| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Volume 8)
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Volume 8)" ***
http://www.pgdpcanada.net.
[Cover Illustration]
TRIAL
OF
THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
BEFORE
THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
N U R E M B E R G
14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946
[Illustration]
P U B L I S H E D A T N U R E M B E R G , G E R M A N Y
1 9 4 7
This volume is published in accordance with the
direction of the International Military Tribunal by
the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction
of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.
VOLUME VIII
O F F I C I A L T E X T
I N T H E
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
P R O C E E D I N G S
20 February 1946-7 March 1946
E D I T O R ’ S N O T E
On 1 July 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed Deputy
General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal.
On 30 September 1947 Mr. S. Paul A. Joosten was appointed
Editor of the Record in addition to his other duties.
CONTENTS
Sixty-third Day, Wednesday, 20 February 1946,
Morning Session 1
Afternoon Session 31
Sixty-fourth Day, Thursday, 21 February 1946,
Morning Session 53
Afternoon Session 81
Sixty-fifth Day, Friday, 22 February 1946,
Morning Session 105
Afternoon Session 125
Sixty-sixth Day, Saturday, 23 February 1946,
Morning Session 159
Afternoon Session 186
Sixty-seventh Day, Monday, 25 February 1946,
Morning Session 202
Afternoon Session 230
Sixty-eighth Day, Tuesday, 26 February 1946,
Morning Session 251
Afternoon Session 281
Sixty-ninth Day, Wednesday, 27 February 1946,
Morning Session 300
Afternoon Session 324
Seventieth Day, Thursday, 28 February 1946,
Morning Session 353
Afternoon Session 383
Seventy-first Day, Friday, 1 March 1946,
Morning Session 409
Afternoon Session 431
Seventy-second Day, Saturday, 2 March 1946,
Morning Session 468
Seventy-third Day, Monday, 4 March 1946,
Morning Session 489
Afternoon Session 517
Seventy-fourth Day, Tuesday, 5 March 1946,
Morning Session 532
Seventy-fifth Day, Wednesday, 6 March 1946,
Morning Session 554
Afternoon Session 578
Seventy-sixth Day, Thursday, 7 March 1946,
Morning Session 597
Afternoon Session 621
SIXTY-THIRD DAY
Wednesday, 20 February 1946
_Morning Session_
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr.
President, with the permission of the Tribunal, evidence on the count
“Despoliation and Plunder of Private, Public, and National Property”
will be presented by the State Counsellor of Justice, Second Class, L.
R. Shenin.
STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS L. R. SHENIN (Assistant
Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, my task
consists in presenting to the Tribunal evidence of the criminal and
predatory motives of Hitlerite aggression and of the monstrous
plundering of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece,
and the U.S.S.R.
My colleagues have already proved that the attack on the U.S.S.R., as
well as on other European countries, was planned and prepared beforehand
by the criminal Hitlerite Government.
I shall submit to the Tribunal a number of the conspirators’ original
documents, statements, and speeches, which in the aggregate will prove
that the despoliation and plunder of private, public, and national
property in the occupied territories was also premeditated, planned, and
prepared on a large scale, and that thus, simultaneously with the
development of their purely military and strategic plans of attack, the
Hitlerites with the cold-blooded deliberateness of professional robbers
and murderers also developed and prepared beforehand the plan of
organized plunder and marauding, after having minutely and accurately
calculated their future profits, their criminal gains, their robbers’
spoils.
The official report of the Czechoslovak Government on the crimes
committed by the Hitlerites on the territory of Czechoslovakia, the
first victim of German aggression, has already been submitted to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document Number USSR-60).
In the third section of this report there is a short extract from an
article by Ley, published on 30 January 1940 in the _Angriff_. I quote:
“It is our destiny to belong to a superior race. A lower race
needs less room, less clothing, less food, and less culture,
than a superior race.”
This promise, this program of action, found its concrete expression in
the fact that the Hitlerite conspirators subjected all territories
occupied by them to unrestrained plunder, highly varied in form and
method and entirely shameless in its devastating results. The report of
the Czechoslovak Government contains a large number of examples
corroborating the corresponding counts of the Indictment.
I shall read this section into the record starting with the first
paragraph on Page 72 of the Russian translation. I read:
“The German plan of campaign against Czechoslovakia was aimed
not only against the republic as a political and military unit,
but also against the very existence of the Czechoslovak people,
who were to be robbed not only of all political rights and
cultural life, but of their wealth and their financial and
industrial resources.
“(1) Immediate Plunder.
“(a) After Munich.
“Immediately after Munich the Germans seized all the industrial
and commercial concerns belonging to the Czechs and Jews in the
seized areas of the republic; this was done without any
compensation. Czechs and Jews were robbed of their property and
of their office and plant equipment, usually by violence and
bloodshed.”
The following characteristic fact is mentioned in the report, namely,
the way in which Hitler became acquainted with Czechoslovakia, which he
had just seized. I shall read into the record Subparagraph B of this
section, entitled, “After the Invasion of 15 March 1939.” The Tribunal
will find this excerpt on Pages 3 and 4 of the document book. I quote:
“Hitler entered Prague at nightfall on 15 March 1939, and spent
the night there in the famous Hradschin castle. He left on the
following day, taking with him a number of valuable tapestries.
We mention this robbery not because of the value of the stolen
objects, but as an example set by the head of the Party and of
the German State on the very first day of invasion.
“The German troops who invaded Prague brought with them a staff
of German economic experts, that is, experts in economic
looting.
“Everything that could be of some value to Germany was seized,
especially large stocks of raw materials, such as copper, tin,
iron, cotton, wool, great stocks of food, _et cetera_.
“Rolling stock, carriages, engines, and so on were removed to
the Reich. All the rails in the Protectorate which were in good
condition were lifted and sent to Germany; later they were
replaced by old rails brought from Germany. New cars fresh from
the factory which were on order for the Prague municipal
tramways and had just been completed were deflected from their
purpose and sent to the Reich.
“The vessels belonging to the Czechoslovak Danube Steam
Navigation Company (the majority of shares belonged to the
Czechoslovak State) were divided between the Reich and Hungary.
“Valuable objects of art and furniture disappeared from public
buildings, without even an attempt at any legal justification of
such robbery; pictures, statues, tapestries were taken to
Germany. The Czech National Museum, the Modern Art Gallery, and
public and private collections were plundered.
“The German Reich Commissioner of the Czechoslovak National Bank
stopped all payments of currency abroad and seized all the gold
reserve and foreign currency in the Protectorate. Thus the
Germans took 23,000 kilograms of gold of a nominal value of
737,000 million crowns (5,265,000 pounds sterling) and
transferred the gold from the Bank of International Settlement
to the Reichsbank.”
One of the methods of thorough—I should say total—plunder was the
so-called economic Germanization. I submit to the Tribunal as evidence
of these crimes the following extract from the official Czechoslovak
report. This extract the Tribunal will find on Pages 4 and 5 of the
document book:
“(2) Economic Germanization.
“A. Rural. Expropriation.
“(aa) After Munich.
“In the areas occupied by the German Army in October 1938
Germany began to settle her nationals on all the farms formerly
belonging to Czechs or Jews who had fled for political or racial
reasons.
“The Czechoslovak Land Reform Act of 1919, insofar as it
benefited Czech nationals, was declared invalid; Czech farmers
were expelled from their land and compelled to relinquish their
cattle, agricultural implements, and furniture.
“On paper the Czechs received compensation; in fact, however,
they were burdened with taxes in order to make good the
so-called ‘deliberate damage’ they were alleged to have caused
by their flight. These taxes far exceeded the compensation.
“The large agricultural and government estates of the
Czechoslovak Republic automatically became Reich property and
came under the jurisdiction of the Reich ministries concerned.
“(bb) After the invasion of 15 March 1939.
“After the invasion, German directors, supervisors, and foremen
replaced Czech nationals in state-owned enterprises of the
Czechoslovak Republic.
“Germanization of private property began, of course, under the
slogan ‘Aryanization.’
“The Germanization of rural Bohemia and Moravia was entrusted to
a special body called ‘Deutsche Siedlungsgesellschaft’ located
in Prague.
“Czech peasants were offered compensation for their food
products but at entirely inadequate prices.
“Rural Germanization, apart from Germanization pure and simple,
aimed at pauperizing as many well-to-do Czech nationals as
possible.
“The Nazis did their utmost to squeeze as much as possible out
of Czech agriculture. Here too their aim was twofold: On the one
hand to obtain as much foodstuffs as possible, and on the other,
to carry the process of Germanization as far as possible.
“Farmers were turned out of their farms to make way for German
settlers—entire agricultural districts were in this way cleared
of Czechs. Agricultural co-operative societies in control of
production were transformed into auxiliary organizations and
were gradually germanized.
“The looting of property and wealth was followed by the
pillaging of products of the soil. Heavy fines and frequently
even the death penalty were imposed on Czech peasants for
intentional failure to comply with orders regarding production,
delivery, and rationing.
“B. Expropriation of banks and their funds.
“In Czechoslovakia industrial undertakings were directly
financed by the banks, which often owned or controlled the
majority of shares. Having obtained control of the banks, the
Nazis thus secured control of industry.
“(a) After Munich.
“After Munich, two important German banks, the Dresdner Bank and
the Deutsche Bank took over the branches of Prague banks,
situated in the ceded territory. Thus among the enterprises
taken over by the Dresdner Bank were 32 branches of the Bohemian
Discount Bank and among those taken over by the Deutsche Bank
were 25 branches of Bohemian Union Bank.
“As soon as these two banks obtained control of the branch banks
in the Sudetenland they also endeavored to gain influence on the
respective head offices of these banks in Prague.
“The Czechoslovak banks were joint stock companies. Every joint
stock company with even one Jewish director was considered to be
Jewish. In this manner the non-Jewish property was also taken
over.
“(b) After the invasion of 15 March 1939.
“After the invasion several Czechoslovak banks in Bohemia, in
consequence of their Aryanization, became the property of the
Dresdner Bank. Among other enterprises, this German bank took
over the Union Bank of Bohemia. In this way all the financial
interests which these banks had in Czech industry, as well as
the entire share capital, fell into German hands.
“From that time on German capital began to infiltrate into the
Czech banks; their expropriation and incorporation into the
German bank system began. The Dresdner Bank (the establishment
which administered the funds of the National Socialist Party)
and the Deutsche Bank were officially entrusted with the task of
expropriating the funds belonging to the Czechoslovak banking
concerns.
“By means of various ‘transactions,’ by gaining influence
through the branch banks in the Sudetenland over their
respective head offices in Prague, by reducing the share
capital, which was later increased with German assistance, by
appropriating industrial holdings and in this way acquiring
influence over the controlling banks which were thus deprived of
their industrial interests, _et cetera_, the two Berlin banks
achieved complete control of the banks of the Protectorate.
Gestapo terror helped them.”
I skip one paragraph of this report and pass on to the next count:
“C. Destruction of National Industry.
“(a) Compulsory organization.
“After the invasion the Germans introduced into the Protectorate
the compulsory organization of Czech industry on the German
model.
“They appointed a committee for every new association and all
the industrial ‘groups’ appointing at least one Nazi as chairman
or vice chairman or, just as an ordinary member. However, all
the Czech members actually were mere puppets.
“(b) Armament factories.
“The Dresdner Bank acquired the most important armament
factories in Czechoslovakia, that is, the Skoda Works in Pilsen
and the Czechoslovak ‘Zborjobka’ in Brünn. The private
share-holders were forced to surrender their shares at prices
far below their actual value; the bank paid for these shares
with coupons which had been withdrawn from circulation, and
confiscated by the Germans in the districts previously ceded in
accordance with the Munich agreement.
“(c) The Hermann Göring Werke.
“The seizure by the Germans of the Czechoslovak banks and thus
of the industry, through the big Berlin banks, was accomplished
with the help of the gigantic Hermann Göring Werke which seized
the greatest Czechoslovak industries, one by one, at the
smallest financial cost, that is to say, under the pretext of
Aryanization, by pressure from the Reich, by financial measures,
and finally by threatening Gestapo measures and concentration
camps.
“Finally, all the large Czechoslovak enterprises, factories, and
armament plants, and the coal and iron industries fell into
German hands. The huge chemical industry was seized by the
German concern, I. G. Farben Industrie.”
I skip the paragraph concerning the same methods adopted in the case of
light industry and pass on to the next count of the report, “Financial
Spoliation.”
“After the occupation of the territory, ceded apparently in
accordance with the Munich agreement, the Germans refused to
take over part of the Czechoslovak State debt, although they
acquired very valuable State property in the districts taken
away from Czechoslovakia. Government bonds of low denominations
amounting to a total of 1,600 million crowns were in circulation
in the occupied territory.
“The Germans reserved the right to use these obligations in
Czechoslovakia as legal tender.”
Gentlemen, further on in this report we find a detailed account of the
Hitlerite campaign of spoliation directed against the financial economy
of the Czechoslovak Republic. With a view to saving time I shall refrain
from quoting this excerpt and shall merely submit the balance sheet of
the Czechoslovak National Bank.
“The balance sheet of the Czech National Bank showed the
following figures for ‘other assets’ in million of crowns: 31
December 1938, 845; 31 December 1939, 3,576; 31 December 1942,
17,366.”
I now quote an excerpt from the section entitled, “Taxes”:
“When war broke out the Nazis fixed the war contribution of the
Protectorate at an annual sum of 2,000 million crowns (14.2
million pounds sterling). The Nazis claimed that they were
entitled to this on the grounds that the Czechs did not have to
fight, because the Germans fought for them.
“Immediately after the occupation the Germans seized the
proceeds of various indirect taxes and diverted them into the
Reich Treasury.”
Gentlemen, the excerpt which I just read from the report of the
Czechoslovak Government gives an adequate picture of the manner in
which, after having seized Czechoslovakia, the Hitlerites subjected it
to wanton plunder in every field of its economic life—agriculture,
industry, and finance.
Having seized the entire economic resources of the Czechoslovak
Republic, the Hitlerite Government forced this economy to serve their
criminal interests, extracting everything possible in order to prepare
for further aggression against the peoples of Europe and for new
military attacks with the monstrous aim of achieving world domination by
the German “master race.”
I shall now pass to the reading of the fourth section of the official
report of the Polish Government dealing with crimes committed by the
Hitlerites in occupied Poland. This report has already been presented to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93) and,
according to Article 21 of the Charter, constitutes irrefutable
evidence. I quote an excerpt from this report which the Tribunal will
find on Page 14 of the document book:
“Expropriation and plunder of public and private property.
“a) On 27 September 1939 the German military authorities issued
a decree concerning the sequestration and confiscation of Polish
property in the western provinces. ‘The property of the Polish
State, Polish public institutions, municipalities and unions,
individuals, and corporations can be sequestered and
confiscated,’ stated Paragraph 1 of the said decree.
“b) The right of the military authorities to dispose of Polish
property in the incorporated provinces passed to the
‘Haupttreuhandstelle Ost’ (created by Göring on 1 November 1939)
with headquarters in Berlin and branch offices in Poland. It was
entrusted with the administration of confiscated property of the
Polish State, as well as with the general policy in Poland in
accordance with the plan devised by the Reich Government.
“c) By a decree of 15 January 1940, the entire property of the
Polish State was placed under ‘protection,’ which practically
meant confiscation of all State property in the incorporated
territories. A special decree of 12 February 1940 dealt with
agriculture and forestry in the same way.
“d) The confiscation of private property in the western
provinces was initiated by a decree of 31 January 1940. Special
permission was required for acquisition of property and transfer
of ownership rights in all enterprises in the incorporated
territory. By another decree of 12 June 1940, Göring authorized
the ‘Haupttreuhandstelle Ost’ to seize and administer, not only
State property, but also the property of citizens of the ‘former
Polish State.’
“e) The process of confiscation, however, went further. The
property of Polish citizens became liable to seizure and
confiscation unless the owner acquired German citizenship in
accordance with Hitler’s decree of 8 October 1939.
“Other decrees dealt with the repayment of debts, because the
sequestrators were authorized to repay debts to privileged
creditors only. These were members of the ‘Deutsche Volksliste’
so far as war debts were concerned, as well as citizens of the
Reich or the free city of Danzig, as regards debts incurred
after 1 September 1939.”
I skip two pages of this report enumerating the companies which were
specially created for carrying out of this plunder activity and also for
plundering the Polish-Jewish population, which as is already known to
the Tribunal, was later exterminated. I pass on to the end of the Polish
Government report. The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 17 of the
document book.
Mere quotations from these and other decrees may create a wrong
impression as to the means used by the defendants in the case of the
Jewish property in Poland. But it should be pointed out that steps
concerning Jewish property were only preliminaries to infinitely greater
crimes in the future. At the end of this section of the report is justly
stated—I quote:
“Aside from the crimes which have been proved and described
here, there are thousands of others which fade into
insignificance beside the numberless crimes of mass murder, mass
plunder, and mass destruction.”
It is impossible to enumerate all the crimes committed in Poland under
the direct leadership of the Defendant Frank, who was the head of all
the administration in the so-called Government General.
Frank’s diaries which were found and became part of the evidence in this
case, give a clear and concrete idea of the crimes committed by the
Hitlerites in Poland under his direction. In these diaries, Your Honors,
are entries which have a direct bearing on the subject of my
presentation.
Therefore I should like, with your permission, to quote excerpts from
this diary which have not yet been quoted.
I quote from the volume entitled “Conference of Departmental Heads for
1939-1940” (Document Number USSR-223), Pages 11 and 12. In your document
book, gentlemen, this excerpt is on Page 21:
“My relationship with the Poles resembles that between an ant
and a plant louse. When I treat the Poles helpfully, tickle them
in a friendly manner, so to speak, I do it in the expectation
that I shall profit by their labor output. This is not a
political, but a purely tactical and technical problem. In cases
where, in spite of all measures, the output does not increase,
or where I have the slightest reason to step in, I would not
hesitate to take even the most Draconian action.”
From the volume entitled “Diary 1942” I quote:
“Dr. Frank: ‘We must remember that notes issued by the Bank of
Poland to the value of 540,000,000 zlotys were taken over in
Occupied Eastern Territory by the Governor General without any
compensation being made by the Reich. This represents a
contribution of more than 500 million exacted from the
Government General by Germany, in addition to other payments.’”
From the same volume, Page 1277—this concerns the Governor’s conference
which took place on 7 December 1942, in Kraków—measures for increasing
production for the years 1942-43 were discussed. A certain Dr. Fischer
stated:
“If the new food scheme is carried out, it would mean that in
Warsaw and its suburbs alone 500,000 people would be deprived of
food.”
From the same volume on Page 1331, Frank speaks:
“I shall endeavor to squeeze out from the reserves of this
province everything that it is still possible to squeeze
out. . . . If you recall that I was able to send to Germany
600,000 tons of grain and that an additional 180,000 tons were
reserved for local troops, as well as many thousands of tons of
seed, fats, vegetables, besides the export to Germany of 300
million eggs, _et cetera_, you will understand how important
work in this region is for Germany.”
This same Frank on Page 1332 states the following—the Tribunal will
find this quotation on Page 27 of the document book:
“These consignments to the Reich had, however, one definite
drawback to them, since the quantities we were responsible for
delivering exceeded the actual food supplies required by the
region. We now have to face the following problem. Can we, as
from February, cut 2 million non-German inhabitants of the
region out of the general rationing scheme?”
In the volume entitled “Workers Conferences for 1943,” we find an
excerpt concerning the conference of 14 April 1943, which took place in
Kraków. On Page 28 of the document book, the Tribunal will find the
excerpt which I wish to read into the record.
“President Naumann is speaking, and he quotes the figures
estimated for 1943-44:
“One thousand five hundred tons of sweets for the Germans, 36
million liters of skimmed fresh milk; 15,100,000 liters of full
cream milk for the Germans.”
On Page 24 the same person continues—this total account is on Page 28
of the document book:
“Last year, more than 20 percent of the total amount of live
stock in the Government General was requisitioned. Cattle which
were really required for the production of milk and butter were
slaughtered last year so that the Reich and the armed forces
could be supplied and the meat ration maintained to a certain
extent. If we want 120,000 tons of meat, we must sacrifice 40
percent of the remaining live stock.”
And further:
“In answer to a question by the Governor General, President
Naumann replied that 383,000 tons of grain were requisitioned in
1940, 685,000 tons in 1941, and 1.2 million tons in 1942. It
appears from these figures that requisitions have increased from
year to year and have steadily approached the limits of
possibility. Now they are preparing to increase the requisitions
by another 200,000 tons which will bring them to the extreme
bounds of possibility. The Polish peasant cannot be allowed to
starve beyond the point where he will still be able to cultivate
his fields and carry out any further tasks imposed upon him,
such as carting wood for the forestry authorities.”
However, the quotation which I have read from Naumann’s reply in no way
influenced the policy of the merciless plundering of the Polish people,
whose fate, to use Frank’s own words, interested him from one angle
only.
In the volume entitled “Diary, From 1 January to 28 February 1944” there
is the following statement by Frank made at the conference of the
leaders of German agriculture on 12 January 1944. The Tribunal will find
this excerpt on Page 30 of the document book.
“Once we have won the war, the Poles, Ukrainians, and all other
people living around can be made into mincemeat, or anything
else, as far as I am concerned.”
I believe, Your Honors, that after this quotation there is no need for
me, as a representative of the Soviet Prosecution, to add anything more
to that section of my statement which deals with the crimes committed by
the Hitlerite criminals on the territory of the Polish State. Indeed,
any one of the sentences quoted is more than sufficient to give us an
exact picture of the regime in Poland created by Frank, and of Frank
himself, who created this regime.
Turning now to the plunder and pillage of private and public property by
the Hitlerites in Yugoslavia, I must, Your Honors, read the appropriate
extracts of the official report of the Yugoslav Government, submitted to
the International Military Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit
USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). This report, in accordance with
Article 21 of the Charter, is submitted as irrefutable evidence.
Count 6 of this report, entitled “Plunder of Public and Private
Property,” reads as follows—this count is on Page 32 of the document
book:
“6. Plunder of public and private property.
“Along with the exploitation of manpower the plundering of
public and private property was systematically carried out in
Yugoslavia. This plunder was carried out in various ways and
within the scope of the different measures taken. In this way,
too, Germany succeeded in completely exhausting the economic and
financial forces in occupied Yugoslavia and in destroying her
almost completely from the economic point of view.
“We shall cite here only a few examples of this systematic
plunder:
“A. Currency and credit measures.
“Just as in other occupied countries, the Germans, immediately
after their entry into Yugoslavia, carried out a series of
currency measures which enabled them to take out of Yugoslavia
in great quantities goods and other valuables at an
insignificant price. As early as 14 April 1941”—that is to say,
even before the occupation of Yugoslavia was actually
completed—“the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, ‘on the basis of
the authority received from the Führer and Supreme Commander of
the German Armed Forces,’ issued the ‘Proclamation Concerning
Occupied Yugoslav Territory.’
“Article 9 of this proclamation fixes an obligatory rate of
exchange of 20 Yugoslav dinars for 1 German mark. Thus the value
of the dinar in relation to the Reichsmark was artificially and
by force lowered. The real rate of exchange before the war was
much more favorable to the Yugoslav currency.
“This proves clearly the violation of the appropriate
regulations of the Hague Convention, as well as the existence of
a plan prepared in advance for the depreciation of Yugoslav
currency.”
I submit to the Tribunal a certified photographic copy of the
aforementioned proclamation as Exhibit Number USSR-140 (Document Number
USSR-140).
“The second predatory measure in the field of currency policy
was the introduction of German bonds (Reichskreditkassenschein)
as an obligatory means of payment in the occupied territory of
Yugoslavia. This measure was also mentioned in Paragraph IX of
the proclamation submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-140. These so-called occupation marks, which were without
any economic foundation and without any value whatsoever in
Germany itself, were printed in Yugoslavia in accordance with
the needs of the German forces of occupation and authorities and
in this way served as a means for enabling them to make
purchases at a very low price.
“On 30 June 1942”—that is to say, more than a year
later—“these Reich bonds were withdrawn. This took place after
the Germans had already bought up almost everything that could
be purchased in Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav State Bank had been
liquidated and all its properties plundered. In its stead the
Germans created the so-called Serbian National Bank.
“However, so that the Germans would suffer no loss through this
measure, the Serbian National Bank was forced to exchange the
so-called occupation marks for new dinars. The marks thus
exchanged were simply withdrawn from the Serbian National Bank
by the Germans against receipt. In this way one of the most
shameless plunders was carried out, which cost Yugoslavia many
thousands of millions of dinars.”
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-194 (Document Number
USSR-194), “the German decree of 30 June 1942 concerning the withdrawal
of notes issued by the Reichskreditkasse and also a certified copy of
the decree concerning the Serbian National Bank, of 29 May 1941,” as
Exhibit Number USSR-135 (Document Number USSR-135).
“It can be seen from these documents that the German occupation
authorities carried out by force the illegal liquidation of the
Yugoslav State Bank, under the pretext that Yugoslavia no longer
existed, and that they took advantage of this liquidation in
order to plunder the country on an enormous scale.
“The Germans established the so-called Serbian National Bank
exclusively for the purpose of creating an instrument for their
predatory economic and currency policy in Serbia. The bank was
administered by officials whom they themselves appointed.
“The measures taken with regard to Yugoslav metal coins are also
very characteristic. The Yugoslav coinage, which contained a
certain percent of silver and brass, was withdrawn, and replaced
by coins of very poor metal alloy. Naturally, the Germans
carried to Germany a large quantity of the most valuable
Yugoslav coins.
“B. Requisitions and fines.”
The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 40 of the document book:
“Reich Minister Speer, head of the Armament and War Production
Ministry, declared that fixed prices were the Magna Carta of the
Armament Program.”
The Defendant Göring, on 26 March 1943, issued a decree demanding a
further decrease in the prices of all goods imported from the occupied
countries.
“This lowering of prices was attained by means of currency
measures as well as by means of requisitioning, confiscation,
fines, and in particular, through a special price policy.
“By means of requisitioning, a policy of fixed low prices, and
compulsory sales, the Government of the Reich was enabled to
plunder thoroughly the Yugoslav people. This went so far that
even the quisling institutions collaborating with the Germans
frequently had to declare that the quotas of goods demanded by
the Germans could not be filled.
“Thus, a report made by the district chief, for the Moravski
District”—quisling administration of Milan Nedic—“on 12
February 1942, stated:
“1. If they are deprived of so many cattle, the peasants will
not be able to cultivate their fields. On the one hand, they are
ordered to cultivate every inch of ground, on the other hand,
their cattle are ruthlessly confiscated.
“2. The cattle are purchased at such a low price that the
peasants feel that they are hardly compensated at all for the
loss of their cattle.
“Similar examples from other regions or districts of Yugoslavia
are very numerous.
“In order to plunder the country, the Germans often reverted to
the systematic imposition of money fines. For instance the cash
fines imposed by the ‘Feldkommandantur’ in Belgrade during 1943
alone amounted to 48,818,068 dinars. In Nish, during the first
3½ months of 1943, the cash fines amounted to 5,065,000 dinars.
“Finally, we should like to give here a few details regarding
the clearing accounts through which the export of Yugoslav goods
to Germany was carried out. As early as 1 March 1943 the
clearing balance in favor of Serbia amounted to 219 million
Reichsmark, or 4,380 million dinars. By the end of the
occupation Germany owed Serbia 10,000 million dinars.
“The situation was the same in all the other provinces of
Yugoslavia, and only the methods of plundering varied according
to local conditions.
“C. Confiscations.
“Confiscations were one of the most widespread and effective
means of plundering Yugoslavia.
“Before the occupation of Yugoslavia was completed in 1941, a
decree on confiscation was issued by the Germans in the combat
zone. Pursuant to this decree the Germans confiscated enormous
quantities of agricultural products, raw materials,
semi-manufactured, and other goods.”
I submit to the Tribunal a certified copy of the above-mentioned decree
as Exhibit Number USSR-206 (Document Number USSR-206).
“Immediately after the occupation of the country, the German
occupation authorities introduced by means of numerous decrees,
the system of confiscation of private and public property.”
In order to save time I skip a part of this section of the document
which quotes concrete examples of the confiscation of property belonging
to the Yugoslav population, and I pass on to the next count, which is
entitled, “Other Methods of Plunder.” The members of the Tribunal will
find this section on Page 52:
“Together with the aforesaid methods of plunder, which were
carried out on the basis of various decrees, laws, and
regulations, more primitive methods of looting were practiced
throughout the Yugoslav territory. They were not sporadic
incidents but constituted a part of the German system for
enslavement and exploitation.
“The Germans plundered everything from industrial and economic
undertakings, down to cattle, food, and even simplest objects
for personal use.”
I shall cite a few examples:
“1. Immediately after their entry into Yugoslavia, the Germans
looted all the bigger firms and storehouses. They generally
engaged in this form of looting at night, after the so-called
curfew hours.
“2. The order of Major General Kuebler”—which has already been
submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as Document
Number USSR-132—“contains the following passage:
“‘Troops must treat these members of the population who maintain
an unfriendly attitude toward the occupation forces in a brutal
and ruthless manner, depriving the enemy of every means of
existence by the destruction of localities which have been
abandoned and by seizing all available stocks.’
“On the basis of this and similar orders, the Germans
ceaselessly looted the country under the pretext of so-called
‘control of existing stocks,’ using the opportunities afforded
by the ‘destruction of localities which had been abandoned.’
“3. Punitive expeditions, which became an everyday event during
the occupation, were, naturally, always accompanied by the
looting of the victims’ property. In the same way they robbed
their prisoners and the bodies of those who had fallen fighting
in the Free National Army, as well as all the internees in the
concentration camps.
“4. Not even churches were spared. Thus, for example, the German
unit ‘Konrad-Einheit,’ which operated in the vicinity of
Sibenik, looted the Church of St. John in Zablad.”
There are numerous examples of the same kind.
“During the 4 years the whole of Yugoslavia was systematically
looted. This was carried out either through numerous so-called
‘legal measures,’ or through mass looting on the part of the
Germans. The Nazi occupation forces showed great inventive
ability and applied to Yugoslavia the experience which they had
gained in other occupied countries.
“These criminal measures damaged the Yugoslav State and its
citizens to such an extent that one can consider it simply as
economic destruction of the country.”
From this Your Honors may see that the plunder of public and private
property in Yugoslavia was conducted by the Hitlerites according to a
preconceived plan, that it affected every class and every branch of the
country’s economy, and caused enormous material loss to the Yugoslav
State and to its citizens.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I believe this would
be a convenient time to recess.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: After the invasion of Greece, the Hitlerite
conspirators pursued their policy of merciless despoliation of the
occupied countries and immediately began to plunder her national
property. The official report of the Greek Government on the crimes
committed by the Hitlerites has already been submitted to the Tribunal.
The appropriate section of this report entitled, “Exploitation,” gives
the concrete facts of the plunder of public and private property in
Greece. I quote the following excerpts from the part, “Exploitation,”
from this report of the Greek Government, which will be found on Page 59
of the document book:
“Owing to her geographical position, Greece was used by the
Germans as a base of operations for the war in North Africa.
They also used Greece as a rest center for thousands of their
troops from the North African and Eastern fronts, thus
concentrating in Greece much larger forces than were actually
necessary for purpose of occupation.
“A large part of the local supplies of fruit, vegetables,
potatoes, olive oil, meat, and dairy products were confiscated
to supply these forces. As current production was not sufficient
for these needs, they resorted to the requisitioning of
livestock on a large scale, with the result that the country’s
livestock became seriously depleted.”
In addition to requisitioning supplies for their armies, the Hitlerite
conspirators exacted enormous sums of money from Greece to cover the
so-called cost of occupation. In the report of the Greek Government the
following remark is made on the subject—this is on Page 60 of the
document book—I read:
“Between August 1941 and December 1941 the sum of 26,206,085,000
drachmas was paid to the Germans, representing a sum of 60
percent more than the estimated national income during the same
period. In fact, according to the estimates of two Axis experts,
Dr. Barberin, from Germany, and Dr. Bartoni, an Italian, the
national income for that year amounted to only 23,000 million
drachmas. In the following year, as the national income
decreased, this money was taken from national funds.”
Another method of plundering Greece which the Hitlerites applied on a
vast scale was the so-called requisitions and confiscations. In order to
save time, I shall, with the permission of the Tribunal, merely read
into the record a brief excerpt from the Greek report dealing with this
question. I quote:
“One of the enemy’s first measures on occupying Greece was to
seize all the existing stocks in the country by requisition or
open confiscation. Among other goods, they requisitioned from
the wholesale and retail trade 71,000 tons of currants and
10,000 tons of olive oil; they confiscated 1,435 tons of coffee,
1,143 tons of sugar, 2,520 tons of rice, and a whole shipload of
wheat valued at 530,000 dollars.”
As the country was divided among three occupying powers, the Hitlerites
blockaded that part of Greece which was occupied by their own troops and
forbade the export of food supplies from that zone. The Hitlerites began
to confiscate all existing stocks of food and other goods, a measure
which reduced the population to a state of extreme misery and
starvation. This plundering had such catastrophic consequences for the
Greek nation that, finally, even the Germans themselves were forced to
realize that they had gone too far. The practical result of this was
that towards the end of 1942 the German authorities promised the
International Commission of the Red Cross that they would return to the
population all the local products confiscated and exported by the armies
of occupation. The Germans also undertook to replace them by the
importation of products of the same caloric value. This pledge was not
fulfilled.
As in all the occupied countries, the Germans issued and put into
circulation an unlimited amount of currency. It should be noted that
this currency represented the so-called occupation marks without any
security. I quote an excerpt from this report, which the members of the
Tribunal will find on Page 63 in the document book. I read:
“From the very first they”—the Germans—“put into circulation
10,000 million occupation marks, a sum equal to half the money
in circulation at that date. By April 1944 the monetary
circulation had reached 14,000 million drachmas, that is, it had
increased 700 percent since the start of the occupation.”
The Germans, after causing great inflation in that way, purchased all
goods at prices fixed before the occupation. All goods purchased, as
well as valuables, articles of gold, furniture, and so forth, were
shipped by the Germans to Germany.
Finally, as in every country they occupied, the Hitlerites put into
operation in Greece also the so-called “clearing system.” Under this
system, all goods earmarked for export were first confiscated or put
under embargo by the military authorities. Then they were bought up by
German firms at arbitrarily fixed prices. The price of the goods
established in this one-sided way was then credited to Greece. The
prices for merchandise imported from Germany were fixed at from 200 to
500 percent higher than their normal value. Finally, Greece was also
debited with the price of merchandise imported from Germany for the
needs of the occupation forces. The Germans called this cynical method
of plundering “clearing.”
I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Greek Government which
the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 64 of the document book. I
read:
“In consequence, notwithstanding the fact that Greece exported
the whole of her available resources to Germany, the clearing
account showed a credit balance of 264,157,574.03 marks in favor
of Germany when the Germans left. At the time of their arrival
the credit balance in favor of Greece was 4,353,428.82 marks.”
In this way, Your Honors, the Hitlerites plundered the Greek people.
May it please Your Honors, I pass on to the statement of the facts of
the monstrous plunder and pillage to which private, public, and state
property was subjected by the Hitlerite usurpers in the temporarily
occupied territories of the Soviet Union. The irrefutable original
documents which I shall have the honor to present for your
consideration, Your Honors, will prove that long before their attack on
the U.S.S.R., the fascist conspirators had conceived and prepared their
criminal plans for the plunder and spoliation of its riches and of its
national wealth.
Like all other military crimes committed by the Hitlerites in countries
occupied by them, the plunder and pillage of these territories was
planned and organized beforehand by the major war criminals whom the
determination and valor of the Allied nations have brought to justice.
The crimes committed by those who carried out the conspirators’ criminal
plans over wide areas of the Soviet land, on the fertile steppes of the
Ukraine, in the fields and forests of Bielorussia, in the rich
cornfields of the Kuban and the Don, in the blossoming gardens of the
Crimea, in the approaches to Leningrad and in the Soviet Baltic
States—all these monstrous crimes, all this mass plunder and wholesale
pillage of the sacred wealth created by the peaceable and honest work of
the Soviet peoples, Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and others—all
these crimes were directly planned, designed, prepared, and organized by
the criminal Hitlerite Government and the Supreme Command of Armed
Forces—the major war criminals, now occupying the dock.
I shall begin with evidence as to the premeditated nature of the crimes
committed on U.S.S.R. territory. I shall prove that the wholesale
indiscriminate pillage of private, public, and state property committed
by the German fascist usurpers was not an isolated occurrence, not a
local phenomenon. It was not the result of the disintegration or the
thefts of individual army units but was, on the contrary, an essential
and indissoluble part of the general plan of attack on the U.S.S.R. and
represented, moreover, the fundamental purpose, the chief motive
underlying this criminal aggression.
May I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal if, in stating the facts
connected with the preparations for this type of crimes, I am obliged to
refer very briefly also to several of the documents already submitted to
the Tribunal by my American colleagues. I shall endeavor, however, to
avoid repetitions and shall mainly quote such extracts from these
documents as have not been previously read into the record.
It is known that simultaneously with the elaboration of “Plan
Barbarossa,” which provided for all strategic questions connected with
the attack on the U.S.S.R., purely economic problems arising from the
plan were elaborated.
In the document known under the title, “Conference of 29 April 1941 with
Branches of the Armed Forces,” and presented to the Tribunal by the
American prosecution on 10 December as Document Number 1157-PS, we read:
“Purpose of the conference: Explanation of the administrative
organization of the economic section of undertaking
‘Barbarossa-Oldenburg’. . . .”
Further on in this document it is indicated that the Führer, contrary to
previous practice in the preparation measures envisaged, ordered that
all economic questions were to be worked out by one center and that this
center is to be “the special-purpose economic staff Oldenburg under the
direction of Lieutenant General Schubert” and that it is to be under the
Reich Marshal, that is, Göring. Thus, as early as April 1941, the
Defendant Göring was in charge of all preparations for plundering the
U.S.S.R.
To finish with this document, I should like to recall that provision is
made in it, even at that early date, for the organization of special
economic inspectorates and commands at Leningrad, Murmansk, Riga, Minsk,
Moscow, Tula, Gorki, Kiev, Baku, Yaroslavl, and many other Soviet
industrial towns. The document points out that the tasks of these
inspectorates and commands included “the economic utilization of
suitable territory” that is, as is explained below, “all questions of
food supply and rural economy, industrial economy, including raw
materials and manufactured articles; forestry, finance and banking,
museums, commerce, trade, and manpower.” As you see, Your Honors, the
tasks were extremely wide and extraordinarily concrete.
The Plan Barbarossa-Oldenburg was further developed in the so-called
“directives for economic management of the newly occupied eastern
territories” which were also elaborated and issued secretly before the
attack on the U.S.S.R.
Before passing on to the “Green File” I should like to present to the
Tribunal and read but in part another document—the so-called “File of
the District Agricultural Leader,” which was submitted to the Tribunal
by my colleague Colonel Smirnov as Document Number USSR-89. These very
detailed instructions for future district agricultural leaders which
were also worked out and published in advance, bore the title of
“District Agricultural Leaders File,” and were dated 1 June 1941.
Naturally this document, too, is also marked “top secret.”
This instruction begins, “12 Commandments for the Behavior of Germans in
the East and Their Attitude towards Russians.” My colleague, Colonel
Smirnov, read into the record only one of those commandments: and I,
with the Tribunal’s permission, shall read into the record the other
commandments. The first commandment states—the members of the Tribunal
will find it on Page 69 of the document book. I read:
“Those of you who are sent to work in the East must adopt as
your guiding principle the rule that output alone is decisive. I
must ask you to devote your hardest and most unsparing efforts
to this end.”
What sort of “work” is meant is clearly shown by the following
commandments. I quote extracts from this document:
“5th commandment: It is essential that you should always bear in
mind the end to be attained. You must pursue this aim with the
utmost stubbornness; but the methods used may be elastic to a
degree. The methods employed are left to the discretion of the
individual. . . .
“6th commandment: Since the newly incorporated territories must
be secured permanently to Germany and Europe, much will depend
on how you establish yourself there. . . . Lack of character in
individuals will constitute a definite ground for removing them
from their work. Anyone recalled for this reason can never again
occupy a responsible position in the Reich proper.”
In this way the future “agricultural leaders” were not only ordered to
be implacable, merciless, and cruel in their plundering activities, but
were also warned of what would happen to them if they were not
implacable enough or if they showed “lack of character.”
The following commandments develop the same idea:
“7th commandment: Do not ask, ‘How will this benefit the
peasants?’ but ‘How will it benefit Germany?’
“8th commandment: Do not talk—act! You can never talk a Russian
around or persuade him with words. He can talk better than you
can, for he is a born ‘dialectic’. . . .
“Only your will must decide, but this will must be directed to
the execution of great tasks. Only in this case will it be
ethical even in its cruelty. Keep away from the Russians—they
are not Germans, they are Slavs.
“9th commandment: We do not wish to convert the Russians to
National Socialism; we wish only to make them a tool in our
hands. You must win the youth of Russia by assigning their task
to them—by taking them firmly in hand and administering
ruthless punishment to those who practice sabotage or fail to
accomplish the work expected of them.
“The investigation of personal records and pleas takes up time
which is needed for your German task. You are neither
investigating magistrates nor yet the Wailing Wall.
“11th commandment: . . . his (Russian) stomach is elastic,
therefore—no false pity for him!”
Such were these commandments for agricultural leaders, which one
should—to be more exact—call “commandments for cannibals.” The file
begins with these “commandments,” which are followed by a perfectly
clear-cut program for the plundering of U.S.S.R. agriculture. At the
beginning of this program we read:
“Fundamental economical directives for the Organization of
Economic Policy in the East, Agricultural Group.
“As regards food policy, the aim of this campaign is:
“1. To guarantee food supplies for many years ahead for the
German Armed Forces and the German civilian population.”
As you see, Your Honors, a perfectly clear and candid formulation of the
aims of the attack on the U.S.S.R. is given. Of course, it does not
exhaust these aims. This aim was not confined to the stealing of
provisions, and provisions were far from being the only thing stolen.
This is only an extract from the agricultural leaders’ file, and they
were not the only people to be entrusted with tasks of pillage and to
perform these tasks.
The file as a whole contains the following sections of a carefully
thought out and extremely concrete program for the plunder of the Soviet
Union’s agriculture. I read the table of contents. Your Honors will find
this document on Page 67 of the document book:
“1. 12 commandments. 2. General economic directives. 3.
Organization chart. 4. Instructions for the regional
agricultural leader. 5. Instructions for securing personnel. 6.
State farms: Directives on the taking over and management of
State farms. 7. Directives for taking over and managing
collective farms. 8. Agriculture machine depots, directives
regarding administration. 9. Directives for registration. 10.
Furnishing food supplies for the cities. 11. Schedules for
agricultural work. 12. Price lists.”
I am not, Your Honor, going to take up your time by reading the whole of
this document, which consists of 98 typewritten pages. I am presenting
it to the Tribunal in its entirety, to be included in the files of the
Trial.
I shall read from this document, already presented to the Tribunal by my
American colleagues on 10 December of last year as Exhibit Number
USA-147 (Document 1058-PS), only a few short lines. It is a note of the
record of a speech made by Rosenberg at a secret conference on 20 June
1941, dealing with questions of the East. In his speech, Rosenberg
stated particularly:
“The problem of feeding German nationals undeniably heads the
German demands on the East just now, and here the southern
regions and the northern Caucasus must help to balance the
German food situation. We certainly do not consider ourselves
obliged to feed the Russian people as well from the produce of
these fertile regions. We know that this is a cruel necessity,
which has nothing to do with any humane feelings. It will
undoubtedly be necessary to carry out evacuation on a large
scale and the Russians are doomed to live through some very hard
years.”
Thus did the leaders of Hitlerite Germany formulate the tasks they set
themselves when preparing their attack on the Soviet Union.
Already in August 1942—that is, from 26 to 28 August—Gauleiter Koch,
who had just arrived from Hitler’s headquarters, spoke at the conference
in Rovno. The record of this conference was found in Rosenberg’s
archives. This document was kindly put at our disposal by our American
colleagues. It is registered as Document Number 264-PS, but it has not
been presented to the Tribunal.
I read into the record an excerpt from this record. The members of the
Tribunal will find it on Page 72 in the document book. I read:
“He”—Koch—“explained the political situation and his tasks as
Reich Commissioner”—in the following way—“‘There is no free
Ukraine. We must aim at making the Ukrainians work for Germany,
and not at making the people here happy. The Ukraine will have
to make good the German shortages. This task must be
accomplished without regard for losses. . . .
“‘The Führer has ordered 3 million tons of grain from the
Ukraine for the Reich, and they must be delivered. . . .’”
I shall show later how far this original figure—3 million tons of
grain—was exceeded by the Hitlerite plunderers, whose avid appetites
grew from month to month.
All these aims of plunder had been planned in advance by the criminal
Hitlerite Government, who worked out an organized scheme for carrying
out organized plunder and practical methods of pillaging the occupied
territories.
With the Tribunal’s permission I shall read extracts from a secret
document by Reich Marshal Göring which was captured by units of the Red
Army. This document bears the title, “Directives for Economic Management
in the Newly Occupied Areas in the East (Green File),” and extracts of
it have already been mentioned by my colleagues. This document is
presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document
Number USSR-10).
The title page of the document reads—Page 76 of the document book:
“Eastern Staff for Economic Leadership; top secret.
“Note: The present directives are to be considered as top-secret
documents (documents of State importance) until X-Day; after
X-Day they will no longer be secret and will be treated as open
documents for official use only.
“Directives on the subject of economic management in the newly
occupied areas in the East (Green File).
“Part I. Economic tasks and organization, Berlin, June 1941;
printed by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.”
As is clear from the text of the document, these directives were
published immediately before Germany’s attack on the U.S.S.R. “for the
information of military and economic authorities regarding economic
tasks in the eastern territories to be occupied.”
In setting forth the “main economic tasks” the directives state in the
first paragraph:
“I. According to the Führer’s order, it is essential in the
interests of Germany that every possible measure for the
immediate and complete exploitation of the occupied territories
be adopted. Any measure liable to hinder the achievement of this
purpose should be waived or cancelled.
“II. The exploitation of the regions to be occupied immediately
should be carried out primarily in the economic field
controlling food supplies and crude oil. The main economic
purpose of the campaign is to obtain the greatest possible
quantity of food and crude oil for Germany. In addition, other
raw materials from the occupied territories must be supplied to
the German war economy as far as is technically possible and as
far as the claims of the industries to be maintained outside the
Reich permit.”
I omit the next part of the excerpt, and I pass on to the following
excerpt, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 78:
“The idea that order should be restored in the occupied
territories and their economic life re-established as soon as
possible is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, the treatment of
the different parts of the country must be a very different one.
Order should only be restored and industry promoted in regions
where we can obtain considerable reserves of agricultural
products or crude oil.”
I omit the rest of this quotation in order to save time.
Further, the plan devised in advance for the organized plunder of the
Soviet Union provided in detail for the removal from the U.S.S.R. to
Germany of all raw materials, supplies, and stocks of goods available.
In confirmation of this I cite excerpts from this document so that I
shall not have to read it in full. The members of the Tribunal will find
these excerpts on Page 83, 87, and 88 of the document book:
“All raw materials, semi-manufactured, or finished products of
which we can make use are to be withdrawn from commerce. This
will be done by IV Wi and by the economic authorities by means
of appeals and orders, by ordering confiscation or by military
supervision, or both.”
Page 88—from the section “Raw Material and the Exploitation of
Commercial Resources”:
“Platinum, magnesium, and rubber are to be secured at once and
transported to Germany as soon as possible.”
Back of Page 87:
“Food products, articles for personal use, and clothing
discovered in combat and rear zones are to be placed at the
disposal of IV A for immediate military requirements.”
Back of Page 83—in the section of the directives entitled “Economic
Organization” we find a project of an apparatus with wide ramifications
which was to carry out this organized plunder of the U.S.S.R. I shall
read a series of excerpts from this section, which the members of the
Tribunal will find on Page 79 of the document book:
“A. General questions.
“To guarantee undivided economic leadership in the theater of
military activities, as well as in the administrative areas to
be established at a later date, the Reich Marshal has organized
the ‘Staff for Economic Leadership East’ directly under himself
and headed by his representative, State Secretary Körner.”
Second excerpt:
“The orders of the Reich Marshal apply to all economic spheres,
including food supply and rural economy.”
In directing your attention to these two excerpts, Your Honors, I
consider it definitively proved that the Defendant Göring not only had
personal charge of the preparations for the plunder of private, public,
and state property, but later on directed personally the vast apparatus
specially set up for these criminal purposes. You can judge of the
projected organization of this apparatus, by the following extracts from
the Green File. I read:
“Organization of Economic Administration in the operational
area.
“1. The economic establishments, subordinated to the Economic
Staff East, insofar as their activities cover the theater of
military activities, are incorporated in the army staffs and are
subordinate to them in military matters, namely:
“A. In the rear area: One economic inspectorate at each of the
chief commands of the rear area; one or several mobile units of
the economic section with the security divisions; one IV Wi
group at each of the field command headquarters.
“B. In the army administration district: One IV Wi group
(liaison officer Wi Rü Amt) with the army commander. One IV Wi
group for each of the field commands attached to the army of the
region; in addition, as and when necessary, economic units are
sent forward to the armies in the field. These units are
subordinate in military matters to the army command.”
Further on, in Paragraph 4 of this same section, under the title
“Structure of the Individual Economic Institutions” the whole plan of
construction of the Economic Staff East is described. I shall cite it in
my own words in order to save time. The members of the Tribunal will
find the document to which I refer at the back of Page 79 in the
document book.
Chief of the Economic Staff with the leadership group (field of
activity, leadership questions, also manpower); Group IA, in charge of
food and agriculture, running the entire agricultural production and
also the assembling of supplies for the army; Group W, in charge of
industry, raw materials, forestry, finance, banking property, and trade;
Group M, in charge of troop requirements, armaments, and transport;
economic inspectorates attached to army groups, in charge of the
economic exploitation of the rear area. Economic task forces organized
in the zone of each security division and consisting of one officer as
commander, and several specialists in different branches of the work.
Economic groups attached to the field commands, who are responsible for
supplying the immediate requirements of the troops stationed within the
sphere of activity of the field command and for preparing the economic
exploitation of the country in the interests of war economy.
To these economic groups were attached experts on manpower, food
production and agriculture, industrial economy and general economic
questions; the economic section, attached to the army command, with
special technical battalions and platoons as well as special
intelligence subsections for industrial research, particularly in the
field of raw materials and crude oil, and subsections for discovering
and securing agricultural produce and machines, including tractors.
This same plan also provides for special technical units for crude
oil—battalions and companies—and also the so-called mining battalions.
Thus, under the direct control of the Defendant Göring, a whole army of
plunderers of all ranks and branches was provided, prepared, trained,
and drilled in advance for the organized pillage and looting of the
national property of the U.S.S.R.
Your Honors, I will not take up your time by reading the whole text of
the Green File; I shall limit myself to enumerating its remaining
sections, which bear the following titles—Page 77 in the document book:
“Execution of individual economic tasks; Economic transport;
Problems of military protection of economy; Procuring of
supplies for the troops out of the resources of the country;
Utilization of manpower, particularly of the local population;
War booty, paid labor, captured material, prize courts; Economic
objectives of war industries; Raw materials and utilization of
goods available; Finance and credit; Foreign trade and
clearings; Price control.”
Thus the plunder of all branches of the U.S.S.R.’s national economy was
foreseen.
To conclude I shall read into the record Keitel’s order, dated 16 June
1941, 6 days before the attack on the U.S.S.R., in which he instructed
all military units of the German Army to be ready to execute all the
directives of the Green File. I shall now read this order—you will find
this, Your Honors, at the back of Page 89 of the document book:
“By the Führer’s order, the Reich Marshal has issued ‘Directives
for the Guidance of the Economic Administration of the
Territories To Be Occupied.’
“These directives (Green File) are intended for the guidance of
the military command and economic authorities in the economic
tasks within the territories to be occupied in the immediate
future. They contain directives for supplying the army from the
resources of the country and give orders to army units to assist
the economic authorities. Army units must comply with these
directions and orders.
“The immediate and thorough exploitation of the territories to
be occupied in the immediate future in the interest of Germany’s
war economy, especially in the field of fuel and food supply, is
of the highest importance for the further conduct of the war.”
I omit the second part of this order which contains detailed
instructions as to how the directives of the Green File should be
executed, and I read only the last paragraph of Keitel’s order:
“The exploitation of the country must be carried out on a wide
scale, with the help of field and local headquarters, in the
most important agricultural and oil-producing districts.
“Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel.”
The concluding provision of this document, which says that “the
exploitation of the country must be carried out on a wide scale” was
strictly observed by units of the German Army; and the occupied regions
of the U.S.S.R., from the very first day of the war, were subjected to
the most merciless plunder. In confirmation of this, I shall later
present to the Tribunal a series of original German documents, orders,
directives, instructions, decrees, and so forth, issued by German
military authorities.
Meanwhile, to finish with the Green File, I may state in conclusion that
this striking document is definite evidence of the remarkable
qualifications for plunder and the vast experience in brigandage of the
Hitlerite conspirators.
The program for plundering the occupied territories of the Soviet Union,
conceived on a wide scale and elaborated in detail by the conspirators,
was put into practice by the Hitlerite aggressors from the very first
days of their attack on the U.S.S.R.
Apart from the organized plunder carried out by the vast apparatus
specially formed for this purpose—an apparatus consisting of all kinds
of agricultural leaders, inspectors, specialists in economics, technical
and intelligence battalions and companies, economic groups and
detachments, military agronomists, and so forth—the so-called “material
interest” of the German soldiers and officers, who had unlimited
possibilities of robbing the civilian population and sending their booty
to Germany, was widely encouraged by the Hitlerite Government and the
High Command of the German Army.
The universal plundering of the population of the towns and villages of
the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. and the mass removal to Germany
of the personal property of Soviet citizens, the property taken from the
collective farms and co-operative unions and the property of the State
itself, was carried out according to a prearranged plan wherever the
German fascist aggressors appeared.
I turn, Your Honors, to the presentation of individual Soviet Government
documents on this question. A few months after Hitlerite Germany’s
treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the Soviet Government had already
received irrefutable data about the war crimes committed by the
Hitlerite armies in the Soviet territories they occupied.
My colleagues have already presented to the Tribunal as Document Number
USSR-51 a note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the
U.S.S.R., Molotov, dated 6 January 1942.
In order to avoid repetition and to save time, I shall read only a few
excerpts from this note which have a direct bearing on the subject of my
presentation. You will find the quoted extracts, underlined on Page 100
of the document book:
“Every step which the German fascist army and its allies took on
the occupied Soviet territory of the Ukraine and Moldavia,
Bielorussia and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the
Karelo-Finnish territory and the Russian districts and regions
is marked by the ruin or destruction of countless objects of
material and cultural value.”
The last paragraph of this quotation:
“In the villages occupied by German authorities, the peaceful
peasant population is subjected to unrestrained depredation and
robbery. The farmers are robbed of their property, acquired
through whole decades of persistent toil, robbed of their
houses, cattle, grain, clothing—of everything, down to their
children’s last little garments and the last handful of grain.
In many cases, the Germans drive the rural population, including
old people, women, and children, out of their dwellings as soon
as the village is occupied and they are compelled to seek
shelter in mud huts, dugouts, forests, or even under the open
sky. In broad daylight the invaders strip the clothing and
footgear from anyone they meet on the road, including children,
savagely ill-treating those who try to protest against, or offer
any kind of resistance to, such highway robbery.
“In the villages liberated by the Red Army in the Rostov and
Voroshilovgrad regions in the Ukraine, the peasants were
plundered again and again by the invaders. As successive German
army units passed through these areas each of them renewed their
searches, lootings, arsons, and executions for failure to
deliver up provisions. The same thing took place in the Moscow,
Kalinin, Tula, Orel, Leningrad, and other regions, from which
the remnants of the German troops are now being driven by the
Red Army.”
In order to save time I shall not read the next paragraphs of this note,
but shall give an account of them to the Tribunal in my own words. They
contain a whole series of concrete facts of the looting of the peaceful
population in different regions of the Soviet Union and the names of the
victims as well as the list of such things and belongings as were taken
from these peaceful citizens. Further, this note reads as follows:
“The marauding orgies of the German officers and soldiers have
spread to all the Soviet areas they have seized. The German
authorities have legitimatized marauding in their armies and
encouraged looting and violence. The German Government sees in
this practice the realization of their bandit principle that
every German combatant must have ‘a personal interest in the
war.’ Thus, in a confidential order of 17 July 1941, addressed
to all commanders of propaganda squads in the German Army and
discovered by Red Army units when the 68th German Infantry
Division was routed, explicit instructions are given to foster
in every officer and soldier of the German Army the feeling that
he has a material interest in the war. Similar orders inciting
the army to mass looting and murder of the civil population are
also issued by the armies of the countries fighting on the
German side.
“On the German-Soviet front, and especially in the vicinity of
Moscow, more and more fascist officers and soldiers can be met
dressed in pilfered clothes, their pockets crammed with stolen
goods and their tanks stuffed with women’s and children’s
wearing apparel torn from their victims’ bodies. The German Army
is becoming more and more an army of ravenous thieves and
marauders, who are looting and sacking flourishing towns and
villages of the Soviet Union, ravaging and destroying the
property and belongings of the laboring population of our
villages and towns, the fruit of its honest toil. These are
facts testifying to the extreme moral depravity and degeneracy
of the Hitlerite Army, whose looting, thievery, and marauding
have earned it the contempt and the curses of the entire Soviet
nation.”
Several months later, on 27 April 1942, in connection with the
information which continued to come in regarding the crimes committed by
the German fascist armies, Molotov, People’s Commissar for Foreign
Affairs of the U.S.S.R., published for the second time a note on the
monstrous misdeeds, atrocities, and acts of violence of the German
fascist invaders in occupied Soviet territories and on the
responsibility of the German Government and the High Command for these
crimes. This second note is also submitted to the Tribunal. . .
THE PRESIDENT: General, what do you mean by “published”?
MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: What I mean is that this note was first sent to
all the governments with whom the U.S.S.R. Government maintained
diplomatic relations. The text of the note was also published in the
Soviet official press.
This document has already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution as
Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). I shall read a few
brief excerpts from this document which have a direct bearing on the
subject of my presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now, and you can read it
after the adjournment.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court: I desire to
announce that the Defendant Streicher will be absent on account of
illness.
MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I shall read now excerpts from the note of the
People’s Commissar. . .
[_The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the
interpreting system._]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Owing to the delay the Tribunal will sit until half past
5 tonight without further adjournment.
Yes, Colonel.
MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: I am reading into the record excerpts from the
note by the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs dated 27 April 1942,
and in order to save time I shall, with your permission, quote only a
few of the most necessary excerpts from this note. They are very short.
In this note, attention was drawn to the fact that the documents
captured by the Soviet authorities and put at the disposal of the
People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs are evidence of the premeditated
nature of the plunder carried out by the Hitlerites.
I read the following excerpts; last paragraph on Page 44 of my
statement, Russian text.
“The appendix to Special Order Number 43761/41 of the Operations
Department of the General Staff of the German Army, states:
“‘It is urgently necessary that articles of clothing be acquired
by means of forced levies on the population of the occupied
regions enforced by every possible means. It is necessary above
all to confiscate woolen and leather gloves, coats, vests, and
scarves, padded vests and trousers, leather and felt boots, and
puttees.’
“In several places liberated in the districts of Kursk and Orel,
the following orders have been found:
“‘Property such as scales, sacks, grain, salt, kerosene,
benzine, lamps, pots and pans, oilcloth, window blinds,
curtains, rugs, phonographs, and records must be turned in to
the commandant’s office. Anyone violating this order will be
shot.’
“In the town of Istra, in the Moscow region, the invaders
confiscated decorations for Christmas trees and toys. In the
Shakhovskaya railway station they organized the ‘delivery’ by
the inhabitants of children’s underwear, wall clocks, and
samovars. In districts still under the rule of the invaders,
these searches are still going on; and the population, already
reduced to the utmost poverty by the thefts which have been
perpetrated continually since the first appearance of the German
troops, is still being robbed.”
I omit the rest of the quotation from Mr. Molotov’s note and conclude
with the last paragraph:
“The general character of the campaign of robbery planned by the
Hitler Government, on which the German Command tried to base its
plans for supplying its Army and the districts in its rear, is
indicated by the following facts: In 25 districts of the Tula
region alone the invaders robbed Soviet citizens of 14,048 cows,
11,860 hogs, 28,459 sheep, 213,678 chickens, geese, and ducks,
and destroyed 25,465 beehives.”
I omit the remainder of this quotation which gives an inventory of all
property, cattle, and fowl confiscated by the invaders from 25 districts
of the Tula region.
Your Honors, the notes which I have read, mention only a few of the
innumerable crimes and cases of plunder committed by the Hitlerites on
Soviet soil.
With the permission of the Tribunal I shall now present several German
documents from which you will see how the German commanders and
officials themselves described their soldiers’ behavior. Later I shall
read candid statements by the German fascist leaders saying that German
soldiers and officers must not be hindered in their marauding
activities. It is natural that under these conditions the moral
disintegration of the German fascist armies should reach its culminating
point. Things reached such a point that the Hitlerites begin to plunder
each other, thereby proving the truth of the well-known Russian proverb,
“A thief stole a cudgel from a thief.”
May I now quote from the document which I present to the Tribunal as
Document Number USSR-285. This is an extract from a report of the German
District Commissioner of Zhitomir to the Commissioner General of
Zhitomir dated 30 November 1943. You will find the document to which I
refer on Page 93 in the document book. I read:
“Even before the German administration left Zhitomir, troops
stationed there were seen to break into the apartments of Reich
Germans and to appropriate everything that had any value. Even
the personal luggage of Germans still working in their offices
was stolen. When the town was reoccupied it was established that
the houses where the Germans lived were hardly touched by the
local population, but that the troops just entering the town had
already started to loot the houses and business premises. . . .”
I read the second excerpt from the same document:
“The soldiers are not satisfied with taking the articles they
can use, but they destroyed some of the remaining items;
valuable furniture was used for fires, although there was plenty
of wood.”
Now I shall read into the record an excerpt from a report of the German
District Commissioner of the town of Korostyshev to the Commissioner
General of Zhitomir. The members of the Tribunal will find this excerpt
on Page 94 of the document book.
“Unfortunately the German soldiers behaved badly. Unlike the
Russians they broke into the storehouses even when the front
line was still far away. Enormous quantities of grain were
stolen, including large quantities of seed. That might have been
tolerated in the case of combat units. . . . Upon the return of
our troops to Popelnaya, the warehouses were again broken into
immediately. The ‘Gebiets- und Kreislandwirt’ nailed up the
doors again, but the soldiers broke in once more.”
I read into the record other excerpts from the same document:
“The Kreislandwirt reported to me that the dairy farm was
plundered by retreating units; the soldiers carried away with
them butter, cheese, _et cetera_.”
And the second excerpt:
“The co-operative store was plundered before the eyes of the
Ukrainians. Among other things the soldiers took with them all
the cash in the store.”
Then the third excerpt:
“On the 9th and 10th of this month the guards of the field
gendarmerie were posted at the co-operative store in
Korostyshev. These guards could not repel the onslaught of the
soldiers. . . .”
And the last excerpt:
“Pigs and fowls were slaughtered to the most irresponsible
degree and taken away by the soldiers. . . . The appearance of
the troops themselves can only be described as catastrophic.”
In these towns; Your Honors, is the conduct of the German soldiers
depicted by a German commissioner in his official report.
There is no doubt that this description is an objective one, especially
since it is supplemented by an official report of the German Ukrainian
company for supplying agriculture in the Commissariat General, addressed
to the Commissioner General of Zhitomir. This is how the report
describes the results of a raid by German soldiers on the company’s
premises, “. . . The office was in a horrifying and incredible
condition.” Second excerpt:
“. . . A 20-room private house at Hauptstrasse Number 57 had an
appalling appearance. Carpets and stair carpets were missing,
and all the upholstered armchairs, couches, beds with spring or
other mattresses, chairs, and wooden benches.”
I skip a few lines:
“The condition of the living rooms generally is almost
indescribable.”
I omit two more excerpts from the document.
Such, Your Honors, is the heartcry of the German brigands of the company
for the economic adoption of the Ukraine, who themselves complain of the
brigands in the German Army.
In order to show that it was not only in Zhitomir and Korostyshev that
such things took place, I shall quote yet another report, this time by
the Commissioner of the Kazatinsky district, which contains the
following statement, “. . . The German soldiers stole food, cattle, and
vehicles.” This laconic but significant introduction is followed by no
less significant details:
“Threatening him with a pistol, the corporal demanded the keys
of the granary from the District Commissioner. . . . When I said
that the key was in my pocket, he yelled, ‘Give me the key.’
With these words he pulled out his pistol, stuck it against my
chest, and shouted, ‘I’m going to shoot you—you are a shirker.’
He followed up this remark by a few more specimens of invective,
thrust his hand into my pocket and grabbed the key, saying, ‘I
am the only person who gives orders here.’ This occurred in the
presence of numerous Germans and Ukrainians.”
The chief of the main department, Dr. Moisich, relates the same story in
a report to the Commissioner General of Zhitomir, dated 4 December 1943.
All these documents are being presented in their original form to the
Tribunal.
I shall now, Your Honors, proceed to read excerpts from the official
reports and communiques of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union for the investigation and establishment of crimes committed
by the German intruders and their accomplices. In order to save time, I
ask the Tribunal to permit me to read only a few excerpts from these
documents, and to give you the contents of the rest in my own words.
The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the looting and
crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites in the city and district of Rovno
has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-45.
The corresponding section of this report reads as follows:
“During their stay in Rovno and the district, Hitlerite officers
and soldiers unrestrainedly plundered the peaceful Soviet
citizens and thoroughly looted the property of cultural and
educational institutions.”
I shall not quote all the data mentioned in this report of the
Extraordinary State Commission. The report made by the Extraordinary
State Commission on the atrocities committed by the Hitlerites in Kiev,
and submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-9, emphasizes the
fact that the Hitlerites plundered the peaceful population of Kiev. I
quote a brief extract, “The German occupation forces in the city of Kiev
looted factory equipment and carried it off to Germany.”
Following the directives of the criminal German Government and the
Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces, the satellite states also
joined in plundering and other crimes. Romanian troops who temporarily
occupied Odessa along with German Armed Forces plundered this
flourishing city in accordance with instructions from their German
masters. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning the
crimes committed by German and Romanian invaders in Odessa reads in part
as follows:
“. . . The Romanians damaged Odessa considerably from the
economic and industrial point of view during the occupation.
“German-Romanian aggressors have confiscated and removed to
Romania 1,042,013 centners of grain, 45,227 horses, 87,646 head
of cattle, 31,821 pigs, _et cetera_, belonging to co-operative
farms and co-operative farmers.”
The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the damages
inflicted by the German fascist invaders on industry, urban economy, and
cultural and educational institutions in the Stalino region, already
presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-2, also gives a good
deal of data on the looting and removal to Germany of the factory
equipment of this important industrial region.
I have quoted only a few of the reports compiled by the Extraordinary
State Commission on certain districts of the Ukraine. This flourishing
Soviet republic was subjected to unrestrained looting by the Hitlerites.
The Hitlerite conspirators considered the Ukraine a tidbit and plundered
her with exceptional voracity. I should like to read several documents
in proof of the above.
Rosenberg’s letter to Reichsleiter Bormann dated 17 October 1944. This
document which has already been submitted on 17 December by the United
States Prosecution under Exhibit Number USA-338 (Document Number 327-PS)
states that the Central Trading Company for the East for marketing of
agricultural produce sent the following goods to Germany in the period
between 1943 and 31 March 1944 only:
“Cereals, 9,200,000 tons; meat and meat products, 622,000 tons;
oil seed, 950,000 tons; butter, 208,000 tons; sugar, 400,000
tons; fodder, 2,500,000 tons; potatoes, 3,200,000 tons, and so
forth.”
The Defendant Rosenberg reported his “agricultural achievements” to
Hitler’s closest assistant in these terms.
It should be noted that during the first year of the war the voracity
shown by the Hitlerites in plundering the Ukraine was so great, that it
awakened certain misgivings even in themselves.
I shall read an excerpt from a letter addressed by the Inspector of
Armaments in the Ukraine to the Infantry General Thomas, Chief of the
Economic Armament Office of the OKW. The letter is dated 2 December
1941. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by the United States
Prosecution on 14 December as Document Number 3257-PS. I read a short
excerpt:
“The export of agricultural surpluses from the Ukraine for the
purpose of feeding the Reich is only possible if the internal
trade in the Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. This can be
attained by the following measures:
“1. Elimination of unwanted consumers (Jews; the populations of
the large Ukrainian towns, which, like Kiev, receive no food
allocation whatsoever).
“2. Reduction as far as possible of food rations allocated to
the Ukrainians in other towns.
“3. Reduction of food consumption by the peasant population.”
Having outlined this program, the author explains further:
“If the Ukrainian is to be made to work, we must look after his
physical existence, not for sentimental motives, but for purely
business reasons.”
I omit the next paragraphs of this quotation.
However, the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Koch, went steadily on
with his policy of ruthlessly plundering the Ukraine. In due course I
shall submit to you numerous further documents, also in the original, in
confirmation of the above. Koch’s policy met with the approbation of the
Hitlerite Government.
It is worthy of note that at the beginning of the war the plundering of
the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. was organized in accordance
with the directives contained in the Green File, already mentioned. I
submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-13 (Document Number
USSR-13), a letter by Göring dated 6 September 1941 on the subject of
inspection for the seizure and utilization of raw materials, in which,
among other things, the following passage occurs—the Tribunal will find
this excerpt on Page 131 of the document book:
“The war emergency demands that the supplies of raw materials
found in the recently captured eastern territories be put at the
disposal of the German war economy as quickly as possible. The
Directives for the Economic Management of the Occupied Eastern
Territories (Green File) are to be taken as authoritative.”
I omit the last part of the quotation.
Later however, when the Germans set up their so-called civil
administration and organized a number of special economic bodies in
various occupied territories including the Ukraine, in particular,
disputes arose among the numerous German military and civil bodies and
organizations, all of whom were engaged in plundering the occupied
territories. Rosenberg, as Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied
Territories, began to insist that all military and economic
organizations in the Ukraine were to be liquidated and their functions
transferred to German civil administrations.
I submit to the Tribunal a draft report for State Secretary Körner on
this subject, dated 3 December 1943, as Exhibit Number USSR-180
(Document Number USSR-180). I read from it:
“Subject, 1. Economic administration in the Occupied Eastern
Territories; 2. General economic staff for the occupied
territories.
“In a letter to the Reich Marshal, dated 20 November 1943,
copies of which were sent to the Chief of Staff of the OKW, and
the Leader of the Party Chancellery, Minister Rosenberg made the
following demands:
“1. For the Ukraine,
“a. Military economic establishment still in existence to be
dissolved.
“b. The office of Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments
to be abolished and the military functions of the latter to be
taken over again by the Chief Quartermaster.
“c. In case of the retention of the office of the Chief of the
Army Group Economic Departments the practice of the same
specialists working both in the Reich Commissariat and under the
Chief of the Army Group Economic Departments to be
discontinued.”
I omit the rest. In the same draft are detailed objections made by
General Stapf and submitted by him to Keitel. He criticizes Rosenberg’s
suggestion and advises the retention of the Economic Staff East.
And now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I present as Exhibit
Number USSR-174 (Document Number USSR-174), another original document
which is a covering letter from the Permanent Deputy of the Reich
Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to State Secretary Körner
on the same subject.
Written suggestions by Rosenberg were appended to this letter in which
Rosenberg insists that the entire economic activities be placed under
the control of his ministry once more. As this is a rather long document
and I am presenting it in the original, I ask your permission not to
read it since it is mainly concerned with Rosenberg’s proposal, which I
have already described to the Tribunal. For the information of the
interpreters—I omit two pages of my presentation and pass to Page 62.
Evidently Rosenberg did not receive the answer he wanted, so on 24
January 1944 he again wrote to Göring on the same subject. I submit this
letter as Exhibit Number USSR-179 (Document Number USSR-179). In this
letter Rosenberg suggests—I shall read into the record a short
quotation, which the Tribunal will find on Page 151 of the document
book:
“. . . in the interest of smooth working and economy of staff, I
would request that the Economic Staff East and its subordinate
agencies be abolished and that the economic administration in
the Occupied Eastern Territories and even in those districts
where fighting is still going on, be transferred to my sphere of
authority.”
Göring replied to this in a letter dated 14 February, which I offer in
evidence as part of the same Exhibit Number USSR-179. I quote:
“Dear Party Member Rosenberg:
“I received your letter of 24 January 1944 regarding economic
administration in the Occupied Eastern Territories. Since the
Reich Commissariat Ukraine is now almost entirely army
administrative territory”—this is a reference to the Red Army
offensive—“I consider it advisable to postpone our conference
on the future organization of the economic administration until
the military situation is completely clarified.”
Thus, Your Honors, Rosenberg’s claims met with resistance on the part of
other German authorities who stubbornly refused to give up such a choice
“economic activity.”
Rosenberg in his turn refused to yield and continued to press his
demands. I now offer in evidence the following document, Exhibit Number
USSR-173 (Document Number USSR-173)—this is a letter from Rosenberg to
Göring dated 6 March 1944. In this letter, Rosenberg refers to his
experience in Bielorussia and again urges his proposals. It is a long
document and I shall not read it, as it is presented to the Tribunal _in
toto_. But Göring still had his doubts and decided against Rosenberg.
On 6 April 1944, a month after the above-mentioned letter was sent off,
Rosenberg again wrote to Göring. This document I submit to the Tribunal
as Exhibit Number USSR-176 (Document Number USSR-176). May I omit
reading it into the record, since in substance it is like the last; and
the arguments advanced in it are not such as to interest us greatly now.
I omit Page 65 and pass on to Page 66.
Thus, Your Honors, even when the Red Army was delivering its last
crippling blows against the German fascist hordes, the Hitlerite
brigands went on quarreling about the spoils. I think there is no need
to prove that while this haggling continued, the occupied territories
were looted in feverish haste by the German authorities, both military
and civil.
Now, Your Honors, I shall read some brief excerpts from the report made
by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes
committed by the Hitlerite invaders in the Lithuanian, Latvian, and
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republics, which were also mercilessly
plundered by the German fascist aggressors.
All these reports have been already presented to the Tribunal by the
Soviet Prosecution. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on
the crimes of the Hitlerites in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
contains the following statement:
“As the result of the way in which the Hitlerite invaders
managed affairs, even according to incomplete data, the number
of livestock and poultry in all the 14 districts of the
Lithuanian S.S.R. decreases in comparison with the year 1940-41
by 136,140 horses, 565,995 cattle, 463,340 pigs. . . .”
I shall now quote excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission on the crimes committed by the German invaders in the Latvian
Soviet Socialist Republic. For the information of the interpreters—this
quotation is on Page 68, second paragraph:
“The Germans plundered the depots of tractors and agricultural
machinery throughout Latvia; and according to figures which are
far from complete, they sent to Germany 700 tractors, 180 motor
vehicles, 4,057 ploughs, 2,815 cultivators, 3,532 harrows.”
Second quotation:
“In consequence of the despoliation of Latvian rural economy by
the German invaders, the livestock in Latvia was decreased by
127,300 horses, 443,700 head of cattle, 318,200 pigs, and
593,800 sheep.”
Further, I shall read a short excerpt from the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission on the Estonian S.S.R.: I quote:
“The German invaders plundered the rural population of Estonia
without restraint. This plunder took the form of forcing the
peasants to hand over various kinds of farm produce.
“The quantities of farm produce to be delivered as ordered by
the Germans were very high.”
I omit part of the quotation and I read the second paragraph on the next
page:
“The Germans confiscated and drove to Germany 107,000 horses,
31,000 cows, 214,000 pigs, 790,000 head of poultry. They
plundered about 50,000 beehives.”
I omit one more paragraph and I read the last quotation from this
report:
“The Hitlerites took away 1,000 threshing machines, 600
threshing machine motors, 700 motors for driving belts, 350
tractors, and 24,781 other agricultural machines which were the
personal property of individual peasants.”
Your Honors, a similar policy of plundering private, public, and
national property was also carried out by the German fascist invaders in
the occupied territories of Bielorussia, Moldavia, the Karelo-Finnish
S.S.R. and the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.
Various military units and organizations in different districts of the
U.S.S.R. employed the same methods of plunder at all stages of the war
in accordance with the same criminal plan and in pursuit of the same
criminal aims. This plan was worked out, these aims were determined,
these crimes were organized by the major war criminals who are now in
the dock.
The U.S.S.R. Prosecution has at its disposal tens of thousands of
documents on this subject. The presentation of all these numerous
documents to the Tribunal would require such a long time that it would
only complicate the Trial. For this reason, with the Tribunal’s
permission, I shall not quote any further documents or reports of the
Extraordinary State Commission on separate regions and republics, but I
shall read into the record the statistical report of the Extraordinary
State Commission relative to the material damage done by the German
fascists to state enterprises and establishments, collective farms,
public organizations, and individual citizens of the U.S.S.R.
This document is being presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35). I shall read into the record only
those extracts from the report which have a direct bearing on the
subject of my presentation. They are stated as follows—Page 71 of the
statement:
“The German fascist aggressors destroyed and pillaged 98,000
collective farms, 1,876 State farms, and 2,890 machine and
tractor stations. Seven million horses, 17 million head of
cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep and goats, and 110
million poultry were slaughtered or shipped to Germany.”
The Extraordinary State Commission calculates the damage done to the
national economy of the Soviet Union and to individual villagers and
townspeople at 679,000 millions of rubles reckoned at the official
prices current in 1941 as follows:
“1. State concerns and institutions, 287,000 million rubles; 2.
collective farms, 181,000 million rubles; 3. villagers and
townspeople, 192,000 million rubles; 4. co-operatives, trade
unions, and other public organizations, 19,000 million rubles.”
I omit the following sections of this report, which describe how this
damage is divided among separate Soviet Republics, and I pass on to the
fourth paragraph, which describes the destruction of collective farms,
State farms, and machine tractor stations. In order to save time, I
shall confine myself to a few separate excerpts:
“While burning the villages and hamlets, the German fascists
plundered completely the inhabitants of these villages. Those of
the peasants who offered resistance were brutally murdered.”
Further, some concrete data are given on the plundering in the
Kamenetz-Podolsk and the Kursk region, the collective farm “For Peace
and Work” in the region of Krasnodar, the collective farms “For the
Times” in the Stalino region, as well as collective farms in Mogilev and
Zhitomir districts and others. The German fascist invaders inflicted
great damage on the State farms of the U.S.S.R. They shipped out of
collective farms all stocks of agricultural products and destroyed farm
and other buildings belonging to the state farms.
Another excerpt:
“Horse Farm Number 62 in the Poltava district lost its stock of
Russo-American trotting brood mares through the German
occupation. Up to the war, this stud farm had 670 brood mares.
The Germans acted in the same way in regard to other breeding
farms.”
I omit the remaining excerpt of this section; and I pass on to Paragraph
6, which deals with the mass looting of Soviet citizens’ property by the
Germans:
“In all the republics, districts, and territories of the Soviet
Union which were occupied, the fascist German invaders looted
the property of the rural and urban population, stealing
valuables, property, clothing, and household articles, and
imposing fines, taxes, and contributions on the peaceful
population.”
The same section contains a whole series of concrete facts of the
plunder of Soviet citizens in Smolensk, Orel and Leningrad Provinces;
the Dniepropetrovsk and Sumsky Provinces, _et cetera_. With the
Tribunal’s permission, I omit two pages of my presentation, and I read
the following paragraph at the bottom of Page 76:
“The plundering of the Soviet population was being carried out
by the German aggressors throughout the whole of the occupied
Soviet territory.
“The Extraordinary State Commission has undertaken the task of
estimating the damage done to the Soviet citizens by the
occupation authorities and has established that the German
fascist invaders burned down and destroyed approximately four
million dwelling houses which were the personal property of
collective farmers, workers, and employees; confiscated 1½
million horses, 9 million head of cattle, 12 million pigs, 13
million sheep and goats; and took away an enormous quantity of
household goods and chattel of all kinds.”
The above documents and reports of the Extraordinary State Commission
depict the crimes committed by the Hitlerites in the occupied
territories of the U.S.S.R. These crimes had been organized by the
defendants.
The fact that Göring, in his capacity as Reich Marshal and
Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan of the Hitlerite Government, was
directly in charge of all the operations of the German military and
civil authorities for the preparation and execution of despoliation of
the occupied territories, is clearly shown by the documents which I have
already presented. Nevertheless, I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal to
read the final document on this matter, that is, the decree issued by
Hitler on 29 June 1941.
A copy of this decree was kindly put at our disposal by the American
Prosecution, and it has not yet been presented. I, therefore, present it
to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-287 (Document Number USSR-287).
This decree reads as follows:
“1. Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, as Plenipotentiary for the
Four Year Plan, will employ, within the scope of the power
allotted to him for the purpose, all means necessary for
exploiting to the fullest extent supplies and economic resources
discovered in the newly occupied eastern territories and for
developing all their economic possibilities for the benefit of
the German war economy.
“2. For this purpose he is also authorized to give direct orders
to military authorities in the newly occupied eastern
territories.
“3. This decree will become effective as from today. It must
first be made public by special order.”
However, Your Honors, the granting of extraordinary powers to Göring
does not, in any way, mean that the other defendants took only a passive
interest in organizing the looting of the occupied territories. All of
them, jointly and separately, worked feverishly in this direction. Frank
robbed the Poles; Rosenberg managed affairs in the Ukraine and in the
other occupied territories of the U.S.S.R.; Sauckel and Seyss-Inquart
were busy here and there; Speer and Funk made schemes for and carried
out predatory measures within the scope of the Ministry of Economics and
the Ministry for Armament and War Production, while Keitel acted in the
field of the Armed Forces.
In this connection I should like to submit to the Tribunal two more
documents relating to Keitel’s economic activities. These documents,
Your Honors, are presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-175
(Document Number USSR-175). On 29 August 1942 Keitel, in his capacity of
Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, issued the following
order under “Number 002865/42-g.Kdos. regarding securing of supplies for
the Armed Forces.” I shall read only two short excerpts from this order.
Your Honors will find them on Page 181 of the document book. I read:
“The food situation of the German people is such that it is
necessary for the Armed Forces to contribute as far as possible
towards alleviating it. All the necessary means of doing so
exist in the combat zones and in the occupied territories both
in the East and in the West.
“It is essential, above all, that much greater quantities of
supplies and forage . . . should be secured in the occupied
territories of the East than has been the case up to now.”
The second excerpt:
“All establishments should consider it their pride as well as
their duty to attain this goal at all costs so that in this
field, too, they may play a decisive part in achieving victory.”
In a memorandum by section chiefs Klare and Dr. Bergmann, dated, “19
November 1942, most secret, subject: Procurement of Supplies for the
Armed Forces”—I submit this memorandum in the original to the Tribunal
under the same number, Document Number USSR-175—we find the following
estimate of the results achieved by the above-mentioned order from
Keitel. I now read into the record only the first paragraph of this
memorandum.
“By order of the Führer, the Chief of the OKW has decreed in the
attached order of 29 August 1942 that the Armed Forces must, as
far as possible, contribute towards the task of ensuring food
supplies for the German people and that they must themselves
make every effort, not only to obtain sufficient food supplies
locally to cover the needs of the armies, but also to ensure
that the quantities required by the Reich are secured in
addition.
“As the result of this order co-operation between the Army and
the economic authorities has fortunately grown closer.”
Now with Your Honor’s permission, I shall read into the record one more
document, namely, a telegram sent by Keitel on 8 September 1944. This
document was kindly put at our disposal by the American Prosecution and
registered as Document Number 743-PS. It was not presented to the
Tribunal before; I therefore submit it now as Exhibit Number USSR-286,
and I quote:
“1. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General
Quartermaster, Office of Chief of Staff, (Anna).
“2. To General Staff of the Army: Attention General
Quartermaster, Army Administration Office, (Anna-Bu).
“3. To Commanding General, Army Group North.
“4. To Commanding General, Army Group Center.
“5. To Economic Staff East.
“6. To Military District H.Q.I.”
I read this text as follows:
“1. The Führer has entrusted Gauleiter Koch with the utilization
of local resources in the parts of Reichskommissariat Ostland
occupied by troops of Army Group Center. Furthermore, the Führer
has ordered that all German and local administrative authorities
be subordinated to Gauleiter Koch. In securing economic
resources, Gauleiter Koch is to maintain contact with competent
Supreme Reich agencies.
“2. All authorities of the Armed Forces will give Gauleiter Koch
every assistance in their power in executing this order.”
Thus, Your Honors, even at the end of 1944, when under the blows of the
Red Army and its allies Hitlerite Germany was precipitated towards its
final defeat and only a few months before its final military and
political collapse, Hitler, Keitel, Koch, and many others were still
stretching out their already stiffening fingers to grab the property and
wealth of others.
This is the evidence I have to show regarding the looting and marauding
perpetrated by the Hitlerite hordes in the occupied territories of the
Soviet Union. But they plundered not only the living, they also
plundered the dead. My colleague, Colonel Smirnov, has already presented
comprehensive evidence on this question. I do not wish to quote it
again, but I refer to it only to show how closely interlocked and
all-embracing was the circle of their crimes. As Rauschning testifies in
his book, which has already been presented by the Soviet Prosecution to
the Tribunal, Hitler once said:
“I need people with strong fists whose principles will not
prevent them from taking human life if necessary; and if on
occasion they swipe a watch or a jewel, I don’t care a tinker’s
damn.”
And Hitler actually found these men in the persons of the defendants and
their numerous accomplices.
As the documents which I have just presented show, the Defendant Göring,
on account of his position in Hitler’s Government as Reich Marshal and
Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan and as head of the whole criminal
system for the plundering of the occupied territories, was guilty of
these crimes.
For this reason the stenographic record of a secret conference of German
administrative leaders (Reich Commissioners) for the occupied countries,
which took place on 6 August 1942, is of particular interest. Göring
presided over the meeting. This document, like many other original
documents which I had the honor of presenting today to the Tribunal, was
found by Soviet military authorities in September 1945 in one of the
municipal buildings of the town of Jena, in Thuringia.
This extraordinary document contains a long speech by Göring and the
replies of the Hitlerite rulers of the occupied countries. And, Your
Honors, many of the people who are sitting in the dock now took part in
this conference. The contents of this document are such that any comment
on my part is unnecessary. Therefore, if it pleases the Tribunal, I
shall proceed to read from this document.
“Stenographic notes; Thursday, 6 August 1942, 4 p. m., in the
Hermann Göring Hall in the Air Ministry.
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘The Gauleiter stated their views here
yesterday. Although they may have differed in tone and manner,
it was evident that they all feel that the German people have
too little to eat. Gentlemen, the Führer has given me general
powers exceeding any hitherto granted within the Four Year Plan.
“‘At this moment Germany commands the richest granaries that
ever existed in the European area, stretching from the Atlantic
to the Volga and the Caucasus, lands more highly developed and
fruitful than ever before, even if a few of them cannot be
described as granaries. I need only remind you of the fabulous
fertility of the Netherlands, the unique paradise that is
France. Belgium too is extraordinarily fruitful and so is the
province of Posen. Then, above all, the Government General has
to a great extent the rye and wheat granary of Europe, and along
with it the amazingly fertile districts of Lemberg (Lvov) and
Galicia, where the harvest is exceptionally good. Then there
comes Russia, the black earth of the Ukraine on both shores of
the Dnieper, the Don region, with its remarkably fertile
districts which have scarcely been destroyed. Our troops have
now occupied, or are in process of occupying, the excessively
fertile districts between the Don and the Caucasus.’”
Göring then goes on to say:
“‘God knows, you are not sent out there to work for the welfare
of the people in your charge but to squeeze the utmost out of
them, so that the German people may live. That is what I expect
of your exertions. This everlasting concern about foreign
peoples must cease now, once and for all.
“‘I have here before me reports on what you expect to be able to
deliver. It is nothing at all when I consider your territories.
It makes no difference to me if you say that your people are
starving.
“‘One thing I shall certainly do. I will make you deliver the
quantities asked of you; and if you cannot do so, I will set
forces to work that will force you to do so whether you want to
or not.
“‘The wealth of Holland lies close to the Ruhr. It could send a
much greater quantity of vegetables into this stricken area now
than it has done so far. What do I care what the Dutchmen think
of it.
“‘The only people in whom I am interested in the occupied
territories are those who work to provide armaments and food
supplies. They must receive just enough to enable them to
continue working. It is all one to me whether Dutchmen are
Germanic or not. They are only all the greater blockheads if
they are; and more important persons than they have shown in the
past how Germanic numskulls sometimes have to be treated. Even
if you receive abuses from every quarter, you will have acted
rightly, for it is the Reich alone that counts.’”
And now I come to the next excerpt:
“‘I am still discussing the western territories. Belgium has
taken care of herself extraordinarily well. That was very
sensible of Belgium. But there, too, gentlemen, rage incarnate
could seize me. If every plot of ground in Belgium is planted
with vegetables, then they must surely have had vegetable seed.
When Germany wanted to start a big campaign last year for
utilizing uncultivated land, we did not have nearly as much seed
as we needed. Neither Holland nor Belgium nor France have
delivered it, although I myself was able to count 170 sacks of
vegetable seed on a single street in Paris. It is all very well
for the French to plant vegetables for themselves. They are
accustomed to doing this. But, gentlemen, these people are all
our enemies and you will not win over any of them by humane
measures. The people are polite to us now because they have to
be polite. But let the English once force their way in and then
you will see the real face of the Frenchman. The same Frenchman
who dines with you and in turn invites you to dine with him will
at once make it plain to you that the Frenchman is a
German-hater. That is the situation, and we do not want to see
it any other way than it is.
“‘It is a matter of indifference to me how many courses are
served every day at the table of the Belgian king. The king is a
prisoner of war; and if he is not treated as such, I will see to
it that he is taken to some other place where this can be made
clear to him. I am really fed up with the business.
“‘I have forgotten one country because nothing is to be had
there except fish; that is Norway.
“‘With regard to France, I say that it is still not cultivated
to the greatest possible extent. France can be cultivated in a
very different way if the peasants there are forced to work in a
different manner. Secondly, inside France itself the population
is gorging itself to a scandalous degree. . . .
“‘Besides, Heaven help a German car parked outside a French
tavern in Paris! it is reported. But a whole row of French
gasoline-driven vehicles parked there doesn’t bother anyone.
“‘I would say nothing at all, on the contrary, I would not think
much of you if we didn’t have a marvelous restaurant in Paris
where we could get the best food obtainable. But I do not want
the French to be able to saunter into it. Maxim must have the
best food for us.’”
Mr. President, I see one of the German Defense Counsel wishes to take
the floor. I shall, therefore, give him an opportunity to do so.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, I
have only a short question.
The prosecutor has not told us where this document can be found, in
which document book and what number it has. He mentioned only the page
on which the Court can find that document.
MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: This document was presented to the Tribunal as
Document Number USSR-170. The photostatic copy was turned over to
Defense Counsel.
May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: It comes from the archives of the Defendant Göring, does
it not? You have so stated.
MR. COUNSELLOR SHENIN: Yes.
“‘For German officers and men three or four first-class
restaurants—excellent, but not for the French.’”
I quote the next excerpt:
“‘Furthermore, you should be like bloodhounds on the track of
anything the German people can use; that stuff should be brought
here out of the warehouses like lightning. Whenever I issued a
decree, I stated repeatedly that soldiers are entitled to buy as
much as they want and whatever they want, as much as they can
carry. . . .
“‘Now you will say—Laval’s foreign policy. Herr Laval calms
down Herr Abetz and as far as I am concerned, may go to Maxim’s,
although it is out of bounds. But the French will soon have to
learn. You have no idea of the impudence they have. When our
friends hear that a German is interested they charge fantastic
prices. They charge three times the normal price and if they
hear that the Reich Marshal is in the market, they charge five
times the normal price. I wanted to buy a tapestry. Two million
francs was asked. The woman was told that the buyer wanted to
see the tapestry. She said she did not wish to let it out of her
sight. Well, then she would have to go with it. She was told
that she was going to see the Reich Marshal. When she arrived
the tapestry was priced at 3 million francs. I reported it. Do
you think anything was done? I submitted the case to the French
court and they taught milady that it is inadvisable to profiteer
when dealing with me.
“‘All that interests me is what we can squeeze out of the
territory now under our control with the utmost application and
by straining every nerve; and how much of that can be diverted
to Germany. I don’t give a damn about import and export
statistics of former years.
“‘Now, regarding shipments to the Reich. Last year France
shipped 550,000 tons of grain, and now I demand 1.2 million
tons. Two weeks from now a plan will be submitted for handling
it. There will be no more discussion about it. What happens to
the Frenchmen is of no importance. One million two hundred
thousand tons will be delivered. Fodder—last year 550,000 tons,
now 1 million; meat—last year 135,000 tons, now 350,000;
fats—last year 23,000, this year 60,000.’”
And so on.
The next excerpt from this address concerns the quotas to be fixed for
deliveries from countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and
the Government General. In reply to Göring’s questions and instructions
definite figures were quoted by those attending the meeting. I omit one
page and continue:
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘So much for the West. A special order
will be issued concerning purchasers who buy up all the clothes,
shoes, _et cetera_, that are to be had.
“‘Now comes the East. I have settled this point with the
Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht waives the demands it made on the home
country. How much hay was required?’
“Backe: ‘1.5 million tons. Over 1 million tons straw and 1½
million tons oats. We can’t manage that.(?)’
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Now, gentlemen, there is only one thing
more regarding Wehrmacht supplies. I want to hear nothing more
about you until further notice. No more requests. The
country—with its sour cream, apples, and white bread—will feed
us abundantly. The Don valley will take care of the rest.’”
Passing to the next quotation—Göring is speaking:
“‘The Wehrmacht in France will, of course, be supplied with food
by France. That is a matter of course, and I did not even
mention it before.
“‘Now about Russia: There is no doubt of her fertility. The
position there is almost incredibly good. . . .’”
The next quotation—Göring is still speaking:
“‘I was glad to hear that the Reich Commissioner in Ostland is
doing just as well, and the people are just as fat and chubby
and puff a little when they work. Nevertheless, I shall see to
it, no matter how carefully certain groups are treated, that
some contribution is made from the inexhaustible fertility of
this area.’”
After this Lohse, Reich Commissioner for Bielorussia, addressed the
meeting:
“‘May I state my opinion in a few words? I should like to give
you more but certain conditions have to be observed. The harvest
is certainly excellent but in more than half of the area of
Bielorussia which is well cultivated, it is scarcely possible to
get in the crops, unless we can put a stop to the disturbances
caused by guerrillas and partisans. I have already been crying
out for help for 4 months.’”
Lohse goes on to describe the activities of the partisans in
Bielorussia. In this connection Göring interrupts him and says:
“‘My dear Lohse, we have known each other for a long time. I
know well enough that you are a great poet.’”
And Lohse answered:
“‘I won’t stand for that; I have never written poetry.’”
In conclusion I quote the last three quotations from Göring’s speech. He
said:
“‘We must have buyers from the Ministry of Economics, Funk, in
the Ukraine and elsewhere. We must send them to Venice to buy
odds and ends, those frightful alabaster things and cheap
jewelry, _et cetera_. I don’t think there is any other place
except Italy where one gets quite such junk.
“‘Now let us see what Russia can deliver. I think, Riecke, we
should be able to get 2 million tons of cereals and fodder out
of the whole of Russia.’
“Riecke: ‘That can be done.’
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘That means that we must get 3 million,
apart from Wehrmacht supplies.’
“Riecke: ‘No, all that is in the front areas goes for the
Wehrmacht only.’
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘Then we bring 2 million.’
“Riecke: ‘No.’
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘A million and a half then.’
“Riecke: ‘Yes.’
“Reich Marshal Göring: ‘All right.’”
The discussion went on in the same way. Göring’s speech ends with the
following sentence:
“‘Gentlemen, I would just like to say one thing more. I have a
very great deal to do and a very great deal of responsibility. I
have no time to read letters and memoranda informing me that you
cannot supply my requirements. I have only time to ascertain
from time to time through short reports from Backe whether the
commitments are being fulfilled. If not, then we shall have to
meet on a different level.’”
As Your Honors have heard, besides Göring this conference was attended
by the Defendants Rosenberg, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, Frank, Funk, and
others. As you have heard, Göring finished his speech with a direct
threat against the participants in this conference, by saying that “we
shall have to meet on a different level.” This threat came true. The
matter has, in every sense of the term, been met on a different
level—from the level of the dock.
Thus the whole volume of evidence submitted establishes beyond all
doubt:
1. That simultaneously with their well-laid preparations for the
military invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the
U.S.S.R., the criminal Hitlerite Government and the Supreme Command of
the German Armed Forces worked out a plan for the mass plunder and
spoliation of private, public, and state-owned property in the
territories belonging to these countries.
2. That having worked out this criminal plan, the conspirators carried
out all the preliminary measures necessary for its execution by training
special bodies of officers and officials for the despoliation of the
territories they meant to seize by preparing and issuing special
instructions, reference books, and orders for this purpose, and by
creating a special and very complicated organization of all sorts of
“economic inspectorates,” “detachments,” “groups,” “joint stock
companies,” “plenipotentiaries,” _et cetera_, and by calling in a large
number of specialists in different branches, military experts on
agriculture, agricultural leaders, economic spies, _et cetera_.
3. That in accordance with this long-prepared plan, they subsequently
plundered and despoiled private, public, and State property in the
occupied territories and also robbed the peaceful population of these
territories, having recourse to atrocities, violence, and arbitrary
practices of the most appalling nature.
4. That in order to make the soldiers and the officers of the German
Army “economically interested” in the war, the conspirators not only
failed to prosecute cases of marauding and robbery committed, by German
soldiers and officers, but even encouraged these crimes and incited
their men to commit wholesale looting.
5. That by the commission of all these crimes the conspirators caused
enormous economic damage to the people of the occupied territories,
exposing them to starvation and suffering, and that they profited by
their criminal activities for the personal gain and enrichment of
themselves and their adherents.
6. That having thus planned, prepared, and initiated wars of aggression
against the freedom-loving nations, the conspirators aimed at the
predatory despoliation of these nations and thereafter achieved these
criminal ends by means of equally criminal and predatory methods.
On the strength of the above, the defendants have consciously and
deliberately violated Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907, the
laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law accepted
by the penal codes of all civilized nations, as well as the national law
of those countries in which these crimes were committed.
For these criminal acts, Your Honors, each and all of which are covered
by Article 6(b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal,
all the defendants must be found guilty; all of them without exception
must be held responsible both individually and as members of the
conspiracy.
May it please Your Honors, the documents which I have presented to the
Tribunal and which I have read into the record are silent witnesses to
the crimes organized and committed by the defendants.
But the conscience of the Judges will hear the testimony of these silent
witnesses, who relate truthfully the story of the arbitrary practices
and crimes of the Hitlerite brigands and the boundless sufferings of
their innumerable victims.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 21 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SIXTY-FOURTH DAY
Thursday, 21 February 1946
_Morning Session_
MARSHAL: The Defendant Hess will be absent from today’s session on
account of illness.
GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to inform Your Honor that in accordance with
the plan of the Soviet Prosecution presented to the Tribunal and with
the permission of the Tribunal, we shall start presenting evidence on
that section entitled, “The Destruction and Plunder of Cultural and
Scientific Treasures, Cultural Institutions, Monasteries, Churches, and
Other Religious Institutions, as well as the Destruction of Cities and
Villages.”
The evidence on this section will be presented by State Counsellor of
Justice of the Second Class, Raginsky.
STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE SECOND CLASS M. Y. RAGINSKY
(Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors,
among the numerous and grievous war crimes committed by the Hitlerite
conspirators—crimes enumerated in detail in Count Three of the
Indictment—crimes against culture occupy a definite place of their own.
These crimes expressed all the abomination and vandalism of German
fascism.
The Hitlerite conspirators considered culture of the mind and of
humanity as an obstacle to the fulfillment of their monstrous designs
against mankind, and they removed this obstacle with their own typical
cruelty. In working out their insane plans for world domination, the
Hitlerite conspirators, side by side with the initiation and prosecution
of predatory wars, prepared a campaign against world culture. They
dreamed of turning Europe back to the days of her domination by the Huns
and Teutons. They tried to set mankind back.
It is unnecessary to quote the numerous pronouncements of the fascist
ringleaders on this subject. I shall permit myself merely to refer to
one pronouncement of Hitler’s quoted on Page 80 of Rauschning’s book,
and already presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution. “We,”
said Hitler, “are barbarians and we wish to be barbarians. It is an
honorable calling.”
On behalf of the Soviet Prosecution, I shall present to the Tribunal
evidence of how the defendants put into practice these orders of Hitler,
which found concrete expression in the wrecking of cultural
institutions, the looting and destruction of cultural treasures, and the
suffocation of the national cultural life of the peoples in the
territories temporarily occupied by the German armies, that is, the
territories of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
I shall present to the Tribunal evidence of the Hitlerites’ preparations
and planning for the looting of cultural treasures; how, long before the
treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R., the so-called Einsatzstab Rosenberg
prepared for pillage, how the predatory activity of the Defendant
Rosenberg was co-ordinated with Göring, Heydrich, and the Supreme
Command, and how this pillage was disguised.
It is now generally known to what monstrous lies and provocations the
Hitlerites resorted in the camouflaging of their crimes. While
annihilating millions of people in the extermination camps they had set
up, they spoke, in their orders, of “filtration” and “cleansing.” While
destroying and plundering cultural treasures, the fascist vandals sought
shelter behind the terms “collection of materials” and the “study of
problems,” and shamelessly referred to themselves as “bearers of
culture.”
The Hitlerite conspirators endeavored to change into serfs, bereft of
all their rights, the peoples of the territories seized; and, for this
purpose, they destroyed the national culture of these peoples.
The destruction of the national culture of the Slav peoples and
particularly of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Bielorussian cultures, the
destruction of national monuments, schools, literature, and the
compulsory Germanization of the population, followed the German
occupation everywhere, in obedience to the same criminal principle which
governed the ensuing pillage, rape, arson, and mass murders.
I omit, Mr. President, the end of Page 3 and Page 4 of my presentation,
and I proceed to the presentation of Section 2, Page 5.
As I have already indicated, the destruction of the national culture of
the peoples in the occupied territories was a fundamental part of the
general plan for world domination established by Hitler’s conspirators.
It is difficult to determine whether destruction or plunder was the
prevalent factor in these plans. But there is no disputing the fact that
both plunder and destruction were aimed at one goal only—extermination;
and this extermination was carried out everywhere, in all the
territories occupied by the Germans, and on an enormous scale.
Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Convention laid down, I quote:
“The property of municipalities, of Church institutions and
establishments dedicated to charity and education, arts and
sciences, even when belonging to the State, shall be considered
as private property. All premeditated seizure of, and
destruction or damage to, institutions of this character, to
historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden and
should be made the subject of legal proceedings.”
The Hitlerites consciously and systematically scoffed at the principles
and demands laid down in Article 56. All the conspirators are guilty of
this, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the first place.
Rosenberg had an organization with widespread ramifications for the
plunder of cultural treasures and with numerous staffs and
representatives. The Einsatzstab Rosenberg and Rosenberg’s chief of
staff, Utikal, were the central point of the network co-ordinating the
criminal activities of many predatory organizations inspired and
directed by the Hitlerite Government together with the German Supreme
Command. Rosenberg was officially placed in charge of plundering the
cultural treasures in the occupied territories by a decree of Hitler of
1 March 1942.
I have in mind Document Number 149-PS presented to the Tribunal on 18
December of last year by the United States Prosecution and accepted by
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-369. With your permission, Mr.
President, I shall quote only two paragraphs of this document. You will
find this document on Page 3 of your document book. I quote:
“His”—Rosenberg’s—“Einsatzstab for the occupied territories
has the right to investigate libraries, archives, and every
other kind of cultural establishment for corresponding
materials, and to confiscate these materials for the realization
of the ideological aims of the National Socialist Party. . . .”
I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph of this document:
“The regulations for the co-operation with the Armed Forces are
issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces
in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.
“The necessary measures for the eastern territories under German
administration will be taken by Reichsleiter Rosenberg in his
capacity as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern
Territories.”
This decree of Hitler’s was issued, as is clear from the document
quoted, to all departments of the Armed Forces, the Party, and the
Government.
But it is not 1 March 1942 which should be considered as the beginning
of Rosenberg’s predatory activities. I shall submit several excerpts
from a letter of Rosenberg to Reichsleiter Bormann in confirmation. The
letter is dated 23 April 1941. This document was presented to the
Tribunal on 18 December 1945 by the United States Prosecution, and it
was accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-371 (Document Number
071-PS).
This document—which Your Honors will find on Page 4 of your document
book—is interesting also for the fact that the plunder, referred to as
“confiscation” in the letter, was carried out by the Defendant Rosenberg
in close collaboration and contact, based on a written agreement,
between the departments of Rosenberg and Himmler. I cite extracts from
Page 1 of the Russian translation of this letter:
“I have”—wrote Rosenberg—“transmitted to you a photostatic
copy of my agreement with the Security Police (SD), concluded
with the express approval of Gruppenführer Heydrich.”
And further—you will find this on Page 5 in your document book:
“Questions bearing on works of art”—as stated in this
letter—“were considered of secondary importance. Of primary
importance was the Führer’s directive regarding the twice-issued
order from the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces,
for the occupied territories of the West, to the effect that all
archives and all scientific property belonging to our
ideological opponents, be placed at my disposal. This, too, was
carried out on a wide scale and in close co-operation with the
SD and the military leaders.”
The importance attached by the Hitlerite conspirators to Rosenberg’s
predatory staffs is shown in Göring’s special circular of 1 May 1941,
addressed to all Party, Government, and military institutions, which had
been ordered to co-operate with the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This document
was presented by our American colleagues on 18 December of last year and
accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-384 (Document Number
1117-PS).
Even at that time the scale on which the pillage was conducted was
already enormous. As Rosenberg stated in his letter of 23 April 1941, at
that time, that is, in April 1941, 7,000 cases of looted works of art
had already been dispatched to Germany.
To conclude with this document I shall, with your permission, read one
further brief quotation into the record. It consists of one paragraph
only. You will find this paragraph on Page 6 of the document book:
“And thus”—wrote Rosenberg—“these problems practically solved
themselves and the work has followed its own course. Here I
would like to ask for a confirmation that these decisions,
already adopted in the West, should, in the present
circumstances, be rendered valid in the other occupied
territories, or in those which are to be occupied.”
This document, in which pillage is referred to as “work,” proves that
Rosenberg’s criminal activities were carried out in close contact with
the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces; and, finally, that as early as
April 1941 plans were being made for plundering the territories about to
be occupied.
The speech of the Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko,
and the speech of the representative of the United States Prosecution,
Mr. Alderman, defined what Rosenberg meant in his letter by “territories
about to be occupied” at that time. That was the period of the practical
realization of the evil Hitlerite schemes, planned in the so-called Plan
Barbarossa, the period when the German fascist hordes were hurled
against the frontiers of the Soviet Union, the period of the attack on
the U.S.S.R.
Lastly, it is necessary to point out that, in April 1941, the Defendant
Rosenberg placed Utikal at the head of all operational staffs, “the
creation of which may become necessary during the course of this war.”
In this connection Rosenberg referred to the “successful work” and to
the “experience gained” by his operational staff in the western occupied
territories and in the Netherlands.
This fact is confirmed by a certificate issued to Utikal, dated 1 April
1941, and signed by Rosenberg. The authenticity of this document—which
bears Document Number 143-PS—was confirmed by Rosenberg at his
interrogation on 26 September 1945. I present this document to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-371.
In reporting on the organization for the looting and destruction of
cultural treasures, it is necessary to indicate yet another department
which combined diplomacy with pillage. I have in mind the German
Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, in his opening
speech pointed out that the general pillage in the occupied regions of
the U.S.S.R., carried out on the direct orders of the German Government,
was directed not only by the Defendants Göring and Rosenberg and by the
various “staffs” and “commands” subordinated to them; the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, headed by the Defendant Ribbentrop, also participated
through a “special formation.”
The creation of such a formation—the so-called “Ribbentrop
Battalion”—and its practical activities in the looting of cultural
treasures in the territory of the U.S.S.R. are testified to in a written
statement of 10 November 1942 by Obersturmführer Dr. Förster, who was
captured by Red Army units in the region of Mosdok. In this statement
Förster likewise indicated the task of Rosenberg’s staff in the plunder
or, as he expressed it, in the “withdrawal” of museum treasures and
antiques. A certified photostat of this statement I present to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-157 (Document Number USSR-157).
It is stated in Förster’s statement, I read:
“In August 1941 while in Berlin, I, with the assistance of my
old acquaintance from the University of Berlin, Dr. Focke, then
employed in the press section of the Foreign Office, was
transferred from the 87th Tank Destroyer Division to the special
purpose battalion attached to the Foreign Office. This battalion
had been created on the initiative of the Reich Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, and was under his direction. The
officer commanding the battalion is Major of the Waffen-SS, Von
Künsberg.
“The task of the special purpose battalion was to seize and to
secure, immediately after the fall of large cities, their
cultural treasures and all objects of great historic value, to
select valuable books and films, and finally to dispatch them
all to Germany.
“The special purpose battalion consists of four companies. The
first company is attached to the German Expeditionary Corps in
Africa, the second company to Army Group North, the third to
Army Group Center, and the fourth to Army Group South. The first
company is located at present in Italy, in Naples, awaiting
possible deployment to Africa. Battalion staff headquarters are
in Berlin, Hermann Göring Strasse, Number 104. The confiscated
material is stored in the premises of the Adler firm, in the
Hardenbergstrasse.
“Prior to our departure for Russia, Major Von Künsberg
transmitted to us Ribbentrop’s order, thoroughly to ‘comb out’
all scientific establishments, institutions, libraries, and all
the palaces, to search all the archives, and to lay our hands on
anything of a definite value.
“I heard from my comrades that the second company of our
battalion had removed valuable objects from the palaces in the
Leningrad suburbs. I myself was not there at the time. At
Zarskoje Selo the company seized and secured the property
belonging to the palace-museum of the Empress Catherine. The
Chinese silk draperies and the carved gilt ornaments were torn
from the walls. The floor of artistic ornaments was dismantled
and taken away. From the palace of the Emperor Alexander antique
furniture and a large library containing some 6,000 to 7,000
volumes in French and over 5,000 volumes and manuscripts in
Russian, were removed.
“The fourth company, to which I was attached, confiscated the
Kiev laboratory of the Medical and Scientific Research
Institute. The entire equipment, as well as scientific material,
documents and books, was shipped to Germany.
“We reaped a rich harvest in the library of the Ukrainian
Academy of Science, treasuring the rarest manuscripts of
Persian, Abyssinian, and Chinese literature, Russian and
Ukrainian chronicles, the first edition books printed by the
first Russian printer, Ivan Fjodorov, and rare editions of the
works of Shevtchenko, Mickiewicz, and Ivan Franko.
“From the Kiev museums of Ukrainian art, Russian art, Western
and Eastern art and from the central Shevtchenko museum numerous
exhibits which still remained there, including paintings,
portraits by Repin, canvases by Vereschagin, Fedotoff, Goe,
sculptures by Antokolsky and other masterpieces of Russian and
Ukrainian painters and sculptors were dispatched to Berlin.
“In Kharkov several thousand valuable books in de luxe editions
were seized from the Korolenko library and sent to Berlin. The
remaining books were destroyed. From the Kharkov picture gallery
several hundred pictures were secured, including 14 pictures by
Aivasovsky, works by Repin and many paintings by Polienov,
Schischkin, and others. Antique sculptures and the entire
scientific archive of the museum were also taken away.
Embroideries, carpets, Gobelin tapestries, and other exhibits
were appropriated by the German soldiers.
“I also knew”—testified Dr. Förster in his statement—“that the
staff of Alfred Rosenberg used special kommandos for the
confiscation of valuable antique and museum pieces in the
occupied countries of Europe and in the territories of the East.
Civilian experts were in charge of these kommandos.
“After the occupation of any big city, the leaders of these
kommandos arrive, accompanied by various art experts. They
inspect museums, picture galleries, exhibitions, and
institutions of art and culture, they determine their condition
and confiscate everything of value.”
I omit the last paragraph of this statement.
With your permission, Your Honors, I shall read two more excerpts into
the record from a letter of the Reich Minister for the Occupied
Territories, dated 7 April 1942, and signed by order of the Minister, by
Laibrandt, closest assistant of the Defendant Rosenberg. This letter,
Your Honors, is in your document book, on Pages 12 and 13, and was
submitted on 18 December last year by the United States Prosecution as
Exhibit Number USSR-408 (Document Number USSR-408).
This document is very revealing in that it indicates the scale of the
projected pillage and disguises this pillage which, in the document, is
shamelessly referred to as “the preservation of objects of culture,
research material, and of scientific institutions in the Occupied
Eastern Territories.”
This document is also characteristic in that Rosenberg, fearing that he
might miss some of the booty, established his own monopoly to plunder
and only made concessions to the quartermaster general of the Army, in
conjunction with whom—as the letter reveals—Operational Staff
Rosenberg carried on its “work.”
I read the first excerpt of this letter. I quote:
“I have entrusted the Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the Occupied
Territories with the listing and detailed handling of all
cultural valuables, research materials, and scientific work in
libraries, archives, research institutions, museums, et cetera,
found in public and religious establishments, as well as in
private houses. The Einsatzstab, instructed once again by the
Führer’s order of 1 March 1942, begins its work jointly with the
quartermaster general of the Army immediately after the
occupation of the territories by combat troops and executes this
work after the establishment of civil government, in
co-operation with the competent Reich Commissioner, until such
time as the task is completed. I request all the authorities of
my department to support, as far as possible, the
representatives of the Einsatzstab in the execution of these
measures and to supply them with all essential information,
especially in connection with the registration of objects in the
occupied territories, whether or not they have been removed, and
if so, where this material is located at the present time.”
As you see, Your Honors, the looting of libraries, archives, scientific
research institutes, museums—both public and private—and even of
church treasures, was already being planned.
The fact that this is not a question of preserving cultural treasures,
but of plunder, is revealed by the following excerpt from the letter
mentioned. You will find it on Page 12 of your document book. I quote:
“Insofar as seizures or transports have already taken place
contrary to these provisions . . . Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s
Einsatzstab, Berlin-Charlottenburg (2), Bismarckstrasse 1, must
be informed without delay.”
I shall not burden you by enumerating the many addresses to whom copies
of this letter were sent. I shall merely name some of them: OKH, the
Reich Minister of Economics, the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan,
the Reich Commissioners for the Baltic regions, the Ukraine, _et
cetera_. Thus this document reconfirms that both Göring and Funk, as
well as the representatives of the OKH, actively participated in this
pillage.
The priceless works of art plundered in the occupied countries were
removed to Germany, now transformed by the Hitlerites into a robber’s
den.
The Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union established that,
in January 1943, the Commander of the 1st Tank Army, Cavalry General
Mackensen, in the presence of the head of the propaganda department of
the 1st Tank Army, Müller, removed from the Rostov Museum of Pictorial
and Plastic Art, which had been evacuated to the town of Piatigorsk and
which was then on the premises of the Lermontov Museum, the most
valuable canvases of Ribera, Rubens, Murillo, Jordaens, Vereshtshagin,
Korovine, Kramskoy, Polenov, Repin, Lagorio, Aivasovsky, and Shishkin,
sculptures by Donatello, and other exhibits.
This statement, Your Honors, has already been presented to the Tribunal
as Exhibit Number USSR-37 (Document Number USSR-37). With your
permission I should like to read into the record only one paragraph on
Page 5 of this document. The quotation is on Page 18 of your document
book. I quote:
“The Rostov Museum of Pictorial Art had been looted and its
contents carried off into Germany by the commander of the 1st
Tank Army, Cavalry General Mackensen, and by the chief of the
propaganda section of the 1st Tank Army, Müller.”
From the affidavit of the Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government,
Stefan Kurovsky, it has been established that the Defendant Frank, in
looting the cultural treasures of the Polish State, was also striving
after his own personal gain. Pictures, porcelain, and other works of art
from the plundered museums of Warsaw and Kraków, particularly from Vavel
Castle, were transferred to the estate of the Defendant Frank.
The affidavit to which I referred is an appendix to the report of the
Polish Government and is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-302 (Document Number USSR-302). This document, Your Honors, is to
be found on Pages 19-20 of your document book.
In this document registered under Document Number 055-PS, which is a
letter from the head of the Political Leadership Group P4 of the Reich
Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories, dated 14 September 1944,
there are indications as to where the looted treasures were taken and
stored. This letter, addressed to the “Reich Minister through the Chief
of the Political Leadership Staff” is headed, “Objects of Art Evacuated
from the Ukraine.” This letter is to be found in your document book on
Page 21. I present this letter as documentary evidence and, submit it as
Exhibit Number USSR-372 and I quote the text. I read:
“The Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine has stored the objects
of art and the pictures evacuated from Kiev and Kharkov, in the
following shelters in East Prussia: 1. The Richau family estate,
near Wehlau; 2. Wildenhoff Manor (owner, Count Schwerin).”
I read further from the text of this letter:
“There are 65 cases, the exact contents of which are enumerated
on the attached list. As to the other 20 cases, 57 portfolios,
and one roll of engravings, their inventory has not been taken
to date. Among the pictures there are a great number of very
ancient icons, works by famous masters of the German, Italian,
and Dutch schools of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, as well
as the works of the best Russian masters of the 18th and 19th
centuries. On the whole, this property consists of extremely
valuable works of art, which had been removed from public
Ukrainian museums and whose value, even at a rough estimate,
amounts to a sum of many millions. In addition, this is the sole
collection of such international value on German
territory. . . .”
I omit the last paragraph of this letter since it has no material
bearing on the subject, and will continue by quoting an excerpt from
Page 2 of Rosenberg’s letter, of which I have already read one quotation
earlier in the day. You will, Your Honors, find it on Page 5 of the
document book. I quote. Rosenberg wrote:
“In the process of these confiscations we have, of course, found
also many other works of art. Among them there are some of great
value and, in order to preserve them, the Chief of the High
Command of the Army, at my request and in accordance with the
Führer’s directives, ordered me to draw up a catalogue of these
works of art and to keep them for the Führer.”
You have heard, Your Honors, of Hitler’s attitude towards the property
of the people and the works of art in the countries seized by the
Germans.
This episode is to be found in the Czechoslovakian Government report,
presented to the Tribunal; excerpts from this report were read yesterday
into the record. Therefore, I consider there is no necessity for reading
it into the record once more. However, it is necessary to note that not
only Hitler but Göring was an ardent adherent of this policy of
“acquisitions.” You also heard, Your Honors, yesterday how Göring
acquired valuable Gobelin tapestries in France. However, Göring did not
acquire Gobelin tapestries only. He wrote in one of his letters to
Rosenberg—I refer to Document Number 1985-PS, which I submit to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-373, and which is in your document book
on Pages 156 to 158—Göring wrote that he “by means of purchases,
presents, bequests, and barter owns perhaps the most important private
collection, at least in Germany, if not in Europe.” The document
presented is a copy of a typewritten letter and includes a series of
corrections and notes in ink, evidently in Göring’s own hand. This copy
was captured, together with Göring’s other correspondence, by units of
the American Army, a fact which was confirmed and in due time presented
to the Tribunal by our American colleagues.
This document, Your Honors, reveals, to a remarkable extent, the nature
of the “acquisitions” effected by Göring and also confirms Ribbentrop’s
part in the “preservation” of cultural treasures in the occupied
territories. For this reason, I shall, with your permission, read a few
extracts from this document.
I read the extract from the first page of this letter. I quote:
“After prolonged search”—wrote Göring to Rosenberg—“I was much
gratified that an office was at last charged with the collection
of these things although I want to point out that other
departments are also claiming the authority of the Führer. First
of these was the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, who,
several months ago, sent a circular to all departments, in which
he, inter alia, stated that he had received full authority for
the preservation of cultural objects in occupied territories.”
I now read an extract from Page 2 of the letter, the last paragraph:
“In order to avoid misconceptions regarding these articles, part
of which I want to claim for myself, part of which I have
purchased, and part of which I wish to acquire, I want to inform
you as follows:
“1. I have now obtained by means of purchase, presents,
bequests, and barter, perhaps the greatest private collection in
Germany at least, if not in Europe.”
I omit one paragraph and I read Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the next one.
Subparagraph 2 enumerates the objects which Göring would like to
acquire. It refers to a very extensive and highly valued collection of
Dutch artists of the 17th century, while Subparagraph 3 mentions “a
comparatively small though very good collection of French artists from
the 18th century, and finally, a collection of Italian masters.”
You have heard, Your Honors, what was meant, in practice, by “the
personal material interest of soldiers in the war.” All this established
irrevocably that the Hitlerites engaged in pillage and brigandage and
that everybody, from the privates to the criminal leaders of Hitlerite
Germany, participated in the plunder. The same must be said regarding
the destruction of cultural treasures. Decrees and directives concerning
the destruction of cultural treasures came from the leaders of Hitlerite
Germany and from the highest ranks of the Military Command.
I shall refer, as evidence, to the order of the Commander of the German
6th Army, signed by Field Marshal Von Reichenau, approved by Hitler and
entitled, “On the Behavior of the Troops in the East.” This order was
presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-12. This document,
contrary to the usual Hitlerite custom, contains direct and entirely
undisguised instructions for the destruction and suppression of culture
in the occupied territories.
With your permission, I shall quote just one paragraph of this order. It
is on Page 161 of your document book. I quote:
“The Army is interested in extinguishing fires only in such
buildings as may be used for Army billets. . . .”
All the rest to be destroyed; no historical or artistic buildings in the
East to be of any value whatsoever.
I shall quote one more document which establishes that the destruction
and pillage of cultural treasures, universally carried out by the
Hitlerites in the territories occupied by them, was inspired and
directed by the Hitlerite Government. I refer to the diary of the
Defendant Frank, extracts of which have already been submitted to the
Tribunal as Document Number USSR-223. In the first volume of Frank’s
diary, on Page 38—Page 169 in your document book—there appears an
entry dated 4 October 1939 which reads as follows:
“Berlin. Conference with the Führer. The Führer discussed the
general situation with the Governor General and approved the
activity of the Governor General in Poland, particularly in the
demolition of the Warsaw Palace, the non-restoration of this
city, and the evacuation of the art treasures.”
I consider that the documents, now submitted and read into the record,
are fully sufficient to enable us to draw the following conclusions:
(a) The pillage and destruction of the cultural treasures of the peoples
in the German occupied territories were carried out in accordance with
previously elaborated and carefully prepared plans.
(b) The fascist Government and German High Command directed the pillage
and destruction of cultural treasures.
(c) The most active role in the organization of the pillage and
destruction of cultural treasures was taken by the participants in the
conspiracy, the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, Frank, and Göring.
I pass on to the next section of my presentation, entitled, “Destruction
and Pillage of Cultural Treasures in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and
Yugoslavia.”
I reported to the Tribunal on the general plans of the Hitlerite
conspirators for strangling national cultural life in the countries
occupied by them. I now pass on to report on the actual materialization
of the criminal plans of the Hitlerite conspirators in Czechoslovakia,
Poland, and Yugoslavia.
I shall refer only to such irrefutable proofs as the official reports of
the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, already
submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution. I shall read into
the record a few parts of the relevant sections of these reports
directly concerning the theme expounded by me, which have not been
quoted by my colleagues.
I begin by quoting extracts from the Czechoslovak Government reports.
These excerpts, Your Honors, are to be found in your document book, on
Pages 81 to 88. I quote from Page 81:
“K. H. Frank, who was appointed Secretary of State and Deputy to
Reich Protector Von Neurath in March 1939 and in August 1943
became Minister of State and head of the German Executive in the
Protectorate, said, ‘The Czechs are fit to be used only as
workers or farm laborers.’
“K. H. Frank replied to a Czech delegation which, in 1942,
requested the Czech universities and colleges to be reopened,
‘If the war is won by England, you will open your schools
yourselves; if Germany wins, an elementary school with five
grades will be enough for you.’”
The Germans seized all colleges and hostels for students.
I pass to a quotation on Page 83 of the report:
“They immediately seized the most valuable apparatus,
instruments, and scientific equipment in many of the occupied
institutions. The scientific libraries were systematically and
methodically damaged. Scientific books and films were separated
and taken away, the archives of the Academy Senate (the highest
university authority) were torn up or burned, the card indexes
destroyed and scattered.
“Suppression of Czech schools. . . .
“K. H. Frank, in November 1939, personally ordered the closing
of all Czech higher educational institutions.
“Such university students as were still at liberty were
forbidden to exercise any intellectual profession and were
invited to find manual occupation within 48 hours, failing which
they would be sent to labor camps in Germany.
“The closing of the universities was aggravated by the closing
of the great scientific libraries and of all institutions
capable of offering intellectual sustenance to the students
expelled from the universities. The library of the University of
Prague was henceforth accessible to Germans only.
“Suppression of all scientific activities:
“The closing down of Czech universities and colleges was merely
a preliminary step towards the complete suppression of the
entire Czech scientific life. The buildings of scientific
institutions were converted either into German universities and
colleges or placed at the disposal of the German military and
civil authorities. The Germans removed all scientific
instruments and books and even complete laboratories to Germany,
on the pretext that the Czechs would no longer need them. The
number of works of art, pictures, statues, and rare manuscripts
stolen from the library of the University of Prague and from
private collections cannot be calculated, nor can their value be
estimated. Scientific collections were also given to German
schools, provided they had not been stolen piecemeal.”
I pass on to the excerpts on Page 86 of the Czechoslovakian report:
“Hundreds of Czech elementary and secondary schools were closed
in 1939, and so rapid was the systematic closing of Czech
schools during the first year of the war that, by the end of
1940, 6,000 of the 20,000 Czech teachers were unemployed.
“By September 1942 some 60 percent of the Czech elementary
schools had been closed by the Germans.
“All Czech books published during the republican regime have
been confiscated, and the glorification of Greater Germany and
its Führer became the basis of all teaching at Czech elementary
schools. In 1939 the number of pupils permitted to enter Czech
secondary schools had diminished by 50 percent as compared with
1938. About 70 percent of the Czech secondary schools had been
closed by the end of 1942. Girls have been entirely excluded
from the secondary schools.
“Nursery schools for children between 3 and 6 were completely
germanized and employed only German teachers.
“Other crimes in cultural spheres.
“Monuments:
“In many towns the ‘Masaryk Houses,’ which for the most part
contain libraries, halls for the showing of educational films,
and for the performance of plays and concerts, have been
confiscated and transformed into barracks or offices for the
Gestapo. The statues they contained, sometimes of great artistic
value, were spoiled and broken. . . . A number of monuments in
Prague, among them Bilek’s ‘Moses’ and Mardjatka’s ‘Memorial to
the Fallen Legionaries,’ have been melted down. . . .
“A decree of the autumn of 1942 ordered all university libraries
to hand over all early printed Czech works and first editions to
the Germans. The collections in the National Museum were
pillaged; and the Modern Art Gallery, containing a unique
collection of Czech art of the 19th and 20th centuries with some
precious specimens of foreign (mainly French) art, was closed.
“The crown jewels of the ancient Czech kings had to be handed
over to Heydrich.
“Literature:
“Translations of works by English, French, and Russian authors,
both classic and modern, were withdrawn from circulation. The
severest censorship was applied to the works of modern Czech
authors. The Germans liquidated many leading publishing firms.”
THE PRESIDENT: This is a good opportunity to adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “The entire political literature of the
free republic, as well as the works of the participants in the
Czech revival of the 18th and 19th centuries, were withdrawn.
The books of Jewish authors were prohibited, as well as those of
politically unreliable writers. The Germans withdrew the Czech
classics, as well as the works of the 15th century reformer John
Hus, of Alois Erassek, the author of historical novels, the poet
Victor Dieck, and others.”
Thus the Hitlerites destroyed the national culture of the peoples of
Czechoslovakia, plundered and pillaged works of art, literature, and
science.
In Poland, as in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the German fascist
invaders carried out a large-scale liquidation of national culture with
exceptional cruelty. The Hitlerite conspirators destroyed the Polish
intelligentsia, closed educational establishments, prohibited the
publication of Polish books, looted works of art, blew up and burned
national monuments.
I am reading into the record relevant extracts from the Polish
Government report, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). These excerpts, Your Honors, are on
Pages 197-200 of the document book:
“Annihilation of the Polish intelligentsia:
“In the incorporated regions the intelligentsia were deprived of
all means of livelihood. Many of them, professors, teachers,
lawyers, and judges, were interned in concentration camps or
murdered.
“In the Government General about 80 percent of the
intelligentsia were deprived of all means of subsistence. Owing
to the liquidation of the press, journalists and writers were
unable to earn a living. The publication of new books was
prohibited.
“Four universities and twelve schools of the university type
ceased to exist. Their average attendance before September 1939
reached 45,000.
“Secondary schools:
“There were about 550 secondary schools in the German occupied
territory. Their closing was ordered. In the incorporated
territories they were completely closed down. In the Government
General they were allowed to continue their activity, but in
November 1939 an order was issued to cease teaching. The only
schools which were allowed to continue work were commercial or
trade schools. Educated Poles were not needed; the Poles were to
become artisans and workmen. Such was the official line of
policy.
“Elementary schools:
“In the incorporated territories Polish schools were completely
abolished. They were replaced by German schools. Polish children
were educated in the German tongue and German spirit.
“On the eve of war there were about 2,000 periodicals published
in Poland, among them 170 newspapers. By order of the Germans
the press was almost entirely eradicated.
“The publication, printing, and distributing of Polish books was
prohibited as early as October 1939.
“On 5 November 1940 the German _Verordnungsblatt_ published the
following decree:
“‘Until further notice, the publication, without exception, of
all books, pamphlets, periodicals, journals, calendars, and
music is prohibited, unless published by the authority of the
Government General.’
“Theaters, music, and radio:
“The principles of German policy in Poland were outlined in a
circular of a special branch of national education and
propaganda in the German Government General. It read as follows:
“‘It is understood that not a single German official will assist
in the development of Polish cultural life in any way
whatsoever.’
“The sole purpose which was to be followed, in the words of the
circular, was to ‘satisfy the primitive demands for
entertainment and amusement, all the more as this was a question
of diverting as far as possible the attention of the
intellectual circles from conspiracy or political debates which
encouraged the development of an anti-German feeling.’”
I skip the last paragraph and pass on to the next page:
“Looting, spoliation, and carrying away of works of art,
libraries, and collections from Poland.”
The excerpts are on Pages 207 and 208 of the document book.
“On 13 December 1939 the Gauleiter of the Warthegau issued an
order that all public and private libraries and collections in
the incorporated territories were to be registered. Upon
completion of registration, libraries and book collections were
confiscated and transported to the ‘Buchsammelstelle.’ There
special experts carried out a selection. The final destination
was either Berlin or the newly constituted State Library
(Staatsbibliothek) in Posen. Books which were considered
unsuitable were sold, destroyed, or thrown away as waste paper.
“The best and largest libraries of the country were victims of
the organized looting in the Government General. Among them were
the university libraries in Kraków and Warsaw. One of the best,
though not the largest, was the library of the Polish
Parliament. It consisted of about 38,000 volumes and 3,500
periodical publications. On 15 and 16 November 1939 the main
part of this library was transported to Berlin and Breslau.
Ancient documents, such as, for instance, a collection of
parchments—the property of the central archives—were also
seized.
“The Diocesan Archives in Pelilin, containing 12th century
documents, were burned in the furnaces of a sugar refinery.
“The first art treasure removed from Poland was the well-known
altar of Veit Stoss from the Kraków Cathedral. It was taken to
Germany on 16 December 1939. The Defendant Frank issued a decree
concerning the confiscation of works of art.”
I skip a few paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph on Page 221:
“Three valuable pictures were removed from the galleries of the
Czartoryski in Sieniawa. Frank seized and kept them until 17
January 1945, and then transferred them to Silesia, and thence,
as his personal property, to Bavaria.”
National monuments:
“In the process of destroying everything that was connected with
Polish history and culture, many monuments and works of art were
destroyed and demolished.
“The monument of the eminent Polish King, Boleslaw, the Valiant,
in Gniezno, was first wound round with ropes and chains with a
view to throwing it off its pedestal. After an unsuccessful
attempt, acetylene was used: the head was cut off and the
pedestal broken in pieces. The same fate befell the monument of
the Sacred Heart in Posen, the monuments to Chopin, the poet
Slowacki, the composer Moniuszko, the Polish national hero
Kósciuszko, President Wilson, the greatest Polish poet
Mickiewicz, and many others.”
To the report of the Polish Government is attached a list of public
libraries, museums, books and other collections sacrificed to plunder
and looting. These lists of objects are available on Pages 254 and 255
of the document book. In the first list we find the names of 30
libraries and in the second 21 museums and collections of works of art
which were plundered and destroyed. I shall not read these lists in
full, but shall mention only some of the museums and collections which
were a subject of national pride and constituted the treasure of the
Polish State.
The following objects became the booty of the fascist vandals: The
treasure house of the Wawelski Cathedral in Kraków, the Potocki
Collection in Jablonna, the Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, the National
Museum in Kraków, the Museum of Religious Art in Warsaw, the State
Numismatic Collections in Warsaw, the Palace of King Stanislaw-August in
the Lazienkowski Park, the Palace of King Jan Sobieski in Willanow, the
collection of Count Tarnowski in Sukhaya, the Religious Museum in Posen,
and many others.
The Hitlerite invaders also plundered monasteries, churches, and
cathedrals. On Page 43 of the report of the Polish Government,
corresponding to Page 223 of the document book, there are final notes by
the Polish Primate, Cardinal Hlond. They concern a written communication
from Cardinal Hlond to Pope Pius XII. I shall read into the record only
two paragraphs of these concluding notes. I quote:
“Monasteries have been methodically suppressed, as well as their
flourishing institutions for education, press, social welfare,
charity, and care of the sick. Their houses and institutions
have been seized by the army of the Nazi Party.
“Then the invaders confiscated or sequestrated the patrimony of
the Church, considering themselves the owners of this property.
The cathedrals, the episcopal palaces, the seminaries, the
canons’ residence, the revenues and endowments of episcopates
and chapters, the funds of the seminaries, all were pillaged by
the invaders.”
I omit the end of Page 29 and pass on to Page 30: Yugoslavia.
The destruction of the national culture of the peoples of Yugoslavia was
carried out by the Hitlerites by various means and methods. I shall not,
Your Honors, enumerate them in detail. These means and methods are
already known.
In Yugoslavia the same thing occurred as in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
We need only stress that, in the destruction of the culture of the
peoples of Yugoslavia, the German fascist occupants showed great
ingenuity and utilized the vast experiences acquired in other countries
occupied by them. The system of destruction of the national culture of
the peoples of Yugoslavia starts with attack and pillage and ends with
mass murder, camps, and the ovens of the crematories.
In the report of the Jugoslav Government, presented to the Tribunal as
Document Number USSR-36, there are quoted a large number of facts and
documents which establish, without any possibility of doubt, the
criminal deeds of the defendants. But even these numerous facts quoted
in the report do not exhaust all the crimes committed by the Hitlerites.
The report of the Yugoslav Government quotes only typical cases as
examples. I shall cite a few excerpts from this report. These excerpts,
Your Honors, are on Page 303 of the document book. I quote:
“Immediately after the invasion of Slovenia, the Germans started
to fulfill their plans, thought out long beforehand, to
germanize the ‘annexed’ territories of Slovenia.”
And further, on Page 307:
“The occupiers closed all the schools in Slovenia, exiled all
the Slovene teachers, destroyed all Slovene libraries and books,
and forbade the use of the Slovene language, which was
considered as an act of sabotage.”
The German barbarians destroyed and plundered not only schools and
libraries, they also destroyed universities and broadcasting stations,
cultural establishments, and sanatoria. On Page 23 of the report,
corresponding to Page 278 of the document book, we find, for instance,
the following facts concerning Belgrade. I quote:
“Without any military need, the Germans premeditatively
destroyed and burned a great number of public buildings and
cultural institutions, such as the New University, the People’s
University ‘Koloraz,’ the first high school for boys, the second
high school for girls, the ancient royal palace, the
broadcasting station, the Russian Home of Culture, the
sanatorium of Dr. Jivkovich, and so forth. In the university
building valuable and highly important collections of scientific
works and research matter were destroyed.”
As is established by the report of the Jugoslav State Commission, which
is Document Number J-39(a), and which I submit under Exhibit Number 364,
Page 313(a) of our document book—the Hitlerites razed to the ground the
National Library in Belgrade and burned hundreds of thousands of books
and manuscripts, which constituted the basic stock of Serbian culture.
They completely destroyed 71 and partially destroyed 41 scientific
institutes and laboratories of Belgrade University. They razed to the
ground the State Academy of Art, and they burned and looted thousands of
schools.
I omit the end of Page 31 and pass on to Page 32. Your Honors will find
this passage on Page 303 of the document book.
During the 4 years of German domination, the people of Yugoslavia
experienced great sufferings and sorrow. The Germans looted the economic
wealth of the country and caused great material damage. But the damage
they caused to the culture of the people of Yugoslavia was even greater.
In concluding this chapter of my report, I consider it essential, Your
Honors, to quote yet another excerpt from the diary of the Defendant
Frank. I have in mind the calico-bound volume of the diary entitled,
“Conferences of the Leaders of Departments of 1939-1940,” which contains
an entry regarding the conference of the departmental leaders of 19
January 1940 in Kraków. This excerpt is on Page 169 of the document
book. I read:
“On 15 September 1939, I was entrusted with the administration
of the conquered eastern territories, and received a special
order pitilessly to devastate this district regarding it as a
combat zone and a prize of war, and to reduce its economic,
social, cultural, and political structure to a heap of ruins.”
To this statement of Frank’s, we need only add that the Defendant Frank
zealously performed this task in Poland and that the Reich, Gau, and
other leaders acted with equal zeal in the occupied territories of the
U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
I am now going to present, Your Honors, proof of crimes committed by the
defendants against the culture of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
We have heard in this court what brutality was used and on how vast a
scale the Hitlerites conducted the destruction and spoliation of the
cultural wealth of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and
Yugoslavia. The crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerite conspirators in the
occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. were graver still. The criminal
organization, known as the Hitler Government, aimed not only at
plundering the people of the Soviet Union, at destroying their towns and
villages, and at extirpating the culture of the peoples of the U.S.S.R.,
but also at enslaving the people of the Soviet Union and of transforming
our native country into a fascist colony of serfs.
In the second part of my statement I have proved how the destruction of
the cultural monuments of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. was planned and
perpetrated.
In the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. M. Molotov,
dated 27 April 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number USSR-51(3)), documents and facts are
quoted which establish beyond dispute that the destruction of historic
and cultural monuments and the vile mockery of national feelings,
beliefs, and convictions constituted a part of the monstrous plan
evolved and put into practice by the Hitlerite Government, which strove
to liquidate the national culture of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. Later I
shall refer again to this document, but at present I wish, with your
permission, to read into the record the following excerpt which is on
Page 321 of your document book. I omit the first and quote the second
paragraph:
“The desecration and destruction of historical and cultural
memorials in occupied Soviet territories, as well as the
devastation of the numerous cultural establishments set up by
the Soviet authorities, are a part of the monstrously senseless
plan conceived and pursued by the Hitlerite Government which
strives to liquidate Russian national culture and the national
cultures of the peoples of the Soviet Union, forcibly to
germanize the Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, Lithuanian,
Latvian, Estonian and other peoples of the U.S.S.R.
“In Order Number 0973/41, General Hodt, commander of the German
17th Army, demands that his subordinates thoroughly assimilate
that misanthropic notion so typical of the thick-skulled
fascists, that the ‘sound feeling of vengeance and repulsion
towards everything Russian should not be suppressed among the
men but, on the contrary, encouraged in every way.’”
True to their custom of destroying universally recognized cultural
valuables, the Hitlerites everywhere on the Soviet territory occupied by
them, devastated and mostly burned libraries, from the small club and
school libraries up to and including the most valuable collections of
manuscripts and books, containing unique bibliographical valuables.
