently, by virtue of what texts would -the tribunal in question be obliged to conform to this interpretation?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The control of the future tribunal is -the control of the effect of the declaration of this Tribunal. This -Tribunal’s effect, when brought before a subsequent tribunal, is -defined by the Charter, and it has only the effect that the issue as -to whether the organization is criminal cannot be retried. There -could be no such thing as automatic condemnations, because the -authority given in the Charter is to bring persons to trial for -membership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would, of course, be incumbent on the prosecutor on ordinary -principles of jurisprudence to prove membership. I think proof -that one had joined would be sufficient to discharge that burden, -but then the question could be raised by the defendant that he -had defenses, such as duress, force against his person, threats of -force, and would have to be tried; but the Charter does not authorize -any use of the declaration of this Tribunal except as a basis for -bringing members to trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): If I am not mistaken, the -authority of the International Military Tribunal will be imposed on -the respective jurisdictions of the states, and will oblige them to -adopt the interpretation in question. But in that case I conclude -that, in the opinion of the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, the judgment -of the International Military Tribunal, the judgment which we -shall pass, will have to contain a precise definition of this subject. -Mr. Jackson said, however, a few moments ago, in agreement I think -with Mr. Biddle, that the statute of the Charter permits us to define -a criminal organization. Our judgment would not only contain a -determination of the groups which we consider criminal, but also -a definition of a criminal organization; and in the same way there -would be precise definitions concerning the cases of irresponsibility, -for example, the case of forced membership. There would be precise -<span class='pageno' title='454' id='Page_454'></span> -definitions which the tribunals of the respective states would be -forced to respect. Do I understand Mr. Jackson’s thought correctly?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But, in that case, the question I ask is the following, and it is -somewhat similar to that of Mr. Biddle: Briefly, would it not mean -conferring on our judgment a certain legislative character? We are -not an ordinary court, since we are adopting provisions, such as the -definition of a criminal organization, which are generally included -in a law, and at the same time our judgment contains provisions -which limit the cases of individual responsibility. That is to say, in -brief, we are to a certain extent legislators, as it was argued -yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is true, that there is in -this something in the nature of legislation or of the nature of an -indictment. You may draw either analogy. But I do not see anything -about that, as I understand it, which complicates the problem. -In the United States we have a strict separation of legislative from -judicial power, but there is nothing in that matter which controls -this Tribunal, and whether you draw the analogy of an indictment -in which you are accusing by your finding, your declaration, or -whether you draw the analogy of legislation, it would be equally -valid as the act of the Four Powers, since they are not required to -withhold any power from the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Yes, yes. The question which -I have just asked seems to be of theoretical interest only. This is, -however, the practical consequence which I should consider, which -I should be tempted to draw, and on which I would like to hear -your opinion:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we have some legislative power, in that we are able to limit -the indicting of persons and admit causes of irresponsibility or -excuses, does this absolutely exclude our limiting at the same time -the punishment?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Earlier, Mr. Biddle and Mr. Jackson were considering Article 10, -and Mr. Jackson expressed some criticism concerning the penalties, -which are not individualized penalties, since they can extend as far -as the death penalty, as far as capital punishment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are, of course, some crimes for which capital punishment -seems justified, such as Crimes against Humanity. But is it not -going too far, to consider imposing the death penalty as the maximum -for a crime which in France would perhaps be considered -purely “material”—the crime of belonging to a criminal organization? -Would it not be too severe for us to impose the death -penalty? And might not the International Military Tribunal be -forced to reduce unduly the notion of a criminal organization, precisely -because we consider the possibility of this penalty being too -<span class='pageno' title='455' id='Page_455'></span> -severe? In other words, does Mr. Jackson absolutely exclude for the -International Military Tribunal the power to fix a penalty, or at -least a maximum penalty, for the crime of belonging to a criminal -organization?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should not think that it was within -the proper sphere of the Tribunal to deal with the question of -penalties, for the reason that no power to sentence anyone other -than the defendants on trial is given to this Tribunal; I mean, no -power to sentence for membership in the organizations. Therefore, -I think no incidental power to control penalties is given, but the -power to declare an organization criminal does, incidentally, confer -power to determine what that organization is, and I have not been -disposed to question the power of the Tribunal to carry that definition -to great detail, although I would question the wisdom of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The power, however, of sentence for membership is not even -remotely conferred upon the Tribunal, and I would think that that -would be a rather drastic expansion of its power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Those were the only questions -I wished to ask.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, did you want to add a reply or did -you come in order that we might ask you some questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: First, if the Tribunal will allow -me, there are three or four points on which I should like to add -a word.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that the procedure -of asking for a declaration against the organizations was objectionable -for two reasons: First, because it was founded on the limited -phenomenon in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, that a corporation may -be convicted in certain limited spheres; and secondly, that the -organizations were in fact dissolved some time ago.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it is important to stress that that is not the legal conception -which underlies this portion of the Charter. It is really -based, in my submission, on a doctrine found in most systems of -law, either <span class='it'>res adjudicata</span> or the conception of the judgment <span class='it'>in rem</span> -as opposed to the judgment <span class='it'>in personam</span>. That is, that it is in the -general and public interest that litigation on a particular point -should not be interminable, and that, if the appropriate tribunal -has come to a decision on a point of general interest and importance, -that point should not thereafter be litigated many times. -<span class='pageno' title='456' id='Page_456'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is the essential view of the Prosecution here that this Tribunal, -having had the advantage of evidence dealing with the whole -period and functioning of the Nazi conspiracy, is the appropriate -and, indeed, the only suitable tribunal for deciding the question of -criminality. It is a prospect which would be quite impracticable -and beggars the imagination as to time to consider that every -military government or military court should decide one after the -other the question of criminality of great organizations like these. -And therefore we have in the Charter adopted the procedure that -that preliminary question will be decided once and for all by this -Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fact that the organizations have been administratively -dissolved is irrelevant. What is important is, what was the nature -of the organizations when they did function? And that is the issue -which the Tribunal has to determine. And we submit and indeed -say that it is a clear implication, if not indeed expressly within -the words of Article 9, that it must be at the trial of the individual -defendants that the question of this criminality should be decided, -and we say that apart from considerations of practicality the -wording of Article 9 is a clear guide against separation of these -issues as suggested by two or three of the Defense Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I only want to add one word about what has been said on the -argument on Law Number 10. Dr. Kubuschok made the point that -this procedure really acted entirely against the individual. There -are at least two answers: The first, which I have endeavored to -give, as to the legal concept behind the idea of a declaration, and -the second, the one which has been canvassed before the Tribunal, -as to the rights of defense. May I say that, in my submission, -membership in an organization is a question of fact and therefore -these defenses of duress, fraud, or mistake—to take three -examples—must clearly be permissible and good defenses on that -question of fact. The third is that every document such as the -Charter—the same would apply to every piece of legislation—always -contemplates intelligent and reasonable administration in -carrying out its requirements, and it would be, in my submission, -idle to take the view that where you have a permissive enactment -like Law Number 10—and it is clearly permissive as to prosecution—intelligent -administration should prosecute every one who could -be prosecuted under the act.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In our candid proverb, hard cases make bad law; and in my -submission, it would be wrong to decide or interpret on an extremely -unlikely hard case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want, if I may, to say just one or two words on the argument -so interestingly put forward by Dr. Servatius and mentioned a few -moments ago by the learned French judge. -<span class='pageno' title='457' id='Page_457'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In my submission there is no legislative function for this -Tribunal whatsoever. There is a clearly judicial function, and I -want to make it quite clear; I do not qualify it by “quasi-judicial” -or any qualification at all. It is a simple judicial duty. The first -portion of that duty is to define what is criminal. In my submission, -as Mr. Justice Jackson argued yesterday, that presents no difficulties. -It occurs in Article 9, three articles after Article 6, and “criminal“ -in that context means an organization whose aims, objects, methods, -or activities involved the committing of the crimes set out in -Article 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When “criminal” has been defined, it is a matter of judicial -weighing of evidence to decide whether there is evidence of these -crimes being committed by the organization or being the aim or -object of the organization, as I have stated. But I respectfully ask -the Tribunal to hesitate long before it accepts the argument of -Dr. Servatius that this Tribunal should decide the interpretation -of “criminal” on its own <span class='it'>a priori</span> basis, to use Dr. Servatius’ own -words, of politics and ethics. That would be introducing a new, -dangerous, and unchartered factor into the Trial. There is, in my -submission, a clear line of guidance for the judicial approach, and -nothing in the Charter to support the <span class='it'>prima facie</span>, unexpected idea -that a body established as a tribunal should delegate to itself -legislative powers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Again, if I may add just one word as to the conclusions which -Dr. Kubuschok drew on the question of criminality as a ground -for deciding the relevancy of evidence, his first conclusion was that -the organization in question, according to its constitution or charter, -did or did not have a criminal aim or purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I accept, of course, the test of aim and purpose, but I do not -accept the limitation as to charter or constitution. The criminal -aim or purpose may be shown by the declarations or publications -of the leaders of the organizations, and also, as I submitted, by its -course of conduct in method and action. I agree with Dr. Kubuschok -that aim or purpose is the first test, but I do not agree with his -limitation as to establishing it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>His second point was that crimes under Article 6 were not -committed within or in connection with the organization or were -not committed continuously over a period. The first part of that -would seem fairly clear, that, if the crimes were not committed -within or in connection with the organization, the organization is -obviously in a very favorable position. But I first answer the second -part by saying that it does not come into the picture of this case -that there is any instance of isolated crimes with regard to every -organization. The crimes alleged are, in fact, spread over the period -alleged in the Indictment, but I suggest that the adoption of such -<span class='pageno' title='458' id='Page_458'></span> -a criterion does not really help. One comes back to the first point -of Dr. Kubuschok, that aims or purposes, as disclosed by declarations, -methods, or activities, are the primary and most important tests.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the third point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that an -appreciable number of members had no knowledge of the criminal -aims or of the continuous commission of crimes. I endeavored to -stress, as did Mr. Justice Jackson, that the Prosecution’s test is -constructive knowledge. That is, ought a reasonable person in the -position of a member to have known of these crimes? And that -really is the answer, in my respectful submission, to the relevancy -of individual knowledge of one particular member.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is only too true that during the period under discussion a very -large number of people made a habit of sticking their heads in the -sand and endeavoring to abstain from acquiring knowledge of things -that were unpleasant. In my respectful submission, that sort of -conduct on the part of a member would not help him at all, and -the only answer to that is to adopt the test which we have -suggested: Ought a person in that position reasonably to have -known of the commission of the crimes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Kubuschok’s fourth point is that an appreciable number of -members or certain independent groups joined the organization -under compulsion or illusion or superior orders. Shortly we answer -that by saying that that is only relevant to the defense of an -individual member in the subsequent proceedings, and, of course, it -is only a defense where he can show that he has taken no personal -part in the criminal acts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the last point which Dr. Kubuschok made was that an -appreciable number of members were honorary members. Again we -say that that is only relevant to the defense of the individual -member, and it does not really alter or increase the defenses open -to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The only other point of Dr. Kubuschok’s which I do think -requires mention is that in considering how evidence could be -presented, he said that certain rights of defense are universal. The -first of these which he claimed was direct oral testimony, and he -said that each individual defendant should have this right. He then -admitted that that was practically impossible and suggested as a -solution that we must typify, that is, that representatives of groups -in the various camps should make affidavits showing what -percentage took part in criminal actions or knew about them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want to point out to the Tribunal that it is expressly laid down -in the Charter that members of the organization are entitled to -apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard, but the Tribunal shall -have power to allow or reject the application. As a point of -construction no less than of sense, there would have been no point -<span class='pageno' title='459' id='Page_459'></span> -in giving the Tribunal the power to reject the application, if it were -implicit that everyone should have the right to be heard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The answer is that the Tribunal has complete discretion to decide -what line and what course shall be taken to procure the evidence. -The Prosecution, through Mr. Justice Jackson, has indicated that it -makes no objection to any reasonable form of collecting relevant -evidence. What the Prosecution objects to is evidence being -tendered on the issue before the Tribunal which is only relevant -to the question of individual innocence or guilt of the member.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I could have dealt, and indeed was prepared to deal, -with a number of points raised by the other Counsel for the Defense. -I hope they would not think that it is any disrespect to their -arguments that I have not dealt with them, but I know that the -Tribunal wishes to ask certain questions, and I do not want to -trespass on that time. I only want to deal with one point, because -it kills with one stone two birds that have flown against our -argument in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It will be remembered that when I dealt with the SA yesterday, -Dr. Seidl—and I am sorry he is not here—raised the question that -the Defendant Frank was not a member of the SA; and Dr. Löffler, -in dealing with the SA today, raised the question that its activities -no doubt did not really extend after 1939, and not importantly after -the purge in 1934.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I find an interesting quotation from the semi-official publication, -<span class='it'>Das Archiv</span>, for April 1942, and as it is very short and deals with -these points I venture to read it to the Tribunal, so that it may -appear on the record. At Page 54 it says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“SA Unit, Government General. At the order of the Chief of -Staff of the SA, there took place the foundation of the SA -unit, Government General, whose command Governor General -SA Obergruppenführer Dr. Frank took over.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I only quote that to finish my argument to show, as indeed all -the evidence shows, that with regard to the SA, no less than any -other of the organizations, the Prosecution have provided evidence -of crimes reaching over the period which they have stated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I deliberately have cut out anything further that I might say, -My Lord, because I do not want to shorten unduly the time, if the -Tribunal wishes to ask me any questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think there is only one question that I -should like to ask you. As I understand it, you say that the -Prosecution have proved facts from which one must conclude that -every reasonable person who joined any of these organizations -would know that they were criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='460' id='Page_460'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You would agree, would you not, that proof -of any fact which went to contradict the facts from which you have -presumed knowledge of criminality could be proved by the Defense?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. If the Defense sought -to prove, to take an extreme example, that the conduct of the SS -with regard to, first of all, concentration camps and, secondly, -killing Jews and political commissars on the Russian front, was -done in such a way, despite the vast territory over which these -crimes have been proved to have been carried on, was done in such -a way that nobody knew about it—if there was relevant evidence -on that point, then they could call it, on the general point that it -was not a matter of imparted constructive knowledge, but of -memory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I only asked you that question because there -were certain observations by Mr. Justice Jackson, which did not -seem altogether to accord with the answer which you have just -given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that, as I understood -Mr. Justice Jackson, he was saying that it might not be relevant to -prove that one member did not know of the crimes, and I thought -that our two approaches really did fit in with each other.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it then, Sir David, that -you would say that evidence with respect to general knowledge by -any very substantial segment of an organization would be relevant, -would it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think it would be -relevant if it were not absurd. I mean, a disclaimer of knowledge -of certain acts may be so absurd that the Tribunal should not take -the time of inquiring into it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That would apply to any evidence, -of course. But my point was: You have said that evidence -with respect to general knowledge over a whole organization would -clearly be relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And now I ask you whether -that would be true with respect to any substantial segment of an -organization such as the Waffen-SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am trying to relate it to the -practical position. That is where I find it very difficult.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, to take your example, it is difficult to imagine. Let us -take four divisions that were very well known: the Totenkopf, the -<span class='pageno' title='461' id='Page_461'></span> -Polizei, Das Reich, or the 12th Panzer Division. I should have -thought that, as a matter of discretion, if it were sought to show -that these divisions, about which there is so much evidence as to -their participation in crime, did not know of the crimes, the -Tribunal would be right in rejecting that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, the question would come -up more whether the acts of the members of certain divisions were -known generally throughout the whole Waffen-SS, would it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, I -find it very difficult to see how the knowledge or absence of -knowledge of a particular division in the Waffen-SS could affect -the question of criminality of the SS as a whole.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, again, I am not asking you -as to knowledge in a particular division; I am asking you as to -general knowledge, throughout the entire Waffen-SS, of the acts of -a particular unit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if someone is prepared to -say, “I knew every division of the Waffen-SS, and in my opinion -no one in the Waffen-SS had any knowledge or had any opportunity -of knowing of the crimes,” then the evidence would be admissible. -Its weight would be so negligible that, I should submit, -it would not detain the Tribunal long.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But I concede that if someone is prepared, laying the proper -ground for his evidence, to say, “I can speak; I have the grounds -for and the opportunity of speaking on the general position,” then -I do not see how the Tribunal could exclude it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The matter is very practical -because we have to advise Counsel for the Defendants what -material they can introduce, and do that very soon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now let me ask you a few other -questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>On what basis, Sir David, do you contend that the Reich Cabinet -was a criminal organization as of January 30, 1933, when, if I -remember correctly; there were only three members of the Nazi -Party who were in the Cabinet: Göring, Hitler, and Frick? Do you -think that if three out of a very much larger number, some twenty -odd, could be said to be part of a criminal organization, that makes -the entire Cabinet criminal?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, on the facts. It must -be remembered that Hitler had refused to take office as vice -chancellor during the months before that, before the date that you -put to me. He had refused on the ground that, as vice chancellor, -<span class='pageno' title='462' id='Page_462'></span> -he would not be in a position to carry out his Party program. On -that basis the Defendant Von Papen and Hitler negotiated, and -Hitler came into power on the 30th of January. It is the case for -the Prosecution that those who formed part of that Cabinet knew -that they were forming part of a cabinet in which Hitler was going -to work out his program, as has been declared on so many occasions. -That is the first point. Secondly, it is the case for the Prosecution -that the Defendant Von Papen did join in introducing the Nazi -conspirators into the Government with that knowledge and with -the purpose of letting them have their way in Germany. And the -same must apply—it has not been investigated to the same extent, -because they are not defendants—to the industrialists and the Party, -who were acting with them in the Cabinet. They must be taken to -have known, just as Gustav Krupp knew and supported, just as -Kurt von Schröder knew and supported, the aims of the Nazis whom -they introduced and co-operated with in the Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, the personalities of the Nazis in the Government—Hitler -himself, and the Defendants Göring, Frick, and Dr. Goebbels, who -I think became Propaganda Minister either at the same time or -very shortly afterwards—show that these people, they have shown -it by their acts, were not persons to take second place. They -introduced at once the Führerprinzip into operation in the states, -and these other people in the Cabinet at that time accepted the -Führerprinzip and united in placing Hitler and the Defendant -Göring and the other conspirators in the position of power and -authority which enabled them to carry out their monstrous crimes -that are charged against them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I will give you one other reference. It was within a few months -of that period that the Defendant Schacht became Plenipotentiary -for War Economy and began the preparations for the economic side -of the creation of Germany’s war potential.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For all these reasons I submit that the actions of the Reich -Cabinet at that date were deliberate. The same applies to the -Defendant Von Neurath; it is the whole case of the Prosecution, as -to the case against Von Neurath, that he sold his respectability and -reputation to the Nazis in order to help them buy with that -reputation and respectability a position of power in Germany, with -the conservative circles in Germany, and with the diplomatic -circles in Europe with whom he came in touch. For all these reasons, -Your Honor, I submit that the Reichsregierung at that time was -thoroughly infected with the criminality which we suggest in this -case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In relation to the political leaders, -let me ask you this, Sir David: -<span class='pageno' title='463' id='Page_463'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>In your opinion, would it be necessary to establish the -responsibility of political leaders of lower grades to show that, as -a group, they were informed of plans to wage aggressive war or to -commit War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity? In other words, -I take it there is some obligation to show that information. Does -that rest simply on the fact that these crimes were being perpetrated, -or is there any evidence of that information?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is evidence—and if I -might just indicate the kind of evidence there is—on the first stage -of the acquisition of totalitarian control in Germany, which is the -first stage in the conspiracy, that is, apart from the Party program, -there are the extracts from the Hoheitsträger magazine. You remember, -Hoheitsträger are all the political leaders. On the anti-Semitic -part of that there are documents, which are Exhibit USA-240 (Document -Number 3051-PS) and Exhibit USA-332 (Document Number -3063-PS), which are shown in the transcript at Pages 1621 and 1649 -(Volume IV, Pages 47 and 66). On the question of war crimes against -Allied airmen you will remember that a document was circulated -to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, with instructions that Ortsgruppenleiter -were to be informed verbally with regard to the -lynching of Allied airmen. That document is Document Number -057-PS, shown in the transcript at Page 1627 (Volume IV, Page 50). -And that the hint was taken by at least one Gauleiter is shown by -Document L-154, Exhibit USA-325, at Page 1628 (Volume IV, Page 51).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, there is a Himmler order to senior SS officers, to be -passed orally to the Gauleiter, that the police are not to interfere -in the clashes between Germans and aviators. That is Document -Number R-110, Exhibit USA-333, shown at Page 1624 (Volume IV, -Page 49). Then there is a declaration by Goebbels inciting the -people to murder Allied airmen, which is shown at Page 1625 -(Volume IV, Page 50). Similarly, with regard to foreign labor, there -is a telegram from Rosenberg to the Gauleiter asking them not to -interfere with the confiscation of certain companies and banks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is Jodl’s lecture to Reichsleiter and Gauleiter at a later -stage. There is an undated letter from Bormann to all Reichsleiter -and Gauleiter, informing them that the OKW had instructed guards -to enforce obedience of prisoners of war refusing to obey orders, -if necessary, with weapons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Sir David, if I may interrupt -you for a moment. I was familiar with the evidence with respect -to the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. My question, you will remember, -was addressed to the lower levels, the Blockleiter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think one can summarize -it that even as far as lower levels are concerned you have -<span class='pageno' title='464' id='Page_464'></span> -the four points: You have <span class='it'>Mein Kampf</span>, the <span class='it'>Party Program</span>, <span class='it'>Der -Hoheitsträger</span>, and the fact that conferences were constantly held -throughout the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I say, I have dealt with the evidence on the Jews, the -lynching of Allied airmen, and I think I mentioned the letter from -Bormann to the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter about -assisting in increasing the output of prisoners of war. And there -is an instruction from Bormann down to the Kreisleiter about the -burial of Russian prisoners of war. There is a decree for insuring -the output of foreign workers that goes down towards the Gruppenleiter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All these matters are in evidence, and we submit that there is -particular evidence on practically every point. And on the general -point, as I said, you have these publications, coupled with the -evidence that conferences were held, apart from the general Führerprinzip -which would, and did, make the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter -the final weapon in order to ensure that the people acted in -accordance with the leader’s wishes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you just two questions, -and then I will finish with regard to the SA. Would you say that -a member of the SA who had joined, let us say, in 1921, and -resigned the next year, was guilty of conspiring to wage aggressive -war and guilty of War Crimes?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may -recall, I answered a question that you were good enough to put to -me a day or two ago as to when the conspiracy started. A man who -took an active and voluntary part as a member of the SA in 1921 -certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party, was supporting the -published program of the Party which had the aims which you -have just put to me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is certainly put clearly in Article 2 of the Party Program -as the getting rid of the dictate of Versailles and the Anschluss, -getting the Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a -polite way of saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, that man had these aims in view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to War Crimes, I respectfully repeat the answer -that I put to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the -Nazi Party that they should disregard the life and safety of any -other people who stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. -A person who deliberately joins an organization with that aim, -and with that aim getting more and more clearly related to -practical problems as week succeeded week, was taking part in a -first essential step of involving mankind in the miseries that we -have seen; because it is that tenet, applied to every facet of human -<span class='pageno' title='465' id='Page_465'></span> -life and human suffering, which has caused the crimes which this -Tribunal is investigating.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I can see how you might -say that with respect to conspiracy in War Crimes, but I want to -be perfectly clear also that you say, on the substantive crime of -committing War Crimes, that a man joining the SA in 1921 and -leaving in 1922 would have committed those War Crimes in the -beginning of 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive -War Crimes, I respectfully remind you that under Article 6 -the last words are:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating -in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan -or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are -responsible for all acts performed by any person in the -execution of such a plan.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>Under the Charter, in my respectful submission, that is enough to -make them responsible for the crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now only one other question. -What do you contend was the function of the SA after the Röhm -purge?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The function was still to support -all Nazi manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember -that Dr. Löffler was careful to except—very frankly and fairly he -excepted the 10th of November 1938. The SA—and I gave another -example how they were formed in the Government General—we -have also given examples, which I think you will find in my -appendix, of the participation—limited participation, but still a -participation—in the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the main point of the SA after that time was to show that -here were 3 million people who had come into the organization -which had provided the force to bring the Nazis into power, and -it had the forceful size needed to bring the Nazis into power in -those days. They were then joined by 2½ million people, which -brought their numbers up at that time very high. They went down -again later on, but they were high in 1939, and they provided a -great immoral force behind the Nazi Party. They provided strong -support and were ready on all occasions; whenever a demonstration -had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support. They -were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over -the German Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, -in your opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? -Would you say that? -<span class='pageno' title='466' id='Page_466'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim did not change. It did -not need to do half as much, because, of course, by the end of -1933 all the other political parties were broken. Part of the SA’s -original task, as I think Dr. Löffler put it, had been to safeguard -the Defendant Göring when he was making a speech—I should -have put it that it was to prevent the other people from having a -free run when they made speeches—and to deal with the clashes -between the various groups. That was unnecessary, because all -political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they became -rather—I forget the exact term—a sort of cheer leader or a collection -of people who would always be ready to give vociferous support.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You must have heard, Your Honor, of the meetings coming -over the wireless with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, -rather than dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was -the same, to keep the grip.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, it is now nearly quarter past 5. Do -you think that this discussion can be closed this evening before -6 o’clock?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, -I believe I can finish in 5 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do the other prosecutors wish to -add anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, -Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General -Rudenko?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I think about 10 minutes; no more.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add -anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Ribes): I have nothing to add.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what I really want to know is -whether there is any prospect of our finishing this discussion -tonight. General Rudenko wishes to speak for about 10 minutes, -and if the defendant’s counsel—of course, you will understand -that a discussion of this sort, an argument of this sort, cannot go -on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears counsel on one -side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one does not -go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants’ counsel -want to speak?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think probably the best thing would be -if we were to adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, -<span class='pageno' title='467' id='Page_467'></span> -and then we shall probably be able to conclude this argument in -about an hour tomorrow. Do you agree with that, General Rudenko?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I agree.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants’ counsel think we shall be -able to conclude it in about an hour tomorrow morning?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>Several counsel nodded assent.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn now and sit at -10 o’clock tomorrow morning.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='468' id='Page_468'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-SECOND DAY</span><br/> Saturday, 2 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, permit me to make a few supplementary -remarks concerning the criminal organizations, a problem -to which the Tribunal has devoted much attention in the last few -days.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I consider it essential, in the first instance, to clarify completely -the legal aspect of this problem. There is in the Charter of the -Tribunal a marked absence of any statement to the effect that the -recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature would -automatically entail the bringing to trial and, further, the condemning -of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, -the Charter contains a definite indication of an opposite nature. Article -10 of the Charter, repeatedly quoted at this Trial, states that the -national courts have the right, though not the obligation, to bring to -trial members of organizations declared as criminal. Consequently, -the question of the problem of the trial and the punishment of -individual members of criminal organizations lies exclusively within -the scope of the national tribunals.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The legal sovereignty of every country that has adopted the -Charter of the Tribunal is thus limited in one respect only: The -national courts cannot deny the criminal character of an organization, -once it has been declared to be criminal. The Tribunal can impose -no further limitation on the legal sovereignty of the contracting -parties.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, Justice Jackson has stated here—and with reason—that -the recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature -and therefore automatically entailing the mass condemnation of all -its members, is a mere figment of the imagination; I would add, that -has not sprung from legal grounds but from some entirely different -source.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It appears to me that this legal problem is also based on a definite -misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, -was speaking here of the legislative authority of the Tribunal. -The authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by -four states in the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous; -<span class='pageno' title='469' id='Page_469'></span> -but, of course, this Tribunal, as a legal organization, does not and -cannot possess any legislative authority. When solving the problem -of the criminal character of an organization, the Tribunal is only -exercising the right entrusted to it by the Charter, that is, to solve -independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. -Of course, the verdict of this Tribunal, when coming into force, -acquires the value of a law, but that is the value attached to any of -the verdicts of the courts once it has been delivered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Counsel for the Defense Kubuschok has stated here that the -decision of the Charter with regard to the criminal organizations is -a legal innovation. This, to a certain extent, is true. The innovation -consists in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and -all its articles, whose creation, <span class='it'>per se</span>, is an innovation in the first -instance. But should the Defense consider it possible to deplore this -fact, I would consider it opportune to remind them of the causes of -these legal innovations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The very evil deeds committed by the defendants and their -associates, deeds hitherto unknown in the history of mankind, have, -of necessity, imposed new legislative measures for protecting the -peace, the liberty, and the lives of the nations against criminal -attempts. Moreover, the states which created this Tribunal and all -peace-loving people remain invariably faithful to the ideals of law -and to the principles of justice. Therefore, responsibility for participation -in criminal organizations will be established only when -personal guilt has been proved. In reality, the national courts will -decide the problems of individual responsibility.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A few words now on the tactical side of the problem: It has been -stated here that several detachments of the SS did not follow any -criminal objective. It is difficult, Your Honors, to find within the -fascist machinery neutral organizations which did not follow -criminal objectives. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Mr. Babel, -mentioned the existence of a research department for dog breeding -within the SS. It would appear that this was an organization of -general utility. It seems, however, that the learned dog breeders in -this organization were engaged in training hounds to attack human -beings and to tear their appointed victims to pieces. Can we isolate -these dog breeders from the SS?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Danzig another scientific research institute was engaged in -the preparation of soap from human fat. Perhaps we should -exonerate these soap boilers as well from all criminal responsibility?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At this point two practical suggestions have been put forward -by the Defense Counsel: The isolation, as a separate activity, of the -case of the criminal organizations and the establishment in the -various camps of a Defense organization having as its purpose the -collection of information and evidence. In practice, however, both -<span class='pageno' title='470' id='Page_470'></span> -proposals would create insoluble difficulties for the Tribunal in the -execution of the immense task imposed upon it by the nations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This task is precisely formulated in the Charter which instructs -the Tribunal to solve the problem of the investigation of concrete -facts concerning members of these organizations. Therefore an -appeal to the Tribunal to isolate and consider the case of the -criminal organizations as an independent activity is tantamount to -an appeal to the Tribunal to infringe the articles of the Charter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Article 9 of the Charter decides the problem of the criminal -organizations when investigating the case of any one particular -member, but it also has one other meaning for the Trial. It shows, -as I have already mentioned, that the fact on which the statements -and the solution of the question of the criminality of the organization -are based is the presence in the dock of the accused representatives -from the corresponding organizations. As is known, in the present -case all the organizations which the Prosecution suggests should be -considered as criminal are represented in the dock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is evidence in this case which amply suffices to admit the -criminality of these organizations. Therefore the calling of special -witnesses, capable of giving evidence on these organizations, can -appear only as a supplementary source of evidence. I am bringing -these matters to a close, Your Honors, and in closing I cannot omit -one argument of the Defense. It was stated here by the Defense that -as a result of the admission of the criminality of these organizations -millions of Germans, members of these organizations, would be -brought to trial. Together with my colleagues of the Prosecution -I am not of this opinion, but there is something more I would like -to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>By this reference to hypothetical millions the Defense is attempting -to hinder the progress of justice. However, before us, the -representatives of the nations who have borne the burden and the -suffering of the struggle against Hitlerite aggression, before the -conscience and consciousness of all freedom-loving people, appear -other figures, other millions of victims irrevocably lost, tortured to -death in Treblinka, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Maidanek and -Kiev. It is our duty to spare no effort to crush the criminal system -directed by the fascist organizations against humanity. Your Honors, -the extent of the crimes committed by the Hitlerite brigands cannot -be imagined. However, we are not blinded by sentiments of revenge -and have no intention of destroying the entire German people in -retaliation. But justice does not permit us to swerve and thus give -free play to the committing of new crimes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We are deeply convinced that the Tribunal will unswervingly -follow the path towards a just and rapid verdict and that it will, in -full measure, chastise those whose crimes have shattered the earth. -<span class='pageno' title='471' id='Page_471'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): General Rudenko, may I ask you -a few questions?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>General Rudenko, you remember that Mr. Justice Jackson -suggested certain tests that we should use before we found an -organization criminal, whether the tasks and the purpose of the -organization were open and notorious, in order to show that the -members knew what they were doing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, if we find that any organization is criminal we would -necessarily find, I presume, on that test, that its actions were open -and notorious. Now, if a member of that organization found to be -criminal was then tried by one of the national courts, I suppose -under that finding he would not have any right to show that he did -not know about it, because we would have found that the knowledge -was so open and notorious that he must have known, so he could -not raise as a defense that he had no knowledge of the criminal -acts, could he?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: That is quite true. But we are bearing in mind -the fact that the national courts investigating the problem of the -individual responsibility of individual members of the organizations -will, of course, proceed from the principle of individual guilt, since, -naturally, we cannot exclude the possibility that in the organization -of the SA, which fundamentally and in an overwhelming majority -was aware of its criminal purpose, there might yet be individual -members who might have been lured into the organization, either -by deception or by some other reasons, and have been unaware of -its criminal purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be any defense -to him, would it? He could not say he had no knowledge, because -we would have already found that the knowledge was so open and -notorious that he must have known.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: Why? I personally proceed from the standpoint -that if the national court investigates the case of members who -plead ignorance of the criminal purpose of the organization to which -they belonged, the national court must examine these arguments -submitted in their defense and estimate them accordingly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could they consider that, if -we make a rule that the activities of the organization are so notorious -that he must have known? How can he then say he did not know?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I still maintain the point of view, and I still -interpret and understand the Charter to mean that the judgment of -the International Military Tribunal should determine and decide the -question of the criminal character of the organizations, but where -the question of individual responsibility and guilt of every member -<span class='pageno' title='472' id='Page_472'></span> -of this organization is concerned, the decision falls exclusively -within the competence of the national courts. It is therefore extremely -difficult to foresee all the possible individual cases and the -eventualities which might arise when investigating a category of -individual defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You yesterday submitted a question to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe -concerning a member of the SA who had joined the organization in -1921 and left a year later. These, of course, are special cases and I -cannot state how numerous they are; they are unavoidable, and -when we come to the question of the extent of his information, the -reasons for his entering and the reasons for his leaving this -organization, when we come to estimate the value of his actions, it -seems to me that it should be done by a national court which will -examine the findings of the defense and appreciate them accordingly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can you say now what defense -he would have before the national court, except the defense that he -was never a member? Does he have any other defenses so far as -we know? Does the Law Number 10 permit him any other defenses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: It is difficult for me, at the present moment, -to say what arguments the members of these organizations may put -forward, for were I to speak, it would be on assumption. But I, for -instance, consider, that the argument produced—if produced—which -might be considered sufficient to exonerate this member of the -organization would be that he had been coerced into joining.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I ask you two more questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You used the expression that any evidence given by the defendants -would be merely supplementary. That expression is not known to -our law, and I would be very interested in your telling us what you -meant by supplementary evidence. I do not know what the term -means.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I did not put it that way. This is perhaps an -inaccuracy of translation. What I did say, speaking of questions -connected with further investigations of the matter of the criminal -organizations, was that this investigation should be carried out -together with the investigation of the case of any one member of -this organization, inasmuch as representatives of those criminal -institutions are now in the dock. But I do say that this is already -conclusive material for the recognition, or the denial, of the criminal -nature of this organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>But the Tribunal can, of course, consider this evidence as inadequate, -or, shall we say, the Defense may consider that further -supplementary evidence may be needed. In this connection, I consider -that the calling of witnesses capable of submitting special evidence -on the problem of the criminal or non-criminal character of these -<span class='pageno' title='473' id='Page_473'></span> -organizations may be presented to the Tribunal as supplementary -evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One other question on the SA, -which I asked Sir David yesterday.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What do you consider was the function of the SA after the -Röhm Purge, or, to put it a little differently, what criminal act do -you believe the SA was engaged in?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>GEN. RUDENKO: I consider that the SA after the Röhm incident -committed the same criminal acts as the other organizations of -Hitlerite Germany. I wish in confirmation of this evidence to refer -to facts like the seizure of the Sudeten territory. As is well known, -detachments of the SA played an active part in this affair.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>All the subsequent events which occurred in Germany in connection -with the Jews and, later, in the territories seized by Germany—Czechoslovakia -and others—these criminal events took place with -the connivance of this organization—the SA.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic -wish to say anything?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: I have, as counsel for the Defendant Schacht, an indirect -interest in the question of the criminality of the group Reich Cabinet -(Reichsregierung) because Schacht was a member of the Reich -Cabinet. I want to point out, however, at the very beginning that -I do not want to make detailed statements now either of a legal -nature or in regard to the facts of the case. I shall do that rather -at the time of my concluding speech.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>What I want and seek now, and for which I ask the support of -the Tribunal, is a clarification and amplification of those answers -which Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe gave yesterday -to your questions, Mr. Biddle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to point out that it is, of course, clear to me that I -have no right to ask any questions of the members of the Prosecution. -Formally speaking, I could at the most ask the Tribunal to supplement -the questions which were put yesterday by the Tribunal. I -believe, however, that this formal objection has no practical significance, -because I am convinced that Sir David, who will see the -pertinence of my request to have his answer extended, will be -prepared to amplify the answer given to the question by Mr. Biddle -without discussing the theoretical question, whether he is under -any obligation to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was asked yesterday whether he considers -the Reichsregierung, that is to say, the Reich Cabinet, as it -<span class='pageno' title='474' id='Page_474'></span> -was composed on 30 January 1933, in view of the then relatively -small number of National Socialist cabinet members, criminal even -at that time and if so, whether he is of the opinion that this -hypothetic criminal character was at that time discernible to other -people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David answered this question of Mr. Biddle’s in the affirmative -and based this answer (1) on the contents of the Party program -and (2) on the fact that already at that time the Leadership -Principle had been set forth in the program.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to ask if Sir David would supplement his answers -along the following lines: Does Sir David really mean to say that -the Leadership Principle as such, that is to say, purely as an abstract -theory, is not only to be rejected politically or for other reasons -but is also to be considered criminal? I want to make it understood -that I am speaking about the abstract principle, without considering -any factual developments in the ensuing period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Concerning his second answer, that the Party program occasions -him to declare that even at that time the Reich Cabinet is to be -considered criminal and was recognizable as such, this answer—not -directly in response to Mr. Biddle’s first question put in the course -of further questions addressed to him by the Tribunal—he added to -and substantiated by declaring that the aim expressed in the Party -program of eliminating the Treaty of Versailles and the announcement -therein of the desire for the annexation of Austria were the -criminal points in this program.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I ask Sir David to state, first, whether these two points -of the Party program, that is to say, the abrogation of the Treaty -of Versailles and the Anschluss, were with the exception of the -Leadership Principle, the only points of the Party program which -caused him to consider that program criminal, that is, to consider -a government criminal which knew that program? Secondly, I -should like to ask whether he really wants to put forward the -opinion that an attempt to attain a revision or an abrogation in a -peaceful fashion, that is, by way of negotiations, of a treaty found -to be oppressive, very oppressive, by a nation, can be considered -criminal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, I should like to ask him to state whether, considering -the great democratic principle of the right of self-determination -of nations and considering the history of the annexation -movement in Austria itself—and I remind him of the plebiscite -of 1919 when this Anschluss was demanded by, one may safely say, -100 percent of the Austrian population—he as a politician would -consider a political party or a political program criminal which -aimed at reaching this goal in a peaceful fashion. And here I should -like to stress, again in order not to be misunderstood, that the later -<span class='pageno' title='475' id='Page_475'></span> -development and everything which actually happened and anything -which might not have happened in accordance with the Party -program is to be left out of consideration and only the Party -program as such taken into consideration. Upon that, of course, the -sense of his answer depended when he said, “Yes, the Party -program is the basis of the criminal character.