4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to explain the Tribunal's decision with reference to General Halder and General Warlimont.
Would Dr. Nelte kindly come to the Tribunal?
I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nelte, whether you were the only one of the defendants' counsel who wished to call General Halder and General Warlimont?
DR. NELTE: No, besides myself, so far as I know, my colleagues Dr. Laternser, Professor Dr. Kraus, and Professor Dr. Exner have called both General Halder and General Warlimont.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I understand.
Then the Tribunal's decision is this: The Tribunal ordered, when the Soviet prosecutor wished to put in the affidavits of these two generals, that if they were put in, the witnesses must be produced for cross-examination. But in view of the fact that defendants' counsel have asked to call these witnesses themselves, the Tribunal is willing that the defendants' counsel should decide whether they prefer that those two generals should be produced now, during the Prosecution's case, for cross-examination, or should be called thereafter during the defendants' case for examination by the defendants, in which case, of course, they would be liable to crossexamination on behalf of the Prosecution.
But it must be clearly understood, in accordance with the order which the Tribunal made the other day -- either yesterday or the previous day, I forgot which it was -- that these witnesses, like other witnesses, can only be called once, and when they are called, each of the defendants' counsel who wishes to put questions to them must do so at that time.
Now, if there were any difference of opinion among defendants' counsel, one defendant's counsel wishing to have these two generals produced now during the Prosecution's case for cross-examination, and other defendants' counsel wishing to have them called hereafter as witnesses on their behalf during the course of their case, then the Tribunal consider that in view of the order which they have already made, Generals Halder and Warlimont ought to be produced and called now. And the same rule would apply then.
26 Feb. 46
They could only be called once, and any questions which the other defendants' counsel wish to be put to them should be put to them then. But the decision as to whether they should be called now or whether they should be called during the course of the defendants' case is accorded to defendants' counsel.
Is that clear?
DR. NELTE: I request to hear the decisions of the various Defense Counsel at the beginning of the afternoon session...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, certainly. You can let us know during the afternoon session, at the beginning of the afternoon session, what the decision of defendants' counsel is.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation of the political report of Professor Paul Thomsen, which was already submitted at yesterday's afternoon session to the Tribunal. Your
Honors will find it on Page 116 of the document book. I start quoting -- and quote only two short excerpts from this political report:
"I consider it is my duty, although I am only here in the East on a specific scientific mission, to add a general political outline to my actual reports. I must admit, openly and in all honesty, that I return home with the most grievous impressions.
"In this fateful hour of our nation every mistake we make may result in the most disastrous consequences. A Polish or a Czech problem can be crushed because the biological forces of our people are sufficient for that purpose.
"Remnants of people like Estonians, Lithuanians, and Letts have to adapt themselves to us or they will perish. Things are quite different in the immense Russian area, of vital necessity to us as a basis for raw materials."
Here I interrupt my quotation and continue on Page 117 of the document book, Paragraphs 10 and 11 -- I quote:
"I do not dare to voice an opinion on the economic measures, such as, for instance, the abolition of the free market in Kiev, which has been taken as a heavy blow by the population, since I am in no position to observe the entire situation. The 'sergeant major attitude,' the beatings and shouting in the streets, the senseless destruction of scientific institutions which is still going on as strong as ever in Dniepropetrovsk, should cease immediately and be punished severely.
"Kiev, 19 October 1942; Professor Dr. Paul W. Thomsen."
26 Feb. 46
The German fascist theory of Germanization, already well known to the Tribunal, announced that not the people but the territories were to be germanized.
I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal that a similar Hitlerite crime was to have been committed in Yugoslavia. This crime could not be perpetrated because of the liberation movement which flared up all over Yugoslavia.
I quote a short excerpt from the statement of the Yugoslav Government, which is on Page 68, Paragraph 7 in the document book:
"Immediately after the entry of the German troops into Slovenia, the Germans began to put into effect their long premeditated plankton the Germanization of the annexed regions of Slovenia. It was perfectly clear to the leading Nazi circles that a successful Germanization of Slovenia could not be realized unless the greater part of the nationally and socially conscious elements had previously been removed; and in order to weaken the resistance of the mass of the people towards the Nazi authorities engaged in the task of Germanization, it would be essential to lessen them numerically and destroy them economically.
"The German plan foresaw the complete removal of all the Slovenes from certain regions of Slovenia, and their repopulation by Germans" -- Germans from Bessarabia and so-called "Gottscheer" Germans.
I omit a passage and continue:
"A few days after the seizure of Slovenia, central offices were organized for resettlement control The headquarters staff was established in Maribor (Marburg on the Drava) and Bled (Veldes).
"At the same time, on 22 April 1941, a 'Decree for the Strengthening of German Folkdom' was published. The immediate aim of this decree was the confiscation of property of all persons and institutions antagonistically inclined towards the Reich. Naturally, all those, who in accordance with the aforesaid plan were to be deported from Slovenia, were included in this category.
"The Hitlerites proceeded to the practical realization of this plan. They arrested a large number of persons registered for deportation to Serbia and Croatia. The treatment of the arrested persons was extremely cruel. Their entire property was confiscated in the interest of the Reich. Numerous assembly points were organized and practically turned into concentration camps, in Maribor, Zelie, and other localities."
26 Feb. 46
As regards the treatment of arrested persons in these points, the statement of the Yugoslav Government reads as follows -- the members of the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 69, Paragraph 4, of the document book:
"The internees were left without food; in unhygienic conditions; the personnel of the camp subjected them to bodily and mental torture. All the camp commanders and personnel belonged to the SS. Among them were Germans from Carinthia and Styria who hated anything connected with Slovenia in particular, and Yugoslavia in general."
The following sentence is typical:
"The members of the so-called Kulturbund" -- Cultural Union -- "particularly distinguished themselves for their cruelty."
In corroboration of this Hitlerite crime, I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-139 (Document Number USSR-139), a letter from the German Command in Smeredov, addressed to the Yugoslav quisling, Commissioner Stefanovitch, ordering him to report what the possibilities were for transferring to Serbia a large number of Slovenes. Your Honors will find this document on Page 119 of the document book.
In the report of the Yugoslav Government, Page 49 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 59, Paragraph 7, of the document book of the Tribunal, it is stated that the Germans primarily intended to transfer 260,000 Slovenes to Serbia. However, the realization of this plan met with a number of difficulties. In this connection I should like to quote a paragraph from the report of the Yugoslav Government:
"But in view of the fact that the transportation to Serbia of such a very large number of Slovenes has encountered a great many difficulties, negotiations were opened shortly afterwards between the German authorities and the quisling Oustachi administration in Zagreb concerning the transit of the expelled Slovenes through Croatian territory and the resettling of a certain number of these Slovenes in Croatia proper while the Serbs in Croatia were deported from the country;"
I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-195 (Document Number USSR-195), the minutes of a conference held on 4 June 1941 at the German Legation in Zagreb and presided over by SA ObergruppenFuehrer Siegfried Kasche, German Minister in Zagreb. These minutes, in the Serbian translation, were seized in the archives of the Refugee Commission of the so-called Government of Milan Neditch. They give the subject matter of the conference, that is, "The Expulsion of the Slovenes from Germany to Croatia
26 Feb. 46
and Serbia, as well as of the Serbs from Croatia to Serbia." The Tribunal will find this document on Page 120 of the document book. The passage in question literally reads as follows:
"The conference was approved by the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs by Telegram Number 389, dated 31 May. The Fuehrer's approval for the deportation was received by Telegram Number 344, dated 25 May."
We are thus able to prove that the direct responsibility for this crime against humanity rests on the Defendant Von Ribbentrop.
We gather, at the same time, from the report of the Yugoslav Government, that the deportation of a considerable number of Slovenes to Germany was put into effect. I quote a paragraph from the report of the Yugoslav Government, which Your Honors will find on Page 70, last paragraph of the document book. I begin the quotation:
"Shortly afterwards the deportation itself began. In the morning German trucks would arrive in the villages. Soldiers and Gestapo men, armed with machine guns and rifles, broke into the houses and ordered the inhabitants to leave, each man being allowed to take with him only as much as he could carry. The unfortunate people were given only a few minutes in which to quit and they were forced to leave all their property behind them. The trucks drove them to the Roman Catholic Trappist monastery of Reichenberg. The transports started from the monastery. Each transport consisted of 600 to 1,200 persons to be taken to Germany. The district of Bregiza was almost completely depopulated, the district of Krshko up to 90 percent; 56,000 inhabitants were deported from these two districts. Over and above this 4,000 were deported from the communities of Zirkovsky and Ptuya."
I omit one paragraph and continue:
"They were forced to perform the very hardest tasks and to live under the most horrible conditions. The mortality rate assumed enormous proportions in consequence. The harshest penalties were applied for the slightest offense."
I shall not enumerate other passages in the report of the Yugoslav Government in connection with the same subject. I do not quote this document; I merely ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence the supplementary official report of the Yugoslav Government which I am submitting as Document Number USSR-357.
Similar crimes were committed by the German criminals on the territory of occupied Poland. I quote a few excerpts from the official report of the Polish Republic. Your Honors will find the passage I wish to quote on Page 3, Paragraph 3 of the document book. The
26 Feb. 46
passage is in Subparagraph A and is entitled, "The Germanization of Poland":
"Clear indications concerning the program are found in a publication distributed among members of the National Socialist Party in Germany in 1940. It contained the principles of German policy in the East. Here are some quotations from this document:
" 'In a military sense the Polish question has been settled, but from the point of view of national policy it is only now beginning for Germany. The national political conflict between the Germans and Poles must be carried forward to a degree never yet seen in history.