I omit a paragraph and continue the quotation:
“The Hitlerites looted and then set on fire the famous Borodino
Museum, the historical exhibits of which related to the struggle
against the armies of Napoleon in 1812, particularly dear to the
Russian people. The invaders looted and set fire to the Pushkin
House Museum in the hamlet of Polotnyany Zavod.
“In Kaluga the Hitlerites assiduously destroyed the exhibits in
the house-museum in which the eminent Russian scientist K. E.
Tsiolkovsky, whose services in the field of aeronautics enjoy
world-wide fame, lived and worked.
“The fascist vandals used Tsiolkovsky’s portrait as a target for
revolver practice. Extremely valuable models of dirigibles,
together with plans and instruments, were trampled underfoot.
One of the museum rooms was turned into a hen coop and the
furniture burned. One of the oldest agricultural institutions in
the U.S.S.R., the Shatilov selection station in the Orel
district, was destroyed by the invaders, who blew up and
consigned to the flames 55 buildings of this station, including
the agrochemical and other laboratories, the museum, the library
containing 40,000 volumes, the school, and other buildings. Even
greater frenzy was shown by the Hitlerites when looting the
cultural institutions and historical monuments of the Ukraine
and of Bielorussia.”
I omit two paragraphs and pass on to the last paragraph of this
quotation:
“There was no limit to the desecration by the Hitlerite vandals
of the monuments and homes representing Ukrainian history,
culture, and art. Suffice to mention, as an example of the
constant attempts to humiliate the national dignity of the
Ukrainian people, that after plundering the Korolenko Library in
Kharkov, the occupiers used the books as paving stones for the
muddy street in order to facilitate the passage of German motor
vehicles.”
The German vandals treated with particular hatred these cultural
monuments which were most dear to the Soviet people. I shall quote
several instances:
The Hitlerites plundered Yasnaya Polyana, where one of the greatest
writers, Leo Tolstoy, was born, lived, and worked.
They plundered and despoiled the house where the great Russian composer,
Tschaikovsky, lived and worked. In this house Tschaikovsky created the
world-famous operas _Eugen Onegin_ and _The Queen of Spades_.
In Taganrog they destroyed the house where the great Russian writer
Chekhov lived; in Tikhvin they destroyed the residence of the Russian
composer Rimsky-Korsakov.
As evidence, Your Honors, I shall read into the record an excerpt from
the note of Foreign Commissar Molotov, dated 6 January 1942. This
document has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number
51(2). This excerpt is on Page 317 of the document book. I quote:
“For a period of 6 weeks, the Germans occupied the world-famous
property of Yasnaya Polyana where Leo Tolstoy, one of the
greatest geniuses of mankind, was born, lived, and created. This
glorious memorial to Russian culture was wrecked, profaned, and
finally set on fire by the Nazi vandals. The grave of the great
writer was desecrated by the invaders. Irreplaceable relics
relating to the life and work of Leo Tolstoy, including rare
manuscripts, books, and paintings, were either plundered by the
German soldiers or thrown away and destroyed. A German officer
named Schwartz, in reply to a request of one of the museum’s
staff collaborators to stop using the personal furniture and
books of the great writer for firewood and to use wood available
for this purpose, answered, ‘We don’t need firewood; we shall
burn everything connected with the name of your Tolstoy.’
“When the town of Klin was liberated by the Soviet troops on 15
December, it was ascertained that the house in which P. I.
Tschaikovsky, the great Russian composer, had lived and worked
and which the Soviet State had turned into a museum, had been
wrecked and plundered by fascist officers and soldiers. In the
museum building proper, the Germans set up a garage for
motorcycles, heating this garage with manuscripts, books,
furniture, and other museum exhibits, part of which had in any
case been stolen by the German invaders. In doing this, the Nazi
officers knew perfectly well that they were defiling one of the
finest monuments of Russian culture.
“During the occupation of the town of Istra, the German troops
established an ammunition dump in the famous ancient Russian
monastery known as the New Jerusalem Monastery, founded as far
back as 1654. The New Jerusalem Monastery was an outstanding
historical and religious monument of the Russian people and was
known as one of the most beautiful specimens of religious
architecture. This did not, however, prevent the German fascist
vandals from blowing up their ammunition dump in the New
Jerusalem Monastery on their retreat from Istra, thereby
reducing this irreplaceable monument of Russian church history
to a heap of ruins.”
I omit the next paragraph and close this quotation.
Acting upon directions of the German Military Command, the Hitlerites
destroyed and annihilated the cultural-historic monuments of the Russian
people connected with the life and work of the great Russian poet,
Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin.
The report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union,
the original copy of which is now submitted to the Tribunal as Document
Number USSR-40 (Exhibit Number USSR-40), reads as follows:
“To preserve the cultural and historical memorials of the
Russian people connected with the life and creations of the
gifted Russian poet and genius, Alexander Sergeivitch Pushkin,
the Soviet Government, on 17 March 1922, declared the poet’s
estate at Mikhailovskoye, as well as his tomb at the monastery
of Svyatogorsky and the neighboring villages of Trigorskoye,
Gorodischtsche, and Voronitch, a state reservation.
“The Pushkin reservation, and especially the poet’s estate at
Mikhailovskoye, was very dear to the Russian people. Here
Pushkin finished the third and created the fourth, fifth, and
sixth chapters of _Eugen Onegin_. Here, too, he finished his
poem _Gypsies_, and wrote the drama _Boris Godunov_, as well as
a large number of epic and lyrical poems.
“In July 1941 the Hitlerites forced their way into the Pushkin
reservation. For 3 years they made themselves at home there,
ruined everything, and destroyed the Pushkin memorials.”
I shall omit the beginning of Page 1 of the report.
“The plundering of the museum had already begun in August 1941.”
I shall also omit the next paragraph. I read on:
“In the autumn of 1943 the commander of the Pushkin Military
Kommandantur, Treibholz, urged Director K. V. Afanassiev to
prepare for the evacuation of all the museum valuables. All
these valuables were packed into cases by the German
authorities, loaded into trucks, and sent to Germany.”
I omit the next paragraph and read on:
“At the end of February 1944 the Germans turned Mikhailovskoye
into a military objective and into one of the strongpoints of
the German defense. The park area was dug up for combat and
communication trenches; shelters were constructed. The cottage
of Pushkin’s nurse was taken to pieces and next to it, and
partly on its former site, the Germans constructed a large
dugout, protected by five layers of timber. The Germans built a
similar dugout near the former museum building.
“Prior to their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the Germans
completed the destruction and desecration of the Pushkin estate.
The house-museum erected on the foundation of Pushkin’s former
residence was burned down by the Germans and nothing remained
but a heap of ruins. The marble plate of the Pushkin monument
was smashed to pieces and thrown onto the pile of ashes. Of the
other two houses standing at the entrance to the Mikhailovskoye
estate, one was burned down by the Germans, the other severely
damaged. The German vandals put three bullets into the large
portrait of Pushkin hanging in an archway at the entrance to the
Mikhailovskoye park; then they destroyed the archway.
“After their retreat from Mikhailovskoye, the fascists bombarded
the village with mine throwers and artillery fire. The wooden
stairs leading to the River Soret were destroyed by German
mines. The old lime trees of the circular alley leading to the
house were broken down; the giant elm tree in front of the house
was damaged by shell fire and splinters.”
I omit the end of this page and pass on to Page 41 of the report:
“In the village of Voronitch the wooden church was burned down
which dated back to Pushkin’s times and where Pushkin had a
requiem sung on 7 April 1825 to commemorate the death of the
great English poet, Byron. The churchyard near the church where
V. P. Hannibal, one of Pushkin’s relatives, and the priest,
Rayevsky, close friend of the poet, lay buried, was
criss-crossed by trenches, mined, and devastated. The historical
aspect of the reservation, in which the Russian people saw a
symbol of Pushkin, was disfigured beyond all recognition by the
Germans.
“The sacrileges perpetrated by the Germans against the national
sanctuaries of the Russian people are best demonstrated by the
desecration of Pushkin’s tomb. In an attempt to save the Pushkin
reservation from destruction, the units of the Red Army did not
defend this district, but withdrew to Novorzhev. Nevertheless,
on 2 July 1941 the Germans bombarded the monastery of
Svyatiye-Gory, at the adjoining walls of which is Pushkin’s
tomb.
“In March 1943, long before the battle line approached the
Pushkinskiye hills, the Germans began the systematical
demolition of the Svyatiye-Gory monastery.”
I omit the rest of this page, and I pass on to Page 42:
“The poet’s tomb was found completely covered with refuse. Both
stairways leading down to the grave were destroyed. The platform
surrounding the grave was covered with refuse, rubble, wooden
fragments of icons, and pieces of sheet metal.”
I omit a paragraph and quote further:
“The marble balustrade surrounding the platform was damaged by
fragments of artillery shells and by bullets. The monument
itself inclined at an angle of 10 to 12 degrees eastwards, as a
result of a landslide following the shelling, and of the shocks
caused by the explosions of German mines.
“The invaders knew perfectly well that, on entering the
Pushkinskiye hills, the officers and soldiers of the Red Army
would first of all visit the grave of the poet, and therefore
converted it into a trap for the patriots. Approximately 3,000
mines were discovered and removed from the grounds of the
monastery and its vicinity by the engineers of the Soviet
Army. . . .”
The destruction of works of art and architecture in the towns of
Pavlovsk, Tzarskoe-Selo, and Peterhof, figure among the worst
anti-cultural crimes of the Hitlerites. The magnificent monuments of art
and architecture in these towns, which had been turned into “museum
towns,” are known throughout the civilized world. These art and
architectural monuments were created in the course of 2 centuries. They
commemorated a whole series of outstanding events in Russian history.
Celebrated Russian and foreign architects, sculptors, and artists
created masterpieces which were kept in these “museum towns” and,
together with valuable masterpieces of Russian and foreign art, they had
been blown up, burned, robbed, or destroyed by the fascist vandals.
I read into the record Exhibit Number USSR-49 (Document Number USSR-49)
which includes a statement of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union dated 3 September 1944. The excerpts which I shall quote,
Your Honors, are on Pages 330-332 of the document book.
I omit the end of Page 43 and the whole of Page 44 of this statement,
and begin my quotation in the middle of Page 45:
“At the time the German invaders broke into Petrodvoretz (in
Peterhof) there still remained, after the evacuation, 34,214
museum exhibits (pictures, works of art, and sculptures), as
well as 11,700 extremely valuable books from the palace
libraries. The ground floor rooms of the Ekaterininsky and
Alexandrovsky Palaces in the town of Pushkin contained assorted
furniture suites of Russian and French workmanship of the middle
of the 18th century, 600 items of artistic porcelain of the late
19th and 20th centuries, as well as a large number of marble
busts, small sculptures, and about 35,000 volumes from the
palace libraries.
“On the basis of documentary materials, the statements and
testimony of eyewitnesses, the evidence of German prisoners of
war and as a result of careful investigation, it has been
established that: Breaking into Petrodvoretz on 23 September
1941, the German invaders immediately proceeded to loot the
treasures of the palace-museums and in the course of several
months removed the contents of these palaces.
“From the Big, Marly, Monplaisir, and Cottage Palaces, they
looted and removed to Germany some 34,000 museum exhibits, among
them 4,950 unique items of furniture of Italian, English,
French, and Russian workmanship from the periods of Catherine
the Great, Alexander I, and Nicholas I, as well as many rare
sets of porcelain of foreign and Russian manufacture of the 18th
and 19th centuries. The German barbarians stripped the walls of
the palace rooms of the silks, Gobelin tapestries, and other
decorative materials which adorned them.
“In November 1941 the Germans removed the bronze statue of
Samson, the work of the sculptor Koslovsky, and took it away.
Having looted the museum treasures, the Hitlerites set fire to
the Big Palace, created by the famous and gifted architect
Bartolomeo Rastrelli.
“Upon their withdrawal from Petrodvoretz”—I have skipped a
paragraph—“the Germans wrecked the Marly Palace by
delayed-action mines. This palace contained very delicate
carvings and stucco moldings. The Germans wrecked the Monplaisir
Palace of Peter the Great. They destroyed all the wooden parts
of the pavilion and of the galleries, the interior decorations
of the study, the bedroom and the Chinese room.
“During their occupation, they turned the central parts of the
palace, that is, the most valuable from the historical and
artistic viewpoint, into bunkers. They turned the western
pavilion of the palace into a stable and a latrine. In the
premises of the Assembly Building the Germans tore up the floor,
sawed through the beams, destroyed the doors and windowframes,
and stripped the panelling off the ceiling.”
I skip one paragraph and quote the last one on this page:
“In the northern part of the park, in the so-called Alexander
Park, they blew up the villa of Nicholas II, completely
destroyed the frame cottage which served as billet for officers,
the Alexander gates, the pavilions of the Adam fountain, the
pylons of the main gates of the upper park and the Rose
Pavilion.”
I skip one paragraph on Page 47:
“The Germans wrecked the fountain system of the Petrodvoretz
parks. They damaged the entire pipe-line system for feeding the
fountains, a system extending from the dam of the Rose Pavilion
to the upper park.
“After the occupation of New Petrodvoretz, units of the 291st
German Infantry Division, using heavy artillery fire, completely
destroyed the famous English Palace at Old Petrodvoretz, built
on the orders of Catherine II by the architect Quarenghi. The
Germans fired 9,000 rounds of heavy artillery shells into the
palace; together with the Palace they destroyed the picturesque
English park and all the park pavilions.”
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has appreciated the successful efforts which
the other members of the Soviet Delegation have made to shorten their
addresses, and they would be glad if you could possibly summarize some
of the details with which you have to deal in the matter of destruction
and spoliation and perhaps omit some of the details.
That is all for this morning.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The looting and destruction of historical and
artistic palaces in the town of Pushkin (Tzarskoe-Selo) was carried out
with malice aforesight by order of the highest German authorities.
I omit the end of Page 47 and the beginning of Page 48:
“A considerable part of the Catherine Palace was burned down by
the Germans. The famous ceremonial halls, 300 meters long and
designed by Rastrelli, perished in the flames. The famous
antechambers”—waiting rooms—“decorated by Rastrelli were
likewise ruined.”
I omit one paragraph and continue:
“The Great Hall—outstanding creation of the genius of
Rastrelli—presented a terrible spectacle. The unique ceilings,
work of Torelli, Giordano, Brullov, and other famous Italian and
Russian masters, were destroyed.”
I omit another paragraph.
“Equally ruined and pillaged was the Palace Church, one of
Rastrelli’s masterpieces, famous for the exquisite workmanship
of the interior decoration.”
I omit one more paragraph.
“In January 1944 the retreating German invaders prepared the
complete destruction of all that was left of the Catherine
Palace and adjoining buildings. For this purpose, on the ground
floor of the remaining part of the palace, as well as under the
Cameron Gallery, 11 large delayed-action aerial bombs were laid,
weighing from 1 to 3 tons.
“In Pushkin the Hitlerite bandits destroyed the Alexander
Palace, constructed at the end of the 18th century by the famous
architect Giacomo Quarenghi.”
I omit a paragraph.
“All the museum furniture, stored in the basements of the
Catherine and Alexander Palaces, items of artistic porcelain,
and books from the palace libraries were sent to Germany.
“The famous painted ceiling, ‘Feast of the Gods on Olympus,’ in
the main hall of the Hermitage pavilion was removed and shipped
to Germany.”
I omit two paragraphs:
“Great destructions were caused by the Hitlerites in the
magnificent Pushkin parks, where thousands of age-old trees were
cut down.
“Ribbentrop’s special purpose battalion and the Kommandos Staff
Rosenberg shipped to Germany from the Pavlovsky Palace extremely
valuable palace furniture, designed by Veronikhin and by the
greatest masters of the 18th century.”
I omit the end of Page 49 and the beginning of Page 50 of the report.
“During their retreat the fascist invaders set fire to the
Paul’s Palace. The greater part of the palace building was
entirely burned down.”
I omit the next two paragraphs and quote the last paragraph, which
concludes this document:
“The Extraordinary State Commission established that the
destruction of art monuments in Petrodvoretz, Pushkin, and
Pavlovsk was carried out by the officers and soldiers of the
German Army on the direct instructions of the German Government
and the High Command.”
Many large towns were destroyed by the German fascist invaders in the
occupied U.S.S.R. territories. But they destroyed with particular
ruthlessness the ancient Russian cities containing monuments of ancient
Russian art. I quote as an example the destruction of the cities of
Novgorod, Pskov, and Smolensk. Novgorod and Pskov belong to these
historical centers where the Russian people laid the foundation of their
state; here, in the course of centuries flourished a highly developed
and individual culture. It left a rich heritage which constitutes a
valuable possession of our people. Thanks to the survival of numerous
monuments of ecclesiastic and civil architecture, murals, paintings,
sculpture, and handicraft, Novgorod and Pskov were rightly considered
the seat of Russian history.
The Hitlerite barbarians destroyed, in Novgorod, many valuable monuments
of Russian and foreign art of the 11th and 12th centuries. They not only
destroyed the monuments but they reduced the entire city to a heap of
ruins.
By way of proof, I shall read into the record some excerpts from the
document presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-50. You will,
Your Honors, find these excerpts on Pages 333 and 334 of the document
book. I read:
“The ancient Russian city of Novgorod was reduced to a heap of
ruins by the German fascist invaders. They destroyed the
historical monuments and dismantled some of them for use in the
construction of defense fortifications. . . .
“The German fascist vandals destroyed and obliterated, in
Novgorod, the greatest monuments of ancient Russian art. The
fascists destroyed the vaults and walls of the Saint George
Cathedral tower of the Yuryev Monastery. This cathedral was
built in the early part of the 12th century, was decorated by
12th century frescoes.
“The Cathedral of Saint Sophia, built in the 11th century, was
one of the oldest monuments of Russian architecture and an
outstanding monument of world art. The Germans destroyed the
cathedral building. . . .
“The Hitlerites robbed the cathedral entirely of all its
interior decorations; they carried off all the icons from the
iconostasis and the ancient chandeliers, including one which
belonged to Boris Godunov. . . .
“The Church of the Annunciation on the Arkage, dating back to
the 12th century, was converted by the fascists into a fortified
position and barracks.”
I omit one paragraph.
“The Church of the Assumption on Volotov Field, a monument of
Novgorod architecture of the 14th-15th centuries, was turned by
the Germans into a heap of stones and bricks.”
I omit one sentence.
“The Church of the Transfiguration of our Lord, in Ilyin Street,
was destroyed. It was one of the finest specimens of Novgorod
architecture of the 14th century, particularly famed for its
frescoes, painted in the same period by the great Byzantine
master, Theofan, the Greek.”
I omit the rest of this page and pass on to Page 54, of my report.
“Over 2 years of Hitlerite rule in Novgorod brought about the
ruin of many other wonderful, ancient monuments of Russian
architecture. . . . By order of the commanding general of the
18th German Army, Generaloberst Lindemann, the German barbarians
dismantled and prepared for removal to Germany the monument to
‘a thousand years of Russia.’ This monument was erected in the
Kremlin Square in 1862 and represented, in artistic images, the
main stages of the development of our native land up to the
sixties of the 19th century. . . .
“The Hitler barbarians dismantled the monument and smashed the
statuary. They did not, however, succeed in shipping it off and
melting down the metal.”
Citizen Youri Nikolaievich Dimitriev, in his affidavit, gives a very
detailed account of the barbarous destruction by the Germans of the
monuments of ancient Russian art in the cities of Novgorod and Pskov.
Dimitriev, since 1937, was the custodian of the Ancient Russian Art
Section of the Russian State Museum in Leningrad. He began the study of
the historical monuments of Novgorod and Pskov in 1926. As a great
expert in this particular sphere of art, he was asked by the
Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union to participate in the
investigation of the crimes of the German fascist invaders.
I submit to the Tribunal the original of Dimitriev’s depositions, duly
certified, in accordance with legal procedure in the U.S.S.R., as
Document Number USSR-312 (Exhibit Number USSR-312). You will find it,
Your Honors, on Pages 335 and 347 in your document book. In submitting
his affidavit, I shall omit facts already known to the Tribunal from the
report of the Extraordinary State Commission previously read into the
record. I quote only a few short excerpts which will be found on Pages
336 and 339. Mr. Dimitriev stated as follows—I read:
“The greater part of Novgorod is razed to the ground; only a few
districts were left by the Germans and even these were in ruins.
Pskov was also left in ruins by the Germans; during their
retreat they blew up the buildings and monuments. Of 88
buildings of historical and artistic value in Novgorod only two
buildings are without grave damages. . . . Only a few isolated
monuments in Pskov were left undamaged.
“In Novgorod and Pskov the Germans deliberately destroyed
monuments of historical and artistic value.”
And further:
“The German Army, while destroying and damaging monuments of
historical and artistic value, plundered and carried off works
of art and valuable objects which formed part of, or were
contained in, these monuments.
“At the same time the German troops profaned and desecrated
several ecclesiastical monuments of historic and artistic value
in Novgorod and Pskov.”
Day by day for 26 months, the Hitlerites systematically destroyed one of
the most ancient Russian cities, Smolensk.
The Soviet Prosecution has presented to the Tribunal a document as
Document Number USSR-56, containing the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union. I shall not quote this document;
but I shall only refer to it and endeavor, in my own words, to emphasize
the fundamental points of this document, dealing with the reported theme
now.
In Smolensk, the German fascist invaders plundered and destroyed the
most valuable collections in the museums. They desecrated and burned
down ancient monuments; they destroyed schools and institutes,
libraries, and sanatoriums. The report also mentions the fact that in
April 1943, the Germans needed rubble to pave the roads. For this
purpose, they blew up the intermediate school. The Germans burned down
all the libraries of the city and 22 schools; 646,000 volumes perished
in the library fires.
I now pass on to Page 57 of my report:
“Prior to the German occupation Smolensk contained four museums
with extremely valuable collections.
“The museum of art possessed most valuable collections,
primarily of Russian historic-artistic, historic-sociological,
ethnographic, and other valuables: paintings, icons, bronzes,
porcelains, metal castings, and textiles. These collections were
of international value and had been exhibited in France. The
invaders destroyed the museums and took the most valuable
exhibits to Germany.”
I shall quote only one last paragraph on Page 57:
“The Einsatzstab Rosenberg for the confiscation and exportation
of valuables from the occupied regions of the East had a special
branch in Smolensk, headed by Dr. Norling, the organizer for the
plunder of museums and historical monuments.”
Such are some of the numerous facts of the crimes committed by the
fascist barbarians. They demonstrate how the criminal schemes of the
Hitlerite conspirators were actually materialized.
It is known how mercilessly the German fascist invaders carried out the
economic plunder of the Ukrainian people. But destruction and plunder of
Ukrainian cultural and historical treasures played no lesser part in the
plans of the Hitlerite conspirators, and was carried out with the same
savage zeal. In accordance with their criminal plans for the enslavement
of the freedom-loving Ukrainian people, the Hitlerite conspirators
endeavored to annihilate its culture. From the very first days of their
invasion of the Ukraine the Hitlerites, in execution of their criminal
designs, embarked upon the systematic destruction of schools, higher
educational institutions, scientific establishments, museums, libraries,
clubs, and theaters.
The historical and cultural treasures in the cities of Kiev, Kharkov,
Odessa, in the Provinces of Stalino and Rovno, and many other larger and
smaller cities, were subjected to plunder and destruction.
From the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution under Document
Number USSR-32, containing the sentence pronounced by the military
tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front between 15-18 December 1943, it is
evident that the German fascist armies of Kharkov, in the Province of
Kharkov, acting on direct instructions of Hitler’s Government, burned,
plundered, and destroyed the material and cultural treasures of the
Soviet people. These excerpts, Your Honors, you will find on Page 359 in
your document book.
I now proceed to the evidence of crimes committed by the Hitlerites in
the capital of the Ukrainian Republic, Kiev. I quote one paragraph of
the document presented by the Soviet Prosecution under Document Number
USSR-248. You will find it on Page 363 of your document book. It is an
extract from the records of the Extraordinary State Commission “about
the destruction and plunder by the fascist aggressors of Kiev’s
Psychiatric Hospital.” Among other destructions they—I quote:
“. . . burned the archives of the institute, priceless from a
scientific point of view, destroyed the magnificent hospital
library of 20,000 volumes, plundered the especially protected
and priceless monument of the 11th century—the famous Cathedral
of Saint Cyryl situated in the institute grounds.”
I next pass on to several excerpts from the Extraordinary State
Commission’s report which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9). The excerpts quoted are on Pages
365-366 of the document book:
“Before the German invasion, Kiev possessed 150 secondary and
elementary schools. Of this number, 77 schools were used by the
Germans as military barracks. Nine served as warehouses and
workshops, two were occupied by military staffs and eight were
turned into stables. During their retreat from Kiev, the German
barbarians destroyed 140 schools.”
I omit the next paragraph.
“The German invaders stole more than 4 million volumes from the
book stocks of the Kiev libraries. From the library of the
Ukrainian S.S.R. Academy of Science alone the Hitlerites sent to
Germany over 320,000 various valuable and unique books,
magazines, and manuscripts.”
I beg Your Honors to note that Dr. Förster, SS Obersturmführer, who
served in the special purpose battalion, established on the initiative
of the Defendant Ribbentrop and acting under his orders, testified to
the plunder of the library of the Ukrainian S.S.R., Academy of Science,
in his deposition of 10 November 1942, which I have already read into
the record.
I omit one paragraph and pass on to a further reading from the report of
the Extraordinary State Commission:
“On 5 September 1943 the Germans burned and blew up one of the
most ancient centers of Ukrainian culture, the T. G. Shevtchenko
State University in Kiev, founded in 1834. In the fire perished
the greatest of cultural treasures which for centuries had
represented the scientific and educational bases on which the
work of the university was founded; perished, the priceless
documents from the historical archives of ancient manuscripts;
perished, the library containing over 1,300,000 books;
destroyed, the zoological museum of the university with over 2
million exhibits, together with a whole series of other
museums. . . .
“. . . The German occupiers also destroyed other institutions of
higher learning in Kiev; they burned and looted the majority of
the medical institutions.
“In Kiev the fascist barbarians burned down the building of the
Red Army Dramatic Theater . . . , the Theatrical Institute, the
Academy of Music, where the instruments were burned together
with the very wealthy library and all the equipment; they blew
up the beautiful circus building; they burned down, with its
entire equipment, the M. Gorki Theater for Juvenile Audiences;
they destroyed the Jewish theater. . . .
“In the Museum of Western European and Eastern Art only some
large canvases were left; the robbers had not had time to remove
them from the high walls of the stairway shafts. From the Museum
of Russian Art the Hitlerites carried off, together with all the
other exhibits, a collection of Russian icons of inestimable
value. They looted the Museum of Ukrainian Art; only 1,900
exhibits of the National Art Section of this museum were left of
the original 41,000.”
I omit the remainder of this page and pass to Page 62 of my report:
“The Hitlerites plundered the T. G. Shevtchenko Museum and the
historical museum. They looted the greatest monument to the Slav
peoples—the Cathedral of Saint Sophia—from which they removed
14 12th century frescoes.”
I omit one paragraph.
“By order of the German Command the troops plundered, blew up,
and destroyed a very ancient cultural monument—the
Kievo-Pecherskaya Abbey. . . .
“The Uspenski Cathedral, built in 1075-89 by the order of Grand
Duke Svjatoslav, with murals painted in 1897 by the famous
painter V. V. Vereshchiagin, was blown up by the Germans on 3
November 1941.”
I omit the remainder of Page 62 and pass on to Page 63 of the report:
“We cannot gaze without sorrow”—states Nicholas, Metropolitan
of Kiev and Galicia, and member of the Extraordinary State
Commission—“on the heaps of rubble of the Uspenski Cathedral,
founded in the 11th century by the genius of its immortal
builders. The explosions formed several huge craters in the area
surrounding the cathedral, and, beholding them, it would appear
that the very earth had shuddered at the sight of the atrocities
committed by those who no longer had a right to be called human
beings. It was as if a terrible hurricane had passed over the
abbey, overturning everything, scattering and destroying the
mighty buildings of the abbey. For over 2 years Kiev lay
shackled in the German chains. Hitler’s executioners brought
death to Kiev, together with ruins, famine, and executions. In
time all this will pass from the near present to the far distant
past; but never will the people of Russia and the Ukraine, or
honest men all the world over, forget these crimes.”
Mr. President, may I dwell on two more documents?
The first, Document Number 035-PS, is entitled, “A Brief Report on
Security Measures of the Chief Labor Group in the Ukraine during the
Withdrawal of the Armed Forces.” It was presented to the Tribunal by our
American colleagues on 18 December 1945. A characteristic peculiarity of
this document is that it openly testifies to the looting. It is quite
clear to all that reference is made to a gang of robbers, although the
Hitlerites still persist in referring to robbery as work. They shipped
the most valuable exhibits of the Ukrainian Museum to Germany as
“miscellaneous textiles.”
The report begins with the description of the creation of safe quarters
for the Einsatzstab establishments, a purpose for which the inhabitants
of an entire district were thrown out of their quarters. There then
follows, in this document, a list of booty removed from the plundered
museums of Kharkov and Kiev, from archives, and even from private
libraries.
I shall quote one brief excerpt only from this document, dealing with
the contents of the Ukrainian and the prehistorical museum of Kiev. You
will find this excerpt on Page 368 of the document book. I quote:
“October 1943, materials of the Ukrainian museum in Kiev.
“On the basis of the general evacuation orders of the city
commissioner, the following were sorted out by us and loaded for
shipment to Kraków:
“Miscellaneous textiles; collections of valuable embroidery
patterns; collections of brocades; numerous wooden utensils, _et
cetera_.
“Moreover, a large part of the prehistoric museum was carried
away.”
The second, Document Number 1109-PS of 17 June 1944, is headed, “Note
for the Director of Operation Group P4,” and is addressed to Von
Milde-Schreden. I shall quote it completely because it is really a short
excerpt which you will find on Page 369 of the document book:
“2. The removal of cultural property.
“A great deal of material from museums, archives, institutions,
and other cultural establishments was in an orderly manner
removed from Kiev in the autumn of 1943.
“These actions to safeguard the material were carried out by
Einsatzstab RR, as well as by the individual directors of
institutes, _et cetera_, at the instigation of the Reich
Commissioner.”
Here, Your Honors, I would point out that Einsatzstab Rosenberg in some
documents is also referred to as the “Task Staff RR.” These initials
stand for Reichsleiter Rosenberg.
“At first, a great deal of the property that was to be evacuated
was taken only to the areas of the rear; later on, this material
was forwarded to the Reich. When the undersigned, towards the
end of September, received the order from the cultural division
of the Reich Commissioner to take out of Kiev the remaining
cultural effects, the materials most valuable from a cultural
point of view had already been removed. During October some 40
carloads of cultural effects were shipped to the Reich. In this
case it was chiefly a question of valuables which belonged to
the research institutions of the national research center of the
Ukraine. These institutions, at present, are continuing their
work in the Reich and are being directed in such a manner that
at any given moment they can be brought back to the Ukraine. The
cultural values which could not be promptly safeguarded incurred
plunder. In this case, however, it was always a question of less
valuable material, as the essential assets had been removed in
an orderly manner.
“In October 1943 factories, workshops, plants, and other
equipment were removed from Kiev by the order of the town
commander, but where it was taken, I do not know.”
This letter ends with the following sentence:
“At the time the Soviets entered the city there was nothing
valuable, in this respect, left in the city.”
May it please Your Honors, from the documents submitted by the Soviet
Prosecution, the Tribunal has already learned about the criminal
conspiracy between Hitler and Antonescu. As a reward for supplying
Germany with cannon fodder, oil, wheat, cattle, _et cetera_, Antonescu’s
criminal clique received from Hitler’s Government authorization to
plunder the civilian population between the Bug and the Dniester. German
and Romanian invaders plundered and destroyed many objects of cultural
value, health resorts, and medical institutions in Odessa. The
Hitlerites also plundered on their own account, as well as in
co-operation with Antonescu’s clique. To prove this, I shall now read
into the record a few excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union, presented to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-47 (Document Number USSR-47). These excerpts are
taken from Page 372 of your document book. I omit one paragraph and
begin to quote from the penultimate paragraph on this page of my report:
“The German Military Command plundered the museums of Odessa,
carrying away hundreds of unique objects.”
Further, I here omit two paragraphs and quote the last line of Page 66:
“According to a plan, drawn up in advance, the German fascist
invaders . . . blew up or burned 2,290 of the largest buildings
of architectural, artistic, and historical value. Included in
these were the house of A. S. Pushkin . . . the Saban barracks,
built in 1827, and others, representing in themselves valuable
monuments to the material culture of the beginning of the 19th
century.
“In Odessa the German-Romanian invaders destroyed: The first
hospital for contagious diseases, the second district hospital,
the somatological hospital, the psychiatric hospital, and two
children’s hospitals, a children’s polyclinic, seven infant
consulting centers, 55 day nurseries, two maternity homes, one
dispensary, one leprosarium, six polyclinics, and research
institutions for the study of tuberculosis, for studying
conditions in spas and others. They destroyed 29 sanatoria
located around Odessa.”
The Hitlerites committed crimes on an exceptionally large scale in the
Stalino Province. I omit the rest of this page and pass to Page 68 of my
report. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission, presented by
the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-2 (Document Number
USSR-2), relates an enormous number of facts. I shall not quote all of
those, Your Honors; but I shall confine myself only to several excerpts
from the above-mentioned document which have not yet been read into the
record by my colleagues. They can be found on Pages 374 and 375 in your
document book. I quote:
“During their retreat from Stalino, the Hitlerites completely
destroyed . . . 113 schools, 62 kindergartens, 390 shops, the
winter and summer theaters, the Palace of the Pioneers, the
radio theater, the Museum of the Revolution, the picture gallery
and the Dzerjinsky Club of the city.
“Special Engineer detachments went from school to school,
pouring incendiary liquid over them and setting them on fire.
Such Soviet people who tried to extinguish the fires were
immediately shot by the fascist scoundrels. . . .
“Exceptionally severe damages were caused by the invaders to the
medical establishments of the city.”
I omit three paragraphs of the report, and I quote the penultimate
paragraph on this page:
“The Medical Institute, a model scientific establishment for
2,000 students, was destroyed on the orders of Oberfeldarzt
Roll, chief medical officer of Belindorf, and the chief medical
officer of Kuchendorf.
“Of a total of 600,000 books on science and art, 530,000 volumes
were burned by the Hitlerites. . . .
“In the town of Makeyewka the German fascist invaders blew up
and burned down the city theater, seating 1,000 persons; the
circus, seating 1,500 persons; 49 schools, 20 day nurseries, and
44 kindergarten schools. By order of the Town Commander, Vogler,
35,000 volumes from the central Gorky library were destroyed on
a pyre.”
I shall not enumerate all the cities. These facts were mentioned in a
document which, according to Article 21 of the Charter, provides
irrefutable evidence. In agreement with the rulings of the Tribunal,
this document will not be read into the record in full. I must, however,
draw your attention to the fact that in all industrial towns of the
Province of Stalino the Hitlerites burned down schools, theaters, day
nurseries, hospitals, and even churches. Thus in the town of Gorlovka:
“. . . they destroyed 32 schools, attended by some 21,649
children, burned down the town hospital, five polyclinics, a
church, and the Palace of Culture. . . .
“In the city of Konstantinovka the occupational authorities blew
up and burned down all the 25 city schools, two cinemas, the
central city library with 35,000 volumes, the Pioneers’ Club,
the children’s technical center, the city hospital, and the day
nurseries.
“Before their retreat from Mariupol the German occupational
authorities burned down all the 68 schools of the city, 17
kindergarten schools . . . and the Palace of the Pioneers.”
I shall now quote a few excerpts from the document presented to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR 45 (Document Number USSR-45). These
excerpts are found on Page 378 of your document book. The document deals
with the Hitlerite crimes in Rovno and the region of Rovno. The city of
Rovno was of special importance. It was the residence of Reich Minister
Erich Koch, the closest collaborator of the Defendant Rosenberg.
Numerous conferences of the Hitlerite leaders for elaborating their plan
for the enslavement of the Ukrainian people took place in this city. The
above-mentioned report of the Extraordinary State Commission established
the following facts:
“The Hitlerites, on the Ukrainian territory they had seized,
endeavored to establish a regime of slavery and serfdom and to
annihilate the Ukrainian sovereignty and culture. . . .
“The considerable material in possession of the Extraordinary
State Commission, based on documents, testimonies of witnesses,
and personal inspection by members of the commission, and their
acquaintance with conditions prevailing in various cultural and
educational establishments on Ukrainian territory liberated by
the Red Army, leaves no doubt that the German fascist barbarians
had for their aim the destruction of Ukrainian culture and the
extermination of the best representatives of Ukrainian art and
science who had fallen into their hands.”
I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the penultimate paragraph on this
page:
“The German fascist aggressors closed down nearly all the
cultural and educational establishments in Rovno. On 30 November
1941 the closing down of schools in the General Commissariat of
Volhynia and Podolia was officially announced in the newspaper
_Volyn_.”
I omit the end of Page 70, and I quote the last paragraph of this
document on Page 71 of my report:
“The fact that all these crimes were committed in the residence
of the former Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Erich Koch,
serves as additional proof that all the crimes of the Hitlerite
bandits were perpetrated in execution of a plan for the
extermination of the Soviet people and the devastation of the
Soviet territories temporarily occupied by the Hitlerites, a
plan conceived and executed by the Hitlerite Government.”
In Section 5 of his opening statement, General Rudenko, Chief Prosecutor
for the U.S.S.R., quoted an extract from a letter of the Commissioner
General for Bielorussia, Kube, addressed to the Defendant Rosenberg.
This document is a typewritten letter, signed in ink by Kube. It has
several notations in pencil, evidently by the hand of Rosenberg; and it
has a stamp, “Ministerial Bureau,” and is dated 3 October 1941. This
document, identified as Document Number 1099-PS, I submit to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-374 in evidence of the enormous
proportions assumed by the plundering of historical treasures, carried
out everywhere by the Hitlerites.
With your permission I shall now take the liberty of quoting some
additional extracts from this document, which discloses the fact that
not only were the plundered treasures sent to Germany but that they had
also been stolen by individual generals of Hitler’s Army. Kube’s letter
reveals at the same time the existence of a previously elaborated plan
for the plunder of the cultural treasures in Leningrad, Moscow, and the
Ukraine. The vandalism of the Hitlerites reached such proportions that
even Kube, that hangman of the Bielorussian people, was roused to
indignation. He was afraid of allowing a profitable deal to slip through
his hands and sought compensation from Rosenberg. I quote the second
paragraph from the beginning of the letter:
“Minsk possessed a large and, in part, a very valuable
collection of art treasures and paintings which have now been
removed almost in their entirety from the city. By order of
Reichsführer SS, Reichsleiter Heinrich Himmler, most of the
paintings, some still during my term of office, were packed by
the SS and sent to the Reich. They are worth several millions
which were withdrawn from the general district of White
Ruthenia. The paintings were supposedly sent to Linz and to
Königsberg in East Prussia. I beg to have this valuable
collection—as far as it is not needed in the Reich—placed once
more at the disposal of the general district of White Ruthenia
or, in any case, to place the monetary value of these
collections with the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern
Territories.”
Kube, as well as the Defendant Rosenberg, was of the opinion that he had
the right to monopolize the stolen treasures and complained—I quote the
second part of the second paragraph of this letter:
“General Stubenrauch has taken a valuable part of this
collection and has carried it off to the area of military
operations. Sonderführer, whose names have not yet been reported
to me, have carried off three truckloads (without receipt) of
furniture, paintings, and objects of art.”
Having, along with other fascist leaders, robbed the people of
Bielorussia, and taken a direct part in the mass ill-treatment and
extermination of the Soviet population, Kube hypocritically declared—I
quote the last paragraph of this letter:
“Bielorussia, already poor in itself, has suffered heavy losses
through these actions.”
And Kube recommended to Rosenberg—I quote:
“I hope that experts will be appointed beforehand to prevent
such happenings in Leningrad and Moscow, as well as in some of
the ancient Ukrainian cultural centers.”
That was the ultimate goal of their ideas. It is now universally known
what meaning the Hitlerites attached to the word “measures” when applied
to the occupied territories. It meant a regime of bloody terror and
violence, of unrestricted plunder, and arbitrariness.
On breaking into Minsk, capital of the Bielorussian Republic, the German
fascist invaders attempted to destroy the culture of the Bielorussian
people and to turn the Bielorussians into obedient German slaves. As has
been established by a special investigation, the Hitlerite military
authorities, acting on direct orders from the German Government,
ruthlessly destroyed scientific research institutes and schools,
theaters and clubs, hospitals and polyclinics, kindergartens and day
nurseries.
I am reading into the record an excerpt from the document which was
presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-38 (Document
Number USSR-38).
“For 3 years the German fascist invaders in Minsk set out to
destroy, systematically, the scientific research institutes,
institutions of higher education, libraries, museums,
institutions of the academy of science, theaters, and clubs.
“The Lenin library in Minsk was a foundation more than 20 years
old. In 1932 the work was completed by the construction of a
special new building with a large and well-equipped depository
for storing books. From this library the Germans carried off to
Berlin and Königsberg 1½ million extremely valuable books on the
history of Bielorussia. . . .”
I omit the end of Page 73 of my report.
“In their attempt to eradicate the culture of the Bielorussian
people, the German fascist invaders destroyed every cultural and
educational institution in Minsk. . . . The libraries of the
Academy of Science, containing 30,000 volumes, of the State
University, of the Polytechnical Institute, and the
medico-scientific library and the public library of the city, A.
S. Pushkin, were carried away to Germany.
“The Hitlerites destroyed the Bielorussian State University
together with the Zoological, the Geological, and Mineralogical,
the Historical, and Archaeological Museums as well as the
Medical Institute with all its clinics. They also demolished the
Academy of Sciences with its nine institutes.”
I omit the remainder of this paragraph.
“They destroyed the State Art Gallery and carried away to
Germany paintings and sculptures by Russian and Bielorussian
masters. . . . They plundered the Bielorussian State Theater of
Opera and Ballet, the First Bielorussian Dramatic Theater, the
House of National Creative Art, together with the houses of the
unions of writers, artists, and composers.
“In Minsk the fascists destroyed 47 schools, 24 kindergarten
schools, the Palace of the Pioneers, 2 lying-in hospitals, 3
children’s hospitals, 5 municipal polyclinics, 27 nurseries, and
4 children’s welfare centers; the Institution of Infant and
Maternity Welfare was reduced to a heap of ruins.”
The Prosecution has at its disposal Document Number 076-PS which is a
report entitled, “On Minsk Libraries,” by a German private first class,
Abel. This private had investigated all the libraries in Minsk and
stated in his report that nearly all of them had been destroyed.
I present this report as Exhibit Number USSR-375 (Document Number
USSR-375). I consider, Mr. President, that it will be quite sufficient
to read into the record individual excerpts from this report. There is
no need to read the report in its entirety. It is stated, on Page 75 of
my report, that:
“The Lenin library was the central library of Bielorussia. It is
difficult to estimate the number of volumes, but the number of
books is approximately 5 millions. . . . The depositories for
storing books present a desolate picture. . . .”
I omit two paragraphs of my report, and I quote further:
“The library of the Polytechnical Institute in the basement of
the left wing, as well as a great number of laboratories, were
devastated beyond hope and left in complete disorder.”
The report concludes with the following sentence, which I quote:
“The purpose of this report”—wrote the German private—“can be
achieved only if submitted to the Supreme Command and when the
command will issue the necessary orders plainly forbidding the
German soldier from behaving like a barbarian.”
But such orders never followed and never could follow, since fascism and
barbarism are inseparable; fascism, in fact, means barbarism.
THE PRESIDENT: What were you proposing to do after the adjournment this
afternoon?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: After the recess I shall present several
written documents pertaining to the destruction of cultural valuables in
the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Republics and later, with the
permission of the Tribunal, I should like to present a documentary film,
so that at the close of the session all presentation of evidence would
be completed and my report finished.
THE PRESIDENT: How long will the film take?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The presentation of the documentary film will
take about 30 to 35 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think that after the vast amount of damage and
spoliation to which you have drawn our attention in some detail it would
be sufficient if you were to summarize by telling us the countries in
which similar spoliation had taken place? It is difficult to assimilate
all this vast amount of detail.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have in mind, Mr. President, to present to
the Tribunal a document which will serve as a summary and in which all
the general totals will be given.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal
for a few minutes to the fact that before presenting the conclusion of
this document I should like to read into the record a German document
referring to the subject.
Having occupied the Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Soviet Republics,
the German fascist invaders attempted to reduce the Soviet Baltic
provinces to the status of a German colony and to enslave the people of
these republics. This criminal design of the Hitlerite Government found
its full expression in universal plunder, general ruin, violence,
degradation, and in the mass murder of old men, women, and children.
In order to germanize the people of the Lithuanian, Estonian, and
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republics, the Hitlerites destroyed, by all
possible means, the culture of the peoples of these republics. I skip
the remainder of Pages 76, 77, and 78, and from Page 79 I quote one
paragraph only:
“The capital of Soviet Latvia, Riga, was declared by the
occupational authorities as the capital of ‘Ostland’ (Eastern
Territory) and the seat of Staff Rosenberg.”
In the documents presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as
Document Number USSR-7, Document Number USSR-39, and Document Number
USSR-41, there are a number of facts which do not and cannot exhaust the
crimes perpetrated by the German fascist invaders in the Soviet Baltic
provinces. Among the monstrous crimes against the peoples of the Baltic
provinces, the Defendant Rosenberg, the former Reich Minister, played a
major part.
I read from Page 81. Even at the time when it was quite evident that the
downfall of fascist Germany was fast approaching, when the hour of just
and stern retribution was facing the Hitler criminals, the Defendant
Rosenberg still continued in his plundering. As late as the end of
August 1944, Rosenberg organized and executed the plundering of cultural
resources in Riga and Reval, in Dorpat, and in a number of towns in the
Estonian Republic.
I draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document Number 161-PS, dated 23
August 1944, entitled “Assignment” and signed by Rosenberg’s Chief of
Staff, Utikal. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number USSR-376 (Document Number USSR-376), which Your Honors will find
on Page 400 of the document book. I quote:
“Order. On 21 August 1944, Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg
requested Haupteinsatzführer Friedrich Schueller from the
Einsatzstab RR to report on the possibilities still existing for
the evacuation of cultural treasures from the eastern
territories. On the basis of this report the Reichsleiter has
ruled that the most precious cultural riches of the Ostland
could still be removed by his staff, insofar as this can be done
without interfering with the interests of the fighting forces.
The Reichsleiter specified the following cultural objects as
having particular value:
“From Riga—the city archives, the state archives (the major
part of these were in Edwahlen);
“From Reval—the city archives, the Estonian Literary Society,
and small collections from Schwarzhäupterhaus, the town hall,
Evangelical Lutheran consistory, and Nicolas’ Church.
“From Dorpat—the university library; collections evacuated to
Estonian estates—Jerlep, Wodja, Weissenstein, and Lachmes.
“Haupteinsatzführer Schueller, in his capacity as acting
director of the main working group of the Einsatzstab RR, is
commissioned with the carrying out of the removal and shipment.
“He is advised to maintain special contact with Army Group North
in order to co-ordinate the execution of this mission of the
Reichsleiter, with the transportation requirements of the field
forces.
“Utikal, chief of Einsatzstab”
I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to another peculiar
circumstance. In this case, too, the looting was carried out by
Rosenberg together with the High Command, and as late as the fall of
1944, “future chiefs” of Staff Rosenberg were selected.
An analysis of all these circumstances permits us categorically to
reassert that the destruction and looting of cultural valuables was
inspired, directed, and executed by a central organization, and that
this central organization was the criminal Hitler Government and the
High Command, the representatives of which, in the persons of all the
defendants in this Trial, should suffer punishment in accordance with
Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
May it please Your Honors, when we deal with a system of wholesale
destruction and plunder, it is impossible, and scarcely necessary, to
enumerate all the facts, even if these facts are, _per se_, of great
importance. In the occupied territories of the Soviet Union the
Hitlerites carried out precisely such a system of wholesale and manifold
destruction and plunder of cultural treasures of the peoples of the
U.S.S.R. At this moment it is not yet possible to draw up an exhaustive
balance of the defendants’ crimes.
But I shall, with the permission of the Tribunal, submit a document
containing data which, although only of a preliminary nature, are
absolutely accurate and bear witness to the tremendous damage inflicted
by the Hitlerites.
I have in view the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union, submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-35
(Document Number USSR-35). This document is on Pages 404 and 405 of your
document book. From this I shall only quote individual excerpts
concerning the subject which I am presenting and which have not yet been
read into the record:
“Destruction of Cultural-Social Institutions, Public
Organizations, and Co-operatives.
“The German plunderers destroyed various establishments, clubs,
stadia, rest homes, and sanatoria belonging to consumer and
industrial co-operatives, trade unions, and other public
organizations . . . in the occupied territory of the U.S.S.R.
They destroyed over 87,000 industrial buildings belonging to
co-operatives, trade unions, and other social organizations;
10,000 residential buildings and 1,839 cultural and social
institutions. They carried off to Germany about 8,000,000
books. . . .
“Of the property of the trade unions the German invaders
completely destroyed 120 sanatoria and 150 rest homes in which
over 3 million workers, engineers, technicians, and other
employees spent their annual rest leave. Of this total figure
they destroyed, in the Crimea 59 sanatoria and rest homes. . .
in the spas of the Caucasus 32 sanatoria and rest homes; in the
Leningrad area 33 sanatoria and rest homes; in the Ukraine 88
sanatoria and rest homes.
“The German fascist invaders destroyed the buildings of 46
pioneer camps and children’s convalescent institutions belonging
to the trade unions. They destroyed 189 clubs and palaces of
culture.”
I omit one paragraph and quote the last paragraph on this page:
“In the territory of the Soviet Union which was occupied by the
Germans, at the beginning of 1941, there were 82,000 elementary
and secondary schools with 15 million pupils. All the secondary
schools possessed libraries, each with from 2,000 to 25,000
volumes; many schools possessed auditoria for physics,
chemistry, biology, and others. . . .
“The German fascist invaders burned, destroyed, and plundered
these schools with their entire property and equipment. . . .”
I omit the end of this paragraph.
“The German fascist invaders entirely or partially destroyed 334
colleges at which 233,000 students were studying; they removed
to Germany the equipment of the laboratories and lecture rooms
together with the exhibits, unique of their kind, from the
collections of the universities, institutes, and libraries.
“Great damage was inflicted on the medical colleges. . . .
“The occupants destroyed or looted 137 pedagogical institutions
and teachers’ colleges. . . . They removed historical material
and ancient manuscripts from special libraries, and stole or
destroyed over 100 million volumes in the public libraries.”
I omit the next paragraph:
“They destroyed, on the whole, 605 scientific research
institutes.”
I omit the end of Page 85 of my report and the first paragraph of Page
86.
“Enormous damage was inflicted by the Germans on the medical
establishments of the Soviet Union. They destroyed or plundered
6,000 hospitals, 33,000 polyclinics, dispensaries, and
out-patient departments, 976 sanatoria and 656 rest homes.”
I omit the next three paragraphs.
“Destruction of Museums and Historical Monuments.
“In the occupied territories the German fascist invaders
destroyed 427 out of a total of 992 museums of the Soviet
Union.”
I omit the end of this page and quote the beginning of Page 87 of the
report:
“The Germans also destroyed the museum of the peasant poet S. D.
Drozhzhin, in the village of Zavidovo, the museum of the
people’s poet I. S. Nikitin, in Voronezh, and the museum of the
famous Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, at Novogrudka in the
Bielorussian S.S.R. At Alagir they burned the manuscript of the
national singer Osetij Kosta Khetagurov.
“The German fascist invaders destroyed 44,000 theaters, clubs,
and so-called ‘Red corners.’”
Now with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit a
documentary film and a certificate testifying to the documentary
character of this film. The film is entitled, “Destruction of Art and
Museums of National Culture perpetrated by the Germans on the Territory
of the U.S.S.R.” This film and the documents testifying to the
documentary nature of these reels are submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-98 (Document Number USSR-98). In this film, besides
documentary photographs taken between 1941-45, there are also extracts
made in 1908, showing Yasnaya Polyana and Leo Tolstoy. Subsequent
photographs show what the German invaders did to this cultural relic of
the Soviet people.
May I proceed with the presentation of the film, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.
[_Moving pictures were then shown._]
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I must dwell, Your Honors, on one more category
of crimes committed by the Hitlerites—the spoliation and destruction of
churches, convents, and other places of religious worship.
By destroying monasteries, churches, mosques, and synagogues and robbing
their property, the German invaders sadistically mocked the religious
feelings of the people. These blasphemous crimes assumed a general
appearance in all the territories which were under German rule. Soldiers
and officers organized bloody orgies in places of worship, kept horses
and dogs in the churches, donned the church vestments, and made sleeping
bunks out of the icons.
I shall not trespass on your time by reading all the numerous documents
at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution, and shall merely dwell on
some of these, in particular on the documentary photographs, an album of
which I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-99 (Document
Number USSR-99).
With your permission, I should like to read a few more documents and
particularly a short extract from the document which has already been
presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3) (Document Number
USSR-51(3)). You can find this extract in your document book on the back
of Page 321. I quote:
“The Hitlerite invaders do not spare the religious sentiments of
the believing section of the Soviet population either. They have
burned, looted, blown up, and desecrated hundreds of churches on
Soviet territory, including several irreplaceable monuments of
ancient church architecture.”
I omit two paragraphs, and I quote the next one:
“The priest Amvrosy Ivanov writes from the village of
Iklinskoye, in the Moscow region:
“‘Before the arrival of the Germans the church was in complete
order. A German officer ordered me to take everything out of the
church. . . . At night troops arrived, occupied the church,
brought in their horses. . . . Then they began to smash and
break everything in the church and to build bunks. They threw
out everything: the altar, the holy gates and banners, and the
holy shroud. In a word, the church was turned into a robbers’
den.’”
I omit the remaining part of Page 88, and I read Page 89 of the report:
“In the village of Gosteshevo, the Germans plundered the church,
broke up the holy banners, threw the books about, robbed the
Reverend Mikhail Strakhov and carried him off with them to
another district. In the village of Kholm, near Mozhaisk, the
Germans robbed and beat up the 82-year-old local priest. In
retreating from Mozhaisk, the Germans blew up the Church of the
Ascension, the Church of the Holy Trinity, and the Cathedral of
Nicholas, the miracle worker. As a rule, before retreating, the
Germans would drive part of the population of the villages
destroyed by fire into the churches, lock them up, and then set
fire to these churches.”
I am now reading into the record a short excerpt from Exhibit Number
USSR-312 (Document Number USSR-312), submitted to the Tribunal:
“In a north side-altar of the Znamensky Cathedral, the Germans
set up a latrine for the soldiers living in the crypt of the
cathedral.
“The Church of the Prophet Elijah on the Slavna was transformed
into a stable.
“Stables were built in the following Pskov churches:
Bogoyavlenie on Zapskovie, Kozma and Demian on the Gremiatchy
Hill, Constantine and Helen, and in the Church of Saint John the
Evangelist.”
The document which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279) describes facts of blasphemous
mockery which took place in the town of Gjatsk where the churches were
transformed by the Germans into stables and warehouses. In the Church of
the Annunciation the Germans set up a slaughterhouse for horned cattle.
The document which I am now presenting to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-246 (Document Number USSR-246) is a report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union and contains general data relating
to the churches, chapels, and other institutions of religious worship
which have been destroyed or damaged. This document states:
“The German fascist invaders completely destroyed or partly
damaged 1,670 churches, 69 chapels, 237 Roman Catholic churches,
four mosques, 532 synagogues, and 254 other buildings for
religious worship.”
Your Honors will find in the document, submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), these general data on
the subject. I will not burden the Tribunal’s attention by reading the
document into the record in full, but I should like to quote a few very
short excerpts from it. I quote:
“The material responsibility by the Germans cannot make complete
amends for the destruction of ecclesiastical buildings, and of
the most ancient historical monuments; the majority of these can
never be restored.”
Omitting the remainder of the page, as well as the first four paragraphs
of Page 91 of the report, I read the last paragraph of this page:
“Many churches, historical monuments of antiquity, were
destroyed by the German invaders in Bielorussia. Thus, in the
city of Vitebsk, they destroyed the Church of the Nativity, an
interesting monument of Bielorussian architecture of the 12th
century. They completely destroyed the wooden Apostle and Saint
Nicholas Churches, built in the 18th century.
“Almost irreparable damage was done to the
Voskresenko-Zaruchjevsky Church, built in the 18th century. This
church was an interesting example of the Bielorussian classic
style of architecture. In the same area, in the city of Vitebsk,
the Germans destroyed a Roman Catholic church built in the 18th
century. . . .
“In the town of Dyesna, of the Polotsk region, the Germans
burned a Roman Catholic church founded in the 17th century,
after plundering its property.
“Timoschel Rudolf, German garrison commandant of the town of
Rozhnyatov, in the Stanislav region, used three synagogues for
barracks and later on destroyed the buildings after plundering
the property contained therein.”
I omit the next paragraph.
“Before destroying buildings of various religious cults the
Germans plundered and destroyed all their equipment. A great
number of icons and church decorations were removed from
ecclesiastical buildings to Germany.
“The Joseph-Volokalamsky Monastery was plundered and the ancient
shrouds of the monastery, together with the personal belongings
of Joseph Volotsky, founder of the monastery, have
disappeared. . . .
“In 1941 German soldiers and officers stole from the Staritzki
Church all the vessels, altar crosses, crowns, miters, and
tabernacles.
“In the town Dokshitza, in the Polotsk region, the Germans
looted and took away all the property of the local mosque. The
same fate was shared by nearly all the churches in the
territories occupied by the Germans.
“Everywhere the Germans plundered Orthodox and Catholic
churches, synagogues, mosques, and other buildings of religious
worship.”
The Hitlerite conspirators not only actually plundered, tortured, and
murdered, but they also strove to humiliate the believers morally and to
rob them of their spiritual treasures.
Such, Your Honors, is the conclusive evidence concerning the crimes
against culture, committed by Rosenberg, Frank, Göring, Ribbentrop,
Keitel, and the other participants in the conspiracy. The crimes of the
defendants against culture are terrible indeed in their consequences.
Even though it be possible, by a tremendous effort, to rebuild the
cities and villages destroyed by the Hitlerites, even though it be
possible to restore the factories and plants blown up or burned down by
them, mankind has lost for all time the irreplaceable art treasures
which the Hitlerites so ruthlessly destroyed, as it has lost forever the
millions of human beings sent to their death in Auschwitz, Treblinka,
Babye-yar, or Kerch.
Having inherited the savage hatred of all mankind from the dim ages of
the past, the modern Huns have far surpassed, in cruelty and vandalism,
the darkest pages of history. While arrogantly challenging the future of
mankind, they trampled under foot the finest heritage of mankind’s past.
Themselves without faith or ideals, they sacrilegiously destroyed both
the churches and the relics of the saints.
But in this unparalleled struggle between culture and obscurantism,
between civilization and barbarism, culture and civilization prevailed.
The Hitlerite conspirators who had aspired to world domination, who had
dreamed of destroying the culture of the Slavs and of all other nations,
now stand in the defendants’ dock. May a just punishment be theirs.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you continue until 5 o’clock?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As you wish, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; will you go on until 5 o’clock?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I should only like to ask for a few minutes’
interval in order to collect some documents. It will literally take only
a few moments.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be hardly worth while if you want a short
interval. We shall stop at 5 o’clock.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It would perhaps be more convenient to begin
again at 1000 hours tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 22 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SIXTY-FIFTH DAY
Friday, 22 February 1946
_Morning Session_
MARSHAL: May it please the Court: The Defendant Fritzsche will be absent
until further notice on account of illness.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: May it please Your Honors, may I begin the
submission of evidence to prove the charge that the defendants are
guilty of the destruction of towns and villages and of the perpetration
of other kinds of destruction. This charge is laid down in Section C of
Count Three of the Indictment.
We shall present evidence proving that the destruction of cities and
towns was brought about neither by the hazards of war nor by military
expediencies. We shall submit evidence that this deliberate destruction
was carried out in accordance with the thoroughly elaborated plans of
the Hitlerite Government and orders of the German military command; that
the destruction of towns and cities, of industry and transportation was
an integral part of the conspiracy which aimed at enslaving the peoples
of Europe and other countries, and establishing a world hegemony of
Hitlerite Germany.
Wherever the German fascist invaders appeared, they brought death and
destruction. In the flames of the fires were lost the most valuable
machines devised by the genius of mankind; factories and dwellings
giving work and shelter to millions were blown up. People themselves
perished, especially old men, women, and children, left without a roof
over their heads or any means of existence.
With particular ruthlessness the Hitlerites annihilated and destroyed
the towns and cities in the territories of the Soviet Union which they
temporarily occupied, where, acting on direct orders of the German High
Command, they created a desert zone.
As proof, I read into the record an excerpt from the document which had
been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51(2) (Document
Number USSR-51(2)). This excerpt the Members of the Tribunal will find
on Page 3 of the document book. I quote:
“An order recently seized near the town of Verkhovye, Orel
region, issued to the 512th German Infantry Regiment and signed
by Colonel Schittnig, stated with unparalleled brazenness:
“‘A zone which, in view of the circumstances, is to be
evacuated, upon withdrawal of the troops should present a desert
zone. In order to carry out a complete destruction, all the
houses shall be burned. To this end they should first be filled
with straw, particularly stone houses. Structures of stone are
to be blown up, particularly cellars. Measures for the creation
of desert zones . . . are to be prepared beforehand and carried
out ruthlessly and in their entirety.’”
So runs the order to the 512th German Infantry Regiment.
“In razing our towns and villages, the German command demands of
its troops that a desert zone be created in all Soviet
localities from which the invaders are successfully expelled by
the Red Army.”
This order to the 512th Regiment, which is mentioned in the document I
just quoted, is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-168 (Document Number
USSR-168).
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know the date of it?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The date of this order is 10 December 1941.
From this document it is clear that the German military command
underwrote a ruthless and complete destruction of inhabited localities
and that this destruction was planned and prepared in advance.
A large number of documents and facts concerning this question are in
the possession of the Soviet Prosecution. I shall limit myself to
reading into the record an excerpt from the verdict of the regional
military court in the case of the German war criminals Lieutenant
General Bernhardt and Major General Hamann. I submit this verdict to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-90 (Document Number USSR-90).
The military court established that the generals, Bernhardt and Hamann,
had acted in accordance with the common plans and directives of the High
Command of the German Army and that they—I quote a short excerpt from
the verdict which Your Honors will find on Pages 24 and 25 of the
document book:
“. . . had carried out a planned destruction of towns and
inhabited localities, determined in advance, along with the
destruction of industrial buildings, hospitals, sanatoria,
educational institutions, museums, and other cultural
educational institutions, as well as dwellings. The latter were
blown up without any previous warning to the Soviet citizens
living in them, with the result that people as well perished.”
As in the case of the destruction of inhabited localities, plants, and
factories, power-stations and mines were also destroyed with
premeditation.
For confirmation I shall draw the attention of the Tribunal to the
report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union which
was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-2 (Document Number
USSR-2). This document is on Page 28 of the document book.
In this report is quoted the secret directive of the leader of the
department of economics (Wirtschaftsoffizier) of Army Group South of 2
September 1943, under Number 1/313/43, which ordered army leaders and
leaders of the economics detachments to carry out a thorough
annihilation of industrial institutions, emphasizing particularly that
“. . . the destruction must be carried out not at the last moment when
the troops may be engaged in combat or in retreat, but ahead of time.”
The note by V. M. Molotov, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of
the U.S.S.R. of 27 April 1942, deals with the orders of the German
Supreme Command and with the manner in which these orders were executed.
This note was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51(3)
(Document Number USSR-51(3)).
I shall now quote several excerpts from Part II of the note just
mentioned, which is entitled, “The Devastation of Cities and Towns,”
excerpts which were not read into the record before. These excerpts will
be found on Pages 6, the reverse side, and 7 of the document book which
is in the hands of the Tribunal. I read:
“By direct order of its High Command the German fascist Army has
subjected Soviet towns and villages to unparalleled devastation
upon seizure and in the course of the army’s occupation.”
I omit the end of Page 4 and the beginning of Page 5 of my report.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you ought to omit the first four lines of
Page 5.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I omitted it inasmuch as I read this document
into the record yesterday, but if the Tribunal wishes—I shall gladly do
it.
THE PRESIDENT: If you read it yesterday, do not read it again. I do not
remember. Was it read yesterday?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, I read this into the record yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
I am told that—and I think—that you did not read those lines “from 10
October 1941” at the top of Page 5. I think you had better read them. I
am referring to the order of 10 October 1941, which is set out in your
exposé.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This is the excerpt from the order given to the
6th German Army, on 10 October 1941, signed by Von Reichenau. This
document is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-12
(Document Number USSR-12). I quote:
“The troops have an interest in extinguishing fires only
inasmuch as military quarters have to be conserved. Otherwise
the disappearance . . . also of buildings, is within the limits
of the fight of extermination.
“At the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 the German command
issued a number of orders instructing German army units to
destroy, in the course of their retreat under the pressure of
the Red Army, everything that had remained unscathed during the
occupation. Thousands of villages and hamlets, whole city
blocks, and even entire cities are reduced to ashes, blown up,
or razed to the ground by the retreating German fascist army.
The organized destruction of Soviet towns and villages has
become a special branch of the criminal activity of the German
invaders on Soviet territory; special instructions and detailed
orders of the German command are devoted to methods of
devastating Soviet populated centers; special detachments,
trained in this criminal profession, are set up for this
purpose. Here are some of the many facts which are at the
disposal of the Soviet Government:”
Once again I refer to the order addressed to the 512th Infantry Regiment
already presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-168 (Document
Number USSR-168).
“This order . . . is an exposition, consisting of seven typed
pages of the most precisely detailed plan for the methodical
destruction of village after village, from 10 December to 14
December inclusive, in the regiment’s area. This order, which
follows a model used throughout the German Army, states:
“‘Preparations for the destruction of populated centers must be
carried out in such a way that:
“‘(a) No suspicions whatever be aroused among the civilian
population prior to its announcement;
“‘(b) The destruction should begin and be carried out in a
single blow at the appointed time. On the day in question
particularly strict watch must be kept to see that no civilians
leave this place, especially after the destruction has been
announced.’
“An order of the commander of the 98th German Infantry Division,
dated 24 December 1941, after listing 16 Soviet villages
designated to be burned down, states:
“‘Available stocks of hay, straw, foodstuffs, _et cetera_, are
to be burned. All the stoves in dwelling houses are to be
wrecked by placing hand grenades in them, thus making further
use of them impossible. This order under no circumstances is to
fall into the hands of the enemy.’”
The following order of 3 January 1942, issued by Hitler, is of the same
nature. The order states:
“‘Cling to every populated center; do not retreat a single step;
defend yourself to the last soldier, to the last grenade. That
is the requirement of the present moment. Every point occupied
by us must be turned into a base, which must not be surrendered
under any circumstances, even if outflanked by the enemy. If,
however, the given point must be abandoned on superior orders,
it is imperative that everything be razed to the ground, the
stoves blown up. . . .
“‘(Signed): Adolf Hitler.’
“Hitler felt no embarrassment about publicly admitting that the
devastation of Soviet towns and villages was carried out by his
Army. In his speech. . .”
THE PRESIDENT: That order of 3 January 1942, signed by Hitler, is that
in the official Soviet State report? Where did it come from?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This order is incorporated in the note of
People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov. I quote an excerpt from
it, a document which was presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-51(3).
THE PRESIDENT: That is Mr. Molotov’s report?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, this is a note of the Foreign Commissar,
Molotov.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: “. . . In his speech of 30 January
1942, Hitler stated:
“‘In those places where the Russians have succeeded in making a
break-through and where they thought that they would once again
be in possession of populated centers, these populated centers
no longer exist; they are but a heap of ruins.’”
While retreating from the Kuban under the thrust of the Red Army, the
German High Command worked out a detailed plan of operations which bore
the code name of “Movement Krimhild,” and a considerable part of this
plan, a whole section, in fact, is devoted to the demolition plan. I
omit one paragraph of my report.
This plan is mentioned in a two-page secret document transmitted by
telegraph to the chiefs of the higher staffs. The document is signed by
Hitler and has the following heading on the first page: “Top secret (A)
2371; 17 copies.” The document which we submit to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-115 is the 17th copy of the Hitler order. This
document is listed as Document Number C-177; in your document book it is
contained on Pages 31 to 33. I shall read into the record the second
point of this document:
“2. Demolitions in case of retreat.
“(a) All structures, quartering facilities, roads,
constructions, dams, _et cetera_, which may be useful to the
adversary have to be thoroughly destroyed.
“(b) All railroads and field railways are to be either removed
or completely destroyed.
“(c) All constructed corduroy roads must be torn up and rendered
useless.
“(d) All oil wells in the Kuban bridgehead must be entirely
destroyed.
“(e) The harbor of Novorossiysk will be so demolished and
obstructed as to render it useless to the Russian fleet for a
long time.
“(f) Extensive sowing of mines, delayed-action mines, _et
cetera_, also come under the heading of destruction.
“(g) The enemy must take over a completely useless,
uninhabitable desert land where mine detonation will occur for
months hence.”
Many other documents bear witness of similar orders, but I want to draw
the attention of the Tribunal to just two of them. I refer to an entry
in the diary of the Defendant Frank which dealt with this subject in
particular, as well as a directive issued by the commanding general of
118th German Jäger Division which operated in Yugoslavia.
In Frank’s diary, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal,
there is the following entry for 17 April 1944, contained in the volume
which was started on 1 March 1944 and ended on 31 May 1944, entitled,
“The Business Meeting at Kraków on 12 April 1944.” Your Honors will find
the quotation on Page 45 of the document book. I read:
“It is important that the troops be given an order to leave only
scorched earth to the Russians. In cases when it becomes
necessary to withdraw from a certain area, no distinction should
be made between the territory of the Government General and any
other territory.”
May I remind the Tribunal that according to Exhibit Number USSR-132
(Document Number USSR-132), which is a secret instruction issued to the
118th German Jäger Division with the signature of Major General Kübler
and was captured in June 1944 by units of the Yugoslav People’s
Liberation Army, the troops were to treat the population “ruthlessly
with cruel firmness” and to destroy the inhabited localities which were
abandoned.
May it please Your Honors, in concluding this part of my report I deem
it necessary to draw your attention to another circumstance. The
destruction of peaceful towns and villages was not only planned, not
only carried out deliberately and with exceptional ruthlessness, but was
executed by special detachments created by the German High Command for
that very purpose. By way of evidence I shall quote several excerpts not
yet read into the record from official Soviet Government documents.
In the note of 27 April 1942 is stated—I quote an excerpt which is on
Page 9 of your document book:
“The special detachments set up by the German Command for the
purpose of setting fire to Soviet populated centers and for the
mass extermination of the civilian population during the retreat
of the Hitlerite Army, are perpetrating their sanguinary deeds
with the cold-bloodedness of professional criminals. Thus, for
instance before their retreat from the village of
Bolshekrepinskaya, Rostov region, the Germans sent down the
streets of the village special flame-throwing machines which
burned 1,167 buildings, one after the other. The large,
flourishing village was turned into flaming bonfires which
consumed the dwellings, the hospital, the school, and various
other public buildings. At the same time machine gunners,
without any warning, shot at inhabitants who approached their
burning houses; some of the residents were bound, sprayed with
gasoline and thrown into the burning buildings.”
I omit part of Page 9 of my report and pass on to the next, to the last
paragraph on that page of my report. The report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union which was presented to the Tribunal
as Exhibit Number USSR-46 (Document Number USSR-46) states:
“In their insane fury against the Soviet people, which was
caused by defeats suffered at the front, the commanding general
of the 2d German Panzer Army, General Schmidt, and the commander
of the Orel administrative region and military commander of that
city, Major General Hamann, had created special demolition
commandos for the destruction of towns, villages, and collective
farms of the Orel region. These commandos, plunderers, and
arsonists destroyed everything in the path of their retreat.
They destroyed cultural monuments and works of art of the
Russian people, burned down cities, towns, and villages.”
In the document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-279
(Document Number USSR-279), the following facts are described—I read:
“In Viazma and Gjatsk, the commanding generals—Major General
Merker of the 35th Infantry Division, Major General Schäfer of
the 252d Infantry Division, and Major General Roppert of the 7th
Infantry Division—organized special incendiary and demolition
commandos to set on fire and blow up dwellings, schools,
theaters, clubs, museums, libraries, hospitals, churches,
stores, and industrial plants, so that only ashes and ruins
would be left in the wake of their retreat.”
In the document which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2) there are several depositions of German
prisoners of war. I shall quote one of these depositions. I read at the
end of the page:
“Herman Verholtz, a private first class, from the 597th Infantry
Regiment of the 306th Division of the German Army, deposes as
follows:
“‘As a member of a demolition squad I took part in setting fire
to and blowing up government buildings and dwellings on First
Line, the main street of Stalino. My job was to place the
explosives, which I then ignited and thus blew up the buildings.
Altogether I participated in the demolition of five large houses
and in the burning of several others.’”
Your Honors, one could go on with the same kind of quotations. I repeat
that scores of them are contained in the documents and depositions which
we presented to the Tribunal, but I consider that there is no necessity
to do that. What has already been read into the record permits us to
conclude that the premeditated and deliberate devastations which were
carried out by the Hitlerites in the occupied territories were really a
system and not individual acts, and that those devastations were not
perpetrated only at the hand of individual officers and soldiers of the
German Army, but that these devastations were carried out on the orders
of the German Supreme Command. Therefore, I omit Page 11 of my report,
and I begin with Page 12.
In the criminal plans of the fascist conspirators, the devastation of
the capitals of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Poland occupied a
particular place. Among these plans the destruction of Moscow and
Leningrad received special attention.
Intoxicated by the first military successes, the Hitlerites elaborated
insane plans for the destruction of the greatest cultural and industrial
centers dear to the Soviet people. For this purpose they prepared
special task forces. They even hurried to advertise their “decision” to
refuse the capitulation of the cities which never even took place.
It is necessary to note that such expressions as “raze to the ground” or
“wipe from the face of the earth” were used quite frequently by the
Hitlerite conspirators. These were not only threats but criminal acts as
well. As we shall see from the subsequent presentation, in some places
they did succeed in razing flourishing towns and villages to the ground.
I omit one paragraph of my report.
I shall now present two documents which reveal the intentions of the
Hitlerite conspirators.
The first document is a secret directive of the naval staff, numbered
I-a 1601/41, dated 22 September 1941. It is entitled, “The Future of the
City of Petersburg.” (Document Number C-124, Exhibit Number USSR-113).
Therefore, as we are in possession of the original of this document,
which was distributed in several copies, I believe that it does not have
to be read into the record. With your permission, Mr. President, I shall
remind the Tribunal of the contents of this directive. In this directive
it is stated, “The Führer has decided to wipe the city of Petersburg
from the face of the earth,” that it is planned to blockade the city
securely, to subject it to artillery bombardment of all calibers, and by
means of constant bombing from the air to raze Leningrad to the ground.
It is also decreed in the order that should there be a request for
capitulation, such request should be turned down by the Germans.
Finally, it is stated in this document that this directive emanates not
only from the naval staff, but also from the OKW.
I omit Page 13 of my report and begin with the last paragraph of the
page.
The second document, bearing the number Document C-123, presented to the
Court as Exhibit Number USSR-114, is also a top secret order of the
Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, dated 7 October 1941, Number
44/1675/41, and signed by the Defendant Jodl. This document, Your
Honors, is to be found on Pages 69 and 70 in the document book. I read
into the record the text of this document, or rather a few excerpts from
this letter on Page 14 of my presentation. I read the first paragraph of
the letter:
“The Führer has again decided that a capitulation of Leningrad
or, later, of Moscow is not to be accepted even if it is offered
by the enemy.”
And further the last but one paragraph of this page:
“Therefore, no German soldier is to enter these cities. By our
fire we must force all who try to leave the city through our
lines to turn back. The exodus of the population through the
smaller, unguarded gaps toward the interior of Russia is only to
be welcomed. Before the cities are taken, they are to be
weakened by artillery fire and air attacks, and their population
should be caused to flee.
“We cannot take the responsibility of endangering our soldiers’
lives in order to save Russian cities from fire, nor that of
feeding the population of these cities at the expense of the
German homeland. . . .
“All commanding officers shall be informed of this will of the
Führer.”
The Hitlerite conspirators began to put their criminal ideas about the
destruction of Leningrad into effect with unprecedented ferocity. In the
report of the Leningrad city commission for the investigation of the
atrocities of the German fascist invaders, the monstrous crimes of the
Hitlerites are described in detail.
This document had been presented to the Court as Exhibit Number USSR-85.
I shall read into the record only a general summary of the data
presented on Page 1 of the report, which is on Page 71 of the document
book. I read:
“As a result of the barbarous activities of the German fascist
invaders in Leningrad and its suburbs, 8,961 household and
annexed buildings, sheds, baths, _et cetera_, with a total
volume of 5,192,427 cubic meters were completely destroyed, and
5,869 buildings with a total volume of 14,308,288 cubic meters
were partially destroyed. Completely destroyed were 20,627
dwellings, with a total volume of 25,429,780 cubic meters, and
8,788 buildings, with a total volume of 10,081,035 cubic meters
were partially demolished. Six buildings dedicated to religious
cults were completely, and 66 such buildings partially,
destroyed. The Hitlerites destroyed, ruined, and damaged various
kinds of institutions valued at more than 718 million rubles, as
well as more than 1,043 million rubles’ worth of industrial
equipment and agricultural machinery and implements.”
This document establishes that the Hitlerites bombed and shelled,
methodically and according to plan, day and night, streets, dwelling
houses, theaters, museums, hospitals, kindergartens, military hospitals,
schools, institutes, and streetcars, and ruined most valuable monuments
of culture and art. Many thousands of bombs and shells hammered the
historical buildings of Leningrad, and at its quays, gardens, and parks.
I omit the end of Page 16.
In conclusion, I shall permit myself to quote one of the many German
depositions which are quoted in the document, namely paragraph 4 on Page
14. Your Honors will find this deposition I am quoting on Page 84 of the
document book. I quote:
“Sergeant Fritz Köpke, commanding Number 2 gun of the 2d battery
of the 2d Detachment of the 910th Artillery Regiment stated:
“‘For the bombardment of Leningrad, there was in the batteries a
special stock of munitions supplied over and above the limit to
an unlimited amount. . . .
“‘All the gun crews know that the bombardments of Leningrad were
aimed at ruining the town and annihilating its civilian
population. They therefore regarded with irony the bulletins of
the German Supreme Command which spoke of shelling the “military
objectives” of Leningrad.’”
The Hitlerite conspirators aimed at the complete destruction of the
Yugoslav capital, Belgrade.
I remind you of Document Number 1746-PS, presented to the Tribunal on 7
December 1945; it is an order by Hitler, dated 27 March 1941, dealing
with the attack on Yugoslavia. It is known that this order, entitled
“Instruction Number 25,” gives in detail the military strategy for the
attack and, besides, decrees that all the Yugoslav Air Force ground
installations and the city of Belgrade shall be destroyed by means of
continuous day and night air raids.
I omit the first paragraph of Page 18 of my report, inasmuch as the
facts which are mentioned in this paragraph have been read into the
record on 11 February. I shall read a few excerpts from Pages 22 and 23
of the official report of the Yugoslav Government. This corresponds to
Pages 111 and 112 in your document book. I read:
“The planned and systematic execution of these crimes, based on
the orders of the Government of the Reich and of the OKW, is
confirmed by the fact that the destruction of inhabited
localities and of the population did not cease even at the time
of the retreat of the German troops from Yugoslavia.
“Typical for thousands of such cases is the destruction of
Belgrade and extermination of its citizens in October 1944.
“The fights for the liberation of Belgrade lasted from 15 to 20
October 1944. Even before the fighting started, the Germans
prepared a plan for the systematic destruction of the city. They
sent into the city a large number of specially trained units
whose duties consisted of mining houses and killing the
population. Though, because of the swift advance of the Red Army
and of the Yugoslav National Liberation Forces, they failed to
carry out their task as ordered by the German commanders, they
succeeded in destroying a large number of houses in the southern
part of the city and in killing a considerable number of its
inhabitants.
“To a still greater extent, this happened in the northern part
of the city, on the Rivers Sava and Danube. The Germans went
from house to house, herded the inhabitants, unclothed and
unshod, into the streets, sprayed inflammable chemical
explosives into every apartment, and set fire to all the
buildings. If a house happened to be made of a very solid
material, they mined it. They fired at the inhabitants, killing
defenseless people; in several large houses the inhabitants were
locked in, and were destroyed by fire and by mine explosions.
The entire damage thus caused in the city of Belgrade totals the
sum of 1,127,129,069 dinars at prewar value.”
Thus, the destruction of Belgrade was prescribed by Hitler’s order of 27
March 1941 and was carried out on direct orders of the Defendant Göring;
in October 1944 it was carried out by the same methods as those employed
by the Hitlerites in the occupied territories of the U.S.S.R.
I shall now present evidence of the intentional and unexampled
destruction by the Hitlerites of the capital of the Polish nation,
Warsaw.
I shall quote three documents which reveal the criminal intentions of
the fascist conspirators to raze this city. As the first document,
Exhibit Number USSR-128 (Document Number USSR-128), I present to the
Tribunal a telegram Number 13265, addressed to the Defendant Frank, and
signed by the Governor of the Warsaw District, Dr. Fischer. This
document can be found on Page 148 of the document book. I read into the
record the text of this telegram:
“To the Governor General and Reich Minister, Dr. Frank, at
Kraków.
“Warsaw, Number 13265; 11. X. 44; 10.40, HE.
“Subject: New Policy with Regard to Poland.
“As a result of the visit of SS Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach
to the Reichsführer SS, I wish to inform you of the following:
“. . . 2) Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach again received an order
to pacify Warsaw—that is, to raze Warsaw to the ground while
the war is still on, if there is nothing against this from the
military point of view (construction of fortresses). Prior to
destruction, all raw materials, textiles, and furniture should
be taken out of Warsaw. The main role in performing this task
should be assumed by the civilian administration.
“I am informing you of these facts because this new order of the
Führer regarding the destruction of Warsaw is of the greatest
importance for the future policy toward Poland.
“The Governor of the Warsaw District, temporarily at Sochaczew,
signed: Dr. Fischer.”
Von dem Bach, mentioned in the telegram just read into the record, is
already known to you, Your Honors; he testified in the afternoon session
of the Tribunal on 7 January.
How SS Obergruppenführer Von dem Bach carried out Hitler’s order
regarding the destruction of Warsaw can be seen from the written
evidence given by him on oath on 28 January 1946, during his
interrogation by the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic, M.
Savitzky.
I present to the Court the original record of the interrogation in
German, duly signed by Von dem Bach. I shall read two extracts from this
record. . .
[_Dr. Seidl approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear the objection.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): I object to the reading
of the interrogation of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. The witness
was heard before the Court, and it would have been possible at that time
to hear the witness about the matter of the interrogation right here
before the Court.
Should the Soviet Prosecution not wish to forgo the presentation of this
material, then I request that the witness, Von dem Bach-Zelewski, who is
still here in Nuremberg, be summoned before the Tribunal again, so that
the Defense may have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, do you want to say anything?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this record of the interrogation
of Von dem Bach-Zelewski was given under oath, and it was presented to
the Soviet Delegation by the representatives of the Polish Government.
The record of the interrogation is formulated according to the laws of
procedure and was given under oath. Therefore, we consider it imperative
and possible to present it to the Tribunal without calling Von dem
Bach-Zelewski for a second interrogation before the Tribunal. If the
Tribunal decides that the testimony of Bach-Zelewski cannot be read into
the record without his being called again before the Tribunal, then, in
the interests of expediting the Trial, and in order not to protract the
presentation of our evidence, we agree not to read this testimony into
the record inasmuch as evidence regarding these facts is contained in
other documents which I shall later present to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you then, General: If the evidence given before
the Polish Commission is the same as the evidence which Bach-Zelewski
gave in court, it would be cumulative; if it is different, then surely
the defendants’ counsel ought to have the opportunity of cross-examining
him upon it.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The testimony which was given by Bach-Zelewski
to the prosecutor of the Polish Republic is supplementary. Bach-Zelewski
was not examined before the Tribunal about the devastations.
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, the Tribunal understood you to say that
you would be prepared to withdraw this evidence in view of the fact that
the witness had given evidence already and the Tribunal considers that
that is the proper course to take. So then the evidence will be
withdrawn and struck from the record so far as it has been put on the
record.
I think this would be a good time to adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: As a result of the decision of the Tribunal, I
exclude Page 21 from my report and pass on to Page 22. I shall read into
the record an extract from the diary of the Defendant Frank, which was
presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-223 (Document Number
USSR-223). This extract is on Page 45 of the document book. I have in
mind the file which was begun on 1 August 1944 and brought to 14
December 1944, entitled “Diary,” where there is a note which mentions
the contents of a telegram sent by Frank to Reich Minister Lammers. I
read—on 5 August 1944:
“The Governor General sends the following telegram to Reich
Minister Dr. Lammers:
“‘. . . The city of Warsaw is, for the most part, engulfed in
flames. Burning of the houses is the surest way to rob the
insurgents of any shelter. . . .
“‘After this uprising and its suppression, Warsaw will justly be
committed to its deserved fate of being completely destroyed.’”
These documents prove, thus, that the fascist conspirators set for
themselves the aim of razing to the ground the capital of the Polish
State, Warsaw, and that the Defendant Frank played an active part in
this crime.
In all the territories of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece, and
Czechoslovakia which they occupied, the German fascist invaders
systematically destroyed inhabited localities according to plan, under
the pretense of fighting the partisans. Punitive expeditions,
detachments, and commandos, specially detailed by the German military
command, burned down and blew up tens of thousands of villages, hamlets,
and other inhabited localities.
I skip a paragraph of my report.
From the numerous documents in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution
I shall quote, as examples, a few which are typical and which
characterize the whole system developed by the Hitlerites.
The report of Captain Kasper, a company commander, dated 27 September
1942 and entitled, “Conclusive Report on the Results of the Punitive
Expedition Carried out in the Village of Borisovka from 22 to 26
September 1942,” starts as follows: “Tasks: Company 9 must destroy the
band-infested village of Borisovka.” This document has been presented to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-119 (Document Number USSR-119).
I omit the beginning of Page 42 of my report.
In January 1942, in the Rezeknes district of the Latvian Socialist
Soviet Republic, the Germans destroyed the village of Audrini with its
entire population, ostensibly for having aided members of the Red Army.
In the towns of Latvia a notice to this effect was posted by the chief
of the German State Security Police in Latvia, SS Obersturmbannführer
Strauch, in German, Latvian, and Russian.
I present to the Tribunal a certified photostatic copy of this notice as
Exhibit Number USSR-262 (Document Number USSR-262), and I read into the
record an excerpt from this document. This excerpt is on Page 158:
“The commander of the Security Police in Latvia hereby announces
the following:
“. . . 2) The inhabitants of the village of Audrini, in the
Rezeknes district, concealed members of the Red Army for over
one-quarter of a year, armed them, and assisted them in every
way in their anti-government activities. . . .
“As punishment I ordered the following:
“a) That the village of Audrini be wiped from the face of the
earth.”
The Hitlerites widely practiced punitive expeditions in the occupied
districts of the Leningrad region. As can be seen from a verdict of the
military tribunal of the Leningrad Military District, which is submitted
to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-91 (Document Number USSR-91), the
Hitlerites burned down, in February 1944, 10 inhabited localities in the
Dedovitch, Pozherevitz, and Ostrov districts. The Hitlerite punitive
expeditions also burned down the villages of Strashevo and Zapolye in
the Plyuss district, and the villages of Bolshye, Lyady, Ludoni, and
others.
Numerous punitive detachments, acting on the orders of the German
Supreme Command, burned down many hundreds of inhabited localities in
the Yugoslav territory.
I refer, as evidence, to the third section of the report of the Yugoslav
State Commission for establishment of the crimes of the German invaders,
which has been presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-36, and
also to the special memorandum of the Yugoslav State Commission,
numbered 2697 (45) and signed by Professor Nedelkovitsch, which I
present to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-309. This document is on
Pages 165 to 167 of the document book. In these documents we find a
number of facts concerning the burning and destruction of villages and
hamlets by the special punitive expeditions of the Hitlerites. As
examples, the localities of Zagnezdye, Udora, Mechkovatz, Marsich,
Grashniza, Rudnika, Krupnya, Rastovach, Orakh, Grabovica, Drachich,
Lozinda, and many others can be named. Whole districts of Yugoslavia
were completely devastated after the Germans had been there.
I also present to the Tribunal the original copy of a notice by the
so-called Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, which I beg the Tribunal to
accept as evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-200 (Document Number
USSR-200). This notice was captured in Serbia by troops of the Yugoslav
Army of Liberation, which fact is duly certified by the Yugoslav State
Commission in Belgrade. I read into the record only one paragraph: “The
Commander-in-Chief of Serbia announces: The village of Skela has been
burned and razed to the ground.”
German punitive detachments also destroyed inhabited localities in
Poland. As evidence I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-368
(Document Number USSR-368), which is an affidavit of the Plenipotentiary
of the Polish Government, Dr. Stefan Kurovsky. This affidavit is an
appendix to the report of the Polish Government and is on Page 169 of
your document book.
This document ascertains that in the spring of 1943 in the territory of
Zamoisk, Bilgoraisk, Khrubeshovsk, and Krasnitzk the Germans burned down
a number of inhabited localities under the orders of the SS leader,
Globocznik; and in February 1944 five villages were destroyed in the
Krasnitzk district with the help of the air force.
The Germans burned and razed to the ground a considerable number of
inhabited localities in Greece. As examples we shall name the
settlements of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Ano-Kerzilion, and
Kato-Kerzilion in the Salonika district, and the settlements of
Mesovunos and Selli in the Korzani district, and others.
I present to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-103 (Document Number
USSR-103), certified photostatic copies of three telegraphic reports of
the 164th German Infantry Division to the Chief of Staff of the 12th
Army. These reports, Your Honors, are on Page 170 of your document book.
Each of these reports consists of nine to ten lines. They are uniform in
type and standardized. But these short official documents reveal in
essence the monstrous system generally employed by the Hitlerites in the
territories occupied by them.
I shall read into the record one of these reports. I read:
“18 October 1941; to the Chief of Staff of the 12th Army,
Athens.
“Daily report.
“1. The villages of Ano-Kerzilion and Kato-Kerzilion (75
kilometers east of Salonika on the mouth of the Struma) which
had been ascertained to be the base of a considerable guerrilla
band in this area, were razed to the ground by troops of the
division on 17 October. The male inhabitants between 16 and 60
years of age—(totalling 207 persons)—were shot, women and
children evacuated.
“2. No other special incidents.”
Surely, there is no need for a comment regarding this document.
I should also like to refer to the official report of the Greek
Government, which is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-379 (Document Number UK-82). On pages 29 and 30 of the report,
which correspond to Page 207 of your document book, we find numerous
facts concerning the burning and destruction of villages on the Island
of Crete. Thus, the villages of Skiki, Prassi, and Kanados were
completely burned down in retaliation for the murder of some German
parachutists carried out by the employees of the local police at the
time of the attack on the Island of Crete. Certain villages were
demolished by the Germans for the sole reason that they were in the
partisans’ zone of operations.
It is stated in the report that 1,600 out of 6,500 villages were
completely or partially demolished. It should also be noted that the
Germans intentionally bombed undefended towns and caused heavy damage to
23 Greek towns, among which the towns of Yanina, Arta, Preveza, Tukkala,
Larissa, and Canea were almost completely destroyed. This is mentioned
on Page 21 of the report of the Greek Government. It is on Page 190 of
your document book.
Your Honors, the whole world knows about the Hitlerites’ crimes at
Lidice. The 10th of June 1942 was the last day of Lidice and of its
inhabitants. The fascist barbarians left irrefutable evidence of their
monstrous crime. They made a film of the annihilation of Lidice, and we
are able to show this evidence to the Tribunal. Upon orders from the
Czechoslovak Government, a special investigation was carried out which
established that the filming of the tragedy of Lidice was entrusted by
the so-called Protector to an adviser on photography of the NSDAP, one
Franz Treml, and was carried out by him in conjunction with Miroslav
Wagner. Among the documents which we present to the Tribunal are
photographs of the operators who filmed the phases of the destruction of
Lidice.
I present these documents to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-370
(Document Number USSR-370). I should like to remark, Your Honors, that
this film is a German documentary film. It was filmed a few years ago.
The technical state of this reel is not very satisfactory, and therefore
when we present it, there may be a few defects.
I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal beforehand and request permission
to show this film.
[_Moving pictures were then shown._]
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What the Germans perpetrated in Lidice was
repeated a short time later in another inhabited point of Czechoslovakia
in the village of Lezhaky. I shall refer as evidence to the Czechoslovak
Government’s report, Pages 126-127. This report is presented to the
Court as Exhibit Number USSR-60 (Document Number USSR-60). This report
states, “Lezhaky, like Lidice, was totally destroyed and the ground
where it stood is now covered over with rubble.”
I pass on to the next section of my report, the destruction of villages
and towns, industry, and transport in the territory of the U.S.S.R.
Your Honors, I have quoted above the general directives of the criminal
Hitler Government and the German Supreme Command concerning the
destruction of inhabited centers, industry, and means of communications
in the U.S.S.R. Now I pass on to the presentation of evidence of those
destructions which were carried out in execution of these directives by
the Hitlerites everywhere on the territory of the Soviet Union which
they temporarily occupied.
I omit the evidence regarding the destruction of single towns of the
Soviet Union and pass on to the presentation of my report beginning on
Page 42.
There are a large number of documents at the disposal of the Soviet
Prosecution which incriminate the Hitlerite criminals in premeditated
and systematic, calculated and cruel annihilation and destruction of
cities and towns, plants and factories, railways and means of
communication.
The presentation of all this documentation would seriously delay the
Trial. Therefore, I consider it possible to pass on to the presentation
of the general conclusive data established by the Extraordinary State
Commission of the Soviet Union instead of presenting separate documents.
From Exhibit Number USSR-35 (Document Number USSR-35), I shall read into
the record only those sections and data which have not been read into
the record previously and only those which directly concern my subject.
These extracts, Your Honors, are on Pages 223-224 of your document book.
I quote:
“The German fascist invaders totally or partially destroyed and
burned 1,710 towns and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets.
They burned and destroyed more than 6 million buildings and
rendered some 25 million persons homeless. Among the destroyed
towns which suffered most are the greatest industrial and
cultural centers: Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Leningrad, Kiev,
Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, Orel, Kharkov,
Voronezh, Rostov-on-the-Don, and many others.
“The German fascist invaders destroyed 31,850 industrial works
which employed some 4 million workers.”
I omit the end of Page 43, Pages 44 and 45, and the beginning of Page 46
of my report.
“The Hitlerites destroyed . . . 36,000 postal and telegraphic
offices, telephone centers, and other communication
centers. . . . During their occupation of a part of the
territory of the Soviet Union, and especially during their
retreat, the German fascist invaders caused great damage to the
railway system, waterways, and river transport.
“They used special machines for the destruction of roads and
thus put out of action 26, and partially destroyed eight, main
railway lines. They destroyed 65,000 kilometers of rails and
500,000 kilometers of cables for the automatic railroad
controls, signals, and communication lines. They blew up 13,000
railway bridges, 4,100 railway stations, and 1,600 water
pressure stations. They destroyed 317 locomotive depots and 129
locomotive and wagon repair shops, as well as railway machine
works.
“They destroyed, damaged, or evacuated to Germany 15,800
locomotives, and Diesel locomotives, and 428,000 railway cars.
“The enemy caused great damage to the buildings, enterprises,
and institutions and ships of the shipping lines operating in
the Arctic Ocean, in the White Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black,
and the Caspian Seas. They sank or partially damaged more than
1,400 passenger, cargo, and special ships.
“The sea ports of Sevastopol, Mariupol, Kerch, Novorossisk,
Odessa, Nikolaiev, Leningrad, Murmansk, Lepaya, Tallinn, and
other ports equipped with modern technical installations
suffered greatly.
“The invaders sank or captured 4,280 passenger and cargo ships
and steam tugs of the river shipping and auxiliary services, as
well as 4,029 barges. They destroyed 479 harbor and quay
installations, as well as 89 dockyards and machine factories.
“While retreating under the pressure of the Red Army, German
troops blew up and destroyed 91,000 kilometers of highways and
90,000 road bridges of a total length of 930 kilometers.”
With this I conclude my statement, Your Honors.
The documents which were read into the record and presented to the
Tribunal clearly demonstrate how the Hitlerite conspirators, in all the
territories seized by them in the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and Greece, violated the laws and customs of war, the
fundamental principles of criminal law, and the direct provisions of
Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907.
The documents submitted also prove that the German invaders contemplated
complete destruction of cities and villages from which the Hitlerites
were compelled to retreat under the blows of the Armed Forces of the
Soviet Union.
Finally these documents show with what bestial cruelty and mercilessness
the Hitlerites carried out their criminal plans in reducing to dust and
ashes the largest cultural and industrial centers. Over a wide area from
the White to the Black and the Aegean Seas, in the territory temporarily
occupied by the German troops, the Hitlerites purposely and according to
plan reduced to ruins densely populated and flourishing Russian,
Bielorussian, Yugoslavian, Greek, and Czechoslovakian cities, towns, and
villages. All this was the result of the criminal activity of the
Hitlerite Government and of the German High Command, the representatives
of which are now in the dock.
In conclusion I should like, Mr. President, to present as evidence and
as Exhibit Number USSR-401 (Document Number USSR-401) a documentary film
concerning the destruction perpetrated by the Germans on the territories
of the Soviet Union. Documents certifying the authenticity of this film
are now being submitted to the Tribunal.
[_Moving pictures were then shown._]
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until 1410 hours.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, in order to exhaust fully the
presentation of evidence on the subject matter of my report I ask your
permission to examine witness Joseph Abgarovitch Orbeli who has been
brought to the courthouse. Orbeli will testify to the destruction of the
monuments of culture and art in Leningrad.
[_Dr. Servatius approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any objections to make?
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel and for the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): I would like to ask the Court to
decide whether the witness can be heard on this subject, whether this
single piece of evidence is relevant. Leningrad was never in German
hands. Leningrad was only fired upon with the regular combat weapons of
the troops and also attacked from the air, just as it is done regularly
by all the armies of the world. It must be established what is to be
proved by this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that there is no substance in the
objection that has just been made, and we will hear the witness.
[_The witness Orbeli took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
JOSEPH ABGAROVITCH ORBELI (Witness): Joseph Abgarovitch Orbeli.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the oath after me—state your name again:
I—Orbeli, Joseph, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics—summoned as a witness in this Trial—in the presence of the
Court—promise and swear—to tell the Court nothing but the truth—about
everything I know in regard to this case.
[_The witness repeated the oath in Russian._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit if you wish.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Witness, will you tell us, please, what
position do you occupy?
ORBELI: Director of the State Hermitage.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What is your scientific title?
ORBELI: I am a member of the Academy of Science of the Union of the
Soviet Socialist Republics, an active member of the Academy of
Architecture of the U.S.S.R., an active member and president of the
Armenian Academy of Science, an honorable Member of the Iran Academy of
Science, member of the Society of Antiquarians in London, and a
consultant member of the American Institute of Art and Archeology.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you in Leningrad at the time of the German
blockade?
ORBELI: Yes, I was.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Do you know about the destruction of monuments
of culture and art in Leningrad?
ORBELI: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Can you tell the Tribunal the facts that are
known to you?
ORBELI: Besides general observations which I was able to make after the
cessation of hostilities around Leningrad, I was also an eyewitness of
the measures undertaken by the enemy for destruction of the Hermitage
Museum, and the buildings of the Hermitage and the Winter Palace, where
the exhibits from the Hermitage Museum were displayed. During many long
months these buildings were under systematic air bombardment and
artillery shelling. Two air bombs and about 30 artillery shells hit the
Hermitage. Shells caused considerable damage to the building, and air
bombs destroyed the drainage system and water conduit system of the
Hermitage.
While observing the destruction done to the Hermitage I could also see,
across the river, the buildings of the Academy of Science, namely: the
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the Zoological Museum, and right
next to it the Naval Museum, in the building of the former Stock
Exchange. All these buildings were under especially heavy bombardment of
incendiary bombs. I saw the effect of these hits from a window in the
Winter Palace.
Artillery shells caused considerable damage to the Hermitage. I shall
mention the most important. One shell broke the portico of the main
building of the Hermitage, facing the Millionnaya Street and damaged the
piece of sculpture “Atlanta.”
The other shell went through the ceiling of one of the most sumptuous
halls in the Winter Palace and caused considerable damage there. The
former stable of the Winter Palace was hit by two shells. Among court
carriages of the 17th and 18th centuries that were there displayed, four
from the 18th century of high artistic value, and one 19th century gilt
carriage were shattered to pieces by one of these shells. Furthermore,
one shell went through the ceiling of the Numismatic Hall and of the
Hall of Columns in the main building of the Hermitage, and a balcony of
this hall was destroyed by it.
At the same time, a branch building of the Hermitage Museum on Solyanoy
Lane, namely the former Stieglitz Museum was hit by a bomb from the air
which caused very great damage to the building. The building was
absolutely unfit for use, and a large part of the exhibits in this
building suffered damage.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Please tell me, Witness, do I understand you
correctly? You spoke about the destruction of the Hermitage and you
mentioned the Winter Palace. Is that only one building? Where was the
Hermitage located, the one you mentioned?
ORBELI: Before the October Revolution, the Hermitage occupied a special
building of its own facing Millionnaya Street, and the other side facing
the Palace Quay of the Neva. After the Revolution, the Little Hermitage,
the building of the Hermitage Theater, the building which separated the
Hermitage proper from the Winter Palace, and later even the entire
Winter Palace were incorporated into the Hermitage.
Therefore, at the present moment the series of buildings comprising the
Hermitage consist of the Winter Palace, the Little Hermitage, and Great
Hermitage, which was occupied by the museum prior to the Revolution, and
also the building of the Hermitage Theater, which was built during the
reign of Catherine II by the architect Quarenghi and which was hit by
the incendiary bomb which I mentioned.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides the destruction of the Winter Palace
and the Hermitage, do you know any other facts about the destruction of
other cultural monuments?
ORBELI: I observed a series of monuments of Leningrad which suffered
damage from artillery shelling and bombing from the air. Among them
damage was caused to the Kazan Cathedral, which was built in 1814 by
Architect Voronikhin, Isaak’s Cathedral, whose pillars still bear the
traces of damage pitted in the granite.
Within the city limits considerable damage was done to the Rastrelli
Wing near the Smolny Cathedral, which was built by Rastrelli. The middle
part of the gallery was blown up. Furthermore, considerable damage by
artillery fire was done to the surface of the walls of the Fortress of
Peter and Paul, which cannot now be considered a military objective.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Besides Leningrad proper do you know anything
about the destruction and devastation of the suburbs of Leningrad?
ORBELI: I had the chance to acquaint myself in detail with the condition
of the monuments of Peterhof, Tzarskoye Ssyelo, and Pavlovsk; in all
those three towns I saw traces of the monstrous damage to those
monuments. And all the damage which I saw, and which is very hard to
describe in full because it is too great, all of it showed traces of
premeditation.
To prove, for instance, that the shelling of the Winter Palace was
premeditated, I could mention that the 30 shells did not hit the
Hermitage all at once but during a longer period and that not more than
one shell hit it during each shooting.
In Peterhof, besides the damage caused to the Great Palace by fire which
completely destroyed this monument, I also saw gold sheetings torn from
the roofs of the Great Palace, the dome of Peterhof Cathedral, and the
building at the opposite end of this enormous palace. It was obvious
that the gold sheetings could not fly off because of the fire alone, but
were intentionally torn off.
In Monplaisir, the oldest building of Peterhof, built by Peter the
Great, the damage showed also signs of long and gradual ravages, and was
not a result of a catastrophe. The precious oak carvings covering the
walls were torn off. The ancient Dutch tile stoves, of the time of Peter
the Great, disappeared without trace, and temporary, roughly-built
stoves were put in their place. The Great Palace, built by Rastrelli in
Tsarskoye Ssyelo, shows indubitable traces of intentional destruction.
For example, the parquet floors in numerous halls were cut out and
carried away, while the building itself was destroyed by fire. In
Catherine’s Palace, an auxiliary munition plant was installed, and the
precious carved 18th century fireplace was used as a furnace and was
rendered absolutely worthless.
Paul’s Palace, which was also destroyed by fire, showed many a sign that
the valuable property that once could be found in its halls was carried
out before the Palace had been set on fire.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Tell me, please, you said the Winter Palace as
well as the other cultural monuments that you mentioned were
intentionally destroyed. Upon what facts do you base that statement?
ORBELI: The fact that the shelling of the Hermitage by artillery fire
during the siege was premeditated was quite clear to me and to all my
colleagues because damage was caused not casually by artillery shelling
during one or two raids, but systematically, during the methodical
shelling of the city, which we witnessed for months. The first shells
did not hit the Hermitage or the Winter Palace—they passed near by;
they were finding the range and after this they would fire in the same
direction, with just a little deviation from the straight line. Not more
than one or two shells during one particular shelling would actually hit
the Palace. Of course, this could not be accidental in character.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no more questions for the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Prosecuting Counsel want to ask any
questions? Do any of the Defense Counsel want to ask any questions?
DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and High Command of
the German Armed Forces): Witness, you have just said that through
artillery shelling and also through aerial bombs, the Hermitage, the
Winter Palace, and also the Peterhof Palace were destroyed. I would be
very much interested to know where these buildings are located; that is,
as seen from Leningrad.
ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage, which stands right next to
it, are in the center of Leningrad on the banks of the Neva on the
Palace Quay, not far from the Palace Bridge, which during all the
shelling, was hit only once. On the other side, facing the Neva, next to
the Winter Palace and the Hermitage, there are the Palace Square and
Halturin Street. Did I answer your question?
DR. LATERNSER: I meant the question a little differently. In what part
of Leningrad were these buildings—in the south, the north, the
southwest, or southeast section? Will you inform me on that?
ORBELI: The Winter Palace and the Hermitage are right in the center of
Leningrad on the banks of the Neva, as I have already mentioned before.
DR. LATERNSER: And where is Peterhof?
ORBELI: Peterhof is on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, southwest of
the Hermitage, if you consider the Hermitage as the starting point.
DR. LATERNSER: Can you tell me whether near the Hermitage Palace and
Winter Palace there are any industries, particularly armament
industries?
ORBELI: So far as I know, in the vicinity of the Hermitage, there are no
military enterprises. If the question meant the building of the General
Staff, that is located on the other side of the Palace Square, and it
suffered much less from shelling than the Winter Palace. The General
Staff building, which is on the other side of Palace Square was, so far
as I know, hit only by two shells.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether there were artillery batteries,
perhaps, near the buildings which you mentioned?
ORBELI: On the whole square around the Winter Palace and the Hermitage
there was not a single artillery battery, because from the very
beginning steps were taken to prevent any unnecessary vibration near the
buildings where such precious museum pieces were.
DR. LATERNSER: Did the factories, the armament factories, continue
production during the siege?
ORBELI: I do not understand the question. What factories are you talking
about—the factories of Leningrad in general?
DR. LATERNSER: The Leningrad armament factories. Did they continue
production during the siege?
ORBELI: On the grounds of the Hermitage, the Winter Palace, and in the
immediate neighborhood, no military enterprise worked. They were never
there and during the blockade no factories were built there. But I know
that in Leningrad munitions were being made, and were successfully used.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Winter Palace is on the Neva River. How far
from the Winter Palace is the nearest bridge across the Neva River?
ORBELI: The nearest bridge, the Palace Bridge, is 50 meters from the
Palace, at a distance of the breadth of the quay, but, as I have already
said, only one shell hit the bridge during the shellings; that is why I
am sure that the Winter Palace was deliberately shelled. I cannot admit
that while shelling the bridge, only one shell hit the bridge and 30 hit
the near-by building. The other bridge, the Stock Exchange Bridge,
connecting Vasilievsky Island with the Petrograd side, is on the
opposite bank of the Great Neva. Only a few incendiary bombs were
dropped from planes on this bridge. The fires which broke out on the
Stock Exchange Bridge were extinguished.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, those are conclusions that you are drawing. Have
you any knowledge whatever of artillery from which you can judge whether
the target was the palace or the bridge beside it?
ORBELI: I never was an artillery man, but I suppose that if German
artillery was aiming only at the bridge then it could not possibly hit
the bridge only once and hit the palace, which is across the way, with
30 shells. Within these limits—I am an artillery man.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is your conviction as a non-artillery man. I have
another question. The Neva River was used by the fleet. How far from the
Winter Palace were the ships of the Red Fleet?
ORBELI: In that part of the Neva River there were no battleships which
were firing or were used for such kind of service. The Neva ships were
anchored in another part of the river, far from the Winter Palace.
DR. SERVATIUS: One last question. Were you in Leningrad during the
entire period of the siege?
ORBELI: I was in Leningrad from the first day of the war until 31 March
1942. Then I returned to Leningrad when the German troops were driven
out of the suburbs of Leningrad and had a chance to inspect Peterhof,
Tsarskoye Ssyelo, and Pavlovsk.
DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: General, do you want to ask the witness any questions in
re-examination?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: We have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE OF THE 3RD CLASS MAJOR GENERAL N. D. ZORYA
(Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, I
want to begin to submit documentary evidence on the part of the Soviet
Prosecution with regard to the employment of compulsory slave labor
practiced by the Hitlerite conspirators on an enormous scale.
Fascism, with its plans for world domination, with its denial of law,
ethics, mercy, and humane considerations, foresaw the enslavement of the
peaceful population of the temporarily occupied territories, the
deportation of millions of people to fascist Germany, and the compulsory
utilization of their labor power. Fascism and slavery—these two
concepts are inseparable.
I shall begin, Your Honors, the presentation of documents relating to
this count with the report of the Yugoslav Republic, which has already
been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document
Number USSR-36). I shall ask you to look at Page 40 of the report, which
is on Page 41 of the document book at the disposal of the Tribunal. I
read into the record extracts from the report of the Yugoslav Republic,
which is entitled, “Forced Labor of Civilians.” I quote:
“The Nazi policy of the wholesale exploitation of the occupied
territories has also been applied in Yugoslavia.
“Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia the Reich
Government and the OKW introduced obligatory labor service for
the population of the occupied territory. The exploitation of
manpower in Yugoslavia has been carried out within the framework
of the general German plan. The Defendant Göring, as the leader
of the German economic plan, issued directives to his
subordinates concerning the systematic exploitation of manpower
of the occupied territories.
“In a report from Berlin, written by one of the head
functionaries of the economic service of the German Kommandantur
in Belgrade, named Ranze, instructions by Göring are
communicated, according to which the economic measures in the
occupied territories do not aim at the protection of the local
population, but at the exploitation of manpower of the occupied
countries for the benefit of the German war economy.
“Immediately after the occupation of Yugoslavia, the Germans
established offices for enlisting workers for ‘voluntary’ labor
in Germany. They also used the organizations which already
existed in Yugoslavia for arranging employment of workers, and
began to carry out their plans through these organizations.
Thus, for example, in Serbia they used the central office for
arranging employment of workers as well as the labor exchange.
Through these organizations, until the end of February 1943, and
from Serbia alone the Germans sent 47,500 workers to Germany.
Later on this number considerably increased but the relative
data in this respect have not yet been fully established. These
workers were employed in agriculture and various industries in
Germany, mostly in the heaviest work.”
In the report of the Yugoslav Republic it is stated that the Gestapo and
a special commission used pressure and force. This went so far that
these “volunteer” workers were hunted in the streets, collected in
units, and herded into Germany by force.
“Apart from these so-called ‘volunteer’ workers, the Germans
sent into forced labor in Germany a large number of prisoners
from various camps, as well as politically ‘suspicious’ persons,
who had to perform the heaviest kinds of work under disgusting
living and working conditions. As early as 1942 many innocent
victims of the Banyitza, Saimishte, and other camps, were sent
into Germany.
“The first transport of them left on 24 April 1942, and these
transports continued without interruption until 26 September
1944. Old and young, men and women, farmers, workers,
intellectuals, and others were taken not only to Germany, but to
other countries under German occupation as well.
“According to the registers of Banyitza Camp, which are far from
giving an exact picture, over 10,000 prisoners were sent for
forced labor from this camp alone.
“The German authorities in Serbia issued a series of orders,
aiming at maximum exploitation of manpower. Among the first
measures two decrees were passed: The Decree for General Labor
Service and Restriction of the Freedom of Labor, of 14 December
1941, and the Decree for the National Labor Service for the
Reconstruction of Serbia, of 5 November 1941. According to the
first decree all persons between 17 and 45 years of age could be
called up for compulsory labor in certain enterprises and
branches of economy. According to the second order, such persons
could be called up for civilian service in the National
Reconstruction, which in fact meant that they had to work for
the strengthening of the German economic and war effort.
“The persons eligible for labor in accordance with these two
laws, although remaining in the country, worked in fact for the
aims and benefit of the Germans’ economic exploitation. They
were primarily used for work in the mines (Bor, Kostolac, _et
cetera_), for road building and railway line repairs, in the
water transport, and so on.
“On 26 March 1943 the German Commander of Serbia, Befehlshaber
Serbien, in a special order introduced the so-called war economy
measures of the Reich in the occupied territory of Serbia, and
by this act imposed the general mobilization of manpower in
Serbia. . . .
“By this decree, therefore, the entire population of occupied
Serbia was mobilized for the German war economy. The Germans
exploited Serbian manpower, in fact, to the greatest possible
extent. . . .
“The situation was in no way different in the other occupied
areas of Yugoslavia. Without entering into numerous details of
this planned exploitation, we shall quote here only one example
from occupied Slovenia.
“According to an official announcement of the German Farmers’
Union in Carinthia (Landesbauernschaft Kärnten) of 10 August
1944, issued in Klagenfurt, every case of pregnancy of
non-German women was to be reported, and in all such cases these
women were to be obliged to have their child ‘removed by
operation in a hospital.’ The announcement itself explains that
in cases when non-German women give birth to their children this
‘creates difficulties for their use in work,’ and besides, it is
also ‘a danger for the population policy.’ Furthermore, this
announcement states that the Office of Labor Service should try
to influence these women to commit an abortion.
“As another proof of the exploitation of manpower, we quote the
circular instructions of the German Landrat for the Marburg
(Maribor) district, of 12 August 1944. This circular deals with
the question of enlisting everybody eligible according to that
decree into the armed forces and into the labor service, and it
calls upon all the inhabitants of Lower Styria, and not only
upon the indigenous population, but also upon the Dutchmen,
Danes, Swedes, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Belgians who may
find themselves living there.”
I shall pass on now to the Report of the Polish Government which was
presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number
USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). First we should note the special role
of the Defendant Frank in organizing deportations of the Polish
population for compulsory labor to Germany. I shall read into the record
several excerpts from a document known under the title “Frank’s Diary,”
which is at the disposal of the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-223
(Document Number USSR-223).
Frank described his attitude toward the Poles at the meeting of the
section chiefs which took place in Kraków, 12 April 1940, as follows—I
shall quote an excerpt on Page 62 of the document book, to be exact, on
the reverse side of the page. I quote:
“Under pressure from the Reich, it had now been decreed that,
since sufficient labor did not present itself voluntarily for
service in the German Reich, compulsion could be used. This
compulsion meant the possibility of arresting male and female
Poles. A certain amount of unrest had been caused by this,
which, according to some reports, had spread very widely and
which could lead to difficulties in all spheres. Field Marshal
Göring had once pointed out, in his big speech, the necessity
for sending a million workers to the Reich. One hundred and
sixty thousand had been delivered to date. . . . To arrest young
Poles as they left church or the cinema would lead to
ever-increasing nervousness among the Poles. Fundamentally Frank
had no objections to removing people capable of work who were
lounging about in the streets. But the best way would be to
organize a round-up, and one was absolutely justified in
stopping a Pole in the street and asking him what work he did,
where he was employed, _et cetera_.”
During his conversation with Defendant Sauckel, 18 August 1942, the
Defendant Frank stated—I quote the part which is on Page 67 of the
document book:
“I am pleased to be able . . . to inform you officially that we
have now supplied more than 800,000 workers for the Reich. . . .
“You recently requested the supply of a further 140,000 workers.
I am pleased to be able to inform you that, in accordance with
our agreement of yesterday’s date, we shall deliver 60 percent
of these newly requested workers to the Reich by the end of
October and the remaining 40 percent by the end of the
year. . . .
“Over and above the present figure of 140,000, you can, however,
count on a further number of workers from the Government General
next year, as we are going to use the police to recruit them.”
Frank fulfilled his promise given to the Defendant Sauckel.
At the conference of the political leaders of the Labor Front in the
Government General, 14 December 1942, Frank stated in his address—this
is on the same page of the document book:
“You know that we have delivered more than 940,000 Polish
workers to the Reich. The Government General thereby stands
absolutely and relatively at the head of all European countries.
This achievement is enormous and has also been recognized as
such by Gauleiter Sauckel.”
Will you kindly permit me to quote that section of the report of the
Government of the Polish Republic which is entitled, “Deportation of the
Civilian Population for Forced Labor.” This document is on Page 72 and
73 of the document book:
“a) As early as on 2 October 1939 a decree was issued by Frank
concerning the introduction of forced labor for the Polish
civilian population within the Government General. By virtue of
the said decree Polish civilians were under the obligation to
work in agricultural establishments, on the maintenance of
public buildings, road construction, regulation of rivers,
highways, and railways.
“b) A further decree of 12 December 1939 extended the groups of
those liable to forced labor to children from the age of 14
years. And a decree of 13 May 1942 gave the authorities the
right to use forced labor even outside the Government General.
“c) The practice which developed on the basis of those decrees
turned into mass deportation of civilians from Poland to
Germany.
“Throughout the Government General, in towns and villages,
posters were continually inviting Poles to go ‘voluntarily’ to
work in Germany. At the same time however every town and village
was told how many workers it was to supply.
“The result of the ‘voluntary’ recruitment was usually very
disappointing. As a result of that the German authorities
invited the people to go or arranged round-ups in the streets,
restaurants, and other places, and those caught were sent
straight to Germany. There was a particular hunt for young
workers of both sexes. The families of those deported received
no news from them for months and only after some time postcards
arrived describing the poor conditions in which they were forced
to live. Often, after several months, the workers used to return
home in a state of spiritual depression and complete physical
exhaustion.
“There is substantial evidence that while on that forced labor
thousands of men were sterilized, while young girls were forced
into public houses.
“d) These laborers were either sent to live with German farmers
to work on their land, to work in factories, or to special work
in forced labor camps. The conditions in those camps were
terrible.
“e) According to provisional estimates, in 1940 alone 100,000
women and men were sent to Germany as laborers.
“f) To this great army of slave workers thousands of Poles
deported from the incorporated territories have to be added and
also 200,000 Polish prisoners of war who, by a decree issued by
Hitler in August 1940, were ‘released’ from camps, but only to
be sent to forced labor into various parts of Germany.
“g) These deportations continued throughout the years of war.
The total number of those workers reached at a certain point a
figure of 2 million.
“Exact figures are obviously not available. But if one considers
that in spite of the very high death rate among those people,
there are now about 835,000 Polish citizens registered in
western Germany, the estimate appears correct.
“The whole chapter concerning the deportations to forced labor
is presented here in a very condensed form. Behind these few
lines lies the history of hundreds of thousands of Polish
families destroyed, tragedy, death, and sorrow. The history of
each of these laborers was a continuous tragedy: fathers leaving
their families without means; husbands their wives with no
possibility of maintaining them, with no protection and little
hope of return. The quoted number of 2 million conceals an ocean
of broken lives, involving, at the least, 10 percent of the
total population of Poland.
“This was a terrible crime. Deportation and forced labor were a
flagrant violation of the laws and customs of war.”
The Greek Report on German atrocities, submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-369 (Document Number USSR-369) states the
following—I beg you to refer to Page 74 of the document book:
“As in all the other occupied territories, the Germans pursued
two main objectives in their occupational policy in Greece: the
maximum exploitation of the country’s resources in the interests
of the German military economy, and the enslavement of the
population by means of systematic terror and general repression.
The Germans pursued their two-sided policy of plunder and
revenge, violating commonly accepted laws.”
The section of the report of the Greek Government entitled “Recruitment
of Manpower” contains two paragraphs which I intend to read into the
record:
“One of the problems confronting the German administration was
that of recruiting labor. All males between 16 and 50 years of
age were liable to labor conscription. Strikes were declared
illegal, and severe penalties enforced for resort thereto.
Persons who organized and directed a strike were liable to the
death penalty. Strikers were tried by military courts.
“At first the Germans, by propaganda and various forms of
indirect pressure, tried to recruit Greek labor to work within
Germany. They promised high wages and better conditions of life.
As this kind of ‘voluntary’ recruitment failed to produce the
expected results they abandoned it and confronted the workers
with the dilemma either of being taken as hostages or else of
being sent to Germany to work.”
Similar measures of deportation of manpower to Germany were applied by
the fascists also in Czechoslovakia.
But the deportation by the fascist criminals of the peaceful populations
into slave labor reached its climax in the temporarily occupied
territories of the Soviet Union. I would like now to dwell briefly on
the preparatory measures taken by the Hitlerite criminals for the
utilization of forced labor in the temporarily occupied territories of
the Soviet Union.
Even before their attack on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in
a document which is known to the Tribunal as the “Green File” of the
Defendant Göring, Exhibit Number USSR-10 (Document Number EC-472), a
whole chapter was dedicated to the problem of organizing compulsory
labor in the Soviet territories which the war criminals intended to
occupy; the chapter was called “Allocation of Labor and Recruitment of
Indigenous Population.”
This chapter—Pages 17 and 18 of the Russian text of the Green File,
which is on Page 83 of the document book—lays down the Principle of
compulsory labor for the peaceful Soviet population.
Paragraphs 3 and 2 of Subsection A in the second part of that chapter
entitled, “Recruitment of the Local Population,” point out that:
“The workers in public utilities—gas, water, electricity, oil
drilling, oil distilling, and oil storage, as well as emergency
work in important industries . . . will be ordered to continue
their work under threat of punishment, if necessary.”
And several lines above that:
“In case of necessity, the workers will be organized into labor
gangs.”
The nonpayment of wages for the compulsory labor of Soviet citizens had
already been provided for in this so-called Göring’s Green File. It was
presupposed that the problem of payment was reduced to the question of
providing the workers with food. The fascist slave owners were only
interested in maintaining the working potential of the people and
nothing more—Page 18 of the Russian text of the Green File. This is the
back of Page 83 of the document book. . .
THE PRESIDENT: This document has already been read into the record.
GEN. ZORYA: I think that this particular part of the document has not
been read into the record. This is a document of the Soviet Prosecution,
which was published completely for the first time in the note of the
People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, in May 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: If you say that it has not yet been read into the record,
please go on.
GEN. ZORYA: On Page 18 of the Russian text of the Defendant Göring’s
Green File it is mentioned at least three times that food was to be the
only payment. I do not wish to take more time of the Tribunal with this
document, but will proceed with my presentation.
Defendant Göring, who signed this directive for the plunder of the
Soviet Union—for how else could we refer to the above-mentioned
document—continued to organize forced labor in the temporarily occupied
territories of the Soviet Union.
As evidence I present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-386 (Document
Number USSR-386), a document which discloses this phase of the Defendant
Göring’s activity. This document, or to be precise, these two documents
are the record of the conference of 7 November 1941, on “Allocation of
Russians,” in which Göring participated, and a covering letter to this
record.
One hundred copies of the document were originally prepared and mailed
to the 14 addresses which are listed, as Your Honors may see, on Page 5
of the Russian text of the document, at the end of the covering letter.
The covering letter attached to the record bears the signature of the
Chief, Military Administration, Economic Staff East, Dr. Rachner. The
minutes of the conference in question have been written by one Von
Normann who was evidently an official of the same organization.
I think it will promote clarification if I read into the record certain
parts of these minutes. I quote Page 6 of the Russian text of the
document which corresponds to Pages 95 and 96 of the document book:
“Conference of 7 November 1941 on the allocation of Russian
manpower. The Reich Marshal gave the following directives for
the utilization of Russian manpower:
“I. Russian labor has demonstrated its capacity for production
in building up the gigantic industry of Russia. It must now be
successfully allocated in the Reich. In the face of such an
order of the Führer, objections are of secondary importance. The
disadvantages that may result from the employment of Russian
labor must be reduced to a minimum, and this is primarily the
concern of the counterintelligence service (Abwehr) and the
Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei).
“II. Russians in the operational zone. The Russians are to be
used primarily in the construction of roads and railroads, for
clearing work, clearing out mine fields, and in the construction
of air fields. The German construction battalions are largely to
be dissolved (for example in the Air Force). German skilled
workmen belong in war industry. Digging and stone breaking is
not their work. The Russian is there for that.
“III. Russians in the territories of the Reich commissioners and
of the Government General. Here the same principle applies as in
the second paragraph. In addition, increased use in agriculture;
if machines are lacking, manpower must produce what the Reich
will have to demand in the agrarian sector from the Eastern
territories. Further local manpower should be made available for
the ruthless exploitation of the Russian coal deposits.
“IV. Russians in the territory of the Reich, including the
Protectorate. The number to be employed is to be determined by
the need. Need is to be decided from the standpoint that foreign
workers who eat much and produce little are to be sent away from
the Reich and that in the future the German woman is not to be
used as extensively in the field of labor as hitherto. Along
with Russian prisoners of war, free Russian manpower is also to
be utilized.”
I shall now omit one page of this document and refer to Page 7. In the
middle of the page there is Section B, entitled “The Free Russian
Worker.”
My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, already mentioned the fact that the
Hitlerites considered the civilian population as prisoners of war. This
gave them the opportunity to increase for propaganda purposes the number
of the allegedly captured Red Army soldiers in their reports on military
operations, on the one hand, and to draw on them for manpower, on the
other hand.
The section to which I just referred begins as follows, “Employment and
treatment is not actually to be other than that given to Russian
prisoners of war.” It should here be noted that the minutes of the
conference end with the following statement by Göring—you will find
this excerpt on Page 98 of the document book:
“Enlistment of workers and the utilization of prisoners of war
are to be carried on in a uniform manner, and they must be
organizationally combined.”
Coming back to Page 7 of the same minutes we come across the following
eloquent statement by Göring on the subject of labor conditions for
Russian workers and particularly their wages. . .
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: General Zorya, can you tell the Tribunal whether you
think you will be able to finish the presentation of your documents this
afternoon?
GEN. ZORYA: My intention is to finish my presentation today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
GEN. ZORYA: I would like to read into the record statements by Göring
which concern the labor conditions of Russian workers and particularly
their wages, from the document I have just presented:
“In connection with the labor conditions of the free Russians it
is to be kept in mind that:
“1. He may receive a little pocket money. . . .
“3. Since his labor is available to the employer cheaply,
financial compensation from the employer is to be given
attention.”
To clarify the above statement the Defendant Göring makes further the
following suggestion—I quote on Page 8 of the Russian text of the
document, Paragraph B, Subparagraph 6:
“The allocation of Russians must under no circumstance be
allowed to prejudice the wage problem in the eastern
territories. Every financial measure in this sphere must proceed
from the standpoint that lowest wages in the East—according to
a specific Führer decree—are a prerequisite for the equal
distribution to balance war costs and the clearing of war debts
by the Reich at the end of the war.
“Infractions are subject to the severest penalties.”
This is followed by two lines which are of interest, not only because
they incriminate the Defendant Göring for introducing the system of
forced labor. Having expressed himself so categorically against the
“prejudice of the wage problem in the eastern territories,” Göring
stated at the same conference as follows—Page 98 of the document book,
“The same applied in substance to every encouragement of ‘social
aspirations’ in the Russian colonial territory.”
The covering letter appended to the minutes of the meeting consists of
comments which really do not add anything new to the facts already
presented to the Tribunal. Therefore I shall not quote this letter.
The next document which I consider necessary to submit to the Tribunal
and which I beg you to accept as evidence under Exhibit Number USSR-379
(Document Number UK-82) is a decree issued by the Defendant Göring on 10
January 1942. I will quote only the first 18 lines of this decree, which
are on Page 100 of the document book:
“In the coming months the employment of manpower will acquire
still greater importance. On the one hand, the recruiting
situation of the Armed Forces necessitates the release of all
members of the younger age groups for this task. On the other
hand, urgent armament production and other phases of the war
economy, and also of agriculture, must be provided with the
manpower urgently needed by them. For this, the utilization of
prisoners of war, especially from Soviet Russia, plays an
important role.
“The measures that will be necessary in this field in the future
promise success only under unified leadership, and I shall use
every means to attain it.
“For that reason I have now granted my manpower
commission—which had already been dealing with all the manpower
questions of the Four Year Plan—the unlimited power to direct
. . . the entire manpower program.”
Later on, Your Honors, the criminal activity of the fascist conspirators
in organizing and extending the system of forced labor acquired such
magnitude that on 21 March 1942 Hitler issued a decree creating a
special department under the Defendant Sauckel, who developed these
activities on a large scale. I shall not dwell any longer on these
historical facts as they have already been covered by our American,
English, and French colleagues.
The vital bond between fascism and the system of forced labor is
especially apparent when we consider the part played in this field not
only by the fascist government machine but by the fascist Party itself.
I should like to submit to the Tribunal a few documents which illustrate
this fact.
I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-365 (Document Number
USSR-365) a printed edition entitled, “Report of the Delegate of the
Four Year Plan—Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor.” This
document is on Page 101 of the document book. The copy of the report,
which I present, has the order Number 1 and it is dated 1 May 1942. The
first page of the report contains Hitler’s decree of 21 March 1942,
appointing Sauckel to this post. On the second page there is an order of
the Defendant Göring dated 27 March of the same year, explaining the
duties of the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor within the
framework of the Four Year Plan organizational structure. And on the
third page of this report there is a program prepared by Sauckel for the
“Führer’s birthday” in 1942.
Your Honors, the above-mentioned documents have already been submitted
to the Tribunal by the Prosecution of the United States. But I wish to
draw your attention to Page 17 of the Russian translation of this
document, where you will find an order of the Defendant Sauckel, dated 6
April 1942: Order Number 1. This order is presented for the first time
and is entitled, “Concerning Appointment of Gauleiter as Commissioners
for the Allocation of Labor in the Gaue. This order begins as follows—I
quote Page 118 of the document book:
“I hereby appoint the Gauleiter of the NSDAP my commissioners
for allocation of labor in the Gaue administered by them.
“A. Their tasks are:
“1) The achievement of smooth co-operation between all offices
set up by the State, the Party, the Wehrmacht, and the economic
authorities to deal with questions of manpower; and by means of
this, the regulation of different interpretations and claims in
such a way as to utilize manpower to the best possible effect.”
I omit some points.
“4) Investigation of the results obtained by utilizing the labor
of all foreign male and female workers. Special regulations will
be issued with regard to these.
“5) Investigation of the correct feeding, housing, and treatment
of all foreign workers and prisoners of war engaged in work.”
In his program for the allocation of labor, presented—as I have already
pointed out—for Hitler’s birthday in 1942, the Defendant Sauckel
wrote—this part of the program was not read into the record by the
United States Prosecution; it is on Page 105 of the document book:
“IV. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor will,
therefore, with a very small personal staff of his own choice,
make exclusive use of existing institutions set up by the Party,
State, and industry, and the goodwill and co-operation of all
will assure the quickest success of his measures.
“V. The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor has, therefore,
with consent of the Führer and in agreement with the Reich
Marshal of Greater Germany and the Chief of the Party
Chancellery, appointed all the Gauleiter of Greater Germany as
his commissioners in the Gaue of the National Socialist Labor
Party (NSDAP).
“VI. The commissioners for allocation of labor will use the
competent offices of the Party in their Gaue. The chiefs of the
highest competent State and economic offices in their Gaue will
advise and instruct the Gauleiter in all-important questions
relative to labor allocation.
“Especially important for that purpose are the following: The
President of the State Labor Office, the Trustee for Labor, the
State Peasant Leader, the Gau Economic Adviser, the Gau Trustee
of the German Labor Front, the Gau Women’s Leader, the District
Hitler Youth Leader, the highest representative of the Interior
and General Administration, especially if the Office for
Agriculture falls within his jurisdiction.
“VII. The most elevated and most essential task of the Gauleiter
of the NSDAP in their capacity of commissioners in their Gaue is
to secure the maximum agreement between all offices dealing with
questions of manpower in their Gau.”
In this document Sauckel addressed himself to the Gauleiter asking them
repeatedly to give him all possible assistance in every respect. I would
like to draw Your Honors’ attention to only one of Sauckel’s assertions
in this document. He mentions the decision of Hitler to send to the
Reich “in order to help the German peasant women, four or five hundred
thousand selected, healthy, and strong girls from the eastern
territories,” thus to relieve German women and girls of labor duty.
Apparently in order to explain the advantage of this measure, Sauckel
wrote, “Please trust me as an old and fanatical National Socialist
Gauleiter when I say that in the end the decision could not be
different.”
The importance of the part played by the fascist Party in the
organization of compulsory slave labor and how far this Party went into
the matter, is shown by the following document which I am submitting to
the Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit Number USSR-383 (Document Number
USSR-383). This document is a letter of the Defendant Sauckel, dated 8
September 1942, and is entitled, “Special Action of the Plenipotentiary
for Allocation of Labor for the Purpose of Procuring Female Workers from
the East for the Benefit of Town and Country Households with Many
Children.”
In the course of my presentation I shall have the opportunity to refer
once more to this document. In the meantime I wish to draw your
attention to the passage which has direct bearing on the role of the
fascist Party in this measure. On Page 3 of the Russian text of the
document, which I hereby submit, there is a section entitled,
“Viewpoints for Selecting Households.”
THE PRESIDENT: Does it matter whether these women were brought into a
house where they ought not to have been brought and whether a particular
German housewife was entitled to a woman worker or not? The whole point,
it would seem, is whether they were deported—and forcibly deported.
GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, I just had it in view to abridge this passage
which you mentioned. But now I am talking about something else. I would
like to show the part which the fascist Party played in organizing slave
labor inside Germany and in particular in the distribution of those
Soviet women who were transported for this purpose to Germany. Here are
two short documents which I consider necessary to submit to the
Tribunal. As for the rest, which concerns the regime which has already
been described sufficiently by the United States and British
Prosecutions, I do not intend to dwell upon it and contemplated cutting
down this part to the minimum.
I wish to dwell on this part of the document which says that
applications for obtaining an eastern woman worker for household duties,
are to be examined by the Labor Department which would decide whether
there is a real need for the worker and are then to be forwarded for
final approval to the corresponding leader of NSDAP. Should the district
leader object to granting a woman worker to the household, the Labor
Department declines to send an eastern woman worker to the applicant and
accordingly declines the permission for the employment of such. The
refusal need not be motivated, and the decision is final.
You may find this on Page 129 of the document book. It is followed by
the application form. You will find this in the appendix to Exhibit
Number USSR-383 (Document Number USSR-383). This application form
contains a brief questionnaire about the family which would like to
employ a domestic worker in the household. This application form also
contains the reply form of the corresponding fascist Party organization
whether it recommends or not the use of an eastern slave in this
household.
I request the Tribunal to pay attention to the appendix to Exhibit
Number USSR-383. This appendix is entitled, “Memo for Housewives
Regarding Employment of Eastern Woman Workers in Urban and Rural
Households.” This memo has already been mentioned by Mr. Dodd. I will
not dwell upon it in detail, but will only draw the attention of the
Tribunal to the subtitle which is on Page 133.
I beg Your Honors to pay attention to the subtitle of this slave owner’s
memo.
The statement between brackets announces that this memo is published by
the Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor in agreement with the
chief of the Party Chancellery and other corresponding authorities. It
is difficult to state it more precisely. Millions of foreign slaves were
languishing in Germany. A German could become a slave-owner with the
sanction and under the supervision of the fascist Party. Apparently this
also constituted one of the elements of the New Order in Europe.
I deem it indispensable to refer also to the order of the Defendant
Göring, dated 27 March 1942. I do not submit this document, as it is
already at the disposal of the Tribunal, having been presented by the
United States Prosecution:
“The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, in order to carry
out his tasks, herewith receives the power which the Führer has
given me to issue directives to the superior Reich authorities
and to their subordinate offices, to Party authorities and to
Party organizations and attached units.”
This order of the Defendant Göring does not only determine the special
part of the fascist Party in the execution of the compulsory labor
system, but also emphasizes the extraordinary powers of Defendant
Sauckel in this field.
The documents to which I have been referring thus far give grounds for
the Soviet Prosecution to assert that within the general framework of
the fascist State the fascist Party was the center of all measures for
the organization of compulsory slave labor.
I would like now to turn to the part taken by the German High Command in
the organization of compulsory labor and deportation into slavery of
Soviet people. With this object in view, I submit to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-367 (Document Number USSR-367), an OKH document
regarding—I am using the words of the document itself—the “Enlistment
of Russian Manpower for the Reich.” I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page
138 of the document book in which this document is to be found.
First of all, let us look at the source from which this document
emanates. In the upper left-hand corner of the first page you will find,
“High Command of the Army, General Staff of the Army, Quartermaster
General, Office of Military Administration, (EC) Number II
3210/42—secret.” In the upper right-hand corner: “Headquarters, High
Command of the Army, 10 May 1942,” and again the stamp “secret.” After
the title it states:
“Subject: OKH, Gen Qu/Ec/II, Number 2877/42, secret, 25 April
1942; OKH, Gen Qu/Section Mil. Adm. Number 3158/1942, secret, 6
May 1942.”
Therefore, the document which I intend to quote here originates from the
OKH and is based on orders previously issued by the OKH. At the end of
the document there is a list of addresses to which it was distributed. I
will not quote this list in full, but it leaves no doubt as to who were
the executors of the orders contained in the above document. These
executors were the military authorities.
Let us now turn to the contents of the submitted document. First of all,
what induced the OKH when it issued this letter? The reply to this
question is contained in the first paragraph of our document, which I
shall now read into the record. I abridge the quotation:
“The Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor appointed by the
Führer, Gauleiter Sauckel . . . in consideration of the
increased armament requirements of the Reich and in order to
secure the manpower requirements of the German war and armament
economy, has ordered that the enlisting and transferring into
the Reich of Russian manpower be speeded up and considerably
increased.
“For the execution of this recruiting action . . . influence of
the military and local administrative authorities (field
Kommandantura, local Kommandantura, I A—organization of the
Economic Staff East, district administrations, town mayors, _et
cetera_) . . . is necessary. This is a task of decisive
importance for the outcome of the war. The labor situation of
the Reich makes it necessary that the ordered measures are
carried out on a priority basis and in a large scale manner.
This must be the chief task of all organizations.”
The next two paragraphs of the quoted document, part of which is
entitled, “Priority of Manpower Needs in the Armed Forces and Economy in
the East,” contain the following statement—I quote Page 139 of your
document book which runs:
“The immediate manpower needs of the Army must be satisfied in
the highest priority inasmuch as the need is actually
inescapable . . . and unalterable. The scale of the needs of the
Army is to be determined by the armies, the commanders of the
front areas, and the Wehrmacht commanders. However, in
consideration of the urgent labor needs of the Reich . . . the
severest standard is to be applied, and especially the scale of
the troops’ own manpower needs is to be most carefully
examined.”
THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t it sufficient to say that this document provides
for the speeding up of the mobilization of manpower and slave labor for
the purposes of the necessities of the Reich? Does it do anything more
than that?
GEN. ZORYA: Yes, you are quite right, Mr. President. It would be enough
if we add that this document contains the demand not only to accelerate
the mobilization of manpower but also the demand for immediate
participation by the military authorities who had to arrange a suitable
machinery in the form of suitable officers.
I pass on to the next document which I submit to the Tribunal.
It would be a mistake to think that the OKH gave orders only of such
general character. In July 1941 the Defendant Keitel learned that the
subdepartments of the Organization Todt in the Lvov district paid the
local workers a wage of 25 rubles. This fact made Keitel indignant. Todt
immediately received an appropriate reprimand. And so we come to the
next document, which I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-366 (Document Number USSR-366).
The Reich Minister directly refers, in this document, to the fact that
Field Marshal Keitel expressed his displeasure that the subdepartments
of the Organization Todt in the suburbs of Lvov paid the local workers
wages of 25 rubles and that the subdepartments of the O.T. were making
use of the factories.