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, finally, to come to the end, it would be consistent with -the logical course of my explanations, to wait until Sir David has -decided on this question, an answer to which I should like to -request from Sir David and also from Mr. Justice Jackson, who -is not here today. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: [<span class='it'>Interposing.</span>] Dr. Dix, the Tribunal will, of -course, consider anything that you have said insofar as it refers to -matters of principle, but they do not think that this is the proper -time for Counsel for the Defense to pose questions to counsel for the -Prosecution. The matter has already been fully dealt with, and -the Tribunal do not propose to ask any further questions of the -Prosecution unless the Prosecution wish to say anything in answer -to what you have to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Your Lordship, that was what I took the liberty of -saying at the beginning. I realize that it is Sir David’s free will -and decision as to whether he cares to comply with my request -to add to his answer to the questions posed by Mr. Justice Jackson. -That I have to leave to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have only a short question, which is intended to prevent our -misunderstanding each other. It is always well not to be misunderstood.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I remember—but I may be mistaken, and that is why I wish -to ask Sir David what Mr. Justice Jackson declared as his opinion—that -he did not consider the Party program, as such, criminal. As -I have said, this is what I remember. I did not take any notes on -it, because it did not strike me particularly at that time, since I -considered it self-evident. Therefore I may be mistaken. But if my -memory is correct, I should like to ask Sir David to state whether -there is any uniform attitude on the part of the Prosecution toward -this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal asked the Prosecution -to present their arguments in principle on the question of these -organizations, and they wished also to hear counsel for the organizations -in order that these matters should be cleared up, with a -view to any possible evidence which might have to be given. They -have heard counsel for all four prosecutors. They have asked them -questions which they thought right to ask them in order to clear -up any points. They have heard counsel for all the organizations -<span class='pageno' title='476' id='Page_476'></span> -and they have heard Counsel for the Prosecution in reply. They -do not propose to ask any further questions of the Prosecution at -this stage. Of course Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for -the Defense will be fully heard at a later stage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: I have come to the end of my statement. I leave it to -the Court and Sir David as to whether he wants to answer these -questions now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I should like to give a short explanation -to the question as to which of the indicted organizations, -the Defendant Frank belonged. Is that possible at this moment?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal do not think this -is an appropriate time for any of the counsel for individual defendants -to go into matters connected with the charges against the organizations. -They will, of course, be heard in the course of their own -defense, but this is not the appropriate time. This is only a preliminary -discussion for the purpose of clarifying the issues which relate to -the organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, but I should like to use this opportunity to -clarify a mistake which slipped in the day before yesterday. The -day before yesterday I protested against the statement that the -Defendant Frank was a member of the SS and this seems to have -been translated incorrectly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Seidl, won’t it appear in the shorthand -notes? You have not seen the shorthand notes yet?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: I have not seen the transcript yet, but I believe that -by error “SS” was translated as “SA.” The Defendant Frank has -never denied that he was an SA Obergruppenführer. What I -wanted to point out is only that the statement in the Indictment -that he was an SS general is not correct and also that the statement -in Annex B about the nature of the criminal element is not -pertinent, because it is said there that he was an SS general. But -I attach importance to the fact that the Defendant Frank has never -denied that he was an SA Obergruppenführer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, but you will have an opportunity -to develop the whole case of Frank when your turn comes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, but the question is merely this, as to whether -the Defendant Frank was a member of the SS or not. As long as -the Prosecution do not present any definite proof of the membership -of the Defendant Frank in the SS, I have to contradict this statement. -I do not believe that it is the task of the Defense to prove -that the Defendant Frank was not a member of the SS. I am -convinced that, on the other hand, this is one of the tasks of the -Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='477' id='Page_477'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; I have heard what you said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for the Leadership Corps. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal are prepared to -hear counsel for the organizations very shortly in the rebuttal, but -only very shortly, as otherwise we may go on interminably.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I do not want to make a speech, but merely -to speak for about 5 minutes, in order to define my attitude towards -a few matters of evidence. First, I have two questions to ask concerning -the limitation of the proceedings to certain groups of -members. I should be grateful if the Prosecution could give a -statement as to whether the exception of certain parts of the -organizations, as has taken place, is a final one or whether other -procedures and steps are being held in reserve. This was stated -originally in reference to the Leadership Corps. Concerning the -limitation of the proceedings to certain groups of members in -reference to the Leadership Corps, I do not wish to make any -further motion inasmuch as that limitation has already been effected. -I should be glad, however, if a decision could still be reached -concerning the women. The female technical aides who were -employed in the offices cannot, in my opinion, be included in the -staffs. At any rate, they do not belong to the Leadership Corps, -although they worked with the staffs. These women themselves -are of this opinion, and also the officers in the camps shared this -opinion. Accordingly not a single application for leave to be heard -has been made by any woman in the British zone.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I presume it is known that women, as a matter of principle, -were kept away from politics in the National Socialist State; and -therefore, they can hardly be connected with the crimes stated in -Article 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I should like to speak about two points concerning questions -of evidence. As every profession creates the tools which it needs, -so the jurist creates concepts to solve his problems. These concepts -are not created for their own sake; thus the concept of the criminal -organization shall serve to call guilty persons to account who would -otherwise possibly evade this responsibility of theirs. In establishing -the Charter the procedure was this, that one did away with the -traditional structure of the state in order to reach the individual -organs. But in order to be able to seize these organs, one brought -them together again through the concept of the guilt of conspiracy. -In this way, however, only a relatively small circle can be reached, -since its members would have to be bound to each other by means -of an agreement. In order to enlarge this circle by means of legal -technique, the concept of a criminal group or organization was -created. This organization is involved in the agreement of conspiracy -only at the very top, while the members automatically, -<span class='pageno' title='478' id='Page_478'></span> -without their own knowledge, are included in the conspiracy. Such -a definition of the concept of a criminal organization is justifiable -only insofar as it is useful in getting hold of the really guilty -persons and only the guilty ones.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order to define the limits of this concept, I should like to -discuss two further points concerning the determination of guilt and -therefore necessarily relevant to the question of admissibility of -evidence. First, there is the question of the members’ lack of knowledge -of this criminality—the lack of knowledge resulting from -secrecy—and then the attitude of the members after they had -recognized the offenses being committed. In my opinion, the examination -of guilt cannot be dismissed by pointing to the alleged -knowledge of foreign countries about the real conditions. In foreign -countries a propaganda was effective which exaggeratedly brought -these things to light. In Germany all these facts remained secret, -since because of their very nature they had to be secret—for -instance, what was going on in the extermination camps—and -because they had to be kept secret for political reasons. Moreover, -the things which have become known here were so unimaginable -that even in Germany one could not have believed them, had they -become known during the war. It must be relevant to determine -not whether a single individual member had no knowledge, but -that 99 percent of the individual members acted in good faith. In -this case, the organization is not criminal, but there could have -been a criminal in it. If this is determined, then the legal construction -of the criminal organization is superfluous and thereby -false. The legal concepts existing until now will then be sufficient -for bringing the guilty to trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next viewpoint: The criminal nature or the criminal -character of which the Charter speaks shows that that must be something -which concerns the entire organization, and that it must be a -continuous state of affairs. Individual acts which were rejected as -wrong by the organization or the overwhelming majority of its -members cannot establish the criminal character of the organization. -The attitude of all the members to the incriminating acts is therefore -of decisive importance and thus of evidentiary relevancy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We do not need the concept of the criminal organization in -order to punish individual criminals whose acts were rejected by -the majority. Among such individual cases, in organizations which -comprise millions of members, there may be cases in which smaller -or even larger groups or merely certain local districts took part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that it is really a major task of the Tribunal to define, -with the objectivity of the judge, the nature of this guilt as applied -to the entire organization. I am of the opinion that the points I -have mentioned, the secrecy of these facts and the attitude of the -<span class='pageno' title='479' id='Page_479'></span> -members after gaining knowledge, must form the basis for the -collecting of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I want to ask some questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Servatius, I would like to ask you—and I will ask other -counsel for the organizations—whether in general you accept -the definition of criminal organizations suggested by Mr. Justice -Jackson, which is found on Pages 19 and 20 of his statement? You -will remember that he made five general tests. Now, in order to -determine what evidence should be taken, we must determine what -is relevant. Now, the test of what is relevant depends on a general -definition of what is common to all organizations for that purpose. -Now, do you or could you now say whether in a general way you -accept those tests for the purpose of taking evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I have not yet thought about that and have -not had a chance to discuss it with my colleagues. I should be -grateful if we would be given such an opportunity. Perhaps this -afternoon a representative of the Defense Counsel for the organizations -could report to the Court about this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you another question. -What, in your mind, are the tests that should be applied for the -purpose of taking evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand the question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I said that Mr. Justice Jackson -had suggested a definition from which the relevancy of certain -evidence could be established. Now, have you got any suggestion -to offer for that same purpose?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I should not like to commit myself without -having spoken to my colleagues. It is a question of great importance -which I should not like to deal with by myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, but it is the basis of this -entire argument. The very purpose of the argument was to develop -that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the course of yesterday’s debate the -problem was discussed as to whether the task set before the -Tribunal by the Charter can be considered a legislative act. The -question was brought up as to whether, if we answer the preliminary -question in the affirmative, the Court has the possibility of -giving any binding instructions to the national court which has to -try individuals, according to Law Number 10. That concerns, above -all, the extent of the examination of the guilt of the individual -member and the limitation of the scope of punishment for minor -cases. I believe that if we follow up this deliberation we shall be -led from a play upon words into a labyrinth when it comes to the -<span class='pageno' title='480' id='Page_480'></span> -practical application. Actually the task given the Court is not a -legislative act. It is not a procedural innovation, if the national -court in subsequent proceedings is bound by the previous decision -of this Tribunal. Such cases are quite plausible and legally -admissible. If elsewhere in criminal procedure a criminal court is -bound by a previous decision, say of an administrative court, we -consider these cases quite in order and unobjectionable. Likewise -a criminal court could, for instance, be bound in judging a case of -embezzlement to wait for the previous decision of the civil court as -to whether the object embezzled was the property of somebody else.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Here, too, nobody would think that the civil judge was undertaking -an act of legislation. That another court’s decision is binding -on the criminal court and is the premise for its sentence does not -in any way mean that the author of the criminal code has not -completed his legislative task and that this has now to be done by -the court which takes the preceding decision. In my opinion we -therefore do not have to consider this point any further, for Article 9, -Paragraph 1, of the Charter demands of the Tribunal a clear and -unequivocal decision of the question whether the organization is -criminal or not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>More cannot be read either into the Charter or into Law -Number 10. Yesterday Sir David defined his attitude to the five -points which were submitted by me for consideration as to relevancy -of evidence. In regard to the two last points he raised the objection -that they were to be dealt with in the subsequent trials envisaged -by Law Number 10. It was a question of the grounds for exonerating -persons—for instance, coercion, deception, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>. I want -to avoid repetition and point out only the following: It is quite -correct that the question of coercion and deception and other -reasons for the exoneration of persons be discussed in subsequent -trials. In connection with this, Sir David also called the attention -of the Court to a really noteworthy problem—that is, the problem -of a deception by the state, that is, a problem of mass suggestion. -This is really a very important problem. It affects many members, -as far as their joining is concerned. But it leads to the broadest -deduction as to the guilt of the entire membership and the character -of the total organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We have therefore to pay particular attention as to how the -problem of deception on the part of the state affected the member -and thereby was characteristic of the organization. All grounds for -the exoneration of persons are therefore also to be examined by -the Tribunal in judging the question of the character of the organization. -Furthermore, evidence must be taken on the broadest basis.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal were to make any limitation now, there would -be the possibility that later, at the end of the Trial, in contrast to -<span class='pageno' title='481' id='Page_481'></span> -its present opinion, it might consider as relevant material now -excluded.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In yesterday’s debate the importance of the question was discussed, -in regard to the proposed declaration of criminality, as to -what should be considered as constituting knowledge on the part -of the single member. Sir David here applied the standard of a -person of average intelligence and wants to consider as guilty anybody -who was above that standard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have already recently explained that in regard to laws -threatening such a severe punishment as in this case, all systems of -penal law require that willful intent on the part of the perpetrator -be proved. Offenses of negligence are punishable only in exceptional -cases, and then only with minor penalties. At any rate in a case of -an offense by negligence it must be clear to the offender that he -is under an obligation to examine his action from the point of -view of penal law. Law Number 10—and now in connection with it -the proposed verdict of this Court—represents an ex post facto law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the case of the main defendants the Prosecution have justified -the deviation from the generally recognized principle <span class='it'>nulla poena -sine lege</span> on the ground that they themselves did not act in accordance -with this principle and cannot, therefore, base themselves on -it now. This, however, does not in any way apply to the organizations, -quite apart from the question whether this argument can -be accepted at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>At any rate, however, in considering the element of negligence -one should also not overlook the fact that the obligation to exercise -attention differs in the case of <span class='it'>ex post facto</span> laws from what it -would be in the case of existing laws.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In this connection I should like to refer to the fact that the -question of whether the statutes of the Party organizations were -illegal or not has often been examined already, even earlier, at the -time of the Weimar Republic. Political considerations definitely -favored such a declaration. Apparently, legal considerations at that -time did not let the carrying out of such a procedure seem practical. -What measure should we then apply to the individual member’s -ability to judge such matters, if the legal problem is so difficult -and lends itself so very much to discussion?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has restricted the motion so as to exclude the -auxiliary workers in the case of the Gestapo. The reason for this -can only have been that in the case of these members knowledge -cannot be assumed to be self-evident. I ask that the conclusions -drawn in this individual case be applied to the members of other -organizations. Should not the individual member of an organization -comprising millions who had far less contact with the executive -<span class='pageno' title='482' id='Page_482'></span> -organ than did an auxiliary worker of the Gestapo—should not this -member be judged much more favorably, as far as knowledge is -concerned, than this group which has been excepted?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Are we not in particular obliged to use the best methods possible -to inform ourselves as to the knowledge or lack of knowledge of -the individual member? Sir David, in discussing the problem of -negligence, suddenly spoke of an ostrich policy. But here we have -to consider that the person who sticks his head into the sand in -order not to see has actually seen something and therefore does not -want to see any more. It is quite different in the case of this -member who from the sources at his disposal can gain no knowledge -of individual actions; who, in particular, has no knowledge -of whether possibly only. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Forgive my interrupting you, but the Tribunal -have already heard and listened with attention to your interesting -argument, and the argument that they now are prepared to listen to -is only a very short argument in rebuttal. As I have already pointed -out, it seems to me that the greater part of what you are now -saying is what you have already said. We cannot go on hearing -these arguments at great length.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Since I have arrived at the end of my -remarks, I should like in conclusion just to introduce one point of -view which concerns the defense of the Reich Cabinet. The number of -members of the Reich Cabinet is very limited. One half are in the -defendants’ dock. Is it really necessary to consider the other half -cumulatively as an organization, since the small number of those -concerned makes possible an individual trial, with all the legal -guarantees given therein? To this extent I should like to refer to the -remarks made by my colleague, Dr. Laternser, who mentioned the -provision of the Charter that the Tribunal is not compelled to reach -a decision but that for reasons of expediency it can refrain from -doing so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Biddle wants to ask you some questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have just one question. Will -you listen to this very carefully?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal find that an organization was being used for a -criminal purpose, and certainly, with respect to some organizations, -there is ample evidence that might justify such a finding, why, -then, would the Tribunal not be justified in holding that organization -as a criminal organization insofar as it was composed of persons -who had knowledge that it was being so used and voluntarily -remained members of the organization? In other words, the definition -would state that it consisted of members who had actual knowledge -that the organization was engaged in the commission of crime. -<span class='pageno' title='483' id='Page_483'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: The organization cannot be separated from -the total number of its members. The declaration of criminality in -connection with Law Number 10 is to affect each individual member. -The task of the Tribunal would not be fulfilled if it limited that -task and excluded from the organization unspecified individuals. -In the task which I have mentioned we cannot overlook the practical -purpose, and that will not be guaranteed if such a limitation -is made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will ask just one more -question. I do not think you have answered my question. I will -put it very simply again.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>How would that definition be unfair to any individual?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: If only a limited circle of persons in connection -with the organization is branded as criminal, this necessarily -results in an injustice to the other members of the organization. The -declaration naturally affects the name of the entire organization, -and, therefore, the declaration of criminality affects each individual -member, even if one tries to limit the definition.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think in view of the time we had better -adjourn for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, it was not my intention to -make statements today about the concept of the criminal organizations, -because I believe that my statements of yesterday on this -point were comprehensive. I should merely like to state briefly my -attitude to the second question put by Mr. Biddle to my colleague, -Kubuschok.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second question, if I understood it correctly, was as follows: -Why is it unfair to the individuals who were members of an -organization, or why can it be unfair to them, if this organization -is declared criminal? This declaration of the criminality of an -organization is certainly unfair to all those members who had no -knowledge of any supposedly criminal purpose and aims. For in -this question one has to. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You misunderstood the question, -I think; so, to save time—the question was a very simple one. I -do not want to go into it unless you want to. I will repeat it again. -I said this: If an organization was being used for criminal purposes—and -I added that there was very great evidence that such was the -case in certain instances—why would it not be proper to hold it -<span class='pageno' title='484' id='Page_484'></span> -a criminal organization insofar as it was composed of persons who -had knowledge that it was being so used and voluntarily remained -members? Of course, that would exclude from the organization -everybody who did not have knowledge that it was engaged in -criminal purposes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LATERNSER: Then I did not understand the question quite -correctly, and further statements in regard to these questions, which -have now been settled, are unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÖFFLER: I should like first of all to correct a misunderstanding. -Sir David stated yesterday in his reply that I had admitted -that the SA had participated in the 10th and 11th of November -1938. I emphasize expressly that I stated that only 2 percent -of the SA at the most were involved in individual actions, and that -obviously applies to this event as well. This example occasions me -to underscore what my colleague, Servatius, has previously stated -about taking into consideration the so-called mistake of an organization, -in a case where an organization deviates from its path and -commits an error—which should be avoided. The 98 percent who did -not participate, as well as the 2 percent who did participate there, -with few exceptions, all regarded this action with aversion and -disgust and were not inwardly in agreement with it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is therefore an error on the part of the Indictment if on the -basis of this single event, on the basis of this exceptional case, -general conclusions are drawn as to the general character of the -organization. For it is rightfully protested that the very rejection -of this action is a proof that this is an exception to the general -tendency of the organization.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If, then, it is asserted as a second point that the SA was also -concerned with concentration camps, that is also a further typical -proof of the false conclusion to which one can come in the case of -judgment against the organizations. Of 4 millions there were -1,000 men at the most, that is, only 0.5 percent. The remaining -3,999,000 had no knowledge of this, and this can be proved. No -one will wish to claim that the fact that 0.5 percent were involved -in something about which the others knew nothing at all allows a -conclusion to be drawn as to the question of criminal character. -But this small percentage, as such, is not an answer to the question -which is being raised at this point. Rather we are, as before, of -the opinion that the explanation which was made by attorney -Kubuschok absolutely covers the criminal character as formulated -by the Defense, if the basic conditions are met, as set down by -attorney Kubuschok in agreement with all defense counsel for the -organizations. On the basis of this formulation, that question which -Justice Biddle previously put to counsel for the various organizations -can readily be answered. -<span class='pageno' title='485' id='Page_485'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to emphasize that yesterday Mr. Justice Jackson -made the suggestion that, instead of having countless witnesses, -experts be heard on the subject of what willful intent can be -assumed in the case of the single organizations. I should like to -oppose this emphatically. One cannot hear any witness or any -expert who can tell the Court what, so to speak, that “common -sense” was on the basis of which the question is to be judged—what -knowledge the single members had.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The members, as far as intelligence is concerned, vary greatly. -There are those of average intelligence and there are less intelligent -members of the organizations. If a judgment is to be passed here which -also affects less intelligent members of the organizations and condemns -them, then it is a basic principle of law that this should not -be done on the basis of what the intelligent members of the organizations -might and could have known; that would be an injustice -to the average persons and the less intelligent. Not even the average -persons can be taken as a basis, since this would be an injustice -to the still less intelligent, who would be included in and affected -by this judgment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In conclusion I should like to point out that yesterday’s debate -on the question of the effect of the judgment which this Court is to -pass confirmed in full measure the fears of the Defense Counsel. -Mr. Justice Jackson declared that this judgment would have the -character of a declaration. This is not compatible with the statement -which Lieutenant General Clay, the Deputy Military Governor of -the American occupied zone, made yesterday in an interview for -the <span class='it'>Neue Zeitung</span>, the American paper for the German population. -I should like to quote a sentence from the latest issue which refutes -Justice Jackson’s opinion. Lieutenant General Clay declares in -regard to the question of the fate of these interned in the United -States zone of occupation:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal will decide what -will happen to them. Their number is at present 280,000 to -300,000. Should the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, -however, consider all the members of the indicted National -Socialist organizations war criminals, then the number will -be increased to 500,000 or 600,000.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The declaration made by Justice Jackson yesterday that no mass -retribution is intended could be made only in reference to the -present standpoint of his Government. But there is no guarantee -that other governments will not take another stand or that his -Government, which is not bound to Justice Jackson’s opinion, will -not alter its stand.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to conclude with this remark: Justice Jackson -mentioned the shock which the combination of the Charter and decision -<span class='pageno' title='486' id='Page_486'></span> -desired by the Prosecution—in connection with Law Number 10—has -been to the Defense. I believe that the effect of this shock is not -confined to the Defense alone but affects all people who are interested -in justice, for if the combination of these various laws gives -the national courts the opportunity to call millions of members of -organizations to account—among whom, as Justice Jackson also -could not deny yesterday, there are innocent people—and if punishments -for mere membership ranging from a fine to the death -sentence are provided, then it is the duty of the Defense to point -out that the procedure here obviously threatens to deviate from the -basis of law and will necessarily lead to arbitrary action.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If Justice Jackson then in answer to this refers to the effect of -shock in connection with the death of many Jews, one can say that -those things happened outside the law and in the name of force. -This Charter and this Tribunal, however, want to do away with -force and put justice in its place. But justice must be clear and it -must be sure.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -Tribunal said earlier that certain questions had been asked of me. -I am perfectly prepared to answer the three questions if the Tribunal -desire their time to be occupied by my so doing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the Tribunal wish to hear any -further arguments unless you particularly want to answer anything.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not intend to argue at all. -It was only that Dr. Dix put two questions to me on which he asked -my view, and Dr. Servatius one, but I am in the hands of the -Tribunal. I do not want it to be thought that the Prosecution are -not prepared to answer the questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you can answer them shortly, we should be -quite glad to hear them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first question that Dr. Dix -asked me was to clarify what I had said about the Führerprinzip in -relation to the Reichsregierung. I can answer that in two sentences. -I said that, in addition to the ordinary support which members of -the Reichsregierung in 1933 gave to Hitler under the Führerprinzip, -they entrusted their consciences and wills to him and adopted -completely his points of view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In order that Dr. Dix may be under no misapprehension with -regard to his client, the case for the Prosecution may be put in the -words of Dr. Goebbels, one of the conspirators, on the 21st of November -1934, in conversation with Dr. Schacht:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I assured myself that he absolutely represents our point of -view. He is one of the few who accepts the Führer’s position -entirely.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'><span class='pageno' title='487' id='Page_487'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second point was on the question of the Party program in -relation to the Treaty of Versailles and the Anschluss. Dr. Dix asked -me to deal with those who desired to effect the aims of the Party -program in a peaceful way. The Prosecution say that does not arise, -that the Party program must be considered in the background of -Hitler and other publications as to the use of force and also as to -the existing state of things in the relationship of Germany with the -Western Powers and also of treaty obligation to Austria and -Czechoslovakia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third question that was put to me was by Dr. Servatius, -about the Leadership Corps. You will remember, My Lord, that in -the statement of the Tribunal the Prosecution were asked, if they -were making any limitation, to make it now. That is contained in -the statement of the Tribunal. The limitation which we have -made—that is, only including the staff in the case of the Reichsleitung, -Gauleitung, and Kreisleitung, and excluding the staff in the -case of the Ortsgruppenleiter, Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter—is the -view to which the Prosecution adhere and which has been agreed -upon by the different delegations. I wanted Dr. Servatius to know -that that was the position. I don’t intend to repeat the reasons for -it which were given by my friend, Mr. Justice Jackson.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is only one thing I should like to say. -I think it might be useful to the Tribunal, if you have them, to let -us have copies of the British statutes to which Mr. Justice Jackson -referred and also of certain judgments of the German courts—if you -have copies available.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They will be found for the Tribunal -and the Tribunal will receive them within the shortest possible -time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I understand that you have an -affidavit which you wish to put in with reference to the High -Command?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Yes, we do have it. We located this affidavit on -Thursday; the Tribunal had inquired about it on the afternoon of -the day before—on Wednesday, I believe it was. We have prepared -for the Tribunal a list of the offices comprising the German General -Staff and High Command as defined by the Indictment in Appendix B. -The list was compiled from official sources in the Admiralty Office -of Great Britain, the War Office of Great Britain, and the Air -Ministry of Great Britain, and supplemental information was -obtained from senior German officers, now prisoners of war in England -and in Germany. The list is attached to this affidavit, as we -intended to submit it this morning to the Tribunal; and the affidavit -describes the source from which this information was obtained and -<span class='pageno' title='488' id='Page_488'></span> -it points out that the list does not purport to be exhaustive or necessarily -correct in every detail. It is, however, substantially a complete -list of the members of the General Staff and of the High Command -and of the High Command group, and on the basis of this compilation -there appear to have been a total of 131 members, of whom -114 are thought to be living at the present time. I wish to offer the -list formally, together with this affidavit, as Exhibit Number -USA-778 (Document Number 3739-PS), I ask that it be accepted -without reading. However, of course, if the Tribunal would like it -read over the public address system, I should be glad to do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not think you need read it over. -Copies have been given to the Defense?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Yes, they have, Your Honor. They have been given -to the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Colonel Smirnov, if Your Honor pleases, is prepared -to read the document with reference to Stalag Luft III. If the -Tribunal would like, we will have him do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think that might perhaps be done on -Monday morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 4 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='489' id='Page_489'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-THIRD DAY</span><br/> Monday, 4 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Sir, a few days ago the Tribunal -issued instructions concerning the expedience of reading into the -record the official British report on the responsibility for the slaying -of 50 officers of the Royal Air Force coincidentally, as far as possible, -with the proposed interrogatory of General Westhoff and the senior -criminal counsel, Wielen. May I read into the record some of the -more essential passages from this report of the British Government? -I shall read into the record those parts of the document which, on -the one hand, testify to the general character of this criminal act -and, on the other hand, establish the responsibility for the crime.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you are offering the document, -are you, as evidence? You are seeking to put the document in -evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document has already been -presented in evidence and has already been accepted by the -Tribunal. I wished only to read into the record certain extracts -from this document. It has been submitted as Exhibit Number -USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am quoting Paragraph 1 of the -official British report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“1. On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers -escaped from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia, where they -had been confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were -recaptured and returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, -8 were detained by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate -of the remaining 50 officers the following information was -given by the German authorities:</p> - -<p>“(a) On 6th April 1944, at Sagan, the acting commandant of -Stalag Luft III (Oberstleutnant Cordes) read to the senior -British officer (Group Captain Massey) an official communication -of the German High Command that 41 officers (unnamed) -had been shot, ‘some of them having offered resistance -on being arrested, others having tried to escape on the transport -back to their camp.’ -<span class='pageno' title='490' id='Page_490'></span></p> - -<p>“(b) On 15th April 1944, at Sagan, a member of the German -camp staff (Hauptmann Pieber) produced to the new senior -British officer (Group Captain Wilson) a list of 47 names of -the officers who had been shot.</p> - -<p>“(c) On 18th May 1944, at Sagan, the senior British officer was -given three additional names, making a total of 50.</p> - -<p>“(d) On or about 12th June 1944, the Swiss Minister in Berlin -received from the German Foreign Office, in reply to his -enquiry into the affair, a note to the effect that 37 prisoners -of British nationality and 13 prisoners of non-British nationality -were shot when offering resistance when found or -attempting to re-escape after capture. This note also referred -to the return of urns containing the ashes of the dead to -Sagan for burial.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The official German version—the official version of the German -authorities—indicated that these officers were shot allegedly while -attempting to escape. As a matter of fact, as definitely proved by -the documentation of the investigation carried out by the British -authorities, the officers were murdered—and murdered by members -of the Gestapo on direct orders from Keitel and with the full -knowledge of Göring.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall, with your permission, read into the record in confirmation -of this fact two paragraphs—or rather two points—from the official -British report, that is, Point 7 and Point 8:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“7. General Major Westhoff at the time of the escape was in -charge of the general department relating to prisoners of war, -and on 15th June 1945 he made a statement in the course of -which he said that he and General Von Graevenitz, the -inspector of the German POW organization, were summoned -to Berlin a few days after the escape and there interviewed -by Keitel. The latter told them that he had been blamed by -Göring in the presence of Himmler for having let the prisoners -of war escape.</p> - -<p>“Keitel said, ‘Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must -set an example. We shall take very severe measures. I can -only tell you that the officers who have escaped will be shot; -probably the majority of them are dead already.’ When Von -Graevenitz objected, Keitel said, ‘I do not care a damn; we -discussed it in the Führer’s presence and it cannot be altered.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Point 8: I begin the quotation of the official British report:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Max Ernst Gustav Friedrich Wielen was then the officer in -charge of the Criminal Police (Kripo) at Breslau, and he also -made a statement, dated 26th August 1945, in the course of -which he said that as soon as practically all the escaped R.A.F. -officers had been recaptured he was summoned to Berlin -<span class='pageno' title='491' id='Page_491'></span> -where he saw Arthur Nebe, the Chief of the Kripo head office, -who showed him a teleprint order signed by Kaltenbrunner, -which was to the effect that on the express order of the -Führer over half of the officers who had escaped from Sagan -were to be shot after their recapture. It was stated that -Müller had received corresponding orders and would give -instructions to the Gestapo. According to Wielen the Kripo, -who were responsible for collecting and holding all the recaptured -prisoners, handed over to the Gestapo the prisoners -who were to be shot, having previously provided the Gestapo -with a list of the prisoners regarded by the camp authorities -as ‘troublesome.’ ”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I would also ask the Tribunal’s permission to read into the record -that part of the text of the official report of the British Government -which deals with the methods of investigation in regard to individual -officers. This documentation has been systematized and divided into -three parts. I take the liberty of reading into the record the data of -the findings referring to the three separate parts. I quote Page 3 of -the Russian text, beginning from Paragraph 2:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Flight Lieutenants Wernham, Kiewnarski, Pawluk, and -Skanziklas.</p> - -<p>“On or about 26th March 1944 . . .</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, are you going to read now -some of the evidence upon which the report is based?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to -read out only from the text proper and particularly those parts of -the report which testify to the methods of investigation applied -in the case of individual officers. I should like to begin reading -from the paragraph dealing with the three groups of officers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Paragraph 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: “On or about the 26th of -March 1944 these officers were interrogated at the police -station in Hirschberg and were then moved to the civil gaol -in that town. On the morning of 29th March Pawluk and -Kiewnarski were taken away and later in the day Skanziklas -and Wernham left. Both parties were escorted, but their -destination was unknown. They have not been seen since -and the urns later received at the Stalag showing their names -bear the date 30th March 1944.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>And now the next group of British officers:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“Squadron Leader Cross, Flight Lieutenants Casey, Wiley, and -Leigh, and Flight Officers Pohe and Hake. -<span class='pageno' title='492' id='Page_492'></span></p> - -<p>“Between 26th and 30th March 1944 these officers were interrogated -at the Kripo headquarters in Görlitz and then returned -to the gaol there. During the interrogation Casey was -told that ‘he would lose his head,’ Wiley that ‘he would be -shot,’ and Leigh that ‘he would be shot.’ Hake was suffering -from badly frostbitten feet and was incapable of traveling for -any distance on foot. On 30th March the officers left Görlitz -in three motor cars accompanied by 10 German civilians of -the Gestapo type. The urns later received at the Stalag bear -their names and show them to have been cremated at Görlitz -on 31st March 1944.</p> - -<p>“Flight Lieutenants Humpreys, McGill, Swain, Hall, Langford, -and Evans; Flight Officers Valenta, Kolanowski, Stewart, and -Birkland.</p> - -<p>“These officers were interrogated at the Kripo headquarters -in Görlitz between 26th and 30th March. Swain was told -that ‘he would be shot,’ Valenta was threatened and told that -‘he would never escape again.’ Kolanowski was very depressed -after his interview. On 31st March these officers were collected -by a party of German civilians, at least one of whom was -in the party which had come on the previous day. The urns -later received at the Stalag bore their names and show them -to have been cremated at Liegnitz on a date unspecified.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that -similar data also relate to different groups of British officers slain -by the Germans in Stalag Luft III.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following page of the text includes identical data relating to -Flight lieutenants Grisman, Gunn, Williams, and Milford, Flight -Officer Street and Lieutenant McGarr. Similar information is given -concerning Flight Lieutenant Long, Squadron Leader J. E. Williams, -Flight Lieutenants Bull and Mondschein, and Flight Officer Kierath. -The same information is given with reference to Flight Officer -Stower, Flight Lieutenant Tobolski, Flight Officer Krol, Flight -Lieutenants Wallen, Marcinkus, and Brettell, Flight Officer Picard -and Lieutenants Gouws and Stevens, Squadron Leader Bushell and -Lieutenant Scheidhauer, Flight Officer Cochran, Lieutenants Espelid -and Fugelsang, Squadron Leader Kirby-Green and Flight Officer -Kidder, Squadron Leader Catanach and Flight Officer Christensen, -and Flight Lieutenant Hayter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall, with your permission, read into the record one more -paragraph from this official report. I refer to Paragraph 6 of the -official British report and also to Paragraph 5, because it is of -essential importance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I was going to suggest you should read Paragraph 5. -<span class='pageno' title='493' id='Page_493'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am going to read Paragraph 5 -of the British text:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“According to the evidence of the survivors there was no -question of any officers having resisted arrest or of the recaptured -officers having attempted a second escape. All were -agreed that the weather conditions were against them and -that such an attempt would be madness. They were anxious -to be returned to the Stalag, take their punishment, and try -their luck at escaping another time.</p> - -<p>“6. The Swiss representative (M. Gabriel Naville) pointed out -on 9th June 1944 in his report on his visit to Sagan that the -cremation of deceased prisoners of war was most unusual (the -normal custom being to bury them in a coffin with military -honors) and that was the first case known to him where the -bodies of deceased prisoners had been cremated. Further it -may be noted that if, as the Germans alleged, these 50 officers -who were recaptured in widely scattered parts of Germany -had resisted arrest or attempted a second escape, it is probable -that some would have been wounded and most improbable -that all would have been killed. In this connection it is significant -that the German Foreign Office refused to give to the -protecting power the customary details of the circumstances -in which each officer lost his life.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>Those are the parts of the official report of the British Government -which I had the honor to communicate to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think it would perhaps be better if you also -read the appendix so as to show the summary of the evidence upon -which the report proceeded, Paragraph 9.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I refrained from reading the -appendix because it had already been read in due course by Sir -David Maxwell-Fyfe. I shall read it once more with pleasure:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“9. The appendix attached hereto gives a list of the material -upon which this report is based. The documents referred to -are annexed to this report.</p> - -<p>“Appendix.</p> - -<p>“Material upon which the foregoing report is based:</p> - -<p>“(1) Proceedings of court of inquiry held at Sagan by order of -the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded by -the protecting power.</p> - -<p>“(2) Statements of the following Allied witnesses: (a) Wing -Commander Day, (b) Flight Lieutenant Tonder, (c) Flight -Lieutenant Dowse, (d) Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, -(e) Flight Lieutenant Green, (f) Flight Lieutenant Marshall, -<span class='pageno' title='494' id='Page_494'></span> -(g) Flight Lieutenant Nelson, (h) Flight Lieutenant Churchill, -(i) Lieutenant Neely, (k) P. S. M. Hicks.</p> - -<p>“(3) Statements taken from the following Germans: (a) Major -General Westhoff, (b) Oberregierungsrat und Kriminalrat -Wielen (two statements), (c) Oberst Von Lindeiner.</p> - -<p>“(4) Photostat copy of the official list of dead transmitted by -the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation in Berlin on -or about 15 June 1944.</p> - -<p>“(5) Report of the representative of the protecting power on -his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then, for the purposes of the record, you had -better read in the signature and the department at the bottom.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The document is signed by H. -Shapcott, Brigadier, Military Deputy, and is certified by the Military -Department, Judge Advocate General’s Office, London, 25 September -1945.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, so far as the Russian -Chief Prosecutor is concerned, does that conclude the case for the -Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Paragraph 9 of the report which -has just been read by the Prosecution mentions the documents -which served as a basis for it and says that they are attached to -the report. The individual documents on which the report is based -are listed in the appendix. I ask the Tribunal to decide whether -Document USSR-413 satisfies the requirements of Article 21 of the -Charter, since the material on which it was based, and which is -expressly mentioned in the report, has not been produced along -with it. I request that the Prosecution be asked to make the -appendix available to the Defense as well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you mean that you have only -had the report made by the Brigadier and have not seen any part -of the other evidence upon which the report proceeds?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the Tribunal decided during an -earlier phase of this Trial . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: [<span class='it'>Interposing.</span>] Yes, but I did not ask you -what we had decided. I asked what you had received. Have you -received from the Prosecution the whole of this document or only -the report made by the Brigadier?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: Only the report, without the appendix.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal certainly intended that -the whole of the document should be furnished to defendant’s -<span class='pageno' title='495' id='Page_495'></span> -counsel, and that must be done so that you may have all the documents -before you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. NELTE: But that has obviously not been done. The appendix -expressly mentions statements made by Major General Westhoff -and by Oberregierungsrat Wielen. I am not acquainted with either -of these statements. They were not attached to the report.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You must have them. The Prosecution must -see that the whole of this document is furnished to the Defense -Counsel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I do not -think the whole of it has been copied, but if Dr. Nelte will let us -know if he wants the whole of it, or a part, we will co-operate -the best way we can. The last thing we desire is that he should -not have it. We want him to have everything he wants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, will you inform the Tribunal -whether the Prosecution have now concluded their case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. That is the -conclusion of the case for the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we will now proceed with -the applications for witnesses and documents by the second four -of the defendants: Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): -The Defendant Kaltenbrunner wishes to call a number -of witnesses whom I will name now. First, Professor Dr. Burckhardt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if the Tribunal -approves, we will adopt the same procedure as was done on the -first four defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the three Swiss witnesses, Burckhardt, Brachmann, -and Meyer, the interrogatories were granted on the 15th of -December and submitted on the 28th of January. The Prosecution -considered that the interrogatories were rather on the vague side -and suggested that they might be made more precise. The Prosecution -have no objection to interrogatories in principle, and I am -sure that there would not be much difference between Dr. Kauffmann -and the Prosecution as to the form. That applies to the first -three witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We are informed that none of these three -witnesses has been located yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I respectfully agree, My -Lord. That is the position of the Prosecution, that we have no -objection in principle to these interrogatories, and if we can help -the Court in any way to locate the witnesses, we should be glad -to do so. -<span class='pageno' title='496' id='Page_496'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: When were the interrogatories furnished to -the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of January, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And were the Prosecution’s objections communicated -to the Defense Counsel shortly afterwards, or when?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, I am afraid I have -not got that date, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t the most sensible course be for the -Prosecution to try to agree upon a suitable form of interrogatory -whilst the General Secretary is continuing his inquiries to find the -witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if Dr. Kauffmann -will communicate with me, I have no doubt that we could agree on -a form that would be mutually acceptable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I think there is no need for -me to repeat the individual questions which I have listed in the -interrogatory. There are 19 of them. I do not think that I need -repeat them now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: No, certainly not.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The fourth witness is the former German -Minister in Belgrade, Neubacher. At present he is in the internment -camp Oberursel near Frankfurt, in American custody.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection to this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the Tribunal want me to specify the -evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you would.