Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer and the online
Distributed Proofreaders team with images provided by The
Internet Archive-US.






                          [Cover Illustration]




                                 TRIAL
                                   OF
                        THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS

                                 BEFORE

                           THE INTERNATIONAL
                           MILITARY TRIBUNAL

                           N U R E M B E R G
                    14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946


                             [Illustration]


     P U B L I S H E D   A T   N U R E M B E R G ,   G E R M A N Y
                                1 9 4 7




        This volume is published in accordance with the
        direction of the International Military Tribunal by
        the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction
        of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.




                               VOLUME VII



                       O F F I C I A L   T E X T

                              I N   T H E

                            ENGLISH LANGUAGE



                         P R O C E E D I N G S

                   5 February 1946 — 19 February 1946




                                CONTENTS

          Fifty-first Day, Tuesday, 5 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                         1
                       Afternoon Session                      23

          Fifty-second Day, Wednesday, 6 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                        51
                       Afternoon Session                      76

          Fifty-third Day, Thursday, 7 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                        77
                       Afternoon Session                     105

          Fifty-fourth Day, Friday, 8 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       146
                       Afternoon Session                     177

          Fifty-fifth Day, Saturday, 9 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       209

          Fifty-sixth Day, Monday, 11 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       228
                       Afternoon Session                     253

          Fifty-seventh Day, Tuesday, 12 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       279
                       Afternoon Session                     309

          Fifty-eighth Day, Wednesday, 13 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       340
                       Afternoon Session                     370

          Fifty-ninth Day, Thursday, 14 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       403
                       Afternoon Session                     428

          Sixtieth Day, Friday, 15 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       461
                       Afternoon Session                     485

          Sixty-first Day, Monday, 18 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       516
                       Afternoon Session                     540

          Sixty-second Day, Tuesday, 19 February 1946,
                       Morning Session                       562
                       Afternoon Session                     589




                            FIFTY-FIRST DAY
                        Tuesday, 5 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court, I desire to
announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this
morning’s session on account of illness.

M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): One of
the counsel would like to address the Tribunal.

DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and High Command of
the German Armed Forces): In the name of the organization I represent, I
make application that the testimony of the witness, Van der Essen, who
was heard yesterday should be stricken from the Record for this reason:
That the witness made declarations, firstly, concerning the alleged
wanton destruction of the library in Louvain; secondly, concerning the
treatment of the local population during the Rundstedt offensive, which
led him to the conclusion that orders to this effect must have been
received from higher quarters.

I wish that this testimony should be stricken from the Record for these
reasons: Firstly, as regards yesterday’s testimony there was no question
of testimony by a witness. A witness should base his testimony on his
own knowledge, which can be based only on his own observations. These
prerequisites are not present in the points to which objection is made.
For the most part the witness repeated statements made by other people,
some of them actually made by people whom he himself did not know. The
knowledge of this witness can consequently be ascribed only to a study
of the documents.

Secondly, any third party is in a position to give similar testimony as
soon as the documents to which this witness had access are put at his
disposal, and if he is also in a position to talk to the people to whom
the witness talked and who gave him his information. It is consequently
proved that this witness, Van der Essen, was not a genuine witness at
all, because such a witness cannot be replaced by a third person who may
happen to come along.

Thirdly, although the Tribunal, in accordance with Article 19 of the
Charter, is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, this evidence
must be rejected because it has no probative value which can be
determined by the Court. This emerges of necessity from the fact that
the sources of the witness’ testimony cannot be taken into
consideration.

I regard it as my duty to point out that the introduction of such
indirect proof cannot lead to the discovery of the truth regarding the
points in dispute.

THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal would
like to hear, M. Faure, what you have to say in answer to the motion
which has just been made.

M. FAURE: Gentlemen, Your Honors, I should like, first of all, to
observe that, as already indicated by the counsel who has just spoken,
the Charter of this Tribunal provides that it shall not be bound by the
formal rules concerning the burden of proof. But, apart from this, I
consider that counsel’s objection cannot be upheld; this objection being
based on three considerations which he has enumerated but which, as I
understand, boil down to one single objection, namely, that this witness
was an indirect witness. I would like to emphasize the fact that I
called Mr. Van der Essen as a witness precisely because of his capacity
as a member of the official and governmental Belgian commission of
inquiry into the study and research of war crimes.

It is in conformity with all legal procedure with which I personally am
acquainted that a person who has made investigations in connection with
criminal matters may be called before a court of justice to state the
conditions under which the inquiry was made and the results arrived at.
It is therefore not necessary that the witness who has just testified
regarding an investigation should have been himself an eye-witness of
the criminal activities which this investigation is intended to bring to
light.

Mr. Van der Essen, therefore, in my opinion, testified to facts of which
he has personal knowledge, to wit, as regards the matter of Stavelot, he
stated that he himself had heard witnesses and that he verified the
authenticity of this testimony. As concerns the matter of the Library of
Louvain, he testified as to the existing minutes of the commission of
which he is a regular member.

I add that this procedure appears to me to have the advantage of
avoiding the necessity of calling a large number of individual witnesses
to the witness stand. However, in order to have every possible guarantee
regarding the facts laid before the Tribunal in evidence, I have decided
to bring here the briefs, the texts of the testimonies to which the
witness referred. I shall then be able to communicate to the Defense the
affidavits of the witnesses who were mentioned yesterday, and I think
that this will give the Defense ample guarantee.

I therefore propose to the Tribunal to reject the objection as far as
the admissibility of the testimony is concerned; it being understood
that the Defense will discuss the value and probative force of this
testimony as it sees fit.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, you said something about the affidavits of
witnesses which you could furnish to the Defendant’s Counsel. I
understand that you intended also to put in the governmental report or
the committee’s report with reference to which the witness had
testified, did you not?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: But you intended also, as a matter of courtesy, to
furnish the affidavits which were before that committee to the
Defendants’ Counsel; is that what you meant?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President; if this meets with the approval of the
Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The governmental report, I suppose, does not actually
annex the affidavits, does it?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President, precisely.

THE PRESIDENT: It does? The affidavits are part of the report, are they?

M. FAURE: The report which was submitted does not contain the elements
on which the witness depended yesterday with regard to certain points,
particularly because the investigation on Stavelot was very long and
very conscientious and has not been summed up in time. I said,
therefore, that I proposed to submit these complementary elements as
evidence and in this way to communicate them to the Defense.

THE PRESIDENT: That is what I thought; that is to say, the report did
not contain all the details which were in the affidavits or evidence?

M. FAURE: No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, you thought it right, as a matter of courtesy,
to allow the Defendants’ Counsel to see those details upon which the
report proceeded. The Tribunal understands that.

The Tribunal will consider the motion which has been made. We will
consider the motion which has been made at a later stage. You can now
proceed with your argument.

M. FAURE: Your Honors, I should like, first of all, to point out to the
Tribunal that since a certain amount of time has been given to witnesses
and discussions, and as I do not wish to exceed the time limit which was
announced, I am compelled to shorten to a considerable extent the
presentation of the brief which I am now presenting on the subject of
propaganda. I shall therefore ask the Tribunal kindly to excuse me if I
occasionally hesitate during this presentation, inasmuch as I shall not
follow my brief exactly.

I indicated yesterday the method employed by the Germans with regard to
the freedom of public meetings and of association, which they
suppressed. When they did uphold these rights they exploited them to
their own advantage. I should like now to say something about books and
publishing.

The German authorities, first of all, issued an ordinance on 30 August
1940, published in the _Journal Officiel_ of 16 September, forbidding
certain school books in France. We have already seen that they had done
the same thing in Belgium.

Another step taken by the Germans was to prohibit a certain number of
books of which they disapproved. I present in this connection Document
Number RF-1103, which is the “Otto” list, published in September 1940;
it is a list of 1,074 volumes forbidden by the Germans. I shall not, of
course, read it to the Tribunal. It appears in the document book under
Document Number RF-1103, as I have just said.

A second “Otto” list, longer than the first, was drawn up later and
published on 8 July 1942, and I present it as Document Number RF-1104.
The conclusion to this second document, which is the last page in my
document book, gives a clear indication of the principles on which the
German authorities worked. I read a few lines:

    “As a matter of principle, all translations of English books,
    except the English classics, are withdrawn from sale.”—And
    further—“All books by Jewish authors, as well as books in which
    Jews have collaborated, are to be withdrawn from sale with the
    exception of works of a scientific nature where special measures
    are anticipated. From now on biographies of Jews, even if
    written by French Aryans, as, for instance, the biographies of
    the Jewish musicians Offenbach, Meyerbeer, Darius Milhaud, _et
    cetera_, are to be withdrawn from sale.”

This method of procedure may have appeared fairly harmless at first,
since only about 1,200 volumes were involved, but one can see the
significance of the principle itself. By this procedure the German
authorities achieved the practical result they sought, which was
essentially, apart from other prohibitions, the complete disappearance
of serious and objective works permitting a study of German doctrines,
the policy of Germany, and the philosophy of Nazism.

Apart from prohibiting works already existing, the Germans naturally
established a censorship. At first they proceeded in a veiled manner by
making a kind of agreement with publishers in which the publishers
themselves were made responsible for indicating which of the books
appeared to them to be subject to censorship. I submit this censorship
agreement as Document Number RF-1105; and I wish, without reading it, to
make but one observation in this regard which is highly characteristic
of the invariable German method.

In the printed brochure of this agreement, of which the original is
submitted, there appears, in addition to the agreement itself, a notice
drafted in terms which do not reflect French feeling. This notice was
not drafted by the publishers upon whom the agreement itself was imposed
but was drafted by the Germans and published in the same brochure, which
bears the words, “National Syndicate of Publishers,” so that one might
think that the French publishers accepted the phrases occurring in this
preamble. For that matter, the attentive reader has only to see that
this brochure does not bear the printer’s name to realize that this is a
German publication and not one put out by French publishers, for only
the Germans were exempted from the French rule requiring mention of the
printer’s name.

The Germans did not limit themselves to this procedure which was
apparently rather liberal; and later an ordinance of 27 April 1942
entitled, “Concerning the Rational Use of Printing Paper,” was published
in the _Journal Officiel_ of 13 May. This ordinance stated, on pretext
of the rational utilization of paper, that all publications without
exception should bear the German authorization number.

I point out in addition that in their control of paper the Germans had a
very effective weapon with which to put a stop to French publishing. I
submit as Document Number RF-1106 the affidavit of M. Marcel Rives,
Director of Internal Commerce at the Ministry of Industrial Production.
In order to shorten the proceedings I shall not read this document. I
may say in short that this document makes it clear that the distribution
of available paper stocks was made entirely under the authority of the
Germans and that the Germans reduced the amount of paper placed at the
disposal of publishers in a proportion exceeding that of the general
reduction in paper quotas as compared with the prewar situation.

I must add that the Germans also took for their own propaganda
publication a certain amount of the reduced paper quota allotted to the
French publishers. Thus, they not only used for their propaganda the
paper which they themselves had in Germany, but they also took some of
the small amount of paper which they allotted to the French publishers.
I should like simply to read in this connection a few lines of the
document which constitutes Appendix 2 of Document Number RF-1106, which
I have just submitted. I merely read a few lines of this Appendix 2,
which is a letter from the German Military Command to the Ministry of
National Economy dated 28 June 1943:

    “More especially during the month of March, which you
    particularly mention, it has been impossible to allot the
    publishers any quantity from current production, as this was
    needed for urgent propaganda purposes.”

The other aspect of this German activity in the publishing sphere was,
in fact, the carrying on of an intensive propaganda by means of all
kinds of pamphlets and publications. This propaganda literature is
extremely tedious. I should like to mention only one detail, which shows
the method of camouflage always employed by the Nazis. I have here a few
German propaganda pamphlets which I shall submit, naturally without
reading them, as Document Number RF-1106 (bis). The first ones are part
of a series entitled _England Unmasked_. The first numbers of this
series, taken at random, have on the flyleaf, “Office of German
Information, England Unmasked Number . . .” _et cetera_. No attempt at
concealment is made, and the reader knows what he has before him. But by
some curious accident, Number 11 in the same series no longer bears the
words, “German Office of Information,” and we see instead,
“International Publishing House, Brussels.” Here again, however, we are
warned of its origin, for the author’s name is Reinhard Wolf, and this
is a German name.

But here, by way of a final example, is a pamphlet entitled _The Pact
against Europe_, which is also published by the International Publishing
House, Brussels, (Document Number RF-1106(ter)). We know after seeing
the other specimens that this publishing house is only a firm attached
to the German office; but people who are not so well informed may
believe the pamphlet to be a French or Belgian compilation, for in this
case the name of the author is Jean Dubreuil.

I shall not dwell further on publishing, and I should like now to say a
few words about the press. It is a matter of common knowledge that all
the newspapers of the occupied countries were controlled by the Germans,
and that most of these newspapers had been founded at their instigation
by persons who were in their pay. As these facts are well known, I shall
refrain from submitting documents on this point, and shall limit myself
to the following remarks:

Firstly, restrictive measures—censorship. Although all these newspapers
were practically “their” papers, the Nazis nevertheless submitted them
to a very strict censorship. I shall submit, as evidence of this,
Document Number RF-1108, which is a report of a press conference held on
8 January 1943 in the course of which the new censorship orders and
regime are defined. I point out to the Tribunal that this document and
others of the same nature were found in the archives of the French
Office of Information, which was under German control. They have been
deposited either in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris or in the
Document Library of the War Museum. These documents have been selected
by us from the reports, either in the form of original documents,
photostats, or from the French collection.

I should like simply to point out, by means of this Document RF-1108,
that the Germans were concerned with the institution of a more liberal
regime of censorship. On reading the document, however, it becomes
evident that almost all news items and articles are subject to
censorship, with the exception of serial stories, reviews of films and
plays, items of scientific or university news, radio programs, and a
certain number of completely trivial subjects.

The second aspect of the German interference, the positive aspect,
appears in the directives given to the press; and these directives were
given by means of press conferences such as that which I have just
described.

I shall submit to the Tribunal, without reading them, a certain number
of documents numbered RF-1109 to RF-1120. I produce these documents in
evidence not for the sake of their contents, which are simply a
repetition of German propaganda, but merely as proof of their existence,
that is, continued pressure exerted on the press.

I should like to say, however, how this was done. The press conferences
were held either in the Propagandastaffel, Avenue des Champs-Elysées, or
at the German Embassy. The representatives of the press were summoned by
the competent Nazi officials who issued directives. After the
conference, the substance of these directives was embodied in a dispatch
from the French Office of Information. The Tribunal knows that agencies
sent dispatches to the papers for their information. When a dispatch had
been drawn up by the office it was submitted for checking to the German
bureau, which affixed a seal to it. After that it could be distributed
to the papers.

I stated that I would not read anything on these press conferences or on
the agency’s minutes and notes which form Documents RF-1109 to RF-1120.
I should like to read only a very brief document, which I submit as
Document Number RF-1121, the minutes of a press conference held on 16
April 1943 in the Propaganda-abteilung. I quote:

    “At the end of the conference the German commentator declared
    that on Tuesday, 20 April—the Führer’s birthday—the newspapers
    would consist of four pages instead of two, and on Wednesday, 21
    April, they would consist of two pages instead of four. He asked
    the reporters present to stress the European orientation of the
    Führer’s political personality and to treat Franco-German
    relations very generously. A great deal of tact and reserve are
    necessary, however, in order not to give the newspapers the
    appearance of being no longer French, and in this way shocking
    public opinion.”

I am not forgetting the fact that we are participating in a criminal
trial and that we must select from the extremely varied facts which we
have to present those elements characteristic of the intention and
realization of an act condemned by criminal law. In consideration of
this, I quote Document Number RF-1124, which I am also presenting and
which is an attempt to promote, by means of press and propaganda, the
enlistment of Frenchmen in the enemy army. Article 75 of the French
Criminal Code provides for this crime and I recall that in juridical
theory proceedings can be taken even against enemy nationals for crimes
of this kind. I read this document, which is extremely short:

    “At the end of the military conference, Dr. Eich announced that
    the O.F.I. would broadcast this afternoon an article devoted to
    the necessity of the inclusion of French sailors in the German
    Navy. He asked the newspapers to add commentaries to this text
    in which, for instance, the following theme might be treated:
    ‘To be a sailor is to have a profession.’

    “The article broadcast by the O.F.I. must appear tomorrow—a
    four-page day—on the first page, or the beginning, at least,
    must appear on the first page.”

Finally, I must point out that, apart from the press conferences proper,
there were so-called cultural conferences at which the German
authorities gave their orders on all subjects. I should like to read a
few very brief extracts from one of these cultural conferences in order
to indicate the general oppression resulting from the interference of
the Germans in every field without exception. I present these Documents
RF-1125 and RF-1126; and I read two sentences on Page 1 of Document
Number RF-1125, which is a report of the minutes of the conference held
on 22 April:

    “Reproductions of paintings by Picasso have recently been made
    in spite of the directives to the contrary previously given.

    “Theater: Certain press publications have seen fit to praise the
    operetta _Don Philippe_ to an extent belied by the reception
    given to this work by the general public. This goes beyond the
    bounds of the permissible.”

I shall read a little further, on the top of Page 2:

    “The press has lent an obviously exaggerated backing to jazz
    concerts, particularly those of Fred Jumbo. This shows a lack of
    tact which is all the more regrettable in that a very minor
    place has been accorded in general to concerts of real value.”

Finally, at the end of this document, there is a general note which is
interesting:

    “The nationality of persons of standing in the world of science,
    art, _et cetera_, whose names occur in articles appearing in the
    press, is to be given as that of the Greater German Reich in the
    case of those born in any of the countries which have been
    restored to the Greater German Reich or incorporated into it.”

We thus see that even in what might seem to us the most fanciful
connections we can find evidence of the will to enforce Germanization
and of the criminal will to strip men of the nationality which they have
the right to retain.

I shall now say a few words about the cinema. The Germans, to do them
justice, have never failed to understand the exceptional importance of
the cinema as a means of propaganda. In France they devoted to this
subject seven ordinances or decrees.

You must know that, in the first place, the Germans prohibited the
showing of films of which they disapproved . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, don’t you think that evidence that the Germans
used the cinema as a method of propaganda is really somewhat cumulative?
You have shown already that they forbade a great number of books which
they considered hostile to their ideology, and that they controlled the
press, and is it not almost cumulative and a matter of detail that they
also controlled the cinema?

Unless there is some evidence on behalf of the defendants contradicting
the evidence which you have given, I think the Tribunal will be
satisfied that the Germans did adopt all these methods of propaganda.

M. FAURE: When a brief is presented it sometimes does produce the
impression that the arguments contained in it are cumulative, although
that may not have been so apparent when the preparation was going on.

I shall not speak, then, on the subject of the cinema. I wish simply to
point this out to the Tribunal. We thought that with regard to these
questions of propaganda with which we are dealing in the abstract it
would perhaps be as well to provide concrete illustrations of a few of
the themes of German propaganda, and to this end we propose presently,
with the permission of the Tribunal, to project very briefly a few of
the themes of German propaganda. I wish to point out that these themes
are taken from archives which we found. On the other hand, we intend to
present, for one minute each, two pictures taken from a German
propaganda film produced by a Frenchman at the instigation and with the
financial support of the German office.

As we are now going to present these pictures, with the permission of
the Tribunal, I consider it indispensable to present just one document,
Document RF-1141, since it is the interrogation of the producer of the
film and establishes the fact that this film was made by order of the
Germans and paid for by them. I therefore present in evidence this
Document Number RF-1141, which is necessary for the presentation which
we are about to make. Since it seems to me that sufficient evidence has
already been advanced concerning the various methods of propaganda, I
shall apply the same line of reasoning to the part anticipated for
broadcasting.

Here I merely wish to present a document which goes beyond the field of
pure propaganda. This is Document Number RF-1146. I must point out,
first of all, that as regards broadcasting, the Germans obviously
encountered an obstacle which was not present to the same degree in
other fields. This obstacle lay in the transmissions broadcast by the
free radios which, as the Belgian witness said yesterday, were followed
with the greatest enthusiasm by the inhabitants of the occupied
countries. The German Command then had the idea of penalizing the
persons who listened to these broadcasts. In the document which I am
going to quote, the Military Command went to the length of asking the
French authorities most urgently to institute the most stringent
penalties, even going so far as to prescribe the death penalty for
persons repeating news heard on the foreign radio service.

I think it will be useful, if I deposit in evidence this document
emanating from the Military Command and signed by Stülpnagel, which
demonstrates the criminal intentions of the German staff. I should like
to read this document, RF-1146. I read from the beginning of the third
paragraph:

    “The French law of 28 October 1941 does not provide for special
    sanctions for the broadcasting of news from foreign stations
    calculated to endanger order or public security, although this
    offense constitutes a particularly grave danger. It is
    indispensable that the dissemination of such news should be
    punished by hard labor and in particularly serious cases by the
    death penalty. It is immaterial whether the disseminator of the
    news was listening in himself or obtained knowledge by other
    means.

    “The possibility of legally prosecuting the mentioned offense by
    the state tribunal does not suffice to hinder the population
    from listening to the British radio and spreading the news.
    Since the law regarding the state tribunal does not mention
    listening to foreign stations there is no direct relation
    between listening in and dissemination on the one hand and
    punishment by hard labor or death sentence on the other. The
    population has, therefore, no idea that such acts are already
    punishable by hard labor or the death penalty.

    “For this reason I request a draft to be submitted, amending the
    law of 28 October 1941 with deadline 3 January 1943.

    “For your instruction I am adding, as an appendix, a draft of
    the German decree relating to extraordinary measures about
    broadcasting, by which you may learn the details of the German
    regulation.”

I shall now submit a document bearing the Document Number RF-1147. I
think this document may interest the Tribunal. It presents quite a
different character from that of the documents which I have produced up
to now. This document consists, firstly, of a letter from Berlin dated
27 October 1941, the subject of which is an agreement relating to
collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I read this letter,
which is very short, and which authenticates our document:

    “By authorization of the ministry, we enclose for your
    information, as a secret matter of the Reich, a copy of the
    agreement relating to collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign
    Affairs, as well as a copy of the agreement of execution. The
    agreement itself is not confidential, but details of the
    contents must not be given.”

The document enclosed with this is the full text, which I shall not
read, of the agreement made between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the Ministry of the Reich for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
relating to collaboration between their respective branches. I think
that this document is of some interest, and that is why I submit it. I
shall simply point out to the Tribunal that it shows at once the extent
of the hold which the Germans wished to make sure of possessing over the
minds of the populations of occupied and even foreign countries and the
way in which they organized this.

Chapter I of this document is entitled, “Collaboration by Branches.”
Letter “a” concerns the cinema, the theater, music, and exhibitions.
Letter “b” concerns publications.

I think it might be interesting to read the first few lines of letter
“b,” for after expounding the propaganda from the point of view of the
receivers, it is worth while looking at the question from the point of
view of the persons who put out this propaganda. And, on the other hand,
I think we must not lose the opportunity of observing the extraordinary
variety and skill of the German methods. This quotation is very brief:

    “The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Propaganda are operating
    jointly a holding company, the Mundus A.G., of which they have
    equal shares and in which the publishing houses controlled by
    both ministries at home and abroad are combined, as far as they
    are concerned with the production of publications for abroad or
    their export to, and distribution in, foreign countries. All
    firms or partnerships which will be founded or acquired in
    future for this purpose by both ministries will be incorporated
    in this company.”

On Page 3, Paragraph 4, I should like also to read a sentence:

    “Both ministries participate in the drawing up of propaganda
    matter issued by them or upon their initiative, at home, but
    intended for distribution abroad.”

Finally, on Page 4, I shall read a sentence in the second last
paragraph, and I quote:

    “In order to consolidate the broadcasting stations and the
    partnerships openly controlled by Germans, the Foreign Office
    and the Ministry of Propaganda are jointly operating a holding
    company, Interradio A.G., Berlin, each owning 50 percent.”

The Tribunal has noticed the phrase “openly owned by the Germans.”

This will be completed by a final quotation of a sentence on Page 5 at
the beginning of Paragraph 2:

    “The camouflaged (not apparent) influence exercised upon the
    foreign broadcasting stations must not be mentioned in
    connection with the joint holding company.”

I should like, in concluding this brief on propaganda, to present
Document Number RF-1148, which is a message circulated to all the
propaganda offices. I think a very brief quotation from this document
will be interesting for the definition of the very general use of
propaganda as the tool of one of the most premeditated and most serious
enterprises of Nazism, namely, the extermination of nationality and
existence of a country. In this case Czech culture and tradition are
involved.

I quote from Paragraph 4:

    “The close relationship of the Czechs and European culture must
    always be pointed out in a positive manner. The fact of the
    far-reaching influence of German culture on Czech culture and
    even the latter’s dependence on the former has to be stressed at
    every opportunity. The German cultural achievements in Bohemia
    and Moravia and their influence upon the cultural work of the
    Czechs are to be mentioned particularly.

    “Attention has always to be paid to the fact that although the
    Czechs speak a Slav language, they are subject to German culture
    by virtue of their living together for centuries with superior
    German peoples in German-directed states, and have scarcely
    anything in common with other Slav peoples.

    “From the historical point of view, attention has always to be
    focused on the periods or personalities by which the Czechs
    sought and found contact with German culture: St. Wenceslas, the
    time of Charles IV, of Ferdinand I, Rudolf II, Bohemian baroque,
    _et cetera_.”