Todt declares that during his last trip he had explained in detail to
all members of the staff that the rules for the allocation of labor in
Russian territory were different from those in Western Europe. Further
in this document Todt categorically prohibits the paying of any sums of
money at all. He concludes this document in the following terms:
“No compensation shall be given to the firms for payments not in
conformity with the above principles.
“This order is to be brought to the attention of all subordinate
labor allocation offices and to all firms.
“Signed: Dr. Todt.”
The German Government and the High Command ordered the use of peaceful
Soviet citizens for work which endangered life. This was mentioned by
Göring at a conference on 7 November 1941. I now submit to the Tribunal
Exhibit Number USSR-106 (Document Number USSR-106), which contains the
translation of the Führer’s directive, signed by him on 8 September
1942. This directive concerns the allocation of labor for the
construction of fortifications on the Eastern Front. This document comes
from the German archives captured by the Allied armies in the West. The
covering letter to this document states that this document “is top
secret, and that copies of it will be sent to staffs and divisions and
are to be returned to the Army staffs and destroyed.”
On the second page of the document, we find Hitler’s order. I read it
into the record:
“HQu, 8 September 1942.
“The heavy defensive battles in the area of Army Groups Center
and North induce me to fix my views on some fundamental tasks of
the defense.”
The next Paragraphs, 1 and 2 on Pages 1 to 7, concern general principles
of defense, which do not interest us today. On Page 148 of the document
book is the following passage which I read into the record:
“The enemy carries on construction to a far greater extent than
do our own troops. I know that it will be argued that the enemy
has at his disposal more labor for construction of such
positions. But it is therefore an absolute necessity at exactly
this point to make use, with ruthless energy, especially of
prisoners of war and the population for these tasks. Only in
this respect is the Russian superior to us in his brutal way. By
this means, however, the German soldier, too, can be spared to a
large extent from labor on defensive works behind the front
lines, in order that he may be kept free and fresh for his real
duties. Frequently the necessary ruthlessness which the present
fateful battle demands is not yet being employed here, for in it
not a victory but the existence and survival of our people is
contested. Besides, it is in all circumstances still always more
humane to drive the Russian population to work, with every
means, as it has always been accustomed to be driven, than to
sacrifice our most precious possession, our own blood.”
This order is signed by Hitler.
Units of the Red Army also captured a decree issued by the German
occupation authorities, which referred to an order of the General Staff
about forced labor in combat zones. I submit this document as Exhibit
Number USSR-407 (Document Number USSR-407), and I deem it necessary to
quote a few sentences from Page 149 of the document book:
“Decree: In accordance with the regulations of the Chief of the
OKW, dated 6 February 1943, regarding transfer for labor in the
combat zone of the newly occupied eastern territory, all women
born in 1924 and 1925 are hereby summoned for labor in Germany.
“Point V of this order provides that: . . . those who do not
present themselves on the given dates shall be held responsible
as saboteurs in accordance with military laws.”
I am summarizing this section.
The High Command of the German Armed Forces and the Defendant Keitel
took a direct part in the execution of this system of forced slave
labor. For the realization of this criminal objective they used on a
large scale from bottom to top, the entire machinery of the military
administration.
Your Honors, I beg to refer to the next document which I am now
presenting as Exhibit Number USSR-381 (Document Number USSR-381).
THE PRESIDENT: General, was that last order that you gave us Keitel’s
order? It is signed apparently by the Chief of the General Staff of the
Military Command.
GEN. ZORYA: This is not an order of Keitel. This document which was
submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-381 is entitled “Instruction to the
Economic Offices, ‘Section Labor,’ on the Organization of Labor
Allocation in the East.”
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that was by Keitel.
GEN. ZORYA: The preceding document which was submitted to the Tribunal
was actually one of Keitel’s orders, but now I wish to speak of this
instruction. I beg Your Honors to pay attention to the date on which
this instruction was issued, namely 26 January 1942. In this
instruction, on Page 150 of the document book, it is stated that the
hopes which the Reich Marshal had placed in the office for the
allocation of labor must be justified at all costs:
“The task of the economic organizations and the office for the
allocation of labor in the East consists in bridging, during the
coming months, the gaps in the economy which arose owing to the
departure into the army of men of younger conscription age due
to the universal enlistment of Russian manpower. This is of
decisive importance for the war and must therefore be achieved.
If the number of volunteers does not come up to expectations,
then the enlistment measures already ordered should be
reinforced by all available means.”
The United States Prosecution has submitted to the Tribunal a document
of the Soviet Prosecution, Exhibit Number USSR-381 (Document Number
USSR-381), entitled, “Memo on the Treatment of Foreign Civilian Workers
in the Reich.”
I do not wish to quote this document again, but consider it necessary
only to show. . .
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The President has just
now asked about the Document Number USSR-407 and the prosecutor has
presented it here as a document of Keitel. I have only just now found
this document. If it is a question of the same document that I have
marked as USSR-407, then it is signed by a local commander and by a
chief of the labor office.
Is this document the same as that presented to you as USSR-407?
THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out, have I not, that it was not
by Keitel?
DR. NELTE: Yes, Sir. But the Prosecutor has thereupon repeatedly said
that this Document 407 represents an order by Keitel. That is why I
wanted to clarify it.
GEN. ZORYA: Perhaps the Tribunal will allow me to clarify this matter.
Apparently a misunderstanding arose through faulty translation. I said
that troops of the Red Army had seized a German order, and added that
the order had been issued by the German occupational authorities—you
can verify this by looking up the stenographic record—which referred to
an order of Keitel regarding forced labor in the combat zones. This
order begins with the following words, “In accordance with the
regulations of the Chief of the OKW, dated 6 February 1943, transfer for
labor in the combat zone,” and so forth. I shall not quote any further.
If I may beg the Tribunal to consider once more a document which I have
already submitted previously, that is, the document of the High Command
of the Army, Number II/3210/42, it is because this order refers to
corresponding orders of the General Staff of the Army on questions of
allocation of labor in the East. This order of the occupational
authorities, which I submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-407, refers to one
of these orders. It states quite clearly, “In accordance with the
regulations of the Chief of the OKW.” That is why I submitted this
document.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I really don’t understand you. What I have
got in the translation before me is this, “The units of the Red Army
captured a copy of the German decree which mentioned Keitel’s order on
forced labor in the combat zone,” and continues further that those
persons refusing to work shall be apprehended as saboteurs. This
document is submitted as Exhibit USSR something or other.
It may be useful to read a few excerpts of it, “By order of the Chief of
the General Staff of the Military Command, of 6 February 1943,
concerning the compulsory labor service . . . in the combat zone”—and
then it goes on to deal with persons who don’t present themselves being
considered saboteurs.
Well, I thought you were saying that the Chief of the General Staff of
the Military Command was Keitel. He was the Chief of the OKW. Are you
still saying that he was the Chief of the Military Command?
GEN. ZORYA: I quote only that which is in the document: “In accordance
with the regulations of the Chief of the General Staff of the Military
Command.” That is in the document, and I do not wish to add anything.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think it is worth taking any more time over it.
GEN. ZORYA: I will now go back to that document which was submitted to
the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution and which was entitled,
“Memo for the Treatment of Foreign Civilian Laborers in the Reich.” I
will not quote this document in detail; I would like to stress only that
it established a special regime for Eastern Workers. They lived in camps
surrounded by guards and under supervision of a camp commander. The
latter forbade a normal life for workers from the East. They were thus
forbidden to visit churches or public places and they were obliged to
wear special insignia—a rectangle with pale blue edges, and in the
middle the word “Ost” in white letters on the dark blue background.
In the memorandum to housewives regarding the employment of women from
the East in town and rural households it was stated that—Page 131 of
the document book:
“Every foreigner judges the standard of our entire people by the
personal and political conduct of the individual. The foreign
workers must see in the housewife and the members of her family
worthy representatives of the German people.”
I proceed further:
“If, in exceptional cases, German and eastern female domestic
workers are employed in the same household, the German domestic
workers must be given mainly tasks of serving the family and
must also be given the supervision of the Eastern woman worker.
The German living in the household must always have precedence.”
General conditions of work did not apply to the women workers from the
East. Their labor was regulated only by the discretion of their masters.
This was expressed in Paragraph 4 of the same memorandum. I quote:
“Eastern women workers are employed in the households in a
special labor relation. German regulations on working conditions
and on labor protection refer to them only insofar as this is
specifically decreed.”
The character of these special instructions can be seen in Paragraph 9,
Section B of the memorandum, which states quite openly:
“No claim to leisure time is given. Eastern women domestic
workers may leave the household only when on duty connected with
the needs of the household. . . . Visiting the theaters,
restaurants, cinemas, and similar . . . institutions is
forbidden.”
Paragraph 10 of the memorandum states:
“Eastern female domestic workers are enlisted for indefinite
time.”
Paragraph 12 of the memorandum states that:
“Germans may not share a room with the Eastern woman worker.”
Paragraph 14 states that:
“Clothing as a rule cannot be supplied.”
These two documents just mentioned by me, “Memo on the Treatment of
Foreign Civilian Laborers” and “Memorandum for Housewives on the
Employment of Eastern Female Workers,” reflect the inhuman conditions of
work for the forcibly mobilized Soviet citizens. The Soviet Prosecution
has at its disposal numerous documents, the testimonies of persons who
themselves experienced the terror of fascist slavery. The enumeration of
all these documents would take too much time. The Soviet Government had
at its disposal, already in the early phases of the war against fascist
Germany, many proofs of the crimes of the fascist conspirators in this
field.
The first document of this kind published by the Soviet Government is
the note of the People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Molotov, dated 6
January 1942, which was presented to the Tribunal by the Soviet
Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-51(2), (Document USSR-51(2)) and this
note stated that:
“The peaceful citizens forcibly deported for compulsory labor
were proclaimed ‘prisoners of war’ by the German authorities and
treated as such as far as their maintenance is concerned. It has
been established by reports of Staffs of the German Army that
peasants and other peaceful citizens seized by the Germans and
deported for compulsory labor were automatically put on the list
as prisoners of war. Thus the number of prisoners of war was
artificially and unlawfully increased.
“In the vicinity of the town of Plavsk, in the region of Tula, a
camp was established where Soviet war prisoners and the civilian
population from neighboring villages were interned at the same
time. The Soviet citizens were there subjected to inhuman
tortures and sufferings. There were young boys and girls, women,
and old men among them. Their only food consisted of two
potatoes and some barley grits each day. The death rate reached
25 to 30 persons daily.
“After the occupation of Kiev, the Germans drove into slave
labor all the civilian population from 11 to 60 years of age,
irrespective of their profession, their sex, state of health, or
nationality.
“People who were too ill to stand on their feet were fined by
the Germans for every day of work they missed.
“In Kharkov the German invaders decided to make the local
Ukrainian intellectuals an object of their mockery. On 5
November 1941 all actors were ordered to appear at the
Shevtshenko Theater for registration. When they had gathered,
they were surrounded by German soldiers who harnessed them to
carts and drove them along the most frequented streets to the
river for water.”
The second document of the Soviet Government was the Foreign Commissar’s
note, dated 27 April 1942. This note is submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). Section 3 of this note is
entitled, “Installation of a Regime of Slavery and Bondage in the
Occupied Territories of the Soviet Union and Deportation of Civilian
Population as Prisoners of War.” This note states that:
“In the Ukraine and Bielorussia the Germans introduced a 14- or
16-hour workday, in most cases without any compensation and in
some cases with ridiculously low wages.
“In the secret instructions entitled, ‘On Current Tasks in the
Eastern Regions,’ captured by Red Army troops at the beginning
of March 1942, the chief of the Military Economic Inspectorate
Central Front, Lieutenant General Weigang, admits that:
“‘It has proved impossible to maintain industrial production
with the labor of semi-starved and semi-clad people,’ that ‘the
devaluation of money and the commodity crisis coincide with a
dangerous lack of confidence in the German authorities on the
part of the local population,’ and that ‘this constitutes a
danger to the peace in the occupied regions which cannot be
permitted in the rear of the combat troops.’ The German general
in this document presumes to call these occupied regions ‘our
new eastern colonial possession.’
“Acknowledging that the complete collapse of industrial
production in the occupied districts has led to mass
unemployment, the German General Weigang issued the following
orders for speeding up the forcible dispatch of the Russian,
Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and other workers to Germany.
“‘Only the shipping to Germany of some millions of Russian
workers and only the inexhaustible reserves of healthy and
strong people in the Occupied Eastern Territories . . . can
solve the urgent problem of manpower shortage and therewith meet
the lack of labor in Germany.’
“In an order . . . seized by units of the Red Army, recruiting
the entire civilian population of the occupied districts for all
kinds of heavy labor was ordered; and it was stated that this
forced labor was not to be paid for; and it was insolently
declared that by this unpaid labor the population would atone
for its guilt for the acts of sabotage already committed as well
as for the acts of sabotage which might be committed by them in
the future.
“In Kaluga, on 20 November 1941, an announcement was posted,
signed by the German commandant, Major Portatius, which ran as
follows:
“‘1. Citizens who do poor work or do not work the specified
number of hours will be subject to a monetary fine. In the event
of nonpayment, delinquents will be subjected to corporal
punishment.
“‘2. Citizens who have received a work assignment and who have
not reported for work will be subject to corporal punishment and
will receive no food rations from the municipality.
“‘3. Citizens evading work in general will, in addition, be
expelled from Kaluga. Citizens shirking work will be attached to
labor detachments and columns, and billeted in barracks. They
will be used for heavy labor.’”
This note indicated also that land would be transferred to German
landowners. This was established by a land law which was promulgated at
the end of April 1942 by the Hitlerite Gauleiter Alfred Rosenberg.
I pass on to the next note of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs
Molotov which was published a year after the note dated 27 April 1942.
On 11 May 1943 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Molotov, sent
to all Ambassadors and Ministers of all the countries with which the
U.S.S.R. had diplomatic relations a note, “Concerning the Wholesale
Forcible Deportation of Peaceful Soviet Citizens to German Fascist
Slavery and Concerning the Responsibility Borne for this Crime by German
Authorities and Individuals.” This note is submitted to the Tribunal as
evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-51(4) (Document Number USSR-51(4)).
I consider it necessary to read a few quotations from this note. On Page
165 of the document book there is a reference to a declaration of Göring
of 7 November 1941, which has already been mentioned by me. I will not
again repeat all that Göring said at that conference. I will only stress
that Göring issued a blood-thirsty order “not to spare the Soviet people
deported into Germany and to handle them in the most cruel manner under
any excuse.” This order is included in section IV-A7 of the
above-mentioned note. It reads as follows:
“In applying measures for the maintenance of order, the main
principle must be swiftness and severity. Only the following
forms of punishment must be employed, without intermediary
grades: deprivation of food and death by sentence of field
court-martial.”
On 31 March 1942 Sauckel issued the following order by telegraph:
“The enlistment, for which you are responsible, must be speeded
up by every available means, including the stern application of
the principle of labor service.”
The Soviet Government is in possession of the complete text of a report
by the Chief of the Political Police and Security Service with the Chief
of the SS in Kharkov, headed, “The Situation in the City of Kharkov from
23 July to 9 September 1942.”
“The recruiting of labor power”—states this document—“is
causing the competent bodies disquietude, for the population is
displaying extreme reluctance to go to work in Germany. The
situation at present is that everybody does his utmost to evade
enlistment. Voluntary departure to Germany has long been
entirely out of the question.”
Your Honors, I must stress that the Defendant Sauckel, as
Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, actively pursued criminal
activity, as it is pointed out in the note of the People’s Commissar for
Foreign Affairs, which I just presented. On 31 March 1942 Sauckel sent
to his subordinate departments a telegraphic instruction regarding the
utilization of Russians and the work of the enlistment committee. I
submit this telegram of Sauckel to the Tribunal as evidence, Exhibit
Number USSR-382 (Document Number USSR-382). In this telegram Sauckel
writes:
“The rate of mobilization must be increased immediately and
under all circumstances to insure, in the shortest possible
time, that is to say, by April, that a three-fold increase in
the number of dispatched workers is achieved.”
Sauckel’s efforts were appreciated by the Defendant Göring at the time
when he was Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I refer now to the
conference which Göring held on 6 August 1942. This protocol has been
submitted by the Soviet Prosecution to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-170 (Document Number USSR-170). I beg you to refer to Pages 12 and
13 of this document, Page 184 of the document book. Göring came forth
with the following words,
“I have to say one thing to this. I do not wish to praise the
Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.”
THE PRESIDENT: All this was read the other day. The actual words were
read yesterday.
GEN. ZORYA: I am quite sure, Mr. President, that my colleague, who read
into the record this document, did not read this particular passage.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I still think that he read this excerpt which
you have got set out in your document, “I do not wish to praise
Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.” He certainly referred to the
excerpt which you have just summarized about Lohse.
GEN. ZORYA: I do not wish to argue but I had the information that this
excerpt had not been read into the record. If you like, I will not read
this passage into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you are right. I don’t know.
GEN. ZORYA: Then, I will read it into the record very briefly:
“I do not wish to praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it.
But what he has done in such a short time to collect workers so
quickly from the whole of Europe and supply them to our
undertakings is a unique achievement. I must tell that to all
these gentlemen; if each of them used in their sphere of
activity a tenth of the energy used by Gauleiter Sauckel, the
tasks laid upon them would indeed easily be carried out. This is
my sincere conviction and in no way fine words.”
I return again to the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, V. M. Molotov, dated 11 May 1943. This note further gives data
concerning the number of Soviet people who were deported to Germany.
This note states that the deportation of Soviet people to German slavery
was accompanied nearly everywhere by bloody repressive measures against
Soviet citizens seeking refuge from slave merchants who were hunting for
them. It has been established that in Gjatsk 75 peaceful inhabitants of
the town were shot and that in Poltava 65 railroad men were hanged. The
same thing in other towns also—executions, shootings, and hangings were
carried out on the same scale.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood from you at the beginning of your speech
that you were going to finish this afternoon your presentation. It is
now 5 minutes past 5. Is there any chance of your finishing today?
GEN. ZORYA: If I had not been interrupted by Defense Counsel for 10
minutes in connection with a discussion about the order of the German
occupational authorities, I would have finished my statement.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think will it take you now?
GEN. ZORYA: A maximum of 10 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
GEN. ZORYA: The note states that the Soviet citizens in the territories
captured by the Germans are, with growing frequency and organization,
offering courageous resistance to the slave owners. The growth of the
partisan movement in connection with the resistance the Soviet citizens
are offering to forcible transportation into German slavery is admitted
with alarm in a number of secret reports from German army and police
administrations.
This note quotes further a number of testimonies of Soviet people who
had escaped German slavery. I will only quote one of these testimonies
of Kolkhoz member Varvara Bakhtina of the village of Nikolayevka, Kursk
region, who stated:
“In Kursk we were pushed into cattle wagons, 50 to 60 persons in
each wagon. Nobody was permitted to leave. Every now and then
the German sentry hustled and punched us. In Lgov we had to get
out and be examined by a special commission there. In the
presence of the soldiers we were compelled to undress quite
naked and have our bodies examined. The nearer we got to
Germany, the fewer were the people left in the train. From Kursk
they took 3,000 persons but at nearly every station the sick and
those dying from hunger were thrown out. In Germany we were put
into a camp with Soviet prisoners of war. This was in a forest
section surrounded by a high barbed-wire fence. Four days later
we were taken to different places. I, my sister Valentina, and
13 other girls were sent to an armament factory.”
The third section of this report describes further the treatment under
which the Soviet workers lived in German slavery. This part of the
report also mentions the statement made by Göring concerning Russian
workers. Göring states in the above-mentioned directives:
“The Russian is not fastidious and, therefore, it is easy to
feed him without affecting our food stocks to any appreciable
degree. He must not be spoiled or allowed to get accustomed to
German food.”
Finally the note quotes a number of letters from home to the German
soldiers on the Eastern Front, which describe the humiliation to which
the Soviet workers were subjected. I will quote a passage from one of
such letters. A letter from his mother in Chemnitz was found on the body
of Wilhelm Bock, killed German private, of the 221st German Infantry
Division. This letter reads:
“Many Russian women and girls are working at the Astra Works.
They are compelled to work 14 and more hours a day. Of course,
they receive no pay whatever. They go to and from the factory
under escort. The Russians literally drop from exhaustion. The
guards often whip them. They have no right to complain about the
bad food or ill-treatment. The other day my neighbor obtained a
servant. She paid some money at an office and was given the
opportunity to choose any woman she pleased from a number here
from Russia.”
Letters also mention mass suicides of Russian women and men.
The note ends with a declaration of the Soviet Government, which states
that it places responsibility for atrocities in this domain on the
leading Hitlerite clique and the High Command of the German fascist
Army:
“The Soviet Government also places full responsibility for the
above enumerated crimes upon the Hitlerite officials who are
engaged in recruiting, abducting, transporting in camps, selling
into slavery, and inhumanly exploiting peaceful Soviet civilians
who have been forcibly transported from their native land to
Germany. . . . The Soviet Government holds that stern
responsibility should be borne by such already exposed criminals
as . . . Fritz Sauckel and . . . Alfred Rosenberg.”
And finally the note points out:
“The Soviet Government expresses the conviction that all the
Governments concerned are unanimous on the point that the Hitler
Government and its agents must bear full responsibility and
receive stern punishment for the monstrous crimes they have
committed, for the privation and suffering they have inflicted
upon millions of peaceful citizens who have been forcibly
deported into German fascist slavery.”
This is the end of People’s Commissar Molotov’s note. Kindly allow me to
close my statement also with these words.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 23 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SIXTY-SIXTH DAY
Saturday, 23 February 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Before we deal with the applications, I am going to read
the Tribunal’s order upon Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum of 4 February 1946
and the Prosecution’s motion of the 11th of February 1946. This is the
order:
The Tribunal makes no order with regard to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the
Prosecution’s motion as to the evidence of the defendants, dated the
11th of February 1946.
With regard to Paragraphs 2 and 7 of Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum on defense
procedure, dated the 4th of February 1946, the Tribunal makes the
following order:
1. The defendants’ cases will be heard in the order in which the
defendants’ names appear in the Indictment.
2. (a) During the presentation of a defendant’s case, defendant’s
counsel will read documents, will question witnesses, and will make such
brief comments on the evidence as are necessary to insure a proper
understanding of it.
(b) The defendant’s counsel may be assisted in the courtroom by his
associate counsel or by another defendant’s counsel. Such other counsel
may help the defendant’s counsel in handling documents, _et cetera_, but
shall not address the Tribunal or examine witnesses.
3. Documentary evidence.
(a) Defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary the original
of any document which he offers in evidence if the original is in his
possession. If the original is in the possession of the Prosecution,
counsel will request the Prosecution to make the original of the
document available for introduction in evidence. If the Prosecution
declines to make the original available, the matter shall be referred to
the Tribunal.
(b) Should the original of any such document be in the possession of the
Tribunal, defendant’s counsel will hand to the General Secretary a copy
of the whole or relevant part of such document, together with a
statement of the document number and the date upon which it was received
in evidence.
(c) Should counsel wish to offer in evidence a document, the original of
which is not in his possession or otherwise available to the Tribunal,
he will hand to the General Secretary a copy of the whole or relevant
part of such document, together with an explanation as to where and in
whose possession the original is located and the reason why it cannot be
produced. Such copy shall be certified as being correct by an
appropriate certificate.
4. Each defendant’s counsel will compile copies of the documents or
parts of documents which he intends to offer in evidence into a document
book, and six copies of such document book will be submitted to the
General Secretary 2 weeks, if possible, before the date on which the
presentation of the defendant’s case is likely to begin. The General
Secretary will arrange for the translation of the document book into the
English, French, and Russian languages, and the defendant’s counsel will
be entitled to receive one copy of each of these translations.
5. (a) Defendant’s counsel will request the General Secretary to have
the witnesses named by him and approved by the Tribunal available in
Nuremberg; such request being made, if possible, at least 3 weeks before
the date on which the presentation of a defendant’s case is likely to
begin. The General Secretary will, as far as possible, have the
witnesses brought to Nuremberg 1 week before this date.
(b) Defendant’s counsel will notify the General Secretary not later than
noon on the day before he wishes to call each witness.
6. (a) A defendant who does not wish to testify cannot be compelled to
do so, but may be interrogated by the Tribunal at any time under
Articles 17(b) and 24(f) of the Charter.
(b) A defendant can only testify once.
(c) A defendant who wishes to testify on his own behalf shall do so
during the presentation of his own defense. The right of Defense Counsel
and of the Prosecution under Article 24(g) of the Charter to interrogate
and cross-examine a defendant who gives testimony shall be exercised at
that time.
(d) A defendant who does not wish to testify on his own behalf but who
is willing to testify on behalf of a co-defendant may do so during the
presentation of the case of the co-defendant. Counsel for other
codefendants and for the Prosecution shall examine and cross-examine him
when he has concluded his testimony on behalf of the co-defendant.
(e) Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not limit the power of the
Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony in
exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the Tribunal the interest of
justice so requires.
7. In addition to the addresses of each defendant’s counsel under
Article 24(h), one counsel representing all the defendants will be
permitted to address the Tribunal on legal issues arising out of the
Indictment and the Charter which are common to all defendants, but in
making such address he will be held to strict compliance with Article 3
of the Charter. This address will take place at the conclusion of the
presentation of all the evidence on behalf of the defendants, but must
not last more than half a day. If possible, a copy of the written text
of the address shall be delivered to the General Secretary in time to
enable him to have translations made in the English, French, and Russian
languages.
8. In exercising his right to make a statement to the Tribunal under
Article 24(j), a defendant may not repeat matters which already have
been the subject of evidence or already have been dealt with by his
counsel when addressing the Court under Article 24(h), but will be
limited to dealing with such additional matters as he may consider
necessary before the judgment of the Tribunal is delivered and sentence
pronounced.
9. The procedure prescribed by this order may be altered by the Tribunal
at any time if it appears to the Tribunal necessary in the interest of
justice.
Now the Tribunal will deal with the application for witnesses and
documents on behalf of the Defendant Göring, and the procedure which the
Tribunal proposes to adopt is to ask counsel for the defendant whose
case is being dealt with to deal, in the first instance, with his first
witness, and then to ask Counsel for the Prosecution to reply upon that
witness and then, when that has been done, to ask defendant’s counsel to
deal with his second application for a witness, and then for the
Prosecution Counsel to deal with that witness; that is to say, to hear
the defendant’s counsel and the Prosecution Counsel upon each witness in
turn.
That procedure will probably not be necessary when the Tribunal comes to
deal with documents. Probably it will be more convenient for defendant’s
counsel to deal with the documents together and prosecuting counsel to
deal in answer to the documents together. But, so far as the witnesses
are concerned, each will be taken in turn.
I call upon Dr. Stahmer.
DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Before we go
into these details I ask to be informed why the Court has the intention
of treating the Defense in a fundamentally different manner from the
Prosecution. In Article 24 of the Charter it is stated that the Tribunal
will ask the Prosecution and the Defense whether they will submit
evidence to the Tribunal and if so, what evidence. This decision has so
far not been applied by the Tribunal in relation to the Prosecution. I
am glad that today the Defense has been granted the possibility to name
to the Tribunal those documents and witnesses, which up to now have been
difficult to obtain. I am prepared today to tell the Tribunal the
essential points which establish the necessity of calling the witnesses
and the relevancy of the documents. I ask the Court, therefore on the
basis of past practice, not to allow the Prosecution to take part in
judging whether a document should be considered relevant or not. As
Defense Counsel I am convinced that I would have to submit to a sort of
precensorship by the Prosecution which would impair the unity of my
entire evidence. I may point out that the protests of the Defense have
constantly been postponed with the remark that the Defense would be
heard about these points at a later date. If selection of evidence, on
the basis of objections by the Prosecution, takes place here today the
danger arises that protests which have been postponed will not be able
to be treated later. For the reasons stated, therefore, I request the
Court to proceed according to past practice, and decide as to the right
of the Prosecution to protest against the procurement of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel for Ribbentrop come back to the rostrum? The
Tribunal is not altogether clear what motion you are making.
DR. HORN: I propose that the Prosecution should not, at this stage of
the Trial, be entitled to make a decision about the calling of witnesses
and the relevancy of documents.
Mr. President, I should like to plead further on that point. I meant by
making a decision that the Prosecution should not yet, at this time,
have anything to say about the question of the admissibility or
nonadmissibility of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that your motion cannot be
granted, for this reason: It is true that the Defense is being asked to
apply for witnesses and documents now, in accordance with Article 24(d).
One principal reason for that is that the Tribunal has got to bring all
your witnesses here. The Tribunal has been, for many weeks, attempting
to find your witnesses and to produce them here, and to produce the
documents which you want. The relevancy of those witnesses and of those
documents has got to be decided by the Tribunal; but it is obvious that
Counsel for the Prosecution must be allowed to argue upon the question
of relevancy, just as counsel for the defendants have been allowed to
argue upon the relevancy of every witness and every document which has
been introduced by the Prosecution.
Exactly the same procedure is being adopted now for the defendants as
has been adopted for the Prosecution, with the sole exception that the
defendants are being asked to make applications for the witnesses and
documents and to deal with the matter at one time, rather than to deal
with it as each witness or document is produced. The reason for that is
that the Tribunal, as I have stated, have got to find and bring the
witnesses here for the defendants, and also to produce the documents.
Your motion was that the Prosecution should not receive any possibility
to decide on the calling of witnesses. The Prosecution, of course, will
not decide upon it; the Tribunal will decide upon it. The Prosecution
must have the right to argue upon it, to argue that the evidence of a
certain witness is irrelevant or cumulative, and to argue that any
document is not relevant.
And I am reminded that all of these documents have got to be translated
for the purposes of the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, many of the defendants’ counsel, myself
included, have, so far, not been able to question decisive witnesses for
the purpose of obtaining information. Therefore, in decisive points we
often do not even know exactly what a witness can prove.
If, now, we already have to deal with the Prosecution before we know
definitely how far it is desirable to fight or not to fight for a
witness, we are in an essentially worse situation than the Prosecution,
which, whenever the defendants’ counsel made protests, knew exactly for
what their witness or their evidence was important. In this regard the
Defense is, for the most part, in a considerably worse situation, and I
am of the opinion that this situation will become even worse if here,
besides the Tribunal, the Prosecution can also make protests against the
evidence at this stage of the Trial.
THE PRESIDENT: It is true that it is impossible to decide finally upon
the admissibility of any piece of evidence until the actual question is
asked; and for that reason the Tribunal has already, in deciding
provisionally upon the application for witnesses, acted in the most
liberal way. If it appears that there is any possible relevancy in the
evidence to be given by a witness, they have allowed that witness to be
alerted. Therefore, if there is any witness whose evidence appears to
be, by any possibility, relevant, the Tribunal will allow that witness,
subject, of course, to the directions of the Charter to hold the Trial
expeditiously.
Subject to those limitations, the Tribunal will allow any witness to be
called whose evidence appears to be possibly relevant. That is all the
Tribunal can do because, as I have already stated, it is the Tribunal
who has to undertake the difficult task of securing these witnesses for
the defendants, who cannot secure them themselves.
DR. HORN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Mr. President, I do not
wish to repeat, but I believe that the objection of Dr. Horn has not
been understood quite rightly. Dr. Horn wanted only to complain about
the fact that the Defense in no case has been asked previously whether
an item of evidence that the Prosecution has presented was relevant or
not, but we have always been surprised when a witness was brought in and
we had no possible opportunity to make any material objections relative
to him.
Insofar as objections against documents were concerned, that is, as to
their relevance, the Defense has always been told that for such an
objection the time had not yet come for the Defense. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you have
misunderstood. The Defense have never been told that objections to the
admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every
objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at the
time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be dealt with
now, during the course of the Defense. I don’t mean today, but during
the course of the Defense.
There is a fundamental distinction between the admissibility of a
document and the weight of a document, and all questions of
admissibility have been dealt with at the time.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I fully understood that distinction. Nor did
I want to say that objections against admissibility were turned down,
but rather objections against relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents—that is to say,
their admissibility—that is the governing consideration under this
Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If they are relevant, they
are admissible. That is what the Charter says. And any objection which
has been made to documents or to evidence by defendants’ counsel has
been heard by the Tribunal and has been decided at the time.
Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to the defendants’
counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, long
notice that under Article 24(d) they were going to be called upon to
specify or name their witnesses and the documents which they wish to
produce, and to state what the relevancy of the witnesses and the
documents would be.
It seems to the Tribunal obvious that that procedure is really necessary
when one remembers that it is for the Tribunal, with very great
difficulty and at considerable expense, to find these witnesses and to
bring them to Nuremberg, and to find the documents, if possible, and to
bring them to Nuremberg.
Now, as to your or to Dr. Horn’s objections to the procedure which has
been adopted with reference to the Prosecution, it is open to
defendants’ counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply to
strike from the record any document which they think ought not to have
been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your objection,
appeared to be that defendants’ counsel have not had sufficient time to
consider whether a particular document or a particular witness was
relevant, and therefore admissible. You have had ample time now to
consider the point and if now you wish to apply to strike out any
document or to strike out any evidence, you will make that application
in writing and the Tribunal will consider it.
As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the defendants
and their counsel. And it is a necessary procedure because the
defendants are unable, naturally, and defendants’ counsel are unable,
naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses here in Nuremberg, and
in some cases to procure the production of documents.
In order that we should do so, on their behalf, it is necessary that we
should know whom they want to have produced here, what documents they
want to have produced here; and, in order that time should not be wasted
and money should not be unduly wasted, it is necessary to know whether
the witnesses and the documents have any shadow of relevancy to the
issues raised.
DR. STAHMER: Then I shall begin with the naming of those witnesses whose
interrogation before the Tribunal I consider necessary.
I name first General of the Air Force Karl Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal does not desire you to read
your application. If you will just say in your own words, as shortly as
you can, why you want the particular witness, they will then consider
it. And if Counsel for the Prosecution wish to object, they will do so.
Then the Tribunal will finally decide the matter.
DR. STAHMER: The witness I have named, General of the Air Force
Bodenschatz, who is here in the Nuremberg prison, was with the Defendant
Göring since 1933, first as adjutant and later as minister, as Chief of
the Ministerial Office. He is, therefore, informed about all the
principal events of that time. I have named him as a witness for a
number of facts which are individually contained in my written
statement, but especially that he took part in a conference which took
place at the beginning of August 1939 in Soenke Nissen Koog, at which
Göring met with English negotiators in order to bring about, with them,
the possibility of a peaceful solution of the difficulties already
existing at that time between Germany and Poland. At that time he
declared to the English negotiators that a war must not take place under
any circumstances, and that they must endeavor to settle these
differences peacefully.
Furthermore, he has made known statements, made by Göring during the
past years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which it can be seen that
the intention of the Defendant Göring was to avoid a war, if possible.
He declared that the policy of the Reich should be conducted in such a
way that a war could not break out under any circumstances.
Furthermore, this witness knows about the attitude of Göring when he
first heard from Hitler that Hitler intended to attack Russia.
Finally he is also informed about the social attitude of Göring, whom he
had ample opportunity to know very well, particularly after 1939.
Those are, generally, the facts about which Bodenschatz could testify
here as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general word about the
procedure of the Prosecution?
My colleagues in all the delegations have asked me to deal primarily
with these particular applications. There will be some of them, if the
Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues would like to add a
word as they have special interest in them. But in general, and on the
whole, I shall deal with the applications for the Prosecution.
May I say that the Prosecution has proceeded on this principle, that if
there is any point of relevance in a witness for whom application is
made, they will not, of course, object. But they want to make it quite
clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are not, by making no
objections, accepting the position that every point set out in the
document or mentioned by counsel is admitted to be relevant. By making
no objection they are simply admitting that there is some relevant point
in the matter put forward.
On that basis—and the Tribunal will understand why I have to be careful
in the matter—the Prosecution makes no objection in the case of General
Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: I further name as a witness the former Gauleiter, Dr.
Uiberreither, who is at present here in the prison at Nuremberg.
Uiberreither is to offer the following evidence. He can give information
about a speech . . .
THE PRESIDENT: May I say this to Sir David that perhaps, in view of what
you have said, you might be able to indicate at the opening of Dr.
Stahmer’s motion in respect to each witness whether the Prosecution has
any objection to the witness. Perhaps that would make it easier for him
to deal shortly with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection to Dr.
Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if Counsel for the Prosecution indicate
to us that they have no objection to a particular witness, then Dr.
Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness.
DR. STAHMER: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the evidence is, but
do it shortly because the Prosecution has got no objection.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, would it not be
equally convenient to the Defense, for the purpose of shortening things,
to have this evidence taken either out of an affidavit or by
interrogatories?
DR. STAHMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no objections if
I have the possibility of getting a statement from the witness himself.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us what the
substance of the evidence is.
DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Göring, in the summer of
1938, delivered a speech before the new Gauleiter of Austria in which he
dealt with the policy of the Reich and in which he spoke about the goal
and purpose of the Four Year Plan. The witness, furthermore, was present
when Göring, some time after 10 November 1938, that is, after the
demonstration against the Jews, called all the Gauleiter to Berlin and
there criticized those actions very severely. Those are the two subjects
of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number 3 now.
DR. STAHMER: The witness is Lord Halifax. Referring to this witness
. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate—the interrogatories have been
served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The Prosecution has no objection
to the interrogatories. Of course, it objects to his being called as a
witness, but we understand that the Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to
Lord Halifax being dealt with by means of interrogatories, and we have
no objections.
DR. STAHMER: I am satisfied with the reply to my interrogatories which I
have already received and I do not insist on summoning the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may say that also
in this case the submission of an interrogatory was approved and the
interrogatory, as far as I have been able to determine, has been sent
out already. I have not yet received an answer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to Sir George
Ogilvie-Forbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I will do my best to
see that the answer will be forthcoming as soon as possible. My
recollection—I wasn’t able to check it—is that Sir George is at a
foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the answers are
brought and certainly will do everything to help on the point.
DR. STAHMER: Whether I can ultimately forego him I shall naturally be
able to judge only when I have the interrogatory before me. It may be
that in regard to some questions he has given an insufficient answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Dahlerus or Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes?
DR. STAHMER: Forbes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted to you
as soon as they are answered.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. Interrogatories
have been granted for him.
DR. STAHMER: With regard to the testimony of Dahlerus I have to say the
following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so important that
an interrogatory could not exhaust all his knowledge and therefore I ask
to have the witness called so that he can be interrogated here in court.
If this should not be possible, I ask for the opportunity to question
him personally at Stockholm. Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus personally, and
he will make a statement concerning this witness.
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I have known Mr.
Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has written to me about the
fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus, in
principle, is prepared to come to Nuremberg without further ado if the
Court approves. As soon as the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus, as far as
I can deduce from his letter, will certainly be ready to come
personally.
I wish to say something else, as a matter of principle. In the case of
important witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could answer
questions which are of far-reaching historic importance, most probably
not only one defendant’s counsel will want to ask questions, but the
subject concerns several Defense Counsels. Therefore, an interrogatory
which comes only from Dr. Stahmer, would, in my opinion, not be
sufficient in such a case. I therefore ask the admission of the witness
also from this point of view.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position as to
the Witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put in interrogatories
consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of that at all. I only
bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show that Dr. Stahmer has
certainly covered the ground.
In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer’s
application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is Dahlerus’
book—if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish—_Sista Forsoket_, (_The
Last Attempt_). That is a quite lengthy book, dealing in detail with
this point, and it is desired, and the Tribunal has allowed, that Dr.
Stahmer will use it.
In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of
interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign
Minister, and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor in
Berlin, and on the main point of the matter, that Dr. Dahlerus had
certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no dispute.
In my respectful submission, the defendant is well covered by the
interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax and Sir
George Ogilvie-Forbes; and the book, and the evidence of the Defendant
Göring himself; and it is unnecessary to investigate this matter further
as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and can come and should come
from Sweden.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, has the Prosecution
administered cross-interrogatories to Dahlerus?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the Defendant Raeder’s
counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that I know of is by
the Defendant Ribbentrop’s counsel on a limited point.
DR. HORN: Before the Court makes a decision about the witness Dahlerus,
I would like to inform the Tribunal that I have asked for that witness
for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus, in the decisive
hours before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, played a decisive
role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can give important evidence
about the last document which contained the conditions for further
negotiations with Poland. This document was the cause of the second
World War. I believe that this should be sufficient reason to call the
witness Dahlerus to come here, especially since Dr. Siemers has declared
that he knows that the witness is prepared to come on his own
initiative.
DR. STAHMER: In view of the importance of this motion to me, may I in
addition state the following: I have sent an interrogatory with 52
questions; but I do not believe that these questions really exhaust the
subject matter of the evidence. For it is impossible, as I said before,
to summarize everything that the witness knows strategically and to
bring it out in such sequence that the Tribunal can have a complete
picture of the important function which Dahlerus exercised at that time
in the interests of England as well as of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that point.
DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have named Dr. Baron Von
Hammerstein, who was Judge Advocate General in the Air Force and who is
at this time a prisoner of war either in American or British hands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, the Tribunal
allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February; and Dr. Stahmer has not
yet submitted the interrogatories; and the witness is not yet located. I
have no objection to interrogatories. It seems as if this is essentially
the type of witness that interrogatories would be most helpful with. He
was the equivalent, as I understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of
the Air Force, and interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in
this application, would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no
objection at all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer
the interrogatories as soon as he likes.
DR. STAHMER: As far as I can find out, I have not received any
resolution that an interrogatory should be submitted, but I would
nevertheless like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You must be mistaken about that, Dr. Stahmer, because
upon our documents the right to administer interrogatories was granted
on the 9th of February.
DR. STAHMER: I cannot find it at the moment. I must check on it first;
but in any case I am making the request.
Hammerstein has known the defendant for many years, specifically in a
field which is of greatest importance for the forming of an opinion
concerning the defendant’s attitude towards justice and also towards the
treatment of the population in occupied territory and of prisoners of
war, and here also in my opinion, it will be decisively important that
the witness should give to the Tribunal detailed information about these
facts and describe them in a manner which cannot possibly be expressed
in an interrogatory or in answer to an interrogatory.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the interrogatories
have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat a day or two ago.
I don’t want to add to my point.
DR. STAHMER: I believe that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one?
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Werner von Brauchitsch, Jr., colonel in
the Air Force, son of General Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch, who is here
in the courthouse prison in Nuremberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel Von Brauchitsch.
DR. STAHMER: This witness is to give information about the attitude of
the defendant with regard to lynch justice, to terror fliers, and with
regard to his attitude towards enemy fliers in general.
Next, General of the Air Force Kammhuber, who is a prisoner of war
either in American or British captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber,
interrogatories were also allowed on the 9th of February of this year,
and they have not been submitted, as far as my information goes, and
again the witness has not been located. I have no objection to
interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably Dr.
Stahmer could decide whether it is necessary to call the witness.
I remind the Tribunal that this sketch was introduced in quite guarded
terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to me the sort
of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed statement could
be put in about this?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the
interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that, because
as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan showing the
Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts outside Germany, and
Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said that he was not stating
positively that it had been placed before the Defendant Göring.
Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be most ready to consider
it, and, if possible, agree on the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, a prisoner of war in
American hands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection to General
Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he should be alerted. He
has not yet been located, but if he is located, then clearly the matters
suggested are relevant in the view of the Prosecution.
DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, a prisoner of war in English
hands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection to this
witness. If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I have not had the
chance to take this particular point up with my French colleague. As far
as I know there is no objection. I would like to verify that.
[_There was a pause in the proceedings._]
I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. Champetier de
Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.
DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the courthouse
prison in Nuremberg at the present time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and the Prosecution
takes the same attitude: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to hear some explanation from you, Dr.
Stahmer, on what the evidence—what is the relevance of Field Marshal
Kesselring’s evidence.
DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant because
the Prosecution has declared that Rotterdam had been attacked without
military necessity, and that the attack, in addition, took place at a
time when negotiations were already under way for the capitulation of
the city.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but General
Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, as I
understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field
Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn’t it be sufficient
to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Von Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, whose
whereabouts are unknown to me, but who has presumably been released from
captivity and may be at his home in Hamburg now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are really on the same
point. As I understand it, I thought that—my copy is very bad, but I
read it—the defendant was not informed of the experiments conducted by
two doctors—the first one must be Rascher, I think, and Dr. Romberg—on
inmates of Dachau and other places; that the defendant himself never
arranged for any experiments whatsoever on prisoners, and Field Marshal
Milch—Paragraph A—said that the defendant was not informed of the
letters exchanged between the witness and Wolff concerning the
experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were
employed, and the witness did not even inform the defendant of this
subject; and that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau,
withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon.
Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We have no objection to
the witness being called.
It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Von Ondarza,
that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should be alerted
on 26 January. Field Marshal Milch is in the prison. Again I should have
thought that in these circumstances we would make no objection to Field
Marshal Milch being called on this point, and if the surgeon, Von
Ondarza can be located, then I shall agree to interrogatories, but I
don’t feel very. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, if we were
to grant the application to call Field Marshal Milch on this point and
were to allow an interrogatory for the other witness when he has been
located?
DR. STAHMER: I have also examined the question whether the evidence
would be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence to be offered by
Milch is slightly different, and the Defendant Göring considers it
important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. Ondarza was his
physician for many years and therefore is well informed, and he is
furthermore to tell us that the Defendant Göring did not know anything
about the experiments which were made with these 500 brains. That is not
yet in my application, but I have just found out about that. There was a
long deposition which was submitted by the Prosecution concerning these
500 brains. I protested against that at the time and I was told that I
should make this objection at a specified time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what you say upon
that. You can turn now to Körner.
DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Körner, who is here in Nuremberg in
the courthouse prison. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection on the part of the
Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, in our documents it is stated that the
suggested witness Paul Körner is not located, but in the document of
your application you say that he is in the Nuremberg prison.
DR. STAHMER: I did receive that information at one time. At this moment
I cannot say where my information comes from.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I could easily
find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the matter can be checked.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster of
internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear to be in that
list.
THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Körner was a state secretary since 1933 and he can testify
about the purpose behind the establishment of concentration camps in
1933, about the treatment of the people imprisoned there, and that
Göring was in charge of these camps only until 1934. He can also testify
about the measures and regulations, the purpose and aim of the Four Year
Plan, and also about the attitude of the defendant after he had been
informed in November 1938, about the anti-Jewish incidents.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English or an
American camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, is that interrogatories
were allowed on the 9th of February. They have not yet been submitted,
and the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to
interrogatories with regard to Dr. Lohse or the next witness, Dr.
Bunjes, who deals with the same point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems to me
important—considering the weight of the accusations which have been
made here against the defendant—so important that I ask to hear him as
witness here before this Tribunal. The question is a very short one: He
is to testify as to what the defendant’s attitude was toward the
acquisition of art objects in the occupied territories. That is, to be
sure, a very short subject, but for the judgment of the defendant it is
extremely important; and the accusation made by the Prosecution in this
respect is extremely serious.
THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing now with Dr. Bunjes?
DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal; the interrogatories
apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, and the Prosecution
respectfully submits that we should see what Dr. Lohse can say in answer
to the interrogatories, and then Dr. Stahmer can, if necessary, renew
the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about Dr. Bunjes?
DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He seems to be, My Lord, in exactly the same
position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not think I need repeat what I said.
THE PRESIDENT: Except that he may be located. I do not know where he is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference to Dr.
Bunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find out whether he can
be located or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps Dr. Stahmer knows.
DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp at
Hersbruck. That is here in the vicinity of Nuremberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall have inquiries made about him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bunjes—do you know where he can be located?
DR. STAHMER: No; his home is in Trier, but whether he is there I do not
know.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses, does it
not?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those all the witnesses that you are applying for?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list?
DR. STAHMER: I cannot yet foresee how far the Prosecution, which has not
finished the presentation of its case, will make it necessary for me to
make further applications.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider your documents the Tribunal will
adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents more as a whole.
Have you anything to say about them?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning the two
witnesses, Koller and Körner? I was just told that Koller was Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, and Körner a lower staff officer. Both were
repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces. This indication may make
it easier and more possible to locate the witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of course, we will
do our best to help in locating them.
THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Koller and Körner. They are both witnesses to
whom I made no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the Tribunal please,
if I were to explain the general position of the Prosecution with regard
to the documents, and then Dr. Stahmer could deal with these points
because they fall into certain groups which I can indicate quite
shortly. There are three documents which are not in evidence, but to
which there is no objection: Number 19, the Anglo-German Naval
Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, and the Court can take judicial
cognizance of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the Constitution of the German Reich, the
Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919. Again I shall assume the Court
will take judicial cognizance of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Number 30, Hitler’s speech of 21 May 1935.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which are already in
evidence as far as I know:
Number 4, the Rhine Pact of Locarno; Number 5, the Memorandum to the
Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935; Number 6, Memorandum to the
Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936; Number 9, the Treaty of
Versailles; Number 17, the speech by the Defendant Von Neurath, of 16
October 1933; Number 18, the proclamation by the Reich Government, of
the 16th of March 1935. And then Number 7 was referred to but not read.
That is the speech by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop before the League of
Nations on the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been
referred to and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are
concerned.
Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the moment
referred to the whole book: Number 1, the late Lord Rothermere’s book,
_Warnings and Prophecies_; Number 2, the late Sir Nevile Henderson’s
_Failure of a Mission_; Number 3, the references to a number of years of
the _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_.
THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, don’t they, in the ones that
follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, are taken from
those volumes, aren’t they, of the _Deutschen Politik_?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My Lord. If I might
just give Your Lordship the others so that you have the group together:
Number 8, Mr. Fay’s book on the _Origin of the World War_, the first
World War; Number 20, Mr. Winston Churchill’s book, _Step by Step_;
Number 24, the Defendant Göring’s book, _Building up a Nation_; Number
26, to which I have already referred, is Mr. Dahlerus’ book, _The Last
Attempt_.
With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is
mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into
Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already;
secondly, the relevancy of the book cannot be decided until we see the
extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution submits
that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us know what are
the extracts on which he relies so that they can be translated and we
can decide as to whether they are relevant or not.
Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the issue is
not clear or insofar as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. One to
which I have already referred comes into this:
Number 8, Fay on _The Origin of the First World War_. Number 10, speech
by President Wilson, of 8 January 1918—that is the 14-point speech;
Number 11, the note of President Wilson, of 5 November 1918—that is the
Armistice note; Number 12, a speech by M. Paul Boncour, of 8 April 1927;
Number 13, a speech by General Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before
1921, because it is quoted in _What Really Happened at Paris_, published
in 1921; Number 14, a speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November
1927; Number 15, an article by Lord Cecil, on the 1st of March 1924, and
another on the 18th of November 1926; Number 16, Lord Lloyd George’s
memorandum for the peace conference of 25 March 1919.
May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only
relevancy of these books and documents is to the issue of whether the
Treaty of Versailles accorded with the 14 Points of President Wilson.
The Prosecution submits that that is poles removed from the issues of
this Trial and is just one of the matters against which the whole
intendment of the Charter proceeds and which should not be gone into by
this Court. It may be that I am wrong, or so it seems, difficult, in
view of the collection of documents, to suppose that there is another
issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, that Dr. Stahmer ought
to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to which these documents are
directed and, where the document is long, to indicate what extract he
refers to. But if the issue be that that I have referred to, then in the
submission of the Prosecution—I speak for all my colleagues—we submit
that it is a completely irrelevant matter.
I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Number 21 and
22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They ought to be
added.
Then I have already dealt with Number 20, Mr. Churchill’s book. Apart
from the question of extracts, again the Prosecution submits that it
ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book has been
quoted.
Number 23 is a missive of M. Tchitcherin, stated to be the Foreign
Commissar of the U.S.S.R., to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the
Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to which
that is directed.
The Defendant Göring’s book, I have already dealt with, and I ask that
we should get extracts. Number 28, General Fuller’s book on _Total War_
or an essay on _Total War_—again the Prosecution does not know the
issue at which it is directed.
Then my fifth category, Number 27, which is the White Books of the
German Foreign Office.
And I draw attention to Number 4, document to the Anglo-France policy of
extending the war; Number 5, further document as to the western policy
of extending the war; Number 6 are secret files of the French General
Staff; Number 29, documentations and reports of the German Foreign
Office regarding breaches of the Hague regulations for land warfare and
Crimes against Humanity committed by the powers at war with the German
Reich. These last documents seem to raise quite clearly the issues of
_tu quoque_: If the Reich committed breaches of the laws and usages of
war, other people did the same thing. The submission of the Prosecution
is that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the
conventions and it is no answer, even if it were true that someone else
had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional reason,
that it would be quite impracticable and intolerable if this Tribunal
were to embark on the further task of investigating every allegation,
however tenuously founded, that some one else had not maintained these
conventions.
It is in the submission of the Prosecution—again I speak for all my
colleagues—a matter which is completely irrelevant; and therefore we
object to any evidence, whether oral or documentary, intended on that
point. Of course, we all along have taken the view that we have no
objection to the Defense Counsel having access to these documents in
order to use them for refreshing their memory as to the background, but
we object to their introduction in evidence for the reasons that I have
given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, perhaps you could say in the first
instance whether you agree, that so far as the books are concerned that
you would be willing to provide the extracts upon which you rely? You
cannot expect the Prosecution or the Tribunal to get the whole books
translated.
DR. STAHMER: This was also not my intention, and I believe that I
prefaced my list of documents with a remark in which, under Number 2 I
had pointed out, and had declared myself willing to specify the
quotations. To that extent, of course, the objection in itself is in
order.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Another topic the Prosecution has attacked is the books
which I have cited, and which refer to the Treaty of Versailles. Here
also I will state specifically to what extent I wish to use quotations
from these books. As a matter of principle, however, the Defense must be
granted the right to present its point of view in this matter, since
after all. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, all these books which Sir David referred to,
of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice, of course, you can make
comment upon them if you wish, as on any document of which the Tribunal
takes judicial notice.
[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were referring to the Treaty of
Versailles.
DR. STAHMER: No; with the literature concerning the Treaty of
Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with the ones which Sir David
itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Since an essential accusation made by the Prosecution is
that the defendants violated the Treaty of Versailles, the Defense
naturally has to take a stand relative to the question as to whether and
to what extent the breach of the treaty took place and whether and to
what extent that treaty was still valid. To that extent, at least, the
books and dissertations which deal with these questions are important. I
believe that an understanding of this question in detail can be reached
only after I have submitted the quotations, and that will take place at
the beginning of the presentation of testimony. I have not been able to
accomplish the work.
THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you confusing the question of validity with the
question of justice?
DR. STAHMER: No, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this sphere also the Defense is justified
in demanding the presentation of the _White Books_, because the contents
of these _White Books_ will, to a great extent, be of importance in the
question of the war of aggression; and to that extent also a reference
to these books has significance. Here also, I believe, it will only be
possible to make a decision after the individual quotations from these
_White Books_ have been read.
Furthermore, the presentation of the reports concerning the breaches of
the Hague Convention has been demanded. I believe that this motion
cannot be rejected with the remark that it is not concerned with the
question whether such breaches were committed on the other side too.
This fact, in my opinion, is of importance in two ways. First of all, to
reach a just decision one has to make sure whether the conduct on the
other side was really correct and beyond reproach and it is furthermore
of importance because it involves the question of whether the defendants
were not resorting to retaliatory measures.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have dealt with each topic with the exception
of Numbers 20, 23, and 28. Number 20 is Mr. Winston Churchill’s book; 23
is Tchitcherin’s, and 28 is General Fuller’s book. We will take those.
DR. STAHMER: Book Number 20, Churchill’s _Step by Step_—here we are
concerned with statements in which Churchill at one point expresses his
opinion as to whether England, by the Naval Treaty of 1935, had not
sanctioned Germany’s renunciation of the Versailles Treaty.
Furthermore, this book is of importance as far as I can see it now, in
evaluating the extent to which England rearmed, and finally at various
points in that book there are references to Hitler’s personality.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I say with the greatest respect to Dr. Stahmer
that he has reinforced my point, that if Dr. Stahmer is putting forward
the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision on the matters
before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate whether other
belligerents have committed breaches of conventions, then, as I say, I
join issue with him _in toto_. I cannot add to the matter. But with
regard to Mr. Churchill, Dr. Stahmer makes three points; one, that some
passages in the book give color to the idea that by the naval agreement
the validity of the Versailles Treaty was affected. That is a point to
which there are obviously many answers, including the facts that France
was a party to the treaty and the United States was a party to a treaty
in the same terms. But clearly Mr. Churchill’s view expressed in a book,
as to the legal effect of one treaty or another, is in my submission
irrelevant.
Equally irrelevant is the British rearmament and the personality of Mr.
Churchill himself. And I respectfully submit, without going into detail,
that Dr. Stahmer has, by his examples, confirmed the argument that these
matters are irrelevant to the issues before the Court. I do not wish to
say more.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to know if you would
go back from this question, or if you like, deal with anything you have
to say about Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s observations about Mr. Churchill’s
book. If you prefer to do that, do that now.
But afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these
documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further about
Document 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should develop your
argument as to how those documents can be relevant. For instance,
Document 10 and Document 11, the speeches and notes of President Wilson.
How can such documents as that have any bearing upon this Trial or
indeed upon the validity of the Treaty of Versailles? But take it in
your own order.
DR. STAHMER: These speeches form the foundation of the Versailles Treaty
and they are significant therefore for the interpretation of the treaty.
Consequently it is important to refer to the speeches, in order to judge
the contents of the treaty and the question whether Germany rightfully
or wrongly renounced the treaty, that is, whether thereby a breach of
the treaty took place, or whether the treaty actually gave Germany the
right to withdraw.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything further about
Number 20, 23, or 28?
DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Number 23 refers to the same
questions regarding the interpretation and the contents of the treaty.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement by the Foreign Commissar of the U.S.S.R. in
1924. . . . Very well, you say that it is relevant on the interpretation
of the Treaty of Versailles. And General Fuller’s book. . .
DR. STAHMER: General Fuller also refers in this speech to the
personality of Hitler and to the question of rearmament.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that concludes them.
[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]
The Tribunal will consider their decision upon your witnesses and upon
your documents. Have you anything further to say upon it?
DR. STAHMER: No.
[_Professor Dr. Franz Exner approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Exner?
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): May it please
the Court, I take the liberty of adding something for the specific
reason that there is danger that evidence may be refused which is of
crucial importance for my client also. It concerns evidence which will
show that War Crimes and violations of international law were committed
by the other side too. The Prosecutor has said that this is irrelevant
as far as we are concerned here in this Trial. The Defense certainly
does not think of making defendants of the prosecutors, but this point
is certainly not irrelevant, specifically because:
First, it has to do with the concept of retaliation in international
law. Retaliation justifies an action, which under normal circumstances
would be illegal. That is to say, retaliation then has this significance
when the individual action is the answer to a violation of international
law committed by the other side. If, therefore one wants to justify
one’s own action from the point of view of retaliation—one can only do
so by proving that violations of law have preceded it on the other side.
Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known that this
war in the beginning was conducted relatively humanely and. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you will forgive me, the argument which you
are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer and will, of
course, be fully considered by the Tribunal.
[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]
THE PRESIDENT: Would you continue then, Dr. Exner?
DR. EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known that at
the beginning of this war international law was respected on both sides
and that the war was conducted humanely. It was only in the second phase
of the war that a terrible bitterness among the fighting powers
developed and on both sides things occurred which international law
cannot sanction. In my opinion, it is entirely important in the judgment
of a crime, whatever crime that may be, to consider the motive. If one
does not know the motive of the action, one cannot judge the action
itself. And the bitterness which was started, purely psychologically, by
the manner in which the war was conducted on one side and on the other,
was the motive for actions which normally cannot be justified.
I therefore ask the Tribunal to consider carefully before this evidence
is declared irrelevant.
[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to mention a matter of principle with
reference to the manner in which the relevancy of evidence is being
discussed. If I understand the Tribunal correctly, then we should talk
today about the relevancy of those witnesses and documents which are
still to be brought here. That was exactly what was stated in the
Tribunal’s decision of 18 February.
Now, however, the Prosecution has brought the discussion round to
documents which we already have in our hands. I ask the Tribunal to
understand me correctly if I protest unequivocally to this. In no case
was it possible to discuss the relevancy of the Prosecution’s documents
weeks before they were presented. If I have documents in my possession,
as is the case with most of the documents about which we have spoken,
then, as defendant’s counsel, I must be able to submit these documents
without the consent of the Prosecution.
Sir David has said that the relevancy of books which are here in the
building is to be examined after we have presented the extracts, and
then the Prosecution will decide whether they are relevant. Sir David
has also said that numerous books which are here are not relevant. If
this motion by the Prosecution is granted, then that is an extraordinary
limitation of the Defense which I cannot accept without protest.
The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court has
declared that each letter and each document could be presented and
therefore I do not understand why we are now arguing about the relevancy
of documents which are at hand, since, in my opinion, the Court has
already said that we will argue only about the relevancy of documents
which are still missing.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I had explained
this morning—in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn on behalf of the
Defendant Ribbentrop—what the Tribunal was seeking to do today, was to
follow the provision of Article 24(d), which provides that the Tribunal
shall ask the Prosecution and Defense what evidence, if any, they wish
to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule on the
admissibility of any such evidence, and I pointed out that the reason
why the Defense had been to some extent treated in a different way from
the Prosecution was because in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has
got to find all the witnesses and bring them here, and the Tribunal has
got, in many instances, to find the documents or supply the documents;
and therefore it isn’t reasonable that the Tribunal should be asked to
bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance with
the Charter, until the Tribunal has heard argument upon the
admissibility of the witness or the document. And that is what it is
doing. I thought that I had fully explained that in answer to Dr. Horn’s
argument.
It is perfectly true that you cannot rule finally on the admissibility
of a document or the admissibility of a witness until you have actually
heard the passage in the document which is relied upon or the questions
put to the witness which are said to be relevant or irrelevant.
Therefore, the final determination upon the question of admissibility
will be when the witness is put in the witness-box and asked questions
or the document or the passage from the document is actually produced.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Excuse me, but I believe that this still does not
answer one point. It is undoubtedly true that we are arguing here about
documents and witnesses which are not at our disposal. But it is a
different thing in the case of those documents which are already here in
this building and which are at our disposal as Defense Counsel. To give
an example:
The _White Books_ which Sir David has mentioned are here; why should we
argue now about the relevance of this evidence? This question has
nothing to do with the delay of the Trial, nor with the procurement of
documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Sir David has already expressed the
point of view of the Prosecution on the question raised by the Defense
Counsel. I should like to add to what has already been said by Sir David
regarding the statements made here by the Defense Counsel.
The position of Defense Counsel Exner is that the Defense would not
intentionally turn the prosecutor into a defendant and that the Defense
will resort to a method of analysis and explanation of events which will
establish the motives, for in its opinion, the motive is unknown, and in
order to determine this motive it is necessary to examine the question:
Were the Geneva and Hague Conventions at least violated by other powers
at war with Germany? It stands to reason in my opinion—and I believe
that I am also expressing the point of view of all the Prosecution—it
is really strange to hear such a statement on the part of a lawyer after
a 3-months’ trial and after the presentation of a mass of evidence by
the Prosecution.
The Defense unquestionably has full right to submit proof—documents and
witnesses—on all counts of the charges lodged against the defendants;
and, as is evident from this morning’s session, when the Prosecution
examined the request on behalf of the Defendant Göring, as is known to
the esteemed Tribunal, the Prosecution, in its opinion, gave its
consent, in major part, to the calling of witnesses. But in the question
raised by Dr. Exner we have here positive divergences of opinions and
divergences of principle.
The Prosecution considers it impossible to diverge from the one
fundamental and decisive factor, that this is a trial of the major
German war criminals. The Tribunal is investigating atrocities
perpetrated by the Hitlerite fascists and as a result of this position,
and not losing sight of this fact, the Defense certainly could submit,
after examining and analyzing the evidence already presented by the
Prosecution, this or that evidence which in some manner could change
individual details. But it is, not admissible and it would indeed be a
grave violation of the Charter to transform examination of these charges
into a digression on questions having no relation whatever to this
particular Trial.
The Prosecution therefore so energetically objects to the requests for
and incorporation of such documents as have absolutely no relevancy to
this Trial and the examination of which, without a doubt, would lead to
a digression from the basic fact. This is what I wanted to add to what
Sir David has said on behalf of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do now, I want
to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment are required to
name their witnesses and the subject matter of their evidence, and the
documents and the relevance of the documents, by Wednesday next at 5 p.
m. The Tribunal will hold a similar session to the session it has been
holding this morning with reference to the defense of those defendants
on Saturday next at 10 o’clock.
The Tribunal will now adjourn until a quarter past 2.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. With reference to the
announcement that I made this morning, the Tribunal may hear the
applications for witnesses and documents of the Defendants
Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick before Saturday. That will
depend upon the progress of the case. I have already stated that those
applications must be deposited with the General Secretary by 5 o’clock
p. m. on Wednesday.
Secondly, all the defendants, other than the first eight named in the
Indictment, must make application naming their witnesses and the
relevancy of their evidence, and the documents and the relevancy of the
documents, by Friday next at 5 p. m.
Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next at 4 p.
m.
Perhaps I also ought to say that this does not affect—it does not refer
directly to defendants’ counsel who represent the criminal
organizations. Those counsel will be heard after the close of the
Prosecution’s case, as has already been announced.
Next would be Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the Tribunal did
desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, which was raised
by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the Tribunal would care to hear
further matter on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal would like to hear that now.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): May
it please the Tribunal, I wish to say at the very outset, that I have
made a rather hurried preparation during the noon recess of the few
notes on this subject based on some work which we had done a little
earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go into the matter to any great
extent at this time, but I did want to call to the attention of the
Tribunal a few of these notes that we have prepared, and to say that, in
view of Dr. Exner’s contention that some of the documents which are
offered by the Defense, or which they intend or hope to offer, are
admissible on the theory or under the doctrine of reprisal.
We would like to say to the Tribunal that the Convention of 1929
concerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits
altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war.
Parenthetically, I might say that the United States prohibited in its
Army instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862 or
1863.
Secondly, I should like to point out that the Hague regulations do not
mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use of
so-called “reprisal action” against civilians.
It appears that the Brussels conference of 1874, which accepted the
unratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in international law—that
conference rejected or struck out several sections which were proposed
by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of reprisal
action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting and
indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the matter of
reprisals against civilians as early as then.
Thirdly, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that it is commonly
said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal action may be
taken a notice of some character is usually required, and this reprisal
action is directed against some specific instance which the first power
believes to be offensive and which it believes may call for or justify
the use of reprisal action. So that some notice of some kind seems to be
required by the power which feels it has been offended to the offending
power.
I might say that in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief we specifically
avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war of the
shackling of prisoners of war, because there, there was some color of
notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers concerned.
These are the points that we have had in mind during this brief recess
this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us do it, we shall
be glad to prepare ourselves further, and to be heard further on this
subject at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position with
regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl’s communication to
the Tribunal; and I have one or two comments to make on that on behalf
of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you comment upon that, Dr. Seidl? Would it be
convenient to follow the same course as we followed with Dr. Stahmer,
and perhaps Sir David may say if he has any objection, first of all to
the witnesses, one by one, that you are asking for?
DR. ALFRED SEIDL: I should like, however, to request the Court to permit
me a short preparatory remark and to make a motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: My Lords, from what happened in this morning’s session I
gained the conviction that now the Trial has entered into a decisive
phase, at any rate as far as concerns the Defense. I consequently feel
myself obliged to make the following application.
I should like to ask that the Court, at this point in the Trial, should,
when examining the relevancy of the evidence submitted by the Defense,
limit itself to the witnesses, and postpone examination of the relevancy
of documents until a later time. To establish reason for this I permit
myself to point out the following:
The Court issued a ruling regarding the submission of evidence by the
Defense for the first time on 17 December 1945. In this ruling only
witnesses and not documents were discussed. A second decision is that of
18 February in which the following introductory remark is made, “In
order to avoid delay in the securing of witnesses and documents, Defense
Counsel shall . . .” and then follow the remaining contents of the
ruling.
I am of the opinion, My Lords, that the question as to whether a
document has relevancy or not can only be decided when I have this
document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar with the
precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a summary
proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the admissibility of
whole books is supposed to be decided on, to pass appropriate judgment
as to whether a particular passage in a document has relevancy or not.
This question can be decided clearly and definitely only if the
Prosecution and the Court as well have the document in their hands in
the form in which the Defense wishes to submit it. I am convinced . . .
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this morning that the
question of the final admissibility, whether of witnesses as evidence,
or documentary evidence, can only be finally decided when the document
is actually put in or when the witness is actually asked a question.
What we are now considering is whether the document has any possibility
of relevance and must, therefore, be searched for, if necessary, or sent
for.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, it is not
necessary . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal thinks that you had better deal
with your witnesses and documents now, and we do not desire to hear any
further general arguments on the subject. We desire to hear you upon the
documents and the witnesses which you wish to call and produce.
DR. SEIDL: It is, then, a question of the documents I already have in my
possession and not of the documents which I wish to obtain.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to mention.
DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply the
documents that must first be procured.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for certain
witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you upon that
application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next Wednesday for
the Defendant Frank, and I should like to know whether those documents
should be brought up which I already have in my hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with your
witnesses in the same way that Dr. Stahmer did.
DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I intend to hear is Fräulein Ingeborg
Berg, a former secretary to the Defendant Rudolf Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not seen this list until a
moment ago.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg; is that
right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl tells me that this lady was a
private secretary to Hess, it seems to me, _prime facie_, reasonable
that there was a chance of discussing the matter. As a general rule it
seems to me reasonable that a private secretary should be called who can
corroborate the matters with which the defendant was dealing. I do not
think any of my colleagues will disagree with that point.
DR. SEIDL: My second witness is the previous Gauleiter and head of the
Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle, who is imprisoned here
on remand.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have not really adopted the procedure
which the Tribunal asked you to adopt. You have not specified the
relevance of the evidence which you wish to produce. You have referred
to some previous application. The Tribunal has not got all these
applications before it at the moment, and therefore we wish to know in
what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg is relevant.
DR. SEIDL: The witness Ingeborg Berg was the secretary of the Defendant
Hess at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to make statements
regarding the time Hess began making preparations for his flight to
England, and what sort of preparations they were.
She is further to testify as to what Hess’s attitude was toward the
Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with the
Jewish pogrom of 8 November 1938.
THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nuremberg?
DR. SEIDL: She is here, in Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the second witness now, if you like.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the
Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle. He is imprisoned on
remand in Nuremberg. He is to testify whether the Auslands-Organisation
developed any activity which might make it appear to be a Fifth Column.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is one of our
allegations against the Auslands-Organisation, and therefore it does
seem relevant. I make no objection.
DR. SEIDL: Walter Schellenberg is the third witness I mention. Whether I
shall be able to uphold his application I can only judge after the Court
has given me the opportunity to speak to this witness who is here in
Nuremberg. I do not know whether the witness can give pertinent evidence
concerning the time in question, prior to 10 May 1941. I should like to
avoid occupying the time of the Tribunal with the hearing of a witness
whose hearing proves that he cannot offer pertinent evidence. I
consequently ask the Tribunal first of all for permission to speak to
this witness for the purpose of getting information.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the witness
Schellenberg who was called for the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that it would be very undesirable to
have private conversations with witnesses before cross-examination. If
Dr. Seidl wishes to cross-examine the witness Schellenberg further, then
he ought to apply to the Court to cross-examine him in open court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the defendants’
counsel asked to postpone the further cross-examination of Dr.
Schellenberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not to the further
cross-examination; that is a matter, of course, which is entirely for
the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my recollection is that
Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kauffmann also wanted to cross-examine the witness
further, and therefore I submit that, both generally and on this
particular occasion, it would be very undesirable for any counsel who is
going to cross-examine to have a private conversation with the witness
before he cross-examines. That is the matter to which I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants’ counsel finally decide that
they are not going to cross-examine the witness, I suppose then they
would be able to examine him in chief if they wanted to do so, to call
him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, My Lord, of that
procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by one side, then the
other side must, in my respectful submission, do what they can by way of
cross-examination. The witness is before the Court and, as the
Prosecution have called the witness, then I submit that the Defense
should deal with the witness by way of cross-examination. They have the
additional rights which cross-examination gives, which is a compensation
for the other rights which they would have if he were their own witness.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps we might find a solution whereby I would renounce the
right to cross-examination, and if the witness could actually say
something pertinent, I could let him give me an affidavit. I do not
believe that the Prosecution would object to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of evidence
applicable to this Trial, would it be objectionable, would you say, if
the Defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the presence of a
representative of the Prosecution, if that is satisfactory to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the Prosecution all desire that only
the interest of justice should be furthered, and if the Tribunal
consider that that would be a suitable method of dealing with it, the
Prosecution would raise no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless you wish to say something further about
Schellenberg, the Tribunal will consider your application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish to refer to?
DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the resolution
of 18 February, every Defense Counsel has the right, until the
conclusion of the Trial, to ask permission to call further witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; in accordance
with the order of the Tribunal to which you are referring, this is the
time at which you are to apply for any witnesses you want. The Tribunal
always has the discretion, which it would exercise, if you prefer to
make any further applications. If later you want to ask for further
witnesses, the Tribunal will always consider your application.
Did you get that?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.
As to the question of whether the Auslands-Organisation, the Volksbund
für das Deutschtum im Ausland, and the Bund Deutscher Osten had anything
to do with the activities of a Fifth Column, a further witness who would
come into question is the brother of the Defendant Rudolf Hess, Alfred
Hess, who was formerly a deputy Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation,
and is at present in Mergentheim in an internment camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got your application in front of us
with reference to that. If you want to make any further application you
may do so.
DR. SEIDL: I have made the application.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?
DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application now,
since the Tribunal has asked me to speak. I am, of course, prepared to
submit that application in writing later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you now, then, upon this
application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards as a
matter of record.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the name?
DR. SEIDL: Hess, Alfred. His last official position was Deputy Gauleiter
of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP. At present he is in the
internment camp in Mergentheim.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because he was going to
speak as to Fifth Column activities; was that it?
DR. SEIDL: Regarding the Fifth Column and regarding the question of
whether the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP and the Volksbund für das
Deutschtum im Ausland and the Bund Deutscher Osten have anything to do
with a Fifth Column or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded that this is a
relevant issue, and therefore the only question is cumulation. The
Defendant Hess will himself be able to speak on this point, and the
witness further if the Tribunal allows it.
The Tribunal might well consider, in my submission, that an affidavit or
interrogatories from a third witness on the point would be sufficient at
the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in which case Dr.
Seidl could summon the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention first to read further passages
from individual documents in Rudolf Hess’s document book which was
submitted by the Prosecution in order to establish the connection. A
further justification of the relevance of these documents would be
superfluous, since it is entirely a question of documents submitted by
the Prosecution which have already been accepted in evidence by the
Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in this form:
“I intend to read pages from the following books: _Rudolf Hess’s
Speeches_; _Directives of the Deputy of the Führer_. The
relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply from the
fact that both have already been introduced in evidence by the
Prosecution.”
Insofar as the documents are documents already before the Tribunal, of
course, Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment on them as much
as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches and directives,
documents of the same class, then the Prosecution asks that he indicate
which speeches and which directives he is going to put in.
DR. SEIDL: What Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe just read was the second point of
my application. It is true that I also intend to read certain passages
from the book, _Rudolf Hess’s Speeches_, and also from the book
_Directives of the Deputy of the Führer_. But since the Prosecution has
already submitted passages from both these books in evidence, which were
likewise already accepted as evidence, I believe I may say that there
are at least passages in these books—and that it is here a question of
documents—that are most certainly relevant. Whether those passages that
I intend to read are relevant or not can be decided only when I submit
these documents and this is exactly what I meant at the beginning of my
remarks, that it is possible to decide on the relevancy of a document
only when one has that document before one and knows its precise
contents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hope Dr. Seidl will realize that this is
largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to introduce new speeches
and new directives, they have got to be translated into English,
Russian, and French; and therefore it will be necessary, for the general
progress of the Trial, that he should indicate which passages he is
going to put in so that they can be translated as well as considered.
I am sure that Dr. Seidl will desire to use only relevant passages.
Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects, and
some of Hess’s speeches may well not be relevant.
I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help along
the general progress of the Trial by the request that I have made.
DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those passages
from the speeches, and few of them at that, which are relevant. I have
no intention of having whole sections of the book translated if it is
not necessary. I declare formally to the Tribunal that neither as
counsel for the Defendant Hess nor as counsel for the Defendant Frank
shall I submit one single document that could not be considered as
relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Sir David was saying was that for the
mechanics of the Trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that we do not all
understand German, it is necessary that these documents which are in
German should be translated. Therefore, it is necessary for you to
specify which speech and which part of the speech you propose to rely
upon, and then it will be translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage that
I intend to read in a document book, and I shall, in good time, submit
to the Court and to the Prosecution every passage from a speech which I
intend to read, in a document book. It is not the task of the
Prosecution, nor of the General Secretary, to do work which, of course,
I shall attend to.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is quite all right. That is
exactly the point that I was seeking to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now you are coming to Paragraph 3.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report of the
conference between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord Byron, who at that
time, as I recall, was Lord Privy Seal, and which took place on 9 June
1941. In this way the motives and aims which caused the Defendant Hess’s
flight to England are to be clarified. The relevancy is derived directly
from the fact that the Prosecution has, for its part, submitted as
evidence the reports of Mr. Kirkpatrick concerning his conference with
Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl thinks that that conversation adds
anything to the conversations with the Duke of Hamilton and Mr.
Kirkpatrick, I shall not object to his reading the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?
DR. SEIDL: It is in my possession.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean, what
authenticity has it? Who made it? Who wrote it?
DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the Defendant Hess
which were given to him when he was brought from England to Germany. It
is a copy of the original, that is to say a carbon copy, and a series of
official stamps prove beyond doubt that it is the carbon copy of an
original.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would let us have the document, we will consider
it.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your presentation?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn’t there? There are two other
documents referred to, but you are not asking us for those? A document
of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet, dated 10 May 1941?
DR. SEIDL: This application appears to have been made by my predecessor,
by the lawyer Dr. Rohrscheidt. I should like to have an opportunity of
examining the relevancy of this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir David, about
them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not got that document. The Prosecution
have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess sent to Hitler, and we
just simply cannot help on that point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, it shall be
submitted to you.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN: It is my intention to call as the first witness for the
Defendant Ribbentrop the former Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at present in
a camp at Minden near Hanover. Ambassador Gaus was for more than three
decades the head of the legal department of the German Foreign Office. I
believe that this witness is necessary in view of this function alone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the same procedure
as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he has introduced the
witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the same way whether there
is any objection.
Dr. HORN: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned, there is no
objection, subject to one point on what I may call the Foreign Office
group of witnesses; and I think it will be convenient if I develop it
now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with the point in one moment.
Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who was the defendant’s
private secretary, and then witnesses 3 to 7, five Foreign Office
officials, Herr Von Sonnleitner, Herr Von Rintelen, Gottfriedsen,
Hilger, and Bruns.
The position at the moment is that there is some doubt as to whether
Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two of the witnesses,
Von Sonnleitner and Bruns were granted on 5 December. Von Sonnleitner
was granted as one of two and Herr Bruns was granted _simpliciter_.
The Prosecution draws the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that no
special facts are stated as to which of these witnesses will speak, and
at the present moment, the applications are not within the Rule of
Procedure 4 (a), but what the Prosecution suggests is this:
That it is reasonable that the defendant should have certain witnesses
who will speak as to Foreign Office business and activities, but they
suggest that if he has Herr Gaus and his private secretary, Miss Blank,
that one other Foreign Office official to speak as to general methods
would be sufficient, and Von Sonnleitner is obviously the sort of person
who could help the defendant on general Foreign Office matters. They
suggest that to call seven witnesses to deal with his general position
in the business would be unduly cumulative, and they suggest that three
is sufficient.
I hope the Tribunal will not mind my dealing with the seven witnesses,
but really my point involves the number of them.
DR. HORN: May I say something in reply to that? Dr. Gaus, in all
probability, will be my main witness for the Defense. Therefore, since
10 November 1945, I and my predecessor have done everything to find this
witness, and after that had been accomplished, to bring him here. I know
that the witness, although he has now been located, is not here.
Consequently, I do not know on what matters he can give us rebutting
evidence. For this reason I would also prefer not to commit myself yet
as to the other witnesses from the Foreign Office. I would like to demur
only to the following extent: The witnesses who have been listed in
addition, these additional witnesses of the Foreign Office, are not
witnesses who are to give testimony on routine questions, as Sir David
expressed himself, about general affairs of the Foreign Office; but they
are witnesses who can offer rebutting evidence concerning special topics
which the Prosecution has brought up.
I consequently suggest that a final decision should be reached as to the
calling of these other witnesses only after Ambassador Von Gaus is here.
In connection with this statement, I should like to ask the Court again
personally to assist me in the securing of this extraordinarily valuable
witness because I can submit my rebutting evidence in writing to the
General Secretary in time only if I have him here soon.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will consider that. That deals with 1 to 7,
does it not?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I remark that I should like to omit Witness
Number 2, Fräulein Margarete Blank. Consequently not 2 to 7, but 3 to 7.
May I make the following explanation: Fräulein Blank was for many years
secretary to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Von Ribbentrop,
specifically since 1933. The witness Blank drew up a whole series of
decisive sketches and memoranda and also discussed decisive points with
Ribbentrop in connection with these manuscripts. Thereby I mean
memoranda which expressly relate to the charges, and I therefore ask
that the Tribunal’s original decision, which granted us this witness, be
upheld.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking, are you, that Ambassador Gaus and
Fräulein Blank should be brought here as soon as possible, and that the
consideration of the other witnesses 3 to 7, should be deferred until
you have had an opportunity of seeing Gaus and Blank?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. As regards Fräulein Blank, I can say that
she is in an internment camp near Nuremberg, in Hersbruck.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean that Fräulein Blank was in a camp so near
Nuremberg that you could go and visit her and speak to her there?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, that is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HORN: May I interpret this as an authorization to visit Fräulein
Blank in order to interrogate her?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that that is your application, and we will
consider it.
DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President.
As my next witness I name the former SS Gruppenführer and personal
adjutant to Hitler, at present in Nuremberg in solitary confinement.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, the application
says that there was a decisive conference between Hitler and the
Defendant Von Ribbentrop, and that he can speak as to certain things
that occurred. If that is so, if he can speak as one attending the
conference, the Prosecution have no objections.
They object—and this point will arise in regard to a number of
witnesses—to what I call self-created evidence. That is, if a witness
is merely coming to say that the defendant said that he had certain
views, that, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not carry the
thing any further. If I understand, this witness is speaking as an
observer of the conference, and, as such, we take no objection.
DR. HORN: I should like to give Sir David my assurance that this is a
witness who has first-hand knowledge of decisive events and can give
such testimony.
My next witness is Adolph Von Steengracht, since 1943 Secretary of the
German Foreign Office. This witness is now in Nuremberg in solitary
confinement.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at
the seventh line from the foot of this application, it says that
Steengracht will further testify that, contrary to the assertions of the
Chief Prosecutor of the United States, the protests of the churches and
of the Vatican were always processed, thus obviating even worse
excesses.
If it is meant by that—and the English is a little obscure—that the
Defendant Ribbentrop sent forward the protests of the churches to
Hitler, then the Prosecution would feel that they ought not to object to
the witness.
DR. HORN: I can say in regard to this, Mr. President, that these
protests were submitted not only to Hitler, but that furthermore, on the
initiative and orders of the defendant, other German offices involved in
these breaches of international law were approached for the purpose of
settling the difficulties arising from the protests of the churches and
the Vatican.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Can we go on to 10?
DR. HORN: My witness Number 10 is Dahlerus. Mr. Dahlerus has already
been discussed at length today, and I should like to know whether
further discussion as to procurement of this witness is necessary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have already put my general position with
regard to Dahlerus. Apparently this defendant wants him on one
particular point, namely, an order from Hitler; and I submit that the
appropriate way would be if Dr. Horn added an interrogatory on that
point.
_Prima facie_, it seems highly improbable that Hitler communicated his
private order to a Swedish engineer, but in view of the fact that
interrogatories have been ordered, I suggest that Dr. Horn can send a
further interrogatory on that point.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make a remark in this connection? It is
not, as was translated, a question in this case of a command of Hitler,
but a question of the decisive note that was the beginning of the second
World War.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My position goes into a great deal of these
requests. This is only evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say what Hitler
said, what Hitler told him. It is not evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say,
“Herr Ribbentrop told me that Hitler had so ordered.” That does not add
to the evidence of the defendant himself.
Therefore, I think it is essential that before one can judge of the
evidential value at all, the matter should be submitted, as I suggest,
by way of interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, unless you have anything further to add with
reference to this witness, we will stop at this point, because we think
it is impossible to go further today, and apparently it is impossible to
finish the whole of your application this afternoon, so do you wish to
add anything more about Dahlerus?
DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make another short statement in answer
to what Sir David considers as decisive for the evidence. Mr. Dahlerus
will not say here what he heard from Ribbentrop; he will testify to what
he heard about Ribbentrop from an important person and from Hitler
himself, and that is why I consider him as particularly decisive.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord, in the case of the
witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn; I had prepared the comments of
the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in English. The Tribunal
will realize that we received this application only yesterday, and it
had to be translated and is not ready by today.
I have not been able to get this translation, but I have given Dr. Horn
a copy quite informally so that he would be informed; and it might be
useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the proceedings and
also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the consideration of
these points. I do not know if that appeals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will adjourn now.
I want to ask the Soviet Chief Prosecutor whether it would be convenient
to the Soviet Prosecution that we should continue on Monday morning with
this examination of witnesses and evidence. I think it will probably
take the whole of the morning if we deal with the Defendant Ribbentrop’s
applications and then the Defendant Keitel’s, so that the Soviet
Prosecution, if that course were adopted, would come on at 2 o’clock.
Would that be convenient for them?
GEN. RUDENKO: If it is convenient for the Tribunal it will be so for us,
Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is just one other point I should like to ask you. I
think the Tribunal were notified that there were two witnesses the
Soviet Prosecution proposed to call. I think that we said that the
General Warlimont and, I think, General Halder, ought to be called so as
to give the Defense Counsel the opportunity of cross-examining them.
GEN. RUDENKO: If the Tribunal so wishes I shall report on this question.
I became acquainted with the transcript of the reports made by General
Zorya and Colonel Pokrovsky when the question concerning witnesses
Halder and Warlimont was discussed. The Soviet Delegation consider there
to be no basis for objections to the Court examining the witnesses
Generals Warlimont and Halder, at the request of the Defense. But the
Soviet Prosecution intended to request that the Tribunal submit these
witnesses as witnesses on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution.
I should like once again to report about the plan which the Soviet
Prosecution has in mind regarding the conclusion of the presentation of
evidence. There remains for us to present to the Tribunal the last
section, “Crimes against Humanity.” The presentation of this will take
approximately 3 to 4 hours.
In addition, we shall ask the Tribunal to permit us to interrogate,
episode by episode, four witnesses, Soviet citizens who have been
specially brought and now are in Nuremberg. In such a way we consider
that if we start our presentation tomorrow at 2 o’clock, then on Tuesday
we will finish our presentation on all counts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will expect to have General Warlimont and
Halder presented here before the Soviet case finishes, not for the
Soviet Prosecution to ask them questions but for them to be
cross-examined by the Defense if the Defense want to, but that may take
place at any time that is convenient to you. If you wish, they could be
called at 2 o’clock on Monday; if you prefer, at the end of the Soviet
presentation, either on Tuesday afternoon or on Wednesday morning,
whichever is convenient to you.
GEN. RUDENKO: As I already stated, the Soviet Prosecution did not think
of introducing either Halder or Warlimont. The Soviet Prosecution did
not object that, on the request of the Defense Counsel, Halder and
Warlimont be subjected to cross-examination. As far as I know, as far
back as last December, the Tribunal granted the application of the
Defense to call Halder into court as a witness.
Therefore it seems to me, and in order to expedite the exposition of
material of the Soviet Prosecution, this really will not influence the
examination of essential questions, that the examination of the
witnesses Warlimont and Halder be made in the Trial during the
presentation of evidence by Defense Counsel.
As far as I know, in the application of the Defendant Keitel, which was
presented to the Tribunal, Halder and Warlimont are indicated as
witnesses, and the Defendant Keitel and his attorney applied for
examination of them as witnesses on behalf of the Defense.
On the basis of this, I consider that the examination of these witnesses
should be made during the presentation of evidence by the Defense
Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that both General Warlimont and
General Halder are here in Nuremberg. Is that so?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably the most convenient course would be for the
Tribunal to see exactly what order the Tribunal made with reference to
their being called. We will look up the shorthand notes and see exactly
what order we made and deal with the matter on Monday morning.
In the meantime, on Monday morning we will continue, as you said is
convenient to you, the applications by Dr. Horn for the Defendant
Ribbentrop and the applications by Dr. Nelte on behalf of the Defendant
Keitel; and we shall sit from 2 until 4 o’clock only on Monday
afternoon.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 25 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY
Monday, 25 February 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you dealt with Dahlerus last, I believe.
DR. HORN: That is right, Mr. President.
As the next witness, I ask the Tribunal to call General Koestring,
former military attaché at Moscow, and at present in prison in
Nuremberg. In this case I am willing to forego the personal appearance
of the witness if the submission of affidavit will be permitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we object to this witness and so Dr.
Horn can develop it as far as he desires.
THE PRESIDENT: You object to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. HORN: I wish nevertheless, to ask the Tribunal to call the witness
in this case.
Originally, there was a possibility, as I was told, that the witness
might be called by the Prosecution. Since this has not taken place, I
ask that this witness be approved because he took part in the
German-Russian negotiations from August to September 1939 at Moscow and,
until the beginning of hostilities against the Soviet Union, remained at
that post. The witness, therefore, can tell us about the attitude of
authoritative German circles and personalities toward the German-Russian
pact. For these reasons I ask the Tribunal to call the witness.
GEN. RUDENKO: As it has already been stated by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe,
the Prosecution objects to the summoning of this witness. I merely wish
to define the position of the Prosecution in this case. The fact that
the witness participated or was present at the August-September 1939
negotiations is scarcely of interest to the Tribunal. The Tribunal
primarily proceeds from the fact of the existence of this agreement and
its treacherous violation by Germany. Consequently, the summoning of
this witness to describe these negotiations would merely delay the
course of the Trial.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I am sorry, I was not able to understand the
answer and the reasoning of the General.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat, General?
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I was saying, with reference to Sir David’s
protest, on behalf of the Prosecution, against the summoning of this
witness, that I wished to explain that the summoning of this witness in
regard to his presence at the 1939 negotiations at Moscow was of no
interest whatsoever to the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeds from the
facts that this agreement had been concluded in 1939 and had been
treacherously violated by Germany.
I consider that the summoning of this witness before the Tribunal is
superfluous since the witness in question has no connection whatsoever
with the present case.
DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal’s permission to point out that for weeks
General Koestring was in prison in Nuremberg at the disposal of the
Prosecution. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to grant him a hearing as a
witness for the reasons which I have mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. Dr. Horn, the
Tribunal does not understand the fact that General Koestring is in
prison at Nuremberg is any answer to the objection which is made on
behalf of the Prosecution, namely, that the Tribunal is not interested
in negotiations which took place in September 1939, but in the violation
of the treaty. The Tribunal would like to know whether you have any
answer to make to that objection? The only answer you have made up to
date is that General Koestring is here in Nuremberg.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, General Koestring is to testify that the pact
with Russia was drawn up with full intention of its being kept on the
part of Germany and on the part of my client.
I would not like to say anything further on this point at the moment and
I ask the Court to call the witness on the basis of this reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider your request.
DR. HORN: The next witness is legation councillor for reports, Dr.
Hesse, who was formerly in the Foreign Office in Berlin and now
presumably is in the camp at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection to this witness.
I do not know if Dr. Horn wants him in person or if an affidavit would
do. The Prosecution do not feel strongly on the matter but they ask Dr.
Horn whenever possible to accept an affidavit and they suggest that he
might consider it in this case.
DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit.
The next witness is the former ambassador in Bucharest, Fabricius,
presumably in Allied custody in the American zone of occupation or
possibly already discharged from custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this case. Apparently
this witness will speak as to an interview which is already in evidence
before the Court and will give a different account of it. Prosecution
makes no objection under the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Professor Karl Burckhardt, President of
the International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League of Nations
Commissioner at Danzig.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Burckhardt is
obviously in a very special position. As President of the International
Red Cross he is a person to whom all belligerents, irrespective of
country, are indebted; and the point that the Prosecution makes is that
if he can speak of evidence coming from Hitler himself, that is if he
can prove either by saying that he was informed by Hitler that the
Defendant Ribbentrop had interceded; or if he can say he saw letters
received by Hitler from Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no
objection. If he is merely going to say that Ribbentrop told him so, the
Prosecution would object.
Therefore, we submit that the reasonable course would be that he should
make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge, and if that is done and
if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should not think for a
moment that the Prosecution would do anything but accept the evidence of
Dr. Burckhardt.
The second point, we submit, is irrelevant: the question of the results
of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position in
Danzig.
DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have already submitted in my
application, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt visited Ribbentrop
and Hitler in the year 1943 and therefore can make detailed statements
with reference to the reasons which I have mentioned for calling him.
That answers the first question by Sir David.
I also agree, however, in this case that Professor Burckhardt submit the
necessary affidavit and thus be spared a personal examination.
The next witness is the Swiss Ambassador Feldscher, who was finally, to
our knowledge, Ambassador at Berlin.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest, My Lord, that he comes into the same
position as Dr. Burckhardt. He should be dealt with in the same way.
DR. HORN: I agree, Mr. President. The next witness is the former Prime
Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Winston Churchill.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution
objects to this application and, with the greatest respect to Dr. Horn,
submits that there are no relevant reasons disclosed in the application
now before the Tribunal. The first part of it is apparently an account
of a conversation which does not touch the facts of this case, and the
second part is also a discussion of a conversation which apparently took
place some years before the war, between the German Ambassador and a
gentleman who at that time was in no official position in England. But
what relevancy the conversation has to any of the issues in this case
the Prosecution respectfully submits is not only nonapparent but
nonexistent.
DR. HORN: Against this statement of Sir David, I want first to point out
the following:
Prime Minister Winston Churchill was at that time Leader of His
Majesty’s Opposition in Parliament. In this capacity we may attribute to
him a sort of official position, particularly since he, to my knowledge,
as Leader of the Opposition is even paid a salary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure that Dr. Horn would be the last person
to rely on a point on which he has been misinformed.
Mr. Churchill was not Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition at any period
and was certainly not from 1936 to 1938, when the Defendant Ribbentrop
was ambassador. Mr. Attlee was the Leader of the Opposition. Mr.
Churchill was not in office; was a back-bench member of the Conservative
Party, independent member of the Conservative Party at that time.
I did not want my friend to be under any misapprehension.
DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of the
statesmen best known in Germany. This statement, which Churchill made at
that time on the occasion of his visit to the embassy, was immediately
reported to Hitler by Ribbentrop and was, in all probability, one of the
reasons for Hitler’s making the statements quoted in the so-called
Hossbach document, submitted as Document Number 386-PS, which contains
statements and declarations so surprising to the participants and in
which the Prosecution saw the first definite evidence of a conspiracy in
the sense of the Indictment.
Furthermore, I should like to say that the British Prosecutor, Jones,
mentioned that, after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, people
in England and Poland became very concerned. Therefore negotiations
between England and Poland were started, and a pact of guarantee
concluded.
On the basis of this statement of Churchill which has been mentioned,
and those of other important British statesmen, according to which
England would bring about a coalition against Germany within a few years
in order to oppose Hitler with all available means—as a result of these
statements, Hitler became henceforth more keenly anxious to increase his
own armaments and to busy himself with strategic plans.
For these reasons I consider Churchill’s statement extraordinarily
important and I ask that this witness be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point, My Lord; I do not think
I can add to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have Dr. Horn’s observations,
which they have only heard through the microphone, in writing on this
subject.
DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, Lord Kemsley,
Lord Beaverbrook, and Lord Vansittart. Interrogatories have already been
sent out to these witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt with by
interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories.
DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral Schuster;
last address, Kiel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of Admiral Schuster.
The grounds for his being asked for are that he took part in the
negotiations which led to the German-English Naval Treaty of 1935.
Apparently the point that is desired to be made is that the treaty was
concluded on this defendant’s initiative.
The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the
negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there
for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend can
find any argument which he desires.
But in general, the Prosecution wish to stress that going into
negotiations anterior to old-standing treaties would be an intolerable
waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: In this Trial we are discussing straightforwardly the problem
of plans and preparations. In this connection it is certainly not
inappropriate to hear evidence as to what the German Government, and
especially Ribbentrop, had planned and prepared at that time. This
planning and preparations which took place within the negotiations
leading to the signing of the naval treaty was carried further than just
to the conclusion of that treaty. The treaty was considered by Von
Ribbentrop—and Admiral Schuster can bear witness to the fact—the first
cornerstone in a close treaty of alliance between England and Germany.
To make these intentions clear to the Tribunal, and thereby the policy
which the Defendant Von Ribbentrop pursued, I consider this witness
important; and I ask Sir David to modify his position.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues and I have
considered this matter very carefully and I have put our general
position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as to treaties of
long standing. With the greatest desire to be reasonable, to help Dr.
Horn, I am very sorry I cannot, at this point, accede to his request.
GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to complete what my colleague, Sir David, has
stated by the following:
Dr. Horn has requested us to justify the arguments of the Prosecution. I
believe that there is one fundamental divergence in this matter between
the Prosecution and the Defense. The Defense, in calling witnesses, give
evidence and try to prove the defendants’ endeavors to conclude
peace-promoting agreements. We proceed from another fact, namely, the
treacherous violation of concluded agreements and the commission of
crimes contravening these agreements. And it seems to be quite
superfluous to call witnesses to prove that the defendants strove, in
view of these considerations, to sign peaceful agreements. The violation
and treachery in the fulfillment of these agreements are generally known
facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of this class of
evidence, I should like to ask you this question:
Assume that Ribbentrop did want to make agreements with England and did
not wish that Germany should make war on England. What relevancy would
that have to the allegation that Germany was planning to make war upon
Poland?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, to be able to answer that question decisively
as far as the conduct of the Defense is concerned, I would have to go
back to the state of all the political and diplomatic affairs of the
period previous to the second World War. To explain the reasons for
calling witnesses, I would not like to enter into arguments yet on such
matters of principle before I have thoroughly scrutinized all the
possible evidence at my disposal and formed a definite opinion—and a
basis for my conduct of the Defense. The ruling which the President gave
regarding reasons for summoning witnesses—that the Tribunal will help
us to procure the witnesses and the evidentiary material—I have
understood to mean that for the summoning of witnesses, we have only to
state reasons which in all probability would be confirmed by the
witnesses themselves after preliminary interrogation.
To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a material question to consider in considering what
evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to commit yourself upon the
point, you can proceed.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, former
interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time probably at
Oberursel in the interrogation camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the application, they
are desired to give evidence of the fact that this defendant asked
Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. Again I make the
point, which I have made several times to the Tribunal, that if these
witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler side of these offers, then
there would be no objection.
If they merely give evidence of the fact that Von Ribbentrop told them
that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission of the
Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be that there are
letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen saw; and if that is
the purpose of their evidence, then the Prosecution feel that it might
be relevant, certainly on the question of sentence; if not, then they
would reserve all rights to say whether it was a question of guilt or
innocence in view of the provisions of the Charter.
I therefore suggest that the reasonable course would be for both these
gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge and that would
deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather than
interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord; interrogatories which
would cover that point of means of knowledge would be the best thing. I
do not think, if I may put it that way, that it would be worth while
making two bites at the cherry, if I may use a colloquialism.
DR. HORN: We can talk about the next two witnesses at the same time. I
believe I can already say that Sir David will give the same reasons
against them as he did against the other witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, My Lord, that my friend
and I could agree that they stand or fall with the Tribunal’s decision
on Admiral Schuster.
DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two
witnesses, provided the Court will grant me Admiral Schuster.
The next witness is the former Chief Recorder at the Foreign Office,
Dörnberg, at present most probably interned at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr Dörnberg’s views
on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, are not relevant. If
we get into calling witnesses to express their views as to the veracity
of or other characteristics of the statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal
would embark on a course that might well take a very long time and would
not lead to any great results, and I respectfully submit that this is
not a class of testimony or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal
should entertain.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, with reference to this matter I can say that
Ciano, himself, in his diary which has now been made accessible to us,
presents this proof—at least as to the decisive point—which Mr.
Dörnberg is supposed to bring; and we shall submit it to the Court at
the proper time and—I believe I can say—in a conclusive form.
The second point of Dörnberg’s statement deals with the matter of
decoration. The Russian Prosecution has accused Ribbentrop of bartering
Siebenbürgen for a high Romanian order. For this reason I would like
permission to question Mr. Dörnberg about this point either here or in
the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Next I name Ambassador Schnurre, chief of the commercial
policy department of the Foreign Office, present whereabouts unknown,
presumably in custody in the British zone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, the Prosecution
again say that there is no need for a witness to be called to give
information that his political chief intended to keep a treaty which he
signed. The very grounds that are given for the application seem to me
to show that this is really a matter of comment and argument, and we
submit that a witness on this point is both irrelevant and unnecessary.
DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me this witness, because the fact
alone that the witness can testify about the sincerity or insincerity or
the intentions of his chief is not so important for me as the fact that,
on the basis of participation at the negotiations and preliminary
negotiations and his discussions with other important persons about the
background of this treaty, he can testify with regard to an important
point of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you again, with reference to the relevance of
this evidence, suppose it were true that in August 1939 the German
authorities intended to keep the treaty which was made with Russia, that
depended or might have depended upon whether England supported Poland in
the war which Germany was about to begin with Poland; and it may very
well be that the German authorities intended to keep the treaty with
Russia in order to keep Russia out of the war with Poland and England.
Therefore, how would the intention of Ribbentrop at that time be
relevant?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, for determining the criminal facts in this case
in order to establish guilt, it is material to know the extent to which
the Defendant Ribbentrop, as a human being, strove to keep the treaty;
and it is a different question how far he may have been compelled, by
political necessity and other forces, to witness how a treaty was not
kept in the sense in which it was originally signed.
THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on.
DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office, eventually a liaison
man with the OKW; at this time most probably in the internment camp at
Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The application for Ambassador Ritter falls into
two parts. One raises the point which we have just been discussing with
regard to the Russo-German Treaty of 23 August 1939, and I have
indicated the view of the Prosecution on that. The second deals with the
defendant’s attitude with regard to the treatment of Allied airmen. The
position at the moment is that I put in a document which was prepared by
Ambassador Ritter and another document in which Ambassador Ritter said
that the Defendant Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum from the
German Foreign Office dealing with the proposals for lynching aviators
and handing them over to the SD before they could become prisoners of
war and entitled to the rights under the Convention.
If it is desired to say that Ambassador Ritter was wrong in stating that
Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum, then, of course, it would be a
relevant point. But at the moment these documents are in, and I am not
quite clear from this for what purpose my friend wishes him called on
the second point. If there is any further purpose, then perhaps Dr. Horn
will indicate it.
DR. HORN: Sir David has just stated the reason why I have requested the
witness. The witness is supposed to and will testify that Von Ribbentrop
was opposed to special treatment of terror fliers—at least for acts
covered by the Geneva Convention—without previous notification to the
signatory powers of that convention.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn says that he wants to call Ambassador
Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared by Ambassador Ritter,
which are already in evidence. Then I can’t make any objection. That is
obviously a relevant point, if he is going to contradict his own
document.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be acceptable to Dr. Horn to have
interrogatories administered to Ambassador Ritter, or would the
Prosecution prefer that he should be called, if he is to give evidence
of any sort?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If he gives evidence, the Prosecution would
prefer that he should be called, because that is our position. There are
two documents in, prepared by this gentleman; and if he is going to
contradict them, then I suggest he should come and do it in person.
DR. HORN: I leave it up to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador in Oslo, Von
Grundherr, at present presumably in Allied custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, I don’t want to go into detail. The
position is that there is a document before the Court signed by the
Defendant Rosenberg in which he says that 10,000 pounds sterling a month
were given to Quisling through an arrangement with this gentleman. If
Dr. Horn wishes to call Herr Von Grundherr to contradict the statement
of the Defendant Rosenberg, again I suppose the Prosecution cannot make
any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Regarding the witnesses which I have listed under points 30 to
34, I can limit my statement to the fact that I want to call them to
testify that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, also earnestly and
constantly endeavored to bring about close relations with France.
The witnesses, above all M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of France,
can give substantive, detailed evidence about these efforts. If the
Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these witnesses,
could give their testimony in the form of affidavits, I will submit
relevant questions to the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the submission of the Prosecution, the
grounds stated for calling these witnesses are too vague and general to
justify their being called before the Court. When two countries are at
peace, the fact that a foreign minister or an ambassador has made
statements saying that he hopes the good relations between the two
countries will continue, or words to that effect, does not really take
us any further; and it would, in the submission of the Prosecution, be a
waste of time for witnesses to be called for such a purpose.
Apart from that, the first four witnesses, the Marquis and Marquise De
Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellane, as far as the
Prosecution know, have not been in any official position, and there is,
therefore, the additional objection that calling people who may be the
most admirable people but are in a position of general friendship to
talk as to what really becomes their view of the state of mind of a
defendant, is not evidence which is relevant or which the Tribunal
should entertain.
DR. HORN: With these witnesses the Defense wishes to prove exactly the
fact that the efforts of Ribbentrop with respect to France went further
than normal remarks which could not be called anything more than
_courtoisie internationale_. For this reason I ask that one or the other
of the witnesses in this group be granted me.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, these witnesses seem to raise the same question
as to relevance as I put to you earlier on them.
Assuming that it was the intention of the German Foreign Office to try
to keep France out of any war which Germany was preparing to make, what
relevance has that got to the question whether she was about to make an
aggressive war upon Poland?
DR. HORN: I would like through these witnesses to produce evidence that
it was at least not the intention of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to
plan and prepare wars but that he has tried for years to improve
relations with Germany’s neighboring states.
The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having planned
and carried out aggressive aims, war against England and France. If the
Prosecution will forego this point, I, of course, can also forego these
witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give this the necessary consideration.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Mr. Ernest Tennant of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, I don’t know the
gentleman, and I have never heard of him, and the only information which
is in the application is that he is a member of the firm of Tennant and
Company and a member of the Bath Club, and also that he was well known
to the Defendant Ribbentrop. But the matters for which he is sought to
be called are surely the acme of irrelevance. It is submitted that the
witness can testify that in the early and middle 30’s the defendant
asked him to bring him in contact with Lord Baldwin, Mr. Macdonald, and
Lord Davidson for the purpose of negotiating with the latter toward
paving the way to good political relations, aiming at the conclusion of
an alliance. In 1936 the defendant was Ambassador to the Court of St.
James. Mr. Macdonald had just ceased being Prime Minister in 1935 and
was still, I think, Lord President of the Council. Lord Baldwin was then
Prime Minister and Lord Davidson, I think, was Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster in the same administration. At any rate, he held a
comparatively less important office.
But how it can be relevant to the issues before this Tribunal, that at
or shortly before that time the defendant asked a gentleman of no
official position whether he could introduce him to the three gentlemen
I have just mentioned, I really suggest, cannot be stated; and I submit
that this witness should not be allowed.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the naming of witnesses we always come back
to the same fundamental question. The Prosecution always raises the
question: What can this witness tell us about the fact that Germany did
or did not march against Poland, or is to blame for the Polish-German
war, inasmuch as the witness comes from an entirely different country
and has nothing to do with Poland or Polish affairs?
The Defense is of the opinion, on the other hand, that the entire policy
of Germany toward Poland can only be understood within the framework of
the whole of European politics. Therefore, the Defense has called for
witnesses whom the Prosecution would like to exclude, because they can
offer us material for the reconstruction of the large picture. With this
in mind, I also ask for Professor Conwell-Evans of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal again I have never
heard of Professor Conwell-Evans, and he does not appear in the Who’s
Who, the British publication showing a very large number of the citizens
who have certain grades of distinction or hold certain offices. But I
would like Dr. Horn to consider this point, which I respectfully put to
the Tribunal:
Accepting that every word that is stated in this application with regard
to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in Court by Professor Conwell-Evans,
I submit that it would not advance the case at all and that the Tribunal
would be left in exactly the same position if it had that evidence as it
is in at the present moment. After all, the defendant will be able to
give evidence himself and to make his own impression on the Tribunal as
to his intentions and as to his honesty of mind at various times. The
submission of the Prosecution is that the evidence of this gentleman
would not help the Trial at all and is not relevant to any issue before
the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: As next witness I name Wolfgang Michel, Oberstdorf in Allgäu,
the witness under Number 38.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman is stated to have been a partner
in the defendant’s former business. According to the application, it is
really desired that he should give his views of the defendant’s general
attitude and state of mind. Again, the Prosecution fail to see to what
issue he is relevant; but it may be that it would please the defendant
to have affidavits from an old business partner to give his views on the
defendant. If that is desired, the Prosecution would be prepared to
consider such an affidavit; but they really must take up the consistent
attitude that a witness of this kind is irrelevant—a witness who is
going to say, “I have known this defendant for 20 years; I have been in
business with him; and I have always had a high opinion of him.” That,
in the submission of the Prosecution, does not touch the issues before
this Tribunal and, therefore, is irrelevant. But, as I say, if my friend
cares to produce an affidavit, the Prosecution will consider it with the
greatest sympathy.
DR. HORN: I would be satisfied, in the case of the witness Michel, with
an affidavit.
Mr. President, I would like to come back to the witness listed under
Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Aren’t you going to deal with Number 38? You
didn’t deal with 37. You are passing that over, are you?
DR. HORN: I believe that the same objections would be raised against him
as were raised with reference to the other witnesses. Since I assume
that the Tribunal is going to decide in principle about the question
whether or not all the related facts should be submitted here, I have
left out the naming of this witness and ask the Tribunal for a decision.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you want to go back to Number 5?
DR. HORN: I would like to come back to Number 5, Legation Counsellor
Gottfriedsen. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen conducted the entire
official and private finances of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop for many
years.
Ribbentrop has been accused by various members of the Prosecution of
enriching himself with objects of art and similar things. About this
point Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen can give decisive evidence which
will invalidate these charges. I therefore ask for approval of this
witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked Dr. Horn on this
point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen to Herr Von Sonnleitner.
I think Dr. Horn says that, if there was a question of choice, he would.
The Prosecution do not want to be unreasonable. I made my general
statement that this group of witnesses, of seven foreign office
witnesses, ought to be restricted to three. If my friend thinks that
Herr Gottfriedsen will be more helpful, especially on this point, I have
no objection to the substitution, so long as some limitation is made in
the group of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be satisfactory if interrogatories were
administered?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President; in this case I ask for the witness
Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: My statement on the subject of summoning witnesses is thereby
concluded.
DR. STAHMER: I have not named some witnesses because other defendant’s
counsel had asked for them. Among these is also the interpreter Dr.
Schmidt. I likewise have the greatest interest in the questioning of
this witness. Schmidt was Göring’s interpreter and was present at almost
all foreign political negotiations with statesmen. Therefore I also ask
for the summoning of this witness and to that extent support the
application made by Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will adjourn now
for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring up one other point having to
do with the calling of witnesses?
I have also named a number of the witnesses, because I must ascertain
when the conspiracy in general begins and when my client could have
joined this conspiracy. The Prosecution made things relatively easy for
itself as regards setting the time at which the conspiracy begins, by
stating in the general Indictment “sometime before 8 May 1945.”
Now, if I can call no witnesses with regard to the years 1933 to 1938,
then I must assume that the Prosecution admits that the Defendant
Ribbentrop could not have been a party to the conspiracy at least before
1939. I should like this point of view to be taken into consideration in
the granting of witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated quite
generally what Dr. Horn has to meet.
The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th and 9th of January I
presented the individual case against this defendant. The first point is
the time of Hitler’s accession to power in 1933. It is the case for the
Prosecution that this defendant assisted in various ways in that
accession. After that, he held various positions in close touch with
Hitler.
If Dr. Horn will refer to the transcript of my presentation, he will
find that there is detailed, with a note of all the supporting
documents, the part which his client played in the aggression against
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, England, France, Norway,
Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, and finally,
the United States and Japan. All these matters are set out with the
supporting documents, and a reference to them will show exactly what is
alleged against the defendant on that point.
Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts Three and Four
which are specially raised.
First of all, the defendant pressed that measures contrary to
international law and the conventions should be taken against Allied
aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence. Second, there
is General Lahousen’s evidence as to what the defendant said with regard
to the treatment of the population of Poland. Third, there is the
defendant’s responsibility for putting the various Protectors of Bohemia
and Moravia in office with unrestricted powers, which resulted in the
crimes against the populations of these areas. Then there is a similar
position with regard to the Netherlands.
The third main category is the treatment of the Jews. Again, there is an
American official document, the report of Ambassador Kennedy; there is a
long Foreign Office statement on the policy towards the Jews; and there
is a document showing the preparation for an anti-Semitic congress, of
which this defendant was to be an honorary member.
Finally, there is the question of plunder, the evidence given by my
Soviet colleague on the Ribbentrop battalions for the collection of
plunder, which was given the other day.
I don’t think that if Dr. Horn will consider various points, which are
practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of
January, except the last point, he will find that there is any
difficulty in deciding the commencement of these allegations or their
detailed and concrete constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know whether the
Prosecution allege any particular date at which the conspiracy started;
and second, they would like to know whether you contend that defendants
joining the conspiracy after it started are responsible for the
conspiracy.
What the Tribunal would like to know is whether a person who joins the
conspiracy after it started would be responsible for acts committed by
the conspirators before he joined.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I might deal with the questions in order, the
position of the Prosecution on the question of time is as set out in
Count One of the Indictment. The Prosecution say that the Nazi Party was
the core of the conspiracy and that it was an essential part of the
conspiracy that the Nazi Party should obtain political and economic
control of Germany in order that they might carry out the aims set out
in Articles 1 and 2 of the Nazi Party program. That part of the
conspiracy started with the emergence of the Nazi Party as a force in
German politics and was fully developed in January 1933. At that time it
was the aim of the Nazi Party to secure the breaches of the Treaty of
Versailles and the other matters set out in these articles, if necessary
by force.
But, as is stated in the statement of offense under Count One of the
Indictment, the conspiracy was not static; it was dynamic. And, in 1934,
after Germany left the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference,
the aggressive war aspect of the conspiracy increased in momentum.
It is the case for the Prosecution that from 1935, when conscription was
introduced and the Air Force came into being, through 1936 when the
Rhineland was reoccupied, that the securing of Germany’s objectives—the
objectives of the Nazi Party—if necessary by aggressive war, became a
stronger, clearer, and more binding aim.
The position is crystallized by the meeting on the 5th of November 1937,
when Hitler declared that Austria and Czechoslovakia would be conquered
at the earliest opportunity. That was succeeded by the acquisition of
Austria in March 1938, and the Fall Grün against Czechoslovakia, which
originated in May 1938, to be carried out before October.
From that time the Prosecution say that the plan of aggressive war
followed the well-known and clear technique of attacking one country or
taking aggressive measures against one country, and giving assurances to
the country that was next on the list to be attacked.
From that time the succession and procession of aggressive wars takes a
clear course, which I have just mentioned in outlining the accusation of
aggression against the Defendant Ribbentrop. I may summarize it by
saying that the Prosecution submit that the Nazi Party was always
engaged in this agreement and concerted action to get control of Germany
and carry out its aims but that the aggression crystallized and became
clear from 1934 and the beginning of 1935 onwards.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Sir
David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection with this.
First of all, you must know either the date when the conspiracy began,
or you must not be able to give us the date. Now, is it the contention
that the Prosecution don’t know when the conspiracy began? If you do
know, would you tell us?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the formation of the
Nazi Party.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was that date?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1921.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): 1921? Now, was the conspiracy to wage
aggressive war begun on that date?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it was begun in this way that Hitler had
said, “I have certain objects, one of them being to break the Treaty of
Versailles—which means also breaking the treaty of friendship with the
United States which has the same clauses—and I shall attain these
objects, if necessary by using force.” That was always one of the
beliefs and aims of the Party.
Now, if people agree to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal
methods, that is, _ipso facto_, the committing of the offense of
conspiracy. Conspiracy is constituted by the agreement, not by the acts
carrying out the agreement. Therefore, in that way the conspiracy starts
in 1921. But, as Mr. Justice Jackson made clear in his opening and as I
have repeated this morning, the aims—and more particularly the methods
by which the conspirators sought to achieve these aims—grew and
acquired particular forms as the years went on. They appear to have
acquired the special form and to have decided on the method of breaking
the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 and bringing that to fruition in 1935.
I am not seeking to avoid answering the question of the learned American
Judge; but I am putting, in summary form, exactly what is stated in both
the statement of offense and the particulars of offense under Count One,
and I hope that I will not be thought to be avoiding the question. I am
not doing that. I am trying to put it in the clearest and most accurate
language.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I wouldn’t ask you, were I clear about
the matter in my own mind, Sir David. Let me ask you a few more
questions.
The conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity—was that begun in
1921?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To the extent that a general readiness was
adopted to use all methods, irrespective of the rights, safety, and
happiness of other people, it was commenced with the start of the Nazi
Party. Ruthlessness and disregard for the rights, and safety, and
happiness of others was a badge of the Nazi Party program, insofar as
the rights and happiness of others might interfere with their aims, from
the very start.
Again, the translation of that into practical methods developed as the
years went on, and in a period well before the war—Mr. Biddle will not
put it against me that I should remember exact documents in an answer
straight off the rule to his question, but well before the war—there
will be found again and again in the speeches of Hitler to his
associates that utter ruthlessness and disregard for non-German
populations should be employed. That is the foundation of the War Crimes
and Crimes against Humanity, and it was initiated and grew in the method
which I have stated.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you answer the President with respect to
the question of whether the conspirators joining later became
responsible? If that were true, then this defendant would be responsible
for acts running back to 1921.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There are two legal conceptions which have to be
borne in mind in considering that point. I can only speak with knowledge
on the law of England, but I understand that the law of the United
States is very much the same.
In England there is a common law offense of conspiracy. There are also
certain statutory offenses, but there is a common law offense of
conspiracy. The gist of that offense is, as I have already stated,
entering into an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by
illegal means. As far as a conviction for conspiracy per se is
concerned, there is no doubt about the law of England. If someone joins
a conspiracy at a late state, a conspiracy to do any illegal act, he can
be convicted of conspiracy to do that act however late he joins.
The usual analogy, with which I am sure the learned American Judge is
familiar, is that of a stage play. The fact that a character does not
come in until Act 3 does not mean that he is any the less carrying out
the design of the author of the play to present the whole picture which
the play embraces. It is a very useful analogy because it shows the
position. That is one aspect of the law, and on that there is no doubt
at all.
The other aspect of the law is as to how far those who act in consort to
commit a crime are responsible for each other’s acts, that is,
irrespective of the substantive offense of conspiracy. If one may take
an example—a highly fantastic one but I think it raises the
point—assume that you had a conspiracy on the part of road operators to
wreck railway trains, and a number of road operators agreed in December
to wreck a train on the 1st of January and to wreck a further train on
the 1st of February. Between the 1st of January and the 1st of February,
another road operator joins the conspiracy. I hope I have got rightly
the point in My Lord’s mind and in the mind of the learned American
Judge. Then there is, as far as I can see, some doubt as to whether that
road operator would be liable for a murder committed in the wrecking
that took place on the first of January.
I hope I have made my point clear. I am postulating someone who joins a
conspiracy on the 15th of January, after the first wrecking has been
carried out during which someone has been killed, and therefore those
who consorted with regard to the first wrecking are guilty of murder.
But as to the person who joins after that, there is some doubt as to
whether he acquires retroactive responsibility. In English law it would
appear to be at least doubtful—it certainly is arguable that in
American law he would, as I have been told the decision.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you have made that very clear, Sir
David, but what I am getting at is what the Prosecution claim in this
case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry if I have been theoretical, but
it has been rather a difficult point, and I wanted to relate it to the
law with which I am most familiar.
With regard to the present case, the Prosecution say that the defendants
do become responsible for the consequences of acts done in pursuance of
the conspiracy. It is rather difficult to speak entirely in vacuo in the
matter; but if one may take, for example—again I speak from memory—the
Defendant Speer, who comes on the scene rather late, if my recollection
is right, he then becomes minister for production and armaments and
makes the demands for the slave labor which were fulfilled by the
Defendant Sauckel.
In the submission of the Prosecution, there would not be any difficulty
in convicting the Defendant Speer on all counts, assuming that the
Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Prosecution. By his actions, he
has conspired to commit a Crime against Peace; he has joined and entered
into the conspiracy to carry on aggressive war; he has taken part in the
waging of aggressive war by making the demands for the slave labor; he
has instigated a war crime, namely the ill-treatment of populations of
occupied countries; and also, by instigating and procuring the action of
the Defendant Sauckel, he has committed Crimes against Humanity in that
he has participated in actions which are condemned by the criminal law
of all civilized countries; and probably—I am speaking from memory
now—these actions have taken place in countries where it is arguable
whether they were strictly occupied countries after an invasion, as in
Czechoslovakia.
On the method in which our Indictment is drawn, there is no difficulty,
the Prosecution submit, in convicting a defendant who emerges in
evidence at a later date on each of the counts.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just one more question and then I am through.
You understand I am asking these questions only in performance of what
we are doing to determine what witnesses should be called, and therefore
the year 1921 as the beginning of the conspiracy becomes a year
obviously not remote in time when we consider witnesses. Would that not
follow?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A year not. . . ?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Not remote in time with relation to the
conspiracy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it is part of the particular Indictment.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make some brief remarks in this
connection?
I have based myself on the general Indictment as regards the time of the
conspiracy. The general Indictment states simply and solely that the
definitive point of time which one can take as the start of the
conspiracy is any time before 8 May 1945.
The Chief Prosecutor of the United States, in his opening statement,
described the Party program, in the form in which it was framed in ’21
and revised, I believe, in ’25, and characterized it as legitimate and
unimpeachable—according to the German translation—insofar as these
aims were not to be attained by war.
Now, assuming that the Party leadership was to pursue these objectives
by war, it is, first of all, not clear with what point of view these
goals were set; and the Defense as well as the Prosecution must prove
that from this time on these aims were to be attained through war.
Furthermore, it can hardly be denied that only a very few people, and
perhaps only one person, had knowledge of war plans.
Now, as regards the various defendants, as well as my own client, the
times at which they came into contact with the Party are quite
different.
First, they were ordinary Party members, so they had consequently to
assume, as the Chief Prosecutor did, that the Party program of which
they had become adherents, was legally unimpeachable.
Now the question arises for the Defense, and above all, for conducting
the defense: When did the individual client enter the sphere in which it
was known that the aims were to be attained by war, aims which so far he
had considered legitimate and unimpeachable, that is, aims which
according to his previous assumption, were not to be pursued by recourse
to war? Had the Defendant Ribbentrop already entered the circle of
conspirators when in 1932 he contacted Party circles? Was he, as
Ambassador in London, already “in the know” and thereby a party to the
conspiracy; or did he only realize, at the time of the Hossbach
document, that the political aims of the Party were to be materialized
through war? Or when?
The Defense must be aware of the danger that the defendant will be
accused by the Prosecution that he joined the conspiracy the very
earliest moment he came in contact with the Party and its aims. In this
connection I can refer to the words just spoken by Sir David who said
that the foundation of the conspiracy was laid in 1921. I ask—or
rather—is it my task or my duty to prove through witnesses that my
client, for instance, up to 1939 was striving for peaceful relations in
order to refute that he then already planned or prepared wars or took a
decisive part in these plans and preparations?
From this point of view, I ask the Tribunal to weigh the applications
for the witnesses and subjects of evidence as set forth in my brief.
Furthermore, I expressly maintain that this discussion has not clarified
the question: When does the conspiracy start?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I don’t want to repeat any general
argument. My desire is that Dr. Horn should know what case Ribbentrop
has to meet, and I have already stated that, but I want to make it quite
clear.
According to the entry in _Das Archiv_ Ribbentrop entered the service of
the Nazi Party in 1930, and between 1930 and January 1933 was one of the
instruments and vehicles by which the accession of the Nazi Party to
power took place. That semi-official publication says that some meetings
between Hitler and Von Papen and the Nazis and representatives of
President Von Hindenburg took place in his house at Berlin-Dahlem. That
is the first point. It is quite clear and it is all set out in the
transcript.
The second stage is that he held certain offices between 1934 and 1936
that show that he was an important and rising Nazi politician and
negotiator in the realm of foreign affairs. In 1936 he justified the
action of Germany in breaking the Versailles Treaty. The defendant
justified it before the League of Nations. Therefore, he has to meet
that point.
In the same year he negotiated the Anticomintern Pact. He has to explain
that.
From that time onwards, there are a succession of German documents, all
referred to in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, which show
exactly the part this defendant played in 10 sets of aggression against
10 separate countries.
I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that that is a perfectly clear
case which this defendant has to meet. There is no doubt about it at
all.
I have already summarized the case on the War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity. Again Dr. Horn will find it dealt with, with every document
mentioned, in the transcript for the 9th of January.
I respectfully submit that whatever else may be said, the particularity
and clarity of the case against the Defendant Ribbentrop is manifest.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, in my presentation of defense against the
charges lodged by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in his special plea for the
Prosecution, I have offered rebutting evidence in answer to these
charges. I have, however, not only to confine myself to refuting those
charges just mentioned, but I have—and thus I have to repeat what I
just said—to consider all these charges under the point of view of
conspiracy, as according to the submission of the Prosecution, the
Defendant Ribbentrop is party to this conspiracy; and the question
cannot be avoided: When did the conspiracy start? Taking the supposition
that my client took part in a conspiracy, this participation did not
start in 1930, as submitted by the Prosecution—I shall be able to
refute this—but only in 1932; but I should like to prove through
witnesses and otherwise that then and later he did not join in any
conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, perhaps you will get on with the documents
which you want.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the documents, I have
had the opportunity of discussing it informally with Dr. Horn; and I
understand that with regard to Documents 1 to 14, Dr. Horn really wants
these books as working books which he can read and use and, if
necessary, take extracts from to illustrate his argument and point at
that time. Now, that is a matter of course to which we make no objection
at all. I have consistently taken the view that there should be no
objection to any book for working purposes for the Defense.
What I do want to ask is this, that if Dr. Horn or any other Defense
Counsel wishes to use an extract from a book when it comes to presenting
his case, he will let us know what the extract is and, if necessary, for
what purpose he is going to use it. I say “if necessary” because in many
cases it will be quite apparent for what purpose, but in some cases it
may have special significance; and if they let us know, then any
question of relevance can be argued when the matter is produced in
court.
THE PRESIDENT: But that seems to me to be necessary in order that the
documents should be translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite; yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean that the part of the book or part of the document
which Dr. Horn wants to use should be translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But as far as providing the Defense with working
copies, any co-operation that the Prosecution can do in that way they
will gladly do. That is a matter on which we should be anxious to help.
The last five documents named fall into rather a different category. I
haven’t discussed these with Dr. Horn; but I respectfully submit—and it
is the united view of the Prosecution—that complete files of newspapers
will be difficult to justify as evidence before the Tribunal, but again,
if Dr. Horn wants them for matter of reference, then it just becomes a
question of possibility.
I am not sure with regard to these whether it is desired to use them or
whether it is merely desired to have them to refer to. I don’t know
anything about Number 19, the withdrawn number of the _Daily Telegraph_,
but I suppose the Secretariat can make inquiries about that from the
proprietors.
DR. HORN: The last item I should like to take up: Now that the Trial has
already progressed so far that I now require these documents in order to
be able to make use of them for rebutting evidence, may I ask that
copies of those newspapers—it is a matter of three or four newspapers,
which are bound in 1-month volumes—be made available to me as soon as
possible with the help of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the withdrawn number of the _Daily
Telegraph_? You haven’t yet indicated why it would be relevant.
DR. HORN: On the 30 or 31 of August 1939, an edition of the _Daily
Telegraph_ was withdrawn because it contained extensive details of the
contents of the memorandum which the then Reich Foreign Minister, Von
Ribbentrop, had read to the British Ambassador, Henderson, in Berlin. It
is asserted—also by the Prosecution—that Ribbentrop read this note to
Henderson so rapidly that the latter was unable to understand the
essential points. From the issue of the _Daily Telegraph_ of 31 August
1939, it will thus appear to what extent Ambassador Henderson was in a
position to understand Ribbentrop’s statements or the oral presentation
of that memorandum as Von Ribbentrop read it. I therefore ask that this
number of the _Daily Telegraph_ be procured, and I am convinced that the
Prosecution is able to obtain this issue by the means at their disposal
but not available to us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time that I have
heard of this withdrawn copy apart. . .
THE PRESIDENT: The first time you have heard there was any copy
withdrawn?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have never heard it except from Dr. Horn that
there was a copy withdrawn, and I shall probably have to investigate the
matter.
I only want to say one thing, that of course Dr. Horn has just made one
point about the question between this defendant and Sir Nevile
Henderson. It is the case for the Defendant Göring, as expressed in Dr.
Stahmer’s interrogatories, that the Defendant Göring had caused the
contents of this memorandum to be given unofficially to Mr. Dahlerus
behind the Defendant Ribbentrop’s back. That is the case which he is
making in the interrogatories, so that it by no means follows that Sir
Nevile Henderson’s account of the interview was wrong, even if an
account of the document had come out.
I don’t want to make a point of the memory of Sir Nevile, but shall
investigate this matter, which I have just heard now for the first time.
DR. HORN: May I add for the fuller information of the Tribunal that the
Defendant Göring made the memorandum available to Ambassador Henderson
only at a considerably later date. It is, therefore, of decisive
importance when and whether Henderson acquired knowledge of this
memorandum and whether it happened in good time so that he could still
communicate it to the Polish Government within the proper time.
May I ask therefore for the procurement of this most important edition
of the _Daily Telegraph_.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Horn.
We will continue with the evidence against the Defendant Keitel.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a remark preliminary
to the discussion about the evidence submitted for Defendant Keitel. I
hope the discussions about the various applications for evidence will
thereby be considerably shortened. From my written application you will
see that in respect to the majority of the witnesses one main subject of
evidence recurs again and again, namely, the position of Defendant
Keitel as Chief of the OKW and in his other official functions, his
personality, particularly, also his relations to Hitler, and the
clarification of the chain of command within the Armed Forces.
I shall present evidence that the idea of the public and the Prosecution
regarding the personality of the Defendant Keitel, his scope, and his
activities is incorrect. No name has been so frequently mentioned in the
course of this proceeding as that of the Defendant Keitel. Every
document which dealt in any way with military matters was identified
with the OKW, and the OKW, in turn with Keitel. The defendant believes,
and I think with some justification. . .
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal appreciates the general points which you
will probably want to argue on behalf of the Defendant Keitel when you
come to make your final speech, but it does not appear to the Tribunal
to be necessary that you should do so now.
DR. NELTE: I mention it only to make possible a comprehensive appraisal
of all witnesses offered for the presentation of evidence. I think Sir
David shares this opinion with me—he already discussed it with me on
Saturday—and it was my intention to expound in a preliminary way the
subject of evidence which otherwise had to be presented in five or six
different cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Nelte, that you will be able to deal
with all your witnesses in one series of observations?
Could you help us, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think I can help.
Apart from the witnesses who are codefendants that are mentioned by Dr.
Nelte, whom of course the Tribunal has already provided, Dr. Nelte asks
for Field Marshal Von Blomberg, General Halder, General Warlimont, and
the Chief Staff Judge of the OKW, Dr. Lehmann. The Prosecution have no
objection to these witnesses, because they are called to deal with the
position of the Defendant Keitel as head of the OKW.
With regard to the witness Erbe, who is, I think, a civil servant called
on a specific point as to his position in the Committee for Reich
Defense. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Have the interrogatories already been granted?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; we have always said that interrogatories
would be sufficient and he should not be called as an oral witness.
Then with regard to the next witness, Roemer, whom Dr. Nelte wishes to
call to say that the decree for the branding of Soviet Russian prisoners
of war was announced by mistake and retracted at once on the order of
Keitel, that is obviously relevant to one matter in the case, and we
don’t object to that.
We don’t object to General Reinecke, who is called on various matters
relating to prisoners of war.
With regard to Mr. Romilly, so long as it is confined to interrogatories
which have been allowed, and he is not called orally, we have no
objection.
My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will have a word to say about
Ambassador Scapini. I have asked him to deal with that matter in French.
Then we come to two witnesses, Dr. Junod and Mr. Petersen. At the moment
the Prosecution cannot see how these witnesses are needed in addition to
General Reinecke. And of course they would object if the purpose of the
testimony is to show that the Soviet Union did not treat its prisoners
of war properly. If that is the purpose, they would object.
Then the calling of Dr. Lammers has been granted by the Tribunal.
Then finally, there are three witnesses who are all called in order to
show that at discussions between Hitler and the Defendant Keitel, two
stenographers had to be present. The Prosecution do not regard that as a
very vital part of the case, and if Dr. Nelte will produce an affidavit
from one of these gentlemen, then the Prosecution are not in a
position—and do not desire—to dispute the point. Frankly, if I may say
so, and with the greatest respect, we are not at all interested in that
point, and therefore will be content with an affidavit if produced.
If I might summarize—and I hope I am merely trying to help Dr.
Nelte—the only matters which, as far as the Prosecution are concerned,
require further discussion is the matter of what the French Delegation
will have to say about Ambassador Scapini, and my objection to Dr. Junod
and Mr. Petersen, and my suggestion as to an affidavit for the last
three witnesses. There is very little between us, if I may say so, with
respect to Dr. Nelte’s witnesses; on the whole they seem to the
Prosecution to be obviously relevant and in that case we make no
objection.
There is one rather sad fact with regard to the witness Blomberg, of
which I think Dr. Nelte has been informed. I understand that Field
Marshal Von Blomberg is very ill at the moment and cannot be brought
into court, so that I am sure, Dr. Nelte, the Defendant Keitel will be
the first to accept some method of getting his evidence which will not
necessitate that fact.
DR. NELTE: I thank Sir David for his kindness, by which my task has been
made easier.
I should like to state in addition that in respect to the witness, Dr.
Erbe, I shall put written questions. To the witness Petersen I have
already submitted written questions, and on the answers received depends
whether I shall call him in person. As to witness Junod, I believe I may
say that his examination is relevant because the Soviet Prosecution has
submitted that an offer to apply the Geneva Convention had been rejected
by Keitel. Dr. Junod is to be examined as a witness that, by order of
the OKW Department of Prisoners of War, he contacted the Soviet Union in
order to secure the application of the Geneva Convention but that this
could not be brought about. I believe that if only General Reinecke is
to be examined as a witness on this question, it could perhaps be
objected that he, as chief of the Department of Prisoners of War, cannot
give sufficient testimony. Neither can General Reinecke testify to what
Dr. Junod actually did. Consequently I ask that this witness be
approved. As far as the stenographers are concerned, I ask approval to
submit an affidavit.
As to Ambassador Scapini, I should merely like to point out that he was
the permanent representative of the French Vichy Government and that he
was particularly concerned with the question of caring for prisoners of
war in Germany. I believe that this is adequate reason for considering
him relevant. To be sure, I did not know his address, and hope that the
French Prosecution can help me in that regard.
M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for the French
Republic): We see no objection to hearing the former Ambassador Scapini,
if his testimony can in our opinion have the slightest bearing on the
search for truth; but the very reasons which Dr. Nelte gives for the
calling of this witness seem to me to prove the complete absence of
relevance of this testimony. The former Ambassador Scapini, says the
honorable representative of the Defense, could point out and say that he
freely exercised his control in the prisoner-of-war camps and moreover
that these prisoners of war had a representative, but this we are quite
willing to grant to the Defense. It is perfectly true that Germany had
consented to allow the former Ambassador Scapini—who we know was
wounded in the war of 1914 and blinded—to visit the camps of prisoners
and hear the French prisoners of war though he could not see them.
But the question is not to find out whether the Germans had been willing
to allow a blind inspector to visit the camps. The only question
presented by the Indictment is whether, in spite of the visits of this
inspector and in spite of the presence of a special representative in
the camps, there did not occur in these camps acts contrary to the laws
of war.
On this point the former Ambassador Scapini could surely give no answer,
for obviously nothing happened in his presence. This is why the French
Prosecution considers that the testimony of the former Ambassador
Scapini would shed no light in this search for truth.
DR. NELTE: It was not known to me that Ambassador Scapini was blind. Not
he himself, but rather the delegation of which he was head, made regular
inspections of the prisoner-of-war camps for French soldiers. It is
certain that in prisoner-of-war camps things happened which violated the
Geneva Convention, but the question at issue here is that the Defendant
Keitel and the OKW, as the supreme authority, did—or at any rate, tried
to do—all that they, as highest authority, had to do.
The OKW had no command jurisdiction in the individual camps. It had only
to issue instructions as to how prisoners of war were to be treated and
had to permit the protecting powers to visit the camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Would interrogatories be satisfactory, supposing we
thought it proper to administer them to Mr. Scapini?
DR. NELTE: An interrogation in Nuremberg? Could Ambassador Scapini be
heard in Nuremberg?
THE PRESIDENT: I was asking whether interrogatories would be
satisfactory. I imagine Mr. Scapini is not in Nuremberg. Written
interrogatories, I mean, of course, where I have mentioned them.
DR. NELTE: I ask for a ruling on whether the written questions which I
first should like to put will be sufficient or whether another ruling
will be necessary. So I assume that first I shall interrogate Ambassador
Scapini in writing and on his answer it will depend whether. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in writing. Will that be satisfactory to you, M.
Champetier de Ribes?
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Yes, that will be quite satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps we might adjourn now, Dr. Nelte, until a
quarter past 2.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished with your
witnesses, had you not?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I think so. I must only reserve the right on what I may
have to state, after the Soviet Prosecution have finished presenting
their case—whether I still may wish to call this or that witness. As to
the documents I should like to put a few questions which are of
particular interest for me—rather for the Defendant Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. NELTE: The Tribunal knows my main subject of evidence. In order to
prove that in many cases the Prosecution is wrong in assuming the OKW
and the Defendant Keitel to be responsible, I can refer to a great many
documents which have been presented by the Prosecution.
I take it that these documents are not to be submitted by me as
evidential material, as they have already been put in. I ask the
Tribunal for examination of these documents and for a ruling that in my
pleadings on behalf of the defendant I may refer to such documents
without having to submit or quote them.
I should like to add that the Tribunal, having been informed about the
structure of the Armed Forces or parts of them and about the
competencies of the various commands, will itself be able to judge which
of the documents submitted are not suitable for supporting the
allegations of the Prosecution regarding the responsibility of the
Defendant Keitel.
I am also convinced that the Tribunal, in its findings, will examine
carefully any document relevant to the question of guilt, even if the
Defense does not submit such documents, and even if the Defense cannot
submit a comprehensive presentation in view of the extremely large
number of documents—there are thousands relating to the Defendant
Keitel—and even if the Defense cannot deal with all these documents in
the final speeches.
Furthermore, I should like to submit to the Tribunal another question
which is important for the presentation of evidence on behalf of the
Defendant Keitel and which is of great importance.
During the session of 1 February 1946, the French Prosecutor made the
following statement, and I quote:
“Chapter 4 and the last will bear the heading, ‘The
Administrative Organization of Criminal Action’. . . . for the
fourth chapter I might point out that the French Delegation
examined more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original
German documents of which I have kept only about 50.”
According to the opening address of the United States Chief Prosecutor,
there can be no doubt that these 50 documents were selected merely from
the point of view of incriminating the defendant. On 11 February, if I
remember correctly, I addressed myself to the French Prosecution with a
request to place at my disposal for examination the remaining 1,950
documents, which the French Prosecution did not use.
To date I have received no answer. The Tribunal will appreciate the
difficulties of my position. I know there are documents there which I am
sure contain also exonerating facts. Yet I am not able to specify these
documents. I beg the Tribunal, therefore, for a ruling in this
matter—that the Prosecution should place at my disposal those documents
for my perusal.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents that you are
asking for, are you going to say anything about them?
DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I know only
that the French Prosecution have these 2,000 documents. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I will ask the
French Prosecutor to answer what you have said.
