4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this morning's session on account of illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, I understand that you do not wish to cross-examine that French witness.
HERR BABEL: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the French witness can go home.
M. DUBOST: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, there is one reason that possibly that French witness ought not to go. I think I saw she was moving out of Court. Could you stop her, please? I am afraid that she must stay for today.
M. Dubost, are you going to deal with documents this morning?
M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you be so good as to give us carefully and slowly the number of the documents first, because we have a good deal of difficulty in finding them.
M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And specify, also, so far as you can, the book in which they are to be found.
M. DUBOST: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall continue my description of the organization of the camps and the way in which they functioned. We began last night by submitting to the Tribunal Document Number R-91 which showed that their purpose was: 1) to make good the shortage of labor; 2) to eliminate useless forces.
After Document R-91, which has been submitted under Exhibit Number RF-347, we shall read Document Number F-285, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-346-second document book. This document is dated 17 December 1942 and is the conclusion of the document which we read to you yesterday. First paragraph: "For important military reasons, which cannot be stated, the ReichsFuehrer SS and the Chief of the German Police ......
30 Jan. 46
THE, PRESIDENT: You read that yesterday.
M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President, Page 18, sixth paragraph, at the top of the page.
"Poles eligible for German citizenship and prisoners for whom special requests have been made, will not be transferred to. . . ."
Last paragraph, Page 19:
"Other papers will not be required for Eastern workers."
This shows that arrests were made without discrimination in order to obtain labor and that this labor was considered to be so unimportant that it was sufficient to register it under serial numbers.
Now, we will show how this labor was utilized. Men were housed, as the witness, Balachowsky, said yesterday, near factories in Dora in underground shelters which they themselves had dug and where they lived under conditions which violated all the rules of hygiene. At Ohrdruf near Gotha, the prisoners constructed munition factories.
Buchenwald supplied the labor for the factories of Hollerith and Dora and for the salt mines of Neustassfurt. The Tribunal will read in Document Number RF-301, at the bottom of Page 45:
"Ravensbruck supplied the labor for the Siemens factories, those of Czechoslovakia, and the workshops at Hanover."
These special measures, according to the witness, Balachowsky, enabled the Germans to keep secret the manufacture of certain war weapons, such as the V-1 and V-2:
"The deportees had no contact with the outside world. The work of deportees enabled the Germans to obtain an output which they could not have obtained even from foreign workmen.
The French Prosecution will now submit Document R-129 as Exhibit Number RF-348, which the Tribunal will find in the second document book. It deals with the management of concentration camps:
"The administration of a concentration camp, and of all economic enterprises attached to it, rests with the camp commandant."
Fifth paragraph, Figure IV:
"The camp commandant alone is responsible for the work carried out by the workmen. This work"-I underline (italics) the word work-"this work must be, in the true sense of the word, exhausting in order to obtain the maximum output."
Two paragraphs lower on the page:
30 Jan. 46
"The hours of work are not limited. This duration depends on the technical structure of the camp' and the work to be done and is determined by the camp commandant alone."
Further on, the last paragraph, Page 23 of the book:
"He"-the camp commandant-"must combine a technical knowledge of economic and military subjects with wise and clever management of the men so as to reach a high potential of output."
This document is signed by Pohl. It is dated, Berlin, 30 April 1942.
I should just like to refer again to a document which we have already quoted in relation to the camp of Ohrdruf, and which was submitted under the Number RF-140.
I will now read from Document 1584-PS, Exhibit Number RF-349. This document is signed by Goering and is addressed to Himmler. It definitely establishes the responsibility of Goering in the criminal utilization of this deported labor. I shall read the second paragraph of the second page:
"... at the same time I ask you to keep at my -disposal for Air Force armament the greatest possible number of KZ prisoners."-The initials "KZ" mean concentration camp.
"Experience has so far shown that this labor can be put to very good use. The situation of the war in the air necessitates the transfer of this industry to underground workshops. In such workshops, work and housing can be particularly well combined for KZ prisoners,"
We know then who was responsible for the frightful conditions which the deportees of Dora had to endure. The person responsible is in the dock.
THE PRESIDENT: You did not give us the date of that, did you? Is that 19 February 1944?
M. DUBOST: On the first page you will see that on 19 February 1944 a letter was addressed to Dr. Brandt, referring to teletypes which were sent by the Field Marshal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the second letter, the letter that you read? Is the date of that 19. 2. 44?
M. DUBOST: It is 15 April 1944 on the original, of which this is a photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: And could you tell us what KZ means, the two letters, KZ?
M. DUBOST: 15.4.44 on the original of the teletype, that means concentration camp.
30 Jan. 46
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, for the accuracy of the record, it appears that the letter on the second page is not 15 April 1944, but 14 February. Is that not so?
M. DUBOST: Yes. It is 14 February, 2030 hours. It is a teletype, which *as booked 15 April 1944. That was the cause of my error
THE PRESIDENT: But, M. Dubost, were you submitting or suggesting that this letter showed that the defendant, Goering was a party to the experiments which took place, or only to the fact that these prisoners were used for work?
M. DUBOST: I was not referring to experiments. I was referring to internment in underground camps, like the Dora Camp of which the witness Balachowsky spoke yesterday in the first part of his testimony. With regard to this will to exterminate, of which I have been speaking from the beginning of my presentation this morning, I think it is proved first of all by the text of Document Number R-91, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-347, which I read yesterday afternoon at the end of the session, a letter which has not as yet been authenticated, and by statements made by the witnesses who brought you proof that, at all the camps in which they were, the same methods of extermination by work were carried out.
As far as the brutal extermination by gas Is concerned, we have the invoices for poison gas, intended for Oranienburg and Auschwitz, which we submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-350. The Tribunal will find translations on Page 27 of the second document book, Document Number 1553-PS.
I must point out, to be quite honest, that the French translation of these invoices is not -absolutely in agreement with the German text. Therefore, in the fifth line, instead of "extermination" it should be "purification."
The testimony of Mme. Vaillant-Couturier showed us that these gases, used for the destruction of lice and other parasites, were also used to destroy human beings. Besides, the quantity of gas which was sent and the frequency with which it was sent, as you can see from the great number of invoices which we offer in evidence, prove that the gas was used for a double purpose- We have invoices dated 14 February, 16 February, 8 March, 13 March, 20 March, 11 April, 27 April, 12 May, 26 May, and 31 May which are all submitted as Exhibit Number RF-350.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you putting in evidence the originals of these other bills to which you refer on this document?
M. DUBOST: I beg the clerk of the Court to hand them to Your Honor, and I request the Tribunal to examine these invoices carefully. They will observe that -the quantities of toxic crystals sent to Oranienburg and Auschwitz were considerable; from the invoice
30 Jan. 46
of 30 April 1944 the Tribunal will see that 832 kilograms of crystals were sent, giving a net weight of 555 kilograms.
THE PRESIDENT: What is this document that you have just put in?
M. DUBOST: The 30th of April 1944, but I am taking them at random.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking the date. What I want to know is what is the authority for this document? It comes, does it not, from one of the committees set up by the French Republic?
M. DUBOST: No, Mr. President. The Document is an American document which was in the American archives, under the Document Number 1553-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, this note at the bottom of Document 1553-PS was not on the original put in by the United States, was it?
M. DUBOST: No, Mr. President, but you have before you all the originals under the number which the clerk of the Court has just handed you.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless you have an affidavit identifying these originals, the originals do not prove themselves. You have got to prove these documents which you have just handed up to us either by a witness or by an affidavit. The documents are documents, but they do not prove themselves.
M. DUBOST: These documents were found by the American Army and filed in the archives of the Nuremberg Trial. I took them from the archives of the American Delegation, and I consider them to be as authentic as all the other -documents which were filed by my American colleagues in their archives. They were no doubt captured by the American Army.
THE PRESIDENT: There are two points, M. Dubost. The first is, that in the case of the original exhibit, 1553-PS, it was certified, we imagine, by an officer of the United States. These documents which you have now drawn our attention to are not so certified by anyone as far as we have been able to see. Certainly we cannot take judicial notice of these documents, which are private documents; and therefore, unless they are read in Court, they cannot be put in evidence. That can all be rectified very simply by such a certificate or by an affidavit annexing these documents and showing that they are analogous to the document which is the United States exhibit.
M. DUBOST: They are all United States documents, and they are all filed in the archives of the United States in the American Delegation under the Number 1553-PS.
30 Jan. 46
THE PRESIDENT: The American Document Number 1553-PS has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is of the opinion that they cannot take judicial notice of this exhibit without any further certification, and they think that some short affidavit identifying the document must be made.
M. DUBOST: I will request my colleagues of the American Prosecution to furnish this affidavit. I did not think it possible that this document, which was classified in their archives, could be ruled out.
This purpose of extermination, moreover, does not need to be proved by this document. It is sufficiently established by the testimony which we have submitted to the Tribunal. The witness, Boix, spoke these words: "No one is allowed to leave this camp alive.... There is only one exit, -and that is the chimney of the crematorium."