Finally, I submit, without reading it, Document Number RF-1149. I was
anxious to include this document in our document book for it constitutes
a report of a year’s propaganda activities in one of the occupied
countries—Norway, to be exact. I have spoken at some length of this
country, and that is why I do not wish now to quote the text of this
document; but I do wish to mention that German propaganda formed the
subject of extremely regular reports and that these reports touched on
every subject: press, cinema, radio, culture, theater, schools,
education.

This propaganda, then, as I have already stated, is something which
covers a much wider range than that previously ascribed to it. No aspect
of our life is unknown to it; it respects none of the things that are
precious to us; it can become a real penitentiary for the spirit, when
even the idea of escape is imprisoned.

If it please the Tribunal, may I suggest that the session be suspended
now, so that the films may be shown immediately after this presentation.

My only purpose in showing these films is to illustrate one of the most
common and disagreeable features of life in the occupied countries, the
fact that wherever we went we were always compelled to see before us the
stupid and ugly German propaganda pictures.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn for 15 minutes.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the motion which was made before the
adjournment by counsel for the General Staff, the opinion of the
Tribunal is this:

In the first place the Tribunal is not confined to direct evidence from
eyewitnesses, because Article 19 provides that the Tribunal shall admit
any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

Secondly, there is nothing in Article 21 of the Charter which makes it
improper to call the member of a governmental committee as a witness to
give evidence with reference to the governmental committee’s report. But
the Tribunal considers that if such a witness is called the governmental
committee’s report must be put in evidence; as a matter of fact, the
Counsel for the Prosecution have offered to put the committee’s report
in evidence in this case and not only to do that, but also to make
available to Counsel for the Defense the affidavits of witnesses upon
which that report proceeded.

Thirdly, there were other matters upon which the witness, Mr. Van der
Essen, gave evidence which was altogether outside the report or so it
appeared to the Tribunal.

As to the weight which is to be attached to the witness’ evidence, that,
of course, is a matter which will have to be considered by the Tribunal.
It is open to the Defense to give evidence in answer to the evidence of
Mr. Van der Essen and also to comment upon or criticize that evidence,
and so far as his evidence consisted of his own conclusions drawn from
facts which he had seen or evidence which he had heard, the correctness
of those conclusions will be considered by the Tribunal, conclusions
being matters for the final decision of the Tribunal.

For these reasons the motion of counsel is denied.

It is suggested to me that I did not in that statement say that the
report was to be filed in evidence. I intended to say that. I thought
that I had said so. The report must be filed in evidence and the
affidavits, as they are to be made available to the defendants’ counsel
will, of course, also be made available to the Tribunal.

M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, M. Fuster is going to project the
films of which I spoke just now.

M. SERGE FUSTER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.
President, I am to show you a few examples of direct propaganda in the
occupied countries.

During the whole period of the occupation the inhabitants of the
occupied countries had the walls of their houses covered with enormous
posters, varying in color and text. There was very little paper in any
of these countries, but there was always enough for propaganda; and this
propaganda was carried on without regard for probability or moral
considerations. If the Nazis thought any sort of campaign would prove
effective, no matter in how small a degree, they immediately launched
this campaign.

In France, for instance, the most illustrious names in history appeared
on posters and were made to proclaim slogans against the enemies of
Germany. Isolated sentences were taken from the works of Clemenceau,
Montesquieu, and many others who in this way were made to utter
sentiments in favor of Nazism.

But German propaganda went beyond the adulteration of the works of the
great historical geniuses of our nation. They also tried to pervert and
cripple most sacred sentiments. We saw in France posters advertising
work in Germany, which showed a mother saying to her children, “How
happy we are now that father has gone to work in Germany.” In this way,
the family sentiment was made to further the ends of Nazism.

German propaganda tried also to attack the sentiment of national
patriotism. We saw posters asking young men to serve in the German
forces; and these existed in every country. M. Faure stated yesterday
that these unfortunate wretches who had served in the various legions
must, in spite of their guilt, be considered to a great extent as
victims of the Nazi system. In this way, German propaganda, in attacking
simultaneously the genius of a nation and the most intimate sentiments
of its people, committed a crime against the spirit; and that is
something which, according to the quotation used by M. Dubost in his
peroration, cannot be pardoned.

Publicity may be permitted, by all means, but publicity must remain
within limits. It must have some respect for persons, laws, and
morality. Guarantees for the protection of the individual exist in every
country; there are laws against libel, against defamation; but in
international matters, German propaganda had an unlimited field, without
restrictions or penalties, at least until the day when this Tribunal was
established to judge it.

That is why it seemed to us a useful and necessary duty to submit to
this Tribunal one or two practical illustrations. We did not choose the
best-known examples, but rather those which were most genuinely
characteristic of the excesses and extremes of this propaganda.

First of all, we are going to show a very short extract from a very
specialized film directed against Freemasonry, which was imposed by the
Germans in the manner explained in the brief. The film in itself is of
no interest, but it contains pictures illustrating the crude campaign of
lies in which the Germans indulged in France.

As it is a very short film and will be shown very rapidly—we cannot
slow it down on account of technical difficulties—I should like before
showing it to draw attention to the Tribunal to the two kinds of
pictures which will follow one another without transition: First you
will see a map of the world. This map will be rapidly covered by a color
indicating the influence of the Jews and the Freemasons, except for the
two victorious islands, the Nazi-fascist bloc in Europe, on the one
hand, and Japan on the other.

We give this picture to show the degree of crude simplicity arrived at
by Nazi propaganda and how it submitted to the people the most stupid
and misleading formulas.

An even worse example of calumny follows the portrait of President
Roosevelt with the heading, “Brother Roosevelt Wants War.”

This is all we have taken from the film. It will now be shown. Mr.
Abbett, you can begin.

    [_Moving pictures were then shown._]

M. FUSTER: It is taken from the film “Hidden Forces.” Here is the map of
the world [_indicating_] with the zones of influence: the Soviet zone of
influence, the British zone of influence, the American zone of
influence. It is May 1939.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to have the accompaniment of music?

M. FUSTER: I am sorry, but it is impossible to cut out the sound from
this film.

THE PRESIDENT: It cannot be helped? Very well.

M. FUSTER: The rapidity of the film made it necessary for us first to
give a few details of the pictures which passed before the Tribunal. I
think, however, that the Tribunal could appreciate them.

Now, we are going to show a few photographs of posters. These will be
easier to deal with than the film, which cannot be slowed down. We are
going to show them one by one, commenting on each as may be necessary.

I should like to point out to the Tribunal that the film which it has
just seen is submitted as Document Number RF-1152 and also under
Document Number RF-1152 (bis).

The scenarios of other propaganda films, entitled “M. Girouette” (M.
Weathercock), “French Workmen in Germany” and taken from the dossier of
the proceedings taken against M. Musard before the Seine Court of
Justice, will also illustrate the tendency and the subject matter of the
German propaganda carried on by this means.

The photographs of posters which we are going to show now are submitted
as Document Number RF-1153. Before showing these films, we must say
something about the way in which poster propaganda was organized. It was
organized with extreme care. In this connection we submit a pamphlet
which contains full instructions for mounting and shows that a real
administrative service existed to carry out projects which had been
under consideration for a long time. This is Document Number RF-1150. We
shall not read it, since it is a publication, but we will summarize the
most important contents. The Tribunal will see that the most exact
provision has been made for every detail, the sites for the billboards
and so forth. All these posters were issued by the central bureau in
Berlin, D.P.A. In their original form, they consisted only of pictures.
The text was added later in the country for which they were intended.
The text had to be printed in the language of this country and adapted
to suit local conditions.

The Germans very often refrained from indicating their official German
origin or even attributed a different origin to them. For instance, they
used the phrase “Printed in France,” which has no particular meaning
since it never appears on genuine French posters. The French posters
bear only the printer’s name; and this, in its turn, never appears on
German posters. By the use of the phrase “Printed in France,” however,
the Germans could undoubtedly make the French believe that the
propaganda put before them was not directly of enemy origin. This is a
feature at once curious and revealing.

As we have said, publicity has been practiced for a long time, but Nazi
Germany made propaganda into a public institution and applied it
internationally in a most reprehensible manner.

We are now going to show to the Tribunal a few of the stages in the
development of this poster propaganda.

    [_Pictures were then projected on the screen._]

M. FUSTER: Here is the first poster [_indicating_]. I am obliged to
describe it because we see it rather badly. The text seems to indicate
the noble attitude of the victor towards the French victims of war. It
is expressed as follows: “Abandoned populations: Have confidence in the
German soldier,” and we see a German soldier with little French children
in his arms.

At the same time that the Germans tried to gain the confidence of the
French population a second poster, which we are going to show you, was
posted in Germany regarding French prisoners of war. This is what they
said to the Germans. I read the text of the poster:

    “Companions: Retain your national dignity. Attitude toward
    prisoners—the attention of every member of the Party is drawn
    to the following points: It is unworthy to show the slightest
    sign of friendship to a prisoner. It is strictly forbidden to
    give food or drink to prisoners of war. Your fathers, sons, and
    brothers are fighting with all their strength against an enemy
    whose purpose is the annihilation of the German people. We have
    no reason to show the slightest friendship to such an enemy,
    even when he comes to us as a prisoner. The enemy remains the
    enemy.”

We are now going to show a series of photographs of posters which were
intended to show the French who their real enemies were; but first I
should like to ask the Tribunal whether they can see the posters
sufficiently well, considering the bad light.

THE PRESIDENT: We can see clearly enough, I think.

M. FUSTER: I thank you. We shall continue. This first photograph of the
series, intended to show the populations who their real enemies were, is
entitled, “Fake always comes out of the same spot.” The enemy aimed at
is England. The caricature shows by means of birds with human heads that
the voice of the Free French is only a big story, symbolized by Masonic
signs or emblems of the Jewish religion. The placards attached to these
birds and which appear to defy these slogans of British propaganda are
rather entertaining to read now: “The Germans Take All” and “We Have the
Mastery of the Seas”—it refers to the Allies.

Another photo—we are still dealing with anti-British propaganda. It is
a favorite theme of German propaganda. This photo is entitled, “Thanks
to the English, our Road to Calvary.” It tries to prove to the French by
recalling certain historical events, that the English have always been
the cause of French sufferings: Joan of Arc, Napoleon, the war of
1939-40 are the principal themes exploited by means of the poster.

This one now represents the English hydra which is encircling Africa;
but it is mercilessly beheaded in Germany, in Norway, and rather oddly,
in Syria. The text of this poster reads, “The hydra is still being
systematically decapitated.”

Poster Number 6 has the following text, which is almost invisible here:

    “The ally of yesterday, great promises before the war: No help
    during the war. Retreat and flight of the English Expeditionary
    Force. Bombardment of French cities and blockade after the
    debacle. Let us be done with it!”

Poster Number 2, which is also anti-British, is constructed on the same
model. There are three parts, “Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.”

The Germans developed not only the theme of Anglo-Saxon greed which they
represented by a hydra or a bulldog, but also the theme of the prestige
of the occupied countries at sea. On this point we show photographs of
French and Norwegian posters.

This poster is entitled, “You won’t catch anything with that De Gaulle,
Gentlemen!” British corpulence and Jewish capitalism bulge out from a
fishing boat stopped by the coastal guns of Dakar.

The style of the wording and the sailor’s gesture are purely German. A
Frenchman would have said, “With that Gaulle (fishing rod),” and the
allusion would have been clear enough.

Poster Number 9 invites enrollment in the German Navy, “The Time Has
Come to Free the Seas.”

Here is a Norwegian poster: “Defend Norway. Enlist in the German Navy.”
The inscription might apply, firstly, to all the services of the German
uniformed police; secondly, to all the commands of the German Wehrmacht;
thirdly, to German harbor masters and port control officers; fourthly,
to the commander of the SS Reserve Corps of Norway in Oslo, _et cetera_.
Another Norwegian poster, with the following title, “All for
Norway. . . . Help from England.” This poster tries to prove to the
civilian population that ruin, fire, and devastation are the only
benefits of the English alliance.

The second enemy, America, is the subject of the posters we are going to
show now.

Poster Number 11—“The American Press: 97 percent in the hands of the
Jews.” That allows the Germans to kill two birds with one stone: The
Jews and America.

Poster Number 12—in the middle of this poster is the inscription, “They
Wanted War,” and the persons concerned are represented by six
photographs. These persons, who were responsible for the war, are not
any of the men whom you see in the dock, but six Americans: magistrates,
officials, men in the public eye. Their names were not familiar to the
French public, who had rarely seen them on the screen, except for Mr. La
Guardia. Those who read articles on economics knew of Mr. Morgenthau;
but it was difficult to persuade the French that Messrs. Baruch,
Frankfurter, Wise, and Lehman were the instigators of the present war,
and Hitler and Göring the victims. As I have said, however, Nazi
propaganda did not shrink from any improbability.

The photo Number 13 is more picturesque. It shows both sides of a dollar
bill and consists of two lines separated by a Masonic star with the
inscription, “A dollar has no value unless signed by Morgenthau.” Here
are the texts of the inscriptions showing the imagination of the Nazi
authors in this matter. On the left-hand side we read:

    “The Minister of the Treasury is Jew Morgenthau Jr., related to
    the great racketeers of international finance. All the Jewish
    attributes are found on this dollar: the Eagle of Israel, the
    triangle, the Eye of Jehovah, the 13 letters of the motto, the
    13 stars of the aureole, the 13 arrows, the 13 olive branches,
    the 13 steps of the unfinished pyramid. This money is Jewish
    indeed.”

And on the right-hand side:

    “This dollar paid for the Jewish war, the sole message which the
    Anglo-Americans can address to us. Will it be enough to repay us
    for the misfortunes arising from that Jewish war? The money does
    not stink but the Jew does.”

Number 14—“Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt are dividing Africa.”

Number 15—this is anti-Semitic propaganda properly speaking. We have
already seen it mingled with anti-British and anti-American propaganda.
This photograph shows children of a French technical school who were
taken to an anti-Jewish exhibition and given anti-Jewish pamphlets to
read.

Number 16—“Behold the Jewish invasion.” France is gnawed by a
symbolical hydra and figures are scrawled across her. “In 1914, 200,000
Jews; in 1939, 800,000 Jews, without mentioning the half-Jews.”

Number 17—“For the Jews the right to live; for us the right to croak.
Beneath the recriminations of all-enveloping Jewry, the crosses of the
daily growing number of war victims are lined up.” This propaganda aims
on the one hand at collecting the Jews into a compact mass and isolating
them, and on the other hand, at arousing the hatred of the remainder of
the population against them. It aims at dividing France.

Number 18—finally, we see the terrible Russian foe. A tortured human
beast is hauling a barrow-load of stones while a monster in uniform
lashes him with a knout or nagaïka and threatens him with a revolver.
This picture was first intended for inclusion in a composite picture
entitled “The Workers’ Paradise.” This gives it additional interest; but
owing to the lack of time, the poster was put out just as it was. We
submit the plans for the entire project as Document Number RF-1151.

Number 19—this is a lovely Norwegian poster: “No” in the form of a
flash of lightning strikes against the Russian hand which attempts to
tear the national flag.

Number 20—“Never!” A romantic picture reminiscent of certain Russian
pictures of the last century. Death escorts a train of deportees. The
Nazis showed something which they knew well!

Number 21—a final picture concerning Russia, “What Bolshevism would
bring to Europe.” Scenes of mutilation, infanticide, rape, hangings,
murder—exactly what the Nazi movement brought to Europe! However, this
Europe must realize her good fortune in being led by the Führer, must
realize her strength and her unity, in order to fight victoriously
against the barbarous enemy.

And here is a photograph of a poster, “A Leader and His People.” Hitler
is depicted as endowed with every charm: sweetness, simplicity,
understanding, while the text, unreadable on the reproduction, recalls
that he, Hitler, is the unknown soldier of the first war. We call the
Tribunal’s attention to the photo.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you let the Tribunal know how much longer you are
likely to be?

M. FUSTER: About 10 minutes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You may continue.

M. FUSTER: In the photograph to the left, Hitler is shaking a little
girl’s hand and we read underneath, “The Little Congratulator.” This
term, which is not French, betrays the origin of the document.

Here is a poster—Number 23—which was widely circulated in France: “I
work in Germany for my family and for France. Do as I do.”

Number 24—“1918 to 1943—History Speaks. 1918—The Debacle. 1943—The
Great Unity.” This poster is the counterpart of the inscriptions which
patriots used to write on the walls in France. The German defeat was
rapidly approaching; and they could hope that the end of the year 1943,
like the end of the year 1918, would bring the final victory. The Nazis
were unable to make any reply to these crushing communiques except by
issuing denials and posters like this, affirming the great unity of
Europe.

Number 25—here is a poster which combines the productive and fighting
forces, “The best workers make the best weapons for the best soldiers.”

Number 26—finally propaganda attains the level of the conflict of
political doctrines, “Socialism against Bolshevism or a free Europe.”

Number 27—religious doctrine. This is a Norwegian poster which makes
fun of the Anglo-Russian alliance. It is entitled, “A Blessed Meeting.”
An Anglican bishop, armed with a phosphorous bomb, presents a cross
symbolizing Finland to Pope Stalin. Stalin accepts it with eyes lifted
to heaven and a machine gun in his arms. A placard says, “Christianity
is introduced into the country of the Soviets,” and the motto says, “My
dear brother, we wish to strengthen your faith with these beautiful
crosses.”

Number 28—“Anti-Christ: Communism, the scourge of civilization.
Bolshevism against Europe. International Exhibition, 12 July to 15
August 1941.” The Nazis pose as the defenders of Christianity.

Number 29—and to conclude, this is what the defenders of Christianity
did to the Church of Oradour-sur-Glane.

We have now finished showing the films. We have taken the liberty to
submit to the Tribunal a few pictures forming concrete illustrations of
a tendency whose spiritual character makes it perhaps more difficult of
recognition but whose importance is considerable. In treating an
emotionally subtle theme of this kind, we have used pictures in
preference to words, since pictures can make clear in an instant
something which it takes time to put into words. In this way we hope we
have contributed towards making plain the truth.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 minutes past 2.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the
Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent until further notice, on account
of illness.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, I shall now take up the last chapter of my
brief, which is devoted to the organization of criminal activities. I
shall begin this last chapter by quoting a few words spoken by
Monseigneur Piguet, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, in the course of a
pontifical Mass on Whit Sunday, 20 May 1945. Monseigneur Piguet had just
been liberated from the concentration camp to which he had been sent by
the Nazis. He said:

    “The criminal institutions of which we have been witness and
    victim bear within themselves all the scourges of barbarism and
    old-time servitude systematized and applied by a new method
    capable of increasing human misery by the whole range of modern
    scientific possibilities.”

The evidence that I intend to present to the Tribunal with regard to the
occupied countries of the West bears upon this aspect of the
systematizing of German criminal enterprises. We have said that
Germanization did not consist in the particular fact of the imposition
of German nationality or of German law, but in the general imposition of
the standards established by the Nazi regime, and in a general way, of
its philosophy. This aspect of Germanization implies criminal activity
at once as a means and as an end—as a means, because the criminal means
is very often highly effective, and we know that Nazism professes
indifference in regard to the immorality of the means; as an end, on the
other hand, since the final organization of Nazi society postulates the
elimination of elements hostile to it or which it regards as
undesirable. Under these conditions the criminal activities therefore do
not appear as accidents or regrettable incidents of war and of
occupation. They must not be ascribed to un-coordinated action on the
part of subordinates due to overzealousness or lack of discipline.

As the elimination of adversaries is recommended in principle, it will
be carried out in fact by the normal and regular functioning of the
administrative apparatus. If Nazism has a philosophy of criminal action,
it also has, properly speaking, a bureaucracy of criminal activity.

The will which inspires this action is transmitted from one to another
of the chief and secondary centers of the state organism. Each of the
misdeeds or series of misdeeds of which we have told you already or
shall do so again, assumes the existence of a whole series of
transmissions: orders passed by superiors to inferiors, requests for
orders or reports passed by inferiors to superiors, and finally the
relations maintained between corresponding echelons of different
services. This administrative organization of criminal activity appears
to us a very important datum for the determination of responsibility and
the proving of the charges formulated in the Indictment against the
higher leaders and against the group organization.

The responsibility of any one of these superior leaders in regard to a
determined criminal activity does not, indeed, require that an exhibit
or a document signed by the person himself be produced or that it should
involve him by name. The existence or non-existence of such a document
is a matter of chance.

The responsibility of the higher leader is directly established by the
fact that a criminal activity has been carried out administratively by a
service at whose head we find this leader.

This is all the more true in the case of a criminal activity pursued
over a long period of time, affecting a considerable number of persons
and whose development has given rise to a series of complications, of
consultations, and of solutions. There is in every graded state service
a continuous circuit of authority which is at the same time a continuous
circuit of responsibility. Moreover, concerning charges made against
organizations described as criminal organizations, their criminal nature
springs from the very fact that their activity produces criminal results
without there being any lack of knowledge or modification of the normal
rules of competence and of functioning of their different organisms.

The collaboration which develops with a view to such an end between a
series of agents belonging to the organization both vertically between
the upper and lower grades and horizontally between the different
specialist departments implies no less forcibly the existence of a
collective criminal intent.

I shall speak first of the persecution of persons qualified as Jews by
the German code. The Tribunal already knows from other evidence the Nazi
doctrine on the subject of Jews. The historians of the future will
perhaps be able to determine how much of this doctrine was the result of
sincere fanaticism and how much was the result of premeditated intent to
deceive and mislead public opinion.

It is certain that the Nazis found the theories which led them to
undertake the extermination of the Jews extremely convenient.

In the first place, anti-Semitism was an ever accessible means of
averting public criticism and anger. Moreover, it was a method of
psychological seduction that was very cleverly calculated to appeal to
simple minds. It made it possible to give a certain amount of
satisfaction to the most needy and underprivileged person by convincing
him that he was nevertheless of a superior quality and that he could
despise and bully a whole category of his fellow men. Finally, the Nazis
obtained for themselves by this means the possibility of whipping up the
fanaticism of their members by awakening and encouraging in them the
criminal instincts which are always latent to a certain extent in the
souls of men.

Indeed, it is a German scientist, Feuerbach, who developed the theory
that disposition to crime does not necessarily proceed from long
preparation. The criminal instinct present may spring to life in an
instant. The Nazis gave to the elite of their servants the possibility
of giving free rein to any inclination they might possess for murder,
looting, the most atrocious actions, and the most hideous spectacles. In
this way they fully assured themselves of their obedience and of their
zeal.

In order to avoid repetition, I shall not speak in detail of the great
sufferings endured by the persons qualified as Jews in France and in the
other countries of western Europe. I should like simply to indicate here
that it also caused great suffering to all the other inhabitants of
these countries to witness the abominable treatment inflicted upon the
Jews. Every Frenchman felt a deep affliction at seeing the persecution
of other Frenchmen, many of whom had earned the gratitude of the
fatherland. There is no one in Paris who did not feel deeply ashamed to
learn that the dying Bergson had to be carried to the police commission
to satisfy the census requirements.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, you will forgive my interrupting you, but the
Tribunal feels that what you are now presenting to us, however
interesting—and it is interesting—is really an argument and is not
presenting evidence to us. And as we have already heard an opening on
behalf of the United States, an opening on behalf of Great Britain, and
an opening on behalf of France, we think that you really ought to
address yourself, if possible, to the evidence which you are presenting,
rather than to an argument.

I feel sure that, with your readiness to meet the wishes of the Tribunal
in expressing your presentation, you will perhaps be able to do that.

M. FAURE: I understand perfectly the feeling of the Tribunal. I simply
intended to say a few words referring to the feeling shown by Frenchmen
in regard to these persecutions. But these words have now been spoken,
and I have just arrived at the object of the demonstration which I am to
present to the Tribunal with the documents. To show the Tribunal that
the spirit of my presentation is in accordance with the requirements of
the Tribunal, I should like to indicate that I am not presenting in this
brief any document which constitutes an individual story or even a
collective story, and no document which comes from victims themselves,
or even from impartial persons.

I have tried to select only a certain number of German documents in
order to furnish evidence of the execution of a criminal enterprise
consisting in the extermination of Jews in France and the western
countries.

I should like to observe first of all that the Nazi persecution of the
Jews included two sets of actions. This is important from the point of
view of the direct responsibility of the defendants. The first category
of actions is that resulting from the actual texts of laws and
regulations and the second category is that resulting from the way in
which these were applied.

As regards the texts of laws and regulations, it is evident that these
texts, which were issued by the German authorities—either military
authorities or commissioners of the Reich—constituted particularly
flagrant violations of the sovereignty of the occupied countries.

I do not think that it is necessary for me to present these laws and
regulations in detail, for their main features are common knowledge. In
order to avoid reading, I have had two tables drawn up and these are
before the Tribunal in the document book, although they are not
documents properly speaking. These documents are to be found in an
appendix. I should like to explain what the two tables in this appendix
show. The first table, in the left-hand column, is arranged in
chronological order; the other columns indicate the names of the
different countries. The Tribunal will find arranged in chronological
order the measures taken against the Jews in different countries.