DR. NELTE: If Your Honor pleases, I leave it to the Tribunal whether
they wish to examine this question or whether it can be dealt with now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the French
Prosecutor now.
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): A
certain number of documents of doubtful origin were in our hands at the
time that we were beginning to prepare our prosecution. We have
eliminated all documents which could not bear serious critical
examination. We undertook a critical task and rejected all those that
were considered to be insufficient proof. At the end of this task about
fifty documents remained which have been referred to by my colleagues
and which appeared relevant. These 50 documents have, moreover, not all
been accepted by the Tribunal, which has rejected some, and if I
remember rightly, 3 or 4 of whose origin we were not quite sure. In
these conditions, it is absolutely incorrect to say that we have kept
1,950 documents from the Defense.
We handed over to the Court, and therefore to the Defense, the 50
documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient probative
value.
If I understand this request of the Defense they wish the Court to ask
to have handed to them documents of which some have been rejected by the
Court itself as not having sufficient probative value or as not being
sufficiently authenticated. The Tribunal will decide whether this
request should be granted. As far as I am concerned, I must oppose this
application with all my might because it would mean taking into account
documents which did not offer a sufficiently authentic character for the
examination we made, and which the Tribunal itself also made when we
submitted to it some of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but M. Dubost, the position is this: There were a
large number of documents which the Counsel for the French Prosecution
said that they had examined; and the French Prosecution, in the exercise
of their discretion, thought it unnecessary to refer to more than a
certain number of them; but it is only the French Prosecution which has
exercised their discretion about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is
asking is to see them for the purpose of seeing whether there is
anything in the documents which assists his case. Would the French
Prosecution have any objection to that? I mean—it may be that some of
the documents are no longer in the possession of the French Prosecution,
but those that are in their possession, would the French Prosecution
object to Dr. Nelte’s seeing those?
M. DUBOST: May I remind the Tribunal that the documents which we
rejected were not rejected as useless in the beginning, but as not
presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin, as to the conditions
under which we obtained them and as to their probative value.
The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of these
documents were rejected by the Court itself. Those which we did not
consider are of the same character as those documents which were
rejected. We did not submit them because we could not tell you where,
when, and how they had been discovered. For the most part, they are
documents that fell into the hands of combat troops in battle, and under
the terms of jurisprudence do not offer sufficient guarantee to be
retained.
Insofar as they are still in my possession I am ready to communicate
them to Defense Counsel, it being clearly understood that they will not
attach to them any higher merit, any higher value than I did.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all Dr. Nelte wants
is to see any documents which you have brought to see whether he can
find anything in them that he thinks may help the case of the defendant
for whom he appears, and I understand you would not have any objection
to his doing that.
M. DUBOST: I would only answer the Defense Counsel that some of those
documents were rejected by your Tribunal when I presented them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it would not apply to documents which
have been rejected by the Court. Very well. We will not decide the
matter now. We will consider it.
DR. NELTE: Would the Tribunal announce its decision regarding the first
question which I brought up, namely, whether it is sufficient that I
refer to documents which have been presented by the Prosecution without
submitting them myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to support Dr.
Nelte’s suggestion. If a document has already been put in, I should have
thought it was right and convenient that Counsel for the Defense could
comment on it without putting it in again, and should have full right of
comment.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of occasions that
any document which has been put in evidence, or a part of which has been
put in evidence, can, of course, be used by the Defense in order to
explain or criticize the part that has been put in. It may be that as a
matter of informing the Tribunal as to the document, it may be necessary
to have part of the document, which has not been put in evidence, put in
now in order that it may be translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it would be convenient if
I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the Prosecution on his list of
documents, or whether he would like to develop it himself. I can quite
shortly do that if it would be convenient.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the documents in the
list fall into that category which has just been mentioned. Documents 3
to 9, 17 and 29, 30 and 31 all appear to be in, and therefore Dr. Nelte
may comment in accordance with your ruling.
Then there are a number of documents which are affidavits, either of
defendants or intended witnesses: Documents 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 25, and
28.
The Tribunal may remember that in the case of the witness, Dr. Blaha, my
friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness, “Is your
affidavit true?” and then reading the affidavit to save time. The
Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s pursuing that course,
should he so desire; but, of course, where a witness is going to be
called as a witness, he will have to verify his affidavit on oath, in
the submission of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness is here, you
have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s reading the affidavit and the witness
being then liable to cross-examination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, “I agree; I verify the
facts that are in my affidavit.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might save considerable time in the
examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate in
that.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? Is that what
he means?
DR. NELTE: Entirely.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were presented to
the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they did not wish to
cross-examine. That would save the witnesses being here or being brought
here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of Dr. Lehmann. I think
all the other cases are either defendants or witnesses with regard to
whom there are certain points which the Prosecution would like to ask.
Then there are three documents to which there are no objections to their
being used: 18, 26, and 27.
That leaves a number of documents as to whose use I am not quite sure at
the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain how he wishes to
use them, and that may remove the difficulty of the Prosecution. If the
Tribunal will be good enough to look at 1 and 2, 1 is an expert’s
opinion on state laws concerning the Führer state, and the importance of
the Führer order, and Document 2 is an order of the Führer, Number 1.
If it is desired to use these so as to controvert Article 8 of the
Charter, the Prosecution will object. That is a question of superior
orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain the backgrounds
as a matter of history, that may be a different matter. Now, the next
one is Document 10—a need for a ministry of rearmament, taken from. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, ought we to
accept the opinion of an expert on such a point?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We do not at all. I am afraid
that my second remark really applied to the order of the Führer. That
might be used as a background or it might be used for purposes of
mitigation or explanation of how a thing took place, but I respectfully
agree that the expert’s opinion on state laws cannot be used with regard
to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Of course, the law of any other
state may be a question of fact as far as the Tribunal is concerned just
as it would be a question of fact in an English court: “What is the law
of another state?” As I say, I want to reserve emphatically the position
of Article 8 with regard to these two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 deal with rearmament in
other countries. I do not want to prevent the Defense using
illustrations, but again I reserve the position most emphatically that
rearmament in other countries cannot be an excuse for aggressive war and
would be irrelevant on that point.
Now, 15 and 16 refer to books by Major General Fuller and Major General
Temperley, who are both ex-officers, who were journalists during this
period. As far as any question of fact that is stated in these books, if
Dr. Nelte will let us know what the passage is, we shall see whether we
could admit it, but the general views of Major General Fuller and Major
General Temperley we would submit to be irrelevant.
Then, 19, 20, and 21 are books about Austria. Again the Prosecution
reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion in Austria with
regard to an Anschluss is irrelevant when considering the question of
the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 which took place
in 1938.
I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents and, as I
say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to three of which
there is nothing really between us in principle, and with regard to the
fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve these various points which I
have mentioned. Again I want to make clear that the Prosecution does not
object to Dr. Nelte’s obtaining any of these books for the purpose of
preparing his case, but we want them to make clear at the earliest
opportunity what their position is with regard to their use.
DR. NELTE: With respect to the first three categories, the Prosecution
agrees with me that I can confine myself to the last category which
begins with Documents 1 and 2. One of the fundamental questions of this
Trial, which at first glance appears a purely legal problem, is the
question of the so-called Führer state (Führerstaat) and Führer order
(Führerbefehl). This question has, however, important actual
significance here at this Trial, also of a factual importance. For
instance, the Defendant Keitel, as a result of his particular position,
was to the utmost degree affected by this Führer state principle and
acted accordingly as he was continuously in personal contact with the
incarnation of this principle, namely, Hitler. It is not as if Article 8
of the Charter remained unaffected by it. It will, however, so I assume,
be possible to prove that Article 8 of the Charter is not applicable
here.
As to the Führer Order Number 1, Document Number 2, the Tribunal itself
will, upon hearing the order, be able to judge whether it bears any
relevance. This order, Führer Order Number 1, from Keitel Document Book
Number 1, reads:
“a) No one is to have any knowledge of secret matters which do
not fall within his sphere.
“b) No one is to obtain more information than he needs for the
fulfillment of the task set him.
“c) No one is to receive information earlier than is necessary
for the duties assigned to him.
“d) No one is to pass on to subordinates more secret orders or
at an earlier date than is indispensable for the attainment of
the purpose.”
Document Number 1, that is, the expert opinion on the Führer state and
Führer order, in connection with this Führer Order Number 1, is to serve
as proof for the fact that there can be no question of conspiracy in the
sense of the Indictment. Therefore, I request the Tribunal to admit
those two documents as relevant. Documents Number 10 and Number 11, and
also to a certain degree, Number 16, are submitted as proof that the
principles which the Defendant Keitel, as a soldier and a German,
considered to be important, namely, rearmament up to a point of securing
a respectable position for Germany among the council of nations, were
not only postulated by the German people, but also appreciated and
approved by important persons abroad. This subject is to be proved by
submission of articles by a British, a French, and an American author,
military men, all of whom hold a high reputation for their writings on
military matters. Among these is the article “Total War,” by Major
General Fuller, my Document 15, as well as the book by the British Major
General Temperley, _The Whispering Gallery of Europe_. Mr. Fuller, for
instance, writes in his article, that:
“It is nonsense to state that he”—Hitler—“wanted war. War
could not bring him the rebirth of his nation. What he needed
was an honorable, secure peace.”
The point to be proved here is that any aggressive intentions would of
themselves be incompatible with the pronouncements of Hitler and the
leading Nazis, if one believes in their sincerity. The defendant
believed in the sincerity of these pronouncements and to this end he
referred to the opinion of important persons abroad.
I think those are the documents to which the Prosecution raised certain
objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You have not mentioned 19 to 21, which documents are said
to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria.
DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents—Number 19, “The Cultural and Political
Importance of the Anschluss,” and Document 20, “The Way Toward the
Anschluss,” and the third, “The Anschluss in the International Press,”
dated 1931—are to prove the defendant could assume, and was justified
in so doing, that the overwhelming majority of Austrian people welcomed
the Anschluss with Germany. These are articles and memoranda of the
Austro-German Peoples Union, the chairman of which was the Social
Democrat Reichstag President Loebe.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not?
DR. NELTE: I should like to make only one additional application to the
Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have been unable to mention
earlier since they were not submitted until the sitting of 22 February.
I shall now submit this application. It refers to 11 documents, all of
which were presented during the Friday sitting in order to prove the
complicity of Keitel in the destruction during the retreat and in regard
to forced labor of prisoners of war and civilian population. From the
contents of these documents submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes
apparent that, according to evidence I have already offered, a large
number of the accusations of the Prosecution are to be attributed to the
fact that every document which dealt in any way with military matters
was simply charged to the OKW and Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents have
already been put in evidence.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to which Sir David
agreed. They could be touched on by you.
DR. NELTE: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no need to make any fresh application in
connection with them.
DR. NELTE: When I made this additional application I had not yet
received Sir David’s consent. Besides this seems to be a particularly
singular and convincing case because, on one day, 11 documents were
submitted, all of which were used as accusations against Keitel, but
which all showed by their contents that they do not apply to him or the
OKW.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. There is only one other thing that I wanted
to ask you. You asked at an earlier stage for the evidence from
Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg and in both, cases the Tribunal
granted you interrogatories. I do not know whether you are withdrawing
your application in respect to those cases or whether you have seen the
answers to the interrogatories.
DR. NELTE: I have, in accordance with the suggestion, sent those
interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith as well as to Otto Wettberg.
Depending on the reply I shall receive from those two witnesses, I shall
or shall not submit them.
THE PRESIDENT: You have submitted the one for Otto Wettberg, have you?
DR. NELTE: Yes, but I have not received it back.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Exhibit Number 1, would you explain a
little bit more what Number 1 is going to be? It appears to be the
opinion of an expert witness on the meaning of the Führer precept. Is
that what you intend?
DR. NELTE: Yes. It is an article in the field of constitutional law on
the structure and significance of what is known as the Leader State
(Führerstaat).
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, it is my duty to submit to the
Tribunal evidence on the last count of the Indictment. “Crimes against
Humanity” are dealt with in Count Four of the Indictment, and by Article
6, and particularly Subparagraph C of Article 6, of the Charter.
I shall submit evidence of crimes which the Hitlerites committed on the
territories of the temporarily occupied areas of the Soviet Union,
Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece.
The Crimes against Humanity—just as the other crimes of the German
fascists for which evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal by my
colleagues—originated in the criminal nature of fascism, in its
endeavors to dominate the world by predatory seizure of whole states in
the East and in the West, and by enslavement and mass extermination of
people. These crimes were put into effect by adoption of the
cannibalistic theories of German fascism.
Elements forming the concept of Crimes against Humanity are to be found
in nearly all the criminal acts of the Hitlerites. For instance, a
considerable amount of probative facts in corroboration of the gravity
of the crimes committed by the German fascists has already been
submitted to the Tribunal during the presentation of the Count
concerning War Crimes against the civilian population.
The criminal violation by the Hitlerites of the laws and customs of war,
as well as the mass extermination of prisoners of war, are some of the
gravest Crimes against Humanity. At the same time, the concept Crimes
against Humanity is considerably broader in scope than any definition of
German fascist crimes, of which proofs have been hitherto submitted to
the Tribunal.
Together with the arrival of German forces and the appearance of the
swastika on official buildings, life of the inhabitants of the
temporarily occupied eastern European countries seemed to stop. The
merciless fascist machine tried to force them to be deprived of all that
which, as a result of centuries of human development, had become an
integral part of humanity.
Thus, death hung over them constantly, but on their way to death they
were forced to pass through numerous and agonizing phases, insulting to
human dignity, which constitute, in their entirety, the charge entitled
in the Indictment “Crimes against Humanity.”
Attempts were made to force them to forget their own names by hanging a
number around their necks or by sewing a classification mark on their
sleeves. They were deprived of the right to speak or to read in their
mother tongue. They were deprived of their homes, their families, their
native country, forcibly deported hundreds and thousands of kilometers
away. They were deprived of the right to procreate. They were daily
scoffed at and insulted. Their feelings and beliefs were jeered at and
ridiculed. And, finally, they were deprived of their last right—to
live.
The numerous investigations noted not only the state of extreme physical
exhaustion of the victims of German fascist atrocities; they also
usually mentioned the state of deep moral depression of those who, by
the hazards of fate, escaped the fascist hell.
A long period of time was necessary for these victims of German fascism
to return once again to a world of normal conceptions and activities and
to man’s conventions for human society. All this is very hard to express
in legal formula, but, in my opinion, it is very important in the
Indictment of the major war criminals.
I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Polish Government which
has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93
(Document Number USSR-93). The quotation which I should like now to read
is on Page 10 of the document book. On Page 70 of the Russian text of
this report, there is a quotation from the statement of Jacob Vernik, a
carpenter from Warsaw, who spent a year in the extermination camp of
Treblinka 2. Sometimes the official German documents refer to “Treblinka
2” as “Treblinka B,” but it is one and the same. This was one of the
most terrible centers for mass extermination of people, created by
German fascists. In my statement, I shall submit to Your Honors evidence
connected with the existence of this camp.
This is what Vernik said in presenting a report on Treblinka to the
Polish Government; a report which, as he stressed in his foreword, was
his only reason “to continue his pitiful life”:
“Awake or asleep I see terrible visions of thousands of people
calling for help, begging for life and mercy.
“I have lost my family, I have myself led them to death; I have
myself built the death chambers in which they were murdered.
“I am afraid of everything, I fear that everything I have seen
is written on my face. An old and broken life is a heavy burden,
but I must carry on and live to tell the world what German
crimes and barbarism I saw.”
The persons who came to Treblinka entered, as I said, the ante-chamber
of death. But were they the only victims of this fate? An analysis of
probative facts connected with the crimes of the German fascists
irrefutably testifies to the fact that the same fate was shared not only
by those who were sent to special extermination camps, but also all
those who became the victims of these criminals in the temporarily
occupied countries of Eastern Europe.
I ask the Tribunal’s permission to bring in evidence a short quotation
from a document already submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number
USSR-46—the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union on the crimes committed in the city and region of Orel. In the
text of this document there is a special communication of a famed
Russian scientist, a doctor, the President of the Academy of Medical
Science and member of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union, Academician Burdenko. The Tribunal will find this communication
on Page 14 of the document book, Paragraph 6:
“The scenes I had to witness”—says Burdenko—“surpassed the
wildest imagination. Our joy at the sight of the delivered
people was dimmed by the expression of stupor on their faces.
“This led one to reflect—what was the matter? Evidently the
sufferings they had undergone had stamped upon them equality of
life and death. I observed these people during 3 days. I
bandaged them, I evacuated them, but their physical stupor did
not change. Something similar could be noticed during the first
days on the faces of the doctors.”
I shall not, Your Honors, waste time in drawing attention to the long
and well-known extracts from _Mein Kampf_ or the _Myth of the Twentieth
Century_. We are interested, in the first place, in the criminal
practices of the German fascist fiends.
I have already said above, that death constantly hung over the people
who became the victims of fascism. Death could come unexpectedly,
together with the appearance in one or another place of a
Sonderkommando; but at the same time, a death sentence would be
pronounced for any act in these special decisions so mockingly called
German fascist “laws.”
I and other members of the Soviet Prosecution already have given
numerous examples of these terroristic laws, directives, and decrees of
the German fascist authorities. I do not wish to repeat myself, but I
beg the Tribunal’s permission to quote one of these documents as it
concerns all the temporarily seized eastern territories.
The only justification for the publication of this document for its
author, the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, is that these temporarily
occupied districts were populated by non-Germans. This document is a
characteristic evidence of the persecution of people for racial,
national, or political motives. I beg the Tribunal to enter in the
record, as Exhibit Number USSR-395 (Document Number USSR-395), the
photostat of the so-called third decree supplementing the penal
directives for the Eastern territories which was issued by Alfred
Rosenberg on 17 February 1942. Your Honors will find this document on
Pages 19 and 20 of the document book. I shall read in full, beginning
with Paragraph 1:
“The death penalty, or, in lesser cases, penal servitude will be
inflicted upon: Those who undertake to use violence against the
German Reich or against the high authority established in the
occupied territories; those who undertake to commit violence
against a Reich citizen or a person of German nationality for
his or her belonging to this German nationality; those who
undertake to use violence against a member of the Wehrmacht or
its followers, the German police including its auxiliary forces,
the Reich Labor Service, a German authority or institution, or
the organizations of the NSDAP; those who appeal or incite to
disobedience of orders or directives issued by the German
authorities; those who with premeditation damage the furniture
of German authorities and institutions or things used by the
latter for their work or in the public interest; those who
undertake to assist anti-German movements or to maintain the
organizational connection of groups prohibited by the German
authorities; those who participate in or incite hostile activity
and thus reveal anti-German mentality or who by their behavior
lower or injure the authority or the welfare of the German State
and people; those who premeditatively commit arson and thereby
damage German interests in general or the property . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Have you read this before?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I checked the transcript, and I do not think
that this has been read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It may be that similar orders were read; maybe
those of Frank or some other orders. They are all alike. In any case I
could not find any mention of this document in the transcript.
I continue:
“. . . damage German interests in general or the property of a
Reich citizen or persons of German nationality.”
Paragraph 2 is very characteristic:
“Furthermore, the death penalty and, in lesser cases, penal
servitude is to be inflicted upon: Those who agree to commit any
punishable action as foreseen by Paragraph 1; those who enter
into serious negotiations on that subject; those who offer their
services to commit such an action or accept such an offer; or
those who possess credible information on such an action or its
intention at a moment when the danger can still be averted, and
willfully refrain from warning the German authorities or the
menaced person in due time.
“Paragraph 3. An offense not coming under Paragraphs 1 and 2 is
to be punished by death, even if this penalty is not provided
for by the general German criminal laws and by decrees of German
authorities, if the offense is of a particularly base type or
for other reasons is particularly serious. In such cases the
death penalty is also permissible for juvenile hard criminals.
“Paragraph 4. (1) If there is insufficient justification for
turning the case over to competent courts-martial, the special
courts are competent. (2) The special instructions issued for
the Armed Forces are not hereby affected.”
I skip Paragraph 5.
This decree of Rosenberg’s was only one link in the chain of crimes
committed by the leaders of the German fascism directed toward
exterminating the Slav peoples.
I pass on to the first part of my statement, which is entitled,
“Extermination of Slav Peoples.” In this part I shall show how this
criminal purpose of the Hitlerites to exterminate the Slav peoples was
carried out. I shall quote data from the report of the Yugoslav
Government, which is to be found on Page 56 of the Russian text or on
Page 76, Paragraph 3, document book:
“Apart from the thousands of Yugoslavs who died in battle, the
occupants exterminated at least one and a half to two million
people, mostly women, children, and aged persons. Of the 15
million prewar Yugoslav population, in the relatively short
period of 4 years, almost 14 percent of the entire population
was exterminated.”
In the report of the Czechoslovak Government, on Pages 36 and 37 of the
Russian text, there is proof of a plan conceived by the Hitlerite
criminals for the forceful expulsion of all Czechs and the settling of
German colonists in Czechoslovakia. The report quotes an excerpt from a
statement of Karl Hermann Frank, who admitted the existence of this plan
and declared that he, Frank, had compiled a memorandum in which he
objected to a similar plan. I quote the excerpt from the statement of
Karl Hermann Frank, which the Tribunal can find on Page 37 in the
document book, fourth paragraph.
“I considered this plan senseless as, in my opinion, the vacuum
created by these measures would have seriously upset the vital
functioning of Bohemia and Moravia for various reasons of
geopolitical, traffic, industrial, and other character; and the
immediate filling of this vacuum with new German settlers was
impossible.”
In Poland a regime of extermination of the Slav population was put into
effect by diverse criminal methods, among which driving people to an
extreme state of exhaustion by excessive labor and subsequent death from
hunger, was most prevalent. The criminals quite consciously embarked
upon the extermination of millions of people by hunger, which is
attested by a number of documents already quoted by me and my colleagues
in part, namely, the diary of Hans Frank.
I shall quote a few short extracts from this document. Here is an
excerpt concerning the minutes of a conference held by the Governor
General on 7 December 1942 in Kraków. The Tribunal will find the passage
I wish to quote on Page 89 of the document book, in the first column of
the text, last paragraph:
“Should the new food supply plan be put into effect, it means
that for the city of Warsaw and its surroundings alone 500,000
people will no longer receive food relief.”
And here is another short excerpt from the minutes of a governmental
conference held on 24 August 1942. The Tribunal will find it on Page 90
of the document book, first paragraph of the text. Dr. Frank states:
“With all the difficulties which arise from the illness of
workers, or the breaking down of your co-operatives, you must
always bear in mind that it is much better if a Pole collapses
than if the Germans are defeated. The fact that we shall be
condemning 1,200,000 Jews to death by starvation should be
mentioned incidentally. Of course, if the Jews do not die from
starvation, it is to be hoped that anti-Jewish measures will be
expedited in the future.”
The third short quotation is an excerpt from the minutes of a labor
conference held by the political leaders of the Labor Front of the NSDAP
in the Government General, on 14 December 1942. The Tribunal will find
it on the reverse of Page 89 of the document book, second column, second
paragraph:
“. . . we are faced with the following problem: Shall we be
able, as from February, to exclude from general food supply 2
million persons of non-German nationality or not?”
In his preliminary speech, the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., while
speaking of Crimes against Humanity, referred to the notes of Martin
Bormann. The notes of Martin Bormann were presented to the Court under
Exhibit Number USSR-172 (Document Number USSR-172) in particular. The
Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. quoted the following lines, which the
Tribunal can find on Page 97 of the document book, last paragraph:
“In summing up, the Führer once more stated: The least German
workman and the least German peasant must always stand
economically 10 percent higher than any Pole.”
How were things in reality? I should like to show that, with full
approval, the Defendant Frank put these Hitler orders into effect in
Polish territory. I beg the Tribunal to take for evidence an original
German document.
Among the other fascist institutions carrying out various
pseudo-scientific experiments, the German criminals created a special
institute for economic research. This institute issued a document
entitled, “What the Polish Problem Means for War Economy of Upper
Silesia.”
The fascist “scientific” institute decided to make such investigations
in order to clarify the reason why the output of Polish workers became
considerably reduced.
Two short excerpts will testify to the aims of this investigation better
than anything else. On Page 39 of this original document we read—the
Tribunal will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 101, of the
document book, second paragraph. I submit this document as Exhibit
Number USSR-282 (Document Number USSR-282). I begin the quotation which
is on Page 101 of the document book, second paragraph.
“This investigation is in no way to be construed as propaganda
to arouse pity.”
On Page 149 of the quoted document—the Tribunal will find this on Page
101, third paragraph, of the document book—it is said:
“We raise our voices not to defend the Poles, but to protect the
war production for the Armed Forces.”
Quoting these two short excerpts characterizing the aims and nature of
this investigation, I further quote a few excerpts which show the status
of the Polish worker and the practical realization by the Defendant
Frank of the above-mentioned directives of Hitler. I quote on Page 38 of
the original of the document, which corresponds to Page 101, Paragraph 7
of the document book:
“Information concerning the situation of the Polish population
and considerations as to which measures would be the most
suitable in this connection disagree on many points; but there
is general agreement on one point, which can be summed up here
in three words: The Poles are starving! Already some passing
observations corroborate these conclusions. One of our
investigators visited a war production plant during the lunch
recess. The workers are standing or sitting apathetically,
warming themselves in the sun, and here and there smoking. The
investigator reports that of 80 persons, only one has a piece of
bread for lunch. The others, although all working 10 to 12 hours
a day, have nothing.”
I pass to Page 72 of the original, which corresponds to Page 102 of the
document book; there is this quotation.
“Observations made in the factories prove that the present
rations of the Polish workers do not allow them enough food to
take with them to work. In many cases, the workers do not even
have a piece of bread. When some do bring breakfast, it is only
coffee and one or two pieces of dry bread or raw potatoes; at
the worst time, they did not even have this, but raw carrots,
which were then roasted on a stove during work.”
I continue my quotation on Page 150 of the same document:
“In this connection it could be stated that on visiting the
mines, it appeared that nearly 10 percent of the Polish workers
went to work underground with only dry bread, or raw potatoes
cut in slices which they warmed afterwards on a stove.”
The institute began its “scientific calculations” with a comparison of
the calories received by the Poles in Upper Silesia and the calories
received by the German population.
I shall not quote large excerpts from the document, but will limit
myself to short facts only. I start on Page 63 of this report, which
corresponds to Page 102, last paragraph of the document book:
“Comparison of the number of calories received by the Poles in
Upper Silesia with the number of calories allocated to the
German population indicates that the Poles receive 24 percent
less than the Germans. This difference reaches 26 percent on
food ration cards of nonworking Poles. For youths from 14 to 20,
the difference in rations allocated to Germans and to Poles
reached almost 33 percent. However, it must be stressed that
this only applies to working youths over 14.
“The difference between what Polish and German children from 10
to 14 receive is even more striking. The difference here is not
less than 65 percent. The looks of these underfed youths already
testify to this. In a similar way Polish children under 10
receive up to 60 percent less than German children.
“If on the other hand the doctors state that the food conditions
of the babies are not so unfavorable, it is only an imaginary
contradiction. As long as a mother nurses her child, the child
gets everything from that source. The consequences of the
underfeeding are felt in this period not by the child but by the
mother. Her health and working capacity are impaired
considerably from the undernourishment.”
I continue on Page 178 of the original which corresponds to Page 103,
Paragraph 2 in the second document book:
“In all categories the Polish youth in comparison with the
German is more wretched. The difference in rations of the Poles
and Germans reaches 60 percent.”
Extracts from the report of the German Labor Front cited in this
investigation also offer some interest. Particularly on Page 76 are
quoted excerpts from the report of the German Labor Front, dated 10
October 1941, after a visit to one of the coal mines in Poland:
“It was established that daily in various villages Polish miners
fall from exhaustion. . . . As the workers constantly complained
of stomach pains, doctors were consulted, who answered that this
was a symptom of undernourishment.”
I would conclude the description of the Polish workers’ physical
condition drawn by the German criminals themselves, and, what is more,
by the “learned” criminals, by a short quotation from the same report
which the Tribunal will find on Page 106, Paragraph 6 of the document
book:
“The management of the factories constantly stresses that it is
no longer possible by threats of deportation to concentration
camps to incite to work underfed people incapable of physical
effort. Sooner or later there comes a day when the weakened body
can no longer work.”
There is also in this document a descriptive sketch of the legal status
of the Polish worker during the German occupation which bears no
possibility of double interpretation. This descriptive sketch is all the
more valuable because, as was already stressed above, the authors of the
investigation report expressly emphasized that “all humanitarian
tendencies whatsoever were alien to them.”
I begin the quotation of the produced document on Page 127 which
corresponds to Page 110, second paragraph of the document book:
“The law does not recognize any legal claim of any member of the
Polish nation in any sphere of life. Whatever is granted a Pole
is done voluntarily by the German masters. This legal situation
is perhaps most clearly mirrored in ‘the Pole’s lack of
possession in the eyes of the law.’ In the administration of
justice Poles are not permitted to conduct their cases before a
court. In criminal procedure the viewpoint of obedience
dominates. The execution of legal regulations is in the first
place the task of the police, who can decide at their discretion
or refer individual cases to the courts.”
According to an order, dated 26 August 1942 Polish as well as German
workers were obliged to take out insurance against illness, accidents,
and disability. The deductions from the wages for this purpose were
larger for the Poles than for the German. However, the German workers
profited by this insurance, whereas, in actuality, the Poles were
deprived of it.
As proof of this I shall present to the Tribunal two short excerpts from
the same investigation report which Your Honors will find on Page 111 in
the document book, Paragraph 4. It corresponds to Page 134 of the
original text of the investigation report quoted above:
“Insurance against accidents, which is incumbent on the trade
unions, involved particularly stringent measures for the Poles.
The recognition of disability caused by an accident is much more
limited than in the case of Germans. Disability for the loss of
an eye is 30 percent for a German and 25 percent for a Pole. The
payment of a subvention depends on 33⅓ percent disability.”
I continue my quotation on Page 135 of the original document, that is to
say, on Page 111, last paragraph of the document book:
“The most stringent measures are provided for the dependents of
fatally injured persons. The maximum a widow can receive is half
of that granted by the insurance to Germans—and this only in
case she has to support four children under 15 years of age, or
is herself an invalid.
“The restriction on the rights of Poles is illustrated by an
example: A German widow with three children receives 80 percent
of the yearly salary of her fatally injured husband; from an
annual income of 2,000 marks she receives 1,600 marks per year,
but a Pole in a similar situation would receive nothing.”
The major German fascist war criminals not only sent into the
temporarily occupied Eastern territories soldiers and the SS, but
specially appointed fascist “scientists,” “consultants in economic
problems,” and all sorts of “investigators” followed after. Some of them
were detached from Ribbentrop’s office; some others were sent by
Rosenberg.
I beg the Tribunal to enter into the record as evidence one of these
documents. I submit it under Document Number USSR-218. I mean the report
of the representative attached by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the
command of the 17th Army, Captain Pfleiderer, and addressed to his
colleague Von Rantzau from the information service of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. These documents were discovered by units of the Red
Army on the Dirksen estate in Upper Silesia.
On the basis of a reading of these documents, it can be concluded that
in 1941-42 Pfleiderer made a trip covering the following route through
the occupied territories on the route Yaroslavl in the Ukraine, Lvov,
Tarnopol, Proskurov, Vinnitza, Uman, Kirovograd, Alexandria, and
Krementshoug on the Dnieper.
The purpose of this trip was to study economic and political conditions
in the occupied territories of the Ukraine. That the author of this
document was also completely free of so-called humanitarian tendencies,
can be seen from the short excerpt from his report dated 28 October
1941, where Pfleiderer writes—the Tribunal will find this quotation on
Page 113, second paragraph of the document book. I quote only one line:
“. . . there is the urgent necessity to press out of the country
everything to secure the food supply of Germany.”
But even with such proclivity to cruelty and rapacity, Pfleiderer
evidently was abashed by the conduct of his compatriots to the extent
that he deemed it necessary to bring it to the attention of the highest
authorities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I quote the report of
Pfleiderer which is entitled:
“Conditions for the Guarantee of Supply and for Producing the
Largest Possible Food Surplus in the Ukraine.
“. . . 3) Frame of mind and living conditions of the population
by the end of October 1941.”
The Tribunal will find this part on Page 114, third paragraph of the
document book:
“The frame of mind of the population generally became worse a
few weeks after the occupation of the territory by our troops.
The reason for it? We display . . . inner hostility and even
hatred toward this country, and arrogance toward the
people. . . . The third year of war and the necessity of
wintering in an unfriendly country causes many difficulties, but
they must be surmounted with courage and self-discipline. We
must not work off our discontent over this country on the
population. . . . How often it happened that, acting against the
rules of psychology and committing mistakes that we could easily
have avoided, we lost all sympathy of the population. The people
cannot understand the shooting of exhausted prisoners of war in
villages and larger localities and the leaving of their bodies
there. As the troops are entrusted with a broad authority for
self-provisioning, the _kolkhozes_ along the main roads and near
the larger towns for the most part lack pedigree cattle, seeds,
seed potatoes (Poltava). Evidently, the supplying of our own
troops stands first; however, the system of supply in itself is
not immaterial: Psychologically, requisitioning the last hen is
as unreasonable as it is economically unreasonable to kill the
last pig or the last calf.”
I continue my quotation, Paragraph 3, Page 115 of the document book:
“The population . . . is without leadership. It stands apart and
feels that we look down on it, that we see sabotage in their
tempo and methods of work, that we do not take any steps to find
a way to an understanding.”
A similar document is the document submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-439,
which was graciously given to us by our United States colleagues. It was
registered by the American Prosecution as Document Number 303-PS, but
was not filed. It is a political report of the German professor, Doctor
Paul W. Thomsen, written on the forms of the State University of Posen
Biological Paleontological Institute and was indexed by the author
himself, “Not for publication.” Your Honors will find this document on
Page 116 of the document book. This document also introduces us into
this field of complete lawlessness and tyrannical arbitrariness toward
the local population of the temporarily occupied districts of the Soviet
Union. These observations were made by this fascist professor during his
trip through the temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union
“from Minsk to the Crimea.”
I refer to two short excerpts from this document. The quotation which I
have read into the record testifies to the absence of any humanitarian
tendencies on the part of that author and if Paul Thomsen brought back
from his trip only “the most depressing impression” that is only further
proof of the depths of cruelty and brutality to which the German
fascists were willing to go. The Tribunal will find these excerpts on
Page 116 of the document book. I begin the quotation. . .
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 26 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY
Tuesday, 26 February 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to explain the Tribunal’s decision with
reference to General Halder and General Warlimont.
Would Dr. Nelte kindly come to the Tribunal?
I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nelte, whether you were the only one of the
defendants’ counsel who wished to call General Halder and General
Warlimont?
DR. NELTE: No, besides myself, so far as I know, my colleagues Dr.
Laternser, Professor Dr. Kraus, and Professor Dr. Exner have called both
General Halder and General Warlimont.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I understand.
Then the Tribunal’s decision is this: The Tribunal ordered, when the
Soviet prosecutor wished to put in the affidavits of these two generals,
that if they were put in, the witnesses must be produced for
cross-examination. But in view of the fact that defendants’ counsel have
asked to call these witnesses themselves, the Tribunal is willing that
the defendants’ counsel should decide whether they prefer that those two
generals should be produced now, during the Prosecution’s case, for
cross-examination, or should be called thereafter during the defendants’
case for examination by the defendants, in which case, of course, they
would be liable to cross-examination on behalf of the Prosecution.
But it must be clearly understood, in accordance with the order which
the Tribunal made the other day—either yesterday or the previous day, I
forgot which it was—that these witnesses, like other witnesses, can
only be called once, and when they are called, each of the defendants’
counsel who wishes to put questions to them must do so at that time.
Now, if there were any difference of opinion among defendants’ counsel,
one defendant’s counsel wishing to have these two generals produced now
during the Prosecution’s case for cross-examination, and other
defendants’ counsel wishing to have them called hereafter as witnesses
on their behalf during the course of their case, then the Tribunal
consider that in view of the order which they have already made,
Generals Halder and Warlimont ought to be produced and called now. And
the same rule would apply then. They could only be called once, and any
questions which the other defendants’ counsel wish to be put to them
should be put to them then. But the decision as to whether they should
be called now or whether they should be called during the course of the
defendants’ case is accorded to defendants’ counsel.
Is that clear?
DR. NELTE: I request to hear the decisions of the various Defense
Counsel at the beginning of the afternoon session. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, certainly. You can let us know during the
afternoon session, at the beginning of the afternoon session, what the
decision of defendants’ counsel is.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation of the political report
of Professor Paul Thomsen, which was already submitted at yesterday’s
afternoon session to the Tribunal. Your Honors will find it on Page 116
of the document book. I start quoting—and quote only two short excerpts
from this political report:
“I consider it is my duty, although I am only here in the East
on a specific scientific mission, to add a general political
outline to my actual reports. I must admit, openly and in all
honesty, that I return home with the most grievous impressions.
“In this fateful hour of our nation every mistake we make may
result in the most disastrous consequences. A Polish or a Czech
problem can be crushed because the biological forces of our
people are sufficient for that purpose.
“Remnants of people like Estonians, Lithuanians, and Letts have
to adapt themselves to us or they will perish. Things are quite
different in the immense Russian area, of vital necessity to us
as a basis for raw materials.”
Here I interrupt my quotation and continue on Page 117 of the document
book, Paragraphs 10 and 11—I quote:
“I do not dare to voice an opinion on the economic measures,
such as, for instance, the abolition of the free market in Kiev,
which has been taken as a heavy blow by the population, since I
am in no position to observe the entire situation. The ‘sergeant
major attitude,’ the beatings and shouting in the streets, the
senseless destruction of scientific institutions which is still
going on as strong as ever in Dniepropetrovsk, should cease
immediately and be punished severely.
“Kiev, 19 October 1942; Professor Dr. Paul W. Thomsen.”
The German fascist theory of Germanization, already well known to the
Tribunal, announced that not the people but the territories were to be
germanized.
I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal that a similar Hitlerite crime
was to have been committed in Yugoslavia. This crime could not be
perpetrated because of the liberation movement which flared up all over
Yugoslavia.
I quote a short excerpt from the statement of the Yugoslav Government,
which is on Page 68, Paragraph 7 in the document book:
“Immediately after the entry of the German troops into Slovenia,
the Germans began to put into effect their long premeditated
plan for the Germanization of the annexed regions of Slovenia.
It was perfectly clear to the leading Nazi circles that a
successful Germanization of Slovenia could not be realized
unless the greater part of the nationally and socially conscious
elements had previously been removed; and in order to weaken the
resistance of the mass of the people towards the Nazi
authorities engaged in the task of Germanization, it would be
essential to lessen them numerically and destroy them
economically.
“The German plan foresaw the complete removal of all the
Slovenes from certain regions of Slovenia, and their
repopulation by Germans”—Germans from Bessarabia and so-called
“Gottscheer” Germans.”
I omit a passage and continue:
“A few days after the seizure of Slovenia, central offices were
organized for resettlement control. The headquarters staff was
established in Maribor (Marburg on the Drava) and Bled (Veldes).
“At the same time, on 22 April 1941, a ‘Decree for the
Strengthening of German Folkdom’ was published. The immediate
aim of this decree was the confiscation of property of all
persons and institutions antagonistically inclined towards the
Reich. Naturally, all those, who in accordance with the
aforesaid plan were to be deported from Slovenia, were included
in this category.
“The Hitlerites proceeded to the practical realization of this
plan. They arrested a large number of persons registered for
deportation to Serbia and Croatia. The treatment of the arrested
persons was extremely cruel. Their entire property was
confiscated in the interest of the Reich. Numerous assembly
points were organized and practically turned into concentration
camps, in Maribor, Zelie, and other localities.”
As regards the treatment of arrested persons in these points, the
statement of the Yugoslav Government reads as follows—the members of
the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 69, Paragraph 4, of the
document book:
“The internees were left without food; in unhygienic conditions;
the personnel of the camp subjected them to bodily and mental
torture. All the camp commanders and personnel belonged to the
SS. Among them were Germans from Carinthia and Styria who hated
anything connected with Slovenia in particular, and Yugoslavia
in general.”
The following sentence is typical:
“The members of the so-called Kulturbund”—Cultural
Union—“particularly distinguished themselves for their
cruelty.”
In corroboration of this Hitlerite crime, I submit to the Tribunal, as
Exhibit Number USSR-139 (Document Number USSR-139), a letter from the
German Command in Smeredov, addressed to the Yugoslav quisling,
Commissioner Stefanovitch, ordering him to report what the possibilities
were for transferring to Serbia a large number of Slovenes. Your Honors
will find this document on Page 119 of the document book.
In the report of the Yugoslav Government, Page 49 of the Russian text,
which corresponds to Page 59, Paragraph 7, of the document book of the
Tribunal, it is stated that the Germans primarily intended to transfer
260,000 Slovenes to Serbia. However, the realization of this plan met
with a number of difficulties. In this connection I should like to quote
a paragraph from the report of the Yugoslav Government:
“But in view of the fact that the transportation to Serbia of
such a very large number of Slovenes has encountered a great
many difficulties, negotiations were opened shortly afterwards
between the German authorities and the quisling Oustachi
administration in Zagreb concerning the transit of the expelled
Slovenes through Croatian territory and the resettling of a
certain number of these Slovenes in Croatia proper, while the
Serbs in Croatia were deported from the country.”
I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-195 (Document Number
USSR-195), the minutes of a conference held on 4 June 1941 at the German
Legation in Zagreb and presided over by SA Obergruppenführer Siegfried
Kasche, German Minister in Zagreb. These minutes, in the Serbian
translation, were seized in the archives of the Refugee Commission of
the so-called Government of Milan Neditch. They give the subject matter
of the conference, that is, “The Expulsion of the Slovenes from Germany
to Croatia and Serbia, as well as of the Serbs from Croatia to Serbia.”
The Tribunal will find this document on Page 120 of the document book.
The passage in question literally reads as follows:
“The conference was approved by the Reich Ministry for Foreign
Affairs by Telegram Number 389, dated 31 May. The Führer’s
approval for the deportation was received by Telegram Number
344, dated 25 May.”
We are thus able to prove that the direct responsibility for this crime
against humanity rests on the Defendant Von Ribbentrop.
We gather, at the same time, from the report of the Yugoslav Government,
that the deportation of a considerable number of Slovenes to Germany was
put into effect. I quote a paragraph from the report of the Yugoslav
Government, which Your Honors will find on Page 70, last paragraph of
the document book. I begin the quotation:
“Shortly afterwards the deportation itself began. In the morning
German trucks would arrive in the villages. Soldiers and Gestapo
men, armed with machine guns and rifles, broke into the houses
and ordered the inhabitants to leave, each man being allowed to
take with him only as much as he could carry. The unfortunate
people were given only a few minutes in which to quit and they
were forced to leave all their property behind them. The trucks
drove them to the Roman Catholic Trappist monastery of
Reichenberg. The transports started from the monastery. Each
transport consisted of 600 to 1,200 persons to be taken to
Germany. The district of Bregiza was almost completely
depopulated, the district of Krshko up to 90 percent; 56,000
inhabitants were deported from these two districts. Over and
above this 4,000 were deported from the communities of Zirkovsky
and Ptuya.”
I omit one paragraph and continue:
“They were forced to perform the very hardest tasks and to live
under the most horrible conditions. The mortality rate assumed
enormous proportions in consequence. The harshest penalties were
applied for the slightest offense.”
I shall not enumerate other passages in the report of the Yugoslav
Government in connection with the same subject. I do not quote this
document; I merely ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence the
supplementary official report of the Yugoslav Government which I am
submitting as Document Number USSR-357.
Similar crimes were committed by the German criminals on the territory
of occupied Poland. I quote a few excerpts from the official report of
the Polish Republic. Your Honors will find the passage I wish to quote
on Page 3, Paragraph 3 of the document book. The passage is in
Subparagraph A and is entitled, “The Germanization of Poland”:
“Clear indications concerning the program are found in a
publication distributed among members of the National Socialist
Party in Germany in 1940. It contained the principles of German
policy in the East. Here are some quotations from this document:
“‘In a military sense the Polish question has been settled, but
from the point of view of national policy it is only now
beginning for Germany. The national political conflict between
the Germans and Poles must be carried forward to a degree never
yet seen in history.
“‘The aim which confronts German policy in the territory of the
former Polish State is twofold: Firstly, to see that a certain
portion of space in this area is cleared of the alien population
and colonized by German nationals; secondly, by imposing German
leadership, in order to guarantee that in that area no fresh
conflagrations should flare up against Germany. It is clear that
this aim can never be achieved with, but only against, the
Poles.’”
I interrupt this quotation and continue on Page 15 of the report of the
Polish Republic, which corresponds to Page 5, Paragraph 5 of the
document book. This part is entitled, “The Colonization of Poland by
German Settlers.” I begin the quotation:
“The policy, in this respect, was clearly expressed by the
official German authorities. In the _Ostdeutscher Beobachter_ of
7 May 1941 the following proclamation is printed:
“For the first time in German history we can exploit our
military victories in a political sense. Never again will even a
centimeter of the earth which we have conquered belong to the
Pole.”
Such was the plan. The facts which were put into practice were the
following:
“Locality after locality, village after village, hamlets and
cities in the incorporated territories were cleared of the
Polish inhabitants. This began in October 1939, when the
locality of Orlov was cleared of all the Poles who lived and
worked there. Then came the Polish port of Gdynia. In February
1940 about 40,000 persons were expelled from the city of Posen.
They were replaced by 36,000 Baltic-Germans, families of
soldiers and of German officials.
“The Polish population was expelled from the following towns:
Gnesen, Kulm, Kostian, Neshkva, Inovrotzlav. . .”—and many
other towns.
“The German newspaper _Grenzzeitung_ reported that in February
1940 the entire center of the city of Lodz was cleared of Poles
and reserved for the use of future German settlers. By September
1940 the total number of Poles deported from Lodz was estimated
at 150,000.
“But it was not only that the persons living in these places
were ordered to leave—they were forbidden to take their
property with them; everything was to be left behind. The German
newcomers took the place of the Poles evicted from their homes,
business shops, and farms. By January 1941 more than 450,000
Germans had been settled in this manner.”
I omit the next part of this report which I wished to quote and I would
request the Tribunal only to pay attention to the part entitled,
“Germanization of Polish Children.” This is a short quotation. Just two
small paragraphs:
“Thousands of Polish children (between the ages of 7 and 14)
were ruthlessly torn from their parents and families and carried
off to Germany. The purpose of this most brutal measure was
explained by the Germans themselves in the _Kölnische Zeitung_
Number 1584, 1940 issue. We read:
“‘They will be taught German. They will be inculcated with the
German spirit so that later they can be brought up as model
German boys and girls.’”
In order to explain the methods adopted by the German fascists in the
execution of their cannibalistic plan for the extermination of the
Soviet people—peaceful citizens of my motherland, women, children, and
old people—I request the Tribunal to call and question witness
Grigoriev, Jacob Grigorievitch, a peasant from the village of Pavlov,
village soviet of Shkvertovsk, region of Porkhovsk, district of Pskov.
He has arrived from the district of Pskov, a district near Leningrad
and, according to my information, is now in the courtbuilding. I ask the
permission of the Tribunal to examine this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
[_The witness Grigoriev took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
JACOB GRIGORIEV (Witness): Jacob Grigoriev.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath:
I—Jacob Grigoriev—citizen of the Union of the Soviet Socialist
Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in
the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but the
truth—about everything I know in regard to this case.
[_The witness repeated the oath in Russian._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, in which village did
you live before the war?
GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo, Porkhov region, district of
Pskov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In which village were you overtaken by the
outbreak of war?
GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this village currently exist?
GRIGORIEV: It does not exist.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal what happened.
GRIGORIEV: On the memorable day of 28 October 1943, German soldiers
suddenly raided our village and started murdering the peaceful citizens,
shooting them, chasing them into the houses. On that day I was working
on the threshing floor with my two sons, Alexei and Nikolai. Suddenly a
German soldier came up to us and ordered us to follow him.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. When you see the light on
that desk there or here, it means you are going too fast. You
understand?
GRIGORIEV: I understand, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly, Witness. Continue, please.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you were working with your two sons in the
field.
GRIGORIEV: Yes; my own two sons.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continue.
GRIGORIEV: We were led through the village to the last house at the
outskirts. There were 19 of us, all told, in that house. So there we sat
in that house. I sat close to the window and looked out of it. I saw
German soldiers herd together a great number of people. I noticed my
wife and my 9-year-old boy. They were chased right up to the house and
then led back again—where to, I did not know.
A little later three German machine gunners came in, accompanied by a
fourth carrying a heavy revolver. We were ordered into another room. So
we went, all 19 of us, and were lined up against a wall, including my
two sons, and they began shooting at us from their machine guns. I stood
right up to the wall, bending slightly.
After the first volley I fell to the floor, where I lay, too frightened
to move. When they had shot all of us they left the house. When I came
to, I looked round and saw my son Nikolai who had been shot and had
fallen, face downwards. My second son I could not find anywhere.
Then, when some time had passed, I began to think how I could escape. I
straightened my legs out from under the man who had fallen on me and
began to think how I could get away. And instead of that, instead of
planning my escape, I lost my head and called out, at the top of my
voice, “Can I really go now?” At that moment my small son, who had
remained alive, recognized me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That would be your second son?
GRIGORIEV: The second. The first had been killed and was lying by my
side. My little son called out, “Daddy, are you still alive?”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He was wounded?
GRIGORIEV: He was wounded in the leg. I calmed him down: “Do not fear,
my small son. I shall not leave you here. Somehow or other, we shall get
away from here. I shall carry you out.”
A little later the house began to burn. Then I opened the window and
threw myself out of it, carrying my little boy who had been wounded in
the leg. We began to creep out of the house, hiding so that the Germans
could not see us, but on our way from the house we suddenly saw a high
fence.
We could not move the lattice apart so we began to break it up. At that
moment we were noticed by the German soldiers and they began to shoot at
us. Then I whispered to my little son to hide while I would run away. I
was unable to carry him and he ran a short distance and hid in the
undergrowth, while I ran off. I ran a short distance and then jumped
into a building near the burning house.
There I sat for a while and then decided to run farther on. So I escaped
into a nearby forest, not far from our village, where I spent the night.
In the morning I met Alexei N. from the neighboring village, who told
me, “Your son, Aljosha, is alive; he started to crawl to the neighboring
village.”
Then on the second day, from the same village, Kuznetzov, I met the boy
Vitya who had escaped from Leningrad and was living in our village
during the time of the occupation. He had also been saved by a miracle.
He escaped from the fire. He told me what had happened in the second hut
where my wife and son had been taken.
There matters were carried out as follows: The German soldiers, having
driven the people into the hut, opened the door into the passage and
proceeded to shoot from their machine guns across the threshold.
According to Vitya’s words, people who were still half alive were
burning, including my little boy, Petya, who was only 9 years old. When
he ran out of the hut he saw that my Petya was still alive. He was
sitting under a bench, having covered his ears with his little hands.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How old was the oldest inhabitant of this
village destroyed by the Germans?
GRIGORIEV: The oldest inhabitant, a woman aged 108 years, was Ustinia
Artemieva.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, how old was the youngest
victim murdered by the Germans?
GRIGORIEV: Four months.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many villagers were destroyed all told?
GRIGORIEV: Forty-seven, excluding those who were saved by a miracle.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why did the Germans destroy the population of
your village?
GRIGORIEV: The reason was not known.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what did the Germans themselves say?
GRIGORIEV: When a German soldier came to our threshing floor we asked
him, “Why are you killing us?” He replied, “Do you know the village of
Maximovo?” This is the village next to our village community. I said,
“Yes.” Then he told me, “This village of Maximovo is kaput—the
inhabitants are kaput, and you too will be kaput.”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And why kaput?
GRIGORIEV: “Because,” said he, “partisans were hiding in your village.”
But his words were untruthful because we had no partisans in the
village; nobody indulged in any partisan activities since there was
nobody left. Only old people and small children were left in the
village; the village had never seen any partisans and did not know who
these partisans were.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were there many adult men in your village?
GRIGORIEV: There was one man, 27 years old, but he was a sick man,
half-witted and paralytic. We had only old men and small children. All
the rest of the men were in the Army.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, witness, were the inhabitants of
your village alone in suffering this fate?
GRIGORIEV: No, they were not alone. The German soldiers shot 43 persons
in Kurysheva, 47 in Vshivova, and in the village of Pavlovo, where I now
live, they burned 23 persons. And in a number of villages where,
according to our village community, there were some four hundred
inhabitants, they shot all the peaceful citizens, both young and old.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please repeat that figure. How many persons were
destroyed in your village community?
GRIGORIEV: About four hundred people in our village community alone.
MR COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, who remained alive in your
family?
GRIGORIEV: In my family only I and my boy remained alive. In my family
they shot my wife, in her sixth month of pregnancy, my son Nikolai, aged
16 years, my youngest boy, Petya, aged 9 years, and my sister-in-law—my
brother’s wife—with her two infants, Sasha and Tonya.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask this witness,
Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to ask the witness
any questions? Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask the witness
any questions? The witness may retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I pass on to the next count of my
statement, the discrimination against the Soviet people.
Discrimination against the Soviet population was the usual method of the
Hitlerite criminals. It was carried out by the criminals continuously
and everywhere.
In this part of my presentation I shall refer to the documents of the
German criminals themselves, which have only now been obtained and
placed at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution. They were seized by
the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union in the
prisoner-of-war camp at Lamsdorf.
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-415 (Document Number
USSR-415), a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the
crimes committed by the German Government and the German Supreme Command
against Soviet prisoners of war in the camp of Lamsdorf. A number of
original documents of the German fascist criminals, discovered in the
camp archives are attached to the report.
I shall be able to submit some of these documents to Your Honors. Their
value consists in the fact that they prove that even in the murderous
regime established in one of the largest and most cruel of the German
concentration camps, the criminals, true to the cannibalistic principles
of their theories, shamelessly discriminated against Soviet nationals.
I shall quote a few brief excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission. The passage, Your Honors, to which I refer, you will
find on Page 123 of the document book, Paragraph 4. It sets forth the
general characteristics of the camp. I quote:
“Subsequent to investigations made, the Extraordinary State
Commission proved that in Lamsdorf, in the district of the town
of Oppeln, there existed, from 1941 to May 1945, a German
stationary camp, Number 344.
“In 1940-41 this camp contained Polish prisoners of war; from
the end of 1941 Soviet, English, and French prisoners of war
began to come in.”
I omit the next two sentences and continue the quotation:
“The prisoners of war were deprived of their outer clothing and
boots. Even in winter they had to go barefoot. No fewer than
300,000 prisoners of war passed through the camp during the
years of its existence, including 200,000 Soviet and 100,000
Polish, English, French, Belgian, and Greek prisoners.
“The prevalent method for the extermination of Soviet prisoners
in Lamsdorf camp was the sale of the captives to German
undertakings for work in various German firms where they were
mercilessly exploited until, their strength completely lost,
they died of exhaustion.
“In contrast to the numerous German labor exchanges, where
Sauckel’s representatives sold enslaved Soviet citizens by
retail to German housewives, a wholesale business in internees
was organized in Lamsdorf camp where the captives were formed
into labor commands. There were 1,011 such labor commands in the
camp.”
When presenting the subsequent documents, I should like to ask the
Tribunal to understand correctly the statements in corroboration of
which I am submitting evidence.
I do not in the least wish to say that the regime established by the
Germans for British, French, or other prisoners of war was at all
distinguished for humanity or kindness and that, alone, the Soviet
prisoners of war were exterminated by the camp administration by various
criminal methods.
Not at all. Lamsdorf Camp factually pursued its object, which was the
extermination of prisoners of war regardless of their nationality or
citizenship. Nevertheless, even in this death camp, in these most
grievous conditions created for prisoners of war of all nationalities,
the German fascists, committing crimes against humanity and faithful to
the principles of their theories, created particularly excruciating
conditions for the people of the Soviet.
I shall submit to the Tribunal, in a few brief excerpts, a series of
documents taken from the archives of this camp and presented to the
Tribunal in the original version. All these documents point to the
manifest discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, carried out by
the camp administration pursuant to orders of the Reich Government and
of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-421 (Document Number
USSR-421), a memorandum on the utilization of the labor of Soviet
prisoners of war, addressed by the chief of the prisoner-of-war
department for the 8th Military District for the administration of
industrial concerns to which the prisoners of war were sent.
I request the Tribunal to accept this document as evidence. It is
submitted in the original. I quote Point 10 of this memorandum. Your
Honors will find the passage quoted in the last paragraph of Page 150 of
the document book. I begin the quotation:
“The following directives have been issued for the treatment of
Russian prisoners of war:
“The Russian prisoners of war have all passed through the school
of Bolshevism, they must be looked upon as Bolsheviks and
treated as such. According to their own instructions they must,
even in captivity, struggle actively against the state which has
captured them. Therefore, we must from the very beginning treat
all Russian prisoners of war with ruthless severity, if they
give us the slightest cause for so doing.
“Complete separation of prisoners of war from the civilian
population must be carried out strictly, in work as well as
during recreation.
“Civilians attempting, some way or another, to approach the
Russian prisoners of war, to exchange ideas with them, to hand
them money, food supplies, _et alia_, will be arrested without
warning, questioned, and handed over to the police.”
I further quote the introduction to this memorandum. Your Honors will
find it on Page 149 of the document book, Paragraph 2:
“The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued directives
regulating the utilization of Soviet prisoner-of-war labor.
According to these directives the utilization of Russian
prisoners of war could be tolerated only if carried out under
far harsher conditions than those applied to prisoners of war of
other nationalities.”
Thus the instructions for a specially cruel regime, to be applied to
Soviet prisoners of war merely because they were Soviet people, were not
the result of any arbitrary action on the part of the Lamsdorf Camp
administration. They were dictated by the Supreme Command of the Armed
Forces. In drafting this memorandum, the Lamsdorf Camp administration
was only carrying out direct orders from the Supreme Command.
I quote two more, fairly characteristic points from the memorandum. I
quote Point 4, which Your Honors will find on Page 149 of the document
book, last paragraph. I begin the quotation—it is a very brief one:
“In contrast to the increased requirements for the safeguarding
of the Russian billets, these—from the viewpoint of
comfort—must be reduced to the most modest requirements.”
I shall endeavor to explain later on what this means. I shall next quote
Point 7, which Your Honors will find on Page 150 of the document book,
Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation:
“The food rations for Russian prisoners of war at work will
differ from the rations allocated to prisoners of other
nationalities. More detailed information on this subject will be
given later.”
Such was the memorandum addressed to the industrialists to whose
concerns the Soviet prisoners of war were sent to work as slaves.
I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-431 (Document Number
USSR-431), which is another memorandum about guarding the Soviet
prisoners of war. The document is submitted in the original and I
request the Tribunal to accept it as evidence into the record.
I ask the permission of the Tribunal to quote a few brief excerpts from
this document. First I quote that part of the document which proves its
origin. The first page of the text indicates it is an appendix to a
“Directive of the OKW—General Office, Armed Forces, POW Section.” Next
follow number and document, which are not so important. I now read the
introduction to this memorandum, which is on Page 150 of the document
book:
“For the first time in this war the German soldier is faced with
an adversary who is educated both in a military and in a
political sense, whose ideal is communism and who sees in
National Socialism his very worst enemy.”
I omit the next paragraph and continue:
“Even in captivity, the Soviet soldier—however harmless he may
appear outwardly—will seize every occasion to show his hatred
for all that is German. We must reckon with the fact that the
prisoners will have received suitable instructions on their
behavior if captured and imprisoned.”
My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, has already denounced the absurdity of
these so-called special instructions and I therefore do not consider it
necessary to dwell on this passage. I continue:
“It is therefore absolutely essential, when dealing with them,
to exercise the greatest caution and prudence, and to nourish
the deepest suspicions.”
The following directives were issued to the guard on watch over the
Soviet prisoners:
Firstly—ruthless action at the slightest sign of resistance or
disobedience. Merciless use of firearms to break any resistance.
Escaping prisoners to be shot at immediately, without challenge, with
firm intent to hit. “Without challenge” is characteristic.
I omit the two following paragraphs and quote the second part, Point 3
of the memorandum, which Your Honors will find on Page 153, Paragraph 2
of the document book. From this Subparagraph I quote three lines:
“Kindness is out of place, even when dealing with willing and
obedient prisoners of war. They will ascribe it to weakness and
draw their own conclusions from your kindness.”
I omit Point 4 and end my quotation from this document on Subparagraph 5
of the memorandum—Your Honors will find this passage on Page 153, last
paragraph of the document book:
“5. Never must the apparent inoffensiveness of the Bolshevik
prisoner of war tempt you to deviate from the above-mentioned
instructions.”
I have, a very short time ago, quoted Point 4 of the memorandum for the
industrial, regarding the utilization of the work of Soviet prisoners.
It stated that the requirements respecting billets for the Soviet
captives should, from the viewpoint of living facilities, be of a
minimum nature.
The meaning of this will be clear to Your Honors from a report of the
Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve Army, dated 17
October 1941, addressed to the acting corps commanders and to the
administrative authorities of military districts.
I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-422 (Document Number
USSR-422). This too is presented in the original and I beg that it be
entered as documentary evidence into the record. It was issued in Berlin
and dated as far back as 17 October 1941. I quote one paragraph of the
text. Your Honors will find this paragraph on Page 154 of the document
book. I begin the quotation:
“Subject: Quarters for Soviet prisoners of war.
“At a conference held on 19 September 1941 at the office of the
Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve Army (V-6),
it was decided that by the construction of several tiers of
superimposed wooden bunks in lieu of bedsteads, a RAD”—Reich
Labor Service—“barrack for 150 prisoners could be built
according to specifications for Soviet prisoners’ permanent
barracks to hold 840 prisoners in permanent billets.”
I shall not quote the remainder of this document since I consider this
paragraph sufficiently clear in itself.
I request the Tribunal to accept two documents in evidence which are
also presented in the original. They testify to the fact that the
extermination, in the camp, of Soviet prisoners of war was practiced for
political reasons. It was the practice of murder.
I shall first submit, as Exhibit Number USSR-432 (Document Number
USSR-432), an order addressed to Camp Number 60. The document is in the
original and I request that it be added to the record as evidence. Your
Honors will find the paragraph which I wish to quote on Page 155 of the
document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote one passage only of the document
already submitted. The passage which I ask the permission of the
Tribunal to read is on Page 155. Point 4 of the order runs as follows:
“Behavior at the shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner of
war. (Legal Officer)
“Every case of shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner of war
should be reported as a special occurrence. If you are dealing
with British, French, Belgian, or American prisoners of war you
should also act in accordance with instructions of the OKW, Code
Number F-24.”
This order was dated 2 August 1943.
But on 5 November 1943 another order followed, which changed even this
arrangement where the Soviet prisoners of war were concerned. I request
the Tribunal to accept in evidence the document which I am submitting as
Number 433, pertaining to Camp Number 86. From this document I quote one
paragraph only, that is, Paragraph 12:
“The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war. (Legal Officer)
“The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war and other fatal
accidents need no longer be reported by phone to the Prisoner of
War Commander as an ‘unusual occurrence.’”
In certain cases, the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces agreed
to the payment of a miserably small sum for the work done by the
prisoners of war, but here too the Soviet prisoners of war were placed
in conditions which were twice as bad as those of the prisoners of other
nationalities.
To confirm this, I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a
directive of the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces dated 1
March 1944. The document will be submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-427
(Document Number USSR-427).
I request that the Tribunal attach it as evidence to the documentation
of the case. From this document I shall quote two sentences only. These
sentences Your Honors will find on Page 274 of the document book:
“Prisoners of war working all day will receive for one full
working day the following basic salary: Non-Soviet prisoners of
war, RM 0.70; Soviet prisoners of war, RM 0.35.”
The second sentence is at the end of the document, on Page 275 of the
document book, last paragraph:
“The minimum daily wage for non-Soviet prisoners will consist of
0.20 RM, and 0.10 for Soviet prisoners of war.”
Here I end my quotation from this document.
If other prisoners received from the German fascist murderers the right
to a few breaths of fresh air a day, the Soviet people were deprived of
even this privilege. I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence an
original order, Exhibit Number USSR-424 (Document Number USSR-424),
referring to Camp Number 44. I request the permission of the Tribunal to
quote one sentence from Paragraph 7, entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of
War.” I begin to quote:
“In special cases, when prisoners of war, engaged on work, have
their living quarters at the same place where they work and
therefore have no access to the open air, they should be allowed
to be taken out into the fresh air in order to maintain their
working strength.”
I further request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the original order
addressed to Camp Number 46. This document is submitted as Exhibit
Number USSR-425 (Document Number USSR-425). I would remind the Tribunal
that the directive ruling the preceding order, “Walks for Prisoners of
War,” was listed under Point 7.
I cite one sentence from Point 10 of Order Number 46. This Point 10 is
also entitled, “Walks for Prisoners of War,” and the basis for this
point is Order Number 1259, Part 5, of the Chief of the Section for
Prisoner-of-War Affairs, dated 2 June 1943. I quote one sentence:
“In complement to Point 7 of the order addressed to Camp Number
44, dated 8 June 1943, it is explained that the order does not
apply to Soviet prisoners of war.”
I further request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the original
request of the labor office of Mährisch-Schönberg. This request concerns
the utilization of prisoners of war for nonagricultural work. I quote
two sentences from this document. The passage which I have asked
permission to quote is on Page 160 of the document book. I begin the
quotation:
“The replacement of 104 English prisoners of war from Labor
Brigade for Prisoners of War E 351, currently employed in the
Heinrichsthal paper mills, by 160 Soviet prisoners of war, has
been rendered necessary by the labor shortage which has
developed in this factory. An additional allocation of English
prisoners, to raise the number to the required figure of 160, is
impossible, since after the last check of camp conditions,
undertaken a few months ago by competent Wehrmacht authorities,
it was decided that billets in the camp were only sufficient for
104 English prisoners of war, whereas the same space would
accommodate 160 Russian prisoners of war without any
difficulties whatsoever.”
I request Your Honors’ permission to quote one more document, namely
Directive Number 8 regarding this camp, dated 7 May 1942. It is
entitled, “The Utilization of Soviet Prisoners of War for Work.”
I submit this document in the original as Exhibit Number USSR-426
(Document Number USSR-426), and I request that it be added as evidence
to the record of the Trial.
I quote the section entitled, “Measures for the restoration of full
working capacities.” I think that the boundless cynicism and the cruelty
of this document require no further comment:
“The Soviet prisoners of war are, almost without exception, in a
state of acute malnutrition, which currently renders them unfit
for a normal output of work.”
The General Staff of the German Armed Forces was particularly concerned
over two questions: Firstly, with blankets for Soviet prisoners of war,
and secondly, in what form the mercilessly murdered Soviet victims of
the concentration camps should be buried. Both questions found their
solution in one document.
I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-429 (Document Number
USSR-429), and request that it be added as evidence to the record. Your
Honors will find it on Page 162 of the document book. This is a
directive of the 8th Military District, dated 28 October 1941. I begin
the quotation:
“Re: Soviet Russian prisoners of war. The following arrangements
were decided during a conference of the OKW:
“1. Blankets. The Soviet Russians will receive paper blankets,
which they will have to manufacture themselves, in the form of
quilts, from paper tissue, filled with crumpled paper and
similar material. The material will be procured by the OKW.”
The second part, as Your Honors will notice, is as follows—the heading
reads, “Burial of Soviet Russians”:
“Soviet prisoners of war are to be buried naked, without a
coffin, wrapped in packing paper. Coffins will be used only for
transports. In the labor commands the burial will be attended to
by the competent authorities. Burial expenses will be met by the
competent M-Stalag for prisoners of war. The stripping of the
bodies will be done by the camp guards. Signed: by order,
Grossekettler.”
But not only the administration of the military district was concerned
with the methods for burying Soviet prisoners of war; the Ministry of
the Interior was also concerned with this question, and an urgent letter
was addressed to the camp specially marked, “Not for publication in the
press, even in excerpts.”
I request the Tribunal to accept this document in evidence as Exhibit
Number USSR-430. The members of the Tribunal can find this passage on
Page 276 of the document book. I quote a few sentences from this fairly
voluminous document—five sentences. I begin to quote:
“For the transport of the bodies (procurement of vehicles)
offices of the Wehrmacht should be contacted. For transportation
and burial a coffin is not to be requested. The bodies should be
completely wrapped up in paper, preferably in oiled paper,
tarpaulin, corrugated paper, or some other suitable material.
Both transportation and burial should be done unostentatiously.
When many corpses come in at the same time, burial should take
place in a common grave. The corpses should be laid at the usual
depth, side by side, not overlapping each other. As a site for
the burial a distant part of the cemetery should be chosen. Any
burial service and any decoration of the graves should be
disallowed.”
I omit the following sentence: “It is necessary to keep expenses as low
as possible.”
But even in the special organizations of German fascism, specially
created for the extermination of human life, the criminals still
continued in their policy of racial and political discrimination.
Actually, this discrimination could mean one thing only, namely, that
one part of the camp prisoners came to their inevitable end, death, more
rapidly than the other part.
And the criminals even tried to make the inevitable end more of a
torment for those of their victims whom they, following the Nazi
man-hating theories, designated as subhumans or considered capable of
active resistance.
I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record one
paragraph from a document already submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-415.
This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union on the “Crimes at Lamsdorf Camp” and the quotation will testify to
the extent of the criminal Hitlerite activities. It concludes the
presentation of evidence regarding this camp. Your Honors will find the
passage in question on Page 146 of the document book, Paragraph 3. I
quote:
“According to the findings of the special commission during the
existence of the Lamsdorf Camp, the Germans tortured to death
more than 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Most of these died in
the mines, in the various economic enterprises, or during
transportation back to the camp. Some were crushed to death in
the dugouts, many were killed during the evacuation of the camp.
Forty thousand prisoners of war were tortured to death in the
Lamsdorf Camp proper.”
Mr. President, the Soviet Prosecution begs to present one more witness,
Doctor Kivelisha. He is a physician and his evidence is particularly
important in establishing that there existed a special regime for Soviet
prisoners of war in the camps. The Soviet Prosecution requests your
permission to question this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
[_The witness Kivelisha took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
DR. EUGENE ALEXANDROVICH KIVELISHA (Witness): Kivelisha, Eugene
Alexandrovich.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I, and then state
your name—a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics—summoned as witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in
the presence of the Court—to tell the Court nothing but the truth about
everything I know in regard to this case.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish. Will you spell your name;
will you spell your surname?
KIVELISHA: It is K-i-v-e-l-i-s-h-a.
THE PRESIDENT: Please, Colonel Pokrovsky.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): What
was your position in the ranks of the Red Army at the time of the attack
on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite Germany?
KIVELISHA: At the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite
Germany I was junior physician in the 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle
Division.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did your unit of the 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle
Division take part in battles against the Germans?
KIVELISHA: Yes, our 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division
participated in the battles from the first day of the war.
COL. POKROVSKY: On what date and under what circumstances were you
captured by the Germans?
KIVELISHA: I was captured by the Germans on 9 August 1941, in the
district of the City of Uman, in the Kirovograd region. I was captured
at the moment when our unit and two Russian armies to which our unit
belonged were surrounded by the Germans after prolonged fighting.
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the treatment applied by the
Germans to Red Army soldiers who were captured by the Hitlerite troops?
What was the position of these prisoners of war?
KIVELISHA: I know only too well every form of barbarous mockeries
applied to the Russian prisoners of war by the Hitlerite authorities and
the Army, for the reason that I was a prisoner of war myself, for a very
long time.
On the day I was captured, I was sent in convoy in a large column of
prisoners of war to one of the transient camps. En route, talking to the
prisoners with whom I marched—I stress the fact that this was on the
very first day—I learned that the greater part of the prisoners had
been captured 3 or 4 days before the small group to which I myself
belonged.
During these 3 or 4 days the prisoners had been kept in a shed, under a
reinforced German guard and were given nothing at all to eat or drink.
Later, when we passed through the villages, the prisoners, on seeing
wells and water, passed their tongues over their parched lips and made
involuntary swallowing movements when their eyes fell on the water.
Later on in the same day we finished the march toward nighttime and the
column of prisoners, 5,000 strong, was billeted in a farm yard where we
had no possibility of resting after the long journey, and we were forced
to spend the night in the open. This continued on the following day, and
on this day too we were deprived of food and water.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was there no case when the prisoners, passing by water
tanks or wells, stepped two or three paces out of line and tried to get
at the water themselves?
KIVELISHA: Yes, I remember a few such cases and shall tell you of one
particular incident which occurred on the first day of our march. It
happened like this:
We were passing the outskirts of a little village. The peaceful civilian
population came to meet us, and tried to supply us with water and bread.
However, the Germans would not allow us to approach the citizens, nor
would they let the population approach the column of prisoners. One of
the prisoners stepped 5 or 6 meters out of the column, and without any
warning was killed by a German soldier shooting from a tommy gun.
Several of his comrades rushed to help him thinking that he was still
alive, but they too were immediately fired on without warning. Some of
them were wounded and two of them were killed.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was that the only incident you witnessed, or, during
your transfer from one place to another, did you observe other cases of
a similar nature?
KIVELISHA: No, this was not an individual occurrence. Almost every
transfer from one camp to another was accompanied by the same kind of
shootings and murders.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did they shoot only the prisoners of war, or were
measures of repression adopted toward the peaceful citizens as well,
toward the citizens who had tried to give bread and water to the
captives?
KIVELISHA: Measures of repression were applied not only to the prisoners
of war; they were also applied to the peaceful citizens. I remember
once, during one of our transfers, a group of women and children
attempted to give us bread and water, like the others, only the Germans
would not allow them to come anywhere near us. Then one woman sent a
little girl, about 5 years old, evidently her daughter, to the
prisoners’ column. This little child came quite close to the place where
I had passed and when she was five or six steps away from the column,
she was killed by a German soldier.
COL. POKROVSKY: But perhaps the prisoners of war didn’t need the food
which the population tried to give them; perhaps they were sufficiently
well fed by the German authorities?
KIVELISHA: The prisoners of war on the transfer marches suffered from
hunger to an exceptional extent. The Germans provided no food whatsoever
en route from one camp to the other.
COL. POKROVSKY: So that these gifts from the local population were the
only practical means possible to sustain the strength of the soldiers in
German captivity?
KIVELISHA: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did the Germans shoot them?
KIVELISHA: You understand me correctly.
COL. POKROVSKY: In which prisoner-of-war camps were you interned? Name
some of them.
KIVELISHA: The first camp in which I was interned was in the open, in a
field, in the district of the small hamlet of Tarnovka. The second camp
was situated on the site of a brick yard and former poultry farm on the
outskirts of the town of Uman. The third camp was situated in the
suburbs of Ivan-Gora. The fourth camp was situated on the territory
pertaining to the stables of some military unit or other in the region
of the town of Gaisen. The fifth camp was in the region of the small
garrison town of Vinnitza. The sixth camp was in the suburbs of the
small town of Dzemerinka and the last camp, where I stayed the longest
time, was in the village of Rakovo, 7 kilometers from the town of
Proskurov, in the Kamenetz-Podolsk district.
COL. POKROVSKY: So that you yourself, from your own personal experience,
could realize the state of affairs prevalent in this series of camps?
KIVELISHA: Yes, in all the camps I was personally and completely
acquainted with all the conditions.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are you a physician by profession?
KIVELISHA: I am a physician by profession.
COL. POKROVSKY: Tell the Tribunal how matters stood insofar as medical
attention and food for the prisoners of war were concerned in the camps
you have just enumerated.
KIVELISHA: When I was transported under convoy to the camp near the
hamlet of Tarnovka, I was, for the first time and in company with other
Russian doctors, separated from the rest of the prisoners’ column, and
sent to the so-called infirmary.
This infirmary was in a shed with a concrete floor, without any
equipment for the care of the wounded. And on this concrete floor lay a
large number of wounded Soviet prisoners, mostly officers. Many had been
captured 10 to 12 days before my arrival at Tarnovka. During all that
time they had received no medical attention although many of them were
in need of surgical aid, with simultaneous and frequent dressings and a
number of drugs.
They were systematically left without water; food too was administered
without any system at all; at least, at the time of my arrival in the
camp there was no equipment to prove that food had ever been prepared or
cooked for these wounded soldiers.
There were about 15,000 to 20,000 wounded in Uman Camp where I found
myself on the second day after my arrival in Tarnovka. They were all
lying in the open, dressed in their summer uniforms and a great many of
them were incapable of moving.
Food and water were supplied to them in the same way as to the other
captives in the camp. There they lay, without any medical attention,
their dust-covered dressings soaked in blood, often in pus. Dressings,
surgical instruments, equipment for an operating theater just did not
exist in the camp at Uman.
In Gaisen prisoners of war, sick and wounded, were herded into one of
the stables. This stable had no wooden floors and lacked every facility
for human habitation. The prisoners of war were lying on the earthen
floor, and here, too, as in the preceding camp, they did not have even
an iota of medical attention. As before, dressings, drugs, and surgical
instruments were unobtainable.
COL. POKROVSKY: You mentioned the Uman Camp. Look at this photograph and
tell me, is it a photograph of one of the camps where you were interned?
KIVELISHA: I see on this photograph the camp which was situated in the
grounds of the brick yard at the city of Uman. I know this picture very
well.
COL. POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal that the photograph I have
just shown the witness is a photograph of Uman Camp and was submitted by
me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-345. It shows the camp
concerning which witness Bingel has already testified.
[_Turning to the witness._] This means that you recognize Uman Camp
situated in the grounds of the brick yard from this photograph?
KIVELISHA: Yes, in the grounds of the brick yard. It is a part of the
camp.
COL. POKROVSKY: What was the prevailing regime in Uman Camp? Tell us
just the main points, very briefly.
KIVELISHA: Almost all the captives in the camp were kept in the open
air. The food was extremely bad. In the grounds of the Uman Camp, where
I spent 8 days, twice a day a few fires would be lit out of doors and a
thin pea soup was cooked in vats over these fires.
There was no special routine for distributing food to the prisoners of
war, and the boiled soup would then be set down amongst the whole mass
of people. No control whatsoever was exercised over the distribution.
The starving prisoners rushed up in the hope of obtaining even a minute
portion of this thin, unsalted soup, cooked without fat and served
without bread.
Disorder and crowding arose. The German guards, all armed with clubs as
well as with rifles and automatic guns, beat up all the prisoners of war
within range of their blows for the purpose of maintaining order. The
Germans would often intentionally set down a small barrel of soup among
a great number of people, and once again, to restore order, they would
beat up the absolutely innocent people with laughter, oaths, insults,
and threats.
COL. POKROVSKY: Please tell me, Witness: In the camp situated in the
village of Rakovo, was the quality of the food better or was it
approximately the same as in other camps? And how did the food situation
affect the health of the prisoners?
KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo the food was exactly the same in
quality as that of the other camps where I had been previously interned.
It consisted of beets, cabbage, and potatoes frequently served
half-cooked. Owing to this poor quality of food the prisoners developed
severe gastric trouble accompanied by dysentery, which rapidly exhausted
them and resulted in a very high rate of mortality from hunger.
COL. POKROVSKY: You talked about the guards often beating the prisoners
on the slightest provocation and time and again without any provocation
at all.
KIVELISHA: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: What kind of traumatic lesions did the prisoners receive
as a result of these beatings? Were there any cases of severe traumatic
injuries caused by heavy beatings or did the whole matter result in a
few kicks only?
KIVELISHA: In Rakovo Camp I was in the so-called hospital, where I
worked in the surgical section. Frequently, after dinner or supper in
the hospital, prisoners were brought in with most grievous physical
injuries. I frequently had to do all I could to help people who were so
terribly injured by these beatings that they would die without regaining
consciousness.
I remember a second case when two prisoners were beaten over the head
with some hard object till the brains oozed out from the gaping head
wound. I remember yet another incident, only too well, when an athlete
from Moscow had an eye knocked out with a whip. The athlete then
contracted meningitis and died soon after.
COL. POKROVSKY: How high was the mortality rate among the prisoners of
war in Rakovo Camp?
KIVELISHA: The history of Rakovo Camp can be divided into two periods.
There was the first which lasted about 2 years and ended in November
1941. At that time the number of prisoners was not very great and
consequently the rate of mortality was not so high. Then there was the
second period, from November 1941 to March 1942, at which time I was in
Rakovo myself. During this second period the mortality rate was
exceptionally high: there were days when 700, 900, and even 950 persons
died in the camp.
COL. POKROVSKY: What disciplinary measures were there in Rakovo Camp and
for what reasons were the prisoners punished? Do you know?
KIVELISHA: Yes. I know that there was, in the camp grounds, a cell for
prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. Prisoners of war guilty of
attempting to escape from the terrible conditions created for them in
captivity, or with offenses such as stealing food products in the
kitchen, were locked up in this cell.
It was in the cellar; it had a cement floor and windows with iron bars
instead of panes. The prisoner was stripped to the skin, deprived of
food and water, and locked up in solitary confinement for 14 days. I do
not know of a single case where a prisoner survived this confinement;
all of them died in that particular cell.
COL. POKROVSKY: Evidently the conditions which you have described to the
Tribunal increased the number of persons suffering from exhaustion.
KIVELISHA: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did this condition result in a decreased number of
prisoners capable of working? Did their number decrease; what was done
to those prisoners who could not work?
KIVELISHA: An immense number of prisoners were kept, in Rakovo Camp, in
stables which were quite unfit for human beings to live in during the
winter period. At first everybody was made to work. I can safely say
that most of this work was entirely aimless, since it consisted in
pulling down houses and then paving the camp grounds with bricks from
the demolished buildings. After some time, when severe gastric troubles
had set in, troubles which I have already mentioned, fewer and fewer
prisoners came out to work.
Many of them, who had lost all control of their movements, never even
left the stables for the appointed meal times, and if a great many
people were discovered to have lost their strength, a so-called
quarantine was established. In such a stable all the exits and entries
would be blocked and the patients would be completely isolated from the
outer world. Having kept them locked up for 4 or 5 days on end, the
stable would be opened and the dead brought out by the hundreds.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you tell us, Witness, on what medical or sanitary
work you and the other doctors were employed in the camp by the Germans?
KIVELISHA: In the camps we were not employed by the Germans on any work
connected with the prisoners. All the Germans were interested in was the
separation of people who could work from those of the prisoners who were
incapable of working. We could not render the prisoners any purely
medical services because of the conditions in which we ourselves
existed.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did your duties in any of these camps include sanitary
supervision? And what exactly was understood by sanitary supervision?
KIVELISHA: The duties of sanitary supervision were entrusted to us in
the camp of the town of Gaisen. It only meant that we, the captured
military doctors, had to be on duty in the vicinity of the general
latrine in the camp, which was nothing more than a ditch dug for this
purpose, and as and when the ditch was filled up with excrement, we were
forced to clean up the ground.
COL. POKROVSKY: The doctors?
KIVELISHA: Yes, the doctors.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you really consider this function as a form of
sanitary supervision, or did you consider it as straightforward mockery
by the Germans at the expense of the captured Soviet army doctors?
KIVELISHA: I consider that it was straightforward mockery at the expense
of the captured Soviet doctors.
COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I have no more questions to ask this
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the other prosecutors got any questions to
ask?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any
questions?
DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you have stated that in August 1941 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly announce your name for whom you appear.
DR. LATERNSER: Dr. Laternser, Defense Counsel for the General Staff and
the OKW.
Witness, you have just stated that in August 1941 you were brought to
captivity in the district of Uman. Do you know whether the Germans had
taken many prisoners at that time?
KIVELISHA: Yes, I do know. About 100,000 prisoners were captured at that
time.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether German troops had advanced very
rapidly into Russian territory at that time?
KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything about this. The German armies moved
very rapidly, but before our units were surrounded we fought obstinately
and we retreated, fighting, right up to 9 August.
DR. LATERNSER: How great was the number of prisoners in the column in
which you marched?
KIVELISHA: Four thousand to five thousand persons.
DR. LATERNSER: When did you first get any food from the German troops?
KIVELISHA: I personally, and for the first time, received food from the
German troops when I reached the town of Uman.
DR. LATERNSER: How much time had passed between the moment you were
captured and your first meal?
KIVELISHA: When I was first fed I had been a prisoner of war for about 4
or 5 days.
DR. LATERNSER: You were a Red Army doctor and must have been quite aware
that the feeding of armies is not so simple a matter.
KIVELISHA: I could not imagine this, especially as the Germans had then
at their disposal time and many possibilities for supplying the
prisoners of war with food. Further, to my previous statements I shall
again repeat that if the German authorities were unable to provide the
prisoners of war with food, the peaceful population did everything in
their power to feed the Russian prisoners. However, obviously neither
the German authorities nor the German Command issued any instructions on
this matter.
I have already reported that no opportunity was given for friendly
relations between the prisoners of war and the peaceful citizens. On the
contrary, any persons who tried to bring food to the prisoners or any
prisoner who accepted the food from the citizens was promptly shot.
DR. LATERNSER: But you can certainly imagine that it must have presented
immense difficulties if, as you have just testified, 100,000 prisoners
had been taken at that time in the area of Uman?
KIVELISHA: Not all the prisoners of war were concentrated at Uman at one
and the same time. There were several stationary and permanent camps,
only several of them were at Uman.
DR. LATERNSER: I was not speaking about the food problem in Uman Camp.
We are still talking about the feeding during the first days after their
capture.
KIVELISHA: When I was brought into captivity I was not singled out in
any way from among the other prisoners of war. I was fed and I was
supplied in exactly the same way as all the others. I was one of the
general crowd and the general column of the prisoners of war. The German
Command made no distinction in the first days of captivity.
DR. LATERNSER: But you will have to admit that there were certain
difficulties connected with food supplies which would arise if quite
unexpectedly a column, such as yours, 5,000 men strong, had to be fed by
rapidly advancing troops.
KIVELISHA: Even if the German Command had been faced with this
particular difficulty, the problem could always have been solved by
allowing the prisoners to accept the food products which the peaceful
population, the Soviet citizens, were offering them.
DR. LATERNSER: We shall talk about that immediately. You say you were in
a column of 5,000 prisoners. Can you tell me how strong the guard was,
the German guard, under whom this column of 5,000 marched?
KIVELISHA: I cannot state the exact figures. But there were a great many
German machine gunners. The column was too drawn out in length and I am
unable to state the figure.
DR. LATERNSER: I understand that you cannot give the exact figures. But
can you describe to the Tribunal how great the distance was between
individual guards marching alongside the column?
KIVELISHA: The distance would be as follows: two or three soldiers,
walking in a row, would march approximately five or six steps behind a
second row of the same number.
DR. LATERNSER: Thus, every 50 to 60 meters, on either side of the
column, or perhaps only on one side of the column, German troops marched
in groups of two and three soldiers, as you say, or have I not
understood you correctly?
KIVELISHA: Not 50 to 60 meters; 5 to 6.
DR. LATERNSER: Were the guards elderly men or were there younger
soldiers among them?
KIVELISHA: They were soldiers of the German Army. They were of every
age.
DR. LATERNSER: Were the Russian prisoner-of-war columns informed, before
they started, that they would be shot if they left the ranks?
KIVELISHA: I have already said, and I repeat once again, there were no
warnings.
DR. LATERNSER: Not even when the column set off?
KIVELISHA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be a good time to break off till 2
o’clock.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the witnesses and
documents to be called and produced on behalf of the first four
defendants and that decision will be communicated as soon as possible
this afternoon to counsel for those defendants and will also be posted
in the Defendants’ Information Center.
Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief Prosecutor
for France with reference to the calling of two additional witnesses.
The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to call any witnesses
after closing the case on behalf of any of the chief prosecutors, that a
written application should be made to the Tribunal for the calling of
such witnesses, and the Tribunal also desires me to draw the attention
of Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense to the terms
of Article 24, Subsection (e), which refers to rebutting evidence. In
the event of Counsel for the Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense
wishing to call rebutting evidence when the proper time comes, after the
case for the Prosecution and the Defense has been closed, such
application to call rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in
writing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would allow me
to say something on a matter on which I promised to get information
yesterday.
Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn edition
of the _Daily Telegraph_ of the 31st of August 1939, and I promised the
Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had a telegram from the _Daily
Telegraph_, which I received this morning, and it says:
“No edition of the _Daily Telegraph_ withdrawn on 31 August 1939
or any other day thereabouts. The _Telegraph_ of the 31st gave a
brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop had taken
place but without details.
“On 1st September carried summary of Germany’s 16 points for
Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text of the note
did not appear until September 2, when extracted from the
Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents.”
I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information,
that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose to send a copy
of that to Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may necessitate a
slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was proposing to make.
DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and Warlimont as
witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to answer one question;
namely, to tell me if the Court has decided yet that the Generals Halder
and Warlimont, whom I have named as witnesses, and whose relevancy has
been admitted by the Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for
Keitel so that we can count with certainty on their appearing in the
proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this morning was
that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they wanted to have them
to cross-examine them now or call them as witnesses on behalf of one or
other of the defendants, and therefore that was a decision that the
Defense Counsel would be able to call them on behalf of one of the
defendants if they determined to do so.
Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they were
called before. If the Defendant Göring wanted to call them then they
would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when they were called for
Göring, because of the fundamental rule that a witness is only to be
called once.
DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel who are
interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and Warlimont are
agreed that these generals should be called in the course of the
presentation of evidence by the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
Colonel Smirnov . . . I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this witness.
Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march to the
camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were accommodated in a
stable. Was this stable roofed?
KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and since the farm
had previously been evacuated, the shed had not been cleaned for a very
long time and was in a state of complete neglect. And if we add to this
state of neglect the fact that it had been pouring with rain all that
day, we must also add that it was half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite
impossible to settle down in the stables and barns since they were
filled with left-over manure, so that all the people stayed out of
doors.
DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate these
prisoners in a better way?
KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, for I am
not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, and, on
the other hand, we were brought to this village late at night and I do
not know whether there were more convenient places where the prisoners
could have been quartered.
DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you entered this
village, you yourself saw no possibility for better accommodations?
KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but because
it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, although it
was a rather large village and it seems to me that there was a
sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people might have
easily been billeted more conveniently for the night.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that in the
prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as a physician. Did
the German prisoner-of-war administration ever place any medical
supplies at your disposal so that you could treat your sick comrades?
KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated step by
step from one camp to another, we received no medical equipment at all
from the Germans; but subsequently when I was in a stationary camp,
Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, though never in sufficient
quantities to meet the requirements of all the wounded.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have only one
question. The witness has stated that the stable was evacuated. What do
you mean by that term?
KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had been
driven off beyond the zone of military operations.
HERR BABEL: By whom was this done?
KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had entered and
who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army units who had not
been surrounded as we were.
HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back to Russian
territory?
KIVELISHA: From this village, yes.
HERR BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions?
Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of war whilst
you were prisoner of war?
KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo; in the district of the town of
Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying of labor
Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, at that time,
were named the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp.
THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until you got to
that stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since I did
not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything in
re-examination?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept as one of the
proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the prisoner-of-war camps
certain documents which I should like to submit to the Tribunal at the
request of our honorable British colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does
this all the more readily in that it considers this documentation of the
British Prosecution of essential importance in establishing the criminal
contravention by the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and
customs of war accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of
prisoners of war.
I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial the
documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as Exhibit
Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding the cruel murder of 50
prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air Force, who were captured
while attempting to escape en masse from Stalag Luft III at Sagan and
shot after their capture by the German criminals in the night of 24-25
March 1944.
These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite crimes,
signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British Armed
Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held in Sagan
by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded
to the protecting power.
Included with these documents are the statements of the following Allied
witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant Tonder, Flight
Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, Flight Lieutenant
Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant Nelson, Flight
Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P. S. M. Hicks.
The material evidence is also corroborated by statements taken from the
following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs und Kriminalrat
Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner.
There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of those
who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss
Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the representative of
the protecting power during his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.
I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous crime of
the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier Shapcott. Your
Honors will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 163,
Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin:
“On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped
from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been
confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and
returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by
the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50
officers the following information was given by the German
authorities. . . .”
The following information was given by the German authorities who stated
that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting to escape.
Actually this statement was the customary routine lie of the Hitlerites,
since the very thorough investigation carried out by the British
military authorities proved indubitably that the British R.A.F. officers
had been vilely murdered after recapture by the German police.
I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented by the
British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was committed by
order of Göring and Keitel. The passage which I wish to submit to the
Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, Russian text.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing the
witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here once
before. The Prosecution at the time—I do not have the document here
now—submitted a report regarding the interrogation of Major General
Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my objection, refused to
have this document read in Court.
I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the
testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document which
the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it concerns a new
document which I do not know as yet. I draw your attention to the fact
that General Westhoff is here in person; in other words, he could be
called as a witness on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. Nelte said. As I
understood it—I am not sure if I got the name right—but he referred to
General Westhoff’s evidence which has been tendered, and which had been
rejected because the Tribunal thought that if that evidence was to be
given, General Westhoff ought to be called. Is it right that the
document you are putting in has got nothing to do with General Westhoff
at all, has it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only one part of the
official British report.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, is it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am now submitting
an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one passage in the text
of the official British report mentions Major General Westhoff, but this
mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory of Major General
Westhoff which will be brought up later.
MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord,
perhaps I might assist in this matter—because I am partly responsible
for that report—with the kind indulgence of my learned friend, my
Russian colleague.
My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British
official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the
original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that
General Westhoff’s name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a
different document to the document which my French colleagues tendered
and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official
government report.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been saying, Your
Honor. This is an official report of the British Government.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov.
Mr. Roberts—I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte—why do you
say that it is an official government report so as to come within
Article 21 of the Charter?
MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it has been
certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military Department of
the Judge Advocate General’s office. I think you have the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom was it
made, this report?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the collection of
evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it is headed, “German
War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for the Killing of 50 R.A.F.
Officers,” and then it starts to say—then it states the sources on
which the material has been based. Your Lordship will see on the last
page of the report the appendix, “Material upon which the foregoing
report is based”:
“1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan. . . . 2.
Statements of the following Allied witnesses. . . . 3.
Statements taken from the following German. . . . 4. Photostat
copy of the official list of dead, transmitted by the German
Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation. . . . 5. Report of the
Representative of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag
Luft III on 5th June 1944.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for the Tribunal
or for the War Crimes Commission?
MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial?
MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British Delegation
for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British general
made to the British Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept the phrase
“report of a British general.” I would say “a report of a government
department.” It is signed and certified by a British general.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My Lords may
exactly read in Article 21: “The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of
official governmental documents and reports of the United
Nations. . . .”
My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental
document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, a
government department, for the purpose of this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was collected and sent
in by the government will be official evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I read it
and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.
It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis of
testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also Major
General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of this
document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under the terms
of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is involved
here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, who is at
the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including his
testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would not
comply with the Tribunal’s desire that it should represent the best
method to discover the truth.
The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain literally
what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which is subject
to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I believe the Defense
must also have an opportunity in their turn, to hear and examine a
witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the witnesses who
had been examined by one of the committees set up by the government had
not made a report to the government at all, but an affidavit or
something of that sort; and that had been offered to the Court and the
witness had been available, the Court might very possibly have refused
to entertain that affidavit or report. But if that report was the
foundation for a government report or for a government official
document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is directed to entertain
such a report.
Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they
wouldn’t have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff
unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a
question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit comes
within Article 21.
DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship’s view is correct. I should
merely like to bring up the question whether, when one has two different
types of evidence, namely, the report and the possibility of examining a
witness, it should not be taken into consideration to question the
witness, not in order to correct the official report, but in order to
clarify what the witness actually said, because from the report we
cannot know what he actually said.
This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance for
the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the escaped
fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is available,
this witness should be heard instead of an official report which already
actually contains an evaluation.
THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not proceed only
or even substantially upon the evidence of General Westhoff. There are a
number of other origins of the report, and the second thing is that the
whole object of Article 21 was to make government reports admissible and
not to necessitate the calling of the witnesses upon whose evidence they
proceeded.
DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other matters,
namely, the shooting. . . The other witnesses who were mentioned were
questioned on other facts. On the question of whether Keitel issued such
an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one mentioned in the
report.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my earphones on.
DR. NELTE: I said, in that report other witnesses are also mentioned
but, as far as I know, they did not make a statement on the question of
whether or not Keitel issued an order to shoot the fliers. Westhoff was
the only one among the witnesses listed who could and did make a
statement on that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further in argument upon the
admissibility of the document?
DR. NELTE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It appears to me, Mr. President, that that part
of the document which refers to Major General Westhoff occupies merely
one paragraph, namely, Paragraph 7, of the document in question. This
part deals with the initial stage of the perpetration of the crime,
namely, with the stage of the conception, the stage of the planning of
the crime.
The document also speaks of other stages in the commission of this
crime. Moreover, it is an official document, presented according to
Article 21 of the Charter. It seems to me that I have thereby said all
that is necessary, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I merely ask the Court to decide; in that case
I should have to request that General Westhoff be admitted as a witness
to testify that the conclusion drawn in this report does not correspond
with what he said.
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen and for the Reich
Cabinet): May I make a few legal remarks, a few generally legal remarks
regarding Article 21 of the Charter?
In all criminal procedure of every country we find the primary principle
of oral court proceedings. Only if this cannot be carried out are part
of the proceedings, so to say, transferred outside the court. In most
codes of criminal procedure of the various countries we have a provision
similar to that of Article 21 of the Charter that previous decisions of
a court should not be re-examined in new proceedings, but that such
decisions should be binding.
In this Trial the Charter extends this provision further to cases which
obviously, because of their scope, should not be further discussed here.
Therefore the decision that government reports should be considered as
evidence is clearly taken up in Paragraph 21. It is clear to every
jurist that this provision in itself is to an extent a flaw in
proceedings because through it certain rights are lost to the
defendants. On the other hand one cannot, of course, ignore the argument
that there is subject matter which, because of its extent, cannot be
practically discussed in a trial in which the time is limited.
Paragraph 21 of the Charter therefore gave the Tribunal the possibility
of accepting such reports as valid evidence. But this provision is not
compulsory for the Tribunal. So far as I can see from the German text
before me it is provided that the Tribunal should accept these reports,
but it does not say that the Tribunal must do so. Therefore it is in
every case left to the discretion of the Tribunal whether the nature of
the report makes it advisable to accept such a report in evidence.
We now have here a rather striking case which, in my opinion, clearly
shows that the Tribunal can make use of its discretion and reject this
document. The Defense have taken the position that this subject of
evidence could be taken care of by a witness. The examination of the
witness would have provided the Defense with the right of
cross-examination.
Since, for tactical reasons inherent in the nature of the Trial, the
witness will not be called, the subsequent transfer of his evidence into
a government report means curtailing the right of the defendant to
cross-examination, and is thus contrary to the corresponding article of
the Charter.
DR. STAHMER: It was not until today that the accusation was made that
Göring knew of or ordered the execution of these fliers. I could not
take this act into consideration when I recently offered my evidence,
because I did not know of it; and I must, therefore, reserve the right
to call additional witnesses on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: On the question of the admissibility?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I consider the arguments put forward by the
second Defense Counsel as entirely incomprehensible from a legal point
of view since he introduces certain numerical and quantitative criteria
into the legal nature of the evidence. According to this Counsel,
Article 21 of the Charter deals only with evidence of crimes committed
on an enormous scale, but cannot touch crimes of a smaller caliber.
To me, viewing the matter from a legal point of view, this argumentation
appears rotten from the root upwards and I consider that Article 21 of
the Charter applies, _in toto_, to any crime committed by the
Hitlerites, regardless of the fact if they be committed on a very large
or on a slightly smaller scale. That is all I wish to say, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal would like to know where these
appendices which are referred to in Paragraph 9 of the report are.
MR. ROBERTS: I think they are in the Tribunal now, in the charge of the
Officer of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: They are in the court now? You can undertake, I suppose,
to produce them all if they are not any of them there?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, most certainly. I understood the whole of the
material is not necessary—the original, of course—but I understood the
whole of the material to be there, all in the original, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then the Tribunal decides that the document will be
admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is available—and we think
he is—General Westhoff; and that will be, in effect, granting the
defendants’ application to call General Westhoff, and also to call the
officer mentioned in Paragraph 3(b) of the appendix, whose surname
appears to be Wielen. I do not know whether you know where he is.
MR. ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I can assure the Tribunal that we
will do everything in our power to get the witnesses that are required
for the defense, namely, General Westhoff, who is in Nuremberg, I
understand, and General Wielen. I am not certain where he is, but I will
find out.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr.
President, you made a remark during the session with which the Defense
Counsel are very much concerned. If we understood this remark, it was
said that private affidavits would not be accepted by the Tribunal.
Considering the fact that we must offer our evidence now, this question
of affidavits is very urgent. That is why I am forced to clarify that
question. The Defense Counsel has. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, I do not think I said that affidavits could
not be admitted. What I said was, it might be that affidavits would not
be admitted, if the witness was available to give direct evidence. That
is the rule which we have enforced throughout the Trial.
DR. KRAUS: Yes, I understand you, Mr. President, to say that in
principle we may offer affidavits, whether certified by notary public or
by a lawyer or whether bearing only the signature of the person who
makes the statement. These are the three forms we have: The simple
letter written with the statement, “I declare under oath.” The second
type is that in which the signature has been certified by a lawyer; and
the third type is the one which has been declared before and certified
by a notary public.
We have procured many documents of that kind, in order to expedite
matters, and we would like to know whether or not we may expect to
present them as evidence in order to avoid the calling of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will be
considered when you present the applications for giving evidence by
affidavit. We have, today, in dealing with the first four defendants,
allowed, in a variety of instances, interrogatories to be administered
to various witnesses where it appeared appropriate that that should be
done in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will apply when you
come to submit your applications.
DR. KRAUS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient to you to go
on with your presentation now on this document which we have admitted,
or do you wish to present a film?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to finish the
presentation of this proof, that is, to read into the record the
passages from the document I have quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; but the Tribunal, I think, desire that these
two witnesses, Major General Westhoff and Wielen, whatever his rank may
be, should be produced for examination as soon as possible afterwards. I
don’t mean this afternoon, because that would not be possible, but, if
possible, tomorrow.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I shall request the
representative of the British Delegation to reply to this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he would ask you
to answer, because I was saying that the Tribunal would like to have the
witnesses called as soon as possible after the report was read.
MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about, so I heard, Sir, and I am trying to
make inquiries now where Wielen is. If Your Lordship will give me a few
minutes I will try to find out where Wielen can be located.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the Court, then, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: One minute, please.
Colonel Smirnov, would not it be equally convenient to go on with the
film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can be
presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses?
Otherwise, supposing Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wielen this
afternoon, it might be that if you read the report now, there might be a
week possibly—or even more—between the reading of the report and the
evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with the film now?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What we are showing the Tribunal cannot be
called a film in the full sense of the word. It is a series of
photographic evidence, of photographs taken by the Germans themselves on
the site where the crimes were committed, which were then rephotographed
and transferred to a reel. It is not a film—it is a photo-document. We
are presenting these photo-documents as Exhibit Number USSR-442
(Document Number USSR-442), and we are presenting only one part of these
photo-documents. The fact of the matter is that the Government of
Yugoslavia presented photo-documents for every section of the report. We
have excluded the part dealing with the other sections and show only
that part which deals with Crimes against Humanity. Thus, only a section
of the documents is being shown to the Tribunal. May I show these
photo-documents?
[_The photographic document was then projected on the screen._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue with the presentation of the
documentary evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in order to allow the British
Prosecution to settle the question as to when the two witnesses will be
summoned before the Tribunal, I take the liberty of passing to the next
part of my statement. Have I your permission to do so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I pass on to that part which deals with the
persecution of the Jews, Page 37 of the text. The excessive
anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which assumed a perfectly
zoological aspect, is only too well known. I shall not quote from the
so-called theoretical works of the major war criminals—from Himmler and
Göring to Papen and Streicher. In the Eastern European countries all the
anti-Semitism of the Hitlerites was put into full effect and mostly in
one way only—in the physical extermination of innocent people.
The United States Prosecution, in its own time, submitted to the
Tribunal one of the reports of a special German fascist organization,
the so-called Einsatzgruppe A, which was submitted as Exhibit USA-276
(Document Number L-180). Our American colleagues submitted this
particular report which covered the period up to 15 October 1941. The
Soviet Prosecution submits another report of this criminal German
fascist organization, covering a further period of time and which might
almost be considered as a continuation of the first document, namely the
report on Einsatzgruppe A, from 10 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I
submit to the Tribunal a photostatic copy of this report as Exhibit
Number USSR-57 (Document Number USSR-57). I request the permission of
the Tribunal to read into the record a very brief excerpt from Chapter 3
of the report of Einsatzgruppe A, entitled “The Jews,” and I would
invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data presented
in this report refer exclusively to one organization—Einsatzgruppe A. I
quote one paragraph from Page 170 of the document book:
“The systematic task of purging the East was, according to
fundamental orders, the liquidation of the Jews to the fullest
possible extent. This objective has been practically realized,
with the exception of Bielorussia, by the execution of 229,052
Jews. . . . The surviving Jews in the Baltic provinces are
urgently needed for work, and have been quartered in ghettos.”
I interrupt the quotation and read two further excerpts from a
subparagraph, “Estonia,” on Page 2 of the Russian text, which
corresponds to Page 171, Paragraph 2 of your document book. I begin the
quotation:
“The execution of the Jews, insofar as they were not
indispensable for working purposes, was carried out gradually by
forces of the Sipo and the SD. At present there are no Jews left
in Estonia.”
I quote a few brief excerpts from the subparagraphs entitled “Latvia.” I
quote one line from the last paragraph on the second page of the Russian
text, Page 171, Paragraph 5 of the document book. I begin:
“When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still 70,000
Jews left there.”
I break off the quotation and read one line on Page 3, Paragraph 2 of
the Russian text, Page 171, last paragraph of the document book:
“By October 1941 the Sonderkommandos had executed about 30,000
Jews.”
I again break off and continue with the following paragraph:
“Further executions were later carried out. Thus, for instance,
11,034 Jews were executed on 9 November 1941 in Dünaburg. In the
beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation carried
out in Riga and following the order of the Higher Chief of the
SS and Police, 27,800 persons were executed, and in mid-December
1941, in Libau, 2,350 Jews were executed. At present there are
in ghettos, besides the Jews from Germany, about 2,500 Latvian
Jews in Riga, about 950 in Dünaburg, and about 300 in Libau.”
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come from? Are they
in an official report, or are they German figures?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These are the data published by the Germans
themselves. This particular document was discovered in the Gestapo
archives. It was brought out of Latvia by troops of the Red Army. I
request Your Honors to take note that this document covers only the
period between 16 October 1941 and 31 January 1942. This is therefore
not conclusive data but merely data connected with one German
operational group during this particular period of time.
Have I your permission to proceed, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote one line only from the subparagraph
entitled “Lithuania,” which is on Page 173 of the document book,
Paragraph 3:
“In numerous individual operations, 136,421 persons were
liquidated all told.”
I request the Tribunal to allow me to quote in greater detail from the
next subparagraph of the “A” group report, entitled “White Ruthenia.” I
quote the last paragraph on Page 5 of the Russian text; Page 174, last
paragraph, of the document book:
“The final and definite liquidation of the Jews remaining in the
territory of White Ruthenia, after the arrival of the Germans,
presented certain difficulties. As a matter of fact, it is
precisely in this territory that the Jews constitute a high
percentage of specialists and are indispensable for lack of
other reserves. Moreover, Einsatzgruppe A took over the
territory only after the hard frosts had set in, a fact which
hampered the carrying out of the mass executions very seriously
indeed. A further difficulty consists in the circumstance that
the Jews are scattered all over the territory. Bearing in mind
the fact that distances are vast, road conditions bad,
transportation and petrol lacking, and the forces of the
Security Police and SD insignificant, the executions could be
carried out only by a maximum effort. Nevertheless, 41,000 Jews
have already been shot. This figure does not include the persons
executed by former Einsatzkommandos.”
I interrupt once more and proceed to read from the following
paragraph—this corresponds to Page 175, Paragraph 2 of the document
book. I begin the quotation:
“The Chief of Police in White Ruthenia, despite the difficult
situation, has been given orders to solve the Jewish question as
soon as possible. All the same, this calls for about two months’
time, according to the weather.
“The distribution of the remaining Jews in special ghettos of
White Ruthenia is nearing its end.”
In order to show how mass executions of the Jews by the German criminals
were carried out, I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-119(a) (Document Number USSR-119(a)) a photostatic copy, certified
by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union of an original
German document. This is the conclusive report of the commander of one
of the companies of the 12th Regiment of Police, which carried out the
mass extermination of the Jews assembled in the ghetto of the town of
Pinsk. On 29 and 30 October 1942, the criminal elements from the 15th
Regiment of Police murdered 26,200 Jews in Pinsk. This is how Company
Commander Sauer described the crime. I shall not quote the document _in
toto_ since it is rather long, but I shall quote a few excerpts. The
passage I am about to read—and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to read
it into the record—is on Page 177 of your document book, Paragraph 3. I
begin the quotation:
“The ordered encirclement of the districts was accomplished at
0430 hours; owing to the personal investigations made by the
commanders and to the manner in which the secret was kept, the
encirclement was carried out in the shortest time imaginable and
it was impossible for the Jews to flee.
“The combing of the ghetto was to begin at 0600 hours, but owing
to the darkness it was postponed for another half-hour. The Jews
had noticed the proceedings and began to assemble voluntarily in
all the streets. With the aid of two Wachtmeister (Staff
Sergeants) it was possible to bring several thousand Jews to the
assembly point within the very first hour. When the remaining
Jews realized what was coming, they too joined this column, so
that the screening planned by the SD at the assembly point could
not be carried out in view of the enormous multitude which had
gathered. (For the first day of the comb-out only one to two
thousand persons had been counted on.) The first comb-out ended
at 1700 hours without any incident. About 10,000 persons were
executed on this first day. That night the company was standing
by, ready for action, in a soldiers’ club.
“On 30 October 1942 the ghetto was combed a second time. On 31
October it was combed for the third time and on 1 November for
the fourth time. About 15,000 Jews were rounded up, all told.
Sick Jews and children left behind in the houses were executed
on the spot in the yard of the ghetto. About 1,200 Jews were
executed in the ghetto.”
I request the permission of the Tribunal to allow me to continue quoting
the second page of the document which corresponds to Page 178 of the
document book, Paragraph 6. I quote two points from the section
“Experiences.” I begin to quote:
“3) Where there are no cellars and a considerable number of
persons are huddled together in the small space between the
floor and the ground, these places must be broken into from the
outside, or else police dogs sent in (one police dog, Asta, put
up a remarkably good performance in Pinsk), otherwise a hand
grenade should be thrown in, after which the Jews invariably
come out into the open.”
I further quote Point 5:
“We recommend persuading half-grown persons to disclose these
hiding places by promising to spare their lives. This method has
fully justified its application.”
This example of this police regiment, which I have just read into the
record, is typical of the methods applied for the extermination of Jews
who had been rounded up in the ghetto. But the German fascist invaders
did not always apply this method when proceeding to the extermination of
the peaceful Jewish population.
Another, similarly criminal device was the assembling of Jews in a given
spot under the pretext of transferring them to some other locality. The
assembled Jews would then be shot. I submit to the Tribunal an original
poster which had been put up in the town of Kislovodsk by Kommandantur
Number 12. Your Honors will find the text (Document Number USSR-434)
quoted on Page 180. I shall quote some extracts from this poster which
is a comparatively long one. I start with the first part:
“To all Jews! For the purpose of colonizing sparsely populated
districts of the Ukraine, all Jews residing in Kislovodsk and
all Jews who have no permanent abode are ordered to present
themselves on Wednesday, 9 September 1942, at 5 a. m. Berlin
time (6 a. m. Moscow time), at the goods’ station in Kislovodsk;
the transport will take off at 6 a. m. (7 a. m. Moscow time).
“Every Jew is to bring luggage not exceeding 20 kilograms in
weight, including food for a minimum of 2 days. Further food
will be supplied by the German authorities at the railway
stations.”
I omit the next paragraph and only quote one line:
“Also subjected to transfer are the Jews who have been
baptized.”
I break off the quotation at this point.
In order to ascertain what happened to the Jewish population in the town
of Kislovodsk—the same happened to the Jews in many other towns—I
would request the Tribunal to refer to the contents of a document which
has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1
(Document Number USSR-1). It is a report of the Extraordinary State
Commission of the Stavropol region.
The part which I wish to read, in brief, is on Page 187 of your document
book. It states there that the 2,000 Jews who had assembled at the
Kislovodsk station were sent to the station of Mineralniye Vody and shot
in an antitank trench 2½ kilometers distant from the town. Here too,
thousands of Jews, transferred from the towns of Essentuki and
Piatigorsk, were shot on the same site.
In order to show the extent of the criminal extermination of the
peaceful Jewish population in Eastern Europe, I now refer to the
contents of reports received from the governments of the respective
Eastern European countries, which have already been submitted to the
Tribunal.
I quote a report of the Polish Government, on Page 136 of the Russian
text of this document. I begin the quotation:
“The official statistical yearbook of Poland, in 1931, estimates
the number of Jews at 3,115,000.
“According to unofficial figures collected in 1939 there were in
Poland 3,500,000 Jews.
“After the liberation of Poland the Jews in that country
numbered less than 100,000, and 200,000 Polish Jews are still in
the U.S.S.R.
“Thus, about 3 million Jews perished in Poland.”
In Czechoslovakia, as seen from the data published on Pages 82-83 of the
Russian text of the report, the Jews numbered 118,000. At present, in
the entire country, they number only 6,000 all told. Of the total number
of 15,000 Jewish children, only 28 have returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we leave off here?
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SIXTY-NINTH DAY
Wednesday, 27 February 1946
_Morning Session_
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I wonder if the
Tribunal would allow me to make a very short explanation as to the
source of the document with regard to Stalag Luft III which the Tribunal
discussed yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position was that when evidence for this
Trial was being collected, each government that might be concerned was
written to and asked if they would produce government reports, and they
have produced government reports which have been put before the Tribunal
by the various sections of the Prosecution.
The document with regard to the shooting of the prisoners in Stalag Luft
III was a British Government report of the same type. It was compiled
from various information, which is included in the appendices; that
information included the interrogation of General Westhoff, which had
been sent to the United Nations War Crimes Commission as thousands of
other documents were sent, for that Commission to consider whether any
action should be taken from the matters disclosed.
That document was then sent from the United Nations War Crimes
Commission to the British Government and dealt with as part of the
material on which the British Government report was based. The British
Government report is certified by myself to be a Government report, and
I have specific authority from His Majesty’s Government in Britain to
perform such certification. It is very short, and it might be convenient
if I read it so that it appears in the record. I have the copy, which
was sent to me on the official Cabinet paper, purporting to be signed by
Sir Edward Bridges, the Secretary to the Cabinet. The original was sent
to the Attorney General, and the document is jointly to us both; but
there is no doubt as to its authenticity; and the original can be
produced, if necessary. The document reads:
“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland has authorized the Right Honorable Sir
Hartley Shawcross, K. C., M. P., the Chief Prosecutor for the
United Kingdom, appointed under Article 14 of the Charter,
annexed to the agreement dated the 8th day of August 1945, and
the Right Honorable Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, K. C., M. P., the
Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom, to certify those
documents to be produced at the trial of war criminals before
the International Military Tribunal which are documents of His
Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.”
My respectful submission is, therefore, that on my certification the
document becomes a governmental document within Article 21, and it is
thereupon a mandatory injunction to the Tribunal that it shall take
judicial notice of such a document. At that point the document, in my
respectful submission to the Tribunal, should be taken into evidence.
And it is then, of course, a matter for the Defense, if they wish to
call any witness, to make such application as they desire and for the
Tribunal to rule on it.
But as a point of construction, I respectfully submit that once a
document is certified as a government document, as all these government
reports are, the Charter enjoins the Tribunal to take judicial notice of
them.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal did admit the document yesterday;
but they are glad of your explanation. Nothing in the order that they
made is in any way inconsistent with what you have now said.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I would like to recall to you
certain figures which I mentioned yesterday afternoon. I am speaking
about the number of Jews who were exterminated in Poland and
Czechoslovakia. I allow myself to remind the Tribunal that the figures I
mentioned yesterday, which were based on the report of the Polish
Government, show that 3 million Jews in Poland have been exterminated.
In Czechoslovakia out of 118,000 Jews only 6,000 remain.
I would now like to pass on to the report of the Yugoslav Government and
will quote one paragraph, which the Tribunal will find on Page 75 of the
document book, third paragraph:
“Out of 75,000 Yugoslav Jews and about 5,000 Jewish emigrées
from other countries who were in Yugoslavia at the time of the
attack—that is to say, out of a total number of about 80,000
Jews—only some 10,000 persons survived the German occupation.”
I beg the Tribunal to call to this Court a witness who will confirm
these data. He is Abram Gerzevitch Suzkever, a Jewish writer, who
together with his family became a victim of the German fascist criminals
who had temporarily occupied the territory of the Lithuanian Soviet
Republic. I beg the Tribunal to allow me to question this witness.
[_The witness, Suzkever, took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
ABRAM GERZEVITCH SUZKEVER (Witness): Suzkever.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you a Soviet citizen?
SUZKEVER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat after me: I—and mention your
name—citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—summoned as a
witness in this Trial—do promise and swear—in the presence of the
Court—to tell the Court nothing but the truth—about everything I know
in regard to this case.
[_The witness repeated the oath in Russian._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, Witness, where did the German
occupation find you?
SUZKEVER: In the town of Vilna.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You stayed in this town for a long time during
the German occupation?
SUZKEVER: I stayed there from the first to nearly the last day of the
occupation.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You witnessed the persecution of the Jews in
that city?
SUZKEVER: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the Court about this.
SUZKEVER: When the Germans seized my city, Vilna, about 80,000 Jews
lived in the town. Immediately the so-called Sonderkommando was set up
at 12 Vilenskaia Street, under the command of Schweichenberg and Martin
Weiss. The man-hunters of the Sonderkommandos, or as the Jews called
them, the “Khapun,” broke into the Jewish houses at any time of day or
night, dragged away the men, instructing them to take a piece of soap
and a towel, and herded them into certain buildings near the village of
Ponari, about 8 kilometers from Vilna. From there hardly one returned.
When the Jews found out that their kin were not coming back, a large
part of the population went into hiding. However, the Germans tracked
them with police dogs. Many were found, and any who were averse to going
with them were shot on the spot.
I have to say that the Germans declared that they were exterminating the
Jewish race as though legally.
On 8 July an order was issued which stated that all Jews should wear a
patch on their back; afterwards they were ordered to wear it on their
chest. This order was signed by the commandant of the town of Vilna,
Zehnpfennig. But 2 days later some other commandant named Neumann issued
a new order that they should not wear these patches but must wear the
yellow Star of David.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what does this yellow Star of David mean?
SUZKEVER: It was a six-pointed patch worn on the chest and on the back,
in order to distinguish the Jews from the other inhabitants of the town.
On another day they were ordered to wear a blue band with a white star.
The Jews did not know which insignia to wear as very few lived in the
town. Those who did not wear this sign were immediately arrested and
never seen again.
On 17 July 1941 I witnessed a large pogrom in Vilna on Novgorod Street.
The inciters of this pogrom were the forenamed Schweichenberg and Martin
Weiss, a certain Herring, and Schönhaber, a German Gestapo chief. They
surrounded this district with Sonderkommandos. They drove all the men
into the street, told them to take off their belts and to put their
hands on their heads like this [_demonstrating_]. When that order had
been complied with, all the Jews were driven along into the Lukshinaia
prison. When the Jews started to march off, their trousers fell down and
they couldn’t walk. Those who tried to hold up their trousers with their
hands were shot then and there in the street. When we walked in a column
down the street, I saw with my own eyes the bodies of about 100 or 150
persons who had been shot in the street. Blood streamed through the
street as if a red rain had fallen.
In the first days of August 1941 a German seized me in the Dokumenskaia
Street. I was then going to visit my mother. The German said to me,
“Come with me, you will act in the circus.” As I went along I saw that
another German was driving along an old Jew, the old rabbi of this
street, Kassel, and a third German was holding a young boy. When we
reached the old synagogue on this street I saw that wood was piled up
there in the shape of a pyramid. A German drew out his revolver and told
us to take off our clothes. When we were naked, he lit a match and set
fire to this stack of wood. Then another German brought out of the
synagogue three scrolls of the Torah, gave them to us, and told us to
dance around this bonfire and sing Russian songs. Behind us stood the
three Germans; with their bayonets they forced us toward the fire and
laughed. When we were almost unconscious, they left.
I must say that the mass extermination of the Jewish people in Vilna
began at the moment when District Commissar Hans Fincks arrived, as well
as the referant, or reporter on the Jewish problems, Muhrer. On 31
August, under the direction of District Commissioner Fincks and
Muhrer. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Which year?
SUZKEVER: 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
SUZKEVER: Under the direction of Fincks and Muhrer, the Germans
surrounded the old Jewish quarter of Vilna, taking in Rudnitskaia and
Jewish Streets, Galonsky Alley, the Shabelsky and Strashouna Streets,
where some 8 to 10 thousand Jews were living.
I was ill at the time and asleep. Suddenly I felt the lash of a whip on
me. When I jumped up from my bed I saw Schweichenberg standing in front
of me. He had a big dog with him. He was beating everybody and shouting
that we must all run out into the courtyard. When I was out in the
courtyard, I saw there many women, children, and aged persons—all the
Jews who lived there. Schweichenberg had the Sonderkommando surround all
this crowd and said that they were taking us to the ghetto. But, of
course, like all their statements, this was also a lie. We went through
the town in columns and were led toward Lutishcheva Prison. All knew
that we were going to our death. When we arrived at Lutishcheva Prison,
near the so-called Lutishkina market, I saw a whole double line of
German soldiers with white sticks standing there to receive us. While we
had to pass between them they beat us with sticks. If a Jew fell down,
the one next to him was told to pick him up and carry him through the
large prison gates which stood open. Near the prison I took to my heels.
I swam across the River Vilia and hid in my mother’s house. My wife, who
was put in prison and then managed to escape later on, told me that
there she saw the well-known Jewish scientist Moloch Prilutzky, who was
almost dead, the president of the Jewish Society of Vilna, Dr. Jacob
Wigotzky, and the young Jewish historian, Pinkus Kohn. The famous
artists Hash and Kadisch were lying dead. The Germans flogged, robbed,
then drove away all their victims to Ponari.
On 6 September at 6 o’clock in the morning thousands of Germans, led by
District Commissar Fincks, by Muhrer, Schweichenberg, Martin Weiss, and
others, surrounded the whole town, broke into the Jewish houses, and
told the inhabitants to take only that which they could carry off in
their hands and get out into the street. Then they were driven off to
the ghetto. When they were passing by Wilkomirowskaia Street where I
was, I saw the Germans had brought sick Jews from the hospitals. They
were all in blue hospital gowns. They were all forced to stand while a
German newsreel operator, who was driving in front of the column, filmed
this scene.
I must say that not all the Jews were driven into the ghetto. Fincks did
this on purpose. He drove the inhabitants of one street to the ghetto
and the inhabitants of another street to Ponari. Previously the Germans
had set up two ghettos in Vilna. In the first were 29,000 Jews, and in
the second some 15,000 Jews. About half the Jewish population of Vilna
never reached the ghetto; they were shot on the way. I remember how,
when we arrived at the ghetto. . .
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Just a moment, Witness. Did I understand you
correctly, that before the ghetto was set up, half the Jewish population
of Vilna was already exterminated?
SUZKEVER: Yes, that is right. When I arrived at the ghetto I saw the
following scene: Martin Weiss came in with a young Jewish girl. When we
went in farther, he took out his revolver and shot her on the spot. The
girl’s name was Gitele Tarlo.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, how old was this girl?
SUZKEVER: Eleven. I must state that the Germans organized the ghetto
only to exterminate the Jewish population with greater ease. The head of
the ghetto was the expert on Jewish questions, Muhrer, and he issued a
series of mad orders. For instance, Jews were forbidden to wear watches.
The Jews could not pray in the ghetto. When a German passed by, they had
to take off their hats but were not allowed to look at him.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were these official orders?
SUZKEVER: Yes, issued by Muhrer.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were they posted?
SUZKEVER: Yes, they were posted in the ghetto. The same Muhrer, when he
visited the ghetto, went into the shops where the Jews were working for
him and ordered all workers to fall down on the ground and bark like
dogs. On Atonement Day in 1941 Schweichenberg and the same
Sonderkommando broke into the second ghetto and seized all the old men
who were praying in the synagogues and drove them to Ponari. I remember
when Schweichenberg went to the second ghetto and the man-hunters seized
the Jews.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Who were these hunters?
SUZKEVER: The soldiers of the Sonderkommando who seized the Jews and
whom the population called the hunters.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So they were soldiers of the Sonderkommando,
whom the population called hunters?
SUZKEVER: Yes, that is so. These hunters dragged the Jews out of the
cellars and tried to drive them to Ponari. But the Jews knew that nobody
returned alive and did not want to go. Then Schweichenberg began to
shoot at the inhabitants of the ghetto. I remember that there was a big
dog at his side; and when this dog heard the shots, it jumped at
Schweichenberg and began to bite his throat like a mad dog. Then
Schweichenberg killed this dog and told the Jews to bury it and to cry
over its grave. We really cried then—we cried because it was not
Schweichenberg but the dog that had been buried.
At the end of December 1941 an order was issued in the ghetto which
stated that the Jewish women must not bear children.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell us how, or in what
form, this order was issued by the German fascists.
SUZKEVER: Muhrer came to the hospital in Street Number 6 and said that
an order had come from Berlin to the effect that Jewish women should not
bear children and that if the Germans found out that a Jewish woman had
given birth, the child would be exterminated.
Towards the end of December in the ghetto my wife gave birth to a child,
a boy. I was not in the ghetto at that time, having escaped from one of
these so-called “actions.” When I came to the ghetto later I found that
my wife had had a baby in a ghetto hospital. But I saw the hospital
surrounded by Germans and a black car standing before the door.
Schweichenberg was standing near the car, and the hunters of the
Sonderkommando were dragging sick and old people out of the hospital and
throwing them like logs into the truck. Among them I saw the well-known
Jewish writer and editor, Grodnensky, who was also dragged and dumped
into this truck.
In the evening when the Germans had left, I went to the hospital and
found my wife in tears. It seems that when she had had her baby, the
Jewish doctors of the hospital had already received the order that
Jewish women must not give birth; and they had hidden the baby, together
with other newborn children, in one of the rooms. But when this
commission with Muhrer came to the hospital, they heard the cries of the
babies. They broke open the door and entered the room. When my wife
heard that the door had been broken, she immediately got up and ran to
see what was happening to the child. She saw one German holding the baby
and smearing something under its nose. Afterwards he threw it on the bed
and laughed. When my wife picked up the child, there was something black
under his nose. When I arrived at the hospital, I saw that my baby was
dead. He was still warm.
On the next day I went to my mother in the ghetto, and I found her room
empty. A prayer book was still open on the table and a glass of tea, not
yet touched. I learned that in the night the Germans had surrounded this
house, seized all the inhabitants, and driven them off to Ponari. In the
last days of December 1941 Muhrer gave a present to the ghetto. A
carload of shoes belonging to the Jews executed at Ponari was brought
into the ghetto. He sent these old shoes as a gift to the ghetto. Among
them I recognized my mother’s.
Shortly afterwards the second ghetto was liquidated, and the German
newspaper in Vilna announced that the Jews from this district had died
of an epidemic.
On 23 December 1941, in the night, Muhrer came and distributed among the
population 3,000 yellow tickets, the so-called Ausweise. Those who had
these tickets were allowed to register their relatives; that meant some
9,000 persons. At that time about 18 to 20 thousand people lived in the
ghetto. Those who had these yellow tickets went to work the next day;
and the others, who remained in the ghetto without these tickets and did
not want to go to their death, were slaughtered in the ghetto itself.
The rest were driven away to Ponari.
I have a document which I found after the liberation of the town of
Vilna, concerning the Jewish clothing from Ponari. If this document
interests you I can show it to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the document?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I do not know of this document either, Mr.
President.
SUZKEVER: [_Continuing._] This document reads as follows—I will read
only a few lines. . .
[_The witness read the document in German, and only part of it was
translated. It was later identified as Document USSR-444._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, as you have read this document, you
must hand it over to the Tribunal, as otherwise we cannot judge this
document.
SUZKEVER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us first of all where the document was
found?
SUZKEVER: I found this document at the district commissioner’s building
in Vilna, in July 1944, when our city was already liberated from the
German invaders.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say it was found?
SUZKEVER: In the building of the District Commissar in Vilna on the
Gedemino Street.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that the building occupied by the Germans?
SUZKEVER: Yes, it was the headquarters of the German District
Commissioner of Vilna. Hans Fincks and Muhrer lived there.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, read the part of the document you were reading just
now; we did not hear it.
SUZKEVER: Certainly.
“To the District Commissioner at Vilna: Pursuant to your order,
the old Jewish clothing from Ponari is at present being
disinfected by this establishment and delivered to the
administration of Vilna.”
THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand it in, please?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please, Witness, I am interested in the
following question: You said that at the beginning of the German
occupation 80,000 Jews lived in Vilna. How many remained after the
German occupation?
SUZKEVER: After the occupation about 600 Jews remained in Vilna.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thus, 79,400 persons were exterminated?
SUZKEVER: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, I have no further questions to ask
of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Chief Prosecutor want to ask any
questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No questions.
MR. DODD: No questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask
any questions? No? Then the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to modify the plan
of my statement and leave out just now that chapter of my statement
which is entitled, “Religious Persecutions,” to which I shall come back
a little later. I would now like, with your permission, to take up that
part of my statement which is entitled, “Experiments on Living Persons.”
It is on Page 47 of the Russian text.
Before reading this part of my statement, I would like to quote a few
short extracts from a document which has not as yet been read into the
record by our United States colleagues, because the main part of this
document refers to experiments which were described in detail by the
United States Prosecution with the help of other documents. This
document is registered under Document Number 400-PS (Exhibit Number
USSR-435). It refers to experiments by Dr. Rascher. It is submitted to
the Tribunal as a photostat copy, which includes a series of documents.
I quote two paragraphs only from this Document Number 400-PS. These two
paragraphs testify to the predilection of Dr. Rascher for the Auschwitz
Camp. This extract is on Page 149 of the document book, last paragraph:
“It would be simpler if I were soon transferred to the Waffen-SS
and could visit the Auschwitz Camp with Neff, where I could, by
a series of large scale experiments, solve the problem of
reviving people who had been frozen on land. For these
experiments Auschwitz is in every respect better adapted than
Dachau, for the climate is colder there and, as the camp area is
larger, less attention will be attracted. The victims yell when
they are being frozen.
“If it is agreeable to you, esteemed Reichsführer, to have these
experiments—so important for our land forces—quickly carried
out at Auschwitz (or in Lublin or any other Eastern camp), I
would respectfully beg you to give the necessary orders in the
near future so that we could yet profit by the last cold, winter
weather. With most obedient greetings I am, in sincere
gratitude, Heil Hitler, your always devoted servant, S.
Rascher.”
I would like to remind the Tribunal that this special interest of Dr.
Rascher in the Auschwitz Camp—I remind the Tribunal that Auschwitz was
the central section of the camp situated near the town of Oswieczim—was
not accidental. In Auschwitz cruel experiments on live persons were
carried out on a scale greatly exceeding all that was done in Dachau or
other concentration camps of the Reich.
Our Exhibit Number USSR-8 (Document Number USSR-8) has already been
added to the file of the case. It is the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union on the monstrous crimes of the
German Government in Oswieczim. The introductory part of this report
contains the following excerpt, which the members of the Tribunal will
find on Page 196 of the document book. I read one paragraph only:
“Special hospitals, surgical blocks, histological laboratories,
and other departments were set up in the camp. But they were
intended not for the treatment but for the extermination of
people. Here German professors and doctors carried out mass
experiments on men, women, and children who were in perfectly
good health. They carried out experiments on sterilization of
women, on castration of men, experiments on children, artificial
infection with cancer, typhus, and malaria, of masses of people
who were afterward subjected to observation. They tested the
action of poisonous substances on living persons.”
I would like to stress that experiments on the sterilization and
castration of women and men were carried out on a particularly large
scale. Whole blocks in the camp were especially designated for
experiments using particularly effective methods of sterilization and
castration.
I will read two short excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission, which the Tribunal will find on the back of Page 196
of the document book, Paragraph 5. I quote:
“Experiments on women were carried out in the hospital blocks of
the Oswieczim Camp. Up to four hundred women were detained
simultaneously in Block 10 of the camp, and experiments on
sterilization were carried out on them by means of X-rays and
subsequent removal of the ovaries, experiments in engrafting
cancer in the neck of the uterus and forced abortion, and on
testing countermeasures against injuries to the uterus by
X-ray.”
I omit three sentences and proceed with the quotation:
“In Block 21”—that is another block, the women’s block was
Number 10—“mass experiments on castration of men were carried
out for the purpose of studying the possibility of sterilization
by X-ray. The castration itself was carried out some time later
after the X-ray process. These experiments on X-raying and
castration were carried out by Professor Schumann and Dr.
Dering. It frequently happened that after treatment by X-ray,
one or both testicles of the subject were removed for
examination.”
I beg the Tribunal to allow me, in order to show the extent of these
experiments, to read short excerpts from the testimony of the Dutch
Doctor De Vind. It is contained in the Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document
Number USSR-52) already presented to the Court. I will not read the
testimony in full but will just quote the statistics, which the Tribunal
may find on the back of Page 203 of the document book, last paragraph,
first column. I repeat that these numbers refer only to one block, Block
10. The following women were interned in this block:
“Fifty women of different nationalities who arrived in March
1943; 100 Greek women who arrived in March 1943; 110 Belgian
women who arrived in April 1943; 50 French women who arrived in
July 1943; 40 Dutch women who arrived in August 1943; 100 Dutch
women who arrived on 15 September 1943; and 100 Dutch women who
arrived one week later; and finally 12 Polish women.”
I will quote a further excerpt from the statement of the Dutch Doctor De
Vind, which has also been submitted previously to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52), I quote that part of
the statement in which he speaks of experiments carried out by a certain
Professor Schumann on 15 young girls. Your Honors will find this excerpt
on Page 204 of the document book, first column of the text, third
paragraph:
“Professor Schumann (a German). These experiments were carried
out on 15 girls of 17 to 18 years of age, including Shimmi
Bella, from Salonika (Greece) and Buena Dora, from Salonika
(Greece). Only a few of them survived; but unfortunately they
are still in the German hands, and we have consequently no
objective data on these brutal experiments. However, the
following has been established beyond doubt: The girls were
placed between two plates within the field of ultra-short waves;
one electrode was placed on the abdomen and the other on the
buttocks. The focus of the rays was directed on the ovaries
which were consequently burned out. As a result of the irregular
dosage, serious burns appeared on the abdomen and on the
buttocks. One girl died of these terrible sufferings; the other
girls were sent to Birkenau to the medical unit or to working
kommandos.
“A month later they were returned to Oswieczim, where they were
subjected to two operations for checking the results; one,
longitudinal, the other, a horizontal incision. The reproductive
organs were removed for study. As a result of the destruction of
hormones, the girls completely changed in appearance and
resembled old women.”
With this I end the quotation.
Experiments on sterilization of women and castration of men were carried
out in Oswieczim on a mass scale beginning in 1942, and some time after
the sterilization the men were castrated for a special study of the
tissues.
You can find a confirmation of this fact in the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on Oswieczim, where
numerous statements of individual internees who underwent such
operations have been quoted. The Tribunal will find the excerpt which I
wish to read on Page 197 of the document book, second paragraph, second
column of the text. I quote two paragraphs:
“Valigura, who was subjected to such experiments, stated:
“‘A few days after I had been brought to Birkenau, I believe it
was in the first days of December 1942, all the young men from
18 to 30 years of age were sterilized by X-raying the scrotum. I
myself was among those sterilized. Eleven months later, that is
to say, on the 1st of November 1943, I was castrated. Together
with me on that same day 200 men were sterilized.’
“Witness David Sures, from the town of Salonika (Greece), stated
the following:
“‘Toward July 1943 I myself and 10 other Greeks were placed on
some kind of list and sent to Birkenau. There we were stripped
and subjected to sterilization by X-rays. A month later we were
summoned to a central section of the camp where all those
sterilized underwent an operation of castration.’”
I believe that it was not by accident that the experiments on people
began with sterilization and castration. This was a quite natural result
of the theories of German fascism, interested in lowering the birthrate
of those people whom they considered to be vanquished. It was a part of
Hitler’s depopulation technique; and in confirmation of this I would now
like to quote a very short excerpt from Rauschning’s book, _The Voice of
Destruction_, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal. This
extract has not yet been read into the record, and the Tribunal will
find it on Page 207 of the document book.
Hitler said to Rauschning:
“And by ‘destruction’ I do not necessarily mean extermination of
these people—I shall simply take systematic measures to prevent
their procreation.”
I skip the next three sentences and quote one more sentence:
“There are many means by which a systematic and comparatively
painless extinction of undesirable races can be attained, at any
rate without blood being shed.”
This excerpt is on Page 137 of the original book.
Sterilization and castration became a criminal practice of the
Hitlerites in the occupied territories in Eastern Europe. I beg the
Tribunal’s permission to draw its attention to two of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, perhaps that would be a convenient time
to break off.
The Tribunal would like to know how long you think you will take before
you conclude your statement.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that I will finish the
presentation of evidence today.
I would like the Tribunal to allow me to question three more witnesses
today and I still have about one hour of reading. But it is very
difficult for me to determine the time exactly, as that sometimes
depends on other factors, known to you, which may force me to change my
intentions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I ask the permission of the Tribunal to draw its
attention to two very short German documents, which are submitted under
Exhibit Number USSR-400 (Document Number USSR-400) in photostats
certified by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union.
They are two communications from Lieutenant Frank, head of a Security
Police division, regarding the conditions under which a gypsy woman,
Lucia Strasdinsch had the right to reside in the town of Libau.
“Libau, 10 December 1941.
“Security Police Post, Town of Libau; to the Prefect of the Town
of Libau.
“It has been decided that the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch will be
allowed to take up residence here again only on the condition
that she submits to being sterilized. She is to be informed
accordingly and a report on the result is to be rendered to this
office.
“Frank, Lieutenant, Security Police and O. C. Security Police
Station.”
The second document is a memorandum from the Prefecture of Libau, H.
Grauds, to the head of the Security Police Post. The text:
“I herewith return your letter of 10 December 1941 regarding the
sterilization of the Gypsy Lucia Strasdinsch and beg to report
that this person was sterilized in the local hospital on 9
January 1942. Pertinent letter Number 850 of 12. 1. 42 from the
hospital is attached.”
In order to show the extent of the experiments which were performed on
live persons, I would ask Your Honors to turn to the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission on Oswieczim. The extract which I should
like to quote, the members of the Tribunal may find on Page 197 of the
book of documents, first column, second paragraph. It is stated there
that a statistical report by the commandant of the camp has been
discovered in the archives of the camp. This report is signed by the
deputy commander of the camp, Sella. It has a column under the heading,
“Internees designated for experiments.” This column reads as follows;
“Women subject to experiments: on 15 May 1944—400, on 15 June—413, on
19 June—348, and so on.”
I would like to conclude this chapter on experiments on live persons, by
the following: I would like to quote the memorandum of the judicial and
medical report, an excerpt of which is in the report on Oswieczim Camp.
The members of the Tribunal may find the passage which I should like to
quote on Page 197 of the document book, first column, Paragraph 5. I
omit the part which refers to sterilization and castration because I
think that this question has been sufficiently elucidated. I will quote
only Points 4, 6, and 7 of the memorandum, indicating that in Oswieczim:
“Researches were carried out with various chemical preparations
of German firms. According to the testimony of one German
physician, Dr. Valentin Erwin, there was a case where the
representatives of the chemical industry of Germany, a
gynecologist, Glauber, from Königshütte, and a chemist, Gebel,
bought from the administration of the camp 150 women for such
experiments.”
I omit Point 5 and I quote Point 6:
“Experiments on men by applying irritant chemical substances on
the skin of the calf in order to create ulcers and phlegmons.
“7) A series of other experiments—artificial infection with
malaria, artificial insemination, and so forth.”