In Document F-321, Exhibit Number RF-331, Page 49, at the top of the page, we read:
"The only explanation which the SS men made to the prisoners was that no captive should leave the place alive."
On Page 179, the paragraph before the last of the French text:
"The SS told us there was only one exit-the chimney."
On Page 174, the last paragraph before the heading "Gassing and Cremation":
"The essential purpose of this camp was the extermination of the greatest possible number of men. It was known as the extermination camp."
This destruction, this extermination of the internees, assumed two different forms. One was progressive; the other was brutal.
In the second document book which is before the Tribunal, we find the report of a delegation of British Members of Parliament, dated April 1945, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-351, from which we quote these words (the third paragraph on Page 29):
"Although the work of cleaning out the camp had gone on busily for over a week before our visit ... our immediate and continuing impression was of intense general squalor ......
Page 30, the last paragraph but one:
"We should conclude, however, by stating that it is our considered and unanimous opinion, on the evidence available to us, that a policy of steady starvation and inhuman brutality was carried out at Buchenwald for a long period of time; and that such camps as this mark the lowest point of degradation to which humanity has yet descended."
Likewise, in the report of a committee set up by General Eisenhower, Document L-159, Which we submit under Exhibit
30 Jan. 46
Number RF-352, Pages 31, 32, and 33 of the same document book, we read:
"The purpose of this camp was extermination ......
"Aerolites and other conditions in the concentration camps in Germany. Report of a committee founded by General Eisenhower under the auspices of the Chief of Staff, General George Marshall, to the Congress of the United States, concerning atrocities and other conditions in concentration camps in Germany."
"The mission of this camp was extermination, by starvation, beatings, torture, incredibly crowded sleeping conditions, and sickness. The result of these measures was heightened by the fact that prisoners were obliged to work in an armament factory adjoining the camp which manufactured small fire arms, rifles ......
The means which were used to carry out this progressive extermination are numerous, as shown in documents which have just been handed to us. These documents, which we are going to submit, have been communicated to the Defense. They consist of printed formulas coming from Auschwitz, concerning the number of blows which could be administered to the internees or prisoners.
These documents will be handed over to the Defense for their criticism. They have just been given to us. I am not able to authenticate their origin today. They appear to me to be of a genuinely authentic character. Photostats of these documents have been given to the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, the Tribunal thinks that they cannot admit these documents at present. It may be that after you have more time to examine the matter you may be able to offer some evidence which authenticates the documents, but we cannot admit the documents simply upon your statement that you believe them to be genuine.
M. DUBOST: Moreover, everything in the camps contributed to pave the way for the progressive extermination of the people who were interned there. Their situation was as follows: They were exposed to a hard climate; some worked underground. Their living conditions have been brought to light by the testimony which you have heard. When the internees arrived, they were compelled to remain naked for hours while they were being registered or waiting to be tattooed.
Everything combined to cause the rapid death of those who were interned in the camps. A good number of them were subjected
30 Jan. 46
to an even harder regime, the description of which was given to the Tribunal by the American Prosecution when they submitted Document Number USA-243 and the following, dealing with the Nacht und Nebel regime, the NN.
I do not think it is necessary- to return to the description of this regime. I shall merely submit a new document which shows the rigor with which the NN regime was applied to our compatriots. It appears under the Document Number F-278(b), submitted under Exhibit Number RF-326. It comes from the German Armistice Commission of Wiesbaden and shows that no steps were ever taken in reply to repeated protests by the French population, and even by the de facto government of Vichy, against the silence which shrouded the internees of the NN camps.
I shall now read Paragraph 2 which explains why no reply could be given to families, who had good reason for anxiety:
"This result was foreseen and desired by the Fuehrer His opinion was that effective and lasting intimidation of the population, which would put a stop to Its criminal activities against the occupation forces, would be achieved by the death sentence, or by measures which would leave the offenders' next of kin and the population generally in the dark as to their fate."
We will not devote any more time to describing the blocks and the hygienic conditions under which the internees in the blocks lived. Four witnesses, who an came from different camps, have pointed out to you that the hygienic conditions in these different camps were identical and that the blocks were equally overcrowded in all these camps. We know that in all cases the water supply was insufficient and that deportees slept two or three in beds 75 to 80 centimeters wide. We know that the bedding was never renewed or was in very bad condition. We know likewise the conditions in which the medical services of the camp functioned. Several witnesses belonging to the medical profession have testified to this fact before you. The Tribunal will find confirmation of their testimony in Document F-121, Exhibit Number RF-354. We shall read just one line of Page 100 of your document book:
"Because of lack of water the prisoners were obliged to fetch stagnant water from the water closets to satisfy their thirst."
And then in Exhibit Number RF-331, (Document Number F-321), Page 119 of the French text, third paragraph:
"The surgical work was done by a German who claimed to be a surgeon from Berlin, but who was an ordinary criminal. He killed the patient in each operation...."
Two paragraphs lower:
30 Jan. 46
"The management of the block was in the hands of two, Germans, who acted as sick bay attendants-unscrupulous men, who carried out surgical operations on the spot with the help of a certain H..., who was a mason by trade."
After the statements of our witnesses, who in their capacity as doctors of medicine were able to care for patients in the camp infirmaries, it seems superfluous to give further quotations from our documents.
When the workers had been worked to the point of exhaustion, when it became impossible for them to recover, selections were made setting apart those who were of no further use with a view to exterminating them either in the gas chambers, as related by our first witness, Mme. Vaillant-Couturier, or by intracardiac injections, as related by two other French witnesses, Dr. Dupont and Dr. Balachowsky. This system of selection was carried out in all the ramps and was, moreover, in response to general orders, proof of which we showed when reading Document Number R-91, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-347.
In the first document book the Tribunal will find the testimony of Blaha, testimony which it will certainly recall and which was received here the 9 January-it is the testimony of Blaha, 3249-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already given this as evidence, have you not?
M. DUBOST: I am not going to read it. I merely wish to recall it to the Tribunal because it forms part of my collection of proofs.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not want affidavits by witnesses who have already given evidence. This affidavit, 3249-PS, has not been put in, has it?
M. DUBOST: No, I am merely recalling the testimony which was given at the session. We shall not submit this document, Mr. President. We are merely utilizing this document to remind the Tribunal that during the session Blaha pointed out conditions existing in the infirmary.
To all these wretched living conditions must be added work, exhausting work, for all the deportees were intended to carry out extremely hard work. We know that they worked in labor squads and in factories. We know, according to the witnesses, that the work lasted 12 hours a day at a minimum, and that it was often prolonged to suit the whim of the camp commandant.
Document R-129 (Exhibit Number RF-348), from which I have already read, emanating from Pohl and addressed to Himmler, Pages 22 and 23 of the second document book, suggests that the working hours should be practically unlimited.
30 Jan. 46
This work was carried out, as the witnesses have told us, in water, in the mud, in underground factories-in Dora for instance and in the quarries in Mauthausen. In addition to the work, which was exhausting in itself, the deportees were subject to ill-treatment by the SS and the Kapos, such as blows or being bitten by dogs.
Our Document Number F-274, Exhibit Number RF-301, Pages 74 and 75, brings official testimony to this effect. Is it necessary to read to the Tribunal from this document, which is an official document to which we constantly refer and which has been translated into German and into English?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need read it.
M. DUBOST: Thank you, Mr. President. This same document, Page 77 and Page 78, informs us that all the prisoners were forced to do the work assigned to them, even under the worst conditions of health and hygiene. There was no quarantine for them even in case of contagious diseases or during epidemics.
The French Document Number F-392, Exhibit Number RF-330, which we have already submitted, which is the testimony of Dr. Steinberg, confirms that of Mme. Vaillant-Couturier. It is the twelfth document of your first document book. We shall read at Page 4:
"We received half a liter of herb tea; this was when we were awakened. A supervisor, who was at the door, hastened our washing by giving us blows with a cudgel. The lack of hygiene led to an epidemic of typhus...."
At the end of the third paragraph you will find the conditions under which the prisoners were taken to the factories; in the fifth paragraph a description of shoes:
"We had been provided with wooden shoes which in a few days caused wounds. These wounds produced boils which brought death to many."
I shall now read Document R-129, Pages 22, 23, and 24 in the second document book, and which we submit under the Number...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment; the Tribunal will adjourn now for fifteen minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, the Tribunal has been considering the question of the evidence which you have presented on the concentration camps; and they are of opinion that you have proved the case for the present, subject, of course, to any evidence which may be produced on behalf of the defendants and, of course, subject also to your right under Article 24-c of the Charter to bring in rebutting evidence, should the Tribunal think it right to admit
30 Jan. 46
such evidence. They think, therefore, that it is not in the interests of the Trial, which the Charter directs should be an expeditious one, that further evidence should be presented at this stage on the question of concentration camps, unless there are any particular new points about the concentration camps to which you have not yet drawn our attention; and, if there are such points, we should like you to particularize them before you present any further evidence upon them.