The second table classifies them according to subject—the concept
“Jews,” economic measures, bullying and petty irritations, the yellow
star—and you will find in this table appropriate texts, arranged
according to subject.

I likewise present in the form of documents under Document Number
RF-1200 a certain number of decrees which were issued in France
concerning the Jews, and as these decrees are public acts I shall simply
ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them.

I must now make this observation: These texts, taken as a whole,
considerably lowered the status of the Jews. Yet there are no texts in
existence of German decrees ordering the mass deportation or murder of
Jews. On the other hand, you must remember that this legislation was
developed by progressive stages up to 1942, after which a pause ensued.
It was during this pause that, as we shall see, genuine administrative
measures for the deportation and consequently for the extermination of
the Jews were introduced.

This leads us to consider the fact that we are not dealing with two
separate actions—the legislative action, to be ascribed to the military
authorities, and the executive action, to be ascribed to the police.
This point of view, which regards the military authority only as the
author of the decrees and, therefore, as bearing a lesser degree of
criminal responsibility, would be false. In reality we are looking at
the development of a continued action which employs by turns different
means. The first means, that is to say, the legislative means, are the
necessary preparatory measures for putting into force the other, or
directly criminal means.

In order to put into practice their plan of extermination, the Nazis had
first of all to single out the Jewish elements in the population and to
separate them from the rest of the population of the country. They had
to be able to find the Jews easily and to find them with decreased
powers of self-defense and lacking in the material, physical, and
intellectual resources which would have enabled them easily to avoid
persecution.

They had to be able to destroy the whole of this doomed element of the
national community at a single blow, and for this reason they had first
to put an end to the constant interweaving of interests and activities
existing between all the categories of the population. The Germans
wished to prepare public opinion as far as possible; and they could
succeed in this by accustoming the public to no longer seeing the Jews,
as the latter were practically forbidden to leave their houses.

I shall now present to the Tribunal a few documents bearing on this
general extermination deliberately undertaken by the Nazis. I shall
first present a series of documents, Documents RF-1201, 1202, 1203,
1204, 1205, and 1206. I present these documents with reference to a
particular question, the emigration of the Jews who tried to leave the
occupied territories.

Inasmuch as the Germans made their desire to get rid of the Jews
apparent in every way, it would seem logical for them to look favorably
on the solution offered by emigration. On the contrary, as we shall see,
they forbade emigration and did so by a permanent measure of general
application. This is a proof of their will to exterminate the Jews and a
proof of the ferocity of the measures employed. Here, to begin with, is
Document Number RF-1201. These documents are submitted to the Tribunal
in a series of photostatic copies for each member.

Document Number RF-1201 is a letter of 22 July 1941 emanating from the
Bordeaux service and requesting certain instructions from Paris. I wish
to read the beginning of this message:

    “It has just been established that about one hundred and fifty
    Jews are still in the territory of the District Command of St.
    Jean de Luz. At the time of our conversation with the District
    Commander, Major Henkel, the latter asked that these Jews should
    leave his district as quickly as possible. At the same time, he
    pointed out that in his opinion it would be far better to allow
    these Jews to emigrate rather than to transfer them to other
    departments or even to concentration camps.”

Here is the reply to this telegram. It is Document Number RF-1202, dated
26 July 1941. The second sentence:

    “We do not approve Major Henkel’s point of view as the Reich
    Security Main Office has stipulated again in a decree the
    principle that the emigration of Jews residing in the occupied
    territories of the West, and if possible also of those living in
    Unoccupied France, is to be prevented.”

Here is an exhibit which I submit as Document Number RF-1203 and which
comes from the Military Command in France under date of 4 February 1942.
We are no longer dealing with the SS but with the Military Command.

    “The Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police at the
    R.M.d.I. has given orders that the emigration of Jews from
    Germany or the occupied territories has to be prevented, on
    principle.”

The rest of the letter indicates that exceptions may be made. This
document establishes the collaboration between the Army and the police,
the Army assuring the execution of the orders given by the Supreme Chief
of Police.

I now submit Document Number RF-1205. This document relates to the same
subject, but I nevertheless submit it because it shows the intervention
of a third German authority, the diplomatic authority. This is a note of
the German Consulate General of Casablanca. I read the first sentence:

    “The number of European emigrants hitherto leaving Casablanca
    for the American continent only at long intervals has greatly
    increased during the last month. On 15 March . . .”

The rest of the letter indicates that these are Jewish emigrants.

Document Number RF-1204, which is joined to this one, constitutes a new
report to the same effect from the Consulate General Casablanca, under
the date of 8 June 1942. I read the last paragraph of this document:

    “The emigrants leaving Casablanca are, for the most part, Jewish
    families from Germany and Central Europe and also some French
    Jews. There is no reason to suspect that young people fit for
    military service have left Casablanca with the avowed intention
    of entering military service on the side of the enemy. It is
    left to your discretion to inform the military authorities about
    this.”

I have quoted this document to show that there was no question of a
military emigration which they would have had an interest in preventing,
and also to show that this document would normally have concerned
firstly the German Embassy, to which it was addressed, and secondly the
military services which it suggests should be informed.

Now, what is the sequel to these two communications? The sequel is shown
by Document Number RF-1206, of which the two documents just read
constitute appendixes. This Document RF-1206 emanates from Berlin, from
the Reich Security Main Office, and is addressed to the Chief of Police
for France and Belgium.

    “Attached are two copies of confidential reports from the German
    Consulate General in Casablanca to the Ministry of Foreign
    Affairs for your information.

    “You are asked to give your special attention to the state of
    affairs described and to prevent, as far as possible, an
    emigration of this kind.”

I therefore draw three conclusions. Firstly, as I have indicated, the
Nazis opposed the emigration of the Jews, although they claim that they
are undesirable. Secondly, this decision was made at a higher level and
with a general application. Thirdly, all the services, the police, the
Army, and the Department of Foreign Affairs intervened to ensure the
execution of these barbarous orders.

I now present to the Tribunal Document Number RF-1207. This document is
a voluminous German report. It is in fact 70 pages in length. It was
found in the German archives in Paris. This document is interleaved with
a series of graphs, drawings, and models of census cards. It is
mimeographed, and the copy which we present does not bear the author’s
signature, but simply the indication “SS Obersturmführer.” This is
Obersturmführer Dannecker, who played an important role in regulating
Jewish questions in France and who was chief of this bureau.

THE PRESIDENT: That fact which you have just stated to us, has that been
verified by the French authorities, namely, that it was a captured
document in Paris?

M. FAURE: According to the report submitted to the Tribunal, we took
possession of these documents at the archives of the Sûreté Nationale.
They were among the documents found in the German offices at the time of
the liberation. Besides, I point out to the Tribunal that the other
documents produced do bear the signatures of the German officials. This
report is the only document without a signature. The fact that it was
written by Dannecker will be proved by other documents, which constitute
a résumé of it.

I shall not read to the Tribunal the 70 pages of this report, but I
should like to read certain paragraphs which I think may interest the
Tribunal. Here is the first page. To begin with, it is entitled, “The
Jewish Question in France and Its Treatment. Paris, 1 July 1941.” First
page:

    “Final solution of the Jewish question—this is the heading and
    the goal for the work of those services of the Sipo and SD which
    are handling the Jewish problem in France. It has always been
    clear that practical results cannot be achieved without a study
    of the political situation in general as well as of the
    situation of the Jews.

    “The following pages, next to giving a general draft of our
    planning, are to explain the results achieved up to now as well
    as the immediate aims.

    “Everything touching the principle must be considered from the
    following point of view: Since the chief of the Sipo and SD has
    been charged by the Führer with preparing the solution of the
    Jewish question in Europe, his offices in France are to carry
    out the preliminary work in order to be able to serve abroad as
    the absolutely reliable agents of the European Commissioner for
    Jewish Affairs, at the appointed time.”

I shall now point out to the Tribunal the chief headings of the
paragraphs in order to pursue the development of the idea and of the
operations of this German office.

THE PRESIDENT: I was considering, M. Faure, why this document has not
got any identifying mark upon it. I mean, of course, we do not doubt for
an instant what you say to us is true, but at the same time it is not
the correct way to do it—for us to have to rely on counsel’s statement
as to the nature of the evidence. And there is nothing on the document
itself to show that it was captured in Paris or to show what it is
except what it states.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, the joining of this document to the file of the
French Prosecution was done by a report made in Paris, which I shall
present before the Tribunal, because as this report concerns a certain
number of documents, it was not especially joined to the file of this
particular document. On the other hand, when I received these documents
from the police, I did not wish to write anything on the document or to
place it under a seal, for I wished to avoid altering the normal
appearance of the document in any way.

I must state that if the Tribunal prefers not to receive this document
inasmuch as I do recognize that it does not bear a signature, I shall
not submit the document for I have a second report by Dannecker which is
signed by him. I submitted both in order to make clear the continuity of
the operation.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, in the case of the documents presented by the
United States, the captured documents by the United States, as Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe reminded us the other day, there is an affidavit, I think,
of Major Coogan, which states that all those documents of a certain
series, PS, L, R, and various other series, were all captured in Germany
by the United States forces. If there were such an affidavit with
reference to documents captured in Paris which might be identified by
some letter such as PS or some letter similar to that, the matter would
seem to us to be in order. But when a document is presented to us which
has no identifying mark upon it at all, we are then in the position
which we are in now of simply hearing the statement of counsel, which,
of course, is not evidence that the document was found in Paris or found
somewhere else; and therefore it occurs to me that one way that it might
be dealt with would be an affidavit by somebody who knows the facts that
this document and any other documents of a similar sort were captured in
the archives of the German forces in Paris or elsewhere.

M. FAURE: I could very easily produce before the Tribunal the affidavit
which it requests. I say that if we do not have it in this form it is
because our habitual procedure is not exactly the same as that which may
be followed in the United States. In fact, as the Charter of the
Tribunal indicates that the Prosecution was charged with the collection
of evidence, we ourselves have authorized magistrates in our service to
look for documents in the archives of the police and if the Tribunal
wishes I shall ask the police in addition for attestation of the seizure
of these documents in the German archives. I shall then ask the Tribunal
to allow me to produce this affidavit in a few days’ time, so that I can
ask the police for it.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, the Tribunal think that we might admit the
document, subject to your undertaking that you would do that in the
course of a day or two.

M. FAURE: I cannot guarantee that I will have this document in a day or
two.

THE PRESIDENT: I wasn’t stressing the number of days. If you will
undertake to do it that is sufficient.

M. FAURE: Certainly, Mr. President. I shall go on then with the analysis
of the Dannecker report. The first chapter is called, “History of the
Jews in France.” I shall not read it. It includes a series of ideas on a
very elementary intellectual level. The following chapter is entitled,
“Organization of the Jews in France.” It includes a first part under the
heading, “Before 14 June 1940.” This part does not seem to me
interesting. The second part of this chapter is entitled, “Operations of
the Sipo and the SD (SS Einsatzkommando Paris) against these
Organizations and against Leading Jewish Personages.” The report comes
from the SS Hauptsturmführer Hagen. I think I might read the beginning:

    “From a study of the records collected in Germany, Austria,
    Czechoslovakia, and Poland, it was possible to conclude that the
    center of Judaism in Europe and with it the chief lines of
    communication to overseas must be sought in France. Realizing
    this, first of all, the offices of great Jewish organizations
    already known, such as World Jewish Congress”—then follows an
    enumeration—“have been searched and sealed.”

Beginning with Page 14, the report attempts to demonstrate the existence
of a bond between Judaism and Catholicism. It presents the results of
searches made in the homes of various persons: The Rothschild family,
the former minister, Mandel, the press attaché at the British Embassy,
and other persons, including the lawyers Moro-Giafferi and Torrès. The
end of this chapter is as indicated, Page 16, last paragraph:

    “To sum up, we can say on the basis of the records which have
    been collected, that France, where Judaism was linked with
    Catholicism and with certain important politicians, was its last
    bulwark on the continent of Europe.”

The following section has the title, “Life of the Jews after the Entry
of the Germans.” The text describes the way in which the Germans created
a central and unified organization of the Jews and imposed it on them.
This is the beginning of the plan which I have just described to the
Tribunal, which consisted in singling out the Jewish elements in the
population, massing them together, and separating them entirely from the
rest of the population. I should like to read the first paragraph, for
the analysis of it is very important:

    “After the Armistice and the return to normal life it appeared
    that almost all the Jewish associations had ceased to exist (in
    the absence of responsible officials and financial supporters
    who had fled into the unoccupied zone) while there was a growing
    need for aid. The progressive German anti-Jewish legislation
    caused a steady aggravation of the Jewish social problems.
    Generally considered, these circumstances should have provided a
    favorable ground in France for a Jewish all-round organization.”

In this text there is a very subtle idea. We note that the German
legislation, that is to say, the legislation of the Military Command,
brought about a great aggravation of social problems; and we conclude
that this will facilitate the general organization of the Jews. This
reasoning confirms, I think, what I said to the Tribunal a while ago,
namely, that we were faced with a whole system of measures, the first of
which were intended to facilitate the separation of the Jewish community
which was to be exterminated.

Dannecker then explains how a co-ordination committee was created. I
skip the details and come to Page 21, Paragraph 2:

    “An agreement has been made with the office of the Commander of
    Greater Paris that, in the future, Jewish organizations may
    address themselves to the German services only by way of the
    Committee of Jewish Co-ordination. This resulted in an enforced
    amalgamation of all minor Jewish organizations.

    “Moreover, an agreement has been made with the Paris Office for
    National Relief (Bureau du Secours National) that, after the
    expiration of a period of 4 weeks, no Jew can any longer be fed
    and housed by National Relief. The S.N. will appoint a special
    representative for controlling the co-ordination committee on
    this matter. The blocking of Jewish accounts will compel the
    Jews in the very near future to ask that the co-ordination
    committee be authorized to receive gifts intended for it from
    these blocked holdings. The granting of this request will
    demonstrate the actual existence of an enforced Jewish union.

    “As can be seen this question too will be solved in the manner
    desired, even if it is a ‘cold manner.’”

The following chapter bears the title, “Political Activities of the
Office for Jewish Affairs of the Sipo and of the SD.” I should like to
read some passages from this:

    “After the promulgation of the Jewish statute of 3 October 1940
    by the French Government, a certain slowing-down occurred in the
    handling of the Jewish question in France; and for this reason
    the Office for Jewish Affairs worked out plans for a Central
    Jewish Bureau. The plan was discussed with the military
    administration on 31 January 1941. The latter showed no
    interest; and, as the question was a purely political one, it
    was referred to the SD in agreement with the German Embassy.”

This is followed by an analysis of various discussions with the French
Commissioner Vallat, with Ambassador Abetz, and with De Brinon and
indicates the various demands presented by the Germans to the French
authorities. I pass now to Page 26, the last paragraph:

    “The proposal of the Office for Jewish Affairs has been referred
    to SS Brigadeführer Dr. Best by SS Obersturmbannführer Dr.
    Knochen. This proposal suggests that a liaison office ought to
    be created which should comprise the representatives of the four
    offices cited above. The management was to be in the hands of
    the Director of the Office for Jewish Affairs of the SD in
    compliance with the rules stipulating the competency of the OKW,
    the OKH, and the Commander in France. As a result of this
    suggestion, a conference was held on 10 June 1941. Those who
    attended were: Ministerial Counsellor Dr. Stortz for the
    Commander in France”—then German titles follow which have not
    been translated into French and which are a little hard for me
    to read—“Dr. Blancke, (Economic Service), Counsellor to the
    Embassy Dr. Zeitschel (German Embassy), and SS Obersturmführer
    Dannecker. The representatives of the military administration
    stated clearly that the competence of the SD resulted from the
    decrees of the OKW and of the OKH as well as from the last
    confidential decree of 25 March 1941 of the Commander in France.
    Dr. Stortz declared that for various reasons it would be better
    to abstain from creating a special liaison bureau, under the
    direction of the SD. SS Obersturmführer Dannecker explained for
    his part that we are concerned with the final solution of the
    question only; and, therefore, the SD must have the possibility
    of carrying out the orders given by the RSHA.”

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, can’t you summarize this? It is a very long
document, and we have so many documents and so much evidence in
connection with the Jews already.

M. FAURE: I shall simply read one sentence on the same page:

    “The result of the conference was the decision to meet every
    week at the Office for Jewish Affairs. In the course of these
    meetings they would discuss in common all their aims,
    experiences, and objections.”

I think it is interesting to note these regular conferences held every
week and in which representatives of the military services, the embassy,
and the police took part.

The following pages of the report can be passed over. They contain
remarks about Vallat, notes relating to the establishment of files
concerning the Jews, and an analysis of the German ordinances. This is
important as showing that these ordinances have their place in the
general plan. Dannecker likewise speaks of the Anti-Jewish Institute,
and observes that this institute was financed by the German Embassy.

The report goes on to give statistical notes and concludes with a
statement of which I shall read only one paragraph:

    “I hope I have succeeded in giving an idea of the present
    situation, and a summary of the manifold difficulties which had
    to be surmounted. I cannot help but acknowledge in this
    connection the really friendly and thorough support which has
    been given to our work by Ambassador Abetz and his
    representative, Minister Schleier, as well as by SS
    Sturmbannführer and Counsellor to the Embassy Dr. Zeitschel.”

To meet the desire of the Tribunal, I shall not submit all the documents
included in my document file. I shall therefore pass now to Document
Number RF-1210. I have not submitted Documents RF-1208 and 1209. This
Document Number RF-1210 is a new report of Dannecker’s. It is dated 22
February 1942. I submit it to show the regular and progressive character
of the activities of the German offices. This is a letter of the 22d of
February 1942. I shall read simply the headings, and I shall quote two
passages.

The first heading is “Task of the Sipo and of the SD in France”; the
second is “Card Index of Jews”; the third, “French Commission for Jewish
Questions”; the fourth, “The French Anti-Jewish Police.” The fifth is
entitled “Activity.” I shall quote this paragraph:

    “Up to now three operations have been carried out against the
    Jews of Paris on a large scale. On each occasion the local
    office has been responsible for selecting the Jews who were to
    be arrested, as well as for the preparation and technical
    organization of the operations. The Jewish card index described
    above has considerably facilitated the organization of all these
    operations.”

The next heading is “Anti-Jewish Institute”; next is “Compulsory Jewish
Amalgamation”; and finally “Tuesday Conferences.” I shall read Paragraph
2:

    “A conference has been held every Tuesday since the middle of
    1941”—Page 5 of the document—“attended by representatives of
    the following offices: 1) Military Command, Administrative
    Staff, Administrative Section; 2) Administrative Staff, Police
    Group; 3) Administrative Staff, Economic Section; 4) German
    Embassy in Paris; 5) Operations Staff West of Reichsleiter
    Rosenberg.

    “The result of these conferences was that (of course, for very
    rare exceptions caused by outsiders) the policy regarding Jews
    in the occupied territories can be followed on absolutely
    uniform lines.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

M. FAURE: Gentlemen, in order not to prolong the discussion too much, I
should like, if it please the Tribunal, to submit as documents all the
documents in my book, but to read and analyze only some of the most
important.

I shall then pass over Documents RF-1211, 1212, 1213, and 1214. I should
like, however, to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the end of the
mimeographed French text. As the letter “K” appeared on the document,
the word “Keitel” was written in, quite wrongly. I should like to say
that this does not occur in the document. I should like to read this
Document Number RF-1215, which is very short:

    “Secret—13 May 1942. To the Chief of Area A.

    “In accordance with instructions from OKH, Quartermaster
    General, the words ‘dispatch to the East’ must not be used in
    announcements referring to the forced evacuation of the
    population, in order to avoid a defamation of the occupied
    regions in the East. The same applies to the expression
    ‘deportation,’ this word being too strongly reminiscent of the
    banishment to Siberia at the time of the Czars. In all
    publications and correspondence we must use the phrase ‘dispatch
    for forced labor.’”

Document Number RF-1216, which I offer in evidence now, is another
memorandum from Dannecker, dated 10 March 1942. The purpose of this
memorandum is defined as “Deportation from France of 5,000 Jews.” The
quotation of the title suffices to indicate the subject of the document.
Dannecker alludes to a meeting of the Office for Jewish Affairs, a
meeting which took place at the RSHA in Berlin on 4 March 1942 at which
it was decided that negotiations would be undertaken for the deportation
of 5,000 Jews from France. The memorandum specifies Paragraph 4, second
sentence:

    “Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their
    nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day
    of the deportation itself.”

In a subsequent passage of the document Dannecker explains that the
expenses of this deportation would have to be paid by the French Jews,
since in the case of impending mass deportations of Jews from
Czechoslovakia provisions had been made for the Slovakian Government to
pay a sum of 500 marks for each Jew deported and, in addition, to bear
the cost of deportation.

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1217, which is a memorandum
of 15 June 1942 headed “Other Transports of Jews Coming from France.” It
is still dealing with the same operation, but I believe it is
interesting to submit these documents without reading them, since they
show the extremely complex and regular working of this administration
whose purpose was to arrest and deport innocent people. The beginning of
the memorandum alludes to a new conference held in Berlin on 11 June
1942 and attended by those responsible for the Jewish departments in
Brussels and The Hague, as well as by Dannecker himself. In the fourth
paragraph on Page 1 of this document I read the last sentence of the
paragraph, “Ten percent of Jews unfit for labor may be included in these
convoys.” This sentence shows that the purpose of this deportation was
not merely to procure labor, even if it involved labor to be
exterminated by work.

I should like also to read the fifth paragraph, which contains only one
sentence:

    “It was agreed that 15,000 Jews should be expelled from Holland,
    10,000 from Belgium, and up to 100,000 from France, including
    the unoccupied zone.”

The last part of the memorandum relates to the technical execution. It
alludes first to negotiations with the transport service to obtain the
necessary trains. It then alludes to the necessity of inducing the _de
facto_ French Government to take steps to deprive of their nationality
all Jews resident outside of French territory. This would mean that
deported Jews would no longer be considered as French citizens. Lastly
the French State was to pay the cost of transport and various expenses
connected with the deportation.

I now present Document Number RF-1218, which is a memorandum dated 16
June 1942, entitled “The Transportation of Jews from France: Subject,
Order from the SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann to SS Hauptsturmführer
Dannecker, 11 June 1942.” The first three paragraphs of this memorandum
show that there was difficulty in transporting deportees, because of the
large quantity of railway stock necessary for the preparation of the
eastern campaign. I should like to read the last two paragraphs of this
letter:

    “We are now carrying out a large-scale reorganization of the
    German transport agencies in France. The main feature of this is
    that the numerous organizations existing hitherto will be taken
    over by the Reich Ministry of Transportation, which will be
    responsible for them. This reorganization, which was ordered
    without notice, takes a few days to complete. Before that date
    it is impossible to give approximate information as to whether
    the transportation of Jews can be carried out in the near future
    or at a later date, on the scale anticipated, or even
    partially.”

These remarks seemed to me interesting as defining the responsibility of
the Reich Cabinet. Such a large undertaking as the deportation of so
many Jews required the intervention of many different administrative
services, and we see here that the success of this enterprise depended
on the reorganization of transport on the responsibility of the Reich
Ministry of Transportation. It is certain that a ministerial department
of this kind, which is above all a technical department, intervened to
help carry out that general enterprise of deportation.

I now submit Document Number RF-1219 which is a memorandum by Dr.
Knochen dated 15 June 1942. This memorandum is entitled, “Technical
Execution of New Convoys of Jews from France.” Not to take too much time
I shall read only the first paragraph of this memorandum:

    “To avoid any conflict with the operation in progress with
    regard to ‘French workmen for Germany,’ mention will be made
    only of Jewish resettlement. This version is confirmed by the
    fact that the convoys may include entire families and therefore
    the possibility is left open of sending at a later date for the
    children under 16, who were left behind.”

The remainder of the memorandum, like all these texts, which are so
extremely painful from a moral point of view, continues to discuss the
question of the deportation of the Jews in round figures as if all these
human beings were mere goods and chattels.

I now submit Document Number RF-1220, which is a letter from the German
Embassy in Paris, from Dr. Zeitschel, dated 27 June 1942. I should like
to read this letter, which is thus expressed:

    “Following my conversation with Hauptsturmführer Dannecker on 27
    June, during which he stated that he needed, as soon as
    possible, 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the
    East and that something had to be done to support the operations
    of Darquier de Pellepoix, the Commissioner General on Jewish
    questions, I immediately informed Ambassador Abetz and
    Counsellor Rahn of this matter. Counsellor Rahn is to meet
    President Laval this afternoon and he promised to discuss with
    him at once the handing over of these 50,000 Jews, demanding at
    the same time plenary powers for Darquier de Pellepoix, in
    conformity with the laws already promulgated, and the immediate
    granting of the credits promised him.

    “As unfortunately I shall be away from Paris for a week, I
    request, in view of the urgency of the question, that
    Hauptsturmführer Dannecker contact Counsellor Rahn directly, on
    Monday, 29 June, or Tuesday, 30 June, at the latest, to learn
    Laval’s reply.”

I thought it useful to read this letter, for it shows the responsibility
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Defendant Ribbentrop in this
abominable matter of handing over 50,000 Jews as required. It is quite
evident that such a step cannot be taken by a counsellor at an embassy
unknown to his minister and without the latter’s full knowledge and
consent.

I submit now Document Number RF-1221. It is a memorandum dated 26 June
1942 of which I shall give only the title, “Directives for the
Deportation of Jews.”

