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