M. DUBOST: I thank the Tribunal for this statement. I do not conceal from the Tribunal that I shall need a few moments to select the points which it seems necessary to stress. I did not expect this decision.
With the authorization of the Tribunal, I shall pass to the examination of the situation of prisoners of war.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, possibly you could, during the adjournment, consider whether there are any particular points, new points, on concentration camps which you wish to draw our attention to and present them after the adjournment, in the meantime proceeding with some other matter.
M. DUBOST: The 1 o'clock recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is what I meant.
M. DUBOST: I shall, therefore, consider as established provisionally the proof that Germany, in its internment camps and hi its concentration camps, pursued a policy tending towards the annihilation and extermination of its enemies, while at the same time creating a system of terror which it exploited to facilitate the realization of its political aims.
Another aspect of this policy of terror and extermination appears when one studies the war crimes committed by Germany on the persons of prisoners of war. These crimes, as I shall prove to you, had two motives, among others: To debase the captives as much as possible in order to sap their energy; to demoralize them; to cause them to lose faith in themselves and in the cause for which they fought, and to despair of the future of their country. The second motive was to cause the disappearance of those of them who, by reasons of their previous history or indications given since their capture, showed that they could not be adapted to the new order the Nazis intended to set up.
With this aim, Germany multiplied the inhuman methods of treatment intended to debase the men in her hands, men who were soldiers and who had surrendered, trusting to the military honor of the army to which they had surrendered.
The transfer of prisoners was carried out under the most inhumane conditions. The men were badly fed and were obliged to
30 Jan. 46
make long marches on foot, exposed to every kind of punishment, and struck down when they were tired and could no longer follow the column. No shelter was provided at the halting places and no food. Evidence of this is given in the report on the evacuation of the column that left Sagan on 28 January 1945 at 12:30 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find it?
M. DUBOST: It is in the document book submitted by M. Herzog. It is the report on the evacuation of the column that left Sagan on 28 January 1945. It is Document Number UK-78, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-46. A column of 1,357 British soldiers, including soldiers of all ranks, started out on 28 January 1945 for Spremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly this is the first document in your document book which has been handed up to us.
M. DUBOST: That is right, Mr. President. I shall now read to you the document on the evacuation of the Sagan Camp from 28 January to 4 February 1945. As the Tribunal has not the copy before it, I pass to Document Number UK-170, Exhibit Number RF-355.
THE PRESIDENT: I am just telling you that I rather think this may be the document, if it begins with "1,357 English prisoners of war . . . . . . . Does it begin in that way?
M. DUBOST: Yes. The document which you have before you, Mr. President, deals with the transfer of British prisoners. The one about which I wished to speak and from -which I wanted to read to you dealt with the transfer of French prisoners. I think that it is not necessary for me to lengthen the session by showing the Tribunal that the British and the French prisoners were treated in the same fashion. I shall, therefore, restrict myself to your document.
"1,357 British war prisoners of all ranks marched out of Stalag Luft III in columns on 28 January 1945, and were thereafter marched for distances varying from 17 to 31 kilometers, a day to Spremberg, where they were entrained for Luckenwalde. Food, water, medical supplies, and adequate accommodation were more or less nonexistent throughout the trip. At least three prisoners ... had to be left at Muskau. ......
On the bottom of the page, three lines before the end:
"On the 31st they covered the distance of 31 kilometers to Muskau. It is small wonder that at this stage three me n, Lieutenants Kielly and Wise, and Sergeant Burton collapsed and had to be left in the hospital at Muskau."
Page 2 at the end of the document:
30 Jan. 46
"On the march, apart from the Red Cross parcel already referred to, the only rations issued to the men were one-half loaf of bread and one issue of barley soup for each. The supply of water is described as 'haphazard'.... No fewer than 15 of them escaped during the march."
Now a statement by M. Bondot:
"The camp conditions of the Franco-Belgian column were even more rigorous. The camps were organized in a manner which was contrary to all the rules of hygiene. The prisoners were crowded into a very narrow space. They had no heat or water. There were 30 to 40 men to a room in Stalag III-C." M. Boudot's statement is to be found in the report on prisoners and deportees which was also handed to you the other day by M. Herzog. I believe that the Tribunal has kept its documents of last Thursday...
THE PRESIDENT: We have kept those documents, but if we had them on. the Bench before us you would not be able to see us.
M. DUBOST: Similar statements are found in the Red Cross reports. Berger, who was in charge of prisoner-of-war camps under Himmler from I October 1944, admitted in the course of his examination that the food supply of prisoners of war was entirely insufficient. The Tribunal will find on Page 3 of the document book, which is before it, an extract from Berger's examination. Second paragraph:
"I visited a camp south of Berlin, the name of which I cannot remember at the moment. I shall perhaps remember later. At that time it was obvious to me that the food conditions were absolutely inadequate and a violent argument between Himmler and myself arose. Himmler was violently opposed to continuing the distribution of packages of the Red Cross in the prisoner-of-war camps at the same rate as before. As for me, I thought that in this case we should be faced with serious problems regarding the men's health."
We present Document Number 826-PS as Exhibit Number RF-356. This document was issued by the Fuehrer's headquarters and is a report on a visit to Norway and Denmark. It is on Page 7 of your document book, Paragraph 3:
"All the prisoners of war in Norway receive only sufficient food to keep them alive without working. The felling of timber, however, makes such physical demands on these prisoners of war that, if the food remains the same, a con- considerable decline in production must soon be expected."
This note applies to the situation of the 82,000 prisoners of war held captive in Norway, 30,000 of whom were employed on very
30 Jan. 46
hard construction work which was being carried out by the Todt organization. This is found in the first paragraph of Page 7.
I now present to the Tribunal a document, Number 820-PS, Page 9 in the document book. It deals with the establishment of prisoner-of-war camps in the regions exposed to aerial bombardment. It was issued by headquarters. It is dated 18 August 1943. It was sent by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force to the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht. We submit it as Exhibit Number RF- 358, and we shall read to the Tribunal Paragraph 3:
"The Commander-in-Chief, Air General Staff, proposes to erect prisoner-of-war camps in the residential quarters of cities, in order to obtain a certain protection thereby."
I skip a paragraph:.
"In view of the above reason, consideration should be given to the immediate erection of such camps in a large number of cities which appear to be endangered by air attacks. As the discussions with the city of Frankfurt ... have shown, the towns will support and speed up the construction of the camps by all available means."
The last paragraph:
"So far, there are in Germany about 8,000 prisoners of war of the British and American Air Forces (without counting those in hospitals). By evacuating the camps actually in existence, which might be used to house bombed-out people, we should immediately have at our disposal prisoners of war for a fairly large number of such camps."
This refers to the camps set up in bombed areas and areas which were particularly exposed.
On Page 10 the Tribunal will find a document issued by the Fuehrer's headquarters, dated 3 September 1943, dealing with the establishment of these new prisoner-of-war camps for British and American airmen. We submit this document as Exhibit Number RF- 339 (Document Number 823-PS):
"1) The Commander-in-Chief, Air General Staff, is planning the erection of further camps for air force prisoners, as the number of new prisoners is mounting to more than 1,000 a month, and the space available at the moment is insufficient. The Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe proposes to establish these camps within residential quarters of cities, which would constitute at the same time a protection for the "Populations of the town and, in addition, to transfer all the existing camps, containing about 8,000 British and American Air Force prisoners, to larger towns threatened by enemy air attack....
30 Jan. 46
"2) The Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, Chief of War Prisoners, has approved this project in principle."
On Page 12 of the document book which the Tribunal has before it is a document, Number F-551, which we shall submit as Exhibit Number RF-360. It deals with the sentencing of prisoners of war in violation of Article 60 and the following articles of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention provides that the protecting power shall be advised of judicial prosecutions that are made against prisoners of war and will have the right to be represented at the trial. The document which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-360 shows that these provisions were violated:
"In practice, the application of Articles 60 and 66, particularly Paragraph 2 of Article 66 of the Convention of 1929, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war causes considerable difficulties. For the application of severe penal jurisdiction, it is intolerable that precisely for the most serious offenses, as for instance, attacks on the guards, the death sentence cannot be carried out until 3 months after its notification to the protecting power. The discipline of prisoners of war is bound to suffer from this."
I pass over the rest of the paragraph. On Page 12: "The following regulation is proposed:
"a) The French may be confident that the trials by German courts-martial will be carried out thoroughly and conscientiously as before;
"b) Germany will designate, as before, a defense counsel and an interpreter....
"c) In case of a death sentence an adequate respite will be granted."
On top of Page 13:
"In this respect, in urgent cases, however, Germany must reserve for herself the right-even if not expressly stated to execute the sentence immediately."