Now I come to Document Number RF-1222, of which I shall also read only
the title, “Conference with the Specialists for Jewish Questions of the
Security Police, Command of the Section IV-J on 30 June 1942.
Deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from the Occupied Territories.”

In this memorandum Dannecker again alludes to the conference which took
place at the RSHA, according to which 50,000 Jews were to be
transferred. There follows a list of trains, the stations in which they
were to be assembled, and a request for reports.

I now submit Document Number RF-1223. It is a memorandum, dated 1 July
1942, summing up a conference between Dannecker and Eichmann, who, as we
already know, was in Berlin but had to come to Paris on that occasion.
“Subject: Departmental Conference with SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker,
Paris, Concerning the Impending Evacuation from France.” It still deals
with the preparation of the great operation envisaged.

I now submit Document Number RF-1224, of which I read only the title and
the date, “4 July 1942: Directives for a Major Round-up of Jews in
Paris.”

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1225, which is a Dannecker
memorandum dated 6 July 1942. Subject: “Deportation of Jews from
France.” It concerns a conference held with representatives of French
authorities. We see in the document the expression “Judenmaterial,”
which was translated in a roundabout way by the words “Jewish
livestock.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1226. I should like to read, if the
Tribunal please, the first paragraph of this document which is very
revealing both in regard to the collaboration with the transport
services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities. The
memorandum is the sequel to a telephone conversation between the
signatory Röthke and the SS Obersturmführer Eichmann at Berlin:

    “The SS Obersturmführer Eichmann in Berlin telephoned on 14 July
    1942 about 1900 hours. He wished to know why the train provided
    for the transport of 15 July 1942 had been cancelled. I replied
    that originally the star bearers in the provinces were to be
    arrested too but that by virtue of a new agreement with the
    French Government only stateless Jews were to be arrested to
    begin with.

    “The train due to leave on 15 July 1942 had to be cancelled
    because, according to information received by the SD Kommando at
    Bordeaux, there were only 150 stateless Jews in Bordeaux. There
    was no time to find enough other Jews to fill this train. SS
    Obersturmführer Eichmann replied that it was a question of
    prestige. They had to conduct lengthy negotiations about these
    trains with the Reichsminister of Transportation, which turned
    out successfully; and now Paris cancels a train. Such a thing
    had never happened to him before. The matter was highly
    shameful. He did not wish to report it to SS Gruppenführer
    Müller right now, for the blame would fall on his own shoulders.
    He was reflecting whether he would not do without France as an
    evacuation country altogether.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1227, which gives statistics indicating
that up to the 2d of September 1942 27,069 Jews were evacuated and that
by the end of October a total figure of 52,069 might be reached. They
are anxious to accelerate the pace and to attack also the Jews in the
unoccupied zone of France.

I now submit Document Number RF-1228. It is also an account of a
conference where there were invited representatives of the French
authorities. I should like to read only the last paragraph of this
document:

    “On the occasion of the meeting which took place on 28 August
    1942 in Berlin, it was stated that most of the European
    countries are much nearer to a final solution of the Jewish
    problem than France. In fact, these countries began much
    earlier. We then must catch up with them in many matters between
    now and 31 October 1942.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1229 without reading it. It is a
memorandum by Dr. Knochen on this same subject of deportation dated 31
December 1942.

I now submit Document Number RF-1230, which is a memorandum dated 6
March 1943, headed, “Ref: Present Situation of the Jewish Question in
France.” In the first part of this document, the deportations are stated
to have reached a total of 49,000 Jews as on 6 March 1943. This is
followed by a statement of the nationalities, which are extremely
varied, of a certain number of Jews who were deported in addition to the
French Jews. Paragraph 3 of this memorandum is headed, “Attitude of the
Italians with Regard to the Jewish Question.” I shall read only the
first and the last lines of this long paragraph:

    “The attitude adopted up to now in the French territory occupied
    by Italy must be changed by all means if the Jewish problem is
    to be solved. A few conspicuous cases. . . .”

I break off the quotation here. These conspicuous cases were cases in
which the Italians opposed the arrest of Jews in the zone occupied by
them.

I now read the last paragraph:

    “A.A. has been informed by the RSHA (Eichmann) about proceedings
    of the Italians.”—A.A. appears to be the initials of the
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this is confirmed by the
    following sentence. I continue the quotation—“The Minister of
    Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, meant to discuss, in negotiations
    with the Duce, the attitude adopted by the Italians with regard
    to the Jewish question. We do not yet know the results of these
    discussions.”

I shall not submit Documents RF-1231 and RF-1232. I pass then to the
last documents which I want to present to the Tribunal. These documents
relate more specifically to the deportation of children.

I submit Document Number RF-1233, which is a memorandum by Dannecker
dated 21 July 1942. I shall read Paragraph 2:

    “The question of deporting children has been examined with SS
    Obersturmbannführer Eichmann. He decided that as soon as
    deportations to the Government General could be resumed, convoys
    of children could be sent by rail. SS Obersturmführer Nowak
    promised to arrange about six convoys to the Government General
    at the end of August or the beginning of September, which may
    comprise all sorts of Jews (also disabled and old Jews).”

Now I offer in evidence Document Number RF-1234. It is a memorandum
dated 13 August 1942. Before pointing out the interest of this document
I remind the Tribunal that I have already submitted Document Number
RF-1219 and in that document there was a formula which I recall, namely,
“The possibility is left open of sending at a later date for children
under 16 who were left behind.” The Nazis wished to give the impression
that they deported entire families at the same time or at least that
they did not deport whole trainloads of children. To give this
impression, they invented a device which is wholly incredible unless you
actually see it in black and white: the mingling of children and adults
in definite proportions. I read Paragraph 4 of this Document Number
RF-1234:

    “The Jews arriving from the unoccupied zone will be mingled at
    Drancy with Jewish children now at Pithiviers and
    Beaune-la-Rolande, so that out of a total of 700 at least 500
    Jewish adults 300 to 500 Jewish children will be allotted.
    According to instructions of the Reich Security Main Office, no
    trains containing Jewish children only are to leave.”

I read the next sentence too:

    “Leguay has been told that 13 trainloads of Jews would also
    leave Drancy in September and that Jewish children from the
    unoccupied zone could be handed over.”

I now submit the last document of the series dealing with the Jewish
question, Document Number RF-1235. I am going to read it, as it is very
short.

    “6 April 1944, Lyons, 2010 hours. Subject: Home for Jewish
    Children at Izieu, Ain.

    “The home for Jewish children, ‘Child Colony,’ at Izieu (Ain)
    was raided this morning and a total of 41 children aged from 3
    to 13 were apprehended. Moreover, the arrest of the entire
    Jewish personnel, numbering 10 in all and including 5 women was
    successfully carried out. Money or other property could not be
    seized. The convoy for Drancy will leave on 7 April 1944.”

This document also bears a memorandum written by hand and couched in the
following terms:

    “Matter discussed in the presence of Dr. V. B. and
    Hauptsturmführer Brunner. Dr. V. B. stated that in cases of this
    kind, special measures were provided for the billeting of the
    children by the Obersturmführer Röthke. The Hauptsturmführer
    Brunner stated that he knew of no such instructions or plans and
    that on principle he did not approve of such special measures.
    In this case he would also follow the lines of the usual
    regulations for deportation. For the moment I made no decision
    affecting the principle in this respect.”

For me what is even more striking and more horrible than the concrete
fact of removing these children is the administrative color given to the
proceedings, the report made through official channels, the meeting at
which different officials placidly discussed the matter as if it were
part of the normal business of the department. All the administrative
mechanism of the State—I am speaking of the Nazi State—was set in
motion on such an occasion and for such a purpose. It is a perfect
illustration of the word used by Dannecker in his report: “The cold
manner.”

I now present the Tribunal with a continuation under the same head,
including a certain number of documents which have been collected in
order to show in accordance with our general line of presentation the
perpetual interference of the German administrative services.

As I am a little behind my timetable, I shall give the numbers of only
those documents which I should like to offer in evidence and which I
have no time to describe. These documents will be numbered Documents
RF-1238 to 1249.

I would like to read to the Tribunal only the document which bears the
Number RF-1243, which is interesting as showing the organic character
and the juridical claims of the German organizations. I shall quote a
few sentences from this document:

    “In the report made by the Chief of the Administrative Staff on
    experience concerning the arrest from 7 to 14 December 1941 it
    was proposed to evade the execution of hostages in the future by
    having the death sentences passed through court-martial
    proceedings.”

I shall skip the following two lines and continue:

    “The reprisal will be carried out by pronouncing and inflicting
    capital punishment on prisoners who would normally be sentenced
    only to imprisonment, or else be acquitted altogether. To
    influence the discretion of the judge concerning the meting out
    of punishment for committing murder or sabotage would answer the
    formalistic legal reasoning of the French.”

I should like now, in the last paragraph of my presentation, to submit
documentary evidence in connection with criminal actions of which the
Tribunal has not yet been informed and which involve the personal
responsibility of certain of the defendants present here. I must remind
you that the criminal actions of the Nazis took extremely varied forms
which have already been put before the Tribunal at some length. A
particularly new and unusual manifestation of this consisted in causing
crimes to be committed by organized bands of murderers, who were
ordinary criminals, under conditions which made it appear as if these
crimes were committed by ordinary bandits or even by resistance
organizations which they tried in this way to dishonor.

Such crimes were committed in all the occupied countries; but the
precautions taken, with good reason, to camouflage them sometimes make
it difficult to trace back the responsibility for these crimes to the
ringleaders, the leaders of the Nazi State. We were able to find this
evidence in the records of proceedings instituted in Denmark. All the
elements are contained in Danish reports of which we were able to get
possession only a short time ago.

I can indicate the position very briefly. It concerns a series of
murders which were committed in Denmark and which were known as
“compensatory” or “clearing” murders. This definition is
explained. . . .

Counsel for the Defense tells me that there is an error in translation
in the last document which I read—RF-1243. He says that “acquittal” is
not the correct translation of “Begnadigung.” As I do not know German,
it is quite possible that this error exists and that the word means
“pardon.”

THE PRESIDENT: Which part of the document?

M. FAURE: This error really exists. I hope the Tribunal will excuse me,
because there is a considerable amount of translation work. I shall read
line 14 of Document Number RF-1243: “. . . who would normally be
sentenced to imprisonment only or else be acquitted altogether.”
According to Counsel for the Defense that should be, “. . . who would
normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be pardoned.” The
construction of the sentence does not seem to be as good when this word
is used, which explains the error in translation if there was one. In
any case, I think it is sufficient to note the instructions given: The
imposition of “capital sentences” in cases where only a sentence of
imprisonment would normally have been justified.

To come back to the subject I was discussing, I should like to make the
situation clear by reading the definition given in the Danish report. It
is found on Page 19 of the supplementary memorandum of the Danish
Government. This document was submitted last Saturday under Number
RF-901. As it is very bulky, I see that it is not included in the
document book but that the passages which I cite can be found in my
brief.

The page numbers start again at the end of this brief, and I am now on
Page 3 in the last series of numbers. I quote Page 19 of the Danish
report:

    “From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of
    them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily
    shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two
    men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the
    door. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I do not have it. Is it in this dossier of the
administrative and juridical organization of the criminal actions? Under
which document?

M. FAURE: It is not in the document book. It is in the dossier of the
brief.

THE PRESIDENT: No. In the dossier? Which part of the dossier?

M. FAURE: It is the last part of the dossier. The numbering of the pages
starts again after Page 76. If the Tribunal will turn to Page 76, the
page numbers begin again after that with Page 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it.

M. FAURE: I read from Page 19 of the report, the extract reproduced on
Page 3:

    “From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of
    them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily
    shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two
    men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the
    door they were shot by these unknown persons. Or, someone would
    pretend to be ill and go to a doctor during the latter’s
    consulting hour. When the doctor entered the room, the unknown
    shot him. At other times, unknown men would force their way into
    a house and kill the owner in front of his wife and his
    children, or else a man would be ambushed in the street by
    civilians and shot.”

I do not need to read the following paragraph. I go on reading at the
last paragraph on Page 19:

    “As the number of victims increased it was borne in upon the
    Danes, to their amazement, that there was a certain political
    motive behind all these murders; for they realized that in one
    way or another the Germans were the instigators.

    “After the capitulation of the German forces in Denmark,
    investigations by the Danish police established the fact that
    all these murders, running into hundreds, were in reality
    committed on the direct orders of the supreme authorities and
    with the active collaboration of Germans who occupied the
    highest positions in Denmark.”

I end my quotation here and I shall summarize what follows: The Danish
authorities were able to clear up these criminal affairs, 267 in number;
and they are analyzed in the official Danish report and the documents
attached to it. These acts consisted not only in actual crimes but also
in other criminal activities, notably explosions. It was established
that all these acts were committed by bands, consisting of Germans and
some Danes, who constituted real groups of bandits but who acted, as I
am going to prove to you, on orders from the highest quarters.

The Danish report contains in particular the detailed story of the
investigation made into the first of these crimes, whose victim was Kaj
Munk, the well-known Danish poet and pastor of a parish. The crime was
confessed by the men who carried it out.

I summarize the document in order not to take too much time. The pastor
was taken from his home, forced into a vehicle, and killed on the
highway. His body was found next day with a sign pinned on it with the
words, “Swine, you worked for Germany just the same.”

The Tribunal sees how many similar crimes were committed in the vilest
possible way. Now one of the first things discovered was that the
members of the gangs of bandits who committed these different crimes had
all received a personal letter of congratulation from Himmler. The text
of this letter, which was found on one of the murderers, constitutes
Appendix 14 of the Danish report; and, on the other hand, we have here
photostatic copies with Himmler’s signature.

But these extraordinary crimes involve in the most incredible way other
persons responsible besides Himmler, himself. The Danish police were
able to arrest Günther Pancke, who exercised the functions of Chief of
Police in Denmark from 1 November 1943.

The inquiry was established by the tribunal of first instance in
Copenhagen and is in the Danish report. It contains an account of the
interrogation of Günther Pancke on 25 August 1945. It is necessary for
me to read to the Tribunal an extract from this document, which involves
several of the defendants. I quote:

    “On 30 December 1943 Pancke and Best were present at a meeting
    at the Führer’s headquarters attended by Hitler, Himmler,
    Kaltenbrunner, General Von Hannecken, Keitel, Jodl, Schmundt,
    and others. This agrees with Best’s diary for 30 December 1943.
    There is a copy of this. A representative of the German Foreign
    Office also attended; but Pancke does not remember his name nor
    whether the person in question made a speech. During the first
    part of the meeting, Hitler was in a very bad temper and
    everything led one to believe that the information that he had
    obtained concerning the situation in Denmark was rather
    exaggerated.”

I should like to skip the following page, which is not indispensable and
go on to Page 14 of my brief. In the passage which I am omitting, the
witness Pancke reports that he and Dr. Best advised that saboteurs be
fought in a legal way. He also points out on Page 14 that Hitler—I
quote—“ . . . was strongly opposed to the proposals of Pancke and Best,
declaring there could be absolutely no question of judging saboteurs
before a tribunal.” He then said that such methods would lead to those
condemned being considered as heroes.

I resume the quotation on Page 15, Line 3:

    “There was only one way of dealing with saboteurs, namely, to
    kill them, preferably, at the moment when the crime was
    committed; otherwise, on arrest. Both of them received strict
    orders from Hitler personally to start compensatory murders.
    Pancke replied that it was very difficult and dangerous to shoot
    people on arrest, as they could not be sure when the arrest was
    made if the person arrested was really a saboteur. Hitler
    demanded compensatory murders in the proportion of at least five
    to one. In other words: Five Danes were to die for every German
    killed.”

The rest of the document shows that General Von Hannecken made a report
on the military situation. I shall read this paragraph, Page 16 of my
brief:

    “Moreover, General Keitel took part in the conversation; but he
    confined himself to a proposal to reduce food rations in Denmark
    to the same level as rations in Germany. This proposal was
    rejected by all the three representatives in Denmark. As a
    result, the meeting ended with Hitler’s express order to Pancke
    to start compensatory murders and counter-sabotage. After this
    meeting, Pancke had a conversation alone with Himmler, who told
    him that he, Pancke, had now been told by the Führer, himself,
    how to act and that he thought that he could rely on Pancke to
    execute the order which he had received. It seemed that up to
    now he had executed only those of Himmler. Pancke knows that
    Best had a conversation with Ribbentrop immediately after the
    meeting, but doesn’t remember the result.”

The document then shows that these compensatory murders were carried
out, not in the proportion of five to one, but in the proportion of one
for one. It shows that reports on these compensatory murders were sent
to Berlin.

I read on Page 18 of my brief, second paragraph:

    “Pancke explained that in his opinion these murders were decreed
    deliberately by the supreme jurisdiction in Germany, as being
    necessary for the protection of Germans stationed in Denmark and
    Danes working for Germany; and so Pancke had to obey the order.
    Bovensiepen stated the facts and made suggestions when subjects
    of importance were raised. Pancke does not know whether
    Bovensiepen selected his own subjects in every case or whether
    in certain cases the subjects were selected by his subalterns;
    but he, too, said that he was subjected to strong pressure from
    the military side, especially from General Von Hannecken,
    although General Von Hannecken was at first opposed to reprisals
    by terror. Later still more pressure was exercised by Colonel
    General Lindemann. When soldiers were killed or damage was
    caused to military objectives, Pancke was immediately asked what
    steps he had taken and what they were to report to general
    headquarters, that is, to Hitler himself, from a military point
    of view. Pancke had to give a satisfactory reply, and he also
    had to take action.”

I end my quotation here. General Pancke then explains how these terror
groups were organized.

I must now say that the Danish police were also able to arrest Dr. Best,
the German plenipotentiary, and make an inventory of his papers. Among
them they found Dr. Best’s private diary. This diary has one leaf, dated
30 December 1943, which agrees with the information given in the
preceding testimony about the meeting held on 30 December 1943 in the
Führer’s tea house. This is at Page 21.

    “Lunch with Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer Himmler, Dr.
    Kaltenbrunner, SS Obergruppenführer Mr. Pancke, Field Marshal
    Keitel, General Jodl, General Von Hannecken, Lieutenant General
    Schmundt, Brigade Lieutenant Scherff. Lunch and discussions on
    the Danish question lasted from 1400 to 1630 hours.”

Dr. Best was naturally interrogated on the subject. From official Danish
documents, extracts from which are found on Page 23 of my brief, it
appears that Dr. Best corroborated the note in his diary dated 30
December which I have cited. With regard to the fundamental questions
concerned, here is what Dr. Best says at the bottom of Page 23:

    “Dr. Best does not remember whether Hitler, who spoke at
    considerable length, said anything about compensatory murders
    being carried out in the proportion of five to one. Himmler and
    Kaltenbrunner agreed with Hitler. The rest of those present
    apparently expressed no opinion. The names given by Best agree
    with Pancke’s list.”—This is on Page 24—“The Ministry of
    Foreign Affairs was not represented, so that Sonnleitner did not
    attend the conference. After the conference, Dr. Best had a
    conversation alone with Ribbentrop, to whom he explained what
    had taken place. Ribbentrop shared his opinion that some protest
    should be made against such methods but that after all, nothing
    could be done.”

It is proved, therefore, that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, and
Jodl were present at a department meeting where it was decided that
murder, pure and simple, should be organized in Denmark. The witnesses
certainly do not say that the Defendants Keitel and Jodl showed any
enthusiasm for this proposal, but it is established that they were
present and that they were present in the exercise of their functions
along with their subordinate, the military commander of Denmark. This is
a question of responsibility for several hundred murders abominable in
themselves but undoubtedly constituting only a small part of the crimes
implied by the Prosecution and carried out on millions of victims. I
think, however, that it is important to learn that the military and
diplomatic leaders knew and accepted the systematic organization of acts
of banditry and murders committed by professional killers who fled when
they had committed their crimes.

The documents which I have just cited are the last of the series which I
wanted to present to the Tribunal. I shall not follow them up by
commentary. I think that there is so much monotony and at the same time
so many shades of variety in the innumerable crimes committed by the
Nazis that the human mind finds it difficult to grasp their whole
extent. Each of these crimes has in itself all the intensity of horror
and reflects the distorted values of the doctrine responsible for them.
If it be true that life has any meaning whatsoever, if there is around
and within us anything else than “sound and fury,” such a doctrine must
be condemned with the men who originated it and directed its
enterprises.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us what is proposed for tomorrow?

M. FAURE: Tomorrow, M. Gerthoffer will, if it suits the Tribunal, make a
statement on pillage of works of art. A problem is involved here. For at
the time when this would normally have been done, we decided to dispense
with it, thinking that a reference to the American documents would be
sufficient. On consulting our American colleagues, however, it appeared
that they themselves relied on that part of the matter being presented
by the French Prosecution. So, if the Tribunal does not object to our
returning to the subject now, a statement will be presented to this
effect.

On the other hand, one of the magistrates of the French Delegation
proposes to present a brief which recapitulates systematically the
charges against each of the defendants, according to the documents and
briefs submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would hope that the exposé on the
pillage of objects of art will be quite short because it must be
cumulative, because you will remember that we had at some stage of the
Trial presented to us 39 books, or 30, or some number of books of
objects of art which had been taken away from various parts of Europe
and France and all photographed by the Germans themselves; and,
therefore, any evidence which would now be given would be cumulative to
that spoliation.

M. FAURE: That is why I asked the Tribunal whether it would agree to
this procedure; but at any rate, if the Tribunal considers that the
statement can be made, it will be only a very short statement which will
take about two hours.

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): If I understood M.
Faure correctly, he asked the Tribunal whether the confiscation and
plundering of works of art in France would again be dealt with tomorrow.
I should like to add that the American Prosecution has already declared
before this Tribunal that the question of the plundering of works of art
could not be dealt with again. Accordingly, I myself, representing
Rosenberg, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, representing Göring, took
steps to cancel the calling of witnesses whom we had planned to bring.
If, however, the French Prosecution intends to submit new material, we
must have these witnesses called again. For this reason, I should like
to ask the Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary for the
confiscation of works of art objects in France to be taken up once more.

THE PRESIDENT: I think defendant’s counsel must be wrong in thinking
that the United States counsel said anything which meant that the French
Prosecution could not produce evidence with reference to the spoliation
of objects of art. I can’t think the United States had any authority to
do that and I had understood myself that this part of the Prosecution
had been omitted by one of the French Counsel on account of the request
of the Tribunal to shorten their argument. Was that not so?

M. FAURE: That is quite true, Mr. President. Your interpretation is
exact.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would wish that the presentation
should be made, if the French Prosecutors wish it; and it should be made
as shortly as possible.

M. FAURE: Thank you.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 6 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-SECOND DAY
                       Wednesday, 6 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, M. Gerthoffer will now present the
brief concerning the pillage of works of art.

M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic):
The Economic Section of the French Delegation had prepared a report on
the pillage of works of art in the occupied countries of western Europe.

We had thought, at the session of 22 January last, of waiving the
presentation of this statement in order to expedite the proceedings,
while holding ourselves at the disposal of the Tribunal should they
consider the presentation necessary. However, since then—on 31
January—the American Prosecutor was good enough to inform us that the
Defendant Rosenberg intended to maintain that the artistic treasures
were collected only in order to be “protected.”

We consider, from the documents which we are holding at the disposal of
the Court, that this cannot be a question of protection only but that
this was genuine spoliation; and I am at the Tribunal’s disposal to
prove this, in a statement which I shall make as brief as possible,
while offering in evidence the documents which we had already collected.
If the Tribunal wish, I can make this very brief statement. In any case,
I am at the disposal of the Tribunal.

Mr. President, Gentlemen, the pillage of works of art has a cultural
significance to which I shall not refer again since it was the subject
of a statement presented by Colonel Storey on 18 December 1945. I shall
simply regard the subject from the economic point of view in order to
complete the report on the general spoliation of the western European
countries.

As the Tribunal will realize, the leaders of the Reich primarily and
systematically seized works of art belonging to private individuals,
mostly under the pretext that these individuals were Jews, thus
procuring for themselves very valuable means of exchange. In Belgium,
Holland, Luxembourg, and France picture galleries, public as well as
private collections, ancient furniture, china, and jewelry were stolen.

It was not a question of individual looting, of pillaging by soldiers,
such as is encountered in all wars and of which we still find examples;
this campaign of plunder was carried out in a systematic and disciplined
manner. The methods introduced varied in character. Personal judgment
and personal initiative could be exercised only insofar as they
contributed to the execution of plans already elaborated by the National
Socialist leaders before the month of June 1940.

The official organization for pillaging was primarily Minister
Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab for the occupied territories of western Europe
and the Netherlands. If this organization was not the sole agent, it was
the most important one. Colonel Storey has already drawn the attention
of the Tribunal to this criminal behavior.

The urge to seize works of art, as well as material wealth, underlies
the policy of National Socialist expansion. The behavior in Poland of
the Defendant Frank has already given sufficient proof of this. The idea
of protecting this valuable booty arose at the time of the invasion of
western Europe. From the very beginning, in their haste and their desire
to seize as much as they could, several parallel authorities would carry
out the confiscations, firstly by the military authorities, either
indirectly, as in Holland through the special services of the
Devisenschutzkommando or directly as in France through the Department
for the Protection of Works of Art. Further, the same mission was
entrusted simultaneously to the civil authorities, whether represented
by the German Embassy in Paris or, in Holland, the Office for Enemy
Property under the auspices of the Reich Commissioner. This plurality of
control, moreover, did not end with the establishment of the Rosenberg
Staff.