" 'The aim which confronts German policy in the territory of the former Polish State is twofold: Firstly, to see that a certain portion of space in this area is cleared of the alien population and colonized by German nationals; secondly, by imposing German leadership, in order to guarantee that in that area no fresh conflagrations should flare up against Germany. It is clear that this aim can never be achieved with, but only against, the Poles.' "
I interrupt this quotation and continue on Page 15 of the report of the Polish Republic, which corresponds to Page 5, Paragraph 5 of the document book. This part is entitled, "The Colonization of Poland by German Settlers." I begin the quotation:
"The policy, in this respect, was clearly expressed by the official German authorities. In the Ostdeutscher Beobachter of 7 May 1941 the following proclamation is printed:
"For the first time in German history we can exploit our military victories in a political sense. Never again will even a centimeter of the earth which we have conquered belong to the Pole."
Such was the plan. The facts which were put into practice were the following:
"Locality after locality, village after village, hamlets and cities in the incorporated territories were cleared of the Polish inhabitants. This began in October 1939, when the locality of Orlov was cleared of all the Poles who lived and worked there. Then came the Polish port of Gdynia. In February 1940 about 40,000 persons were expelled from the city of Posen. They were replaced by 36,000 Baltic-Germans, families of soldiers and of German officials.
"The Polish population was expelled from the following towns: Gnesen, Kulm, Kostian, Neshkva, Inovrotzlav..." -- and many other towns.
26 Feb. 46
"The German newspaper Grenzzeitung reported that in February 1940 the entire center of the city of Lodz was cleared of Poles and reserved for the use of future German settlers. By September 1940 the total number of Poles deported from Lodz was estimated at 150,000.
"But it was not only that the persons living in these places were ordered to leave -- they were forbidden to take their property with them; everything was to be left behind. The German newcomers took the place of the Poles evicted from their homes, business shops, and farms. By January 1941 more than 450,000 Germans had been settled in this manner."
I omit the next part of this report which I wished to quote and I would request the Tribunal only to pay attention to the part entitled, "Germanization of Polish Children." This is a short quotation. Just two small paragraphs:
"Thousands of Polish children (between the ages of 7 and 14) were ruthlessly torn from their parents and families and carried off to Germany. The purpose of this most brutal measure was explained by the Germans themselves in the Kolnische Zeitung Number 1584, 1940 issue. We read:
" 'They will be taught German. They will be inculcated with the German spirit so that later they can be brought up as model German boys and girls.' "
In order to explain the methods adopted by the German fascists in the execution of their cannibalistic plan for the extermination of the Soviet people -- peaceful citizens of my motherland, women, children, and old people -- I request the Tribunal to call and question witness Grigoriev, Jacob Grigorievitch, a peasant from the village of Pavlov, village soviet of Shkvertovsk, region of Porkhovsk, district of Pskov. He has arrived from the district of Pskov, a district near Leningrad and, according to my information, is now in the courtbuilding. I ask the permission of the Tribunal to examine this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
[The witness Grigoriev took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
JACOB GRIGORIEV (Witness): Jacob Grigoriev.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath:
I -- Jacob Grigoriev -- citizen of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics -- summoned as witness in this Trial -- do promise and swear -- in the presence of the Court -- to tell the Court nothing but the truth -- about everything I know in regard to this case.
[The witness repeated the oath in Russian.]
26 Feb. 46
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, in which village did you live before the war?
GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo, Porkhov region, district of Pskov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In which village were you overtaken by the outbreak of war?
GRIGORIEV: In the village of Kusnezovo.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Does this village currently exist?
GRIGORIEV: It does not exist.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal what happened.
GRIGORIEV: On the memorable day of 28 October 1943, German soldiers suddenly raided our village and started murdering the peaceful citizens, shooting them, chasing them into the houses. On that day I was working on the threshing floor with my two sons, Alexei and Nikolai. Suddenly a German soldier came up to us and ordered us to follow him.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. When you see the light on that desk there or here, it means you are going too fast. You understand?
GRIGORIEV: I understand, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly, Witness. Continue, please.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you were working with your two sons in the field.
GRIGORIEV: Yes; my own two sons.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continue.
GRIGORIEV: We were led through the village to the last house at the outskirts. There were 19 of us, all told, in that house. So there we sat in that house. I sat close to the window and looked out of it. I saw German soldiers herd together a great number of people. I noticed my wife and my 9-year-old boy. They were chased right up to the house and then led back again -- where to, I did not know.
A little later three German machine gunners came in, accompanied by a fourth carrying a heavy revolver. We were ordered into another room. So we went, all 19 of us, and were lined up against a wall, including my two sons, and they began shooting at
26 Feb. 46
us from their machine guns. I stood right up to the wall, bending slightly.
After the first volley I fell to the floor, where I lay, too frightened to move. When they had shot all of us they left the house. When I came to, I looked round and saw my son Nikolai who had been shot and had fallen, face downwards. My second son I could not find anywhere.
Then, when some time had passed, I began to think how I could escape. I straightened my legs out from under the man who had fallen on me and began to think how I could get away. And instead of that, instead of planning my escape, I lost my head and called out, at the top of my voice, "Can I really go now?" At that moment my small son, who had remained alive, recognized me.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That would be your second son?
GRIGORIEV: The second. The first had been killed and was lying by my side. My little son called out, "Daddy, are you still alive?"
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He was wounded?
GRIGORIEV: He was wounded in the leg. I calmed him down: "Do not fear, my small son. I shall not leave you here. Somehow or other, we shall get away from here. I shall carry you out."
A little later the house began to burn. Then I opened the window and threw myself out of it, carrying my little boy who had been wounded in the leg. We began to creep out of the house, hiding so that the Germans could not see us, but on our way from the house we suddenly saw a high fence.
We could not move the lattice apart so we began to break it up. At that moment we were noticed by the German soldiers and they began to shoot at us. Then I whispered to my little son to hide while I would run away. I was unable to carry him and he ran a short distance and hid in the undergrowth, while I ran off. I ran a short distance and then jumped into a building near the burning house.
There I sat for a while and then decided to run farther on. So I escaped into a nearby forest, not far from our village, where I spent the night. In the morning I met Alexei N. from the neighboring village, who told me, "Your son, Aljosha, is alive; he started to crawl to the neighboring village."
Then on the second day, from the same village, Kuznetzov, I met the boy Vitya who had escaped from Leningrad and was living in our village during the time of the occupation. He had also been saved by a miracle. He escaped from the fire. He told me what had happened in the second hut where my wife and son had been taken.
26 Feb. 46
There matters were carried out as follows: The German soldiers, having driven the people into the hut, opened the door into the passage and proceeded to shoot from their machine guns across the threshold.
According to Vitya's words, people who were still half alive were burning, including my little boy, Petya, who was only 9 years old. When he ran out of the hut he saw that my Petya was still alive. He was sitting under a bench, having covered his ears with his little hands.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How old was the oldest inhabitant of this village destroyed by the Germans?
GRIGORIEV: The oldest inhabitant, a woman aged 108 years, was Ustinia Artemieva.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, how old was the youngest victim murdered by the Germans?
GRIGORIEV: Four months.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many villagers were destroyed all told?
GRIGORIEV: Forty-seven, excluding those who were saved by a miracle.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why did the Germans destroy the population of your village?
GRIGORIEV: The reason was not known.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what did the Germans themselves say?
GRIGORIEV: When a German soldier came to our threshing floor we asked him, "Why are you killing us?" He replied, "Do you know the village of Maximovo?" This is the village next to our village community. I said, "Yes." Then he told me, "This village of Maximovo is kaput -- the inhabitants are kaput, and you too will be kaput."
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And why kaput?
GRIGORIEV: "Because," said he, "partisans were hiding in your village." But his words were untruthful because we had no partisans in the village; nobody indulged in any partisan activities since there was nobody left. Only old people and small children were left in the village; the village had never seen any partisans and did not know who these partisans were.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were there many adult men in your village?
26 Fob. 46
GRIGORIEV: There was one man, 27 years old, but he was a sick man, half-witted and paralytic. We had only old men and small children. All the rest of the men were in the Army.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, witness, were the inhabitants of your village alone in suffering this fate?
GRIGORIEV: No, they were not alone. The German soldiers shot 43 persons in Kurysheva, 47 in Vshivova, and in the village of Pavlovo, where I now live, they burned 23 persons. And in a number of villages where, according to our village community, there were some four hundred inhabitants, they shot all the peaceful citizens, both young and old.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please repeat that figure. How many persons were destroyed in your village community?
GRIGORIEV: About four hundred people in our village community alone.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, who remained alive in your family?
GRIGORIEV: In my family only I and my boy remained alive. In my family they shot my wife, in her sixth month of pregnancy, my son Nikolai, aged 16 years, my youngest boy, Petya, aged 9 years, and my sister-in-law -- my brother's wife -- with her two infants, Sasha and Tonya.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask this witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to ask the witness any questions? Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask the witness any questions? The witness may retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I pass on to the next count of my statement, the discrimination against the Soviet people.
Discrimination against the Soviet population was the usual method of the Hitlerite criminals. It was carried out by the criminals continuously and everywhere.
In this part of my presentation I shall refer to the documents of the German criminals themselves, which have only now been obtained and placed at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution. They were seized by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union in the prisoner-of-war camp at Lamsdorf.
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-415 (Document Number USSR-415), a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes committed by the German Government and the German Supreme Command against Soviet prisoners
26 Feb. 46
of war in the camp of Lamsdorf. A number of original documents of the German fascist criminals, discovered in the camp archives, are attached to the report.
I shall be able to submit some of these documents to Your Honors. Their value consists in the fact that they prove that even in the murderous regime established in one of the largest and most cruel of the German concentration camps, the criminals, true to the cannibalistic principles of their theories, shamelessly discriminated against Soviet nationals.
I shall quote a few brief excerpts from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission. The passage, Your Honors, to which I refer, you will find on Page 123 of the document book, Paragraph 4. It sets forth the general characteristics of the camp. I quote:
"Subsequent to investigations made, the Extraordinary State Commission proved that in Lamsdorf, in the district of the town of Oppeln, there existed, from 1941 to May 1945, a German stationary camp, Number 344.