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Neubacher will, in the opinion of the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner, be able to testify that the order given by -Hitler in October 1944 to stop the persecution of the Jews was -really given at Kaltenbrunner’s suggestion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, in the opinion of the defendant, he will be able -to testify that when Himmler was appointed Chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt -he put the defendant in charge of Amt III -and VI. This seems to me to be important, since so far the Indictment -has always been based on the defendant’s definite connection -with Amt IV, which is, indeed, borne out to a certain extent by the -evidence. Neubacher is expected to be able to testify to this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if those are the questions -which it is desired to interrogate Neubacher on, couldn’t they be -dealt with by interrogatories? -<span class='pageno' title='497' id='Page_497'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: According to the information given to me -by Kaltenbrunner, Kaltenbrunner attaches importance to the -personal appearance of this witness for reasons which are easy to -understand. I believe that Kaltenbrunner considers this witness one -of the most important witnesses, and he would like to see this -witness called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The next witness is Number 5, Wanneck, -at present in American custody in Heidelberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution suggests that -the witness Wanneck is cumulative. According to Dr. Kauffmann’s -application, he is going to deal with the point that the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner was actually occupied mainly with the task of the -intelligence service and that he objected to persecution of the Jews. -That is already covered by Neubacher, and it is also covered by -the cross-examination of the Prosecution’s witness Schellenberg, -who was the chief of Amt VI, which Dr. Kauffmann has set out -in his note on the witness Neubacher, Number 4, as being one of -the Intelligence Ämter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I leave it to the Tribunal to decide whether -this witness could be dealt with by means of an interrogatory. But -I do consider the evidence material relevant in the case of Wanneck -as well. In a certain sense it is cumulative, but some points in it -go further. But I agree to an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The sixth witness is Scheidler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think it would be unreasonable -to administer an interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. Generally I make -no objection to interrogatories at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Scheidler, he was, as I understand the application, -the Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s adjutant, and as such the Prosecution -would not make any objection. But I think it would be -convenient if I were to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the -fact that the next six witnesses, Numbers 6 to 11 inclusive, all deal -with concentration camps, and numbers 6, 8, 9, and 11 deal with -Mauthausen. I want to give Dr. Kauffmann warning that I shall -ask for some selectivity among these six witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution feel that the application for an adjutant is a -reasonable one, but it will be reflected in objections to later witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The defendant naturally considers it important -that the adjutant who served him for many years and who -accompanied him on every single trip, as Kaltenbrunner told me -himself, be called. He knows also, for instance, that the wireless -<span class='pageno' title='498' id='Page_498'></span> -message to Fegelein, which is part of the accusation, did not come -from Kaltenbrunner and that his radiogram was never sent. He -also knows that Kaltenbrunner had made all preparations for the -Theresienstadt camp to be made accessible to the Red Cross. These -are things which have not been mentioned by previous witnesses, -but which shed some light on the person of the defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of Scheidler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to -deal with the whole of that group together, and then Dr. Kauffmann -can answer what you say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With pleasure, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is Ohlendorf, who was called as a witness for -the Prosecution. The situation as I have found it is that Dr. Kauffmann -did cross-examine the witness Ohlendorf on the Defendant -Kaltenbrunner’s responsibility on concentration camps on the 3rd of -January of this year, at Page 2034 of the transcript (Volume IV, -Page 335).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Wisliceny, Number 12, who has not been cross-examined -on behalf of Kaltenbrunner by Dr. Kauffmann, would -be the natural person to deal with that point. But, of course, if -Dr. Kauffmann has any special point for the recalling of Ohlendorf, -he will tell the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is the position.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if you had the opportunity -of cross-examining General Ohlendorf and actually availed yourself -of the opportunity wasn’t that the appropriate time for you to put -any questions which you had on behalf of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to remind you that Kaltenbrunner -was ill for more than 12 weeks and that I could get almost -no information from him. At the session of 2 January the right of -cross-examining the witnesses at a later date was expressly -granted me by the Tribunal. I had, as the Court will remember, -made a motion to adjourn, and then I was permitted to cross-examine -the witnesses at a given time which would suit me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That appears in the transcript of 2 January 1946.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As these witnesses have all been called in Kaltenbrunner’s -absence, I should like to cross-examine now in his presence. I am, -however, prepared to forego the cross-examination, if I can talk -to the witnesses beforehand. Perhaps it will not be necessary to -call one or the other witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by one or the other -witness? Which is the other? Wisliceny? -<span class='pageno' title='499' id='Page_499'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Number 7, Ohlendorf, and then Number 11, -Höllriegel, and Number 12, Wisliceny, also Number 14, Schellenberg. -All these witnesses have been heard here, and Kaltenbrunner was -ill at the time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about it, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest that Dr. Kauffmann -cross-examine Number 11, Höllriegel, and Number 12, -Wisliceny, whom he has not cross-examined so far. And then, if -there is any special point which remains to be dealt with by the -witness Ohlendorf, Dr. Kauffmann can make a special application -to the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the Tribunal would like to know -what position you take about the defendants’ counsel seeing these -witnesses and discussing with them their evidence before they call -them. I mean, there is a distinction between cross-examination -when defendants’ counsel cannot see them and calling them as their -own witnesses when they can see them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, the Prosecution feel that -they ought simply to cross-examine witnesses that have been called -by the Prosecution, unless there are very special circumstances. I -think that Dr. Seidl showed special circumstances with regard to -the case that he mentioned of one witness in special relation to the -Defendant Hess. But as a general rule, the Prosecution submit that -witnesses that they have called should be cross-examined without -prior consultation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, the Tribunal would like to -know your view. Of course, we are not deciding the point now, -but we should like to know your view as to whether it would be a -proper course to allow the defendants’ counsel to see the particular -witness in the presence of a representative of the Prosecution, -because it may be that that would lead to a shortening of the -proceeding, because the defendants’ counsel might after that not wish -to cross-examine the witness any further.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am afraid that would -require discussions with my colleagues on each particular witness. -I am afraid I have not covered that point; witnesses 11 and 12 -were called by my American colleagues and although I take the -general position which I put before the Tribunal, I have not discussed -that point; but I shall be pleased to discuss it with them and -perhaps to inform the Tribunal later on in the day.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, you will appreciate the fact that there may be a -special point relating to a special witness that may come up in this -connection. -<span class='pageno' title='500' id='Page_500'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I can explain this. The witness -Ohlendorf was reserved for me for cross-examination. In accordance -with an agreement made with the American Prosecution, I -dispensed with a cross-examination of Ohlendorf and on this -condition was allowed to speak to him. I think it would be quite -fair if I could do the same with other witnesses. I forego the cross-examination -and can speak to the witnesses beforehand. Perhaps -one or the other will turn out to be unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure that you understand -the view being put to you, Dr. Kauffmann. The view is that when -a witness is called on behalf of the Prosecution the defendants’ -counsel certainly have the right to cross-examine the witness, not -to see the witness beforehand, but only to cross-examine him. If -on the other hand they are entitled to call that witness as their -own, then they are entitled to see him beforehand, which is. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, that is what I mean. But if I am -allowed to speak to the witness beforehand, then the Court will -understand that I should like to avoid as far as possible the presence -of a representative of the Prosecution, since the reasons which -might cause me to forego the calling of a witness would then be -known to the Prosecution. I think everyone will understand that, -and I also think it is fair.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to clarify what the difference in -view between you and the Prosecution is. The Prosecution said -that when the witness was called for the Prosecution the right of -the defendants is only to cross-examine. Can you help us further -with respect to this group, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. With regard to -Eigruber, Number 8, he is no longer in Nuremberg, and he is being -held as a probable defendant in the case concerning Mauthausen -Camp, which will be dealt with by a military court, and therefore -the Prosecution suggests that in these circumstances, as he is one -of this group dealing with concentration camps in general and -Mauthausen in particular, he ought to be dealt with by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to Höttl, Number 9, he deals with two aspects of -one point, that is, that Kaltenbrunner on his own initiative ordered -the surrender of the concentration camp of Mauthausen and that -he took steps to induce Himmler to release people from concentration -camps. These seem to be general points that again might -be conveniently dealt with by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And the same applies to the witness Von Eberstein, who deals -with the point that Kaltenbrunner is alleged not to have given -an order to destroy the concentration camp at Dachau, and that he -<span class='pageno' title='501' id='Page_501'></span> -did not give an order to evacuate Dachau. The Prosecution suggest -that these ought also to be interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the next witness, Höllriegel, the Prosecution -make no objection to further cross-examination, and respectfully -suggest to the Tribunal that he will be able to deal with the question -of Mauthausen, which is one of the main questions that this whole -group of witnesses is called to deal with.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: [<span class='it'>Interposing.</span>] Maybe I can say something -so that. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: [<span class='it'>To Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.</span>] Are you in -agreement with Number 12, in the same group?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 12 is not in the same -group, because he deals with the question of Kaltenbrunner’s -relations with Eichmann and with reports he received regarding -the action against the Jews. We have no objection to this witness -being called for cross-examination, as Dr. Kauffmann did not cross-examine -him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Concerning the witness Eigruber, Number 8, -may I point out that this witness is here in Nuremberg. However, -I agree that interrogatories be sent. The subject of the evidence -itself seems to me decidedly relevant, for what Eigruber is supposed -to testify is neither more nor less than the fact that the concentration -camp at Mauthausen was directly supervised by Himmler -through Pohl and the commander of the camp. Kaltenbrunner -denies the possession of exact knowledge regarding Mauthausen. The -witness Höttl. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You were in error in saying he was here -in town. Sir David said he has been removed from Nuremberg for -the purpose of trial by a military court. So perhaps you would not -object to interrogatories in that case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. The witness Höttl is, in my opinion, -an important witness. As we know, Kaltenbrunner is also accused -of having participated in the conspiracy against the peace. Here -I intend to prove that Kaltenbrunner conducted an active peace -campaign ever since 1943. An important name in this connection -is Mr. Dulles. He is, according to Kaltenbrunner, the late President -Roosevelt’s confidential agent. Mr. Dulles was in Switzerland. -According to Kaltenbrunner, meetings between them constantly took -place with this object. I believe that this subject of evidence is -relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Höttl in person, -not by way of interrogatories? -<span class='pageno' title='502' id='Page_502'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 10, General of the Police -Von Eberstein, is called to prove that the statement of another -witness by the name of Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will perhaps -remember that the Prosecution submitted an affidavit by a man -named Gerdes who was an important figure in Munich. He was -the confidential agent of the former Gauleiter of Munich. In his -affidavit, Gerdes accuses Kaltenbrunner of ordering the destruction -of Dachau through bombing. Kaltenbrunner emphatically denies -that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly -dealt with by interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did -give an order to destroy a concentration camp, or an order to -evacuate Dachau. Surely those are matters which admit of proof by -interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree. The same problem arises in connection -with the next witness, Number 11, the witness Höllriegel, -who has already been heard. Am I to have the opportunity of -speaking to this witness before he is cross-examined? Kaltenbrunner -denies that he ever saw gas chambers, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, isn’t Number 11 really -cumulative to Number 6, whom you particularly wanted to call?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the -question whether you ought to be given the right merely to cross-examine -or to recall as your own witness, with reference to -Numbers 11 and 12.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. Just a word about witness Number 12. -Eichmann, as is well known, was the man who carried out the whole -extermination operation against the Jews, and Kaltenbrunner’s -name has been mentioned in connection with this operation. -Kaltenbrunner denies it. For that reason I consider Wisliceny a -relevant witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the -other ones, Sir David? Are they in the same category?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite, but I think it might -be convenient if I deal with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner -did not authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders for protective -custody or internment, and I should submit that in view -of the previous evidence, of Scheidler and Number 4, Neubacher, -<span class='pageno' title='503' id='Page_503'></span> -Dr. Mildner’s evidence is cumulative and that interrogatories would -suffice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Schellenberg, Number 14, I have already said that the -Prosecution make no objection to his recall for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because the -object of his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended to the -Gauleiter of Austria not to oppose the advancing troops of the -Western Powers and not to organize Werewolf movements, is in our -submission irrelevant to the issues before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Kauffmann?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is -here in Nuremberg, in custody. I have asked to call this witness -because he has submitted an affidavit containing certain accusations -against Kaltenbrunner which Kaltenbrunner denies. I do not -think that an interrogatory can clear up these difficulties.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Number 14 . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner had submitted an affidavit?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Sir. There is a reference in the Indictment -to an affidavit made by Dr. Mildner. I believe it was on -3 January. The witness’ name was mentioned in connection -with the charges against Kaltenbrunner. There are one or two -affidavits. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit has not been produced -to the Court, what have we got to do with it? We have not seen -it, at least in my recollection. You know about it, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not been able to trace -this affidavit of Dr. Mildner’s. I do not remember it, but I will -willingly check the reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the Prosecution have used the -affidavit, then you would have no objection to the witness being -called for cross-examination?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason -why I am rather surprised is that usually that point has been -taken when it is sought to use the affidavit. The Defense Counsel -involved has asked for the production of the witness—but I will -have it looked into, this particular point; but in general the Tribunal -may take it that unless we put forward a special point, where an -affidavit has been given, and where we have not argued to the -Court previously, it is a very good case for the witness’s being -brought here, if it is convenient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that Dr. Kauffmann -was saying that the affidavit had actually been put in by the -<span class='pageno' title='504' id='Page_504'></span> -Prosecution, but there was some reference made to it. Is that right, -Dr. Kauffmann?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: It would not take me long to look it up. I -have the files for 3 January here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, we will give you an opportunity -for looking that up. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: The name of Mildner appears in the transcript -of 2 January, not in the form of an affidavit but in the form -of a letter written by a third person and this letter is only mentioned -in connection with Mildner’s name; it is not an affidavit. I should -like to request that Mildner be interrogated in writing.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now turning to witness Number 15 . . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFMANN: We have already dealt with Number 14.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very -well, then 15.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 15 is Rainer, who was a -Gauleiter. I should like to request that this witness be heard as -well. He is in Nuremberg. The subject of the evidence seems -important to me. In the case against Kaltenbrunner, he is not expressly -charged with the contrary; but if we are dealing with peace -and violations of peace, an effort on the part of the defendant to -prove that he has done everything in his power to prevent further -bloodshed seems to me relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that -witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: I have not yet submitted any documents, Mr. -President. Later on, I may present some affidavits, but, as I have -not yet received them, I cannot present them at the moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, -that you wish to reserve for yourself the right to apply to put in -documents at a later stage.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you -know when they make the order. -<span class='pageno' title='505' id='Page_505'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Dr. Thoma?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal -with the document list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the first six documents, -which are quotations from various books on philosophy, the Prosecution -submit that they are irrelevant to the question of the -ideology propounded by the Defendant Rosenberg, which the Prosecution -make part of the case against him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would quote -from such books in making his speech, and if he would let us know -the passages he wants to quote so they can be dealt with mechanically, -we do not make any anticipatory objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think that takes us up to Number 6—which are purely general -books on philosophy. The Prosecution view with some dismay all -these books being put in evidence and the Prosecutors having to -read them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr. Thoma -wishes to use them to illustrate the argument, and if he lets us -know the passage, we make no general objection, but we object to -their being put in as evidence, as not being relevant to the matters -before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I do not think that it is possible without a consideration -of world philosophy before Rosenberg’s time to understand -the morbid psychological state of the German people after their -defeat in the first World War. Unless this psychological condition is -appreciated, it is impossible to understand why Rosenberg believed -that his ideas could help them. I am extremely anxious to show that -Rosenberg’s theories were representative of a phase of contemporary -philosophy taught in similar form by many other philosophers both -at home and abroad. I am extremely anxious to refute the charges -made against Rosenberg’s ideology as degenerate and—I must quote -the expression—a “smutty ideology.” I have to bear in mind that -the members of the Prosecution, especially M. De Menthon, who has -made a special study of the National Socialist ideology, made the -very natural mistake of confusing the extravagances and abuses of -this ideology, usually dubbed “Nazism,” with its real philosophic -content. The French Revolution of 1789 was in the same way, I -believe, represented by neighboring peoples as a disaster of the first -magnitude, and all the rulers in Europe were called upon to fight -against it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that the Court was specially impressed by M. De Menthon’s -statements, which represented the Nazi ideology as having -no spiritual value and described it as a dangerous doctrine. I think -<span class='pageno' title='506' id='Page_506'></span> -we must allow the possibility of its being taught in other countries -as well at that time. I should like, therefore, to ask permission to -present the philosophical systems of the time in question, by which -I mean the views expressed by other philosophers on Rosenberg’s -main concepts, especially the question of blood or race, the soil as -a fact of nature and as political and economic living space. Science -declares that these ideas are based on the irrational presentation of -natural and historical facts. They cannot be dismissed for that reason -as unscientific, although they may be disturbing to rationalism and -humanism.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like, in particular, to prove that these ideas have been -respected and developed by rational and empirical science on account -of their significance, and that they have been put into practice by -other countries in their policy—a fact which I think is important. -I need only remind you of the U.S.A. immigration laws, which also -give preference to particular races.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he -wants to use the teachings of other philosophers as illustrations and -arguments. If he is going to quote from them, then all that the -Prosecution ask is that he tell us which passages he is going to -quote, but we suggest that it is not relevant for us to go into an -examination of, say, M. Bergson’s book as a matter of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr. Thoma -will be well able to develop the point which he has just put with -the limitation which I have just suggested.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know -what it is that you actually propose. Are you proposing to put in -evidence certain passages from certain books and that the Tribunal -should read them or are you simply asking for the production of -books so that you may consult them, read them, and then incorporate -in your argument certain ideas which you may gather from -the books?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I ask the Tribunal to note—officially, at least—the -contents of the books which I shall submit. I shall not read all these -quotations from the books, but I shall ask the Tribunal to note the -outlines. I think it is important for the Tribunal to have the passages -quoted from these books actually before them, so that they may -have a clear picture of the philosophical—and particularly of the -ethical situation—of the German people after their defeat in the -World War.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But the books are not books of any legal -authority. You can only cite, surely, to a court of international law, -books that are authorities on international law. You can, of course, -<span class='pageno' title='507' id='Page_507'></span> -collect ideas from other books which you can incorporate in your -argument. You cannot cite them as authorities.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, by submitting quotations from the -works of well-known philosophers who presented ideas similar to -Rosenberg’s, I propose to prove that this ideology is to be taken -quite seriously. In the second place I want to prove that those -features of Rosenberg’s ideology which have been branded as immoral -and harmful are extravagances and abuses of this ideology; -and in my opinion it is most important for the Tribunal to know -from a consideration of the history of philosophy, that even the best -ideas—such as the French Revolution—can degenerate. I should -like to point out these historical parallels to National Socialism and -to Rosenberg’s ideology.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also need these books to prove that Rosenberg was concerned -only with the spiritual combating of alien ideology and that he was -not in a position to protest any more energetically against the brutal -application of his ideology in National Socialism, but that as a -matter of principle he allowed scientific discussions of his works to -proceed freely and never called in the Gestapo against his theological -opponents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>He assumed that his ethnic ideas were not to be carried through -by force, but that every people should preserve its own racial -character and that intermingling was only permissible in the case -of kindred races. He believed that this ideology was for the good of -the German people and in the interest of humanity generally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For these reasons I believe that the Tribunal, in order to have -a vivid picture of the background of the development of National -Socialism, should inform itself of the spiritual conditions of that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the argument you -have addressed to it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document Number -7, that is, excerpts from certain books, the first five are from -Rosenberg’s own works, and the last is a book by another author -on Hitler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Again I submit that if Dr. Thoma wants to support the thesis -contained in the first half of his note—that “the Defendant Rosenberg -does not see individual and race, individual and community, -at contrast but represents the new romantical conception that the -personality finds its perfection and its inner freedom by having the -community of the racial spirit developed and represented within -itself”—if Dr. Thoma will give any of the extracts from Rosenberg’s -works on which he bases that argument, then he can present them -at whatever part of his case is convenient; and similarly, with regard -to the specific points set out in the second part of his note—there -<span class='pageno' title='508' id='Page_508'></span> -again, if he will give the relevant extracts, they can be considered -and their relevancy for the purpose of this Court dealt with when -he introduces them in his presentation. But again I take general -objection to the fact that either the Court or the Prosecution should -read all these works and treat them as evidence. I developed that -about the previous document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, if I quote Rosenberg’s actual words -and ask the Tribunal to take official notice of them, I shall be in the -fortunate position of being able to show that Rosenberg’s philosophy -and ideology differ basically from the extravagances and abuses -which were attributed to him and to which he took exception.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am in a position to show that it is clear from his works that -Rosenberg intended the Leadership Principle to be restricted by a -special council exercising an authoritative, advisory function. I shall -also be able to show that the <span class='it'>Myth of the Twentieth Century</span> was a -purely personal work of Rosenberg’s which Hitler did not by any -means accept without reserve. More especially, I am in a position -to prove that Rosenberg, as his works will show, would have nothing -to do with the physical destruction of the Jews and that, as far as -his writings show, he took no part in the psychological preparations -for war and that, as far as his writings show, he worked for a -peaceful international settlement, especially between the four great -European powers of the period. Therefore I beg the Tribunal to -allow me to submit the real, genuine quotations from his writings -as evidence material.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will consider the -whole question of the production of and the citation from these -books.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 8, My Lord, falls into -a rather different field. The first 11 documents seem to be books and -writings containing Jewish views of an antinational basis. The Prosecution -reminds the Tribunal that the questions at issue are: Did -the defendants as co-conspirators embark on a policy of persecution -of the Jews; secondly, did the defendants participate in the later -manifestations of that policy, the deliberate extermination of the -Jews? Within the submission of the Prosecution, it is remote and -irrelevant to these important and terrible accusations that certain -Jewish writings, spread over a period of years, contained matters -which were not very palatable to Christians.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I should like to reply to this point as -follows: I am not interested in showing that the Nazi measures -against the Jews were justified. I am interested only in making -clear the psychological reasons for anti-Semitism in Germany; and -I think I am justified in asking you to listen to some quotations of -<span class='pageno' title='509' id='Page_509'></span> -this kind taken from newspapers, since they must by their very -nature offend the patriotic and Christian susceptibilities of very -many people.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I must go rather more deeply into this question, too, in order to -show the reason for the existence of the so-called Jewish problem -in history and religion and the reason for the tragic opposition -between Jewry and other races. I should like to quote both Jewish -and theological literature on the point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the question.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the Tribunal -can take the remaining documents, 9 to 14, together. They seem to -deal with specific and, if I may say so without the least intention of -offense, more practical matters, in that they deal with the government -of the Eastern territories, for which this defendant was -responsible; and the Prosecution has no objection to my friend’s -using these documents in such a way as it seems fit to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I should like to mention the following points in -connection with the documents:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have had four additional documents allowed in part by the -Tribunal. I have not been able to submit them, because they have -not yet been handed over to me; but I would like to tell the Tribunal -what they are: First, a letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in 1924, -containing a request by Rosenberg not to be accepted as a candidate -for the Reichstag; second, a letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in -1931 regarding his dismissal from the post of editor in chief of the -<span class='it'>Völkischer Beobachter</span>, the reason being that Rosenberg’s <span class='it'>Myth of -the Twentieth Century</span> created a tremendous stir among the German -people. Rosenberg asked at the time that his work be considered a -purely personal work, something which it actually was, and that if -his writing was in any way detrimental to the Party, he would ask -to be released from his position as editor of the <span class='it'>Völkischer Beobachter</span>; -third, I should like to include a directive from Hitler to Minister for -the Eastern Occupied Territories Rosenberg, dated June 1943, in -which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit himself to matters of -principle; fourth, an eight-page letter from Hitler to Rosenberg, -written by hand and dating from the year 1925.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And the fourth one? Will you state the fourth -one, the fourth document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I am coming to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Point 4—a letter written by Hitler to Rosenberg in 1925, in which -Hitler stated his reasons for refusing on principle to take part in the -Reichstag elections. Rosenberg’s view at that time was that the -Party should enter the Reichstag and co-operate practically with the -other parties. -<span class='pageno' title='510' id='Page_510'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have just learned that this letter is dated 1923.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Gentlemen, this is something of decisive importance. From the -very beginning, Rosenberg wanted the NSDAP to co-operate with -the other parties. That could constitute the exact opposite of a -conspiracy from the start. May I present to the Court a copy of my -four applications?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these seem to be -individual documents whose relevancy can be finally dealt with -when Dr. Thoma shows their purpose in his exposition. I do not -stress that the Tribunal need not make any final decision on them at -the present time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I should like to refer to the fact that I have already -asked the General Secretary to admit these documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, have you the documents in your -possession?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Yes, My Lord. The only documents that are lacking -are the four I have just mentioned. They are still in the hands of -the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: They are in the hands of the Prosecution, -are they?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not appreciated that. If -Dr. Thoma wants the documents we will do our best to find them. -The first time I heard of them, of course, was when Dr. Thoma -started speaking a few minutes ago. If the Prosecution have them -or can find them, they will let Dr. Thoma have them or have copies -of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Thoma, why it is that you -have not put in a written application for these four?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I have made such a request, My Lord, several days -or a week ago. I made the first request already in November.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: For these four documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: It is like this: The first two documents were -granted me already in November or December 1945, but I have not -as yet received them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider that. Well, that -finishes your documents, does it not?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the -witnesses, it might be convenient if I indicated the view of the -Prosecution on the, say, first six. The Prosecution has no objection -<span class='pageno' title='511' id='Page_511'></span> -to the first witness, Riecke, the State Secretary of the Ministry of -Agriculture, or to Dr. Lammers, who is being summoned for a -number of the defendants, or to Ministerialrat Beil, who was the -deputy chief of the Main Department of Labor and Social Policy in -the East Ministry.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the next one, Number 4, Dr. Stellbrecht, the -Prosecution suggests that that is a very general matter which does -not seem very relevant, and they say that Dr. Stellbrecht should be -cut out, or at the most that that point be dealt with by a short -interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We also object to 5 and 6, General Dankers and Professor -Astrowski. General Dankers is sought to say that certain theaters -and museums of art in Latvia remained untouched, and that -hundreds of thousands of Latvians begged to be able to come into -the Reich.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are papers about certain laws. The Prosecution submits -that that evidence does not really touch the matters that are alleged -against the Defendant Rosenberg and again they make objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Professor Astrowski, who is alleged to be the Chief of the White -Ruthenian Central Council and whose whereabouts are still -unknown, who was last in Berlin, is to be called to prove that the -Commissioner General in Minsk exerted all efforts in order to save -White Ruthenian cultural goods. There again the Prosecution says -that that is a very general and indefinite allegation and, if the -defendant and certain of his officials are called to give evidence as -to his policy and administration, it is suggested that the witnesses 5 -and 6 are really unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might also deal with Number 7, because the first seven witnesses -are the subject of a note by Dr. Thoma. Number 7 is Dr. Haiding, -who is the Chief of the Institute for German Ethnology, and it is -sought to call him in order to prove that in the Baltic countries -cultural institutions were advanced and new ones founded by -Rosenberg. That witness, the Prosecution submits, falls into the -same category as Dankers and Astrowski. But, with regard to him, -if there is any general point, they say that he could be dealt with -by interrogatories but certainly should not be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is relevant for the Tribunal to read the note under Number 8 -dealing with these witnesses. Dr. Thoma says:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The witnesses can present evidence for the refutation of the -Soviet accusation that Rosenberg participated in the planning -of a world ideology for the extermination of the Slavs and -for the persecution of all dissenters.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='noindent'>The Prosecution submits that the three witnesses that they have -suggested, coupled with the interrogatories, if necessary, in the case -of Stellbrecht and Haiding, should cover these points amply. -<span class='pageno' title='512' id='Page_512'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I agree with Sir David that as far as Dr. Haiding -and Dr. Stellbrecht are concerned an interrogatory will be sufficient. -Regarding witnesses Numbers 5 and 6, I was interested in bringing -in as witnesses people who actually lived in these countries and -who have their personal impressions of Rosenberg’s cultural activities; -and I request that these witnesses be granted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness Scheidt comes into -the story of the Defendant Rosenberg’s connection with Quisling, -and this has been dealt with by interrogatories by the Defense and -by certain cross-interrogatories by the Prosecution. This is obviously -an important part of the case, and I suggest that the Tribunal does -not decide as to the personal summoning of Scheidt until the answers -to the interrogatories are before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 10 is Robert Scholz, the department chief in the Special -Staff of creative art, and roughly the evidence is to show that the -defendant did not take the works of art for his personal benefit. The -Tribunal ordered the alerting of this witness on the 14th of January, -but on the 24th of January the application for this witness was -withdrawn and it is now renewed by Dr. Thoma. If the Tribunal -will look at the way in which it is put in Dr. Thoma’s application, -which is limited and guided by certain specific acts on which Mr. -Scholz can speak—the Prosecution suggest that the Tribunal might -think the most convenient way was again to get a set of interrogatories -on Mr. Scholz, and see how he can deal with the many -individual points put to him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the case of the witness -Wilhelm Scheidt touches the question of Norway. Scheidt is the -decisive witness as to the reports made by Quisling of his own -volition without being invited to do so, either through the Amt Rosenberg -for foreign policy or through the Reich Ministry for Foreign -Affairs. I believe that a personal hearing, a cross-examination, of -this witness Scheidt is extremely important, because he can give a -great deal of detailed information which is decisive for the question -of whether or not Hitler conducted a war of aggression against -Norway.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have been granted an interrogatory for the witness, Departmental -Director Scheidt, and I have already taken steps to confer -with the Prosecution in this connection. The witness Wilhelm Scheidt -has not made an affidavit; but I must point out to the Tribunal that -I should have to be present when the affidavit is made and that I -should be allowed to question the witness myself, in common with -the Prosecution. I should like to repeat my request to cross-examine -this Wilhelm Scheidt as a witness. -<span class='pageno' title='513' id='Page_513'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, if the witness was granted to you -as a witness to give evidence in court, it would not be necessary for -you to have any representative of the Prosecution when you saw the -witness wherever he might be. The advance of a witness would -entitle you to see him yourself and to obtain proof of his evidence. -Is that clear?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: So far I have been granted only an affidavit. I -have not been granted him as a witness as yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to make clear to you the -difference between interrogatories and being allowed to call a witness -to give all the evidence. Of course, if you are submitting to -written interrogatories, you would not see the witness; but if, on the -other hand, you were going to call the witness as a witness or to -present an affidavit from him, you would then be at liberty to see -the witness before he made his affidavit or before he drew up his -proof.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: Then I should like to put the request that Wilhelm -Scheidt be called as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you are making that request.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: As far as Robert Scholz is concerned, I should like -to point out to the Tribunal that Scholz was the director of the -Special Staff entrusted with the practical application of measures -to be taken for the safekeeping of works of art in both eastern and -western districts and I should like to draw the special attention of -the Tribunal to the fact that a number of learned German experts -were members of this Special Staff and that they did a great deal -of very conscientious work in safeguarding, restoring, and protecting -these works of art and in preserving them for posterity. The way -in which this Special Staff did its work is of decisive importance, -therefore, for a good many men. Robert Scholz knows every detail -of the procedure. Robert Scholz can testify, in particular, to the fact -that Rosenberg did not appropriate for himself a single one of the -enormous wealth of art treasures that passed through his hands -and that he kept a careful record of those that went to Hitler and -Göring. He also knows that all these works of art—or, at least, the -greater part of them—were left where they were at first, especially -in the East, and were only brought to the Reich when it was no -longer safe to delay.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I beg the Tribunal to hear this important witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application -was withdrawn on the 24th of January?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: It was said then—I think by the British or American -Prosecution—that the Special Staff would not be mentioned -<span class='pageno' title='514' id='Page_514'></span> -again during the proceedings. The French Prosecution, however, -have now given detailed accounts of the looting of France; and so -this witness is once more required.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, I think?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. THOMA: I have one other request. I want to call a further -witness, and I have already filed a request with the General Secretary -for this witness, ministerial Subdirector Bräutigam. Bräutigam -was Junior Assistant Secretary in the Ministry for the Occupied -Eastern Territories, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that -Rosenberg, in his capacity of Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern -Territories, did not persecute the churches but granted freedom to -all religious sects by the issue of an edict of tolerance; that, further, -Rosenberg himself consistently opposed the use of force, supported -a policy of promoting culture and represented the view that the -peasant class should be strengthened and established on a healthy -basis. Further—and this seems to me to be particularly significant—that -very many letters and telegrams of thanks from the clergy in -the Soviet Union arrived at the ministry for Occupied Eastern -Territories addressed to Rosenberg. Gentlemen, if Dankers and -Astrowski are not granted as witnesses, then I request permission -to go back to Bräutigam.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And then I have one further witness. To show how Rosenberg -behaved towards his academic opponents, I should like to call one -of these academic opponents, to wit, Dr. Kuenneth, a university -professor who wrote an important book attacking the <span class='it'>Mythos</span>. He -will testify that those who disagreed with Rosenberg’s philosophy -were not at all afraid of the Gestapo and that they had no cause -to fear the Gestapo.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those -last two?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these -last two witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this -defendant which have been developed by the Prosecution. They are -general witnesses, and if I may put it—I hope the Tribunal will not -think it flippant to put it this way—they are really witnesses who -say that the Defendant Rosenberg would not hurt a fly; we have -often seen him doing it—not hurting flies. That really puts it quite -briefly as to what this class of evidence amounts to, and I respectfully -submit, on behalf of my colleagues, that that should not be the -subject of oral evidence, and it should be disallowed; or if there is -any special point raised, it should be dealt with by an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated -the persecution of churches? -<span class='pageno' title='515' id='Page_515'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took -part in antireligious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That -is one of the matters. And I think there was certain correspondence -between him and the Defendant Bormann, which was directed -towards his antireligious views. I do not remember at the moment -that there was any evidence that he had personally participated in -physical destruction of churches. That is my recollection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I am reminded that there is a general allegation in -Appendix A that he authorized, directed, and participated in the -War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, including a wide variety -of crimes against persons and property.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans -Bühler, State Secretary with the Chief of the Administration in the -Government General. This witness is detained here in Nuremberg, -pending trial; and he is the most important witness for the Defendant -Dr. Frank. He is called for Dr. Frank’s whole policy in the -Government General, since he was head of the government during -the entire period from the establishment of the Government General -up to the end.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to -Dr. Bühler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have not, My Lord. The -only point that I want to make clear is that the Defendant Frank -calls an enormous number of witnesses from his own officials; he -calls something like 15. And I am not going to object to Dr. Bühler; -I am going to ask the Tribunal to cut down substantially the witnesses -who were officials of the Government General. And it might -help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the adjournment that my suggestion -would be that the Tribunal would consider allowing Dr. Bühler, -an affidavit from Dr. Von Burgsdorff, and that they might consider -allowing Fräulein Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s secretary, and -Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of officials from -the Government General.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow -Dr. Bühler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bühler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow -Dr. Lammers—he is in the general list. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Allow the private secretary, -Fräulein Kraffczyk, Number 7, and allow Numbers 9 and 10. -<span class='pageno' title='516' id='Page_516'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What are the names?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed, I -should suggest that Numbers 13 to 20, who are various officials from -the office of the Government General, should not be allowed. If I -may say so, with the submission of the Prosecution, the height of -irrelevancy will be Number 18, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the -Forestry Department.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient -for Dr. Seidl to know what the views of the Prosecution were. Of -course, if he has any suggestions of any alternatives we should be -pleased to consider them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, -Dr. Seidl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Before the Tribunal rises, before the adjournment, I want to say -that the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at 3:30.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='517' id='Page_517'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, if I understand correctly, -Sir David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses -Dr. Hans Bühler, Dr. Bilfinger, and Fräulein Kraffczyk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The second witness named by me is Dr. Von Burgsdorff, -whose last appointment was that of Governor of Kraków. He -is at present in the Moosburg Internment Camp, which means that -he is close to Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff is the only one of the nine -governors whom I have named to the Court as a witness. Considering -the importance of the position of the governors in the -Government General and in view of the great difficulties which -these governors had to overcome, it seems proper to me that the -witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff should be heard personally by the Court -and not by means of an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is it necessary for me to read out the evidence material in detail -now, or is it enough to refer to the application for evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand -that, while Sir David suggests an affidavit, you want to insist -upon his coming personally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, since the Court approved the -calling of this witness at an earlier date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reich Minister and Chief of the -Reich Chancellery Dr. Lammers. This witness has already been -approved for the Defendant Keitel, so that no further discussion -is necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard -to the fact that this witness is called in connection with evidence -for which the witness Dr. Lammers was also named, I should like to -ask the Tribunal to allow an interrogatory unless this witness is -called for another defendant and can appear in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point -as far as I could from my records, and I could not find that he was -being called as a witness for any other defendant. And, as Dr. Seidl -very fairly says in his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for -the same evidence material as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is -my point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='518' id='Page_518'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, former -Chief of the Chancellery of the Government General, who, like -Dr. Von Burgsdorff, is in Moosburg. My written application shows -that this witness held a very important appointment. He received -all the correspondence of the administration of the Government -General and is acquainted in particular with the substance, with -suggestions and complaints addressed by the Defendant Dr. Frank -to the central government authorities in Berlin, and in particular -with the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank repeatedly made -to the Führer himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was likewise approved previously by the Tribunal, -and I think that considering the vast knowledge of this witness—he -worked in the Government General for several years—a personal -hearing before this Court seems advisable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not -approved as one out of a group of which Frank was to choose -three? There was a large group of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The witnesses Von Burgsdorff -and Dr. Max Meidinger were chosen from this group. Those are the -two witnesses who were selected from a group of 13.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The other one was witness Number 2, Dr. Von Burgsdorff. -Witness Number 6, whom I have named and whom I should -like to have called in person, is the witness Hans Gassner. His last -appointment was that of press chief of the Government General, and -he is also in the Moosburg Internment Camp. He was named, along -with some others, to give evidence that the Defendant Frank did -not hear of the existence of the camp of Maidanek and the conditions -prevailing there until 1944, and then only because the witness -informed him of reports published by the foreign press.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was also present—this is not stated in my application—when -Dr. Frank told a press reporter that the forests of -Poland would not be large enough to publish the death warrants. -The witness will also be able to describe the interview in detail, to -say what Frank meant by this remark, how he intended it to be -understood, and what his reasons were for making the remark.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I may add that the Court likewise approved this witness at an -earlier date. I may say also, generally speaking, that, according to -the wishes of the Tribunal, my applications for evidence will only -indicate the general lines on which the witnesses are to be questioned -and that I have consciously refrained from formulating the -separate questions which I intend to put to the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about -Number 6? -<span class='pageno' title='519' id='Page_519'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, it -seemed to the Prosecution that the second matter which Herr -Gassner was desired to speak about, that the Defendant Frank -learned from him only in 1944 about Maidanek, is really a matter -about which no witness can be as satisfactory as the defendant -himself. All the witness can say is, “I told the Defendant Frank -about Maidanek, and it appeared to me that he did not know anything -about it.” Well, that is not, in the view of the Prosecution, -satisfactory evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Court will be able to judge from the Defendant Frank himself -when he has been cross-examined on that point. If it is desired -that that interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submit -that it could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an -interrogatory. Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general -and again could be covered by a written statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already -expressed his views on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s last secretary. -If I understand correctly, there are no objections on the part -of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 8 is General Von Epp, the last Reich Governor -of Bavaria. He is at present in the internment camp at Oberursel. -The statements to be made by this witness will be mainly concerned -with the attitude of the Defendant Frank towards the concentration -camps in 1933. As the witness is at present in the -neighborhood of Frankfurt, I should be satisfied in this case with -an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that -General Ritter von Epp seems to cover the same incident as -Dr. Stepp. I said that I would not object to Dr. Stepp, but if -Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on some specific points from -General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, -late Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannführer in the Reich -Security Main Office. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. -The Prosecution apparently has no objection to the hearing of this -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Number 10. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [<span class='it'>Interposing</span>] My Lord, I would -just like to say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal -to understand what the Prosecution have in mind. The general plan -<span class='pageno' title='520' id='Page_520'></span> -for these witnesses is to show from both ends the relationship -between the Defendant Frank and the central agencies. The Prosecution -thought that it was right that the defendant should be -allowed to call two or three members of his own staff and a member -from headquarters, who was in the position of Dr. Bilfinger, to give -the other side of the picture. I just wanted the Tribunal to understand -the plan on which we were working.