This is the first phase in the pillage of works of art. According to
official correspondence, as well as to the statements of Otto Abetz, the
initiative may be attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
beginning with the Defendant Ribbentrop. The first phase lasted from the
entrance of the Germans into the countries of western Europe until
October 1940.

The second phase opened with the arrival of Einsatzstab Rosenberg which
appeared on the scene under the aegis of the Defendant Göring. From now
on this Einsatzstab must be considered primarily responsible for the
organized pillage.

Towards July 1942 a third phase opens in the history of the Staff
Rosenberg. The person primarily responsible is the Defendant Alfred
Rosenberg. The activities of this staff did not cease in Europe until
the liberation. One part of the archives of the Rosenberg services fell
into the hands of the French armies; another part, which had been sent
to Füssen, was seized by the American Army which also picked up the
archives of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the origin of the PS
documents submitted to the Tribunal.

The seizure of works of art began with the entrance of the German troops
into Holland, Belgium, and France. In Paris, as from the month of June,
there was an Embassy service directed by Dr. Von Kunsberg and Dr.
Dirksen similar to a specialized service of the Military Governor
directed by Count Wolff Metternich. This order of seizure, in defiance
of the Hague Convention, applied to public as well as to private
property. The Defendant Keitel, on 30 June 1940, issued an order to the
Governor of Paris, General Von Bockelberg. I submit a copy of this order
as Document Number RF-1301. Here it is:

    “The Führer, on receiving the report of the Reich Minister for
    Foreign Affairs, has issued an order to safeguard for the time
    being, in addition to objects of art belonging to the French
    State, also such works of art and antiquities which constitute
    private property. Especially Jewish private property is to be
    taken in custody by the occupational power against removal or
    concealment, after having been labelled with the names of their
    present French owners. There is no intention of expropriation
    but certainly of a transfer into our custody to serve as a pawn
    in the peace negotiations.”

Identical measures were soon taken in Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
Exhibit Number RF-1302, which is a document discovered by the Army of
the United States and which was registered under Document Number 137-PS,
a copy of which I submit, was drawn up by Defendant Keitel on 5 July
1940:

    “Reichsleiter Rosenberg has suggested the following to the
    Führer:

    “1. State libraries and archives to be searched for documents of
    value to Germany.

    “2. The chancelleries and high authorities of the Church, as
    well as the Masonic lodges, to be searched for proofs of
    political activities directed against us and the proofs in
    question to be seized.

    “The Führer has ordered that this suggestion be carried out and
    that the Gestapo, assisted by the archivists of Reichsleiter
    Rosenberg, be placed in charge of the search. The Chief of the
    Security Police, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, has been informed.
    He is to contact the military commander competent to deal with
    the execution of these orders.

    “These measures to be executed in all regions of the
    Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France which are occupied
    by us.

    “It is requested that subordinate offices be informed.

    “The Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, (signed)
    Keitel.”

I submit under Exhibit Number RF-1303 a copy of Document Number 139-PS,
drawn up for Holland and expressed in approximately the same terms, and
under Exhibit Number RF-1304 I submit a copy of Document Number 140-PS
which is an analogous order for Belgium.

At the same time, by a decree of 15 July 1940 in execution of Keitel’s
orders, a decree for the protection of works of art was issued in the
occupied territories. This decree appeared in the German _Official
Bulletin_ VOBIF Number 3, Page 49 and following. I submit a copy of this
decree under Document Number RF-1305, and I request the permission of
the Tribunal to quote the two following paragraphs:

First paragraph, Section 1:

    “Moveable works of art will not be taken from the place where
    they are at present or modified in any way whatsoever without
    the written authorization of a commander of the military
    administration.”

Section 3:

    “Moveable works of art whose value exceeds 100,000 francs must
    be declared by their owners or custodians in writing prior to 15
    August 1940, to the competent field command or some other
    authority indicated by the latter.”

If the Tribunal will kindly recall the explanation which I had the honor
of presenting 2 weeks ago, it will remember that the Germans had, at the
same time, issued similar decrees for freezing or immobilizing private
property, currency, and other wealth.

In this decree, intended to be known by the population of the occupied
territories, the question of safekeeping and confiscation had not yet
arisen; the decree merely dealt with immobilization and
declaration—preparatory measures, these, to future spoliation, and an
indication of bad faith to be remembered.

Beginning with that period, seizures of the most famous French-Jewish
art collections were carried out; seizures made under such conditions
that they provoked numerous protests which were submitted to the
Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden. I submit in the document book, as
Document Number RF-1306, a letter of the French Secretary for Finance of
18 December 1941 containing one of these protests. So as not to waste
the time of the Tribunal I shall not quote the document but shall merely
offer it in evidence.

No dividing line was drawn between the activities or powers of civil
authorities and those of military authorities. There were conflicts and
rivalries but as from March 1941 Staff Rosenberg occupied the
foreground; and it is possible to say that from 1940 to 1944 it enjoyed
a monopoly in the confiscation of works of art in Luxembourg, Belgium,
Holland, and France. Staff Rosenberg originated in the Office of Foreign
Affairs of the Party. Hence the first function, in theory, of Staff
Rosenberg, consisted in gathering political material which could and
might be exploited in the struggle against Jewry and Free Masonry by the
Hohe Schule. This is the Advance School, whose purpose Hitler defined in
his order of 29 January 1940 to be found in the American documentation
under Number 136-PS, a copy of which I submit in evidence as Exhibit
Number RF-1308. The document is very brief and I shall read it to the
Tribunal:

    “The Hohe Schule is some day to become the center for National
    Socialist doctrinal research and education. It will be
    established after the war. However, in order to expedite the
    preparatory work already initiated, I order that Reichsleiter
    Alfred Rosenberg continue this preparatory work, especially in
    the field of research and the establishment of a library. The
    offices of the Party and the State organizations are required to
    support his work in every way.

    “Berlin 29 January 1940, (signed) Adolf Hitler.”

Entrusted with the finding and seizing of Jewish collections which had
been left “ownerless” in the occupied territories, Staff Rosenberg did
not content itself with looting private houses; its activities also
applied to the seizure of many trusts, especially of those deposited in
strong boxes in banks. This is evident from the passage of the document
that I submit as Document Number RF-1307 from which, the Tribunal
permitting, I shall read a passage. This is on Page 2 of the translation
and is also to be found in the brief:

    “On 26 September 1941 M. Braumüller, acting on Rosenberg’s
    behalf, removed two cases filled with objects of art, which are
    listed and deposited with the agency of the Société Générale at
    Arcachon under the name of the depositor, M. Philippe de
    Rothschild, who has not yet regained his French nationality.”

As a matter of fact, the field of activity of Staff Rosenberg was not
confined to the pillage of Jewish or Masonic property. It rapidly
absorbed all it could of the artistic heritage of the occupied
countries, a heritage which Staff Rosenberg appropriated by invariably
illegal means without distinguishing between private property and public
property.

This action of Staff Rosenberg was inspired by the orders of the
Defendant Göring himself. It is thus that I submit as Exhibit Number
RF-1309, a document, discovered by the Army of the United States and
filed under Document Number 141-PS, which consists of an order of the
Defendant Göring, Paris, dated 5 November 1940 and which extends the
activities of Staff Rosenberg. Here is the order:

    “To carry out the present measures for safeguarding Jewish
    property taken over by the Chief of the Military Administration
    in Paris and by Einsatzstab Rosenberg, the following procedure
    will be observed in connection with the art treasures deposited
    at the Louvre:

    “1. Those art objects regarding which the Führer has reserved to
    himself the right of further disposal,

    “2. those art objects which could serve to complete the
    collection of the Reich Marshal,

    “3. those art objects and libraries which appear suitable for
    equipping the Hohe Schule within Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s sphere
    of duty.”

THE PRESIDENT: I think this document has already been read, M.
Gerthoffer. I think this document was read by Colonel Storey.

M. GERTHOFFER: I shall omit the quotation, Mr. President.

I now come to an order, issued by the Defendant Keitel, of 17 September
1940, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1310, filed in the
American documents as Document Number 138-PS. Here is the principal
passage:

    “Implementing the order of the Führer transmitted to
    Reichsleiter Rosenberg and made known to you at the time, to the
    effect that the premises of Masonic lodges, together with
    libraries and archives in the occupied countries, must be
    searched for material of value to Germany and that this material
    must be safeguarded by the Gestapo, the Führer has made the
    following decision:

    “Reichsleiter Rosenberg, or his representative
    Reichshauptstellenleiter Ebert, has received from the Führer,
    personally, unequivocal instructions concerning the right of
    confiscation. He is authorized to transport to Germany such
    objects which appear to him of value and to place them here in
    security. You are requested to inform the competent military
    commanders or offices.”

The activities of Staff Rosenberg were multiple. Thus, for instance, on
18 December 1941, Rosenberg suggested to Hitler the seizure of Jewish
furniture in the occupied territories of the West to serve for the
establishments of Party organizations in the regions of the East.

Here is a copy of the document which was discovered by the Army of the
United States, which bears the Document Number 001-PS, a copy of which I
include in the document book under Exhibit Number RF-1311.

    “Everywhere in the East the administration found terrible
    housing conditions, and the possibilities of getting supplies
    are so limited that it is practically impossible to obtain
    anything. That is why I request the Führer to concede that the
    furniture belonging to Jews who have fled, or those who are
    leaving Paris or any of the occupied territories of the West, be
    confiscated in order to supplement, as far as possible, the
    furniture for the establishments of the eastern administration.”

I have reached the bottom of Page 15.

Moreover, the Germans concealed their intentions. This is evident from
the letter, dated 28 February 1942, addressed to the German Armistice
Commission by the German Military Commander in France, of which I offer
a photograph as Document Number RF-1312, Page 16. Here are a few
extracts from this letter:

    “Taking into consideration the special mission entrusted to
    Staff Rosenberg for seizing art objects of Jewish ownership,
    protests by the French Government against the activities of
    Staff Rosenberg have always been forwarded by us to the OKH
    while the reply was sent to the French Government that the
    protest has been forwarded to the office in charge in Berlin for
    investigation and decision.”

Further on, in the same letter, we read:

    “The mission of Staff Rosenberg must, as in the past, be kept
    secret from the French authorities.”

A letter addressed to the Section Chief of the Military Administration
in Paris of 7 April 1942, which I offer in evidence as Document Number
RF-1313, contains the same directives. Here is the passage:

    “Furniture belonging to Jews of English or American nationality
    will not be confiscated for the time being but only the
    furniture of Jews who are nationals of the Reich or of a country
    partially or totally occupied by the Reich or of Jews who are
    stateless. The confiscated objects become the property of the
    Reich. No receipt will be given. The right of third parties,
    especially those of lessors or of owners of store houses, is to
    be considered as cancelled.”

Further on in the same instructions, Page 17 of the brief:

    “6. The operations must be carried out as discreetly as
    possible. As to general questions, inquiries by the local French
    authorities concerning the operations must be answered verbally
    to the effect that these are punitive measures ordered by a
    higher authority. Further arguments are to be avoided.
    Individual complaints are to be forwarded to the Einsatzstab.”

And further on:

    “Discussions by the press concerning the utilization of vacant
    Jewish premises are undesirable for the time being.”

I turn to Page 19 in the brief to quote a very short passage of a letter
dated 18 June 1942, signed by Rosenberg and addressed to the Defendant
Göring. I offer in evidence a copy of this letter as Document Number
RF-1314. Here is the passage which I shall read to the Tribunal. Page 20
of the brief, Page 2 of the document book:

    “Some time ago I explicitly approved the instructions given by
    the Chief of my Einsatzstab, Stabsführer Party member Utikal,
    that Party member Dr. Lohse of the Bildende Kunst Office be put
    at your disposal for any purpose you may desire.”

I now come to a few explanations, Gentlemen, on the seizure operations,
Page 22 of my written report:

    “Since the first confiscations were made by the military
    authorities, the Devisenschutzkommando, and the German Embassy,
    Staff Rosenberg did not appear on the scene until the time when
    the great collective seizures had already been completed.

    “The greater part of the Rothschild, Kahn, Weil-Picard, and
    Wildenstein collections had been confiscated and they
    represented three-quarters of the total booty of Staff
    Rosenberg.”

As far as the methods which were used to seize these works of art are
concerned, I submit to the Tribunal a document which is a letter of the
Secretary of French Finance, dated 25 October 1941. I offer it in
evidence as Document Number RF-1315; and so as not to waste the
Tribunal’s time I shall merely deposit this document since it is quite
probable that my colleague will allude to it in his turn. Page 24 of the
written report. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: How do you prove that the greater part of the Rothschild,
Kahn, Weil-Picard, and Wildenstein collections was confiscated in the
middle of November 1940? What is the evidence of it?

M. GERTHOFFER: General information furnished by the Fine Arts
Department.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you put in a report of a government committee which
states that?

M. GERTHOFFER: No, Mr. President, I have not got the report in my
dossier. I did not believe it was necessary to present it in evidence,
because I thought that it was admitted that nearly all the Rothschild
collections were seized at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think we can take judicial notice of it in the
absence of some government report and simply upon the statement.

M. GERTHOFFER: I think the question is not of great interest.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal cannot take any notice of statements
which are not supported by evidence; therefore we shall disregard that
statement. We must have the evidence first.

M. GERTHOFFER: I consider that the question is not of interest, since
the Tribunal will soon see the enormous quantities of works of art which
were removed by the Germans and I thought it would be useless to mention
the individual owners by name.

THE PRESIDENT: I see that in the Document Number 1015-PS, which is in
your second document book, the facts are stated. I do not know whether
you are going to make use of that Exhibit Number RF-1323.

M. GERTHOFFER: Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS(b)) is the report
of Dr. Scholz on the activities of Staff Rosenberg. This report contains
details of quantities of works of art which were seized. I will quote
this document later on.

THE PRESIDENT: And it includes the dates October 1940 to July 1944, and
includes the Rothschild collection. I do not know whether it refers also
to the other collections which are mentioned in your exposé.

M. GERTHOFFER: I shall cite this document a little later on. The report
in question was also quoted on 18 December by Colonel Storey.

THE PRESIDENT: I intervened only for the purpose of saying that we
cannot take any notice of statements of facts unless there is some
evidence to support them.

M. GERTHOFFER: After the seizures had been effected (Page 44 of the
exposé) the Germans carried out the work of listing, cataloging, and
preparing for the presentation of the objects confiscated. This was a
very great task indeed, rendered excessively long and complicated by
lack of order and method. Objects of art were brought to the museum of
the Jeu de Paume and to the Louvre; they arrived mostly in one sole lot
and from extremely varied sources, hence the impossibility of drawing up
an inventory of the objects seized. The vast quantity of material was
classified as “Unknown” insofar as its origin was concerned.
Nevertheless, in a report of Staff Rosenberg of 15 April 1943,
discovered by the Army of the United States and registered under
Document Number 172-PS, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number
RF-1316, we find the following passage:

    “By this detailed study of the material confiscated, an
    absolutely reliable basis has been afforded for a final and
    summary account of the entire operation of seizure. The
    preliminary studies were made in such a way that after
    formulation of the final report the latter has to be considered,
    in every respect, as an incontestable document of a historically
    significant seizure of works of art unique in its kind.”

I come to Page 26 of my brief. Certain of these works of art were
considered by the Germans as degenerate, and their admittance into
National Socialist territory was forbidden. Theoretically speaking they
should have been destroyed; but within the scope of total war economy
these pictures, although condemned, were none the less of commercial
value and as a means of barter their value was both definite and high.
So these pictures, carefully selected from among the great public
collections and from private collections, were confiscated; and as
already provided for in Section 5 of the decree of 5 November 1940,
placed on the French and German art markets. In addition to these
condemned pictures, others were set aside as being of lesser interest in
the official collections. They formed the object of numerous fraudulent
transactions.

We now come to the traffic in works of art. We are not, in this case,
dealing with secret and unlawful operations, the personal acts of
such-and-such a member of the Rosenberg Service; we are dealing with
official operations. Two kinds of operations were currently carried out
by the Einsatzstab, that is, exchanges and sales.

Exchanges. On this subject we have, by way of an example, the evidence
of M. Gustav Rochlitz, received by the examining judge, M. Frapié, in
Paris on 6 January 1946. I submit the evidence as Document Number
RF-1317 and shall read a passage to the Tribunal.

    “During the years 1941 and 1942 I exchanged various old pictures
    for 80 modern ones, delivered by Lohse, who always told me that
    these exchanges were carried out on Göring’s order, and that the
    pictures received had been intended for Göring. I have since
    learned that all the pictures given in exchange are contained in
    the Göring collection. I delivered in exchange about 35
    pictures, possibly more.”

These facts are confirmed by the Defendant Rosenberg himself in the last
lines of his report of 15 April 1943, filed under Document Number 172-PS
already quoted, of which I have entered a copy under Exhibit Number
RF-1316. Here is an interesting passage of the report.

    “By order of the Reich Marshal a certain number of these works
    of modern and degenerate French art were favorably bartered with
    French art dealers for pictures of a recognized artistic value.
    In this way, 87 works of old Italian, Dutch, and German masters
    of high and recognized value were acquired on very favorable
    conditions.”

Numerous works of art, books, and especially pictures, were sold by
representatives of Staff Rosenberg. Some were sold in France, others in
Germany or Switzerland. The fact that this was a calculated procedure is
evident if we consider that the value of these pictures, confiscated
under the legally fallacious pretext of keeping them in safe custody,
could be realized if they were sold on neutral markets and paid for in
foreign currency.

I now consider that I should give you some brief explanations of the
justifications offered by the Germans concerning their confiscations.
Primarily these justifications are mere quibbles relating to the nature
of the seizures. The seizures were only temporary and preservative
measures for the safekeeping of the art treasures. Count Metternich,
Chief of the Department for the Protection of Works of Art in France
from July 1940 to 1942, made this point quite clear in a report, a copy
of which has been discovered in France and which I submit as Document
Number RF-1318. Here are some brief excerpts from this report, at the
bottom of Page 29 of the exposé:

    “Shortly after arriving in France, I realized that various
    departments which did not belong to the Military Administration
    were interested in removable objects of art.”

And further on, in the same paragraph:

    “It has been said that there was no intention of expropriation
    but that these objects were to be considered as pawns to be used
    in future peace negotiations. No detailed instructions were
    given as to how the operations should be carried out; and in
    particular, no interpretation was given of the term ‘custody’.”

The vague expression “in custody” has been subjected to every variety of
interpretation. According to some the seizure was only a temporary
measure, although the question of definite appropriation nevertheless
remained unclarified. For the Defendant Rosenberg the solution was
simple; he expresses it in a letter, previously quoted, of 18 June 1942
addressed to Göring, which I have just submitted under Document Number
RF-1314. This is the relevant passage:

    “I therefore believe you will be in agreement with me on this
    point, namely, that art objects of Jewish ownership taken into
    custody should be considered as seized for the benefit of the
    NSDAP. With regard to material for research work, the Führer has
    already decided that these objects, now in the custody of the
    Einsatzstab, shall become the property of the Hohe Schule. It
    would be only just and fair that the great art treasures now in
    custody should one day become the property of the NSDAP.
    Needless to say, the decision of this question rests with the
    Führer. However, since the NSDAP has financed a war of 20 years’
    standing against Jewry, such a decision would appear
    permissible.”

And we are justified in saying that these confiscations are now no
longer measures of preservation or requisition, but a species of booty
which perforce must fall into the hands of a German people triumphing
over the Jewish race whom they have outlawed.

In a report justifying their action, demanded by the Army Commander and
drawn up on the order of the Defendant Rosenberg by the Chief of the
Einsatzstab, Utikal, in November 1941, the latter went so far as to
state—I submit this report as Documents RF-1319, RF-1320, and RF-1321;
and I quote a brief passage from the attached supplement Number RF-1321,
Page 31:

    “The German measures of reprisal against the Jews are likewise
    justified by international law. It is a recognized principle of
    international law that, in war, reprisals may be taken by
    resorting to the same procedures and the same concepts as
    primarily used by the enemy. Since time immemorial the Jews
    have, in their Jewish laws codified in the Talmud and the
    Schulchan Aruch, applied the principle that all non-Jews are to
    be considered as so much cattle, as outlaws; and the property of
    non-Jews should be dealt with as a thing which has been
    abandoned, that is to say, as derelict property.”

Thus, Gentlemen, the confiscations of the Einsatzstab were sheltered by
this strange interpretation of law. It seems useless to discuss the
value of this argument before the Tribunal. The Belgian, Dutch, and
French authorities made frequent protests, based on the most elementary
principles of international law, but always met with refusals.

It would at any rate be suitable to define the extent of these seizures.
It is difficult to give a total estimate, although Rosenberg, himself,
on several occasions made an estimate of his booty, especially in a
letter to the Treasurer of the Party, Schwarz, 14 November 1940, a
document discovered by the Army of the United States and bearing the
Document Number 1736-PS, a copy of which I offer in evidence as Exhibit
Number RF-1322. At that date Rosenberg already considered that the booty
amounted to 500,000,000 Reichsmark.

The documents of the Einsatzstab are sufficiently numerous and precise
to allow us to establish certain quantitative data. First, the seizures
by the General Staff for Art Treasures. The fundamental document is a
report of Dr. Scholz, dated 14 July 1944, which we have just mentioned.
This is Document Number 1015-PS, which was presented in part to the
Court by Colonel Storey and which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number
RF-1323. From this report I shall extract only some very brief
indications concerning the quantities of art objects carried off.

According to this report, 21,903 objects taken from 203 private
collections, were removed, notably from, the Rothschild, Alphons Kahn,
David Weil, Lévy de Benzion, and the Seligmann brothers collections.
According to the same report there were “all told, 29 transports, 137
trucks, and 4,174 cases.”

I shall not quote any further from this report, because I think that my
colleague, also entrusted with making the charges, will allude to it.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?

                        [_A recess was taken._]

M. GERTHOFFER: Staff Rosenberg was not only interested in paintings and
objects of art, but in books as well. Thus it appears, in a document
discovered by the United States Army and registered under Document
Number 171-PS, of which I submit a copy as Exhibit Number RF-1324, that
550,000 volumes were seized in France.

Holland also provided a heavy contribution in books. Libraries rich in
early prints, books, and manuscripts were pillaged. It appears from
Document Number 176-PS, discovered by the United States Army, a copy of
which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1325, that the value of the books
amounted to about thirty or forty million Reichsmark.

It must also be noted, as proved by Documents 178-PS and 171-PS, which I
submit as Exhibit Number RF-1326, that archives of the Rothschild Bank
were taken away in the month of February 1941.

Staff Rosenberg likewise pillaged furniture. This is quite evident from
a note addressed by the Defendant Rosenberg to the Führer, dated 3
October 1942, submitted under Document Number RF-1327. I read the
following passage:

    “For carrying out action ‘M’ the Dienststelle Westen was created
    in Paris with special branches (Einsatzleitungen) in Belgium,
    France, and the Netherlands. This service has to date sent about
    40,000 tons of furniture to the Reich, utilizing all available
    transport, ship, and railroad facilities. Since it was
    recognized that the needs of bombed-out people of the Reich
    should be given preference over the needs of those in the East,
    the Reich Ministry has placed a considerable part of this
    furniture (over 19,500 tons) at the disposal of bombed-out
    people in the Reich. . . .”

A copy of a Rosenberg report, dated 4 November 1943, Document Number
1737-PS(b), a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1328, tells
us:

    “52,828 Jewish lodgings were seized and sealed in favor of the
    bombed-out victims. Including special orders, furniture has been
    removed from 47,569 dwellings for shipment to the bombed
    cities.”

Document Number L-188, found by the American 7th Army, is a report
issued by the offices of the Defendant Rosenberg, Item 8 of which I
submit as Exhibit Number RF-1329, shows that over 69,619 Jewish lodgings
were looted, that the furniture occupied over 1 million cubic meters,
and that it took 26,984 freight cars, that is, 674 trains, to remove it.

In the same file there is a document which I submit, Document Number
RF-1330, which indicates that in Paris alone 38,000 Jewish lodgings were
emptied of their contents.

Document Number 1772-PS, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-1325,
indicates that in Holland, from March 1942 to July 1943 inclusive,
22,623 lodgings were emptied of their contents and that it took 586
barges and 178 freight cars to move this furniture. These few figures
undeniably suffice to support the accusation of economic pillage levied
against Staff Rosenberg on behalf of the western European countries.

As has already been stated, although the material elements of the breach
of the law remain unaltered, there can be no comparison between the
pillaging typical of the history of this or that conqueror and practiced
throughout the centuries, and the pillaging as understood by the
defendants.

What prevents any comparison between the past pillaging and the looting
practiced by Staff Rosenberg or the National Socialist chiefs, is the
difference in purpose, however difficult and delicate a matter it may be
to analyze it. The looting in the past of works of art may primarily be
traced to the vanity of the conqueror, in which his egoism, his taste,
and his love of glory played the determining part in the pillaging. It
is of course possible to identify the same feeling as underlying the
criminal activities of one or the other of the defendants. But—and here
we find the fundamental difference—the National Socialist leaders, when
estimating the value of this and that painting or of this or that work
of art, wittingly took into account both the standard of aesthetic
wealth, that is the value of the object to the individual, and the
standard of material wealth, that is its exchange value, an exchange
value in which it is a matter of retaining a pledge, if not to
facilitate, at least to bring pressure to bear when negotiating future
peace treaties, as is evident from the documents submitted to the
Tribunal.