"In 1940-41 this camp contained Polish prisoners of war; from the end of 1941 Soviet, English, and French prisoners of war began to come in."
I omit the next two sentences and continue the quotation:
"The prisoners of war were deprived of their outer clothing and boots. Even in winter they had to go barefoot. No fewer than 300,000 prisoners of war passed through the camp during the years of its existence, including 200,000 Soviet and l00,000 Polish, English, French, Belgian, and Greek prisoners.
"The prevalent method for the extermination of Soviet prisoners in Lamsdorf camp was the sale of the captives to German undertakings for work in various German firms where they were mercilessly exploited until, their strength completely lost, they died of exhaustion.
"In contrast to the numerous German labor exchanges, where Sauckel's representatives sold enslaved Soviet citizens by retail to German housewives, a wholesale business in internees was organized in Lamsdorf camp where the captives were formed into labor commands. There were 1,011 such labor commands in the camp."
When presenting the subsequent documents, I should like to ask the Tribunal to understand correctly the statements in corroboration of which I am submitting evidence.
I do not in the least wish to say that the regime established by the Germans for British, French, or other prisoners of war was at all distinguished for humanity or kindness and that, alone, the
26 Feb. 46
Soviet prisoners of war were exterminated by the camp administration by various criminal methods.
Not at all. Lamsdorf Camp factually pursued its object, which was the extermination of prisoners of war regardless of their nationality or citizenship. Nevertheless, even in this death camp, in these most grievous conditions created for prisoners of war of all nationalities, the German fascists, committing crimes against humanity and faithful to the principles of their theories, created particularly excruciating conditions for the people of the Soviet.
I shall submit to the Tribunal, in a few brief excerpts, a series of documents taken from the archives of this camp and presented to the Tribunal in the original version. All these documents point to the manifest discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, carried out by the camp administration pursuant to orders of the Reich Government and of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-421 (Document Number USSR-421), a memorandum on the utilization of the labor of Soviet prisoners of war, addressed by the chief of the prisoner-of-war department for the 8th Military District for the administration of industrial concerns to which the prisoners of war were sent.
I request the Tribunal to accept this document as evidence. It is submitted in the original. I quote Point 10 of this memorandum. Your Honors will find the passage quoted in the last paragraph of Page 150 of the document book. I begin the quotation:
"The following directives have been issued for the treatment of Russian prisoners of war:
"The Russian prisoners of war have all passed through the school of Bolshevism, they must be looked upon as Bolsheviks and treated as such. According to their own instructions they must, even in captivity, struggle actively against the state which has captured them. Therefore, we must from the very beginning treat all Russian prisoners of war with ruthless severity, if they give us the slightest cause for so doing.
"Complete separation of prisoners of war from the civilian population must be carried out strictly, in work as well as during recreation.
"Civilians attempting, some way or another, to approach the Russian prisoners of war, to exchange ideas with them, to hand them money, food supplies, et alia will be arrested without warning, questioned, and handed over to the police."
26 Feb. 46
I further quote the introduction to this memorandum. Your Honors will find it on Page 149 of the document book, Paragraph 2:
"The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued directives regulating the utilization of Soviet prisoner-of-war labor. According to these directives the utilization of Russian prisoners of war could be tolerated only if carried out under far harsher conditions than those applied to prisoners of war of other nationalities."
Thus the instructions for a specially cruel regime, to be applied to Soviet prisoners of war merely because they were Soviet people, were not the result of any arbitrary action on the part of the Lamsdorf Camp administration. They were dictated by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. In drafting this memorandum, the Lamsdorf Camp administration was only carrying out direct orders from the Supreme Command.
I quote two more, fairly characteristic points from the memorandum. I quote Point 4, which Your Honors will find on Page 149 of the document book, last paragraph. I begin the quotation -- it is a very brief one:
"In contrast to the increased requirements for the safeguarding of the Russian billets, these -- from the viewpoint of comfort -- must be reduced to the most modest requirements."
I shall endeavor to explain later on what this means. I shall next quote Point 7, which Your Honors will find on Page 150 of the document book, Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation:
"The food rations for Russian prisoners of war at work will differ from the rations allocated to prisoners of other nationalities. More detailed information on this subject will be given later."
Such was the memorandum addressed to the industrialists to whose concerns the Soviet prisoners of war were sent to work as slaves.
I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-431 (Document Number USSR-431), which is another memorandum about guarding the Soviet prisoners of war. The document is submitted in the original and I request the Tribunal to accept it as evidence into the record.
I ask the permission of the Tribunal to quote a few brief excerpts from this document. First I quote that part of the document which proves its origin. The first page of the text indicates it is an appendix to a "Directive of the OKW General Office, Armed Forces, POW Section." Next follow number and document, which are not so important. I now read the introduction to this memorandum, which is on Page 150 of the document book:
26 Feb. 46
"For the first time in this war the German soldier is faced with an adversary who is educated both in a military and in a political sense, whose ideal is communism and who sees in National Socialism his very worst enemy."
I omit the next paragraph and continue:
"Even in captivity, the Soviet soldier -- however harmless he may appear outwardly -- will seize every occasion to show his hatred for all that is German. We must reckon with the fact that the prisoners will have received suitable instructions on their behavior if captured and imprisoned."
My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, has already denounced the absurdity of these so-called special instructions and I therefore do not consider it necessary to dwell on this passage. I continue:
"It is therefore absolutely essential, when dealing with them, to exercise the greatest caution and prudence, and to nourish the deepest suspicions."
The following directives were issued to the guard on watch over the Soviet prisoners:
Firstly -- ruthless action at the slightest sign of resistance or disobedience. Merciless use of firearms to break any resistance. Escaping prisoners to be shot at immediately, without challenge, with firm intent to hit. "Without challenge" is characteristic.
I omit the two following paragraphs and quote the second part, Point 3 of the memorandum, which Your Honors will find on Page 153, Paragraph 2 of the document book. From this Subparagraph I quote three lines:
"Kindness is out of place, even when dealing with willing and obedient prisoners of war. They will ascribe it to weakness and draw their own conclusions from your kindness."
I omit Point 4 and end my quotation from this document on Subparagraph 5 of the memorandum -- Your Honors will find this passage on Page 153, last paragraph of the document book:
"5. Never must the apparent inoffensiveness of the Bolshevik prisoner of war tempt you to deviate from the above-mentioned instructions."
I have, a very short time ago, quoted Point 4 of the memorandum for the industrial, regarding the utilization of the work of Soviet prisoners. It stated that the requirements respecting billets for the Soviet captives should, from the viewpoint of living facilities, be of a minimum nature.
The meaning of this will be clear to Your Honors from a report of the Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve
26 Feb. 46
Army, dated 17 October 1941, addressed to the acting corps commanders and to the administrative authorities of military districts.
I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-422 (Document Number USSR-422). This too is presented in the original and I beg that it be entered as documentary evidence into the record. It was issued in Berlin and dated as far back as 17 October 1941. I quote one paragraph of the text. Your Honors will find this paragraph on Page 154 of the document book. I begin the quotation:
"Subject: Quarters for Soviet prisoners of war.
"At a conference held on 19 September 1941 at the office of the Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Reserve Army (V-6), it was decided that by the construction of several tiers of superimposed wooden bunks in lieu of bedsteads, a RAD" -- Reich Labor Service -- "barrack for 150 prisoners could be built according to specifications for Soviet prisoners' permanent barracks to hold 840 prisoners in permanent billets."
I shall not quote the remainder of this document since I consider this paragraph sufficiently clear in itself.
I request the Tribunal to accept two documents in evidence which are also presented in the original. They testify to the fact that the extermination, in the camp, of Soviet prisoners of war was practiced for political reasons. It was the practice of murder.
I shall first submit, as Exhibit Number USSR-432 (Document Number USSR-432), an order addressed to Camp Number 60. The document is in the original and I request that it be added to the record as evidence. Your Honors will find the paragraph which I wish to quote on Page 155 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote one passage only of the document already submitted. The passage which I ask the permission of the Tribunal to read is on Page 155. Point 4 of the order runs as follows:
"Behavior at the shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner of war. (Legal Officer)
"Every case of shooting or serious wounding of a prisoner of war should be reported as a special occurrence. If you are dealing with British, French, Belgian, or American prisoners of war you should also act in accordance with instructions of the OKW, Code Number F-24."
This order was dated 2 August 1943.
26 Feb. 46
But on 5 November 1943 another order followed, which changed even this arrangement where the Soviet prisoners of war were concerned. I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the document which I am submitting as Number 433, pertaining to Camp Number 86. From this document I quote one paragraph only, that is, Paragraph 12:
"The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war. (Legal Officer)
"The shooting of Soviet prisoners of war and other fatal accidents need no longer be reported by phone to the prisoner of War Commander as an 'unusual occurrence.' "
In certain cases, the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces agreed to the payment of a miserably small sum for the work done by the prisoners of war, but here too the Soviet prisoners of war were placed in conditions which were twice as bad as those of the prisoners of other nationalities.
To confirm this, I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a directive of the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces dated 1 March 1944. The document will be submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-427 (Document Number USSR-427).
I request that the Tribunal attach it as evidence to the documentation of the case. From this document I shall quote two sentences only. These sentences Your Honors will find on Page 274 of the document book:
"Prisoners of war working all day will receive for one full working day the following basic salary: Non-Soviet prisoners of war, RM 0.70; Soviet prisoners of war, RM 0.35."
The second sentence is at the end of the document, on Page 275 of the document book, last paragraph:
"The minimum daily wage for non-Soviet prisoners will consist of 0.20 RM, and 0.10 for Soviet prisoners of war."
Here I end my quotation from this document.