I omit the next three pages of my statement which give the particulars
of these experiments. I would like only to draw the attention of the
Tribunal to other crimes perpetrated by the German doctors and, in
particular, to the extermination of patients in mental hospitals. I am
not going to quote all the examples which the Tribunal will find in the
report of the Extraordinary State Commission but will dwell on one crime
only, which was perpetrated in the town of Kiev. I quote a paragraph
from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the town of
Kiev, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 212 of the
document book, first column, Paragraph 6:
“On 14 October 1941 an SS detachment under the leadership of the
German garrison physician Rikowsky, entered the mental hospital.
The Hitlerites drove 300 patients into one building, kept them
there without food and water, and then shot them in a gully of
the Kirilov wood. The remaining patients were exterminated on 7
January, 27 March, and 17 October 1942.”
In the subsequent part of the Extraordinary State Commission’s report a
statement is quoted, a statement made by Professor Kapustianski, by a
woman doctor Dzevaltovska, and the nurse Troepolska. I submit to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-249 (Document Number USSR-249) the
photostat of this testimony, and I request that it be included in the
files of the case as evidence. I am quoting some of the extracts from
this document:
“During the German occupation of the city of Kiev, the Kiev
Psychiatric Clinic had to experience tragic days, which
culminated in the complete ruin and destruction of the hospital.
A crime was committed against the unfortunate mentally sick
people, the like of which had not been known in history up to
this time.”
I omit the next part and I quote further on:
“In the course of the years 1941-42, 800 patients were killed.”
I omit the next two paragraphs and I read on:
“On 7 January 1942 the Gestapo came to the hospital. They posted
guards everywhere in the grounds of the hospital. To enter or
leave the hospital was forbidden. A representative of the
Gestapo requested the selection of the incurably sick people to
be sent to Zhitomir.”
I skip the next sentence.
“What was in store for the sick people was carefully concealed
from the medical staff. After that, special cars arrived at the
hospital. The sick people were pushed into them, some 60 to 70
persons into each car. Everyone could see these atrocities which
were perpetrated in front of the ward windows. The patients were
pushed into the cars and murdered there. Their corpses were
thrown out on the spot. This awful deed went on for two days,
during which 365 patients were exterminated. The patients who
had not completely lost their minds soon realized the truth.
There were heart-rending scenes. Thus, a young girl, patient Y,
in spite of all of the efforts of the doctor, understood that
death was awaiting her. She came out of the ward, embraced the
doctor, and quietly asked him, ‘Is this the end?’ Pale as death,
she went to the car and, refusing any assistance, climbed
inside. The entire staff was told that any criticism or any
expression of displeasure would be completely out of place and
would be regarded as sabotage.”
I shall quote one more sentence from this report:
“It is a characteristic detail that these murders—unprecedented
by their abomination—were committed on Christmas Day, when
Christmas trees were being distributed to the German soldiers;
and the inscription ‘God is with us’ sparkled on the belts of
the executioners.”
Herewith I end my quotation.
I think it possible to omit the following four pages of my speech
because they deal with similar cases of the murder of mental patients in
other parts of the country. Similar methods were used for these murders
as those used in Kiev. I will request the Tribunal to accept as evidence
the photostats of three German documents, certified by the Extraordinary
State Commission, which testify to the fact that special standard forms
of documents were worked out for the report on the murder of the insane
by the German fascists.
I submit these documents. The first document is submitted as Exhibit
Number USSR-397 (Document Number USSR-397.) The members of the Tribunal
may find it on Page 218 of the document book. I am quoting the text of
the document:
“To the Registrar’s office in the Town of Riga:”
I omit the next paragraph.
“I hereby certify that 368 incurably insane patients, whose
names appear on the annexed list, died on 29 January
1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, SS Sturmbannführer.”
The second document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-410 (Document
Number USSR-410). This is a report of the head of the Security Police
and SD in Latvia, Number 357/42g, dated 28 May 1942. I am quoting the
one paragraph from this document:
“I hereby certify that 243 incurably insane patients, whose
names appear on the enclosed list, died on 14 April
1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, SS Sturmbannführer.”
The third document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-398 (Document
Number USSR-398). This is a report by the head of the Security Police
and SD, Latvia, dated 15 March 1943. I will read into the record the one
paragraph of this document:
“I hereby certify that 98 incurably insane patients, whose names
appear on the enclosed list, died on 22 October
1942.”—Signed—“Kirste, SS Sturmbannführer.”
I think I can also omit the next one and a half pages of my statement;
but I would request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the following
document without reading it, as proof of the experiments carried out on
live persons. I submit as Exhibit Number USSR-406 (Document Number
USSR-406) the data about the experiments carried out in another camp,
the Ravensbrück Camp. It contains the results of the investigation by
the Polish State Commission. The photographs contained therein are very
characteristic and I need not comment on them.
I would now request the Tribunal’s permission to summon as witness a
Polish woman, Shmaglevskaya, to have her testify regarding only one
question, the attitude of the German fascists toward the children in the
concentration camps. Would the President permit the calling of this
witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
[_The witness, Shmaglevskaya, took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you first of all tell me your name?
SEVERINA SHMAGLEVSKAYA (Witness): Severina Shmaglevskaya.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby swear before
God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal nothing but the
truth—concealing nothing that is known to me—so help me God, Amen.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, were you an internee of
Oswieczim Camp?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During what period of time were you in the camp
of Oswieczim?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: From 7 October 1942 to January 1945.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you have any proof that you were an internee
of this camp?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I have the number which was tattooed on my arm, right
here.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is what the Oswieczim inmates call the
“visiting cards”?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, please, Witness, were you an eyewitness
of German SS men’s attitude toward children?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please tell the Tribunal about this?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I could tell about the children who were born in the
concentration camp, about the children who were brought to the
concentration camp with the Jewish transports and who were taken
directly to the crematories, as well as about those children who were
brought to concentration camps and there interned. Already in December
1942 when I went to work about 10 kilometers from Birkenau. . .
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me. May I interrupt you? Then, you were
in the Birkenau section of the camp?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, I was in the Camp Birkenau, which is a part of the
Oswieczim Camp, which was called Oswieczim Number 2.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please go on.
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I noticed then a woman in the last month of pregnancy. It
was obvious from her appearance. This woman, together with the others,
had to walk 10 kilometers to the place of work and there she toiled the
whole day, shovel in hands, digging trenches. She was already ill and
she asked the German superintendent, a civilian, for permission to rest.
He refused, laughed at her, and together with another SS man, started
beating her. He scrutinized her work very strictly. Such was the
situation of all the women who were pregnant. And only during the very
last minutes were they permitted to stay away from work. The newborn
children, if Jewish, were immediately put to death.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Pardon me, Witness, what do you mean by “were
immediately put to death”? When was it?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: They were immediately taken away from their mother.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When the transport arrived?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, I am speaking of the children who were born in the
concentration camps. A few minutes after delivery the child was taken
from the mother, who never saw it again. After a few days the mother had
to return to work. In 1942 there were no special blocks in the camp for
the children. At the beginning of 1943, when they started to tattoo the
internees, the children born in the concentration camps were also
branded. The number was tattooed on their legs.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why on the leg?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Because the child is very small and there was not enough
room on their tiny arms for the number, which contained five digits. The
children did not have special numbers but bore the same numbers as the
grown-ups; that is to say, they were given serial numbers. The children
were placed in a special block and after a few weeks, sometimes after a
month, they were taken away from the camp.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Where to?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: We were never able to find out where these children were
taken. They were taken away all the time this camp existed; that is to
say, in 1943 and 1944. The last convoy of children left the camp in
January 1945. These were not only Polish children, because, as you know,
in Birkenau there were women from all over Europe. Even today we don’t
know whether these children are alive.
I should like, in the name of all the women of Europe who became mothers
in concentration camps, to ask the Germans today, “Where are these
children?”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, did you yourself see the
children being taken to gas chambers?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I worked very close to the railway which led to the
crematory. Sometimes in the morning I passed near the building the
Germans used as a latrine, and from there I could secretly watch the
transport. I saw many children among the Jews brought to the
concentration camp. Sometimes a family had several children. The
Tribunal is probably aware of the fact that in front of the crematory
they were all sorted out.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Selection was made by the doctors?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always by doctors; sometimes by SS men.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And doctors with them?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes, by doctors, too. During such a sorting,
the youngest and the healthiest Jewish women in very small numbers
entered the camp. Women carrying children in their arms or in carriages,
or those who had larger children, were sent into the crematory together
with their children. The children were separated from their parents in
front of the crematory and were led separately into gas chambers.
At that time, when the greatest number of Jews were exterminated in the
gas chambers, an order was issued that the children were to be thrown
into the crematory ovens or the crematory ditches without previous
asphyxiation with gas.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How should we understand that? Were they thrown
into the ovens alive or were they killed by other means before they were
burned?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: The children were thrown in alive. Their cries could be
heard all over the camp. It is hard to say how many there were.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Nevertheless, there was some reason why this was
done. Was it because the gas chambers were overworked?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: It is very difficult to answer this question. We don’t
know whether they wanted to economize on the gas or whether there was no
room in the gas chambers.
I should also add that it is impossible to determine the number of these
children—like that of the Jews—because they were driven directly to
the crematory, were not registered, were not tattooed, and very often
were not even counted. We, the internees, often tried to ascertain the
number of people who perished in gas chambers; but our estimates of the
number of children executed could only be based on the number of
children’s prams which were brought to the storerooms. Sometimes there
were hundreds of these carriages, but sometimes they sent thousands.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In one day?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Not always the same. There were days when the gas
chambers worked from early morning until late at night.
I should also like to tell you about the children—and their number is
large—who were interned in concentration camps. At the beginning of
1943 Polish children from Zamoishevna arrived at the concentration camp
with their parents. At the same time Russian children from territories
occupied by the Germans began to arrive. The Jewish children were added
to these. In smaller numbers, one could also meet Italian children in
the concentration camp. The conditions were as difficult for the
children as for adults; perhaps even more onerous. These children didn’t
receive any parcels because there was no one to send them. Red Cross
packages never reached the internees. In 1944 a great number of Italian
and French children arrived at the concentration camp. All these
children suffered from skin diseases, lymphatic boils, and malnutrition;
they were badly clad, often without shoes, and had no possibility of
washing themselves.
During the Warsaw uprising captured children from Warsaw were brought to
the concentration camp. The youngest of the children was a little
6-year-old boy. The children were quartered in special barracks. When
the systematic deportation of internees from Birkenau to the interior of
Germany commenced, these children were used for heavy labor. At the same
time there arrived in the concentration camps the children of Hungarian
Jews, who had to work together with the children who were brought after
the Warsaw uprising. These children worked with two carts which they had
to pull themselves to transport coal, iron machines, wood for floors,
and other heavy things from one camp to the other. They also labored at
dismantling barracks during the liquidation of the camp. These children
remained in the concentration camp until the very end. In January 1945
they were evacuated and had to march to Germany on foot under conditions
as difficult as those of the front, under an SS guard, without food,
covering about 30 kilometers a day.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During this march the children died of
exhaustion?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I wasn’t in the group where there were children, as I
managed to escape on the second day after this evacuation march.
I should also like to add a few words regarding the methods of
demoralization of the people who were interned in concentration camps.
Everything that we had to suffer was the result of a whole system for
degrading human beings.
The concentration camp cars in which the internees were transported had
previously been used for cattle. When the transports were about to move
the cars were nailed shut. In each one of these cars there was a great
number of people. The convoy of SS men never considered that human
beings have physical needs. Some of these people happened to have
necessary pots with them, and they often had to use them for physical
needs.
For some time I worked at the store, where kitchen utensils of internees
were brought.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you mean that you worked in the warehouse
where the belongings of these who were murdered were brought. Did I
understand you correctly?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: No, only the kitchen utensils of people who arrived at
the concentration camps were brought to this warehouse.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These things were taken away from them?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: What I want to say is that in some cases the kitchen
utensils and pots contained remains of food, and in others there was
human excrement. Each of the workers received a pail of water, and had
to wash a great number of these kitchen utensils during one half of the
day. These kitchen utensils, which were sometimes very badly washed,
were given to people who had just arrived at the concentration camp.
From these pots and pans they had to eat, so that often they caught
dysentery and other diseases from the first day.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I don’t think the Tribunal wants quite
so much of the detail with reference of these domestic matters.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The witness was called here with a view to
describing the attitude of the Germans toward the children in the camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you keep her to the part of her testimony which you
wish to bring out?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, can you add anything else to
your description of the attitude of the Germans towards the children in
the camp? Have you already told us about all of the facts which you know
regarding this question?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I should like to say that the children, as well as the
adults, were also subjected to the system of demoralization and
degradation through famine. Often starvation caused the children to look
for potato peels in garbage heaps.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, do you certify in your
testimony, that sometimes the number of carriages remaining after the
murder of the children amounted to a thousand per day?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes there were such days.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further question to ask
of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the chief prosecutors wish to ask any
questions?
[_There was no response._]
Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?
[_There was no response._]
Then the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to take up the next
section of my presentation which deals with the organization, by German
fascism, of secret centers for the extermination of people. These cannot
even be considered concentration camps because the human beings in these
places rarely survived more than 10 minutes or 2 hours at the most. Out
of all these terrible centers, organized by the German fascists, I would
submit to the Tribunal evidence on two such places, that is to say, on
Kwelmno center (Kwelmno is a village in Poland) and on the Treblinka
Camp. In connection with this I would ask the Tribunal to summon one
witness, whose testimony is interesting, because he can be considered a
person who returned from “the other world,” for the road to Treblinka
was called by the German executors themselves “The Road to Heaven.” I am
speaking of the witness Rajzman, a Polish national, and I beg the
Tribunal’s permission to bring this witness here for examination.
THE PRESIDENT: It is just a quarter to 1 now, so we had better have this
witness at 2 o’clock. We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that the witness who was
referred to yesterday, Wielen, is in a prisoner-of-war camp or in prison
near London, England; and he can, therefore, be brought over here to be
examined at short notice. The Tribunal, therefore, wishes defendants’
counsel to make up their minds whether they wish Colonel Westhoff and
this man Wielen to be brought here during the Prosecution’s case for
them to cross-examine those witnesses or whether they prefer that they
should be brought when the defendants are presenting their case. But, as
I have stated with reference to all witnesses, they can only be called
once. If they are examined as part of the Prosecution’s case, then all
the defendants must exercise their rights, if they wish to do so, of
interrogating the witnesses at that time. If, on the other hand, the
defendants’ counsel decide that they would prefer that these witnesses
should be called during the defendants’ case, then similarly, the
witnesses will be called only once, and the right of examining them must
then be exercised.
At the same time, the statement or the report which was presented
yesterday and which the Tribunal ruled was admissible, will be read in
the course of the Prosecution’s case at such time as the Prosecution
decide.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, may I be allowed to postpone making a
statement until after discussion with my colleagues. I hope this will be
possible in the course of the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand you want to consult the other defendants’
counsel before you let us know. Very well; you will let us know at your
convenience. Go on, Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to proceed with the
interrogation of the witness.
[_The witness Rajzman took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
SAMUEL RAJZMAN (Witness): Rajzman, Samuel.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I hereby swear before
God—the Almighty—that I will speak before the Tribunal—nothing but
the truth—concealing nothing of what is known to me—so help me God,
Amen.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness Rajzman, will you please tell the
Tribunal what was your occupation before the war?
RAJZMAN: Before the war I was an accountant in an export firm.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When and under what circumstances did you become
an internee of Treblinka Number 2?
RAJZMAN: In August 1942 I was taken away from the Warsaw ghetto.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How long did you stay in Treblinka?
RAJZMAN: I was interned there for a year—until August 1943.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means you are well acquainted with the
rules regulating the treatment of the people in this camp?
RAJZMAN: Yes, I am well acquainted with these rules.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg you to describe this camp to the Tribunal.
RAJZMAN: Transports arrived there every day; their number depended on
the number of trains arriving; sometimes three, four, or five trains
filled exclusively with Jews—from Czechoslovakia, Germany, Greece, and
Poland. Immediately after their arrival, the people had to leave the
trains in 5 minutes and line up on the platform. All those who were
driven from the cars were divided into groups—men, children, and women,
all separate. They were all forced to strip immediately, and this
procedure continued under the lashes of the German guards’ whips.
Workers who were employed in this operation immediately picked up all
the clothes and carried them away to barracks. Then the people were
obliged to walk naked through the street to the gas chambers.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell the Tribunal what the
Germans called the street to the gas chambers.
RAJZMAN: It was named Himmelfahrt Street.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say, the “street to heaven”?
RAJZMAN: Yes. If it interests the Court, I can present a plan of the
camp of Treblinka which I drew up when I was there, and I can point out
to the Tribunal this street on the plan.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to put in a plan of the
camp, unless you particularly want to.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I also believe that it is not really
necessary.
Please tell us, how long did a person live after he had arrived in the
Treblinka Camp?
RAJZMAN: The whole process of undressing and the walk down to the gas
chambers lasted, for the men 8 or 10 minutes, and for the women some 15
minutes. The women took 15 minutes because they had to have their hair
shaved off before they went to the gas chambers.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why was their hair cut off?
RAJZMAN: According to the ideas of the masters, this hair was to be used
in the manufacture of mattresses for German women.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that there was only 10 minutes between the
time when they were taken out of the trucks and the time when they were
put into the gas chambers?
RAJZMAN: As far as men were concerned, I am sure it did not last longer
than 10 minutes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Including the undressing?
RAJZMAN: Yes, including the undressing.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, were the people brought
to Treblinka in trucks or in trains?
RAJZMAN: They were brought nearly always in trains, and only the Jews
from neighboring villages and hamlets were brought in trucks. The trucks
bore inscriptions, “Expedition Speer,” and came from Vinegrova Sokolova
and other places.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, what was the subsequent aspect
of the station at Treblinka?
RAJZMAN: At first there were no signboards whatsoever at the station,
but a few months later the commander of the camp, one Kurt Franz, built
a first-class railroad station with signboards. The barracks where the
clothing was stored had signs reading “restaurant,” “ticket office,”
“telegraph,” “telephone,” and so forth. There were even train schedules
for the departure and the arrival of trains to and from Grodno, Suwalki,
Vienna, and Berlin.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did I rightly understand you, Witness, that a
kind of make-believe station was built with signboards and train
schedules, with indications of platforms for train departures to
Suwalki, and so forth?
RAJZMAN: When the persons descended from the trains, they really had the
impression that they were at a very good station from where they could
go to Suwalki, Vienna, Grodno, or other cities.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what happened later on to these people?
RAJZMAN: These people were taken directly along the Himmelfahrtstrasse
to the gas chambers.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And tell us, please, how did the Germans behave
while killing their victims in Treblinka?
RAJZMAN: If you mean the actual executions, every German guard had his
special job. I shall cite only one example. We had a Scharführer Menz,
whose special job was to guard the so-called “Lazarett.” In this
“Lazarett” all weak women and little children were exterminated who had
not the strength to go themselves to the gas chambers.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps, Witness, you can describe this
“Lazarett” to the Tribunal?
RAJZMAN: This was part of a square which was closed in with a wooden
fence. All women, aged persons, and sick children were driven there. At
the gates of this “Lazarett,” there was a large Red Cross flag. Menz,
who specialized in the murder of all persons brought to this “Lazarett,”
would not let anybody else do this job. There might have been hundreds
of persons who wanted to see and know what was in store for them, but he
insisted on carrying out this work by himself.
Here is just one example of what was the fate of the children there. A
10-year-old girl was brought to this building from the train with her
2-year-old sister. When the elder girl saw that Menz had taken out a
revolver to shoot her 2-year-old sister, she threw herself upon him,
crying out, and asking why he wanted to kill her. He did not kill the
little sister; he threw her alive into the oven and then killed the
elder sister.
Another example: They brought an aged woman with her daughter to this
building. The latter was in the last stage of pregnancy. She was brought
to the “Lazarett,” was put on a grass plot, and several Germans came to
watch the delivery. This spectacle lasted 2 hours. When the child was
born, Menz asked the grandmother—that is the mother of this woman—whom
she preferred to see killed first. The grandmother begged to be killed.
But, of course, they did the opposite; the newborn baby was killed
first, then the child’s mother, and finally the grandmother.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, does the name Kurt
Franz mean anything to you?
RAJZMAN: This man was deputy of the camp commander, Stengel, the biggest
murderer in the camp. Kurt Franz was known for having published in
January 1943, a report to the effect that a million Jews had been killed
in Treblinka—a report which had procured for him a promotion from the
rank of Sturmbannführer to that of Obersturmbannführer.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please tell how Kurt Franz
killed a woman who claimed to be the sister of Sigmund Freud. Do you
remember this incident?
RAJZMAN: A train arrived from Vienna. I was standing on the platform
when the passengers left the cars. An elderly woman came up to Kurt
Franz, took out a document, and said that she was the sister of Sigmund
Freud. She begged him to give her light work in an office. Franz read
this document through very seriously and said that there must be a
mistake here; he led her up to the train schedule and said that in 2
hours a train would leave again for Vienna. She should leave all her
documents and valuables and then go to a bathhouse; after the bath she
would have her documents and a ticket to Vienna. Of course, the woman
went to the bathhouse and never returned.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, why was it that you
yourself remained alive in Treblinka?
RAJZMAN: I was already quite undressed, and had to pass through this
Himmelfahrtstrasse to the gas chambers. Some 8,000 Jews had arrived with
my transport from Warsaw. At the last minute before we moved toward the
street an engineer, Galevski, an old friend of mine, whom I had known in
Warsaw for many years, caught sight of me. He was overseer of workers
among the Jews. He told me that I should turn back from the street; and
as they needed an interpreter for Hebrew, French, Russian, Polish, and
German, he managed to obtain permission to liberate me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You were therefore a member of the labor unit of
the camp?
RAJZMAN: At first my work was to load the clothes of the murdered
persons on the trains. When I had been in the camp 2 days, my mother, my
sister, and two brothers were brought to the camp from the town of
Vinegrova. I had to watch them being led away to the gas chambers.
Several days later, when I was loading clothes on the freight cars, my
comrades found my wife’s documents and a photograph of my wife and
child. That is all I have left of my family, only a photograph.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons were brought
daily to the Treblinka Camp?
RAJZMAN: Between July and December 1942 an average of 3 transports of 60
cars each arrived every day. In 1943 the transports arrived more rarely.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many persons were
exterminated in the camp, on an average, daily?
RAJZMAN: On an average, I believe they killed in Treblinka from ten to
twelve thousand persons daily.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In how many gas chambers did the killings take
place?
RAJZMAN? At first there were only 3 gas chambers, but then they built 10
more chambers. It was planned to increase this number to 25.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But how do you know that? Why do you say,
Witness, that they planned to increase the number of gas chambers to 25?
RAJZMAN: Because all the building material had been brought and put in
the square. I asked, “Why? There are no more Jews.” They said, “After
you there will be others, and there is still a big job to do.”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What was the other name of Treblinka?
RAJZMAN: When Treblinka became very well known, they hung up a huge sign
with the inscription “Obermaidanek.”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What do you mean by “very well known”?
RAJZMAN: I mean that the persons who arrived in transports soon found
out that it was not a fashionable station, but that it was a place of
death.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, why was this make-believe
station built?
RAJZMAN: It was done for the sole reason that the people on leaving the
trains should not be nervous, should undress calmly, and that there
should not be any incidents.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I understand you correctly, this criminal
device had only one purpose—a psychological purpose of reassuring the
doomed during the first moments.
RAJZMAN: Yes, exclusively this psychological purpose.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other chief prosecutors wish to ask any
questions?
[_There was no response._]
Do the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?
[_There was no response._]
Then the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to submit to the Tribunal a very
short excerpt from a document which is submitted as an appendix to the
Polish Government report. I mean an affidavit. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, have you got any more witnesses?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I still have a request to call one more
witness on the last count of my statement. In connection with the
presentation of evidence on this last count I would request the
Tribunal’s permission to summon as witness the Archdeacon of Leningrad
Churches and Rector of the Leningrad Seminary, the Permanent Dean of
Nikolai Bogoiavlensky Cathedral in Leningrad, Nikolai Lomakin.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and you will be able to include his evidence
today and conclude your statement; is that right?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I should like to read
another short excerpt from this report of the Polish examining
magistrate, which I have submitted to the Tribunal (Document Number
USSR-340). I shall read only that excerpt which demonstrates the scale
of the crimes. The number of victims murdered at the Treblinka Camp,
according to the Polish magistrate’s estimate, is about 781,000 persons.
At the same time he mentions that the witnesses interrogated by him
testified to the fact that when the clothes of the internees were sorted
out, they even found British passports and diplomas of Cambridge
University. This means that the victims of Treblinka came from every
European country.
I should like further to quote, as proof of the existence of another
secret extermination center, the depositions of Wladislav Bengash, the
district examining magistrate in the city of Lodz, made before the Chief
Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. This
testimony is also an official appendix to the Polish Government report.
I should like to read two excerpts from this statement which would give
us an idea of the methods of extermination practiced in the village of
Helmno. The two paragraphs are on the back of Page 223 of the document
book:
“In the village of Helmno there was an abandoned mansion
surrounded by an old park—the property of the state. Nearby
. . . there was a pine forest with a nursery and dense
undergrowth. At this point the Germans built an extermination
camp. The park was closed in by a high wooden fence, and one
could not see what was going on in the park nor in the house
itself. The inhabitants of the village of Helmno were all
evacuated.”
I interrupt the quotation and pass on to Page 226 of the document book,
first paragraph. I quote:
“The whole organization set up for the extermination of people
was so cunningly devised and carried out that right up to the
last moment the next transport of doomed persons could not guess
the fate of the group which had preceded them. The departure of
transports—consisting of 1,000 to 2,000 persons—from the
village of Sawadki to the extermination camp and the
extermination of the arrivals lasted until 2 o’clock.
“The cars loaded with Jews arrived in the camp and stopped
before the mansion. A representative of the Sonderkommando made
a short speech to the new arrivals. He assured them that they
were going to work in the East. He promised them just treatment
by the authorities and adequate food and, at the same time,
instructed them to take a bath before leaving, while their
clothing was disinfected. From the courtyard the Jews were then
brought to a big warm room on the second floor of the mansion.
There they had to undress, and, clad in underclothes only, they
went downstairs, passed through a corridor with signs such as
‘To the medical officer’ and ‘To the bath’ on the walls. The
arrow which showed the way ‘To the bath’ pointed toward the
exit. The Germans told the Jews who came out into the yard that
they would go to the bath in a closed car; and, true enough, a
large car was brought up to this door so that the Jews coming
out of the house found themselves on a ladder leading straight
inside the car. The loading of the Jews into the car lasted a
very short time. Police were on guard in the corridor and near
the car. With blows and shouts they forced the Jews to enter the
car, stunning them, so that they could not attempt any
resistance. When all the Jews were piled inside the car, the
doors were carefully locked, and the chauffeur switched on the
motor, so that those in the car were poisoned by the exhaust
gas.”
I consider it unnecessary to quote that part of the report which
testifies that the car in question was the “murder van” already well
known to the Court.
I will just quote one sentence from Page 10 of this document, Paragraph
3:
“Thus, at least 340,000 men, women, and children, from newborn
babies to aged persons, were exterminated in Helmno.”
I believe that I can end here that part of my statement which concerns
the secret exterminating centers. And now I pass on to the part of my
statement dealing with religious persecutions.
In the Soviet Union as well as in the occupied countries of Eastern
Europe, the German fascist criminals brought shame upon themselves by
their mockery of the religious feelings and faith of the people, by
persecuting and murdering the priesthood of all religious creeds. In
proof of this I shall read a few excerpts from the pertinent reports of
the various governments.
On Page 70 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 80 of the
document book, we find the description of the persecution of the Czech
Orthodox Church by the German fascist criminals. I quote only one
paragraph:
“The hardest blow was directed against the Czech Orthodox
Church. The Orthodox parishes in Czechoslovakia were ordered by
the Berlin Ministry for Church Affairs to leave the jurisdiction
of Belgrade and Constantinople dioceses and to become
subordinate to the Berlin bishop. The Czech Bishop Gorazd was
executed together with two other priests of the Orthodox Church.
By a special order of the Protector Daluege, issued in September
1942, the Orthodox Church of Serbian-Constantinople jurisdiction
was dissolved on Czech territory, its religious activity
forbidden, and its property confiscated.”
On Page 69 of the same report, which corresponds to Page 79 of the
document book, in the last paragraph, there is a description of the
persecutions of the Czech National Church, which was persecuted by the
German fascists, according to the report, “Just because of its name,
because of its sympathy for the Hus movement, the democratic
constitution, and because of the role it played in founding the Czech
Republic.” The Czech national church in Slovakia was prohibited and its
property confiscated by the Germans in 1940.
The Protestant church in Czechoslovakia was also persecuted. The excerpt
which I would like to read may be found on Page 80 of the document book,
Paragraph 2:
“The Protestant churches were deprived of the freedom to preach
the Gospel. The German Secret State Police watched carefully to
see that the clergy observed the restrictions imposed on it.
Nazi censorship went so far as to prohibit the singing of hymns
which praised God for liberating the nation from the enemy. Some
passages from the Bible were not allowed to be read in public at
all. The Nazis strongly opposed the promulgation of certain
Christian doctrines, especially those which proclaimed the
equality of all men before God, the universal character of
Christ’s Church, the Hebraic origins of the Gospel, et cetera.
Any reference to Hus, Ziska, the Hussites, and their
achievements, as well as to Masaryk and his doctrines, were
strictly forbidden. Even religious text books were confiscated.
Church leaders were especially persecuted. Scores of ministers
were thrown into concentration camps, among them the general
secretary of the Christian Student Movement in Czechoslovakia.
One of the assistants of their president was executed.”
On Page 68 of this report we find information as to the persecution of
the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. This excerpt is on Page 79 of the
document book, second paragraph. I quote a short excerpt:
“In the territory annexed to Germany after the Munich Pact a
number of Czech priests were robbed of their property and
expelled. . . . Pilgrimages to national shrines were prohibited
in 1939.
“At the outbreak of the war 437 Catholic priests were among the
thousands of Czech patriots arrested and sent to concentration
camps as hostages. Venerable church dignitaries were dragged to
concentration camps in Germany. It was a common thing to see on
the road near the concentration camps a priest, dressed in rags,
exhausted, pulling a cart, and behind him a youth in the SS
uniform, whip in hand.”
The believers and clergy in Poland also suffered most ruthless
persecution. I quote short excerpts from the Polish Government report,
which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 10 of the document
book:
“By January 1941 about 700 priests were killed; 3,000 were in
prisons or in concentration camps.”
The persecution of the clergy began immediately after the capture of
Polish territory by the Germans, according to Page 42 of the Polish
report:
“The day after the occupation of Warsaw the Germans arrested
some 330 priests. . . . In Kraków the closest collaborators of
Archbishop Sapieha were arrested and sent to Germany. The
Reverend Canon Czeplicki, 75 years of age, and his assistant
were executed in November 1939.”
The report of the Polish Government quotes the following words of
Cardinal Hlond:
“The clergy were persecuted very violently. Those who were
permitted to stay were subjected to humiliation, were paralyzed
in the exercise of their pastoral duties and were stripped of
parochial benefices and of all their rights. They were entirely
at the mercy of the Gestapo. . . . It is like the Apocalyptic
vision of the _Fides Depopulata_.”
On the territory of the Soviet Union the persecution of religion and
clergy took the form of sacrilegious desecration of churches,
destruction of shrines connected with the patriotic feelings of the
Russian people, and the murder of priests.
I beg the Tribunal to call the witness of the Soviet Prosecution, the
Archdean of the churches of the City of Leningrad, the Very Reverend
Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin.
[_The witness Lomakin took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell me your name?
THE VERY REVEREND NIKOLAI IVANOVITCH LOMAKIN (Witness): Nikolai
Ivanovitch Lomakin.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the practice for you to take an oath before giving
evidence or not?
LOMAKIN: I am an Orthodox priest.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you take the oath?
LOMAKIN: I belong to the Orthodox Church, and when I entered the
priesthood in 1917 I took the oath to tell the truth all my life. This
oath I remember even to the present day.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You can sit, if you wish.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, are you the Archdean of
the Churches of the City of Leningrad? Does that mean that all the
churches in that city are subordinate to you?
LOMAKIN: Yes, all the churches are directly subordinate to me. I am
obliged to visit them periodically to inspect their condition and the
life of the parish. I must then make my report to His Grace the
Metropolitan.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The churches of the Leningrad region were also
under your authority?
LOMAKIN: They are not subordinated to me at the present time, but during
the siege of Leningrad by the Germans and the occupation of the
Leningrad region they were under my authority.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: After the liberation of the Leningrad region
from the German occupation, were you obliged to visit and inspect the
churches throughout the region on the request of the Patriarch?
LOMAKIN: Not by request of the Patriarch, but by request of the
Metropolitan Alexei, who was then at the head of the Leningrad Eparchy.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak more slowly.
LOMAKIN: Not by request of Patriarch Alexei—the Patriarch was then
Sergei—but by request of Metropolitan Alexei, who administered the
Eparchy and later became Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, where were you during
the siege of Leningrad?
LOMAKIN: I was all the time in Leningrad.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I am not mistaken, you were decorated with
the medal “For the Defense of Leningrad”?
LOMAKIN: Yes, on my birthday I was awarded this high government medal
for my participation in the heroic defense of Leningrad.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, at the beginning of the siege
of Leningrad, at which church did you officiate?
LOMAKIN: At the beginning of the siege I was in charge of the
Georgievsky Cemetery—I was rector of the church of the cemetery of St.
Nicholas.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It was, therefore, a cemetery church?
LOMAKIN: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Maybe you will be able to relate to the Tribunal
the observations you made during your office in this church?
LOMAKIN: Yes, of course.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please.
LOMAKIN: In 1941 and at the beginning of 1942 I was rector of the
cemetery church, and I witnessed certain tragic scenes which I should
like to relate in detail to the Tribunal.
A few days after the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite
Germany I witnessed the rapid increase of masses for the dead. The dead
were mostly children, women, and old people—victims of the air raids on
the city by German planes—peaceful citizens of our town. Before the war
the number of dead varied from 30 to 50 persons a day, but during the
war this number rose quickly to several hundred a day. It was physically
impossible to bring the bodies inside the church. Long rows of boxes and
coffins with remnants of the victims stood outside the church; the
horribly mutilated bodies of Leningrad’s peaceful citizens—victims of
barbarous air raids of the German planes.
Side by side with the increasing number of funeral masses for the
deceased, there grew up the practice of saying the so-called requiems in
absence. The faithful could not bring to the church the bodies of their
relatives or friends, as they lay buried under the ruins and the debris
of the houses destroyed by the Germans. The church was each day
surrounded by masses of coffins—100, 200 coffins—over which one priest
used to sing a funeral service.
Forgive me—it is difficult for me to speak of all this, for as the
Tribunal already knows, I lived through the whole siege. I, myself, was
dying of hunger. I saw the terrible, uninterrupted air raids of the
German planes. I was hurt several times.
In the winter of 1941-42 the situation of besieged Leningrad was
particularly terrible. The ceaseless air raids of the Luftwaffe, the
shelling of the city, the lack of light, of water, of transportation, of
sewerage in the city, and finally the terrible starvation—from all
this, the peaceful citizens of the town suffered privations unique in
the history of mankind. They were indeed heroes, who suffered for their
country, these innocent, peaceful citizens.
Together with all that I have just told you, I could describe other
terrible scenes which I witnessed during the period when I was the
rector of this cemetery church. The cemetery was very often bombed by
German planes. Please imagine the scene when people who have found
eternal rest—their coffins, bodies, bones, skulls—all this is thrown
out on the ground. Tombstones and crosses lay scattered in disorder, and
people who had just suffered the loss of their kin, had to suffer once
more seeing the huge craters made by bombs sometimes on the very spot
where they had just buried their relatives or friends, had to suffer
once more, knowing that they had no peace.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, during the period of hunger,
in what proportion did the number of burial services at this cemetery
church increase?
LOMAKIN: I have already said that as a result of the terrible conditions
imposed by the siege, as a result of the nonstop air raids, as a result
of the shelling of the city, the number of burial services reached an
incredible figure—up to several thousand a day. I would especially like
to relate to the Tribunal the facts which I observed on 7 February 1942.
A month earlier, quite exhausted by hunger and the long walk from my
house which I had to the church every day, I fell ill. Two of my
assistant priests replaced me.
On 7 February, on the Parents’ Saturday before the beginning of Lent I
came for the first time since my illness to my church. A horrifying
picture was before my eyes. The church was surrounded by piles of
bodies, some of which even blocked the entrance. These piles numbered
from 30 to 100 bodies. They were not only at the church door, but also
around the church. I witnessed people, exhausted from starvation, who,
in their desire to bring the bodies of their relatives to the cemetery,
would fall down themselves and die on the spot beside the body. Such
scenes I witnessed quite frequently.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, will you please answer the following
question: What damage was done to the Leningrad churches?
LOMAKIN: Your Honors, as I have already reported to you, my duty as
Archdean of these churches was to observe from time to time the
condition of the churches in the city and to report in detail to the
metropolitan. The following were my personal observations and
impressions:
The Church of the Resurrection on Griboiedov Canal, which is a very
remarkable artistic church, was very seriously damaged by shelling from
the German enemy. The domes were destroyed, the roofs pierced by shells,
numerous frescos were either partly damaged or entirely destroyed. The
Holy Trinity Cathedral in the Ismailovskaya Fortress, a memorial
ornamented by beautiful artistic friezes commemorating the heroic siege
of Izmailovskaya Fortress, was severely damaged by systematic shelling
and bombing by the Germans. The roof was broken in. All the sculpture
was broken; only a few fragments remained.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, how many churches were
destroyed and how many were severely damaged in Leningrad?
LOMAKIN: The Church of the Serafimov Cemetery was almost completely
destroyed by artillery fire; this church was not only hit by shells, but
great damage was caused to it by air raids. The Luftwaffe caused great
damage to churches. I must first of all mention two churches which
suffered most from the Leningrad siege. To begin with, the Church of
Prince Vladimir, where, by the way, I have the honor of officiating at
the present time. In 1942 from February until the first of July, I was
rector of this church; and I should like to acquaint Your Honors with
the following very interesting but terrible incident which occurred on
Easter Eve of 1942.
On Easter Saturday, at 5 p. m. Moscow time, the Luftwaffe carried out a
mass raid over the city. At 5:30 two bombs fell on the southwestern part
of the Church of Prince Vladimir. The faithful were at that moment
waiting to approach the picture of our Lord’s interment. There was an
enormous mass of faithful, who wished to fulfill their Christian duty. I
saw some 30 persons lying wounded in the portico and in different places
about the church. They lay helpless for some time, until we could give
them medical aid.
It was a scene of utter confusion. People who had had no time to enter
the church tried to run away and hide in the air-raid ditches, while the
others who had entered scattered in terror against the walls of the
church, awaiting death. The concussion of the bombs was so heavy that
for some period of time there was a constant fall of shattered glass,
mortar, and pieces of stucco. When I came down from a room on the second
floor, I was quite astounded by the scene before me. People flocked
around me:
“Little father, are you alive? Little father, how can we
understand this? How can we believe what was said about the
Germans—that they believe in God, that they love Christ, that
they will not harm those who believe in God? Where is their
faith then, if they can shoot about like this on Easter eve?”
I must add that the air-raid lasted right through the night until Easter
morning; this night of love, this night of Christian joy, the
Resurrection Night, was turned by the Germans into a night of blood, a
night of destruction, and a night of suffering for innocent people. Two
or three days passed. In the Church of Prince Vladimir—it was obvious
to me, as rector—and in other churches and cemeteries the victims of
the Luftwaffe Easter raid appeared: women, children, and aged. . .
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell us, Witness, you also visited the Leningrad
region to verify the condition of the churches. Were you not a witness
to. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, if your examination is going on, I think
perhaps we’d better adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, can you let the Tribunal know what your wishes
are about General Westhoff and Wielen?
DR. NELTE: In reply to the suggestion by the Court, as to calling the
witnesses Westhoff and Wielen, I should like to make the following
statement after discussion with my colleagues:
First, we abstain from calling both witnesses at this stage of the
proceedings provided that the Prosecution also abstains at present from
reading out Documents RF-1450 and USSR-413 at this stage of the Trial.
Second, I call General Westhoff as witness; and I gather, from the
Court’s suggestion, that this witness has been allowed.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Roberts, could Sir David attend here in the course of a short time,
do you think?
MR. ROBERTS: He is at the Chief Prosecutors’ meeting now, but I can get
him in a few moments if there is a question which I couldn’t answer on
his behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think perhaps it will be best if he were here. It
is only a question, really, as to whether the document should be read.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am told the meeting has just ended. I didn’t quite
get what Your Lordship said.
THE PRESIDENT: I said that the question was whether the document is to
be read by the Prosecution. Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, was
suggesting that perhaps the Prosecution would forego their right to read
the document.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, speaking for myself, I feel quite certain that so
far as the British Delegation is concerned we should not forego reading
that document. We do put it forward, or our Russian colleagues put it
forward, as a very cold-blooded murder of brave men; and we are most
anxious that the document should be read.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have not made it a condition that the
documents should not be submitted at all, but only at this stage of the
proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you see, the Prosecution want it read as part of
the Prosecution case. If it is postponed until your case begins, it will
not be read as part of the Prosecution case.
DR. NELTE: I think that the Prosecution, when cross-examining the
witness, could present the documents they want to submit now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we can’t get Wielen over here tomorrow, and the
case of the Prosecution, we hope, will close tomorrow.
DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, the document must be read tomorrow. We will
then get General Westhoff and Wielen over for you at any time that is
convenient to you.
DR. NELTE: I think the Prosecution has reserved the right to adduce, at
any time during the proceedings, other charges and documents. This
follows from the Indictment. It therefore seems to me that the
Prosecution, without prejudice to its case, could postpone the
presentation of this charge until I have examined the witness.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I should like to add something to what my colleague,
Mr. Roberts, has said. The point is that the document presented to the
Tribunal was put at our disposal by the British Delegation and was
submitted by us in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. This
document, being an irrefutable proof, can be read into the record or
not, in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal of 17 December
1945.
If the Defense, as Sir David already stated this morning, intends to
oppose this document by summoning witnesses, it is their right. This is
what I wanted to add to Mr. Roberts’ statement.
MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps Your Lordship would allow me to add one thing. The
Tribunal has ruled that this document is admissible, and it has been
admitted, as I understand; and therefore, I would submit that it ought
to be read as part of the Prosecution case, or perhaps it might be
equally convenient after the discussion on organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, yes, I see that Sir David has just come into court.
Sir David, I think the view the Tribunal take is that it is a matter for
the Prosecution to decide when they put in this document; and if they
wish to put it in now, or as Mr. Roberts suggested, after the argument
on organizations, they are at liberty to do so. Then these witnesses can
be called at a later stage when the defendants’ counsel wish them to be
called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I entirely agree with what I am told
Mr. Roberts has put forward. We consider that this document ought to be
put in as part of the case for the Prosecution. If it will be of any
assistance to counsel for the defendants, I shall be glad to take up the
matter of the time that shall be fixed, after the organizations; but the
reading of the document certainly should be part of the Prosecution’s
case.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be read, then, at the end of the
Prosecution’s case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
May I apologize to the Tribunal for being absent. There was other
business, connected with the Trial, in which I was engaged.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
Then, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal would like you to let us know when you
wish those witnesses called, so that we can communicate with London in
order that the witness, Wielen, may be brought over here.
DR. NELTE: As to when exactly during my presentation the witnesses
should appear I cannot say, for I cannot say when the stage for the
presentation of my witnesses will be reached. I think the Court is in a
better position to judge when it will be my turn for the presentation of
evidence. In the course of the examination of those witnesses who will
be granted to me, I shall also question this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you see these witnesses not only affect your
client, but they affect the Defendant Göring and the Defendant
Kaltenbrunner; and therefore, what the Tribunal wish is that you, in
consultation with Dr. Stahmer and counsel for Kaltenbrunner, should let
the Tribunal know what would be the most appropriate time for those two
witnesses to be called, so that time may be given for summoning Wielen
here and letting the prison authorities know about Westhoff.
DR. NELTE: We spoke about that and have agreed that the witnesses be
called during my presentation.
I just understand from Sir David that we are all agreed that the
documents be presented after the case against the organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue my questioning, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Continue, yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have one last question to put to you, Witness.
Tell me, when you left the city to go into the country to inspect the
churches, did you sometimes witness instances of derision of religion
and desecration of churches?
LOMAKIN: Yes, I did.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Would you be kind enough to relate this to the
Tribunal?
LOMAKIN: In June 1943, by order of Metropolitan Alexei, I went to visit
the district of Old Peterhof and Oranienbaum. From personal observations
and from my conversations with the members of the church I learned the
following, which I know to be true, and which was all corroborated later
on when New Peterhof was freed from the German occupation. All that I
shall now relate may be verified by inspection.
In Old Peterhof soon after the Germans occupied New Peterhof, exactly
within 10 days, all churches were destroyed by the enemy’s artillery
fire and aircraft. At the same time the Luftwaffe and German artillery
forces timed their raids so that not only would the churches be
demolished, but the peaceful worshipers who sought refuge there from the
fighting and the artillery fire would be killed as well.
All the churches in Old Peterhof, namely the Znamenskaya Church, the
Holy Trinity Cemetery Church, and the small Church of Lazarus attached
to it, the church museum at the Villa of Empress Maria Feodorovna, the
Serafimovskij Church and the church of the military cemetery—all these
were destroyed by the Germans. I can state with certainty that under the
ruins of the Cemetery Church of the Holy Trinity and the Lazarus Church,
in their crypts, as well as in the cemetery tombs and vaults of the
Znamenskaya Church, up to 5,000 persons perished.
The Germans wouldn’t let the survivors come outside. It is easy to
picture the sanitary conditions and the general state of the people
confined in those church crypts—air fouled by the breathing and
excrements of these unfortunate people, frightened to death. They
fainted, they grew dizzy, but their slightest attempt to leave the
church and come out into fresh air was punished by shots from the
inhuman fascists.
Much time has already passed since that time, but I remember especially
well one instance which a close relative of the people about whom I am
now going to speak related to me. A little girl came out of the crypt of
Trinity Church for a breath of fresh air; she was immediately shot by a
German sniper. The mother followed in order to pick her up, but she also
fell down bleeding at the side of her child. The citizen Romashova, who
related this to me, is still alive, and I have seen her many times—she
recalls this incident with horror. And many were the incidents of that
kind.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, in the other districts of the
Leningrad region did you ever witness the desecration of shrines and
sacred objects?
LOMAKIN: Yes, for example in Pskov. Pskov presented a horrible picture
of ruins and devastation. I feel that I must recall to Your Honors that
Pskov is a museum city, a shrine of the Orthodox faith, ornamented by
numerous churches, and situated on the Velikaya River and its
tributaries.
In that city, there were no less then 60 churches of various sizes and
various denominations. Of these 39 were not only priceless monuments of
church architecture of high artistic value, with beautiful icons and
frescos, but also wonderful historical monuments, reflecting all the
greatness and century-old multiform history of the Russian people. The
Kremlin (walled city)—the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity. . .
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Well, what did the Germans do to those churches?
LOMAKIN: That is just what I want to relate. The Kremlin—the whole Holy
Trinity Cathedral, with its remarkable altar screen, was plundered by
the German soldiers. Everything was carried out of it as well as out of
all the other churches in the city. You won’t find even a single tiny
icon left, not a single church vestment or sacramental vessel—all has
been taken away by the Germans. The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity—I
speak again of this Cathedral. I almost paid with my life for my visit
there. Just half an hour before my arrival a mine exploded right in
front of the altar gates. The gates were destroyed; the altar was
blood-spattered. Before my own eyes I saw three of our Soviet soldiers
who had perished in the explosion, right in front of the altar.
Mines were also laid in other places. I could give another interesting
detail. Pskov was liberated in August 1944, but on Epiphany, in January
1946, another mine exploded, killing two persons. Likewise the church of
St. Vasili-on-the-Hill was also mined. There a mine was laid at the very
entrance to the church. In all the churches the abundance of all kinds
of refuse, dirt, bottles, cans, _et cetera_, was strikingly noticeable.
The Cathedral of St. John’s Monastery was turned by the Germans into a
stable. In another church, the Church of the Epiphany, they set up a
wine cellar. In a third church I saw a depot of fuel—coal, peat, _et
cetera_. But why speak of individual churches? Wherever we turn, our
hearts bleed at the spectacle of all the suffering, all the plunder,
brought about by people who shouted all over Europe about their culture,
who despised mankind, while some proclaimed their belief in God. What
kind of faith is theirs!
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more questions to ask
the witness.
LOMAKIN: I should like to ask the Prosecutor’s permission to say a few
more words about what happened in Leningrad.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With regard to that, you must ask the Tribunal.
LOMAKIN: I am slightly diverging from the usual order. I beg your
permission, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
LOMAKIN: The Church of Nikolai Bogoiavlensky is the Cathedral of
Leningrad. The present Patriarch Alexei lived at this church during the
siege. Since I served there from July 1942 to the end of the war, I
witnessed on numerous occasions artillery fire directed at the
cathedral. One wonders what kind of military objectives those heroic
warriors could seek in our holy church! On high feast days or ordinary
Sundays immediately the artillery would begin fire. And what a fire! In
the first week of Lent in 1943, from the early morning and until late at
night, neither we, the clergy, nor the worshipers praying in the church
could possibly leave it. Outside was death and destruction. With my own
eyes I saw some fifty persons—I don’t know exactly how many—members of
my congregation, killed right near the church. They tried to leave in
haste before the “all clear” signal, and death met them near the church.
In this sacred cathedral I had to bury thousands of peaceful citizens
torn to pieces, victims of the predatory raids of the air force and
artillery. An ocean of tears was shed here during the memorial services.
During one of the bombardments His Grace, our Metropolitan Alexei,
escaped death by a hair’s breadth, as several shell fragments smashed
his cell.
I should just like to add, not wishing to take up too much of your time,
that it is a remarkable thing that most of the intensive artillery fire
on Leningrad always took place on feast days; the houses of God, tramway
stops, and hospitals were put under fire, and destroyed with all means.
The homes of peaceful citizens were bombed.
It would take too long, Your Honors, to relate everything which I have
seen during these grim war days of blood and sorrow of the
Leningradians. But I just want to say in conclusion that the Russian
people and the people of Leningrad have fulfilled their duty to their
fatherland to the very end. In spite of the heavy artillery fire and
raids of the Luftwaffe there was organized efficiency and order, and the
Orthodox Church shared this suffering. By prayer and preaching of God’s
word, she brought consolation and gave courage to the hearts of the
faithful. She has laid an unsparing sacrifice on the altar of the
fatherland.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no more questions to ask the witness, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other members of the Prosecution wish to
ask any question?
[_Each indicated that he had no question._]
Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?
[_Each indicated that he had no question._]
Then the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words by way of concluding my
report?
THE PRESIDENT: You may, certainly.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, in his note of 6 January 1942 the
People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. declared that the
Soviet Government considered it their duty to inform the “entire
civilized world and all honest people throughout the world” of the
monstrous crimes committed by the Hitlerite bandits.
In the battles of this war, the greatest ever fought by men, millions of
honest people achieved victory over fascist Germany. The will of
millions of honest people created this International Tribunal for the
purpose of judging the main criminals of war. Behind him each
representative of the Prosecution feels the invisible support of these
millions of honest people, in whose name he accuses the leaders of the
fascist conspiracy.
The honor of concluding the presentation of the evidence submitted by
the Soviet Prosecution has fallen to my lot. I know that at this very
moment millions of citizens of my country and with them millions of
honest persons throughout the world await a just and speedy verdict.
Your Honors, may I conclude with this.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, I have a few matters that will
take just a very few minutes, with respect to the record.
In the course of the presentation of the 23rd day of November 1945,
pertaining to the economic aspects of the conspiracy, certain documents
were read from; but they were not formally offered in evidence. At the
time, the Tribunal indicated that sufficient time had not been allowed
Counsel for the Defense to make an examination of these documents, and
we did not offer them and said instead that we would make them available
in the defendants’ Information Center. We did so, and they have been
there all of the time since. They should be offered formally and, as the
extracts were read, there is no necessity for going through that again.
They are as follows:
The first one referred to in the record was one bearing the Document
Number EC-14, which we offer as Exhibit USA-758. Extracts from this
document were quoted on Page 297 of the record (Volume II, Page 233).
The next one is Document Number EC-27, which we offer as Exhibit Number
USA-759. Extracts from this document were quoted on Pages 279 and 280 of
the record (Volume II, Page 221).
The third one is Document Number EC-28, which we offer as Exhibit Number
USA-760. Extracts from this document were quoted on Page 275 of the
record (Volume II, Pages 218, 219). On that page the document was
erroneously referred to as USA Exhibit 23, but the correct number is
Exhibit Number USA-760.
Document Number EC-174 was quoted from on pages 303 and 304 of the
record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer that as Exhibit Number USA-761.
Document Number EC-252—extracts from it were quoted on Page 303 of the
record (Volume II, Page 238). We offer it as Exhibit Number USA-762.
Document Number EC-257—extracts from this document were quoted on Page
303 of the record (Volume II, Page 237). We offer it as Exhibit Number
USA-763.
Document Number EC-404—we summarized and quoted from this document on
Pages 291 and 292 of the record (Volume II, Page 229). We now offer it
as Exhibit Number USA-764.
Document Number D-157 was read from, on Page 288 of the record (Volume
II, Page 227), and we now offer it as Exhibit Number USA-765.
Document Number D-167 was summarized and extracts were quoted from it on
Page 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), and we offer it as Exhibit
Number USA-766.
Document Number D-203—extracts from it were quoted on Pages 283 to 286
of the record (Volume II, Pages 224-226), and we offer it as Exhibit
Number USA-767.
Document Number D-204, which was quoted from on Pages 286 and 287 of the
record (Volume II, Pages 226-227), is offered as Exhibit Number USA-768.
Document Number D-206—extracts from this paper were quoted on Pages 297
and 298 of the record (Volume II, Page 234), and it is offered as
Exhibit Number USA-769.
Document Number D-317—extracts were quoted from it on Pages 289 and 290
of the record (Volume II, Page 227), and we offer it as Exhibit Number
USA-770.
Now in addition to these documents, Lieutenant Bryson, who presented the
case for the Prosecution against the individual Defendant Schacht,
offered in evidence Documents EC-437 and 258 in their entirety, on the
condition that the French and Russian translations subsequently be filed
with the Tribunal. Now, EC-437 was assigned as Exhibit Number USA-624
and EC-258 was assigned as Exhibit Number USA-625, and the Tribunal
ruled on Page 2543 of the record (Volume V, Page 129) that the documents
would be received in their entirety only after the translations had been
completed. Copies of these documents in all four languages have been
filed with the Tribunal and in the defendants’ Information Center, and
that was done a few weeks ago and in accordance therefore with the
ruling of the Tribunal. We now offer these documents in evidence in
their entirety, and we assume that they will retain the numbers Exhibit
Number USA-624 and Exhibit Number USA-625.
Also in the trial brief on the individual responsibility of the
Defendant Schacht, which was recently submitted to the Tribunal and to
the defendants’ counsel, reference is made to a few documents which have
not already, or heretofore, been offered in evidence. I think there is
no necessity for taking the time of the Tribunal to read from these
documents, and instead we have had pertinent extracts made available in
German, French, Russian, and English; copies in all the four languages
have already been distributed to the Tribunal and placed in the
defendants’ Information Center. They are these documents, and we ask
that they be received in evidence:
They are: Document Number EC-384, which we offer as Exhibit Number
USA-771; Document Number EC-406, offered as Exhibit Number USA-772;
Document Number EC-456, offered as Exhibit Number USA-773; Document
Number EC-495, offered as Exhibit Number USA-774; Document Number
EC-497, offered as Exhibit Number USA-775; and in addition an
interrogation of the Defendant Schacht, dated 11 July 1945, which is one
of those referred to in the trial brief as Exhibit Number USA-776; and,
finally, with respect to this economic aspect of this person, we
respectfully ask that the secret minutes of the meeting of the
ministers, dated 30 May 1936, which are included in the set of
documents, Number 1301-PS, and assigned Exhibit Number USA-123, be
received in evidence in their entirety. These minutes have been made
available to the Tribunal and the defendants’ counsel in all four
languages.
I also wish to refer to Document Number 1639-PS, which we offer as. . .
DR. KRAUS: The Prosecution has just made the motion to accept in
supplementary evidence a number of documents concerning the Defendant
Schacht. These documents are contained in a supplementary volume which
we received after the special case against the Defendant Schacht had
been finished, even a considerable time afterwards.
I do not intend to protest against this procedure; but in my opinion
this procedure, if admitted by the Court, has some consequences for
Defense Counsel. If this procedure is approved, we ought also to be
permitted to offer evidential material on behalf of our clients after
this case has been concluded and until the end of the entire
presentation of evidence, if we feel that such evidential material, that
is, mainly documents, should still be submitted on behalf of our
clients.
It is necessary that we should be in a position also to present
witnesses later on, and I should like to ask the Tribunal for
clarification of this.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal thinks that the Prosecution
are entitled to apply, as they have applied, to have these documents
admitted in evidence and, similarly, that the defendants will be
entitled to apply to have any evidence which they wish offered in
evidence even after the individual defendants’ case has come to an end.
DR. KRAUS: Thank you, Sir.
MR. DODD: Now I wish to refer to the document bearing our Number
1639-PS, which we wish to offer as Exhibit Number USA-777. For the
benefit of the Tribunal, this document is entitled _Mobilization Book
for the Civil Administrations_ and is the 1939 edition. It was published
in February—or put out in February 1939, over the signature of the
Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW. It is classified “top secret” and
was distributed in 125 copies to the highest Reich Ministries, as well
as to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
In its original German the document runs to some 150 pages. We have had
translated into English, Russian, and French Pages 2 to 18, which give
the essential text of the document. It appears from statements in the
document itself that the _Mobilization Book_ had previously been issued
and was revised annually. This particular book which we introduce, or
offer to introduce, was effective the 1st day of April 1939 and thus was
the operative basis, we say, for the mobilization calendar at the time
the Nazis launched their aggression against Poland. However, we wish to
relate it back primarily to that part of the record dealing with the
Nazi plans and preparations for aggression, because the _Mobilization
Book_, or such a _Mobilization Book_, had been in effect for years prior
to 1939.
Secondly, we say it fits in with the secret Nazi Defense Laws of 1935
and 1938, which are contained in Documents 2261-PS and 2194-PS,
introduced before the Tribunal as Exhibits USA-24 and 36 respectively.
Thirdly, it is another clear indication, we submit, of the Nazi plans
and preparations for aggressive war. That portion of the Prosecution’s
case dealing with Nazi preparations for aggression was presented by Mr.
Alderman of the American prosecution staff at the morning and afternoon
sessions of the Tribunal on 27 November 1945 and may be found at Pages
399 to 464 of the record (Volume II, Pages 303-347).
Inasmuch as this document has been translated into all four languages,
we assume that it is not necessary to read it into the record; but we do
wish to quote, however, directly two extracts—rather, we will withdraw
that. They are included in the translation and I see no necessity for
reading it into the translation system.
This document was also, I might say, referred to by the Chief Prosecutor
for the United States in his opening address, and it is the only
document therein referred to which has not been offered formally to the
Tribunal in evidence.
Thirdly, I should like to take up one other matter. I wish to move to
strike out one piece of evidence offered by an American member of the
Prosecution.
[_Mr. Dodd then quoted the evidence in question._]
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Defendant Rosenberg’s counsel any objection to
this being struck out of the record?
DR. THOMA: I have no objection, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it will be struck out.
MR. DODD: I have only one last matter, which I am sure I can conclude
before the usual recess time.
In the course of the presentation of the individual case against the
Defendant Ribbentrop, our distinguished colleague Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe, the Deputy Chief British Prosecutor, introduced Document
Number 3358-PS as Exhibit GB-158. This was on the 9th day of January
1946 and may be found at Page 2380 of the record (Volume V, Page 17).
This document is a German Foreign Office circular dated the 25th day of
January 1939, and it is on the subject of the “Jewish Question as a
Factor in German Foreign Policy in the Year 1938.” Sir David read
portions of this document into the record, including the first sentence
of the full paragraph appearing on Page 3 of the English translation of
the document.
I have discussed the matter with Sir David, and he has very graciously
agreed that we might ask the permission of the Tribunal to add two more
sentences to the quotation which he read, because we feel, and Sir David
feels with us, that the additional two sentences which follow
immediately the sentence which he read add something to the proof with
reference to the persecution of the Jews as related to Crimes against
Peace. It is desired, therefore, by the Prosecution that the entire
paragraph on Page 3 of the English translation of this document be
considered as in evidence by the Tribunal, and in accordance with the
ruling of the Tribunal generally made as to other such situations we
submit now an English, German, French, and Russian translation of that
entire paragraph to obviate the necessity for reading it; and the
original, of course, is in the German language.
It is a very brief paragraph, but I don’t think that the Tribunal would
care to have me read it, even to take a minute or two. It is in the
record. There are only two additional sentences. It does not wrench
anything from the text; in our opinion, it only adds a little to the
proof. If you would like to have it read, I can do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we would.
MR. DODD: The sentence read by Sir David reads as follows:
“It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938
brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question
simultaneously with the realization of the ‘idea of Greater
Germany,’ since the Jewish policy was both the basis and
consequence of the events of the year 1938.”
That is the end of the sentence, and that is what was quoted by Sir
David on the 9th day of January, at Page 2380 (Volume V, Page 17). We
wish to add the following, beginning right after that sentence:
“The advance made by Jewish influence and the destructive Jewish
spirit in politics, economy, and culture paralyzed the strength
and the will of the German people to rise again, perhaps even
more than the political antagonism of the former Allied enemy
powers of the World War.”
And this second sentence which follows immediately, as well:
“The curing of this malady of the people was therefore certainly
one of the most important prerequisites for exerting the force
which, in the year 1938, resulted in the consolidation of the
Great German Reich against the will of the world.”
We felt that that would add something to our proof with respect to this
persecution of the Jews. Those are the only matters I have to bring up
with reference to the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Some time ago I wrote to Mr. Justice Jackson on behalf of
the Tribunal, asking whether a list of the persons who formed the German
Staff could be submitted to the Tribunal. Has that been done?
MR. DODD: I am familiar with that communication. I recall Mr. Justice
Jackson’s showing it to me. If it has not, it shall be directly. It may
have been overlooked.
THE PRESIDENT: I had a letter back from Mr. Justice Jackson saying that
it should be done.
MR. DODD: Yes, I recall it.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal will be glad for you to verify that it
has been done.
MR. DODD: I am afraid I must say that if it hasn’t been done, it is
probably my fault. I recall the Justice’s handing it to me, and I think
I passed it to Colonel Taylor’s organization, but I will check up on it
directly and see that it is delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be an appropriate time for it to be done, I
should think, during the course of the argument on the organizations, if
it hasn’t been done.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and an affidavit accompanying it, showing how it has
been made up.
MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor.
Lieutenant Margolies tells me that he thinks it has been sent in 2 days
ago, but he is not certain.
THE PRESIDENT: He thinks it has been done?
MR. DODD: He thinks so, but we will look into it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
Then tomorrow morning at 10, Counsel for the Prosecution will be ready,
will they, to argue the case of the organizations which they have asked
the Tribunal to be declared criminal under Article 9 of the Charter?
MR. DODD: The Prosecution is prepared to be heard tomorrow morning at 10
o’clock on that.
THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the various organizations are prepared to
argue against that? So that is understood that at 10 o’clock tomorrow
the Tribunal will sit for that purpose and will continue until the
argument is concluded.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Counsel for the organizations are prepared, according
to the Tribunal’s suggestion, to join in the discussion of the new
argument to be put forward by the Prosecution tomorrow. The Prosecution
has helped us by making available to us a copy of the factual points
which so far had not been submitted as a basis of the Indictment.
According to the Tribunal’s suggestion not only these factual points
would be discussed tomorrow but also new legal questions which have
arisen recently, inasmuch as they have bearing on the scope and
relevancy of the evidence. The Defense Counsel for the organizations
would be obliged if the Prosecution would beforehand make available to
us the speech they are going to give on legal questions tomorrow so that
we are in the position to answer immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know, but we haven’t had any copy of any written
argument presented to us. I don’t know whether Counsel for the
Prosecution would say whether they have any written argument?
MR. DODD: Well, Sir David can speak much better for himself. What I was
going to say is what I said previously, that I am informed that he has
already presented his outline both to the Tribunal and to counsel.
Mr. Justice Jackson is still working on his remarks, and while he did
hope to submit a draft, late communications received only this morning
from interested persons in the War Department have made it necessary for
him to work right up to now, and therefore we think that the practical
difficulty results in not having a prepared statement to submit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have prepared two
appendices which endeavor to cover the first two points in the
Tribunal’s statement of January, the elements of criminality and the
connected defendants mentioned in Article 9 of the Charter. I arranged
that copies in German should be given to all the Defense Counsel. I hope
everyone has got a copy. I have also arranged that copies be submitted
to the Tribunal.
I have added to that an addendum showing the references to the
transcript, and in some cases to the documents, on each of the points,
and I am afraid that is in English; but it is reference to paragraphs,
so it shouldn’t be difficult for the Defense Counsel to fit it into
their document.
I am afraid that it would be impossible to give a copy of the Justice’s
speech and mine. What I intended to add was largely on the facts which I
have endeavored to put before the Defense Counsel already, but if the
Defense Counsel for the organizations would care to hear informally what
is the sort of general line, I should be very pleased to tell them, if
it would be any help. I want to help in every way I can.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. We will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 28 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTIETH DAY
Thursday, 28 February 1946
_Morning Session_
DR. HORN: Mr. President, on Monday, when I wished to give my reasons for
the application to call Winston Churchill as witness, the Tribunal asked
me to submit this in writing so that the Tribunal could make a decision.
The decision that Winston Churchill should not be called as witness was,
however, made already on the 26th of February, before the Tribunal
received my written application. I assume a mistake has been made, and I
ask the Tribunal to reconsider the question in the light of the reasons
set out in my written application.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reconsider the matter.
Mr. Justice Jackson. Did you propose, Mr. Justice Jackson, to argue
first on the question of the organizations?
JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief Counsel for the United States): If that
is agreeable to the Tribunal, that’s definitely our . . .
We are taking up, as I understand it, the deferred subject of the rules
which should guide in determining the criminality of organizations,
partly upon our initiative and partly an response to the questions
propounded by the Tribunal.
The unconditional surrender of Germany created for the victors novel and
difficult problems of law and administration. Being the first such
surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, precedents and
past experiences are of little help in guiding our policy toward the
vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding and accepting
capitulation of a whole people certainly must include a duty to
discriminate justly and intelligently between the opposing elements of
that population, which bore dissimilar relations to the policies and
conduct which led to the catastrophe. This differentiation is the
objective of those provisions of the Charter which authorize this
Tribunal to declare organizations or groups to be criminal.
Understanding of the problem with which the instrument attempts to deal
is essential to its interpretation and application.
One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time of the
surrender was that the state itself played only a subordinate role in
the exercise of political power, while the really drastic controls over
German society were organized outside of the nominal government. This
was accomplished through an elaborate network of closely knit and
exclusive organizations of selected volunteers, both bound to execute
without delay and without question the commands of the Nazi leaders.
These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The country was
subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about 50 households each,
and every such community had its recognized Party leaders, Party police,
and its undercover, planted spies. These were combined into larger units
with higher ranking leaders, executioners, and spies, the whole forming
a pyramid of power outside of the law, with the Führer at its apex, the
local Party officials constituting its broad base, which rested heavily
on the German population.
The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of these individual
defendants alone. A thousand little Führers dictated; a thousand
imitation Görings strutted; a thousand Schirachs incited the youth; a
thousand Sauckels worked slaves; a thousand Streichers and Rosenbergs
stirred up hate; a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks tortured and
killed; a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks administered and
supported and financed this movement.
The Nazi movement was an integrated force in every city and county and
hamlet. The party power resulting from this system of organizations
first rivaled and then dominated the power of the state itself. The
primary vice of this web of organizations was that they were used to
transfer the power of coercing men from the government and the law to
the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, and security of person and
property do not exist except where the power of coercion is possessed
only by the state and is exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis,
however, set up this private system of coercion outside of and immune
from the law, with Party-controlled concentration camps and firing
squads to administer privately decreed sanctions.
Without responsibility to law and without warrant from any court, they
were enabled to seize property and take away liberty and even take life
itself. These organizations had a calculated part—and a decisive
part—in the barbaric extremes of the Nazi movement. They served
primarily to exploit mob psychology and to manipulate the mob.
Multiplying the number of persons in a common enterprise always tends to
diminish the individual’s sense of moral responsibility and to increase
his sense of security. The Nazi leaders were masters of that technique.
They manipulated these organizations to make before the German populace
impressive exhibitions of numbers and of power, which have already been
shown on the screen. They were used to incite a mob spirit and then
riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and the
Germanic ambition they had inflated.
These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and terrorism.
They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined execution
throughout Germany and the occupied countries of the plan for crimes
which we have proven. The flowering of this system is represented in the
fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who told this Tribunal without shame or
trace of pity how he personally directed the putting to death of 90,000
men, women, and children. No tribunal ever listened to a recital of such
wholesale murder as this Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a
fellow officer of the SS. Their own testimony shows the SS
responsibility for the extermination program which took the lives of 5
million Jews—a responsibility that that organization welcomed and
discharged methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes
with which we deal are unprecedented, first because of the shocking
number of victims. They are even more shocking and unprecedented because
of the large number of people who united their efforts to perpetrate
them. All scruple or conscience of a very large segment of the German
people was committed to the keeping of these organizations, and their
devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as they went from one extreme
to another. On the other hand, they developed a contest in cruelty and a
competition in crime. Ohlendorf, from the witness stand, accused other
SS commanders whose killings exceeded his of “exaggerating” their
figures.
There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy of
Germany which imposed upon passive, unorganized, and inarticulate
Germans the same burdens as upon those who voluntarily banded themselves
together in these powerful and notorious gangs. One of the basic
requirements both of justice and of successful administration of the
occupation responsibility of our four countries is a segregation of the
organized elements from the masses of Germans for separate treatment.
That is the fundamental task with which we must deal here. It seems
beyond controversy that to punish a few top leaders but to leave this
web of organized bodies in the midst of postwar society would be to
foster the nucleus of a new Nazidom. These members are accustomed to an
established chain of centralized command. They have formed a habit and
developed a technique of both secret and open co-operation. They still
nourish a blind devotion to the suspended, but not abandoned, Nazi
program. They will keep alive the hates and ambitions which generated
the orgy of crime we have proven. These organizations are the carriers
from this generation to the next of the infection of aggressive and
ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen how easily an
assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor force can in fact be a
military outfit training with shovels. The next war and the next pogroms
will be hatched in the nests of these organizations as surely as we
leave their membership with its prestige and influence undiminished by
condemnation and punishment.
The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when we
consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be years
before there can be established in the German State any political
authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It cannot quickly
acquire the stability of a government aided by long habit of obedience
and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, and possible
overthrow which older and established governments always fear from
conspiratorial groups is a real and present danger to any stable social
order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow.
Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of
retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized
instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case I said
that the United States does not seek to convict the whole German people
of crime. But it is equally important that this Trial shall not serve to
absolve the whole German people except 21 men in the dock. The wrongs
that have been done to the world by these defendants and their top
confederates were not done by their will and their strength alone. The
success of their designs was made possible because great numbers of
Germans organized themselves to become the fulcrum and the lever by
which the power of these leaders was extended and magnified. If this
Trial fails to condemn these organized confederates for their share of
the responsibility for this catastrophe, it will be construed as their
exoneration.
But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. It
manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and preventive
considerations.
The primary objective of requiring that the surrender of Germany be
unconditional was to clear the way for a reconstruction of German
society on such a basis that it will not again threaten the peace of
Europe and of the world. Temporary measures of the occupation
authorities may by necessity, and I mean no criticism of them, have been
more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination than befits a
permanent policy. For example, under existing denazification policy, no
member of the Nazi Party or its formations may be employed, in any
position—other than ordinary labor—in any business enterprise, unless
he is found to have been only a nominal Nazi. Persons in certain
categories whose standing in the community is one of prominence or
influence are required to be, and others may be, denied further
participation in their businesses or professions. It is mandatory to
remove or exclude from public office and from positions of importance in
quasi-public and private enterprises persons falling within about 90
specified categories, deemed to consist of either active Nazis, Nazi
supporters, or militarists. Property of such persons is blocked.
Now, it is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the framers
of this Charter, that a permanent long-term program should be based on a
more careful and more individual discrimination than was possible with
sweeping temporary measures. There is a movement now within the Control
Council for reconsideration of its whole denazification policy and
procedure. The action of this Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to
declare, an accused organization criminal has a vital bearing on this
future occupation policy.
It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes of
this Tribunal and its judgment to identify and condemn those Nazi and
militaristic forces that were so strongly organized as to constitute a
continuing menace to the long-term objectives for which our respective
countries have spent their young lives. It is in the light of this great
purpose that we must examine the provisions of this Charter.
It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could not,
without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system of
jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for handling a
great number of common charges against a great multitude of accused
persons. The number of individual defendants that fairly can be tried in
a single proceeding probably does not greatly exceed the number now in
your dock. Also, the number of separate trials in which the same
voluminous evidence as to a common plan must be repeated is very limited
in actual practice. Yet, adversary proceedings of the type in which we
are engaged are the best assurance the law has ever evolved that
decisions will be well-considered and just. The task of the framers of
the Charter was to find some way to overcome the obstacles to
practicable and early decision without sacrificing the fairness implicit
in hearings. The solution prescribed by the Charter is certainly not
faultless, but not one of its critics has ever proposed an alternative
that would not either deprive the individual of all hearing or
contemplate such a multitude of long trials that it would break down and
be impracticable. In any case, this Charter is the plan adopted by our
respective governments and our duty here is to make it work.
The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a severance of
the general issues which would be common to all individual trials from
the particular issues which would differ in each trial. The plan is
comparable to that employed in certain wartime legislation of the United
States, dealt with in the case of _Yakus versus United States_, in which
questions as to the due process quality of the order must be determined
in a separate tribunal and cannot be raised by a defendant when he is
defending on indictment. Those countries which do not have written
constitutions and constitutional issues may find it difficult to follow
the logic of that decision, but essentially the plan was to separate
general issues relative to the order as a whole from specific issues
which would arise when an individual was confronted with a charge of
guilt.
The general issues under this Charter are to be determined with finality
in one trial before the International Tribunal, and in that trial every
accused organization must be defended by counsel and must be represented
by at least one leading member, and other individuals may apply to be
heard. Their applications may be granted if the Tribunal thinks justice
requires it. The only issue in this trial concerns the collective
criminality of the organization or group. It is to be adjudicated by
what amounts to a declaratory judgment. It does not decree any
punishment either against the organization or against individual
members.
The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration
that an organization is criminal is contained in Article 10, which, if
you will bear with me, I will read:
“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by
the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory
shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein before national, military, or occupation
courts.
“In any such case the criminal nature of the group or
organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”
Unquestionably, it would have been competent for the Charter to have
declared flatly that membership in any of these named organizations is
criminal and should be punished accordingly. If there had been such an
enactment, it would not have been open to an individual, who was being
tried for membership, to contend that the organization was not in fact,
criminal. But the framers of the Charter, acting last summer at a time
before the evidence which has been adduced here was even available to
us, did not care to find organizations criminal by fiat. They left that
issue to determination after relevant facts were developed by adversary
proceedings. Plainly, the individual is better off because of the
procedure of the Charter, which leaves that finding of criminality to
this body after hearings at which the organization must, and the
individual may, be represented. It is at least the best assurance that
we could devise, that no mistake would be made in dealing with these
organizations.
Under the Charter, the groups and organizations named in the Indictment
are not on trial in the conventional sense of that term. They are more
nearly under investigation as they might be before a grand jury in
Anglo-American practice. Article 9 recognizes a distinction between the
declaration of a group or organization as criminal and “the trial of any
individual member thereof.” The power of the Tribunal to try is confined
to “persons,” and the Charter does not expand that term by definition,
as statutes sometimes do, to include other than natural persons. The
groups or organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities
served with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any
sentence upon them as entities. For example, it may not levy a fine upon
them even though they have property of the organization, nor convict any
person because of membership.
It is also to be observed that the Charter does not require subsequent
proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the competent national
authorities shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein.
The Charter is silent as to the form that these subsequent trials should
take. It was not deemed wise, on the information then available, that
the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. Nor was it necessary
to do so. There is a continuing legislative authority, representing all
four signatory nations, competent to take over where the Charter leaves
off. Legislative supplementation of the Charter, of course, would be
necessary in any event to confer jurisdiction on local courts, to define
their procedures, and to prescribe different penalties for different
forms of activity.
Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence as to
future proceedings means that great numbers of members will be rounded
up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration that an
organization is criminal. It also has been suggested that this is, or
may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control Council Act
Number 10, which defines as a crime “membership in categories of a
criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International
Military Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishment without a right of
hearing cannot be spelled out of this Charter and would be offensive to
both its letter and its spirit. And I do not find in Control Council Act
Number 10 any inconsistency with the Charter. Of course, to reach all
individual members would require numerous hearings, but they will
involve only narrow issues. Many persons will have no answers to charges
if they are carefully prepared; and the proceedings should be
expeditious, nontechnical, and held in the locality where the person
accused resides, and, incidentally, may be conducted in two languages at
most.
And I think it is clear that before any person is punishable for
membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a hearing on
the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize the national
authorities to punish membership without hearing—it gives them only the
right to “bring individuals to trial.” That means what it says. A trial
means there is something to try.
The Charter denies only one of the possible defenses of an accused; he
may not relitigate the question in a subsequent trial whether the
organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes him from
denying that his participation was voluntary and proving that he acted
under duress; he may prove that he was deceived or tricked into
membership; he may show that he had withdrawn or he may prove that his
name on the rolls is a case of mistaken identity.
The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act make
criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving the volition
of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization must have
been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion or illegal duress,
actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim has never been thought to
be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust result is not to be implied
now. The extent of the member’s knowledge of the criminal character of
the organization is, however, another matter. He may not have known on
the day he joined but may have remained a member after learning the
facts. And he is chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of
which he was reasonably put on notice.
There are safeguards to assure that this program will be carried out in
good faith. Prosecution under this declaration is discretionary. If
there were purpose on the part of the Allied Powers to punish these
persons without trial, it would have been already done before this
Tribunal was set up, and without waiting for its declaration. We think
that the Tribunal will presume that the signatory powers which have
voluntarily submitted to this process will carry it out faithfully.
The Control Council Act applies only to categories of membership
declared criminal. This language on the part of the Control Council
recognizes a power in this Tribunal to limit the effect of its
declaration. I do not think, for reasons which I will later state, that
this should be construed or availed of to try any issue here as to
subgroups or sections or individuals which can be tried in later
proceedings. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not the sort of
limitation which must be defined by evidence of details, but limitations
of principle such as those I have already outlined, such as duress,
involuntary membership, or matters of that kind, which the Tribunal can
recognize and deal with without taking detailed evidence. It does not
require this Tribunal to delve into evidence to condition its judgment
to apply only to intentional and voluntary membership. This does not
supplant later trials by the declaration of this Tribunal but guides
them.
It certainly cannot be said that such a plan—such as we have here for
severance of the general issues common to many cases from the particular
issues applicable only to individual defendants for litigation in
separate tribunals specially adapted for the different kinds of
issues—is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it presents
unusual procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents any
insurmountable ones. I will discuss the question of the criteria and the
principles and the precedents for declaring collective criminality
before coming to the procedural questions involved. The substantive law
which governs the inquiry into criminality of organizations is, in its
large outline, old and well settled and fairly uniform in all systems of
law. It is true that we are dealing here with a procedure which would be
easy to abuse and one that is often feared as an interference with
liberty of assembly or as an imposition of guilt by association. It also
is true that proceedings against organizations are closely akin to the
conspiracy charge, which is the great dragnet of the law and rightly
watched by courts lest it be abused.
The fact is, however, that every form of government has considered it
necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not even the most
tolerant of governments can permit an accumulation of private power in
organizations to a point where it rivals, obstructs, or dominates the
government itself. To do so would be to grant designing men a liberty to
destroy liberty. The very complacency and tolerance, as well as the
impotence, of the Weimar Republic towards the growing organization of
Nazi power spelled the death of German freedom.
Protection of the citizen’s liberty has required even free governments
to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power which threaten
to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every one of the nations
signatory to this Charter has laws making certain types of organizations
criminal. The Ku Klux Klan in the United States flourished at about the
same time as the Nazi movement in Germany. It appealed to the same
hates, practiced the same extra-legal coercions, and likewise terrorized
by the same sort of weird nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it
was composed of a core of fanatics, but it enlisted the support of
respectabilities who knew it was wrong but thought it was winning. It
eventually provoked a variety of legislative acts directed against such
organizations as organizations.
The Congress of the United States also has enacted legislation outlawing
certain organizations. A recent example was on the 28th of June 1940,
when the Congress provided that it shall be unlawful for any person,
among other things, to organize or help to organize any society, group,
or assembly of persons to teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or
destruction of any government in the United States by force or violence,
or to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society,
group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.
There is much legislation by states of the American Union creating
analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the act of California
dealing with criminal syndicalism, which, after defining it, makes
criminal any person who organizes, assists in organizing, or is, or
knowingly becomes, a member of such organization.
Precedents in English law for outlawing organizations and punishing
membership therein are old and consistent with the Charter.
One of the first is the British India Act Number 30, enacted in 1836,
which, among other things, provides:
“It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have
belonged, either before or after the passing of this Act, to any
gang of thugs, either within or without the territories of the
East India Company, shall be punished with imprisonment for life
with hard labor.”
And the history is that this was a successful act in suppressing
violence.
Other precedents in English legislation are the Unlawful Societies Act
of 1799, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817, the Seditious Meetings Act
of 1846, the Public Order Act of 1936, and Defense Regulations 18(b).
The latter, not without opposition, was intended to protect the
integrity of the British Government against the fifth-column activities
of this same Nazi conspiracy.
Soviet Russia punishes as a crime the formation of and membership in a
criminal gang. Criminologists of the Soviet Union call this crime the
“crime of banditry,” a term altogether appropriate to these German
organizations. General Rudenko will advise this Tribunal more in detail
as to the Soviet law.
French criminal law makes membership in subversive organizations a
crime. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in itself. My
distinguished French colleague will present you more detail on that.
Of course, I would not contend that the law of a single country, even
one of the signatory powers, was governing here, but it is clear that
this is not an act or a concept of a single system of law, that all
systems of law agree that there are points at which organizations become
intolerable in a free society.
For German precedents, it is neither seemly nor necessary to go to the
Nazi regime, which, of course, suppressed all their adversaries
ruthlessly. However, under the Empire and the Weimar Republic German
jurisprudence deserved respect, and it presents both statutory and
juridical examples of declaring organizations to be criminal. Statutory
examples are: The German Criminal Code enacted in 1871. Section 128 was
aimed against secret associations, and 129 against organizations
inimical to the State. A law of March 22, 1921, against paramilitary
organizations. A law of July 1922 against organizations aimed at
overthrowing the constitution of the Reich.
Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. It
reads:
“The participation in an organization, the existence,
constitution, or purposes of which are to be kept secret from
the government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or
unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is
punishable by imprisonment.”
It would be difficult to draw an act that would more definitely condemn
the organizations with which we are dealing here than this German
Criminal Code of 1871. I recall to your attention that it condemns
organizations in which obedience to unknown superiors or unconditional
obedience to known superiors is pledged. It is exactly the sort of
danger and menace with which we are dealing.
Under the Empire various Polish national unions were the subject of
criminal prosecutions. Under the Republic, in 1927 and 1928, judgments
held criminal the entire Communist Party of Germany. In 1922 and 1928,
judgments of the courts ran against the political leadership corps of
the Communist Party, which included all of its so-called body of
functionaries. This body of functionaries in that organization
corresponded somewhat in their powers to the Leadership Corps of the
Nazi Party, which we have accused here. The judgment against the
Communist Party rendered by the German courts included every cashier,
every employee, every delivery boy and messenger, and every district
leader. In 1930 a judgment of criminality against what was called “The
Union of Red Front Fighters” of the Communist Party made no distinction
between leaders and ordinary members.
Most significant of all is the fact that on the 30th of May 1924
judgment of the German courts was rendered that the whole Nazi Party was
a criminal organization. Evidently there was a lack of courage to
enforce that judgment, or we might not have been here. This decision
referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we are indicting here,
but to all other members as well. The whole rise of the Nazi Party to
power was in the shadow of this judgment of illegality by the German
courts themselves.
The German courts, in dealing with criminal organizations, proceeded on
the theory that all members were held together by a common plan in which
each one participated, even though at different levels. Moreover,
fundamental principles of responsibility of members as stated by the
German Supreme Court are strikingly like the principles that govern our
Anglo-American law of conspiracy. Among the statements by the German
courts are these:
That it is a matter of indifference whether all the members pursued the
forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the forbidden activity.
And again, that it is a matter of indifference whether the members of
the group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of working,
and means of fighting.
And again, that the real attitude of mind of the participants is a
matter of indifference. Even if they had the intention of not
participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this cannot
eliminate their responsibility from real membership.
Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in the
nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged by
application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are offensive
to law-governed people has been succinctly stated by an American legal
authority as follows, and I quote from _Miller on Criminal Law_:
“The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a
combination to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means,
where none would exist, even though the act contemplated were
actually committed by an individual, is that a combination of
persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a means to an
end, is so much more dangerous, because of its increased power
to do wrong, because it is more difficult to guard against and
prevent the evil designs of a group of persons than of a single
person, and because of the terror which fear of such a
combination tends to create in the minds of the people.”
The Charter in Article 6 provides that:
“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating
in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy
to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all
acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”
That, of course, is a statement of the ordinary law of conspiracy. The
individual defendants are arraigned at your bar on this charge of
conspiracy which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts of
others in execution of the common plan.
The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others in
terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in nontechnical but
inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and executing a common plan,
as well as participating in a conspiracy. It was feared that to do
otherwise might import into the proceedings technical requirements and
limitations which have grown up around the term “conspiracy.” There are
some divergencies between the Anglo-American concept of a conspiracy and
that of either French, Soviet, or German jurisprudence. It was desired
that concrete cases be guided by the broader considerations inherent in
the nature of the problem I have outlined, rather than to be controlled
by refinements of any local law.
Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude,
there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization accused
here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part of the
conspiracy under Article 6, even if the Charter had never mentioned
organizations at all. To become voluntarily affiliated was an act of
adherence to some common plan or purpose.
These organizations did not pretend to be merely social or cultural
groups; admittedly, the members were united for action. In the case of
several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation was
evidenced by formal induction into membership, the taking of an oath,
the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the submission to a discipline.
That all members of each Nazi organization did combine under a common
plan to achieve some end by combined efforts is abundantly established.
The criteria for determining whether these ends were guilty ends are
obviously those which would test the legality of any combination or
conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or purpose illegal ends?
If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi organizations
for the acts of every other member is not essentially different from the
liability for conspiracy enforced in the courts of the United States
against businessmen who combine in violation of the anti-trust laws, or
other defendants accused under narcotic-drugs acts, sedition acts, or
other Federal penal enactments.
Among the principles every day enforced in courts of Great Britain and
the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these sweeping
principles:
No formal meeting or agreement is necessary. It is sufficient, although
one performs one part and other persons other parts, if there be concert
of action and working together understandingly with a common design to
accomplish a common purpose.
Secondly, one may be liable even though he may not have known who his
fellow conspirators were or just what part they were to take or what
acts they committed, and though he did not take personal part in them or
was absent when the criminal acts occurred.
Third, there may be liability for acts of fellow conspirators although
the particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if they were done
in execution of the common plan. One in effect makes a fellow
conspirator his agent with blanket authority to accomplish the ends of
the conspiracy.
Fourth, it is not necessary to liability that one be a member of a
conspiracy at the same time as other actors, or at the time of the
criminal acts. When one becomes a party to a conspiracy, he adopts and
ratifies what has gone before and remains responsible until he abandons
the conspiracy with notice to his fellow conspirators.
Now, those are sweeping principles, but no society has been able to do
without these defenses against the accumulation of power through
aggregations of individuals.
Members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who personally commit
crimes, of course, are individually punishable for those crimes exactly
as are those who commit the same offenses without organizational
backing. The very essence of the crime of conspiracy or membership in a
criminal association is liability for acts one did not personally
commit, but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The crime is to
combine with others and to participate in the unlawful common effort,
however innocent the personal acts of the participants, considered by
themselves.
The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to tie one into a
conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal plan.
And we have multitudinous examples in the jurisprudence of the United
States where the mailing of a letter brought one not only within the
orbit of the definition of crime, but within Federal jurisdiction.
There are countless examples of this doctrine that innocent acts in the
performance of a common purpose render one liable for the criminal acts
of others performed to that same end.
This sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration in
determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the
vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership,
formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose and
submission to discipline and chain of command, cannot be less than that
vicarious liability which follows from informal co-operation with a
nebulous group, as is sufficient in case of a conspiracy.
This meets the suggestions that the Prosecution is required to prove
every member, or every part, fraction, or division of the membership to
be guilty of criminal acts. That suggestion ignores the conspiratorial
nature of the charge against organizations. Such an interpretation also
would reduce the Charter to an unworkable absurdity. To concentrate in
one International Tribunal inquiries requiring such detailed evidence as
to each member or as to each subsection would set a task not possible of
completion within the lives of living men.
It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as that
“one should be convicted for his activities and not for his membership.”
But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi bodies was an
activity. It was not something passed out to a passive citizen like a
handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and abet a movement greatly.
Does anyone believe that the picture of Hjalmar Schacht sitting in the
front row of the Nazi Party Congress, which you have seen, wearing the
insignia of the Nazi Party, was included in the propaganda film of the
Nazi Party merely for artistic effect? The great banker’s mere loan of
his name to this shady enterprise gave it a lift and a respectability in
the eyes of every hesitating German. There may be instances in which
membership did not aid and abet organizational ends and means, but
individual situations of that kind are for appraisal in the later
hearings and not by this Tribunal.
By and large, the use of organizational affiliation is a quick and
simple, but at the same time fairly accurate, outline of the contours of
a conspiracy to do what the organization actually did. It is the only
workable one at this stage of the Trial. It can work no injustice
because before any individual can be punished, he can submit the facts
of his own case to further and more detailed judicial scrutiny.
While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary legal
principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of criminality
is, of course, upon the Prosecution. It is discharged, we think, when we
establish the following:
1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of
persons associated in identifiable relationship with a collective,
general purpose.
2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that
membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. This
does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. Nor does it
mean that an organization is not to be considered voluntary if the
Defense proves that some minor fraction or small percentage of its
membership was compelled to join. The test is a commonsense one: Was the
organization on the whole one which persons were free to join or to stay
out of? Membership is not made involuntary by the fact that it was good
business or good politics to identify one’s self with the movement. Any
compulsion must be of the kind which the law normally recognizes, and
threats of political or economic retaliation would be of no consequence.
3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was designed
to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the Charter. No
other act would authorize conviction of an individual and no other act
would authorize conviction of the organization in connection with the
conviction of the individual.
4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of
such a character that its membership in general may properly be charged
with knowledge of them. This again is not specifically required by the
Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent on the Prosecution to establish
the individual knowledge of every member of the organization or to rebut
the possibility that some may have joined in ignorance of its true
character.
5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the organization
and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which the organization
was declared to be criminal.
I shall now take up the subject of the issues, as we see it, which are
for trial before this Tribunal, and some discussion of those which seem
to us not to be for trial before this Tribunal.
Progress of this Trial will be expedited by a clear definition of the
issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be proper
criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are not
relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in the
specific questions asked by the Tribunal.
Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. That
is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized as
criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that does
not bear on a question that would be common to the case of every member.
Any matter that would be exculpating for some members but not for all
is, as we see it, irrelevant here.
We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that one or
many members were conscripted if in general the membership was
voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good defense for an
individual charged with membership in a criminal organization, but an
organization can have criminal purpose and commit criminal acts even if
a portion of its membership consists of persons who were compelled to
join it. The issue of conscription is not pertinent to this proceeding,
but it is pertinent to the trials of individuals for membership in
organizations declared to be criminal.
Also, we think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more
members of the named organizations were ignorant of its criminal
purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open or notorious.
An organization may have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts
although one or many of its members were without personal knowledge
thereof. If a person joined what he thought was a social club, but what
in fact turned out to be a gang of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of
knowledge would not exonerate the gang considered as a group, although
it might possibly be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality
brought against him for mere membership in the organization. Even then,
the test would be not what the man actually knew, but what, as a person
of common understanding he should have known.
It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the
named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful acts. This
proposition is basic in the entire theory of the declaration of
organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality of
organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for aiding
crimes, although the precise perpetrators can never be found or
identified.
We know that the Gestapo and the SS, as organizations, were given
principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish people in
Europe, but beyond a few isolated instances, we can never establish
which members of the Gestapo or SS actually carried out the murders.
Most of them were concealed by the anonymity of the uniform, committed
their crimes, and passed on. Witnesses know that it was an SS man or a
Gestapo man, but to identify him is impossible. Any member guilty of
direct participation in such crimes, if we can find and identify him,
can be tried on the charge of having committed the specific crimes in
addition to the general charge of membership in a criminal organization.
Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of the
organizations were themselves allegedly innocent of specific wrongdoing.
The purpose of this proceeding is not to reach instances of individual
criminal conduct, even in subsequent trials, and therefore such
considerations are irrelevant here.
Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time during
which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment are claimed by
the Prosecution to have been criminal. The Prosecution believes that
each organization should be declared criminal for the period stated in
the Indictment. We do not contend that the Tribunal is without power to
condition its declaration so as to cover a lesser period of time than
that set forth in the Indictment. The Indictment is specific as to each
organization. We think that the record at this time affords adequate
evidence to support the charge of criminality with respect to each of
the organizations during the full time set forth in the Indictment.
Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes of
persons included within the accused groups or organizations should be
excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of course,
necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some identifiable
group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not expected or
required to be bound by formalities of organization. In framing the
Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or concepts which
would involve this Trial in legal technicalities about juristic persons
or entities.
Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the refinements of these
fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is a nontechnical one.
“Group” or “organization” should be given no artificial or sophistical
meaning. The word “group” was used in the Charter as a broader term,
implying a looser and less formal structure or relationship than is
implied in the term “organization.” The terms mean in the context of the
Charter what they mean in the ordinary speech of people. The test to
identify a group or organization is a natural and commonsense one.
It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal has, no doubt,
power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare criminal,
the precise composition and membership of groups and organizations is
not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter requirement and no
practical need for the Tribunal to define a group or organization with
such particularity that its precise composition or membership is thereby
determined.
The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues was a
recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive of
such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend persons
who, on more detailed inquiry, will prove to be outside of it.
Any effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of
individuals, be they few or many, would unduly protract the Trial,
transgress the limitations of the Charter, and quite likely do some
mischief by attempting to adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence
which is not directed to that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time for you to break off for
a few moments?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Sir.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Prosecution stands upon the language of the
Indictment and contends that each group or organization should be
declared criminal as an entity and that no inquiry should be entered
upon and no evidence entertained as to the exculpation of any class or
classes of persons within such descriptions. Practical reasons of
conserving the Tribunal’s time combine with practical considerations for
defendants. A single trial held in one city to deal with the question of
excluding thousands of defendants living all over Germany could not be
expected to do justice to each member unless it was expected to endure
indefinitely. Provision for later local trials of individual
relationships protects the rights of members better than possibly can be
done in proceedings before this Tribunal.
With respect to the Gestapo, the United States and, I believe all of my
colleagues consent to exclude persons employed in purely clerical,
stenographic, janitorial, or similar unofficial routine tasks. As to the
Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by the position taken at the time of
submission of the evidence, that the following should be included: The
Führer, the Reichsleiter, main departments and office holders, the
Gauleiter and their staff officers, the Kreisleiter and their staff
officers, the Ortsgruppenleiter, the Zellenleiter, and the Blockleiter,
but not members of the staff of the last three officials.
As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the declaration
expressly exclude: (1) Wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) the
SA-controlled home-guard units, which were not, as we view it on the
evidence, strictly a part of the SA, and there also be excluded the
National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans and the SA Reserve, so
as to include only the active parts of that organization.
The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the severability
of any class or classes of persons within the organizations accused
which would justify any further concessions, and that no other part of
the named groups should be excluded. In this connection, we would again
stress the principles of conspiracy. The fact that a section of an
organization itself committed no criminal act, or may have been occupied
in technical or administrative functions, does not relieve that section
of criminal responsibility if its activities contributed to the over-all
accomplishment of the criminal enterprise. I should like to discuss the
question of the further steps to be taken procedurally before this
Tribunal.
Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to the Tribunal asking
to be heard in connection with the accusations against organizations.
The volume of these applications has caused apprehension as to further
proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties yet to be overcome, but my
study indicates that the difficulties are greatly exaggerated.
The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will
entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be anxious,
of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, not only
to do justice, but to avoid appearance of doing anything less than
justice. And we do not consider that expediting this Trial is so
important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really
pertinent facts.
Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood of
applications indicated that their significance is not proportionate to
their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of the
right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied
prisoner-of-war and internment camps. The notice was published in all
German language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the radio.
Investigation shows that the notice was posted in all barracks of the
camps, and it also shows that in many camps it was read to the
prisoners, in addition. The 45,000 persons who responded with
applications to be heard came principally from about 15 prisoner-of-war
and internment camps in British or United States control. Those received
included an approximate 12,000 from Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser,
7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from Staumühle, 2,500 from Garmisch and
several hundred from each of the others.
We have made some investigation of these applications, as well as of the
sending out of the notices, and we would be glad to place any
information that we have at the disposal of the Tribunal.
An investigation was made of the Auerbach Camp in the United States
zone, principally to determine the reason for these applications and the
method by which they came. That investigation was conducted by
Lieutenant Colonel Smith Brookhart, Captain Drexel Sprecher, and Captain
Krieger, all of whom are known to this Tribunal.
The Auerbach camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly SS members. Its
prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923 officers. The notice of the
International Military Tribunal was posted in each of the barracks and
was read to all inmates. All applications to the Tribunal were forwarded
without censorship of any kind. Applications to defend were made by
7,500 SS members.
Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to the
notice, and that no action was directed or inspired from any other
source within or without the camp. All who were interrogated professed
that they had no knowledge of any SS crimes or of SS criminal purpose,
but they expressed interest only in their individual fate, rather than
any concern to defend the organization.
Our investigators report no indication that they had any additional
evidence or information to submit on the general question of the
criminality of the SS as an organization. They seemed to think it was
necessary to protect themselves to make the application here.
Turning then to examination of the applications, these, on their face,
indicate that most of the members do not profess to have evidence on the
general issue triable here. They assert almost without exception that
the writer has neither committed nor witnessed nor known of the crimes
charged against the organization. On a proper definition of the issues
such an application is insufficient, on its face, to warrant a personal
intervention.
A careful examination of the notice to which these applications respond
will indicate, I believe, that the notice contains no word which would
inform a member, particularly if he were a layman, of the narrowness of
the issues which are to be considered here, or that he will have a later
opportunity, if and when prosecuted, to present personal defenses. On
the other hand the notice, it seems to me, creates the impression,
particularly to a layman, that every member may be convicted and
punished by this Tribunal and that his only chance to be heard is here.
I think a careful examination of these notices will bear out that
impression and a careful examination of the applications will show that
they are in response to that impression.
Now, among lawyers there is usually a difference of opinion as to how
best to proceed and this case presents no exception to that; there are
different ideas. But I shall advance certain views as to how we should
proceed from here to obtain a fair and proper adjudication of these
questions. In view of these facts we suggest a consideration of the
following program for completion of this Trial as to organizations:
1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope of the
issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it.
2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation of
the issues and the opportunity later to be individually tried be sent to
all applicants and published in the same manner as the original notice.
3. That a panel of masters be appointed, as authorized in Article 17(e)
of the Charter, to examine applications and to report those that are
insufficient on their own statements and to go to the camps and
supervise the taking of any relevant evidence. Defense Counsel and
Prosecution representatives should, of course, attend and be heard
before the masters. The masters should reduce any evidence to deposition
form and report the whole to this Tribunal, to be introduced as a part
of its record.
4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify the
task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps might well
be invited to choose one or more to represent them in presenting
evidence.
It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and the Defense Counsel
that the Prosecution has omitted from evidence many relevant documents
which show repetition of crimes by these organizations in order to save
time by avoiding cumulative evidence. It is not too much to expect that
cumulative evidence of a negative character will likewise be limited.
Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons who might be
affected by the declarations of criminality which we have asked.
Some people seem more susceptible to the shock of a million punishments
than to shock from 5 million murders. At most the number of punishments
will never catch up with the number of crimes. However, it is impossible
to state, even with approximate accuracy, the number of persons who
might be affected by the declaration of criminality which we have asked.
Figures from the German sources seriously exaggerate the number, because
they do not take account of heavy casualties in the latter part of the
war, and make no allowance for duplication of membership which was
large. For example, the evidence is to the effect that 75 percent of the
Gestapo men also were members of the SS. We know that the United States
forces have a roughly estimated 130,000 detained persons who appear to
be members of accused organizations. I have no figure from other Allied
forces. But how many of these actually would be prosecuted, instead of
being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can foretell.
Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: It is so large that a
thorough inquiry by this Tribunal into each case would prolong its
session beyond endurance. All questions as to whether individuals or
subgroups of accused organizations should be excepted from the
declaration of criminality should be left for local courts, located near
the home of the accused and near the source of evidence. The courts can
work in one or at most in two languages, instead of four, and can hear
evidence which both parties direct to the specific issues.
This is not the time to review the evidence against each particular
organization which, we take it, should be reserved for summation after
the evidence is all presented. But it is timely to say that the
selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment was not a
matter of chance. The chief reasons they were chosen are these:
Collectively they were the ultimate repositories of all power in the
Nazi regime; they were not only the most powerful, but the most vicious
organizations in the regime; and they were organizations in which
membership was generally voluntary.
The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal
executors of the Nazi Party, and the Nazi Party was the force lying
behind and dominating the whole German State. The Reich Cabinet was the
facade through which the Nazi Party translated its will into
legislative, administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars on
which the security of the regime rested were the Armed Forces, directed
and controlled by the General Staff and High Command, and the police
forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. These organizations
exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime.
These organizations were also selected because, while representative,
they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable that
innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up in the same
net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, but not all the
administrative officials or department heads or civil servants; only the
Reich Cabinet, the very heart of Nazidom within the government, is
named. The Armed Forces are accused, but not the average soldier or
officer, no matter how high-ranking. Only the top policy makers—the
General Staff and the High Command—are named. The police forces are
accused—but not every policeman, not the ordinary police which
performed only the normal police functions. Only the most terroristic
and repressive police elements—the Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi
Party is accused—but not every Nazi voter, not even every member, only
the leaders. And not even every Party official or worker is included;
only “the bearers of sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the
Party, who were the actual commanding officers and their staff officers
on the highest levels.
I think it is important that we observe, in reference to the Nazi Party,
just what it is that we are doing here and compare it with the
denazification program in effect without any declaration of criminality,
in order to see in its true perspective the indictment which we bring
against the Nazi Party.
Some charts have been prepared. This is a mere graphic representation of
the proportions of persons that we have accused, and which we ask this
Tribunal to declare as constituting criminal organizations.
In the first column are the 79 million German citizens. We make no
accusation against the citizenry of Germany. The next is the 48 million
voters, who at one time voted to keep the Nazi Party in power. They
voted in response to the referendum. We make no charge against those who
supported the Nazi Party, although in some aspects of the denazification
program the supporters are included. Then come the 5 million Nazi
members, persons who definitely joined the Nazi Party by an act of
affiliation, by an oath of fealty. But we do not attempt to reach that
entire 5 million persons, although I have no hesitation in saying that
there would be good grounds for doing so; but as a mere matter of
practicality of this situation it is not possible to reach all of those
who are technically and perhaps morally well within the confines of this
conspiracy. So the voters are disregarded, the 48 million, the 5 million
members are disregarded, and the first that we propose to reach are the
Nazi leaders, starting with Blockleiter, which are shown in the last
small block, and piled together, amounting to the fourth block on the
diagram.
It is true that we start with the local block leader, but he had
responsibilities—responsibilities for herding into the fold his 50
households, responsibilities for spying upon them and reporting their
activities; responsibilities, as this evidence shows, for disciplining
them and for leading them. No political movement can function in the
drawing rooms and offices. It has to reach the masses of the people and
these block leaders were the essential elements in making this program
effective among the masses of the people and in terrorizing them into
submission.
I submit that on this diagram the accusation which we bring here is a
moderate one reaching only persons of admitted leadership
responsibilities and not trying to reach people who may have been
beguiled into following in an unorganized fashion.
We have also accused the formations, Party formations, such as the SA
and the SS. These were the strong arms of the Party. These were the
formations that the Blockleiter was authorized to call in to help him if
he needed to discipline somebody in his block of 50 houses.
But we do not accuse every one of the formations of the Party, nor do we
accuse any of the 20 or more supervised or affiliated Party groups, Nazi
organizations in which membership was compulsory, either legally or in
practice, such as the Hitler Youth and the Student League. We do not
accuse the Nazi professional organizations, although they were Nazi
dominated, like the civil servants’ organization, the teachers’
organization, and the National Socialist lawyers’ organization, although
I should show them as little charity as any group. We do not accuse any
Nazi organizations which have some legitimate purpose, like welfare
organizations. Only two of these Party formations are named, the SA and
the SS, the oldest of the Nazi organizations, groups which had no
purpose other than carrying out the Nazi schemes, and which actively
participated in every crime denounced by the Charter and furnished the
manpower for most of the crimes which we have proved.
In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling
repetition of the Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, and War
Crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these organizations
than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual defendants in the
box. These defendants’ power for harm is past. They are discredited men.
That of these organizations goes on. If these organizations are
exonerated here, the German people will infer that they did no wrong,
and they will easily be regimented in reconstituted organizations under
new names, behind the same program.
In administering retributive justice it would be possible to exonerate
these organizations only by concluding that no crimes have been
committed by the Nazi regime. For these organizations’ sponsorship of
every Nazi purpose and their confederation to execute every measure to
attain these ends is beyond denial. A failure to condemn these
organizations under the terms of the Charter can only mean that such
Nazi ends and means cannot be considered criminal and that the Charter
of the Tribunal declaring them so is a nullity.
I think my colleagues, who have somewhat different aspects of the case
to deal with, would like to be heard on this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the
Tribunal thinks the most convenient course would be to hear argument on
behalf of all the chief prosecutors and then to hear argument on behalf
of such of the defendants’ counsel as wish to be heard, and after that
the Tribunal will probably wish to ask some questions of the chief
prosecutors.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That will be very agreeable to us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Justice Jackson
has dealt with the general principles under which the organizations
named in the Charter should, in the view of the Prosecution, be dealt
with. It is not my purpose to repeat or even to underline his arguments.
My endeavor is to comply with Paragraph 4 of the statement of the
Tribunal made on the 14th of January of this year. This involves:
(a) Summarizing, in respect of each named organization, the elements
which, in our opinion, justify the charge of their being criminal
organizations. For convenience I shall refer to these as the elements of
criminality.
(b) Indicating what acts on the part of individual defendants in the
sense used in Article 9 of the Charter justified declaring the groups or
organizations of which they are members to be criminal organizations.
Again for convenience, I shall refer to such defendants in the wording
of the Charter, as connected defendants.
(c) I shall submit that what I have put forward in writing under (a) and
(b) will form the necessary summary of proposed findings of fact under
the Tribunal’s third point.
May I say one word about the mechanics of the position? I thought that
it would be convenient if the Tribunal and the Defense Counsel had
copies of these suggestions before I address the Tribunal. In pursuance
of this, copies have been given to the members of the Tribunal, of
course to the court interpreters, and copies in German have been
provided for counsel for the organizations and also for counsel for each
of the individual defendants.
For the convenience of the Tribunal and of counsel, I have circulated
two addenda, which contain further references to the transcript and
documents on a number of points in the original appendices. These
addenda are compiled under the numbers of paragraphs and, although they
are in English, should be readily usable by Counsel for the Defense. The
result is that there is the summary in Appendices (A) and (B), which I
put in, and full reference in all the points in the summary to the
transcript and in some cases to documents.
It is my intention not to read in full all the matters contained in my
Appendix (A) and Appendix (B) but to indicate how they fit in with the
conception of the Prosecution on this aspect of the case. I shall, of
course, be only too ready to read any portions which may be convenient
to the Tribunal.
I think it would be best to start from the essential _probanda_ which
Mr. Justice Jackson has indicated, and perhaps the Tribunal will bear
with me while I repeat his five points:
1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of
persons, (a) in some identifiable relationship, (b) with a collective
general purpose. That was Mr. Justice Jackson’s first test.
2. Membership in such organization must be generally voluntary, although
a minor proportion of involuntary members will not affect the position.
3. The aims of the organizations must be criminal in the sense that its
objects included the performance of acts denounced as crimes by Article
6 of the Charter.
4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of
such a character that a reasonable man would have constructive knowledge
of the organization which he was joining; that is, that he ought to have
known what type of organization he was joining.
5. Some individual defendants, at least one, must have been a member of
the organization and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which
a declaration of the criminality of the organization can be made.
I do not think that I can avoid applying these tests to each of the
organizations, but I conceive that this can be done with brevity, and I
therefore propose to deal with the organizations _seriatim_.
I take first the Reichsregierung. Under Appendix B of the Indictment
this group is defined as consisting of three classes:
1. Members of the ordinary cabinet after the 30th of January 1933. The
term “ordinary cabinet” is in turn used as meaning: (a) Reich ministers
that is, heads of departments; (b) Reich ministers without portfolio;
(c) State ministers acting as Reich ministers, (d) other officials
entitled to take part in meetings of the cabinet.
The second division is members of the Council of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich.
The third division, members of the Secret Cabinet Council.
It is submitted that, on the evidence placed before the Tribunal, there
is no doubt that the first of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, Point 1, is
complied with in that there is an identifiable relationship with a
collective general purpose, and that this organization is generally
voluntary, within Point 2.
The aims of the organization are set out in Paragraph 4 of Section A of
my Appendix A and the broad submission of the Prosecution is shown in
Paragraph 2. Perhaps, as that is short, I might be allowed to read it:
“Owing to their legislative powers and functions the members of
the Reichsregierung gave statutory effect to the policy of the
Nazi conspirators and collectively formed a combination of
persons carrying out the executive and administrative decisions
of the Nazi conspirators.”
The Prosecution apply that general submission to the crimes constituted
by Article 6 of the Charter in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of that
appendix. If the Tribunal would like me to deal further with these
paragraphs I should be pleased to read and comment on any that are
desired.
When it is remembered that the Reichsregierung possessed policymaking,
legislative, administrative, and executive powers and functions, and
that many of its members held at the same time important positions in
the Party and in governmental activities outside the cabinet, enormous
political power was concentrated in this group. As I said, the
Reichsregierung implemented and gave statutory effect to the program of
the conspirators.
If the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to my Appendix B they will
see that 17 of the 21 defendants before the Court were members of the
Reichsregierung. The Prosecution have submitted an enormous body of
evidence against these 17 defendants, and they now submit that it is
sufficient to say that these 17 defendants should be convicted under
each count of the Indictment, and therefore under each portion of
Article 6 of the Charter, and that they form the connected defendants
with the Reichsregierung, under Mr. Justice Jackson’s Point Number 5.
The acts which I have mentioned and which are set out in Paragraph 4 of
my Appendix A and the other paragraphs are of such a character that no
one in a ministerial capacity could fail to have constructive knowledge
of their nature and intent.
I now pass to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Mr. Justice
Jackson has indicated that the conspirators required wide instruments of
support. Hitler boasted of the complete domination of the Reich and of
its institutions and of its organizations, internally and externally, by
the National Socialist Party.
In the Nazi Party, based on the Führerprinzip, its policies and
operations were determined not by the membership as a whole but by the
corps of bearers of sovereignty and their staff. These leaders were all
political deputies, obliged to support and carry out the doctrines of
the Party. At every level regular and frequent conferences were held to
discuss questions of policy and working measures. The leaders held the
Party together, but they also kept the entire populace firmly in the
grip of the conspirators through the control of the descending hierarchy
of leaders.
The Prosecution submit that all these leaders are within the
organization which they claim to be criminal, and as Mr. Justice Jackson
pointed out the staffs of the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter,
which are set out in the volumes of the _National Socialist Organization
Yearbook_ as being in these positions.
The Tribunal will note that we have omitted the staffs of the more
junior Hoheitsträger, as Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out. On that
the Prosecution again says that there is no doubt that Points 1 and 2 of
Mr. Justice Jackson’s criteria are complied with, and they indicate in
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section B of my Appendix A the elements of
criminality; they indicate in my Appendix B the defendants who are
involved; and in a latter portion of Appendix B they submit that from
the position of these defendants as members of the Leadership Corps and
in the Government and the Nazi Party, and further, from the close
interconnection between the Government of the Reich and the Party, it is
clear that the Leadership Corps is a criminal organization connected
with all the crimes charged against all the defendants in the
Indictment, including those who were in the Leadership Corps and
elaborated before the Tribunal in the individual presentations.
The Nazi Party is the core of the conspiracy and criminality alleged,
and the defendants are the core of the Nazi Party. Again the Prosecution
say that no one living in Germany and taking part in the management,
which in this case means literally the ordering of the Nazi Party, could
fail to have constructive knowledge of the intentions of its leaders and
the methods of carrying these out. This inner circle is in a different
position from even the best-informed opinion outside Germany.
I now pass to the SS, including the SD. The Prosecution respectfully
remind the Tribunal of the statements regarding the composition of the
SS and its history, set out shortly in Appendix B of the Indictment, on
Page 36 (Volume I, Page 81) of the English text. The Prosecution stands
by these statements, which it submits are clear. I do not intend to read
them at the present moment.
The Tribunal has heard in the case regarding the SS—the transcript
Pages 1787 to 1889 (Volume IV, Pages 161-230)—and the case regarding
concentration camps—Pages 1399 to 1432 (Volume III, Pages 496-518)—and
also the evidence as to the Defendant Kaltenbrunner, of which the
reference is given in the addendum. They have also heard in the cases of
the French and Soviet delegations additional mountains of evidence with
regard to the SS. It is submitted that there is no difficulty on the
first three of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points, and that the criminality of
the SS has been proved several times over.
On the fourth point I venture to submit the submission in Paragraph 4 of
Section C of my Appendix A, that the crimes of the SS were committed,
first, on such a vast scale, and, secondly, over such a vast area that
the criminal aims and methods of the SS, which have staggered humanity
since this Trial opened, must have been known to its members. It was
difficult to drive from one city of Germany to another without passing
near to a concentration camp, and every concentration camp contained its
SS crimes. In my Appendix B the Tribunal will find the members of the SS
who are defendants set out, and, in the second part, a summary of the
crimes of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. The Prosecution gives to him a
sinister particularity, while relying also on the crimes of the other
defendants who were members.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): May I point out
that in the appendix the Defendant Frick has apparently been included by
mistake; among the offices held by the Defendant Frick this is not
listed as one of them.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean? Do you mean not a member of the SS?
DR. PANNENBECKER: The appendix says that Frick was a member of the SS.
This is not the case, and he has also made a statement to this effect in
his affidavit.
DR. SEIDL: In the appendix just read out by the prosecutor the Defendant
Frank too is included as a member of the SS. Already earlier in the
Trial the American prosecutor submitted Document 2979-PS as Exhibit
Number USA-7. This document shows that at no time was Frank a member of
the SS or, as is asserted in the Indictment, an SS general.
Furthermore I should like to point out to the Tribunal that several
months ago, when the Indictment was lodged against the SS as a criminal
organization, the name of the Defendant Frank was not mentioned. May I
therefore take it that in the drawing up of this appendix a mistake has
been made?
DR. THOMA: I should like to make the same statement as that made by my
colleague Doctor Seidl on behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg. In Appendix
A, which lists the indicted elements, Rosenberg is shown as a member of
the SA. He was never a member of the SA, and he has already made a
statement to this effect in the course of an interrogation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The defendants will have the opportunity of
disproving these allegations, which are all contained in the Indictment;
but in view of what has been said, I shall personally check the matter
myself.
I proceed to deal with the Gestapo. Again, the Tribunal will find the
construction and history of the Gestapo set out in Appendix B of the
Indictment, and the criminality alleged is set out in Paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 of Section D of my appendix. The second addendum, the Tribunal may
care to note, gives the most detailed references to each of these
alleged acts of criminality. And the Prosecution submit that from these
points which are mentioned it is clear that the first four of Mr.
Justice Jackson’s points are complied with. The provisions of Articles 7
and 8 of the Charter, in the submission of the Prosecution, make it
impossible for the Defense to rely on the official background of the
Gestapo, and therefore, as I say, we submit that this clearly comes
within the first four of Mr. Justice Jackson’s points. If the Tribunal
will refer to my Appendix B they will see that the Defendants Göring,
Frick, and Kaltenbrunner are alleged to be members, and in the latter
part of that appendix we allege, as is the fact, that the crimes of
these defendants were committed in their capacities as responsible
chiefs of this organization.
Then we come to the SA. I again refer to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section E
of my Appendix A, and I ask the Tribunal to note that, apart from the
correct statement of its phases and periods of activity, each of the
elements of criminality contained references to the transcript where
these matters are proved. I remind the Tribunal of Mr. Justice Jackson’s
statement, which shows that the Prosecution have omitted all connected
bodies—even including those who had only been members of the
reserve—about which there can be any argument, even a sentimental
argument, as to their full connection.
It might be convenient if I reminded the Tribunal of these sections.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, before the Tribunal
adjourned, I was about to mention again the bodies on the fringe of the
SA, which the Prosecution did not seek to have included in the
organizations:
First, wearers of the SA Sports Badge. The Tribunal may remember that
Colonel Storey explained that they were not strictly members. He wanted
to have that point quite clear. Secondly, SA Wehrmannschaften, who were
internal defense or home-guard units, controlled by the SA but not
members of the SA. Thirdly, SA members who were never in any part of the
SA other than the reserve. Fourthly, the NSKOV, the National Socialist
League for Disabled Veterans, who were apparently incorporated in the
SA; but from the names that have been given—and the membership—we do
not ask for their inclusion.
In Appendix B the Tribunal will find the eight defendants alleged to be
connected with the SA, and it is alleged by the Prosecution that the
connection of the SA with the conspiracy was so intimate that all the
acts of the Defendant Göring would justify the declaration asked for.
I now pass to the sixth and last group or organization, the General
Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces. As in this case the
Prosecution has drawn an arbitrary line, I may perhaps be allowed to
recall briefly its constitution.
If the Tribunal will be good enough to look at Appendix B of the
Indictment, under this heading, Page 37 of the English text (Volume I,
Page 84), they will see that the first nine positions enumerated are
special command or chief-of-staff positions. There were 22 holders of
these positions between February 1938 and May 1945, of whom 18 are
living. The 10th position, of Oberbefehlshaber, includes 110 individual
officers who held it. The whole group varied from a membership of 20 at
the beginning of the war to about 50 in 1944 or 1945—that is, at any
one time.
I remind the Tribunal, however, that the conjoining of these positions
is not artificial in reality, because on Page 2115 (Volume IV, Page 399)
and the following pages of Colonel Telford Taylor’s presentation—and I
refer especially to Pages 2125 and 2126 (Volume IV, Pages 407, 408)—it
will be seen how the holders of the positions enumerated met in fact and
in the flesh. This, in our submission, clearly comes within the
interpretation of “group” in the Charter which, as Mr. Justice Jackson
pointed out, has a wider connotation than “organization”; and we submit
that you cannot hold men in the top command against their will. It would
be impossible for them to carry on such work on such a condition.
Under Section F of my Appendix A, read with the first addendum, there
will be found not only the references in the transcript but the
references to the captured documents which prove, out of the mouths of
the members of this group, the criminality alleged against them under
each part of Article 6 of the Charter. These documents also show their
actual knowledge and therefore, _a priori_, their constructive knowledge
of the nature of the act.
In my Appendix B the five defendants involved are set out; and in the
latter part of that appendix the connection of the group, and especially
of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl, is emphasized. It is submitted that
these facts prevent any difficulty being encountered with regard to this
group on any of the five criteria which we say should guide the
Tribunal.
Finally, may I repeat that, in our respectful submission, the facts
contained in Appendices A and B, which are before the Tribunal in
writing, clearly indicate the findings of fact for which the Prosecution
ask.
My friend, M. Champetier de Ribes, will address the Tribunal.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. President and
Gentlemen, I shall be careful not to add anything to the very complete
statements of Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
In agreement with my fellow prosecutors, I should like respectfully to
draw the Tribunal’s attention only to two clauses of French domestic law
which deal with questions comparable to those which we are considering
today—and in connection with which I believe the French legislature has
had to solve some of the problems with which the Tribunal is
concerned—and especially to reply to the question put by the Tribunal,
namely, the definition of the criminal organizations.
I shall merely mention Article 265 of the French Penal Code which lays
down the general principle of the association of criminals by enacting
that:
“Any organized association, whatever its structure or the number
of its members, any understanding made with the object of
preparing or committing crimes against persons or against
property, constitutes a crime against public peace.”
But I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to this fact,
that in the course of the last few years France has had occasion to
apply this general principle to organizations which greatly resemble
those which we are asking you to declare criminal.
It is known indeed, Gentlemen, that Nazism is a contagious disease, the
ravages of which threaten to go beyond the borders of the countries
which it has definitely contaminated. Thus, during the years 1934 to
1936 diverse groups had been formed in France which, following the
example of their German and Italian models, were organized with the
intention of substituting themselves for the legal government in order
to impose in the country what they called “order” but which was in
reality only disorder.
The French Republic in 1936 did what the Weimar Republic ought to have
done. The law of 10 January 1936, promulgated on 12 January in the
_Official Gazette_, which I submit to the Tribunal, and a translation of
which was given to the Defense, decreed the dissolution of these groups
and enacted severe penalties against their members. With the Tribunal’s
permission, I shall read the first two clauses of this law:
“Article I. By decree of the President of the Republic in
session with the Cabinet all associations or _de facto_ groups
shall be dissolved which:
“1. Might provoke armed demonstrations in public thoroughfares;
“2. Or which, with the exception of societies for military
preparation sanctioned by the Government and societies for
physical education and sport, might by their structure and their
military organization have the character of a fighting group or
a private militia;
“3. Or which might aim at jeopardizing the integrity of the
national territory or at attempting to alter by force the
republican form of government.
“Article II. Any person who has taken part in the maintenance or
the reconstitution, direct or indirect, of the association or
group as defined in Article I, will be punished by a term of 6
months’ to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 16 to 5,000
francs.”
The Tribunal will observe, in the first place, that by imposing severe
penalties on members of these associations for the mere fact of having
taken part “in the maintenance or the reconstitution, direct or
indirect, of the association,” the law of 10 January 1936 has recognized
and proclaimed the criminal character of the association.
The Tribunal will observe, in the second place, that neither the Penal
Code nor the law of 10 January 1936 is concerned with giving an exact
definition of the association nor with the question as to whether the
incriminated association constitutes a moral entity or a legal entity
having a legal existence. Article 265 of the Penal Code includes in its
condemnation not only any association, which means a legal entity, but
also condemns any agreement entered into with the object of preparing or
committing crimes. And the law of 10 January also mentions any
association, or any _de facto_ group. Thus the law of 10 January in the
same way as Article 265 of the Penal Code, speaking of agreements
entered into or _de facto_ groups, does not seek to define criminal
organizations by law and refers to the commonly accepted meaning and
implication of the words “group” or “organization” as we today ask you
to define them.
In the same way, after the liberation of our country, the French
Government concerned itself with pursuing and punishing bad citizens
who, even without offending against an existing penal statute, had been
guilty of definite antinational activity; and issued the decree of 26
August 1944, promulgated in the _Official Gazette_ of 28 August. This
decree, after having given a very general definition of the offense,
defined its extent by enumerating the essential facts which it
comprises.
Thus, Article I of the decree of 26 August 1944 states that the crime of
national unworthiness is constituted by the fact of having participated
in a collaborationist organization of any kind, and more especially one
of the following: le Service d’Ordre Legionnaire (Legion of Order), la
Milice (Militia), the group called “Collaboration,” la Phalange
Africaine (African Phalanx), and so on.
The decree of 26 August 1944 is much less concerned with defining the
punishable offense than with enumerating the criminal organizations to
which the fact of having adhered voluntarily constitutes the crime of
national unworthiness; and whether these organizations or these groups
are legally constituted organizations or simply agreements entered into,
as mentioned in Article 265 of the Penal Code, or merely _de facto_
groups, as stated in the law of 1936, the decree does not define, it
enumerates, the organizations which are considered to be criminal. That
is what we are asking you to do with respect to the German organizations
mentioned in the Indictment.
We are not asking you to condemn without having heard these men who, on
the contrary, will be able to put forward their personal means of
defense before a competent tribunal. We are asking you only to declare
criminal, as was allowed by the French laws of 1936 and 1944, _de facto_
groups without which it would have been impossible for one man in a few
years to cause a great civilized nation to sink to the lowest depths of
barbarity, the more hateful because it was scientific. It is the shame
of our time that the mastery of technique should have placed new methods
at the disposal of ancient barbarity, so true is it that technical
progress is of no avail unless accompanied by moral progress.
Your sentence will signify for all nations in the world, and for the
good of Germany herself, that above human liberties there exists a moral
law which imposes itself upon nations just as well as upon individuals
whether they be isolated or in groups and that it is criminal to violate
that moral law.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, let me tell you first of all that I accept
the principle which has been expressed by my respected colleagues
Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the principle with regard to
the criminality of the organizations. It seems to me that to clarify
this question it is necessary to distinguish clearly two interwoven
problems: First, the problem of the material law, just what
organizations and what individual members or groups of individual
members can be considered criminal; and also the problem of objective
law, what evidence, what documents, what witnesses, and in what order
these can be presented to agree, to declare, or to deny the criminality
of this or that organization.
First of all, as to the question of material law, it is necessary to
emphasize that the question of the criminal responsibility of an
organization does not stand before the Tribunal and never did; neither
does the question of the individual responsibility of the various
members of an organization, except those who are among the defendants
today or the various groups of these organizations, stand before the
Tribunal. The Charter of the Tribunal provides as follows: According to
Article 9, the examination or the trial of any individual member of this
or that group or of any organization is within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal. It is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to declare this
or that organization criminal if one of the defendants belongs to the
organization.
Thus, we speak here about declaring an organization criminal, and the
Charter definitely provides the legal consequences of declaring an
organization criminal. As the Tribunal declares this or that group or
organization criminal, then the competent national authorities of the
signatory powers have a right to bring to trial before the national
military tribunals and occupational tribunals members of organizations.
In this case the criminal nature of the organizations is considered
clear and cannot be contradicted. (Article 10 of the Charter.)
Consequently the Charter provides two legal results of declaring an
organization criminal: First, the right, but not the obligation, of the
various national tribunals to bring to trial members or organizations
which the Tribunal declared criminal; and second, the obligation of the
national tribunals to consider an organization criminal if such an
organization was so declared by the International Military Tribunal.
In such a manner, the result of declaring an organization criminal by
the International Military Tribunal does not automatically mean that all
members of the organization will also be declared criminal by the
national tribunals; neither does it mean that without exception all
members of such an organization must be brought to trial. The question
of individual guilt and of individual responsibility of the separate
members of the criminal organizations is wholly, and without exception,
within the jurisdiction of the national tribunal.
As has already been pointed out, in Article 10 of the Charter, the
Tribunal limits the jurisdiction of the national tribunal in just one
way. The national tribunal cannot deny or cannot argue the criminality
of any organizations which have already been declared criminal.
My colleague, Justice Jackson, has already tendered valuable information
about the legal codes of the respective countries concerning the
question of responsibility. Under English-American law, French law, and
also the Soviet legal code, it is provided that membership in an
organization which has criminal aims makes an individual liable. There
are two legal decrees on the subject—in U.S.S.R. penal code, Articles
58-11 and 59-3. These laws provide for the responsibility of members of
criminal organizations. They are considered criminals, not only for
committing crimes, but also for belonging to an organization which is
considered criminal. The very fact of belonging to an organization, the
law states, makes a person liable to prosecution. The law does not
require formal proofs to decide if a person is a member of a criminal
organization. A person can be a member of a criminal organization even
though he does not formally belong to the organization. The evidence is
all the more exhaustive if a person is formally put on the list of the
membership of a criminal organization. However, the formal membership of
a criminal organization is not the only basis of criminal responsibility
of a person. A member of the organization should know what is the nature
of the organization, what are its objectives. It is immaterial whether
an individual member knew all directives, all acts of the organization
or whether he knew personally all other members.
One cannot help noting that on the basis of the general principles of
the law, especially in connection with the practice of fascist Germany,
where a whole network of criminal organizations functioned, established
by the usurpers of the supreme powers, the responsibility of individual
members of the organization does not necessarily imply that they were
aware of the penalties attaching to the acts committed by the
organization.
On the basis of the legal code, especially in fascist Germany, where
there existed a whole series of organizations established by the
usurpers of powers now considered criminal, it is impossible to demand
that every member be acquainted with all the actions and all the members
and all the directives of the organization.
May I now pass on to the next problem. It appears to me that there is a
certain degree of complexity attached to the problem of the criminal
organizations. There is very extensive correspondence by members of
various organizations, that has been submitted to the Tribunal on the
subject of these organizations. Such abundance of discussion comes from
an incorrect interpretation of legal proceedings if an organization is
declared criminal. As long as we know the fact that the question of the
individual responsibility of the individual members is fully within the
jurisdiction of the various national courts, the general question of
whether the organization is declared criminal or not is much easier to
follow.
According to the Charter, on the question of declaring an organization
criminal the Tribunal will decide in connection with individual
defendants. Article 9 states that in examining the materials with regard
to each defendant the Tribunal can have the right to declare—and so on.
Therefore, the conclusion is that the facts which decide the solution of
the question as to whether an organization is or is not criminal,
consist of whether there is before us today among the defendants a
representative of this or that organization. It is well known in the
present Trial that all the organizations which the Prosecution want to
be declared criminal are represented on the bench of the defendants. For
that reason alone there has passed through the hands of the Tribunal a
great deal of material and evidence relating to the criminal nature of
the organizations which these defendants have represented that can be
used by the Tribunal to draw a conclusion as to the criminal character
of various organizations. Under such conditions the necessity of calling
special witnesses to testify about this or that organization can take
place only as a source of supplementary and even eventual evidence. And
even then the Tribunal has stated in Article 9 that it is up to the
Tribunal to acquiesce in or to refuse the calling of witnesses or the
introduction of supplementary evidence. It is impossible to deny the
possibility or the necessity of supplementary evidence with regard to
any criminal organization. The Charter of the Tribunal states very
definitely that after the indictment has been made, the Tribunal will do
that which it considers necessary with regard to the Prosecution’s
request for declaring this or that organization criminal. Any member of
an organization has a right to request that the Tribunal permit him to
be heard on whether the organization was criminal. However, this was
introduced into the Charter of the Tribunal for the sake of justice. It
now appears that this article is used for other purposes. If what has
been provided for in Article 9 extends widely enough and if it already
provides for calling witnesses with regard to the criminality of this or
that organization, in substance the evidence submitted by the
prosecutors of the four countries has already given enough exhaustive
reasons for the Tribunal to recognize the organizations indicated in the
Indictment as criminal. At the same time it seems expedient that the
Tribunal should publish Article 10 of the Charter explaining that to
declare an organization criminal does not necessarily lead to an
automatic bringing to trial of all members of that organization without
exception. It means that all questions about bringing any member to
trial and about the responsibility of individual members will be decided
by the national tribunals.
This is all I wanted to state, in addition to what has been stated by my
colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants’ counsel arranged among themselves in
what order they wish to be heard?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As counsel for the Reichsregierung, which has first place
in the Indictment as a “criminal organization,” I have, according to the
decision of the Court, the duty of presenting my opinion in regard to
the presentation of evidence. Since, in so doing, I have to discuss
general points of view which affect in the same way all the six
organizations under Indictment, it is probable that my statements will
in the main constitute the opinion of other defendants’ counsel.
However, they reserve for themselves the right to express particular and
supplementary opinion.
The Defense understand the decision of the Court of 14 January 1946 to
mean that at this stage of the procedure the Defense should not produce
detailed arguments against the Indictment as it has been lodged by the
Prosecution and as it has been explained today, also against the concept
of criminal organizations in the sense of the Charter or against other
hypotheses of a declaration of criminality, but should only express
their opinion on the question of what evidence is relevant and how the
evidence shall be presented. Therefore, I shall speak about the basic
questions only insofar as this seems necessary today in this particular
connection. First of all, I shall speak about the contents and the
effect of the requested verdict.
The six organizations under Indictment are, according to the request of
the Prosecution, to be declared criminal organizations in their
entirety. A request of that kind and the proceedings pertaining to it
would represent something unprecedented in the jurisprudence of all
states.
As we know, this request is not uninfluenced by the fact that, contrary
to other nations, in England and even more so in the United States, even
companies and corporations as such can be prosecuted in some cases for
reasons of expediency. This is a legal development called for by the
dominant position which companies and corporations have acquired, above
all, in economic life. This position made their punishment seem
desirable in certain cases. They were affected by this punishment,
however, only to the extent to which they could be affected in their
economic sphere, that is to say, by the imposition of fines. This also
concerns only definite offenses, mostly in the field of administrative
law.
The American Chief Prosecutor and the other chief prosecutors have cited
a large number of precedents, even from German jurisprudence, in which
organizations are said to have been declared criminal. In these
precedents—and that is the decisive factor—the defendants convicted as
criminals were always individual persons, never organizations as such.
But a criminal procedure such as this one would have to deal most
seriously with the organizations as such, as well as with all the
members who are not indicted personally that is—I now refer to Law
Number 10 of the Allied Control Council—would have to pronounce the
most severe sentence, the sentence of death; such a procedure has never
before in the history of jurisprudence been either discussed or applied.
The organizations under Indictment are organizations which differ
greatly in their structure. I do not have to discuss further today
whether they always represented an organically constructed unit. For
this Trial the essential thing is that the organizations under
Indictment have been dissolved by a law of the Military Government, and
therefore, no longer exist. What still exists are only the individual
former members who, therefore, in reality are the actual defendants and
have simply been brought together under the name of the former
organization as a collective designation.
But independent of this question of the nonexistence of the
organizations, it can be seen from the outcome of the procedure that
this is indeed a collective procedure against the individual members of
the organization, and this for the following reasons:
First, to declare an organization criminal means the outlawing and
branding as criminal, not only of the organization as such, but, above
all, of each individual member. Such a declaration, therefore, means a
final sentencing of each individual member to a general loss of honor.
This effect of the outlawing and branding is unavoidable and
ineradicable, especially if that verdict is spoken by so important a
court as the International Military Tribunal before the forum of the
world public. The effect of the outlawing would apply to each member of
the organization and would cling to him, regardless of whether the
subsequent proceedings, as provided for in Article 10 of the Charter,
were carried out against the individual members or not.
Second, in respect to legal procedure, the verdict that has been asked
for provides the possibility of a criminal penalty for each individual
member of the organization. In the subsequent proceedings, according to
Article 10 of the Charter, the criminal character of the organization
will be considered conclusively determined.
In execution of this, Law Number 10 of the Allied Control Council, of 20
December 1945, has in the meantime been issued. According to this law
the mere fact of having been a member of an organization which has been
declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal renders liable
to punishment as a criminal each individual member. Penalties ranging
from the highest fines to compulsory labor for life and the death
penalty are provided.
The proceedings according to Law Number 10 are concerned only with
determining membership and bases the punishment on this. In these
proceedings only grounds for personal exoneration, such as
irresponsibility, error, or coercion can be discussed. But these concern
only the membership as such and will apply only in a very few cases.
Whatever concerns the character of the organization, the criminal aims
and actions of members of the organization, especially the individual
member’s knowledge of these—all these are matters which will not be
discussed in the proceedings any more according to Law Number 10. In the
proceedings against the organizations a binding declaration has been
made. Therefore, the proceedings against the organizations anticipate
the biggest and most important part of the proceedings against every
individual member, while the subsequent proceedings, according to Law
Number 10, to all intents and purposes only draw conclusions.
In connection with the question of the effect of the verdict, the
numerical aspect should also be touched upon.
The SA at the beginning of the war in 1939 had about 2.5 million active
members, to which should be added, let us say, 1 to 2 million,
representing those who during the preceding 18 years, either quit the SA
or had to leave because of their military service; therefore, in all, up
to 4.5 million.
As far as the SS is concerned, my colleagues have not yet been able to
give a final estimate. It will have to be considered that the Waffen-SS
alone had an active membership of several hundred thousand men at any
given time. If we take into account the losses due to the war, which
were very considerable but which to a certain extent were assessed in
the proceedings, we find in the case of the SS as well that the figure
runs into millions.
The Leadership Corps always had, after 1933, a fixed membership of about
600,000 to 700,000 members. Changes in the official personnel were very
frequent. We have to take into account that the membership changed at
least twice during the entire period, so that here also the complete
figure will be about 2 million.
The entire figure covered by these proceedings is therefore very large.
The reduction which the Tribunal has today thought fit to make would not
reduce that number to any very large extent. Basically, it will
certainly make no difference whether this very large number which I have
just mentioned will include a half, a third, or a quarter of the adult
male population of Germany. If we consider the war losses among these
age groups, we can say with great certainty that the Indictment will
actually include a very considerable part of the adult male German
population.
I shall speak now about the concept “criminal organization.” The
necessary condition for an organization’s being declared criminal is the
criminal character, as appears in Article 9, Paragraph 2, of the
Charter. The Charter does not interpret either the concept “criminal
character” or that of “criminal organization.” If we ask by means of
which legal system this gap in the Charter should be filled, then,
according to the general principle of _lex loci_, German law first of
all has to be considered. But that is of no avail, because these two
concepts, according to every legal code in the world, also represent a
_terra nova_ in criminal law. Here, too, the Defense reserve for
themselves the right to express their considered opinion at the time of
the final pleadings.
In any case, we are of the opinion that because of its
already-mentioned, far-reaching consequences the declaration asked for
can be made justly and fairly within the framework of the validity of
the Charter only if: (1) the original purpose—that is, the constitution
or the Charter of the organization—was directed to the commission of
crimes in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, and if this purpose was
known to all members; or (2) in case the original purpose of the
organization was not criminal, if all members during a certain period of
time knowingly participated in the planning and perpetration of crimes
in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. Here, also, it is necessary
that the development should have been such that these crimes represent
typical actions of the organization, for only then can we speak of a
criminal nature as applicable to an organization as well as to an
individual human being.
According to this interpretation, the concept “criminal organization” in
the sense of Articles 9 to 11 of the Charter is in large part identical
with the concept “criminal conspiracy” which plays an important role in
the former German and Italian criminal law; also with the concept
“conspiracy,” with or without action for its execution, in English or
American common law; also with the concept “Mordkomplott” (conspiracy
for the purpose of committing murder) in the sense of Paragraph 49-b of
the German Penal Code; and, finally, with the concept of a “Common Plan
or Conspiracy” in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, here also with
or without action for its execution.
All these penal codes have in common that judgment can be delivered only
against those persons who have taken part in the criminal organization
knowing its purpose.
In my opinion, negligence cannot be sufficient when passing judgment
subjectively because of the general principle that in cases of serious
crimes—and in this case the penalty may be death—there must always be
full proof, and that negligence cannot be sufficient. Therefore, as a
matter of principle, it has to be required in these present proceedings
that an organization under Indictment can be declared criminal only if
it has been ascertained that: Firstly, the aims of the organization were
criminal in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter, and, furthermore,
that all members at least knew of these criminal aims. This is also
necessary for the reason that, as has just been said, this Trial before
the International Military Tribunal represents the essential main part
of the criminal proceedings which will ascertain the guilt of each
individual member of the organizations.