Whatsoever the pretexts or excuses submitted by the National Socialist
leaders when seizing the artistic heritage of western Europe, whether by
theft, by so-called preservative confiscations, or by direct purchase
from the owners or the markets for the sale of objects of art, the
criminal intention is always the same.

The German motive was undeniably the establishment of a reserve of
securities, if not for the satisfaction of the individual desire, then
for the satisfaction of a collective need in conformity with the myth of
the “Greater Germany.”

This reserve of securities would have a triple advantage: A cultural
advantage, that is, the advantage of the Hohe Schule. Secondly, an
economic advantage, a basis for financial speculation and a reserve of
securities easily negotiable in the markets of the world; above all, a
reserve of fixed value entirely unaffected by the fluctuations in the
cost of raw materials and unaffected either by the lowering or the
manipulation of the currency. And, lastly, reserves of securities of
political importance in the hands of those negotiating the peace
treaties.

The Defense will perhaps object that exchanges and purchases on free
markets cannot be held against the defendants, because they are in the
nature of contracts, and there were agreements, and because equivalents
existed. But the facts presented to the Tribunal render it possible to
declare that these operations have merely an appearance of regularity,
if we remember the conditions under which the contracts were drawn up,
that the operations were made under duress, or if we consider the rights
over the equivalents supplied, equivalents of exchange represented by
stolen objects or works of art, by sales paid for in national currencies
coming from contributions of a more or less regular nature, and
especially by occupational indemnities or clearing operations.

Most of these particulars, from the point of view of the general
principles of criminal law, are doubly tainted: On the one hand they
were paid in stolen currency, since the work of art forming the object
of the sale could never legitimately have become the heritage of the
purchaser. On the other hand, fraud and deceit tainted a considerable
share of the negotiations, as proved by numerous statements, such as the
extract from the minutes of M. Rochlitz’s statement of 8 January 1946,
which I have just read to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-1317 and
which the Tribunal will allow me to recall to its notice by a brief
reading of a few more passages. Rochlitz, picture dealer in Paris,
states:

    “Lohse came to see me in February 1941. He told me that he was
    looking for pictures for different highly placed persons,
    chiefly for Göring. I showed to him a painting by Wennix of
    which I was the owner and a “Portrait of a Man,” by Titian, of
    which two-thirds belonged to Birchentski and one-third to me.
    Lohse bought them. Then 8 or 10 days later he offered me some
    paintings in exchange, instead of money. Incidentally he
    considered that I had sold the paintings at too high a price.
    The price was about 2,000,000. He added that Göring had seen the
    paintings, that he did not want to pay for them at the price
    agreed, but that he had given an order to exchange them for
    modern paintings brought from Germany. He showed me a certain
    number of paintings and offered me 11 of them in exchange for
    the 2 paintings. He prevented me from looking at the backs of
    the paintings.”

Further on, the same witness states:

    “I thought at that time that the paintings came from Germany. I
    found out shortly after that these paintings and those
    subsequently exchanged with Lohse were paintings confiscated
    from Jews. When I saw that these had been confiscated I
    protested and Lohse answered, ‘I am acting under Göring’s
    orders, you have nothing to fear. These confiscations have been
    anticipated by the Armistice Convention and the exchanges are
    regular.’ As I still protested, he called me an enemy of the
    people.”

Never—and this is the last remark I shall make on the subject—has
history furnished an example of wholesale pillaging organized on so
completely an administrative basis. The pillaging, together with the
Einsatzstab, became a recognized institution in the sphere of culture,
just as it became a recognized institution in the “Economic Detachments”
of the ROGES, whose activities have been exposed before the Tribunal.

The pillaging of works of art was organized by the highest leaders of
the Reich. My colleague of the Prosecution, who has been entrusted with
the individual accusations, will return to this matter. I shall content
myself with submitting a few more documents and making a few more
quotations on this point.

Alfred Rosenberg was the responsible Chief of the Einsatzstab. The
orders emanated from him, as is shown in the course of the
interrogatory; he was heard by Colonel Hinkel, and I submit a copy of
the interrogatory of 28 September 1945 as Document Number RF-1332.

The Defendant Göring was the official protector of Staff Rosenberg. He
himself wrote to Rosenberg on 21 November 1940, Document Number 1651-PS,
a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1335, as follows:

    “I have promised to support energetically the work of your staff
    and to make available to them what they could not obtain so far,
    namely, means of transport and guard personnel. The air force
    has received the order to render utmost assistance.”

There was discovered, in France, a sheet of gilt-edged paper containing,
in an unknown writing, instructions issued by Göring in Paris—a date is
written in by an unknown handwriting—on 11 February 1941. I submit the
original document to the Tribunal, as well as the translation, as
Document Number RF-1333:

    “All paintings marked ‘H’ are for the Führer.”

THE PRESIDENT: I think this has been read already by the United States.
Has this been read already?

M. GERTHOFFER: It has never as yet been read, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then please proceed.

M. GERTHOFFER: “. . . one case marked ‘AH’ for me. Everything that is
marked ‘G’. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Is this identified as a captured document?

M. GERTHOFFER: It was seized by the French authorities who transmitted
it to us.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is the identification to show this is the document
captured by the French authorities?

M. GERTHOFFER: This document was transmitted to me as it is, with a
series of other documents, of which I have only produced a certain
number. If the Tribunal wish I can let them have a special
authentication for this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose there is probably a report of the French
authorities which sufficiently refers to this document.

M. GERTHOFFER: The document was sent to me with a series of other
documents; since they were extremely numerous, we took those that seemed
to be the most important in order to present them to the Tribunal, but
if the Tribunal wish, I can obtain an affidavit indicating under what
conditions the documents were discovered by the French authorities.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, the document hasn’t anything on it to indicate
that the French Government really found it, nor that they have ever seen
it; and therefore the Tribunal does not consider that it is properly
proved by mere introductions of the document, without anything on the
document. Perhaps you can furnish some supplementary proof.

M. GERTHOFFER: I can bring an affidavit to the Tribunal in order to have
it authenticated.

THE PRESIDENT: In what way have the other documents been certified?

M. GERTHOFFER: The other documents were certified as a whole in the
covering letter. They were not certified individually. This formality
can be carried out subsequently.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we must wait until this is properly
identified.

M. GERTHOFFER: I continue with the reading of my report and I would
point out to the Tribunal that in all the occupied countries the
Defendant Göring employed a whole group of buyers, the best known of
whom were Dr. Lohse, who was a member of the Einsatzstab, and Hofer.
Hofer and Lohse (Page 52) acted for the defendant most often, however,
under their own names. The personal collection of the Defendant Göring
flourished considerably. In this regard I submit a document under Number
RF-1332 to which my colleague, in charge of personal and individual
accusations, will soon refer.

Among the principal leaders of the Reich connected with the Einsatzstab
(Page 55) Rosenberg had, as his superior in the hierarchy, Ribbentrop in
his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs (Page 56). It was Von
Ribbentrop who was responsible for the Führer’s order of 30 June 1940,
which I presented a short time ago under Document Number RF-1301, and
which I read to the Tribunal.

Ribbentrop’s activities are likewise shown in a letter of 1 July 1940,
addressed by Ambassador Abetz to the Military Commander of Paris, a copy
of which I submit under Document RF-1334 (Page 56). I can read it to the
Tribunal, if they wish. It shows Ribbentrop’s activities. Here is the
letter:

“I beg you to be good enough to have transmitted by radio. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: What does this “COL” at the top of the document mean?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is the seal of the office which seized the letter.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Government in any way certify this
document? You see, we do not know what that stamp on it may mean.

M. GERTHOFFER: This document was supplied by the General Agency of
Studies and Research. It is one of the supplementary services which
affixed this seal and registered it under Number 9724.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see what that is; but it does not of itself show
that it is a French document, does it? Is there any French Government
report, anything which could be considered to be, within the meaning of
the article of the Charter, an official government document or report or
an act or a document set up by the government itself? Unless it comes
within Article 21, we are not at liberty to consider it as in evidence;
unless there is an affidavit which deals with it.

M. GERTHOFFER: I do not insist on the presentation of this document
since the activities of Ribbentrop as Minister for Foreign Affairs
proceed from other PS documents which have never been disputed. It is a
superfluous piece of evidence. I therefore do not insist on presenting
it. It was merely a further piece of evidence, that is all.

THE PRESIDENT: If you find that there is some government report which
identifies it, anything which proves that that stamp on it shows that it
is a government document within Article 21, then of course, you may
renew your application.

M. GERTHOFFER: I think that it is not necessary, Mr. President. There
are sufficient other documents. I do not insist. The activities of the
Defendant Keitel are also to be borne in mind.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment! You are passing over that document then. Very
well.

M. GERTHOFFER: Exhibit Number RF-1336 is composed of a series of orders,
of reports of the army and of the Einsatzstab. It was Document Number
1015-PS(k), submitted by the Prosecutor of the United States as Exhibit
Number USA-385.

    “The directives concerning the co-operation with the Armed
    Forces will be issued by the Chief of the High Command of the
    Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.”

I shall not insist on the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel. My
colleague, who is charged with the individual indictments, will lay
special stress on the development of this point, and to expedite the
proceedings I shall merely mention the following: The Defendant
Seyss-Inquart bears a grave responsibility for the pillaging in Holland
of works of art and books.

I thus come to the conclusion of my presentation (Page 64). Whatever the
markets, whoever the purchasers where the traffic in works of art is
concerned, the motive is the same and the methods are the same. It is
difficult to conceive that identical acts of pillaging, committed
simultaneously in all the occupied countries of western Europe, were not
the result of one single will, a ruthless will to dominate in every
sphere, which expressed itself in a desire to invest the most irregular
acquisitions with an appearance of legality. This is proved by the
numerous declarations of the defendants, such as have been submitted to
the Tribunal. A will to dominate the cultural sphere was expressed by
the intention to extend the “action” of confiscation to ever fresh
fields. A will to despoil the occupied countries manifested itself right
up to the very last hours of the occupation. And this will be my last
reading to the Tribunal, Document Number 160-PS, entered in the document
book under Exhibit Number RF-1346. Here is the text. It is extremely
brief:

    “14 August 1944—Mission.

    “The Chiefs of Special Missions (Haupteinsatzführer), Dr. Lohse
    and Dr. Borchers, of my Einsatzstab for the occupied
    territories, are charged with the immediate removal, from the
    Jeu de Paume Museum and the Louvre depot, of works of art taken
    into safe custody by order of the Führer and still stored in
    Paris, by all means of transport still available.

    “The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich has recently, by
    a personal directive of 13 August 1944, placed the two
    above-named persons at the disposal of the Einsatzstab until the
    completion of this operation. It is requested that every
    possible assistance be rendered to these Chiefs of Special
    Missions.”

Whatever the reasons of a juridical nature submitted by the Germans to
justify the seizures of Jewish property (Page 65), this property has
never lost the character of private property; and it has, for this
reason, always remained guaranteed by the clauses of the Hague
Convention and especially by Article 46. The seizure of this property
cannot, in particular, be explained as a measure of protection rendered
necessary by circumstances, since, for France at least, the French
Administration of Domains was in a position to take all the measures
desired. As for the fate reserved for the seizures by the National
Socialist leaders, the documents produced have sufficiently shown their
intentions and their plans.

The Defense will undoubtedly object that important treasures of national
works of art from the occupied territories were not taken to Germany. If
such an argument were presented, I should answer:

1. For various reasons the occupying authorities did not have the
possibility to do so since they barely had time to centralize, to
catalog, and to transport the numerous objects of art of which the
occupied countries had been dispossessed. 2. It is obvious that the
occupational authorities seized by priority the private works of art
which are, generally speaking, easily negotiable even in neutral
countries, whereas national works of art are, in a certain sense,
outside the commercial sphere and are in any case difficult to negotiate
in foreign countries.

It may perhaps be claimed that, a great number of works of art having
been recovered, the accusation of removing them no longer applies.

You will consider, Gentlemen, that if many works of art have been
recovered by the Allied armies, usually in hiding places, the
reprehensible fact held against the defendants nevertheless remains. As
a matter of fact these works of art have been recovered against their
will and thanks to the victory of the Allied armies. The crime had,
therefore, been entirely consummated at the time of their discovery. It
is clear from the declaration that it is chiefly works of art belonging
to private individuals of Belgian, Dutch, and French nationality, mostly
qualified as Jews by the occupying power, which were looted—looted with
the obvious intention of gratifying their personal vanity and of
obtaining valuable property, viewed from an economic standpoint,
contrary to the principles of international law.

These acts of pillage were often accompanied by aggravating
circumstances, not the least of which was the constant menace of
violence threatening the population of the occupied countries. The
looting of works of art, therefore, appears as a form of general
economic pillaging and the defendants must answer for this before your
high jurisdiction.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me what Document FA-20, 21, and so forth,
refers to? There is an inscription which is on these various documents.
If you look at Document RF-1333 or RF-1334, you will see that on the
copies that are before us there is an inscription “International
Military Tribunal” and then the “French Delegation, the Public Ministry,
Economic Section” and then “LVR, Document FA-21” and “Document FA-20.”
Now, where is Document FA-21, and where is Document FA-20?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is a serial number referring to the document sent to
us. It is 1334 which was rejected by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is Document FA-20 or Document FA-21, what
does it mean?

M. GERTHOFFER: FA-20 is the serial number which had been given to this
document in the series of documents which we received. It is of no
importance.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it is only a number given by you or that it
is a number given by the Economic Section of the. . . ?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is a number given to it by the Economic Section.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then if that is so, if it is the number given to
this document by the Economic Section, it does identify the document as
a document of a public nature.

M. GERTHOFFER: We had likewise given to the document which I quoted a
short time ago, a number which was 1333 for Document FA-21.

THE PRESIDENT: Document FA-21, 1333.

M. GERTHOFFER: We likewise gave it a number.

THE PRESIDENT: I see, the Economic Section is merely a section of the
French Prosecution.

M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, it is a section of the French Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier.

M. PIERRE MOUNIER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.
President, your Honors, Gentlemen of the High International Military
Tribunal, we have the honor of appearing before your high jurisdiction
in order to submit the conclusions of the French Prosecution in
connection with the responsibilities individually incurred by the
defendants brought before this bar of justice. In pursuance of the
allotment of the various tasks incumbent on each of the four nations,
resulting both from the Indictment presented in compliance with the
Charter of 8 August 1945 and the agreements reached between the four
Delegations, the French Prosecution, in its presentation, has
particularly applied itself to the study of the war crimes under the
third Count of the Indictment, that is, the crimes committed by the
defendants in France and in the countries of western Europe during
hostilities and during the German occupation. It arises quite naturally
that, in the explanations about to follow, the case of some of the
defendants will be set aside, although their responsibility will already
have been established by the other delegations who are, if I may say so,
more interested in the crimes committed by the defendants and which
correspond to the first, second, and fourth Counts of the Indictment.
The French Prosecution, nevertheless, intends to join in the accusations
raised by the other delegations against such of the defendants as
concern them directly, especially against the Defendants Von Neurath and
Von Ribbentrop. The French Delegation associates itself with the
statement presented against them by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The same
holds good as far as the Defendants Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Bormann,
Funk, Schacht, Von Papen, Baldur von Schirach, Streicher, Raeder,
Dönitz, and Fritzsche are concerned.

On the other hand, Mr. President, your Honors, we should like, in this
brief presentation, slightly to deviate from the order of priority in
which the defendants appear, both in the Indictment and in the dock, so
as to elucidate matters. As a matter of fact it would appear desirable,
when presenting some of the chiefs of the National Socialist conspiracy,
as viewed from the angle of crimes committed in the West, to show how
they materialized their philosophical, political, economic, diplomatic,
and finally their military conceptions. Consequently, this order will
determine the order in which we shall present the case of these
defendants.

On the other hand the defendants, in pursuance of the rule adopted by
the Tribunal for governing the proceedings which it intends to follow in
this Trial, have not yet given their oral explanations before the Court;
and the hearing of the majority of the witnesses, or at least of the
more important witnesses, has not yet taken place.

That is why the French Prosecution, with the permission of the Tribunal,
reserves the right of completing at a later date its statement regarding
the defendants taken individually on the one hand, and the groups
accused—according to the expression used by my eminent friend,
Prosecutor Boissarie—of “international indignity,” on the other hand.

Needless to say, the final impeachment would be carried out with the
utmost sobriety, since the French Delegation is anxious to avoid, as far
as possible, any unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.

An imposing number of documents has been submitted to the Tribunal.
Their reading, presented in the first instance for the information of
the Tribunal, then for the information of the Defense, and finally, be
it said, for that of universal public opinion, has already taken up a
very considerable time. That is why, with the permission of the
Tribunal, we shall abstain, as far as possible, from presenting the
Tribunal with still more copious documents. Sufficient written evidence
has already been furnished by the American, British, and French
Prosecutions which, when added to those still to be submitted by the
Prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, will assure the
Tribunal of the defendants’ guilt.

We shall therefore content ourselves, in general, with quoting documents
already produced, in order to correlate the facts which we shall bring
forward with the evidence already supplied. I should like, however, Mr.
President, before approaching the case of the defendants whom I wish to
accuse individually, to make a statement of a very general nature. It
would be idle to pretend that a certain part of this public opinion—and
not the least enlightened part at that—in the Old as well as in the New
World, has evinced surprise in seeing this Indictment, which is the
foundation of the present proceedings, collectively denounce the
criminal character of certain organizations of the Reichsregierung, the
Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party, the SS including the
SD, the Gestapo, the SA, the General Staff, and the High Command.

In this connection the Tribunal has been good enough to invite the
various prosecutions to present written memoranda in order to establish
the validity of the imputations contained in the Indictment. But may I
be allowed, before a more complete memorandum is handed to your high
jurisdiction, to present to the Tribunal a few ideas which appear to me
necessary to be recalled. It appears, as a matter of fact, that this
concept of a collective responsibility of the various groups goes hand
in hand with the concept of conspiracy constituting the other governing
ideas of the Indictment. There is no doubt, as far as this idea of a
conspiracy is concerned as featured in the Indictment, that one finds,
in the first instance, in the acts of the defendants that mystery which
generally accompanies any conspiracy, whatever its nature, and that the
various documents already supplied to the Tribunal are sufficient to
confirm the existence of all the elements which render it possible for
me to state that the defendants, their co-authors, and their accomplices
had, in fact, conceived and realized the fraudulent agreement which was
to enable them to make an attempt on the peace of the world by means
contrary to the laws of war, to international law, and to international
morality.

There is no doubt that the Nazi leaders had invested all their meetings
with a guise of secrecy, whether these meetings were regular and
administrative in nature or whether they were of a casual or of an
informal variety. This fact in itself would be normal if one could
isolate it from all the others; but added to all the other elements in
the case, it clearly shows the guilty intent of the conspirators, for
this absolute secrecy alone could imply the use of the criminal means
which we shall have to emphasize.

I shall moreover remind the Tribunal that very often, where the orders
transmitted were concerned, very often it happened that certain
paragraphs had been erased so that no traces could remain. The Defendant
Hermann Göring admitted this in the course of the interrogations.
Consequently this fact proves the intent not only to act in the greatest
secrecy, but also the intent of doing away with every trace of what had
happened.

If I were permitted to transpose an expression used during the War of
1914-18, an expression applied to the sinking of certain ships of
friendly or allied nations, I should say, where this particular
paragraph is concerned, that it was a case of “spurlos versenkt,” that
is, sunk without trace.

On the other hand, the proof of this fraudulent agreement is evident
from the eminently and evidently criminal nature of the decisions taken
in these secret councils for incorporation.

THE PRESIDENT: It is just one, now, would it be convenient for Counsel
to break off at this time?

M. MOUNIER: I am at the disposal of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

                [_A recess was taken until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, owing to technical difficulties we will not
be able to continue the sitting this afternoon because the technical
difficulties, we are advised, cannot be remedied for some hours; and
under those circumstances, the Tribunal thinks it better to adjourn now.
But the Tribunal hopes that you will be able tomorrow to conclude the
case on behalf of the French Prosecution, and that the case against the
Defendant Hess will be presented on behalf of the British Prosecution.

M. MOUNIER: I understand, Mr. President, and I shall get in touch with
my British colleague as requested by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, do you wish to say anything?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
No, My Lord, we are ready to go on with the presentation against the
Defendant Hess, and we think that it should take two and a half hours,
approximately.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 7 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-THIRD DAY
                        Thursday, 7 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, before the adjournment yesterday
I had begun to explain to you very briefly the relation which, in our
opinion, exists between two of the main themes in the Indictment, to
wit, the accusation of conspiracy brought against certain groups
designated in the Indictment and which I enumerated yesterday, on the
one hand; and, on the other hand, the various acts which enable us to
form our conclusions as to the criminal character of the activity of the
National Socialist conspirators.

I told you, to begin with, that what appeared to us to be at the bottom
of this criminal activity was the profound mystery, the absolute mystery
surrounding their meetings, both official and unofficial, a fact which
is corroborated by statements made by certain of the defendants in their
interrogatories from which it frequently emerged that some of the orders
emanating from high places were to be suppressed and annulled, so as to
leave no trace.

We consider, likewise, that proof of the fraudulent collaboration which
existed among the conspirators is afforded by the criminal character of
the decisions made at these secret councils, which aimed at the conquest
of neighboring countries through wars of aggression.

Finally, proof of this fraudulent collaboration is afforded, in our
opinion, by the way in which these criminal plans were carried out by
the employment of all sorts of means condemned both by international
morality and by the letter of the law; for example, in international and
diplomatic spheres the most cynical plots, the use in foreign countries
of what is known as the “Fifth Column,” financial camouflage, the
exertion of improper pressure backed by demonstrations of violence, and
finally—when these methods no longer proved effective—the waging of a
war of aggression.

As for those individuals who regularly and of their own free will took
part in meetings of groups and organizations, such as those denounced in
the Indictment as internationally odious, their voluntary membership in
these groups or the active and deliberate part which they took in their
activities suffice to show that they had every intention of giving their
active co-operation to these groups in a way which admits of no possible
doubt. In view of the aims pursued and the means adopted, this intention
could only be a guilty one.

In the opinion of the Prosecution, engaged in seeking the elements
constituting the crime, it would appear that this suffices to prove what
we call the _consilium fraudis_ and to enable us to verify the causal
link between this will to evil, on the one hand, and the criminal deed,
on the other, and to make it possible to retain the criminal character
of the understanding between the conspirators, which is also the
criminal character of their individual acts.

Could the chief of the Four Year Plan, when he ordered the
Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation to recruit 1 million foreign
workers for the Reich, forget that this act was contrary to
international conventions and leave out of consideration the tragic
consequences which the execution of this murderous action would entail,
and has in fact entailed, for these people and for their families?

Could the Minister for Armaments and War Production who set up, in
agreement with or by order of the Chief of the Air Force, underground
aircraft factories in the internment camps—could he, I say, fail to be
aware that under such conditions to use prisoners who were already
exhausted was equivalent to causing their premature death?

Could the diplomat who, on various pretexts, treated diplomatic
instruments intended to assure the stability and the peace of the world
as scraps of paper—could he lose sight of the fact that these acts
would plunge the civilized world into catastrophe?

Whether their conscience was at that moment disturbed by the feeling,
more or less obscure, that they were infringing human and divine laws is
a question which need not be asked on the juridical plane on which you
will be working. But even assuming that we should consider it our duty
to put this question to ourselves on the psychological plane as a result
of scruples, we should then have to remember two essential concepts. The
first is that the German, as a French writer puts it, at times combines
in himself the identity of contraries. Consequently, it is possible that
in certain cases he may consciously do evil while remaining convinced
that his act is irreproachable from the moral point of view. The second
concept is that, according to the law of National Socialist ethics
sometimes put into words by certain National Socialist leaders, that
which promotes the interests of the Party is good; that which does not
promote the interests is evil.

And yet, our personal impression on the occasion of the masterly speech
given by M. François de Menthon was that some of his words, striking in
their accent of deep humanity, had stirred some consciences. Even today,
after so many accumulated proofs, we may wonder whether the defendants
admit their responsibility as chiefs, as men, as representatives of the
incriminated organizations. This will perhaps be revealed in the course
of the proceedings.

Mr. President, Your Honors, with the permission of the Tribunal we shall
now take up the question of the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg.