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, former chief judge -of the highest regional court of appeal in Munich. He is at present -in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I understand Sir David -correctly, he has no objection to the calling of this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the Court an -affidavit which is in my possession, and which will prove the veracity -of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take -a few minutes, if the Court would permit me to call another witness -instead, or if it would withdraw its objection to my calling another -witness. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; I have to ask for some notice as -to who the other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection -to Dr. Stepp, because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank’s position -in relation to other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I -cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues and accept just another -witness blindly until I know who the witness is and what he is -going to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as -possible. The reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was -because, as the Tribunal will see under Number 7, it is stated that -Fräulein Kraffczyk is called for positive facts for which the witness -Dr. Meidinger has already been named. It seemed to me that the -private secretary is probably the most useful witness, but I am -afraid that I cannot help Dr. Seidl any further. I have put my view, -but I shall not say anything further against him. I am afraid that -is as far as I can go on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 11, is Von dem Bach-Zelewski, -SS Obergruppenführer and general of the Waffen-SS, -who has already been heard by this Tribunal as a witness for the -Prosecution. The Court has already at an earlier date granted permission -for an interrogatory. In the meantime I have spoken to the -witness. He has made an affidavit, which I shall submit instead of -calling him in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it -would be most convenient if the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski -<span class='pageno' title='521' id='Page_521'></span> -came back, and then Dr. Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he -wanted. We might want to re-examine on the point. I do not know -what is in the affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity -to cross-examine him, and for that reason. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine -him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be -called by the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to -speak to the Defendant Frank about the questions which might have -been put to this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness -ought to be recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be -allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has -made, has that been submitted to the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the -following. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did -you see him with a representative of the Prosecution?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself -granted me permission to speak to the witness, and that was after -the Court had already approved the use of an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution -and you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you -were not ready to cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine -him at a later date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine -at that time, because you had not had any communication -with the Defendant Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked -to cross-examine at a later date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I -had thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. -I did not find out until later that the witness possessed any vital -information relevant to Frank’s case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The -difficulty of a cross-examination is just this, that we do not learn -of the intended calling of a witness by the Prosecution until the -witness is led into the courtroom, and we do not know the subject -of the evidence until the Prosecution start to examine the witness. -<span class='pageno' title='522' id='Page_522'></span> -It would have been much easier for us to cross-examine, if we had -received information about the witnesses and the subjects of evidence -as far in advance as the Prosecution—that is, as the Prosecution -is informed about the witnesses for the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is witness Number 12, Von Palezieux. His last -appointment was that of art expert in the Government General. In -regard to this witness I should like to suggest that an interrogatory -might be granted in this case too.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory, -I have no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a -written interrogatory. I do not want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you -not, Dr. Seidl?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes; I assume that in cases where a written interrogatory -is admitted the submission of an affidavit is also admitted -by the Court. The purpose is obviously to avoid bringing witnesses -here and thus to save time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness is Number 13, Dr. Böpple. His last appointment -was that of State Secretary in the administration of the Government -General. He is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg -near Stuttgart. This witness seems to me to be one of the most -important because in the administration of the Government General -he answered a number of questions which play an important part -in the case against the Defendant Frank. I may refer to the details -in my list of evidence and should like to add, above all, that this -witness can give detailed information as to whether, during the -5 years of the Government General’s existence, the industrial equipment -of the area was exploited or whether in 1943 and 1944, as a -result of transfers from the Reich, the Government General did -not possess a considerably greater industrial potential than before.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submit that, as -is stated in the first sentence, Dr. Böpple is called for a number of -facts of evidence for which Dr. Bühler has been already generally -mentioned. Part of the evidence stated is the relationship with the -Government General agencies, and the remainder, as to the happenings -in the Government General, can be dealt with by the witness -already agreed to by the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr. Böpple -is to confirm are also to be testified to by Bühler. But in my opinion -it cannot be denied that the subject of evidence for which I have -named this witness is so important that one witness might not be -sufficient to convince the Court. -<span class='pageno' title='523' id='Page_523'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like furthermore to point out the following: The witness -Bühler was chief of the administration of the Government General. -He has already been interrogated many times by the Polish Delegation -as well. There is a danger that proceedings may be instituted -against this witness as well, on account of the importance of -the position he held. It is self-evident that under these circumstances -every conscientious Defense Counsel should take into account the -fact that the witness may try to shield himself when he answers -certain questions; and considering the importance of the evidence, -it seems proper that, in these difficult circumstances, the Defendant -Frank be granted additional witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include -any of the other witnesses who were cumulative to Bühler?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from -Böpple and only Fräulein Kraffczyk on the general work of the -Government General. The others, I think, are on the different points -of the relationship with the central agencies.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Number 14, President Struve, -whose last appointment was that of chief of the main labor department -of the Government General. In other words, he was Minister -for Labor in the Government General. Since both the United States -Prosecution and the Russian Prosecution have made grave charges -against the Defendant Dr. Frank on this very point of the alleged -compulsory transfer of workers, it seems to me proper that one -witness at least—the competent official—should be examined on the -facts presented by the Prosecution so that he can say what orders -he received on the subject from the Government General. Information -as to the location of this witness has also been obtained. He -is in an internment camp near Paderborn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, My Lord, with -great deference, that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses -and show those to which he attaches special importance, it -would be convenient for the Tribunal; and if Dr. Seidl would be -good enough to say quite bluntly whether he attaches importance -to any of the others or if he does not, then it might be possible -for the Prosecution to reconsider the elimination of all these witnesses; -but the position at the moment is that there are requests -for all sections, all departments of the Government General, and -the Prosecution failed to see how these are necessary. If Dr. Seidl -would indicate any special purpose that he attaches to any of them, -then one might come back and consider President Struve again; but -the position at the moment is that the Prosecution do not see how -<span class='pageno' title='524' id='Page_524'></span> -it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank that each one of the -departmental chiefs should be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: It is not the case that all the officers or rather holders -of office, were named as witnesses. A good many others could have -been named. For instance, I have already said that out of nine -governors, each of whom was in charge of 3 to 3½ million people, -I have named only one: the witness Von Burgsdorff.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have also foregone witnesses whom I had previously named—for -instance, the various military commanders. If, however, the -Prosecution wishes to know which witnesses I consider of special -importance, I shall give the numbers of these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They are, besides State Secretary Dr. Bühler, witness Number 2, -Von Burgsdorff; Lammers has already been approved; further, the -witness Dr. Max Meidinger; the witness Gassner, Number 6; the -witness Number 7, Helene Kraffczyk; the witness Number 9, -Bilfinger—he was not a member of the administration of the -Government General; members of the Government General; Numbers -13, 14, 15, and 19. That does not mean, however, that I am -willing to forego the witnesses which I have not mentioned. Witness -Number 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important witness because -he was the chief of the main department for food and agriculture -and can give us detailed information about the Defendant Dr. Frank’s -policy with regard to the feeding of the Polish and Ukrainian peoples -and how he tried in particular, through the highest authorities of the -Reich, to have the demands of the Reich reduced. The witness’ -address was not known until now, but I understand that the chief -Polish public prosecutor, Dr. Sawicki, is supposed to know where he -is at present. The next witness is Number 16, President Ohlenbusch, -who is called mainly to testify to the cultural policy pursued by the -Defendant Frank in the Government General. He is not, however, -one of our most important witnesses; and I imagine that in his case -an interrogatory would suffice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same applies to witness Number 17. Witness Number 18 is -Dr. Eisfeldt whose last appointment was head of the main department -of forestry, and who will testify to the forestry policy of the -defendant and especially—this seems to me an essential point—to -the fact that there was so much trouble with the partisans in the -Government General that it was in the interest of the Polish and -Ukrainian people themselves to take strong measures against them. -Witness Number 19 is President Lesacker, lately head of the main -department of internal administration, whose last known place of -residence was Bad Tölz. His present address may now have become -known. Witness Number 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge, who, as my -application shows, is to testify to the efforts made by the Defendant -Dr. Frank in the field of public health. -<span class='pageno' title='525' id='Page_525'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -I have now had the advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl -has to say, and it seems to me that, so far as the witnesses from -the Government General itself are concerned, the position is that -Dr. Böpple, Number 13, does not add greatly to the general position -which would be explained by Dr. Bühler and Dr. Von Burgsdorff -and Fräulein Kraffczyk; that the witness Number 5, Dr. Meidinger, -seems to deal with very much the same problems as President -Struve, witness Number 14, and the witness Naumann, Number 15, -and that, on reconsideration, I think the Prosecution would be -prepared to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, -or Dr. Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, Dr. Senkowsky, -and Dr. Eisfeldt seem to speak about points that are really removed -from the issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general -attitude of the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is -covered by Dr. Bühler and Von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is -granted; and the last witness, Teitge, seems again to speak on a -really departmental point which is not a serious issue in the case. -And, therefore, in trying to apply our own principle of recommending -any witness where there is a real relevancy, the Prosecution -would be prepared to go as far as I said in their recommendation, -that, in addition to the witnesses that I have mentioned, they would -suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the witnesses Struve -or Naumann should be called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: I ask for permission to add a few words -to that which has been said by my esteemed colleague, Sir David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: After listening very carefully to Dr. Seidl, -I have come to the conclusion that we must ask you to take notice -of our negative attitude towards a further summoning of the -witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation fears -that should the Tribunal deem it possible to grant Dr. Seidl’s -application—which, to my mind, appears completely unfounded—then -a very dangerous precedent would be created for the factual -annulment of the basic decision already accepted by the Tribunal -in this respect.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as I understand, the Tribunal are of opinion that every -witness can and must be called once only for purpose of cross-interrogation. -In reply to your question Dr. Seidl confirms that he -was present here during the cross-examination by my colleague, -Colonel Taylor, and myself. He saw and heard how the cross-examination -was progressing. His reference to the fact that he did -not have time enough to prepare for participation in this cross-examination -appears to me unworthy of the slightest attention. He -<span class='pageno' title='526' id='Page_526'></span> -was in the same position as the rest of us. The Tribunal will -remember that a number of the Defense Counsel participated in the -cross-examination of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. I see no -reason why a different attitude should be adopted for Dr. Seidl’s -sake and I do not see why, to gratify a wish of Dr. Seidl, which, -to me, is completely incomprehensible, the basic decision of the -Tribunal should be changed concerning the repeated calling of -witnesses for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected -colleague, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the desire to -hear an important witness is incomprehensible in itself, if the -cross-examination is rendered difficult for reasons over which we -have no control. In the first place, I have only asked the Court -for permission to submit an affidavit from this witness to the -Tribunal. If now the affidavit is such. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with Number 20?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: No, Sir. I am speaking about the witness Von dem -Bach-Zelewski.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said -about it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -with regard to the documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence -between the Governor General and the Reich Chancellery. I have -just verified that we do not have the other part of the correspondence. -Of course, if any of it comes into our possession, we -will be only too pleased to give it to Dr. Seidl. We do not have it, -and we also do not have the personal files of the Defendant Frank -in the Reich Security Main Office. The same applies to that—that -if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at once.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the -other documents which are asked for?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others -are the diary. Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he -desires as to the diary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Now counsel for the Defendant -Frick.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Your Honors, the first witness I have -named is Dr. Lammers, who has, however, already been approved -<span class='pageno' title='527' id='Page_527'></span> -for the Defendant Keitel. I believe, therefore, that I need make -no statement on this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As my second witness I have named the former State Secretary -of the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. He is one of the State -Secretaries of the Ministry of the Interior, and he is in custody -in Nuremberg. He was chief of the central office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the -Defendant Keitel?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that -it was certainly thought that on the 9th of February this witness -was to be so called by the Defendant Keitel, and on that basis he -was approved in connection with the Defendant Frick. That is not -directly my request to write it on the Defendant Keitel’s final list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, -Your Lordship.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, as witness Number 3 -I have named General Daluege, who was formerly general of the -Regular Police, and who is now in custody here in Nuremberg. He -is informed especially about the attitude of the Defendant Frick -to the anti-Jewish demonstration on 9 November 1938, and he also -knows the relations between Frick and Himmler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 4 I have named -Dr. Diels, who is now in an internment camp in the Hanover district. -The witness was chief of the Gestapo in Prussia in 1933-1934. He -is acquainted with the measures which the Defendant Frick, as -Reich Minister of the Interior, decreed for the supervision of the -provinces by the Reich, as well as about the concentration camps, -and also, in particular, about measures taken in individual cases -and about conditions in the camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness’ -evidence should be taken in writing. With regard to the earlier -part, the Tribunal will have the advantage of the Defendant Göring -who was concerned especially with the practices of the police in -Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with regard to the other points, as to -the measures of the Defendant Frick, these are either laws or orders -or administrative measures, which could be included, in the submission -of the Prosecution, as being dealt with by written testimony -supplemented by testimony of the Defendant Frick himself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say something to that. -I believe that it would be more practical to hear the witness here -<span class='pageno' title='528' id='Page_528'></span> -before the Court. We can then have a talk with him beforehand -and find out the points on which he has detailed information, -whereas in an interrogatory these things could not be discussed -in detail.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 5 I have named the -former police commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber accompanied the -Defendant Frick on all his official trips as his police guard. He -therefore knows what trips Frick made and can therefore testify -that Frick never went to the Dachau Concentration Camp, which -contradicts the testimony given here by the witness Dr. Blaha.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, -to the Defendant Frick’s dealing with that point. The only difficulty -as to a witness of this sort is, I will say, the unfamiliarity with all -of his travels, because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost -certain to have periods of leave, and periods of interruption would -occur. I should have thought that this could have been dealt with -by affidavits, or an interrogatory, if necessary. When they are seen -the matter could be reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage -the interrogatories, indicating in the witness’ own account how -often he was with the Defendant Frick and what interruptions -would be most frequent in that period; therefore, it is for the Court -to decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next -point, I have a suggestion to make in regard to the witness—the -next witness, Denson. The point, as I understand it there, is that -the Witness Blaha said before the Tribunal that Frick had visited -Dachau, that it was, however, his evidence at the Dachau trial that -Frick did not come to Dachau. I should say the most satisfactory -way in dealing with that is to get the shorthand notes of the -Witness Blaha’s evidence at the Dachau trial and put in a certified -copy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that these notes. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified -copy of the shorthand notes of Blaha’s evidence here, and I also -say in fairness to the witness that it does show he did say that at -Dachau Frick visited the concentration camp, and I will show it to -Dr. Pannenbecker whenever he likes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 7 I have named -Dr. Messersmith. An affidavit from him has been read here by the -Prosecution. An interrogatory has already been approved for this -witness. We have not as yet received an answer. I should like for -<span class='pageno' title='529' id='Page_529'></span> -the time being to withhold the question as to whether a hearing of -this witness in person seems necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As an additional application I have also named the witness -Dr. Gisevius.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius’ -evidence might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an -affidavit in answer to interrogatories. He was consultant of the -Reich Minister of the Interior under the Defendant Frick and supposedly -went to Switzerland after 20 July 1944; he has exact knowledge -of the responsibility and actual authority of the Defendant -Frick to issue orders in police matters. I should think that such -matters might be conveniently dealt with in an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say that the Witness -Dr. Gisevius is also required as a witness by the Defendant Schacht, -as far as I know, about the events of 20 July 1944. I believe that -this witness will have to appear in person for the Defendant -Schacht. It would also be better if the witness could be heard here -in person for the Defendant Frick. In case of necessity an affidavit -would suffice.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is one other point about it. You asked -earlier for the return of Colonel Ratke. I think that you were told -you could have him or Stuckart. Will you now leave him out of -your application because you have Stuckart?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it was like this. I had named three -witnesses for Dr. Blaha—Gillhuber, Ratke, and a third. We dropped -Ratke when I got Gillhuber.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I speak about the document book here?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: In order to give a general description of -the Defendant Frick’s character, I asked permission to refer to two -books. One of them is a small book, <span class='it'>We Build the Third Reich</span>, -which contains speeches made by Frick. I intend merely to quote -short excerpts from these speeches in the course of my presentation -of evidence. As regards the other book, <span class='it'>Inside Europe</span>, by John -Gunther, I want to read here, too, only a short excerpt, one sentence -about Frick.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I have offered further evidence material on the question -of whether Frick intervened by means of restrictive decrees against -arbitrary measures in imposing protective custody and have based -my observations mainly on documents originally submitted by the -Prosecution but not read in court. These documents I have listed -simply under Number 2a-c. -<span class='pageno' title='530' id='Page_530'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have further asked for permission to refer to the files of the -police department of the Ministry of the Interior, where restrictive -decrees issued by the Defendant Frick in regard to protective -custody are also to be found.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With reference to his intervention in individual cases, I request -permission to read a letter written to me by the former Reichstag -Deputy Wulle. I have listed it under Number 3. The Prosecution -has submitted an affidavit by Seger, in which the latter declares -that Frick, as chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the -Reichstag, had made statements on putting political opponents into -concentration camps as early as December 1932. In Number 4 -I have asked for the stenographic records of the Foreign Affairs -Committee to prove that such a statement was never recorded and -never made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 5 concerns the records of the Dachau trial in regard to -the Blaha incident already discussed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 6 concerns an affidavit by the Witness Dr. Stuckart, -which he made for the American Prosecution on 21 September 1945. -I could just as well ask this witness about these questions when he -is heard in person; but it would shorten the hearing if I could -read this affidavit, which was made for the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Frick’s position as Reich Protector of Bohemia -and Moravia, I should like to submit the Prosecution’s Document -Number 1368-PS, which contains details of the limitations imposed -on the Defendant Frick’s powers as Reich Protector at the time of -his appointment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have also made a supplementary application for Gisevius’ book, -<span class='it'>To the Bitter End</span>. I learned of this book through an extract -published in the <span class='it'>Süddeutsche Zeitung</span> on 26 February 1946 which -gave interesting details of the Röhm Putsch of 30 June 1934. This -extract states that for the events of 30 June 1934, police power was -assumed by Hitler and transferred to Göring and Himmler. The -book will give further details in precisely this field, since Gisevius -was at that time expert for police matters in the Reich Ministry -of the Interior. I request the Tribunal, therefore, to refer to this -book, which is not yet in my hands, or to assist me to procure a copy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say I do not think that -there is much disagreement between Dr. Pannenbecker and the -Prosecution. I might run through the documents asked for. In the -book, <span class='it'>We Build the Third Reich</span>, if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate -the excerpts he is going to use, the Prosecution will have no -objection to his quoting from them, and the same with regard to -the quotations from Mr. Gunther’s book, <span class='it'>Inside Europe</span>. To Paragraph -2 of the Document 779-PS and the excerpt from a newspaper, -<span class='pageno' title='531' id='Page_531'></span> -the Document 775-PS—to these there are no objections. The files of -the police division are not in the hands of the Prosecution. If we -do get any of them, then we shall let Dr. Pannenbecker know. As -far as the letter from the former representative Wulle is concerned, -there is no objection to that. I have not seen any letter yet, but -there is no objection to it in principle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 4, I think there is some misunderstanding -there. That is Document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before -the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-234, and the statement -referred to by Seger was that the Defendant Frick said to him, -“Don’t worry, when we are in power, we shall put all of you guys -into concentration camps.” This was alleged in the affidavit as said -by Frick to Seger during the course of a conversation. It is not -alleged to have been said in the Foreign Affairs Committee.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then Number 5—I say I have the shorthand notes, and it will be -shown to Dr. Pannenbecker. As to Number 6, I understand that -Dr. Stuckart is going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be -put to him and he can verify its truth. The Document 1336-PS will -be put at the disposal of the Defense and they can make such use of -it as they can. That covers the documents. As to Dr. Gisevius’ -book, I understand that Dr. Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. -Perhaps the Tribunal will see that a copy can be obtained for him. -I do not know whether we have a copy. We will see what we can -do and see that a copy is available.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: As to Number 4, Dr. Seger, I still have -a brief comment to make on Document 83. Perhaps an interrogatory -could show whether or not Frick made the statement in question -in his capacity as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—in -other words whether or not that statement is in the stenographic -minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understood that it was not -in the minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that -it was made during the course of a conversation, and not in that -committee.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning -at 10 o’clock, if possible, with the further applications for -witnesses and documents, which the Tribunal understand have been -lodged on Friday evening.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='532' id='Page_532'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY</span><br/> Tuesday, 5 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hanns -Marx, one of the German counsel appearing in this case for the -Defense, to an article which was published in the newspaper -<span class='it'>Berliner Zeitung</span> for February 2, under the heading, “A Defense -Counsel.” The article, which I do not propose to read, criticizes -Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error in his cross-examination -of a witness when he deputized for Dr. Babel on behalf of the SS. -The article suggested that in asking the question he did he was -behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and -personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his -proper course was to remain silent in view of the character of the -evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The matter assumes a graver aspect still because the article -goes on to threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the -future and does so in language both violent and intimidating.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal desires to say in the plainest language that such -conduct cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be -represented by counsel is one of the most important elements in the -administration of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court, and he -must be permitted freely to make his defense without fear from -threats or intimidations. In conformity with the express provisions -of the Charter, the Tribunal was at great pains to see that all the -individual defendants and the named organizations should have the -advantage of being represented by counsel; and the Defense Counsel -have already shown the great service they are rendering in this -Trial, and their conduct in this regard should certainly not leave -them open to reproach of any kind from any quarter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal itself is the sole judge of what is proper conduct -in Court and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard -of professional conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of -their duties under the Charter, may count upon the fullest protection -which it is in the power of the Tribunal to afford. In the present -instance the Tribunal does not think that Dr. Marx in any way -exceeded his professional duty. -<span class='pageno' title='533' id='Page_533'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal regards the matter as one of such importance in -its bearing on the due administration of justice that they have -asked the Control Council for Germany to investigate the facts and -to report to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That is all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David, the first application is for the Defendant Streicher. -I call upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, -the Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, -that he was active in the planning and in the conspiracy for -preparation of aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against -Humanity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think -it necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, -during the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a -single document; neither can it be proved that he took part in any -of the intimate conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not -see fit to offer any proof. As to the second point, first of all I should -like to call the wife of the Defendant Streicher, Frau Adele Streicher -nee Tappe as witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient -for me to indicate the views of the Prosecution on these -witnesses; there are only six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could -make his comments on my suggestions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there -are six witnesses, and if it would take them in my order, I would -indicate the point of view of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 3, Ernst Hiemer, was the editor in chief of <span class='it'>Der Stürmer</span>, -and apparently the defendant’s principal lieutenant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 4, Wurzbacher, was an SA brigade leader in Nuremberg, -and is alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the -defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant’s chauffeur, and he -is to speak on one point, namely, the defendant’s annoyance at -violence being used on the 10th of November 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And Number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, is to speak on the -same point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in -December 1938 of the measures taken in November.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are two members of the defendant’s family: Frau -Streicher, who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, -Lothar Streicher. -<span class='pageno' title='534' id='Page_534'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution would have no objection to Herr Hiemer, as -the defendant’s principal lieutenant, speaking, as suggested by -Dr. Marx, on what Dr. Marx calls the Defendant Streicher’s basic -attitude to the Jewish question. There are a number of matters -on which he is said to be able to speak, to which the Prosecution -would object as irrelevant. However, the time for so doing is later.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, with regard to Herr Wurzbacher, he is said to have always -been present at meetings where Streicher spoke, from the early -days. To that also the Prosecution would not make objection, but -they draw attention to the fact that in the earlier applications -Herr Wurzbacher was said to be able to speak as to the boycott -in 1933 and the events of November 1938. Therefore the Prosecution -respectfully remind the Tribunal that he can speak on the events -in 1938, and, in the view of the Prosecution, it is not necessary to -have oral testimony to repeat that point. They therefore suggest -that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant’s chauffeur, who -really speaks on one main point—that the defendant showed anger -with regard to the events of 1938—an affidavit would be sufficient. -They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, the -attorney who is mentioned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Frau Streicher, Number 1, the Tribunal will see -that it is said that Frau Streicher was the defendant’s secretary -during the period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the -case against this defendant refers, of course, to a much earlier -period, both before and immediately after the rise to power.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution suggest that the evidence which is desired from -Frau Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant -during the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered -by an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That leaves Lieutenant Lothar Streicher, the eldest son of the -defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters -mentioned in regard to him come into the case: In a report of the -Göring commission on the question of corruption in regard to -Aryanization, part of the report stated that this defendant paid a -visit to three boys in prison, and that certain disgusting and cruel -actions took place. The Prosecution, of course, submit that that is -not really a matter relevant to the charges against the defendant, -but they realize that it is a highly prejudicial matter; it has been -read and a bad effect has resulted from that evidence. Therefore -they feel it must be a matter for the Tribunal; and the Prosecution, -having put in the report including that, ought not to take objection, -except to point out that it is not strictly relevant. However, if the -Tribunal feel that this defendant ought to have the advantage of -his son’s counteracting that account of very unpleasant matters, -<span class='pageno' title='535' id='Page_535'></span> -the Prosecution would not take any objection, although they are -bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the Prosecution, would an -affidavit be suitable in that case?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the -Prosecution would suggest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therefore, if I may summarize, what I am suggesting is that -the Prosecution would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr -Wurzbacher giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects with Sir David -Maxwell-Fyfe. The Prosecution hold that the testimony to be -given by Frau Adele Streicher would not be specially relevant. -Opposing this I should like to state that this witness was for -5 years, that is from 1940 to 1945, close to the defendant, handled -his entire correspondence, and knows what contacts Streicher had -during the whole war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defense is particularly anxious to prove that Streicher had -no connection with any of the leading men of the State or Party -while he lived in isolation in Pleikershof. There was no exchange -of letters or opinions with Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, or -Heydrich, or any other leading personalities, whatever their names -might be. Streicher was completely isolated and played no political -role whatsoever; neither had he any authority. In view of this, I, as -his counsel, cannot waive the evidence of this witness, as otherwise -the vital interests of the Defendant Streicher would be prejudiced. -I therefore suggest that my application to call Frau Streicher as -witness before the Tribunal be granted, so that the pertinent -questions may be put to her.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same applies to the witness Herrwerth. It cannot be said -that this witness can give information only on irrelevant matters -or on an insignificant incident. On the contrary the incident in -question is of decisive importance. This man Herrwerth was present -on the night of 9 November 1938, when SA Group Leader -Von Obernitz reported to the then Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations -against the Jewish population were being planned. He -therefore knows from personal experience what passed between -these two men, and that Streicher was opposed to this demonstration, -because he considered such a demonstration to be entirely -wrong.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thus, in opposition to the Führer’s will and order, Streicher kept -himself aloof from this demonstration against the Jewish population. -There can be no doubt that this incident is of particular -importance. It is clear that the behavior of Streicher, who at the -<span class='pageno' title='536' id='Page_536'></span> -time was already in bed and received Obernitz in his bedroom, -corroborated the stand taken by his defense, I therefore submit -that Fritz Herrwerth be called as witness before the Tribunal, -so that he can be examined by me and, if necessary, also by the -Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the witness Hiemer, the Prosecution and I seem to be in -agreement that he as well as Wurzbacher appear before the Tribunal. -I may mention that Wurzbacher is now in the Altenstaedt Camp -near Schongau, Camp Number 10.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the witness Lothar Streicher, the Defendant Streicher -attaches particular importance to having it confirmed by this -witness that what the Göring report mentions about the Defendant -Streicher’s indecent words or acts, when visiting the prison, is -untrue.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Prosecution are prepared to state that they will drop -this point and no longer use this report, then I would agree to -refrain from calling this witness. Otherwise, I consider it my -duty to insist on having this witness called before the Tribunal -to vindicate my client’s honor. An affidavit could not possibly -meet this purpose, and I therefore ask that the application of the -Defense be granted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, -I have indicated from the Prosecution that that incident is not -relevant to the charges against the Defendant Streicher. The -Prosecution, of course, produced the report and I thought I had -made it clear to the Tribunal that it is one of these collateral -matters that do come in, and the Prosecution for that reason would -not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the main case -of the Prosecution against this defendant is on the stirring up of -and consistent incitement to persecution of the Jews. I do not think -I can put it further than that. But I had hoped I had made clear -that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other -issue. The report under discussion was on the Aryanization of -Jewish properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report -itself is relevant to persecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I make a few additional -remarks?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This matter which is to be proved by Lothar Streicher forms -a part of the Göring report and cannot therefore be dealt with -separated from its context. The defendant contends that this Göring -report originates from a man who wanted to harm him, who, -after having received many favors from him, became his enemy -and used this Göring commission, which was originally meant for -<span class='pageno' title='537' id='Page_537'></span> -quite other purposes, to deal the defendant, whom he hated, a -sudden blow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is a rather serious matter to say of a man that he indulged -in sadism in the presence of other persons in a disgusting manner. -That is why the defendant is so anxious to have the falsity of -this allegation exposed here publicly. I therefore request once -more that Lothar Streicher be brought before this Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the last witness, Attorney Strobel, I would be very -pleased to comply with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s wishes, but also -in this case I am afraid I cannot do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Attorney Strobel’s testimony is offered as proof for the following: -Sometime, approximately three weeks after the events on the night -of 9 November 1938, Streicher addressed a meeting of the Association -of Lawyers at Nuremberg. At that public meeting of lawyers, -Streicher defined his attitude to the events of 9 November 1938 -and made it clear that he had been against the demonstration and -the firing of synagogues. Attorney Strobel, as he said, was very -surprised at the time that Streicher so openly took a stand against -Hitler’s order and made no secret of what he had said to Obernitz, -that he would not take part in the demonstration and that he -considered the whole thing to be a mistake.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Strobel’s testimony may carry more weight than that of chauffeur -Herrwerth, since in the case of the latter the Prosecution can hold -against the Defense the fact that Herrwerth was an employee of -the defendant and may therefore be inclined to take the defendant’s -side. This argument, however, does not apply to Attorney Strobel, -as he, in a letter addressed to the Tribunal, wanted to express his -aversion to the defendant and mentioned the meeting only incidentally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Consequently, Strobel must be regarded as an impartial witness, -whereas one might say of Herrwerth that he is perhaps not wholly -disinterested. I therefore submit that Attorney Strobel also be -called before the Tribunal in order to enable the Defense and, -if necessary, also the Prosecution to put direct questions to this -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? -Now you can turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, -the Tribunal will consider your applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to -now it has not been possible for me to collect all the documents we -need. There are a number of newspaper articles which I should -like to submit to the Tribunal, and I ask for leave to submit the -list of documents later on. I shall get in touch with the Prosecution -beforehand as to which documents should be discarded and which -should be put in. -<span class='pageno' title='538' id='Page_538'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no -objection to your getting in touch with the Prosecution with -reference to documents later on, but you must understand that -no delay can be permitted.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I call upon the Counsel for the Defendant Funk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Sauter would allow me, -I should like to say that, with regard to these applications, there -is so little between the applications and the views of the Prosecution -that it might shorten matters if I were to indicate the views -of the Prosecution, and then Dr. Sauter could add anything he has -to say. I could be extremely short, but I do not want to forestall -Dr. Sauter if he has any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would that meet with your view, Dr. Sauter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): That I -present my applications now and that the Prosecution then reply?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David meant that he should -first indicate any objections which he has, and then you could -explain your view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: I quite agree, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, the -witnesses fall into four groups. The first group is three witnesses -from the Ministry of Economics, Numbers 1, 2, and 10 on the -list. As I understand Dr. Sauter, he wishes to call Number 2, Herr -Hayler, as an oral witness, and to have affidavits from the witnesses -Landfried, Number 1, and Kallus, Number 10. The Prosecution -have no objection to this course, except that with regard to the -witness Landfried they may have some observation to make on -the form of the interrogatories, which could no doubt be settled -with Dr. Sauter, and then put to the Tribunal for their approval. -Secondly, they want to reserve the right to apply for further cross-interrogatories. -Apart from that, which I submit are really minor -points, they agree with that suggestion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second group is two witnesses from the Reichsbank, -Number 5, Herr Puhl, and Number 7, Dr. August Schwedler. -Again, as I understand Dr. Sauter, he wants an affidavit in the -form of answers to questions. The Prosecution have no objection -to that, only again they reserve the right to apply for cross-interrogatories, -if necessary; if the answers take a certain form, they -might have to apply to the Court that the witness be brought for -cross-examination. They simply want to reserve that right, but, -of course, they cannot take up their position until they have -seen the form of the answers. -<span class='pageno' title='539' id='Page_539'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the third group consists of one witness, who is Dr. Lammers, -who has been called by most of the defendants orally, and there -is no objection to that, and the Prosecution suggest that Dr. Sauter -will put his questions to Dr. Lammers when he is called by the -other defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the fourth group is a general one. There is Herr Oeser, -who is an editor, Number 6; Herr Amann, Number 8; and Number 9, -Herr Roesen; and lastly, Number 4, Frau Funk. As I understand -it, with regard to all these witnesses, Dr. Sauter wished either -an interrogatory or an affidavit. The Prosecution make no objection -to that, with the same understanding that they reserve their -rights to put cross-interrogatories or to ask the Tribunal to -summon any of them as witnesses if any point emerges. Subject -to the reservation of these points, there is nothing between us, -because the result is, if I have understood it all correctly, that -Dr. Sauter is asking for two oral witnesses and eight sets of -interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, don’t you draw any distinction -between an affidavit and interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I do, certainly. But, My -Lord, Dr. Sauter has shown in the case of most of the witnesses -the interrogatories which he is putting—apart from Dr. Lammers, -who, of course, will be dealt with orally, because he is being -produced as a witness. I understand that when Dr. Sauter says -“affidavit” he means an affidavit in the form of answers to -questions, such as those he has set out in the appendix.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, Sir David, so far as the Prosecution -are concerned, they would take the line that you have -suggested, meaning by an affidavit, interrogatories and, if necessary, -cross-interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Sauter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am in agreement with the suggestions -of the Prosecution as to the individual applications. As -to the wording of the individual interrogatories I shall come to -an agreement with the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Dr. Sauter, perhaps you -could tell us, dealing, for instance, with Number 6—you say there, -“I have in hand an affirmation from this witness with a supplement -thereto.” Does that mean answers to interrogatories, or does that -mean an affidavit, a statement? Have you got the passage?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have an affidavit from this witness, -Albert Oeser, Number 6, and this affidavit will be submitted to the -<span class='pageno' title='540' id='Page_540'></span> -Tribunal, together with my document book. I am already in possession -of this affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, that is not quite the same -as interrogatories. I do not know whether you have seen the -affidavit. I mean, it may be that at a later stage you would want -to cross-examine or to put cross-interrogatories to that witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that would be so, Your -Honor. I must reserve the right, until I have seen the affidavit, to -do that. The ones that are attached to Dr. Sauter’s application are -all in the interrogatory form, but where the document is in the -form of a statement, the Prosecution would have to reserve -these rights. Really, one cannot make any declaration until one -has seen that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before I put in evidence this affidavit -by the witness Oeser, Number 6, I shall, of course, pass it -to the Prosecution so that they have ample time to decide as to -whether they wish to cross-examine this witness. This goes without -saying.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where is that particular witness? Where -is he?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: He is witness Number 6, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but where is the man? Where is he -at the present moment? Is he in Nuremberg or where?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Witness Oeser is at Schramberg in the Black -Forest, in Baden, near the Rhine. It is some distance from Nuremberg. -Moreover, Mr. President, the points to which the witness is -to testify are comparatively so insignificant that it would hardly be -worth while to bring the witness himself to Nuremberg. I personally -do not know the witness, but an acquaintance of mine mentioned -him to me as a person who could give favorable information on -the conduct of the Defendant Funk. Thus we got to know about -witness Oeser and obtained from him an affidavit which I shall -pass to the Prosecution in good time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the documents, -My Lord, the first one is a biography of the Defendant Funk. The -extracts were submitted as part of the Prosecution’s case. I ask -that Dr. Sauter intimate what passages he desires to use, and then -the Prosecution can make such objections or comments as may -or may not be necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second request is, I think, the same as we had yesterday, -namely for the record of the Dachau trial and of the evidence of -the witness Dr. Blaha. The American prosecutors will be pleased -<span class='pageno' title='541' id='Page_541'></span> -to show Dr. Sauter the report that they have of Dr. Blaha’s -evidence at that trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the speeches of the Defendant Funk, there -again, if Dr. Sauter will intimate what they are and what he -intends to use, the Prosecution will consider them. <span class='it'>Prima facie</span> they -would be a relevant matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And with regard to Number 4, the copy of the newspaper with -a report of the defendant’s speech, that again would <span class='it'>prima facie</span> -be relevant, and we shall look into it. It is very unlikely that there -would be any objection, but we shall look into it; and, if necessary, -deal with it when Dr. Sauter makes his presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Sauter the newspaper?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper mentioned under -Number 4, and also the speeches mentioned under Number 3, are -now in my possession. I shall not use the entire text of the speeches -in my brief.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you would be prepared to indicate to -the Prosecution the passages in your Document 1 and the passages -in 3 and 4, which you wanted to use, so that they can have them -translated?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, My Lord. I shall include in the Document -Book from the book mentioned under Number 1 only a few—I -think two or three—pages and from the speeches and newspaper -articles only those passages which I am going to use, and submit -these to the Prosecution in time for translation. As to the record -of the Dachau trial, this request is settled by what the Prosecution -stated yesterday regarding the Defendant Frick. I believe -the Dachau stenographic report is already available. I shall peruse -it, so that this matter is settled.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then I call upon counsel for -Dr. Schacht.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: I am very pleased to be able to tell the Tribunal that -I believe I am in agreement with Sir David as to the compass of -evidence to be submitted by me, especially as to those applications -which I shall either withdraw or restrict. In order to facilitate -matters, may I therefore first tell the Tribunal which applications -on my list I withdraw and which ones I restrict, so that eventually -those will be left which I maintain. I withdraw application Number 5 -for the examination of Dr. Diels. I heard yesterday that Dr. Diels -has been called for as witness in another application. Should the -Tribunal grant yesterday’s application and order Diels to appear, -then I should like to reserve the right to examine. I myself shall, -however, not apply for him. -<span class='pageno' title='542' id='Page_542'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I should like to call your attention to applications -Number 6, Colonel Gronau; Number 7, Herr Von Scherpenberg; -Number 8, State Secretary Carl Schmid; Number 9, Consul General -Dr. Schniewind; Number 10, General Thomas of the armament staff; -Number 11, Dr. Walter Asmus; Number 12, Dr. Franz Reuter; and -Number 13, Dr. Berckemeyer. For all these witnesses I am willing -to accept an affidavit. I quite realize that I have to pass affidavits -to the Prosecution and that the latter have the right to apply for -these witnesses to be summoned for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The following witnesses, therefore, remain to be called before -the Tribunal: Witness Number 1, Dr. Gisevius; witness Number 2, -Frau Strünck; witness Number 3, the former Reichsbank Director, -Vocke; and witness Number 4, the former Reichsbank Director, -Ernst Huelse. In respect to these witnesses, I must insist on my -application for their personal appearance. Schacht’s defense cannot -dispense with the oral examination of these witnesses. May I put -forward my reasons in each case. The testimony of these witnesses -is in no way cumulative. One witness knows things the other -does not. Vocke and Huelse were Schacht’s closest collaborators at -the Reichsbank and at the International Bank at Basel. They -know of events and developments which Schacht may not be able -to recall in detail. The oral examination of these witnesses cannot -therefore be replaced by interrogatories because he is no longer -sufficiently versed to draw up the relevant questions. These -witnesses must be informed of the theme of the evidence and be -given the opportunity to make a comprehensive statement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same, namely that they still remember events in detail -which Schacht no longer recollects, applies to Frau Strünck and -Gisevius, who can testify particularly as to the plans for the -various attempts on Hitler’s life from 1938 to 1944.