"There is no question of allowing France, by virtue of Article 62, Paragraph III (POW), of the Geneva Convention, to delegate representatives to the chief sessions of the German Military Tribunals."
We possess an example of the violation of Articles 60 and those following of the Geneva Convention in the report of the Netherlands Government, which the Tribunal will find on Page 14 of its ,document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we better break off now. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
30 Jan. 46
MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this afternoon's session due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
When the attention of the Tribunal was called by the Defendant Hess to the absence of his counsel, the Tribunal directed that the presentation of the individual case against Hess be postponed, so that counsel could be present when it was presented. So far as the cross-examination of witnesses who testified to matters affecting the general case and not against Hess specifically is concerned, it is the view of the Tribunal that the cross-examination conducted by counsel representing the defendants equally interested with Hess in this feature of the case was sufficient to protect his interests, and the witnesses will therefore not be recalled.
The Tribunal has received a letter from the Defendant Hess dated 30 January 1946, to the effect that he is dissatisfied with the services of counsel who has been appearing for him and does not wish to be represented by him further, but wishes to represent himself.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that, having elected, in conformity with Article 16 of the Charter, to be represented by counsel, the Defendant Hess ought not to be allowed at this stage of the Trial to dispense with the services of counsel and defend himself. The matter is of importance to the Tribunal, as well as to the defendant, and the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the defendant that he should be unrepresented by counsel.
The Tribunal has therefore appointed Dr., Stahmer to represent the Defendant Hess, in place of Dr. Von Rohrscheidt.
[Turning to M. Dubost] Yes, M. Dubost.
M. DUBOST: I beg the Tribunal to excuse me; I was completing the work which they had requested me to do in relation to concentration camps. In a few moments, when I have completed the expose on the question of prisoners of war, I shall present to the Tribunal the end of the French presentation concerning concentration camps. This will not be much, for we shall have only a few documents to cite, Subject to counter evidence which the Defense may bring, the systematic repetition of the same methods seems so far sufficiently established.
We were at the point of reading a document of the Dutch Government, which was already presented to the Tribunal under Document Number F-224 (Exhibit Number RF-324) and which establishes that a protest was formulated, following the secret
30 Jan. 46
condemnation to death and the execution of three officers: Lieutenants J. J. B. ten Bosch, B. M. C. Braat, and Thibo.
I think that the document to which I alluded this morning, which is the official report of the French Government concerning prisoners, is now in the hands of the Tribunal. It is the document submitted by M. Herzog under Exhibit Number RF-46, Document Number UK-78. I ask the Tribunal to excuse me, as I cannot present this document again. I have no more copies.
It is evident from this document that the Nazis had a systematic policy of intimidation. They strove to keep the greatest possible number of prisoners of war in order to be able, if necessary, to exercise efficacious pressure over the countries from which these prisoners came. This policy was exercised by the irregular or improper capture of prisoners, and also by the refusal, which was systematically upheld, to repatriate the prisoners whose state of health would have justified this measure.
Concerning the irregular or improper capture of prisoners of war, we can cite the example of what happened in France after the signing of the armistice.
The report of the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees, to which we refer, indicates, on Page 4:
"In 1940 certain French military formations laid down their arms at the time of the armistice under the assurance given by the German Army that troops who had thus surrendered would not be taken into captivity. These troops were, nevertheless, captured. The Alpine Army had passed over the Rhone in order to be demobilized and was west of the region of Vienne. They were taken prisoners and were sent to Germany until the end of July 1940. "Moreover, noncombatant formations of special civilians were led into captivity and imprisoned in accordance with Himmler's orders, which said that all Frenchmen of military age were to be seized indiscriminately. In short, it was only through the making of special exceptions and the private initiative of unit commanders that all Frenchmen were not transferred to Germany.
"Because of the enormous number of prisoners and the difficulties that faced the German Army in taking all those men to Germany, the' German Army decided, in 1940, to create what, they called 'Front-Stalags.'
"The promise had been made to the Vichy Government, which was established after the armistice, that soldiers who were kept in these 'Front-Stalags' would be kept in France. Yet, the men in these camps began to be sent to Germany in October 1940.
30 Jan. 46
In an additional report appended to the document book which is before you, the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees points out the irregular capture of the troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau, the 22d R.I.F., the 81st B.C.P, the 51st and 58th Infantry Regiments and a North African division. It is Document F-668 which I submit under Exhibit Number RF-361, the pages of which are not numbered, it is appended to the document book. I quote the document:
"Troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau: the 22d R.I.F. and the 81st B.C.P.
"These troops fought until 25 June, 1:30, and only stopped firing after an agreement between the colonel in charge of the fortified sector of Haguenau and the German generals, an agreement which guaranteed the troops the honors of war and particularly that they would not be made prisoners. The 51st and 58th Infantry Regiments, as well as a North African Division, withdrew towards Toul only after an agreement, signed on the 22 June, between the French General Dubuisson and the German General Andreas, at Thuilleaux-Groseilles, Meurthe-et-Moselle, an agreement guaranteeing military honors and confirming that the troops would not be taken prisoners."
THE PRESIDENT: What official document does this document come from?
M. DUBOST: From the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees. It is the additional report which was made by the French Government. We submit it under Exhibit Number RF-361.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the report on the captivity?
M. DUBOST: This report will be submitted to you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to be Addition Number 2 to the report on the captivity, for the attention of the French Delegation to the Court of Justice at Nuremberg.
M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. The information which I have just read to the Tribunal consists of extracts from a note from Darlan to Ambassador Scapini on 22 April 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: But M. Dubost, is there anything to show that it is an official document, such as this book?
M. DUBOST: This document, Mr. President, bears no relation to the one which I am quoting.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I know it does not, but this is an official document produced by the Republic of France, is it not?
M. DUBOST: Yes.
30 Jan. 46
THE PRESIDENT: How do you show that this Addition Number 2 to the report on captivity is equally an official document with this one? That is what we want to know.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a report which was submitted in the name of the Government of the French Republic by the delegation which I have the honor to represent.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, this one here is headed "Service of Information of War Crimes, Official French Edition." Now, that seems to us to be different from this mere typewritten copy, which has on it the "Appendix Number 2 to the Report on the Captivity." We do not know whose report on the captivity.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, you have before you the official note of transmission from our government. The clerk of the Court has just handed it to you.
THE PRESIDENT: We have this document, which appears to be an official document, but this addition has no such seal upon it as this has.
M. DUBOST: There is mention of an appendix to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The other is marked: Appendix. It must be identified by a seal.
M. DUBOST: The covering letter has a seal and the fact that it alludes to the document is sufficient, in my opinion, to authenticate the document transmitted. May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: No. This document here has a letter attached to it. This document here is not referred to in that letter specifically. Therefore, there is nothing to connect the two documents together.
M. DUBOST: I think there is a manuscript note in the margin. I have not the document before me here and cannot be positive about it but I think there is a manuscript note in the margin.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wishes you to put this in as one document. I see there is a manuscript note here at the side, in writing, which refers to the Appendix. If you will put the whole thing in together...
M. DUBOST: It is all submitted in one file.
Now I wish to read to the Tribunal extracts from two letters addressed to the German Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden by the ex-Ambassador Scapini, both dated 4 April 1941. The Tribunal will find them reproduced in the document book before them, Pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22:
30 Jan. 46
"4 April 1941. "M. Georges Scapini, Ambassador of France.
"To his Excellency Monsieur Abetz, German Ambassador in Paris.
"Subject: Men captured after 'the coming into force of the Armistice Convention and treated as prisoners of war .......
At the bottom of the page:
"I. The Geneva Convention applies only during a state of war as far as captures are concerned. Armistice, however, suspends war operations; therefore, any man captured after the Armistice Convention came into force and treated as a prisoner of war, is wrongfully retained in captivity ......
Page 17, third paragraph:
"The Armistice Convention, in its second paragraph, states only that the French Armed Forces stationed in regions to be occupied by Germany are to be brought back quickly into unoccupied territory and demobilized, but does not say that they are to be taken into captivity, which would be contrary to the Geneva Convention...."
Fifth paragraph of the same page:
"1. Civilians. If it is admitted that civilians captured before the armistice cannot be treated as prisoners of war, as discussed in my previous letter, surely there is all the more reason not to consider as such those captured after the armistice. I note in this respect that captures, some of which were collective, were carried out several months after the end of hostilities ......
Then on Page 18, the top of the page:
"To the categories of civilians defined in my first letter, I wish to add one more-that of demobilized civilians who were going back to their homes in the occupied zone after the armistice and who,, more often than not, were captured on their way home and sent into captivity as a result of the initiative of local military authorities.
'T. Soldiers. As such I would define, by convention, men who, though freed after the armistice, could not for some reason due to the difficult circumstances of that period-be provided with the regular demobilization papers. Many of them were captured and taken into captivity under the same condition as those mentioned above ......