Justice does not permit that those members who did not possess the
aforementioned knowledge and who are therefore innocent be included in a
verdict. And this will not lead to that consequence mentioned by Justice
Jackson, namely, that a rejection of the verdict would mean a triumph
for those who are guilty. I am of the opinion that the guilty ones,
regardless of their number, should be brought to punishment. Despite all
considerations of expediency, the issue should not be that along with
the guilty ones an enormous number of innocent persons also be punished.
Therefore, to come to the core of the question, this is to be regarded
as relevant. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence depends on a
definition of the criminal organization and of its criminal character.
On the basis of my definition I contend that the following points are
relevant:
(a) That the organizations, according to their constitution or statutes,
did not have a criminal composition and did not pursue any criminal aims
in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter.
(b) That within the organization, or in connection with it, crimes in
the sense of Article 6 were not, or at least not continuously, committed
during a certain period of time.
(c) That a certain number of members had no knowledge of any possible
criminal constitution or criminal purpose, or the continuous commission
of crimes according to Article 6, and that they also did not approve of
these facts.
(d) That a certain number of members or certain closed independent
groups joined these organizations under compulsion, or pressure, or as
the result of deception, or by order from higher authorities.
(e) That a certain number of members without any action on their part
became members of these organizations through the bestowal of honorary
membership.
Since I know that the questions to be decided represent a _terra nova_
in the field of criminal law, I believe that in the course of the
presentation of evidence we shall receive many other suggestions.
Therefore it will be expedient if the Tribunal at the present stage of
the Trial do not bind and limit themselves by a final definition. I ask
rather that evidence be admitted to the greatest extent. In conclusion I
come to the question of how the presentation of evidence can be carried
out in practice and how the legal hearing of the member can be made
possible according to Article 9, Paragraph 2, of the Charter.
The principles valid in criminal procedure in all countries allow every
defendant before the court certain rights. The most important principles
are the principle of direct oral proceedings and the right to defense
and to a legal hearing. Since, according to my statements, the real
defendants are the members of the organizations, these rights must be
accorded to every member of the organization. In spite of this basic
point of view, which will be discussed in still greater detail in our
final pleadings, and with all legal reservations, the Defense do not
overlook the fact that for all practical purposes that is impossible
within the framework of this Trial. A solution must be found, since the
Prosecution have lodged the Indictment of the organizations on the basis
of the Charter in its present form.
This leads to the necessity of carrying out the proceedings, whereby the
aim of all people taking part in the Trial can be only that of finding
the best possible solution by getting as close as possible to the
universal and, in our opinion, inviolable points of view. In this
connection the Defense in the same way as the Prosecution are gladly
aware of their duty to work constructively towards a decision by the
Tribunal.
If, now, the enormous number of people who are affected by the
Indictment gives rise to tremendous difficulties which prevent a
reasonable solution of this problem, an adequate basis for judgment of
the aims of the organizations, as well as of the actions and the
subjective attitude of the individual member of the organization, must
nevertheless be found.
In order to make any headway in these proceedings, an attempt must be
made to attain a result in respect to the collective membership by
fixing certain types. We do not fail to recognize the great difficulties
which confront the passing of a just sentence when a typical aspect is
taken as the basis for judgment. Every attempt to attain, on the basis
of a large number of individual witnesses to be brought before the
Court, a clear picture of that which is typical would be unavailing. The
only way, in our opinion, is to separate the presentation of individual
evidence, in respect to time and place, from this Tribunal.
One way of achieving this would be an exact interrogation of the
individual members at the places where—this would apply to most of the
organizations—at present large numbers of them are being kept in
internment in the various camps. We believe that the best way to
investigate individual cases, and the one most suitable to the Court,
would be to assign this work to one or more suitable spokesmen in each
camp, that is to say, of course, under the supervision and with the
assistance of the Defense Counsel or their assistants, and then bring
these spokesmen before the Court as witnesses so that they may give a
picture of the activity and attitude of the individual members.
We believe that the way to get as clearly and conscientiously presented
a picture as possible would be for these spokesmen to get from the
inmates of the camps affidavits about the main points of Indictment
which have been specified by the Prosecution. The spokesmen could then,
as witnesses, say under oath what percentage, on the basis of these
affidavits of the individual inmates of the camps, had taken part in the
criminal actions mentioned in the Indictment or had known anything about
them. Certainly there are certain difficulties connected with this which
will also have to be considered.
In order to get a true picture, one will have to relieve the individual
inmates of the suspicion that through a truthful testimony submitted to
the Prosecution they might be offering material which could be used
against them personally.
We consider it therefore necessary that insofar as these affidavits are
to be presented to the Court as documentary evidence, the Prosecution
should make a statement that this material will not be used for the
purpose of criminal proceedings against persons. This statement would
naturally not involve any immunity for individual members; but the
individual inmate of the camp would be assured that the affidavit made
by him under oath does not establish his guilt as far as future criminal
proceedings are concerned.
If the Prosecution do not want to accept this proposal, there would
still be the possibility, without submitting these documents, of using
the testimony of the spokesmen, who could give information as to the
percentage of the people who took part or did not take part in criminal
activities or plans.
THE PRESIDENT: Since you have not finished, I think we had better
adjourn for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Before the recess I referred to a suggestion for getting
information about the actions and the attitude of the members by means
of typical facts. I continue.
This taking of evidence would have, for practical purposes, to extend to
a sufficient number of camps in all the zones of occupation. From the
results of this taking of evidence a conclusion could then be drawn, on
the basis of what is found to be typical, as to the criminal activity
and attitude of the individual member of the organization, and at the
same time, a conclusion as to whether or not the organization had a
criminal nature.
If the Prosecution are in agreement with the Defense so far, I believe
that I have perhaps found in this way a means of collecting the relevant
evidence, including all positive and negative elements.
To whatever extent the hearing of inmates of camps does not suffice,
which might be true of the one organization or the other, the hearing of
members of the organization who are not in custody might have to be
considered. Here, too, a proper way could probably be found which would
likewise make possible and easier the execution of the tasks of the
Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: I, too, should like to take a stand on the questions now
being discussed before the Court. I am not at present in a position to
take a stand on the profound and well-presented statements which Justice
Jackson has made here. I should not like to make a brief and less
carefully thought-out answer, but the Court will understand that I and a
number of my colleagues desire to put our case after studying the
material and the laws. Perhaps the Tribunal will give us the opportunity
to do this very shortly.
I should like now to take a stand on these questions along more
technical lines, in order to fulfill my duty and on behalf of the
Defense to take a clear stand on these clear questions.
In the first question it was asked what evidence is to be admitted and
what particular evidence should be presented here in the main trial
before this Tribunal.
The answer is this, that all evidence is relevant which is of
significance for the determination of criminality. If one examines the
concept “criminal” it is seen that there is no factual situation as
defined by criminal law, nor can there be any, for it is not a question
of determining the factual elements but rather of a judgment as to
whether an act is criminal in the same way as judgment as to whether
something is good or bad. Consequently, the Charter does not oblige the
Tribunal to pass sentence and declare such-and-such to be criminal, but
rather it states that the Tribunal “may” pass such a sentence, but not
that it “must” reach such a decision.
It can thus be seen that the Tribunal is here confronted with a task
which is basically different from the activity of a judge. A judge is
obliged, when certain facts determined by law are put before him, to
pass sentence, but this Tribunal is to determine the culpability of a
set of facts, on the basis of which the judge will later pass sentence.
Such a task is, however, that of a legislator and not of a judge. The
Tribunal here determines what is deserving of punishment and thereby
creates a law. In this way the Tribunal also creates that basis for the
procedure which Justice Jackson mentioned in a former address of
his—the basis for procedure in the subsequent individual trials.
It is this basis for procedure which the legislator gives to the judge
who is to deliver judgment. In such a case the burden of proof is
likewise reversed, as Mr. Justice Jackson also has constantly mentioned.
It is as if a thief were before the court—his objection that theft is
not punishable, that “possession is theft,” would be questioned.
That the activity of this Tribunal is legislative can also be seen from
the fact that, without setting up the Tribunal, the signatory powers
could just as successfully have determined that all members of
organizations could be brought before a court because of their
membership.
Law Number 10 of the Allied Control Council, that has often been
mentioned today, corroborates this interpretation, since it constitutes
the law for carrying out the skeleton law expected of this Tribunal. The
examples of the criminal nature of the organizations that have been
given here in Mr. Justice Jackson’s address today show again and again
that it is a question of laws and not of judgments.
It is also characteristic of the legislative function, that in all
discussions considerations of expediency take first place and Justice
Jackson asked in a previous statement that the verdict should provide
the means to proceed against the members of the organizations.
It is seen that the Court must deal with _de lege ferenda_
considerations on an ethical basis. But it must be proved that the
members of the organizations are punishable, and “punishable” is
equivalent to “criminal.”
In order to determine the factual elements, the judge brings evidence.
As legislator, the Tribunal must collect the material for legislation.
The judge can, on the basis of the legally proscribed criteria, easily
determine what is relevant as proof of these criteria and what he
therefore must admit as proof.
It is characteristic that such a determination here in this matter makes
for difficulties. The legislator proceeds differently from the judge. He
studies the facts to see if they deserve punishment, and for him all
those facts are relevant which are of significance for the contents of
his law.
In this matter he must have an over-all picture of the entire problem
and must take into consideration both the good and bad aspect of the
matter to be judged.
The basic principle of justice is that only the guilty be punished. If
the legislator wishes to achieve this, he must examine whether only
guilty people will be affected by his laws. He must therefore also
investigate the objections which any person affected by his law might
make. The innocent person is protected in this way, that in the
individual case the guilt of the individual must be proved unless the
legislator actually has in mind responsibility without guilt.
Every killing of a human being is punishable, but whether the person is
guilty has to be proved. He can avail himself of the so-called objection
that the death was not intentional. If the legislator does not want to
permit such an objection, then he must himself examine the material that
leads to such an extraordinary measure. The extent of the material to be
examined, that is, the taking of evidence, depends on the contents of
the law that is to be passed. Inasmuch as in the subsequent individual
trials all objections remain open, the Tribunal does not have to concern
itself with them. But the Tribunal must consider to what extent the
innocent person in the individual trial will have legal guarantees which
protect him from an unjust punishment.
It is absolutely necessary for the Tribunal also to examine every
submission which the individual member cannot bring in the subsequent
proceedings.
In anticipation of these powers of the Tribunal, it has already been
determined by Law Number 10 mentioned above that every member can be
punished. Thereby these punishments, of which we have heard in the
previous speeches, have already been determined. It thus appears as if
the Tribunal could only pass a judgment _en bloc_ without having any
right to modify it, and consequently without possessing any influence on
the legal effect of its verdict. But such a concept is in contradiction
to the basic idea of the Yalta Conference, which was that of
transferring to the Tribunal the legislative powers of the signatories,
with the express purpose of vindicating this principle of justice,
namely, that only the guilty be punished, on the basis of examination of
the facts through the hearing of the members in question. Consequently
the Tribunal must have a right to determine in individual cases the
basic conditions for punishability, and to determine the objections
which should remain open to the individual, and the Tribunal must also
be able to limit the effect of its judgment by regulation of the
punishments.
I believe that Mr. Justice Jackson expressed an opinion today which does
not contradict this.
According to the sense of the Charter, the Tribunal is not permitted to
transfer its responsibility to the individual courts by simply leaving
for all practical purposes the decision to these courts which because of
their composition may have quite different legal views.
The members of the organizations have been granted that very right to be
heard here before the International Military Tribunal and particularly
because of the significance of the judgment, which in all cases contains
a grave moral condemnation. To what extent then should the Tribunal
concern itself with the material for this taking of evidence? I believe
that the Tribunal, in order to determine what is deserving of
punishment, must investigate that which is typical, while the purely
individual can be left to the subsequent proceedings.
This separation of the typical from the individual, however, is not
easy, for the submission of the members often has a double significance.
Thus the submission of a member that he did not know about the criminal
nature of the organization could mean, on the one hand, that such
purpose never existed, or, on the other hand, that the member had no
knowledge of that purpose which was really there. The first is an
objection which concerns the organization, the second a purely personal
objection.
On the basis of these arguments I should like to answer the Tribunal’s
first question as follows:
The factual elements of criminality as defined by criminal law cannot be
found here; the determination of criminality is the determination of
punishability as a legislative task of the Tribunal. Examination of
evidence in the procedural sense is in reality the examination of the
legislative material including the objections of the members of the
groups and organizations. To what extent the Tribunal itself must
examine the material depends on the scope and the effect which it
intends to give and which it is able to give to the verdict. Only that
which is not typical and which is not of importance as far as _de lege
ferenda_ considerations are concerned, only that can be left to the
individual trials.
To Questions 2 and 3: Under Point 2 and 3 the Tribunal puts a question
regarding the limiting of the groups of members and the limiting of the
length of time of the criminality. Both questions touch the same
problem, namely, whether such a limitation is dependent on a motion on
the part of the Prosecution, or whether the Tribunal itself can limit
the contents of its verdict.
I believe Mr. Justice Jackson today expressed the opinion that the
Tribunal has the power to make such a limitation. But, as regards the
political leaders, the Prosecution reserve to themselves the right, in
the case of a limitation of the groups of members as proposed by them,
later to introduce other trials against these members who are now being
excluded or to take other measures.
However, such a right is not given to the Prosecution in the Charter. It
also stands in contradiction to the natural powers of the Tribunal of
including in its decision an acquittal—a power which cannot be
eliminated by reservation made by the Prosecution. The evidence material
to be examined also cannot be limited through such a limitation as
proposed, for the judgment delivered on the indicted organizations must
include these organizations as a whole. It is not permissible to seize
upon merely the unhealthy elements of groups during a period which was
not typical and still declare the organization criminal.
That which is to be considered a group or an organization does not
depend on the discretion of the Prosecution, as is also seen in Article
9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, according to which the criminal
character must stand in some relationship to the acts of one of the main
defendants. This can only be understood to mean that the membership of
the organization must be influenced by the actions of one of the major
defendants at a given time. However, this is not for the Prosecution but
for the Tribunal to decide.
Accordingly, I should like to answer Questions 2 and 3 as follows:
Question 2: A limiting of the incriminating period does not depend on a
motion of the Prosecution. The Tribunal itself can and must limit the
length of time, if the organizations or groups were not deserving of
punishment throughout the whole period of their existence. If the
actions of the main defendant, as a member of the organization, were not
incriminating during the whole period of the existence of the
organization, then such a limitation must follow.
Question 3: For the limiting of the groups of members the same applies
as for the limiting of the period of time.
The Tribunal can, on the basis of its own powers, limit the effect that
its verdict will have in the case of all groups and organizations. It
must undertake this limitation, if the actions of the main defendant in
his capacity as a member of the organization are not to incriminate
certain groups of members. A limitation of the Indictment or of the
effect of the verdict does not limit the evidence material which is the
basis of the judgment.
These were the remarks I wanted to make in answer to the questions of
the Tribunal. I should like now merely to take a stand on a question
that has also been brought up today, namely, the application for a legal
hearing, if the Tribunal permit me to discuss this question. According
to Article 10 of the Charter, every member of an organization can be
brought to trial, if the organization has been declared criminal. The
decision is left up to the Tribunal. The essential task of the Tribunal
is the hearing of the members. Without this hearing a sentence is not
possible. That is the basic condition without which the proceedings
cannot be carried out. So far, the Defense has about 50,000 applications
from the millions of members. In order that the Tribunal should not draw
the false conclusion that the overwhelming majority of those affected
admit their guilt by remaining silent, I must emphasize that such guilt
will be most passionately denied by all those affected.
I shall therefore go into the reasons why so few applications have been
submitted, and I shall show that this is not the fault of those affected
or the result of negligence. Not a lack of interest or disrespect of the
Court but rather certain clear facts are responsible for this lack of
response.
The announcement in the press and over the radio at the beginning of the
proceedings regarding the right to be heard was made at a time when
there were practically no newspapers in the destroyed cities and radios
were a rarity.
In addition, because of the paper shortage, it was made in small print
and for the most part was simply not understood. The Tribunal ordered an
announcement to be made in the internment camps, where a great number of
the people affected are concentrated. To what extent this announcement
actually was made, I have not yet been able to determine. Mr. Justice
Jackson showed various documents this morning and from them I shall be
able to inform myself. The fact that so few applications have been made
gives cause for concern. But even those people who have obtained
knowledge of their right have apparently not been able as yet to make
applications to the Court. At the time of the announcement there was no
postal service between the various zones, and there are still no postal
connections with Austria, where there are probably tens of thousands of
men in custody.
In the announcement to the organizations, because of the lack of postal
facilities, two additional ways were provided for submitting these
applications. Both of them proved to be insufficient and are the main
reason why we have so few applications. Those members who are not in
custody were to submit their applications through the nearest military
office.
I know of no case in which an application was made in this way. The
attempt to use this procedure failed because of the lack of co-operation
on the part of the offices. I could give an example of this.
The interned members were to submit their applications through the
commanding officer of their camp. Only in the case of a few camps, weeks
and months after the beginning of the Trial, were applications, which
had been made in November, received, and even then only from some of the
camps in the American and British zones and from a camp in the United
States. From the Soviet, Polish, and French zones, as well as from
Austria and other camps in foreign countries where there are camps, no
applications have as yet been received, so far as I know. I shall leave
it to the Tribunal to form its opinion of these facts.
The uniformity of the circumstances shows, however, that it cannot be
the fault of the members of the organizations. Of the many difficulties
I should like to give only one striking example, which will give an
insight into the situation. In one camp about 4,000 members of various
organizations asked in November 1945 to be permitted to make use of
their right. A few days ago I was told in the camp by a guard officer
that at that time no applications were permitted since those in custody,
according to the rules of the camp, could not communicate with anyone
outside the camp. An army order would have been necessary for
transmissions of the applications, but there was no such order and
present restrictions were strictly adhered to.
Another reason for the nonarrival of applications is the fact that those
concerned feared certain disadvantages. There was the fear that the CIC
would take action against the applicants because of their applications.
This fear was inspired particularly by the fact that the announcement of
the right to make applications was accompanied by the notice that the
applicants would not be granted immunity of any kind. The effect of this
is seen particularly in the case of those members not in custody, from
whom only very few applications have been received, and these very often
submitted anonymously or under false names.
It would be welcome if the Tribunal could inform the public that such
fears are without foundation, and that the participation of all is
sought so that a false decision can be avoided. Thereby the inadequacy
of the present procedure for making applications would be remedied.
From all this it can be seen that the first stage of the making of
applications has already shown itself to be so inadequate that the legal
hearing is a mere illusion. But even those applications that have been
received are, with a few exceptions, worthless, and for the following
reasons: On the basis of the applications the Tribunal is to decide
whether persons should be heard. But for practical purposes this can
happen only if these applications state the reasons. Such reasons are
either entirely lacking in the applications or they are useless. An
application without contents or an application which contains in the
main mere asseverations and figures of speech can form no basis for a
decision.
Some of the applications do not even mention the official function of
the member in the organization or his civilian profession. This faulty
sort of application can obviously be traced back in the case of the men
in custody to an order issued by the camp commander which permitted only
collective or group applications or prescribed certain forms to be
followed. All those affected, whether in custody or not, were not able
to set out their reasons intelligently, because those accused know only
that their organization is said to have been criminal, but they do not
know in what this criminality consists. Insofar as detailed statements
were made, in single cases, they are based on assumptions.
In order to relieve the situation, Defense Counsel have visited various
camps known to them to clear up the matter and to get practical
information. I shall not go into the difficulties which had to be
overcome. I do not want to discuss the limitation placed on the length
of time that we could stay in the camp and similar things; but I must
mention that the visits to the camps have been without success insofar
as I have not yet received the sworn affidavits and the other written
statements of the members made subsequent to our visit, although I know
that in one case they were handed over to the camp commander.
In these circumstances the fact is that today, 3 months after the
beginning of the Trial, the technical basis for the procedure for
hearing the members is not yet in existence. Defense Counsel for the
large organizations are also hardly in a position to make up for this
delay in a short period of time. On the other hand, the actual material
is extremely comprehensive, as in the case of the political leaders,
where there are about fifteen to twenty categories, such as the Workers’
Front, Propaganda Section, Organization Section, and so forth, which
must be examined as to their functions and as to their criminal
character. None of this can be neglected, and even the appearance of a
less careful treatment must be avoided. I shall not discuss the
difficulties which confront the Defense Counsel as a result of the fact
that Defense Counsel now for the first time learn from the Prosecution
of certain legal questions.
The members in custody are particularly interested that their case be
decided quickly. Nevertheless, I am compelled by prevailing conditions
to make a motion, namely, that the proceedings against the groups and
organizations that are to be declared criminal be separated from the
main trial and be carried out as a special subsequent trial. This motion
is also compatible with the particular nature of the trial as I
discussed it at the beginning of my remarks.
I should like to add to my motion a suggestion as to how the legal
hearing might be made possible. This proposal of mine is occasioned by
the proposal made this morning for carrying out the hearing by means of
a “master,” that is, I assume, a legal officer of the Allied armies.
I cannot object too energetically to this suggestion. In my opinion, it
is one of the main rights of a Defense Counsel to collect his own
information, and it is the right of every defendant to speak with his
counsel. It would be incomprehensible that the Allies, who are concerned
with the prosecution, should at the same time work for the Defense. One
cannot expect that an officer, despite any amount of objectivity, could
be so objective in his feelings that he would give information to the
defendant and have an understanding of the latter and his feelings.
My proposal is this: That each camp should have a German lawyer who
receives his information from the main Defense Counsel and instructs the
members interned in the camp and collects information. Then, in a
relatively short period of time, a selection of material can be made by
the Defense Counsel—a selection of the persons who can appear here as
well as of the material that can be submitted of the latter and his
feelings.
In the proposal made here this morning by the Prosecution I see an
elimination of the Defense Counsel, and I should have to ponder a long
while as to what stand I, on behalf of the Defense, would take to such a
proposal.
DR. RUDOLF MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Regarding the general
questions concerning the admissibility of declaring an organization
criminal, the technical procedure for the submission of evidence, and
the criminal character of the organizations in general, I refer to what
my colleagues Dr. Kubuschok and Dr. Servatius have said. I have just a
few additional statements to make.
Regarding the question of applications, I can say from my own experience
that it has seemed strange to me, too, that the length of time between
the formulation of applications in the individual camps and the arrival
of these applications in the hands of the Defense is so extremely long.
To mention one example, a few days ago we received applications from a
camp in Schleswig-Holstein, some of which were drawn up in November and
December. I, myself, in order to get information, sent letters to the
camps. I sent them 5, 6, and 7 weeks ago and I have so far received no
answer.
In Camp Hersbruck, for example, I know that in November an application
for a hearing, with reasons given in detail, is said to have been sent
by members of the SS and Gestapo to the Defense Counsel—this has been
confirmed to me by reliable sources. Neither the Defense Counsel of the
SS nor I have received this application.
Very few applications have been received from members of the Gestapo. In
my opinion one of the reasons is that the far greater number of
internees doubtless do not know that they are being represented and
defended in this Trial, for the announcement sent to the camps was made
in November of last year. Defense Counsel for the organizations were not
appointed until the decision of 17 December 1945. The correctness of my
opinion can be seen conclusively, I believe, from the following: About
three weeks ago in a German newspaper, the _Neue Zeitung_, an article
appeared regarding this question of the organizations and in this
article it states, word for word: “The organizations, as is, of course,
well-known, are not represented in the Nuremberg Trial.” Thus, if not
even the press knows of the fact that Defense Counsel for the
organizations have been sitting here in the front row for months and
have often spoken here from the lectern, what can one expect the
individual internees, who are living in camps hermetically shut off from
contact with the rest of the world, to know about the facts of the
Defense? That is what has to be said on this point.
I, also, by the way take the point of view that the question whether the
organizations in their entirety can be indicted here is an absolute
_terra nova_ in the history of jurisprudence and that it is something
which in its extent and its scope and in its effects shakes the very
foundations of jurisprudence. In addition, as has been mentioned,
organizations are to be judged which ceased to exist almost a year ago.
In the criminal procedure of all civilized countries it is a basic
condition that the defendant still be alive; proceedings cannot take
place against a dead defendant.
According to Mr. Justice Jackson’s statements today, the organizations
of the Gestapo and SS, for example, are to be held responsible for the
liquidation of the Jews in the East; and it is pointed out that because
of the death of millions of Jews and the impossibility of determining
who the individual perpetrators were, the organizations as such must be
judged in order that the guilty be punished. Of course, the Defense
holds the conviction and takes the point of view that the guilty must be
punished, but only the guilty. It is a fact, for example, that an
Einsatzgruppe of the SD, whose task it was to solve the Jewish problem
in the East, contained on the average only about 250 members of the
Gestapo. Considering the total number of 45,000 to 50,000 members of the
Gestapo, this figure is thus a very small one. In the case of a general
verdict against, for instance, the Gestapo, more than 45,000 people
would be affected who had absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I
refer to the example of a mass murderer who cannot be captured, and
whose whole family is taken into custody in his stead and condemned.
In view of the very important statements which have been made today by
the Prosecution regarding the question of the organizations, I ask the
Tribunal for permission, after the record has been received, to state my
attitude, if necessary, to just a few other points today; first of all,
to the question of the time during which the Gestapo is to be considered
criminal. In this connection I must assert that at least until the year
1939 the Gestapo was a lawful, legally established institution. It is
also true that the Indictment refers to crimes which can be charged to
the Gestapo only after the autumn of 1939, that is, after the beginning
of the war.
Today the Prosecution have furthermore excluded secretarial and office
workers from the Indictment. I am in agreement with this. It is in
accordance with the motion made by me already in December. I submit
further that not only the secretarial and office personnel but also all
other employees be excepted, because the reason for dropping the charges
against the office personnel is doubtless that the Prosecution are
convinced that this office personnel had nothing to do with the crimes
of which the Gestapo is accused.
It should also be considered whether the administrative officials of the
Gestapo, who represented about 70 percent of the personnel of the
Gestapo, should be excluded from the Indictment. All of the 500
applications received so far are from such administrative officials.
These officials were trained only in the field of administration. They
had neither the training nor the knowledge for the making of criminal
investigators. They could not be used for the execution of any criminal
actions, because they had no executive power. They were active only in
matters of personnel and finance—personnel matters such as the
appointment of officials, promotions, dismissals, and so forth; matters
of finance such as the administering of budget funds, figuring out and
compiling salary and wage lists, renting of offices, _et cetera_. These
are all things which have nothing to do with executive power, and
especially not with the crimes imputed to the Gestapo by the
Prosecution. In my opinion these people are just as entitled to
exemption as the secretarial and office personnel, who have already been
exempted by the Prosecution.
I should like to touch briefly on one other point of view, that is, the
question of voluntary joining of an organization—a question which has
played an important role. On 7 June 1945 Mr. Justice Jackson, in his
statement to the President of the United States, said, among other
things, the following: Units such as the Gestapo and SS were fighting
units and consisted of volunteers—people especially suited for and
fanatically inclined to the plans of violence of these units. To what
extent that is true of the SS, I do not know. As far as the Gestapo is
concerned, it certainly is not true, for the Gestapo was a State
organization founded by the Defendant Göring on the basis of the law of
23 April 1933. It was a police authority just as was the Criminal Police
whose duty it was to track down crimes or the Regular Police who were
responsible for controlling traffic. The personnel consisted mostly of
life-long career officials, some of whom had been in the police service
many years before the creation of the Gestapo, and who, when this police
organization was created and in the ensuing years, were ordered to,
detailed to, or transferred to this police authority. According to the
German law affecting civil servants these officials were obliged to
follow such orders. They had never come voluntarily to the Gestapo. At
the most there might perhaps have been 1 percent who were voluntary
members; but 99 percent of the members were forcibly ordered on the
basis of this law.
That is what I have to say at the moment. I should like, however, to
reserve for myself the right to speak some time later about today’s
discussions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 1 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-FIRST DAY
Friday, 1 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: At the conclusion of the argument on the organizations,
which the Tribunal anticipates will finish before the end of today’s
session, the Tribunal will adjourn into closed session. Tomorrow morning
at 10 o’clock the Tribunal will sit in open session for consideration of
the applications for witnesses and documents by the second four
defendants. Will the defendant’s counsel who was in the middle of his
argument now continue? Dr. Merkel, had you finished?
DR. MERKEL: Yes, Sir.
DR. MARTIN LÖFFLER (Counsel for the SA): May it please the Tribunal: The
objections and misgivings expressed yesterday by the Defense regarding
the criminal proceedings against the six accused organizations are
particularly applicable when judging the SA.
No other organization is so much exposed to the danger of a sentence
contrary to our sense of justice as is the SA. I ask the Tribunal’s
permission to submit the reasons for this fact.
The demand of the Prosecution that the SA should be declared a criminal
organization affects at least 4 million people at a conservative
estimate. The limitation according to groups approved yesterday by
Justice Jackson was gratifying and welcome; but it will have no
appreciable effect on the numbers since the groups eliminated yesterday,
the armed SA units and the bearers of the SA Sports Badge, were not full
members of the SA. The only persons so far eliminated, therefore, are
the SA Reserves. As no limitation according to time was made, these
criminal proceedings will include everyone who ever belonged to the SA,
even for a very short time, during the 24 years between its
establishment in 1921 and its dissolution in 1945, that is to say,
during a period of almost a quarter of a century.
We heard yesterday from the Prosecution that the criminal acts charged
to the organizations are the same as those charged to the main
defendants, namely, Crimes against Peace, crimes against the laws or
customs of war, and Crimes against Humanity, as well as participation in
the common conspiracy.
If we now contemplate the possible participation of these 4 million
former SA men in these four important categories of crime, we get the
following picture:
Crimes against the laws or customs of war are not charged to the SA. It
is true that the Prosecution presented an affidavit saying that the SA
also took part in guarding concentration camps and prisoner-of-war camps
and in supervising forced labor; but, according to the presentation of
the Prosecution, this did not occur until 1944 within the framework of
the total war raging at that time, and it has not been charged that this
activity of the SA involved any excesses or ill-treatment.
In none of the atrocities reported here by witnesses and documents did
the SA with its 4 million members participate. The few offenses against
humanity charged to the SA by the Prosecution and committed by
individual members in the course of almost a quarter of a century can in
no way be compared with the serious crimes against humanity of which we
have heard here.
The occupation of the trade-union buildings by the SA, adduced by the
Prosecution as another point, took place on the order of Reichsleiter
Ley, who used the SA for this operation, and this happened after the
seizure of power.
Even the Prosecution did not assert that any outrages, ill-treatment, or
excesses occurred when this operation was carried out. The fact that in
connection with the seizure of power in the spring of 1933 individual
excesses occurred, and that the American citizens Rosemann and Klauber,
according to the affidavits submitted by the Prosecution, were beaten on
this occasion is certainly regrettable. However, such excesses on the
part of individual persons are unavoidable in organizations comprising
millions of people and, considered by themselves, are hardly proper
grounds for declaring the entire organization criminal.
The participation, finally, of the SA as guard troops in concentration
camps is, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, restricted
to single exceptions and ended anyway in 1934. The commandant of the
Concentration Camp Oranienburg, according to the presentation of the
Prosecution, was an SA Führer. However it is not asserted that he
committed any atrocities.
The second case, the ill-treatment of prisoners in the camp of Hohnstein
by SA and SS members in 1934 led to criminal proceedings and the SA men
guilty were sentenced to imprisonment of up to 6 years.
As a last individual act there remains the participation of the SA in
the excesses during the night of 10 and 11 November 1938, when the
windows of Jewish stores were broken and the synagogues were burned.
Here, too, the plan and the order did not originate with the SA. The SA
was simply commissioned by the highest Party leadership to carry out
this order. Finally if we consider that during the political struggles
of 1921 to 1933 the old SA was involved in brawls—often purely
defensive—with political opponents and that it did not develop into an
organization with millions of members until after the seizure of power,
we arrive at the following conclusion, expressed in figures:
On the basis of the presentation of the Prosecution at most 2 percent of
all the indicted former SA members participated in punishable individual
actions; 98 percent of the 4 millions, according to their conviction,
kept their hands clean of any such punishable individual acts.
Here, too, the Prosecution will not want to insist that the excesses of
these 2 percent considered by themselves should brand the entire
organization as criminal. These 98 percent, that is in round numbers
3,900,000 former SA members, must nevertheless defend themselves here
against the charge of having participated in the preparation of the war
of aggression or in the planning or execution of the common conspiracy,
or, formulated more strongly, against the charge of having belonged to
organizations which pursued these criminal purposes.
What is the result if we apply the definition of the criminal nature of
an organization as formulated yesterday by Justice Jackson and Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe?
The SA members will acknowledge that the criteria under Points 1 and 2
as defined yesterday are also true for the SA, namely, that the SA was
an aggregation of numerous persons with collective aims and a membership
which was voluntary in principle. However, they will strenuously deny
the application of the Criteria 3, 4, and 5. Point 3 requires that the
organization pursued objectively criminal aims in the sense of Article 6
of the Charter. The millions of members, if testifying here, would state
that neither in the programs nor in the speeches of their leaders had
they been called upon to pursue such criminal aims or methods. Whether
the leaders of the SA pursued such criminal aims in secret or not these
people are not in a position to judge. Whether such criminal aims were
pursued secretly by the leadership of the SA can be determined only by
the Tribunal, and only now when the archives have been opened, witnesses
can testify, and the documents are laid open to the Court.
Now, Point 4 of the Prosecution’s definition, if I understood Justice
Jackson correctly yesterday, requires, beyond this, as an element of
crime involving subjective guilt, that the aims and methods of this
organization were of such character that a reasonable, normal man may
properly be charged with knowledge of them.
I should like at this point to emphasize particularly that I, in
agreement with my colleagues, do not consider this definition an
adequate protection, since it means that a member may be punished even
if he did not recognize the criminal nature of the organization but
ought to have recognized it by application of reasonable care. I know of
no system of penal law in any modern civilized state which holds that
negligence, even of a gross or serious nature, is sufficient to
constitute guilt of an infamous common crime, that is, of a crime
belonging to the group of severest offenses. A crime of this category
can be committed only with intention. Perhaps the Prosecution can later
discuss this question on the basis of their knowledge of the particulars
of Anglo-Saxon and other foreign legal systems.
This point seems of particular importance to me because—if it is
neglected—there is the danger that the judges, particularly the
Anglo-Saxon judges, will apply the political standards of their
countries to German conditions. The sober political instinct that is
characteristic of the citizens of England and America is nonexistent in
the Germans. We are a politically immature people, credulous, and
consequently especially susceptible to political misguidance. The Court
should not overlook this dissimilarity when passing its judgment on the
good faith of the individual members of the organizations. According to
the impressions which the Defense of the SA has received to date from
its visits to camps and from numerous letters, the majority of SA
members are convinced that they did not belong to any criminal
organization. Among other reasons are the following subjective ones:
It was generally known and has been specifically stated in the
_Organization Book_ of the Party—Document 1893-PS, Page 365—that only
a person whose character was unobjectionable could join the SA. It is
further stated verbatim, and I quote: “Unobjectionable reputation and no
criminal record.” The members of the SA maintain that they know of no
case in which a gang of criminals or conspirators required in their
statutes similar conditions for membership.
Part of the essence of a conspiracy is the idea that its criminal aims
be kept secret from its opponents. An organization of several millions
is, by its very nature, not suited to carrying out a plot. The leaders
of the SA emphasized in numerous addresses that they wanted to maintain
peace under all circumstances. They pointed out that Germany would be
rather a danger to European peace if she were without defense and arms
in the heart of Europe and that being in a state of preparedness was the
best guarantee for securing future peace in Europe. The simple members
point again and again to the fact that foreign powers gave diplomatic
recognition to the leaders of National Socialism. They consider this
fact not simply an act of “international courtesy” but are convinced
that foreign governments would not have entered into relations with the
German Government if that German Government had consisted of open
criminals.
I might mention a particularly characteristic example: the Indictment
against the SA is substantiated by a number of documents. These are
Documents 2822- and 2823-PS. According to these documents, as early as
May 1933 Lieutenant Colonel Auleb, a deputy of the Reich War Ministry of
that time, was detailed to the high command of the SA in order to assure
liaison between the heads of the two organizations. But the whole affair
is treated as strictly secret, and it is ordered that Auleb should wear
the SA uniform for the purpose of “camouflage.” How, I ask, should or
could a simple SA member have known anything of such affairs? I have
mentioned here only a few points put forward by SA members which, in the
opinion of the Defense, do not constitute unfounded subterfuges, but
which show that the majority of these people never thought of
participating in a criminal conspiracy.
Also the fifth criterion set up yesterday by the Prosecution to define a
criminal organization—the close connection between the main defendants
and the SA—is in the case of no organization so difficult to prove as
in the case of the SA. This may, at first, sound surprising; of the main
defendants here, six were high-ranking members of the SA. Nevertheless,
a closer scrutiny shows that there were no close connections at all.
Except for Göring, none of the main defendants ever exercised command
authority over the entire SA. The rank which these main defendants had
in the SA was an honorary rank; and, so to speak, merely decorative.
Consequently, the Prosecution has mentioned only Göring’s connection
with the SA in its recent list of the criminal elements. But even
Göring’s connection with the SA curiously enough is very slight and is
actually confined to a period of three quarters of a year—that is—9
months, namely, from February 1923 to 9 November 1923, that is to say,
23 years ago. Göring was never, as stated in Appendix A of the
Indictment, Reichsführer of the SA. That is an error. Rather, in
February 1923 Göring was commissioned to take over the command of the
then existing Party group for the protection of meetings—the so-called
Sturmabteilung. Göring led the SA until the November Putsch of 9
November 1923. On that day his command power over the SA came to an end
and was never revived. Later Göring was given by Hitler honorary command
of the unit Feldherrnhalle. He was the honorary commander, not the
active commander of this unit. I believe the difference between honorary
and active command of a regiment is known in all states. I do not have
to give any further explanation. Honorary command has a purely
decorative significance.
The task which the SA had to carry out under Göring in the year 1923 was
the protection of meetings. Anyway, it cannot be charged that at that
time the SA, in co-operation with Göring, already planned the crimes
stated in Article 6 of the Charter or that these aims could have been
anticipated at that time in any tangible form. Neither can it be charged
that Göring ever made use of the SA after 1923 for carrying out any
criminal plan. The man who led the SA from 1930 to 1934, Ernst Röhm, was
an embittered opponent of Göring’s. After his death the SA was led by
Victor Lutze from 1934 to 1943 and from 1943 until its dissolution, by
Wilhelm Schepmann.
According to Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, an organization can
be declared criminal only in connection with any act of which a main
defendant may be convicted. From a legal and factual point of view I
have the gravest doubts as to whether the facts of the case in 1923, as
described by me, are sufficient to comply with the requirements of the
Charter as far as the SA is concerned. This could be done only if the
Tribunal had reason now to pass sentence on Göring’s activity as leader
of the SA group for protecting meetings 23 years ago, including the
November Putsch, as a special crime. This, however, would be at variance
with the fact that this entire action was settled with legal effect by
the amnesty of the democratic Reich Government, whereby the matter was,
at the time, disposed of in this fashion.
May it please the Tribunal, if it is a fact in the case of any
organization, then certainly it is a fact in the case of the SA, that
its being listed among the criminal organizations is contrary to the
real picture. Large circles abroad, particularly those who were forced
to leave Germany in 1933, knew nothing of the complete change of
structure which the SA underwent during the following years. The foreign
countries heard at every Reichstag session the traditional song, “The SA
Marches,” while, as a matter of fact, the SA had long since lost all
political influence and had been transformed _en masse_ into an
association with a huge membership, the very size of which rendered it
harmless as far as conspiracy was concerned and which showed all the
characteristics of the so-called German club-mindedness. I refer in full
here to the statements made by Colonel Storey, himself, in his speech
for the Prosecution. This is on Page 1546 of the Court’s Record (Volume
IV, Page 138). The organization through which the SA was then eliminated
from political life was, as is well known, the SS, and this happened on
the occasion of the so-called Röhm Putsch in 1934. That, indeed, the SA
and SS always confronted each other like rival brothers is a fact which,
in the interest of truth, should not remain unmentioned. For all these
reasons the SA is judged on a completely different basis, even by German
opponents of National Socialism; and this has already led to
contradictory results, the speedy elimination of which by the
Prosecution or the Court would be highly desirable.
At this opportunity the following facts should be pointed out: The SA,
up to the higher ranks, is not, as a matter of principle, subject to
arrest, which is at variance with probably all the other organizations.
The new denazification law which recently came into force after thorough
consultation between German circles and the Military Government and
which is now the law in force throughout the entire American Zone,
regards all SA members of a rank lower than that of Sturmführer neither
as active Nazis nor much less as criminals. According to the electoral
procedure now in force in the American Zone of Occupation, which
recently was the basis for elections in thousands of German communities
under the directives of the Military Government, the ordinary SA
members, insofar as they were not Party members, were not only permitted
to vote, but were also eligible for election. The same people who are
before the Court accused of serious crimes may at the same time,
according to the law in force, be elected as community councillors, and,
in fact, are being so elected.
I talked personally about two weeks ago to an SA man and asked him
whether, following the notice of the Court, he had reported here for
interrogation. He declared that he saw no reason for doing that, because
in the meantime he had been elected and approved as community
councillor.
The regulations of Law Number 30, regarding the application of the
German community order of 20 December 1945, namely, Articles 36 and 37,
which show that SA men are eligible for election, also confirm the fact,
which is known in Germany, but apparently not in foreign countries, that
an ordinary Party member had—only by comparison, naturally—a more
active political position than the completely uninfluential SA member.
Whoever was a Party member before 1937 cannot vote, and whoever at any
time was a Party member cannot be elected.
A comparison of Party members, who are not indicted here, and SA
members, who are indicted here, shows the following facts:
If at the time of National Socialism one was politically incriminated or
suspected one could, without difficulty, become an SA member but under
no circumstances a Party member, because in regard to Party
membership—and even ordinary Party membership—much higher political
qualifications were required than in the case of SA members. There were
certainly many SA members who joined this organization only to escape to
some extent the persecution they had to expect because of their
incriminating political record in the past.
May it please the Tribunal, I have tried by means of these examples to
show the extraordinary danger existing in the particular case of the SA,
if all its members, including its millions of ordinary SA men, are
legally declared criminals by the Tribunal. I am sorry I cannot share
the opinion expressed yesterday by Justice Jackson that the verdict
sought from this Court would be a purely declaratory one with no
penalties involved. On the contrary I know that hundreds and thousands
of SA members, who were simple followers and were not even Party
members, have been dismissed from their positions, and their future and
their existence will depend on the verdict of this Court. A declaratory
judgment of this Court is sufficient to make them outlaws and to exclude
them from positions and professions in the future. Therefore the members
of the SA are correct in pointing out that they are denied the right of
judicial hearing. There is no direct evidence and no direct trial. A
court does not decide the fate of lifeless creatures of the law or
formal organizations that have long since ceased to exist; it passes
judgment on living human beings, and no court should forego the
opportunity of seeing in person those whom it is trying. A good judge is
always a good psychologist and soon can tell what kind of person is on
trial—whether he is a criminal or somebody who has been deceived and
misled.
No law on earth since time immemorial ever allowed the passing of
judgment against an organization instead of against its single members.
The laws and precedents quoted yesterday by the Prosecution regarding
criminal gangs and conspiracy certainly recognize to a large extent the
collective responsibility for acts of accomplices, but two requirements
must be fulfilled there too: Firstly, the member must know that he is
party to a criminal conspiracy or criminal association; secondly, the
indictment is not directed against the conspiracy as such, and the
conspiracy will not be judged, but the persons of the individual
participants. It is the conviction of the Defense that the Charter did
not intend to stand in contradiction to these legal principles of all
states.
The late President Roosevelt, whom Justice Jackson named the spiritual
father of the Charter, has in his great speeches, particularly in those
of 25 October 1941 and 7 October 1942, stated clearly that the leaders
and instigators shall be called to account. Permit me, Mr. President, to
read two sentences from the speech by President Roosevelt taken from the
official collection, _Speeches and Essays by President Roosevelt_,
published on order of the government of the United States.
I quote from the speech of 25 October 1941:
“Civilized peoples long ago adopted the basic principle that no
man should be punished for the deed of another.”
The second quotation is from the speech of President Roosevelt on 7
October 1942, and I quote:
“The number of persons eventually found guilty will undoubtedly
be extremely small compared to the total enemy populations. It
is not the intention of this Government or of the Governments
associated with us to resort to mass reprisals. It is our
intention that just and sure punishment shall be meted out to
the ringleaders responsible for the organized murder of
thousands of innocent persons and the commission of atrocities
which have violated every tenet of the Christian faith.”
In addition to these fundamental objections to such a separation of the
proceedings there is also an important technical objection. If the
Tribunal passes a declaratory judgment against the organizations, as
requested, all these millions of members of the organizations will
automatically become outlaws pending the definite legal decision in the
subsequent trials. Until that date every individual is under serious
suspicion of being a criminal, since it is questionable whether he will
succeed in exonerating himself in the subsequent trial. Since, however,
an individual person, without such exoneration will probably not be able
to return to his profession—and will also be excluded from the ranks of
honorable citizens until he is exonerated—the right to have such a
subsequent trial should not be denied to him. I believe that Justice
Jackson will agree with me in this. But if, as desired by the
Prosecution, 7 million members of organizations, according to a
conservative estimate, are affected by the declaratory judgment of the
Tribunal and thus temporarily become outlaws, then millions of
subsequent trials will have to take place. We shall have to assume that
in the course of 1 year, perhaps 100,000 trials can be completed. I
believe that this is a very optimistic estimate, as our German courts
will not be able to participate; it is well known that they are
completely overworked since they have now only a small portion of their
former personnel. Of these millions of cases, the courts will probably
have to deal first with those of the most criminal nature. The accused,
whose existence is at stake, will defend themselves during the
subsequent trials with all legal means at their disposal. There is the
danger that the really innocent people will have to wait for many years,
even for decades, before they will have an opportunity to rehabilitate
themselves through a process of exoneration. I believe that it would
have been possible to find some sort of solution. For instance, if the
Control Council had passed a law to the effect that, since there is the
suspicion that offenses and crimes against peace and humanity have been
committed with the aid of these organizations, the courts have the right
and the duty to try those of whom it can be proved that they
participated in these crimes as principals or accessories in some way or
other—if such a formula could be found, then I believe that both the
Prosecution and the Defense would consider that a just solution. The
effect would be limited to those who are actually guilty. The Defense
objects in no way to the punishment of those who are actually guilty,
provided that their guilt is determined in regular unobjectionable
proceedings.
Should the Court, however, adhere to a verdict against the
organizations, as requested by the Prosecution, then I request for all
the reasons adduced, arising as they do from the presentation of the
Prosecution and from the impressions made by those applications which
have been filed, that judgment not be passed against the entire SA. The
point of view brought forward by Justice Jackson in the case of the
other organizations, namely, that in the face of so many murders and
atrocities the individual members of an organization can no longer be
determined as perpetrators, this point of view, noteworthy as it is,
does not apply to the SA. The few excesses which, according to the
presentation of the Prosecution, took place here, happened in Germany in
public. The perpetrators are known. Some regional courts have already
opened proceedings of this kind. I have heard, for example, that the
city of Bamberg has opened proceedings against the destroyers of the
synagogue there and against the perpetrators of the action of 10 and 11
November 1938.
But should the Tribunal be of the opinion that judgment is nevertheless
to be passed against the SA as an organization, then I ask the Tribunal
as far as possible to make use of the right to provide certain
limitations in regard to periods of time and categories of members, as
both the Prosecution and the Defense agree that the Tribunal has the
power to make such limitations.
Very important distinctions are to be made here, first as to the
different periods of time. The SA men who joined the SA after the
seizure of power in 1933 joined an organization that on its face bore
the stamp of approval by the state. Admittedly not even a state
authority can declare crimes against humanity legal; but when weighing
the degree of guilt and the severity of the penalty it is, nevertheless,
of considerable importance whether the perpetrator acted outside the
bounds of the laws in force and committed offenses against the positive
law, or whether his acts, although they may offend a higher moral order,
are not contrary to the laws of his country. Therefore an exemption
should be made at any rate of all those SA members who joined after
1933, and who can be proved to have had no part in the events of 10 and
11 November 1938.
In regard to categories, I urgently request, in the interest of justice,
a double limitation:
1. Simple SA members up to the rank of Sturmführer should be exempted at
any rate and, if possible, very soon. I mentioned previously why this
appears imperative in the interests of justice, at least in the American
Zone. Perhaps—and I should welcome this tremendously—Justice Jackson
would have the kindness to pay special attention to this matter once
more. The idea of such limitation is also supported by the fact that it
would considerably reduce the numbers by eliminating the simple
followers; and in this way the technical difficulties, which seem almost
insurmountable, would also be considerably simplified.
2. It was gratifying that the Prosecution yesterday agreed to separate
proceedings against the SA Wehrmannschaften, the bearers of the SA
Sports Badge, and the members of the SA Reserve—or rather, to exempt
them altogether. In the interest of equality and justice as recognized
by the law and by this Tribunal, it would be fair to separate from the
SA all those special sport units which had only a loose organizational
connection with the SA. These are the Navy SA (Marine-SA) and the
Cavalry SA (Reiter-SA).
There are a number of applications before the Court, and it is well
known in Germany to everybody involved that these particular units were
exclusively devoted to their respective sports, namely, sailing and
rowing on the one hand, and horsemanship and holding of tournaments on
the other hand. When in 1933 the Party came to power, it attempted to
take charge of all sport activities in Germany. Consequently, the
various navy clubs and the so-called country riding clubs became
affiliated with the Party, but both clubs had hardly anything to do with
the political SA, even after their regrouping. Only their chiefs were,
according to the organizational system, subordinate to the SA. They are
very well suited for separate proceedings because they constituted a
completely closed group within the SA.
None of the main defendants present here was ever a member of one of
these sport groups. Members of the Cavalry SA feel that they are at a
particular disadvantage because the Prosecution has not indicted the NS
Kraftfahrkorps (National Socialist Motor Corps) and the NS Fliegerkorps
(National Socialist Flier Corps), which is perfectly justified, since it
is known that they were by nature sport organizations. The NS
Kraftfahrkorps and the NS Fliegerkorps were, however, until the year
1934, exactly like the Reiterkorps, sport divisions of the SA. The NS
Kraftfahrkorps succeeded in gaining organizational independence since
1934 or 1935, due to the political influence of its leader Hühnlein. The
NS Fliegerkorps also succeeded in doing so. The NS Reiterkorps, however,
did not have such influence and merely succeeded in 1936 in being
recognized as an independent NS Reiterkorps; but it still remained
formally connected through its leadership with the SA, since Litzmann,
the Chief of the Reiterkorps, was subordinate to the Chief of the SA.
For this purely formal reason about 100,000 farmers and farmhands who
enjoyed education in horsemanship through these country riding clubs are
indicted here. It can be proved that they never took part in politics or
in any activities against Jews or people of other beliefs. Likewise a
pursuit of militaristic aims is out of question in the case of the
Cavalry SA. Already after the First World War it was evident that the
horse had no further role in war. This charge would rather be in point
as far as the Kraftfahrkorps and the Fliegerkorps are concerned. The
Prosecution stated correctly that these organizations were by nature
predominantly sport organizations.
For this reason I should be grateful to the Prosecution if they would
once more examine the cases I have mentioned in order to find out
whether or not the same conditions exist in this case as in the case of
the SA Reserve and the armed SA units.
As the last group I mention the SA university units (SA
Hochschulstürme), because they were almost without exception obligatory
organizations for those students who would not have been admitted to the
state examinations without a record of activity in such organizations.
The same thing applies to the SA health units (SA Sanitätsstürme), which
represented an obligatory activity for many physicians who were applying
for positions.
I should like to correct myself on one point, because it has been called
to my attention that I wanted to set a time limit for those SA members
joining after 1933. I should have said, “after 30 January 1933,” the day
of the seizure of power.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the hearing of SA
members. Most of the members of the SA are free. If only a few so far
have written to the Court, this is almost exclusively due to the fact
that, since the SA in this country is generally considered inoffensive,
they can hardly imagine that a Court with the experience and the high
standing of this Tribunal could reach a decision which would differ from
public opinion. Should the Court, however, adhere to its conception of
the SA, then I should like to support the suggestion made yesterday by
the Prosecution to the effect that the notice be published once more for
the members to make an effort to defend their interests. However, I
share the opinion of counsel for the Leadership Corps, that it would not
serve the interests of the proceedings if the direct contact between the
Defense Counsel and his client were destroyed. In the case of the SA men
who are free, a technically simple method could be used by having the
main Defense Counsel in Nuremberg appoint deputies, preferably lawyers,
in every province, for example, Baden, Bavaria, and Württemberg. The
provincial press should make mention of these men. Every individual
member of an organization could, with the help of these lawyers, answer
by means of an affidavit those questions which the Court has found to be
relevant.
In a very gratifying manner the American Chief Prosecutor stated
yesterday, if I understood him correctly, that in the trial of the
organizations, because of its fateful importance for millions of people,
the principle of justice is much more important than the question of
speedy proceedings. I should therefore like to join in the request made
by Counsel for the Leadership Corps, that the trial of the
organizations, which is to be regarded from different points of view, be
separated from the trial of the main defendants.
Members of the Tribunal, I am at the conclusion of my remarks. I should
like, however, to reply to the words, words worth heeding, spoken by
Justice Jackson yesterday at the beginning of his address. He said that
for the first time in history a modern state had completely collapsed,
and that this surrender created for the victorious nations completely
novel problems; that one of the most important tasks was to destroy the
structure of those organizations and to prevent this country forever
from waging wars of aggression or carrying out pogroms. All people of
good will must sincerely welcome this aim and support Justice Jackson.
It is, however, questionable whether the right way toward that end is to
defame all members of organizations as such, involving millions of
people.
I ask the Tribunal to consider that there is hardly a family in this
country which did not have near relatives in some one of these
organizations at some time. The organizations are dead, the system of
terror and falsehood has disintegrated, millions of misled and deceived
people have turned away from their leaders and seducers. But if they
find themselves ostracized and stigmatized along with them the effect
might easily be the opposite of that which we all hope for.
Justice Jackson correctly pointed out in his speech yesterday that the
Control Council will possibly change the method of denazification used
so far, which has been rather mechanical, and make it more individual.
Present experience that mechanical treatment evokes the feeling of
injustice and thereby a false solidarity, might contribute to this. The
millions of simple misled camp followers of the organizations would
consider such a verdict an act of revenge rather than a manifestation of
justice. The ringleaders, however, could conceal their actual guilt
behind the backs of millions of people. The educational and corrective
effect of a verdict as well as the idea of just atonement would
consequently be weakened.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. LÖFFLER: I ask the Tribunal that I be permitted to make one more
remark.
In my previous request I did not ask for the exemption of one particular
group, namely, the Stahlhelm; this was only because, according to my
information, the Stahlhelm was transferred in its entirety to the SA
Reserve after the seizure of power and therefore, in my opinion, is
included in the declaration made yesterday by Justice Jackson exempting
the SA Reserve.
HERR BABEL: May it please the Tribunal, I should have considered it
appropriate in the interest of a speedy trial that the Defense not
answer the inquiries of the Tribunal and reply to the arguments of the
Prosecution until they have received in writing the extensive and
important arguments of the Prosecution and are thereby in a position to
deal with the whole complex of problems comprehensively and
conclusively.
Since a number of Defense Counsel for the organizations have already
spoken, I feel prompted to do the same, insofar as I am in a position to
do so at this time and consider it necessary and appropriate.
The Tribunal desire to have a discussion in order to define the legal
concept of the criminal organization and desire in particular to examine
the question of which qualifying elements of a factual nature are
necessary in order to declare an organization criminal. The Defense
believe that a final and basic definition of this concept, which is
entirely new to any legal system, can be given only at the end of the
proceedings by means of a special hearing of evidence after all
necessary factual information has been collected and examined.
The Prosecution have already presented a definition, which, however,
raises very serious objections, because it is derived from legal ideas
which have grown in countries other than Germany, under different
conditions and circumstances, and which involve far less important legal
consequences than those now considered by the Tribunal, the public
opinion of the world, the German people and jurisprudence, and
jurisdiction in general.
The organizations now indicted are mostly large mass organizations,
without aims and ideas of their own, organizations whose Party-political
aims and purposes and Party activities developed to national dimensions.
A just and pertinent definition can be found for these organizations
only on the basis of the evidence to be presented concerning the nature
and aims of these organizations and the knowledge, intentions, and
activities of their members. Considering the basic difference of the
organizations which have been and are now being investigated, it is more
than questionable whether it will be possible to take the legal basis
applied so far to single cases as a basis for proceedings against
political organizations comprising millions of people.
The Prosecution and the Defense are probably agreed that the Indictment
is actually not directed against the organizations, which do not exist
any more anyhow, but in fact against the former membership. Likewise the
opinion seems to be held unanimously that the Tribunal as a matter of
principle will give the members an actual opportunity, not only a
theoretical one, to be heard on the question of the criminal character
of the organizations; that follows all the more since, according to Law
Number 10, the possibility seems to be excluded that the members may
make essential objections in regard to the organizations and their own
person during the subsequent individual trials. If the Tribunal does not
measure the responsibility of the entire organization on the basis of
the responsibility of the individuals comprising it, the danger of
collective liability arises, which would create such a degree of
injustice affecting individuals in such a way that it would be much
worse than the justly attacked Sippenhaftung of the Third Reich, which
in a criminal way aimed at involving innocent members of the family in
proceedings taken against any one of its members.
In order to define a criminal organization, evidence and information as
to the knowledge, intentions, and actions of the members of the
organizations must be provided; similarly, before convicting
individuals, either singly or in the mass, justice and human dignity
alike demand that they should each be informed of the indictment and
should each have an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. This
requirement is imperative in view of the serious legal consequence
threatening the members of the organizations in case of a verdict
against them, such as loss of property, long-term imprisonment, and even
the death penalty.
Last but not least, the hearing of all members of the organizations is
also necessary because the unrestricted compilation of judicial evidence
appears to be inevitable in order to work out the legal definition of
criminal character.
The Defense do not ignore the fact that, considering the scope of the
Trial, these basic demands are confronted with tremendous difficulties.
The scope of the Trial, however, should not reduce the thoroughness of
the procedure but, on the contrary, should increase it.
May it please the Tribunal, there are businessmen who are owners of
several firms. If, now, the owner uses one of these firms to commit
criminal acts, can we say that the other firms and their employees are
also criminal? On the basis of this principle, I consider it necessary
to point out which organizations, according to the reasons given by the
Prosecution so far, are affected by the Indictment as units of the SS.
They are:
1. The General SS—strength at the beginning of the war, about 350,000
men. This number includes the variety of special units like cavalry,
motor, information, music, and medical units.
2. The Waffen-SS, of which, at the end of the war, there were still
under arms about 600,000 men. In the over-all number of Waffen-SS must
be included about 36 divisions of the combat troops and a large number
of reserve units of the reserve of the Armed Forces, as well as all
those who were discharged from the Waffen-SS or who left in some other
way. The verdict in this Trial would also affect the honor of the dead
and the fate of their surviving relatives, so that the dead also will
have to be included in this number which demonstrates the far-reaching
significance of this Trial. Consequently, the total number of members of
the Waffen-SS, especially when including those discharged as unfit for
war service, would be many times larger than the figure representing the
final strength.
On the basis of investigations under way the Defense will submit still
more accurate figures, unless this is to be done by the Prosecution,
which in my opinion ought to submit to the Court the information
necessary for a verdict.
3. The Death’s-Head Units—before 1939, about 6,000 men.
4. SS troops for special employment, including the Adolf Hitler
Bodyguard—before 1939, about 9,000 men.
5. Honorary Führer of the SS, whose number will probably turn out to be
very large, as, for instance, the Farmer Leaders (Bauernführer) of the
Reich Food Estate down to the District Farmer Leaders
(Kreisbauernführer) were for the most part appointed honorary Führer of
the SS. Similar conditions prevail with respect to the chiefs of several
branches of the state administration, who were often made honorary
Führer of the SS without any initiative on their part and without being
able to do anything about it. Likewise many leaders of the Reich
Veterans’ League received honorary ranks in the SS.
6. The “supporting members” of the SS, among whom were also many
non-Party members; their number is not yet known but it is certainly
very considerable.
7. SS Front Line Auxiliaries of the Reich Post Office.
8. SS Construction Units.
9. SS Front laborers.
10. The entire Regular Police, to which belonged:
(a) The Municipal Police of the Reich with several special units, such
as traffic squads, accident squads, information, cavalry, police dog
squads, radio, and medical units; (b) the Gendarmerie with innumerable
stations and posts, distributed all over the country, even in the
smallest villages, which had rendered service without essential changes
since Napoleon’s time—the motorized Gendarmerie supervised traffic; (c)
the Municipal Police of smaller communities; (d) the Water Police; (e)
the Fire Police; (f) the Technical Auxiliary Police Units, the Technical
Emergency Service. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, you are going rather fast if you want us to
take down these categories.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I shall submit a copy to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Personally, I prefer to understand the argument when I
hear it.
HERR BABEL: I repeat: (f) the Technical Emergency Service, the
Compulsory, Industrial, and Voluntary Fire Brigades; (g) Police and
Gendarmerie Reserves; (h) the Air Raid Police, with security and
auxiliary service; (i) the Town and Country Guard.
Further, there belonged to the Regular Police a great many central
institutions, such as the State Hospital for Police, the Police
Officers’ Schools, the Technical Police School, the Police Sports and
Cavalry Schools, Police and Gendarmerie Schools, the Water Police School
and the Reich Fire Brigade School, the Driving and Traffic Schools, the
Air Raid Precautions Teaching Staff, the School and Experimental Station
for Police Dogs, and the Horse Depot of the Police.
In 1942 all the above-named units of the Regular Police, including the
police troop units, totaled about 570,000 men. If we follow the
presentation of the Prosecution, then all the groups, institutions, and
organizations enumerated so far belong to the SS.
11. All those units of the Security Police which did not belong to the
separately indicted Gestapo and SD, that is, offices and officials of
the Criminal Police.
12. The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle.
13. The Offices of the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German
Nationality.
14. National Political Institutes.
15. The Lebensborn Association.
16. The SS women auxiliaries.
All these groups, institutions, and suborganizations were under the
administration and jurisdiction of the SS.
By way of summary, the Defense estimate the group of persons indicted as
SS members at several millions. The verdict, however, will also affect
the members of the families of all SS members, at least indirectly, so
that additional millions will be affected personally, morally, and
financially. Since, besides the SS, the mass organizations of the SA and
the Leadership Corps are also indicted, a verdict against the indicted
organizations would amount to a considerable part of the German nation’s
being considered criminal.
According to Law Number 10 of the Control Council, of 20 December 1945,
every member may be subject to any penalty, including the death penalty,
merely because he was a member of an organization which has been
declared criminal.
The question put to discussion by the Court as to what objections can be
made in this collective Trial and what objections can be made later in
the individual trials has, in my opinion, been decided already by Law
Number 10 to the effect that in the individual objections of a
defendant, for example, ignorance of the criminal aims of the
organization, cannot be given any consideration.
It is, therefore, necessary that evidence in this present Trial should
be admitted to the widest extent possible. It should be made possible
for the Defense to rebut, by means of evidence of the factual situation
at the date of the respective act, the conclusions drawn by the
Prosecution retrospectively from individual acts and facts.
When evidence on behalf of the individual defendants was submitted, the
Tribunal declared its readiness to admit evidence if there is only the
slightest degree of relevancy. Considering the significance of the
decision of this Court for the millions of people affected and for their
families, it appears to be an absolutely necessary condition that
evidence be admitted to the largest extent possible in order to permit a
just verdict, to clarify the facts, and especially to find out to what
extent members of the SS participated in any criminal acts according to
Article 6 of the Charter.
To clarify the question of whether it is permissible to conclude from
the fact of the extent of the indicted actions, as maintained by the
Prosecution, that the members of the SS had knowledge of these actions,
it will also be necessary to admit evidence to the widest extent
possible about the question as to whether or not and, if so, to what
extent the members of the SS knew of these actions, as well as evidence
of the facts which prove that the members of the SS, like the majority
of the German people, did not know anything about these matters, owing
to the precautions taken to keep them secret.
The discussions initiated by the Tribunal make it necessary to
anticipate essential parts of the final pleadings. A ruling by the
Tribunal on the question of evidence would at this time signify a ruling
by the Tribunal on an essential part of its future decisions, without
any hearing of the evidence on the objections of the Defense having
taken place. The Charter has a gap, insofar as it has not defined the
facts which qualify an organization as criminal. This gap cannot be
filled by admitting evidence only in a certain direction. By doing so
the Tribunal would anticipate an essential part of its final verdict.
According to what I have said, I believe that it will be necessary for
the evidence to include all elements which might influence the decision
of the question as to whether the organization of the SS was criminal.
This, however, would hardly be possible within the framework of this
Trial which, according to the Charter, is to be conducted as
expeditiously as feasible. Therefore, I consider it necessary to
separate the procedure against the SS and the SD from the trial of the
individual defendants.
On 15 January 1946, partly for other reasons, I made a motion for
separation. As far as I know, no ruling has yet been given. I repeat
this motion as follows:
Judging from the course of the Trial and the procedure up to now, I have
come to the opinion that the Indictment against the organizations of the
SS and the SD—for which I have been appointed Defense Counsel by an
order of the International Military Tribunal of 22 November 1945—and
probably against the other indicted organizations also, cannot be dealt
with within the framework of this Trial for factual and legal reasons.
1. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I restrict myself to a few
brief points reserving for myself the right to present additional
arguments at a later date:
(a) The International Military Tribunal has no jurisdiction. To this
point I should like to remark that a few days ago I learned from a
newspaper article that the objection of lack of jurisdiction has already
been raised during the session of 20 November 1945 and has been
overruled by the Court. I asked for a copy of the record of 20 November
1945—and also of the following days—but I have not received it to
date. Therefore, I could not take note either of the motion and the
reasons given or of the decision of the Tribunal and its reasons.
(b) A criminal procedure against an organization is not possible or
permissible, especially against an organization which has been
dissolved.
(c) To appoint a Defense Counsel for a dissolved organization, that is,
for something non-existing, is not possible and admissible.
2. As to the facts, I am compelled to make more detailed statements in
support of my motion.
On 19 November 1945 I was told orally that the International Military
Tribunal intended my nomination as counsel for the organization of the
Leadership Corps. After discussion I declared in writing my agreement to
take over the obligatory defense. On 20 November 1945 I was told orally
that I should take over the defense of the organizations of the SS and
SD. On 21 November 1945 I was told orally that I had been appointed
counsel for the SS and SD, and that I would receive the written
appointment very soon. On 23 November 1945 I received the letter of
appointment, dated 22 November 1945, and in the English language, and a
few days later I received the German translation which I had requested.
This letter, in the translation which I received, reads as follows:
“Pursuant to the direction of the International Military
Tribunal you are hereby appointed to serve as counsel in the
case of _United States et al. v. Göring et al._ for the members
of the defendant organizations, the Schutzstaffeln der
Nationalsozialistischen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the
SS) and the Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the SD), who
may make application to the General Secretary under the order of
the International Military Tribunal attached hereto.”
A few days later a file was handed to me with about 25 letters addressed
to the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal, partly
from members of the SS and partly from relatives of such members. When I
asked about my position and the position of these applicants in the
Trial, I was told orally that these applications were to be submitted by
me to the Tribunal in proper form.
On 23 November 1945 there was a conference, during which a number of
questions and suggestions were brought up concerning the position and
rights of these members of the indicted organizations, who had applied
for and been granted leave to be heard, and of the defense counsel
provided for them.
From 28 November 1945 until 11 December 1945 I was not able to obtain
the applications filed by members of the SS and SD although I asked for
them several times each day. At that time about 25 applications were
handed to me each day, upon request, and I had to return them in the
evening of the same day. I was told every time that the Tribunal needed
them and that they had not yet been returned. When I received the folder
again on 11 December 1945 the number of petitions had increased
considerably.
By notice of 10 December 1945, according to the German translation which
I received on 11 December 1945, the Tribunal made known its view that a
member of an indicted organization who has applied to be heard on the
question of the criminal character of the organization is not to be
considered a defendant but will have the individual status of a witness
only, although he will be permitted to give evidence; furthermore, that
counsel representing any group or organization may, for this group or
organization, exercise the rights accorded by the Charter to counsel for
individual defendants.
After a closed session of the Court on 11 December 1945, in which
counsel for the indicted organizations also took part, the Tribunal by
notice of 17 December 1945—of which I did not receive a German
translation until a few days later—directed that the respective
counsel, that is, counsel for the organizations, should represent only
the indicted groups and organizations and not individual applicants.
Not until this date was the extent of my duties unambiguously stated and
defined.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know what your application now
is. The object of this session is to have an argument from Counsel for
the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense in order that the legal
questions with reference to these organizations should be clear, and
what your personal experience during November and December of 1945 has
to do with it the Tribunal is unable to see.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, before I started reading this motion, I
pointed out that already on 15 January of this year I made a motion to
separate the procedure, and to my knowledge no ruling has yet been
given. I have tried to repeat in part the reasons for this motion which
I made at the time. If the Court does not think it desirable or
necessary, I shall refrain from doing so.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t see any relevance in what you have been reading
to us now, either to the question of whether there should be a separate
trial or to any other questions with reference to the criminal
organizations.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, under these circumstances I shall not read
those further arguments, which may be known to the Court from my written
motion, and I shall come to the conclusion of what I still wish to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, the Court will, of course, consider the
suggestion which has been made, I think, by other counsel for the
organizations as well as the suggestion which I understand you are now
making, that it is necessary to have a separate trial. The Court will
consider that. But what you have been saying to us does not appear to me
to have any relevance to that.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, in my former motion I merely wanted to point
out the difficulties I had—since I was still alone and had no
assistance—before I was in a position to devote myself to my real
assignment; for that reason also, in my opinion, my motion for
separating the trial was well founded at that time. Part, or the greater
part, of what I said then has been repeated now. What I have read just
now, and the remainder of my motion, might have more significance today,
but I shall refrain from reading it, since the question of the
separation of the trial has already been brought up and argued by
others. Therefore, for the rest, I can also join in the arguments
brought forward by my colleagues in this regard. In this connection I
should like to point out that on 19 January 1946 I made a motion to be
relieved of the defense of the SD because of conflicting interests.
I believe I ought to call this to your attention as I do not plead today
for the SD, because I have been waiting for a ruling on my motion. I
reserve for myself the right to make further statements after I receive
a copy of the record of 28 February, in particular on the question of
the membership of individuals and groups of persons in the SS, on the
definition of the lines of demarcation between the SS and the
governmental sector, on limitations as to periods and organizations, on
the question of voluntary membership, on limitation of responsibility
for other reasons according to criminal law, and on the jurisdiction of
the SS courts.
In view of the tremendous amount of work which I had to do so far, I
have to this date not yet been able to take a stand on all these points.
I wish to make the remark that the suggestions made by the Prosecution
and several of the Defense Counsel as to the presentation of evidence
seem untenable to me. They would entail a considerable restricting of
the Defense. To carry them out seems to be impossible also for reasons
of time.
This concludes my argument.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided to alter the order of procedure,
and they will therefore not sit in open session tomorrow but sit in
closed session tomorrow, Saturday; and sit on Monday in order to hear
the applications for witnesses and documents by the next four defendants
in order.
Now, there is another counsel for the organizations to be heard, is
there not?
DR. LATERNSER: The main subject of the discussion which, by request of
the Tribunal, has taken place today and yesterday is the question as to
what is relevant evidence in the case against the indicted
organizations.
As a preliminary question the concept of the criminal organization in
particular must be clarified. Consequently it is not the task of counsel
for the organizations to plead in detail; that should be reserved for
the later final address by Defense Counsel, but rather the subject of
discussion is definitely limited, as far as the Defense is concerned, to
the above-mentioned question of the relevancy of evidence and also to
certain fundamental issues which must be touched upon in order to judge
the relevancy of evidence.
According to the sequence provided by the Indictment, our colleague Dr.
Kubuschok spoke first as defense counsel for the Reich Government. In
his address he dealt with the general issues in compliance with Point
Number 1 of the decision of the Tribunal of 14 January 1946. In order to
avoid unnecessary repetition, I should like to make the legal arguments
of my colleague Kubuschok, to their full extent, part of my own
argument. At the same time I submit the request that the Tribunal pay
particular attention to the contents of these arguments presented
yesterday.
With regard to the definition of the concept “criminal organization,” I
should like to make a few short remarks and additional statements. It is
obviously a well-considered provision of the Charter that the Tribunal
can declare the indicted organizations criminal; it is thus not obliged
to do so but can exercise its free and conscientious judgment.
If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the declaration of the
group as criminal can or has to lead to impossible, untenable, and
unjust consequences, then the rejection of the Prosecution’s demand
would as a matter of course be mandatory.
It has already been stated by those who have just spoken what grave
legal consequences would result, as far as the members are concerned,
from a declaration of the criminality of the groups and how the
undoubtedly vast number of innocent members would also be affected by
that declaration. As far as these consequences for the members are
concerned, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough that all the members
of the groups and organizations will be affected directly by a
declaration of criminality, insofar as by the verdict of the Tribunal it
would irrefutably be established that they are accused of a crime,
namely, the crime of having belonged to a group or organization which
has been declared criminal. That this membership is a crime already
follows clearly from Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter. In Article 10 it
is stated that the competent courts of the individual occupation zones
have the right to put all members on trial because of their membership
in groups or organizations which have been declared criminal.
It is further enacted that in those trials the criminal nature of the
group or organization shall not be questioned. Thus, the members can be
indicted because of membership in the group or organization; and, if
every indictment before a court can, of course, deal only with a crime,
then it is already established that membership in the group or
organization is a crime. Furthermore, in Article 11 of the Charter
membership in a group or organization declared criminal is specifically
designated a crime. That follows from the very words of the article,
which reads: “. . . with a crime other than of membership in a criminal
group or organization. . . .”
In the same way in the law of 20 December 1945, issued to implement the
Charter, membership in a group or organization declared criminal is
specifically declared a crime. Consequently the finding of the criminal
character of the group or organization by the Tribunal will state with
immediate effect that all members, because of their membership in the
group or organization, have committed a crime, and this must necessarily
lead to untenable consequences.
It is not correct to say that these members can exculpate themselves in
the subsequent trials before the individual military courts. If mere
membership in the organization is defined as a crime, they can take
exception to the charged guilt only by declaring that they were not
members of the group or organization.
If Justice Jackson is of the opinion that in the subsequent trials they
could plead that they had become members under duress or by fraud, the
admissibility of this plea nevertheless seems to be highly questionable.
Justice Jackson himself pointed out that a plea of personal or economic
disadvantages cannot serve as grounds for duress. What other kind of
duress could be considered relevant? According to German criminal law
only physical coercion would be left for consideration, and that only
for the period of its duration. In this case also fear of personal or
economic disadvantage is no ground for exculpation as far as remaining
in the group or organization later on is concerned.
Thus a member of a group or organization declared criminal has in the
subsequent trial only the possibility of pleading certain extenuating
circumstances which might influence the degree of penalty. The question
is now whether, according to the principles of justice, these inevitable
consequences are tolerable; so far as innocent members are concerned,
this question can be definitely answered only in the negative.
Justice Jackson is further of the opinion that there probably are no
innocent members of the organizations concerned, because it is simply
incomprehensible to sound common sense that anyone joined the indicted
groups or organizations without having known from the very beginning, or
at least very soon after, what aims and methods these groups and
organizations were pursuing.
This point of view may appear comprehensible to the retrospective
observer, after the crimes charged to the groups and organizations have
collectively been brought to light. That the mental attitude of the
members to the aims and tasks was or could have been entirely different
at that time cannot be doubted by anyone.
If one were to subscribe to Justice Jackson’s interpretation, then the
provision of Article 9 of the Charter providing for a hearing of members
on the question of the criminal character of the organizations would
make no sense at all. It would then be entirely superfluous to admit any
sort of evidence in respect to this, and it would furthermore be
unnecessary to discuss the criminal character, as the Tribunal itself
has suggested.
If we follow the Prosecutor’s line of thought that, according to sound
common sense, it is obvious that all the members took part in the crimes
mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter, then the provisions regarding the
Common Plan or Conspiracy would suffice altogether as grounds for
prosecuting and punishing these members who, without exception, are to
be considered guilty. In this case the structure of the declaration of
criminality and the stipulation of its consequences would in no way have
been necessary.
From the following deliberation it is to be inferred that the
declaration of the criminality of the organizations is not necessary and
can be dispensed with altogether.
Justice Jackson declared that, of course, no one intended an indictment
of the innumerable members of the groups and organizations, which would
result in a flood of trials which could not possibly be dealt with in
one generation. What will be done is to seek out and find only those who
are actually guilty and have them brought to trial.
Thus it is not in any way necessary to create such a large circle of
members through the declaration of criminality and to select the guilty
from this circle. This selection can take place without creating this
circle. That in a group or organization of many members there were
obviously a number of innocent members is a fact of common experience
which cannot be disputed, and this thought is taken into consideration
not only by the Charter, but also by the Prosecution in that they want
to exempt from one of the organizations the category of those with
low-grade routine tasks, obviously because of the conviction that these
had nothing to do with crimes, for otherwise they would have been
members of or participants in the criminal conspiracy.
Besides this category, however, a number of other members come into
consideration whom one cannot speak of as guilty in the legal sense of
the term; for instance, those people who did not give any thought at all
to the aims of the group. All these people would of necessity not only
be dishonored by a declaration of the criminality of the group or
organization but, if indicted, would also be punishable because of mere
membership. Incidentally it might be mentioned that eventually their
economic existence would be menaced or destroyed because of their
membership in the group or organization and the defamation brought about
by the declaration of criminality.
But again it must be asked whether all these consequences have been
weighed and can be justified in view of the basic principle of all
criminal law systems, according to which only the guilty are to be
punished, and in view of the principle of substantive justice. That
ought to be answered in the negative all the more if these members who
would necessarily be affected by the verdict of the Tribunal were not
granted any legal hearing in this Trial.
It has already been pointed out that granting a legal hearing to the
vast majority of the members is unfeasible for technical reasons. Thus
the unique situation arises that the Tribunal would pass verdict on all
those members without knowing whether or not numerous innocent members
would be affected thereby.
If Justice Jackson further pointed out that the issue under dispute is
nothing new, but can be found in the penal codes of all other states and
in particular also in Germany, this view likewise can in no wise be
supported. The German laws and precedents quoted are of a character
entirely different from the structure of the Charter.
In Germany, as in almost all other states, the punishment of groups and
organizations is not known at all, only the punishment of individuals is
known. No German judgment has yet been passed by which a group or
organization as such was subjected to penalty or was declared criminal.
It is very well possible, though, that in the trials against members of
criminal organizations the criminal character of the organization was
stated in the opinion. This statement, however, had effect only on the
convicted members and not on other members who were neither indicted nor
convicted.
The provisions quoted of Articles 128 and 129 of the German Penal Code
are provisions which corroborate exactly the view of the Defense,
because they threaten only the participants in an illegal association
with penalties and not the association itself. Also, the French laws
quoted deal merely with the threat of punishment for participation and
membership in certain associations with punishable pursuits. A
possibility for declaring the association itself criminal is not to be
found in these legal sources either.
The French Prosecutor quoted, first of all, Articles 265 and 266 of the
Penal Code. The first provision forbids the forming of associations with
a punishable pursuit; the second subjects only the participants to
penalty. Likewise, the French law concerning armed groups and private
militia, of 10 January 1936, provides only for the punishment of the
participants. The same is true of the other law quoted, that of 26
August 1944, which provides only for individual responsibility. None of
the above-mentioned laws allows the punishment of organizations.
Consequently, they can support only the legal view of the Defense.
If in England and America—as exceptions—associations as such can be
punished, that can be done only on account of certain groups of offenses
and only to the effect that either the dissolution of the corporation
may be pronounced or fines imposed. Naturally in such proceedings it is
a necessary condition for the Prosecution and the Defense that the
corporation as such be represented during the proceedings by its
functionaries and representatives and be able to defend itself; whereas
in this Trial the groups and organizations as such are summoned before
the Court, although they do not exist any longer and although their
functionaries are absent.
It has never been the case in any country that groups and organizations
are declared guilty or criminal and that on the basis of this
declaration of the Court all members of the groups or organizations can
be or must be indicted and punished because of their mere membership.
This is the completely novel and odd feature which stands in contrast to
the existing law of any country.
I believe it is permissible to say that neither England nor America
would ever be willing to pass such a law for their own population. If
all this proves that the declaration of criminality demanded must
automatically result in grave and completely untenable consequences as
demonstrated, then the demand of the Prosecution should be denied in the
name of justice. The Charter, which in no way obliges the Tribunal to
make such a declaration, would also not be violated thereby. In this way
an injustice which could only injure the integrity of the judgment of
the Tribunal in the eyes of our contemporaries and of posterity would be
avoided.
My arguments lead to the following conclusion:
1. The Tribunal should, because of the legal arguments presented, as a
matter of principle, refuse to declare any group or organization
criminal; it is within the Tribunal’s power to do so.
2. If this is not done, the concept of the criminal organization must be
so defined that the innocent members are protected from serious
consequences. This can be done only by means of a definition, as
suggested yesterday by my colleague, Kubuschok. Accordingly, those
subjects of evidence proposed by him should also be admitted if they are
not _a priori_ irrelevant because of the fact that, for legal reasons,
the Prosecution’s demand of a verdict against the groups and
organizations cannot be granted. It is necessary that the following
additional evidence be admitted for the group of the General Staff and
the OKW, which I represent:
(1) The group included under the designation “General Staff and OKW” is
not such a group and is not an organization. My explanation of this
subject of proof is as follows:
(a) Justice Jackson is of the opinion that the concept of “group” is
more comprehensive than that of “organization,” that it does not have to
be defined but can be understood by common sense. To this I must object
that those who occupied the highest and the higher command posts
represent the heads of a military hierarchy as it is to be found in
every army in the world. There was no relationship whatsoever evident
among the members of this group. Nor can such relations be assumed
merely because of the official connections between the various offices
or because of the channels which actually existed. Moreover, since the
circle of people whom the Prosecution wish to include in this group is
admittedly composed in a completely arbitrary way, simply on the basis
of official positions occupied within a period of 8 years, there is no
evident tie which could justify the assumption of the existence of a
group. But to form a group it is absolutely necessary to have some
connecting element in addition to the purely official contact between
offices.
(b) Aside from the Chiefs of the General Staffs of the Army and the Air
Force, none of the individual persons in the group belonged to the
General Staff. The German General Staff of the Army and the Air
Force—the Navy had no admiral staff—was headed by the Chief of the
General Staff and consisted of the General Staff officers who acted as
operational assistants to the higher military leaders. For these reasons
the designation or name given by the Prosecution to this fictitious
group under indictment is false and misleading as well.
(2) The following subject of evidence, in addition to those advanced by
my colleague, Kubuschok, should be admitted for the group of the General
Staff and OKW: The holders of the offices forming the group did not join
a group voluntarily, nor did they remain in it voluntarily. The
admission of this subject of evidence is necessary for the following
reasons: Justice Jackson stated yesterday that joining a group, or
membership in it, must be voluntary. This condition is not present in
the case of the group which I represent. The vast majority of the
indicted higher military leaders had come from the Imperial Army and
Navy; all of them had served in the Reichswehr long before 1933. They
did not join any group, but were officers of the Armed Forces and got
their positions, which they were not at liberty to choose, only on the
basis of their military achievements. They also were not at liberty to
withdraw from these positions without violating their duty of military
obedience.
(3) All evidence is to be admitted which refers to the charge against
the group of the General Staff and the OKW as contained in the summary
of arguments. Evidence on these points could be presented in the
following way:
(1) A number of people concerned should make sworn affidavits from the
contents of which conclusions could be drawn regarding the typical
attitude of a certain number of those involved. (2) Some typical
representatives of the group ought to testify before this Court about
the subjects of evidence submitted. (3) Every other sort of evidence
having some probative value should be admitted to the extent necessary.
We request that this evidence should be admitted at present to a full
extent for the time being without prejudice to a subsequent decision on
the weight of this evidence, just as Justice Jackson suggested the same
thing on 14 December 1945 with regard to the evidence offered by the
Prosecution, for at present a binding decision on the relevancy of the
evidence offered cannot be reached.
Whether this evidence is necessary at all and whether or not and to what
extent it is relevant depends on the following: (1) Whether the
Tribunal, following the arguments of justice and fairness as submitted
and by authority of the power given it, will decline to declare these
groups and organizations criminal. (2) Or, if this is not done, in what
way it defines the concept of criminal groups and organizations. These
two points cannot be definitely decided at present, since there is still
a great deal to be said about these thoroughly difficult and significant
and completely novel problems, as well as about the impressive address
delivered by Justice Jackson. One of my colleagues has undertaken to
work out a comprehensive memorandum on all these problems and questions
which will be ready in about two or three weeks. I request that
additional arguments pertaining thereto be reserved for me and my
colleagues at that time.
One last point: The Tribunal ought also to reach a ruling as to what is
to be done about the last word for the organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would be glad to hear
you in reply.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think there is not much that I care to say in
reply, but there are one or two points which I would like to cover. It
has been suggested that there be a separation of the trial of the issues
as to the organizations from the Trial now pending. I think that is
impossible under the Charter. I think the Trial must proceed as a unit.
Of course, it is possible to take up at separate times different parts
of the Trial, but the jurisdiction conferred by Article 9 for the trial
of organizations is limited.
It is at the trial of any individual member, of any group, _et cetera_,
that this decision must be reached and it must be in connection with any
act of which the individual may be convicted. So I think that any
separation, in anything more than a mere separation of days or
separation of weeks of our time, is impossible.
I find some difficulty in understanding the argument which has been
advanced by several of the representatives of the organizations that
there would be some great injustice in dishonoring the members of these
organizations or branding the members of these organizations with the
declaration of criminality. I should have thought that if they were not
already dishonored by the evidence that has been produced here, dishonor
would be difficult to achieve by mere words of the declaration. It isn’t
we who are dishonoring the members of those organizations. It is the
evidence in this case, originating largely with these defendants, that
may well bring dishonor to the members of these organizations. But the
very purpose of this organizational investigation is to determine that
part of German society which did actively participate in the
promulgation of these offenses and that those elements may be condemned;
and, of course, if it carries some discredit with it, I think we must
say that the discredit was not originated by any of our countries; the
dishonor originated mainly with those in this dock, together with those
whom the fortunes of war have removed from our reach.
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to just what we mean, or at
least we do not agree as to what is to be meant by treating these
organizations as generally voluntary. The test which has been advanced
by the counsel for the organizations would, it seems to me, completely
nullify any practicable procedure.
Now let us contrast the Wehrmacht and the SS to get at what I mean by
regarding an organization as generally voluntary. The Wehrmacht was
generally a conscript organization, but it may have had a good many
volunteers in it. I do not think we would be justified, because there
were volunteers, in calling the Wehrmacht a voluntary organization. The
SS, on the other hand, was generally a voluntary organization, but it
did have some conscripts, and I do not think it would be any more just
to carry the SS into the class of conscript organizations because of a
few members than it would to classify the Wehrmacht as _voluntary_
because of a few members. In other words, in neither case would we be
justified in allowing, as we might say, the “tail to wag the dog.” It is
a question of the general character of the over-all organization that
decides what these organizations are.
Now, of course, if the Tribunal saw fit to say that its declaration was
not intended to apply to any groups, sections, or individuals who were
conscripts, that is one thing. I have no quarrel with that. From the
very beginning I have insisted that of course we were not trying to
reach conscripts. But if you sit here week after week determining who is
a conscript and just where that principle leads, that, I think, would be
quite apart from what we ought to do here.
A great deal of argument is addressed to the fact that proof is
lacking—or that here should be stronger proof—that these
organizations’ real criminality was known to the members; and the
inference seems to be that we must prove that every member—or, at
least—that we cannot hold members who did not know this criminal
program on the part of these organizations. I think this gets into a
question, perhaps, of the sufficiency of proof rather than one of
principle, but it seems to me again that we have the common sense
division.
If someone organized a literary society for the study of German
literature and accumulated some funds and had a home, a house, and some
of the defendants became its officers and secretly diverted its funds to
a criminal purpose, while all the time to the public it was presenting
only the appearance of being a literary society, it might very well be
that a member should not be held unless we proved actual knowledge. Or,
if a labor union, ostensibly for the purpose of improving the welfare of
its members, has its funds or properties or the prestige of its name
diverted by those who happened to gain control of it to criminal
purposes, then you have a situation where the members might not be
chargeable with knowledge.
But when I speak of knowledge sufficient to charge members, as I did, I
do not mean the state of mind of each individual member. That would be
an absurd test in any court of law. In the first place, it is never a
satisfactory thing to explore the state of mind of an individual; and,
in the second place, it is impossible to explore the state of mind of a
million individuals. So we might as well drop this from consideration,
if that were to be the test.
But let us look at this over-all program. How did these few men who were
the heads of this Nazi regime kill 5 million Jews, as they boast they
did? Now, they didn’t do it with their hands; and it took disciplined,
organized, systematic manpower to do it. That manpower wasn’t casually
assembled. It was organized, directed, and used. Can the killing of 5
million Jews in Europe be a secret? Weren’t the concentration camps
known in every one of our countries? Were they not a byword in every
land in the world—the German concentration camps—and yet we have to
hear that the German people themselves had no knowledge about it.
Our public officials were protesting against the slaughter of Jews
diplomatically and in every other way, and yet we are told this was a
secret in Germany. The name of the Gestapo was known throughout the
world, and there isn’t a man among counsel who would not have turned
white if, in the night at his door, someone rapped and said he was
representing the Gestapo. The name of that organization was
known—unless we are to assume that it was singularly secret in Germany,
but known to the rest of the world.
That sort of thing bears on this question of what men who joined these
organizations ought to know. There was no declared and ostensible
purpose of the SS, SA, and several of these organizations, except to
carry into effect the Nazi program. They would make themselves masters
of the streets.
The story is all in the evidence, and I won’t go on to repeat it. The
program was an open, notorious program, and these were the strong-arm
organizations. So it seems to me that we get down to the situation
where, as Chief Justice Taft once said to the Supreme Court of the
United States on a somewhat similar question: “We as judges are not
obliged to close our eyes to things that all other men can see.” And
this was notorious and open.
It is a little hard, if Your Honors please, for an American patiently to
listen to the arguments made here again and again, that there is some
plan here to punish with death penalties or extremely severe penalties
people who innocently got caught in this web of organizations. If there
were the slightest purpose to go through Germany with death we wouldn’t
have bothered to set up this Tribunal and stand here openly before the
world with our evidence. We were not out of ammunition when the
surrender took place, and the physical power to execute anyone was
present.
These powers have voluntarily, in their hour of victory, submitted to
the judgment of this Tribunal the question of the criminality of these
organizations. And it seems to me a little trying on the patience of
representatives of those powers to be told that in back of this is some
purpose to wreak vengeance on innocent people. I think it is difficult
for those who have survived this Nazi regime to understand how reluctant
we are to kill any human being. It is a commentary on the state of mind
that survived this Nazi regime, rather than upon us.
Control Council Act Number 10—I don’t know whether Your Honors have
copies of that—Control Council Act Number 10, does make membership in
the categories which may be convicted a crime, and I think it ought to.
It ought to be sufficient to bring before a Tribunal inquiring into the
detail of each individual any individual as a member, and that is all
that we have here in a declaration, in substance, an indictment which
enables you to put the individual on trial.
It is true that the punishment may include a death penalty, and so long
as the death penalty is imposed by any society for anything, the penalty
of death ought to follow in some of these cases; the SS men who were
responsible for the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, for example, or SS
men who are shown to have been responsible for the top planning, even
though they did not actually participate.
But I call your attention to the fact that in Provision Number 3 of Act
Number 10 the slightest penalties are also provided. The restitution of
property wrongfully acquired is one of the penalties that may be
imposed. The deprivation of some or all civil rights is another. And
during this period of reconstruction of German society, those minor
penalties may very well be imposed upon people who entered into these
organized plans. If not, you have the situation that the people who
organized themselves to force this Nazi program, first on the German
people and then on the world, are treated exactly the same as the German
who was the victim of it. Now, isn’t it our duty as occupying powers of
a prostrate country to draw some distinction between those who organized
to bring on this catastrophe and those who were passive and helpless in
the face of overwhelming power?
Counsel for one of the defendants has already shown that, in
administering the affairs, an SA man has been made a councillor in one
of the districts. There is no purpose, because a man happened to get
into the SA, to take his life or to take his property or to condemn him
to hard labor for life. There is a purpose to have the basis for
bringing these people in for what the military people call a “screening”
and find out what kind of people they are and what they have been up to.
This Control Council Act—while I am frank enough to say I would not
have drafted it in the language it is drafted in—this Control Council
Act leaves, in the first place, discretion as to whether prosecutions
will take place, in the hands of the occupying powers. I do not share
the fears of counsel that millions—I have forgotten how many millions
it was estimated—would be brought to trial. I know that the United
States has worries enough over manpower to bring to trial 130,000, so we
do not want to bring to trial millions. And it is for that reason that
we have consented to the exclusion of some of these categories where it
seemed we could exclude them very safely without jeopardizing the
over-all program of dealing with these people.
Now, I want to make clear why it is that we do not want to go, in this
Trial, into this question of each of these many subdivisions of these
Nazi organizations and the functions of each. You have heard some of
them named. They are innumerable. Some of them existed a short time and
then disappeared.
The trial of each of these subdivisions would take—I would not venture
to say how long. We do not want to see this Court trivialized. This is
not a police court. This was not set up to be a police court; and this
is a police court function, after this Court has laid down the general
principles, to take up the case of individuals or of many individuals
and to determine whether they are within or outside the definition.
I do not know whether a mounted group of SS men are any less dangerous
than an unmounted group. I had always associated the equestrian art with
warfare, but I do know it will take a long time to determine it.
I do not know whether SS motorcycle mounted traffic officers are less
dangerous than those who do not have motorcycles, or were less criminal,
but I should have a suspicion that the greater the mobility, the more
active the group was in carrying out these widespread offenses.
I do not know about the physicians. I do not think it is up to us to try
it in this case, but I suspect that a medical corps meant there might be
some casualties; and this thing isn’t innocent on its face, as it
appears. This will require a great deal of evidence, if we go into each
of these things, and it seems to me that it would be out of keeping with
the character of this Tribunal to go into that kind of question.
It is not necessary to go into the group any more than it is the
individual, and if you go into the group I know of no reason why you
should not go into the individual, because if the group is within the
general contour, each one member of that group is entitled to his
hearing before he is condemned. It may very well be that the occupying
authorities will decide that the whole group is not worth prosecuting.
We have no illusions about this thing. We are never going to catch up
with all the people who are guilty, let alone prosecuting the innocent.
If they are prosecuted, however, it may very well be that the group
would be treated together in some way, so that there could be a single
determination as to each group.
In any event, since each individual has to have a hearing, there can be
no point in having a hearing for subgroups between the individual and
the principal organization that we ask to have declared guilty.
If there were any point in our fully trying this question and deciding
just who is in and who is out of the circle of guilt, there would be no
reason why the Charter would not have given you power to sentence. There
would be no reason for further trials.
It seems to me that we must look at this matter somewhat in the light of
an indictment. It is true it is an accusation against all members of the
group. It has no effect unless it is followed by a trial and a
conviction, any more than an indictment that is never followed by a
trial would have effect. The effect of the declaration is that the
occupying power may bring these individual members to trial.
Administrative considerations will enter into it—the degree of
connection. It may very well be that it will be decided that those who
were mere members and not of officer rank of any capacity should not be
punished. We cannot say just what will be necessary.
Frankly, I do not know just what manpower is going to be available for
the United States’ part in the follow-up of these trials. There are
difficulties which I do not underestimate, but I do know that the idea
that this means a wholesale slaughter or a wholesale punishment of
people in Germany is a figment of imagination and is not in accordance
with either the spirit of this Trial or the purpose of the Charter.
I think that is all that I care to say unless the Tribunal has some
question, which I will be glad to answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, there are one or two questions I
should like to put up to you.
First of all, in your submission, do the words in Article 11 have any
bearing, the words at the end of Article 11, where it is provided that
“such court”—in the last three lines—“may, after convicting him,
impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the
punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal
activity of such groups or organizations.” Do the words “for
participation in the criminal activity of such groups or organizations”
add anything to the definition of the word “membership“ in Article 10?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think they add anything. Frankly, the
wording of this article has bothered me as to just what it does mean,
since no punishment is imposed by this Tribunal at all for participation
in the activities of the group. The purpose of the language was to make
clear that the punishment for an individual crime, if one committed a
murder individually or was guilty of aggressive warfare planning, is not
to interfere with the punishment for being a member of a criminal
organization or _vice versa_, to make clear that they are not mutually
exclusive. But the language I am not proud of.
THE PRESIDENT: Secondly, would an individual who was being tried before
a national court be heard on the question whether, in fact, he knew of
the criminal objects of those groups?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think he would be heard on that subject,
but I do not think it would be what we in the United States would call a
complete defense. It would perhaps be a partial defense or mitigation. I
should think that the tribunal might well—the court trying it—might
well have felt that he should have known under the circumstances what
his organization was, despite his denial that he did not; and that his
denial, if believed, will weigh in mitigation rather than in complete
defense. In other words, I do not believe that you can make as a
decisive criterion of guilt the state of mind of one of these members
where you have no power whatever, no ability whatever, to controvert his
statement of that state of mind. I think you have to have some more
objective test than his mere declaration.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I understood you to say that it was not for the
Tribunal to limit or define the groups which were to be declared
criminal; but, as the Charter does not define them, isn’t it necessary
for the Tribunal to define what the group is?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is necessary for the Tribunal to
identify the groups which it is condemning, sufficiently so that it
would afford a basis for bringing the members to trial for membership. I
do not think it is necessary to define the exact contours of guilt. It
is defined in reference to membership rather than in terms of guilt or
innocence. That is to say, it may be that there is some little section
of the SS that on trial would be said to be not guilty of participating
in the crimes of the organization. I do not think it is up to this
Tribunal to take evidence, because if you take evidence as to some you
must as to all, to separate out those elements. The SS is a well-known
organization. Its contour is easily defined by membership, and within
those contours it does not seem to me necessary to make exceptions.
THE PRESIDENT: But if there were to be an essential distinction on the
question of criminality between the main body of the SS and, for
instance, the Waffen-SS, would it not be the duty of the Tribunal to
make that distinction?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think that would be necessary. I think
when the member was brought to trial—one may be a conscript and still
have remained in on a voluntary basis, or he may have gone beyond his
duty as a conscript. I do not think it is necessary at this stage of the
proceeding, where the individual is not here, to eliminate him. I do
think that the principle that acts performed under conscription are not
within the condemnation of the Tribunal is quite a different thing.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible for this Tribunal to limit the powers of
the national courts under Article 10 by either defining the group or
giving a definition of the word “membership” in Article 10?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, if Your Honor pleases, I think every tribunal
in its judgment has a right to include, in its judgment, provisions
which will prevent its abuse. And I do not think this Tribunal is
lacking in power to protect its decision against distortion or abuse. I
take it that is the question rather than the question of if the national
courts brought these persons to trial and paid no attention to the
declaration—I do not suppose that there would be any power in this
Tribunal to stop them from doing it. But I assume you mean as a
consequence of this declaration, and I think that the declaration can be
circumscribed or limited. I certainly would insist that the Court had
inherent power to protect its judgment against abuse.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think this Court could direct the national court
to take any particular defenses into consideration?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know that it could put it in just that
way, but I suppose it could define the categories in a way that the
declaration would not reach any except those included within it. In
other words, I think the declaration that this Tribunal will make is
within this Tribunal’s control. When you get away from the declaration,
I think you would have no control over the national courts. But insofar
as they relied on the declaration, you would have power to control the
effect of the declaration, provided the effect was not inconsistent with
the provisions of the Charter.
THE PRESIDENT: You did, I think, make some suggestions for obtaining
such evidence as you thought was necessary. Do you wish to add anything
to that?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have nothing to add to that, Your Lordship. I
realize that the defendants’ counsel have great difficulty in getting
evidence, great difficulty in communication. I have it myself—great
difficulty in getting letters delivered, great difficulty in all of
these things. But I will state to this Tribunal categorically—I do not
know what camp it is that was referred to yesterday as substantially
refusing counsels’ application to see their clients—but so far as the
American Zone is concerned, counsel, if they are properly cleared to go
there, will be given every facility to get every kind of evidence that
is available in that camp. If they are there at mealtimes they will be
fed, and if they are there at night they will be sheltered. We will put
everything in their way to help them that is possible.
Of course, there are security problems involved, and counsel cannot just
walk into a camp and make himself at home. He will have to be cleared in
advance so that he meets the security requirements; but there is no
purpose to obstruct, and there is every purpose to assist.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I should like to ask you
a few questions. Some of them will be somewhat repetitious of what the
President has already said. You will excuse me if I repeat one or two of
those. Most of them are directed for the purposes of this argument,
which, I take it, is to form some kind of definition of the
organizations, which may, of course, not be final but will at least give
us a view of what should be relevant to the defendants’ making up their
cases. So the questions are addressed to that, rather than any ultimate
theory of definition.
You said that you would suggest excluding clerks, stenographers, and
janitors in the Gestapo. Well, now, if we accepted that, would we not be
obliged to exclude such categories from other criminal organizations?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not at all, Your Honor. I think there is a
difference between a concession by the Prosecution and the necessity for
the Tribunal’s making a decision.
It might appear logical that if we conceded clerks, stenographers, and
janitors of the Gestapo were not to be included, that no clerks,
stenographers, or janitors should be included. It does not follow. The
relationships in different organizations differ.
From what we know about the Gestapo situation, we are satisfied that
clerks, stenographers, and janitors in that organization ought not to be
included, and we do not want to waste any time on it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was the reason for that, that those clerks
would not have had knowledge of what was going on in the Gestapo?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not think either that they had sufficient
knowledge, in general, to be held or that they had sufficient power to
do anything about it if they did.
Now, this question of dealing with minor people—and it is one of the
questions that the Court inevitably gets into, if it undertakes to draw
these lines itself rather than letting them be drawn administratively by
what we choose to prosecute—is illustrated by just this sort of thing.
One of the difficulties with the Court is that it tries to be logical,
and ought to be logical perhaps. I have always thought that was the
great merit of the jury system, that juries do not have to be, and in
prosecuting we do not have to be. It may look illogical to exempt small
people in one organization and not in another, but there were
differences in them.
For example—I think it is in evidence; if not, it will be—it was
pointed out at one meeting by the Defendant Göring that chauffeurs to
certain officers had profited to the extent of half a million Reichsmark
from Jewish property that they had gotten their hands on. Now, I suppose
ordinarily you would say that a chauffeur for an official was not a man
who had much discretion and not a man who was expected to know much
about what his employer was doing, but you have a great deal of
difference in their relations to these men.
So far as I am concerned, I want to make perfectly clear—and I think it
will be assumed—the United States is not interested in coming over here
3,500 miles to prosecute clerks and stenographers and janitors. That is
not the class of crime, even if they did have some knowledge, that we
are after, because that is not the class of offender that affects the
peace of the world. I think there is little reason to fear that that
sort of person—unless there is some reason to feel that some guilty
connection exists beyond merely performing routine tasks—will be
prosecuted in as big a problem as we have on hand here.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But in spite of that, you would include them
in the SS, let us say?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not exclude them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it that would include them.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If they were members, they would be included; if
they were merely employees, that is something different; but if they
took the oath and became a part of the SS organization, I think they
stand in a different relation to the employed clerks of a government
agency.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, somewhat along those same lines, you
stated, in trying to define what a criminal organization was, that its
membership must have been—I am quoting your words—“generally
voluntary” and its criminal purpose or methods open and notorious and
“of such character that its membership in general may properly be
charged with knowledge of them.”
Now I am going to ask you a question which is somewhat repetitious of
what the President asked you, but perhaps you can specify a little more.
Would it not be inconsistent with that test which you suggest for
criminality, if we decline to consider whether any substantial segment
of the organization—I mean a section or segment might comprise a third
of the whole organization or even more, like the Waffen-SS within the
general SS—was either conscripted, which is one test, or ignorant of
the criminal purpose? Because if such a substantial segment could be
shown to be innocent under these tests, would it not be necessary either
to decline a declaration on that ground—that the criteria were not
generally satisfied as to the accused organization—or else to exclude
the innocent segments from the deposition of the criminal organization?
Now, that is a rather involved question but it seems to me, if the test
is the knowledge or assumed knowledge, that evidence that a very large
segment did not and probably could not have had knowledge would be
relevant and would be relevant not only for the purposes of evidence,
but for the purposes of definition?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think you have at least two ideas in the
question that must be dealt with separately. The first is that
conscription and knowledge, to my way of thinking, present a very
different problem.
As to conscription, as I said before, I think, if the Tribunal saw fit
to condition its judgment not to apply to conscripted members of any
organization, I shall have no quarrel with it. I have always conceded we
did not seek to reach conscripted men. If the overwhelming power of the
state puts them in that position, I do not think we should pursue them
for it.
If the Tribunal says that the Waffen-SS must be excluded because it was
conscripted, that raises a question of fact.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it raises a question of fact that we would be 3
weeks trying and that is what I want to avoid, because there were
Waffen-SS and other Waffen-SS and there were different periods of time
and there were different conditions; and we get into a great deal of
difficulty if we undertake to apply the principle that the conscript is
not to be punished; and that, it seems to me, is what is properly left
to the future course, the question as to whether an individual or a
number of individuals comes within that principle. In other words, I
think this Court should lay down principles and not undertake what I
call “police court administration” of those principles as applied to
individuals.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I interrupt you for a moment on the first
point? I take it, then, that you would think it appropriate to express a
general limitation with respect to conscription in the declaration, but
not to designate to whom that applies?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would have no objection to such a designation as
far as I am concerned. Now, the other question is a question of
knowledge, which is infinitely more difficult. We do not want to set up
a trap for innocent people. We are not so hard up for somebody to try
that we have to seek and to catch people who had no criminal purpose in
their hearts; but there can be no doubt that every person affiliated
with this movement at any point knew that it was aimed at war and
aggressive war. There can be no doubt that they knew that these
formations under the Nazi Party were maintaining concentration camps to
beat down their political opposition and to imprison Jews and the
terrible things that were going on in these camps.
To ask us to prove individual knowledge or to ask us to accept the man’s
own statement of his state of mind is to say that there can be no
convictions, of course. It seems to me that the scale of this crime and
the universality of it, going on all over Germany, concentration camps
dotting the landscape, and the vast population, is sufficient to charge
with knowledge the principal organizations of the Nazi Party which were
responsible for those things. The test that I think applies as to
knowledge is not what some member now on the witness stand may say he
knew or did not know; but what, in the light of the conditions of the
times, he ought to have known—what he is chargeable with.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wouldn’t it follow from that that there was
no taking of any evidence on what was generally known?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think the proof of what was going on
establishes the point as to chargeability with knowledge.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the defendants should not
be permitted to give any evidence as to that which was generally known
with respect to what was going on?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: To what was generally known, I do not think the
defendant’s denial that he knew what was going on has any materiality.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was not my question. My question was
whether a witness could be permitted to testify that the acts of the
particular organizations were not generally known to its members. Would
you exclude that evidence?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly would, and if I heard it I would not
believe it; but perhaps my . . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Excuse me. Although on your test of
knowledge, you wouldn’t permit the defendants to meet that test?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should say that that is just exactly the
situation, that the Court would take judicial notice, from the evidence
that is in, that this was a thing that must have been known in Germany;
and I would not think that it would be permissible for a citizen of the
United States to testify that he did not know the United States was at
war, a fact of which he is chargeable with knowledge; and it seems to me
that the magnitude of these things is so equally established and the
repeated daily connection between the organizations and this criminal
program is so equally clear.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, I only have two or three
more questions. One is directed to the General Staff. Does the
particular date when an individual accused—I beg your pardon—when an
individual assumed one of the commands listed in Appendix B of the
Indictment have any bearing on whether he is a member of the
organization? Now, I am going to bring that question down to the General
Staff.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Perhaps I should warn you of this—that I am not a
military man. I have not specialized on that subject and I shall want to
refer your question to someone whose knowledge is more reliable than
mine.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I shall ask the question directed to you as a
lawyer and not an expert in military matters. Assume that one of these
individuals became an army group commander after the wars of aggression
had been planned, proposed, initiated—roughly, that would be after
1942; let us say, after Pearl Harbor—and had reached the stage when
Germany was on the defensive; is his acceptance of a command at that
date sufficient to make him a member of the organization?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should think it would.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The reason I asked you that, Mr. Jackson, is
that I thought you had rather indicated in your opening address that the
starting of the war was the essence of the crime rather than the waging
of war, and I was wondering whether in that case there would be any
difference which we should consider?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think when one joins, he ratifies what has
gone before, and it would seem to me that when he came into the picture
at that point, it was a ratification of all that had gone before on the
ordinary principles of conspiracy.
Now I think it is a difficult question, whether a man had not had any
prior connection with the Nazi Party—if you take the example of a man
who disapproved all that the Nazi Party had done, who never became a
member of it, who stood out against it and publicly his position was
clear, and he took no part in the war until the day his country was
being invaded and he said, “I don’t care what happened before; my
country is being invaded and I shall now go to its defense,” I would
have difficulty convicting that man. I do not know such a man.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, there is only one more
question I should like to address in connection with Law Number 10. I am
a little puzzled myself on Law Number 10, the Control Council Law of
December 20—I think that was the date. You spoke of one reason for
declaring the organizations criminal and bringing persons into the
Control Council for screening. I take it they can do that easily without
any help on our part.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you said something very interesting. You
said the act would not have been so, if you would have drafted it. How
would you have drafted it, if that is not an improper question?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think I would not have made these penalties
of this act apply to all of the crimes. You have one lumping of a whole
list of crimes which, to my mind, range from the very serious to the
very minor. Then you have applicable to all of those crimes, penalties
from death down to deprivation of the right to vote in the next
election.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): For instance, you would not have made the
death penalty applicable to the members of the SA who might have
resigned in 1922?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not; and I think that in that way I would
have been more explicit with the penalties. Like the Mikado, I would try
to make the punishment fit the crime, rather than leave it wide open.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Justice Jackson, what defenses do you
think are expressly permitted under the Control Council Law? Don’t we
have to assume that the members of the Tribunal will permit certain
defenses or are any defenses expressly permitted?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No; no defense is expressly permitted. I take it
that any defense which goes to the genuineness of membership, as the
volition of the individual, duress, fraud—and by duress I mean legal
duress—I do not think that the fact that it is good business, that the
man’s customers may leave him if he does not join the Party—that is not
duress; but anything which goes to the genuineness of his membership.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only one more question. If the Tribunal were
of the view that a declaration of criminality of the organization is an
essentially legislative matter, as suggested by some of the defense
lawyers, rather than a judicial one—if we were of that view, would it
be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the legislative authority of
the Control Council, to make such a declaration, which undoubtedly we
could do in exercising that discretion which is conferred on us under
Article 9 of the Charter?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would not think so, Your Honor. I think that this
Tribunal was constituted by the powers for the purpose of determining on
the record—after hearing the evidence, after knowing the
facts—determining what organizations were of such a character that the
members ought to be put to trial for membership.
The fact that some other group which does not have hearing processes and
which is not constituted as this might, either administratively or some
other way, reach that same result, I do not think is a proper
consideration. I should think it was rather a way of avoiding the
duty—there are other ways of doing it, but this is the way our
governments have agreed upon. I should think it would not be a proper
consideration.
Of course, you could punish these members without anything. We have them
in our power and in our camps. But our governments have decided they
want this thing done after a full consideration of the record, and in
this matter I think that. . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But you have no doubt of the power of the
Control Council to do it, irrespective of what we do, do you?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not know of any limitations on the power of
the Control Council. There is no constitution. It is a case of the
victor and the vanquished, and I think that is one of the reasons why,
however, we should be very careful to observe the request of our
governments to proceed in this way. In a position where there was no
restraint on their power except their physical power, and mighty little
of that today, they have voluntarily submitted to this process of trial
and hearing, and it seems to me that nothing should be done, by us as
members of the legal profession at least, to discredit that process or
to avoid it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Those are all the questions I have to ask.
THE TRIBUNAL (Professeur Donnedieu de Vabres, Member for the French
Republic): I would like to ask Mr. Jackson a few details on the
consequences of the declaration of the criminality of an organization.
Suppose an individual belonging to one of the organizations classified
as criminal—for instance, an SS man or a member of the Gestapo—is
brought before the military jurisdiction of an occupying power.
According to what has been said so far, he will be able to justify
himself by proving that his membership in the group was a forced
membership. He was not a volunteer and if I have understood correctly,
he will also be able to justify himself by proving that he never knew of
the criminal purpose of the association. That, at least, is the
interpretation which has been adopted and defended by the Prosecution,
and which we consider exact.
But I suppose that the tribunal in question has a different conception.
I suppose that it considers the condemnation of the individual who was a
member of the criminal organization, obligatory and automatic. Strictly
speaking, the interpretation which has been advocated by Mr. Jackson is
not written in any text. It does not appear in the Charter.
Consequently, by virtue of what texts would the tribunal in question be
obliged to conform to this interpretation?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The control of the future tribunal is the control
of the effect of the declaration of this Tribunal. This Tribunal’s
effect, when brought before a subsequent tribunal, is defined by the
Charter, and it has only the effect that the issue as to whether the
organization is criminal cannot be retried. There could be no such thing
as automatic condemnations, because the authority given in the Charter
is to bring persons to trial for membership.
It would, of course, be incumbent on the prosecutor on ordinary
principles of jurisprudence to prove membership. I think proof that one
had joined would be sufficient to discharge that burden, but then the
question could be raised by the defendant that he had defenses, such as
duress, force against his person, threats of force, and would have to be
tried; but the Charter does not authorize any use of the declaration of
this Tribunal except as a basis for bringing members to trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): If I am not mistaken, the authority of the
International Military Tribunal will be imposed on the respective
jurisdictions of the states, and will oblige them to adopt the
interpretation in question. But in that case I conclude that, in the
opinion of the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, the judgment which we shall pass, will
have to contain a precise definition of this subject. Mr. Jackson said,
however, a few moments ago, in agreement I think with Mr. Biddle, that
the statute of the Charter permits us to define a criminal organization.
Our judgment would not only contain a determination of the groups which
we consider criminal, but also a definition of a criminal organization;
and in the same way there would be precise definitions concerning the
cases of irresponsibility, for example, the case of forced membership.
There would be precise definitions which the tribunals of the respective
states would be forced to respect. Do I understand Mr. Jackson’s thought
correctly?
But, in that case, the question I ask is the following, and it is
somewhat similar to that of Mr. Biddle: Briefly, would it not mean
conferring on our judgment a certain legislative character? We are not
an ordinary court, since we are adopting provisions, such as the
definition of a criminal organization, which are generally included in a
law, and at the same time our judgment contains provisions which limit
the cases of individual responsibility. That is to say, in brief, we are
to a certain extent legislators, as it was argued yesterday.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is true, that there is in this
something in the nature of legislation or of the nature of an
indictment. You may draw either analogy. But I do not see anything about
that, as I understand it, which complicates the problem. In the United
States we have a strict separation of legislative from judicial power,
but there is nothing in that matter which controls this Tribunal, and
whether you draw the analogy of an indictment in which you are accusing
by your finding, your declaration, or whether you draw the analogy of
legislation, it would be equally valid as the act of the Four Powers,
since they are not required to withhold any power from the Tribunal.
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Yes, yes. The question which I have just
asked seems to be of theoretical interest only. This is, however, the
practical consequence which I should consider, which I should be tempted
to draw, and on which I would like to hear your opinion:
If we have some legislative power, in that we are able to limit the
indicting of persons and admit causes of irresponsibility or excuses,
does this absolutely exclude our limiting at the same time the
punishment?
Earlier, Mr. Biddle and Mr. Jackson were considering Article 10, and Mr.
Jackson expressed some criticism concerning the penalties, which are not
individualized penalties, since they can extend as far as the death
penalty, as far as capital punishment.
There are, of course, some crimes for which capital punishment seems
justified, such as Crimes against Humanity. But is it not going too far,
to consider imposing the death penalty as the maximum for a crime which
in France would perhaps be considered purely “material”—the crime of
belonging to a criminal organization? Would it not be too severe for us
to impose the death penalty? And might not the International Military
Tribunal be forced to reduce unduly the notion of a criminal
organization, precisely because we consider the possibility of this
penalty being too severe? In other words, does Mr. Jackson absolutely
exclude for the International Military Tribunal the power to fix a
penalty, or at least a maximum penalty, for the crime of belonging to a
criminal organization?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should not think that it was within the proper
sphere of the Tribunal to deal with the question of penalties, for the
reason that no power to sentence anyone other than the defendants on
trial is given to this Tribunal; I mean, no power to sentence for
membership in the organizations. Therefore, I think no incidental power
to control penalties is given, but the power to declare an organization
criminal does, incidentally, confer power to determine what that
organization is, and I have not been disposed to question the power of
the Tribunal to carry that definition to great detail, although I would
question the wisdom of it.
The power, however, of sentence for membership is not even remotely
conferred upon the Tribunal, and I would think that that would be a
rather drastic expansion of its power.
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): Those were the only questions I wished to
ask.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, did you want to add a reply or did you come in
order that we might ask you some questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: First, if the Tribunal will allow me, there are
three or four points on which I should like to add a word.
The first point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that the procedure of asking
for a declaration against the organizations was objectionable for two
reasons: First, because it was founded on the limited phenomenon in
Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, that a corporation may be convicted in
certain limited spheres; and secondly, that the organizations were in
fact dissolved some time ago.
I think it is important to stress that that is not the legal conception
which underlies this portion of the Charter. It is really based, in my
submission, on a doctrine found in most systems of law, either _res
adjudicata_ or the conception of the judgment _in rem_ as opposed to the
judgment _in personam_. That is, that it is in the general and public
interest that litigation on a particular point should not be
interminable, and that, if the appropriate tribunal has come to a
decision on a point of general interest and importance, that point
should not thereafter be litigated many times.
It is the essential view of the Prosecution here that this Tribunal,
having had the advantage of evidence dealing with the whole period and
functioning of the Nazi conspiracy, is the appropriate and, indeed, the
only suitable tribunal for deciding the question of criminality. It is a
prospect which would be quite impracticable and beggars the imagination
as to time to consider that every military government or military court
should decide one after the other the question of criminality of great
organizations like these. And therefore we have in the Charter adopted
the procedure that that preliminary question will be decided once and
for all by this Tribunal.
The fact that the organizations have been administratively dissolved is
irrelevant. What is important is, what was the nature of the
organizations when they did function? And that is the issue which the
Tribunal has to determine. And we submit and indeed say that it is a
clear implication, if not indeed expressly within the words of Article
9, that it must be at the trial of the individual defendants that the
question of this criminality should be decided, and we say that apart
from considerations of practicality the wording of Article 9 is a clear
guide against separation of these issues as suggested by two or three of
the Defense Counsel.
I only want to add one word about what has been said on the argument on
Law Number 10. Dr. Kubuschok made the point that this procedure really
acted entirely against the individual. There are at least two answers:
The first, which I have endeavored to give, as to the legal concept
behind the idea of a declaration, and the second, the one which has been
canvassed before the Tribunal, as to the rights of defense. May I say
that, in my submission, membership in an organization is a question of
fact and therefore these defenses of duress, fraud, or mistake—to take
three examples—must clearly be permissible and good defenses on that
question of fact. The third is that every document such as the
Charter—the same would apply to every piece of legislation—always
contemplates intelligent and reasonable administration in carrying out
its requirements, and it would be, in my submission, idle to take the
view that where you have a permissive enactment like Law Number 10—and
it is clearly permissive as to prosecution—intelligent administration
should prosecute every one who could be prosecuted under the act.
In our candid proverb, hard cases make bad law; and in my submission, it
would be wrong to decide or interpret on an extremely unlikely hard
case.
I want, if I may, to say just one or two words on the argument so
interestingly put forward by Dr. Servatius and mentioned a few moments
ago by the learned French judge.
In my submission there is no legislative function for this Tribunal
whatsoever. There is a clearly judicial function, and I want to make it
quite clear; I do not qualify it by “quasi-judicial” or any
qualification at all. It is a simple judicial duty. The first portion of
that duty is to define what is criminal. In my submission, as Mr.
Justice Jackson argued yesterday, that presents no difficulties. It
occurs in Article 9, three articles after Article 6, and “criminal“ in
that context means an organization whose aims, objects, methods, or
activities involved the committing of the crimes set out in Article 6.
When “criminal” has been defined, it is a matter of judicial weighing of
evidence to decide whether there is evidence of these crimes being
committed by the organization or being the aim or object of the
organization, as I have stated. But I respectfully ask the Tribunal to
hesitate long before it accepts the argument of Dr. Servatius that this
Tribunal should decide the interpretation of “criminal” on its own _a
priori_ basis, to use Dr. Servatius’ own words, of politics and ethics.
That would be introducing a new, dangerous, and unchartered factor into
the Trial. There is, in my submission, a clear line of guidance for the
judicial approach, and nothing in the Charter to support the _prima
facie_, unexpected idea that a body established as a tribunal should
delegate to itself legislative powers.
Again, if I may add just one word as to the conclusions which Dr.
Kubuschok drew on the question of criminality as a ground for deciding
the relevancy of evidence, his first conclusion was that the
organization in question, according to its constitution or charter, did
or did not have a criminal aim or purpose.
I accept, of course, the test of aim and purpose, but I do not accept
the limitation as to charter or constitution. The criminal aim or
purpose may be shown by the declarations or publications of the leaders
of the organizations, and also, as I submitted, by its course of conduct
in method and action. I agree with Dr. Kubuschok that aim or purpose is
the first test, but I do not agree with his limitation as to
establishing it.
His second point was that crimes under Article 6 were not committed
within or in connection with the organization or were not committed
continuously over a period. The first part of that would seem fairly
clear, that, if the crimes were not committed within or in connection
with the organization, the organization is obviously in a very favorable
position. But I first answer the second part by saying that it does not
come into the picture of this case that there is any instance of
isolated crimes with regard to every organization. The crimes alleged
are, in fact, spread over the period alleged in the Indictment, but I
suggest that the adoption of such a criterion does not really help. One
comes back to the first point of Dr. Kubuschok, that aims or purposes,
as disclosed by declarations, methods, or activities, are the primary
and most important tests.
Then, the third point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that an appreciable
number of members had no knowledge of the criminal aims or of the
continuous commission of crimes. I endeavored to stress, as did Mr.
Justice Jackson, that the Prosecution’s test is constructive knowledge.
That is, ought a reasonable person in the position of a member to have
known of these crimes? And that really is the answer, in my respectful
submission, to the relevancy of individual knowledge of one particular
member.
It is only too true that during the period under discussion a very large
number of people made a habit of sticking their heads in the sand and
endeavoring to abstain from acquiring knowledge of things that were
unpleasant. In my respectful submission, that sort of conduct on the
part of a member would not help him at all, and the only answer to that
is to adopt the test which we have suggested: Ought a person in that
position reasonably to have known of the commission of the crimes?
Dr. Kubuschok’s fourth point is that an appreciable number of members or
certain independent groups joined the organization under compulsion or
illusion or superior orders. Shortly we answer that by saying that that
is only relevant to the defense of an individual member in the
subsequent proceedings, and, of course, it is only a defense where he
can show that he has taken no personal part in the criminal acts.
Then, the last point which Dr. Kubuschok made was that an appreciable
number of members were honorary members. Again we say that that is only
relevant to the defense of the individual member, and it does not really
alter or increase the defenses open to him.
The only other point of Dr. Kubuschok’s which I do think requires
mention is that in considering how evidence could be presented, he said
that certain rights of defense are universal. The first of these which
he claimed was direct oral testimony, and he said that each individual
defendant should have this right. He then admitted that that was
practically impossible and suggested as a solution that we must typify,
that is, that representatives of groups in the various camps should make
affidavits showing what percentage took part in criminal actions or knew
about them.
I want to point out to the Tribunal that it is expressly laid down in
the Charter that members of the organization are entitled to apply to
the Tribunal for leave to be heard, but the Tribunal shall have power to
allow or reject the application. As a point of construction no less than
of sense, there would have been no point in giving the Tribunal the
power to reject the application, if it were implicit that everyone
should have the right to be heard.
The answer is that the Tribunal has complete discretion to decide what
line and what course shall be taken to procure the evidence. The
Prosecution, through Mr. Justice Jackson, has indicated that it makes no
objection to any reasonable form of collecting relevant evidence. What
the Prosecution objects to is evidence being tendered on the issue
before the Tribunal which is only relevant to the question of individual
innocence or guilt of the member.
My Lord, I could have dealt, and indeed was prepared to deal, with a
number of points raised by the other Counsel for the Defense. I hope
they would not think that it is any disrespect to their arguments that I
have not dealt with them, but I know that the Tribunal wishes to ask
certain questions, and I do not want to trespass on that time. I only
want to deal with one point, because it kills with one stone two birds
that have flown against our argument in this case.
It will be remembered that when I dealt with the SA yesterday, Dr.
Seidl—and I am sorry he is not here—raised the question that the
Defendant Frank was not a member of the SA; and Dr. Löffler, in dealing
with the SA today, raised the question that its activities no doubt did
not really extend after 1939, and not importantly after the purge in
1934.
I find an interesting quotation from the semi-official publication, _Das
Archiv_, for April 1942, and as it is very short and deals with these
points I venture to read it to the Tribunal, so that it may appear on
the record. At Page 54 it says:
“SA Unit, Government General. At the order of the Chief of Staff
of the SA, there took place the foundation of the SA unit,
Government General, whose command Governor General SA
Obergruppenführer Dr. Frank took over.”
I only quote that to finish my argument to show, as indeed all the
evidence shows, that with regard to the SA, no less than any other of
the organizations, the Prosecution have provided evidence of crimes
reaching over the period which they have stated.
I deliberately have cut out anything further that I might say, My Lord,
because I do not want to shorten unduly the time, if the Tribunal wishes
to ask me any questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I think there is only one question that I should like to
ask you. As I understand it, you say that the Prosecution have proved
facts from which one must conclude that every reasonable person who
joined any of these organizations would know that they were criminal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You would agree, would you not, that proof of any fact
which went to contradict the facts from which you have presumed
knowledge of criminality could be proved by the Defense?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. If the Defense sought to prove, to
take an extreme example, that the conduct of the SS with regard to,
first of all, concentration camps and, secondly, killing Jews and
political commissars on the Russian front, was done in such a way,
despite the vast territory over which these crimes have been proved to
have been carried on, was done in such a way that nobody knew about
it—if there was relevant evidence on that point, then they could call
it, on the general point that it was not a matter of imparted
constructive knowledge, but of memory.
THE PRESIDENT: I only asked you that question because there were certain
observations by Mr. Justice Jackson, which did not seem altogether to
accord with the answer which you have just given.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that, as I understood Mr. Justice
Jackson, he was saying that it might not be relevant to prove that one
member did not know of the crimes, and I thought that our two approaches
really did fit in with each other.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it then, Sir David, that you would say
that evidence with respect to general knowledge by any very substantial
segment of an organization would be relevant, would it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think it would be relevant if it were
not absurd. I mean, a disclaimer of knowledge of certain acts may be so
absurd that the Tribunal should not take the time of inquiring into it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That would apply to any evidence, of course.
But my point was: You have said that evidence with respect to general
knowledge over a whole organization would clearly be relevant.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And now I ask you whether that would be true
with respect to any substantial segment of an organization such as the
Waffen-SS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am trying to relate it to the practical
position. That is where I find it very difficult.
Now, to take your example, it is difficult to imagine. Let us take four
divisions that were very well known: the Totenkopf, the Polizei, Das
Reich, or the 12th Panzer Division. I should have thought that, as a
matter of discretion, if it were sought to show that these divisions,
about which there is so much evidence as to their participation in
crime, did not know of the crimes, the Tribunal would be right in
rejecting that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, the question would come up more whether
the acts of the members of certain divisions were known generally
throughout the whole Waffen-SS, would it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, I find it very
difficult to see how the knowledge or absence of knowledge of a
particular division in the Waffen-SS could affect the question of
criminality of the SS as a whole.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, again, I am not asking you as to
knowledge in a particular division; I am asking you as to general
knowledge, throughout the entire Waffen-SS, of the acts of a particular
unit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if someone is prepared to say, “I knew
every division of the Waffen-SS, and in my opinion no one in the
Waffen-SS had any knowledge or had any opportunity of knowing of the
crimes,” then the evidence would be admissible. Its weight would be so
negligible that, I should submit, it would not detain the Tribunal long.
But I concede that if someone is prepared, laying the proper ground for
his evidence, to say, “I can speak; I have the grounds for and the
opportunity of speaking on the general position,” then I do not see how
the Tribunal could exclude it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The matter is very practical because we have
to advise Counsel for the Defendants what material they can introduce,
and do that very soon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now let me ask you a few other questions.
On what basis, Sir David, do you contend that the Reich Cabinet was a
criminal organization as of January 30, 1933, when, if I remember
correctly; there were only three members of the Nazi Party who were in
the Cabinet: Göring, Hitler, and Frick? Do you think that if three out
of a very much larger number, some twenty odd, could be said to be part
of a criminal organization, that makes the entire Cabinet criminal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, on the facts. It must be remembered
that Hitler had refused to take office as vice chancellor during the
months before that, before the date that you put to me. He had refused
on the ground that, as vice chancellor, he would not be in a position to
carry out his Party program. On that basis the Defendant Von Papen and
Hitler negotiated, and Hitler came into power on the 30th of January. It
is the case for the Prosecution that those who formed part of that
Cabinet knew that they were forming part of a cabinet in which Hitler
was going to work out his program, as has been declared on so many
occasions. That is the first point. Secondly, it is the case for the
Prosecution that the Defendant Von Papen did join in introducing the
Nazi conspirators into the Government with that knowledge and with the
purpose of letting them have their way in Germany. And the same must
apply—it has not been investigated to the same extent, because they are
not defendants—to the industrialists and the Party, who were acting
with them in the Cabinet. They must be taken to have known, just as
Gustav Krupp knew and supported, just as Kurt von Schröder knew and
supported, the aims of the Nazis whom they introduced and co-operated
with in the Government.
Thirdly, the personalities of the Nazis in the Government—Hitler
himself, and the Defendants Göring, Frick, and Dr. Goebbels, who I think
became Propaganda Minister either at the same time or very shortly
afterwards—show that these people, they have shown it by their acts,
were not persons to take second place. They introduced at once the
Führerprinzip into operation in the states, and these other people in
the Cabinet at that time accepted the Führerprinzip and united in
placing Hitler and the Defendant Göring and the other conspirators in
the position of power and authority which enabled them to carry out
their monstrous crimes that are charged against them.
I will give you one other reference. It was within a few months of that
period that the Defendant Schacht became Plenipotentiary for War Economy
and began the preparations for the economic side of the creation of
Germany’s war potential.
For all these reasons I submit that the actions of the Reich Cabinet at
that date were deliberate. The same applies to the Defendant Von
Neurath; it is the whole case of the Prosecution, as to the case against
Von Neurath, that he sold his respectability and reputation to the Nazis
in order to help them buy with that reputation and respectability a
position of power in Germany, with the conservative circles in Germany,
and with the diplomatic circles in Europe with whom he came in touch.
For all these reasons, Your Honor, I submit that the Reichsregierung at
that time was thoroughly infected with the criminality which we suggest
in this case.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In relation to the political leaders, let me
ask you this, Sir David:
In your opinion, would it be necessary to establish the responsibility
of political leaders of lower grades to show that, as a group, they were
informed of plans to wage aggressive war or to commit War Crimes or
Crimes against Humanity? In other words, I take it there is some
obligation to show that information. Does that rest simply on the fact
that these crimes were being perpetrated, or is there any evidence of
that information?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is evidence—and if I might just indicate
the kind of evidence there is—on the first stage of the acquisition of
totalitarian control in Germany, which is the first stage in the
conspiracy, that is, apart from the Party program, there are the
extracts from the Hoheitsträger magazine. You remember, Hoheitsträger
are all the political leaders. On the anti-Semitic part of that there
are documents, which are Exhibit USA-240 (Document Number 3051-PS) and
Exhibit USA-332 (Document Number 3063-PS), which are shown in the
transcript at Pages 1621 and 1649 (Volume IV, Pages 47 and 66). On the
question of war crimes against Allied airmen you will remember that a
document was circulated to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, with
instructions that Ortsgruppenleiter were to be informed verbally with
regard to the lynching of Allied airmen. That document is Document
Number 057-PS, shown in the transcript at Page 1627 (Volume IV, Page
50). And that the hint was taken by at least one Gauleiter is shown by
Document L-154, Exhibit USA-325, at Page 1628 (Volume IV, Page 51).
Then, there is a Himmler order to senior SS officers, to be passed
orally to the Gauleiter, that the police are not to interfere in the
clashes between Germans and aviators. That is Document Number R-110,
Exhibit USA-333, shown at Page 1624 (Volume IV, Page 49). Then there is
a declaration by Goebbels inciting the people to murder Allied airmen,
which is shown at Page 1625 (Volume IV, Page 50). Similarly, with regard
to foreign labor, there is a telegram from Rosenberg to the Gauleiter
asking them not to interfere with the confiscation of certain companies
and banks.
There is Jodl’s lecture to Reichsleiter and Gauleiter at a later stage.
There is an undated letter from Bormann to all Reichsleiter and
Gauleiter, informing them that the OKW had instructed guards to enforce
obedience of prisoners of war refusing to obey orders, if necessary,
with weapons.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Sir David, if I may interrupt you for a
moment. I was familiar with the evidence with respect to the Gauleiter
and Reichsleiter. My question, you will remember, was addressed to the
lower levels, the Blockleiter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think one can summarize it that even as
far as lower levels are concerned you have the four points: You have
_Mein Kampf_, the _Party Program_, _Der Hoheitsträger_, and the fact
that conferences were constantly held throughout the organization.
As I say, I have dealt with the evidence on the Jews, the lynching of
Allied airmen, and I think I mentioned the letter from Bormann to the
Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter about assisting in increasing
the output of prisoners of war. And there is an instruction from Bormann
down to the Kreisleiter about the burial of Russian prisoners of war.
There is a decree for insuring the output of foreign workers that goes
down towards the Gruppenleiter.
All these matters are in evidence, and we submit that there is
particular evidence on practically every point. And on the general
point, as I said, you have these publications, coupled with the evidence
that conferences were held, apart from the general Führerprinzip which
would, and did, make the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter the final
weapon in order to ensure that the people acted in accordance with the
leader’s wishes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you just two questions, and then I
will finish with regard to the SA. Would you say that a member of the SA
who had joined, let us say, in 1921, and resigned the next year, was
guilty of conspiring to wage aggressive war and guilty of War Crimes?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may recall, I answered
a question that you were good enough to put to me a day or two ago as to
when the conspiracy started. A man who took an active and voluntary part
as a member of the SA in 1921 certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party,
was supporting the published program of the Party which had the aims
which you have just put to me.
That is certainly put clearly in Article 2 of the Party Program as the
getting rid of the dictate of Versailles and the Anschluss, getting the
Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a polite way of
saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia.
Therefore, that man had these aims in view.
With regard to War Crimes, I respectfully repeat the answer that I put
to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the Nazi Party
that they should disregard the life and safety of any other people who
stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. A person who
deliberately joins an organization with that aim, and with that aim
getting more and more clearly related to practical problems as week
succeeded week, was taking part in a first essential step of involving
mankind in the miseries that we have seen; because it is that tenet,
applied to every facet of human life and human suffering, which has
caused the crimes which this Tribunal is investigating.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I can see how you might say that with
respect to conspiracy in War Crimes, but I want to be perfectly clear
also that you say, on the substantive crime of committing War Crimes,
that a man joining the SA in 1921 and leaving in 1922 would have
committed those War Crimes in the beginning of 1939.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive War Crimes, I
respectfully remind you that under Article 6 the last words are:
“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating
in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy
to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all
acts performed by any person in the execution of such a plan.”
Under the Charter, in my respectful submission, that is enough to make
them responsible for the crimes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now only one other question. What do you
contend was the function of the SA after the Röhm purge?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The function was still to support all Nazi
manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember that Dr. Löffler was
careful to except—very frankly and fairly he excepted the 10th of
November 1938. The SA—and I gave another example how they were formed
in the Government General—we have also given examples, which I think
you will find in my appendix, of the participation—limited
participation, but still a participation—in the War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity.
But the main point of the SA after that time was to show that here were
3 million people who had come into the organization which had provided
the force to bring the Nazis into power, and it had the forceful size
needed to bring the Nazis into power in those days. They were then
joined by 2½ million people, which brought their numbers up at that time
very high. They went down again later on, but they were high in 1939,
and they provided a great immoral force behind the Nazi Party. They
provided strong support and were ready on all occasions; whenever a
demonstration had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support.
They were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over
the German Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, in your
opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? Would you say
that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim did not change. It did not need to do
half as much, because, of course, by the end of 1933 all the other
political parties were broken. Part of the SA’s original task, as I
think Dr. Löffler put it, had been to safeguard the Defendant Göring
when he was making a speech—I should have put it that it was to prevent
the other people from having a free run when they made speeches—and to
deal with the clashes between the various groups. That was unnecessary,
because all political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they
became rather—I forget the exact term—a sort of cheer leader or a
collection of people who would always be ready to give vociferous
support.
You must have heard, Your Honor, of the meetings coming over the
wireless with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, rather than
dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was the same, to keep
the grip.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, it is now nearly quarter past 5. Do you think
that this discussion can be closed this evening before 6 o’clock?
DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I
believe I can finish in 5 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do the other prosecutors wish to add anything?
GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: I think about 10 minutes; no more.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add anything?
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Ribes): I have nothing to add.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what I really want to know is whether there is
any prospect of our finishing this discussion tonight. General Rudenko
wishes to speak for about 10 minutes, and if the defendant’s counsel—of
course, you will understand that a discussion of this sort, an argument
of this sort, cannot go on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears
counsel on one side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one
does not go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants’
counsel want to speak?
DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think probably the best thing would be if we were to
adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, and then we shall
probably be able to conclude this argument in about an hour tomorrow. Do
you agree with that, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants’ counsel think we shall be able to conclude
it in about an hour tomorrow morning?
[_Several counsel nodded assent._]
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn now and sit at 10 o’clock
tomorrow morning.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-SECOND DAY
Saturday, 2 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, permit me to make a few supplementary remarks
concerning the criminal organizations, a problem to which the Tribunal
has devoted much attention in the last few days.
I consider it essential, in the first instance, to clarify completely
the legal aspect of this problem. There is in the Charter of the
Tribunal a marked absence of any statement to the effect that the
recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature would
automatically entail the bringing to trial and, further, the condemning
of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, the Charter
contains a definite indication of an opposite nature. Article 10 of the
Charter, repeatedly quoted at this Trial, states that the national
courts have the right, though not the obligation, to bring to trial
members of organizations declared as criminal. Consequently, the
question of the problem of the trial and the punishment of individual
members of criminal organizations lies exclusively within the scope of
the national tribunals.
The legal sovereignty of every country that has adopted the Charter of
the Tribunal is thus limited in one respect only: The national courts
cannot deny the criminal character of an organization, once it has been
declared to be criminal. The Tribunal can impose no further limitation
on the legal sovereignty of the contracting parties.
Therefore, Justice Jackson has stated here—and with reason—that the
recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature and
therefore automatically entailing the mass condemnation of all its
members, is a mere figment of the imagination; I would add, that has not
sprung from legal grounds but from some entirely different source.
It appears to me that this legal problem is also based on a definite
misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, was
speaking here of the legislative authority of the Tribunal. The
authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by four
states in the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous; but,
of course, this Tribunal, as a legal organization, does not and cannot
possess any legislative authority. When solving the problem of the
criminal character of an organization, the Tribunal is only exercising
the right entrusted to it by the Charter, that is, to solve
independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. Of
course, the verdict of this Tribunal, when coming into force, acquires
the value of a law, but that is the value attached to any of the
verdicts of the courts once it has been delivered.