If other prisoners received from the German fascist murderers the right to a few breaths of fresh air a day, the Soviet people were deprived of even this privilege. I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence an original order, Exhibit Number USSR-424 (Document Number USSR-424), referring to Camp Number 44. I request the permission of the Tribunal to quote one sentence from Paragraph 7, entitled, "Walks for Prisoners of War." I begin to quote:
"In special cases, when prisoners of war, engaged on work, have their living quarters at the same place where they work and therefore have no access to the open air, they should be allowed to be taken out into the fresh air in order to maintain their working strength."
26 Feb. 46
I further request the Tribunal to accept as evidence the original order addressed to Camp Number 46. This document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-425 (Document Number USSR-425). I would remind the Tribunal that the directive ruling the preceding order, "Walks for Prisoners of War," was listed under Point 7.
I cite one sentence from Point 10 of Order Number 46. This Point 10 is also entitled, "Walks for Prisoners of War," and the basis for this point is Order Number 1259, Part 5, of the Chief of the Section for Prisoner-of-War Affairs, dated 2 June 1943. I quote one sentence:
"In complement to Point 7 of the order addressed to Camp Number 44, dated 8 June 1943, it is explained that the order does not apply to Soviet prisoners of war."
I further request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the original request of the labor office of Mahrisch-Schonberg. This request concerns the utilization of prisoners of war for nonagricultural work. I quote two sentences from this document. The passage which I have asked permission to quote is on Page 160 of the document book. I begin the quotation:
"The replacement of 104 English prisoners of war from Labor Brigade for Prisoners of War E 351, currently employed in the Heinrichsthal paper mills, by 160 Soviet prisoners of war, has been rendered necessary by the labor shortage which has developed in this factory. An additional allocation of English prisoners, to raise the number to the required figure of 160, is impossible, since after the last check of camp conditions, undertaken a few months ago by competent Wehrmacht authorities, it was decided that billets in the camp were only sufficient for 104 English prisoners of war, whereas the same space would accommodate 160 Russian prisoners of war without any difficulties whatsoever."
I request Your Honors' permission to quote one more document, namely Directive Number 8 regarding this camp, dated 7 May 1942. It is entitled, ÒThe Utilization of Soviet Prisoners of War for Work."
I submit this document in the original as Exhibit Number USSR-426 (Document Number USSR-426), and I request that it be added as evidence to the record of the Trial.
I quote the section entitled, "Measures for the restoration of full working capacities." I think that the boundless cynicism and the cruelty of this document require no further comment:
"The Soviet prisoners of war are, almost without exception, in a state of acute malnutrition, which currently renders them unfit for a normal output of work."
26 Feb. 46
The General Staff of the German Armed Forces was particularly concerned over two questions: Firstly, with blankets for Soviet prisoners of war, and secondly, in what form the mercilessly murdered Soviet victims of the concentration camps should be buried. Both questions found their solution in one document.
I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-429 (Document Number USSR-429), and request that it be added as evidence to the record. Your Honors will find it on Page 162 of the document book. This is a directive of the 8th Military District, dated 28 October 1941. I begin the quotation:
"Re: Soviet Russian prisoners of war. The following arrangements were decided during a conference of the OKW:
"1. Blankets. The Soviet Russians will receive paper blankets, which they will have to manufacture themselves, in the form of quilts, from paper tissue, filled with crumpled paper and similar material. The material will be procured by the OKW."
The second part, as Your Honors will notice, is as follows -- the heading reads, "Burial of Soviet Russians":
"Soviet prisoners of war are to be buried naked, without a coffin, wrapped in packing paper. Coffins will be used only for transports. In the labor commands the burial will be attended to by the competent authorities. Burial expenses will be met by the competent M-Stalag for prisoners of war. The stripping of the bodies will be done by the camp guards. Signed: by order, Grossekettler."
But not only the administration of the military district was concerned with the methods for burying Soviet prisoners of war; the Ministry of the Interior was also concerned with this question, and an urgent letter was addressed to the camp specially marked, "Not for publication in the press, even in excerpts."
I request the Tribunal to accept this document in evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-430. The members of the Tribunal can find this passage on Page 276 of the document book. I quote a few sentences from this fairly voluminous document -- five sentences. I begin to quote:
"For the transport of the bodies (procurement of vehicles) offices of the Wehrmacht should be contacted. For transportation and burial a coffin is not to be requested. The bodies should be completely wrapped up in paper, preferably in oiled paper, tarpaulin, corrugated paper, or some other suitable material. Both transportation and burial should be done unostentatiously. When many corpses come in at the same time, burial should take place in a common grave. The corpses should be laid at the usual depth, side by side, not overlapping each other. As a site for the burial a distant part
26 Feb. 46
of the cemetery should be chosen. Any burial service and any decoration of the graves should be disallowed."
I omit the following sentence: "It is necessary to keep expenses as low as possible."
But even in the special organizations of German fascism, specially created for the extermination of human life, the criminals still continued in their policy of racial and political discrimination. Actually, this discrimination could mean one thing only, namely, that one part of the camp prisoners came to their, inevitable end, death, more rapidly than the other part.
And the criminals even tried to make the inevitable end more of a torment for those of their victims whom they, following the Nazi man-hating theories, designated as subhumans or considered capable of active resistance.
I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record one paragraph from a document already submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-415. This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the "Crimes at Lamsdorf Camp" and the quotation will testify to the extent of the criminal Hitlerite activities. It concludes the presentation of evidence regarding this camp. Your Honors will find the passage in question on Page 146 of the document book, Paragraph 3. I quote:
"According to the findings of the special commission during the existence of the Lamsdorf Camp, the Germans tortured to death more than 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Most of these died in the mines, in the various economic enterprises, or during transportation back to the camp. Some were crushed to death in the dugouts, many were killed during the evacuation of the camp. Forty thousand prisoners of war were tortured to death in the Lamsdorf Camp proper."
Mr. President, the Soviet Prosecution begs to present one more witness, Doctor Kivelisha. He is a physician and his evidence is particularly important in establishing that there existed a special regime for Soviet prisoners of war in the camps. The Soviet Prosecution requests your permission to question this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
[The witness Kivelisha took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
DR. EUGENE ALEXANDROVICH KIVELISHA (Witness): Kivelisha, Eugene Alexandrovich.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I, and then state your name -- a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- summoned as witness in this Trial -- do promise and
26 Feb. 46
swear -- in the presence of the Court -- to tell the Court nothing but the truth about everything I know in regard to this case.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish. Will you spell your name; will you spell your surname?
KIVELISHA: It is K-i-v-e-l-i-s-h-a.
THE PRESIDENT: Please, Colonel Pokrovsky.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): What was your position in the ranks of the Red Army at the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite Germany?
KIVELISHA: At the time of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitlerite Germany I was junior physician in the 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did your unit of the 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division take part in battles against the Germans?
KIVELISHA: Yes, our 305th Regiment of the 44th Rifle Division participated in the battles from the first day of the war.
COL. POKROVSKY: On what date and under what circumstances were you captured by the Germans?
KIVELISHA: I was captured by the Germans on 9 August 1941, in the district of the City of Uman, in the Kirovograd region. I was captured at the moment when our unit and two Russian armies to which our unit belonged were surrounded by the Germans after prolonged fighting.
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the treatment applied by the Germans to Red Army soldiers who were captured by the Hitlerite troops? What was the position of these prisoners of war?
KIVELISHA: I know only too well every form of barbarous mockeries applied to the Russian prisoners of war by the Hitlerite authorities and the Army, for the reason that I was a prisoner of war myself, for a very long time.
On the day I was captured, I was sent in convoy in a large column of prisoners of war to one of the transient camps. En route, talking to the prisoners with whom I marched -- I stress the fact that this was on the very first day -- I learned that the greater part of the prisoners had been captured 3 or 4 days before the small group to which I myself belonged.
During these 3 or 4 days the prisoners had been kept in a shed, under a reinforced German guard and were given nothing at all to eat or drink. Later, when we passed through the villages, the prisoners, on seeing wells and water, passed their tongues over their
26 Feb. 46
parched lips and made involuntary swallowing movements when their eyes fell on the water.
Later on in the same day we finished the march toward nighttime and the column of prisoners, 5,000 strong, was billeted in a farm yard where we had no possibility of resting after the long journey, and we were forced to spend the night in the open. This continued on the following day, and on this day too we were deprived of food and water.
COL.POKROVSKY: Was there no case when the prisoners, passing by water tanks or wells, stepped two or three paces out of line and tried to get at the water themselves?
KIVELISHA: Yes, I remember a few such cases and shall tell you of one particular incident which occurred on the first day of our march. It happened like this:
We were passing the outskirts of a little village. The peaceful civilian population came to meet us, and tried to supply us with water and bread. However, the Germans would not allow us to approach the citizens, nor would they let the population approach the column of prisoners. One of the prisoners stepped 5 or 6 meters out of the column, and without any warning was killed by a German soldier shooting from a tommy gun. Several of his comrades rushed to help him thinking that he was still alive, but they too were immediately fired on without warning. Some of them were wounded and two of them were killed.
COL..POKROVSKY: Was that the only incident you witnessed, or, during your transfer from one place to another, did you observe other cases of a similar nature?
KIVELISHA: No, this was not an individual occurrence. Almost every transfer from one camp to another was accompanied by the same kind of shootings and murders.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did they shoot only the prisoners of war, or were measures of repression adopted toward the peaceful citizens as well, toward the citizens who had tried to give bread and water to the captives?
KIVELISHA: Measures of repression were applied not only to the prisoners of war; they were also applied to the peaceful citizens. I remember once, during one of our transfers, a group of women and children attempted to give us bread and water, like the others, only the Germans would not allow them to come anywhere near us. Then one woman sent a little girl, about 5 years old, evidently her daughter, to the prisoners' column. This little child came quite close to the place where I had passed and when she was five or six steps away from the column, she was killed by a German soldier.