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is all I have to say regarding my application for these -witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Dr. Dix and Professor Kraus were good enough to indicate to me -and my colleagues yesterday their proposals which Dr. Dix suggested -be put before the Tribunal. The Prosecution felt that by -limiting all the witnesses to the first point and Point 2, Dr. Dix -was making a reasonable suggestion. The Prosecution, of course, -reserve all rights as to the relevancy of the various points set out -as to these witnesses, but they felt that that, as I say, was a -reasonable suggestion. On Numbers 3 and 4 it means that the -Defense are limiting all the witnesses, on the general economic -course of conduct of the defendant, and again the Prosecution felt -that that was a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the others, -the Prosecution must, as I have said—and Dr. Dix agreed—reserve -<span class='pageno' title='543' id='Page_543'></span> -all rights by way of cross-interrogatories or of asking that the -witness should be summoned, but the Prosecution felt that they -could be in a position really to decide what their rights and proper -course should be only when they had seen the affidavits that were -put in. That is the reasoning of the Prosecution in the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: As to documents, Dr. Dix?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Regarding the documents, I should like to make it -clear that wherever in my list I have referred to books, published -speeches, and such like, especially under Number 2, this does not -mean that I intend to present to the Tribunal long extracts from -these books. Only short quotations will be made and these quotations -will be. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>[<span class='it'>The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the -interpreting system.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The best course would be for us to adjourn -now and then this mechanical defect will be remedied.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Dr. Dix. I have one or -two announcements to make. In the first place, the application -which has been made on behalf of the defendants for a separate -trial of the organizations named under Articles 9 and 10 of the -Charter is denied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Secondly, with reference to the application made on behalf of -counsel for the Defendant Bormann, the Tribunal have considered -the application dated February 23, 1946, by Dr. Bergold, counsel -for the Defendant Bormann, in which he asks that Bormann’s case -should be heard last, at the end of the cases of all the other -defendants. The Tribunal have decided to grant this application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal also rule that the hearing of Dr. Bergold’s applications -on behalf of Bormann for witnesses and documents, in accordance -with Article 24(d), shall not take place at the present time, -when the Tribunal are hearing the applications of all the other -defendants, but at a later date to be fixed within the next three weeks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Thirdly, with reference to the business of the Tribunal, the -Tribunal will sit in closed session after the conclusion of the -applications on behalf of the four defendants who are being heard -today. Tomorrow the Tribunal will continue the applications on -behalf of the next four defendants, and on Thursday the Tribunal -will hear the case on behalf of the Defendant Göring.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, Dr. Dix. -<span class='pageno' title='544' id='Page_544'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. DIX: Before the recess, I was about to tell the Tribunal, -as to Number 2 of the list of documents, that in my presentation I -would confine myself to really important and quite short quotations, -after having made them available to the Prosecution in our document -book. This disposes of Number 2.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 1 consists of extracts from copies already submitted -by the Prosecution. I shall give but one example, namely, the report -by Ambassador Bullitt to the Secretary of State in Washington. -The Prosecution presented the last part of this report, in which -they were interested, whereas I wish to reserve the right to present -the first part, which deals with Schacht’s peaceful intentions and -his lack of political influence on Hitler, and which is therefore of -importance to the Defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now turn, to Number 3, Subparagraph (a), which is the Schacht -memorandum to Hitler of 3 May 1935 concerning the legal rights -of Jews, dissolution of the Gestapo, <span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I again ask the Prosecution to see to it as far as possible -that this document, which has not been introduced so far, be -procured together with Document 1168-PS, which at the time of -Schacht’s interrogation by Colonel Gurfein was produced. As I -heard yesterday, the document has not yet been found, but perhaps -Colonel Gurfein, who has already gone back, can assist us in this -matter. These two documents are very important, as they constitute -parts of a Schacht memorandum which can be understood and -appreciated only in its entirety.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, here is a letter addressed by Schacht to General -Field Marshal Von Blomberg. It deals with restriction of armaments, -et cetera, and its relevancy is, I think, obvious.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Still a word about Subparagraph (c). This is a Hitler memorandum -of August 1936 regarding the Four Year Plan. This -memorandum, in which Hitler reproaches Schacht most bitterly, -even with sabotage, is of decisive importance to us. Contrary to -what appears in the list, I am not in a position to produce a reliable -copy of this memorandum, which under certain circumstances could -replace the original. What I have is an extract, which in no way -can be considered reliable and thus cannot be submitted to the -Tribunal as evidence. In order to ascertain the exact contents of -this memorandum, we must have the original. To my knowledge -the original was among the files of the Dustbin Camp in the -Taunus, and again I ask the Prosecution to assist in procuring it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there is the letter written by Schacht to Göring in November -1942. Göring’s answer was to dismiss Schacht for defeatism, -or rather in consequence of this letter Schacht was dismissed for -defeatism. A further consequence of this letter was that Göring -excluded him from the Prussian State Council. A copy of this -<span class='pageno' title='545' id='Page_545'></span> -letter was last seen by Schacht in the possession of one Von -Schlaberndorff, who worked with General Donovan, but who is no -longer here. Where Schlaberndorff is now, I do not know. May -I ask the Prosecution to assist us also in this matter. Furthermore, -there is a telegram of January 1943 from Göring to Schacht, -excluding him from the State Council.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Subparagraph (f), I have to ask the Russian Prosecution -to assist us in procuring this item. It is made up of miscellaneous -notes, records of Schacht’s reflections, written soliloquies and letters, -which were kept in a box at Schacht’s country seat, Guehlen, near -Lindow, Mark Brandenburg—that is in the Russian occupation -zone. According to information received, this box has been confiscated -by Soviet troops. I should be very much obliged to the -Russian Delegation if they would do their utmost to procure the -box with its contents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The documents under Number 4 are already in our possession. -I do not think it necessary to enumerate and comment on them -here; they will be included in our document book and the Prosecution -will then have the opportunity of making observations on -their relevancy. That is all I have to say now regarding the -documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the approval of the Tribunal -I shall confine the very few remarks I have to make to Paragraph 3 -of Dr. Dix’ memorandum. With regard to the document for which -Dr. Dix has made a request, it is not yet procured. I have asked -my colleagues to make inquiries, but at the moment they cannot -find certain of these documents, although a search has been made. -For example, (a), the note handed to Hitler on the same day, is -Document Number 1168-PS. Mr. Dodd tells me that an exhaustive -search was made by the American Delegation two months ago, and -they are convinced that that document is not in their possession, -and the same applies to the Soviet Delegation regarding (e).</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Who was the interrogator, Judge Gurfein?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Colonel Gurfein is the one who -started the American Prosecution, who conducted the interrogations -at the earlier stages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Where is he now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: New York. That point has been -borne in mind in the usual interrogations. If the document is used, -it is very carefully referred to, and the American Delegation -informs me that they took that line of search, and they had that -in mind, and that they have not been able to find it. Similarly, -in regard to Number (e), my Soviet colleagues told me that they -have no trace of the document there mentioned. -<span class='pageno' title='546' id='Page_546'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean there is no reference, to that -document in the interrogation conducted by Judge Gurfein?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, yes. They are unable -to find any reference, I am told, going through the interrogation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you any knowledge of any communication -that has been sent to Judge Gurfein?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure; he had gone when -the search was made two months ago. I am sure that the American -Delegation will look into that. What I was going to say in regard -to Number (e) was that my Soviet colleagues informed me that no -trace of this document has been discovered by the Russian authorities. -With regard to the others, the Prosecution would like some -further time to make further inquiries, and then they will report -to Dr. Dix and to the General Secretary if anything can be done. -With regard to the other documents, the ones which are referred to -by Dr. Dix, and the many extracts, his plan is one which entirely -suits the Prosecution if it suits the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Dönitz.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for -Defendant Dönitz): I should like to call the following witnesses: -First, Judge Admiral Kurt Eckhardt. He was expert on international -law in the Naval War Staff. He is to testify that the rules -of international law were considered when the German U-boat war -policy was laid down. This testimony is relevant in view of the -documents submitted by the Prosecution, according to which the -U-boat war was conducted without regard for international law.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again it might help Dr. Kranzbühler -and the Tribunal, if I indicated the view of the Prosecution. -They consider that Number 1, Admiral Eckhardt, and Number 2, -Rear Admiral Wagner, and Number 4, Rear Admiral Godt, should -not be the subject of objections; they do not make objections to -these three. With regard to Commander Hessler, Number 3, it seems -to the Prosecution that he is really cumulative to Rear Admiral -Godt, as he ceased to be a U-boat commander at the end of 1941, -before most of the material orders were issued. That is really the -only point; as I said, we raise no objections to the other three. With -regard to the second portion, the interrogatories, the interrogatory -of Mr. Messersmith has been granted. With regard to the next three, -Vice Admiral Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren, -these were granted on 14 February, and a slight error crept into -the Prosecution’s action which was purely mechanical. The Prosecution -replied that they did not object in principle and did not wish -to file cross-interrogatories; they objected to two of the questions -to be addressed to Commander Suhren, Numbers 7 and 8. It was -<span class='pageno' title='547' id='Page_547'></span> -intended that the same objection to the same questions should be -made with regard to the other two. It appears that the document -only related to Commander Suhren, but in general there is no objection; -with regard to Number 5, that has been done.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, have those mistakes been -rectified, in reference to 2 and 3?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not quite sure. I want to -mention that same objection, to narrow the issues of this objection -to two of the interrogatories, and in connection with all three sets -of interrogatories, I do not think this has been before the Tribunal -so far as I know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Captain Eck, -that evidence has been taken on commission, and so there is no -objection. Finally, with regard to Admiral Nimitz, the Prosecution -do object to that application; that is a new application, and if the -Tribunal will look at the grounds, they are that the United States -submarines attacked all ships apart from the United States and -Allied vessels without warning, and that the United States submarines -attacked all Japanese ships without warning, at the latest -from the time when it could be surmised that the Japanese ship -would resist being taken as a prize. And third, that the United -States submarines did not assist shipwrecked people in such waters -where the submarine would have endangered herself through such -assistance. The reason which Dr. Kranzbühler gives is that this -testimony proves that the United States Admiralty made the same -strategical and legal considerations in carrying out its submarine -warfare. In the submission of the Prosecution this is irrelevant. -That they followed the same legal considerations might have been -done as retaliation, and if so, the question whether the United -States broke the laws and usages of war is quite irrelevant; as -the question before the Tribunal is whether the German High -Command broke the laws and usages of war, it really raises the old -problem of evidence directed to <span class='it'>tu quoque</span>, an argument which this -Prosecution has always submitted throughout this Trial is irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I shall confine myself to -the points to which Sir David has raised objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, witness Number 3, Commander Hessler. I do not -consider his testimony to be cumulative. He is to testify as to when -Order 154, which has been submitted by the Prosecution, was -abrogated. This testimony is important because the Prosecution -contend that the order of September 1942 need not have been issued -at all but that it would have been sufficient to refer to the old -<span class='pageno' title='548' id='Page_548'></span> -Order 154. To counter this contention Hessler is to testify that -Order 154 was no longer in force at that time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Moreover, Captain Hessler, being on the staff of the U-boat commanders -from 1941 on, instructed nearly all U-boat commanders -putting to sea about the orders issued, particularly the orders -regarding treatment of shipwrecked persons. For these reasons, his -testimony is, in my opinion, indispensable as a check on the statement -of witness Moehle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now turn to the interrogatories for Numbers 2, 3, and 4: -Admiral Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren. I think -that the objections of the Prosecution to two of the questions asked -in my interrogatory can be dealt with only after these questions -have been answered. I heard only today that objections would be -raised, but I do not yet know on what grounds.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the Tribunal got the interrogatories and -the objections of the Prosecution to Number 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The Tribunal have -received only the interrogatories from me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution given us their objection -to one question? This, I understand, was an objection that was -made to the interrogatories put to Suhren, which should have been -an objection to a particular question on the other two as well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. It is very short. I will -indicate it, if Dr. Kranzbühler will allow me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The two questions were: “Is it known to you that in September -1942 German submarines saved shipwrecked people after torpedoing -the British steamer <span class='it'>Laconia</span> and while doing so were bombed by -an Allied plane?” Number 8, “Do you know whether this incident -was the reason for the commander of the U-boat fleets issuing an -order by which assistance at the risk of endangering one’s own boat -was prohibited, and for the declaration that this was not at variance -with the laws of sea warfare?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The objections—I will read them out: “Question 7. Objection is -entered on the ground that this question is unnecessary and the -facts are admitted.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>“Question 8: Objection entered. It is not seen how the witness -could possibly know the reason for the orders from the Defendant -Dönitz.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These are the objections that were made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: May I say something to -this? I think that the officers mentioned can testify as to the reasons -for the orders received by them from the commander of the U-boat -<span class='pageno' title='549' id='Page_549'></span> -fleet, because the events which led to the order of September 1942 -were generally known among the U-boat commanders, and U-boat -commanders in the various theaters of war may possibly have -picked up the wireless messages sent to the U-boats concerned with -the <span class='it'>Laconia</span> incident. That is all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I now turn to the application regarding the interrogatory to be -put to Admiral Nimitz. The stand taken by the Prosecution differs -entirely from the conception on which my application is based. I in -no way wish to prove or even to maintain that the American -Admiralty in its U-boat warfare against Japan broke international -law. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that it acted strictly in -accordance with international law. In the United States’ sea war -against Japan, the same question arises as in Germany’s sea war -against England, namely the scope and interpretation of the London -Submarine Agreement of 1930. The United States and Japan were -also signatories to this agreement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My point is that, because of the order to merchant vessels to -offer resistance, the London Agreement is no longer applicable to -such merchantmen; further, that it was not applicable in declared -operational zones in which a general warning had been given to all -vessels, thus making an individual warning unnecessary before -the attack.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Through the interrogatory to Admiral Nimitz I want to establish -that the American Admiralty in practice interpreted the London -Agreement in exactly the same way as the German Admiralty, and -thus prove that the German conduct of sea warfare was perfectly -legal. The same applies to the treatment of shipwrecked persons -in waters where the U-boat would endanger herself by rescue -measures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kranzbühler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the -documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you are departing from Admiral Nimitz -I should like to ask a question of Sir David.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understood you to submit that -these questions to Admiral Nimitz were entirely irrelevant?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it make any difference to your submission -whether the German Navy had attacked merchant ships -without warning in the first instance in the beginning of their war -against England? -<span class='pageno' title='550' id='Page_550'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that of course would be -a clearer breach of the treaty, as, at that time, there was no question -of armament, so far as I am aware; and there was certainly no -question that the German submarines thought that they were -attacking armed vessels which were really ships of war. Then, of -course, one comes to the position which the Prosecution developed -in evidence, that, the German Navy having indulged in the beginning -in that form of submarine warfare, the position changed, and -armament had to be installed in British ships. In my submission -it would make a difference even if one takes the argument as -Dr. Kranzbühler has put it now; he is saying that he is not alleging -breaches of the laws and usages of war, but is relying on his interpretation -of the London Agreement, that merchant ships that were -armed could be attacked. It really becomes a very difficult matter -if one is to construe these treaties by a sort of general investigation -of the interpretation by various commanders. Within the point that -Your Lordship put to me there is that very clear point which -appears in our documents that the arming of merchant ships was -the result of the attacks without warning which took place in the -first months of the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But would you say that these questions to -Admiral Nimitz are irrelevant because the United States came into -the war in December 1941 when the sea warfare between Germany -and England had developed to that stage, when attacks were being -made without warning?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord. That is -what I was saying. I am very grateful to Your Lordship for clarifying -the argument that I wanted to make.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear to you, Dr. Kranzbühler? The -argument which I understand Sir David is putting forward with -reference to these interrogatories is that they are truly irrelevant -because of the date at which the United States came into the war; -a date when the sea war between England and Germany had, for -reasons which must be investigated, arrived at the stage that submarines -were attacking merchant vessels without warning, and -merchant vessels were defending themselves against those attacks.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President. It is, -however, my opinion that the conditions which developed in the -sea war between Germany and England do not necessarily have a -bearing on the measures applied in the sea war between the United -States and Japan, as here an entirely different theater of war was -involved, in which German forces did not operate. In my opinion, -the directives for sea warfare in the East Asia theater of war should -be based on the conditions prevailing there and not be derived from -experiences made in the European theater of war. -<span class='pageno' title='551' id='Page_551'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will consider these -arguments.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How can what any navy did show -the proper construction of a law? It may show what a particular -admiral thought about it, but how are we interested in knowing -what one admiral or another admiral thought about the law? Isn’t -that for us to decide? How is that any evidence? Isn’t that your -point, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How does that really throw any -light on the meaning of a law?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not think that the -principles for the conduct of sea war originate from one admiral, -but that in view of their far-reaching implications they have become -a matter for the government. It is recognized in international law -that it springs not only from treaties, but also from acts of governments. -May I give as an example that Mr. Justice Jackson in his -first report to President Truman specially emphasized that international -law is developed by acts of governments. Consequently, if -the London Naval Agreement of 1930 did not originally imply that -merchant vessels which had orders to resist were excluded, then -acts to this effect on the part of the governments of all nations -would have been instrumental in creating new international law to -this end. I am therefore of the opinion that the attitude taken in -this question by the United States as one of the greatest sea powers -is decisive as to the interpretation of the London Agreement and -hence as to the legality of Germany’s conduct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the London -Agreement is ambiguous?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What words in the London Agreement -are ambiguous?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The term “merchant -vessels.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have not got the citation -there, have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Which is it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The phrase in the London Agreement -which you claim is ambiguous.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have not got it here, -but I can give a fairly accurate quotation. It says that submarines -<span class='pageno' title='552' id='Page_552'></span> -are subject to the same rules as surface vessels in their conduct -towards merchant vessels.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I shall later submit proof that the term “merchant vessel,” even -at the Washington Conference of 1922, was considered ambiguous, -and that also in books on international law published later it had -repeatedly been stressed that this term is ambiguous.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Dr. Kranzbühler, you want -Admiral Nimitz to give us his opinion of his construction of the -treaty, do you not? Isn’t that the purpose of these interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: No, I do not want to -hear Admiral Nimitz’ opinion, but the policy pursued by the United -States in its sea war against Japan.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the arguments -you have addressed to them, Dr. Kranzbühler.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the documents. -As I have just heard from Sir David, there are no objections -on the part of the Prosecution. I do not know whether I need give -my reasons for submitting the individual documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>First of all, there are the war diaries and the standing orders of -the Admiralty and of the commander of the U-boat fleet. They have -already been admitted, and the Prosecution do not raise any -objections.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under Number 3, I ask for the “British Confidential Fleet Orders” -and “Admiralty Merchant Shipping Instructions” of the British -Admiralty to be produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this matter came -up before the Tribunal in closed session on an application from -Dr. Kranzbühler. I have not heard definitely from the British -Admiralty whether they agreed to do this, but I have asked -Dr. Kranzbühler if he will leave this matter over for 10 days in -the hope that we may be able to meet him. If Dr. Kranzbühler will -not press it for 10 days, I shall, of course, let him know as soon as -I have any definite information.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I agree to that. Under -Number 4 I declare my intention to submit a number of statements -and letters I have received from German U-boat commanders and -officers, some of them through the General Secretariat. These statements -contain items from the lecture given at Gydnia by the Commander-in-Chief -of the Navy and referred to by witness Heisig, -including the instruction of U-boat commanders by witness Moehle -and the orders regarding the treatment of shipwrecked persons. I -understand the Prosecution have no objections. -<span class='pageno' title='553' id='Page_553'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any objection, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, many of these matters -may have to be considered when the actual document is put before -us. There are no class objections to them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I should like to mention -that I shall probably have to submit some further documents later, -after I have spoken to Judge Admiral Eckhardt. May I again ask -the Tribunal to allow me as soon as possible to call this witness, -who is particularly important for the defense of the methods -employed in U-boat warfare.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think the Tribunal would grant that, -subject, of course, to there being no delay regarding further applications.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 6 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='554' id='Page_554'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY</span><br/> Wednesday, 6 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I desire to announce a slight change in the -order of business.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Dr. Stahmer has submitted a motion in writing, stating that he -desired a little more time in the preparation of his documents and -for other reasons would be grateful if the case of the Defendant -Göring did not come on on Thursday, as announced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal realizes that the case of the first defendant to be -heard may present some difficulties in getting the documents translated -in time. As the Tribunal has announced that they would -continue the hearing of the applications for witnesses until they are -all completed, they will adhere to this decision. It is anticipated -that this will give Dr. Stahmer one day more, but at the conclusion -of the hearing of the applications for witnesses the case of the -Defendant Göring will come on without further delay.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal wishes to make it quite clear that no further -applications for delay or postponement on the part of the defendants -will be entertained, save in the most exceptional circumstances.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: For the Defendant Raeder, I should like to apply -first for a witness who will testify to the defendant’s character.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if it would be convenient, -I might first indicate the views of the Prosecution, and -then Dr. Siemers can deal with this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has no objection to the following witnesses -being called for oral testimony: Number 3, the retired Minister -Severing; Number 5, Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting; Number 6 -has already been sought for and not objected to by the Prosecution—a -witness for the Defendant Dönitz; Number 10, Admiral Boehm.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, with regard to the following witnesses the Prosecution -suggest an affidavit as the suitable procedure: Number 2, Vice -Admiral Lohmann. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in this case I should prefer -an affidavit, because it is only a history of past events that is involved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Affidavit in which case? -<span class='pageno' title='555' id='Page_555'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the case of Number 2—Lohmann.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to Number 4—that is Admiral Albrecht—his -evidence covers the same ground as Number 5. It might be that -interrogatories would be more convenient, but that would be a -matter for my friends to decide.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the next, Number 7. That is Dr. Süchting, who is an -engineer, and it is desired to have him speak about the Anglo-German -Naval Treaty and technical questions. The Prosecution suggest -an affidavit there, because apparently it is desired that he speak on -technical matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg, I am told, is still ill. -I think that Dr. Siemers has already submitted questions and has -received the answers. He ought to be dealt with by interrogatories. -That is probably the easiest thing for the Field Marshal and the -most suitable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Was that not suggested in the case of one of -the other defendants?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Von Blomberg, yes. I have a -note that the Defense Counsel have submitted questions. I was not -quite sure whether this was Dr. Siemers or another Defense counsel. -I think it was Dr. Nelte, for Keitel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. That is Number 8.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then the next one, Von Weizsäcker, -who was the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. He is -asked for with regard to the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case. At the moment I cannot -see the point for which the Defense want this gentleman, but I -suggest that if they get an affidavit from Weizsäcker we should -know what he can speak about.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the other one is Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. It is desired -to give the results of the interrogation of certain British prisoners -of war at Lillehammer. It would appear that the object was merely -to give further evidence which would be cumulative to the statements -in the German <span class='it'>White Book</span>, and therefore the Prosecution -suggest an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are two witnesses that the Prosecution think are in the -border line between admissibility and affidavits. They are really, -in the submission of the Prosecution, not relevant witnesses, but the -Tribunal might like to consider the question. These are Number 1, -a naval chaplain who really speaks as to the general moral and -religious outlook of the Defendant Raeder. That is, in the submission -of the Prosecution, really irrelevant, and at the most it would be a -matter for an affidavit. The position of the Prosecution is that it is -<span class='pageno' title='556' id='Page_556'></span> -really irrelevant, but it certainly should not be more than an affidavit, -even if a different view was taken.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other is Number 16, Admiral Schultze. He speaks as to an -interview with the late Admiral Darlan, and the Prosecution submit -that that is irrelevant; if there are any approaches to relevance—which -the Prosecution have been unable to see—why then it could -only be a matter for an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that the following are unnecessary: -Number 11. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, dealing with Number 16, would -that not be more suitably dealt with by interrogatories? The -Tribunal granted interrogatories on 9 February in that case, but I -suppose they have not yet been produced.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Which one was that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Number 16.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if the Tribunal feel -that it is a matter that should be explored, I agree that interrogatories -would be suitable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, My Lord, the ones that the Prosecution make objection to -<span class='it'>in toto</span> are:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 11, Vice Admiral Bürckner, because he is cumulative to -Numbers 5 and 10; Number 12, Commander Schreiber, because on -21 February Dr. Siemers said that he was willing not to call this -witness if Number 5, Schulte-Moenting, was allowed; Number 13, -Lackorn, who is a Norwegian merchant, who is supposed to speak of -the Allied plans, without any means of knowledge being stated. This -witness was temporarily given up on 21 February; Number 15, Alf -Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling cabinet, as -I understand the application. There is no indication why this -witness should be competent to speak on the reputation of the -Defendant Raeder; and Number 16 has been dealt with; Number 17 -is Colonel Goldenberg, who was the interpreter at the meeting -between the Defendant Raeder and Darlan. The Defendant Raeder -gives evidence and Admiral Schultze answers an interrogatory. It -will appear that that interview is well covered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I thank Sir David for taking up the individual -points, as a consequence of which I can, as I presume, count on the -Tribunal’s approval of the points to which Sir David has agreed, -without giving specific reasons.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the best course -would be for you to go through the ones upon which Sir David has -not agreed as to being called as oral witnesses, and then perhaps it -<span class='pageno' title='557' id='Page_557'></span> -may be necessary to deal with the ones where he has agreed. I -would begin in the order in which he took them up—2, 4, 7, 8, 9—if -that is convenient for you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the case of Number 2 he suggested an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 2 is the Vice Admiral Lohmann. In this -connection I refer to the last page of my brief, where I have discussed -the documents under “III.” There I have stated that I suggested -to the British Delegation that we come to some agreement as to the -figures with regard to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Treaty. -The British Delegation has promised me that such an agreement -may be possible and has in the meantime communicated with the -British Admiralty in London on this matter. If, as I expect, an -understanding is reached, I am agreeable to an affidavit from Vice -Admiral Lohmann, for then he is to testify on only a few points. -I ask, therefore, that he be approved for the time being, and I -undertake not to call him if the agreement mentioned is reached -with the Prosecution. If this understanding is not reached, the proof -of some important figures would be very difficult, and I could not -do without Lohmann who is well informed about the figures; -otherwise, I could.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about that, Sir David?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have circulated Dr. Siemers’ -note and request for agreement to my colleagues, and I have also -sent it to the Admiralty, and I hope that we may be able to give -the information and probably to agree on these matters, but I am -waiting to get that confirmed from the Admiralty in Britain; so I -think if we could leave over the question of this witness until I see -if I can get an agreement which will satisfy Dr. Siemers on the -point. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then if you cannot make the agreement, -probably the witness would have to be called?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. I can let Dr. Siemers know -whether there is any controversy on the point, whether I am going -to challenge what he puts forward. If I am going to challenge it, -obviously I should not object to the witness being called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Under these circumstances, I shall be satisfied -with the submission of an affidavit. I have written to Vice Admiral -Lohmann, asking him to answer the other brief questions; and -regarding the main points the principles just stated by Sir David -will be adhered to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 4, Admiral Albrecht, was one of -the closest collaborators of Grand Admiral Raeder. From 1926 to 1928 -<span class='pageno' title='558' id='Page_558'></span> -he was Raeder’s Chief of Staff in Kiel; from 1928 to 1930, chief of -the Navy personnel office of the OKM. From then on he was commanding -admiral in Kiel, and finally Navy Group Commander East -in 1939.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to remark in this connection that in this last year -he also joined, upon the suggestion of the Security Group commander, -this organization, and from this point of view also he -appears important to me. Admiral Albrecht has also, as I know, -written directly to the Tribunal for this reason.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Albrecht has known the Defendant Raeder so long that he is well -acquainted with his main ideas and thus orientated on the main -charges of the Indictment. He has known Raeder’s trend of thought -since 1928, that is to say, from the time in which the charges against -Raeder have their beginning. I ask that consideration be given to -the tremendous charges which are brought against Raeder covering -a period of 15 years. I cannot refute all the accusations with one or -two witnesses. The differences among the testimonies are so great -that in such a case one cannot speak of “cumulative.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore I ask that note be taken of the fact that so far I -have been unable to talk to Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting, who has -been approved by the Tribunal and the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal has also not yet informed me where Schulte-Moenting -is. I presume that he is in a prisoner-of-war camp in -England, but I do not know whether he will really be at my disposal, -and whether I will be able to talk with him in time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing with Admiral Konrad -Albrecht, are you not? You are dealing with Number 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: No; regarding Admiral Albrecht, we know that -he is in Hamburg. I simply pointed out that it would not be cumulative -if both Albrecht and Schulte-Moenting are heard by the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You see, what Sir David was suggesting was -an interrogatory in the case of Admiral Albrecht and an affidavit in -the case of Admiral Schulte-Moenting.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will agree to Admiral Schulte-Moenting’s -being called orally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. I was mixing the numbers. -Yes, that is right, to call the one and have interrogatories from the -other. Have you any objection to that?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I request that I be allowed to call both -witnesses because Schulte-Moenting is to testify about a later period -and Albrecht about the earlier period that was immediately subsequent -to the Versailles Treaty. The position of both is entirely -different. In addition, as I have just pointed out, the Tribunal has -<span class='pageno' title='559' id='Page_559'></span> -not yet informed me whether I can with absolute certainty count on -the witness Schulte-Moenting, whether he has been found, whether -it is known where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Our information is that Schulte-Moenting has -not been located.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I have no information as yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am not sure that is right. -Yes, he has been located in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United -Kingdom. At least I think so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Yes, I have a document before me here which shows that he is in -a prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I thank you very much. I did not know that. -Under the circumstances I am prepared, in regard to Admiral -Albrecht, to accept an affidavit or an interrogatory, provided Schulte-Moenting -really appears.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 7, Dr. Süchting. In this connection Sir David suggests -an affidavit in order to speed up the Trial. I am satisfied with an -affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Again, however, with the one reservation that -the matter of the figures will be clarified between me and the -British Prosecution, in accordance with my letter as already discussed -in connection with Admiral Lohmann, I believe that Sir -David is agreeable to this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how you -suggest that these questions of shipbuilding in connection with the -German-English Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937 are relevant -to any charge made here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: The Defendant Raeder is accused of not having -adhered to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreement. Such -a treaty violation is mainly a question of the building of ships. -Consequently I must demonstrate what could be built according to -the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreement and what actually -was built and what thoughts and orders the Navy had in this connection. -As I said, however, I shall be satisfied with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the -arguments on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg. The -Prosecution have suggested an affidavit or an interrogatory. In consideration -of Von Blomberg’s state of health, I am agreeable to this -for the sake of simplicity. Since it does not involve any great -number of questions, I suggest an affidavit. -<span class='pageno' title='560' id='Page_560'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 9, Ambassador Baron Von Weizsäcker. I submitted the -application on 6 February and do not know thus far the position of -the Tribunal. At the time of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case Weizsäcker was State -Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. At that time, -in September 1939, Weizsäcker spoke with the American Ambassador -on the subject of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span>. Weizsäcker spoke with Hitler and -with Raeder. He knows the details and must be heard on these -details. I do not believe that an affidavit will suffice. First let me -remark that I do not know where Weizsäcker is. But aside from -that, the charge which has been made against the Defendant Raeder -in the case of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> is morally so grave that, although otherwise -it might not be such an important point, I have to put particular -stress on this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The British Delegation has given particular emphasis to the case -of the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> and has made insulting attacks on the defendant in -connection with this case. In the interest of the absolutely irreproachable -life of my client I feel obliged to clarify this case completely. -That can only be done by Weizsäcker.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as far as the application goes, -there is nothing to show, beyond the position of the suggested witness, -that he knew anything about it at all. Under these circumstances -would not interrogatories be the most appropriate course? -You did not show whether he knew anything about it at all. All -you say in your application is that he was State Secretary in the -Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I may point out that I stated in my application -that the witness is informed regarding the events connected with -the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You say that he must know on the basis of -his position as State Secretary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: The American Ambassador approached Weizsäcker -immediately after the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case in order to clarify the case. -Thereupon Weizsäcker spoke with Raeder; however, only after he -had already told the American Ambassador that no German submarine -was involved. The question as to whether a German submarine -was involved in the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case was settled only after the -return of the German submarine. Prior to that the Defendant -Raeder had not known of it either. The German submarine returned -on 27 September; the sinking was on 3 September.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Did you state these facts about conversations -between the American Ambassador and State Secretary Weizsäcker -in one of your previous applications?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes, on 6 February I did submit the application, -and also mentioned in general terms the <span class='it'>Athenia</span> case. I may add -<span class='pageno' title='561' id='Page_561'></span> -that Weizsäcker knows also the subsequent occurrences. Weizsäcker -knows exactly that the Navy, and particularly the Defendant -Raeder, had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the article which -the Propaganda Ministry published in the newspapers. Weizsäcker was -just as outraged about this article as was the Defendant Raeder. But -it is precisely this that the Prosecution charges against Raeder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider what you say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Let me add that I have made a mistake. I just -heard that Weizsäcker is still at the Vatican in Rome; in other -words, it is known where he is.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. As far as I know, -Colonel Soltmann will be requested as a witness also by the Defendant -Jodl, and an affidavit or an interrogatory has already been sent -to him. I therefore concur with Sir David that an affidavit from -Soltmann will suffice, subject to the consent, or the applications of -the Defense Counsel for General Jodl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He does not appear to have been located yet.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes—the witness Soltmann? I have given his -address in my application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: It is Falkenberg near Moosach in Upper Bavaria.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 16, Admiral Schultze is in Hamburg, and it is an easy -matter to have him testify personally here in Nuremberg. The -Prosecution have accused the Defendant Raeder of participating in -the National Socialist policy of conquest. This accusation is unfounded. -Raeder, both in Norway and in France, constantly directed -his efforts towards bringing about peace; in other words, not towards -the effecting of any final conquest of the countries. In this Raeder -found himself in a strong opposition to Hitler, and only after much -urging did Raeder succeed in enabling himself to negotiate with -Darlan in Paris concerning the possible conclusion of a peace. I -believe that such a positive intervention for a quick termination of -the war with France is important enough, in a trial like this, to have -the witness testify personally. I cannot understand how Sir David, -in view of his accusation, can say that this point is irrelevant. The -Prosecution has constantly declared that the Defendant Raeder was -agitating for war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that Sir David did say it was -irrelevant. He suggested interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I made a note that Sir David said the witness was -irrelevant, but that he would, as a concession, agree to an affidavit. -<span class='pageno' title='562' id='Page_562'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then I was wrong.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I simply wanted to make my position clear on the -question as to whether or not this witness is irrelevant. I believe I -have shown that he is relevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You want the witness? You would not agree -to an affidavit or an interrogatory? Is that right?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I ask the Tribunal to hear Schultze as a witness -here in Nuremberg, because, in my opinion in view of the principles -of the Indictment, it is a vital point that Raeder’s attitude toward -the entire problem is shown by facts prevailing at that time, and -not by present assertions and statements.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I come now to the witness to whom Sir David has objected, -witness Number 11, Admiral Bürckner. I asked for him on 31 January. -So far I have received no answer. I asked to be allowed to -speak to the witness Bürckner in order to acquaint myself with the -details. The interview is denied me so long as he has not been -approved as a witness. In order to speak with him therefore I am -dependent on his being approved first as a witness. Should it then -prove that this evidence is cumulative, I am willing to forego the -witness. I presume that Sir David is agreeable to this.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal does not quite understand -why the counsel should not have seen this officer who is in -prison in Nuremberg, subject of course to security.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have no objection to the -counsel’s seeing Admiral Bürckner. I think up to now the Prosecution -have always taken the view that what Dr. Siemers wanted -to see him about was not relevant. I do not think the Tribunal has -ruled on that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The view of the Tribunal is that Counsel for -the Defense ought to be in touch with the witnesses before, in order -to see whether they are able to give relevant evidence or not. They -cannot give the evidence or the relevancy of it unless they know -what the witness is going to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection will be made, and -Dr. Siemers can make arrangement, as far as the Prosecution are -concerned, to see Admiral Bürckner at the earliest date he likes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I am grateful to the Tribunal for clarifying this -point. This point has made the work of the Defense Counsel extremely -difficult. I have been waiting for more than a month to -speak to Bürckner. For four weeks I have not been able to speak to -Admiral Wagner for the same reason. I should like to speak to -others also who are in the courthouse prison. They were all denied -<span class='pageno' title='563' id='Page_563'></span> -me because the Tribunal had not yet approved them as witnesses. -I believe that the point is now clarified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Siemers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: It is quite possible that, after speaking with the -witness, I may not call him to the stand, particularly since I hear -today that Schulte-Moenting can be called, and provided that Boehm -is approved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That who is approved?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Boehm, Number 10.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. That was Sir David’s only objection -to Number 11, was it not, that it was cumulative to 5 and 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Number 12, Captain Schreiber. Sir David has -rightly pointed out that I have already stated the possibility that -I may give up this witness. This still stands. If the witness Schulte-Moenting -and the witness Boehm actually appear, the witness -Schreiber is not necessary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 13, the witness Lackorn, in Leipzig. Before the occupation -of Norway Lackorn was on business in Oslo. He had nothing -to do with the military. It was purely by accident that he learned, -in the Hotel Bristol in Oslo, that the landing of English troops was -imminent. This point is important because one can only judge the -defendant’s attitude toward the Norwegian undertaking if one considers -the general situation of Norway. The general situation of -Norway means, however, the relations of Norway with Germany, -England, Sweden, and all the other countries adjacent to Norway. -It is not proper, in such a decisive question, to state that only a -small part is relevant. I am agreed, however, that the witness is not -to be heard here. I have, therefore, while I was waiting for the -decision of the Prosecution, written to the witness in order to obtain -an affidavit. It is therefore agreeable to me if an affidavit only is -submitted here. He need not be approved as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you did not deal with that aspect -of the matter, with an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid the -view of the Prosecution is that the story, which apparently started -in the bar of a hotel in Oslo, is not evidence which is really admissible, -relevant, or of any weight in a matter of this kind. That is -the view we have taken throughout.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, it appears from the application -which is before us that you originally made a request for this -witness on 19 January 1946, which appears to have been in perfectly -general terms, and that the Tribunal ordered, on 14 February, that -you should furnish supplementary details of the evidence which -<span class='pageno' title='564' id='Page_564'></span> -you wanted to obtain by calling this witness. Thereupon, on -21 February, you withdrew your application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>You now submit the application again without giving any details -at all, simply saying that the witness had been in Oslo on business -and received information there of the imminent landing of Allied -forces in Norway. Well, that is a perfectly general statement, just -as general as the original statement. It does not seem to comply -with the orders of the Tribunal at all.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: On 21 February I withdrew my application -because of the basic point of view which I have also presented to -the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have pointed out that, in my opinion, the Defense cannot be -expected to give every single detail, when we have not for three -months after we were consulted had the slightest word, not one -word, about a single witness of the Prosecution. When we of the -Defense have not had the opportunity even of taking a stand on -the relevancy of their witnesses. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out on several occasions -that the reason why the defendants’ counsel have to submit -applications for their witnesses is because they are unable to get -their witnesses themselves and because they are applying to the -Tribunal to get their witnesses for them and their documents for -them. It is a work of very considerable magnitude to find and to -bring witnesses to Nuremberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I understand from you that with reference to this witness you -are trying now to get an affidavit from him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate I have been making the effort. -Whether I shall receive the answer in time from Leipzig, which is -in the Russian Zone, remains to be seen. In the meantime, in order -to facilitate matters and to avoid delay, I have written to the -witness Lackorn.