I think the Tribunal will not require the reading of that example, but if the President wishes, I shall read it.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
30 Jan. 46
M. DUBOST: Let us turn to Page 19, the last paragraph, entitled:
"A. Civilians not subject to military service.
"It is obvious that these men could not be considered soldiers according to French law. They can be classified, according to age, into three groups:
"(a) Men under 21 not yet called to the colors. Example: Flanquart, Alexandre, 18 years old, captured by the German troops at Courrieres, Pas-de-Calais, at the time of the arrival of the latter in that region. His address in captivity was Number 65/388, Stalag II-B.
"(b) Men between 21 and 48 who were not mobilized, who were demobilized, or who were considered unfit for service."
There follows a rather lengthy list which the Tribunal will perhaps accept without my reading it. It consists merely of proper names. In the middle of the page:
"(c) Men specially assigned to the army. I will classify them into two groups:
"1. Men mobilized into special corps, which are military formations established at the time of the mobilization by different ministerial departments, according to the following chart ......
At the top of Page 21:
"2. Men specially assigned, who at mobilization were kept in the positions which they held in time of peace in military services or establishments. Example: Workmen in artillery depots.
"Civilians specially assigned. Contrary to those mentioned above, the civilians who were specially assigned did not belong to military formations and were not subject to military authority. Nevertheless they were arrested. Example:"-I skip several lines- "Moisset, Henri, specially assigned to the Marret-Bonin factory."-I skip a few more lines.
"Address in captivity: Number 102 Stalag II-A."
Those people were not all freed, far from it. Some remained prisoners until the end of the war.
We shall cite now a document submitted under Exhibit Number RF-362 (Document Number F-224), the text of which is in your document book, on Page 15a. This text may be summarized in a few words. It is the story of Dutch officers who were freed after the capitulation of the Dutch Army and recaptured shortly afterwards and sent in captivity to Germany. Paragraph 3 of this document:
30 Jan. 46
"On 9 May 1942 a summons addressed to all regular officers of the former Dutch Army who were on active service on 10 May 1940 was published in the Dutch newspapers, according to which they were to present themselves on Friday, 15 May 1942, at the Chassee Barracks in Breda ......
"More than one thousand regular officers reported to the Chassee Barracks on 15 May 1942. The doors were closed after them...."
"A German officer of high rank came into the barracks and declared that the officers had not kept their word to undertake no action against the Fuehrer and, as a result of this, they were to be kept in captivity...."
The following paragraph states that "they were taken from the station at Breda to Nuremberg, in Germany."
Numerous obstacles were placed in the way of the release of French prisoners of war who, for reasons of health, should have been sent back to their families. I shall quote a document already submitted under Exhibit Number EF-297 (Document Number F-417), Page 23 of your document book; and I read, Paragraph 1:
"The question of releasing French generals, prisoners of war in German hands, for reasons of health or age was taken up on several occasions by the French authorities."
This reproduction of the stencil is not quite clear. I continue with Paragraph 2:
"So far as this question is concerned, the Fuehrer has always refused to consider either their release or allowing them to be placed in hospitals in neutral countries."
"Today release or sending to hospitals is more out of the question than ever ......
And a written note reads: "No reply to be given to the French note."
This note, in fact, was addressed by the Supreme Command of the German Army to the German Armistice Commission, who had asked for instructions as to whether or not they should reply to the request concerning the release of French generals who were ill, a request made by the Vichy Government.
Much more serious measures were undertaken against our prisoners of war by the German authorities when, for reasons of a patriotic nature, some of our prisoners gave the Germans to understand that they were not willing to collaborate with Germany. The
30 Jan. 46
German authorities considered them as incapable of being assimilated and dangerous; their courage and their determination gave much concern to Germany, and the measures taken against them amounted to nothing less than murder. We know of numerous examples of murder of prisoners of war. The victims were mainly: 1) men who had taken part in commando actions; 2) airmen; 3) escaped prisoners. These murders were carried out by means of deportation and the internment of these prisoners in concentration camps.
While interned in these camps, they were subjected to the regime about which you know and which was bound to cause their death, or else they were killed quite simply with a bullet in the back of the neck, according to the KA method which has been described by our American colleagues and on which I will not dwell. In other cases they were lynched on the spot by the population, in accordance with direct orders, or with the tacit consent of the German Government. In yet other cases, they were handed over to the Gestapo and the SD, who, as you will see at the end of my statement, during the last years of the occupation had the right to carry out executions.
With the Tribunal's permission, we shall study two cases of extermination of combat troops captured after military operations: that of commandos and that of airmen.
As the Tribunal knows, men who were commandos were almost always volunteers. In any case, they were selected from among the most courageous fighters and those who showed the greatest physical aptitude for combat. We can consider them, therefore, as the elite and the order to exterminate them as an attempt to annihilate the elite and spread terror through the ranks of the Allied Armies. From a legal point of view the execution of the commandos cannot be justified. The Germans themselves, moreover, used commandos quite extensively; but whereas, in the case of their own men being taken prisoners, they always insisted that they be recognized as belligerents, they denied that right to our men or to those of the Allied Armies.
The main order concerning this was signed by Hitler on 18 October 1942, and it was extensively carried out. Moreover, this order was preceded by other orders of the OKW, which show that the question had been carefully studied by the General Staff before becoming the subject of a final order by the head of the German Government.
Under Document Number 553-PS, the Tribunal will find, on Page 24 of the document book, an order signed by Keitel which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-363. This order prescribes that all
30 Jan. 46
isolated parachutists or small groups of parachutists carrying out a mission shall be executed. It is dated 4 August 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Do not read it.
M. DUBOST: I thank the Tribunal for sparing me the reading of it.
On 7 October 1942 a communique of the OKW, disseminated by the press and radio, announced the decision taken by the High Command to execute saboteurs. On Page 26 the Tribunal will find in the document book extracts from the Volkischer Beobachter of 8 October 1942 (Document Number RF-364):
"In future an terrorist and sabotage units of the British and their accomplices, who do not behave as soldiers but as bandits, will be treated as such by the German troops and shot on the spot without mercy, wherever it may be."
Under the Exhibit Number RF-365 (Document 1263-PS), we submit the minutes of a meeting of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht, dated 14 October 1942. Paragraph 3:
"During the era of total warfare sabotage has become one of the most important elements in the conduct of war. It is sufficient to state our attitude to this question. The enemy will find evidence of it in the reports of our own propaganda units .... 23
Page 29, the end of Paragraph 3:
"Sabotage is an essential element ... we ourselves have strongly developed this means of combat,"
Then the sixth paragraph.
"We have already announced by radio our intention of liquidating, in future, all groups of terrorists and saboteurs acting like bandits. Therefore the VVFSt has only to issue regulations to the troops how to deal with terrorist and sabotage groups.,
Page 30. The Tribunal will see what orders were given concerning the treatment of what the German General Staff called groups of terrorists and British saboteurs. It is certain that the German General Staff never called their own commandos groups of terrorists and saboteurs.
Paragraph A refers to groups of the British Army without uniform or in German uniform. I quote:
"In combat or in flight they are to be killed without mercy." Paragraph B:
"Members of terrorist and sabotage groups of the British Army wearing uniform, who in the opinion of our troops are guilty of acting dishonorably or in any manner contrary to
30 Jan. 46
the law of nations, are to be kept in separate custody after capture....
"Instructions concerning the treatment to be inflicted upon them will be given by the WFSt in agreement with the Army legal service and the Counter-Intelligence Department, Foreign Section (Amt Ausland Abwehr)."
Finally, Page 31, Paragraph 2:
"Violation of the laws of war by terrorist or sabotage troops is in the future always to be assumed when individual assailants as saboteurs or agents, regardless of whether they were soldiers or whatever their uniform might be, place themselves outside the laws of war by committing surprise attacks or brutalities which in the judgment of our troops are inconsistent with the fundamental rules of war."
"In such cases the assailants will be killed without mercy to the last man, in combat or in flight."
"Confinement in prisoner-of-war camps, even temporarily, is forbidden."
Thus in carrying out these orders, if British soldiers, even in uniform, were captured during a commando operation, the German troops were to judge whether they had acted according to the laws of war or not; and without any appeal, subordinates could annihilate them to the last man, even when they were not engaged in active fighting. These orders were applied to British commandos.
We shall now quote Document Number 498-PS, which was submitted by our American colleagues under Exhibit Number USA- 501 and which confirms the information which we have just given to the Tribunal by the reading of the preceding documents. It seems useless to read this document.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, there are two points to which I wish to draw your attention. In the first place, it is said that you are not offering these documents in evidence, you are simply reading them, and they must be offered in evidence so that the document itself may be put in evidence. You have not offered in evidence any of these documents; you have just been reading from them or have given them numbers.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I have submitted them all-absolutely all-except those which were already submitted by our colleagues; and all were filed with a number, and can be handed to you immediately. I shall ask the French secretary to hand them to you with the exhibit numbers which I read out.
30 Jan. 46
THE PRESIDENT: They have all been put in evidence already?