26 Feb. 46
COL. POKROVSKY: But perhaps the prisoners of war didn't need the food which the population tried to give them; perhaps they were sufficiently well fed by the German authorities?
KIVELISHA: The prisoners of war on the transfer marches suffered from hunger to an exceptional extent. The Germans provided no food whatsoever en route from one camp to the other.
COL. POKROVSKY: So that these gifts from the local population were the only practical means possible to sustain the strength of the soldiers in German captivity?
COL. POKROVSKY: Did the Germans shoot them?
KIVELISHA: You understand me correctly.
COL. POKROVSKY: In which prisoner-of-war camps were you interned? Name some of them.
KIVELISHA: The first camp in which I was interned was in the open, in a field, in the district of the small hamlet of Tarnovka. The second camp was situated on the site of a brick yard and former poultry farm on the outskirts of the town of Uman. The third camp was situated in the suburbs of Ivan-Gora. The fourth camp was situated on the territory pertaining to the stables of some military unit or other in the region of the town of Gaisen. The fifth camp was in the region of the small garrison town of Vinnitza. The sixth camp was in the suburbs of the small town of Dzemerinka and the last camp, where I stayed the longest time, was in the village of Rakovo, 7 kilometers from the town of Proskurov, in the Kamenetz-Podolsk district.
COL. POKROVSKY: So that you yourself, from your own personal experience, could realize the state of affairs prevalent in this series of camps?
KIVELISHA. Yes, in all the camps I was personally and completely acquainted with all the conditions.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are you a physician by profession?
KIVELISHA: I am a physician by profession.
COL. POKROVSKY: Tell the Tribunal how matters stood insofar as medical attention and food for the prisoners of war were concerned in the camps you have just enumerated.
KIVELISHA: When I was transported under convoy to the camp near the hamlet of Tarnovka, I was, for the first time and in company with other Russian doctors, separated from the rest of the prisoners' column, and sent to the so-called infirmary.
This infirmary was in a shed with a concrete floor, without any equipment for the care of the wounded. And on this concrete floor
26 Feb. 4B
lay a large number of wounded Soviet prisoners, mostly officers. Many had been captured to 12 days before my arrival at Tarnovka. During all that time they had received no medical attention although many of them were in need of surgical aid, with simultaneous and frequent dressings and a number of drugs.
They were systematically left without water; food too was administered without any system at all; at least, at the time of my arrival in the camp there was no equipment to prove that food had ever been prepared or cooked for these wounded soldiers.
There were about 15,000 to 20,000 wounded in Uman Camp where I found myself on the second day after my arrival in Tarnovka. They were all lying in the open, dressed in their summer uniforms and a great many of them were incapable of moving.
Food and water were supplied to them in the same way as to the other captives in the camp. There they lay, without any medical attention, their dust-covered dressings soaked in blood, often in pus. Dressings, surgical instruments, equipment for an operating theater just did not exist in the camp at Uman.
In Gaisen prisoners of war, sick and wounded, were herded into one of the stables. This stable had no wooden floors and lacked every facility for human habitation. The prisoners of war were lying on the earthen floor, and here, too, as in the preceding camp, they did not have even an iota of medical attention. As before, dressings, drugs, and surgical instruments were unobtainable.
COL.POKROVSKY: You mentioned the Uman Camp. Look at this photograph and tell me, is it a photograph of one of the camps where you were interned?
KIVELISHA: I see on this photograph the camp which was situated in the grounds of the brick yard at the city of Uman. I know this picture very well.
COL. POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal that the photograph I have just shown the witness is a photograph of Uman Camp and was submitted by me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-345. It shows the camp concerning which witness Bingel has already testified.
[Turning to the witness.] This means that you recognize Uman Camp situated in the grounds of the brick yard from this photograph?
KIVELISHA: Yes, in the grounds of the brick yard. It is a part of the camp.
COL.POKROVSKY: What was the prevailing regime in Uman Camp? Tell us just the main points, very briefly.
KIVELISHA: Almost all the captives in the camp were kept in the open air. The food was extremely bad. In the grounds of the
26 Feb. 46
Uman Camp, where I spent 8 days, twice a day a few fires would be lit out of doors and a thin pea soup was cooked in vats over these fires.
There was no special routine for distributing food to the prisoners of war, and the boiled soup would then be set down amongst the whole mass of people. No control whatsoever was exercised over the distribution. The starving prisoners rushed up in the hope of obtaining even a minute portion of this thin, unsalted soup, cooked without fat and served without bread.
Disorder and crowding arose. The German guards, all armed with clubs as well as with rifles and automatic guns, beat up all the prisoners of war within range of their blows for the purpose of maintaining order. The Germans would often intentionally set down a small barrel of soup among a great number of people, and once again, to restore order, they would beat up the absolutely innocent people with laughter, oaths, insults, and threats.
COL. POKROVSKY: Please tell me, Witness: In the camp situated in the village of Rakovo, was the quality of the food better or was it approximately the same as in other camps? And how did the food situation affect the health of the prisoners?
KIVELISHA In the camp of Rakovo the food was exactly the same in quality as that of the other camps where I had been previously interned. It consisted of beets, cabbage, and potatoes frequently served half-cooked. Owing to this poor quality of food the prisoners developed severe gastric trouble accompanied by dysentery, which rapidly exhausted them and resulted in a very high rate of mortality from hunger.
COL. POKROVSKY: You talked about the guards often beating the prisoners on the slightest provocation and time and again without any provocation at all.
COL.POKROVSKY: What kind of traumatic lesions did the prisoners receive as a result of these beatings? Were there any cases of severe traumatic injuries caused by heavy beatings or did the whole matter result in a few kicks only?
KIVELISHA: In Rakovo Camp I was in the so-called hospital, where I worked in the surgical section. Frequently, after dinner or supper in the hospital, prisoners were brought in with most grievous physical injuries. I frequently had to do all I could to help people who were so terribly injured by these beatings that they would die without regaining consciousness.
I remember a second case when two prisoners were beaten over the head with some hard object till the brains oozed out from the
26 Feb. 46
gaping head wound. I remember yet another incident, only too well, when an athlete from Moscow had an eye knocked out with a whip. The athlete then contracted meningitis and died soon after.
COL.POKROVSKY: How high was the mortality rate among the prisoners of war in Rakovo Camp?
KIVELISHA: The history of Rakovo Camp can be divided into two periods. There was the first which lasted about 2 years and ended in November 1941. At that time the number of prisoners was not very great and consequently the rate of mortality was not so high. Then there was the second period, from November 1941 to March 1942, at which time I was in Rakovo myself. During this second period the mortality rate was exceptionally high: there were days when 700, 900, and even 950 persons died in the camp.
COL. POKROVSKY: What disciplinary measures were there in Rakovo Camp and for what reasons were the prisoners punished? Do you know?
KIVELISHA: Yes. I know that there was, in the camp grounds, a cell for prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. Prisoners of war guilty of attempting to escape from the terrible conditions created for them in captivity, or with offenses such as stealing food products in the kitchen, were locked up in this cell.
It was in the cellar; it had a cement floor and windows with iron bars instead of panes. The prisoner was stripped to the skin, deprived of food and water, and locked up in solitary confinement for 14 days. I do not know of a single case where a prisoner survived this confinement; all of them died in that particular cell.
COL. POKROVSKY: Evidently the conditions which you have described to the Tribunal increased the number of persons suffering from exhaustion.
COL.POKROVSKY: Did this condition result in a decreased number of prisoners capable of working? Did their number decrease; what was done to those prisoners who could not work?
KIVELISHA: An immense number of prisoners were kept, in Rakovo Camp, in stables which were quite unfit for human beings to live in during the winter period. At first everybody was made to work. I can safely say that most of this work was entirely aimless, since it consisted in pulling down houses and then paving the camp grounds with bricks from the demolished buildings. After some time, when severe gastric troubles had set in, troubles which I have already mentioned, fewer and fewer prisoners came out to work.
Many of them, who had lost all control of their movements, never even left the stables for the appointed meal times, and if a
26 Feb. 46
great many people were discovered to have lost their strength, a so-called quarantine was established. In such a stable all the exits and entries would be blocked and the patients would be completely isolated from the outer world. Having kept them locked up for 4 or 5 days on end, the stable would be opened and the dead brought out by the hundreds.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you tell us, Witness, on what medical or sanitary work you and the other doctors were employed in the camp by the Germans?
KIVELISHA: In the camps we were not employed by the Germans on any work connected with the prisoners. All the Germans were interested in was the separation of people who could work from those of the prisoners who were incapable of working. We could not render the prisoners any purely medical services because of the conditions in which we ourselves existed.
COL.POKROVSKY: Did your duties in any of these camps include sanitary supervision? And what exactly was understood by sanitary supervision?
KIVELISHA: The duties of sanitary supervision were entrusted to us in the camp of the town of Gaisen. It only meant that we, the captured military doctors, had to be on duty in the vicinity of the general latrine in the camp, which was nothing more than a ditch dug for this purpose, and as and when the ditch was filled up with excrement, we were forced to clean up the ground.
COL.POKROVSKY: The doctors?
KIVELISHA: Yes, the doctors.
COL.POKROVSKY: Did you really consider this function as a form of sanitary supervision, or did you consider it as straightforward mockery by the Germans at the expense of the captured Soviet army doctors?
KIVELISHA: I consider that it was straightforward mockery at the expense of the captured Soviet doctors.
COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I have no more questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the other prosecutors got any questions to ask?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you have stated that in August 1941 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly announce your name for whom you appear.
26 Feb. 46
DR. LATERNSER: Dr. Laternser, Defense Counsel for the General Staff and the OKW.
Witness, you have just stated that in August 1941 you were brought to captivity in the district of Uman. Do you know whether the Germans had taken many prisoners at that time?
KIVELISHA: Yes, I do know. About 100,000 prisoners were captured at that time.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether German troops had advanced very rapidly into Russian territory at that time?
KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything about this. The German armies moved very rapidly, but before our units were surrounded we fought obstinately and we retreated, fighting, right up to 9 August.
DR. LATERNSER: How great was the number of prisoners in the column in which you marched?
KIVELISHA: Four thousand to five thousand persons.
DR. LATERNSER: When did you first get any food from the German troops?
KIVELISHA: I personally, and for the first time, received food from the German troops when I reached the town of Uman.
DR. LATERNSER: How much time had passed between the moment you were captured and your first meal?
KIVELISHA: When I was first fed I had been a prisoner of war for about 4 or 5 days.
DR. LATERNSER: You were a Red Army doctor and must have been quite aware that the feeding of armies is not so simple a matter.
KIVELISHA: I could not imagine this, especially as the Germans had then at their disposal time and many possibilities for supplying the prisoners of war with food. Further, to my previous statements I shall again repeat that if the German authorities were unable to provide the prisoners of war with food, the peaceful population did everything in their power to feed the Russian prisoners. However, obviously neither the German authorities nor the German Command issued any instructions on this matter.
I have already reported that no opportunity was given for friendly relations between the prisoners of war and the peaceful citizens. On the contrary, any persons who tried to bring food to the prisoners or any prisoner who accepted the food from the citizens was promptly shot.
DR. LATERNSER: But you can certainly imagine that it must have presented immense difficulties if, as you have just testified, 100,000 prisoners had been taken at that time in the area of Uman?
26 Feb. 46
KIVELISHA: Not all the prisoners of war were concentrated at Uman at one and the same time. There were several stationary and permanent camps, only several of them were at Uman.
DR. LATERNSER: I was not speaking about the food problem in Uman Camp. We are still talking about the feeding during the first days after their capture.
KIV ELISHA: When I was brought into captivity I was not singled out in any way from among the other prisoners of war. I was fed and I was supplied in exactly the same way as all the others. I was one of the general crowd and the general column of the prisoners of war. The German Command made no distinction in the first days of captivity.
DR. LATERNSER: But you will have to admit that there were certain difficulties connected with food supplies which would arise if quite unexpectedly a column, such as yours, 5,000 men strong, had to be fed by rapidly advancing troops.
KIVELISHA: Even if the German Command had been faced with this particular difficulty, the problem could always have been solved by allowing the prisoners to accept the food products which the peaceful population, the Soviet citizens, were offering them.
DR. LATERNSER: We shall talk about that immediately. You say you were in a column of 5,000 prisoners. Can you tell me how strong the guard was, the German guard, under whom this column of 5,000 marched?
KIVELISHA: I cannot state the exact figures. But there were a great many German machine gunners. The column was too drawn out in length and I am unable to state the figure.
DR. LATERNSER: I understand that you cannot give the exact figures. But can you describe to the Tribunal how great the distance was between individual guards marching alongside the column?
KIVELISHA: The distance would be as follows: two or three soldiers, walking in a row, would march approximately five or six steps behind a second row of the same number.
DR. LATERNSER: Thus, every 50 to 60 meters, on either side of the column, or perhaps only on one side of the column, German troops marched in groups of two and three soldiers, as you say, or have I not understood you correctly?
KIVELISHA: Not 50 to 60 meters; 5 to 6.
DR. LATERNSER: Were the guards elderly men or were there younger soldiers among them?
KIVELISHA: They were soldiers of the German Army. They were of every age.
26 Feb. 46
DR.LATERNSER: Were the Russian prisoner-of-war columns informed, before they started, that they would be shot if they left the ranks?
KIVELISHA: I have already said, and I repeat once again, there were no warnings.
DR. LATERNSER: Not even when the column set off?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be a good time to break off till 2 o'clock.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
26 Feb. 46
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the witnesses and documents to be called and produced on behalf of the first four defendants and that decision will be communicated as soon as possible this afternoon to counsel for those defendants and will also be posted in the Defendants' Information Center.
Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief Prosecutor for France with reference to the calling of two additional witnesses. The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to call any witnesses after closing the case on behalf of any of the chief prosecutors, that a written application should be made to the Tribunal for the calling of such witnesses, and the Tribunal also desires me to draw the attention of Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense to the terms of Article 24, Subsection (e). which refers to rebutting evidence. In the event of Counsel for the Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense wishing to call rebutting evidence when the proper time comes, after the case for the Prosecution and the Defense has been closed, such application to call rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in writing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would allow me to say something on a matter on which I promised to get information yesterday.
Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn edition of the Daily Telegraph of the 31st of August 1939, and I promised the Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had a telegram from the Daily Telegraph, which I received this morning, and it says:
"No edition of the Daily Telegraph withdrawn on 31 August 1939 or any other day thereabouts. The Telegraph of the 31st gave a brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop had taken place but without details.
"On 1st September carried summary of Germany's 16 points for Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text of the note did not appear until September 2, when extracted from the Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents."
I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information, that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose to send a copy of that to Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may necessitate a slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was proposing to make.
26 Feb. 46
DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and Warlimont as witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to answer one question; namely, to tell me if the Court has decided yet that the Generals Halder and Warlimont, whom I have named as witnesses, and whose relevancy has been admitted by the Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for Keitel so that we can count with certainty on their appearing in the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this morning was that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they wanted to have them to cross-examine them now or call them as witnesses on behalf of one or other of the defendants, and therefore that was a decision that the Defense Counsel would be able to call them on behalf of one of the defendants if they determined to do so.
Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they were called before. If the Defendant Goering wanted to call them then they would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when they were called for Goering, because of the fundamental rule that a witness is only to be called once.
DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel who are interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and Warlimont are agreed that these generals should be called in the course of the presentation of evidence by the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
Colonel Smirnov ... I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this witness.
Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march to the camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were accommodated in a stable. Was this stable roofed?
KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and since the farm had previously been evacuated, the shed had not been cleaned for a very long time and was in a state of complete neglect. And if we add to this state of neglect the fact that it had been pouring with rain all that day, we must also add that it was half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite impossible to settle down in the stables and barns since they were filled with left-over manure, so that all the people stayed out of doors.
DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate these prisoners in a better way?
KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, for I am not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, and, on the other hand, we were brought to this village late at
26 Feb. 46
night and I do not know whether there were more convenient places where the prisoners could have been quartered.
DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you entered this village, you yourself saw no possibility for better accommodations?
KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but because it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, although it was a rather large village and it seems to me that there was a sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people might have easily been billeted more conveniently for the night.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that in the prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as a physician. Did the German prisoner-of-war administration ever place any medical supplies at your disposal so that you could treat your sick comrades?
KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated step by step from one camp to another, we received no medical equipment at all from the Germans; but subsequently when I was in a stationary camp, Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, though never in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of all the wounded.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have only one question. The witness has stated that the stable was evacuated. What do you mean by that term?
KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had been driven off beyond the zone of military operations.
HERR BABEL: By whom was this done?
KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had entered and who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army units who had not been surrounded as we were.
HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back to Russian territory?
KIVELISHA: From this village, yes.
HERR BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants' counsel wish to ask questions?
Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of war whilst you were prisoner of war?
KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo, in the district of the town of Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying
26 Feb. 46
of labor Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, at that time, were named the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp.
THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until you got to that stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since I did not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything in re-examination?
MR.COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept as one of the proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the prisoner-of-war camps certain documents which I should like to submit to the Tribunal at the request of our honorable British colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does this all the more readily in that it considers this documentation of the British Prosecution of essential importance in establishing the criminal contravention by the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and customs of war accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of prisoners of war.
I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial the documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding the cruel murder of 50 prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air Force, who were captured while attempting to escape en masse from Stalag Luft III at Sagan and shot after their capture by the German criminals in the night of 24-25 March 1944.
These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite crimes, signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British Armed Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held in Sagan by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Lust III and forwarded to the protecting power:
Included with these documents are the statements of the following Allied witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant Tonder, Flight Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch,
26 Feb. 46
Flight Lieutenant Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant Nelson, Flight Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P.S. M. Hicks.
The material evidence is also corroborated by statements taken from the following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs- und Kriminalrat Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner.
There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of those who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the representative of the protecting power during his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.
I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous crime of the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier Shapcott. Your Honors will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 163, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin:
"On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50 officers the following information was given by the German authorities...."
The following information was given by the German authorities who stated that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting to escape. Actually this statement was the customary routine lie of the Hitlerites, since the very thorough investigation carried out by the British military authorities proved indubitably that the British R.A.F. officers had been vilely murdered after recapture by the German police.
I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented by the British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was committed by order of Goering and Keitel. The passage which I wish to submit to the Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, Russian text.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing the witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here once before. The Prosecution at the time -- I do not have the document here now -- submitted a report regarding the interrogation of Major General Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my objection, refused to have this document read in Court.
I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document which the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it
26 Feb. 46
concerns a new document which I do not know as yet. I draw your attention to the fact that General Westhoff is here in person; in other words, be called as a witness on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. Nelte said. As I understood it -- I am not sure if I got the name right -- but he referred to General Westhoff's evidence which has been tendered, and which had been rejected because the Tribunal thought that if that evidence was to be given, General Westhoff ought to be called. Is it right that the document you are putting in has got nothing to do with General Westhoff at all, has it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only one part of the official British report.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, is it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am now submitting an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one passage in the text of the official British report mentions Major General Westhoff, but this mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory of Major General Westhoff which will be brought up later.
MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, perhaps I might assist in this matter -- because I am partly responsible for that report -- with the kind indulgence of my learned friend, my Russian colleague.
My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that General Westhoff's name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a different document to the document which my French colleagues tendered and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official government report.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been saying, Your Honor. This is an official report of the British Government.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov.
Mr. Roberts -- I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte -- why do you say that it is an official government report so as to come within Article 21 of the Charter?
MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it has been certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military Department of the Judge Advocate General's office. I think you have the original.