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For this reason I am willing to waive having him testify here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit, you will be able to -give the Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness -would give, and also to show it to the Prosecution, who will then -be able to say whether they wish to have the witness brought here -for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application. -<span class='pageno' title='565' id='Page_565'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 15 is a Norwegian, Alf Whist, -former Secretary of Commerce. By decision of the Court on -14 February he was rejected as irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Whist can testify that the reputation of the German Navy in -Norway was very good throughout the occupation, and that in -Norway the complaints were directed exclusively against the civil -administration and not against the German Navy. Whist knows -definitely, as does every other Norwegian, that the Navy was not -involved in a single illegal or criminal measure in Norway during -the occupation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If this is considered irrelevant, I presume that Sir David means -that the Navy, during the occupation of Norway, behaved correctly. -Of course this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from -the question which I shall discuss later, that is, the question of the -occupation and the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of -the time after the occupation had been carried out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is -this: That whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that -the facts were that the German Navy had behaved with meticulous -correctness on every point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was -Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling cabinet in Norway, as to how -the German Navy behaved would not have the slightest interest or -relevance or weight with anyone. That is the view of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I hoped that Sir David would make his position -clear as to whether charges in this connection will be made against -the Navy. Sir David speaks of the Germans in general. I draw -attention to the fact that the entire administration in Norway was -a civil administration, and that, in the Terboven jurisdiction, the -Navy had nothing to do with this administration; if I have named -a single witness where I might have named hundreds, I did this -only to give the Tribunal a picture of how Admiral Boehm, the Navy, -and Raeder conducted themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you have still Number 17, the interpreter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lieutenant Colonel Goldenberg, it is -Sir David’s point of view that he is unnecessary; if Admiral Schultze -is approved as witness, an affidavit from Goldenberg will suffice for -me. A short affidavit appears to me to be important, because -Goldenberg was present as an impartial interpreter at every conference -which took place between Darlan and Raeder. An affidavit -will suffice in this case. -<span class='pageno' title='566' id='Page_566'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents. -I ought to call your attention to an observation at the end of your -application, which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. -Who are they?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: The Tribunal has declared that the details about -a witness have to be submitted a long time in advance only because -the Tribunal must procure the witness. When it is a question of a -witness who comes to Nuremberg on his own initiative, I should -be obliged for a decision on the point in connection with my -defense, as to whether or not the Tribunal will admit such a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the -principal reasons why Defense Counsel have to make applications, -and another principal reason is a necessity for expedition in this -Trial—expedition and security. The question of security is important, -and therefore we must insist on being told who the witnesses -are that you wish to call, Dr. Siemers. Otherwise, you will not be -able to call them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Am I obliged to do this even when the witness is -already in the building?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there -are 20 or 21 defendants in the dock; and we have to try and make -this Trial expeditious and we therefore cannot allow them to call -as many witnesses as they choose to call. But if it is a question -of your not having the names of the witnesses in your mind at the -moment, you can certainly specify them after a short delay, or -tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I shall submit information on this matter shortly. -I do not want to name the witness before I have talked it over -with him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to -your applying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do -so by tomorrow.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Very well, I know that, at the moment, the witness -in question is not in Nuremberg, so that I cannot talk to him -at the moment. I ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being so -cautious. The Tribunal will be cognizant of the fact that witnesses -have been taken into custody. I cannot take the responsibility for -somebody’s being taken into custody because I named him as a -witness. That is the reason. I shall, however, notify the Tribunal -as soon as the witness is in Nuremberg and I have had a chance to -speak to him. I shall do so within 24 hours. It is here a question -of a testimony which would take 10 minutes at the most of the -Court’s time. Therefore, I do not believe that this will burden the -Tribunal too much. -<span class='pageno' title='567' id='Page_567'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Then I should like to add that I can give the -address of the witness Severing, retired Reich Minister. I received -it yesterday by telegraph. Witness Severing is Number 3 and the -Prosecution is agreeable to his being heard. I shall submit the -address in writing to the General Secretary. He is in Bielefeld and -can be reached without trouble.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If you give it to the General Secretary, -that is all that is required. And now would probably be a convenient -time to break off for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>MR. DODD: Your Honor. There is the matter of Admiral -Bürckner. So far as we know, Dr. Siemers made one request about -Admiral Bürckner some time ago, and at that time he was told, as -I understand it, that Admiral Bürckner was to be called or that the -Prosecution intended to call him as a witness, and that therefore we -did not think it proper for him to talk to Admiral Bürckner until -after we had called him as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Up to a very late date in this presentation of our case, we still -had in mind calling Admiral Bürckner. I think some reference was -made to him, as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference -to the witness Lahousen. And it was for that reason that we told -Dr. Siemers that we did not think he should talk to the witness -until after he had testified or a decision had been made with -reference to his testimony. But we have at all times tried to -co-operate with the Defense and make available these people who -are here in custody so that they may talk with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: May I add something regarding the witnesses? -Concerning witness Number 1, Marinedekan Ronneberger, I agree -to use an affidavit as suggested by Sir David. Concerning the -witness Bürckner, I would like to mention that Mr. Dodd’s statement -is based on an error. I am not permitted to speak to the -witness, because he has not yet been approved by the Tribunal as -my witness. No other reason was given.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: We do not think any further discussion is -necessary about this witness. I have already stated what the -members of the Tribunal will act upon.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I did not understand whether Mr. Dodd agreed -to my speaking with the witness Bürckner now. -<span class='pageno' title='568' id='Page_568'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the Prosecution -have closed their case, and they now have no longer any objection -to your seeing the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Then one last remark. The Tribunal will have -noticed that I have not requested any witness concerning naval -warfare and submarine warfare. The reason is that I have agreed -with Dr. Kranzbühler that Dr. Kranzbühler will deal with the entire -complex of naval warfare and submarine warfare, although, in this -respect, it not only affects Grossadmiral Dönitz, but also in a considerable -degree Grossadmiral Raeder in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief -of the Navy. Therefore, insofar as the interests of Grossadmiral -Raeder are concerned in this matter, Dr. Kranzbühler will -also represent him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should like to point out only that Dr. Kranzbühler’s very -important application regarding the questions to Admiral Nimitz -not only affects Grossadmiral Dönitz but, in particular, Grossadmiral -Raeder, and beyond that, the organization of the General Staff, -insofar as the Navy is concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May I pass to the documents now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document -Number 1, The War Diaries of the Seekriegsleitung and the B.d.U., -Dr. Kranzbühler’s assistant Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work -on these at the Admiralty.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 2, Weyer’s <span class='it'>Navy Diary</span>, and Nautikus’ -<span class='it'>Navy Year Book</span>, there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these. -He will indicate in the ordinary way the passages he intends to use.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to General Marshall’s report of 10 October 1945, I -cannot see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if Dr. Siemers -will indicate which part he intends to use, it can be discussed when -he actually presents it to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now Number 4, the British Admiralty documents, May 1939 to -April 1940, which are wanted as to the preparations of landing in -Scandinavia and Finland. Although, strictly, what is relevant is -what was known to the Defendant Raeder, I shall make inquiries -about these documents, and if the Tribunal will give me a short -time, I hope to be able to report to the Tribunal upon them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I want to make it clear that I cannot, of course, undertake to -give details on Allied documents; but I hope to be able to produce -some documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal -with them authoritatively. I would rather not be pressed for details -at the moment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, I hope that I will -receive the books which belong to Number 2 and Number 3 soon, -because otherwise a delay may be caused. The report of General -<span class='pageno' title='569' id='Page_569'></span> -Marshall of 10 October 1945 is, as far as I can judge from the -excerpts, important for the reason that General Marshall adopts, -on various points, an entirely different attitude from Justice -Jackson’s. I believe that a comparison of two such outstanding -opinions is of sufficient importance to have the report of General -Marshall also heard here. Concerning Number 4, I am waiting for -the final decision of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have only one more request, and I ask to be excused, since, by -error, I have not listed this Number 5. It is the following: The -Prosecution has repeatedly presented quotations from the book -<span class='it'>Mein Kampf</span> by Adolf Hitler and inferred from it that each one of -the defendants who held a leading position as early as 1933 should -have known from this book, even before 1933, that Hitler was contemplating -the launching of aggressive wars. I noticed that the -quotations in the document book which was presented in November -are all taken from an edition which was published only in 1933. -The edition of 1933, however, differs in many points from the -original edition. Unfortunately, I am personally only in possession -of an edition which was published after 1933. In order to check -these questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could -have read in this book in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution -to try to submit a copy of the first edition. As far as I know, -the first edition was published in 1925, and the second in 1927, by -the publishing firm of Franz Eher.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get an earlier -edition, so that Dr. Siemers can compare the passages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with Page 2 of your -document? Sir David, you have not dealt with this, have you?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I assume, Your Lordship, -that Dr. Siemers would, in due course, indicate what excerpts he -was going to use. We could discuss when he presents them, whether -the Prosecution have any objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You intended, Dr. Siemers, I suppose, -to indicate the passages upon which you rely in your document -book?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have already discussed the -point on Page 3, that is the question of tonnages built, and so on—I -said I am making inquiries with regard to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: My attention is drawn, Sir David, to Paragraph -4 B on Page 2. Are you suggesting that the Tribunal supply -him with documents on German policy without any further reservation? -<span class='pageno' title='570' id='Page_570'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an -oversight. I took it that that was included in the words at the top -of the page:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“In addition, I shall submit documents and affidavits, some of -which are already in my possession, and some of which I -shall procure myself without having the assistance of the -Prosecution.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>I took it that Dr. Siemers had certain documents on German -policy, and will indicate what passages he is going to use. I am -very sorry I did not refer to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, -with reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and -does not wish any further action to be taken with reference to them?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von -Schirach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be -convenient if I indicate the view of the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note -that Dr. Sauter is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, -as oral witnesses; that is, he is asking for seven oral witnesses, and -Numbers 5 and 9 to 13 by way of affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution suggest that, as far as oral witnesses are concerned, -the defendant might have Number 1 or Number 2. that is, -Wieshofer or Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the -same ground; that he might have Number 3, the witness Lauterbacher, -who was Chief of Staff of the Reich Youth Leadership -(Reichsjugendführung); and, also, that he might have Number 8, -that is Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, who, I think, is Schirach’s -father-in-law—since the description of his evidence takes up nine -pages of the application, he is obviously a very important witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the Prosecution suggest that there might be affidavits from -Number 5, Scharizer, who was the deputy Gauleiter of Vienna; -Number 11, who is Madame Vasso; Number 12, Herr Schneeberger; -and Number 13, Field Marshal Von Blomberg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witnesses that the Prosecution find difficulty in perceiving -the necessity for are: First of all, Number 4, Frau Hoepken—there -are no details given in this application, except that she was secretary -to Von Schirach; Number 6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who -apparently repeats part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher -word for word; Number 7, Dr. Schlünder, who also repeats the -witness Lauterbacher word for word; and Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, -<span class='pageno' title='571' id='Page_571'></span> -who passes a personal view on the defendant, which, in the submission -of the Prosecution, is not really helpful evidence; and -finally, Dr. Roesen, Number 10, who speaks as to an isolated incident -of kindness on the part of the defendant to the family of the -musician Richard Strauss.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This is the position which the Prosecution take with regard to -the witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have, in the case of Baldur -von Schirach also, limited my evidence as much as possible. For -a personal hearing, here before the Tribunal, I have proposed as -witnesses, Numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and I must earnestly request -you, Your Honors, to grant me these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The difficulty, in the case of Schirach, as regards the presentation -of evidence, is that evidence must be produced and offered -for two entirely separate complexes. One is the activity of the -Defendant Von Schirach in his capacity as Reich Youth Leader; and -the second is his activity in Vienna, during the period from 1940 to -1945, in which he still exercised certain functions in Youth Leadership -in addition to his main duties. Therefore, I need witnesses for -both these activities of the Defendant Von Schirach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to this difficulty there is still another one. The -Defendant Von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that implied -that practically without exception all his collaborators were relatively -young people who during the second World War served a -long time in the Army. Therefore it is quite possible that for a -few years during the World War one witness might know nothing -at all, because he did not work on the staff of the Defendant -Von Schirach during this time; and that therefore, for this time, -another collaborator of Schirach will have to be called upon, in -order to give information on his activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, in earlier written applications I had requested -more witnesses, but I have omitted these additional witnesses right -from the beginning in the application now submitted to you, in -order to contribute thus, as far as I can, to expediting the procedure. -But, Your Honors, these six witnesses that I have requested to have -brought before the Tribunal I really must have granted me for, if -a clear picture of Schirach’s activities is to be gained, I cannot -forego any one of them. I may also point out that all these six -witnesses that I have listed under the numbers given, for the -purpose of calling them, have already been approved by the -Tribunal, so that the new approval will consist only of a repetition -of your own earlier decision.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Wieshofer, Your Honors, who is listed under Number -1, was from 1940 to 1945 adjutant of the Defendant Von Schirach; -<span class='pageno' title='572' id='Page_572'></span> -that is to say, during the period that covers the activity of the -Defendant Von Schirach as Gauleiter of Vienna and Reichsstatthalter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This collaborator, who was with the Defendant Schirach daily -and who knew him very well, has been named by me particularly -for the purpose of testifying—although, of course, he will also -testify on other things—that Schirach, in his capacity as Gauleiter -of Vienna, pursued an entirely different policy to that of his -predecessor, the former Gauleiter Bürckel; that he, contrary to -Bürckel, endeavored to establish correct relations with the Catholic -Church, and that, with this aim in mind, he successfully influenced -and instructed also his collaborators and subordinates. I say successfully, -because these efforts by the Defendant Von Schirach to bring -about satisfactory relations with the Catholic Church have also been -repeatedly acknowledged on the part of the Church, as well as by -the Catholic population of Vienna.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Besides, the witness Wieshofer will also corroborate that the -Defendant Von Schirach had nothing at all to do with the deportation -of Jews from Vienna; that this matter of the Jews was. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do not Numbers 1 and 2, Wieshofer and -Hoepken, really deal substantially with the same subject? Would -it not be sufficient if one were called as a witness and if the other -one gave evidence by interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: I do not quite think so, Mr. President, because the -witness Hoepken, who is listed under Number 2, was a collaborator -of the Defendant Von Schirach as early as 1938, in the Reich Youth -Leadership, and because he is supposed to give information especially -about the activity of the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth -Leader and in particular also about his efforts to bring about understanding -and friendship with the youth of other nations, such as, -for instance, England and France. I believe, Your Honors, that -with regard to the specific importance of these particular questions, -the attitude of the Defendant Von Schirach in the naming of witnesses -should be given recognition here, and that not one witness -only, but both should be granted. I have submitted the addresses -of both witnesses to the Tribunal. They are in a camp, and I believe, -Your Honors, it is imperative to summon both witnesses to establish -the facts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I still do not follow what the essential difference -is between the two.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have just pointed out that the -witness Number 2, Hoepken, had a leading position in the Reich -Youth Leadership, and that therefore the witness Number 2, Hoepken, -is in a position to give information especially about the activity of -the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader. -<span class='pageno' title='573' id='Page_573'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, -Number 1, was adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reichsleiter -of Education of Youth, so that he was in just as close contact with -the defendant on the question of the education of youth as Hoepken.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, but youth education was Hoepken’s main -official task while the activity of the witness Wieshofer was limited -mainly to the job of adjutant to the Defendant Von Schirach, -primarily in his capacity as Gauleiter in Vienna. That is the main -difference, and the witnesses who could provide information about -his activity in Vienna are mainly the witness Wieshofer and, to a -small extent, also Hoepken. But I need Hoepken, by all means, as -I said, for the clarification of the activity of Schirach in the Reich -Youth Leadership.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Mr. President, may I also point out that much is at stake for the -Defendant Von Schirach, and that, from the point of view of the -Court, it should really not make much difference, in a matter so important -to Schirach, whether one witness or two witnesses are called.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, I could have suggested perhaps four witnesses in -the hope that two would then be granted. If now, in the name of -the Defendant Von Schirach, I am proposing to call only two witnesses, -I would not think it very just if one of these two witnesses -should be denied.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have -said.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, Your Honors, in the third place, I -have to request Hartmann Lauterbacher. If I have understood -correctly, the Prosecution agree to this; therefore, I can be brief.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff of the Reich -Youth Leadership, is in a position to supply information especially -about the fact that the Defendant Schirach in no way prepared the -youth psychologically and pedagogically for the war, and by no -means for an aggressive war. Furthermore, he can testify that the -allegations of a Polish report—presented by the Russian Prosecution -in one of the sessions during February, I believe on 9 February -1946—are definitely false. According to this report, the Hitler Youth -had used spies and parachute agents in Poland. And this is false -and the witness Lauterbacher will refute it. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not -object to Number 3 being called as a witness, but what he did -object to was 6 and 7, whom you are also asking for, as oral witnesses, -because he said that they repeated what Lauterbacher said—Numbers -6 and 7, that is Schmidt and Schlünder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there again is the difficulty which -I pointed out before. From the Polish Government report which -<span class='pageno' title='574' id='Page_574'></span> -was read by the Soviet Prosecution on 9 February 1946, it cannot -be seen in what period these activities concerning the Hitler Youth -agents and spies are to have taken place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now it may happen here that, if I have only one witness, it -will be alleged that it was at some other time, perhaps at a time -when this witness was in the Army; and that is why, in the interest -of a complete clarification of these facts, I have asked to have -witness Number 6 heard also. That is the witness Schmidt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that, -with reference to Schlünder, his collaboration with the defendant -extended from 1933 to 1945 and therefore if he were called or were -to give an affidavit or an interrogatory, and Lauterbacher, who -extends only from 1933 to 1940, you would cover the whole period -and you could exclude Schmidt?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you -are referring to an interrogatory in the case of Lauterbacher.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: No, Sir David was prepared to have Lauterbacher -called as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher is to be called as a witness and -Schmidt is to receive an interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He said that Schmidt and Schlünder were -cumulative. Then you said they did not relate to the same period, -as I understood you, and that might raise a difficulty. So I pointed -out to you that Number 7 related to the whole period, that is to say -from 1933, beyond the period dealt with by Lauterbacher, and goes -to 1945, and therefore, if he were called, that would cover the -whole period, and if you called Lauterbacher and Schlünder and -left out Schmidt. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: You mean that an interrogatory is to be obtained -from Schmidt? I am agreeable to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The statements which you make with reference -to Schmidt and to Schlünder are practically identical.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different periods, as each -of them was in the Army. If one of them comes, he cannot say -anything, of course, about the time during which he served in the -Army. He cannot give any information as to whether, during his -military service, agents were used.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I do not know about that. You have stated -that they were collaborators with the defendant from 1938 to 1945 -in the one case, and from 1933 to 1945 in the other case, and therefore, -if that is correct, they cannot have been in the Army; they -cannot have taken an active part in the Army. -<span class='pageno' title='575' id='Page_575'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should be quite prepared to -agree to the suggestion that Your Lordship put forward; that would -then cover the whole period. If both Lauterbacher and Schlünder -were called, it would dispense with the necessity for Schmidt.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: May I point out, Mr. President, that in any case -I need Schlünder, who, by the way, was arrested a few weeks ago, -because he was a specialist for physical training with the Reich -Youth Leadership, and because, therefore, I want to prove, especially -through Dr. Schlünder, that the education of the youth, as administered -by the Defendant Von Schirach, was absolutely neither extraordinary -nor militaristic. The Defendant Von Schirach has thus far, -during the entire procedure in his interrogations. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement -between you and Sir David that Number 1 and Number 3 -certainly should be called and that Number 7 might be called; but -I do not know whether Sir David agrees that an affidavit or an -interrogatory might be given by Number 6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, -My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, -Dr. Sauter?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us get on then.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have then, in addition, under -Number 4, listed an affidavit by a witness, Maria Hoepken. I shall -submit this affidavit, which is already in my possession, to the -Tribunal and to the Prosecution, along with my document book, -sufficiently in advance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then I have also affidavits in my possession, if I may mention -that now, from two witnesses: Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, and -Number 10, Dr. Roesen. The same thing applies here. The Tribunal -and the Prosecution will receive these two affidavits in time, -together with my document book.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Concerning Number 8, the witness Hoffmann, the Prosecution -agree to having him called as a witness since this witness is here -in Nuremberg. Therefore I believe that I do not have to make any -detailed statements concerning this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The same applies to Number 12 and Number 13. These are two -witnesses: One a Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, who, -primarily, is to inform us on the attitude of the defendant on the -question of foreign workers during the time of his activity as Gauleiter -in Vienna; and Number 13, Field Marshal Von Blomberg, who -is to inform us on the attitude of the Defendant Von Schirach on -<span class='pageno' title='576' id='Page_576'></span> -the question of the premilitary education of the youth, on the -question of physical training, and on the question of patriotic -education of youth. The Prosecution agree to interrogatories from -these two witnesses—which I have already suggested myself.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And now, Your Honors, I come to the one figure on my list which -is closest to the heart of my client and myself. It is Number 11; -that is the application to examine a French woman by the name of -Ida Vasso. Of this witness, Ida Vasso, we have heard in court for -the first time when the Soviet Prosecution submitted a commission -“Report on the Atrocities of the Fascist-German Invaders in the -Lvov Area,” as the title reads—Document Number USSR-6.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>This document contains a sentence to the effect that a French -woman, Ida Vasso, who was working in a children’s home in Lvov, -had reported that the Hitler Youth had committed special atrocities -in Lvov. It was alleged that from the ghetto small children were -sold; however, it was not revealed by whom and to whom these -children were to have been sold; and yet, as a matter of course, it -is the Hitler Youth who are said to have used these children as -targets.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Your Honors, we are fully aware that such happenings would -represent a quite extraordinary atrocity, and I can tell you that -none of all the presentations of the Prosecution during the last -three months has so distressed the Defendant Schirach, as has this -statement. The Defendant Schirach has always, even in his earlier -interrogations, maintained that he assumes full responsibility for -the education and training of the German Youth, as directed by -him; and that he is ready and willing, even as a defendant here, -to explain to the Tribunal what principles guided him, what aims he -had, and what successes he achieved. He has, for instance, never -denied that this youth training was based on patriotism. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses -now, are you not? You see, you agree in your application to -an affidavit. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What I was pointing out to you was that this -is only an application with reference to witnesses, and in your -application you say, “However, in consideration of the far distance -of the witness from Nuremberg, I agree that at first an affidavit -should be drawn up.”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David agreed that an affidavit should be -drawn up. So you are in agreement, and I do not understand why -we should be troubled with further application. -<span class='pageno' title='577' id='Page_577'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: However, Mr. President, I have added something -to my application. I have written that a personal appearance of -this witness before the Tribunal would be useful so that she can be -questioned, because her testimony is important for the judging of -the Hitler Youth as a whole. I have also added. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Your application states that you reserve that -right. Well, you can prepare the affidavit and then send it out to -the witness, and then you can see whether you want the witness for -cross-examination. And Sir David agrees to that course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client attaches so much importance -to this particular case for the following reasons: The HJ, -that is the Hitler Youth, which he led, comprised about 8 million -members. It was therefore larger than. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal quite understands -why the defendant is interested in the matter. But it seems -to them it would be perfectly satisfactory if an affidavit were drawn -up and sent to the witness; and then you can see whether you want -the witness, whose present location is unknown, brought here -personally.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client noticed one thing in particular, -that is, that among 8 million members only one single case -of atrocities occurred, of which he never heard anything at all in -the Reich Youth Leadership. However, I agree to the obtaining of -an affidavit for reasons of expediency; but for just this case I must -reserve the right to have the witness called, if the affidavit should -be insufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we had -better adjourn now.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='578' id='Page_578'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the documents for which Dr. Sauter asked, the Prosecution -take the usual line that there is no general objection to extracts -being used, but at this stage they reserve their right to challenge -admissibility of the extracts on the grounds of relevance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>They will have to look particularly closely at Number 9, the -book entitled, <span class='it'>Look, the Heart of Europe</span>, and the commentary on -it by the late Lord Lloyd George, but they can see that these are -particularly matters which can be more conveniently dealt with -when they have seen the document book and the extracts are -before them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I can state my position regarding -the documents very briefly. In the main, it is a question of books, -speeches, and essays by the Defendant Von Schirach. These literary -works are in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution -along with my document book. With the document book I -shall submit to the Tribunal and the Prosecution the individual -extracts which I propose to use as evidence, so that the Prosecution -will still be able to make any statements it wishes with regard to -the individual excerpts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that is all I have to say on that subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 28 February I made a supplementary -motion on behalf of the Defendant Hess. I should be -grateful if the Tribunal would inform me whether they wish to -hear the argument in regard to this motion now or later, since I do -not know whether the Tribunal have a translation of my motion in -their hands.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have not seen the application -yet, so I think you had better postpone making the argument until -the Tribunal has seen the application.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: For the Defendant Sauckel I have suggested a -number of witnesses and in my preliminary remarks on the list -I have divided them into various groups.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The peculiarity of this evidence, as presented, lies in the fact -that in this case a mosaic of smaller facts has to be clarified. In its -case against Sauckel the Prosecution confined itself to the production -of incriminating material generally, and did not work out the -full details about SS assignments carried out under the auspices of -the Labor Service and similar matters. -<span class='pageno' title='579' id='Page_579'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Very few facts have been established at all with regard to -Sauckel’s sphere of activity generally. I am compelled, in consequence, -to present his staff, his collaborators, and their spheres -of activity. At first sight my list of witnesses may appear cumulative, -but closer inspection shows that they represent different fields. -Some of them are experts on Eastern affairs, others deal with -the West or South. There is the question of direction of manpower, -supplies, housing, and the authority exercised by individuals. The -recruitment of workers in foreign countries comes under another -head; and witnesses must be heard on this subject, too.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In Sauckel’s case, the question of manpower is all-important -and that of conspiracy is a secondary matter. I believe I can rely -to a very great extent on the statements which may be expected -from others among the accused and from their witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -the Prosecution have endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering -the suggested witnesses under various heads.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by himself. -The defendant’s counsel wishes to call this witness on the -question of agreements between him and Laval. The Prosecution -submit that that cannot affect the position over, certainly, Occupied -France, and suggested that this witness is really irrelevant -to the main charges which have been made against the defendant. -My French colleagues will, however, if Dr. Servatius desires it, -let him know the effect of an interrogation of Ambassador Abetz -with regard to this subject. I do not want to comment on it at -the moment, because it is obviously a matter which Dr. Servatius -should consider before any comment is made on it in court. But, -if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be useful if he -considered that point before any decision was come to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come -from the Reich Ministry of Labor, and they are called to speak -generally as to the defendant’s attitude, the limitations on him -as regards recruiting, and his personal dealings with offenders. -The Prosecution suggest that it will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius -to select the two best out of eight for oral testimony, and two -more to give affidavits.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next three, Numbers 9, 10, and 11, were members of the -Defendant Sauckel’s staff, who are sought to be called to give -evidence as to his efforts to obtain good conditions. Again, the -Prosecution suggest a selection, and put forward one witness -and one affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 12, the witness Hoffmann, is called for the purpose of -saying that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, looked after the -welfare of foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. -<span class='pageno' title='580' id='Page_580'></span> -The Prosecution submit that that witness would be cumulative, -and object to him, as that subject is already covered.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then there are a series of witnesses, Numbers 13 to 18, who -deal with the relations and liaison between the Defendant Sauckel -and the DAF. These are substantially still on the same point, and -the Prosecution suggest that one witness and one affidavit out -of that group would be sufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Number 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals -with the question of wages, and also of the transmission of money -to their homes by foreign workers. The Prosecution suggest that -that is the sort of material which might conveniently be dealt -with by an affidavit or an interrogatory, according to Dr. Servatius’ -wishes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of foreign -workers at the Gustloff works. That subject has been thoroughly -covered in general by previous witnesses, and the Prosecution -suggest that this particular witness is cumulative.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for Labor, -he deals with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley -and the contention that Sauckel had nothing to do with labor -from concentration camps. Again, the Prosecution suggest that -an affidavit would show how far the witness Seldte is speaking -merely of routine matters, such as orders and the like, and how far -he is dealing with individual or personal matters. If he does in -fact deal with individual and personal matters and interviews, -then I suggest that Dr. Servatius could resume his application -on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Darré, who was the former Reich Minister for -Food and Agriculture, is sought in order to speak as to the -defendant’s efforts to get higher food rations for foreign workers, -especially in Eastern areas. The Prosecution suggest that this -witness also is cumulative, and it will indicate a number of other -witnesses and documents which deal with this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Number 23, General Reinecke, there is no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought to say that French prisoners -of war were exchanged against voluntary workers. The Prosecution -object on the ground of irrelevance.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Number 25, there is no objection to Dr. Lammers, who is -being called by, I think, every defendant, or practically every -defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next, 26, the witness Peuckert, again deals with the -administrative position and executive apparatus of Sauckel, which -has already been treated by witnesses at considerable length, and -the Prosecution object to this as cumulative. -<span class='pageno' title='581' id='Page_581'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 27, Governor Fischer, Chief of Labor in the Government -General, is called to say that Sauckel had made dealings with the -SS in regard to resettlement. Again, if he is speaking as to rules -and orders that were laid down, we suggest an affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jäger, is -asked for cross-examination on his affidavit. That is Exhibit -Number USA-202 (Document Number D-288), and the references -in the transcript are 1322 to 1327 (Volume III, Pages 441-446) and -3057 (Volume V, Page 509). No request was made at this time, -and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to explain his position before dealing -with this point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, deal with the public -health aspect of foreign workers. They deal with different districts. -The Prosecution submit that that question could be dealt with -by one affidavit.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to the next three witnesses, 31, 32, and 33, I think the -position is that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute -certain evidence given by M. Dubost on 28 January that the -defendant authorized the evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked, -at Pages 3466 to 3492 of the transcript (Volume VI, Pages 242-263), -but I cannot find the evidence which Dr. Servatius has in mind, -and perhaps he would be good enough to indicate it to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that the -defendant, as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, -we make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party -produced before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we -suggested that that be allowed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Frau Sauckel, who is desired in order that she -may speak as to the defendant’s charitable disposition, irrespective -of the Party, the Prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to -the issues before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think it is impossible in this case, My Lord, to leave the -witnesses without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at the -documents, because the two are interrelated.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is an application for 97 sets of documents and in general -they set out what we should call in England all the relevant -statutory rules and orders, that is, the subsidiary legislation made -with regard to the activities of this defendant. Frankly, I must say -to the Tribunal that I have not had the opportunity of reading the -original orders. I have read only the summary which Dr. Servatius -has been good enough to provide in his application. But, quite -clearly, these documents cover again in the greatest detail the -various problems with which the respective sets of witnesses to -<span class='pageno' title='582' id='Page_582'></span> -be called deal, and, in the submission of the Prosecution, they -provide a good reason and a fair ground for some considerable -limitation of the oral witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues and -myself take considerable objection, and I might just state two or -three of these.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, -and is presented to prove especially that the German civilian -population also received meat graded as inferior, which therefore -could not be considered inedible meat. If one has not the comparison -of the caloric and other properties of the meat, it is going to be -extremely difficult to get any benefit from the evidence, if one is -going into that. It is unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before -the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal would then turn to Numbers 80 and 81; Dr. -Servatius wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, apparently for the -purpose of showing that the Soviet methods of mobilization were -contrary to the Hague convention and are therefore evidence that -the Hague Convention had become obsolete. I submit that the two -small examples of this evidence indicate that there would have -to be extensive examination of the facts surrounding them and -they could not be the basis of a sound argument that a convention -had been abrogated. It is possible that in rare cases international -agreements may be abrogated by conquest. But evidence of that -kind would, in my respectful submission, not be the basis of such -an argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then come Numbers 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. -There again it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged -consideration of the circumstances under which each affidavit was -made, to assess the values of bundles of affidavits of that kind.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I suggest that it -would be reasonable if the representatives of the Prosecution were -shown that film first, before it is shown in court—I think that was -the course that was taken with regard to the concentration camp -film—because, of course, without going into arguments at the -moment, the question of propaganda is a serious one which the -Prosecution are bound to consider. I have expressly refrained from -further comment, but I think the Tribunal will see the point that -is in my mind, and will, I hope, consider that it is reasonable -that we should see the film before we are asked to comment on -it further.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have taken only certain examples in the documents because -obviously they will have to be considered in detail when we see -the text, and the Prosecution have to reserve their rights as to -objection. But I make the general point—and I hope the Tribunal -<span class='pageno' title='583' id='Page_583'></span> -will think that it is a fair point, and I hope Dr. Servatius will -not think that I am decrying his work; I am emphasizing the -industry and care which he has shown in doing it—that with this -immense body of documentation the witnesses in this case -will want careful pruning. That, as I have said, indicates our -general view.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, -Dr. Servatius, I ought to say, for the information of other defendants’ -counsel and other persons concerned, that the Tribunal -proposes to adjourn today at 4 o’clock instead of 5 o’clock.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Sir David, I wanted to ask you: Throughout the discussion I -think you referred to affidavits. Did you mean to particularize an -affidavit as opposed to an interrogatory?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. I did not. I am -sorry. I really have not made that distinction. It is written evidence -that I wish to refer to, either by affidavit or interrogatory, whichever -Dr. Servatius wishes to have.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And one other question: In view of what -you have said about the documents, would it not be a good thing -for the Prosecution to have a little more time to consider the -documents? And then perhaps they could give more help as to -their view about the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be so, My Lord, -but Your Lordship will appreciate that we have been under considerable -pressure in the last few weeks and it is impossible to -cover them all, but we should be glad of a little time to go into -the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about -them after the adjournment some time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: And in the course of a day or two, let us -know.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we could do that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT; Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the -witnesses?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 1, Ambassador Abetz. I name -this witness to show Sauckel’s subjective conception of the admissibility -of the Arbeitseinsatz from the point of view of international -law. On the basis of the treaties, and in the absence of any protest -from the governments of other countries—notably France—he was -entitled to assume that it was legitimate. I am, however, willing -to admit the witness Stothfang, who as Sauckel’s deputy repeatedly -<span class='pageno' title='584' id='Page_584'></span> -negotiated with Laval. If he is admitted, I would renounce the -witness Abetz. In other words, I am to forego witness Number 1 -if I am permitted witness Number 9.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. What about witnesses 2 to 8?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses from Sauckel’s staff. It is difficult -to dispense with any witness; and one witness is absolutely -necessary for the graphic illustration of the way in which orders -were carried out in practice. The Tribunal would find it very difficult -to read through this enormous number of laws, and it is easier -to hear witnesses on the essential points than to undertake the -amount of reading involved. The witness Timm is the most important, -as for all practical purposes he was in charge of the so-called -Europa Amt which was responsible for the actual distribution of -the labor forces.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius. First of all, you -will, no doubt, be calling the Defendant Sauckel himself?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I should like to call him last, for he is -a defendant and his statements are less valuable than that of a -witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: These witnesses will be corroborating his -evidence about his administration. Under those circumstances, -would not two of them, as Sir David suggested, out of eight, -and two more affidavits be sufficient?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: From a legal point of view, the witness -Beisiegel can be dispensed with, but the other witnesses are -necessary because they have actual knowledge of the use of manpower -abroad. So far, I have only one witness who can really -speak on the use of manpower in the East. This witness should -be able to describe the actual procedure followed; for laws have -little meaning in themselves, if we do not know how they were -applied. For the East, we have the witness Letsch—a highly -important witness—and for the West, the witness Hildebrandt, who -can testify how conditions gradually changed in France in consequence -of the resistance movement.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Kaestner could not be found, and I will dispense -with him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 7, Dr. Geissler, is of the greatest importance -because he can testify regarding inspections. The main point is at -what period these workers were employed and what provision was -made by Sauckel for their well-being in Germany. To ensure that -Sauckel’s regulations—which, I maintain, were models of their -kind—were actually put into practice, a series of inspectorates -<span class='pageno' title='585' id='Page_585'></span> -existed. Witness Number 7, Geissler, was in charge of the Reich -inspectorate, a branch established by Sauckel. I consider him -indispensable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number 3 and Number 8 -cumulative?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number 8 in order to give special -emphasis to the wage question. So far the Prosecution have not -treated individual points in any very great detail. Otherwise I -should find myself in difficulties owing to lack of evidence when -the emphasis is transferred later to the question of wages. Only -witness Number 8 can testify to this question. Witness Number 3 -can testify regarding the regulations generally and in particular -that Sauckel constantly improved conditions to the last, so that -the situation of all foreign workers was considerably improved by -legislation and continued to improve. This can be seen from all the -regulations, which I have carefully collected for the purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 9, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel’s consultant, his -personal adviser, and conducted many negotiations, particularly -with France. For this reason I have named him as a substitute for -witness Number 1, Abetz. In particular he conducted negotiations -over the restrictions of the so-called Weisungsrecht, the restriction, -that is, Sauckel’s right to recruit workers. From the very start of -Sauckel’s activities, it was clear that no official administering a -zone would tolerate interference of this kind on Sauckel’s part, -that from a practical point of view it was impossible to tolerate -it and his powers were promptly curtailed through parleys. Witness -Stothfang will testify on that subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why are 9 and 10 not cumulative?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number 10. I wish to say -something on a rather different subject.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 11 knows the conditions. He -was the press expert, and if I must forego any witness, I would -dispense with him rather than anyone else. He really does know, -however, exactly what conditions were like. He wrote the book -<span class='it'>Europa Works in Germany</span> and made the film, and can say that -these pictures were not faked but are genuine photographs. For -this reason he is important, as his testimony is supplementary to -the book and the film.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witnesses belong to the Labor Front. The Labor Front -was responsible for the welfare of all foreign workers, as well -as for that of German workers. The situation never changed in -that respect; and the witnesses can testify now to the way in -<span class='pageno' title='586' id='Page_586'></span> -which the regulations were carried out in different cases, with -regard to the construction of the camps, supplies, clothing, and -everything else that took place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 13 would be the most important witness, but -he has not been found. For this reason I attach special importance -to witness Number 14, who worked with him. The witness Hoffmann -was practically in charge and knows what conditions were in the -camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Those were the witnesses who worked with Sauckel in liaison -with the Labor Front. The other witnesses will testify as to the -practical work done by the workers themselves.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The situation is this: Dr. Ley no longer appears here, so that -the whole of Ley’s field now becomes part of the case against -Sauckel and forms a further charge against Sauckel unless the -question is clarified. There are a good many charges and they -must be clarified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between 15 and 16?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: 15 is a stenographer’s error; 15 is identical -with witness 12. Witness 16, Mende, of the head office is particularly -important because he had to look after the organizations -within the Labor Front.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean 15 comes out, does it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 15 comes out.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Witness 17, Dr. Hupfauer, can testify as to the -origin of the code of regulations in general and about the direction -in which Sauckel worked.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative with Number 14, -whom you wanted to have instead of 13? The charge of inhumanity -applies to both of them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Because witness 14 deals with the practical -side, and witness 17 deals with the legislative side. Witness 18 was -responsible for the practical application within the Labor Front. -One must keep these various fields distinct from each other. Sauckel -had a small office, which was incorporated into the Ministry of -Labor. He issued regulations with the aim of steadily improving -matters. I offer evidence that they were of social value and will -prove on investigation to be irreproachable.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We then have to consider the other side of the question—the -practical application, for which the Labor Front was responsible; -and the recruitment. I have special witnesses to deal with these -heads as well. -<span class='pageno' title='587' id='Page_587'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witnesses are members of Sauckel’s specialist staff. -Witness 19, Bank Director Goetz, can testify that billions of marks -were transferred to foreign countries for workers’ wages.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 20, Beckurtz, was manager of the Gustloff works and -one of Sauckel’s closest collaborators. He will confirm that the -treatment and housing of workers in this very Gustloff factory was -exemplary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 21 will testify as to the degree of authority exercised by -Ley and Sauckel respectively. It is of great importance to know -whether Sauckel himself was responsible or whether some other -office was in charge of the practical side.