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, some have been put in evidence and I quoted them with their exhibit numbers; but those which have not been submitted, I shall give French numbers when submitting.
THE PRESIDENT: You are saying, "have been put in evidence by some other member of the Prosecution"; is that right?
M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. When I quote them I give the number under which they were filed by my American colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: That was filed by the American Prosecution, was it not: 498?
M. DUBOST: 498-PS on Page 32 has already been filed by my American colleagues under the Number USA-501, as I said before, sir. I shall not read it. I shall merely comment on it briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. With reference to the document which preceded it on Pages 27, 29, 30, and 31 ...
M. DUBOST: I shall ask the French secretary to give them to you with the numbers under which they were filed.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been filed by the American prosecutor too?
M. DUBOST: Not all, Mr. President. Some were filed by the American Prosecution, others were filed by me.
THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wants you to do is, When you put in a document, if it has not already been put in, give it a number and announce the exhibit number so that the record may be complete. Is that clear?
M. DUBOST: It is clear, Mr. President, but I believe that I have done so from the beginning, since the French secretary has just given you the file.
THE PRESIDENT: You may have put numbers on the documents, but you have not announced them in some cases.
There is another matter which I wish to state and it is this: When I spoke before, what I asked you to do was to confine yourself to any new points, and you are now giving us evidence about commandos and about British commandos, all of which has been already gone into in previous stages of the Trial, and that appears to us to be unnecessary.
M. DUBOST: The Tribunal will pardon me, but I have not read any of the documents already mentioned. The documents I read were documents not cited before. I had just reached a document which
30 Jan. 46
had been mentioned before, and I asked the Tribunal to excuse me from even commenting on it, since I thought the document was already well known to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have had a good deal of evidence already about the treatment of commandos and sabotage groups, evidence, if I remember right, which attempted to draw some distinction between troops which were dropped from the air, for instance, close up to the battle zone and troops that wen- dropped at a distance behind the battle zone. You had quite a lot of evidence upon that subject. If there is anything which is of special interest to the case of France we would be most willing to hear it, but we do not desire to hear cumulative evidence upon subjects which we have already heard.
M. DUBOST: I did not think that I had brought cumulative proof to the Tribunal in reading documents which had not previously been read; but since that is so, I shall continue, but not without emphasizing that, in our view, the responsibility of Keitel is seriously involved by the orders which were given and by the execution of these orders.
Document Number 510-PS, Page 48, has not been read. We submit it as Exhibit Number RF-367, and we ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It concerns the carrying out of the orders which were given concerning the landing of British detachments at Patmos.
A memorandum from the General Staff to the commander of the different units, Document Number 532-PS, which is the appendix to the Tribunals document book, repeats and specifies the instructions which the Tribunal knows and does not bring anything new to the case. We submit this document as Exhibit Number RF-368, and we ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice Of it.
We shall now deal with the execution of Allied airmen who were captured. From the statement which was made on this question, the Tribunal has learned that a certain number of air operations were considered as criminal acts by the German Government, which indirectly encouraged the lynching of the airmen by the population or their immediate extermination by the action "Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment); and need not be discussed again. This was the subject of Document Number USA-333, which has already been cited, and Document Number USA-334.
Within the scope of these instructions, orders were given by the letter of 4 June 1944 to the Minister of Justice to forbid any prosecution of German civilians in connection with the murder of Allied airmen. This is the subject of. Document Number 635-PS, which you
30 Jan. 46
will find in the appendix to the document book. This document will become Exhibit Number RF-370.
"The Reich Minister and Head of the Reich Chancellery, 4 June 1944.
"To the Reich Minister of Justice, Doctor Thierack.
"Subject: Lynch law for Anglo-American murderers. "My dear Dr. Thierack:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellery has informed me of his secret memorandum, a copy of which is enclosed, and has asked me to make it known to you also. I am complying with this, and ask you to consider to what extent you wish to inform the tribunals and the public prosecutors."
On 6 June, two important conferences were held between Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop, Goering (all three defendants), Himmler, Von Brauchitsch, officers of the Luftwaffe, and members of the SS. They decided to draw up a definite list of air operations which would be considered as acts of terrorism.
The original transcript, drawn up by Warlimont and bearing written notes by Jodl and Keitel, is Document Number 735-PS, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-371. It was decided during this conference that lynching would be the ideal punishment to stop certain types of air operations directed against the civilian population. Kaltenbrunner, for his part, promised the active collaboration of the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it already read?
M. DUBOST: This document, so far as I know, was never read.
PROFESSOR DOCTOR FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): I am protesting against the presentation of Document 532-PS, dated 24 June 1944. That is a draft of an order which was presented to Jodl but which was crossed out by him and therefore annulled.
At this opportunity I would also like to call the attention of the Court to the fact that we, the Counsel for the Defense, did not receive a document book like the one presented to the Tribunal; and it is therefore very hard for us to check and to follow the presentations of the Prosecution. Every morning we receive a pile of documents, some of which partly refer to future and some to past proceedings. But I have not seen a document book in chronological order for weeks. Furthermore, it would be desirable for us to receive the documents the day before. In that case, when testimony is presented, we could be of assistance to both sides.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, are you saying that you have not received the document book or that you have not received the dossier?
30 Jan. 46
DR. EXNER: I did not receive the document book. I would like to add something further. Some of the documents which have just been presented were quoted without signatures and without date, and it is questionable whether these so-called documents are to be considered as documents at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I imagine that you have just heard I have told M. Dubost that he must announce the exhibit number which the French Prosecutor is giving to any document which he puts in evidence. As I understand it, he has been putting numbers upon the documents; but in certain cases he has not announced the number in open court. The document, as you have seen, has been presented; and, as I understand, it has a number upon it, but he has not in every case announced the number; and the Tribunal has told M. Dubost that it wishes and it orders that every document put in by the French Prosecutor should have an exhibit number announced in Court. That meets the one point that you raised.
As to your not having the document book, that is, of course, a breach of the order which the Tribunal has made that a certain number of copies of the documents should be deposited in the defendants' Information Center or otherwise furnished to defendants' counsel.
As to Document 532-PS ....
[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.]
Dr. Exner, is there anything further you wish to say upon these points, because we are just about to have a recess for a few moments. We would like to hear what you have to say before we have the recess.
DR. EXNER: I have nothing further to add to that; but if I may be permitted to make a further remark, we were advised that it was Your Honor's wish -that we should hear every day what is to be the subject of the proceedings on the following day, which would, of course, be a great help to our preparations. So far, that has never been the case. I myself have never heard what was to be dealt with the following day.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. M. Dubost, the Tribunal would like to hear what you have to say upon the points raised by Dr. Exner. First of all, upon the Document 532-PS; secondly, why he did not receive a document book; and lastly, why he has not received any program as to what is to be gone into on the following day.
M. DUBOST: As to the question of program, as Dr. Exner pointed out, the custom of providing it has not been established by
30 Jan. 46
the Prosecution. No one has ever given it, neither the French Prosecution nor its predecessors. Perhaps I did not attend the session the day the Tribunal requested that the program should be given. In any case I do not remember that the Prosecution was ever requested to do that.
As far as the document book is concerned, it is possible that this book was not handed to the Defense in the form which is before the Tribunal, that is to say, with the pages numbered in a certain order. However, I am certain that yesterday I sent to the Defense Counsel's rooms the text in German and several texts in French of all the documents which I was to submit today. I cannot assure the Tribunal that they were handed over in the order in which you have them before you, but I am sure that they were sent.
THE PRESIDENT: As to Document 532-PS?
M. DUBOST: I had not begun to read Document 532-PS, Mr. President, so I could not have concealed the fact that there was a handwritten note in the margin.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a document that had been put in before?
M. DUBOST: I do not believe so, Mr. President. In my dossier there are a certain number of documents which I have not read, as I knew it was the Tribunal's wish that I should shorten my presentation; and Document 532-PS, which I submitted under Exhibit Number RF-368, is one of those.
THE PRESIDENT: The document, according to Dr. Exner, is a draft of a decree which was presented to Jodl but was not granted by him. Those were his words, as they came through on the translation; and, therefore, he submits that it is not to be considered and there is nothing to show that the document was ever anything more than a draft.
If so, isn't it clear that it ought not to be received in evidence?
M. DUBOST: This is a question which the Tribunal will decide after having heard the explanation of Dr. Exner. This document did not seem to me of major importance to my presentation, since I did not read from it. In any case, as I did not read it, I could not have hidden from the Tribunal that there was a handwritten note in the margin. It is certain that this handwritten note is an element to be taken into consideration, and on which the Tribunal will base its decision whether Exhibit Number RF-368 should be accepted or rejected, after having heard the explanation of the Defense.
[A recess was taken.]