Gentlemen, the young French student who in 1910 had the joy of spending
his vacation in Bavaria, then one of the happiest of the German
provinces, could hardly suspect that thirty-five years later he would be
called upon to apply international law against the masters of that
country. When, after stopping at the Bratwurstglöcklein, he climbed up
to the ramparts to look at the sunset from the heights of the Burg,
while the lines of a ballad by Uhland rang in his memory, he did not
think that evil masters and false prophets would twice in a quarter of a
century unchain the lightning over Europe and the rest of the world, and
that through them so many treasures of art and beauty would be
destroyed, so many human lives sacrificed, so much suffering piled up.
Indeed, when one studies the genesis of this unheard-of drama there can
be no question of romanticism; what we have to deal with rather is a
perverted romanticism, a morbid perversion of the sense of greatness,
and the mind is baffled by the true significance of the ideas of
National Socialism—ideas which I shall touch upon only in passing to
show how they led the Defendant Rosenberg, since it is he of whom I am
speaking, and his codefendants to commit the crimes which are held
against them:

The concept of race, to begin with, which we see arising in a country
which in other respects resembles any other but where the intermingling
of ethnic types of every variety took place through the centuries on a
gigantic scale; this anti-scientific confusion which mixes the
physiological features of man with the concept of nations; this
neo-paganism which aims at abolishing the moral code, the justice, and
security which 20 centuries of Christianity have brought to the world;
this myth of blood which attempts to justify racial discrimination and
its consequences: slavery, massacre, looting, and the mutilation of
living beings!

I shall not dwell, Mr. President, on what we consider a jumble of
nonsense which claims to be philosophy and in which may be found to be
the most heterogeneous fragments of all kinds taken from every source,
from the megalomaniac concepts of Mussolini, Hindu legends, and the
Japan of the samurai, the cradle of fascism, which swept over the world
like a tidal wave. The previous presentations have already adequately
dealt with these conceptions. I shall simply stress today that these
pseudo-philosophic conceptions tended solely to set back humanity
thousands of years by reviving the clan conception, which assumes the
law of might as the supreme law—the Faustrecht already formulated by
the Iron Chancellor, the right to cheat others, the right to take the
property of others, the right to reduce man to slavery, the right to
kill, the right to torture.

But _homo sapiens_ refuses to return to the state of _homo lupus_.
International law is not morality without obligation or sanction. The
Charter of 8 August has recalled and specified the obligation; it is for
you, Gentlemen, to apply the sanction.

One of the consequences of these theories of the superiority of the race
or of the so-called “Germanic Race” was to lead certain of the
conspirators, particularly the Defendant Rosenberg, of whom we are
speaking, to become plunderers; and it is this aspect of the activities
of the Defendant Rosenberg which I should like very briefly to stress,
for it concerns France and the occupied countries of the West and had
deeply harmful consequences for their artistic, intellectual, or merely
utilitarian heritage.

I wish to speak of all the measures decreed or applied by Rosenberg with
the aim of removing from France and the western countries cultural
treasures, works of art, and property belonging to groups or
individuals, and transferring to Germany all these riches.

Gentlemen, owing to the limited time which we have at our disposal, I
shall limit myself today to recalling how certain organisms were made to
collaborate in this pillaging through orders from higher quarters. I
shall indicate, first of all, the part played by the Gestapo, which was
ordained by a decree issued by the Defendant Keitel, dated 5 July 1940,
which bears the Document Number 137-PS and which was submitted by the
American Delegation, under Exhibit Number USA-379, on 18 December 1945
(Exhibit Number RF-1400). I refer likewise to a second order dated 30
October 1940, which reinforced and detailed the orders given in regard
to pillaging by what was known as the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This is
Exhibit Number RF-1304 (Document Number 140-PS), which was quoted by the
Economic Section of the French Prosecution.

Thus, Keitel and Rosenberg went back to the conception of a booty
exacted by the triumphant German people from the Jewish people with
regard to whom it was not bound by the conditions of the Compiègne
Armistice. This intervention by the chief of the army, as indicated by
the orders to which I have just referred, suffices in my opinion to
prove the important part played by the German Army in this looting; and
the Tribunal will not fail to remember that when it makes its decisions
as to the guilt of the Defendant Keitel and the Defendant Göring.

If I mention the Defendant Göring, it is because a third document proves
that this defendant gave the operation his full support, inviting all
the organizations of the Party, the State, and the Army to afford the
fullest possible support and assistance to Reichsleiter Rosenberg and
his collaborator Utikal, whom Rosenberg himself had appointed Chief of
the Einsatzstab on 1 April 1941. This is the order of 1 May 1941, which
we produced under our Exhibit Number RF-1406 (Document Number 1614-PS).
If we examine the text of this decree carefully we cannot fail to be
struck by the first paragraph. The Tribunal will surely allow me to
reread it rapidly:

    “The struggle against the Jews, the Freemasons, and other
    ideologically opposed forces allied to them, is a most urgent
    task of National Socialism during the war.”

Thus, it was enough for one to have a philosophy of life different from
that described as the Nazi Weltanschauung, to be exposed to the danger
of seeing one’s cultural property seized and transferred to Germany. But
the Tribunal will surely remember from the documents already presented
to it, that not only cultural property was involved, but that anything
with any kind of value was taken away.

The Defendant Rosenberg tried, in the course of an interrogation carried
out by the superior officers in charge of the preliminary investigations
to claim, without much conviction, it seems to me, that the cultural
property in question was intended solely to adorn the collections of the
National Socialist Hohen Schulen. We shall see presently, in presenting
the text of this interrogation, how we may judge this. But it is a fact
which I wish to present now that, from the documents which we possess,
at least, it does not seem that the Defendant Rosenberg appropriated
works of art, precious stones, or other objects of value for himself.
Consequently, in the light of the proceedings as conducted thus far, no
accusation of this kind can be brought against him. We shall not say as
much for the Defendant Hermann Göring, of whom we shall speak a little
later and who, according to the documents that we possess, may be
convicted of having appropriated to his own use part of the objects of
art taken from the countries of the East and the West.

I shall not dwell on the discussion which might arise about these
misappropriations. I shall go straight on to the interrogatory of the
Defendant Rosenberg. This is the document that was introduced yesterday
by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution, which bears the
Exhibit Number RF-1331, and which we use today as Document Number
ECH-25.

I think that the Tribunal will easily be able to refer to this
interrogatory, but meanwhile I should like very briefly to summarize the
essential points which I think should be brought up.

Colonel Hinkel, questioning the Defendant Rosenberg, asked him on what
legal grounds such looting could be justified. The Defendant Rosenberg
first answered that these seizures were justified by the hostility which
certain groups had manifested toward the National Socialist ideology.
But a little further on, on Page 4, the Defendant Rosenberg made the
following verbatim statement:

    “I considered them”—he is referring to the measures which he
    himself had taken—“a necessity caused by the war and by the
    reasons which caused the war.”

A few moments later, pressed by Colonel Hinkel, the Defendant Rosenberg
invoked the necessity of putting into safekeeping property thus seized,
a necessity which will certainly constitute one of the main points of
his defense. But Colonel Hinkel replied to the Defendant Rosenberg:

    “And so if your idea was to safeguard art objects, it sounds
    rather strange, doesn’t it, that you were going to safeguard
    only some art objects and not others?

    “On the other hand, with regard to the maintenance of the
    objects, there were objects at least equal in value to those
    which had been removed, but to which no one paid any attention.”

Finally, the Defendant Rosenberg admitted that he had very often given
no receipt to those concerned, which in itself precluded any idea of
eventually returning the property to the legitimate owners.

The truth of the matter is that these were treasures of very
considerable value, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the end admitted that
he regarded these acquisitions as an accomplished fact. We consider that
the fact of having thus removed works of art and objects of value is
purely and simply what is known in civil law as misappropriation. These
misappropriations were made on a vast scale with the grandiose means
which the Third Reich had at its disposal, means which were further
facilitated by the intervention of the Army and the Luftwaffe. But it is
nonetheless true that the criminal character of these misappropriations
remains; and we urge the Tribunal, when it delivers judgment, to declare
that it was by fraudulent seizure that the Defendant Rosenberg and his
codefendants robbed France and the western countries of all the objects
of value and all the art treasures and cultural treasures.

As to what the objects themselves consisted of, Mr. President and Your
Honors, I would respectfully refer the Tribunal to the report submitted
by the Economic Section yesterday, which was made by Dr. Scholz, the
associate of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This report was submitted by the
Economic Section under Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS),
and in it the Tribunal will find enumerated everything that the
Einsatzstab took out of France. In this connection I shall make an
incidental remark in answer to the question that the President asked my
colleague yesterday about the Rothschild collections. The President
asked my colleague, “Have you proof that certain collections and objects
of value were taken from the Rothschild collections?”

I should like, Mr. President, to point out that there are two proofs of
this. The first is the immediate result of the Rosenberg interrogation
of 23 September 1945. I have just spoken to the Tribunal of the
all-important questions put to the Defendant Rosenberg as to the
legitimacy and legal basis of these removals. I beg the Tribunal to
refer to Page 5 of these minutes. I read from the text the question
asked by the American officer in charge of the interrogation, my eminent
friend, Colonel Hinkel:

    “Question: ‘How do you justify the confiscation of art treasures
    belonging to the Rothschild family?’”—A very precise question.
    It concerned the art treasures taken from the Rothschild family
    by Rosenberg’s organization.

    “Answer: ‘Still from the same general point of view.’”

That means that the Defendant Rosenberg claimed to justify the
confiscations made to the detriment of the Rothschilds by the reasons
which I had the honor of analyzing to the Tribunal a few moments ago.

A second consequence: The Defendant Rosenberg thus admitted with his own
lips that the Rothschild family was among those despoiled. That
confession, Mr. President, Your Honors, can be considered as one of the
proofs, one of the main proofs. This is the first answer, then, to the
question that the President asked yesterday.

The second proof which I wish to present to the Tribunal is the
following: I beg the Tribunal to refer to the report by Dr. Scholz
mentioned above and produced yesterday in the document book of the
Economic Section. This is Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number
1015-PS).

If the Tribunal will kindly refer to it, that is to say, the report by
Dr. Scholz, the second paragraph of Page 1, it will find the following
statement, “The special staff not only seized a very considerable part
of the collection. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] As I said the other day, we cannot keep
all the books before us; but it seems to me that, as you have shown that
the Defendant Rosenberg agreed that this collection had been taken, that
is quite sufficient.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I understand perfectly your point of view. I
should like respectfully to point out to you that I was to speak
immediately after my colleague, and if I had done so you would have had
this document book before you. We had a delay of one day, and I
apologize for not having thought of asking you to bring this document
again this morning.

However, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to be good enough to note this
reference which it will easily find. It is a very short passage, which I
should like to read to the Tribunal. It will not take very much time.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

M. MOUNIER: This declaration is simply the following:

    “The special staff”—that is to say, the Einsatzstab
    Rosenberg—“not only seized a very considerable portion of the
    collection which the Rothschilds had left behind in their Paris
    mansion. . . .”

I shall not read the rest.

Here then, Gentlemen, is an official report which cannot be disputed and
which demonstrates, like the previous proof, that the Rothschild
collection was among those pillaged.

I do not insist on these facts, which are known to you. It seems to me
that the two points on which I have just cast a ray of light suffice to
make it clear that illegal seizures—fraudulent seizures—were really
operated by the Defendant Rosenberg to the detriment of France and to
the detriment, likewise, of the western countries. As for their
importance, I do not want to abuse the patience of the Tribunal by
quoting statistics. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to refer to the
Scholz report which I have twice mentioned in the course of my previous
statements.

I should not, however, wish to leave the case of Rosenberg, for the time
being, without quoting to the Tribunal a passage from an article by the
French writer François Mauriac, of the French Academy. François Mauriac
was present on 7 November 1945 at the inaugural session of the National
Constituent Assembly at the Palais Bourbon. On this occasion François
Mauriac invoked a memory which was recalled in _Le Figaro_ of 6 November
1945 in the following terms:

    “Almost five years ago to a day, from the height of this
    rostrum, the most illustrious in Europe, a man spoke to other
    men dressed in field grey. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. I can
    testify to the exact date. It was 25 November 1940.

    “Rosenberg leaned his elbows on this rostrum, where the voices
    of Jaurès and of Albert De Mun were once heard and where, on 11
    November 1918, Clemenceau nearly died of joy. Here are his
    words:

    “‘In one gigantic revolutionary burst’—he said—‘the German
    nation has reaped such a harvest as never before in its history.
    The French will admit one day, if they are honest, that Germany
    has freed them from the parasites of which they could not rid
    themselves unaided.’

    “And the Nazi philosopher”—continues Mauriac—“then proclaimed
    the victory of blood. He meant”—writes Mauriac—“the victory of
    race; but it happens that a man may utter prophetic words
    unwittingly and without realizing the full import of the words
    which God places upon his lips. As Rosenberg predicted at the
    Palais Bourbon on 25 November 1940, it was indeed blood that won
    the victory. It was the blood of the martyrs which in the end
    choked the executioners.”

M. President, with the approval of the Court, and with the same brevity
as heretofore—and I hope the Tribunal will appreciate the care I am
taking not to abuse its patience—I should like to say a few words on
the individual charge against the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.

Your Honors, the Tribunal is already acquainted with the really
remarkable work, the genuinely positive work, presented to it some time
ago by my colleague and friend, M. Jacques Bernard Herzog. This is why,
with your permission, I shall pass over the facts themselves, which are
known to you, and limit myself to the part beginning on Page 3 of my
brief; and we shall examine together, if it please the Tribunal, the
grounds for the pleas advanced up to now by the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.

One question must be asked first of all: Was Fritz Sauckel acting under
orders when he carried out this recruiting—so-called voluntary in part
but compulsory in most cases—this recruiting of laborers destined to
supply the needs of the German Reich?

According to Sauckel, when he was appointed Plenipotentiary for the
Allocation of Labor on 27 March 1942, his initial program did not
include the conscription of foreign workers; and it is supposed to have
been Hitler who intervened then. For it is striking, Your Honors, when
you read the minutes of the interrogations and also, I am sure, when the
defendants speak before the Tribunal, you will see that most of them
take refuge behind two great shadows; the shadow of the former Führer
and the shadow of his accursed second, Himmler. Here we can see Hitler
intervening to tell Sauckel, according to the latter, that the use of
foreign workers in the occupied territories is not contrary to the Hague
Convention for two reasons; firstly, the countries involved surrendered
unconditionally and consequently we can impose any kind of labor
conditions on them, and secondly because Russia has not signed this
convention. If, therefore, we use Russian workers on compulsory labor
and make them work to death, we are not violating the Hague Convention.

This, Your Honors, is the reasoning of the Defendant Sauckel on this
point, without the addition of a single word. Hitler is supposed to have
ordered him to recruit workers, at first using persuasion and then all
the means of compulsion which you already know; suppression of ration
cards, for instance, which compelled men, who saw their wives and
children starving, to volunteer for work which would be used against
their own fellow citizens and against the soldiers of the Allied armies
with whom all their sympathies lay.

The Tribunal will know how to deal with such an excuse for, in the first
place, Sauckel, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by his
office, enjoyed full authority in regard to everything to do with the
labor necessary for the execution of the Four Year Plan. On the other
hand, on taking up his appointment as Plenipotentiary for Labor
Allocation, Sauckel knew that he would be unable to carry out his
mission without resorting sooner or later to means of coercion. In any
case, Sauckel, as well as most of the defendants who are before you,
enjoyed the most extensive powers, indeed autonomous powers.
Consequently, he cannot shelter behind orders received.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you must forgive me if I interrupt you; but
as I pointed out yesterday, I think, we have already had an opening
statement which contained argument from the United States, from Great
Britain, and from M. De Menthon on behalf of France, and we have, in the
past, confined other counsel. . . .

Do you hear me? I was saying that after having heard the opening
statement from the United States, from Great Britain, and from France,
we have in the past, confined the counsel who have followed them to a
presentation of evidence and have not permitted them to go into an
argument.

I am not sure that that rule has been strictly carried out in all cases
because it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to confine the matter; but we
have, on several occasions, pointed out to counsel who have followed the
counsel who made the leading statement that they ought to confine
themselves to a presentation of the evidence. I think the Tribunal would
wish you, if possible, to adhere to that rule and, therefore, not to
argue the case but to present the evidence, that is to say, to refer us
to the evidence insofar as it has already been put in evidence; to refer
us to it by its number, possibly stating what the substance of the
evidence is; and, in reference to any document which has not yet been
put in evidence, to read such parts of that document as you think
necessary.

M. MOUNIER: Very well, Mr. President, to meet the wishes of the
Tribunal, I shall limit myself, as concerns the Defendant Sauckel, to
referring to figures which, it seems to me, do not admit of argument,
since they are the figures given by the Defendant Sauckel himself under
interrogation. This does not seem to me to infringe upon the rule which
the President has just drawn to my attention.

The figures stated are the following: In 1942 there were already a
million foreign workers in Germany. In one year Sauckel incorporated
into the economy of the Reich some 1,600,000 war prisoners to meet the
needs of war economy.

I beg to refer the Tribunal to Exhibit Number RF-1411 in my document
book. This is an interrogation of the Defendant Speer under the date of
18 October 1945, which has already been submitted by the United States
Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number USA-220 (Document
Number 3720-PS). In this interrogation the Defendant Speer states that
40 percent of all prisoners of war were employed in the production of
arms and munitions and in related industries.

I likewise offer under Exhibit Number RF-1412 (Document Number 1292-PS)
of 13 December 1945, a memorandum signed by Lammers, Secretary of the
Reich Chancellery, giving an account of the discussion which occurred at
a conference held on 4 January 1944. On that date, 4 January 1944, in
the course of a conference, at which, in addition to the Defendant
Sauckel, the Führer himself, Himmler, Speer, Keitel, Field Marshal
Milch, and others were present, the number of new workers to be
furnished by Sauckel was fixed at four million.

I must mention in this connection that in the course of this meeting,
Sauckel expressed doubts as to the possibility of furnishing this number
of workers unless he were given sufficient police forces. Himmler
replied that he would try to help Sauckel to achieve this objective by
means of increased pressure.

Consequently, when the Defendant Sauckel claims, as he probably will do,
that he had absolutely nothing to do with the institution now spurned by
everyone, known as the Gestapo, we may answer him by official German
documents showing that for the recruitment of labor he really did employ
the police with all the more or less condemned means already pointed out
to you.

As for France alone, the demand for workers at the beginning of 1944
amounted to one million; and this figure was over and above the number
of men and women workers already sent to Germany, who in June 1944
numbered one million to one and a half million.

The Defendant Sauckel, therefore, committed the offenses already known
to the Court. We have an old adage, an old slogan we may say, according
to which “The court is the law”; and it is proper to present only the
facts. I shall, therefore, abstain from reading the passage on Page 9 of
my presentation dealing with those articles of the law under which the
activities of the accused, Sauckel, are punishable.

Mr. President, Your Honors, I should like now to summarize the activity
of the Defendant Speer, for as regards France and the western countries
the Defendant Speer incurs responsibilities of the same nature as those
of the Defendant Sauckel. Like the defendant of whom I have just spoken,
he permitted violations of the laws of war, violations of the laws of
humanity, in working towards the drafting and carrying out of a vast
program of forced deportation and enslavement of the occupied countries.

Speer, Mr. President, first took part in working out the program of
forced labor and collaborated in its adoption. In the course of his
interrogatory, he stated under oath: First, that he took part in the
discussion at which the decision to use forced labor was made; second,
that he collaborated in the execution of this plan; third, that the
basis of this program was the removal to Germany by force of foreign
workers on the authority of Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for Allocation of
Labor under the Four Year Plan. The Tribunal will kindly refer to
Document Number 3720-PS, submitted by the United States Delegation on 12
December 1945, which I quote under Exhibit Number RF-1411 of our
documentation.

As regards France, in particular, Hitler and the Defendant Speer held a
conference on 4 January 1943 in the course of which it was decided that
more severe measures would be taken to expedite the recruiting of French
civilian workers without discrimination between skilled and unskilled
workers. This is made clear by a note to which I would ask the Tribunal
to refer. That is a note signed by Fritz Sauckel, himself. It has
already been presented by the American Prosecution under Document Number
556-PS (Exhibit Number RF-67).

The Defendant Speer knew that the levies for forced labor in the
occupied territories were obtained by violence and terror. He approved
the continuation of these methods from September 1942 onward. He knew,
for instance, that workers were deported by force from the Ukraine to
work in the Reich. He knew, likewise, that the great majority of workers
in the occupied regions of the West were sent to Germany against their
will. He even declared before the American magistrate who was
questioning him that he considered these methods regular and legal.

The Defendant Speer, knowing that the foreign workers were recruited and
deported for forced labor in Germany, made specific demands for foreign
workers and provided for their employment in the various branches of
activity placed under his direction.

The preceding paragraphs summarize all the declarations made by the
defendant in the course of the interrogation already mentioned and to
which I have just referred.

I beg to remind you that Speer, in addition, was a member of the Central
Committee of the Four Year Plan. On account of this, and in common with
Field Marshal Milch, only Hitler and Göring were superior to him as far
as demands for labor were concerned. He likewise took part, in this
capacity, in discussions which took place with Hitler to settle the
numbers of foreign workers required. He knew that most of these forces
were obtained by means of deportation, through coercion and enslavement
of the occupied countries. Proof of this is furnished by various
passages of the minutes of the Central Committee of the Plan and from
Speer’s conferences with Hitler. I refer to Document Numbers R-123 and
R-124 which have been submitted under Exhibit Number USA-179, on 12
December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414).

Speer did not hesitate to resort to methods of terrorism and brutality
as a means of achieving a peak output from the forced workers. He found
justification for the action of the SS and of the police and for the use
of concentration camps to subdue recalcitrants.

I beg to recall to the Tribunal the document relating to the minutes of
the 21st meeting of the Central Committee of the Four Year Plan, 30
October 1942, Page 1059, already quoted. This is the document which I
quoted previously, Exhibit Number USA-179, Document Numbers R-123 and
R-124 on 12 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414).

The Defendant Speer likewise bears responsibility for the use of
prisoners of war in military operations directed against their
countries; for in his capacity as chief of the Todt Organization, he
forced citizens of the Allied nations to work for this organization,
particularly, in the building of fortifications and, among other things,
the famous West Wall. He likewise forced Frenchmen, Belgians,
Luxembourgers, Dutchmen, Norwegians, and Danes to manufacture arms to be
utilized against the allies of the countries to which they themselves
belonged.

Finally—and this is a very important question regarding the
responsibility of the Defendant Speer—he participated directly in the
use of internees from the concentration camps. He proposed the use of
internees from the concentration camps in the armament factories. Now,
in view of the wretched physical condition of the prisoners, no profit
but only the extermination of the prisoners could be expected from this
measure. The use of internees from the concentration camps in the
factories had the effect of increasing the demand for this type of
labor; and this demand was satisfied in part, at least, by sending to
the concentration camps persons who, in ordinary times, would never have
been sent there.

Speer went so far as to establish, near the factories, concentration
camps which served solely to feed them with labor.

He knew the Mauthausen Camp. The Spanish witness, Boix, whom the
Tribunal heard a few days ago, attested under oath that he had seen,
with his own eyes, the Defendant Speer visit the camp at Mauthausen and
congratulate the directors of this camp. He even declared that he had
worked on the preparation of photographs of this scene. Consequently
this visit to the camp must be considered, absolutely beyond doubt. He
therefore saw for himself the barbarous conditions in which the
prisoners lived. Nevertheless, he persisted in utilizing labor from the
Camp of Mauthausen in the factories under his authority.

I have concluded the case against Speer.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, considering the strictly limited
time at my disposal, I shall be compelled, in dealing with the Defendant
Göring, of whom I shall have the honor to speak to you, to skip Pages 1,
2, and 3 of this presentation. I ask the Court now to turn to Page 3 of
my statement.

I should like to present to the Tribunal the question of the
responsibility of the Defendant Göring for the measures taken against
the commandos and against Allied airmen who fell into the hands of the
Germans during their missions.

During the Trial we have on several occasions mentioned an order given
by Hitler on 18 October 1942, which was first submitted by the American
Delegation on 2 January 1946 under the Document Number 498-PS (Exhibit
Number RF-1417). It is an order detailing the measures to be taken
against commandos in operations in Europe and Africa. They were to be
exterminated to the last man, even if they were in military uniform, and
no matter what their mode of transport might be: boat, plane, or
parachute. An order was given to take no prisoners. In the occupied
territories isolated members of commandos who might fall into the hands
of the German forces were to be handed over immediately to the
Sicherheitsdienst, RSHA branch. This order did not apply to enemy
soldiers who were captured or who surrendered in open battle and within
the scope of combat operations.

Among those notified was the Oberkommando of the Luftwaffe.
Consequently, the Defendant Göring knew of this order; and in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, as well as in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief of one of the three military services, he
has joint responsibility with the leaders of the other services.

We know, also, that on the same date, 18 October 1942, Hitler had a
memorandum distributed annotating the previous instructions and
announcing that if one or two prisoners were spared for the time being,
so that information might be obtained from them, they were to be put to
death as soon as they had been interrogated.

I refer to Exhibit Number RF-1418 (Document Number 503-PS) of 9 January
1946. The American Prosecution which produced this document has also
submitted to the Tribunal—and I shall not come back to this fact—a
certain number of cases proving that this order was frequently carried
out.

On the other hand, the Tribunal already knows that numerous Allied
airmen, who found themselves in German territory after losing their
planes, were maltreated and lynched by the Germans with the connivance
of the authorities. As evidence we present only the order of 10 August
1943 by which Himmler forbade the police to take part in these lynchings
and forbade them equally to oppose them. I refer to Document Number
R-110, presented 19 December 1945 as Exhibit RF-1419.