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot this be dealt with by an affidavit -or interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I shall be satisfied here with an affidavit. I -have not yet spoken to the witness personally and for that reason -I had to list him as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture. He will -testify that from the moment Sauckel took up his appointment, he -made every effort to improve conditions for foreign workers and -that he continued to pay special attention to this point. That is of -particular importance in view of the accusation that the foreign -workers had been starved. Through it I shall be able to adduce -evidence that the foreign workers were in part—I say in part—better -off than German workers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 23. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another -defendant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I see. Then I can forego him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness has not yet been found. He will testify regarding -the exchange of prisoners of war for French workers. I understand -that Reich Minister Lammers has already been approved for -other defendants.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can furnish -information on the way in which workers were recruited in the -Eastern territories. They can testify to the extent of Sauckel’s -powers, whether they were executive or otherwise, to the authority -given to the police, and to what extent the organization was distinct -from the SS. Witness 26 has not been found. Consequently, I shall -have to confine myself to witness Number 27, Governor Fischer, -who has been found and approved.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: What about an affidavit for 27? -<span class='pageno' title='588' id='Page_588'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I do not consider that I can forego calling him -as a witness. It is of the utmost importance to have a witness who -can say what conditions in the East actually were.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 28, Dr. Jäger. We have a detailed affidavit, but it is -extremely inaccurate. It has been submitted as Document Number -D-288, Exhibit Number USA-202. I have also received the German -translation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was it not the proper course to -cross-examine Dr. Jäger when his affidavit was read?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I assumed that it was accurate, as at that time -I was not acquainted with conditions in the district in question. I -have since made inquiries and can bring evidence to show that his -statements were not only very much exaggerated, but in many cases -actually false. The truth emerged by degrees on studying in detail -some half dozen sworn statements which I obtained. Krupp had -60 camps. The witness deals with three or four of them at a time -when the aerial war was at its peak—a fact which he does not mention. -I do not anticipate much difficulty in proving his statements -incorrect. I should like to reserve the right to submit further affidavits -with which the witness can be confronted if he appears -here in person, I also made an application, which has not yet -been granted, for leave to make use of a number of medical -reports made in these very factories, which in themselves prove that -Dr. Jäger’s testimony is inaccurate. My chief difficulty was to obtain -possession of this evidence, hence the delay. Otherwise I should -have submitted it sooner. I attach great importance to Dr. Jäger as -a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, will testify on -the same subject, but each in connection with a different area. They -have attended the camps as doctors and can testify that the conditions -there were irreproachable and good. I could name many such -doctors if I had the time and opportunity to look them up. I know -both of these and they will confirm what conditions were really like.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an -affidavit about it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: They are in a camp. It is difficult for me to -contact them; it would be easier to bring the witnesses here. Perhaps -Dr. Voss can appear here so that one of the witnesses can -be heard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next three witnesses are named for this purpose.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the explanation, -I have had a chance of comparing the English text with the -French text, and it would appear that an error has crept into the -English text, which says: -<span class='pageno' title='589' id='Page_589'></span></p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of -the gravity of the communication Shiedlauski had given. -Shiedlauski had given an order that no prisoner should -remain in Buchenwald.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The French text is, if I may translate it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given. -The Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order that -none of the detained persons should remain at Buchenwald.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could not -find this reference, I was dealing with the English text, and it -appears that there was such a reference in the French text. Since -M. Dubost was calling the witness, the probability is that the French -text is right, and as there is evidence that Sauckel had given this -order, I think it is only fair that I should say that one witness -should be permitted to deal with this point in the view of the Prosecution; -it is, of course, a matter for the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: I agree with the Prosecutor and need only one -of the three witnesses. Should none of the witnesses be found, I -have in the document book an affidavit of one of Sauckel’s sons who -was also present at the conference.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 34, Skorzeny, will testify to the general connection -between the Gauleitung and the concentration camps; in other -words, to what extent the Gauleitung, by virtue of its official position, -had knowledge of what went on in the concentration camps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 35, Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, Schwarz. This question -has been settled. I have received my interrogatory with the -answers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 36, Frau Sauckel, was previously approved by the Tribunal. -I can see that certain objections might be raised but the -essential point is this: Among other things, the witness repeatedly -heard that the Defendant Sauckel was criticized for treating foreign -workers too well and for manifesting an international rather than -a nationalistic attitude. That is one point. The other point is that -which concerns the conspiracy, namely, that Sauckel kept aloof and -had very little intercourse with other members of the Party. He -worked consequently on his own and knew very little about major -developments in policy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>That concludes my remarks on the list of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you probably realize that you -have asked for a very much larger number of witnesses than other -counsel and I have, therefore, to ask you whom you regard as the -most important witnesses. It may be that it will be necessary to -limit the number, as you are aware that we are directed to hold an -<span class='pageno' title='590' id='Page_590'></span> -expeditious trial, and so would you kindly give me the list of those -witnesses whom you regard as the most essential.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: If I have time till tomorrow to think it over, -I shall try to reduce the number. It is difficult because the field is -so large. Also I did not receive a trial brief for Sauckel defining -charges in detail, so that I must be prepared for all eventualities. -I must define my position with regard to many points: food, wages, -leave, workers, transport, illness and there are many aspects to -which I must refer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You will not forget that many of the defendants -are concerned in various aspects and they have neither asked -for nor been allowed this very large number of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: May I turn to the documents now?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, I rather thought that perhaps Sir David -was going to get in touch with you after the adjournment and perhaps -you could then deal with the documents more successfully.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that would be time usefully -spent, My Lord, if the Tribunal would allow it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I call on Dr. Exner on behalf of the Defendant Jodl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -Dr. Exner and Professor Jahrreiss were good enough to approach the -Prosecution on this matter and put forward certain considerations, -including the names of the witnesses to whom they attached the -greatest importance, and over a considerable part of the field there -is no difference between us. On certain matters there is a difference -of principle, which I shall point out to the Tribunal in a moment, -but the effect is, if I might run through the application, that the -Prosecution will not offer any objections to General Winter, who -speaks as to the organization of the OKW and the respective duties -of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl. They will not offer objections to -Major Professor Schramm, although the need for his evidence is -perhaps not so obvious. On the other hand, with regard to Number 3, -the evidence of Major Kipp, that the fettering or chaining of prisoners -took place at Dieppe and as to the cause of the shooting-of-Commandos -order, the Prosecution submit that these matters are -irrelevant. With regard to Major Büchs, Dr. Exner tells me that he -will be satisfied with interrogatories. The Prosecution do not object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 5, General Von Buttlar, Professor Exner -suggests that he should be a witness, and the Prosecution do not -object.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 6, the Prosecution are content that there -should be interrogatories. -<span class='pageno' title='591' id='Page_591'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Vice Admiral Bürckner, the Prosecution are -prepared to take no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then with regard to Number 8, General Buhle, a questionnaire -has been sent off.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Number 9, it is suggested that there should be -interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 10, interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With reference to Numbers 11 to 21, the Tribunal has allowed an -interrogation in each case, and in many cases a questionnaire has -been sent off, and therefore the Prosecution could not object at this -stage when action has been taken on the Tribunal’s suggestion. That -would mean that the Defendant Jodl would have four oral witnesses, -apart from the interrogatories which have already been -largely approved by the Tribunal. The objection of the Prosecution -to Number 3 is maintained.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: I should like, first of all, to mention Number 3, -Kipp. The Prosecution have its objections to this witness. We need -him to give information as to how the Hitler order of 18 October -1942, that is, the Hitler order regarding Commandos, originated. -This order has been made the basis of a highly incriminating charge -against Jodl and it is of great importance to hear how this order -came to be given. It concerns the killing of Commandos dropped by -planes or landed from boats. As I understand it, the objection to -this witness and this subject generally is that it appears to concern -for the most part the events of Dieppe, in consequence of which this -order was admittedly issued. But we are not concerned with an -exact portrayal of what actually happened at Dieppe. The witness -Kipp is, in any case, unable to do so, since he was in the OKW and -was not a witness of those events. We are concerned with something -else, namely, the fact that certain reports were presented to -the OKW which caused this order to be made. We are furthermore -concerned with the following facts to which Kipp is in a position -to testify.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>When these reports about the events at Dieppe arrived, the -Führer was enraged and ordered strict measures to be taken against -these Commandos. Jodl refused to issue or draft the order as -demanded by the Führer. When pressed, he said he did not know -what reason he could give for that order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Jodl then passed the matter to Major Kipp for investigation, as -it was peculiarly complicated from a legal point of view and Kipp, -being a professor of law, should know something about legal matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition, a kind of poll was held in Jodl’s office in the -Wehrmacht Operations Staff and the opinions of other offices on the -matter in question were collected. Varying opinions were received -<span class='pageno' title='592' id='Page_592'></span> -from the Ausland Abwehr, the legal department, et cetera. As in -the meantime 10 days had passed, Hitler lost patience, sat down -and drew up the entire order himself, as well as a further decree, -establishing the reasons for the order. Jodl, therefore, was not the -author of this order. All that he did was to express his doubts -regarding it. The story of the origin of the order of 28 October -1942, which, as I have said, has been made the basis of a grave -accusation against Jodl, is of the utmost importance. Kipp will -testify to it. Further, it has already been said that there is no objection -to witness Number 5, Buttlar.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to Number 4, I am satisfied with an affidavit or an interrogatory, -but I must reserve the right to call him as a witness, -should the interrogatory be inadequate or not clear. I hope, however, -that this can be avoided.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding witness Number 7, Vice Admiral Gottlieb Bürckner, -I should like to point out that he is the same Admiral Bürckner -who was the subject of discussion this morning in connection with -the witnesses for the Defendant Raeder. Perhaps that will clear up -the difficulty about Raeder.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding Number 8, the interrogatory has already been sent -out. We have, however, distinctly, reserved the right to resort to -oral testimony should the interrogatory again prove unsatisfactory. -Otherwise, I have nothing further to say on the subject and the -Prosecution has no grounds for protest.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I have just received a note saying I was relying on the appearance -of Büchs as a witness and therefore why did I not ask for him. -This is on behalf of Göring, is it not? I shall have to leave the -decision to the Tribunal. I had in fact intended to call Büchs as a -witness and I only agreed to forego his personal appearance in the -course of the discussion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which witness were you talking about?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Witness Number 4.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Do you say you are asking for him as an -oral witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Göring has also asked for him as a witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Has he been allowed to the Defendant Göring?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: He had counted on my calling him as a witness, on -his being allowed and on being able to question him. He is here in -Nuremberg. May I now turn to the documents?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 1 and 4, the Prosecution has no -objections. I take this to mean that I put into my document book -an extract of the part I read. I submit the entire document to the -<span class='pageno' title='593' id='Page_593'></span> -Tribunal without a translation of anything except the part which -I am going to read; and which deals with an important point which -must be clarified. If I am dealing with a large document and I -need to quote only one paragraph, it is sufficient if I submit the -original document to the Tribunal in its entirety and include in my -document book only the particular paragraph in question and its -translation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is right.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 5 and 6, the Prosecution objects -and I withdraw these two documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Point 7 is a curious one. That is Document Number 532-PS, -submitted by the Prosecution and to which I made objection at the -time. The document was removed from the record, and now I -myself apply for this document to be submitted again. This is for -the following reason: The document is an order that was submitted -to Jodl in draft form. Jodl did not approve it, crossed it out, and -sent it back without signing it. This draft was submitted by the -Prosecution, and I objected to its being presented as if it were -actually an order signed by Jodl. I want to submit it now in order -to prove that Jodl, by making it impossible for this order to be -carried out, deprived an illegal order of its effectiveness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding Points 8 to 15, the Prosecution also has no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Points 16 and 17 are the subjects -of objection from the Prosecution. Point 16 relates to the -English “Close Combat Regulations” of the year 1942, and 17 is the -English order for the Operation Dieppe of the same year. With -regard to the “Close Combat Regulations,” the only relevance they -could seem to have would be in relation to an objection to this -form of training, and in the submission of the Prosecution it would -be irrelevant on the question of the Commando order.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the question of shackling, I think the simplest -way of dealing with it is to point out that the Prosecution, as my -friend Mr. Dodd pointed out, have not introduced that matter into -their case, and therefore it would appear that, the English order in -question was not relevant. Apart from the two general objections, -neither of these matters seems connected with points in the case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I might just indicate Number 20, which is another objection that -is on the same basis as the old document, which I think the Tribunal -has had before—the implication of the German Foreign Office on -breaches of international law, and it is sought for, as the Tribunal -will see, as evidence of the reports that were made to the High -Command of the Wehrmacht, and that gave occasion to take reprisal -measures. -<span class='pageno' title='594' id='Page_594'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then a similar ground of objection applies to Number 21, a -history of the White Russian partisan war, which is sought for as -evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave cause for undertaking -sweeping countermeasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These objections can be all grouped together. They fall under -the general objection to <span class='it'>tu quoque</span> evidence which the Prosecution -has maintained throughout the Trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: May I say something about this? As far as 16 and -17 are concerned, we just want to see these documents. We want -to see them first in order to judge whether or not we want to submit -them in evidence. I have stated so at the foot of the page.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As to irrelevance, we do not say that we regard these orders as -illegal. But if for instance, in the “Close Combat Regulations,” -English soldiers are ordered to perform actions for which our soldiers -are censured, it would constitute a discrepancy of some -importance. For in that case it would be obvious that the British -Government regarded such methods of warfare as legitimate. If, -however, such methods are legitimate for them, they must also be -legitimate in our case, since it is impossible to have two standards -in these matters. In order to establish this, we wanted to see these -“Close Combat Regulations.” That is Number 18.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 19 is a similar case, but I can more readily understand -that that was refused, as it may be a secret order. Number 20, the -White Book. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David did not deal with 19, did he? He -only dealt with 16, 17, 20, and 21.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: Yes. 18 and 19 have not been objected to.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: As I understood it, his objection to 16 and 17 -was that there was no complaint against the German forces, either -with the reference to close combat or with reference to shackling, in -the Indictment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: If these “Close Combat Regulations” should happen -to include illustrations—there are actually pictures in there—of the -shackling of prisoners and orders for doing so, one would be obliged -to say that the British Government does not consider this kind of -treatment illegal and that if it happens on our side we cannot be -censured for it. It is difficult for me to estimate their importance -to us, because I have not had these “Close Combat Regulations” in -my own hands. If I had them, I could make my application. I -should like to know whether I have to include them in my evidence -or whether there is no need.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>No objection has been raised to 18 and 19. As to 20, these are -the White Books already approved for Göring. Consequently, I need -not ask for them myself. -<span class='pageno' title='595' id='Page_595'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Regarding Point 21, I am convinced that this cannot be settled -with a charge of <span class='it'>tu quoque</span>. It is a Russian book, describing partisan -warfare. The author of this book is a Russian who, himself, -participated in partisan warfare for several years as chief of staff -and he writes from personal experience.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>We do not assert that the Russians did the same as we did, which -would be a <span class='it'>tu quoque</span> argument; I should like to have this book -for another reason. To understand and appreciate our regulations -regarding partisans, one must know these partisans. One must have -knowledge and experience of their methods, and be able to appreciate -the danger which they represented. This Russian book -describes all that, and is therefore important. The author himself, -as stated, played an active part in the warfare carried on against -the partisans.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the Indictment it is stated, “The war against the partisans -was simply an excuse for the annihilation of Jews, Slavs, and so -on.” This book shows that the war against the partisans was a real -war and not an excuse on our part.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the book is unobtainable, I ask permission to read the short -account of the contents recently published in The Stars and Stripes. -To conclude, it should be emphasized that the book was written by -a Soviet Russian and for this reason cannot be assumed to have an -anti-Russian bias.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Therewith I have concluded my presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know -what your argument is with reference to 21.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was opposing it for the reason -that was given. The book is asked for as evidence that the danger -of bandit warfare gave rise to undertaking sweeping countermeasures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, broadly, the case for the Prosecution is that the countermeasures -against partisans constituted atrocities, and evidence of -that kind has been given. It is, in my submission, no defense to the -committing of atrocities against partisans, of the kind given in evidence, -that their warfare was of a great extent or very fiercely or -bravely waged. This is just the <span class='it'>tu quoque</span> argument in its nakedness—because -partisans fight you, therefore you can burn their villages, -shoot their women, and kill their children. That is the -argument which we say is irrelevant and is inadmissible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I should like to say that I have no objection, if any -of these documents can be obtained, to Dr. Exner’s looking at the -documents; on that point to which the Prosecution attached importance, -I thought it right—and I know my colleagues desired it—that -I should make our position clear. -<span class='pageno' title='596' id='Page_596'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your address, Dr. Exner, -does it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. EXNER: May I add something concerning the last point. I -am, of course, perfectly aware that those atrocities, as described -here, cannot be justified by the activities of the partisans, but the -more violent the actions of the partisans became, the harsher—of -necessity—were the German military countermeasures, so that there -is, after all, a connection between these matters.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your argument.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 7 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' title='597' id='Page_597'></span><h1><span style='font-size:larger'>SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY</span><br/> Thursday, 7 March 1946</h1></div> - -<h2 class='nobreak'><span class='it'>Morning Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von Papen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal approves, I shall -indicate the views of the Prosecution on the witnesses requested by -Dr. Kubuschok.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first witness is Von Lersner -and there is no objection. This witness is called to cover, among -other things, the period of the coming into power of the Hitler -Government, which is a time of material importance in the case -against Von Papen.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If the Tribunal would consider the next three witnesses, there -is a minor point: The witness Tschirschky was, as I understand it, -Von Papen’s private secretary from 1933 to February 1935. That is, -he covered the period of the rise to power of the Nazi Party. And -he also covers some of the Austrian period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Von Kageneck, is also a private secretary. He -does not cover the period of the rise to power, but covers the whole -Austrian period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The next witness, Erbach, was counsellor at the Embassy in -Vienna, that is, he covers the period 1934 to 1938.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution has always been reluctant to oppose the calling -of secretaries who could assist the memory of the defendant, but it -did seem to us that the witness Tschirschky was cumulative both on -the period of the rise to power and the Austrian period and that it -would be sufficient to have interrogatories in that case. Therefore, -the Prosecution, apart from that, would not object to Von Kageneck -and Erbach.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is, you suggest interrogatories for 2 and -calling 3 and 4?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, interrogatories, -and calling of 3 and 4.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Number 5, -the witness Kroll, the Prosecution submits that he is irrelevant. He -<span class='pageno' title='598' id='Page_598'></span> -is called for the period when the defendant was an ambassador in -Turkey and he allegedly is able to say that Von Papen had no -aggressive thoughts with regard to Russia. The Prosecution would -submit that Von Papen is really the person who can speak on a -matter like that, and the Prosecution has had no evidence as to any -subversive activity of the Nazi Party in Turkey; which is the other -point that this witness is said to speak on.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the next five witnesses, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: The Tribunal -granted interrogatories and, so long as the matter is limited to -interrogatories, the Prosecution will make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And Number 11, the Baroness De Nothomb: The Prosecution -object to evidence on acts of intercession on behalf of members of -the resistance movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the -opinion of the Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters -before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Archbishop Gröber, if the Tribunal would not -mind looking at Number 12 in the application, in the opinion of the -Prosecution the matters raised by the questions are not relevant. -The first is, “Were the Concordat negotiations between Germany and -the Holy See brought about by Defendant Von Papen’s own -initiative?” The second part of this question is, in short, “Did Von -Papen make efforts with Hitler regarding the conclusion of the -Concordat?” Well, the Concordat was made, and what the Tribunal -are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, of which -the Prosecution has given written evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second question—I am afraid that I do not understand that, -and in its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to -being vague—“Were the activities of the defendant directed by his -positive religious attitude after the conclusion of the Concordat also?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then the third question: “Was the conclusion of the Concordat -welcomed by the German Episcopate?” I don’t think that really helps.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And fourth: “Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church -during the latter’s religious struggles?” And, “Could the Church, in -the end, fall back on the Concordat?”</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and, as I say, the -issue in this case is the breaches of the Concordat, not its contents. -So we object to Number 12.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 13, the witness Von Beaulieu—that is very short, if the -Tribunal would be good enough to look at it:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“I shall submit an affidavit of the witness, which deals with -the intervention of the defendant as President of the Union -Club on behalf of Jews.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution submit that the intervention in a racing club on -behalf of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, -even on the Jewish issue. -<span class='pageno' title='599' id='Page_599'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 14, the witness Josten—Dr. Kubuschok asks for the use -of a statement which has been sent to the Tribunal. The Prosecution -would prefer that to be in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, -if this is possible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: That is 14, is it?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 14, My Lord, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then 15 is His Majesty, the King of Sweden. That is a new -application and general in its scope. It is difficult to judge how -much King Gustav could contribute, and, therefore, the Prosecution -do not object to interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in 14 Dr. Kubuschok says that he -requested that the statement made by the witness to the legal -department of the Military Government headquarters, Düsseldorf, -be furnished him. Are you objecting to that being furnished him?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I thought that he had got it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: I got it this morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Kubuschok says that he -received it today, this morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to his offering it as evidence?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only say that we should -prefer it in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if that can be -done. I do not make any great objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: In regard to the witnesses I should like to -say the following: Witness Number 1, Baron Lersner—the Tribunal -granted only an interrogatory at first. The prosecutor has today -agreed to have the witness called before this Tribunal. I also ask -very urgently that this witness be questioned before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was the president of the German peace delegation at -Versailles. He is a very well known German diplomat, who since -1932 has worked very closely with the Defendant Von Papen. A man -like Lersner had, of course, a particularly fine understanding for -every policy of aggression. Therefore, it is very important that this -co-worker of the Defendant Von Papen be heard and be allowed to -tell us how he has observed the defendant in his activities up to -1944. It is particularly important that Lersner, at the instigation of -Defendant Von Papen, could go to Turkey.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, Sir David agreed, I think, -with reference to Number 1.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, if the Tribunal also agrees, then the -matter is taken care of.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second witness, Tschirschky—Tschirschky was the private -secretary of the defendant from 1933 to 1935, the first private -<span class='pageno' title='600' id='Page_600'></span> -secretary during the time that the defendant was Vice Chancellor. -He is a man who was himself persecuted by the Gestapo and had to -go into exile in 1935, where he still is. He is a man who can give -exhaustive information on the whole period from 1933 to 1935 in -regard to the external activity of the defendant and his personal -attitude.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that, especially for the time from the beginning of 1933, -we shall not get a thorough picture if we do not hear this closest -co-worker of the defendant personally. The other witnesses concern -mostly different periods. Only in some cases do they overlap with -the activity of this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 5, Kroll. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Supposing that the Tribunal thought it right -to grant you Number 2 as an oral witness, would it not be possible -to dispense with one of 3 or 4 and have interrogatories from one of -them and call the other one? They deal with somewhat the same -period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: We definitely need 3 for the following -reasons:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Kageneck was present when Hitler entrusted Papen with -the Austrian mission. This is a very important point, since the -Prosecution alleges that he was entrusted with this mission for those -purposes of which he was accused. The witness will testify that -Papen accepted the mission only after a clear guarantee concerning -the purpose of the mission. Furthermore, Count Kageneck was also -in Vienna after 1935, that is to say, from 1935 until the Anschluss, -and for this period we should not have any other witness. Kageneck -can also confirm a very important point, that is, that he was -entrusted with taking diplomatic documents to Switzerland and -safeguarding them there, since from these documents the documentary -proof for the activity of the defendant in Vienna could be -deduced. Therefore, in my opinion, the witness Kageneck also cannot -be dispensed with.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>If we can dispense with any witness, it would be witness Number -4, Erbach, in regard to whom I might then ask for permission to -use an interrogatory, because here, too, questions are to be asked -which the other witnesses cannot answer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 5, Minister Kroll—Papen is accused of a conspiracy -for aggressive war. The Indictment is not limited in respect -to time. For the largest part of the time in question, namely 1938 -to 1944, Papen was in a position which would have been particularly -designed for an activity directed at undermining the peace. Turkey -was for a long time an important pillar in military and, therefore, -political considerations. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest -<span class='pageno' title='601' id='Page_601'></span> -whether Papen used his position for any activity in the nature of -such a conspiracy.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Moreover, I should like to bring proof of the opposite. The fact -was that his activity was directed at preserving the peace and that -he was, in particular, against any extension of the war by means of -military measures against Russia, and was against every political -measure for the destruction of the relations between Turkey and the -Allied Powers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness was, during the Turkish period, the closest co-worker -of the defendant. He is, therefore, in a position to give us information -about the entire period.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Baroness De Nothomb—I have asked in this case to be permitted -to present an affidavit or interrogatory. I want. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you dealing with?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You are not dealing with 6 to 10?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we are in agreement about 6 to 10.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well, 11.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11, Baroness De Nothomb—in this -case I asked for an interrogatory or for permission to submit an -affidavit. The subject of the evidence is:</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the years 1940 to 1944 the defendant continuously supported -the witness in her intervention on behalf of persecuted members of -the French resistance movement. I want thereby to prove that the -Defendant Von Papen shows again, in this case, that he was greatly -interested in a peaceful shaping of German-French relations, and -that during the war he always had in mind the postwar time, when -the poison should be removed from these relations. The intervention -on the part of the defendant was also a result of general humanitarian -considerations. This is not without considerable importance -in connection with the charge of conspiratorial activity.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 12, Archbishop Gröber—the Indictment asserts that the -Defendant Von Papen used his position as a prominent German -Catholic for a dirty business of deception, and that the conclusion of -the Concordat, as such, was effected in the course of a policy directed -against the Church; that the conclusion of the Concordat was not -intended seriously, as one could see from the later violations of the -Concordat. Archbishop Gröber was, at the time of negotiations -concerning the Concordat, at the Holy See. He was present during -all the negotiations. He knows that the initiative for starting negotiations -came from Von Papen himself, who did not get Hitler’s -approval until later. He knows that the draft which had been made -by Von Papen for the Concordat was strongly disapproved by Hitler -<span class='pageno' title='602' id='Page_602'></span> -and that Papen was able to advance this draft only after long -struggles. The witness knows the Defendant Von Papen very well. -He also knows from what inner stand toward the Catholic question -the defendant approached the matter of the conclusion of the Concordat. -As an influential dignitary of the Church he can also judge -the consequences of the Concordat. He is in a position to judge that -the contents of the Concordat at a later time also were still a protection -for Church interests; and from his knowledge of the personal -relations of the defendant and all the relations of the Church in -Germany, he can testify as to whether the defendant had anything -at all to do with the violations of the Concordat.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness Number 2 deal -with the same subject? Where you say in your discussion of the -subject of the evidence, that witness Number 2 accompanied the -defendant to Rome to conclude the Concordat—can he testify that -against Hitler’s strong opposition he succeeded, at the last minute, -in concluding the Concordat? At that time was the witness present -at all the speeches?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into -the negotiations concerning the Concordat by the defendant. It is -very important, in my opinion, to examine also a witness who was -present at the negotiations as representing the other side. In particular, -this witness, Archbishop Gröber, could also express an -opinion in regard to the later period, the violations of the Concordat. -He can judge the entire situation from the point of the Church -better than can the private secretary Tschirschky. He can also give -an essentially more reliable picture of Von Papen’s personality, -which in this matter is very closely connected with his political -activity. I have been very modest in my requests; but I should like -to ask urgently, in this case, that an interrogatory or an affidavit by -Archbishop Gröber be granted, for it is indeed clear that the accusation -that a prominent German Catholic uses his position for evil -purposes of deception is a very serious one, and the defendant also -is very greatly interested in having this question clarified, within -the framework of the Indictment and also beyond that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 13—an affidavit of Herr Von Beaulieu, who shall -testify that the defendant, in his position as president of a very -large and prominent German organization, intervened until the -very end for the non-Aryan members, as this term was used at that -time. Everything which is of importance in judging the Papen case -lies, for the most part, in the sphere of the subjective. We will see -very few actual actions in the Papen case. The accusations are, for -the most part, based on the fact that he was present. It is, therefore, -relatively difficult to bring proof and therefore the counterevidence -must to a large extent be subjective in nature. To judge a person’s -<span class='pageno' title='603' id='Page_603'></span> -character in its entirety, it is not unimportant to know what, for -instance, his attitude was in 1938 toward the question of the treatment -of Jews, for, if Papen here definitely deviated from a general -line followed by Hitler and the Nazis, one will certainly be able to -draw a conclusion as to whether he was really the faithful follower -of Hitler which the Indictment tries to picture him.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness Number 14—I received the statement today. I have not -yet had time to look through it. I shall submit either the statement -or an affidavit which I shall try to get.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 15—a questioning of His Majesty King Gustav of Sweden, -to be conducted in every way possible. This is a very important -question. It touches a major point of the Defense, namely, in how -far it was possible for a person not entangled in the ideas of Nazism -to collaborate to a certain extent. To what extent could he hope, by -his personal activity, to change things or at least to modify them? -If, on the basis of the evidence submitted, we prove that Von Papen -not only exhausted his means to serve this end within Germany, but -also, beyond this, used his foreign political connections for this -purpose, then this should, I believe, round out the picture of the -character of the defendant in an important way. This strong activity -in the interest of peace is such that, in my opinion, simply on the -basis of such activities, the absolute falsehood and untenability of -that charge of the Indictment that the defendant at any time could -have approved of the aims of an aggressive policy within the framework -of a conspiracy becomes apparent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the documents, Numbers 1 to 8, the Prosecution asks Dr. -Kubuschok to submit the extracts, and then we can consider the -relevancy at that time. I think that Dr. Kubuschok has Number 9.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have in my possession only the photostat -which I received from the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry. I should have said -he had a photostatic copy, but the Prosecution have certified the -photostat. The original is not obtainable at present. If it comes into -our possession we shall let Dr. Kubuschok see it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The third point is that Dr. Kubuschok says that he may have to -make a supplementary application after Herr Von Papen, Jr. returns. -That is, of course, a matter for him and the Tribunal. The Prosecution -make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: With reference to 1 to 8, has Dr. Kubuschok -got the books?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then he will be prepared to -specify what parts of them. . . -<span class='pageno' title='604' id='Page_604'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Sir; yes, indeed. I should merely like to -add one point to the list. Yesterday I received from the Prosecution -a further report to Hitler by Von Papen at the time of his activity -in Vienna—Number 9, also a report to Hitler. I have also received -it in the form of a photostat. I shall also submit this report for -purposes of evidence.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May we state our position?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this defendant, the -position as to the first four witnesses is that they deal with the -Austrian part of the case. On the 2d of December the Tribunal -allowed this defendant a choice of four out of nine. He has chosen -Glaise-Horstenau, who was a minister in the Austrian Government; -Guido Schmidt, who was the Foreign Minister at the time of the -Schuschnigg-Hitler-Ribbentrop interview; Skubl, who was the Police -President and State Secretary for Security in Vienna; and Rainer, -who is a well-known Nazi and who was afterwards Gauleiter of -Carinthia.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to the Holland period, and the Prosecution have -no objection to Wimmer and Schwebel, but they do object to Bolle’s -being called as an oral witness. The position is that he was refused -by the Tribunal on the 26th of January. After the refusal interrogatories -were submitted, but these seem to be almost entirely covered -by the interrogatories administered to the witness Von der Wense, -who is the second under the heading of affidavits. I think out of the -20 questions suggested for Bolle, there are only two that are not -covered by Von der Wense, which are Numbers 17 and 18, and two -others which seem to deal with very obvious points. So that is the -objection with regard to Bolle, and the Prosecution submit that he -would really be cumulative and is unnecessary. They make no -objection to Fischböck, who speaks on the Jews, financial administration, -art treasures, and forced labor. They make no objection to -Hirschfeld, who speaks about confiscations and destruction of factories -and the food situation. So, on the oral witnesses, the only -objection is regarding Bolle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the affidavits there is no objection—or rather, -they should be interrogatories. They were all granted by the Tribunal -on the 26th of January, and under these circumstances the Prosecution -make no objection to them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Steinbauer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): -Mr. President, Your Honors, my client, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, -<span class='pageno' title='605' id='Page_605'></span> -had at first asked for a large number of witnesses and then, at my -advice, and according to the desire of the Tribunal, reduced this -number considerably.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask that the witness, construction supervisor Bolle, be admitted -before the Tribunal because in my opinion the objection made by -the Prosecution, that this is a cumulative witness, is not quite -correct. Bolle was, before the occupation, Director of the Port of -Hamburg, and then during all the years of the occupation he was -director of the transportation department in Holland.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In particular he can testify about the railroad and shipping strike -in October 1944. This chapter of the history of the occupation is -extraordinarily important, because this strike resulted in a blocking of -traffic which led to an embargo. The Indictment asserts, moreover, that -the causes of the later famine catastrophe in Holland, as we may call it, -can in part be traced back to measures which the Defendant Seyss-Inquart -took in October 1944. Quite understandably, the Armed -Forces wanted to use the few means of transportation which were -still functioning, for their own purposes. The very examination of -the witness Bolle should prove, however, that Seyss-Inquart endeavored, -insofar as possible, to mitigate the effects of the measures -taken by the Wehrmacht in this matter. In an interrogatory this -complex of questions could not be treated exhaustively.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I ask you, Gentlemen, to realize that we are dealing here with -the examination of the administration of a kingdom of 9 million -within a period of 5 years. If we read through the report submitted -by the Dutch Delegation we see, in regard to the financial consequences, -alone, that it is alleged that the damage, which had been -brought about by the administration on the one hand and by the -events of war on the other hand, in short, by the occupation of -Holland by Germany, reaches a figure of 25,725,000,000 Dutch -guilders, to which, considering the difference in prices between 1938 -and now, we have to add a margin of 175 percent.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wish to point out that we are dealing here with the examination -of administrative, legal, financial, and economic measures over a -period of 5 years. I therefore believe that the request of the defendant -that this witness be admitted is quite justified.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Concerning the affidavits, I took the liberty of making two more -applications which have not yet been granted. This is on the last -page, a very short affidavit by Baron Lindhorst-Hormann. He was -formerly Commissioner of the Province of Groningen and should -in particular be examined in regard to one point, in regard to the -treatment of the so-called hostages in the hostage camp, and also in -regard to the fact that none of these hostages was shot.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In addition to getting this affidavit, I have also asked that some -official announcements be obtained, announcements by the Higher -<span class='pageno' title='606' id='Page_606'></span> -Police and SS Leader Rauter regarding the executions in order to -prove who had done these things, that is, that the point of view of -the defendant is that these regrettable measures were taken by the -police and not by the civil administration.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I also intend to submit two affidavits which are already in my -possession. One of them is an affidavit by a German judge, Kammergerichtsrat -Rudolf Fritsch. In Seyss-Inquart’s administration in -Holland he was in charge of appeals. He can tell us how Seyss-Inquart -handled this important chapter of jurisdiction.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Another affidavit which I have in my possession comes from a -Dr. Walter Stricker. It is cited as Document Number 30. Dr. Walter -Stricker was a lawyer in Vienna and emigrated in 1938 to Australia. -He served in the Australian Army and, without my asking, he sent -me an affidavit, notarized by an Australian notary public, in which -he testifies about conditions in Vienna in the critical days of October -and November 1938. I ask also that this affidavit be admitted. As -to the documents, as I have already told Sir David, I shall submit -an exact list.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, before you deal with that. Sir -David said that with reference to the affidavits, which are mentioned -on Page 2, that these ought to be called interrogatories. I do not -know whether you wish to ask particularly for affidavits, which are -different from interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You want affidavits?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Interrogatories, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would there be any objection to the affidavit -from the lawyer in Australia being shown to the Prosecution, so -that they may see whether they wish to put cross-interrogatories to -that witness? Australia is too far away from here for him to be -brought here for cross-examination.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have just been handed that -affidavit from the witness Stricker and also Number 6, on the Dutch -questions, from Judge Fritsch; and if the same course could be -taken with regard to that from Baron Lindhorst-Hormann, I shall -be ready then to consider that, too.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the rest of the -documents in the usual course, I ask that the Defense make extracts -and show them to us.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. -<span class='pageno' title='607' id='Page_607'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one point I call to the -attention of the Tribunal. It may be helpful that Number 28, Document -Number D-571, is already in as Exhibit Number USA-112. I -do not know if the Defense really wants Number 3. I shall not deal -with it now, but the Prosecution will submit that it is really unnecessary -and irrelevant, but I think that is a matter that we can -more conveniently discuss when it comes up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then with reference to Number 2, under -the heading concerning the Dutch question, will it be satisfactory if -that is in the form of an affidavit and is submitted to you, so that -you can put cross-interrogatories if you want to?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be very satisfactory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, have you got the affidavit -mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the last heading?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; I have not received it yet. But I -have requested that the Tribunal question the witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Could the interrogatories be in a more convenient -form?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not trouble you further about -the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: I have only the request that, if possible, two -books, which are not in my possession, be obtained: Document -Number 8, Guido Zernatto, <span class='it'>The Truth about Austria</span>, and Number 9, -the book <span class='it'>A Pact with Hitler—The Austria Drama</span> by Martin Fuchs. -I was told by Austrian people that both these books contain worthwhile -information on clarifying the events in 1937 and 1938. Both -books were, of course, prohibited in Austria during the Nazi regime -and therefore I cannot get them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The second book is also on the list presented by the French -Prosecution, and from this I have learned that the book appeared -in the publishing firm of Plon in Paris. Perhaps it is possible, with -the assistance of the Prosecution, to get these books in time. All -other documents I have in my possession.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Did you say Number 2? You said 8 and 9, -but did you also say Number 2?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: Number 2, <span class='it'>Three Times Austria</span>, by -Schuschnigg.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I thought you mentioned the third book. You -said you have not got Numbers 8 and 9 and I thought you went on -to mention a third one.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; only these two books. -<span class='pageno' title='608' id='Page_608'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then, no doubt, the Prosecution -will help you to get them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make inquiries, My -Lord, and we will communicate with them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the -Defendant Speer has asked for 22 witnesses, who are all to answer -in writing. There are no oral witnesses. And he asked for 41 documents. -He has also asked that the Court appoint a panel of experts -to interrogate a number of witnesses on what are termed “economic -questions.” Now, I think it would be convenient if I summarize in -four sentences the points of defense that appear on Page 26 and -the following pages of the application, because if the Tribunal have -these in mind it will make consideration of the witnesses easier.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There are four points. Number 1 is to show the responsibility -of Speer. The Defendant Speer says that he was not responsible -for the mobilization, allocation, or treatment of labor. The second -point is to prove that his functions were merely technical and not -political. The third point, to prove his actions to stop the importing -of foreign labor and the treatment of concentration camp labor in -the armament factories, which were his concern. The fourth point -is his efforts, at the end of the war, to stop destruction in Germany -and so to benefit the Allies and Germany after the war.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, of the witnesses, the following are from his own ministry, -Numbers 1 to 6, 8, 10, and 12. The Prosecution submit that nine is -rather a large number dealing with the position of the ministry. -They are cumulative on many points and we should suggest that, if -counsel would pick three, that that would cover that part of the -case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, the following witnesses, Numbers 15 to 21, are designed to -show the attitude of the defendant at the end of war. There are -a number of documents on this point, and again the Prosecution -submit that that number of witnesses could be cut down to two -or three.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, dealing with the remaining witnesses, Number 7, Field -Marshal Milch, has already been allowed to Defendant Göring, so -that point does not arise.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>And Number 9, Dr. Malzacher, although not a member of the -defendant’s ministry, was in charge of armaments in the southeast, -and would appear to be cumulative as to the members of the -ministry.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 11 is the liaison officer between the ministry and the -OKW and also appears cumulative, unless counsel could indicate -any special point that escaped the Prosecution. -<span class='pageno' title='609' id='Page_609'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 13 is really cumulative of Number 12, speaking on a -point on which Frau Kempf can speak.