30 Jan. 46
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I had occasion during the recess to talk to my client, Keitel. Before the recess, the French Prosecutor had submitted as evidence Document Number F-668, Exhibit Number RF-361, an extract from a note from Admiral Darlan, addressed to the French Ambassador Scapini. The French Prosecutor believes, as I presume from his words, that he has proved by this that the agreements between German generals and French troops, who had laid down their arms, had not been kept. In view of the gravity of these accusations I would be obliged to the French Prosecution if they would declare, with respect to this document, first, whether these serious accusations of the French Government had also been brought to the attention of the German Government? The French Prosecutor had concluded from this document that the information contained therein was also proved. I would like to point out that it is an excerpt from a note from Admiral Darlan to the French Ambassador, Scapini. It is not clear from this document whether Ambassador Scapini had taken the necessary steps with the German Government or, furthermore, what reply was made by the German Government to this note. For this reason I would like to ask the French Prosecutor to declare whether he can establish from the documents he had whether these serious accusations were brought to the attention of the German Government, and secondly, what reply was made by the German Government. Since these documents of the Armistice Commission are in possession of the victorious powers, it is neither possible for the defendants nor the Defense to produce evidence themselves.
[M. Dubost approached the lectern.]
THE PRESIDENT: [Turning to M. Dubost.] Perhaps the most convenient course would be, if you wish to say anything about the objection which Dr. Nelte has just made, for you to say it now. As I understand it, that objection is that this document, F-668 (RF-361), is a note by Admiral Darlan complaining that certain French troops were surrendered on the terms that they were not to be made prisoners of war, but were afterwards sent to Germany as prisoners of war. What Dr. Nelte says is, was that matter taken up with the German Government and if so, what answer did the German Government give? That seems to the Tribunal to be a reasonable request for Dr. Nelte to make.
M. DUBOST: The reply was given, Mr. President, by Ambassador Scapini's letter addressed to Ambassador Abetz.
THE PRESIDENT: My attention is drawn to the fact that the two documents to which you refer are dated 4 April. The document to which Dr. Nelte refers is a subsequent document, namely, 22 April. Therefore it does not appear, from documents which were anterior to the document of 22 April, as to what happened afterwards.
30 Jan. 46
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I, myself, am not aware of this. These documents were forwarded to me by the Prisoners-of-War Department. They are fragmentary archives forwarded by an official French office, which I shall inform of the Tribunal's wish.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it should be investigated and found out whether the matter was taken up with the German Government and what answer the German Government gave.
M. DUBOST: I shall do so, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Not at the moment, but in the course of time.
M. DUBOST: I shall have to apply to the French Government in order to discover whether in our archives there is any trace of a communication from the French Government to the German Government dated later than 26 April.
THE PRESIDENT: In the event of your not being able to get any satisfactory explanation, the Tribunal will take notice of Dr. Nelte's objection, or criticism rather, of the document.
It is pointed out to me, too, the fact that the two earlier documents to which you are referring are documents addressed by the Ambassador of France to M. Abetz, the Ambassador of Germany; and it may be, therefore, that there is a similar correspondence in reference to Document Number F-668 (Exhibit Number RF-361) here in the same Me, which is the file of which the French Government presumably has copies, or might have copies.
M. DUBOST: It is possible, but that is only a hypothesis which I do not want to formulate before the Tribunal. I prefer to produce the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I quite follow; you cannot deal with it for the moment. As to the other matter which is raised by Dr. Exner, the Tribunal considers that Document Number 532-PS, which has been submitted under Exhibit Number RF-368, should be struck out of the Record in so far as it is in the Record. If the United States and the French Prosecutors wish the document to be put in evidence at a future date, they may apply to do so. Similarly the defendants counsel, Dr. Exner, for instance, if he wishes to make any use of the document, of course he is at liberty to do so.
In reference to the other matters which Dr. Exner raised, it is the wish of the Tribunal to assist defendants' counsel in any way possible in their work; and they are, therefore, most anxious that the rules which they have laid down as to documents should be strictly complied with, and they think that copies of the original documents certainly should contain anything the original documents themselves contain.
30 Jan. 46
This particular document, Number 532-PS, as a copy, I think I am right in saying, does not contain the marginal note in the script which the original contains. At any rate it is important that copies should contain everything which is on the originals.
Then there is another matter to which I wish to refer. I have already said that it is very important that documents, when they are put in evidence, should not only be numbered as exhibits, but that the exhibit number should be stated at the time; and also even more important, or as important, that the certificate certifying where the document comes from should also be produced for the Tribunal. Every document put in by the United States bore upon it a certificate stating where it had been found or what was its origin, and it is important that that practice should be adopted in every case.
The only other thing I want to say is that it would be very convenient, both to defendants' counsel and to the Tribunal too, that they should be informed at least the night before of the program which counsel proposes to adopt for the following day. It is true, as was said, that perhaps that has not been absolutely regularly carried out by the Prosecutor on all occasions; but it has been done on quite a number of occasions within my recollection, and it is at any rate the most convenient practice, which the Tribunal desires should be carried out; and they would be glad to know above all what you, M. Dubost, propose to address yourself to tomorrow; and the Tribunal would be very grateful to know how long the French Prosecutors anticipate their case will take. They would like you, before you finish or at the conclusion of your address this afternoon, to indicate to the Tribunal and to the defendants' counsel, what the program for tomorrow is to be.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Honor please, I wonder if I could say one word in regard to the position as to documents, because I had an opportunity during recess of consulting with my friend Mr. Dodd, and also with my friend M. Dubost. All PS documents form a series of captured documents, whose origin and the process taken subsequent to the article, were verified on 22 November by an affidavit by Major Coogan, which was put in by my friend Colonel Storey. It' is the submission of the Prosecution, which, of course, it is delighted to elaborate any time convenient to the Tribunal, that all such documents being captured and verified in that way are admissible. I stress the word admissible, but the weight which the Tribunal will attach to any respective documents is, of course, a matter at which the Tribunal would arrive from the contents of the document and the circumstances under which it came into being. That, I fear, is the only reason I ventured to intervene at the moment, that there might be some confusion
30 Jan. 46
between the general verification of the document as a captured document, which is done by Major Coogan's affidavit, and the individual certificate of translation, that is, of the correctness of the translation of the different documents, which appeared at the end of each individual American document. The fact is that my friend, Mr. Dodd, and I were very anxious that that matter should be before the Tribunal, and we should be only too delighted to give to the Tribunal any further information which it desires.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that affidavit of Major Coogan apply to all the other series of documents put in by the United States?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It applies to PS and I think it is D, C, L, R and EC.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that certificate then cover this particular sheet of paper which is marked 532-PS, and has on it no other identifying mark?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The affidavit proves that that was a document captured from German sources; it gives the whole process--what happens after. I have not troubled the Tribunal by reading it, because as such we submit that it is admissible as a submission. Of course, the matter of weight may vary. I do not want the Tribunal to be under a misapprehension that every document was certified individually; what is certified is, of course, a non-captured document. If a document comes from any of the sources mentioned in Article 21, then someone with authority from his government certifies it as coming from one of these sources and that we do individually., But concerning captured documents, we do not make any individual certification; we depend on Major Coogan's affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but just a moment. Sir David, it is perhaps right to say in reference to this particular document, 532-PS, or the portion of it which has been produced, first of all that the copy which was put before us did not contain the marginal note, and that it is, therefore, wrong. We are in agreement with your submission that it has been certified, as you say, by Major Coogan's affidavit, which is admissible,. but, of course, that has nothing to do with its weight. That is the' point on which Dr. Exner was addressing us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So I appreciated it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a document-being a private document and not a document of which we can take judicial notice-which has not been read in court by the United States or other prosecutors, and it is not in evidence now because it has not been read by M. Dubost.
30 Jan. 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor, with that, of course, I do not desire anything further. That is the ruling of the Tribunal. The only part that I did want to stress was that the PS as such is being verified and, of course, subject to reading it in Court, it could be put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We quite understand that.
I ought to say, on behalf of the Tribunal, that we owe an apology to the French Prosecutor and his staff, because it has just been pointed out to me that this marginal note does appear upon the translation and, therefore, M. Dubost, I tender to you my apology.
M. DUBOST: I thank you, A/fr. President. The Tribunal will certainly remember that this morning Document Number 1553-PS was set aside, which includes in it bills for gas destined for Oranienburg and Auschwitz. I believe that, after the explanation given by Sir David, this Document 1553-PS may now be admitted by the Tribunal since it has already been certified.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it read, M. Dubost?
M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President. I was in the process of reading it this morning. It is the 27th document in the second document book of this morning, but the Tribunal rejected it, with the demand that I furnish an affidavit. The intervention of Sir David constitutes this affidavit. I beg the Tribunal to forgive my making this request, but I should be grateful if it would accept the document which was refused this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. DUBOST: I thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, it was a question of gas, was it not?
M. DUBOST: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: There was one bill of lading and then there were a number of other bills of lading which were referred to.