26 Feb. 46
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom was it made, this report?
MR.ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the collection of evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it is headed, German War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for the Killing of 50 R.A.F. Officers," and then it starts to say -- then it states the sources on which the material has been based. Your Lordship will see on the last page of the report the appendix, "Material upon which the foregoing report is based":
"1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan.... 2. Statements of the following Allied witnesses.... 3. Statements taken from the following German.... 4. Photostat copy of the official list of dead, transmitted by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation.... 5. Report of the Representative of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5th June 1944."
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for the Tribunal or for the War Crimes Commission?
MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial?
MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British Delegation for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British general made to the British Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept the phrase "report of a British general." I would say "a report of a government department." It is signed and certified by a British general.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.Biddle): Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My Lords may exactly read in Article 21: "The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations.... "
My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, a government department, for the purpose of this Trial.
26 Feb. 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle):Then any evidence that was collected and sent in by the government will be official evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I read it and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.
It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis of testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also Major General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of this document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under the terms of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is involved here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, who is at the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including his testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would not comply with the Tribunal's desire that it should represent the best method to discover the truth.
The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain literally what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which is subject to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I believe the Defense must also have an opportunity in their turn, to hear and examine a witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the witnesses who had been examined by one of the committees set up by the government had not made a report to the government at all, but an affidavit or something of that sort; and that had been offered to the Court and the witness had been available, the Court might very possibly have refused to entertain that affidavit or report. But if that report was the foundation for a government report or for a government official document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is directed to entertain such a report.
Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they wouldn't have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit comes within Article 21.
DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship's view is correct. I should merely like to bring up the question whether, when one has two different types of evidence, namely, the report and the possibility of examining a witness, it should not be taken into consideration to question the witness, not in order to correct the official report, but in order to clarify what the witness actually said, because from the report we cannot know what he actually said.
This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance for the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the
26 Feb. 46
escaped fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is available, this witness should be heard instead of an official report which already actually contains an evaluation.
THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not proceed only or even substantially upon the evidence of General Westhoff. There are a number of other origins of the report, and the second thing is that the whole object of Article 21 was to make government reports admissible and not to necessitate the calling of the witnesses upon whose evidence they proceeded.
DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other matters, namely, the shooting . . . The other witnesses who were mentioned were questioned on other facts. On the question of whether Keitel issued such an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one mentioned in the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my earphones on.
DR. NELTE: I said, in that report other witnesses are also mentioned but, as far as I know, they did not make a statement on the question of whether or not Keitel issued an order to shoot the fliers. Westhoff was the only one among the witnesses listed who could and did make a statement on that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further in argument upon the admissibility of the document?
DR. NELTE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It appears to me, Mr. President, that that part of the document which refers to Major General Westhoff occupies merely one paragraph, namely, Paragraph 7, of the document in question. This part deals with the initial stage of the perpetration of the crime, namely, with the stage of the conception, the stage of the planning of the crime.
The document also speaks of other stages in the commission of this crime. Moreover, it is an official document, presented according to Article 21 of the Charter. It seems to me that I have thereby said all that is necessary, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I merely ask the Court to decide; in that case I should have to request that General Westhoff be admitted as a witness to testify that the conclusion drawn in this report does not correspond with what he said.
26 Feb. 46
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen and for the Reich Cabinet): May I make a few legal remarks, a few generally legal remarks regarding Article 21 of the Charter?
In all criminal procedure of every country we find the primary principle of oral court proceedings. Only if this cannot be carried out are part of the proceedings, so to say, transferred outside the court. In most codes of criminal procedure of the various countries we have a provision similar to that of Article 21 of the Charter that previous decisions of a court should not be re-examined in new proceedings, but that such decisions should be binding.
In this Trial the Charter extends this provision further to cases which obviously, because of their scope, should not be further discussed here. Therefore the decision that government reports should be considered as evidence is clearly taken up in Paragraph 21. It is clear to every jurist that this provision in itself is to an extent a flaw in proceedings because through it certain rights are lost to the defendants. On the other hand one cannot, of course, ignore the argument that there is subject matter which, because of its extent, cannot be practically discussed in a trial in which the time is limited.
Paragraph 21 of the Charter therefore gave the Tribunal the possibility of accepting such reports as valid evidence. But this provision is not compulsory for the Tribunal. So far as I can see from the German text before me it is provided that the Tribunal should accept these reports, but it does not say that the Tribunal must do so. Therefore it is in every case left to the discretion of the Tribunal whether the nature of the report makes it advisable to accept such a report in evidence.
We now have here a rather striking case which, in my opinion, clearly shows that the Tribunal can make use of its discretion and reject this document. The Defense have taken the position that this subject of evidence could be taken care of by a witness. The examination of the witness would have provided the Defense with the right of cross-examination.
Since, for tactical reasons inherent in the nature of the Trial, the witness will not be called, the subsequent transfer of his evidence into a government report means curtailing the right of the defendant to cross-examination, and is thus contrary to the corresponding article of the Charter.
DR. STAHMER: It was not until today that the accusation was made that Goering knew of or ordered the execution of these fliers. I could not take this act into consideration when I recently offered my evidence, because I did not know of it; and I must, therefore, reserve the right to call additional witnesses on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words, Mr. President?
26 Feb. 46
THE PRESIDENT: On the question of the admissibility?
MR. COUNSELLORSMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I consider the arguments put forward by the second Defense Counsel as entirely incomprehensible from a legal point of view since he introduces certain numerical and quantitative criteria into the legal nature of the evidence. According to this Counsel, Article 21 of the Charter deals only with evidence of crimes committed on an enormous scale, but cannot touch crimes of a smaller caliber.
To me, viewing the matter from a legal point of view, this argumentation appears rotten from the root upwards and I consider that Article 21 of the Charter applies, in toto, to any crime committed by the Hitlerites, regardless of the fact if they be committed on a very large or on a slightly smaller scale. That is all I wish to say, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal would like to know where these appendices which are referred to in Paragraph 9 of the report are.
MR. ROBERTS: I think they are in the Tribunal now, in the charge of the Officer of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: They are in the court now? You can undertake, I suppose, to produce them all if they are not any of them there?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, most certainly. I understood the whole of the material is not necessary -- the original, of course -- but I understood the whole of the material to be there, all in the original, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then the Tribunal decides that the document will be admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is available -- and we think he is -- General Westhoff; and that will be, in effect, granting the defendants' application to call General Westhoff, and also to call the officer mentioned in Paragraph 3(b) of the appendix, whose surname appears to be Wielen. I do not know whether you know where he is.
MR.ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I can assure the Tribunal that we will do everything in our power to get the witnesses that are required for the defense, namely, General
26 Feb. 46
Westhoff, who is in Nuremberg, I understand, and General Wielen. I am not certain where he is, but I will find out.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, you made a remark during the session with which the Defense Counsel are very much concerned. If we understood this remark, it was said that private affidavits would not be accepted by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that we must offer our evidence now, this question of affidavits is very urgent. That is why I am forced to clarify that question. The Defense Counsel has . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, I do not think I said that affidavits could not be admitted. What I said was, it might be that affidavits would not be admitted, if the witness was available to give direct evidence. That is the rule which we have enforced throughout the Trial.
DR.KRAUS: Yes, I understand you, Mr. President, to say that in principle we may offer affidavits, whether certified by notary public or by a lawyer or whether bearing only the signature of the person who makes the statement. These are the three forms we have: The simple letter written with the statement, "I declare under oath." The second type is that in which the signature has been certified by a lawyer; and the third type is the one which has been declared before and certified by a notary public.
We have procured many documents of that kind, in order to expedite matters, and we would like to know whether or not we may expect to present them as evidence in order to avoid the calling of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will be considered when you present the applications for giving evidence by affidavit. We have, today, in dealing with the first four defendants, allowed, in a variety of instances, interrogatories to be administered to various witnesses where it appeared appropriate that that should be done in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will apply when you come to submit your applications.
DR. KRAUS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient to you to go on with your presentation now on this document which we have admitted, or do you wish to present a film?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to finish the presentation of this proof, that is, to read into the record the passages from the document I have quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; but the Tribunal, I think, desire that these two witnesses, Major General Westhoff and Wielen,
26 Feb. 46
whatever his rank may be, should be produced for examination as soon as possible afterwards. I don't mean this afternoon, because that would not be possible, but, if possible, tomorrow.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I shall request the representative of the British Delegation to reply to this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he would ask you to answer, because I was saying that the Tribunal would like to have the witnesses called as soon as possible after the report was read.
MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about, so I heard, Sir, and I am trying to make inquiries now where Wielen is. If Your Lordship will give me a few minutes I will try to find out where Wielen can be located.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR.ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the Court, then, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: One minute, please.
Colonel Snurnov, would not it be equally convenient to go on with the film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can be presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses?
Otherwise, supposing Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wielen this afternoon, it might be that if you read the report now, there might be a week possibly -- or even more -- between the reading of the report and the evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with the film now?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What we are showing the Tribunal cannot be called a film in the full sense of the word. It is a series of photographic evidence, of photographs taken by the Germans themselves on the site where the crimes were committed, which were then rephotographed and transferred to a reel. It is not a film -- it is a photo-document. We are presenting these photodocuments as Exhibit Number USSR-442 (Document Number USSR-442), and we are presenting only one part of these photodocuments. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Yugoslavia presented photo-documents for every section of the report. We have excluded the part dealing with the other sections and show only that part which deals with Crimes against Humanity. Thus, only a section of the documents is being shown to the Tribunal. May I show these photo-documents?
[The photographic document was then projected on the screen.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue with the presentation of the documentary evidence?