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 14 is the defendant’s doctor, to speak on a period of -illness. Again, unless there is some point that the Prosecution have -not appreciated, they would have thought that the defendant and -his secretary could speak on a period of illness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Finally, Number 22, Gottlob Berger, is designated to inform the -Tribunal of Hitler’s general views on the situation at the end of -April 1945, and would appear to be irrelevant. I think the only -point that is made is to show that this had some effect on the radio -speech which this defendant wanted to make. These are the views -of the Prosecution as to the witnesses. With regard to the panel -of experts, the Prosecution respectfully say that these matters of -supply labor and armaments are matters which are very generally -familiar now and on which a great deal of evidence has been given, -and that they are essentially matters which can be dealt with by -the Tribunal which will decide other questions of fact. They are -not really sufficiently specialist matters to merit the Tribunal’s -setting up a special panel to deal with them. These are the views -of the Prosecution on the question of witnesses.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flächsner.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): May -I start, Mr. President, with the last point which the prosecutor has -mentioned, namely, the question of whether the case of the Defendant -Speer might justify having his sphere of activity explained and -interpreted to the Court by an expert. The prosecutor is of the -opinion that the evidence presented so far is sufficient to inform the -Tribunal about the manner of work, the course of work, and its -consequences in regard to those questions, which came under the -jurisdiction of the Defendant Speer.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I regret to have to say, however, that the description which the -Prosecution has given of the activity of the Defendant Speer up till -now is not correct, that is to say, not complete.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It is very difficult to take account of a ministry and its manner -of work, which in normal times has no place in the state administration. -In all states at war the ministries of armament and production -are created during the war. The sphere of activities of -these ministries is determined from time to time; and that also -applies to the ministry which the Defendant Speer headed.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Not only the ministry of the Defendant Speer, but especially -other authorities within the state administration were concerned -with that question, which the Prosecution has brought to the notice -of the Tribunal; and the authorities overlapped each other in regard -to jurisdiction. Many times the jurisdiction of a single authority -<span class='pageno' title='610' id='Page_610'></span> -could not be determined, so that from time to time a solution would -have to be found. These are all questions of importance, if the -Tribunal is to judge to what extent this or that accusation of the -Prosecution, especially concerning the employment of foreign -workers, is well founded. In addition we have to consider that that -defendant originally involved in this complex of economic questions, -who could have helped very much to clear up the question of jurisdiction—the -Defendant Ley, who, as head of the German Labor -Front, played an important role in the question of labor employment, -that is, the taking care of the laborers utilized—that this -Defendant Ley is no longer here. The question of the use of foreign -labor, of which the Defendant Speer is in the main accused by the -Prosecution, must be discussed further. For this reason I requested -that an expert be allowed to clear up these purely technical questions -of the labor employment as a help to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The selection of such an expert is not easy. I proposed that one -of the gentlemen who work in the economic branch in Washington -might have examined the question of Speer’s ministry; and might -appear as an expert before this Tribunal. I was told this office does -not exist any more and the persons of whom the Defendant Speer -had the impression, at the occasion of an interrogation, that they -really understood the situation, are no longer available. But, there -is still an Allied authority here, which is concerned with, in all -probability, economic questions; and perhaps it would be possible -to select a suitable person within the circle of gentlemen who are -working there, who would be in a position to clear up these questions -for the benefit of the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I turn now to the question of witnesses. First of all I have to -correct a wrong impression which may have been formed by the -Prosecution. If it is said that witnesses 1 to 5—no, 1 to 6, 8 and 10 -and 12. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If you are leaving now the question of the -panel of experts, this would be a convenient time to break off for -the recess.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>A recess was taken.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I am now turning to the -question of witnesses and should like to make a general remark -before I start.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The evidence to be offered by the witnesses, as I have already -requested in writing, is somewhat more extensive for this reason, -that those very witnesses who would have had the most comprehensive -knowledge cannot be called. Those are the former Army -chiefs of armaments, General Fromm, and Schieber, who for many -<span class='pageno' title='611' id='Page_611'></span> -years was the chief of the central office in Speer’s ministry. The -names which I have included in my list are, in part, men who only -later were called to these tasks. Witness Hupfauer, for instance, -who is listed as Number 1, was active in this function only from -1 January 1945 on—that is barely 4 months—as chief of the central -office, an office formerly held by the previously mentioned Schieber.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I know very well that if I mention a number of witnesses who -were employed in Speer’s ministry the appearance is thereby -created that these witnesses might be cumulative because they are -questioned in regard to the same points. In reality that is not the -case. Indeed, although the witnesses concerned were active in -Speer’s ministry, they were not active as routine officials, that is, -as professional civil servants in an office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Speer’s ministry as a war institution was organized along lines -entirely different from those of a regular ministry. Main functions -were delegated to industrialists, who took care of them in a suboffice. -Rohland, witness Number 2, was, for instance, by profession -a director of the United Steel Works; witness Number 4 was director -of the Zellwell A.G.; witness Number 6, a manufacturer and owner -of a textile factory; witness Number 9, the director of the Upper -Silesian mining works and of Hütten A.G. In addition to these -functions they had special functions in Speer’s ministry. Therefore -they can testify only on a small section, namely, those functions -delegated to them. Therefore I cannot follow the suggestion of the -Prosecution, that only two of these gentlemen be selected by me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not know just how far each of these gentlemen is informed -on the questions which I shall submit to him. I am not in the -fortunate position of the Prosecution, who can question their witnesses -in advance and find out what they know. I must rely on an -interrogatory and can only surmise that they are in a position to -answer the questions submitted to them. If I were to follow the -suggestion of the Prosecution and select only two or three of these -gentlemen, it may very well happen that I should select exactly -the wrong people, those who do not know anything. Therefore I -cannot say that I could dispense with any one of these witnesses -who are to be here on the main question in the case against Defendant -Speer, namely, the employment of foreign laborers.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the list of witnesses I mentioned briefly the particulars about -which these witnesses are to be heard. I believe that it is unnecessary -for me to make further explanations in that regard; I -believe my reasons are self-explanatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now I am turning to the question of witness Number 7. This -witness has already been granted me. I do not believe that further -explanations in regard to this are necessary. -<span class='pageno' title='612' id='Page_612'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as Malzacher, witness Number 9, is concerned, the Prosecution -asserts that this witness would be cumulative of witness -Number 1. But that is not so. The vital question which is to be -put to this witness is the question as to how the distribution of -manpower to the various industries was made by the labor office. -The second question is, whether and to what extent the offices of -Speer’s ministry and the industries had the opportunity of influencing -the distribution of available manpower. This witness is of -decisive importance in regard to this question. I have further -questions to put to this witness and I should include in the interrogatory -these questions which refer in particular to destruction, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I wanted my list to be as concise as possible and therefore -mentioned only the main points. I therefore request that this witness -be admitted, since I shall make use of the interrogatory only -insofar as the witnesses can state therein something which is -really relevant. If an interrogatory comes back to me which does -not contain relevant material, I shall, of course, refrain from abusing -the time and the patience of the Tribunal by not presenting that -interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution is of the opinion that witnesses 12 and 13 are -cumulative. That is not correct. Perhaps I expressed myself too -concisely in regard to the facts on which these witnesses are to -testify.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution have, only incidentally to be sure, produced -a document, 3568-PS, which contained an interrogatory which gave -information regarding Speer’s membership in the SS. This document -did not, according to the Defendant Speer, come from him, -and therefore I name his secretary as a witness to this fact; that is, -she should receive an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Witness 13 is to testify on an entirely different matter. The -Reichsführer SS Himmler had the intention of making Speer an SS -man and of taking him into his personal staff. Witness Wolff had -received from Himmler the official statement, which he was to hand -to Speer. And Wolff is to testify that this statement was never -forwarded to Speer, for which reason there is no question of Speer’s -membership in the SS.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Even if, in respect to the charge in the Indictment, this is a -very minor point, it must nevertheless be considered, since Document -3568-PS has been submitted by the Prosecution and used as -evidence for their case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I agree with the Prosecution that questioning of witness Number 22 -can be dispensed with and I can do so.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As far as the questioning of the other witnesses is concerned, -I ask to be allowed to use interrogatories. -<span class='pageno' title='613' id='Page_613'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what you have to say about 14? -Surely the secretary can speak as to the fact that the defendant -was ill in the spring of 1944?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: Yes, Mr. President; I did not include this -question in the interrogatory but I can add it, and we can dispense -with witness 14.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Would it, do you think, Sir David, expedite -matters or help the defendant’s counsel if he were to be allowed -to issue all these interrogatories and then were to consider them -with you and see what was then cumulative?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I should be quite prepared -to do that. They are all witnesses who are giving their evidence -in writing so that I shall be quite prepared to. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that aspect -of the matter.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal saw fit I should -be very happy to co-operate.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then you can now deal with the documents, -Dr. Flächsner, or Sir David will.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents 1 to 8 -deal with the Defendant Speer’s being against the importation into -Germany of foreign labor and they seem relevant, apart from -Number 1, which seems rather a <span class='it'>non sequitur</span>, for the amount used -in the armament industry does not seem to have any connection, -as far as we can see, with the Prisoner-of-War Convention, 1929. -And Number 6, as to the calling up of women in Germany, seems -rather remote. But perhaps these matters can be more conveniently -dealt with when counsel seeks to introduce the documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Numbers 9 to 13 show the general attitude of the Defendant -Speer to the treatment of foreign workers and therefore appear -relevant. Number 14 deals with the point on which I think it is -desired also to have evidence from the witness Milch.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Numbers 15 to 18 are reports showing the hopelessness of the -economic situation in Germany from June 1944 onwards. The Prosecution -makes no objection at the moment. Of course, all these -matters will have to be considered when the document is used. And -Numbers 19 to 41 all deal with the efforts of the Defendant Speer -to prevent destruction of bridges and railways and water transport -undertakings and the like, during the last few weeks of the war. -They might have a bearing on the sentence and therefore the Prosecution -make no objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Perhaps learned counsel will set out the quotations which he -wants admitted in that regard. It is not a matter on which the -<span class='pageno' title='614' id='Page_614'></span> -Prosecution have called any contrary evidence and therefore, if -counsel will indicate what the matters are that he wants submitted, -it may be that we shall be able to agree and shorten the presentation.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to Documents 38 to 41, these are said to be in the -possession of the French Delegation. They are not in the possession -of the French Delegation at the moment, but they have asked for -them to be sent here.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I think that covers our position as to documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: I should like to comment briefly on one -factor. Document Number 1 is of value only if the Tribunal decides -to call an expert on the general themes which I described to the -Tribunal before the recess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An expert—for practical purposes an industrial expert—can draw -from the old distribution plan conclusions which the jurist is -generally not in a position to draw. If the expert is considered -superfluous by the Tribunal, then Document Number 1 is also -superfluous—that I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The other documents requested by me are of importance, but not -because, as the Prosecution seem to assume, I am trying to produce -evidence of the fact that we did not want any foreign laborers; this -should not be expressed so pointedly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Defendant Speer had the task of producing armaments and -needed workers for that. Nothing is farther from his intentions -than, in any way, to deny or lessen his responsibility in respect to -that. But what I have to consider important—and for this purpose -these documents, which I am requesting, are essential—is the task -of defining the extent to which the defendant is responsible.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I believe that this explains the question of documents.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite clear as to whether you are -suggesting that the Tribunal should call the panel of experts or -whether you would like to designate the persons who would form -that panel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: The selection of experts I wish to place in -the hands of the Tribunal. At the moment I myself should not have -the opportunity of finding a suitable person. I am fully aware, -though, that in the department of economic warfare there were -persons who would be very suitable as experts and who have the -knowledge which is necessary in the judgment of these questions.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Then, supposing that the Tribunal were not -to accept your contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there -is nobody whom you wish to add to your list of interrogatories?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FLÄCHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President. I have only one -more request. This expert should voice an opinion as to whether -<span class='pageno' title='615' id='Page_615'></span> -the figures given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit—Document Number -2520-PS—would stand up under close examination. In this -affidavit Mr. Deuss stated statistically how many of all the workers -employed in Germany were foreign workers in the armament industry, -<span class='it'>et cetera</span>.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Important technical objections can be raised to the method of -figuring used by Mr. Deuss. If the Tribunal is not to grant the use -of an expert in this matter, I wish to ask for permission to submit -certain questions to Mr. Deuss, in the form of an interrogatory, -naturally, in order to give him the opportunity of checking his figures.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained -therein were considered relevant by the Prosecution at the time; -I assume that the objections made to Mr. Deuss’ figures will also be -considered relevant. I should then have to ask permission to call -Mr. Deuss’ attention, by means of an interrogatory, to these points -which in my opinion are technically incorrect.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>COL. POKROVSKY: Please forgive me. I have not had the time -to exchange opinions on the subject with my friend, Sir David, and -my other colleagues. Therefore, at the present time, I am merely -expressing the point of view of the Soviet Delegation on the subject -of experts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I do not consider that the appointment of a board of experts -would be a method of solving the problem which could be recognized -as correct. We would object to the introduction of experts for -the clarification of the circumstances interesting the Defendant Speer -and his counsel, as set forth in the document submitted by them. -We do not consider it right that a question like the procedure governing -the request for manpower for Speer’s ministry, and the -ratification of this request by Sauckel, as well as the allocation of -workers by the competent local labor offices should call for the -findings of a board of experts. We do not consider it right that -questions of technical productions, as emanating from Speer’s -ministry, should call for expert opinion.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I could say as much with regard to all the subsequent points. We -are inclined to defend the point of view that all these problems can -be adequately elucidated by the high Tribunal, and this without the -intervention of experts. Therefore the Soviet Prosecution objects to -the granting of this claim and requests the Tribunal to reject the -application for a board of experts.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Von -Neurath.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the witnesses of the Defendant Von Neurath, the Prosecution -<span class='pageno' title='616' id='Page_616'></span> -makes no objection to Number 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director -of the political division in the Foreign Office.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, Number 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been -granted for the Defendant Ribbentrop.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the third, Dr. Dieckhoff, the Tribunal granted this -witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered -the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests -that it might be covered by interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. OTTO FREIHERR VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant -Von Neurath): Mr. President, I agree, and I have already -worked out an interrogatory which will be submitted to the General -Secretary today; but I wish to reserve the right of asking under -certain circumstances that, when the interrogatory is returned to -me, the witness nevertheless be heard in person before the Tribunal. -In principle I agree, however, to his being heard by means of an -interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. And the same -view is taken by the Prosecution of Number 4, the witness Prüfer; -again it seemed to be largely a historical matter and they suggested -an interrogatory. There is no objection to the evidence of the witness -being brought before the Court.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been -submitted by me to the General Secretary several weeks ago. I -assume that it will be returned to me, answered, within a reasonable -period of time.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Number 5 is Count -Schwerin von Krosigk, who was Finance Minister for a long period -of years in the Government of the Reich. If the Tribunal would be -good enough to look at the application which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen -has put in: He says this witness is most accurately informed about -the personality of the defendant, his political viewpoints as well as -the basic thoughts and aims of the policy of peace carried on by the -defendant, and his avoidance of all use of force as well as his -endeavors for the maintenance of peace, even after being Foreign -Minister, and about his opinion of National Socialism and about the -happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January 1937.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The Prosecution felt that these matters were really emphasizing -points that the defendant would speak on, and that it was difficult -to see that Count Schwerin von Krosigk was being asked to speak on -any particular point that was an issue. Therefore, again, they would -suggest that an interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of -the defense.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory -will serve the purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several -<span class='pageno' title='617' id='Page_617'></span> -sectors of the activity of the Defendant Von Neurath are dealt with, -in regard to which the witness is to give us information.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>For instance, the Indictment asserts that Defendant Von Neurath -acted as a sort of Fifth Column in the ranks of the conservative, -that is, the German National Party. In regard to the fact that this -is not true, the witness named by me, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, -can give extensive information; and I attach importance to having -this take place before the Tribunal in such a way that the Tribunal -may have an idea also of the atmosphere in the ranks of the parties -of the Right at the time these things took place.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>A further subject for his hearing is the question of the outstanding -manner in which the Defendant Von Neurath intervened, -although he was no longer Foreign Minister at the time, in order to -bring about the conference at Munich in September 1938, and the -measure in which he had an effect on the outcome of this conference -which, at that time, was generally considered a happy one.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I should consider the summoning before the Tribunal of this -witness, who is present in Nuremberg, and who will therefore not -have to be brought from another city, important.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not desire to say anything -more on that point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then, Field Marshal Von Blomberg is, we understand, ill, and -there will be an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 7, Dr. Guido Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt -with this morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart. He is an Austrian -ex-Foreign Minister. I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart -and I make no objection now, of course.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Lord Halifax has been the subject of interrogatories.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The interrogatory has already been -sent to Lord Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czechoslovakian -Ambassador in Berlin, came into the case in that the -Prosecution put in a letter from Jan Masaryk describing a visit of -Dr. Mastny to the Defendant Von Neurath. Of course, if there is -any issue as to that report—its not being true—then there would be -some reason for calling him as a witness; but if it is merely a -question of clarifying it, I should believe an interrogatory would be -sufficient.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this -case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next -witness, Dr. Stroelin—if the Tribunal would consider that along -with Number 12, Dr. Wurm—I understand that the Tribunal granted -<span class='pageno' title='618' id='Page_618'></span> -Number 12 on the 19th of December as an alternative to Stroelin, -giving the choice between the witness Stroelin and the witness -Wurm. Dr. Stroelin is Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart. I do not -know if Dr. Seidl can tell the Tribunal if it is the same Dr. Stroelin -he desires in the case of Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen tells me -that he is, so the Tribunal might note that point—that that witness -will also be asked for by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess—and therefore -I should suggest that we might leave that undecided for the -moment. If the Tribunal grant it in the case of Hess, of course, Dr. -Von Lüdinghausen will automatically have the advantage of this -witness; and if he is not granted—and I do not know whether Dr. -Von Lüdinghausen feels strongly about his personal presence—I am -not the Court—I do not feel very strongly on the point myself. Do -you want to be heard?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make -this decision at that time when the question is settled as to whether -the witness is granted to another defendant or not. I should like to -make the following remark. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Which witness?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 10, Dr. Stroelin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you -require Dr. Wurm at all, Number 12?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I do not insist on -Dr. Wurm’s being heard in person at Nuremberg. Bishop Wurm has -already told me that he would give me the information requested -in the form of an affidavit. I should ask for permission to submit -this affidavit to the Tribunal. I do not insist on his being heard -in person.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely cumulative, Number -10, but if it is felt that an affidavit would help—it will be along -the same lines—I shall not press an objection.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, Number 11. The Prosecution felt, with regard to the -witness Zimmermann, that he was really speaking on the contents -of the defendant’s mind. If I might read the first five lines:</p> - -<div class='blockquote'> - -<p>“The witness is in a position to give information about the -personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant, -as well as about the fact that he entered the Cabinet only -at the express request of the Reich President Von Hindenburg, -and that he remained in the Cabinet after the latter’s death -because he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent -of any policy pointing toward force or war, and that because -<span class='pageno' title='619' id='Page_619'></span> -of this reason he handed in his resignation as Reich Foreign -Minister soon after 5 November 1937; also about the reasons -because of which he declared himself ready to take over the -office of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='pindent'>It would appear that these are all matters which Dr. Zimmermann -has heard from the defendant. I do not really think it helps -the defendant’s case any further. The Prosecution therefore felt that -that witness was irrelevant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I should like to request that he be -heard here. The witness has been a very intimate friend of Defendant -Von Neurath for many, many years. The defendant considered -him somewhat as a father confessor and informed him of everything -which oppressed him. From this information the witness has a very -clear impression of events and happenings. Thus this lawyer, -Dr. Zimmermann, is very closely informed about the incidents that -took place in September 1932, when Von Neurath entered the newly-formed -Cabinet of Von Papen upon the express desire of the then -Reich President Von Hindenburg. The witness is informed of the -fact that Defendant Von Neurath did not wish to accept the call, -and that it took very earnest persuasion on the part of the Reich -President Von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal -duty, before the defendant could be moved to assume the office of -Reich Foreign Minister. This witness also knows the motives because -of which the defendant after the death of the Reich President considered -it his duty, in response to a wish expressed previously by -the Reich President, to remain in office, and in that way to fulfill -the wishes of the Reich President.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>He also knows very well what a really devastating effect it had -on Von Neurath when, on 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time -came to the fore with martial intent. Witness Zimmermann also -knows very exactly the reasons which moved the defendant after -very long deliberation to assume the office of Reich Protector. The -witness also is very well informed not only about the difficulties -confronting the position of Reich Protector, but also about the attitude -of the defendant to the problems in the Reich Protectorate. -These matters are all of decisive importance so far as a judgment -of the defendant is concerned, and I do not believe that even an -affidavit or minutes of interrogation which has been worked out -with the greatest care can have the same weight as a personal -hearing of the witness. For these reasons I request that this witness, -who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come -here from Berlin, be granted me. We do not have to find him; he -is a practicing lawyer and notary in Berlin.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not wish to add to that. -That leaves one point, My Lord, the two witnesses, 13 and 14. The -<span class='pageno' title='620' id='Page_620'></span> -first one, Dr. Völkers, was the chief of the Cabinet of Defendant Von -Neurath in Prague. He has not been located. The second, Von -Holleben, was. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment -camp at Neumünster, and I indicated the exact address.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of -the Prosecution is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that -it would be unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Völkers is -available. That is my point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I ask you to -consent to witness Consul Von Holleben’s being heard by means of -an interrogatory.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to 1; we will adjourn -until 2.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.</span>]</p> - -<h2><span class='pageno' title='621' id='Page_621'></span><span class='it'>Afternoon Session</span></h2> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will -finish the applications for witnesses and documents before the end -of the sitting today, but they do not propose to go on with the case -against the Defendant Göring until tomorrow. They will take that -case at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with -regard to the documents applied for by the Defendant Von Neurath, -Paragraph 1 requires no comment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen -has in his possession. If they are treated in the usual way and -extracts are made, I have nothing further to say.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession. -Number 1 and Number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference -in 1932 and in May 1933 respectively. I am afraid I do not -know what the difficulty has been in obtaining those documents, -and if there is any way in which the Prosecution can help, they will.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Concerning Document Number 1 -I was able to find, in the meantime, in one of the documents which -referred to the Disarmament Conference, a copy of this document -which is important for me, namely, the resolution about Germany’s -equality of rights. If the document which I have asked for is not -here in time, I am nevertheless in the position of having to submit -an excerpt from this German book. However, that does not apply -to Number 4, and I should like to be able to get that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for -the interrogation of Karl Hermann Frank.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The ruling of the Tribunal was that only the portions of interrogations -of defendants used by the Prosecution might be re-used. -If any portions of this interrogation were used by the Soviet -Prosecution, and I confess. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please, Sir David. As I understood -you, you did not state our ruling quite accurately.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the Prosecution -put in any part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the -defendants would have the opportunity of using any other part of -the interrogation, treating the interrogation as one document.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your -Lordship. That was the rule so far as defendants are concerned, -but Karl Hermann Frank is not a defendant. -<span class='pageno' title='622' id='Page_622'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been -used would have appeared in the ordinary way in the document -book of whichever delegation had used it. The general interrogation -was taken, of course, not only for the Prosecution’s purpose -at this Trial, but also for the purposes of the Czech Government, -in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank himself. Therefore, what I -suggest is that Dr. Lüdinghausen put interrogatories to Karl -Hermann Frank, on whatever points he wants to raise. The Prosecution -would have no objection to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I make the following -reply?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>These minutes of the four interrogations of Karl Hermann -Frank are mentioned and discussed in Exhibit Number USSR-60, -which has been given to me and which contains the indictment -made by the Czech Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I cannot judge to what extent these interrogations are important -in reference to my client, the Defendant Von Neurath, as -Reich Protector, or whether they have to do with a later period. -For that reason I have asked that these protocols be made available -to me. I know that Karl Hermann Frank has also been questioned -about the document concerning the meeting in Prague on a policy -of Germanization of the Czech country. To this document, which -was presented, that is to say, which is contained in a report of -General Friderici, reference is made in the respective minutes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Now, I know that Frank once made a report to the Reich -Protector in which he labeled all the opinions and proposals—which -actually, however, were never put into actions—ridiculous and -declared them to be impossible. Therefore, it is important for me -to know just what is said in these minutes which the Czech indictment -has drawn on at this point. If nothing is contained therein, -then, of course, I shall dispense with these minutes, but I have to -examine them myself. It is, therefore, important for me to see -these minutes, at least, and then to present from them whatever -is of importance for me.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to -counsel for Von Neurath seeing these interrogations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the -Czech Government before I could agree, because, frankly, I have -not gone through the parts which we were not concerned with -in this case, and I do not know on what subjects the interrogation -was based.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of -principle, if a certain document or a part of a document is used, -<span class='pageno' title='623' id='Page_623'></span> -ought it not to be open to the defendants to use the rest of the -document?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a -matter of principle, My Lord, only if there were connected parts. -I think that is the general rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories -in the English courts. For example, supposing that one day -Karl Hermann Frank was examined about the early days of the -Protectorate, and then on another day he was examined on a -specific point at the end of the Protectorate. Then I should not -have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely connected.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. -Barrington has just brought to my attention. These interrogatories -were the basis of the Czech Government report. They are not -introduced as interrogatories but—so I am told—as part of the -report by the person who drew it. It is not material that we are in -a position to introduce as interrogatories. They come in as a Government -report from the Czech Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): If it should develop later that -it is relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that -material being introduced?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, -but the material is the property of the Czech Government.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then your position is really that -it is not in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine -it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the -treaty between France and the Soviet Union, in 1935. This document -was authorized by the General Secretary on 29 January, and -if there is any difficulty in getting a copy, I will try to do anything -I can to help, subject to the reservation of objecting to its relevance -when I know what use is going to be made of it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I add a few more words to this -point?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>During the very last few days I have received, from various -sides, suggestions of information which seem important to my -defense; but I have not yet had the opportunity of checking this -information and finding out whether it is really of importance to -the conduct of the Defense. May I therefore ask, if this should be -the case and if there should be one or two other witnesses or -documents which I can find out about only later, that I be permitted -<span class='pageno' title='624' id='Page_624'></span> -to make an application supplementary to the list of witnesses -and documents I have given today.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant -Fritzsche.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>Dr. Fritz approached the lectern.</span>]</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -there are only two witnesses applied for in this case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The first of them is Von Schirmeister, who was an official of the -late Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have -no objection to that witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the application -says that he received his information and instructions from -the Defendant Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directives issued -to journalists. On the assumption that these were more or less -official directives that he gave in the course of his duty, again, I -do not think there can be any objection from the Prosecution. But -I do not know what Dr. Fritz would think about interrogatories, -or whether he has any strong views about calling Dr. Kriegk on -that point. As I understand it, it would be more or less a synopsis -of the directives given, but in view of the very modest proportions -of the applications in this case, I do not want to be unreasonable -if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Your -Honors, I have presented a very restricted list of evidence material -and I should be grateful if the personal appearance of the second -witness, Dr. Kriegk, were granted, for the following reasons: First -the witness Von Schirmeister has been named because he is to give -us information about the internal tasks which the Defendant -Fritzsche had in the Ministry for Propaganda, especially about his -relations to Dr. Goebbels. As far as the daily press conferences -which the Defendant Fritzsche held are concerned, this first witness, -Von Schirmeister, did not take part in them. From the subjective -angle, especially, it is important to know what directives the -Defendant Fritzsche gave the journalists, specifically the most -important German journalists who assembled daily at his press -conferences.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As a further reason for my request that the personal appearance -of this witness be granted, I point out that, of the collection of documents -or rather of the two document collections, 1 and 2 of my -list are not yet available to me, so that there are various points -which I had wanted to prove by presenting documents or quotations -therefrom which I now hope to prove by questioning these two -witnesses. -<span class='pageno' title='625' id='Page_625'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not press the point of an -affidavit. I leave it to the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to the documents, Number 1 is the broadcasts of -the Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from -the Prosecution to that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Number 2 is the archives of the section German Express -Service. And again we make no objection at this stage. We will -perhaps have to consider the reports when we get them.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>There is a little trouble about the third group, sworn testimony -or letters which contain objective observations on the part of -the writers about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche. If these are -official reports or anything of that kind, of course, there would -be no objection, if they were contemporaneous; but the course -which the Prosecution respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that -we wait and see these in the document book and then we can -consider them and make any objection when they come up.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FRITZ: I agree to this procedure. I believe I need say -nothing more about Documents 1 and 2 after the statement Sir -David has just made.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, some of the defense counsel want -to put in supplementary applications. It would be convenient to -deal with them now.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will -allow me to confer with my colleagues as we deal with each one, -as we go along, in case they have any further views to express.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I think there are some supplementary -applications by Dr. Seidl.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors, on 28 February -1946, I submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application -for the Defendant Rudolf Hess. The application was necessary for -the following reasons: In my first application I mentioned the -witness Bohle, the former Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation -of the NSDAP, for a number of subjects, among others in reference -to the German Foreign Institute and the activity of the League for -Germans Abroad. When I made that application to question the -witness Bohle I had not yet had any opportunity to speak to the -witness. After approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and -I found out that the witness Bohle, although he can make very -concrete statements about the Auslands-Organisation, does not have -any immediate first-hand information about the activity of the -German Foreign Institute and the activity of the League for -Germans Abroad. -<span class='pageno' title='626' id='Page_626'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>I therefore ask that the following be approved as further witnesses: -First, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart -and finally President of the German Foreign Institute. The -witness is here in Nuremberg as a prisoner awaiting trial, and it -is the same witness who has also been requested by the Defendant -Von Neurath in his case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, -My Lord, if Dr. Seidl would indicate what the final position of -these witnesses is. As I understand it, he no longer wants Herr -Bohle. Is that right? I am not clear whether this witness is in -addition to or in substitution for Herr Bohle.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, this is an -additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be needed as a -witness, but only concerning the matter of the activity of the -Auslands-Organisation. The witness Stroelin, since the witness -Bohle has not first-hand information about the Foreign Institute, -should speak about this latter point.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would -mean that Dr. Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, -Dr. Haushofer, and an affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of witnesses -on what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, -from the point of view of the Prosecution. The Prosecution said that -the Auslands-Organisation was used for promoting Fifth Column -activities, but it was only put in this way: That by using the -Auslands-Organisation there was, first of all, complete record and -organization of Party members abroad; secondly, the intelligence -service of that organization, through the organization, reported on -all German officials of every section of the Government who came -abroad and kept check on them in their work, in addition to German -subjects; and because of this intelligence service, these Germans -were ready for use and in fact were used when there was a question -of invasion of the country.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for example, -to blow up bridges or commit acts of sabotage, given directly to -the organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning -of the organization that I have described.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I say that only because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to -know the case he has to meet. The Prosecution has never proved -direct orders for sabotage in this regard.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: The trial brief on his case has accused Rudolf -Hess of the fact that, under his leadership, the Auslands-Organisation -of the NSDAP, as well as the Foreign Institute and the -League for Germans Abroad had developed an activity which was -<span class='pageno' title='627' id='Page_627'></span> -almost equivalent to that of a Fifth Column. It is correct that in -the original indictment of the Defendant Hess, personally, there -were no details given by means of which the indictment meant to -show this activity and above all Hess’ guilt in regard to the -activities of these organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>As long, however, as the Auslands-Organisation and the Foreign -Institute and the League for Germans Abroad are accused of -any connection with the activities of a Fifth Column, the Defendant -Hess has a reasonable interest in seeing explained, first, what -kind of activity these organizations had and, second, which orders -or directives he had given to these organizations.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete statements -regarding the Auslands-Organisation. The same is necessary -for the German Foreign Institute about which Dr. Stroelin, who -is here in Nuremberg, can make authentic statements, and for the -League for Germans Abroad, about which the witness Dr. Haushofer -can speak.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of the -witness, Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be used for -this witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogation -as far as Dr. Haushofer is concerned.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir, a third one. Before I come to the third -witness, whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I should -like to inform the Tribunal that I do not insist on a personal -hearing of the witness Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been -approved by the Court. Instead of that, I shall submit a short -affidavit, which is already in the document book which I have -already given to the General Secretary.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>In the place of the witness Sperr, I request, however, that the -witness Alfred Leitgen be called. Leitgen was for many years, -until the flight of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I have -found out only now where this witness is. I believe that a personal -hearing of this witness is so important that one should not dispense -with it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points which Dr. Seidl -specifies both seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact -that he is prepared to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution -will not take objection to that witness.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications? -<span class='pageno' title='628' id='Page_628'></span></p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will -allow me to say one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain -conversations with a member of my staff. I think they will prove -profitable and helpful on the lines that Your Lordship suggested, -and if the Tribunal will be good enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius’ -rights for a day or two, we hope to have something practical and -useful to put before the Tribunal.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the -Defendant Sauckel.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember -that you allowed the matter to stand over. We have been working -along the lines that Your Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that -I have not had time to go into it myself and see the final result.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I see.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. SERVATIUS: In discussing the witnesses, I proposed a -restriction which is being presented to the Court in writing. Concerning -the documents, I have also practically come to an agreement -as to how they should be handled. There are, however, two principal -applications which I should like to submit and which have not -been mentioned so far. But I believe that a decision will have -to be made by the Tribunal in respect to principle. The applications -are Documents 80 and 81.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Document 80 is a photostat of a deportation order which had -been issued in the city of Oels by the Soviet local commander, -whereby the native male population had to report for deportation; -and it can be seen from this order that it is deportation for the -purpose of labor. I want to submit this to show that the Hague -agreement concerning land warfare has been considered obsolete -by the Soviet Army. I have only this one deportation order. I -should therefore like to suggest that the Tribunal make use of -Article 17(e) of the Charter and have a judge determine on the -spot to what extent this deportation took place, and I should like -thereby to have it shown that it is not only the town of Oels, but -that it was done similarly on a large scale in the cities of East -Prussia and Upper Silesia. The population was deported in large -numbers for purposes of work and, if the information which I -have received is correct, part of the population of Königsberg is -today still in the Ural Mountains. I am not in a position to submit -documents about all these things, because of the difficulties of -mailing, and the difficulties of receiving news from the East at -<span class='pageno' title='629' id='Page_629'></span> -all. But the Tribunal should be in a position, by asking the mayors -and other officials, to find out that what I have just said is correct.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the city -of Saaz in Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants of the city -of Saaz were put into a camp and, until Christmas 1945, they -worked there without pay. I believe also that this is proof of -the fact that the Hague agreement concerning land warfare is -considered to be obsolete and outmoded in regard to labor -employment.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91: These are two books with -affidavits meant as a substitute for an investigation. It would -be irrelevant if I were to produce one or two affidavits concerning -conditions in the labor camps. One could object to that as being -irrelevant because, in view of the large number of factories and -camps which exist, little proof would be afforded by these affidavits. -These mass conditions have somehow to be considered -juridically. Therefore, the Charter has admitted government reports. -I am not in a position to ask a government to help me in this -matter. Therefore I have to find a substitute by collecting affidavits -and grouping them in logical form in a notebook in order -to submit them to the Tribunal. This is the purpose of my -proposal to introduce a presentation of proof which is an innovation -and is difficult for me; but thereby the same objections are justified -which one might make to an investigation. An investigation has -great weaknesses, especially if it is conducted in a one-sided manner -without participation of those involved on the other side. In the -case of my affidavits, this danger is greatly reduced because it is -hard to find anybody who would fill out these affidavits unless -he has very serious reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the Tribunal -to decide about my application concerning these Documents 90 and -91. That is the matter I wanted to submit here; the rest I shall -discuss with the Prosecution.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, -I have already intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution -object to Documents 80 and 81. To test their admissibility the -easiest way is to assume that Dr. Servatius has proved the facts -alleged. And if that is done they would not, in my opinion, come -within miles of proving that Article 52 had become obsolete; and -it is illustrative of the danger which I ventured to point out to the -Tribunal in regard to these two arguments—that vague and hypothetical -suggestion that there might be some evidence that Article 52 -had become obsolete. It is suggested that the Tribunal should try -the conduct of the Soviet Union with regard to labor conditions -and, as I understand, send a commission to collect evidence on that -<span class='pageno' title='630' id='Page_630'></span> -point; and I do not want to repeat the arguments, but the Prosecution -most strenuously object to the suggestion and say that -nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method -would be by <span class='it'>solvitur ambulando</span>. Let us see the affidavits and -get some idea of their contents and the source of knowledge -disclosed and then the Prosecution can make a decision regarding -them. At this stage I do not want to do anything to exclude them -and they will receive the most careful attention by my colleagues -and me when they are brought forward.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary -applications for the Defendant Schacht and for the Defendant -Keitel. I think there may be some mistake about that.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Is the Defendant Bormann’s counsel here?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. BERGOLD: No.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that -your applications would stand over for some application within -the next three weeks. So you are not ready yet? I am told your -documents are all here. Is that so?</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far -as I know. However, since I have to collect my own information -from the books, I cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will -be all my documents. I therefore have asked permission to speak -to the secretary, Wunderlich, who was secretary for a long time, -and also to another woman secretary. Only from these two shall -we get satisfactory information. Bormann, I cannot reach. Therefore, -for practical reasons, I ask permission to present everything -at a later date.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now—I -am told that there are applications from the Defendants Keitel, -Rosenberg. . .</p> - -<p class='pindent'>DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, Defense Counsel for Keitel and -Rosenberg are not present at the moment. They probably did not -expect that their applications would be presented today. Maybe -that could be done tomorrow before the beginning of the Göring case.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn.</p> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:1em;font-size:.9em;'>[<span class='it'>The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours.</span>]</p> - -<hr class='pbk'/> - -<p class='line' style='text-align:center;margin-top:4em;margin-bottom:2em;font-size:1.2em;'>TRANSCRIBER NOTES</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious -printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for -periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; -however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus -“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes -French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: -hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb -tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the -tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations -between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this -volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.</p> - -<p class='pindent'>An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as -possible to the original document presentation and layout.</p> - -<p class='line'> </p> - -<p class='noindent'>[The end of <span class='it'>Trial of the Major War Criminals -Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. VIII</span>, -by Various.]</p> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals -Before the International Militar, by Various - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS, VOL 8 *** - -***** This file should be named 63183-h.htm or 63183-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/1/8/63183/ - -Produced by John Routh, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Project Gutenberg team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - - </body> - <!-- created with fpgen.py 4.62a on 2020-09-12 04:10:57 GMT --> -</html> |