Counsel for the Defense Kubuschok has stated here that the decision of
the Charter with regard to the criminal organizations is a legal
innovation. This, to a certain extent, is true. The innovation consists
in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and all its
articles, whose creation, _per se_, is an innovation in the first
instance. But should the Defense consider it possible to deplore this
fact, I would consider it opportune to remind them of the causes of
these legal innovations.
The very evil deeds committed by the defendants and their associates,
deeds hitherto unknown in the history of mankind, have, of necessity,
imposed new legislative measures for protecting the peace, the liberty,
and the lives of the nations against criminal attempts. Moreover, the
states which created this Tribunal and all peace-loving people remain
invariably faithful to the ideals of law and to the principles of
justice. Therefore, responsibility for participation in criminal
organizations will be established only when personal guilt has been
proved. In reality, the national courts will decide the problems of
individual responsibility.
A few words now on the tactical side of the problem: It has been stated
here that several detachments of the SS did not follow any criminal
objective. It is difficult, Your Honors, to find within the fascist
machinery neutral organizations which did not follow criminal
objectives. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Mr. Babel, mentioned
the existence of a research department for dog breeding within the SS.
It would appear that this was an organization of general utility. It
seems, however, that the learned dog breeders in this organization were
engaged in training hounds to attack human beings and to tear their
appointed victims to pieces. Can we isolate these dog breeders from the
SS?
In Danzig another scientific research institute was engaged in the
preparation of soap from human fat. Perhaps we should exonerate these
soap boilers as well from all criminal responsibility?
At this point two practical suggestions have been put forward by the
Defense Counsel: The isolation, as a separate activity, of the case of
the criminal organizations and the establishment in the various camps of
a Defense organization having as its purpose the collection of
information and evidence. In practice, however, both proposals would
create insoluble difficulties for the Tribunal in the execution of the
immense task imposed upon it by the nations.
This task is precisely formulated in the Charter which instructs the
Tribunal to solve the problem of the investigation of concrete facts
concerning members of these organizations. Therefore an appeal to the
Tribunal to isolate and consider the case of the criminal organizations
as an independent activity is tantamount to an appeal to the Tribunal to
infringe the articles of the Charter.
Article 9 of the Charter decides the problem of the criminal
organizations when investigating the case of any one particular member,
but it also has one other meaning for the Trial. It shows, as I have
already mentioned, that the fact on which the statements and the
solution of the question of the criminality of the organization are
based is the presence in the dock of the accused representatives from
the corresponding organizations. As is known, in the present case all
the organizations which the Prosecution suggests should be considered as
criminal are represented in the dock.
There is evidence in this case which amply suffices to admit the
criminality of these organizations. Therefore the calling of special
witnesses, capable of giving evidence on these organizations, can appear
only as a supplementary source of evidence. I am bringing these matters
to a close, Your Honors, and in closing I cannot omit one argument of
the Defense. It was stated here by the Defense that as a result of the
admission of the criminality of these organizations millions of Germans,
members of these organizations, would be brought to trial. Together with
my colleagues of the Prosecution I am not of this opinion, but there is
something more I would like to say.
By this reference to hypothetical millions the Defense is attempting to
hinder the progress of justice. However, before us, the representatives
of the nations who have borne the burden and the suffering of the
struggle against Hitlerite aggression, before the conscience and
consciousness of all freedom-loving people, appear other figures, other
millions of victims irrevocably lost, tortured to death in Treblinka,
Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Maidanek and Kiev. It is our duty to
spare no effort to crush the criminal system directed by the fascist
organizations against humanity. Your Honors, the extent of the crimes
committed by the Hitlerite brigands cannot be imagined. However, we are
not blinded by sentiments of revenge and have no intention of destroying
the entire German people in retaliation. But justice does not permit us
to swerve and thus give free play to the committing of new crimes.
We are deeply convinced that the Tribunal will unswervingly follow the
path towards a just and rapid verdict and that it will, in full measure,
chastise those whose crimes have shattered the earth.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): General Rudenko, may I ask you a few
questions?
General Rudenko, you remember that Mr. Justice Jackson suggested certain
tests that we should use before we found an organization criminal,
whether the tasks and the purpose of the organization were open and
notorious, in order to show that the members knew what they were doing.
Now, if we find that any organization is criminal we would necessarily
find, I presume, on that test, that its actions were open and notorious.
Now, if a member of that organization found to be criminal was then
tried by one of the national courts, I suppose under that finding he
would not have any right to show that he did not know about it, because
we would have found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he
must have known, so he could not raise as a defense that he had no
knowledge of the criminal acts, could he?
GEN. RUDENKO: That is quite true. But we are bearing in mind the fact
that the national courts investigating the problem of the individual
responsibility of individual members of the organizations will, of
course, proceed from the principle of individual guilt, since,
naturally, we cannot exclude the possibility that in the organization of
the SA, which fundamentally and in an overwhelming majority was aware of
its criminal purpose, there might yet be individual members who might
have been lured into the organization, either by deception or by some
other reasons, and have been unaware of its criminal purpose.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be any defense to him,
would it? He could not say he had no knowledge, because we would have
already found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he must
have known.
GEN. RUDENKO: Why? I personally proceed from the standpoint that if the
national court investigates the case of members who plead ignorance of
the criminal purpose of the organization to which they belonged, the
national court must examine these arguments submitted in their defense
and estimate them accordingly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could they consider that, if we make a
rule that the activities of the organization are so notorious that he
must have known? How can he then say he did not know?
GEN. RUDENKO: I still maintain the point of view, and I still interpret
and understand the Charter to mean that the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal should determine and decide the question
of the criminal character of the organizations, but where the question
of individual responsibility and guilt of every member of this
organization is concerned, the decision falls exclusively within the
competence of the national courts. It is therefore extremely difficult
to foresee all the possible individual cases and the eventualities which
might arise when investigating a category of individual defendants.
You yesterday submitted a question to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe concerning
a member of the SA who had joined the organization in 1921 and left a
year later. These, of course, are special cases and I cannot state how
numerous they are; they are unavoidable, and when we come to the
question of the extent of his information, the reasons for his entering
and the reasons for his leaving this organization, when we come to
estimate the value of his actions, it seems to me that it should be done
by a national court which will examine the findings of the defense and
appreciate them accordingly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can you say now what defense he would have
before the national court, except the defense that he was never a
member? Does he have any other defenses so far as we know? Does the Law
Number 10 permit him any other defenses?
GEN. RUDENKO: It is difficult for me, at the present moment, to say what
arguments the members of these organizations may put forward, for were I
to speak, it would be on assumption. But I, for instance, consider, that
the argument produced—if produced—which might be considered sufficient
to exonerate this member of the organization would be that he had been
coerced into joining.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I ask you two more questions.
You used the expression that any evidence given by the defendants would
be merely supplementary. That expression is not known to our law, and I
would be very interested in your telling us what you meant by
supplementary evidence. I do not know what the term means.
GEN. RUDENKO: I did not put it that way. This is perhaps an inaccuracy
of translation. What I did say, speaking of questions connected with
further investigations of the matter of the criminal organizations, was
that this investigation should be carried out together with the
investigation of the case of any one member of this organization,
inasmuch as representatives of those criminal institutions are now in
the dock. But I do say that this is already conclusive material for the
recognition, or the denial, of the criminal nature of this organization.
But the Tribunal can, of course, consider this evidence as inadequate,
or, shall we say, the Defense may consider that further supplementary
evidence may be needed. In this connection, I consider that the calling
of witnesses capable of submitting special evidence on the problem of
the criminal or non-criminal character of these organizations may be
presented to the Tribunal as supplementary evidence.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One other question on the SA, which I asked
Sir David yesterday.
What do you consider was the function of the SA after the Röhm Purge,
or, to put it a little differently, what criminal act do you believe the
SA was engaged in?
GEN. RUDENKO: I consider that the SA after the Röhm incident committed
the same criminal acts as the other organizations of Hitlerite Germany.
I wish in confirmation of this evidence to refer to facts like the
seizure of the Sudeten territory. As is well known, detachments of the
SA played an active part in this affair.
All the subsequent events which occurred in Germany in connection with
the Jews and, later, in the territories seized by
Germany—Czechoslovakia and others—these criminal events took place
with the connivance of this organization—the SA.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic wish to say
anything?
THE FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No.
DR. DIX: I have, as counsel for the Defendant Schacht, an indirect
interest in the question of the criminality of the group Reich Cabinet
(Reichsregierung) because Schacht was a member of the Reich Cabinet. I
want to point out, however, at the very beginning that I do not want to
make detailed statements now either of a legal nature or in regard to
the facts of the case. I shall do that rather at the time of my
concluding speech.
What I want and seek now, and for which I ask the support of the
Tribunal, is a clarification and amplification of those answers which
Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe gave yesterday to your
questions, Mr. Biddle.
I should like to point out that it is, of course, clear to me that I
have no right to ask any questions of the members of the Prosecution.
Formally speaking, I could at the most ask the Tribunal to supplement
the questions which were put yesterday by the Tribunal. I believe,
however, that this formal objection has no practical significance,
because I am convinced that Sir David, who will see the pertinence of my
request to have his answer extended, will be prepared to amplify the
answer given to the question by Mr. Biddle without discussing the
theoretical question, whether he is under any obligation to do so.
Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was asked yesterday whether he considers the
Reichsregierung, that is to say, the Reich Cabinet, as it was composed
on 30 January 1933, in view of the then relatively small number of
National Socialist cabinet members, criminal even at that time and if
so, whether he is of the opinion that this hypothetic criminal character
was at that time discernible to other people.
Sir David answered this question of Mr. Biddle’s in the affirmative and
based this answer (1) on the contents of the Party program and (2) on
the fact that already at that time the Leadership Principle had been set
forth in the program.
I should like to ask if Sir David would supplement his answers along the
following lines: Does Sir David really mean to say that the Leadership
Principle as such, that is to say, purely as an abstract theory, is not
only to be rejected politically or for other reasons but is also to be
considered criminal? I want to make it understood that I am speaking
about the abstract principle, without considering any factual
developments in the ensuing period of time.
Concerning his second answer, that the Party program occasions him to
declare that even at that time the Reich Cabinet is to be considered
criminal and was recognizable as such, this answer—not directly in
response to Mr. Biddle’s first question put in the course of further
questions addressed to him by the Tribunal—he added to and
substantiated by declaring that the aim expressed in the Party program
of eliminating the Treaty of Versailles and the announcement therein of
the desire for the annexation of Austria were the criminal points in
this program.
May I ask Sir David to state, first, whether these two points of the
Party program, that is to say, the abrogation of the Treaty of
Versailles and the Anschluss, were with the exception of the Leadership
Principle, the only points of the Party program which caused him to
consider that program criminal, that is, to consider a government
criminal which knew that program? Secondly, I should like to ask whether
he really wants to put forward the opinion that an attempt to attain a
revision or an abrogation in a peaceful fashion, that is, by way of
negotiations, of a treaty found to be oppressive, very oppressive, by a
nation, can be considered criminal.
Furthermore, I should like to ask him to state whether, considering the
great democratic principle of the right of self-determination of nations
and considering the history of the annexation movement in Austria
itself—and I remind him of the plebiscite of 1919 when this Anschluss
was demanded by, one may safely say, 100 percent of the Austrian
population—he as a politician would consider a political party or a
political program criminal which aimed at reaching this goal in a
peaceful fashion. And here I should like to stress, again in order not
to be misunderstood, that the later development and everything which
actually happened and anything which might not have happened in
accordance with the Party program is to be left out of consideration and
only the Party program as such taken into consideration. Upon that, of
course, the sense of his answer depended when he said, “Yes, the Party
program is the basis of the criminal character.”
Now, finally, to come to the end, it would be consistent with the
logical course of my explanations, to wait until Sir David has decided
on this question, an answer to which I should like to request from Sir
David and also from Mr. Justice Jackson, who is not here today. . .
THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Dr. Dix, the Tribunal will, of course,
consider anything that you have said insofar as it refers to matters of
principle, but they do not think that this is the proper time for
Counsel for the Defense to pose questions to counsel for the
Prosecution. The matter has already been fully dealt with, and the
Tribunal do not propose to ask any further questions of the Prosecution
unless the Prosecution wish to say anything in answer to what you have
to say.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, that was what I took the liberty of saying at
the beginning. I realize that it is Sir David’s free will and decision
as to whether he cares to comply with my request to add to his answer to
the questions posed by Mr. Justice Jackson. That I have to leave to him.
I have only a short question, which is intended to prevent our
misunderstanding each other. It is always well not to be misunderstood.
I remember—but I may be mistaken, and that is why I wish to ask Sir
David what Mr. Justice Jackson declared as his opinion—that he did not
consider the Party program, as such, criminal. As I have said, this is
what I remember. I did not take any notes on it, because it did not
strike me particularly at that time, since I considered it self-evident.
Therefore I may be mistaken. But if my memory is correct, I should like
to ask Sir David to state whether there is any uniform attitude on the
part of the Prosecution toward this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal asked the Prosecution to present
their arguments in principle on the question of these organizations, and
they wished also to hear counsel for the organizations in order that
these matters should be cleared up, with a view to any possible evidence
which might have to be given. They have heard counsel for all four
prosecutors. They have asked them questions which they thought right to
ask them in order to clear up any points. They have heard counsel for
all the organizations and they have heard Counsel for the Prosecution in
reply. They do not propose to ask any further questions of the
Prosecution at this stage. Of course Counsel for the Prosecution and
Counsel for the Defense will be fully heard at a later stage.
DR. DIX: I have come to the end of my statement. I leave it to the Court
and Sir David as to whether he wants to answer these questions now.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I should like to give a short explanation to
the question as to which of the indicted organizations, the Defendant
Frank belonged. Is that possible at this moment?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal do not think this is an
appropriate time for any of the counsel for individual defendants to go
into matters connected with the charges against the organizations. They
will, of course, be heard in the course of their own defense, but this
is not the appropriate time. This is only a preliminary discussion for
the purpose of clarifying the issues which relate to the organizations.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, but I should like to use this opportunity to clarify a
mistake which slipped in the day before yesterday. The day before
yesterday I protested against the statement that the Defendant Frank was
a member of the SS and this seems to have been translated incorrectly.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Seidl, won’t it appear in the shorthand notes?
You have not seen the shorthand notes yet?
DR. SEIDL: I have not seen the transcript yet, but I believe that by
error “SS” was translated as “SA.” The Defendant Frank has never denied
that he was an SA Obergruppenführer. What I wanted to point out is only
that the statement in the Indictment that he was an SS general is not
correct and also that the statement in Annex B about the nature of the
criminal element is not pertinent, because it is said there that he was
an SS general. But I attach importance to the fact that the Defendant
Frank has never denied that he was an SA Obergruppenführer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, but you will have an opportunity to develop
the whole case of Frank when your turn comes.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, but the question is merely this, as to whether the
Defendant Frank was a member of the SS or not. As long as the
Prosecution do not present any definite proof of the membership of the
Defendant Frank in the SS, I have to contradict this statement. I do not
believe that it is the task of the Defense to prove that the Defendant
Frank was not a member of the SS. I am convinced that, on the other
hand, this is one of the tasks of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; I have heard what you said.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for the Leadership Corps. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal are prepared to hear counsel
for the organizations very shortly in the rebuttal, but only very
shortly, as otherwise we may go on interminably.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not want to make a speech, but merely to speak for
about 5 minutes, in order to define my attitude towards a few matters of
evidence. First, I have two questions to ask concerning the limitation
of the proceedings to certain groups of members. I should be grateful if
the Prosecution could give a statement as to whether the exception of
certain parts of the organizations, as has taken place, is a final one
or whether other procedures and steps are being held in reserve. This
was stated originally in reference to the Leadership Corps. Concerning
the limitation of the proceedings to certain groups of members in
reference to the Leadership Corps, I do not wish to make any further
motion inasmuch as that limitation has already been effected. I should
be glad, however, if a decision could still be reached concerning the
women. The female technical aides who were employed in the offices
cannot, in my opinion, be included in the staffs. At any rate, they do
not belong to the Leadership Corps, although they worked with the
staffs. These women themselves are of this opinion, and also the
officers in the camps shared this opinion. Accordingly not a single
application for leave to be heard has been made by any woman in the
British zone.
I presume it is known that women, as a matter of principle, were kept
away from politics in the National Socialist State; and therefore, they
can hardly be connected with the crimes stated in Article 6.
Now I should like to speak about two points concerning questions of
evidence. As every profession creates the tools which it needs, so the
jurist creates concepts to solve his problems. These concepts are not
created for their own sake; thus the concept of the criminal
organization shall serve to call guilty persons to account who would
otherwise possibly evade this responsibility of theirs. In establishing
the Charter the procedure was this, that one did away with the
traditional structure of the state in order to reach the individual
organs. But in order to be able to seize these organs, one brought them
together again through the concept of the guilt of conspiracy. In this
way, however, only a relatively small circle can be reached, since its
members would have to be bound to each other by means of an agreement.
In order to enlarge this circle by means of legal technique, the concept
of a criminal group or organization was created. This organization is
involved in the agreement of conspiracy only at the very top, while the
members automatically, without their own knowledge, are included in the
conspiracy. Such a definition of the concept of a criminal organization
is justifiable only insofar as it is useful in getting hold of the
really guilty persons and only the guilty ones.
In order to define the limits of this concept, I should like to discuss
two further points concerning the determination of guilt and therefore
necessarily relevant to the question of admissibility of evidence.
First, there is the question of the members’ lack of knowledge of this
criminality—the lack of knowledge resulting from secrecy—and then the
attitude of the members after they had recognized the offenses being
committed. In my opinion, the examination of guilt cannot be dismissed
by pointing to the alleged knowledge of foreign countries about the real
conditions. In foreign countries a propaganda was effective which
exaggeratedly brought these things to light. In Germany all these facts
remained secret, since because of their very nature they had to be
secret—for instance, what was going on in the extermination camps—and
because they had to be kept secret for political reasons. Moreover, the
things which have become known here were so unimaginable that even in
Germany one could not have believed them, had they become known during
the war. It must be relevant to determine not whether a single
individual member had no knowledge, but that 99 percent of the
individual members acted in good faith. In this case, the organization
is not criminal, but there could have been a criminal in it. If this is
determined, then the legal construction of the criminal organization is
superfluous and thereby false. The legal concepts existing until now
will then be sufficient for bringing the guilty to trial.
The next viewpoint: The criminal nature or the criminal character of
which the Charter speaks shows that that must be something which
concerns the entire organization, and that it must be a continuous state
of affairs. Individual acts which were rejected as wrong by the
organization or the overwhelming majority of its members cannot
establish the criminal character of the organization. The attitude of
all the members to the incriminating acts is therefore of decisive
importance and thus of evidentiary relevancy.
We do not need the concept of the criminal organization in order to
punish individual criminals whose acts were rejected by the majority.
Among such individual cases, in organizations which comprise millions of
members, there may be cases in which smaller or even larger groups or
merely certain local districts took part.
I believe that it is really a major task of the Tribunal to define, with
the objectivity of the judge, the nature of this guilt as applied to the
entire organization. I am of the opinion that the points I have
mentioned, the secrecy of these facts and the attitude of the members
after gaining knowledge, must form the basis for the collecting of
evidence.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I want to ask some questions.
Dr. Servatius, I would like to ask you—and I will ask other counsel for
the organizations—whether in general you accept the definition of
criminal organizations suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, which is found
on Pages 19 and 20 of his statement? You will remember that he made five
general tests. Now, in order to determine what evidence should be taken,
we must determine what is relevant. Now, the test of what is relevant
depends on a general definition of what is common to all organizations
for that purpose. Now, do you or could you now say whether in a general
way you accept those tests for the purpose of taking evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have not yet thought about that and have not had a
chance to discuss it with my colleagues. I should be grateful if we
would be given such an opportunity. Perhaps this afternoon a
representative of the Defense Counsel for the organizations could report
to the Court about this.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Let me ask you another question. What, in
your mind, are the tests that should be applied for the purpose of
taking evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand the question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I said that Mr. Justice Jackson had suggested
a definition from which the relevancy of certain evidence could be
established. Now, have you got any suggestion to offer for that same
purpose?
DR. SERVATIUS: I should not like to commit myself without having spoken
to my colleagues. It is a question of great importance which I should
not like to deal with by myself.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, but it is the basis of this entire
argument. The very purpose of the argument was to develop that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the course of yesterday’s debate the problem was
discussed as to whether the task set before the Tribunal by the Charter
can be considered a legislative act. The question was brought up as to
whether, if we answer the preliminary question in the affirmative, the
Court has the possibility of giving any binding instructions to the
national court which has to try individuals, according to Law Number 10.
That concerns, above all, the extent of the examination of the guilt of
the individual member and the limitation of the scope of punishment for
minor cases. I believe that if we follow up this deliberation we shall
be led from a play upon words into a labyrinth when it comes to the
practical application. Actually the task given the Court is not a
legislative act. It is not a procedural innovation, if the national
court in subsequent proceedings is bound by the previous decision of
this Tribunal. Such cases are quite plausible and legally admissible. If
elsewhere in criminal procedure a criminal court is bound by a previous
decision, say of an administrative court, we consider these cases quite
in order and unobjectionable. Likewise a criminal court could, for
instance, be bound in judging a case of embezzlement to wait for the
previous decision of the civil court as to whether the object embezzled
was the property of somebody else.
Here, too, nobody would think that the civil judge was undertaking an
act of legislation. That another court’s decision is binding on the
criminal court and is the premise for its sentence does not in any way
mean that the author of the criminal code has not completed his
legislative task and that this has now to be done by the court which
takes the preceding decision. In my opinion we therefore do not have to
consider this point any further, for Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the
Charter demands of the Tribunal a clear and unequivocal decision of the
question whether the organization is criminal or not.
More cannot be read either into the Charter or into Law Number 10.
Yesterday Sir David defined his attitude to the five points which were
submitted by me for consideration as to relevancy of evidence. In regard
to the two last points he raised the objection that they were to be
dealt with in the subsequent trials envisaged by Law Number 10. It was a
question of the grounds for exonerating persons—for instance, coercion,
deception, _et cetera_. I want to avoid repetition and point out only
the following: It is quite correct that the question of coercion and
deception and other reasons for the exoneration of persons be discussed
in subsequent trials. In connection with this, Sir David also called the
attention of the Court to a really noteworthy problem—that is, the
problem of a deception by the state, that is, a problem of mass
suggestion. This is really a very important problem. It affects many
members, as far as their joining is concerned. But it leads to the
broadest deduction as to the guilt of the entire membership and the
character of the total organization.
We have therefore to pay particular attention as to how the problem of
deception on the part of the state affected the member and thereby was
characteristic of the organization. All grounds for the exoneration of
persons are therefore also to be examined by the Tribunal in judging the
question of the character of the organization. Furthermore, evidence
must be taken on the broadest basis.
If the Tribunal were to make any limitation now, there would be the
possibility that later, at the end of the Trial, in contrast to its
present opinion, it might consider as relevant material now excluded.
In yesterday’s debate the importance of the question was discussed, in
regard to the proposed declaration of criminality, as to what should be
considered as constituting knowledge on the part of the single member.
Sir David here applied the standard of a person of average intelligence
and wants to consider as guilty anybody who was above that standard.
I have already recently explained that in regard to laws threatening
such a severe punishment as in this case, all systems of penal law
require that willful intent on the part of the perpetrator be proved.
Offenses of negligence are punishable only in exceptional cases, and
then only with minor penalties. At any rate in a case of an offense by
negligence it must be clear to the offender that he is under an
obligation to examine his action from the point of view of penal law.
Law Number 10—and now in connection with it the proposed verdict of
this Court—represents an ex post facto law.
In the case of the main defendants the Prosecution have justified the
deviation from the generally recognized principle _nulla poena sine
lege_ on the ground that they themselves did not act in accordance with
this principle and cannot, therefore, base themselves on it now. This,
however, does not in any way apply to the organizations, quite apart
from the question whether this argument can be accepted at all.
At any rate, however, in considering the element of negligence one
should also not overlook the fact that the obligation to exercise
attention differs in the case of _ex post facto_ laws from what it would
be in the case of existing laws.
In this connection I should like to refer to the fact that the question
of whether the statutes of the Party organizations were illegal or not
has often been examined already, even earlier, at the time of the Weimar
Republic. Political considerations definitely favored such a
declaration. Apparently, legal considerations at that time did not let
the carrying out of such a procedure seem practical. What measure should
we then apply to the individual member’s ability to judge such matters,
if the legal problem is so difficult and lends itself so very much to
discussion?
The Prosecution has restricted the motion so as to exclude the auxiliary
workers in the case of the Gestapo. The reason for this can only have
been that in the case of these members knowledge cannot be assumed to be
self-evident. I ask that the conclusions drawn in this individual case
be applied to the members of other organizations. Should not the
individual member of an organization comprising millions who had far
less contact with the executive organ than did an auxiliary worker of
the Gestapo—should not this member be judged much more favorably, as
far as knowledge is concerned, than this group which has been excepted?
Are we not in particular obliged to use the best methods possible to
inform ourselves as to the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the
individual member? Sir David, in discussing the problem of negligence,
suddenly spoke of an ostrich policy. But here we have to consider that
the person who sticks his head into the sand in order not to see has
actually seen something and therefore does not want to see any more. It
is quite different in the case of this member who from the sources at
his disposal can gain no knowledge of individual actions; who, in
particular, has no knowledge of whether possibly only. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Forgive my interrupting you, but the Tribunal have
already heard and listened with attention to your interesting argument,
and the argument that they now are prepared to listen to is only a very
short argument in rebuttal. As I have already pointed out, it seems to
me that the greater part of what you are now saying is what you have
already said. We cannot go on hearing these arguments at great length.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Since I have arrived at the end of my remarks, I should
like in conclusion just to introduce one point of view which concerns
the defense of the Reich Cabinet. The number of members of the Reich
Cabinet is very limited. One half are in the defendants’ dock. Is it
really necessary to consider the other half cumulatively as an
organization, since the small number of those concerned makes possible
an individual trial, with all the legal guarantees given therein? To
this extent I should like to refer to the remarks made by my colleague,
Dr. Laternser, who mentioned the provision of the Charter that the
Tribunal is not compelled to reach a decision but that for reasons of
expediency it can refrain from doing so.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Biddle wants to ask you some questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have just one question. Will you listen to
this very carefully?
If the Tribunal find that an organization was being used for a criminal
purpose, and certainly, with respect to some organizations, there is
ample evidence that might justify such a finding, why, then, would the
Tribunal not be justified in holding that organization as a criminal
organization insofar as it was composed of persons who had knowledge
that it was being so used and voluntarily remained members of the
organization? In other words, the definition would state that it
consisted of members who had actual knowledge that the organization was
engaged in the commission of crime.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The organization cannot be separated from the total
number of its members. The declaration of criminality in connection with
Law Number 10 is to affect each individual member. The task of the
Tribunal would not be fulfilled if it limited that task and excluded
from the organization unspecified individuals. In the task which I have
mentioned we cannot overlook the practical purpose, and that will not be
guaranteed if such a limitation is made.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will ask just one more question. I do not
think you have answered my question. I will put it very simply again.
How would that definition be unfair to any individual?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: If only a limited circle of persons in connection with
the organization is branded as criminal, this necessarily results in an
injustice to the other members of the organization. The declaration
naturally affects the name of the entire organization, and, therefore,
the declaration of criminality affects each individual member, even if
one tries to limit the definition.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I think in view of the time we had better adjourn for 10
minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, it was not my intention to make statements
today about the concept of the criminal organizations, because I believe
that my statements of yesterday on this point were comprehensive. I
should merely like to state briefly my attitude to the second question
put by Mr. Biddle to my colleague, Kubuschok.
The second question, if I understood it correctly, was as follows: Why
is it unfair to the individuals who were members of an organization, or
why can it be unfair to them, if this organization is declared criminal?
This declaration of the criminality of an organization is certainly
unfair to all those members who had no knowledge of any supposedly
criminal purpose and aims. For in this question one has to. . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You misunderstood the question, I think; so,
to save time—the question was a very simple one. I do not want to go
into it unless you want to. I will repeat it again. I said this: If an
organization was being used for criminal purposes—and I added that
there was very great evidence that such was the case in certain
instances—why would it not be proper to hold it a criminal organization
insofar as it was composed of persons who had knowledge that it was
being so used and voluntarily remained members? Of course, that would
exclude from the organization everybody who did not have knowledge that
it was engaged in criminal purposes.
DR. LATERNSER: Then I did not understand the question quite correctly,
and further statements in regard to these questions, which have now been
settled, are unnecessary.
DR. LÖFFLER: I should like first of all to correct a misunderstanding.
Sir David stated yesterday in his reply that I had admitted that the SA
had participated in the 10th and 11th of November 1938. I emphasize
expressly that I stated that only 2 percent of the SA at the most were
involved in individual actions, and that obviously applies to this event
as well. This example occasions me to underscore what my colleague,
Servatius, has previously stated about taking into consideration the
so-called mistake of an organization, in a case where an organization
deviates from its path and commits an error—which should be avoided.
The 98 percent who did not participate, as well as the 2 percent who did
participate there, with few exceptions, all regarded this action with
aversion and disgust and were not inwardly in agreement with it.
It is therefore an error on the part of the Indictment if on the basis
of this single event, on the basis of this exceptional case, general
conclusions are drawn as to the general character of the organization.
For it is rightfully protested that the very rejection of this action is
a proof that this is an exception to the general tendency of the
organization.
If, then, it is asserted as a second point that the SA was also
concerned with concentration camps, that is also a further typical proof
of the false conclusion to which one can come in the case of judgment
against the organizations. Of 4 millions there were 1,000 men at the
most, that is, only 0.5 percent. The remaining 3,999,000 had no
knowledge of this, and this can be proved. No one will wish to claim
that the fact that 0.5 percent were involved in something about which
the others knew nothing at all allows a conclusion to be drawn as to the
question of criminal character. But this small percentage, as such, is
not an answer to the question which is being raised at this point.
Rather we are, as before, of the opinion that the explanation which was
made by attorney Kubuschok absolutely covers the criminal character as
formulated by the Defense, if the basic conditions are met, as set down
by attorney Kubuschok in agreement with all defense counsel for the
organizations. On the basis of this formulation, that question which
Justice Biddle previously put to counsel for the various organizations
can readily be answered.
I should like to emphasize that yesterday Mr. Justice Jackson made the
suggestion that, instead of having countless witnesses, experts be heard
on the subject of what willful intent can be assumed in the case of the
single organizations. I should like to oppose this emphatically. One
cannot hear any witness or any expert who can tell the Court what, so to
speak, that “common sense” was on the basis of which the question is to
be judged—what knowledge the single members had.
The members, as far as intelligence is concerned, vary greatly. There
are those of average intelligence and there are less intelligent members
of the organizations. If a judgment is to be passed here which also
affects less intelligent members of the organizations and condemns them,
then it is a basic principle of law that this should not be done on the
basis of what the intelligent members of the organizations might and
could have known; that would be an injustice to the average persons and
the less intelligent. Not even the average persons can be taken as a
basis, since this would be an injustice to the still less intelligent,
who would be included in and affected by this judgment.
In conclusion I should like to point out that yesterday’s debate on the
question of the effect of the judgment which this Court is to pass
confirmed in full measure the fears of the Defense Counsel. Mr. Justice
Jackson declared that this judgment would have the character of a
declaration. This is not compatible with the statement which Lieutenant
General Clay, the Deputy Military Governor of the American occupied
zone, made yesterday in an interview for the _Neue Zeitung_, the
American paper for the German population. I should like to quote a
sentence from the latest issue which refutes Justice Jackson’s opinion.
Lieutenant General Clay declares in regard to the question of the fate
of these interned in the United States zone of occupation:
“The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal will decide what will
happen to them. Their number is at present 280,000 to 300,000.
Should the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, however,
consider all the members of the indicted National Socialist
organizations war criminals, then the number will be increased
to 500,000 or 600,000.”
The declaration made by Justice Jackson yesterday that no mass
retribution is intended could be made only in reference to the present
standpoint of his Government. But there is no guarantee that other
governments will not take another stand or that his Government, which is
not bound to Justice Jackson’s opinion, will not alter its stand.
I should like to conclude with this remark: Justice Jackson mentioned
the shock which the combination of the Charter and decision desired by
the Prosecution—in connection with Law Number 10—has been to the
Defense. I believe that the effect of this shock is not confined to the
Defense alone but affects all people who are interested in justice, for
if the combination of these various laws gives the national courts the
opportunity to call millions of members of organizations to
account—among whom, as Justice Jackson also could not deny yesterday,
there are innocent people—and if punishments for mere membership
ranging from a fine to the death sentence are provided, then it is the
duty of the Defense to point out that the procedure here obviously
threatens to deviate from the basis of law and will necessarily lead to
arbitrary action.
If Justice Jackson then in answer to this refers to the effect of shock
in connection with the death of many Jews, one can say that those things
happened outside the law and in the name of force. This Charter and this
Tribunal, however, want to do away with force and put justice in its
place. But justice must be clear and it must be sure.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Tribunal said
earlier that certain questions had been asked of me. I am perfectly
prepared to answer the three questions if the Tribunal desire their time
to be occupied by my so doing.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the Tribunal wish to hear any further
arguments unless you particularly want to answer anything.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not intend to argue at all. It was only
that Dr. Dix put two questions to me on which he asked my view, and Dr.
Servatius one, but I am in the hands of the Tribunal. I do not want it
to be thought that the Prosecution are not prepared to answer the
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can answer them shortly, we should be quite glad
to hear them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first question that Dr. Dix asked me was to
clarify what I had said about the Führerprinzip in relation to the
Reichsregierung. I can answer that in two sentences. I said that, in
addition to the ordinary support which members of the Reichsregierung in
1933 gave to Hitler under the Führerprinzip, they entrusted their
consciences and wills to him and adopted completely his points of view.
In order that Dr. Dix may be under no misapprehension with regard to his
client, the case for the Prosecution may be put in the words of Dr.
Goebbels, one of the conspirators, on the 21st of November 1934, in
conversation with Dr. Schacht:
“I assured myself that he absolutely represents our point of
view. He is one of the few who accepts the Führer’s position
entirely.”
The second point was on the question of the Party program in relation to
the Treaty of Versailles and the Anschluss. Dr. Dix asked me to deal
with those who desired to effect the aims of the Party program in a
peaceful way. The Prosecution say that does not arise, that the Party
program must be considered in the background of Hitler and other
publications as to the use of force and also as to the existing state of
things in the relationship of Germany with the Western Powers and also
of treaty obligation to Austria and Czechoslovakia.
The third question that was put to me was by Dr. Servatius, about the
Leadership Corps. You will remember, My Lord, that in the statement of
the Tribunal the Prosecution were asked, if they were making any
limitation, to make it now. That is contained in the statement of the
Tribunal. The limitation which we have made—that is, only including the
staff in the case of the Reichsleitung, Gauleitung, and Kreisleitung,
and excluding the staff in the case of the Ortsgruppenleiter,
Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter—is the view to which the Prosecution
adhere and which has been agreed upon by the different delegations. I
wanted Dr. Servatius to know that that was the position. I don’t intend
to repeat the reasons for it which were given by my friend, Mr. Justice
Jackson.
THE PRESIDENT: There is only one thing I should like to say. I think it
might be useful to the Tribunal, if you have them, to let us have copies
of the British statutes to which Mr. Justice Jackson referred and also
of certain judgments of the German courts—if you have copies available.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They will be found for the Tribunal and the
Tribunal will receive them within the shortest possible time.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I understand that you have an affidavit which
you wish to put in with reference to the High Command?
MR. DODD: Yes, we do have it. We located this affidavit on Thursday; the
Tribunal had inquired about it on the afternoon of the day before—on
Wednesday, I believe it was. We have prepared for the Tribunal a list of
the offices comprising the German General Staff and High Command as
defined by the Indictment in Appendix B. The list was compiled from
official sources in the Admiralty Office of Great Britain, the War
Office of Great Britain, and the Air Ministry of Great Britain, and
supplemental information was obtained from senior German officers, now
prisoners of war in England and in Germany. The list is attached to this
affidavit, as we intended to submit it this morning to the Tribunal; and
the affidavit describes the source from which this information was
obtained and it points out that the list does not purport to be
exhaustive or necessarily correct in every detail. It is, however,
substantially a complete list of the members of the General Staff and of
the High Command and of the High Command group, and on the basis of this
compilation there appear to have been a total of 131 members, of whom
114 are thought to be living at the present time. I wish to offer the
list formally, together with this affidavit, as Exhibit Number USA-778
(Document Number 3739-PS), I ask that it be accepted without reading.
However, of course, if the Tribunal would like it read over the public
address system, I should be glad to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not think you need read it over. Copies have
been given to the Defense?
MR. DODD: Yes, they have, Your Honor. They have been given to the
Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.
MR. DODD: Colonel Smirnov, if Your Honor pleases, is prepared to read
the document with reference to Stalag Luft III. If the Tribunal would
like, we will have him do so.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that might perhaps be done on Monday morning.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 4 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-THIRD DAY
Monday, 4 March 1946
_Morning Session_
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Sir, a few days ago the Tribunal issued
instructions concerning the expedience of reading into the record the
official British report on the responsibility for the slaying of 50
officers of the Royal Air Force coincidentally, as far as possible, with
the proposed interrogatory of General Westhoff and the senior criminal
counsel, Wielen. May I read into the record some of the more essential
passages from this report of the British Government? I shall read into
the record those parts of the document which, on the one hand, testify
to the general character of this criminal act and, on the other hand,
establish the responsibility for the crime.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you are offering the document, are you,
as evidence? You are seeking to put the document in evidence?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document has already been presented in
evidence and has already been accepted by the Tribunal. I wished only to
read into the record certain extracts from this document. It has been
submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48).
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am quoting Paragraph 1 of the official British
report:
“1. On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped
from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia, where they had been
confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and
returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by
the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50
officers the following information was given by the German
authorities:
“(a) On 6th April 1944, at Sagan, the acting commandant of
Stalag Luft III (Oberstleutnant Cordes) read to the senior
British officer (Group Captain Massey) an official communication
of the German High Command that 41 officers (unnamed) had been
shot, ‘some of them having offered resistance on being arrested,
others having tried to escape on the transport back to their
camp.’
“(b) On 15th April 1944, at Sagan, a member of the German camp
staff (Hauptmann Pieber) produced to the new senior British
officer (Group Captain Wilson) a list of 47 names of the
officers who had been shot.
“(c) On 18th May 1944, at Sagan, the senior British officer was
given three additional names, making a total of 50.
“(d) On or about 12th June 1944, the Swiss Minister in Berlin
received from the German Foreign Office, in reply to his enquiry
into the affair, a note to the effect that 37 prisoners of
British nationality and 13 prisoners of non-British nationality
were shot when offering resistance when found or attempting to
re-escape after capture. This note also referred to the return
of urns containing the ashes of the dead to Sagan for burial.”
The official German version—the official version of the German
authorities—indicated that these officers were shot allegedly while
attempting to escape. As a matter of fact, as definitely proved by the
documentation of the investigation carried out by the British
authorities, the officers were murdered—and murdered by members of the
Gestapo on direct orders from Keitel and with the full knowledge of
Göring.
I shall, with your permission, read into the record in confirmation of
this fact two paragraphs—or rather two points—from the official
British report, that is, Point 7 and Point 8:
“7. General Major Westhoff at the time of the escape was in
charge of the general department relating to prisoners of war,
and on 15th June 1945 he made a statement in the course of which
he said that he and General Von Graevenitz, the inspector of the
German POW organization, were summoned to Berlin a few days
after the escape and there interviewed by Keitel. The latter
told them that he had been blamed by Göring in the presence of
Himmler for having let the prisoners of war escape.
“Keitel said, ‘Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must set
an example. We shall take very severe measures. I can only tell
you that the officers who have escaped will be shot; probably
the majority of them are dead already.’ When Von Graevenitz
objected, Keitel said, ‘I do not care a damn; we discussed it in
the Führer’s presence and it cannot be altered.’”
Point 8: I begin the quotation of the official British report:
“Max Ernst Gustav Friedrich Wielen was then the officer in
charge of the Criminal Police (Kripo) at Breslau, and he also
made a statement, dated 26th August 1945, in the course of which
he said that as soon as practically all the escaped R.A.F.
officers had been recaptured he was summoned to Berlin where he
saw Arthur Nebe, the Chief of the Kripo head office, who showed
him a teleprint order signed by Kaltenbrunner, which was to the
effect that on the express order of the Führer over half of the
officers who had escaped from Sagan were to be shot after their
recapture. It was stated that Müller had received corresponding
orders and would give instructions to the Gestapo. According to
Wielen the Kripo, who were responsible for collecting and
holding all the recaptured prisoners, handed over to the Gestapo
the prisoners who were to be shot, having previously provided
the Gestapo with a list of the prisoners regarded by the camp
authorities as ‘troublesome.’”
I would also ask the Tribunal’s permission to read into the record that
part of the text of the official report of the British Government which
deals with the methods of investigation in regard to individual
officers. This documentation has been systematized and divided into
three parts. I take the liberty of reading into the record the data of
the findings referring to the three separate parts. I quote Page 3 of
the Russian text, beginning from Paragraph 2:
“Flight Lieutenants Wernham, Kiewnarski, Pawluk, and Skanziklas.
“On or about 26th March 1944 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, are you going to read now some of the
evidence upon which the report is based?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to read out only
from the text proper and particularly those parts of the report which
testify to the methods of investigation applied in the case of
individual officers. I should like to begin reading from the paragraph
dealing with the three groups of officers.
THE PRESIDENT: Paragraph 4?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: “On or about the 26th of March 1944
these officers were interrogated at the police station in
Hirschberg and were then moved to the civil gaol in that town.
On the morning of 29th March Pawluk and Kiewnarski were taken
away and later in the day Skanziklas and Wernham left. Both
parties were escorted, but their destination was unknown. They
have not been seen since and the urns later received at the
Stalag showing their names bear the date 30th March 1944.”
And now the next group of British officers:
“Squadron Leader Cross, Flight Lieutenants Casey, Wiley, and
Leigh, and Flight Officers Pohe and Hake.
“Between 26th and 30th March 1944 these officers were
interrogated at the Kripo headquarters in Görlitz and then
returned to the gaol there. During the interrogation Casey was
told that ‘he would lose his head,’ Wiley that ‘he would be
shot,’ and Leigh that ‘he would be shot.’ Hake was suffering
from badly frostbitten feet and was incapable of traveling for
any distance on foot. On 30th March the officers left Görlitz in
three motor cars accompanied by 10 German civilians of the
Gestapo type. The urns later received at the Stalag bear their
names and show them to have been cremated at Görlitz on 31st
March 1944.
“Flight Lieutenants Humpreys, McGill, Swain, Hall, Langford, and
Evans; Flight Officers Valenta, Kolanowski, Stewart, and
Birkland.
“These officers were interrogated at the Kripo headquarters in
Görlitz between 26th and 30th March. Swain was told that ‘he
would be shot,’ Valenta was threatened and told that ‘he would
never escape again.’ Kolanowski was very depressed after his
interview. On 31st March these officers were collected by a
party of German civilians, at least one of whom was in the party
which had come on the previous day. The urns later received at
the Stalag bore their names and show them to have been cremated
at Liegnitz on a date unspecified.”
I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that similar
data also relate to different groups of British officers slain by the
Germans in Stalag Luft III.
The following page of the text includes identical data relating to
Flight lieutenants Grisman, Gunn, Williams, and Milford, Flight Officer
Street and Lieutenant McGarr. Similar information is given concerning
Flight Lieutenant Long, Squadron Leader J. E. Williams, Flight
Lieutenants Bull and Mondschein, and Flight Officer Kierath. The same
information is given with reference to Flight Officer Stower, Flight
Lieutenant Tobolski, Flight Officer Krol, Flight Lieutenants Wallen,
Marcinkus, and Brettell, Flight Officer Picard and Lieutenants Gouws and
Stevens, Squadron Leader Bushell and Lieutenant Scheidhauer, Flight
Officer Cochran, Lieutenants Espelid and Fugelsang, Squadron Leader
Kirby-Green and Flight Officer Kidder, Squadron Leader Catanach and
Flight Officer Christensen, and Flight Lieutenant Hayter.
I shall, with your permission, read into the record one more paragraph
from this official report. I refer to Paragraph 6 of the official
British report and also to Paragraph 5, because it is of essential
importance.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to suggest you should read Paragraph 5.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am going to read Paragraph 5 of the British
text:
“According to the evidence of the survivors there was no
question of any officers having resisted arrest or of the
recaptured officers having attempted a second escape. All were
agreed that the weather conditions were against them and that
such an attempt would be madness. They were anxious to be
returned to the Stalag, take their punishment, and try their
luck at escaping another time.
“6. The Swiss representative (M. Gabriel Naville) pointed out on
9th June 1944 in his report on his visit to Sagan that the
cremation of deceased prisoners of war was most unusual (the
normal custom being to bury them in a coffin with military
honors) and that was the first case known to him where the
bodies of deceased prisoners had been cremated. Further it may
be noted that if, as the Germans alleged, these 50 officers who
were recaptured in widely scattered parts of Germany had
resisted arrest or attempted a second escape, it is probable
that some would have been wounded and most improbable that all
would have been killed. In this connection it is significant
that the German Foreign Office refused to give to the protecting
power the customary details of the circumstances in which each
officer lost his life.”
Those are the parts of the official report of the British Government
which I had the honor to communicate to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would perhaps be better if you also read the
appendix so as to show the summary of the evidence upon which the report
proceeded, Paragraph 9.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I refrained from reading the appendix because it
had already been read in due course by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I shall
read it once more with pleasure:
“9. The appendix attached hereto gives a list of the material
upon which this report is based. The documents referred to are
annexed to this report.
“Appendix.
“Material upon which the foregoing report is based:
“(1) Proceedings of court of inquiry held at Sagan by order of
the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded by
the protecting power.
“(2) Statements of the following Allied witnesses: (a) Wing
Commander Day, (b) Flight Lieutenant Tonder, (c) Flight
Lieutenant Dowse, (d) Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, (e)
Flight Lieutenant Green, (f) Flight Lieutenant Marshall, (g)
Flight Lieutenant Nelson, (h) Flight Lieutenant Churchill, (i)
Lieutenant Neely, (k) P. S. M. Hicks.
“(3) Statements taken from the following Germans: (a) Major
General Westhoff, (b) Oberregierungsrat und Kriminalrat Wielen
(two statements), (c) Oberst Von Lindeiner.
“(4) Photostat copy of the official list of dead transmitted by
the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation in Berlin on or
about 15 June 1944.
“(5) Report of the representative of the protecting power on his
visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.”
THE PRESIDENT: Then, for the purposes of the record, you had better read
in the signature and the department at the bottom.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The document is signed by H. Shapcott,
Brigadier, Military Deputy, and is certified by the Military Department,
Judge Advocate General’s Office, London, 25 September 1945.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, so far as the Russian Chief Prosecutor
is concerned, does that conclude the case for the Prosecution?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Paragraph 9 of the report which has just been
read by the Prosecution mentions the documents which served as a basis
for it and says that they are attached to the report. The individual
documents on which the report is based are listed in the appendix. I ask
the Tribunal to decide whether Document USSR-413 satisfies the
requirements of Article 21 of the Charter, since the material on which
it was based, and which is expressly mentioned in the report, has not
been produced along with it. I request that the Prosecution be asked to
make the appendix available to the Defense as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you mean that you have only had the report
made by the Brigadier and have not seen any part of the other evidence
upon which the report proceeds?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the Tribunal decided during an earlier phase
of this Trial . . .
THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Yes, but I did not ask you what we had
decided. I asked what you had received. Have you received from the
Prosecution the whole of this document or only the report made by the
Brigadier?
DR. NELTE: Only the report, without the appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal certainly intended that the whole of
the document should be furnished to defendant’s counsel, and that must
be done so that you may have all the documents before you.
DR. NELTE: But that has obviously not been done. The appendix expressly
mentions statements made by Major General Westhoff and by
Oberregierungsrat Wielen. I am not acquainted with either of these
statements. They were not attached to the report.
THE PRESIDENT: You must have them. The Prosecution must see that the
whole of this document is furnished to the Defense Counsel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I do not think the whole of
it has been copied, but if Dr. Nelte will let us know if he wants the
whole of it, or a part, we will co-operate the best way we can. The last
thing we desire is that he should not have it. We want him to have
everything he wants.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, will you inform the Tribunal whether the
Prosecution have now concluded their case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. That is the conclusion of the case
for the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we will now proceed with the applications
for witnesses and documents by the second four of the defendants:
Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick.
DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): The Defendant
Kaltenbrunner wishes to call a number of witnesses whom I will name now.
First, Professor Dr. Burckhardt.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if the Tribunal approves, we will adopt
the same procedure as was done on the first four defendants.
With regard to the three Swiss witnesses, Burckhardt, Brachmann, and
Meyer, the interrogatories were granted on the 15th of December and
submitted on the 28th of January. The Prosecution considered that the
interrogatories were rather on the vague side and suggested that they
might be made more precise. The Prosecution have no objection to
interrogatories in principle, and I am sure that there would not be much
difference between Dr. Kauffmann and the Prosecution as to the form.
That applies to the first three witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: We are informed that none of these three witnesses has
been located yet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I respectfully agree, My Lord. That is the
position of the Prosecution, that we have no objection in principle to
these interrogatories, and if we can help the Court in any way to locate
the witnesses, we should be glad to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: When were the interrogatories furnished to the
Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of January, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And were the Prosecution’s objections communicated to the
Defense Counsel shortly afterwards, or when?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, I am afraid I have not got that
date, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t the most sensible course be for the Prosecution
to try to agree upon a suitable form of interrogatory whilst the General
Secretary is continuing his inquiries to find the witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if Dr. Kauffmann will communicate
with me, I have no doubt that we could agree on a form that would be
mutually acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I think there is no need for me to repeat
the individual questions which I have listed in the interrogatory. There
are 19 of them. I do not think that I need repeat them now.
THE PRESIDENT: No, certainly not.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The fourth witness is the former German Minister in
Belgrade, Neubacher. At present he is in the internment camp Oberursel
near Frankfurt, in American custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection to this witness.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the Tribunal want me to specify the evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you would.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Neubacher will, in the opinion of the Defendant
Kaltenbrunner, be able to testify that the order given by Hitler in
October 1944 to stop the persecution of the Jews was really given at
Kaltenbrunner’s suggestion.
Furthermore, in the opinion of the defendant, he will be able to testify
that when Himmler was appointed Chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt
he put the defendant in charge of Amt III and VI. This seems to me to be
important, since so far the Indictment has always been based on the
defendant’s definite connection with Amt IV, which is, indeed, borne out
to a certain extent by the evidence. Neubacher is expected to be able to
testify to this.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if those are the questions which it is
desired to interrogate Neubacher on, couldn’t they be dealt with by
interrogatories?
DR. KAUFFMANN: According to the information given to me by
Kaltenbrunner, Kaltenbrunner attaches importance to the personal
appearance of this witness for reasons which are easy to understand. I
believe that Kaltenbrunner considers this witness one of the most
important witnesses, and he would like to see this witness called.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The next witness is Number 5, Wanneck, at present in
American custody in Heidelberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution suggests that the witness
Wanneck is cumulative. According to Dr. Kauffmann’s application, he is
going to deal with the point that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner was
actually occupied mainly with the task of the intelligence service and
that he objected to persecution of the Jews. That is already covered by
Neubacher, and it is also covered by the cross-examination of the
Prosecution’s witness Schellenberg, who was the chief of Amt VI, which
Dr. Kauffmann has set out in his note on the witness Neubacher, Number
4, as being one of the Intelligence Ämter.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I leave it to the Tribunal to decide whether this witness
could be dealt with by means of an interrogatory. But I do consider the
evidence material relevant in the case of Wanneck as well. In a certain
sense it is cumulative, but some points in it go further. But I agree to
an interrogatory.
The sixth witness is Scheidler.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think it would be unreasonable to
administer an interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. Generally I make no objection to
interrogatories at all.
With regard to Scheidler, he was, as I understand the application, the
Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s adjutant, and as such the Prosecution would
not make any objection. But I think it would be convenient if I were to
draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the next six
witnesses, Numbers 6 to 11 inclusive, all deal with concentration camps,
and numbers 6, 8, 9, and 11 deal with Mauthausen. I want to give Dr.
Kauffmann warning that I shall ask for some selectivity among these six
witnesses.
The Prosecution feel that the application for an adjutant is a
reasonable one, but it will be reflected in objections to later
witnesses.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The defendant naturally considers it important that the
adjutant who served him for many years and who accompanied him on every
single trip, as Kaltenbrunner told me himself, be called. He knows also,
for instance, that the wireless message to Fegelein, which is part of
the accusation, did not come from Kaltenbrunner and that his radiogram
was never sent. He also knows that Kaltenbrunner had made all
preparations for the Theresienstadt camp to be made accessible to the
Red Cross. These are things which have not been mentioned by previous
witnesses, but which shed some light on the person of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of Scheidler?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to deal with the
whole of that group together, and then Dr. Kauffmann can answer what you
say.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With pleasure, My Lord.
The next witness is Ohlendorf, who was called as a witness for the
Prosecution. The situation as I have found it is that Dr. Kauffmann did
cross-examine the witness Ohlendorf on the Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s
responsibility on concentration camps on the 3rd of January of this
year, at Page 2034 of the transcript (Volume IV, Page 335).
The witness Wisliceny, Number 12, who has not been cross-examined on
behalf of Kaltenbrunner by Dr. Kauffmann, would be the natural person to
deal with that point. But, of course, if Dr. Kauffmann has any special
point for the recalling of Ohlendorf, he will tell the Tribunal.
That is the position.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if you had the opportunity of
cross-examining General Ohlendorf and actually availed yourself of the
opportunity wasn’t that the appropriate time for you to put any
questions which you had on behalf of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner?
DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to remind you that Kaltenbrunner was ill
for more than 12 weeks and that I could get almost no information from
him. At the session of 2 January the right of cross-examining the
witnesses at a later date was expressly granted me by the Tribunal. I
had, as the Court will remember, made a motion to adjourn, and then I
was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses at a given time which would
suit me.
That appears in the transcript of 2 January 1946.
As these witnesses have all been called in Kaltenbrunner’s absence, I
should like to cross-examine now in his presence. I am, however,
prepared to forego the cross-examination, if I can talk to the witnesses
beforehand. Perhaps it will not be necessary to call one or the other
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by one or the other witness? Which is
the other? Wisliceny?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Number 7, Ohlendorf, and then Number 11, Höllriegel, and
Number 12, Wisliceny, also Number 14, Schellenberg. All these witnesses
have been heard here, and Kaltenbrunner was ill at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest that Dr. Kauffmann
cross-examine Number 11, Höllriegel, and Number 12, Wisliceny, whom he
has not cross-examined so far. And then, if there is any special point
which remains to be dealt with by the witness Ohlendorf, Dr. Kauffmann
can make a special application to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the Tribunal would like to know what position
you take about the defendants’ counsel seeing these witnesses and
discussing with them their evidence before they call them. I mean, there
is a distinction between cross-examination when defendants’ counsel
cannot see them and calling them as their own witnesses when they can
see them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, the Prosecution feel that they ought
simply to cross-examine witnesses that have been called by the
Prosecution, unless there are very special circumstances. I think that
Dr. Seidl showed special circumstances with regard to the case that he
mentioned of one witness in special relation to the Defendant Hess. But
as a general rule, the Prosecution submit that witnesses that they have
called should be cross-examined without prior consultation.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know your
view. Of course, we are not deciding the point now, but we should like
to know your view as to whether it would be a proper course to allow the
defendants’ counsel to see the particular witness in the presence of a
representative of the Prosecution, because it may be that that would
lead to a shortening of the proceeding, because the defendants’ counsel
might after that not wish to cross-examine the witness any further.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am afraid that would require discussions
with my colleagues on each particular witness. I am afraid I have not
covered that point; witnesses 11 and 12 were called by my American
colleagues and although I take the general position which I put before
the Tribunal, I have not discussed that point; but I shall be pleased to
discuss it with them and perhaps to inform the Tribunal later on in the
day.
Of course, you will appreciate the fact that there may be a special
point relating to a special witness that may come up in this connection.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I can explain this. The witness Ohlendorf was
reserved for me for cross-examination. In accordance with an agreement
made with the American Prosecution, I dispensed with a cross-examination
of Ohlendorf and on this condition was allowed to speak to him. I think
it would be quite fair if I could do the same with other witnesses. I
forego the cross-examination and can speak to the witnesses beforehand.
Perhaps one or the other will turn out to be unnecessary.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure that you understand the view being
put to you, Dr. Kauffmann. The view is that when a witness is called on
behalf of the Prosecution the defendants’ counsel certainly have the
right to cross-examine the witness, not to see the witness beforehand,
but only to cross-examine him. If on the other hand they are entitled to
call that witness as their own, then they are entitled to see him
beforehand, which is. . .
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, that is what I mean. But if I am allowed to speak to
the witness beforehand, then the Court will understand that I should
like to avoid as far as possible the presence of a representative of the
Prosecution, since the reasons which might cause me to forego the
calling of a witness would then be known to the Prosecution. I think
everyone will understand that, and I also think it is fair.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to clarify what the difference in view between
you and the Prosecution is. The Prosecution said that when the witness
was called for the Prosecution the right of the defendants is only to
cross-examine. Can you help us further with respect to this group, Sir
David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. With regard to Eigruber, Number 8, he
is no longer in Nuremberg, and he is being held as a probable defendant
in the case concerning Mauthausen Camp, which will be dealt with by a
military court, and therefore the Prosecution suggests that in these
circumstances, as he is one of this group dealing with concentration
camps in general and Mauthausen in particular, he ought to be dealt with
by interrogatories.
Then with regard to Höttl, Number 9, he deals with two aspects of one
point, that is, that Kaltenbrunner on his own initiative ordered the
surrender of the concentration camp of Mauthausen and that he took steps
to induce Himmler to release people from concentration camps. These seem
to be general points that again might be conveniently dealt with by
interrogatories.
And the same applies to the witness Von Eberstein, who deals with the
point that Kaltenbrunner is alleged not to have given an order to
destroy the concentration camp at Dachau, and that he did not give an
order to evacuate Dachau. The Prosecution suggest that these ought also
to be interrogatories.
With regard to the next witness, Höllriegel, the Prosecution make no
objection to further cross-examination, and respectfully suggest to the
Tribunal that he will be able to deal with the question of Mauthausen,
which is one of the main questions that this whole group of witnesses is
called to deal with.
DR. KAUFFMANN: [_Interposing._] Maybe I can say something so that. . .
THE PRESIDENT: [_To Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe._] Are you in agreement with
Number 12, in the same group?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 12 is not in the same group, because he
deals with the question of Kaltenbrunner’s relations with Eichmann and
with reports he received regarding the action against the Jews. We have
no objection to this witness being called for cross-examination, as Dr.
Kauffmann did not cross-examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Concerning the witness Eigruber, Number 8, may I point
out that this witness is here in Nuremberg. However, I agree that
interrogatories be sent. The subject of the evidence itself seems to me
decidedly relevant, for what Eigruber is supposed to testify is neither
more nor less than the fact that the concentration camp at Mauthausen
was directly supervised by Himmler through Pohl and the commander of the
camp. Kaltenbrunner denies the possession of exact knowledge regarding
Mauthausen. The witness Höttl. . .
THE PRESIDENT: You were in error in saying he was here in town. Sir
David said he has been removed from Nuremberg for the purpose of trial
by a military court. So perhaps you would not object to interrogatories
in that case.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. The witness Höttl is, in my opinion, an important
witness. As we know, Kaltenbrunner is also accused of having
participated in the conspiracy against the peace. Here I intend to prove
that Kaltenbrunner conducted an active peace campaign ever since 1943.
An important name in this connection is Mr. Dulles. He is, according to
Kaltenbrunner, the late President Roosevelt’s confidential agent. Mr.
Dulles was in Switzerland. According to Kaltenbrunner, meetings between
them constantly took place with this object. I believe that this subject
of evidence is relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Höttl in person, not by way of
interrogatories?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 10, General of the Police Von Eberstein,
is called to prove that the statement of another witness by the name of
Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will perhaps remember that the
Prosecution submitted an affidavit by a man named Gerdes who was an
important figure in Munich. He was the confidential agent of the former
Gauleiter of Munich. In his affidavit, Gerdes accuses Kaltenbrunner of
ordering the destruction of Dachau through bombing. Kaltenbrunner
emphatically denies that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly dealt with by
interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did give an order to
destroy a concentration camp, or an order to evacuate Dachau. Surely
those are matters which admit of proof by interrogatories.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree. The same problem arises in connection with the
next witness, Number 11, the witness Höllriegel, who has already been
heard. Am I to have the opportunity of speaking to this witness before
he is cross-examined? Kaltenbrunner denies that he ever saw gas
chambers, _et cetera_.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, isn’t Number 11 really cumulative to
Number 6, whom you particularly wanted to call?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the question whether
you ought to be given the right merely to cross-examine or to recall as
your own witness, with reference to Numbers 11 and 12.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. Just a word about witness Number 12. Eichmann, as is
well known, was the man who carried out the whole extermination
operation against the Jews, and Kaltenbrunner’s name has been mentioned
in connection with this operation. Kaltenbrunner denies it. For that
reason I consider Wisliceny a relevant witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the other ones, Sir
David? Are they in the same category?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite, but I think it might be convenient if
I deal with them.
Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner did not
authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders for protective custody
or internment, and I should submit that in view of the previous
evidence, of Scheidler and Number 4, Neubacher, Dr. Mildner’s evidence
is cumulative and that interrogatories would suffice.
As to Schellenberg, Number 14, I have already said that the Prosecution
make no objection to his recall for cross-examination.
Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because the object of
his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended to the Gauleiter of
Austria not to oppose the advancing troops of the Western Powers and not
to organize Werewolf movements, is in our submission irrelevant to the
issues before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness Dr. Mildner, Number 13, is here in Nuremberg,
in custody. I have asked to call this witness because he has submitted
an affidavit containing certain accusations against Kaltenbrunner which
Kaltenbrunner denies. I do not think that an interrogatory can clear up
these difficulties.
Now, Number 14 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner had submitted an affidavit?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Sir. There is a reference in the Indictment to an
affidavit made by Dr. Mildner. I believe it was on 3 January. The
witness’ name was mentioned in connection with the charges against
Kaltenbrunner. There are one or two affidavits. . .
THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit has not been produced to the Court,
what have we got to do with it? We have not seen it, at least in my
recollection. You know about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not been able to trace this affidavit of
Dr. Mildner’s. I do not remember it, but I will willingly check the
reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the Prosecution have used the affidavit,
then you would have no objection to the witness being called for
cross-examination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason why I am rather
surprised is that usually that point has been taken when it is sought to
use the affidavit. The Defense Counsel involved has asked for the
production of the witness—but I will have it looked into, this
particular point; but in general the Tribunal may take it that unless we
put forward a special point, where an affidavit has been given, and
where we have not argued to the Court previously, it is a very good case
for the witness’s being brought here, if it is convenient.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that Dr. Kauffmann was saying that
the affidavit had actually been put in by the Prosecution, but there was
some reference made to it. Is that right, Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: It would not take me long to look it up. I have the files
for 3 January here.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, we will give you an opportunity for
looking that up. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. KAUFFMANN: The name of Mildner appears in the transcript of 2
January, not in the form of an affidavit but in the form of a letter
written by a third person and this letter is only mentioned in
connection with Mildner’s name; it is not an affidavit. I should like to
request that Mildner be interrogated in writing.
Now turning to witness Number 15 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen?
DR. KAUFMANN: We have already dealt with Number 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very well, then 15.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness Number 15 is Rainer, who was a Gauleiter. I
should like to request that this witness be heard as well. He is in
Nuremberg. The subject of the evidence seems important to me. In the
case against Kaltenbrunner, he is not expressly charged with the
contrary; but if we are dealing with peace and violations of peace, an
effort on the part of the defendant to prove that he has done everything
in his power to prevent further bloodshed seems to me relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that witness?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have not yet submitted any documents, Mr. President.
Later on, I may present some affidavits, but, as I have not yet received
them, I cannot present them at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, that you wish to
reserve for yourself the right to apply to put in documents at a later
stage.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you know when
they make the order.
Yes, Dr. Thoma?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal with the
document list.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the first six documents, which are quotations
from various books on philosophy, the Prosecution submit that they are
irrelevant to the question of the ideology propounded by the Defendant
Rosenberg, which the Prosecution make part of the case against him.
Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would quote from such
books in making his speech, and if he would let us know the passages he
wants to quote so they can be dealt with mechanically, we do not make
any anticipatory objection.
I think that takes us up to Number 6—which are purely general books on
philosophy. The Prosecution view with some dismay all these books being
put in evidence and the Prosecutors having to read them.
I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr. Thoma wishes to
use them to illustrate the argument, and if he lets us know the passage,
we make no general objection, but we object to their being put in as
evidence, as not being relevant to the matters before the Court.
DR. THOMA: I do not think that it is possible without a consideration of
world philosophy before Rosenberg’s time to understand the morbid
psychological state of the German people after their defeat in the first
World War. Unless this psychological condition is appreciated, it is
impossible to understand why Rosenberg believed that his ideas could
help them. I am extremely anxious to show that Rosenberg’s theories were
representative of a phase of contemporary philosophy taught in similar
form by many other philosophers both at home and abroad. I am extremely
anxious to refute the charges made against Rosenberg’s ideology as
degenerate and—I must quote the expression—a “smutty ideology.” I have
to bear in mind that the members of the Prosecution, especially M. De
Menthon, who has made a special study of the National Socialist
ideology, made the very natural mistake of confusing the extravagances
and abuses of this ideology, usually dubbed “Nazism,” with its real
philosophic content. The French Revolution of 1789 was in the same way,
I believe, represented by neighboring peoples as a disaster of the first
magnitude, and all the rulers in Europe were called upon to fight
against it.
I believe that the Court was specially impressed by M. De Menthon’s
statements, which represented the Nazi ideology as having no spiritual
value and described it as a dangerous doctrine. I think we must allow
the possibility of its being taught in other countries as well at that
time. I should like, therefore, to ask permission to present the
philosophical systems of the time in question, by which I mean the views
expressed by other philosophers on Rosenberg’s main concepts, especially
the question of blood or race, the soil as a fact of nature and as
political and economic living space. Science declares that these ideas
are based on the irrational presentation of natural and historical
facts. They cannot be dismissed for that reason as unscientific,
although they may be disturbing to rationalism and humanism.
I should like, in particular, to prove that these ideas have been
respected and developed by rational and empirical science on account of
their significance, and that they have been put into practice by other
countries in their policy—a fact which I think is important. I need
only remind you of the U.S.A. immigration laws, which also give
preference to particular races.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he wants to use the
teachings of other philosophers as illustrations and arguments. If he is
going to quote from them, then all that the Prosecution ask is that he
tell us which passages he is going to quote, but we suggest that it is
not relevant for us to go into an examination of, say, M. Bergson’s book
as a matter of evidence.
It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr. Thoma will
be well able to develop the point which he has just put with the
limitation which I have just suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know what it is
that you actually propose. Are you proposing to put in evidence certain
passages from certain books and that the Tribunal should read them or
are you simply asking for the production of books so that you may
consult them, read them, and then incorporate in your argument certain
ideas which you may gather from the books?
DR. THOMA: I ask the Tribunal to note—officially, at least—the
contents of the books which I shall submit. I shall not read all these
quotations from the books, but I shall ask the Tribunal to note the
outlines. I think it is important for the Tribunal to have the passages
quoted from these books actually before them, so that they may have a
clear picture of the philosophical—and particularly of the ethical
situation—of the German people after their defeat in the World War.
THE PRESIDENT: But the books are not books of any legal authority. You
can only cite, surely, to a court of international law, books that are
authorities on international law. You can, of course, collect ideas from
other books which you can incorporate in your argument. You cannot cite
them as authorities.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, by submitting quotations from the works of
well-known philosophers who presented ideas similar to Rosenberg’s, I
propose to prove that this ideology is to be taken quite seriously. In
the second place I want to prove that those features of Rosenberg’s
ideology which have been branded as immoral and harmful are
extravagances and abuses of this ideology; and in my opinion it is most
important for the Tribunal to know from a consideration of the history
of philosophy, that even the best ideas—such as the French
Revolution—can degenerate. I should like to point out these historical
parallels to National Socialism and to Rosenberg’s ideology.
I also need these books to prove that Rosenberg was concerned only with
the spiritual combating of alien ideology and that he was not in a
position to protest any more energetically against the brutal
application of his ideology in National Socialism, but that as a matter
of principle he allowed scientific discussions of his works to proceed
freely and never called in the Gestapo against his theological
opponents.
He assumed that his ethnic ideas were not to be carried through by
force, but that every people should preserve its own racial character
and that intermingling was only permissible in the case of kindred
races. He believed that this ideology was for the good of the German
people and in the interest of humanity generally.
For these reasons I believe that the Tribunal, in order to have a vivid
picture of the background of the development of National Socialism,
should inform itself of the spiritual conditions of that time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the argument you have
addressed to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document Number 7, that is,
excerpts from certain books, the first five are from Rosenberg’s own
works, and the last is a book by another author on Hitler.
Again I submit that if Dr. Thoma wants to support the thesis contained
in the first half of his note—that “the Defendant Rosenberg does not
see individual and race, individual and community, at contrast but
represents the new romantical conception that the personality finds its
perfection and its inner freedom by having the community of the racial
spirit developed and represented within itself”—if Dr. Thoma will give
any of the extracts from Rosenberg’s works on which he bases that
argument, then he can present them at whatever part of his case is
convenient; and similarly, with regard to the specific points set out in
the second part of his note—there again, if he will give the relevant
extracts, they can be considered and their relevancy for the purpose of
this Court dealt with when he introduces them in his presentation. But
again I take general objection to the fact that either the Court or the
Prosecution should read all these works and treat them as evidence. I
developed that about the previous document.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, if I quote Rosenberg’s actual words and ask the
Tribunal to take official notice of them, I shall be in the fortunate
position of being able to show that Rosenberg’s philosophy and ideology
differ basically from the extravagances and abuses which were attributed
to him and to which he took exception.
I am in a position to show that it is clear from his works that
Rosenberg intended the Leadership Principle to be restricted by a
special council exercising an authoritative, advisory function. I shall
also be able to show that the _Myth of the Twentieth Century_ was a
purely personal work of Rosenberg’s which Hitler did not by any means
accept without reserve. More especially, I am in a position to prove
that Rosenberg, as his works will show, would have nothing to do with
the physical destruction of the Jews and that, as far as his writings
show, he took no part in the psychological preparations for war and
that, as far as his writings show, he worked for a peaceful
international settlement, especially between the four great European
powers of the period. Therefore I beg the Tribunal to allow me to submit
the real, genuine quotations from his writings as evidence material.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will consider the whole question
of the production of and the citation from these books.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 8, My Lord, falls into a rather different
field. The first 11 documents seem to be books and writings containing
Jewish views of an antinational basis. The Prosecution reminds the
Tribunal that the questions at issue are: Did the defendants as
co-conspirators embark on a policy of persecution of the Jews; secondly,
did the defendants participate in the later manifestations of that
policy, the deliberate extermination of the Jews? Within the submission
of the Prosecution, it is remote and irrelevant to these important and
terrible accusations that certain Jewish writings, spread over a period
of years, contained matters which were not very palatable to Christians.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I should like to reply to this point as follows: I
am not interested in showing that the Nazi measures against the Jews
were justified. I am interested only in making clear the psychological
reasons for anti-Semitism in Germany; and I think I am justified in
asking you to listen to some quotations of this kind taken from
newspapers, since they must by their very nature offend the patriotic
and Christian susceptibilities of very many people.
I must go rather more deeply into this question, too, in order to show
the reason for the existence of the so-called Jewish problem in history
and religion and the reason for the tragic opposition between Jewry and
other races. I should like to quote both Jewish and theological
literature on the point.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the Tribunal can take the
remaining documents, 9 to 14, together. They seem to deal with specific
and, if I may say so without the least intention of offense, more
practical matters, in that they deal with the government of the Eastern
territories, for which this defendant was responsible; and the
Prosecution has no objection to my friend’s using these documents in
such a way as it seems fit to him.
DR. THOMA: I should like to mention the following points in connection
with the documents:
I have had four additional documents allowed in part by the Tribunal. I
have not been able to submit them, because they have not yet been handed
over to me; but I would like to tell the Tribunal what they are: First,
a letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in 1924, containing a request by
Rosenberg not to be accepted as a candidate for the Reichstag; second, a
letter written by Rosenberg to Hitler in 1931 regarding his dismissal
from the post of editor in chief of the _Völkischer Beobachter_, the
reason being that Rosenberg’s _Myth of the Twentieth Century_ created a
tremendous stir among the German people. Rosenberg asked at the time
that his work be considered a purely personal work, something which it
actually was, and that if his writing was in any way detrimental to the
Party, he would ask to be released from his position as editor of the
_Völkischer Beobachter_; third, I should like to include a directive
from Hitler to Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories Rosenberg,
dated June 1943, in which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit himself to
matters of principle; fourth, an eight-page letter from Hitler to
Rosenberg, written by hand and dating from the year 1925.
THE PRESIDENT: And the fourth one? Will you state the fourth one, the
fourth document?
DR. THOMA: I am coming to that.
Point 4—a letter written by Hitler to Rosenberg in 1925, in which
Hitler stated his reasons for refusing on principle to take part in the
Reichstag elections. Rosenberg’s view at that time was that the Party
should enter the Reichstag and co-operate practically with the other
parties.
I have just learned that this letter is dated 1923.
Gentlemen, this is something of decisive importance. From the very
beginning, Rosenberg wanted the NSDAP to co-operate with the other
parties. That could constitute the exact opposite of a conspiracy from
the start. May I present to the Court a copy of my four applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these seem to be individual documents
whose relevancy can be finally dealt with when Dr. Thoma shows their
purpose in his exposition. I do not stress that the Tribunal need not
make any final decision on them at the present time.
DR. THOMA: I should like to refer to the fact that I have already asked
the General Secretary to admit these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, have you the documents in your possession?
DR. THOMA: Yes, My Lord. The only documents that are lacking are the
four I have just mentioned. They are still in the hands of the
Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: They are in the hands of the Prosecution, are they?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not appreciated that. If Dr. Thoma wants
the documents we will do our best to find them. The first time I heard
of them, of course, was when Dr. Thoma started speaking a few minutes
ago. If the Prosecution have them or can find them, they will let Dr.
Thoma have them or have copies of them.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Thoma, why it is that you have not put
in a written application for these four?
DR. THOMA: I have made such a request, My Lord, several days or a week
ago. I made the first request already in November.
THE PRESIDENT: For these four documents?
DR. THOMA: It is like this: The first two documents were granted me
already in November or December 1945, but I have not as yet received
them.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider that. Well, that finishes
your documents, does it not?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the witnesses, it might
be convenient if I indicated the view of the Prosecution on the, say,
first six. The Prosecution has no objection to the first witness,
Riecke, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, or to Dr.
Lammers, who is being summoned for a number of the defendants, or to
Ministerialrat Beil, who was the deputy chief of the Main Department of
Labor and Social Policy in the East Ministry.
With regard to the next one, Number 4, Dr. Stellbrecht, the Prosecution
suggests that that is a very general matter which does not seem very
relevant, and they say that Dr. Stellbrecht should be cut out, or at the
most that that point be dealt with by a short interrogatory.
We also object to 5 and 6, General Dankers and Professor Astrowski.
General Dankers is sought to say that certain theaters and museums of
art in Latvia remained untouched, and that hundreds of thousands of
Latvians begged to be able to come into the Reich.
There are papers about certain laws. The Prosecution submits that that
evidence does not really touch the matters that are alleged against the
Defendant Rosenberg and again they make objection.
Professor Astrowski, who is alleged to be the Chief of the White
Ruthenian Central Council and whose whereabouts are still unknown, who
was last in Berlin, is to be called to prove that the Commissioner
General in Minsk exerted all efforts in order to save White Ruthenian
cultural goods. There again the Prosecution says that that is a very
general and indefinite allegation and, if the defendant and certain of
his officials are called to give evidence as to his policy and
administration, it is suggested that the witnesses 5 and 6 are really
unnecessary.
I might also deal with Number 7, because the first seven witnesses are
the subject of a note by Dr. Thoma. Number 7 is Dr. Haiding, who is the
Chief of the Institute for German Ethnology, and it is sought to call
him in order to prove that in the Baltic countries cultural institutions
were advanced and new ones founded by Rosenberg. That witness, the
Prosecution submits, falls into the same category as Dankers and
Astrowski. But, with regard to him, if there is any general point, they
say that he could be dealt with by interrogatories but certainly should
not be called.
It is relevant for the Tribunal to read the note under Number 8 dealing
with these witnesses. Dr. Thoma says:
“The witnesses can present evidence for the refutation of the
Soviet accusation that Rosenberg participated in the planning of
a world ideology for the extermination of the Slavs and for the
persecution of all dissenters.”
The Prosecution submits that the three witnesses that they have
suggested, coupled with the interrogatories, if necessary, in the case
of Stellbrecht and Haiding, should cover these points amply.
DR. THOMA: I agree with Sir David that as far as Dr. Haiding and Dr.
Stellbrecht are concerned an interrogatory will be sufficient. Regarding
witnesses Numbers 5 and 6, I was interested in bringing in as witnesses
people who actually lived in these countries and who have their personal
impressions of Rosenberg’s cultural activities; and I request that these
witnesses be granted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court will consider that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness Scheidt comes into the story of the
Defendant Rosenberg’s connection with Quisling, and this has been dealt
with by interrogatories by the Defense and by certain
cross-interrogatories by the Prosecution. This is obviously an important
part of the case, and I suggest that the Tribunal does not decide as to
the personal summoning of Scheidt until the answers to the
interrogatories are before the Tribunal.
Number 10 is Robert Scholz, the department chief in the Special Staff of
creative art, and roughly the evidence is to show that the defendant did
not take the works of art for his personal benefit. The Tribunal ordered
the alerting of this witness on the 14th of January, but on the 24th of
January the application for this witness was withdrawn and it is now
renewed by Dr. Thoma. If the Tribunal will look at the way in which it
is put in Dr. Thoma’s application, which is limited and guided by
certain specific acts on which Mr. Scholz can speak—the Prosecution
suggest that the Tribunal might think the most convenient way was again
to get a set of interrogatories on Mr. Scholz, and see how he can deal
with the many individual points put to him.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the case of the witness Wilhelm
Scheidt touches the question of Norway. Scheidt is the decisive witness
as to the reports made by Quisling of his own volition without being
invited to do so, either through the Amt Rosenberg for foreign policy or
through the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I believe that a
personal hearing, a cross-examination, of this witness Scheidt is
extremely important, because he can give a great deal of detailed
information which is decisive for the question of whether or not Hitler
conducted a war of aggression against Norway.
I have been granted an interrogatory for the witness, Departmental
Director Scheidt, and I have already taken steps to confer with the
Prosecution in this connection. The witness Wilhelm Scheidt has not made
an affidavit; but I must point out to the Tribunal that I should have to
be present when the affidavit is made and that I should be allowed to
question the witness myself, in common with the Prosecution. I should
like to repeat my request to cross-examine this Wilhelm Scheidt as a
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, if the witness was granted to you as a witness
to give evidence in court, it would not be necessary for you to have any
representative of the Prosecution when you saw the witness wherever he
might be. The advance of a witness would entitle you to see him yourself
and to obtain proof of his evidence. Is that clear?
DR. THOMA: So far I have been granted only an affidavit. I have not been
granted him as a witness as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to make clear to you the difference
between interrogatories and being allowed to call a witness to give all
the evidence. Of course, if you are submitting to written
interrogatories, you would not see the witness; but if, on the other
hand, you were going to call the witness as a witness or to present an
affidavit from him, you would then be at liberty to see the witness
before he made his affidavit or before he drew up his proof.
DR. THOMA: Then I should like to put the request that Wilhelm Scheidt be
called as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you are making that request.
DR. THOMA: As far as Robert Scholz is concerned, I should like to point
out to the Tribunal that Scholz was the director of the Special Staff
entrusted with the practical application of measures to be taken for the
safekeeping of works of art in both eastern and western districts and I
should like to draw the special attention of the Tribunal to the fact
that a number of learned German experts were members of this Special
Staff and that they did a great deal of very conscientious work in
safeguarding, restoring, and protecting these works of art and in
preserving them for posterity. The way in which this Special Staff did
its work is of decisive importance, therefore, for a good many men.
Robert Scholz knows every detail of the procedure. Robert Scholz can
testify, in particular, to the fact that Rosenberg did not appropriate
for himself a single one of the enormous wealth of art treasures that
passed through his hands and that he kept a careful record of those that
went to Hitler and Göring. He also knows that all these works of
art—or, at least, the greater part of them—were left where they were
at first, especially in the East, and were only brought to the Reich
when it was no longer safe to delay.
I beg the Tribunal to hear this important witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application was
withdrawn on the 24th of January?
DR. THOMA: It was said then—I think by the British or American
Prosecution—that the Special Staff would not be mentioned again during
the proceedings. The French Prosecution, however, have now given
detailed accounts of the looting of France; and so this witness is once
more required.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, I think?
DR. THOMA: I have one other request. I want to call a further witness,
and I have already filed a request with the General Secretary for this
witness, ministerial Subdirector Bräutigam. Bräutigam was Junior
Assistant Secretary in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern
Territories, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that
Rosenberg, in his capacity of Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern
Territories, did not persecute the churches but granted freedom to all
religious sects by the issue of an edict of tolerance; that, further,
Rosenberg himself consistently opposed the use of force, supported a
policy of promoting culture and represented the view that the peasant
class should be strengthened and established on a healthy basis.
Further—and this seems to me to be particularly significant—that very
many letters and telegrams of thanks from the clergy in the Soviet Union
arrived at the ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories addressed to
Rosenberg. Gentlemen, if Dankers and Astrowski are not granted as
witnesses, then I request permission to go back to Bräutigam.
And then I have one further witness. To show how Rosenberg behaved
towards his academic opponents, I should like to call one of these
academic opponents, to wit, Dr. Kuenneth, a university professor who
wrote an important book attacking the _Mythos_. He will testify that
those who disagreed with Rosenberg’s philosophy were not at all afraid
of the Gestapo and that they had no cause to fear the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those last two?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these last two
witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this defendant
which have been developed by the Prosecution. They are general
witnesses, and if I may put it—I hope the Tribunal will not think it
flippant to put it this way—they are really witnesses who say that the
Defendant Rosenberg would not hurt a fly; we have often seen him doing
it—not hurting flies. That really puts it quite briefly as to what this
class of evidence amounts to, and I respectfully submit, on behalf of my
colleagues, that that should not be the subject of oral evidence, and it
should be disallowed; or if there is any special point raised, it should
be dealt with by an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated the
persecution of churches?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took part in
antireligious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That is one of the
matters. And I think there was certain correspondence between him and
the Defendant Bormann, which was directed towards his antireligious
views. I do not remember at the moment that there was any evidence that
he had personally participated in physical destruction of churches. That
is my recollection.
My Lord, I am reminded that there is a general allegation in Appendix A
that he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity, including a wide variety of crimes against
persons and property.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered.
DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans Bühler,
State Secretary with the Chief of the Administration in the Government
General. This witness is detained here in Nuremberg, pending trial; and
he is the most important witness for the Defendant Dr. Frank. He is
called for Dr. Frank’s whole policy in the Government General, since he
was head of the government during the entire period from the
establishment of the Government General up to the end.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to Dr. Bühler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have not, My Lord. The only point that I
want to make clear is that the Defendant Frank calls an enormous number
of witnesses from his own officials; he calls something like 15. And I
am not going to object to Dr. Bühler; I am going to ask the Tribunal to
cut down substantially the witnesses who were officials of the
Government General. And it might help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the
adjournment that my suggestion would be that the Tribunal would consider
allowing Dr. Bühler, an affidavit from Dr. Von Burgsdorff, and that they
might consider allowing Fräulein Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s
secretary, and Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of
officials from the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow Dr.
Bühler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bühler.
THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow Dr.
Lammers—he is in the general list. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Allow the private secretary, Fräulein Kraffczyk,
Number 7, and allow Numbers 9 and 10.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the names?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed, I should suggest that
Numbers 13 to 20, who are various officials from the office of the
Government General, should not be allowed. If I may say so, with the
submission of the Prosecution, the height of irrelevancy will be Number
18, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the Forestry Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient for Dr. Seidl
to know what the views of the Prosecution were. Of course, if he has any
suggestions of any alternatives we should be pleased to consider them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, Dr.
Seidl.
Before the Tribunal rises, before the adjournment, I want to say that
the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at 3:30.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, if I understand correctly, Sir
David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses Dr. Hans Bühler,
Dr. Bilfinger, and Fräulein Kraffczyk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness named by me is Dr. Von Burgsdorff, whose
last appointment was that of Governor of Kraków. He is at present in the
Moosburg Internment Camp, which means that he is close to Nuremberg.
The witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff is the only one of the nine governors
whom I have named to the Court as a witness. Considering the importance
of the position of the governors in the Government General and in view
of the great difficulties which these governors had to overcome, it
seems proper to me that the witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff should be heard
personally by the Court and not by means of an interrogatory.
Is it necessary for me to read out the evidence material in detail now,
or is it enough to refer to the application for evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand that, while
Sir David suggests an affidavit, you want to insist upon his coming
personally.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, since the Court approved the calling of
this witness at an earlier date.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery Dr. Lammers. This witness has already been approved for the
Defendant Keitel, so that no further discussion is necessary.
The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard to the
fact that this witness is called in connection with evidence for which
the witness Dr. Lammers was also named, I should like to ask the
Tribunal to allow an interrogatory unless this witness is called for
another defendant and can appear in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point as far as I
could from my records, and I could not find that he was being called as
a witness for any other defendant. And, as Dr. Seidl very fairly says in
his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for the same evidence material
as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is my point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, former Chief of the
Chancellery of the Government General, who, like Dr. Von Burgsdorff, is
in Moosburg. My written application shows that this witness held a very
important appointment. He received all the correspondence of the
administration of the Government General and is acquainted in particular
with the substance, with suggestions and complaints addressed by the
Defendant Dr. Frank to the central government authorities in Berlin, and
in particular with the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank
repeatedly made to the Führer himself.
The witness was likewise approved previously by the Tribunal, and I
think that considering the vast knowledge of this witness—he worked in
the Government General for several years—a personal hearing before this
Court seems advisable.
THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not approved as one out
of a group of which Frank was to choose three? There was a large group
of witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The witnesses Von Burgsdorff and Dr. Max
Meidinger were chosen from this group. Those are the two witnesses who
were selected from a group of 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?
DR. SEIDL: The other one was witness Number 2, Dr. Von Burgsdorff.
Witness Number 6, whom I have named and whom I should like to have
called in person, is the witness Hans Gassner. His last appointment was
that of press chief of the Government General, and he is also in the
Moosburg Internment Camp. He was named, along with some others, to give
evidence that the Defendant Frank did not hear of the existence of the
camp of Maidanek and the conditions prevailing there until 1944, and
then only because the witness informed him of reports published by the
foreign press.
The witness was also present—this is not stated in my application—when
Dr. Frank told a press reporter that the forests of Poland would not be
large enough to publish the death warrants. The witness will also be
able to describe the interview in detail, to say what Frank meant by
this remark, how he intended it to be understood, and what his reasons
were for making the remark.
I may add that the Court likewise approved this witness at an earlier
date. I may say also, generally speaking, that, according to the wishes
of the Tribunal, my applications for evidence will only indicate the
general lines on which the witnesses are to be questioned and that I
have consciously refrained from formulating the separate questions which
I intend to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about Number 6?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, it seemed to the
Prosecution that the second matter which Herr Gassner was desired to
speak about, that the Defendant Frank learned from him only in 1944
about Maidanek, is really a matter about which no witness can be as
satisfactory as the defendant himself. All the witness can say is, “I
told the Defendant Frank about Maidanek, and it appeared to me that he
did not know anything about it.” Well, that is not, in the view of the
Prosecution, satisfactory evidence.
The Court will be able to judge from the Defendant Frank himself when he
has been cross-examined on that point. If it is desired that that
interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submit that it
could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory.
Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general and again could be
covered by a written statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already expressed
his views on.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.
The next witness is Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s last secretary. If
I understand correctly, there are no objections on the part of the
Prosecution.
Witness Number 8 is General Von Epp, the last Reich Governor of Bavaria.
He is at present in the internment camp at Oberursel. The statements to
be made by this witness will be mainly concerned with the attitude of
the Defendant Frank towards the concentration camps in 1933. As the
witness is at present in the neighborhood of Frankfurt, I should be
satisfied in this case with an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General Ritter von
Epp seems to cover the same incident as Dr. Stepp. I said that I would
not object to Dr. Stepp, but if Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on
some specific points from General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any
objections.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, late
Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannführer in the Reich Security Main
Office. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. The Prosecution
apparently has no objection to the hearing of this witness.
The next witness, Number 10. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [_Interposing_] My Lord, I would just like to
say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal to understand what
the Prosecution have in mind. The general plan for these witnesses is to
show from both ends the relationship between the Defendant Frank and the
central agencies. The Prosecution thought that it was right that the
defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of his own
staff and a member from headquarters, who was in the position of Dr.
Bilfinger, to give the other side of the picture. I just wanted the
Tribunal to understand the plan on which we were working.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, former chief judge of the
highest regional court of appeal in Munich. He is at present in the
internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I understand Sir David correctly, he
has no objection to the calling of this witness.
I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the Court an
affidavit which is in my possession, and which will prove the veracity
of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take a few
minutes, if the Court would permit me to call another witness instead,
or if it would withdraw its objection to my calling another witness. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; I have to ask for some notice as to who the
other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection to Dr. Stepp,
because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank’s position in relation to
other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I cannot speak on
behalf of my colleagues and accept just another witness blindly until I
know who the witness is and what he is going to say.
DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as possible. The
reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was because, as the Tribunal
will see under Number 7, it is stated that Fräulein Kraffczyk is called
for positive facts for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been
named. It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the most
useful witness, but I am afraid that I cannot help Dr. Seidl any
further. I have put my view, but I shall not say anything further
against him. I am afraid that is as far as I can go on that point.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 11, is Von dem Bach-Zelewski, SS
Obergruppenführer and general of the Waffen-SS, who has already been
heard by this Tribunal as a witness for the Prosecution. The Court has
already at an earlier date granted permission for an interrogatory. In
the meantime I have spoken to the witness. He has made an affidavit,
which I shall submit instead of calling him in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it would be most
convenient if the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski came back, and then Dr.
Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he wanted. We might want to
re-examine on the point. I do not know what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to
cross-examine him, and for that reason. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine him?
DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be called by
the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to speak to the
Defendant Frank about the questions which might have been put to this
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be
recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be allowed to call
him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been
submitted to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord.
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the
following. . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a
representative of the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself granted me
permission to speak to the witness, and that was after the Court had
already approved the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and
you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you were not ready to
cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine him at a later
date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine at that time, because
you had not had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the
subject, you ought to have asked to cross-examine at a later date.
DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I had
thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. I did not
find out until later that the witness possessed any vital information
relevant to Frank’s case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The difficulty of
a cross-examination is just this, that we do not learn of the intended
calling of a witness by the Prosecution until the witness is led into
the courtroom, and we do not know the subject of the evidence until the
Prosecution start to examine the witness. It would have been much easier
for us to cross-examine, if we had received information about the
witnesses and the subjects of evidence as far in advance as the
Prosecution—that is, as the Prosecution is informed about the witnesses
for the Defense.
The next witness is witness Number 12, Von Palezieux. His last
appointment was that of art expert in the Government General. In regard
to this witness I should like to suggest that an interrogatory might be
granted in this case too.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory, I have
no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a written
interrogatory. I do not want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you not, Dr.
Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes; I assume that in cases where a written interrogatory is
admitted the submission of an affidavit is also admitted by the Court.
The purpose is obviously to avoid bringing witnesses here and thus to
save time.
The next witness is Number 13, Dr. Böpple. His last appointment was that
of State Secretary in the administration of the Government General. He
is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg near Stuttgart. This
witness seems to me to be one of the most important because in the
administration of the Government General he answered a number of
questions which play an important part in the case against the Defendant
Frank. I may refer to the details in my list of evidence and should like
to add, above all, that this witness can give detailed information as to
whether, during the 5 years of the Government General’s existence, the
industrial equipment of the area was exploited or whether in 1943 and
1944, as a result of transfers from the Reich, the Government General
did not possess a considerably greater industrial potential than before.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submit that, as is stated in the
first sentence, Dr. Böpple is called for a number of facts of evidence
for which Dr. Bühler has been already generally mentioned. Part of the
evidence stated is the relationship with the Government General
agencies, and the remainder, as to the happenings in the Government
General, can be dealt with by the witness already agreed to by the
Prosecution.
DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr. Böpple is to
confirm are also to be testified to by Bühler. But in my opinion it
cannot be denied that the subject of evidence for which I have named
this witness is so important that one witness might not be sufficient to
convince the Court.
I should like furthermore to point out the following: The witness Bühler
was chief of the administration of the Government General. He has
already been interrogated many times by the Polish Delegation as well.
There is a danger that proceedings may be instituted against this
witness as well, on account of the importance of the position he held.
It is self-evident that under these circumstances every conscientious
Defense Counsel should take into account the fact that the witness may
try to shield himself when he answers certain questions; and considering
the importance of the evidence, it seems proper that, in these difficult
circumstances, the Defendant Frank be granted additional witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include any of the
other witnesses who were cumulative to Bühler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from Böpple and only
Fräulein Kraffczyk on the general work of the Government General. The
others, I think, are on the different points of the relationship with
the central agencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Number 14, President Struve, whose last
appointment was that of chief of the main labor department of the
Government General. In other words, he was Minister for Labor in the
Government General. Since both the United States Prosecution and the
Russian Prosecution have made grave charges against the Defendant Dr.
Frank on this very point of the alleged compulsory transfer of workers,
it seems to me proper that one witness at least—the competent
official—should be examined on the facts presented by the Prosecution
so that he can say what orders he received on the subject from the
Government General. Information as to the location of this witness has
also been obtained. He is in an internment camp near Paderborn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, My Lord, with great deference,
that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses and show those
to which he attaches special importance, it would be convenient for the
Tribunal; and if Dr. Seidl would be good enough to say quite bluntly
whether he attaches importance to any of the others or if he does not,
then it might be possible for the Prosecution to reconsider the
elimination of all these witnesses; but the position at the moment is
that there are requests for all sections, all departments of the
Government General, and the Prosecution failed to see how these are
necessary. If Dr. Seidl would indicate any special purpose that he
attaches to any of them, then one might come back and consider President
Struve again; but the position at the moment is that the Prosecution do
not see how it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank that each
one of the departmental chiefs should be called.
DR. SEIDL: It is not the case that all the officers or rather holders of
office, were named as witnesses. A good many others could have been
named. For instance, I have already said that out of nine governors,
each of whom was in charge of 3 to 3½ million people, I have named only
one: the witness Von Burgsdorff.
I have also foregone witnesses whom I had previously named—for
instance, the various military commanders. If, however, the Prosecution
wishes to know which witnesses I consider of special importance, I shall
give the numbers of these witnesses.
They are, besides State Secretary Dr. Bühler, witness Number 2, Von
Burgsdorff; Lammers has already been approved; further, the witness Dr.
Max Meidinger; the witness Gassner, Number 6; the witness Number 7,
Helene Kraffczyk; the witness Number 9, Bilfinger—he was not a member
of the administration of the Government General; members of the
Government General; Numbers 13, 14, 15, and 19. That does not mean,
however, that I am willing to forego the witnesses which I have not
mentioned. Witness Number 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important
witness because he was the chief of the main department for food and
agriculture and can give us detailed information about the Defendant Dr.
Frank’s policy with regard to the feeding of the Polish and Ukrainian
peoples and how he tried in particular, through the highest authorities
of the Reich, to have the demands of the Reich reduced. The witness’
address was not known until now, but I understand that the chief Polish
public prosecutor, Dr. Sawicki, is supposed to know where he is at
present. The next witness is Number 16, President Ohlenbusch, who is
called mainly to testify to the cultural policy pursued by the Defendant
Frank in the Government General. He is not, however, one of our most
important witnesses; and I imagine that in his case an interrogatory
would suffice.
The same applies to witness Number 17. Witness Number 18 is Dr. Eisfeldt
whose last appointment was head of the main department of forestry, and
who will testify to the forestry policy of the defendant and
especially—this seems to me an essential point—to the fact that there
was so much trouble with the partisans in the Government General that it
was in the interest of the Polish and Ukrainian people themselves to
take strong measures against them. Witness Number 19 is President
Lesacker, lately head of the main department of internal administration,
whose last known place of residence was Bad Tölz. His present address
may now have become known. Witness Number 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge,
who, as my application shows, is to testify to the efforts made by the
Defendant Dr. Frank in the field of public health.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have now had the
advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl has to say, and it seems
to me that, so far as the witnesses from the Government General itself
are concerned, the position is that Dr. Böpple, Number 13, does not add
greatly to the general position which would be explained by Dr. Bühler
and Dr. Von Burgsdorff and Fräulein Kraffczyk; that the witness Number
5, Dr. Meidinger, seems to deal with very much the same problems as
President Struve, witness Number 14, and the witness Naumann, Number 15,
and that, on reconsideration, I think the Prosecution would be prepared
to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, or Dr.
Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called.
With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, Dr. Senkowsky, and Dr.
Eisfeldt seem to speak about points that are really removed from the
issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general attitude of
the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is covered by Dr.
Bühler and Von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is granted; and the last
witness, Teitge, seems again to speak on a really departmental point
which is not a serious issue in the case. And, therefore, in trying to
apply our own principle of recommending any witness where there is a
real relevancy, the Prosecution would be prepared to go as far as I said
in their recommendation, that, in addition to the witnesses that I have
mentioned, they would suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the
witnesses Struve or Naumann should be called.
COL. POKROVSKY: I ask for permission to add a few words to that which
has been said by my esteemed colleague, Sir David.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: After listening very carefully to Dr. Seidl, I have come
to the conclusion that we must ask you to take notice of our negative
attitude towards a further summoning of the witness Von dem
Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation fears that should the Tribunal deem
it possible to grant Dr. Seidl’s application—which, to my mind, appears
completely unfounded—then a very dangerous precedent would be created
for the factual annulment of the basic decision already accepted by the
Tribunal in this respect.
As far as I understand, the Tribunal are of opinion that every witness
can and must be called once only for purpose of cross-interrogation. In
reply to your question Dr. Seidl confirms that he was present here
during the cross-examination by my colleague, Colonel Taylor, and
myself. He saw and heard how the cross-examination was progressing. His
reference to the fact that he did not have time enough to prepare for
participation in this cross-examination appears to me unworthy of the
slightest attention. He was in the same position as the rest of us. The
Tribunal will remember that a number of the Defense Counsel participated
in the cross-examination of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. I see no
reason why a different attitude should be adopted for Dr. Seidl’s sake
and I do not see why, to gratify a wish of Dr. Seidl, which, to me, is
completely incomprehensible, the basic decision of the Tribunal should
be changed concerning the repeated calling of witnesses for
cross-examination.
This is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected colleague, Sir
David Maxwell-Fyfe.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the desire to hear an
important witness is incomprehensible in itself, if the
cross-examination is rendered difficult for reasons over which we have
no control. In the first place, I have only asked the Court for
permission to submit an affidavit from this witness to the Tribunal. If
now the affidavit is such. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with Number 20?
DR. SEIDL: No, Sir. I am speaking about the witness Von dem
Bach-Zelewski.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said about it.
DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence between the Governor
General and the Reich Chancellery. I have just verified that we do not
have the other part of the correspondence. Of course, if any of it comes
into our possession, we will be only too pleased to give it to Dr.
Seidl. We do not have it, and we also do not have the personal files of
the Defendant Frank in the Reich Security Main Office. The same applies
to that—that if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at
once.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the other documents
which are asked for?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others are the diary.
Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he desires as to the
diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Now counsel for the Defendant Frick.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Your Honors, the first witness I have named is Dr.
Lammers, who has, however, already been approved for the Defendant
Keitel. I believe, therefore, that I need make no statement on this
point.
As my second witness I have named the former State Secretary of the
Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. He is one of the State
Secretaries of the Ministry of the Interior, and he is in custody in
Nuremberg. He was chief of the central office.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the Defendant Keitel?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that it was certainly
thought that on the 9th of February this witness was to be so called by
the Defendant Keitel, and on that basis he was approved in connection
with the Defendant Frick. That is not directly my request to write it on
the Defendant Keitel’s final list.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, as witness Number 3 I have named
General Daluege, who was formerly general of the Regular Police, and who
is now in custody here in Nuremberg. He is informed especially about the
attitude of the Defendant Frick to the anti-Jewish demonstration on 9
November 1938, and he also knows the relations between Frick and
Himmler.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 4 I have named Dr. Diels, who is now
in an internment camp in the Hanover district. The witness was chief of
the Gestapo in Prussia in 1933-1934. He is acquainted with the measures
which the Defendant Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, decreed
for the supervision of the provinces by the Reich, as well as about the
concentration camps, and also, in particular, about measures taken in
individual cases and about conditions in the camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness’ evidence should be
taken in writing. With regard to the earlier part, the Tribunal will
have the advantage of the Defendant Göring who was concerned especially
with the practices of the police in Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with
regard to the other points, as to the measures of the Defendant Frick,
these are either laws or orders or administrative measures, which could
be included, in the submission of the Prosecution, as being dealt with
by written testimony supplemented by testimony of the Defendant Frick
himself.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say something to that. I believe that
it would be more practical to hear the witness here before the Court. We
can then have a talk with him beforehand and find out the points on
which he has detailed information, whereas in an interrogatory these
things could not be discussed in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 5 I have named the former police
commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber accompanied the Defendant Frick on
all his official trips as his police guard. He therefore knows what
trips Frick made and can therefore testify that Frick never went to the
Dachau Concentration Camp, which contradicts the testimony given here by
the witness Dr. Blaha.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, to the Defendant
Frick’s dealing with that point. The only difficulty as to a witness of
this sort is, I will say, the unfamiliarity with all of his travels,
because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost certain to have
periods of leave, and periods of interruption would occur. I should have
thought that this could have been dealt with by affidavits, or an
interrogatory, if necessary. When they are seen the matter could be
reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage the interrogatories,
indicating in the witness’ own account how often he was with the
Defendant Frick and what interruptions would be most frequent in that
period; therefore, it is for the Court to decide.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next point, I have a
suggestion to make in regard to the witness—the next witness, Denson.
The point, as I understand it there, is that the Witness Blaha said
before the Tribunal that Frick had visited Dachau, that it was, however,
his evidence at the Dachau trial that Frick did not come to Dachau. I
should say the most satisfactory way in dealing with that is to get the
shorthand notes of the Witness Blaha’s evidence at the Dachau trial and
put in a certified copy.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that these notes. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified copy of the
shorthand notes of Blaha’s evidence here, and I also say in fairness to
the witness that it does show he did say that at Dachau Frick visited
the concentration camp, and I will show it to Dr. Pannenbecker whenever
he likes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 7 I have named Dr. Messersmith. An
affidavit from him has been read here by the Prosecution. An
interrogatory has already been approved for this witness. We have not as
yet received an answer. I should like for the time being to withhold the
question as to whether a hearing of this witness in person seems
necessary.
As an additional application I have also named the witness Dr. Gisevius.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius’ evidence
might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an affidavit in answer
to interrogatories. He was consultant of the Reich Minister of the
Interior under the Defendant Frick and supposedly went to Switzerland
after 20 July 1944; he has exact knowledge of the responsibility and
actual authority of the Defendant Frick to issue orders in police
matters. I should think that such matters might be conveniently dealt
with in an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?
DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say that the Witness Dr. Gisevius is
also required as a witness by the Defendant Schacht, as far as I know,
about the events of 20 July 1944. I believe that this witness will have
to appear in person for the Defendant Schacht. It would also be better
if the witness could be heard here in person for the Defendant Frick. In
case of necessity an affidavit would suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one other point about it. You asked earlier for
the return of Colonel Ratke. I think that you were told you could have
him or Stuckart. Will you now leave him out of your application because
you have Stuckart?
DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it was like this. I had named three witnesses for
Dr. Blaha—Gillhuber, Ratke, and a third. We dropped Ratke when I got
Gillhuber.
May I speak about the document book here?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: In order to give a general description of the
Defendant Frick’s character, I asked permission to refer to two books.
One of them is a small book, _We Build the Third Reich_, which contains
speeches made by Frick. I intend merely to quote short excerpts from
these speeches in the course of my presentation of evidence. As regards
the other book, _Inside Europe_, by John Gunther, I want to read here,
too, only a short excerpt, one sentence about Frick.
Then I have offered further evidence material on the question of whether
Frick intervened by means of restrictive decrees against arbitrary
measures in imposing protective custody and have based my observations
mainly on documents originally submitted by the Prosecution but not read
in court. These documents I have listed simply under Number 2a-c.
I have further asked for permission to refer to the files of the police
department of the Ministry of the Interior, where restrictive decrees
issued by the Defendant Frick in regard to protective custody are also
to be found.
With reference to his intervention in individual cases, I request
permission to read a letter written to me by the former Reichstag Deputy
Wulle. I have listed it under Number 3. The Prosecution has submitted an
affidavit by Seger, in which the latter declares that Frick, as chairman
of the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Reichstag, had made
statements on putting political opponents into concentration camps as
early as December 1932. In Number 4 I have asked for the stenographic
records of the Foreign Affairs Committee to prove that such a statement
was never recorded and never made.
Number 5 concerns the records of the Dachau trial in regard to the Blaha
incident already discussed.
Number 6 concerns an affidavit by the Witness Dr. Stuckart, which he
made for the American Prosecution on 21 September 1945. I could just as
well ask this witness about these questions when he is heard in person;
but it would shorten the hearing if I could read this affidavit, which
was made for the Prosecution.
With regard to Frick’s position as Reich Protector of Bohemia and
Moravia, I should like to submit the Prosecution’s Document Number
1368-PS, which contains details of the limitations imposed on the
Defendant Frick’s powers as Reich Protector at the time of his
appointment.
I have also made a supplementary application for Gisevius’ book, _To the
Bitter End_. I learned of this book through an extract published in the
_Süddeutsche Zeitung_ on 26 February 1946 which gave interesting details
of the Röhm Putsch of 30 June 1934. This extract states that for the
events of 30 June 1934, police power was assumed by Hitler and
transferred to Göring and Himmler. The book will give further details in
precisely this field, since Gisevius was at that time expert for police
matters in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. I request the Tribunal,
therefore, to refer to this book, which is not yet in my hands, or to
assist me to procure a copy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say I do not think that there is much
disagreement between Dr. Pannenbecker and the Prosecution. I might run
through the documents asked for. In the book, _We Build the Third
Reich_, if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate the excerpts he is going to
use, the Prosecution will have no objection to his quoting from them,
and the same with regard to the quotations from Mr. Gunther’s book,
_Inside Europe_. To Paragraph 2 of the Document 779-PS and the excerpt
from a newspaper, the Document 775-PS—to these there are no objections.
The files of the police division are not in the hands of the
Prosecution. If we do get any of them, then we shall let Dr.
Pannenbecker know. As far as the letter from the former representative
Wulle is concerned, there is no objection to that. I have not seen any
letter yet, but there is no objection to it in principle.
With regard to Number 4, I think there is some misunderstanding there.
That is Document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USA-234, and the statement referred to by Seger was that
the Defendant Frick said to him, “Don’t worry, when we are in power, we
shall put all of you guys into concentration camps.” This was alleged in
the affidavit as said by Frick to Seger during the course of a
conversation. It is not alleged to have been said in the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Then Number 5—I say I have the shorthand notes, and it will be shown to
Dr. Pannenbecker. As to Number 6, I understand that Dr. Stuckart is
going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be put to him and he
can verify its truth. The Document 1336-PS will be put at the disposal
of the Defense and they can make such use of it as they can. That covers
the documents. As to Dr. Gisevius’ book, I understand that Dr.
Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. Perhaps the Tribunal will see that
a copy can be obtained for him. I do not know whether we have a copy. We
will see what we can do and see that a copy is available.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As to Number 4, Dr. Seger, I still have a brief
comment to make on Document 83. Perhaps an interrogatory could show
whether or not Frick made the statement in question in his capacity as
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—in other words whether or not
that statement is in the stenographic minutes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understood that it was not in the minutes.
It would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that it was
made during the course of a conversation, and not in that committee.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning at 10
o’clock, if possible, with the further applications for witnesses and
documents, which the Tribunal understand have been lodged on Friday
evening.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY
Tuesday, 5 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hanns Marx, one of
the German counsel appearing in this case for the Defense, to an article
which was published in the newspaper _Berliner Zeitung_ for February 2,
under the heading, “A Defense Counsel.” The article, which I do not
propose to read, criticizes Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error
in his cross-examination of a witness when he deputized for Dr. Babel on
behalf of the SS. The article suggested that in asking the question he
did he was behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and
personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his proper
course was to remain silent in view of the character of the evidence.
The matter assumes a graver aspect still because the article goes on to
threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the future and does so in
language both violent and intimidating.
The Tribunal desires to say in the plainest language that such conduct
cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be represented
by counsel is one of the most important elements in the administration
of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court, and he must be permitted
freely to make his defense without fear from threats or intimidations.
In conformity with the express provisions of the Charter, the Tribunal
was at great pains to see that all the individual defendants and the
named organizations should have the advantage of being represented by
counsel; and the Defense Counsel have already shown the great service
they are rendering in this Trial, and their conduct in this regard
should certainly not leave them open to reproach of any kind from any
quarter.
The Tribunal itself is the sole judge of what is proper conduct in Court
and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard of professional
conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of their duties under the
Charter, may count upon the fullest protection which it is in the power
of the Tribunal to afford. In the present instance the Tribunal does not
think that Dr. Marx in any way exceeded his professional duty.
The Tribunal regards the matter as one of such importance in its bearing
on the due administration of justice that they have asked the Control
Council for Germany to investigate the facts and to report to the
Tribunal.
That is all.
Sir David, the first application is for the Defendant Streicher. I call
upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, the
Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, that he was
active in the planning and in the conspiracy for preparation of
aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against Humanity.
As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think it
necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, during
the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document;
neither can it be proved that he took part in any of the intimate
conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not see fit to offer any
proof. As to the second point, first of all I should like to call the
wife of the Defendant Streicher, Frau Adele Streicher nee Tappe as
witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient for me to
indicate the views of the Prosecution on these witnesses; there are only
six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could make his comments on my
suggestions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there are six
witnesses, and if it would take them in my order, I would indicate the
point of view of the Prosecution.
Number 3, Ernst Hiemer, was the editor in chief of _Der Stürmer_, and
apparently the defendant’s principal lieutenant.
Number 4, Wurzbacher, was an SA brigade leader in Nuremberg, and is
alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the defendant.
Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant’s chauffeur, and he is to speak
on one point, namely, the defendant’s annoyance at violence being used
on the 10th of November 1938.
And Number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, is to speak on the same
point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in December 1938 of
the measures taken in November.
Then there are two members of the defendant’s family: Frau Streicher,
who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, Lothar Streicher.
The Prosecution would have no objection to Herr Hiemer, as the
defendant’s principal lieutenant, speaking, as suggested by Dr. Marx, on
what Dr. Marx calls the Defendant Streicher’s basic attitude to the
Jewish question. There are a number of matters on which he is said to be
able to speak, to which the Prosecution would object as irrelevant.
However, the time for so doing is later.
Then, with regard to Herr Wurzbacher, he is said to have always been
present at meetings where Streicher spoke, from the early days. To that
also the Prosecution would not make objection, but they draw attention
to the fact that in the earlier applications Herr Wurzbacher was said to
be able to speak as to the boycott in 1933 and the events of November
1938. Therefore the Prosecution respectfully remind the Tribunal that he
can speak on the events in 1938, and, in the view of the Prosecution, it
is not necessary to have oral testimony to repeat that point. They
therefore suggest that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant’s
chauffeur, who really speaks on one main point—that the defendant
showed anger with regard to the events of 1938—an affidavit would be
sufficient. They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, the
attorney who is mentioned.
With regard to Frau Streicher, Number 1, the Tribunal will see that it
is said that Frau Streicher was the defendant’s secretary during the
period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the case against this
defendant refers, of course, to a much earlier period, both before and
immediately after the rise to power.
The Prosecution suggest that the evidence which is desired from Frau
Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant during
the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered by an
affidavit.
That leaves Lieutenant Lothar Streicher, the eldest son of the
defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters mentioned in
regard to him come into the case: In a report of the Göring commission
on the question of corruption in regard to Aryanization, part of the
report stated that this defendant paid a visit to three boys in prison,
and that certain disgusting and cruel actions took place. The
Prosecution, of course, submit that that is not really a matter relevant
to the charges against the defendant, but they realize that it is a
highly prejudicial matter; it has been read and a bad effect has
resulted from that evidence. Therefore they feel it must be a matter for
the Tribunal; and the Prosecution, having put in the report including
that, ought not to take objection, except to point out that it is not
strictly relevant. However, if the Tribunal feel that this defendant
ought to have the advantage of his son’s counteracting that account of
very unpleasant matters, the Prosecution would not take any objection,
although they are bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the Prosecution, would an affidavit be
suitable in that case?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the Prosecution
would suggest.
Therefore, if I may summarize, what I am suggesting is that the
Prosecution would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr Wurzbacher
giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other witnesses.
DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
The Prosecution hold that the testimony to be given by Frau Adele
Streicher would not be specially relevant. Opposing this I should like
to state that this witness was for 5 years, that is from 1940 to 1945,
close to the defendant, handled his entire correspondence, and knows
what contacts Streicher had during the whole war.
The Defense is particularly anxious to prove that Streicher had no
connection with any of the leading men of the State or Party while he
lived in isolation in Pleikershof. There was no exchange of letters or
opinions with Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, or Heydrich, or any other
leading personalities, whatever their names might be. Streicher was
completely isolated and played no political role whatsoever; neither had
he any authority. In view of this, I, as his counsel, cannot waive the
evidence of this witness, as otherwise the vital interests of the
Defendant Streicher would be prejudiced. I therefore suggest that my
application to call Frau Streicher as witness before the Tribunal be
granted, so that the pertinent questions may be put to her.
The same applies to the witness Herrwerth. It cannot be said that this
witness can give information only on irrelevant matters or on an
insignificant incident. On the contrary the incident in question is of
decisive importance. This man Herrwerth was present on the night of 9
November 1938, when SA Group Leader Von Obernitz reported to the then
Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations against the Jewish population
were being planned. He therefore knows from personal experience what
passed between these two men, and that Streicher was opposed to this
demonstration, because he considered such a demonstration to be entirely
wrong.
Thus, in opposition to the Führer’s will and order, Streicher kept
himself aloof from this demonstration against the Jewish population.
There can be no doubt that this incident is of particular importance. It
is clear that the behavior of Streicher, who at the time was already in
bed and received Obernitz in his bedroom, corroborated the stand taken
by his defense, I therefore submit that Fritz Herrwerth be called as
witness before the Tribunal, so that he can be examined by me and, if
necessary, also by the Prosecution.
As to the witness Hiemer, the Prosecution and I seem to be in agreement
that he as well as Wurzbacher appear before the Tribunal. I may mention
that Wurzbacher is now in the Altenstaedt Camp near Schongau, Camp
Number 10.
As to the witness Lothar Streicher, the Defendant Streicher attaches
particular importance to having it confirmed by this witness that what
the Göring report mentions about the Defendant Streicher’s indecent
words or acts, when visiting the prison, is untrue.
If the Prosecution are prepared to state that they will drop this point
and no longer use this report, then I would agree to refrain from
calling this witness. Otherwise, I consider it my duty to insist on
having this witness called before the Tribunal to vindicate my client’s
honor. An affidavit could not possibly meet this purpose, and I
therefore ask that the application of the Defense be granted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, I have indicated
from the Prosecution that that incident is not relevant to the charges
against the Defendant Streicher. The Prosecution, of course, produced
the report and I thought I had made it clear to the Tribunal that it is
one of these collateral matters that do come in, and the Prosecution for
that reason would not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the
main case of the Prosecution against this defendant is on the stirring
up of and consistent incitement to persecution of the Jews. I do not
think I can put it further than that. But I had hoped I had made clear
that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other issue.
The report under discussion was on the Aryanization of Jewish
properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report itself is
relevant to persecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I make a few additional remarks?
This matter which is to be proved by Lothar Streicher forms a part of
the Göring report and cannot therefore be dealt with separated from its
context. The defendant contends that this Göring report originates from
a man who wanted to harm him, who, after having received many favors
from him, became his enemy and used this Göring commission, which was
originally meant for quite other purposes, to deal the defendant, whom
he hated, a sudden blow.
It is a rather serious matter to say of a man that he indulged in sadism
in the presence of other persons in a disgusting manner. That is why the
defendant is so anxious to have the falsity of this allegation exposed
here publicly. I therefore request once more that Lothar Streicher be
brought before this Tribunal.
As to the last witness, Attorney Strobel, I would be very pleased to
comply with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s wishes, but also in this case I am
afraid I cannot do so.
Attorney Strobel’s testimony is offered as proof for the following:
Sometime, approximately three weeks after the events on the night of 9
November 1938, Streicher addressed a meeting of the Association of
Lawyers at Nuremberg. At that public meeting of lawyers, Streicher
defined his attitude to the events of 9 November 1938 and made it clear
that he had been against the demonstration and the firing of synagogues.
Attorney Strobel, as he said, was very surprised at the time that
Streicher so openly took a stand against Hitler’s order and made no
secret of what he had said to Obernitz, that he would not take part in
the demonstration and that he considered the whole thing to be a
mistake.
Strobel’s testimony may carry more weight than that of chauffeur
Herrwerth, since in the case of the latter the Prosecution can hold
against the Defense the fact that Herrwerth was an employee of the
defendant and may therefore be inclined to take the defendant’s side.
This argument, however, does not apply to Attorney Strobel, as he, in a
letter addressed to the Tribunal, wanted to express his aversion to the
defendant and mentioned the meeting only incidentally.
Consequently, Strobel must be regarded as an impartial witness, whereas
one might say of Herrwerth that he is perhaps not wholly disinterested.
I therefore submit that Attorney Strobel also be called before the
Tribunal in order to enable the Defense and, if necessary, also the
Prosecution to put direct questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? Now you can
turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, the Tribunal will
consider your applications.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to now it has not
been possible for me to collect all the documents we need. There are a
number of newspaper articles which I should like to submit to the
Tribunal, and I ask for leave to submit the list of documents later on.
I shall get in touch with the Prosecution beforehand as to which
documents should be discarded and which should be put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no objection to
your getting in touch with the Prosecution with reference to documents
later on, but you must understand that no delay can be permitted.
I call upon the Counsel for the Defendant Funk.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Sauter would allow me, I should like to
say that, with regard to these applications, there is so little between
the applications and the views of the Prosecution that it might shorten
matters if I were to indicate the views of the Prosecution, and then Dr.
Sauter could add anything he has to say. I could be extremely short, but
I do not want to forestall Dr. Sauter if he has any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that meet with your view, Dr. Sauter?
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): That I present my
applications now and that the Prosecution then reply?
THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David meant that he should first indicate any
objections which he has, and then you could explain your view.
DR. SAUTER: I quite agree, My Lord.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, the witnesses fall into
four groups. The first group is three witnesses from the Ministry of
Economics, Numbers 1, 2, and 10 on the list. As I understand Dr. Sauter,
he wishes to call Number 2, Herr Hayler, as an oral witness, and to have
affidavits from the witnesses Landfried, Number 1, and Kallus, Number
10. The Prosecution have no objection to this course, except that with
regard to the witness Landfried they may have some observation to make
on the form of the interrogatories, which could no doubt be settled with
Dr. Sauter, and then put to the Tribunal for their approval. Secondly,
they want to reserve the right to apply for further
cross-interrogatories. Apart from that, which I submit are really minor
points, they agree with that suggestion.
The second group is two witnesses from the Reichsbank, Number 5, Herr
Puhl, and Number 7, Dr. August Schwedler. Again, as I understand Dr.
Sauter, he wants an affidavit in the form of answers to questions. The
Prosecution have no objection to that, only again they reserve the right
to apply for cross-interrogatories, if necessary; if the answers take a
certain form, they might have to apply to the Court that the witness be
brought for cross-examination. They simply want to reserve that right,
but, of course, they cannot take up their position until they have seen
the form of the answers.
Then, the third group consists of one witness, who is Dr. Lammers, who
has been called by most of the defendants orally, and there is no
objection to that, and the Prosecution suggest that Dr. Sauter will put
his questions to Dr. Lammers when he is called by the other defendants.
Then, the fourth group is a general one. There is Herr Oeser, who is an
editor, Number 6; Herr Amann, Number 8; and Number 9, Herr Roesen; and
lastly, Number 4, Frau Funk. As I understand it, with regard to all
these witnesses, Dr. Sauter wished either an interrogatory or an
affidavit. The Prosecution make no objection to that, with the same
understanding that they reserve their rights to put
cross-interrogatories or to ask the Tribunal to summon any of them as
witnesses if any point emerges. Subject to the reservation of these
points, there is nothing between us, because the result is, if I have
understood it all correctly, that Dr. Sauter is asking for two oral
witnesses and eight sets of interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, don’t you draw any distinction between an
affidavit and interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I do, certainly. But, My Lord, Dr. Sauter
has shown in the case of most of the witnesses the interrogatories which
he is putting—apart from Dr. Lammers, who, of course, will be dealt
with orally, because he is being produced as a witness. I understand
that when Dr. Sauter says “affidavit” he means an affidavit in the form
of answers to questions, such as those he has set out in the appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, Sir David, so far as the Prosecution are
concerned, they would take the line that you have suggested, meaning by
an affidavit, interrogatories and, if necessary, cross-interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am in agreement with the suggestions of the
Prosecution as to the individual applications. As to the wording of the
individual interrogatories I shall come to an agreement with the
Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Dr. Sauter, perhaps you could tell us,
dealing, for instance, with Number 6—you say there, “I have in hand an
affirmation from this witness with a supplement thereto.” Does that mean
answers to interrogatories, or does that mean an affidavit, a statement?
Have you got the passage?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have an affidavit from this witness, Albert Oeser,
Number 6, and this affidavit will be submitted to the Tribunal, together
with my document book. I am already in possession of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, that is not quite the same as
interrogatories. I do not know whether you have seen the affidavit. I
mean, it may be that at a later stage you would want to cross-examine or
to put cross-interrogatories to that witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that would be so, Your Honor. I must
reserve the right, until I have seen the affidavit, to do that. The ones
that are attached to Dr. Sauter’s application are all in the
interrogatory form, but where the document is in the form of a
statement, the Prosecution would have to reserve these rights. Really,
one cannot make any declaration until one has seen that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before I put in evidence this affidavit by
the witness Oeser, Number 6, I shall, of course, pass it to the
Prosecution so that they have ample time to decide as to whether they
wish to cross-examine this witness. This goes without saying.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that particular witness? Where is he?
DR. SAUTER: He is witness Number 6, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but where is the man? Where is he at the present
moment? Is he in Nuremberg or where?
DR. SAUTER: Witness Oeser is at Schramberg in the Black Forest, in
Baden, near the Rhine. It is some distance from Nuremberg. Moreover, Mr.
President, the points to which the witness is to testify are
comparatively so insignificant that it would hardly be worth while to
bring the witness himself to Nuremberg. I personally do not know the
witness, but an acquaintance of mine mentioned him to me as a person who
could give favorable information on the conduct of the Defendant Funk.
Thus we got to know about witness Oeser and obtained from him an
affidavit which I shall pass to the Prosecution in good time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the documents, My Lord, the first
one is a biography of the Defendant Funk. The extracts were submitted as
part of the Prosecution’s case. I ask that Dr. Sauter intimate what
passages he desires to use, and then the Prosecution can make such
objections or comments as may or may not be necessary.
The second request is, I think, the same as we had yesterday, namely for
the record of the Dachau trial and of the evidence of the witness Dr.
Blaha. The American prosecutors will be pleased to show Dr. Sauter the
report that they have of Dr. Blaha’s evidence at that trial.
With regard to the speeches of the Defendant Funk, there again, if Dr.
Sauter will intimate what they are and what he intends to use, the
Prosecution will consider them. _Prima facie_ they would be a relevant
matter.
And with regard to Number 4, the copy of the newspaper with a report of
the defendant’s speech, that again would _prima facie_ be relevant, and
we shall look into it. It is very unlikely that there would be any
objection, but we shall look into it; and, if necessary, deal with it
when Dr. Sauter makes his presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Sauter the newspaper?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper mentioned under Number 4, and
also the speeches mentioned under Number 3, are now in my possession. I
shall not use the entire text of the speeches in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you would be prepared to indicate to the Prosecution
the passages in your Document 1 and the passages in 3 and 4, which you
wanted to use, so that they can have them translated?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, My Lord. I shall include in the Document Book from the
book mentioned under Number 1 only a few—I think two or three—pages
and from the speeches and newspaper articles only those passages which I
am going to use, and submit these to the Prosecution in time for
translation. As to the record of the Dachau trial, this request is
settled by what the Prosecution stated yesterday regarding the Defendant
Frick. I believe the Dachau stenographic report is already available. I
shall peruse it, so that this matter is settled.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then I call upon counsel for Dr. Schacht.
DR. DIX: I am very pleased to be able to tell the Tribunal that I
believe I am in agreement with Sir David as to the compass of evidence
to be submitted by me, especially as to those applications which I shall
either withdraw or restrict. In order to facilitate matters, may I
therefore first tell the Tribunal which applications on my list I
withdraw and which ones I restrict, so that eventually those will be
left which I maintain. I withdraw application Number 5 for the
examination of Dr. Diels. I heard yesterday that Dr. Diels has been
called for as witness in another application. Should the Tribunal grant
yesterday’s application and order Diels to appear, then I should like to
reserve the right to examine. I myself shall, however, not apply for
him.
Then I should like to call your attention to applications Number 6,
Colonel Gronau; Number 7, Herr Von Scherpenberg; Number 8, State
Secretary Carl Schmid; Number 9, Consul General Dr. Schniewind; Number
10, General Thomas of the armament staff; Number 11, Dr. Walter Asmus;
Number 12, Dr. Franz Reuter; and Number 13, Dr. Berckemeyer. For all
these witnesses I am willing to accept an affidavit. I quite realize
that I have to pass affidavits to the Prosecution and that the latter
have the right to apply for these witnesses to be summoned for
cross-examination.
The following witnesses, therefore, remain to be called before the
Tribunal: Witness Number 1, Dr. Gisevius; witness Number 2, Frau
Strünck; witness Number 3, the former Reichsbank Director, Vocke; and
witness Number 4, the former Reichsbank Director, Ernst Huelse. In
respect to these witnesses, I must insist on my application for their
personal appearance. Schacht’s defense cannot dispense with the oral
examination of these witnesses. May I put forward my reasons in each
case. The testimony of these witnesses is in no way cumulative. One
witness knows things the other does not. Vocke and Huelse were Schacht’s
closest collaborators at the Reichsbank and at the International Bank at
Basel. They know of events and developments which Schacht may not be
able to recall in detail. The oral examination of these witnesses cannot
therefore be replaced by interrogatories because he is no longer
sufficiently versed to draw up the relevant questions. These witnesses
must be informed of the theme of the evidence and be given the
opportunity to make a comprehensive statement.
The same, namely that they still remember events in detail which Schacht
no longer recollects, applies to Frau Strünck and Gisevius, who can
testify particularly as to the plans for the various attempts on
Hitler’s life from 1938 to 1944.
This is all I have to say regarding my application for these witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Dix and
Professor Kraus were good enough to indicate to me and my colleagues
yesterday their proposals which Dr. Dix suggested be put before the
Tribunal. The Prosecution felt that by limiting all the witnesses to the
first point and Point 2, Dr. Dix was making a reasonable suggestion. The
Prosecution, of course, reserve all rights as to the relevancy of the
various points set out as to these witnesses, but they felt that that,
as I say, was a reasonable suggestion. On Numbers 3 and 4 it means that
the Defense are limiting all the witnesses, on the general economic
course of conduct of the defendant, and again the Prosecution felt that
that was a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the others, the
Prosecution must, as I have said—and Dr. Dix agreed—reserve all rights
by way of cross-interrogatories or of asking that the witness should be
summoned, but the Prosecution felt that they could be in a position
really to decide what their rights and proper course should be only when
they had seen the affidavits that were put in. That is the reasoning of
the Prosecution in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: As to documents, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: Regarding the documents, I should like to make it clear that
wherever in my list I have referred to books, published speeches, and
such like, especially under Number 2, this does not mean that I intend
to present to the Tribunal long extracts from these books. Only short
quotations will be made and these quotations will be. . .
[_The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the
interpreting system._]
THE PRESIDENT: The best course would be for us to adjourn now and then
this mechanical defect will be remedied.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Dr. Dix. I have one or two announcements
to make. In the first place, the application which has been made on
behalf of the defendants for a separate trial of the organizations named
under Articles 9 and 10 of the Charter is denied.
Secondly, with reference to the application made on behalf of counsel
for the Defendant Bormann, the Tribunal have considered the application
dated February 23, 1946, by Dr. Bergold, counsel for the Defendant
Bormann, in which he asks that Bormann’s case should be heard last, at
the end of the cases of all the other defendants. The Tribunal have
decided to grant this application.
The Tribunal also rule that the hearing of Dr. Bergold’s applications on
behalf of Bormann for witnesses and documents, in accordance with
Article 24(d), shall not take place at the present time, when the
Tribunal are hearing the applications of all the other defendants, but
at a later date to be fixed within the next three weeks.
Thirdly, with reference to the business of the Tribunal, the Tribunal
will sit in closed session after the conclusion of the applications on
behalf of the four defendants who are being heard today. Tomorrow the
Tribunal will continue the applications on behalf of the next four
defendants, and on Thursday the Tribunal will hear the case on behalf of
the Defendant Göring.
Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: Before the recess, I was about to tell the Tribunal, as to
Number 2 of the list of documents, that in my presentation I would
confine myself to really important and quite short quotations, after
having made them available to the Prosecution in our document book. This
disposes of Number 2.
Number 1 consists of extracts from copies already submitted by the
Prosecution. I shall give but one example, namely, the report by
Ambassador Bullitt to the Secretary of State in Washington. The
Prosecution presented the last part of this report, in which they were
interested, whereas I wish to reserve the right to present the first
part, which deals with Schacht’s peaceful intentions and his lack of
political influence on Hitler, and which is therefore of importance to
the Defense.
I now turn, to Number 3, Subparagraph (a), which is the Schacht
memorandum to Hitler of 3 May 1935 concerning the legal rights of Jews,
dissolution of the Gestapo, _et cetera_.
May I again ask the Prosecution to see to it as far as possible that
this document, which has not been introduced so far, be procured
together with Document 1168-PS, which at the time of Schacht’s
interrogation by Colonel Gurfein was produced. As I heard yesterday, the
document has not yet been found, but perhaps Colonel Gurfein, who has
already gone back, can assist us in this matter. These two documents are
very important, as they constitute parts of a Schacht memorandum which
can be understood and appreciated only in its entirety.
Furthermore, here is a letter addressed by Schacht to General Field
Marshal Von Blomberg. It deals with restriction of armaments, et cetera,
and its relevancy is, I think, obvious.
Still a word about Subparagraph (c). This is a Hitler memorandum of
August 1936 regarding the Four Year Plan. This memorandum, in which
Hitler reproaches Schacht most bitterly, even with sabotage, is of
decisive importance to us. Contrary to what appears in the list, I am
not in a position to produce a reliable copy of this memorandum, which
under certain circumstances could replace the original. What I have is
an extract, which in no way can be considered reliable and thus cannot
be submitted to the Tribunal as evidence. In order to ascertain the
exact contents of this memorandum, we must have the original. To my
knowledge the original was among the files of the Dustbin Camp in the
Taunus, and again I ask the Prosecution to assist in procuring it.
Then there is the letter written by Schacht to Göring in November 1942.
Göring’s answer was to dismiss Schacht for defeatism, or rather in
consequence of this letter Schacht was dismissed for defeatism. A
further consequence of this letter was that Göring excluded him from the
Prussian State Council. A copy of this letter was last seen by Schacht
in the possession of one Von Schlaberndorff, who worked with General
Donovan, but who is no longer here. Where Schlaberndorff is now, I do
not know. May I ask the Prosecution to assist us also in this matter.
Furthermore, there is a telegram of January 1943 from Göring to Schacht,
excluding him from the State Council.
As to Subparagraph (f), I have to ask the Russian Prosecution to assist
us in procuring this item. It is made up of miscellaneous notes, records
of Schacht’s reflections, written soliloquies and letters, which were
kept in a box at Schacht’s country seat, Guehlen, near Lindow, Mark
Brandenburg—that is in the Russian occupation zone. According to
information received, this box has been confiscated by Soviet troops. I
should be very much obliged to the Russian Delegation if they would do
their utmost to procure the box with its contents.
The documents under Number 4 are already in our possession. I do not
think it necessary to enumerate and comment on them here; they will be
included in our document book and the Prosecution will then have the
opportunity of making observations on their relevancy. That is all I
have to say now regarding the documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the approval of the Tribunal I shall
confine the very few remarks I have to make to Paragraph 3 of Dr. Dix’
memorandum. With regard to the document for which Dr. Dix has made a
request, it is not yet procured. I have asked my colleagues to make
inquiries, but at the moment they cannot find certain of these
documents, although a search has been made. For example, (a), the note
handed to Hitler on the same day, is Document Number 1168-PS. Mr. Dodd
tells me that an exhaustive search was made by the American Delegation
two months ago, and they are convinced that that document is not in
their possession, and the same applies to the Soviet Delegation
regarding (e).
THE PRESIDENT: Who was the interrogator, Judge Gurfein?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Colonel Gurfein is the one who started the
American Prosecution, who conducted the interrogations at the earlier
stages.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: New York. That point has been borne in mind in
the usual interrogations. If the document is used, it is very carefully
referred to, and the American Delegation informs me that they took that
line of search, and they had that in mind, and that they have not been
able to find it. Similarly, in regard to Number (e), my Soviet
colleagues told me that they have no trace of the document there
mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean there is no reference, to that document in the
interrogation conducted by Judge Gurfein?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, yes. They are unable to find any
reference, I am told, going through the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any knowledge of any communication that has been
sent to Judge Gurfein?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure; he had gone when the search was
made two months ago. I am sure that the American Delegation will look
into that. What I was going to say in regard to Number (e) was that my
Soviet colleagues informed me that no trace of this document has been
discovered by the Russian authorities. With regard to the others, the
Prosecution would like some further time to make further inquiries, and
then they will report to Dr. Dix and to the General Secretary if
anything can be done. With regard to the other documents, the ones which
are referred to by Dr. Dix, and the many extracts, his plan is one which
entirely suits the Prosecution if it suits the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Dönitz.
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I should
like to call the following witnesses: First, Judge Admiral Kurt
Eckhardt. He was expert on international law in the Naval War Staff. He
is to testify that the rules of international law were considered when
the German U-boat war policy was laid down. This testimony is relevant
in view of the documents submitted by the Prosecution, according to
which the U-boat war was conducted without regard for international law.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again it might help Dr. Kranzbühler and the
Tribunal, if I indicated the view of the Prosecution. They consider that
Number 1, Admiral Eckhardt, and Number 2, Rear Admiral Wagner, and
Number 4, Rear Admiral Godt, should not be the subject of objections;
they do not make objections to these three. With regard to Commander
Hessler, Number 3, it seems to the Prosecution that he is really
cumulative to Rear Admiral Godt, as he ceased to be a U-boat commander
at the end of 1941, before most of the material orders were issued. That
is really the only point; as I said, we raise no objections to the other
three. With regard to the second portion, the interrogatories, the
interrogatory of Mr. Messersmith has been granted. With regard to the
next three, Vice Admiral Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren,
these were granted on 14 February, and a slight error crept into the
Prosecution’s action which was purely mechanical. The Prosecution
replied that they did not object in principle and did not wish to file
cross-interrogatories; they objected to two of the questions to be
addressed to Commander Suhren, Numbers 7 and 8. It was intended that the
same objection to the same questions should be made with regard to the
other two. It appears that the document only related to Commander
Suhren, but in general there is no objection; with regard to Number 5,
that has been done.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, have those mistakes been rectified, in
reference to 2 and 3?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not quite sure. I want to mention that same
objection, to narrow the issues of this objection to two of the
interrogatories, and in connection with all three sets of
interrogatories, I do not think this has been before the Tribunal so far
as I know.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Captain Eck, that evidence
has been taken on commission, and so there is no objection. Finally,
with regard to Admiral Nimitz, the Prosecution do object to that
application; that is a new application, and if the Tribunal will look at
the grounds, they are that the United States submarines attacked all
ships apart from the United States and Allied vessels without warning,
and that the United States submarines attacked all Japanese ships
without warning, at the latest from the time when it could be surmised
that the Japanese ship would resist being taken as a prize. And third,
that the United States submarines did not assist shipwrecked people in
such waters where the submarine would have endangered herself through
such assistance. The reason which Dr. Kranzbühler gives is that this
testimony proves that the United States Admiralty made the same
strategical and legal considerations in carrying out its submarine
warfare. In the submission of the Prosecution this is irrelevant. That
they followed the same legal considerations might have been done as
retaliation, and if so, the question whether the United States broke the
laws and usages of war is quite irrelevant; as the question before the
Tribunal is whether the German High Command broke the laws and usages of
war, it really raises the old problem of evidence directed to _tu
quoque_, an argument which this Prosecution has always submitted
throughout this Trial is irrelevant.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I shall confine myself to the points to
which Sir David has raised objections.
First of all, witness Number 3, Commander Hessler. I do not consider his
testimony to be cumulative. He is to testify as to when Order 154, which
has been submitted by the Prosecution, was abrogated. This testimony is
important because the Prosecution contend that the order of September
1942 need not have been issued at all but that it would have been
sufficient to refer to the old Order 154. To counter this contention
Hessler is to testify that Order 154 was no longer in force at that
time.
Moreover, Captain Hessler, being on the staff of the U-boat commanders
from 1941 on, instructed nearly all U-boat commanders putting to sea
about the orders issued, particularly the orders regarding treatment of
shipwrecked persons. For these reasons, his testimony is, in my opinion,
indispensable as a check on the statement of witness Moehle.
I now turn to the interrogatories for Numbers 2, 3, and 4: Admiral
Kreisch, Captain Roesing, and Commander Suhren. I think that the
objections of the Prosecution to two of the questions asked in my
interrogatory can be dealt with only after these questions have been
answered. I heard only today that objections would be raised, but I do
not yet know on what grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Tribunal got the interrogatories and the
objections of the Prosecution to Number 4?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The Tribunal have received only the
interrogatories from me.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution given us their objection to one
question? This, I understand, was an objection that was made to the
interrogatories put to Suhren, which should have been an objection to a
particular question on the other two as well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. It is very short. I will indicate it, if
Dr. Kranzbühler will allow me.
The two questions were: “Is it known to you that in September 1942
German submarines saved shipwrecked people after torpedoing the British
steamer _Laconia_ and while doing so were bombed by an Allied plane?”
Number 8, “Do you know whether this incident was the reason for the
commander of the U-boat fleets issuing an order by which assistance at
the risk of endangering one’s own boat was prohibited, and for the
declaration that this was not at variance with the laws of sea warfare?”
The objections—I will read them out: “Question 7. Objection is entered
on the ground that this question is unnecessary and the facts are
admitted.”
“Question 8: Objection entered. It is not seen how the witness could
possibly know the reason for the orders from the Defendant Dönitz.”
These are the objections that were made.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: May I say something to this? I think that
the officers mentioned can testify as to the reasons for the orders
received by them from the commander of the U-boat fleet, because the
events which led to the order of September 1942 were generally known
among the U-boat commanders, and U-boat commanders in the various
theaters of war may possibly have picked up the wireless messages sent
to the U-boats concerned with the _Laconia_ incident. That is all.