26 Feb. 46
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in order to allow the British Prosecution to settle the question as to when the two witnesses will be summoned before the Tribunal, I take the liberty of passing to the next part of my statement. Have I your permission to do so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I pass on to that part which deals with the persecution of the Jews, Page 37 of the text. The excessive anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which assumed a perfectly zoological aspect, is only too well known. I shall not quote from the so-called theoretical works of the major war criminals -- from Himmler and Goering to Papen and Streicher. In the Eastern European countries all the anti-Semitism of the Hitlerites was put into full effect and mostly in one way only -- in the physical extermination of innocent people.
The United States Prosecution, in its own time, submitted to the Tribunal one of the reports of a special German fascist organization, the so- called Einsatzgruppe A, which was submitted as Exhibit USA-276 (Document Number L-180). Our American colleagues submitted this particular report which covered the period up to 15 October 1941. The Soviet Prosecution submits another report of this criminal German fascist organization, covering a further period of time and which might almost be considered as a continuation of the first document, namely the report on Einsatzgruppe A, from 10 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I submit to the Tribunal a photostatic copy of this report as Exhibit Number USSR-57 (Document Number USSR-57). I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record a very brief excerpt from Chapter 3 of the report of Einsatzgruppe A, entitled "The Jews," and I would invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data presented in this report refer exclusively to one organization -- Einsatzgruppe A. I quote one paragraph from Page 170 of the document book:
"The systematic task of purging the East was, according to fundamental orders, the liquidation of the Jews to the fullest possible extent. This objective has been practically realized, with the exception of Bielorussia, by the execution of 229,052 Jews.... The surviving Jews in the Baltic provinces are urgently needed for work, and have been quartered in ghettos."
I interrupt the quotation and read two further excerpts from a subparagraph, "Estonia," on Page 2 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 171, Paragraph 2 of your document book. I begin the quotation:
26 Feb. 46
"The execution of the Jews, insofar as they were not indispensable for working purposes, was carried out gradually by forces of the Sipo and the SD. At present there are no Jews left in Estonia."
I quote a few brief excerpts from the subparagraphs entitled "Latvia." I quote one line from the last paragraph on the second page of the Russian text, Page 171, Paragraph 5 of the document book. I begin:
"When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still 70,000 Jews left there."
I break off the quotation and read one line on Page 3, Paragraph 2 of the Russian text, Page 171, last paragraph of the document book:
"By October 1941 the Sonderkommandos had executed about 30,000 Jews."
I again break off and continue with the following paragraph:
"Further executions were later carried out. Thus, for instance, 11,034 Jews were executed on 9 November 1941 in Dunaburg. In the beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation carried out in Riga and following the order of the Higher Chief of the SS and Police, 27,800 persons were executed, and in mid-December 1941, in Libau, 2,350 Jews were executed. At present there are in ghettos, besides the Jews from Germany, about 2,500 Latvian Jews in Riga, about 950 in Dunaburg, and about 300 in Libau."
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come from? Are they in an official report, or are they German figures?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These are the data published by the Germans themselves. This particular document was discovered in the Gestapo archives. It was brought out of Latvia by troops of the Red Army. I request Your Honors to take note that this document covers only the period between 16 October 1941 and 31 January 1942. This is therefore not conclusive data but merely data connected with one German operational group during this particular period of time.
Have I your permission to proceed, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote one line only from the subparagraph entitled "Lithuania," which is on Page 173 of the document book, Paragraph 3:
"In numerous individual operations, 136,421 persons were liquidated all told."
26 Feb. 46
I request the Tribunal to allow me to quote in greater detail from the next subparagraph of the "A" group report, entitled "White Ruthenia." I quote the last paragraph on Page 5 of the Russian text; Page 174, last paragraph, of the document book:
"The final and definite liquidation of the Jews remaining in the territory of White Ruthenia, after the arrival of the Germans, presented certain difficulties. As a matter of fact, it is precisely in this territory that the Jews constitute a high percentage of specialists and are indispensable for lack of other reserves. Moreover, Einsatzgruppe A took over the territory only after the hard frosts had set in, a fact which hampered the carrying out of the mass executions very seriously indeed. A further difficulty consists in the circumstance that the Jews are scattered all over the territory. Bearing in mind the fact that distances are vast, road conditions bad, transportation and petrol lacking, and the forces of the Security Police and SD insignificant, the executions could be carried out only by a maximum effort. Nevertheless, 41,000 Jews have already been shot. This figure does not include the persons executed by former Einsatzkommandos."
I interrupt once more and proceed to read from the following paragraph -- this corresponds to Page 175, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin the quotation:
"The Chief of Police in White Ruthenia, despite the difficult situation, has been given orders to solve the Jewish question as soon as possible. All the same, this calls for about two months' time, according to the weather.
"The distribution of the remaining Jews in special ghettos of White Ruthenia is nearing its end."
In order to show how mass executions of the Jews by the German criminals were carried out, I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-ll9(a) (Document Number USSR-ll9(a)) a photostatic copy, certified by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union of an original German document. This is the conclusive report of the commander of one of the companies of the 12th Regiment of Police, which carried out the mass extermination of the Jews assembled in the ghetto of the town of Pinsk. On 29 and 30 October 1942, the criminal elements from the 15th Regiment of Police murdered 26,200 Jews in Pinsk. This is how Company Commander Sauer described the crime. I shall not quote the document in toto since it is rather long, but I shall quote a few excerpts. The passage I am about to read -- and I ask the Tribunal's permission to read it into the record -- is on Page 177 of your document book, Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation:
26 Feb. 46
"The ordered encirclement of the districts was accomplished at 0430 hours; owing to the personal investigations made by the commanders and to the manner in which the secret was kept, the encirclement was carried out in the shortest time imaginable and it was impossible for the Jews to flee.
"The combing of the ghetto was to begin at 0600 hours, but owing to the darkness it was postponed for another half-hour. The Jews had noticed the proceedings and began to assemble voluntarily in all the streets. With the aid of two Wachtmeister (Staff Sergeants) it was possible to bring several thousand Jews to the assembly point within the very first hour. When the remaining Jews realized what was coming, they too joined this column, so that the screening planned by the SD at the assembly point could not be carried out in view of the enormous multitude which had gathered. (For the first day of the comb-out only one to two thousand persons had been counted on.) The first comb-out ended at 1700 hours without any incident. About 10,000 persons were executed on this first day. That night the company was standing by, ready for action, in a soldiers' club.
"On 30 October 1942 the ghetto was combed a second time. On 31 October it was combed for the third time and on 1 November for the fourth time. About 15,000 Jews were rounded up, all told. Sick Jews and children left behind in the houses were executed on the spot in the yard of the ghetto. About 1,200 Jews were executed in the ghetto."
I request the permission of the Tribunal to allow me to continue quoting the second page of the document which corresponds to Page 178 of the document book, Paragraph 6. I quote two points from the section "Experiences." I begin to quote:
"3) Where there are no cellars and a considerable number of persons are huddled together in the small space between the floor and the ground, these places must be broken into from the outside, or else police dogs sent in (one police dog, Asta, put up a remarkably good performance in Pinsk), otherwise a hand grenade should be thrown in, after which the Jews invariably come out into the open."
I further quote Point 5:
"We recommend persuading half-grown persons to disclose these hiding places by promising to spare their lives. This method has fully justified its application."
This example of this police regiment, which I have just read into the record, is typical of the methods applied for the extermination of Jews who had been rounded up in the ghetto. But the German
26 Feb. 46
fascist invaders did not always apply this method when proceeding to the extermination of the peaceful Jewish population.
Another, similarly criminal device was the assembling of Jews in a given spot under the pretext of transferring them to some other locality. The assembled Jews would then be shot. I submit to the Tribunal an original poster which had been put up in the town of Kislovodsk by Kommandantur Number 12. Your Honors will find the text (Document Number USSR-434) quoted on Page 180. I shall quote some extracts from this poster which is a comparatively long one. I start with the first part:
"To all Jews! For the purpose of colonizing sparsely populated districts of the Ukraine, all Jews residing in Kislovodsk and all Jews who have no permanent abode are ordered to present themselves on Wednesday, 9 September 1942, at 5 a. m. Berlin time (6 a. m. Moscow time), at the goods' station in Kislovodsk; the transport will take off at 6 a. m. (7 a. m. Moscow time).
"Every Jew is to bring luggage not exceeding 20 kilograms in weight, including food for a minimum of 2 days. Further food will be supplied by the German authorities at the railway stations."
I omit the next paragraph and only quote one line:
"Also subjected to transfer are the Jews who have been baptized."
I break off the quotation at this point.
In order to ascertain what happened to the Jewish population in the town of Kislovodsk -- the same happened to the Jews in many other towns -- I would request the Tribunal to refer to the contents of a document which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1). It is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Stavropol region.
The part which I wish to read, in brief, is on Page 187 of your document book. It states there that the 2,000 Jews who had assembled at the Kislovodsk station were sent to the station of Mineralniye Vody and shot in an antitank trench 2 1/2 kilometers distant from the town. Here too, thousands of Jews, transferred from the towns of Essentuki and Piabigorsk, were shot on the same site.
In order to show the extent of the criminal extermination of the peaceful Jewish population in Eastern Europe, I now refer to the contents of reports received from the governments of the respective Eastern European countries, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal.
I quote a report of the Polish Government, on Page 136 of the Russian text of this document. I begin the quotation:
26 Feb. 46
"The official statistical yearbook of Poland, in 1931, estimates the number of Jews at 3,115,000.
"According to unofficial figures collected in 1939 there were in Poland 3,500,000 Jews.
"After the liberation of Poland the Jews in that country numbered less than 100,000, and 200,000 Polish Jews are still in the U.S.S.R.
"Thus, about 3 million Jews perished in Poland."
In Czechoslovakia, as seen from the data published on Pages 82-83 of the Russian text of the report, the Jews numbered 118,000. At present, in the entire country, they number only 6,000 all told. Of the total number of 15,000 Jewish children, only 28 have returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we leave off here?
[The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1946 at 1000 hours.]