M. DUBOST: Yes. And the whole constituted Document Number 1553-PS, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-350. This document is included in the series covered by the affidavit of which Sir David has spoken to you.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, if you attach importance to it, would it not be possible for you to give us the figures from these other bills of lading? I mean the amount of the gas.
M. DUBOST: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just in order that it may be upon the shorthand note.
30 Jan. 46
M. DUBOST: 14 February 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 16 February 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 13 March 1944, gross weight 896 kilos, net weight 598 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 13 March 1944, gross weight 896 kilos, net weight 598 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 30 April 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 30 April 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 18 May 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 31 May 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz). This appears to me to be all.
To Document 1553-PS is added the statement by Gerstein, and also the statement by the chief of the American service who collected this document.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall proceed with the presentation of the crimes of which we accuse the defendants against Allied prisoners of war who were interned in Germany. Document Number 735-PS, Page 68 of the document book, which we submitted a short time ago under Exhibit Number RF-371, is a report on important meetings which brought together Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop, and Goering, in the course of which the list of air operations which constituted acts of terrorism was drawn up.
It was decided in these meetings that lynching would be the ideal punishment for all actions directed against civilian populations, which the German Government claimed had the character of terrorism.
On Page 68 Ribbentrop is involved. We read in one of the three copies of the notes of the meetings that were held that day, in the first paragraph, 11th line:
"Contrary to the first proposals of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who wanted to include all terrorist attacks against the civilian population and consequently air attacks against cities ......
The proposals made by Ribbentrop were far in excess of what was accepted at the time of this meeting. The three lines which follow deserve the attention of the Tribunal:
"Lynch law should be the rule. There was, on the other hand, no question of a judgment rendered by a tribunal or handing over to the police."
In Paragraph b), bottom of the page:
"...one would have to distinguish between enemy airmen.
who were suspected of criminal acts of this kind and prepare for their admission in the airmen's camp at Oberursel, and
30 Jan. 46
those who should be turned over to the SD for special treatment when the suspicions were confirmed."
The Tribunal will certainly remember the description which was given of this "special treatment" by the American prosecution. What is involved is purely and simply the extermination of Allied airmen who had fallen into the hands of the German Army.
On Page 69 the Tribunal may read, under Figure 3, the description and the enumeration of the acts which are to be considered as terrorist acts and as justifying lynching.
"(a) Firing weapons at the civilian population, and gatherings of civilians.
"(b) Firing at German airmen who have bailed out of their aircraft.
"(c) Firing weapons at passenger trains and public conveyances.
"(d) Firing weapons at hospital or hospital trains that are clearly marked with a red cross."
Three lines below:
"Should such acts be established in the course of interrogation, the prisoners must be handed over to the SD."
This document originates from the Fuehrer's headquarters. It was drawn up there on 6 June 1944, and it bears the stamp of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that has all been read, M. Dubost. I think that document was all read before.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I was told that it had not been read.
THE PRESIDENT: I have not verified it.
M. DUBOST: We submit Document Number 729-PS, as Exhibit Number RF-372. This document confirms the preceding one. It originates from the Fuehrer's headquarters, is dated 15 June 1944, and reiterates the orders I have read. But this document is signed by General Keitel, whereas the preceding one was -signed "J." We have not been able to identify the author of this initial.
Document Number 730-PS, which we next submit as Exhibit Number RF-373, is likewise from the Fuehrer's headquarters, and is also dated 15 June 1944. It is addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the attention of Ambassador Ritter. The Tribunal will find it on Page 71 in the document book. This document contains the instructions signed "Keitel" in the preceding document, and it is likewise signed by Keitel.
We shall submit as Exhibit Number RF-374, Document 733-PS, which concerns the treatment which is to be meted out to airmen
30 Jan. 46
falling into the hands of the German Army. It is a telephone message from the Adjutant of the Reich Marshal, Captain Breuer.
DR. NELTE: I assume that you have finished with the question of lynching. In the presentation of, this case the words "Orders of Keitel" have been used repeatedly. The prosecutor has not read these documents. I would be obliged if the prosecutor would produce a document which contains an order, which raises lynch law to the level of an order, as has been claimed by the Prosecution. The Defendants Keitel and Jodl maintain that such an order was never given, that these conferences concerning which documents have been produced-that these documents never became orders because the authorities concerned prevented this.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents speak for themselves.
M. DUBOST: Does the Tribunal wish to listen to the complete reading of these documents which are signed by Keitel? They are not orders, they are projects. Moreover, I emphasized that point when I announced them to the Tribunal. At Page 80 of our document book, you will find, dated 30 June 1944, with Keitel's visa:
"Note for meeting.
"Subject: The treatment of enemy terror flyers:
"I. Enclosed, draft of written reply by the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of the OKW for the Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht."
I am skipping a paragraph:
"II. The Reich Marshal approves the definition of terror flyer communicated by the OKW, as well as the procedure which is proposed."
This document is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-375. I have not submitted to the Tribunal a regular formal order; but I have brought three documents which, in my opinion, are equivalent to a formal order because, with the visa of Keitel, we have this note, signed by Warlimont, which states: "The Reich Marshal approves the definition of terror flyer communicated by the OKW, as well as the procedure which is proposed." This document bears the visa of Keitel.
We shall now submit a document, Number L-154, which has already been submitted by our American colleagues under Exhibit Number USA-335. My colleague has read this text in extenso. I will merely refer to three lines, in order not to delay the proceedings, "In principle, no fighter-bomber pilots brought down are to be saved from the fury of the people." That text comes from the offices of Albert Hoffmann, Gauleiter and Commissioner for the Defense of the Reich, of the Gau South Westphalia.
30 Jan. 46
Under Exhibit Number RF-376 we shall submit Document Number F-686, on Page 82 of our document book. This is the record of an interrogation of Hugo Gruner on -29 December 1945. He was subordinate to Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Baden and Alsace. 'In the last lines of this document, Page 82, Gruner states:
"Wagner gave a formal order to kill all Allied airmen we could capture. In this connection Gauleiter Wagner explained to us that Allied airmen were causing great ravages on German territory, that he considered it was an inhuman war, and that therefore, under the circumstances, any airmen captured should not be considered as prisoners of war and deserved no mercy."
Page 83, at the top of the page:
"He stated that Kreisleiter, if the occasion offered, should not fail to capture and shoot the Allied airmen themselves. As I have told you, Rohm was assistant to Wagner, but Wagner himself did not speak. I can state that SS General Hoffmann, who was SS chief of the police for the Southwest Region, was present when the order was given to us by Wagner to kill Allied airmen."
This witness, Hugo Gruner, confesses that he participated in the execution of Allied airmen in October or November 1944.
Passing through Rheinweiler, he Gruner, noticed that some English or American airmen had been taken out of the Rhine by soldiers. The four airmen were wearing khaki uniforms, were bareheaded, and were of average height. He could not speak to them because he did not know the English language. The Wehrmacht refused to take charge of them.
That is the third paragraph at the bottom of the page and the witness declares-I am reading:
"I told the gendarmes that I had received orders from Wagner to execute any Allied airman taken prisoner. The gendarmes replied that it was the only thing to be done. I then decided to execute the four Allied prisoners and one of the gendarmes present advised the banks of the Rhine as the place of execution."
On Page 84, Paragraph 1, Gruner, describes how he proceeded to assassinate these airmen and admits that he killed them with machine gun shots in the back. In the third paragraph he gives the name of one of his accomplices, Erich Meissner, who was a Gestapo agent from Lorrach, and then he denounces Meissner for having himself killed an airman as he was getting out of his car and was walking toward the Rhine. I read:
30 Jan. 46
"He killed them by firing a machine gun salvo at each of them in the back, after which each airman was dragged by the feet and thrown into the Rhine."
This affidavit was received by the Police Magistrate of Strasbourg. The document which we shall submit was signed by the magistrate's clerk of the court as a certified copy. This is how the orders given by the leaders of the German Government were carried out by the German people.
THE PRESIDENT, M. Dubost, I see that it is 5 o'clock now, and perhaps you would be able to tell us what your program would be for tomorrow.
M. DUBOST: Tomorrow we shall complete the presentation of the question of prisoners of war. We shall present to you in an abridged form documents which seem to us to be indispensable, in spite of the hearing of witnesses concerning the camps. There are only a few documents, but they all directly inculpate one or other of. the defendants. Then we shall show how the orders given by the leaders of the German Army led subordinates to commit acts of terrorism and banditry in France against the innocent population, and also against patriots who were not treated as francs-tireurs but as ordinary criminals.
We expect to finish tomorrow morning. In the afternoon, my colleague, M. Faure, could begin the presentation of this last part of the French charges concerning crimes against humanity.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you not able to give us any estimate of the length of the whole of the French. Prosecution?
M. DUBOST: I believe that three days will be sufficient for M. Faure. The individual charges will be summarized in one-half day by our colleague, M. Mounier, and that will be the end.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 31 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
|Nuremberg Trials||Vol. 6 Menu|