I now turn to the application regarding the interrogatory to be put to
Admiral Nimitz. The stand taken by the Prosecution differs entirely from
the conception on which my application is based. I in no way wish to
prove or even to maintain that the American Admiralty in its U-boat
warfare against Japan broke international law. On the contrary, I am of
the opinion that it acted strictly in accordance with international law.
In the United States’ sea war against Japan, the same question arises as
in Germany’s sea war against England, namely the scope and
interpretation of the London Submarine Agreement of 1930. The United
States and Japan were also signatories to this agreement.
My point is that, because of the order to merchant vessels to offer
resistance, the London Agreement is no longer applicable to such
merchantmen; further, that it was not applicable in declared operational
zones in which a general warning had been given to all vessels, thus
making an individual warning unnecessary before the attack.
Through the interrogatory to Admiral Nimitz I want to establish that the
American Admiralty in practice interpreted the London Agreement in
exactly the same way as the German Admiralty, and thus prove that the
German conduct of sea warfare was perfectly legal. The same applies to
the treatment of shipwrecked persons in waters where the U-boat would
endanger herself by rescue measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kranzbühler.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are departing from Admiral Nimitz I should like to
ask a question of Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understood you to submit that these
questions to Admiral Nimitz were entirely irrelevant?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it make any difference to your submission whether
the German Navy had attacked merchant ships without warning in the first
instance in the beginning of their war against England?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that of course would be a clearer breach
of the treaty, as, at that time, there was no question of armament, so
far as I am aware; and there was certainly no question that the German
submarines thought that they were attacking armed vessels which were
really ships of war. Then, of course, one comes to the position which
the Prosecution developed in evidence, that, the German Navy having
indulged in the beginning in that form of submarine warfare, the
position changed, and armament had to be installed in British ships. In
my submission it would make a difference even if one takes the argument
as Dr. Kranzbühler has put it now; he is saying that he is not alleging
breaches of the laws and usages of war, but is relying on his
interpretation of the London Agreement, that merchant ships that were
armed could be attacked. It really becomes a very difficult matter if
one is to construe these treaties by a sort of general investigation of
the interpretation by various commanders. Within the point that Your
Lordship put to me there is that very clear point which appears in our
documents that the arming of merchant ships was the result of the
attacks without warning which took place in the first months of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: But would you say that these questions to Admiral Nimitz
are irrelevant because the United States came into the war in December
1941 when the sea warfare between Germany and England had developed to
that stage, when attacks were being made without warning?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord. That is what I was saying.
I am very grateful to Your Lordship for clarifying the argument that I
wanted to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear to you, Dr. Kranzbühler? The argument which
I understand Sir David is putting forward with reference to these
interrogatories is that they are truly irrelevant because of the date at
which the United States came into the war; a date when the sea war
between England and Germany had, for reasons which must be investigated,
arrived at the stage that submarines were attacking merchant vessels
without warning, and merchant vessels were defending themselves against
those attacks.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President. It is, however, my
opinion that the conditions which developed in the sea war between
Germany and England do not necessarily have a bearing on the measures
applied in the sea war between the United States and Japan, as here an
entirely different theater of war was involved, in which German forces
did not operate. In my opinion, the directives for sea warfare in the
East Asia theater of war should be based on the conditions prevailing
there and not be derived from experiences made in the European theater
of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will consider these arguments.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How can what any navy did show the proper
construction of a law? It may show what a particular admiral thought
about it, but how are we interested in knowing what one admiral or
another admiral thought about the law? Isn’t that for us to decide? How
is that any evidence? Isn’t that your point, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How does that really throw any light on the
meaning of a law?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not think that the principles for the
conduct of sea war originate from one admiral, but that in view of their
far-reaching implications they have become a matter for the government.
It is recognized in international law that it springs not only from
treaties, but also from acts of governments. May I give as an example
that Mr. Justice Jackson in his first report to President Truman
specially emphasized that international law is developed by acts of
governments. Consequently, if the London Naval Agreement of 1930 did not
originally imply that merchant vessels which had orders to resist were
excluded, then acts to this effect on the part of the governments of all
nations would have been instrumental in creating new international law
to this end. I am therefore of the opinion that the attitude taken in
this question by the United States as one of the greatest sea powers is
decisive as to the interpretation of the London Agreement and hence as
to the legality of Germany’s conduct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you claim that the London Agreement is
ambiguous?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What words in the London Agreement are
ambiguous?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The term “merchant vessels.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have not got the citation there, have
you?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Which is it?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The phrase in the London Agreement which you
claim is ambiguous.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have not got it here, but I can give a
fairly accurate quotation. It says that submarines are subject to the
same rules as surface vessels in their conduct towards merchant vessels.
I shall later submit proof that the term “merchant vessel,” even at the
Washington Conference of 1922, was considered ambiguous, and that also
in books on international law published later it had repeatedly been
stressed that this term is ambiguous.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Dr. Kranzbühler, you want Admiral Nimitz to
give us his opinion of his construction of the treaty, do you not? Isn’t
that the purpose of these interrogatories?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: No, I do not want to hear Admiral Nimitz’
opinion, but the policy pursued by the United States in its sea war
against Japan.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the arguments you have
addressed to them, Dr. Kranzbühler.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now turn to the documents. As I have just
heard from Sir David, there are no objections on the part of the
Prosecution. I do not know whether I need give my reasons for submitting
the individual documents.
First of all, there are the war diaries and the standing orders of the
Admiralty and of the commander of the U-boat fleet. They have already
been admitted, and the Prosecution do not raise any objections.
Under Number 3, I ask for the “British Confidential Fleet Orders” and
“Admiralty Merchant Shipping Instructions” of the British Admiralty to
be produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this matter came up before the Tribunal
in closed session on an application from Dr. Kranzbühler. I have not
heard definitely from the British Admiralty whether they agreed to do
this, but I have asked Dr. Kranzbühler if he will leave this matter over
for 10 days in the hope that we may be able to meet him. If Dr.
Kranzbühler will not press it for 10 days, I shall, of course, let him
know as soon as I have any definite information.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I agree to that. Under Number 4 I declare my
intention to submit a number of statements and letters I have received
from German U-boat commanders and officers, some of them through the
General Secretariat. These statements contain items from the lecture
given at Gydnia by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and referred to by
witness Heisig, including the instruction of U-boat commanders by
witness Moehle and the orders regarding the treatment of shipwrecked
persons. I understand the Prosecution have no objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any objection, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, many of these matters may have to be
considered when the actual document is put before us. There are no class
objections to them.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I should like to mention that I shall
probably have to submit some further documents later, after I have
spoken to Judge Admiral Eckhardt. May I again ask the Tribunal to allow
me as soon as possible to call this witness, who is particularly
important for the defense of the methods employed in U-boat warfare.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think the Tribunal would grant that, subject, of
course, to there being no delay regarding further applications.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 6 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY
Wednesday, 6 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I desire to announce a slight change in the order of
business.
Dr. Stahmer has submitted a motion in writing, stating that he desired a
little more time in the preparation of his documents and for other
reasons would be grateful if the case of the Defendant Göring did not
come on on Thursday, as announced.
The Tribunal realizes that the case of the first defendant to be heard
may present some difficulties in getting the documents translated in
time. As the Tribunal has announced that they would continue the hearing
of the applications for witnesses until they are all completed, they
will adhere to this decision. It is anticipated that this will give Dr.
Stahmer one day more, but at the conclusion of the hearing of the
applications for witnesses the case of the Defendant Göring will come on
without further delay.
The Tribunal wishes to make it quite clear that no further applications
for delay or postponement on the part of the defendants will be
entertained, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: For the Defendant Raeder, I should like to apply first for
a witness who will testify to the defendant’s character.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if it would be convenient, I might
first indicate the views of the Prosecution, and then Dr. Siemers can
deal with this point.
The Prosecution has no objection to the following witnesses being called
for oral testimony: Number 3, the retired Minister Severing; Number 5,
Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting; Number 6 has already been sought for and
not objected to by the Prosecution—a witness for the Defendant Dönitz;
Number 10, Admiral Boehm.
Then, with regard to the following witnesses the Prosecution suggest an
affidavit as the suitable procedure: Number 2, Vice Admiral Lohmann. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in this case I should prefer an affidavit,
because it is only a history of past events that is involved.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Affidavit in which case?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the case of Number 2—Lohmann.
Then with regard to Number 4—that is Admiral Albrecht—his evidence
covers the same ground as Number 5. It might be that interrogatories
would be more convenient, but that would be a matter for my friends to
decide.
Then the next, Number 7. That is Dr. Süchting, who is an engineer, and
it is desired to have him speak about the Anglo-German Naval Treaty and
technical questions. The Prosecution suggest an affidavit there, because
apparently it is desired that he speak on technical matters.
Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg, I am told, is still ill. I think
that Dr. Siemers has already submitted questions and has received the
answers. He ought to be dealt with by interrogatories. That is probably
the easiest thing for the Field Marshal and the most suitable.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that not suggested in the case of one of the other
defendants?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Von Blomberg, yes. I have a note that the
Defense Counsel have submitted questions. I was not quite sure whether
this was Dr. Siemers or another Defense counsel. I think it was Dr.
Nelte, for Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. That is Number 8.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then the next one, Von Weizsäcker, who was the
Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. He is asked for with regard to
the _Athenia_ case. At the moment I cannot see the point for which the
Defense want this gentleman, but I suggest that if they get an affidavit
from Weizsäcker we should know what he can speak about.
Then the other one is Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. It is desired to give
the results of the interrogation of certain British prisoners of war at
Lillehammer. It would appear that the object was merely to give further
evidence which would be cumulative to the statements in the German
_White Book_, and therefore the Prosecution suggest an affidavit.
There are two witnesses that the Prosecution think are in the border
line between admissibility and affidavits. They are really, in the
submission of the Prosecution, not relevant witnesses, but the Tribunal
might like to consider the question. These are Number 1, a naval
chaplain who really speaks as to the general moral and religious outlook
of the Defendant Raeder. That is, in the submission of the Prosecution,
really irrelevant, and at the most it would be a matter for an
affidavit. The position of the Prosecution is that it is really
irrelevant, but it certainly should not be more than an affidavit, even
if a different view was taken.
The other is Number 16, Admiral Schultze. He speaks as to an interview
with the late Admiral Darlan, and the Prosecution submit that that is
irrelevant; if there are any approaches to relevance—which the
Prosecution have been unable to see—why then it could only be a matter
for an affidavit.
The Prosecution submit that the following are unnecessary: Number
11. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, dealing with Number 16, would that not be more
suitably dealt with by interrogatories? The Tribunal granted
interrogatories on 9 February in that case, but I suppose they have not
yet been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Which one was that?
THE PRESIDENT: Number 16.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if the Tribunal feel that it is a
matter that should be explored, I agree that interrogatories would be
suitable.
Then, My Lord, the ones that the Prosecution make objection to _in toto_
are:
Number 11, Vice Admiral Bürckner, because he is cumulative to Numbers 5
and 10; Number 12, Commander Schreiber, because on 21 February Dr.
Siemers said that he was willing not to call this witness if Number 5,
Schulte-Moenting, was allowed; Number 13, Lackorn, who is a Norwegian
merchant, who is supposed to speak of the Allied plans, without any
means of knowledge being stated. This witness was temporarily given up
on 21 February; Number 15, Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in
the Quisling cabinet, as I understand the application. There is no
indication why this witness should be competent to speak on the
reputation of the Defendant Raeder; and Number 16 has been dealt with;
Number 17 is Colonel Goldenberg, who was the interpreter at the meeting
between the Defendant Raeder and Darlan. The Defendant Raeder gives
evidence and Admiral Schultze answers an interrogatory. It will appear
that that interview is well covered.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: I thank Sir David for taking up the individual points, as a
consequence of which I can, as I presume, count on the Tribunal’s
approval of the points to which Sir David has agreed, without giving
specific reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the best course would be for you
to go through the ones upon which Sir David has not agreed as to being
called as oral witnesses, and then perhaps it may be necessary to deal
with the ones where he has agreed. I would begin in the order in which
he took them up—2, 4, 7, 8, 9—if that is convenient for you.
In the case of Number 2 he suggested an affidavit.
DR. SIEMERS: Number 2 is the Vice Admiral Lohmann. In this connection I
refer to the last page of my brief, where I have discussed the documents
under “III.” There I have stated that I suggested to the British
Delegation that we come to some agreement as to the figures with regard
to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Treaty. The British Delegation
has promised me that such an agreement may be possible and has in the
meantime communicated with the British Admiralty in London on this
matter. If, as I expect, an understanding is reached, I am agreeable to
an affidavit from Vice Admiral Lohmann, for then he is to testify on
only a few points. I ask, therefore, that he be approved for the time
being, and I undertake not to call him if the agreement mentioned is
reached with the Prosecution. If this understanding is not reached, the
proof of some important figures would be very difficult, and I could not
do without Lohmann who is well informed about the figures; otherwise, I
could.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about that, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have circulated Dr. Siemers’ note and request
for agreement to my colleagues, and I have also sent it to the
Admiralty, and I hope that we may be able to give the information and
probably to agree on these matters, but I am waiting to get that
confirmed from the Admiralty in Britain; so I think if we could leave
over the question of this witness until I see if I can get an agreement
which will satisfy Dr. Siemers on the point. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then if you cannot make the agreement, probably the
witness would have to be called?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. I can let Dr. Siemers know whether there is
any controversy on the point, whether I am going to challenge what he
puts forward. If I am going to challenge it, obviously I should not
object to the witness being called.
DR. SIEMERS: Under these circumstances, I shall be satisfied with the
submission of an affidavit. I have written to Vice Admiral Lohmann,
asking him to answer the other brief questions; and regarding the main
points the principles just stated by Sir David will be adhered to.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 4, Admiral Albrecht, was one of the closest
collaborators of Grand Admiral Raeder. From 1926 to 1928 he was Raeder’s
Chief of Staff in Kiel; from 1928 to 1930, chief of the Navy personnel
office of the OKM. From then on he was commanding admiral in Kiel, and
finally Navy Group Commander East in 1939.
I should like to remark in this connection that in this last year he
also joined, upon the suggestion of the Security Group commander, this
organization, and from this point of view also he appears important to
me. Admiral Albrecht has also, as I know, written directly to the
Tribunal for this reason.
Albrecht has known the Defendant Raeder so long that he is well
acquainted with his main ideas and thus orientated on the main charges
of the Indictment. He has known Raeder’s trend of thought since 1928,
that is to say, from the time in which the charges against Raeder have
their beginning. I ask that consideration be given to the tremendous
charges which are brought against Raeder covering a period of 15 years.
I cannot refute all the accusations with one or two witnesses. The
differences among the testimonies are so great that in such a case one
cannot speak of “cumulative.”
Furthermore I ask that note be taken of the fact that so far I have been
unable to talk to Vice Admiral Schulte-Moenting, who has been approved
by the Tribunal and the Prosecution.
The Tribunal has also not yet informed me where Schulte-Moenting is. I
presume that he is in a prisoner-of-war camp in England, but I do not
know whether he will really be at my disposal, and whether I will be
able to talk with him in time.
THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing with Admiral Konrad Albrecht, are you
not? You are dealing with Number 4?
DR. SIEMERS: No; regarding Admiral Albrecht, we know that he is in
Hamburg. I simply pointed out that it would not be cumulative if both
Albrecht and Schulte-Moenting are heard by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, what Sir David was suggesting was an
interrogatory in the case of Admiral Albrecht and an affidavit in the
case of Admiral Schulte-Moenting.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will agree to Admiral Schulte-Moenting’s being
called orally.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. I was mixing the numbers. Yes, that is
right, to call the one and have interrogatories from the other. Have you
any objection to that?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I request that I be allowed to call both witnesses
because Schulte-Moenting is to testify about a later period and Albrecht
about the earlier period that was immediately subsequent to the
Versailles Treaty. The position of both is entirely different. In
addition, as I have just pointed out, the Tribunal has not yet informed
me whether I can with absolute certainty count on the witness
Schulte-Moenting, whether he has been found, whether it is known where
he is.
THE PRESIDENT: Our information is that Schulte-Moenting has not been
located.
DR. SIEMERS: I have no information as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am not sure that is right. Yes, he has been
located in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom. At least I
think so.
Yes, I have a document before me here which shows that he is in a
prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom.
DR. SIEMERS: I thank you very much. I did not know that. Under the
circumstances I am prepared, in regard to Admiral Albrecht, to accept an
affidavit or an interrogatory, provided Schulte-Moenting really appears.
Number 7, Dr. Süchting. In this connection Sir David suggests an
affidavit in order to speed up the Trial. I am satisfied with an
affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Again, however, with the one reservation that the matter of
the figures will be clarified between me and the British Prosecution, in
accordance with my letter as already discussed in connection with
Admiral Lohmann, I believe that Sir David is agreeable to this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how you suggest that
these questions of shipbuilding in connection with the German-English
Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937 are relevant to any charge made here.
DR. SIEMERS: The Defendant Raeder is accused of not having adhered to
the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreement. Such a treaty
violation is mainly a question of the building of ships. Consequently I
must demonstrate what could be built according to the Treaty of
Versailles and the Naval Agreement and what actually was built and what
thoughts and orders the Navy had in this connection. As I said, however,
I shall be satisfied with an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the arguments on
that.
DR. SIEMERS: Number 8, Field Marshal Von Blomberg. The Prosecution have
suggested an affidavit or an interrogatory. In consideration of Von
Blomberg’s state of health, I am agreeable to this for the sake of
simplicity. Since it does not involve any great number of questions, I
suggest an affidavit.
Number 9, Ambassador Baron Von Weizsäcker. I submitted the application
on 6 February and do not know thus far the position of the Tribunal. At
the time of the _Athenia_ case Weizsäcker was State Secretary in the
Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. At that time, in September 1939,
Weizsäcker spoke with the American Ambassador on the subject of the
_Athenia_. Weizsäcker spoke with Hitler and with Raeder. He knows the
details and must be heard on these details. I do not believe that an
affidavit will suffice. First let me remark that I do not know where
Weizsäcker is. But aside from that, the charge which has been made
against the Defendant Raeder in the case of the _Athenia_ is morally so
grave that, although otherwise it might not be such an important point,
I have to put particular stress on this point.
The British Delegation has given particular emphasis to the case of the
_Athenia_ and has made insulting attacks on the defendant in connection
with this case. In the interest of the absolutely irreproachable life of
my client I feel obliged to clarify this case completely. That can only
be done by Weizsäcker.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as far as the application goes, there is
nothing to show, beyond the position of the suggested witness, that he
knew anything about it at all. Under these circumstances would not
interrogatories be the most appropriate course? You did not show whether
he knew anything about it at all. All you say in your application is
that he was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
DR. SIEMERS: I may point out that I stated in my application that the
witness is informed regarding the events connected with the _Athenia_
case.
THE PRESIDENT: You say that he must know on the basis of his position as
State Secretary.
DR. SIEMERS: The American Ambassador approached Weizsäcker immediately
after the _Athenia_ case in order to clarify the case. Thereupon
Weizsäcker spoke with Raeder; however, only after he had already told
the American Ambassador that no German submarine was involved. The
question as to whether a German submarine was involved in the _Athenia_
case was settled only after the return of the German submarine. Prior to
that the Defendant Raeder had not known of it either. The German
submarine returned on 27 September; the sinking was on 3 September.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you state these facts about conversations between the
American Ambassador and State Secretary Weizsäcker in one of your
previous applications?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, on 6 February I did submit the application, and also
mentioned in general terms the _Athenia_ case. I may add that Weizsäcker
knows also the subsequent occurrences. Weizsäcker knows exactly that the
Navy, and particularly the Defendant Raeder, had nothing, absolutely
nothing to do with the article which the Propaganda Ministry published
in the newspapers. Weizsäcker was just as outraged about this article as
was the Defendant Raeder. But it is precisely this that the Prosecution
charges against Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider what you say.
DR. SIEMERS: Let me add that I have made a mistake. I just heard that
Weizsäcker is still at the Vatican in Rome; in other words, it is known
where he is.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Number 14, Colonel Soltmann. As far as I know, Colonel
Soltmann will be requested as a witness also by the Defendant Jodl, and
an affidavit or an interrogatory has already been sent to him. I
therefore concur with Sir David that an affidavit from Soltmann will
suffice, subject to the consent, or the applications of the Defense
Counsel for General Jodl.
THE PRESIDENT: He does not appear to have been located yet.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes—the witness Soltmann? I have given his address in my
application.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you?
DR. SIEMERS: It is Falkenberg near Moosach in Upper Bavaria.
Number 16, Admiral Schultze is in Hamburg, and it is an easy matter to
have him testify personally here in Nuremberg. The Prosecution have
accused the Defendant Raeder of participating in the National Socialist
policy of conquest. This accusation is unfounded. Raeder, both in Norway
and in France, constantly directed his efforts towards bringing about
peace; in other words, not towards the effecting of any final conquest
of the countries. In this Raeder found himself in a strong opposition to
Hitler, and only after much urging did Raeder succeed in enabling
himself to negotiate with Darlan in Paris concerning the possible
conclusion of a peace. I believe that such a positive intervention for a
quick termination of the war with France is important enough, in a trial
like this, to have the witness testify personally. I cannot understand
how Sir David, in view of his accusation, can say that this point is
irrelevant. The Prosecution has constantly declared that the Defendant
Raeder was agitating for war.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that Sir David did say it was
irrelevant. He suggested interrogatories.
DR. SIEMERS: I made a note that Sir David said the witness was
irrelevant, but that he would, as a concession, agree to an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I was wrong.
DR. SIEMERS: I simply wanted to make my position clear on the question
as to whether or not this witness is irrelevant. I believe I have shown
that he is relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You want the witness? You would not agree to an affidavit
or an interrogatory? Is that right?
DR. SIEMERS: I ask the Tribunal to hear Schultze as a witness here in
Nuremberg, because, in my opinion in view of the principles of the
Indictment, it is a vital point that Raeder’s attitude toward the entire
problem is shown by facts prevailing at that time, and not by present
assertions and statements.
I come now to the witness to whom Sir David has objected, witness Number
11, Admiral Bürckner. I asked for him on 31 January. So far I have
received no answer. I asked to be allowed to speak to the witness
Bürckner in order to acquaint myself with the details. The interview is
denied me so long as he has not been approved as a witness. In order to
speak with him therefore I am dependent on his being approved first as a
witness. Should it then prove that this evidence is cumulative, I am
willing to forego the witness. I presume that Sir David is agreeable to
this.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal does not quite understand why the
counsel should not have seen this officer who is in prison in Nuremberg,
subject of course to security.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have no objection to the counsel’s seeing
Admiral Bürckner. I think up to now the Prosecution have always taken
the view that what Dr. Siemers wanted to see him about was not relevant.
I do not think the Tribunal has ruled on that.
THE PRESIDENT: The view of the Tribunal is that Counsel for the Defense
ought to be in touch with the witnesses before, in order to see whether
they are able to give relevant evidence or not. They cannot give the
evidence or the relevancy of it unless they know what the witness is
going to say.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection will be made, and Dr. Siemers can
make arrangement, as far as the Prosecution are concerned, to see
Admiral Bürckner at the earliest date he likes.
DR. SIEMERS: I am grateful to the Tribunal for clarifying this point.
This point has made the work of the Defense Counsel extremely difficult.
I have been waiting for more than a month to speak to Bürckner. For four
weeks I have not been able to speak to Admiral Wagner for the same
reason. I should like to speak to others also who are in the courthouse
prison. They were all denied me because the Tribunal had not yet
approved them as witnesses. I believe that the point is now clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: It is quite possible that, after speaking with the witness,
I may not call him to the stand, particularly since I hear today that
Schulte-Moenting can be called, and provided that Boehm is approved.
THE PRESIDENT: That who is approved?
DR. SIEMERS: Boehm, Number 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. That was Sir David’s only objection to Number
11, was it not, that it was cumulative to 5 and 10?
DR. SIEMERS: Number 12, Captain Schreiber. Sir David has rightly pointed
out that I have already stated the possibility that I may give up this
witness. This still stands. If the witness Schulte-Moenting and the
witness Boehm actually appear, the witness Schreiber is not necessary.
Number 13, the witness Lackorn, in Leipzig. Before the occupation of
Norway Lackorn was on business in Oslo. He had nothing to do with the
military. It was purely by accident that he learned, in the Hotel
Bristol in Oslo, that the landing of English troops was imminent. This
point is important because one can only judge the defendant’s attitude
toward the Norwegian undertaking if one considers the general situation
of Norway. The general situation of Norway means, however, the relations
of Norway with Germany, England, Sweden, and all the other countries
adjacent to Norway. It is not proper, in such a decisive question, to
state that only a small part is relevant. I am agreed, however, that the
witness is not to be heard here. I have, therefore, while I was waiting
for the decision of the Prosecution, written to the witness in order to
obtain an affidavit. It is therefore agreeable to me if an affidavit
only is submitted here. He need not be approved as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you did not deal with that aspect of the
matter, with an affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid the view of the
Prosecution is that the story, which apparently started in the bar of a
hotel in Oslo, is not evidence which is really admissible, relevant, or
of any weight in a matter of this kind. That is the view we have taken
throughout.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, it appears from the application which is
before us that you originally made a request for this witness on 19
January 1946, which appears to have been in perfectly general terms, and
that the Tribunal ordered, on 14 February, that you should furnish
supplementary details of the evidence which you wanted to obtain by
calling this witness. Thereupon, on 21 February, you withdrew your
application.
You now submit the application again without giving any details at all,
simply saying that the witness had been in Oslo on business and received
information there of the imminent landing of Allied forces in Norway.
Well, that is a perfectly general statement, just as general as the
original statement. It does not seem to comply with the orders of the
Tribunal at all.
DR. SIEMERS: On 21 February I withdrew my application because of the
basic point of view which I have also presented to the Court.
I have pointed out that, in my opinion, the Defense cannot be expected
to give every single detail, when we have not for three months after we
were consulted had the slightest word, not one word, about a single
witness of the Prosecution. When we of the Defense have not had the
opportunity even of taking a stand on the relevancy of their
witnesses. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out on several occasions that the
reason why the defendants’ counsel have to submit applications for their
witnesses is because they are unable to get their witnesses themselves
and because they are applying to the Tribunal to get their witnesses for
them and their documents for them. It is a work of very considerable
magnitude to find and to bring witnesses to Nuremberg.
I understand from you that with reference to this witness you are trying
now to get an affidavit from him.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate I have been making the effort. Whether I
shall receive the answer in time from Leipzig, which is in the Russian
Zone, remains to be seen. In the meantime, in order to facilitate
matters and to avoid delay, I have written to the witness Lackorn.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time.
For this reason I am willing to waive having him testify here.
THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit, you will be able to give the
Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness would give, and
also to show it to the Prosecution, who will then be able to say whether
they wish to have the witness brought here for cross-examination.
DR. SIEMERS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application.
DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number 15 is a Norwegian, Alf Whist, former
Secretary of Commerce. By decision of the Court on 14 February he was
rejected as irrelevant.
Whist can testify that the reputation of the German Navy in Norway was
very good throughout the occupation, and that in Norway the complaints
were directed exclusively against the civil administration and not
against the German Navy. Whist knows definitely, as does every other
Norwegian, that the Navy was not involved in a single illegal or
criminal measure in Norway during the occupation.
If this is considered irrelevant, I presume that Sir David means that
the Navy, during the occupation of Norway, behaved correctly. Of course
this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from the question
which I shall discuss later, that is, the question of the occupation and
the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of the time after the
occupation had been carried out.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is this: That
whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that the facts were
that the German Navy had behaved with meticulous correctness on every
point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the
Quisling cabinet in Norway, as to how the German Navy behaved would not
have the slightest interest or relevance or weight with anyone. That is
the view of the Prosecution.
DR. SIEMERS: I hoped that Sir David would make his position clear as to
whether charges in this connection will be made against the Navy. Sir
David speaks of the Germans in general. I draw attention to the fact
that the entire administration in Norway was a civil administration, and
that, in the Terboven jurisdiction, the Navy had nothing to do with this
administration; if I have named a single witness where I might have
named hundreds, I did this only to give the Tribunal a picture of how
Admiral Boehm, the Navy, and Raeder conducted themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you have still Number 17, the interpreter.
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lieutenant Colonel Goldenberg, it is Sir David’s
point of view that he is unnecessary; if Admiral Schultze is approved as
witness, an affidavit from Goldenberg will suffice for me. A short
affidavit appears to me to be important, because Goldenberg was present
as an impartial interpreter at every conference which took place between
Darlan and Raeder. An affidavit will suffice in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents. I ought to
call your attention to an observation at the end of your application,
which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. Who are they?
DR. SIEMERS: The Tribunal has declared that the details about a witness
have to be submitted a long time in advance only because the Tribunal
must procure the witness. When it is a question of a witness who comes
to Nuremberg on his own initiative, I should be obliged for a decision
on the point in connection with my defense, as to whether or not the
Tribunal will admit such a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the principal reasons
why Defense Counsel have to make applications, and another principal
reason is a necessity for expedition in this Trial—expedition and
security. The question of security is important, and therefore we must
insist on being told who the witnesses are that you wish to call, Dr.
Siemers. Otherwise, you will not be able to call them.
DR. SIEMERS: Am I obliged to do this even when the witness is already in
the building?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there are 20 or
21 defendants in the dock; and we have to try and make this Trial
expeditious and we therefore cannot allow them to call as many witnesses
as they choose to call. But if it is a question of your not having the
names of the witnesses in your mind at the moment, you can certainly
specify them after a short delay, or tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: I shall submit information on this matter shortly. I do not
want to name the witness before I have talked it over with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to your
applying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do so by
tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, I know that, at the moment, the witness in
question is not in Nuremberg, so that I cannot talk to him at the
moment. I ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being so cautious. The
Tribunal will be cognizant of the fact that witnesses have been taken
into custody. I cannot take the responsibility for somebody’s being
taken into custody because I named him as a witness. That is the reason.
I shall, however, notify the Tribunal as soon as the witness is in
Nuremberg and I have had a chance to speak to him. I shall do so within
24 hours. It is here a question of a testimony which would take 10
minutes at the most of the Court’s time. Therefore, I do not believe
that this will burden the Tribunal too much.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I should like to add that I can give the address of
the witness Severing, retired Reich Minister. I received it yesterday by
telegraph. Witness Severing is Number 3 and the Prosecution is agreeable
to his being heard. I shall submit the address in writing to the General
Secretary. He is in Bielefeld and can be reached without trouble.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If you give it to the General Secretary, that is all
that is required. And now would probably be a convenient time to break
off for 10 minutes.
MR. DODD: Your Honor. There is the matter of Admiral Bürckner. So far as
we know, Dr. Siemers made one request about Admiral Bürckner some time
ago, and at that time he was told, as I understand it, that Admiral
Bürckner was to be called or that the Prosecution intended to call him
as a witness, and that therefore we did not think it proper for him to
talk to Admiral Bürckner until after we had called him as a witness.
Up to a very late date in this presentation of our case, we still had in
mind calling Admiral Bürckner. I think some reference was made to him,
as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference to the witness
Lahousen. And it was for that reason that we told Dr. Siemers that we
did not think he should talk to the witness until after he had testified
or a decision had been made with reference to his testimony. But we have
at all times tried to co-operate with the Defense and make available
these people who are here in custody so that they may talk with them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. SIEMERS: May I add something regarding the witnesses? Concerning
witness Number 1, Marinedekan Ronneberger, I agree to use an affidavit
as suggested by Sir David. Concerning the witness Bürckner, I would like
to mention that Mr. Dodd’s statement is based on an error. I am not
permitted to speak to the witness, because he has not yet been approved
by the Tribunal as my witness. No other reason was given.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not think any further discussion is necessary about
this witness. I have already stated what the members of the Tribunal
will act upon.
DR. SIEMERS: I did not understand whether Mr. Dodd agreed to my speaking
with the witness Bürckner now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the Prosecution have closed
their case, and they now have no longer any objection to your seeing the
witness.
DR. SIEMERS: Then one last remark. The Tribunal will have noticed that I
have not requested any witness concerning naval warfare and submarine
warfare. The reason is that I have agreed with Dr. Kranzbühler that Dr.
Kranzbühler will deal with the entire complex of naval warfare and
submarine warfare, although, in this respect, it not only affects
Grossadmiral Dönitz, but also in a considerable degree Grossadmiral
Raeder in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Therefore,
insofar as the interests of Grossadmiral Raeder are concerned in this
matter, Dr. Kranzbühler will also represent him.
I should like to point out only that Dr. Kranzbühler’s very important
application regarding the questions to Admiral Nimitz not only affects
Grossadmiral Dönitz but, in particular, Grossadmiral Raeder, and beyond
that, the organization of the General Staff, insofar as the Navy is
concerned.
May I pass to the documents now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Document Number 1, The War
Diaries of the Seekriegsleitung and the B.d.U., Dr. Kranzbühler’s
assistant Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work on these at the
Admiralty.
With regard to Number 2, Weyer’s _Navy Diary_, and Nautikus’ _Navy Year
Book_, there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these. He will
indicate in the ordinary way the passages he intends to use.
With regard to General Marshall’s report of 10 October 1945, I cannot
see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if Dr. Siemers will indicate
which part he intends to use, it can be discussed when he actually
presents it to the Tribunal.
Now Number 4, the British Admiralty documents, May 1939 to April 1940,
which are wanted as to the preparations of landing in Scandinavia and
Finland. Although, strictly, what is relevant is what was known to the
Defendant Raeder, I shall make inquiries about these documents, and if
the Tribunal will give me a short time, I hope to be able to report to
the Tribunal upon them.
I want to make it clear that I cannot, of course, undertake to give
details on Allied documents; but I hope to be able to produce some
documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal with them
authoritatively. I would rather not be pressed for details at the
moment.
DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, I hope that I will receive the
books which belong to Number 2 and Number 3 soon, because otherwise a
delay may be caused. The report of General Marshall of 10 October 1945
is, as far as I can judge from the excerpts, important for the reason
that General Marshall adopts, on various points, an entirely different
attitude from Justice Jackson’s. I believe that a comparison of two such
outstanding opinions is of sufficient importance to have the report of
General Marshall also heard here. Concerning Number 4, I am waiting for
the final decision of the Prosecution.
I have only one more request, and I ask to be excused, since, by error,
I have not listed this Number 5. It is the following: The Prosecution
has repeatedly presented quotations from the book _Mein Kampf_ by Adolf
Hitler and inferred from it that each one of the defendants who held a
leading position as early as 1933 should have known from this book, even
before 1933, that Hitler was contemplating the launching of aggressive
wars. I noticed that the quotations in the document book which was
presented in November are all taken from an edition which was published
only in 1933. The edition of 1933, however, differs in many points from
the original edition. Unfortunately, I am personally only in possession
of an edition which was published after 1933. In order to check these
questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could have read
in this book in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution to try to
submit a copy of the first edition. As far as I know, the first edition
was published in 1925, and the second in 1927, by the publishing firm of
Franz Eher.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get an earlier edition, so that
Dr. Siemers can compare the passages.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with Page 2 of your document? Sir
David, you have not dealt with this, have you?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I assume, Your Lordship, that Dr. Siemers
would, in due course, indicate what excerpts he was going to use. We
could discuss when he presents them, whether the Prosecution have any
objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You intended, Dr. Siemers, I suppose, to indicate
the passages upon which you rely in your document book?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have already discussed the point on Page 3,
that is the question of tonnages built, and so on—I said I am making
inquiries with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT: My attention is drawn, Sir David, to Paragraph 4 B on
Page 2. Are you suggesting that the Tribunal supply him with documents
on German policy without any further reservation?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an oversight. I took it
that that was included in the words at the top of the page:
“In addition, I shall submit documents and affidavits, some of
which are already in my possession, and some of which I shall
procure myself without having the assistance of the
Prosecution.”
I took it that Dr. Siemers had certain documents on German policy, and
will indicate what passages he is going to use. I am very sorry I did
not refer to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, with
reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and does not wish
any further action to be taken with reference to them?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be convenient if I
indicate the view of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note that Dr. Sauter
is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, as oral witnesses;
that is, he is asking for seven oral witnesses, and Numbers 5 and 9 to
13 by way of affidavit.
The Prosecution suggest that, as far as oral witnesses are concerned,
the defendant might have Number 1 or Number 2. that is, Wieshofer or
Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the same ground; that
he might have Number 3, the witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff
of the Reich Youth Leadership (Reichsjugendführung); and, also, that he
might have Number 8, that is Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, who, I think,
is Schirach’s father-in-law—since the description of his evidence takes
up nine pages of the application, he is obviously a very important
witness.
Then the Prosecution suggest that there might be affidavits from Number
5, Scharizer, who was the deputy Gauleiter of Vienna; Number 11, who is
Madame Vasso; Number 12, Herr Schneeberger; and Number 13, Field Marshal
Von Blomberg.
The witnesses that the Prosecution find difficulty in perceiving the
necessity for are: First of all, Number 4, Frau Hoepken—there are no
details given in this application, except that she was secretary to Von
Schirach; Number 6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who apparently repeats
part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher word for word; Number
7, Dr. Schlünder, who also repeats the witness Lauterbacher word for
word; and Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, who passes a personal view on the
defendant, which, in the submission of the Prosecution, is not really
helpful evidence; and finally, Dr. Roesen, Number 10, who speaks as to
an isolated incident of kindness on the part of the defendant to the
family of the musician Richard Strauss.
This is the position which the Prosecution take with regard to the
witnesses.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have, in the case of Baldur von Schirach
also, limited my evidence as much as possible. For a personal hearing,
here before the Tribunal, I have proposed as witnesses, Numbers 1, 2, 3,
6, 7, and 8, and I must earnestly request you, Your Honors, to grant me
these witnesses.
The difficulty, in the case of Schirach, as regards the presentation of
evidence, is that evidence must be produced and offered for two entirely
separate complexes. One is the activity of the Defendant Von Schirach in
his capacity as Reich Youth Leader; and the second is his activity in
Vienna, during the period from 1940 to 1945, in which he still exercised
certain functions in Youth Leadership in addition to his main duties.
Therefore, I need witnesses for both these activities of the Defendant
Von Schirach.
In addition to this difficulty there is still another one. The Defendant
Von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that implied that practically
without exception all his collaborators were relatively young people who
during the second World War served a long time in the Army. Therefore it
is quite possible that for a few years during the World War one witness
might know nothing at all, because he did not work on the staff of the
Defendant Von Schirach during this time; and that therefore, for this
time, another collaborator of Schirach will have to be called upon, in
order to give information on his activity.
Your Honors, in earlier written applications I had requested more
witnesses, but I have omitted these additional witnesses right from the
beginning in the application now submitted to you, in order to
contribute thus, as far as I can, to expediting the procedure. But, Your
Honors, these six witnesses that I have requested to have brought before
the Tribunal I really must have granted me for, if a clear picture of
Schirach’s activities is to be gained, I cannot forego any one of them.
I may also point out that all these six witnesses that I have listed
under the numbers given, for the purpose of calling them, have already
been approved by the Tribunal, so that the new approval will consist
only of a repetition of your own earlier decision.
The witness Wieshofer, Your Honors, who is listed under Number 1, was
from 1940 to 1945 adjutant of the Defendant Von Schirach; that is to
say, during the period that covers the activity of the Defendant Von
Schirach as Gauleiter of Vienna and Reichsstatthalter.
This collaborator, who was with the Defendant Schirach daily and who
knew him very well, has been named by me particularly for the purpose of
testifying—although, of course, he will also testify on other
things—that Schirach, in his capacity as Gauleiter of Vienna, pursued
an entirely different policy to that of his predecessor, the former
Gauleiter Bürckel; that he, contrary to Bürckel, endeavored to establish
correct relations with the Catholic Church, and that, with this aim in
mind, he successfully influenced and instructed also his collaborators
and subordinates. I say successfully, because these efforts by the
Defendant Von Schirach to bring about satisfactory relations with the
Catholic Church have also been repeatedly acknowledged on the part of
the Church, as well as by the Catholic population of Vienna.
Besides, the witness Wieshofer will also corroborate that the Defendant
Von Schirach had nothing at all to do with the deportation of Jews from
Vienna; that this matter of the Jews was. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Do not Numbers 1 and 2, Wieshofer and Hoepken, really
deal substantially with the same subject? Would it not be sufficient if
one were called as a witness and if the other one gave evidence by
interrogatory?
DR. SAUTER: I do not quite think so, Mr. President, because the witness
Hoepken, who is listed under Number 2, was a collaborator of the
Defendant Von Schirach as early as 1938, in the Reich Youth Leadership,
and because he is supposed to give information especially about the
activity of the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader and in
particular also about his efforts to bring about understanding and
friendship with the youth of other nations, such as, for instance,
England and France. I believe, Your Honors, that with regard to the
specific importance of these particular questions, the attitude of the
Defendant Von Schirach in the naming of witnesses should be given
recognition here, and that not one witness only, but both should be
granted. I have submitted the addresses of both witnesses to the
Tribunal. They are in a camp, and I believe, Your Honors, it is
imperative to summon both witnesses to establish the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I still do not follow what the essential difference is
between the two.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have just pointed out that the witness
Number 2, Hoepken, had a leading position in the Reich Youth Leadership,
and that therefore the witness Number 2, Hoepken, is in a position to
give information especially about the activity of the Defendant Von
Schirach as Reich Youth Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, Number 1, was
adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reichsleiter of Education of
Youth, so that he was in just as close contact with the defendant on the
question of the education of youth as Hoepken.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but youth education was Hoepken’s main official task
while the activity of the witness Wieshofer was limited mainly to the
job of adjutant to the Defendant Von Schirach, primarily in his capacity
as Gauleiter in Vienna. That is the main difference, and the witnesses
who could provide information about his activity in Vienna are mainly
the witness Wieshofer and, to a small extent, also Hoepken. But I need
Hoepken, by all means, as I said, for the clarification of the activity
of Schirach in the Reich Youth Leadership.
Mr. President, may I also point out that much is at stake for the
Defendant Von Schirach, and that, from the point of view of the Court,
it should really not make much difference, in a matter so important to
Schirach, whether one witness or two witnesses are called.
Your Honors, I could have suggested perhaps four witnesses in the hope
that two would then be granted. If now, in the name of the Defendant Von
Schirach, I am proposing to call only two witnesses, I would not think
it very just if one of these two witnesses should be denied.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have said.
DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, Your Honors, in the third place, I have to
request Hartmann Lauterbacher. If I have understood correctly, the
Prosecution agree to this; therefore, I can be brief.
The witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff of the Reich Youth
Leadership, is in a position to supply information especially about the
fact that the Defendant Schirach in no way prepared the youth
psychologically and pedagogically for the war, and by no means for an
aggressive war. Furthermore, he can testify that the allegations of a
Polish report—presented by the Russian Prosecution in one of the
sessions during February, I believe on 9 February 1946—are definitely
false. According to this report, the Hitler Youth had used spies and
parachute agents in Poland. And this is false and the witness
Lauterbacher will refute it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not object to Number
3 being called as a witness, but what he did object to was 6 and 7, whom
you are also asking for, as oral witnesses, because he said that they
repeated what Lauterbacher said—Numbers 6 and 7, that is Schmidt and
Schlünder.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there again is the difficulty which I pointed
out before. From the Polish Government report which was read by the
Soviet Prosecution on 9 February 1946, it cannot be seen in what period
these activities concerning the Hitler Youth agents and spies are to
have taken place.
Now it may happen here that, if I have only one witness, it will be
alleged that it was at some other time, perhaps at a time when this
witness was in the Army; and that is why, in the interest of a complete
clarification of these facts, I have asked to have witness Number 6
heard also. That is the witness Schmidt.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that, with
reference to Schlünder, his collaboration with the defendant extended
from 1933 to 1945 and therefore if he were called or were to give an
affidavit or an interrogatory, and Lauterbacher, who extends only from
1933 to 1940, you would cover the whole period and you could exclude
Schmidt?
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you are
referring to an interrogatory in the case of Lauterbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Sir David was prepared to have Lauterbacher called as
a witness.
DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher is to be called as a witness and Schmidt is to
receive an interrogatory?
THE PRESIDENT: He said that Schmidt and Schlünder were cumulative. Then
you said they did not relate to the same period, as I understood you,
and that might raise a difficulty. So I pointed out to you that Number 7
related to the whole period, that is to say from 1933, beyond the period
dealt with by Lauterbacher, and goes to 1945, and therefore, if he were
called, that would cover the whole period, and if you called
Lauterbacher and Schlünder and left out Schmidt. . .
DR. SAUTER: You mean that an interrogatory is to be obtained from
Schmidt? I am agreeable to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The statements which you make with reference to Schmidt
and to Schlünder are practically identical.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different periods, as each of them
was in the Army. If one of them comes, he cannot say anything, of
course, about the time during which he served in the Army. He cannot
give any information as to whether, during his military service, agents
were used.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know about that. You have stated that they were
collaborators with the defendant from 1938 to 1945 in the one case, and
from 1933 to 1945 in the other case, and therefore, if that is correct,
they cannot have been in the Army; they cannot have taken an active part
in the Army.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should be quite prepared to agree to the
suggestion that Your Lordship put forward; that would then cover the
whole period. If both Lauterbacher and Schlünder were called, it would
dispense with the necessity for Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: May I point out, Mr. President, that in any case I need
Schlünder, who, by the way, was arrested a few weeks ago, because he was
a specialist for physical training with the Reich Youth Leadership, and
because, therefore, I want to prove, especially through Dr. Schlünder,
that the education of the youth, as administered by the Defendant Von
Schirach, was absolutely neither extraordinary nor militaristic. The
Defendant Von Schirach has thus far, during the entire procedure in his
interrogations. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement between
you and Sir David that Number 1 and Number 3 certainly should be called
and that Number 7 might be called; but I do not know whether Sir David
agrees that an affidavit or an interrogatory might be given by Number 6.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us get on then.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have then, in addition, under Number 4,
listed an affidavit by a witness, Maria Hoepken. I shall submit this
affidavit, which is already in my possession, to the Tribunal and to the
Prosecution, along with my document book, sufficiently in advance.
Then I have also affidavits in my possession, if I may mention that now,
from two witnesses: Number 9, Dr. Klingspor, and Number 10, Dr. Roesen.
The same thing applies here. The Tribunal and the Prosecution will
receive these two affidavits in time, together with my document book.
Concerning Number 8, the witness Hoffmann, the Prosecution agree to
having him called as a witness since this witness is here in Nuremberg.
Therefore I believe that I do not have to make any detailed statements
concerning this witness.
The same applies to Number 12 and Number 13. These are two witnesses:
One a Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, who, primarily, is to inform
us on the attitude of the defendant on the question of foreign workers
during the time of his activity as Gauleiter in Vienna; and Number 13,
Field Marshal Von Blomberg, who is to inform us on the attitude of the
Defendant Von Schirach on the question of the premilitary education of
the youth, on the question of physical training, and on the question of
patriotic education of youth. The Prosecution agree to interrogatories
from these two witnesses—which I have already suggested myself.
And now, Your Honors, I come to the one figure on my list which is
closest to the heart of my client and myself. It is Number 11; that is
the application to examine a French woman by the name of Ida Vasso. Of
this witness, Ida Vasso, we have heard in court for the first time when
the Soviet Prosecution submitted a commission “Report on the Atrocities
of the Fascist-German Invaders in the Lvov Area,” as the title
reads—Document Number USSR-6.
This document contains a sentence to the effect that a French woman, Ida
Vasso, who was working in a children’s home in Lvov, had reported that
the Hitler Youth had committed special atrocities in Lvov. It was
alleged that from the ghetto small children were sold; however, it was
not revealed by whom and to whom these children were to have been sold;
and yet, as a matter of course, it is the Hitler Youth who are said to
have used these children as targets.
Your Honors, we are fully aware that such happenings would represent a
quite extraordinary atrocity, and I can tell you that none of all the
presentations of the Prosecution during the last three months has so
distressed the Defendant Schirach, as has this statement. The Defendant
Schirach has always, even in his earlier interrogations, maintained that
he assumes full responsibility for the education and training of the
German Youth, as directed by him; and that he is ready and willing, even
as a defendant here, to explain to the Tribunal what principles guided
him, what aims he had, and what successes he achieved. He has, for
instance, never denied that this youth training was based on
patriotism. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses now, are
you not? You see, you agree in your application to an affidavit. . .
DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: What I was pointing out to you was that this is only an
application with reference to witnesses, and in your application you
say, “However, in consideration of the far distance of the witness from
Nuremberg, I agree that at first an affidavit should be drawn up.”
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David agreed that an affidavit should be drawn up. So
you are in agreement, and I do not understand why we should be troubled
with further application.
DR. SAUTER: However, Mr. President, I have added something to my
application. I have written that a personal appearance of this witness
before the Tribunal would be useful so that she can be questioned,
because her testimony is important for the judging of the Hitler Youth
as a whole. I have also added. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Your application states that you reserve that right.
Well, you can prepare the affidavit and then send it out to the witness,
and then you can see whether you want the witness for cross-examination.
And Sir David agrees to that course.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client attaches so much importance to this
particular case for the following reasons: The HJ, that is the Hitler
Youth, which he led, comprised about 8 million members. It was therefore
larger than. . .
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal quite understands why the
defendant is interested in the matter. But it seems to them it would be
perfectly satisfactory if an affidavit were drawn up and sent to the
witness; and then you can see whether you want the witness, whose
present location is unknown, brought here personally.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client noticed one thing in particular,
that is, that among 8 million members only one single case of atrocities
occurred, of which he never heard anything at all in the Reich Youth
Leadership. However, I agree to the obtaining of an affidavit for
reasons of expediency; but for just this case I must reserve the right
to have the witness called, if the affidavit should be insufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we had better adjourn
now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
documents for which Dr. Sauter asked, the Prosecution take the usual
line that there is no general objection to extracts being used, but at
this stage they reserve their right to challenge admissibility of the
extracts on the grounds of relevance.
They will have to look particularly closely at Number 9, the book
entitled, _Look, the Heart of Europe_, and the commentary on it by the
late Lord Lloyd George, but they can see that these are particularly
matters which can be more conveniently dealt with when they have seen
the document book and the extracts are before them.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I can state my position regarding the
documents very briefly. In the main, it is a question of books,
speeches, and essays by the Defendant Von Schirach. These literary works
are in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution along
with my document book. With the document book I shall submit to the
Tribunal and the Prosecution the individual extracts which I propose to
use as evidence, so that the Prosecution will still be able to make any
statements it wishes with regard to the individual excerpts.
I believe that is all I have to say on that subject.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 28 February I made a supplementary motion
on behalf of the Defendant Hess. I should be grateful if the Tribunal
would inform me whether they wish to hear the argument in regard to this
motion now or later, since I do not know whether the Tribunal have a
translation of my motion in their hands.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have not seen the application yet, so I
think you had better postpone making the argument until the Tribunal has
seen the application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.
DR. SERVATIUS: For the Defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of
witnesses and in my preliminary remarks on the list I have divided them
into various groups.
The peculiarity of this evidence, as presented, lies in the fact that in
this case a mosaic of smaller facts has to be clarified. In its case
against Sauckel the Prosecution confined itself to the production of
incriminating material generally, and did not work out the full details
about SS assignments carried out under the auspices of the Labor Service
and similar matters.
Very few facts have been established at all with regard to Sauckel’s
sphere of activity generally. I am compelled, in consequence, to present
his staff, his collaborators, and their spheres of activity. At first
sight my list of witnesses may appear cumulative, but closer inspection
shows that they represent different fields. Some of them are experts on
Eastern affairs, others deal with the West or South. There is the
question of direction of manpower, supplies, housing, and the authority
exercised by individuals. The recruitment of workers in foreign
countries comes under another head; and witnesses must be heard on this
subject, too.
In Sauckel’s case, the question of manpower is all-important and that of
conspiracy is a secondary matter. I believe I can rely to a very great
extent on the statements which may be expected from others among the
accused and from their witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution have
endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering the suggested
witnesses under various heads.
The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by himself. The
defendant’s counsel wishes to call this witness on the question of
agreements between him and Laval. The Prosecution submit that that
cannot affect the position over, certainly, Occupied France, and
suggested that this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges
which have been made against the defendant. My French colleagues will,
however, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the effect of an
interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard to this subject. I do not
want to comment on it at the moment, because it is obviously a matter
which Dr. Servatius should consider before any comment is made on it in
court. But, if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be useful if
he considered that point before any decision was come to.
Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come from the
Reich Ministry of Labor, and they are called to speak generally as to
the defendant’s attitude, the limitations on him as regards recruiting,
and his personal dealings with offenders. The Prosecution suggest that
it will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius to select the two best out of
eight for oral testimony, and two more to give affidavits.
The next three, Numbers 9, 10, and 11, were members of the Defendant
Sauckel’s staff, who are sought to be called to give evidence as to his
efforts to obtain good conditions. Again, the Prosecution suggest a
selection, and put forward one witness and one affidavit.
Number 12, the witness Hoffmann, is called for the purpose of saying
that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, looked after the welfare of
foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. The Prosecution
submit that that witness would be cumulative, and object to him, as that
subject is already covered.
Then there are a series of witnesses, Numbers 13 to 18, who deal with
the relations and liaison between the Defendant Sauckel and the DAF.
These are substantially still on the same point, and the Prosecution
suggest that one witness and one affidavit out of that group would be
sufficient.
The next witness, Number 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals with the
question of wages, and also of the transmission of money to their homes
by foreign workers. The Prosecution suggest that that is the sort of
material which might conveniently be dealt with by an affidavit or an
interrogatory, according to Dr. Servatius’ wishes.
Number 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of foreign
workers at the Gustloff works. That subject has been thoroughly covered
in general by previous witnesses, and the Prosecution suggest that this
particular witness is cumulative.
With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for Labor, he deals
with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley and the
contention that Sauckel had nothing to do with labor from concentration
camps. Again, the Prosecution suggest that an affidavit would show how
far the witness Seldte is speaking merely of routine matters, such as
orders and the like, and how far he is dealing with individual or
personal matters. If he does in fact deal with individual and personal
matters and interviews, then I suggest that Dr. Servatius could resume
his application on that point.
The witness Darré, who was the former Reich Minister for Food and
Agriculture, is sought in order to speak as to the defendant’s efforts
to get higher food rations for foreign workers, especially in Eastern
areas. The Prosecution suggest that this witness also is cumulative, and
it will indicate a number of other witnesses and documents which deal
with this point.
As to Number 23, General Reinecke, there is no objection.
Number 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought to say that French prisoners of war
were exchanged against voluntary workers. The Prosecution object on the
ground of irrelevance.
As to Number 25, there is no objection to Dr. Lammers, who is being
called by, I think, every defendant, or practically every defendant.
The next, 26, the witness Peuckert, again deals with the administrative
position and executive apparatus of Sauckel, which has already been
treated by witnesses at considerable length, and the Prosecution object
to this as cumulative.
Number 27, Governor Fischer, Chief of Labor in the Government General,
is called to say that Sauckel had made dealings with the SS in regard to
resettlement. Again, if he is speaking as to rules and orders that were
laid down, we suggest an affidavit.
As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jäger, is asked for
cross-examination on his affidavit. That is Exhibit Number USA-202
(Document Number D-288), and the references in the transcript are 1322
to 1327 (Volume III, Pages 441-446) and 3057 (Volume V, Page 509). No
request was made at this time, and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to
explain his position before dealing with this point.
The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, deal with the public health
aspect of foreign workers. They deal with different districts. The
Prosecution submit that that question could be dealt with by one
affidavit.
As to the next three witnesses, 31, 32, and 33, I think the position is
that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute certain evidence
given by M. Dubost on 28 January that the defendant authorized the
evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked, at Pages 3466 to 3492 of the
transcript (Volume VI, Pages 242-263), but I cannot find the evidence
which Dr. Servatius has in mind, and perhaps he would be good enough to
indicate it to the Tribunal.
With regard to 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that the defendant,
as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, we make no
objection.
With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party produced
before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we suggested that that
be allowed.
With regard to Frau Sauckel, who is desired in order that she may speak
as to the defendant’s charitable disposition, irrespective of the Party,
the Prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to the issues before the
Tribunal.
I think it is impossible in this case, My Lord, to leave the witnesses
without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at the documents, because
the two are interrelated.
There is an application for 97 sets of documents and in general they set
out what we should call in England all the relevant statutory rules and
orders, that is, the subsidiary legislation made with regard to the
activities of this defendant. Frankly, I must say to the Tribunal that I
have not had the opportunity of reading the original orders. I have read
only the summary which Dr. Servatius has been good enough to provide in
his application. But, quite clearly, these documents cover again in the
greatest detail the various problems with which the respective sets of
witnesses to be called deal, and, in the submission of the Prosecution,
they provide a good reason and a fair ground for some considerable
limitation of the oral witnesses.
There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues and myself
take considerable objection, and I might just state two or three of
these.
Number 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, and is
presented to prove especially that the German civilian population also
received meat graded as inferior, which therefore could not be
considered inedible meat. If one has not the comparison of the caloric
and other properties of the meat, it is going to be extremely difficult
to get any benefit from the evidence, if one is going into that. It is
unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before the Tribunal.
If the Tribunal would then turn to Numbers 80 and 81; Dr. Servatius
wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, apparently for the purpose of
showing that the Soviet methods of mobilization were contrary to the
Hague convention and are therefore evidence that the Hague Convention
had become obsolete. I submit that the two small examples of this
evidence indicate that there would have to be extensive examination of
the facts surrounding them and they could not be the basis of a sound
argument that a convention had been abrogated. It is possible that in
rare cases international agreements may be abrogated by conquest. But
evidence of that kind would, in my respectful submission, not be the
basis of such an argument.
Then come Numbers 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. There again
it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged consideration of the
circumstances under which each affidavit was made, to assess the values
of bundles of affidavits of that kind.
Number 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I suggest that it would be
reasonable if the representatives of the Prosecution were shown that
film first, before it is shown in court—I think that was the course
that was taken with regard to the concentration camp film—because, of
course, without going into arguments at the moment, the question of
propaganda is a serious one which the Prosecution are bound to consider.
I have expressly refrained from further comment, but I think the
Tribunal will see the point that is in my mind, and will, I hope,
consider that it is reasonable that we should see the film before we are
asked to comment on it further.
I have taken only certain examples in the documents because obviously
they will have to be considered in detail when we see the text, and the
Prosecution have to reserve their rights as to objection. But I make the
general point—and I hope the Tribunal will think that it is a fair
point, and I hope Dr. Servatius will not think that I am decrying his
work; I am emphasizing the industry and care which he has shown in doing
it—that with this immense body of documentation the witnesses in this
case will want careful pruning. That, as I have said, indicates our
general view.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, Dr. Servatius,
I ought to say, for the information of other defendants’ counsel and
other persons concerned, that the Tribunal proposes to adjourn today at
4 o’clock instead of 5 o’clock.
Sir David, I wanted to ask you: Throughout the discussion I think you
referred to affidavits. Did you mean to particularize an affidavit as
opposed to an interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. I did not. I am sorry. I really
have not made that distinction. It is written evidence that I wish to
refer to, either by affidavit or interrogatory, whichever Dr. Servatius
wishes to have.
THE PRESIDENT: And one other question: In view of what you have said
about the documents, would it not be a good thing for the Prosecution to
have a little more time to consider the documents? And then perhaps they
could give more help as to their view about the documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be so, My Lord, but Your Lordship
will appreciate that we have been under considerable pressure in the
last few weeks and it is impossible to cover them all, but we should be
glad of a little time to go into the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about them after the
adjournment some time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the course of a day or two, let us know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we could do that.
THE PRESIDENT; Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the witnesses?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 1, Ambassador Abetz. I name this witness
to show Sauckel’s subjective conception of the admissibility of the
Arbeitseinsatz from the point of view of international law. On the basis
of the treaties, and in the absence of any protest from the governments
of other countries—notably France—he was entitled to assume that it
was legitimate. I am, however, willing to admit the witness Stothfang,
who as Sauckel’s deputy repeatedly negotiated with Laval. If he is
admitted, I would renounce the witness Abetz. In other words, I am to
forego witness Number 1 if I am permitted witness Number 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. What about witnesses 2 to 8?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses from Sauckel’s staff. It is difficult to
dispense with any witness; and one witness is absolutely necessary for
the graphic illustration of the way in which orders were carried out in
practice. The Tribunal would find it very difficult to read through this
enormous number of laws, and it is easier to hear witnesses on the
essential points than to undertake the amount of reading involved. The
witness Timm is the most important, as for all practical purposes he was
in charge of the so-called Europa Amt which was responsible for the
actual distribution of the labor forces.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius. First of all, you will, no
doubt, be calling the Defendant Sauckel himself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I should like to call him last, for he is a
defendant and his statements are less valuable than that of a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: These witnesses will be corroborating his evidence about
his administration. Under those circumstances, would not two of them, as
Sir David suggested, out of eight, and two more affidavits be
sufficient?
DR. SERVATIUS: From a legal point of view, the witness Beisiegel can be
dispensed with, but the other witnesses are necessary because they have
actual knowledge of the use of manpower abroad. So far, I have only one
witness who can really speak on the use of manpower in the East. This
witness should be able to describe the actual procedure followed; for
laws have little meaning in themselves, if we do not know how they were
applied. For the East, we have the witness Letsch—a highly important
witness—and for the West, the witness Hildebrandt, who can testify how
conditions gradually changed in France in consequence of the resistance
movement.
The witness Kaestner could not be found, and I will dispense with him.
Witness Number 7, Dr. Geissler, is of the greatest importance because he
can testify regarding inspections. The main point is at what period
these workers were employed and what provision was made by Sauckel for
their well-being in Germany. To ensure that Sauckel’s
regulations—which, I maintain, were models of their kind—were actually
put into practice, a series of inspectorates existed. Witness Number 7,
Geissler, was in charge of the Reich inspectorate, a branch established
by Sauckel. I consider him indispensable.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number 3 and Number 8 cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number 8 in order to give special emphasis to the
wage question. So far the Prosecution have not treated individual points
in any very great detail. Otherwise I should find myself in difficulties
owing to lack of evidence when the emphasis is transferred later to the
question of wages. Only witness Number 8 can testify to this question.
Witness Number 3 can testify regarding the regulations generally and in
particular that Sauckel constantly improved conditions to the last, so
that the situation of all foreign workers was considerably improved by
legislation and continued to improve. This can be seen from all the
regulations, which I have carefully collected for the purpose.
Witness Number 9, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel’s consultant, his personal
adviser, and conducted many negotiations, particularly with France. For
this reason I have named him as a substitute for witness Number 1,
Abetz. In particular he conducted negotiations over the restrictions of
the so-called Weisungsrecht, the restriction, that is, Sauckel’s right
to recruit workers. From the very start of Sauckel’s activities, it was
clear that no official administering a zone would tolerate interference
of this kind on Sauckel’s part, that from a practical point of view it
was impossible to tolerate it and his powers were promptly curtailed
through parleys. Witness Stothfang will testify on that subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are 9 and 10 not cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number 10. I wish to say something on a
rather different subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 11 knows the conditions. He was the press
expert, and if I must forego any witness, I would dispense with him
rather than anyone else. He really does know, however, exactly what
conditions were like. He wrote the book _Europa Works in Germany_ and
made the film, and can say that these pictures were not faked but are
genuine photographs. For this reason he is important, as his testimony
is supplementary to the book and the film.
The next witnesses belong to the Labor Front. The Labor Front was
responsible for the welfare of all foreign workers, as well as for that
of German workers. The situation never changed in that respect; and the
witnesses can testify now to the way in which the regulations were
carried out in different cases, with regard to the construction of the
camps, supplies, clothing, and everything else that took place.
Witness Number 13 would be the most important witness, but he has not
been found. For this reason I attach special importance to witness
Number 14, who worked with him. The witness Hoffmann was practically in
charge and knows what conditions were in the camps.
Those were the witnesses who worked with Sauckel in liaison with the
Labor Front. The other witnesses will testify as to the practical work
done by the workers themselves.
The situation is this: Dr. Ley no longer appears here, so that the whole
of Ley’s field now becomes part of the case against Sauckel and forms a
further charge against Sauckel unless the question is clarified. There
are a good many charges and they must be clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between 15 and 16?
DR. SERVATIUS: 15 is a stenographer’s error; 15 is identical with
witness 12. Witness 16, Mende, of the head office is particularly
important because he had to look after the organizations within the
Labor Front.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean 15 comes out, does it?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 15 comes out.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness 17, Dr. Hupfauer, can testify as to the origin of
the code of regulations in general and about the direction in which
Sauckel worked.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative with Number 14, whom you wanted
to have instead of 13? The charge of inhumanity applies to both of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Because witness 14 deals with the practical side, and
witness 17 deals with the legislative side. Witness 18 was responsible
for the practical application within the Labor Front. One must keep
these various fields distinct from each other. Sauckel had a small
office, which was incorporated into the Ministry of Labor. He issued
regulations with the aim of steadily improving matters. I offer evidence
that they were of social value and will prove on investigation to be
irreproachable.
We then have to consider the other side of the question—the practical
application, for which the Labor Front was responsible; and the
recruitment. I have special witnesses to deal with these heads as well.
The next witnesses are members of Sauckel’s specialist staff. Witness
19, Bank Director Goetz, can testify that billions of marks were
transferred to foreign countries for workers’ wages.
Witness 20, Beckurtz, was manager of the Gustloff works and one of
Sauckel’s closest collaborators. He will confirm that the treatment and
housing of workers in this very Gustloff factory was exemplary.
Witness 21 will testify as to the degree of authority exercised by Ley
and Sauckel respectively. It is of great importance to know whether
Sauckel himself was responsible or whether some other office was in
charge of the practical side.
THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot this be dealt with by an affidavit or
interrogatories?
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall be satisfied here with an affidavit. I have not
yet spoken to the witness personally and for that reason I had to list
him as a witness.
Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture. He will testify
that from the moment Sauckel took up his appointment, he made every
effort to improve conditions for foreign workers and that he continued
to pay special attention to this point. That is of particular importance
in view of the accusation that the foreign workers had been starved.
Through it I shall be able to adduce evidence that the foreign workers
were in part—I say in part—better off than German workers.
Witness 23. . .
THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another defendant.
DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I see. Then I can forego him.
The next witness has not yet been found. He will testify regarding the
exchange of prisoners of war for French workers. I understand that Reich
Minister Lammers has already been approved for other defendants.
Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can furnish information
on the way in which workers were recruited in the Eastern territories.
They can testify to the extent of Sauckel’s powers, whether they were
executive or otherwise, to the authority given to the police, and to
what extent the organization was distinct from the SS. Witness 26 has
not been found. Consequently, I shall have to confine myself to witness
Number 27, Governor Fischer, who has been found and approved.
THE PRESIDENT: What about an affidavit for 27?
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not consider that I can forego calling him as a
witness. It is of the utmost importance to have a witness who can say
what conditions in the East actually were.
Witness 28, Dr. Jäger. We have a detailed affidavit, but it is extremely
inaccurate. It has been submitted as Document Number D-288, Exhibit
Number USA-202. I have also received the German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was it not the proper course to
cross-examine Dr. Jäger when his affidavit was read?
DR. SERVATIUS: I assumed that it was accurate, as at that time I was not
acquainted with conditions in the district in question. I have since
made inquiries and can bring evidence to show that his statements were
not only very much exaggerated, but in many cases actually false. The
truth emerged by degrees on studying in detail some half dozen sworn
statements which I obtained. Krupp had 60 camps. The witness deals with
three or four of them at a time when the aerial war was at its peak—a
fact which he does not mention. I do not anticipate much difficulty in
proving his statements incorrect. I should like to reserve the right to
submit further affidavits with which the witness can be confronted if he
appears here in person, I also made an application, which has not yet
been granted, for leave to make use of a number of medical reports made
in these very factories, which in themselves prove that Dr. Jäger’s
testimony is inaccurate. My chief difficulty was to obtain possession of
this evidence, hence the delay. Otherwise I should have submitted it
sooner. I attach great importance to Dr. Jäger as a witness.
The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, will testify on the same
subject, but each in connection with a different area. They have
attended the camps as doctors and can testify that the conditions there
were irreproachable and good. I could name many such doctors if I had
the time and opportunity to look them up. I know both of these and they
will confirm what conditions were really like.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an affidavit
about it?
DR. SERVATIUS: They are in a camp. It is difficult for me to contact
them; it would be easier to bring the witnesses here. Perhaps Dr. Voss
can appear here so that one of the witnesses can be heard.
The next three witnesses are named for this purpose.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the explanation, I have
had a chance of comparing the English text with the French text, and it
would appear that an error has crept into the English text, which says:
“He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of the
gravity of the communication Shiedlauski had given. Shiedlauski
had given an order that no prisoner should remain in
Buchenwald.”
The French text is, if I may translate it:
“He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given. The
Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order that none of
the detained persons should remain at Buchenwald.”
So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could not find this
reference, I was dealing with the English text, and it appears that
there was such a reference in the French text. Since M. Dubost was
calling the witness, the probability is that the French text is right,
and as there is evidence that Sauckel had given this order, I think it
is only fair that I should say that one witness should be permitted to
deal with this point in the view of the Prosecution; it is, of course, a
matter for the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: I agree with the Prosecutor and need only one of the
three witnesses. Should none of the witnesses be found, I have in the
document book an affidavit of one of Sauckel’s sons who was also present
at the conference.
Witness 34, Skorzeny, will testify to the general connection between the
Gauleitung and the concentration camps; in other words, to what extent
the Gauleitung, by virtue of its official position, had knowledge of
what went on in the concentration camps.
Witness 35, Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, Schwarz. This question has
been settled. I have received my interrogatory with the answers.
Witness 36, Frau Sauckel, was previously approved by the Tribunal. I can
see that certain objections might be raised but the essential point is
this: Among other things, the witness repeatedly heard that the
Defendant Sauckel was criticized for treating foreign workers too well
and for manifesting an international rather than a nationalistic
attitude. That is one point. The other point is that which concerns the
conspiracy, namely, that Sauckel kept aloof and had very little
intercourse with other members of the Party. He worked consequently on
his own and knew very little about major developments in policy.
That concludes my remarks on the list of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you probably realize that you have asked
for a very much larger number of witnesses than other counsel and I
have, therefore, to ask you whom you regard as the most important
witnesses. It may be that it will be necessary to limit the number, as
you are aware that we are directed to hold an expeditious trial, and so
would you kindly give me the list of those witnesses whom you regard as
the most essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I have time till tomorrow to think it over, I shall
try to reduce the number. It is difficult because the field is so large.
Also I did not receive a trial brief for Sauckel defining charges in
detail, so that I must be prepared for all eventualities. I must define
my position with regard to many points: food, wages, leave, workers,
transport, illness and there are many aspects to which I must refer.
THE PRESIDENT: You will not forget that many of the defendants are
concerned in various aspects and they have neither asked for nor been
allowed this very large number of witnesses.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I turn to the documents now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I rather thought that perhaps Sir David was going
to get in touch with you after the adjournment and perhaps you could
then deal with the documents more successfully.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that would be time usefully spent, My
Lord, if the Tribunal would allow it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
I call on Dr. Exner on behalf of the Defendant Jodl.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Exner and
Professor Jahrreiss were good enough to approach the Prosecution on this
matter and put forward certain considerations, including the names of
the witnesses to whom they attached the greatest importance, and over a
considerable part of the field there is no difference between us. On
certain matters there is a difference of principle, which I shall point
out to the Tribunal in a moment, but the effect is, if I might run
through the application, that the Prosecution will not offer any
objections to General Winter, who speaks as to the organization of the
OKW and the respective duties of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl. They
will not offer objections to Major Professor Schramm, although the need
for his evidence is perhaps not so obvious. On the other hand, with
regard to Number 3, the evidence of Major Kipp, that the fettering or
chaining of prisoners took place at Dieppe and as to the cause of the
shooting-of-Commandos order, the Prosecution submit that these matters
are irrelevant. With regard to Major Büchs, Dr. Exner tells me that he
will be satisfied with interrogatories. The Prosecution do not object.
With regard to Number 5, General Von Buttlar, Professor Exner suggests
that he should be a witness, and the Prosecution do not object.
With regard to Number 6, the Prosecution are content that there should
be interrogatories.
With regard to Vice Admiral Bürckner, the Prosecution are prepared to
take no objection.
Then with regard to Number 8, General Buhle, a questionnaire has been
sent off.
With regard to Number 9, it is suggested that there should be
interrogatories.
Number 10, interrogatories.
With reference to Numbers 11 to 21, the Tribunal has allowed an
interrogation in each case, and in many cases a questionnaire has been
sent off, and therefore the Prosecution could not object at this stage
when action has been taken on the Tribunal’s suggestion. That would mean
that the Defendant Jodl would have four oral witnesses, apart from the
interrogatories which have already been largely approved by the
Tribunal. The objection of the Prosecution to Number 3 is maintained.
DR. EXNER: I should like, first of all, to mention Number 3, Kipp. The
Prosecution have its objections to this witness. We need him to give
information as to how the Hitler order of 18 October 1942, that is, the
Hitler order regarding Commandos, originated. This order has been made
the basis of a highly incriminating charge against Jodl and it is of
great importance to hear how this order came to be given. It concerns
the killing of Commandos dropped by planes or landed from boats. As I
understand it, the objection to this witness and this subject generally
is that it appears to concern for the most part the events of Dieppe, in
consequence of which this order was admittedly issued. But we are not
concerned with an exact portrayal of what actually happened at Dieppe.
The witness Kipp is, in any case, unable to do so, since he was in the
OKW and was not a witness of those events. We are concerned with
something else, namely, the fact that certain reports were presented to
the OKW which caused this order to be made. We are furthermore concerned
with the following facts to which Kipp is in a position to testify.
When these reports about the events at Dieppe arrived, the Führer was
enraged and ordered strict measures to be taken against these Commandos.
Jodl refused to issue or draft the order as demanded by the Führer. When
pressed, he said he did not know what reason he could give for that
order.
Jodl then passed the matter to Major Kipp for investigation, as it was
peculiarly complicated from a legal point of view and Kipp, being a
professor of law, should know something about legal matters.
In addition, a kind of poll was held in Jodl’s office in the Wehrmacht
Operations Staff and the opinions of other offices on the matter in
question were collected. Varying opinions were received from the Ausland
Abwehr, the legal department, et cetera. As in the meantime 10 days had
passed, Hitler lost patience, sat down and drew up the entire order
himself, as well as a further decree, establishing the reasons for the
order. Jodl, therefore, was not the author of this order. All that he
did was to express his doubts regarding it. The story of the origin of
the order of 28 October 1942, which, as I have said, has been made the
basis of a grave accusation against Jodl, is of the utmost importance.
Kipp will testify to it. Further, it has already been said that there is
no objection to witness Number 5, Buttlar.
As to Number 4, I am satisfied with an affidavit or an interrogatory,
but I must reserve the right to call him as a witness, should the
interrogatory be inadequate or not clear. I hope, however, that this can
be avoided.
Regarding witness Number 7, Vice Admiral Gottlieb Bürckner, I should
like to point out that he is the same Admiral Bürckner who was the
subject of discussion this morning in connection with the witnesses for
the Defendant Raeder. Perhaps that will clear up the difficulty about
Raeder.
Regarding Number 8, the interrogatory has already been sent out. We
have, however, distinctly, reserved the right to resort to oral
testimony should the interrogatory again prove unsatisfactory.
Otherwise, I have nothing further to say on the subject and the
Prosecution has no grounds for protest.
I have just received a note saying I was relying on the appearance of
Büchs as a witness and therefore why did I not ask for him. This is on
behalf of Göring, is it not? I shall have to leave the decision to the
Tribunal. I had in fact intended to call Büchs as a witness and I only
agreed to forego his personal appearance in the course of the
discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: Which witness were you talking about?
DR. EXNER: Witness Number 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you say you are asking for him as an oral witness?
DR. EXNER: Göring has also asked for him as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he been allowed to the Defendant Göring?
DR. EXNER: He had counted on my calling him as a witness, on his being
allowed and on being able to question him. He is here in Nuremberg. May
I now turn to the documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 1 and 4, the Prosecution has no objections.
I take this to mean that I put into my document book an extract of the
part I read. I submit the entire document to the Tribunal without a
translation of anything except the part which I am going to read; and
which deals with an important point which must be clarified. If I am
dealing with a large document and I need to quote only one paragraph, it
is sufficient if I submit the original document to the Tribunal in its
entirety and include in my document book only the particular paragraph
in question and its translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. EXNER: Regarding Points 5 and 6, the Prosecution objects and I
withdraw these two documents.
Point 7 is a curious one. That is Document Number 532-PS, submitted by
the Prosecution and to which I made objection at the time. The document
was removed from the record, and now I myself apply for this document to
be submitted again. This is for the following reason: The document is an
order that was submitted to Jodl in draft form. Jodl did not approve it,
crossed it out, and sent it back without signing it. This draft was
submitted by the Prosecution, and I objected to its being presented as
if it were actually an order signed by Jodl. I want to submit it now in
order to prove that Jodl, by making it impossible for this order to be
carried out, deprived an illegal order of its effectiveness.
Regarding Points 8 to 15, the Prosecution also has no objection.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Points 16 and 17 are the subjects of objection
from the Prosecution. Point 16 relates to the English “Close Combat
Regulations” of the year 1942, and 17 is the English order for the
Operation Dieppe of the same year. With regard to the “Close Combat
Regulations,” the only relevance they could seem to have would be in
relation to an objection to this form of training, and in the submission
of the Prosecution it would be irrelevant on the question of the
Commando order.
With regard to the question of shackling, I think the simplest way of
dealing with it is to point out that the Prosecution, as my friend Mr.
Dodd pointed out, have not introduced that matter into their case, and
therefore it would appear that, the English order in question was not
relevant. Apart from the two general objections, neither of these
matters seems connected with points in the case.
I might just indicate Number 20, which is another objection that is on
the same basis as the old document, which I think the Tribunal has had
before—the implication of the German Foreign Office on breaches of
international law, and it is sought for, as the Tribunal will see, as
evidence of the reports that were made to the High Command of the
Wehrmacht, and that gave occasion to take reprisal measures.
Then a similar ground of objection applies to Number 21, a history of
the White Russian partisan war, which is sought for as evidence that the
danger of bandit warfare gave cause for undertaking sweeping
countermeasures.
These objections can be all grouped together. They fall under the
general objection to _tu quoque_ evidence which the Prosecution has
maintained throughout the Trial.
DR. EXNER: May I say something about this? As far as 16 and 17 are
concerned, we just want to see these documents. We want to see them
first in order to judge whether or not we want to submit them in
evidence. I have stated so at the foot of the page.
As to irrelevance, we do not say that we regard these orders as illegal.
But if for instance, in the “Close Combat Regulations,” English soldiers
are ordered to perform actions for which our soldiers are censured, it
would constitute a discrepancy of some importance. For in that case it
would be obvious that the British Government regarded such methods of
warfare as legitimate. If, however, such methods are legitimate for
them, they must also be legitimate in our case, since it is impossible
to have two standards in these matters. In order to establish this, we
wanted to see these “Close Combat Regulations.” That is Number 18.
Number 19 is a similar case, but I can more readily understand that that
was refused, as it may be a secret order. Number 20, the White Book. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David did not deal with 19, did he? He only dealt
with 16, 17, 20, and 21.
DR. EXNER: Yes. 18 and 19 have not been objected to.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understood it, his objection to 16 and 17 was that
there was no complaint against the German forces, either with the
reference to close combat or with reference to shackling, in the
Indictment.
DR. EXNER: If these “Close Combat Regulations” should happen to include
illustrations—there are actually pictures in there—of the shackling of
prisoners and orders for doing so, one would be obliged to say that the
British Government does not consider this kind of treatment illegal and
that if it happens on our side we cannot be censured for it. It is
difficult for me to estimate their importance to us, because I have not
had these “Close Combat Regulations” in my own hands. If I had them, I
could make my application. I should like to know whether I have to
include them in my evidence or whether there is no need.
No objection has been raised to 18 and 19. As to 20, these are the White
Books already approved for Göring. Consequently, I need not ask for them
myself.
Regarding Point 21, I am convinced that this cannot be settled with a
charge of _tu quoque_. It is a Russian book, describing partisan
warfare. The author of this book is a Russian who, himself, participated
in partisan warfare for several years as chief of staff and he writes
from personal experience.
We do not assert that the Russians did the same as we did, which would
be a _tu quoque_ argument; I should like to have this book for another
reason. To understand and appreciate our regulations regarding
partisans, one must know these partisans. One must have knowledge and
experience of their methods, and be able to appreciate the danger which
they represented. This Russian book describes all that, and is therefore
important. The author himself, as stated, played an active part in the
warfare carried on against the partisans.
In the Indictment it is stated, “The war against the partisans was
simply an excuse for the annihilation of Jews, Slavs, and so on.” This
book shows that the war against the partisans was a real war and not an
excuse on our part.
If the book is unobtainable, I ask permission to read the short account
of the contents recently published in The Stars and Stripes. To
conclude, it should be emphasized that the book was written by a Soviet
Russian and for this reason cannot be assumed to have an anti-Russian
bias.
Therewith I have concluded my presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know what your
argument is with reference to 21.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was opposing it for the reason that was given.
The book is asked for as evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave
rise to undertaking sweeping countermeasures.
Now, broadly, the case for the Prosecution is that the countermeasures
against partisans constituted atrocities, and evidence of that kind has
been given. It is, in my submission, no defense to the committing of
atrocities against partisans, of the kind given in evidence, that their
warfare was of a great extent or very fiercely or bravely waged. This is
just the _tu quoque_ argument in its nakedness—because partisans fight
you, therefore you can burn their villages, shoot their women, and kill
their children. That is the argument which we say is irrelevant and is
inadmissible.
My Lord, I should like to say that I have no objection, if any of these
documents can be obtained, to Dr. Exner’s looking at the documents; on
that point to which the Prosecution attached importance, I thought it
right—and I know my colleagues desired it—that I should make our
position clear.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your address, Dr. Exner, does it?
DR. EXNER: May I add something concerning the last point. I am, of
course, perfectly aware that those atrocities, as described here, cannot
be justified by the activities of the partisans, but the more violent
the actions of the partisans became, the harsher—of necessity—were the
German military countermeasures, so that there is, after all, a
connection between these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your argument.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 7 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY
Thursday, 7 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Von Papen.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal approves, I shall indicate the
views of the Prosecution on the witnesses requested by Dr. Kubuschok.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first witness is Von Lersner and there is no
objection. This witness is called to cover, among other things, the
period of the coming into power of the Hitler Government, which is a
time of material importance in the case against Von Papen.
If the Tribunal would consider the next three witnesses, there is a
minor point: The witness Tschirschky was, as I understand it, Von
Papen’s private secretary from 1933 to February 1935. That is, he
covered the period of the rise to power of the Nazi Party. And he also
covers some of the Austrian period.
The next witness, Von Kageneck, is also a private secretary. He does not
cover the period of the rise to power, but covers the whole Austrian
period.
The next witness, Erbach, was counsellor at the Embassy in Vienna, that
is, he covers the period 1934 to 1938.
The Prosecution has always been reluctant to oppose the calling of
secretaries who could assist the memory of the defendant, but it did
seem to us that the witness Tschirschky was cumulative both on the
period of the rise to power and the Austrian period and that it would be
sufficient to have interrogatories in that case. Therefore, the
Prosecution, apart from that, would not object to Von Kageneck and
Erbach.
THE PRESIDENT: That is, you suggest interrogatories for 2 and calling 3
and 4?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, interrogatories, and calling of 3
and 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to Number 5, the witness Kroll,
the Prosecution submits that he is irrelevant. He is called for the
period when the defendant was an ambassador in Turkey and he allegedly
is able to say that Von Papen had no aggressive thoughts with regard to
Russia. The Prosecution would submit that Von Papen is really the person
who can speak on a matter like that, and the Prosecution has had no
evidence as to any subversive activity of the Nazi Party in Turkey;
which is the other point that this witness is said to speak on.
Then the next five witnesses, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: The Tribunal granted
interrogatories and, so long as the matter is limited to
interrogatories, the Prosecution will make no objection.
And Number 11, the Baroness De Nothomb: The Prosecution object to
evidence on acts of intercession on behalf of members of the resistance
movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the opinion of the
Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters before the Court.
With regard to Archbishop Gröber, if the Tribunal would not mind looking
at Number 12 in the application, in the opinion of the Prosecution the
matters raised by the questions are not relevant. The first is, “Were
the Concordat negotiations between Germany and the Holy See brought
about by Defendant Von Papen’s own initiative?” The second part of this
question is, in short, “Did Von Papen make efforts with Hitler regarding
the conclusion of the Concordat?” Well, the Concordat was made, and what
the Tribunal are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat,
of which the Prosecution has given written evidence.
The second question—I am afraid that I do not understand that, and in
its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to being
vague—“Were the activities of the defendant directed by his positive
religious attitude after the conclusion of the Concordat also?”
Then the third question: “Was the conclusion of the Concordat welcomed
by the German Episcopate?” I don’t think that really helps.
And fourth: “Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church during
the latter’s religious struggles?” And, “Could the Church, in the end,
fall back on the Concordat?”
The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and, as I say, the issue
in this case is the breaches of the Concordat, not its contents. So we
object to Number 12.
Number 13, the witness Von Beaulieu—that is very short, if the Tribunal
would be good enough to look at it:
“I shall submit an affidavit of the witness, which deals with
the intervention of the defendant as President of the Union Club
on behalf of Jews.”
The Prosecution submit that the intervention in a racing club on behalf
of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, even on the
Jewish issue.
Number 14, the witness Josten—Dr. Kubuschok asks for the use of a
statement which has been sent to the Tribunal. The Prosecution would
prefer that to be in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if this
is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: That is 14, is it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 14, My Lord, yes.
Then 15 is His Majesty, the King of Sweden. That is a new application
and general in its scope. It is difficult to judge how much King Gustav
could contribute, and, therefore, the Prosecution do not object to
interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in 14 Dr. Kubuschok says that he requested
that the statement made by the witness to the legal department of the
Military Government headquarters, Düsseldorf, be furnished him. Are you
objecting to that being furnished him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I thought that he had got it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I got it this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Kubuschok says that he received it today,
this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to his offering it as evidence?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only say that we should prefer it in the
form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if that can be done. I do not
make any great objection.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In regard to the witnesses I should like to say the
following: Witness Number 1, Baron Lersner—the Tribunal granted only an
interrogatory at first. The prosecutor has today agreed to have the
witness called before this Tribunal. I also ask very urgently that this
witness be questioned before the Tribunal.
The witness was the president of the German peace delegation at
Versailles. He is a very well known German diplomat, who since 1932 has
worked very closely with the Defendant Von Papen. A man like Lersner
had, of course, a particularly fine understanding for every policy of
aggression. Therefore, it is very important that this co-worker of the
Defendant Von Papen be heard and be allowed to tell us how he has
observed the defendant in his activities up to 1944. It is particularly
important that Lersner, at the instigation of Defendant Von Papen, could
go to Turkey.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, Sir David agreed, I think, with reference
to Number 1.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, if the Tribunal also agrees, then the matter is
taken care of.
The second witness, Tschirschky—Tschirschky was the private secretary
of the defendant from 1933 to 1935, the first private secretary during
the time that the defendant was Vice Chancellor. He is a man who was
himself persecuted by the Gestapo and had to go into exile in 1935,
where he still is. He is a man who can give exhaustive information on
the whole period from 1933 to 1935 in regard to the external activity of
the defendant and his personal attitude.
I believe that, especially for the time from the beginning of 1933, we
shall not get a thorough picture if we do not hear this closest
co-worker of the defendant personally. The other witnesses concern
mostly different periods. Only in some cases do they overlap with the
activity of this witness.
Number 5, Kroll. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Supposing that the Tribunal thought it right to grant you
Number 2 as an oral witness, would it not be possible to dispense with
one of 3 or 4 and have interrogatories from one of them and call the
other one? They deal with somewhat the same period.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: We definitely need 3 for the following reasons:
Witness Kageneck was present when Hitler entrusted Papen with the
Austrian mission. This is a very important point, since the Prosecution
alleges that he was entrusted with this mission for those purposes of
which he was accused. The witness will testify that Papen accepted the
mission only after a clear guarantee concerning the purpose of the
mission. Furthermore, Count Kageneck was also in Vienna after 1935, that
is to say, from 1935 until the Anschluss, and for this period we should
not have any other witness. Kageneck can also confirm a very important
point, that is, that he was entrusted with taking diplomatic documents
to Switzerland and safeguarding them there, since from these documents
the documentary proof for the activity of the defendant in Vienna could
be deduced. Therefore, in my opinion, the witness Kageneck also cannot
be dispensed with.
If we can dispense with any witness, it would be witness Number 4,
Erbach, in regard to whom I might then ask for permission to use an
interrogatory, because here, too, questions are to be asked which the
other witnesses cannot answer.
Witness Number 5, Minister Kroll—Papen is accused of a conspiracy for
aggressive war. The Indictment is not limited in respect to time. For
the largest part of the time in question, namely 1938 to 1944, Papen was
in a position which would have been particularly designed for an
activity directed at undermining the peace. Turkey was for a long time
an important pillar in military and, therefore, political
considerations. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest whether Papen
used his position for any activity in the nature of such a conspiracy.
Moreover, I should like to bring proof of the opposite. The fact was
that his activity was directed at preserving the peace and that he was,
in particular, against any extension of the war by means of military
measures against Russia, and was against every political measure for the
destruction of the relations between Turkey and the Allied Powers.
The witness was, during the Turkish period, the closest co-worker of the
defendant. He is, therefore, in a position to give us information about
the entire period.
Baroness De Nothomb—I have asked in this case to be permitted to
present an affidavit or interrogatory. I want. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you dealing with?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not dealing with 6 to 10?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we are in agreement about 6 to 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, 11.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 11, Baroness De Nothomb—in this case I asked for
an interrogatory or for permission to submit an affidavit. The subject
of the evidence is:
During the years 1940 to 1944 the defendant continuously supported the
witness in her intervention on behalf of persecuted members of the
French resistance movement. I want thereby to prove that the Defendant
Von Papen shows again, in this case, that he was greatly interested in a
peaceful shaping of German-French relations, and that during the war he
always had in mind the postwar time, when the poison should be removed
from these relations. The intervention on the part of the defendant was
also a result of general humanitarian considerations. This is not
without considerable importance in connection with the charge of
conspiratorial activity.
Number 12, Archbishop Gröber—the Indictment asserts that the Defendant
Von Papen used his position as a prominent German Catholic for a dirty
business of deception, and that the conclusion of the Concordat, as
such, was effected in the course of a policy directed against the
Church; that the conclusion of the Concordat was not intended seriously,
as one could see from the later violations of the Concordat. Archbishop
Gröber was, at the time of negotiations concerning the Concordat, at the
Holy See. He was present during all the negotiations. He knows that the
initiative for starting negotiations came from Von Papen himself, who
did not get Hitler’s approval until later. He knows that the draft which
had been made by Von Papen for the Concordat was strongly disapproved by
Hitler and that Papen was able to advance this draft only after long
struggles. The witness knows the Defendant Von Papen very well. He also
knows from what inner stand toward the Catholic question the defendant
approached the matter of the conclusion of the Concordat. As an
influential dignitary of the Church he can also judge the consequences
of the Concordat. He is in a position to judge that the contents of the
Concordat at a later time also were still a protection for Church
interests; and from his knowledge of the personal relations of the
defendant and all the relations of the Church in Germany, he can testify
as to whether the defendant had anything at all to do with the
violations of the Concordat.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness Number 2 deal with the same
subject? Where you say in your discussion of the subject of the
evidence, that witness Number 2 accompanied the defendant to Rome to
conclude the Concordat—can he testify that against Hitler’s strong
opposition he succeeded, at the last minute, in concluding the
Concordat? At that time was the witness present at all the speeches?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into the
negotiations concerning the Concordat by the defendant. It is very
important, in my opinion, to examine also a witness who was present at
the negotiations as representing the other side. In particular, this
witness, Archbishop Gröber, could also express an opinion in regard to
the later period, the violations of the Concordat. He can judge the
entire situation from the point of the Church better than can the
private secretary Tschirschky. He can also give an essentially more
reliable picture of Von Papen’s personality, which in this matter is
very closely connected with his political activity. I have been very
modest in my requests; but I should like to ask urgently, in this case,
that an interrogatory or an affidavit by Archbishop Gröber be granted,
for it is indeed clear that the accusation that a prominent German
Catholic uses his position for evil purposes of deception is a very
serious one, and the defendant also is very greatly interested in having
this question clarified, within the framework of the Indictment and also
beyond that.
Witness Number 13—an affidavit of Herr Von Beaulieu, who shall testify
that the defendant, in his position as president of a very large and
prominent German organization, intervened until the very end for the
non-Aryan members, as this term was used at that time. Everything which
is of importance in judging the Papen case lies, for the most part, in
the sphere of the subjective. We will see very few actual actions in the
Papen case. The accusations are, for the most part, based on the fact
that he was present. It is, therefore, relatively difficult to bring
proof and therefore the counterevidence must to a large extent be
subjective in nature. To judge a person’s character in its entirety, it
is not unimportant to know what, for instance, his attitude was in 1938
toward the question of the treatment of Jews, for, if Papen here
definitely deviated from a general line followed by Hitler and the
Nazis, one will certainly be able to draw a conclusion as to whether he
was really the faithful follower of Hitler which the Indictment tries to
picture him.
Witness Number 14—I received the statement today. I have not yet had
time to look through it. I shall submit either the statement or an
affidavit which I shall try to get.
Number 15—a questioning of His Majesty King Gustav of Sweden, to be
conducted in every way possible. This is a very important question. It
touches a major point of the Defense, namely, in how far it was possible
for a person not entangled in the ideas of Nazism to collaborate to a
certain extent. To what extent could he hope, by his personal activity,
to change things or at least to modify them? If, on the basis of the
evidence submitted, we prove that Von Papen not only exhausted his means
to serve this end within Germany, but also, beyond this, used his
foreign political connections for this purpose, then this should, I
believe, round out the picture of the character of the defendant in an
important way. This strong activity in the interest of peace is such
that, in my opinion, simply on the basis of such activities, the
absolute falsehood and untenability of that charge of the Indictment
that the defendant at any time could have approved of the aims of an
aggressive policy within the framework of a conspiracy becomes apparent.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
documents, Numbers 1 to 8, the Prosecution asks Dr. Kubuschok to submit
the extracts, and then we can consider the relevancy at that time. I
think that Dr. Kubuschok has Number 9.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have in my possession only the photostat which I
received from the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry. I should have said he had a
photostatic copy, but the Prosecution have certified the photostat. The
original is not obtainable at present. If it comes into our possession
we shall let Dr. Kubuschok see it.
The third point is that Dr. Kubuschok says that he may have to make a
supplementary application after Herr Von Papen, Jr. returns. That is, of
course, a matter for him and the Tribunal. The Prosecution make no
objection.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to 1 to 8, has Dr. Kubuschok got the
books?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then he will be prepared to specify what parts
of them. . .
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Sir; yes, indeed. I should merely like to add one
point to the list. Yesterday I received from the Prosecution a further
report to Hitler by Von Papen at the time of his activity in
Vienna—Number 9, also a report to Hitler. I have also received it in
the form of a photostat. I shall also submit this report for purposes of
evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May we state our position?
May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this defendant, the position
as to the first four witnesses is that they deal with the Austrian part
of the case. On the 2d of December the Tribunal allowed this defendant a
choice of four out of nine. He has chosen Glaise-Horstenau, who was a
minister in the Austrian Government; Guido Schmidt, who was the Foreign
Minister at the time of the Schuschnigg-Hitler-Ribbentrop interview;
Skubl, who was the Police President and State Secretary for Security in
Vienna; and Rainer, who is a well-known Nazi and who was afterwards
Gauleiter of Carinthia.
The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses.
Then we come to the Holland period, and the Prosecution have no
objection to Wimmer and Schwebel, but they do object to Bolle’s being
called as an oral witness. The position is that he was refused by the
Tribunal on the 26th of January. After the refusal interrogatories were
submitted, but these seem to be almost entirely covered by the
interrogatories administered to the witness Von der Wense, who is the
second under the heading of affidavits. I think out of the 20 questions
suggested for Bolle, there are only two that are not covered by Von der
Wense, which are Numbers 17 and 18, and two others which seem to deal
with very obvious points. So that is the objection with regard to Bolle,
and the Prosecution submit that he would really be cumulative and is
unnecessary. They make no objection to Fischböck, who speaks on the
Jews, financial administration, art treasures, and forced labor. They
make no objection to Hirschfeld, who speaks about confiscations and
destruction of factories and the food situation. So, on the oral
witnesses, the only objection is regarding Bolle.
With regard to the affidavits there is no objection—or rather, they
should be interrogatories. They were all granted by the Tribunal on the
26th of January, and under these circumstances the Prosecution make no
objection to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Steinbauer.
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Mr.
President, Your Honors, my client, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, had at first asked
for a large number of witnesses and then, at my advice, and according to
the desire of the Tribunal, reduced this number considerably.
I ask that the witness, construction supervisor Bolle, be admitted
before the Tribunal because in my opinion the objection made by the
Prosecution, that this is a cumulative witness, is not quite correct.
Bolle was, before the occupation, Director of the Port of Hamburg, and
then during all the years of the occupation he was director of the
transportation department in Holland.
In particular he can testify about the railroad and shipping strike in
October 1944. This chapter of the history of the occupation is
extraordinarily important, because this strike resulted in a blocking of
traffic which led to an embargo. The Indictment asserts, moreover, that
the causes of the later famine catastrophe in Holland, as we may call
it, can in part be traced back to measures which the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart took in October 1944. Quite understandably, the Armed
Forces wanted to use the few means of transportation which were still
functioning, for their own purposes. The very examination of the witness
Bolle should prove, however, that Seyss-Inquart endeavored, insofar as
possible, to mitigate the effects of the measures taken by the Wehrmacht
in this matter. In an interrogatory this complex of questions could not
be treated exhaustively.
I ask you, Gentlemen, to realize that we are dealing here with the
examination of the administration of a kingdom of 9 million within a
period of 5 years. If we read through the report submitted by the Dutch
Delegation we see, in regard to the financial consequences, alone, that
it is alleged that the damage, which had been brought about by the
administration on the one hand and by the events of war on the other
hand, in short, by the occupation of Holland by Germany, reaches a
figure of 25,725,000,000 Dutch guilders, to which, considering the
difference in prices between 1938 and now, we have to add a margin of
175 percent.
I wish to point out that we are dealing here with the examination of
administrative, legal, financial, and economic measures over a period of
5 years. I therefore believe that the request of the defendant that this
witness be admitted is quite justified.
Concerning the affidavits, I took the liberty of making two more
applications which have not yet been granted. This is on the last page,
a very short affidavit by Baron Lindhorst-Hormann. He was formerly
Commissioner of the Province of Groningen and should in particular be
examined in regard to one point, in regard to the treatment of the
so-called hostages in the hostage camp, and also in regard to the fact
that none of these hostages was shot.
In addition to getting this affidavit, I have also asked that some
official announcements be obtained, announcements by the Higher Police
and SS Leader Rauter regarding the executions in order to prove who had
done these things, that is, that the point of view of the defendant is
that these regrettable measures were taken by the police and not by the
civil administration.
I also intend to submit two affidavits which are already in my
possession. One of them is an affidavit by a German judge,
Kammergerichtsrat Rudolf Fritsch. In Seyss-Inquart’s administration in
Holland he was in charge of appeals. He can tell us how Seyss-Inquart
handled this important chapter of jurisdiction.
Another affidavit which I have in my possession comes from a Dr. Walter
Stricker. It is cited as Document Number 30. Dr. Walter Stricker was a
lawyer in Vienna and emigrated in 1938 to Australia. He served in the
Australian Army and, without my asking, he sent me an affidavit,
notarized by an Australian notary public, in which he testifies about
conditions in Vienna in the critical days of October and November 1938.
I ask also that this affidavit be admitted. As to the documents, as I
have already told Sir David, I shall submit an exact list.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, before you deal with that. Sir David said
that with reference to the affidavits, which are mentioned on Page 2,
that these ought to be called interrogatories. I do not know whether you
wish to ask particularly for affidavits, which are different from
interrogatories.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You want affidavits?
DR. STEINBAUER: Interrogatories, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Would there be any objection to the affidavit from the
lawyer in Australia being shown to the Prosecution, so that they may see
whether they wish to put cross-interrogatories to that witness?
Australia is too far away from here for him to be brought here for
cross-examination.
DR. STEINBAUER: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have just been handed that affidavit from the
witness Stricker and also Number 6, on the Dutch questions, from Judge
Fritsch; and if the same course could be taken with regard to that from
Baron Lindhorst-Hormann, I shall be ready then to consider that, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the rest of the documents in the
usual course, I ask that the Defense make extracts and show them to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one point I call to the attention of
the Tribunal. It may be helpful that Number 28, Document Number D-571,
is already in as Exhibit Number USA-112. I do not know if the Defense
really wants Number 3. I shall not deal with it now, but the Prosecution
will submit that it is really unnecessary and irrelevant, but I think
that is a matter that we can more conveniently discuss when it comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then with reference to Number 2, under the heading
concerning the Dutch question, will it be satisfactory if that is in the
form of an affidavit and is submitted to you, so that you can put
cross-interrogatories if you want to?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be very satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, have you got the affidavit mentioned in
Paragraph 2 of the last heading?
DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; I have not received it yet. But I have
requested that the Tribunal question the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Could the interrogatories be in a more convenient form?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not trouble you further about the documents.
DR. STEINBAUER: I have only the request that, if possible, two books,
which are not in my possession, be obtained: Document Number 8, Guido
Zernatto, _The Truth about Austria_, and Number 9, the book _A Pact with
Hitler—The Austria Drama_ by Martin Fuchs. I was told by Austrian
people that both these books contain worthwhile information on
clarifying the events in 1937 and 1938. Both books were, of course,
prohibited in Austria during the Nazi regime and therefore I cannot get
them.
The second book is also on the list presented by the French Prosecution,
and from this I have learned that the book appeared in the publishing
firm of Plon in Paris. Perhaps it is possible, with the assistance of
the Prosecution, to get these books in time. All other documents I have
in my possession.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say Number 2? You said 8 and 9, but did you also
say Number 2?
DR. STEINBAUER: Number 2, _Three Times Austria_, by Schuschnigg.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you mentioned the third book. You said you have
not got Numbers 8 and 9 and I thought you went on to mention a third
one.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, Sir; only these two books.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then, no doubt, the Prosecution will help you
to get them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make inquiries, My Lord, and we will
communicate with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Speer
has asked for 22 witnesses, who are all to answer in writing. There are
no oral witnesses. And he asked for 41 documents. He has also asked that
the Court appoint a panel of experts to interrogate a number of
witnesses on what are termed “economic questions.” Now, I think it would
be convenient if I summarize in four sentences the points of defense
that appear on Page 26 and the following pages of the application,
because if the Tribunal have these in mind it will make consideration of
the witnesses easier.
There are four points. Number 1 is to show the responsibility of Speer.
The Defendant Speer says that he was not responsible for the
mobilization, allocation, or treatment of labor. The second point is to
prove that his functions were merely technical and not political. The
third point, to prove his actions to stop the importing of foreign labor
and the treatment of concentration camp labor in the armament factories,
which were his concern. The fourth point is his efforts, at the end of
the war, to stop destruction in Germany and so to benefit the Allies and
Germany after the war.
Now, of the witnesses, the following are from his own ministry, Numbers
1 to 6, 8, 10, and 12. The Prosecution submit that nine is rather a
large number dealing with the position of the ministry. They are
cumulative on many points and we should suggest that, if counsel would
pick three, that that would cover that part of the case.
Now, the following witnesses, Numbers 15 to 21, are designed to show the
attitude of the defendant at the end of war. There are a number of
documents on this point, and again the Prosecution submit that that
number of witnesses could be cut down to two or three.
Now, dealing with the remaining witnesses, Number 7, Field Marshal
Milch, has already been allowed to Defendant Göring, so that point does
not arise.
And Number 9, Dr. Malzacher, although not a member of the defendant’s
ministry, was in charge of armaments in the southeast, and would appear
to be cumulative as to the members of the ministry.
Number 11 is the liaison officer between the ministry and the OKW and
also appears cumulative, unless counsel could indicate any special point
that escaped the Prosecution.
Number 13 is really cumulative of Number 12, speaking on a point on
which Frau Kempf can speak.
Number 14 is the defendant’s doctor, to speak on a period of illness.
Again, unless there is some point that the Prosecution have not
appreciated, they would have thought that the defendant and his
secretary could speak on a period of illness.
Finally, Number 22, Gottlob Berger, is designated to inform the Tribunal
of Hitler’s general views on the situation at the end of April 1945, and
would appear to be irrelevant. I think the only point that is made is to
show that this had some effect on the radio speech which this defendant
wanted to make. These are the views of the Prosecution as to the
witnesses. With regard to the panel of experts, the Prosecution
respectfully say that these matters of supply labor and armaments are
matters which are very generally familiar now and on which a great deal
of evidence has been given, and that they are essentially matters which
can be dealt with by the Tribunal which will decide other questions of
fact. They are not really sufficiently specialist matters to merit the
Tribunal’s setting up a special panel to deal with them. These are the
views of the Prosecution on the question of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flächsner.
DR. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): May I start, Mr.
President, with the last point which the prosecutor has mentioned,
namely, the question of whether the case of the Defendant Speer might
justify having his sphere of activity explained and interpreted to the
Court by an expert. The prosecutor is of the opinion that the evidence
presented so far is sufficient to inform the Tribunal about the manner
of work, the course of work, and its consequences in regard to those
questions, which came under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Speer.
I regret to have to say, however, that the description which the
Prosecution has given of the activity of the Defendant Speer up till now
is not correct, that is to say, not complete.
It is very difficult to take account of a ministry and its manner of
work, which in normal times has no place in the state administration. In
all states at war the ministries of armament and production are created
during the war. The sphere of activities of these ministries is
determined from time to time; and that also applies to the ministry
which the Defendant Speer headed.
Not only the ministry of the Defendant Speer, but especially other
authorities within the state administration were concerned with that
question, which the Prosecution has brought to the notice of the
Tribunal; and the authorities overlapped each other in regard to
jurisdiction. Many times the jurisdiction of a single authority could
not be determined, so that from time to time a solution would have to be
found. These are all questions of importance, if the Tribunal is to
judge to what extent this or that accusation of the Prosecution,
especially concerning the employment of foreign workers, is well
founded. In addition we have to consider that that defendant originally
involved in this complex of economic questions, who could have helped
very much to clear up the question of jurisdiction—the Defendant Ley,
who, as head of the German Labor Front, played an important role in the
question of labor employment, that is, the taking care of the laborers
utilized—that this Defendant Ley is no longer here. The question of the
use of foreign labor, of which the Defendant Speer is in the main
accused by the Prosecution, must be discussed further. For this reason I
requested that an expert be allowed to clear up these purely technical
questions of the labor employment as a help to the Tribunal.
The selection of such an expert is not easy. I proposed that one of the
gentlemen who work in the economic branch in Washington might have
examined the question of Speer’s ministry; and might appear as an expert
before this Tribunal. I was told this office does not exist any more and
the persons of whom the Defendant Speer had the impression, at the
occasion of an interrogation, that they really understood the situation,
are no longer available. But, there is still an Allied authority here,
which is concerned with, in all probability, economic questions; and
perhaps it would be possible to select a suitable person within the
circle of gentlemen who are working there, who would be in a position to
clear up these questions for the benefit of the Tribunal.
I turn now to the question of witnesses. First of all I have to correct
a wrong impression which may have been formed by the Prosecution. If it
is said that witnesses 1 to 5—no, 1 to 6, 8 and 10 and 12. . .
THE PRESIDENT: If you are leaving now the question of the panel of
experts, this would be a convenient time to break off for the recess.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I am now turning to the question of
witnesses and should like to make a general remark before I start.
The evidence to be offered by the witnesses, as I have already requested
in writing, is somewhat more extensive for this reason, that those very
witnesses who would have had the most comprehensive knowledge cannot be
called. Those are the former Army chiefs of armaments, General Fromm,
and Schieber, who for many years was the chief of the central office in
Speer’s ministry. The names which I have included in my list are, in
part, men who only later were called to these tasks. Witness Hupfauer,
for instance, who is listed as Number 1, was active in this function
only from 1 January 1945 on—that is barely 4 months—as chief of the
central office, an office formerly held by the previously mentioned
Schieber.
I know very well that if I mention a number of witnesses who were
employed in Speer’s ministry the appearance is thereby created that
these witnesses might be cumulative because they are questioned in
regard to the same points. In reality that is not the case. Indeed,
although the witnesses concerned were active in Speer’s ministry, they
were not active as routine officials, that is, as professional civil
servants in an office.
Speer’s ministry as a war institution was organized along lines entirely
different from those of a regular ministry. Main functions were
delegated to industrialists, who took care of them in a suboffice.
Rohland, witness Number 2, was, for instance, by profession a director
of the United Steel Works; witness Number 4 was director of the Zellwell
A.G.; witness Number 6, a manufacturer and owner of a textile factory;
witness Number 9, the director of the Upper Silesian mining works and of
Hütten A.G. In addition to these functions they had special functions in
Speer’s ministry. Therefore they can testify only on a small section,
namely, those functions delegated to them. Therefore I cannot follow the
suggestion of the Prosecution, that only two of these gentlemen be
selected by me.
I do not know just how far each of these gentlemen is informed on the
questions which I shall submit to him. I am not in the fortunate
position of the Prosecution, who can question their witnesses in advance
and find out what they know. I must rely on an interrogatory and can
only surmise that they are in a position to answer the questions
submitted to them. If I were to follow the suggestion of the Prosecution
and select only two or three of these gentlemen, it may very well happen
that I should select exactly the wrong people, those who do not know
anything. Therefore I cannot say that I could dispense with any one of
these witnesses who are to be here on the main question in the case
against Defendant Speer, namely, the employment of foreign laborers.
In the list of witnesses I mentioned briefly the particulars about which
these witnesses are to be heard. I believe that it is unnecessary for me
to make further explanations in that regard; I believe my reasons are
self-explanatory.
Now I am turning to the question of witness Number 7. This witness has
already been granted me. I do not believe that further explanations in
regard to this are necessary.
As far as Malzacher, witness Number 9, is concerned, the Prosecution
asserts that this witness would be cumulative of witness Number 1. But
that is not so. The vital question which is to be put to this witness is
the question as to how the distribution of manpower to the various
industries was made by the labor office. The second question is, whether
and to what extent the offices of Speer’s ministry and the industries
had the opportunity of influencing the distribution of available
manpower. This witness is of decisive importance in regard to this
question. I have further questions to put to this witness and I should
include in the interrogatory these questions which refer in particular
to destruction, _et cetera_.
I wanted my list to be as concise as possible and therefore mentioned
only the main points. I therefore request that this witness be admitted,
since I shall make use of the interrogatory only insofar as the
witnesses can state therein something which is really relevant. If an
interrogatory comes back to me which does not contain relevant material,
I shall, of course, refrain from abusing the time and the patience of
the Tribunal by not presenting that interrogatory.
The Prosecution is of the opinion that witnesses 12 and 13 are
cumulative. That is not correct. Perhaps I expressed myself too
concisely in regard to the facts on which these witnesses are to
testify.
The Prosecution have, only incidentally to be sure, produced a document,
3568-PS, which contained an interrogatory which gave information
regarding Speer’s membership in the SS. This document did not, according
to the Defendant Speer, come from him, and therefore I name his
secretary as a witness to this fact; that is, she should receive an
interrogatory.
Witness 13 is to testify on an entirely different matter. The
Reichsführer SS Himmler had the intention of making Speer an SS man and
of taking him into his personal staff. Witness Wolff had received from
Himmler the official statement, which he was to hand to Speer. And Wolff
is to testify that this statement was never forwarded to Speer, for
which reason there is no question of Speer’s membership in the SS.
Even if, in respect to the charge in the Indictment, this is a very
minor point, it must nevertheless be considered, since Document 3568-PS
has been submitted by the Prosecution and used as evidence for their
case.
I agree with the Prosecution that questioning of witness Number 22 can
be dispensed with and I can do so.
As far as the questioning of the other witnesses is concerned, I ask to
be allowed to use interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what you have to say about 14? Surely the
secretary can speak as to the fact that the defendant was ill in the
spring of 1944?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Yes, Mr. President; I did not include this question in
the interrogatory but I can add it, and we can dispense with witness 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it, do you think, Sir David, expedite matters or
help the defendant’s counsel if he were to be allowed to issue all these
interrogatories and then were to consider them with you and see what was
then cumulative?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I should be quite prepared to do that. They
are all witnesses who are giving their evidence in writing so that I
shall be quite prepared to. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that aspect of the
matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal saw fit I should be very happy
to co-operate.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can now deal with the documents, Dr. Flächsner,
or Sir David will.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents 1 to 8 deal with the
Defendant Speer’s being against the importation into Germany of foreign
labor and they seem relevant, apart from Number 1, which seems rather a
_non sequitur_, for the amount used in the armament industry does not
seem to have any connection, as far as we can see, with the
Prisoner-of-War Convention, 1929. And Number 6, as to the calling up of
women in Germany, seems rather remote. But perhaps these matters can be
more conveniently dealt with when counsel seeks to introduce the
documents.
Numbers 9 to 13 show the general attitude of the Defendant Speer to the
treatment of foreign workers and therefore appear relevant. Number 14
deals with the point on which I think it is desired also to have
evidence from the witness Milch.
Numbers 15 to 18 are reports showing the hopelessness of the economic
situation in Germany from June 1944 onwards. The Prosecution makes no
objection at the moment. Of course, all these matters will have to be
considered when the document is used. And Numbers 19 to 41 all deal with
the efforts of the Defendant Speer to prevent destruction of bridges and
railways and water transport undertakings and the like, during the last
few weeks of the war. They might have a bearing on the sentence and
therefore the Prosecution make no objection.
Perhaps learned counsel will set out the quotations which he wants
admitted in that regard. It is not a matter on which the Prosecution
have called any contrary evidence and therefore, if counsel will
indicate what the matters are that he wants submitted, it may be that we
shall be able to agree and shorten the presentation.
With regard to Documents 38 to 41, these are said to be in the
possession of the French Delegation. They are not in the possession of
the French Delegation at the moment, but they have asked for them to be
sent here.
I think that covers our position as to documents.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I should like to comment briefly on one factor. Document
Number 1 is of value only if the Tribunal decides to call an expert on
the general themes which I described to the Tribunal before the recess.
An expert—for practical purposes an industrial expert—can draw from
the old distribution plan conclusions which the jurist is generally not
in a position to draw. If the expert is considered superfluous by the
Tribunal, then Document Number 1 is also superfluous—that I see.
The other documents requested by me are of importance, but not because,
as the Prosecution seem to assume, I am trying to produce evidence of
the fact that we did not want any foreign laborers; this should not be
expressed so pointedly.
The Defendant Speer had the task of producing armaments and needed
workers for that. Nothing is farther from his intentions than, in any
way, to deny or lessen his responsibility in respect to that. But what I
have to consider important—and for this purpose these documents, which
I am requesting, are essential—is the task of defining the extent to
which the defendant is responsible.
I believe that this explains the question of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite clear as to whether you are suggesting
that the Tribunal should call the panel of experts or whether you would
like to designate the persons who would form that panel.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The selection of experts I wish to place in the hands of
the Tribunal. At the moment I myself should not have the opportunity of
finding a suitable person. I am fully aware, though, that in the
department of economic warfare there were persons who would be very
suitable as experts and who have the knowledge which is necessary in the
judgment of these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, supposing that the Tribunal were not to accept your
contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there is nobody whom you
wish to add to your list of interrogatories?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President. I have only one more
request. This expert should voice an opinion as to whether the figures
given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit—Document Number 2520-PS—would
stand up under close examination. In this affidavit Mr. Deuss stated
statistically how many of all the workers employed in Germany were
foreign workers in the armament industry, _et cetera_.
Important technical objections can be raised to the method of figuring
used by Mr. Deuss. If the Tribunal is not to grant the use of an expert
in this matter, I wish to ask for permission to submit certain questions
to Mr. Deuss, in the form of an interrogatory, naturally, in order to
give him the opportunity of checking his figures.
The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained therein
were considered relevant by the Prosecution at the time; I assume that
the objections made to Mr. Deuss’ figures will also be considered
relevant. I should then have to ask permission to call Mr. Deuss’
attention, by means of an interrogatory, to these points which in my
opinion are technically incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
COL. POKROVSKY: Please forgive me. I have not had the time to exchange
opinions on the subject with my friend, Sir David, and my other
colleagues. Therefore, at the present time, I am merely expressing the
point of view of the Soviet Delegation on the subject of experts.
I do not consider that the appointment of a board of experts would be a
method of solving the problem which could be recognized as correct. We
would object to the introduction of experts for the clarification of the
circumstances interesting the Defendant Speer and his counsel, as set
forth in the document submitted by them. We do not consider it right
that a question like the procedure governing the request for manpower
for Speer’s ministry, and the ratification of this request by Sauckel,
as well as the allocation of workers by the competent local labor
offices should call for the findings of a board of experts. We do not
consider it right that questions of technical productions, as emanating
from Speer’s ministry, should call for expert opinion.
I could say as much with regard to all the subsequent points. We are
inclined to defend the point of view that all these problems can be
adequately elucidated by the high Tribunal, and this without the
intervention of experts. Therefore the Soviet Prosecution objects to the
granting of this claim and requests the Tribunal to reject the
application for a board of experts.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
witnesses of the Defendant Von Neurath, the Prosecution makes no
objection to Number 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director of the political
division in the Foreign Office.
Then, Number 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been granted
for the Defendant Ribbentrop.
With regard to the third, Dr. Dieckhoff, the Tribunal granted this
witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered
the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests that it
might be covered by interrogatories.
DR. OTTO FREIHERR VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant Von Neurath):
Mr. President, I agree, and I have already worked out an interrogatory
which will be submitted to the General Secretary today; but I wish to
reserve the right of asking under certain circumstances that, when the
interrogatory is returned to me, the witness nevertheless be heard in
person before the Tribunal. In principle I agree, however, to his being
heard by means of an interrogatory.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. And the same view is taken by the
Prosecution of Number 4, the witness Prüfer; again it seemed to be
largely a historical matter and they suggested an interrogatory. There
is no objection to the evidence of the witness being brought before the
Court.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been submitted by
me to the General Secretary several weeks ago. I assume that it will be
returned to me, answered, within a reasonable period of time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Number 5 is Count Schwerin von Krosigk,
who was Finance Minister for a long period of years in the Government of
the Reich. If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the
application which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen has put in: He says this witness
is most accurately informed about the personality of the defendant, his
political viewpoints as well as the basic thoughts and aims of the
policy of peace carried on by the defendant, and his avoidance of all
use of force as well as his endeavors for the maintenance of peace, even
after being Foreign Minister, and about his opinion of National
Socialism and about the happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January
1937.
The Prosecution felt that these matters were really emphasizing points
that the defendant would speak on, and that it was difficult to see that
Count Schwerin von Krosigk was being asked to speak on any particular
point that was an issue. Therefore, again, they would suggest that an
interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of the defense.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory will serve
the purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several sectors of the
activity of the Defendant Von Neurath are dealt with, in regard to which
the witness is to give us information.
For instance, the Indictment asserts that Defendant Von Neurath acted as
a sort of Fifth Column in the ranks of the conservative, that is, the
German National Party. In regard to the fact that this is not true, the
witness named by me, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, can give extensive
information; and I attach importance to having this take place before
the Tribunal in such a way that the Tribunal may have an idea also of
the atmosphere in the ranks of the parties of the Right at the time
these things took place.
A further subject for his hearing is the question of the outstanding
manner in which the Defendant Von Neurath intervened, although he was no
longer Foreign Minister at the time, in order to bring about the
conference at Munich in September 1938, and the measure in which he had
an effect on the outcome of this conference which, at that time, was
generally considered a happy one.
I should consider the summoning before the Tribunal of this witness, who
is present in Nuremberg, and who will therefore not have to be brought
from another city, important.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not desire to say anything more on that
point.
Then, Field Marshal Von Blomberg is, we understand, ill, and there will
be an interrogatory.
Number 7, Dr. Guido Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt with this
morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart. He is an Austrian ex-Foreign
Minister. I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart and I make no
objection now, of course.
Lord Halifax has been the subject of interrogatories.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The interrogatory has already been sent to Lord
Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czechoslovakian
Ambassador in Berlin, came into the case in that the Prosecution put in
a letter from Jan Masaryk describing a visit of Dr. Mastny to the
Defendant Von Neurath. Of course, if there is any issue as to that
report—its not being true—then there would be some reason for calling
him as a witness; but if it is merely a question of clarifying it, I
should believe an interrogatory would be sufficient.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next witness, Dr.
Stroelin—if the Tribunal would consider that along with Number 12, Dr.
Wurm—I understand that the Tribunal granted Number 12 on the 19th of
December as an alternative to Stroelin, giving the choice between the
witness Stroelin and the witness Wurm. Dr. Stroelin is Oberbürgermeister
of Stuttgart. I do not know if Dr. Seidl can tell the Tribunal if it is
the same Dr. Stroelin he desires in the case of Hess.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen tells me that he is, so the
Tribunal might note that point—that that witness will also be asked for
by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess—and therefore I should suggest that we
might leave that undecided for the moment. If the Tribunal grant it in
the case of Hess, of course, Dr. Von Lüdinghausen will automatically
have the advantage of this witness; and if he is not granted—and I do
not know whether Dr. Von Lüdinghausen feels strongly about his personal
presence—I am not the Court—I do not feel very strongly on the point
myself. Do you want to be heard?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make this decision at
that time when the question is settled as to whether the witness is
granted to another defendant or not. I should like to make the following
remark. . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Which witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 10, Dr. Stroelin.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you require Dr. Wurm
at all, Number 12?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I do not insist on Dr. Wurm’s being
heard in person at Nuremberg. Bishop Wurm has already told me that he
would give me the information requested in the form of an affidavit. I
should ask for permission to submit this affidavit to the Tribunal. I do
not insist on his being heard in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely cumulative, Number 10, but if it is
felt that an affidavit would help—it will be along the same lines—I
shall not press an objection.
Now, Number 11. The Prosecution felt, with regard to the witness
Zimmermann, that he was really speaking on the contents of the
defendant’s mind. If I might read the first five lines:
“The witness is in a position to give information about the
personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant,
as well as about the fact that he entered the Cabinet only at
the express request of the Reich President Von Hindenburg, and
that he remained in the Cabinet after the latter’s death because
he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent of any policy
pointing toward force or war, and that because of this reason he
handed in his resignation as Reich Foreign Minister soon after 5
November 1937; also about the reasons because of which he
declared himself ready to take over the office of Reich
Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.”
It would appear that these are all matters which Dr. Zimmermann has
heard from the defendant. I do not really think it helps the defendant’s
case any further. The Prosecution therefore felt that that witness was
irrelevant.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I should like to request that he be heard here.
The witness has been a very intimate friend of Defendant Von Neurath for
many, many years. The defendant considered him somewhat as a father
confessor and informed him of everything which oppressed him. From this
information the witness has a very clear impression of events and
happenings. Thus this lawyer, Dr. Zimmermann, is very closely informed
about the incidents that took place in September 1932, when Von Neurath
entered the newly-formed Cabinet of Von Papen upon the express desire of
the then Reich President Von Hindenburg. The witness is informed of the
fact that Defendant Von Neurath did not wish to accept the call, and
that it took very earnest persuasion on the part of the Reich President
Von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal duty, before the
defendant could be moved to assume the office of Reich Foreign Minister.
This witness also knows the motives because of which the defendant after
the death of the Reich President considered it his duty, in response to
a wish expressed previously by the Reich President, to remain in office,
and in that way to fulfill the wishes of the Reich President.
He also knows very well what a really devastating effect it had on Von
Neurath when, on 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time came to the
fore with martial intent. Witness Zimmermann also knows very exactly the
reasons which moved the defendant after very long deliberation to assume
the office of Reich Protector. The witness also is very well informed
not only about the difficulties confronting the position of Reich
Protector, but also about the attitude of the defendant to the problems
in the Reich Protectorate. These matters are all of decisive importance
so far as a judgment of the defendant is concerned, and I do not believe
that even an affidavit or minutes of interrogation which has been worked
out with the greatest care can have the same weight as a personal
hearing of the witness. For these reasons I request that this witness,
who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come here
from Berlin, be granted me. We do not have to find him; he is a
practicing lawyer and notary in Berlin.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not wish to add to that. That leaves one
point, My Lord, the two witnesses, 13 and 14. The first one, Dr.
Völkers, was the chief of the Cabinet of Defendant Von Neurath in
Prague. He has not been located. The second, Von Holleben, was. . .
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment camp at
Neumünster, and I indicated the exact address.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of the Prosecution
is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that it would be
unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Völkers is available. That
is my point.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I ask you to consent to witness
Consul Von Holleben’s being heard by means of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to 1; we will adjourn until 2.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will finish the
applications for witnesses and documents before the end of the sitting
today, but they do not propose to go on with the case against the
Defendant Göring until tomorrow. They will take that case at 10 o’clock
tomorrow morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
documents applied for by the Defendant Von Neurath, Paragraph 1 requires
no comment.
Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen has in his
possession. If they are treated in the usual way and extracts are made,
I have nothing further to say.
Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession. Number 1
and Number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference in 1932 and in
May 1933 respectively. I am afraid I do not know what the difficulty has
been in obtaining those documents, and if there is any way in which the
Prosecution can help, they will.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Concerning Document Number 1 I was able to find,
in the meantime, in one of the documents which referred to the
Disarmament Conference, a copy of this document which is important for
me, namely, the resolution about Germany’s equality of rights. If the
document which I have asked for is not here in time, I am nevertheless
in the position of having to submit an excerpt from this German book.
However, that does not apply to Number 4, and I should like to be able
to get that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for the interrogation of
Karl Hermann Frank.
The ruling of the Tribunal was that only the portions of interrogations
of defendants used by the Prosecution might be re-used. If any portions
of this interrogation were used by the Soviet Prosecution, and I
confess. . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please, Sir David. As I understood you, you
did not state our ruling quite accurately.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the Prosecution put in any
part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the defendants would have
the opportunity of using any other part of the interrogation, treating
the interrogation as one document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your Lordship. That was
the rule so far as defendants are concerned, but Karl Hermann Frank is
not a defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been used would have
appeared in the ordinary way in the document book of whichever
delegation had used it. The general interrogation was taken, of course,
not only for the Prosecution’s purpose at this Trial, but also for the
purposes of the Czech Government, in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank
himself. Therefore, what I suggest is that Dr. Lüdinghausen put
interrogatories to Karl Hermann Frank, on whatever points he wants to
raise. The Prosecution would have no objection to that.
DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I make the following reply?
These minutes of the four interrogations of Karl Hermann Frank are
mentioned and discussed in Exhibit Number USSR-60, which has been given
to me and which contains the indictment made by the Czech Government.
I cannot judge to what extent these interrogations are important in
reference to my client, the Defendant Von Neurath, as Reich Protector,
or whether they have to do with a later period. For that reason I have
asked that these protocols be made available to me. I know that Karl
Hermann Frank has also been questioned about the document concerning the
meeting in Prague on a policy of Germanization of the Czech country. To
this document, which was presented, that is to say, which is contained
in a report of General Friderici, reference is made in the respective
minutes.
Now, I know that Frank once made a report to the Reich Protector in
which he labeled all the opinions and proposals—which actually,
however, were never put into actions—ridiculous and declared them to be
impossible. Therefore, it is important for me to know just what is said
in these minutes which the Czech indictment has drawn on at this point.
If nothing is contained therein, then, of course, I shall dispense with
these minutes, but I have to examine them myself. It is, therefore,
important for me to see these minutes, at least, and then to present
from them whatever is of importance for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to counsel for
Von Neurath seeing these interrogations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the Czech Government
before I could agree, because, frankly, I have not gone through the
parts which we were not concerned with in this case, and I do not know
on what subjects the interrogation was based.
THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of principle, if a
certain document or a part of a document is used, ought it not to be
open to the defendants to use the rest of the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a matter of principle,
My Lord, only if there were connected parts. I think that is the general
rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories in the English courts. For
example, supposing that one day Karl Hermann Frank was examined about
the early days of the Protectorate, and then on another day he was
examined on a specific point at the end of the Protectorate. Then I
should not have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely
connected.
My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. Barrington
has just brought to my attention. These interrogatories were the basis
of the Czech Government report. They are not introduced as
interrogatories but—so I am told—as part of the report by the person
who drew it. It is not material that we are in a position to introduce
as interrogatories. They come in as a Government report from the Czech
Government.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): If it should develop later that it is
relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that material
being introduced?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, but the material
is the property of the Czech Government.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then your position is really that it is not
in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the treaty between
France and the Soviet Union, in 1935. This document was authorized by
the General Secretary on 29 January, and if there is any difficulty in
getting a copy, I will try to do anything I can to help, subject to the
reservation of objecting to its relevance when I know what use is going
to be made of it.
DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I add a few more words to this point?
During the very last few days I have received, from various sides,
suggestions of information which seem important to my defense; but I
have not yet had the opportunity of checking this information and
finding out whether it is really of importance to the conduct of the
Defense. May I therefore ask, if this should be the case and if there
should be one or two other witnesses or documents which I can find out
about only later, that I be permitted to make an application
supplementary to the list of witnesses and documents I have given today.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Fritzsche.
[_Dr. Fritz approached the lectern._]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, there are only two
witnesses applied for in this case.
The first of them is Von Schirmeister, who was an official of the late
Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have no
objection to that witness.
With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the application says
that he received his information and instructions from the Defendant
Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directives issued to journalists.
On the assumption that these were more or less official directives that
he gave in the course of his duty, again, I do not think there can be
any objection from the Prosecution. But I do not know what Dr. Fritz
would think about interrogatories, or whether he has any strong views
about calling Dr. Kriegk on that point. As I understand it, it would be
more or less a synopsis of the directives given, but in view of the very
modest proportions of the applications in this case, I do not want to be
unreasonable if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Your Honors, I have
presented a very restricted list of evidence material and I should be
grateful if the personal appearance of the second witness, Dr. Kriegk,
were granted, for the following reasons: First the witness Von
Schirmeister has been named because he is to give us information about
the internal tasks which the Defendant Fritzsche had in the Ministry for
Propaganda, especially about his relations to Dr. Goebbels. As far as
the daily press conferences which the Defendant Fritzsche held are
concerned, this first witness, Von Schirmeister, did not take part in
them. From the subjective angle, especially, it is important to know
what directives the Defendant Fritzsche gave the journalists,
specifically the most important German journalists who assembled daily
at his press conferences.
As a further reason for my request that the personal appearance of this
witness be granted, I point out that, of the collection of documents or
rather of the two document collections, 1 and 2 of my list are not yet
available to me, so that there are various points which I had wanted to
prove by presenting documents or quotations therefrom which I now hope
to prove by questioning these two witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not press the point of an affidavit. I
leave it to the Tribunal.
With regard to the documents, Number 1 is the broadcasts of the
Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from the
Prosecution to that.
Number 2 is the archives of the section German Express Service. And
again we make no objection at this stage. We will perhaps have to
consider the reports when we get them.
There is a little trouble about the third group, sworn testimony or
letters which contain objective observations on the part of the writers
about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche. If these are official reports
or anything of that kind, of course, there would be no objection, if
they were contemporaneous; but the course which the Prosecution
respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that we wait and see these in
the document book and then we can consider them and make any objection
when they come up.
DR. FRITZ: I agree to this procedure. I believe I need say nothing more
about Documents 1 and 2 after the statement Sir David has just made.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, some of the defense counsel want to put in
supplementary applications. It would be convenient to deal with them
now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to confer
with my colleagues as we deal with each one, as we go along, in case
they have any further views to express.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I think there are some supplementary
applications by Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors, on 28 February 1946, I
submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application for the Defendant
Rudolf Hess. The application was necessary for the following reasons: In
my first application I mentioned the witness Bohle, the former Gauleiter
of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, for a number of subjects,
among others in reference to the German Foreign Institute and the
activity of the League for Germans Abroad. When I made that application
to question the witness Bohle I had not yet had any opportunity to speak
to the witness. After approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and I
found out that the witness Bohle, although he can make very concrete
statements about the Auslands-Organisation, does not have any immediate
first-hand information about the activity of the German Foreign
Institute and the activity of the League for Germans Abroad.
I therefore ask that the following be approved as further witnesses:
First, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart and
finally President of the German Foreign Institute. The witness is here
in Nuremberg as a prisoner awaiting trial, and it is the same witness
who has also been requested by the Defendant Von Neurath in his case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, My Lord, if Dr.
Seidl would indicate what the final position of these witnesses is. As I
understand it, he no longer wants Herr Bohle. Is that right? I am not
clear whether this witness is in addition to or in substitution for Herr
Bohle.
DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, this is an
additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be needed as a witness,
but only concerning the matter of the activity of the
Auslands-Organisation. The witness Stroelin, since the witness Bohle has
not first-hand information about the Foreign Institute, should speak
about this latter point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would mean that Dr.
Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, Dr. Haushofer, and an
affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess.
I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of witnesses on
what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, from the
point of view of the Prosecution. The Prosecution said that the
Auslands-Organisation was used for promoting Fifth Column activities,
but it was only put in this way: That by using the Auslands-Organisation
there was, first of all, complete record and organization of Party
members abroad; secondly, the intelligence service of that organization,
through the organization, reported on all German officials of every
section of the Government who came abroad and kept check on them in
their work, in addition to German subjects; and because of this
intelligence service, these Germans were ready for use and in fact were
used when there was a question of invasion of the country.
It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for example, to blow
up bridges or commit acts of sabotage, given directly to the
organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning of the
organization that I have described.
I say that only because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to know the
case he has to meet. The Prosecution has never proved direct orders for
sabotage in this regard.
DR. SEIDL: The trial brief on his case has accused Rudolf Hess of the
fact that, under his leadership, the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP,
as well as the Foreign Institute and the League for Germans Abroad had
developed an activity which was almost equivalent to that of a Fifth
Column. It is correct that in the original indictment of the Defendant
Hess, personally, there were no details given by means of which the
indictment meant to show this activity and above all Hess’ guilt in
regard to the activities of these organizations.
As long, however, as the Auslands-Organisation and the Foreign Institute
and the League for Germans Abroad are accused of any connection with the
activities of a Fifth Column, the Defendant Hess has a reasonable
interest in seeing explained, first, what kind of activity these
organizations had and, second, which orders or directives he had given
to these organizations.
The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete statements
regarding the Auslands-Organisation. The same is necessary for the
German Foreign Institute about which Dr. Stroelin, who is here in
Nuremberg, can make authentic statements, and for the League for Germans
Abroad, about which the witness Dr. Haushofer can speak.
I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of the witness,
Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be used for this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogation as far as
Dr. Haushofer is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir, a third one. Before I come to the third witness,
whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I should like to inform
the Tribunal that I do not insist on a personal hearing of the witness
Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been approved by the Court. Instead of
that, I shall submit a short affidavit, which is already in the document
book which I have already given to the General Secretary.
In the place of the witness Sperr, I request, however, that the witness
Alfred Leitgen be called. Leitgen was for many years, until the flight
of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant.
I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I have found out
only now where this witness is. I believe that a personal hearing of
this witness is so important that one should not dispense with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points which Dr. Seidl specifies both
seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact that he is prepared
to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution will not take
objection to that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will allow me to say
one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain conversations with a
member of my staff. I think they will prove profitable and helpful on
the lines that Your Lordship suggested, and if the Tribunal will be good
enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius’ rights for a day or two, we hope to
have something practical and useful to put before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the Defendant Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember that you allowed the
matter to stand over. We have been working along the lines that Your
Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into
it myself and see the final result.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. SERVATIUS: In discussing the witnesses, I proposed a restriction
which is being presented to the Court in writing. Concerning the
documents, I have also practically come to an agreement as to how they
should be handled. There are, however, two principal applications which
I should like to submit and which have not been mentioned so far. But I
believe that a decision will have to be made by the Tribunal in respect
to principle. The applications are Documents 80 and 81.
Document 80 is a photostat of a deportation order which had been issued
in the city of Oels by the Soviet local commander, whereby the native
male population had to report for deportation; and it can be seen from
this order that it is deportation for the purpose of labor. I want to
submit this to show that the Hague agreement concerning land warfare has
been considered obsolete by the Soviet Army. I have only this one
deportation order. I should therefore like to suggest that the Tribunal
make use of Article 17(e) of the Charter and have a judge determine on
the spot to what extent this deportation took place, and I should like
thereby to have it shown that it is not only the town of Oels, but that
it was done similarly on a large scale in the cities of East Prussia and
Upper Silesia. The population was deported in large numbers for purposes
of work and, if the information which I have received is correct, part
of the population of Königsberg is today still in the Ural Mountains. I
am not in a position to submit documents about all these things, because
of the difficulties of mailing, and the difficulties of receiving news
from the East at all. But the Tribunal should be in a position, by
asking the mayors and other officials, to find out that what I have just
said is correct.
Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the city of Saaz in
Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants of the city of Saaz were put
into a camp and, until Christmas 1945, they worked there without pay. I
believe also that this is proof of the fact that the Hague agreement
concerning land warfare is considered to be obsolete and outmoded in
regard to labor employment.
Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91: These are two books with affidavits
meant as a substitute for an investigation. It would be irrelevant if I
were to produce one or two affidavits concerning conditions in the labor
camps. One could object to that as being irrelevant because, in view of
the large number of factories and camps which exist, little proof would
be afforded by these affidavits. These mass conditions have somehow to
be considered juridically. Therefore, the Charter has admitted
government reports. I am not in a position to ask a government to help
me in this matter. Therefore I have to find a substitute by collecting
affidavits and grouping them in logical form in a notebook in order to
submit them to the Tribunal. This is the purpose of my proposal to
introduce a presentation of proof which is an innovation and is
difficult for me; but thereby the same objections are justified which
one might make to an investigation. An investigation has great
weaknesses, especially if it is conducted in a one-sided manner without
participation of those involved on the other side. In the case of my
affidavits, this danger is greatly reduced because it is hard to find
anybody who would fill out these affidavits unless he has very serious
reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the Tribunal to decide about my
application concerning these Documents 90 and 91. That is the matter I
wanted to submit here; the rest I shall discuss with the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have already
intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution object to Documents 80
and 81. To test their admissibility the easiest way is to assume that
Dr. Servatius has proved the facts alleged. And if that is done they
would not, in my opinion, come within miles of proving that Article 52
had become obsolete; and it is illustrative of the danger which I
ventured to point out to the Tribunal in regard to these two
arguments—that vague and hypothetical suggestion that there might be
some evidence that Article 52 had become obsolete. It is suggested that
the Tribunal should try the conduct of the Soviet Union with regard to
labor conditions and, as I understand, send a commission to collect
evidence on that point; and I do not want to repeat the arguments, but
the Prosecution most strenuously object to the suggestion and say that
nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it.
With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method would be by
_solvitur ambulando_. Let us see the affidavits and get some idea of
their contents and the source of knowledge disclosed and then the
Prosecution can make a decision regarding them. At this stage I do not
want to do anything to exclude them and they will receive the most
careful attention by my colleagues and me when they are brought forward.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary applications
for the Defendant Schacht and for the Defendant Keitel. I think there
may be some mistake about that.
Is the Defendant Bormann’s counsel here?
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that your applications
would stand over for some application within the next three weeks. So
you are not ready yet? I am told your documents are all here. Is that
so?
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far as I know.
However, since I have to collect my own information from the books, I
cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will be all my documents. I
therefore have asked permission to speak to the secretary, Wunderlich,
who was secretary for a long time, and also to another woman secretary.
Only from these two shall we get satisfactory information. Bormann, I
cannot reach. Therefore, for practical reasons, I ask permission to
present everything at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now—I am told that
there are applications from the Defendants Keitel, Rosenberg. . .
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, Defense Counsel for Keitel and Rosenberg are
not present at the moment. They probably did not expect that their
applications would be presented today. Maybe that could be done tomorrow
before the beginning of the Göring case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document;
however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus
“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes
French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals:
hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.
Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb
tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the
tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations
between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this
volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.
An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as
possible to the original document presentation and layout.
[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal Vol. VIII_, by Various.]
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Volume 8)" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.