Goebbels, in an article in the _Völkischer Beobachter_, intervened in
the same way. Bormann, in a memorandum of 30 May 1944, confirmed these
instructions and stipulated that they should be passed on to the
administrative authorities, not in writing but by word of mouth only. I
refer to Document Number 057-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1420), cited on 17
December 1945 by the American Delegation.

These instructions were carried out to the letter, to such an extent
that the American forces have brought to trial, since the capitulation,
a considerable number of German civilians who had murdered unarmed
Allied airmen.

But the Defendant Göring was not satisfied simply to let these things
happen. At a conference which took place on 15 and 16 May 1944 he stated
that he would suggest to the Führer that not only parachutists but also
American or English crews who attacked, indiscriminately, cities and
civilian trains in motion should be put to death on the spot forthwith.
This is Exhibit Number RF-1421 (Document Number L-166), cited by the
French Prosecution, 31 January 1946, under Exhibit Number RF-377.

In fact, Göring saw Hitler between 20 and 22 May 1944. The Air Force
General, Korten, sent the Defendant Keitel a memorandum pointing out
that Hitler had decided that enemy airmen who were shot down should be
put to death without trial if they had participated in acts described as
terroristic. This is Document Number 731-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1407),
which we submit to the Court in the form of a photostatic copy. I ask
the Tribunal’s permission not to read this document. I think the
Tribunal will prefer to read it for themselves. However, I am at their
disposal if they wish me to read it.

THE PRESIDENT: No; it has already been put in, has it not?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.

In consequence, an agreement was made with the OKW that Himmler, Göring,
and Ribbentrop should be consulted on the measures to be taken in this
matter. Ribbentrop proposed that any attack upon German cities should be
considered as an act of terrorism. General Warlimont also, in the name
of the OKW, proposed two means: Lynching and what he called
Sonderbehandlung or special treatment, which consisted in delivering the
parties concerned to the Sicherheitsdienst where they were subjected to
diverse treatments, one of the most notorious being the well known Kugel
action, of which the Tribunal has already heard and which was simply a
way of doing away with those in question. Document Number 735-PS
(Exhibit Number RF-1452) was submitted to this effect on 9 January 1946.

On 17 June 1944 Keitel wrote to Göring to ask him to approve the
definition of acts of terrorism drawn up by Warlimont. On 19 June 1944
Göring replied through his aide-de-camp that the population should be
forbidden to act as it had done against enemy airmen and that these
enemy airmen should be brought to trial, since the Allied Governments
had forbidden their airmen to commit acts of terrorism. I refer here to
Document Number 732-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit
Number RF-1405.

Consequently, I draw the Tribunal’s attention to this document, dated 26
June 1944, where Reich Marshal Göring declared that he would support the
taking of judicial action against these airmen. Remember this date, 19
June 1944, because it is important.

But on 26 June 1944 the Defendant Göring’s aide-de-camp telephoned to
the OKW headquarters staff, who had insisted upon a definite reply, and
notified them that his chief, Reich Marshal Göring, was in agreement
with their definition of acts of terrorism and the procedure proposed
which, as I recall it, included two alternatives: The handing over of
those in question for Sonderbehandlung or their immediate execution. I
refer to Document Numbers 733-PS and 740-PS, cited on 30 January 1946 by
the French Prosecution, under the Exhibit Numbers RF-374 and RF-375
(Exhibit Numbers RF-1423 and RF-1424).

In a memorandum dated 4 July 1944 Hitler made it known that since the
British and the Americans had bombed small towns of no military
importance as a reprisal for V-1, he was asking the German radio and
press to announce that all enemy airmen shot down in an attack of that
kind would be put to death as soon as they were caught. Such are the
facts found in these absolutely irrefutable documents, and if I cited in
detail the reply made on 19 June 1944 by the Defendant Göring, or to be
more exact, by his aide-de-camp, it is because I am anxious to introduce
into the proceedings the documents concerning this question in their
entirety.

But I see that in spite of the existence of the order of 19 June 1944 I
am obliged to infer the full responsibility of the Defendant Hermann
Göring.

In fact, the Defendant Hermann Göring states that he never agreed to
these measures, and that Captain Breuer, who telephoned to the General
Staff of the OKW, acted—according to the Defendant Göring—without
having previously consulted him. Göring added, in the statements which
he made, that he could not be held responsible for all the absurd or
insignificant actions carried out by his subordinates.

But, Gentlemen, without even reference to the famous Leadership
Principle—for I see no reason to apply German law to the accused in any
way—the Defendant Göring is in any case responsible in his capacity as
leader. Responsibility begins with authority. Moreover, what did he do
to stop the massacre of airmen by people whom he had ordered to do the
opposite, according to orders which it was forbidden to formulate in
writing?

Even if we consider the position which he takes up in the order dated 19
June 1944, to which I have referred as establishing accurately his views
at that date on the massacre of airmen and parachutists, we are
compelled to see that at that date, 19 June 1944, even in Germany, the
most shortsighted knew that the German forces would soon succumb to the
weight of the Allied Armies.

Allied aviators were put to death in Germany throughout the war.
Moreover, if the Defendant Hermann Göring maintains that the letter of
19 June 1944 was written by his aide-de-camp, he is obliged to admit
that the letter of 26 June 1944, also written by the aide-de-camp, can
be imputed to him, although signed by one of his subordinates. We
consider, then, that this document signed by an aide-de-camp involves
Göring as much as if he had signed it himself.

Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall not enlarge upon the responsibility
of the Defendant Göring for compulsory labor, but I respectfully beg the
Court to refer in due course to certain rays of illumination that I have
tried to indicate in this brief in order to clarify the position of the
defendant in this matter.

I shall make no further mention of the employment of prisoners of war
and internees from concentration camps, which I detailed on Page 10 of
my brief. I should like simply to say a word concerning economic
pillaging and the pillaging of art treasures. These questions are dealt
with at the bottom of Page 11 of my brief.

Concerning economic pillage, Gentlemen, I shall not stress the
considerable part played by the Defendant Göring as leader of the Four
Year Plan in all the measures which contributed to strip literally all
the western countries of their substance. I shall simply point out one
fact which, I believe, has not yet been brought to your knowledge but
which is found in the next to the last subheading on Page 12. This fact
is the following: After the Armistice in 1940, the Defendant Göring had
brought about through Roechling, the official sequestrator, the cession
to the Hermann Göring Werke of all the factories of Lorraine belonging
to the family of Wendel.

This is connected with all the operations of economic pillaging about
which the Economic Section of the French Prosecution have already
informed the Court. With regard to this, the Court will not fail to
realize that the Defendant Göring shares jointly with the Defendants
Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, and Seyss-Inquart—for the Netherlands—the
responsibility for this spoliation.

With regard to the pillaging of works of art, Gentlemen, we have
documents which permit us to draw our conclusions with regard to this
matter which is obviously an unpleasant one for a man who has occupied
the position of the Defendant Göring, namely, that a part of the works
of art and objects of value which were pillaged from the western
countries were reserved for him without any kind of compensation. I
shall not discuss the exact meaning of this act in municipal law; I
leave it to the Tribunal to apply the proper legal terms for this
matter, when it delivers its judgment. But what I should like to say
today is that the appropriation of works of art by the Defendant Hermann
Göring for his private purposes is proved in documents which cannot be
contested and which have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I refer
particularly to Exhibit Number USA-368 (Document Number 141-PS)
submitted on 18 December 1945. This document was submitted by the
Economic Section of the French Prosecution under the Exhibit Number
RF-1309.

I may rapidly recall that this document prescribes that works of art
brought to the Louvre are to be classified in a certain way:

    “Firstly, those works of art of which the Führer reserved the
    right to dispose of himself. Secondly, those works of art
    destined to complete the collection of the Reich Marshal”—_et
    cetera_.

I won’t read the rest of the document.

What followed these levies or these privative appropriations? Did the
Defendant Göring pay anything for these? The opposite seems to be the
case; for in the interrogation of the Defendant Rosenberg, which was
given under the Exhibit Number RF-1332 and to which I referred in the
course of the hearing, it is pointed out that the Defendant Göring made
his selection from the works of art assembled by Rosenberg’s staff and
made no corresponding payment to the Reich treasury.

Not to abuse the patience of the Tribunal, I respectfully beg it to go
back to Page 10 of the transcript previously cited, where it will see
the part played by the Defendant Göring in the appropriation of works of
art, and the fact that no money was paid in compensation.

I simply emphasize, in passing, that at the top of Page 11 you will find
this statement, in reply to a question asked by Colonel Hinkel. Colonel
Hinkel said this to him.

THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Page 10 and Page 11 of which
document?

M. MOUNIER: Page 11, Mr. President, of Document Number ECH-25, which was
submitted yesterday under the Exhibit Number RF-1331, by my colleague M.
Gerthoffer. It is not there, for reasons which I have already pointed
out to the Tribunal.

Colonel Hinkel, at the bottom of Page 10, asked the following question:

    “Well, doesn’t that letter state in the last paragraph that you
    don’t think that Göring should pay for these articles that he
    had selected because he was going to put these articles in an
    art gallery?”

The reply of the Defendant Rosenberg:

    “Not exactly. I would like to add the following:”—which I
    consider important—“I was rather uneasy when at the outset I
    heard art treasures which the Einsatzstab had sent to
    Germany. . . .”

That is all, Gentlemen, I won’t say anything more. I merely want to
point out to you the annoyance which the chief of the Einsatzstab
himself felt on learning this fact.

Mr. President, Gentlemen, in regard to the participation of the
Defendant Göring in Crimes against Humanity, particularly the
concentration camps, I shall not insist; but I shall ask the Tribunal,
when they have time, to refer to a few paragraphs in which I briefly
recall the question. But there is a document which, as far as I know,
has not been submitted to the Tribunal and which I should like to submit
today. It concerns pseudo-medical experiments which I believe have not
yet been discussed.

You have frequently been told of Dr. Rascher’s experiments in the
exposure of certain persons to alternate heat and cold, but there is a
question which I treat on Page 17 of my brief and which concerns the
document which I submit today as Exhibit Number RF-1427. This is a
document which originally had the Number L-170. It is a report made by
Major Leo Alexander of the United States Army, on an institution known
as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Major Leo Alexander, at the time of the
defeat of Germany by the Allied Forces, had to conduct certain
investigations. He conducted one in connection with experiments made by
Dr. Rascher and another in connection with these carried out in the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. This report which I submit to the Tribunal is
entitled, “Neuropathology in Wartime Germany.” This Kaiser Wilhelm
Institut was an institute designed for cerebral research. This
institution had formerly been in Berlin-Buch (Page 18 in my brief) and
was split up into three establishments, the first in Munich—I pass over
the one in Munich—the third in Göttingen. The second, the one which
interests me, was established at Dillenburg, in Hessen-Nassau, where
there was a department for special pathology directed by Dr.
Hallervorden. What is interesting, Mr. President. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Could we see the original?

M. MOUNIER: The original? Here it is, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the series “L” referred to in Major Coogan’s
affidavit?

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I should like to point out that this Number
L-170 is the same as that referring to that same Major Leo Alexander’s
document book concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher. It is the same
number. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: As this document has already been produced in evidence in
the series “L”—it is L-170 I think—the Tribunal will treat it for the
moment as being in evidence and will further consider its admissibility.

M. MOUNIER: Yes, sir. At all events, I should like to remind the
President, who has certainly noticed it, that I reproduce in this brief,
which has already been communicated to the Defense, the passage which I
regard as relevant to my brief. The passage is quoted in full in my
brief.

THE PRESIDENT: [_Turning to Dr. Stahmer._] Yes, we will listen to you in
a few minutes.

[_Turning to M. Mounier._] Which passage do you wish to refer to?

M. MOUNIER: Pages 20 and 21 in my brief.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, do you wish to read them?

M. MOUNIER: I accept the decision of the Tribunal. If the Court
considers this reading superfluous, I shall limit myself to pointing out
that what I find striking in this document is the manner in which Dr.
Hallervorden ordered the delivery of brains for examination when he
says:

    “‘I had heard that they were going to do that.’”—That is, to
    say, to kill some sick people in different establishments by
    means of carbon-monoxide.—Dr. Hallervorden explained to his
    American interrogator, Major Alexander.

    “‘. . . I went up to them and told them “Look here now, boys, if
    you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains
    out so that the material could be utilized.

    “‘They asked me, “How many can you examine?” and so I told them
    an unlimited number—the more the better. I gave them the
    fixatives, jars and boxes, and instructions for removing and
    fixing the brains. . . .’”

I call the attention of the Tribunal to the truly horrible nature of the
measures taken in regard to the people who were to be killed merely to
have their brains examined, for they were, so he said,

    “‘. . . selected from the various wards of the institutions
    according to an excessively simple and quick method. Most
    institutions did not have enough physicians, and what physicians
    there were were either too busy or did not care, and they
    delegated the selection to the nurses and attendants. Whoever
    looked sick or was otherwise a problem patient from the nurses’
    or attendants’ point of view, was put on a list and was
    transported to the killing center. The worst thing about this
    business was that it produced a certain brutalization of the
    nursing personnel. They got to simply picking out those whom
    they did not like, and the doctors had so many patients that
    they did not even know them, and put their names on the list.’”

I shall stop my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to
do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to call upon Dr. Stahmer
to speak. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are now going to hear what Dr. Stahmer wants to
say.

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for the Defendant Göring): I am sorry that I
must contradict what has just been said, for there is no proof that
these things took place or that the Defendant Göring is responsible. The
Defendant Göring states that he was quite unaware of these events and
that he had nothing whatever to do with matters of that kind. As far as
I know, the Prosecution itself. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I have to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer. You will have a
full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to show that the evidence
which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant
Göring, has really no reference to him. You will have a full opportunity
to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defense. The
only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether
this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it,
of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your
argument that the document does not refer to Göring and that Göring had
no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn’t an objection to
the admissibility of the document. It is an argument to show that Göring
didn’t know anything about the document and didn’t know anything about
the experiments.

Do you understand what I mean?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I only wanted, by introducing. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I take leave to point out to you that my
friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, has just pointed out to me that this is
admitted as proof in view of the conditions under which it was
submitted. This is the document entitled, “Neuropathology and
Neurophysiology, including Electroencephalography, in Wartime Germany.”
Besides this reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in
the modest document book which I submitted to the Tribunal just now. I
should like to tell you, Mr. President, in citing this short
passage. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document
for the present.

M. MOUNIER: My aim, Mr. President, in citing this short passage, is to
demonstrate the truly atrocious way in which they treated people in
order to procure the necessary material for these so-called experiments.
According to the Prosecution this relates to Hermann Göring, for the
Tribunal will take into account the fact that these experiments were
made for the purpose of obtaining information of a scientific or
pseudo-scientific nature concerning the effects upon the brains of
airmen of all the accidents which might happen to them.

These experiments are connected with those of Dr. Rascher, concerning
which some correspondence took place. The Defendant Hermann Göring
cannot have been ignorant of this correspondence, for it directly
concerned the Air Force, which he commanded. I cite, for instance, a
letter dated 24 October 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr.
Rascher and which I submit to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number
RF-1409 (Document Number 1609-PS).

To save the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this letter. I shall
simply refer to another document which has already been cited as
Document Number 343-PS. It was submitted by the American Prosecution as
Exhibit Number USA-463, 20 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1428), and
it is a letter which proves that as early as 20 May 1942 Field Marshal
Milch was charged by the Defendant Göring with the task of transmitting
to the SS his special thanks for the aid which they had given the
Luftwaffe with these pseudo-medical experiments. Consequently, we
consider that in this respect the responsibility of the Defendant
Hermann Göring is clearly established.

Mr. President and Gentlemen, I have concluded the points concerning the
Defendant Hermann Göring to which I wanted to draw the attention of the
Tribunal. There is a conclusion in my brief against the Defendant
Hermann Göring. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall not read it.
I shall say that this conclusion is an extract from an old book dating
from 1669, which is certainly known to everyone in Germany at least. Its
title is _Simplizius Simplizissimus_ by Grimmelshausen. It is a work in
which persons are seen invoking dreams. Unfortunately the realization
seems to have been achieved by the National Socialist regime.

I now go on to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, whose case concerns most
particularly our friends in the Netherlands on behalf of whom France is
acting as counsel.

Consequently, Mr. President and Gentlemen, as regards the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart, the French Prosecution is going to outline as briefly as
possible both in the name of the Netherlands Government and in its own
name the separate charges against this defendant. The part played by the
Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his participation in the annexation of Austria,
were carefully studied during the course of this Trial. But it is his
operations in Holland which deserve to be thrown into special relief
today.

On 13 May 1940 the Netherlands Government left Holland for a friendly
Allied country. Its presence there was indicative of its firm
determination not to yield up in any way its sovereign rights.

On 29 May 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had the rank of Reich
Minister without Portfolio, was appointed Reich Commissioner for the
occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has therefore been
considered responsible, by virtue of his functions, for all the acts
committed by the so-called German Civil Government from that date up to
the capitulation of the German Army. The speeches which he made afford
evidence that he was invested not only with purely administrative
functions but also with political authority.

It is, therefore, useless for him to try, as he did when he was
interrogated by my friend Mr. Thomas Dodd, to maintain that in Holland
he was nothing more than an official empowered to put his seal on
orders, in the same way that in Austria earlier he was practically only
a telegraph operator. This interrogation is dated 18 September 1945,
Pages 20 to 22. I do not insist further, as I did not wish to produce
these interrogations in order to avoid wasting the time of the Court
with the numerous interrogations which would have had to be cited in
cross-examination, and these documents will really remain for the
edification of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in?

M. MOUNIER: No, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as a matter of technical procedure. . . .

M. MOUNIER: I know in advance that you cannot accept this as proof
already constituted in your eyes, considering the rule. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.

M. MOUNIER: My intention, Mr. President, is the following—to
state. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me. Under
the article the prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the
defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the defendants.

If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation
in evidence. If they do not choose to do so, they need not do so. Under
such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be
furnished to the defendant until it is.

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President, I have not alluded to these statements
made by the defendant. I simply wish to point out that when the
defendant of whom I am now speaking is cross-examined, we shall be able
to confront him with the statements he made, or, at least, I hope so.

With the permission of the Court I shall first take up the subject of
the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s terrorist activities. These are shown by
the following measures:

First, a whole system of collective fines. In March 1941 he established
a system of collective fines which were imposed upon the Dutch cities
where he thought that elements of the resistance movement existed. Thus
the city of Amsterdam had to pay a fine of two and a half million.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established a system of hostages. On 18
May 1942 he published a proclamation announcing the arrest of 450
persons in important official positions, who were only suspected of
being in relation with the resistance movement.

In fact, the defendant has admitted before Mr. Dodd. . . . No, I stop,
Mr. President, I did not submit these interrogations. I shall pass over
this passage and only point it out in a general way, and I beg the Court
not to consider this fact as an infringement of the Charter. I am simply
pointing out to the Court that in this case, too, the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Reich Chancellor,
the shadow of the Führer, Hitler.

By the decree of 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German
tribunals, the judges of which he himself appointed, were to try not
only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens suspected of
activities hostile to the Reich, to the Nazi Party, or to the German
people.

At the same time the Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the death
penalty for those who had not properly performed the security jobs
assigned them by the Wehrmacht or the Security Police or who had failed
to inform the German command posts of all criminal projects directed
against the occupation forces which came to their knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18
May 1942. You did not give us any number as yet.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I ought to say that I am referring in a
general way to the official report of the Netherlands Government
(Document Number RF-1429). The government submitted a report. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is it stated there?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Did that also apply to the document of 7 July 1942 that
you just spoke of?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also
appointed the SS Obergruppenführer Rauter, General Commissioner for
Security. The latter is responsible for the murder of thousands of
Dutchmen executed with the passive consent of Seyss-Inquart, inasmuch as
Rauter’s appointment was always maintained and was never terminated.

On the other hand, the Netherlands Government charges the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart with the creation of a whole series of exceptional courts.
In May 1943 he established summary police jurisdiction, and in fact
through an ordinance issued by Hitler, Dutch prisoners of war who had
been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were once more
interned. A tough resistance showed itself in the Dutch factories and
the newly established summary jurisdiction sentenced several Dutch
citizens who were executed. Moreover, Seyss-Inquart did not fail to
boast of all these terrorist measures at a meeting of Dutch
collaborators and claimed responsibility for them.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart was Hitler’s supreme representative in
Holland. He should be considered as responsible, along with the
Defendant Sauckel, for the mass deportation of workers from Holland to
the Reich between 1940 and 1945. Whether or not the German military
authorities played any part themselves in the mobilization of labor,
Sauckel’s officials in Holland were normally placed under the authority
of the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, and he must be considered as
responsible for their actions. It was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who
signed the decree of the Reich Commissioner, Number 26 of 1942, which is
found in the official Dutch report, in an official publication ordering
the compulsory transport of Dutch labor to Germany. Those who would not
work for Germany got nothing to eat; the occupation authorities even
went so far as to make huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam and The
Hague in order to procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.

In regard to economic pillage during the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s
period of office as Commissioner, the Dutch economic system was
plundered like that of the other occupied countries. In the winter of
1941-42 woollen goods were requisitioned by order of Seyss-Inquart for
the German Army on the Eastern front. In 1943 textiles and every-day
household articles were requisitioned for the benefit of the bombed-out
German population. Under what the occupation authorities called the
“Action Böhm,” people of the Netherlands were compelled to sell wines
and various objects destined to form gifts for the German population for
the celebration of Christmas 1943.

The same thing happened with regard to the organization of the black
market, for, in order to carry out the Four Year Plan, Seyss-Inquart
gave the Defendant Göring and the Defendant Speer competent assistance
in the pillage of the Dutch economic system. We can say in this way that
a huge black market was fostered and maintained. The Four Year Plan
utilized “snatchers” for these alleged purchases but when Dutch
prosecutors tried to intervene they were prevented from doing so by the
German police.

In 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued an ordinance permitting the
German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property of all persons
who could be accused of hostile activities against the German Reich. The
property of the royal family was, on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s
orders, confiscated by the General Commission for Security. The
occupation troops could help themselves to everything that was of use to
them.

This pillage was manifested in a particularly cruel manner by the abuses
which went on in connection with the requisition of food products.

In fact, the official report of the Dutch Government and the document
already submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution
under Document Number RF-139 (Exhibit Number RF-139), and Document
Number RF-140 (Exhibit Number RF-140) show that, from the very beginning
of the occupation, food stocks were systematically removed with the
consent of Seyss-Inquart—as was also the case with agricultural
produce, which was transported to Germany. When a railway strike broke
out in the north in September 1944, soon after the liberation of
southern Holland, Seyss-Inquart, in order to break the strike, gave
orders that no food stocks were to be moved from the northeast to the
West. As a result of this, it was impossible to establish food stocks in
the West.

Consequently, Seyss-Inquart must also be held responsible for the famine
which ensued during the winter of 1944-45, causing the death of some
25,000 Dutchmen.

In regard to works of art, the pillage was carried on in the same way.
The Defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for
organizing the removal of works of art from Holland, since he expressly
called in his friend, Dr. Mühlmann, who was a specialist in this branch.

In this connection I refer to the document submitted by the Economic
Section of the French Prosecution under Document Numbers RF-1343 and
RF-1344. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a whole series of measures
contrary to international law which did considerable harm to the
Netherlands.

In 1941 the Dutch authorities had established a currency control system
which allowed them to keep track of purchases made with German money,
either of goods or public funds, with the aim of preventing abuses which
would lead to the plundering of Holland’s wealth in the form of
materials or of currency.

On 31 March 1941 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart abolished the “currency”
frontier existing between the Reich and the occupied Dutch territory. By
so doing, he paved the way for all the abuses committed in monetary
matters by the occupying power, in addition to the impossible sums
demanded by Germany to defray the expenses of occupation: 500 million
Reichsmark on 24 March 1941.

The frontier control between Dutch occupied territory and Germany was
also abolished by order of Göring, in order to expedite the pillage of
the Netherlands’ economic system. When the war began to go badly for the
Wehrmacht, especially after 1 September 1944, the destruction became
systematic. The objectives aimed at by the Germans in the Netherlands
were the following: First, to demolish or put out of action factories,
shipyards, basins and docks, port installations, mines, bridges, railway
equipment. Second, to flood the western parts of Holland. Third, to
seize raw materials, semi-manufactured products, manufactured goods and
machines, sometimes by requisitioning, sometimes in return for payment
in money, but in many cases simply by force of arms. Fourth, to break
open safe-deposits containing securities, diamonds, _et cetera_, and to
take illegal possession of these. The result of these measures,
responsibility for which devolves wholly or to a great extent on the
Defendant Seyss-Inquart, was to throw Holland into a state of
unspeakable and undeserved misery.

I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will
take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the
Defendant Hess will be presented afterwards; and it is important that he
should finish that day, so that the Chief Prosecutor may have a full day
for his opening statement.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, both yesterday and today I have yielded most
willingly to the wishes of the Tribunal. I understand perfectly your
anxiety to expedite the trial as much as possible, and in view of this,
I shortened the remarks which I was going to make to you this morning.
For this reason, too, I state in the name of the French Prosecution that
I shall now forego the presentation of the cases of the other
defendants, which were on the schedule. I merely ask the Tribunal to
refer to the files which we have submitted, except in the case of Keitel
and Jodl. If it please the Court, my friend and colleague, M. Quatre,
will make a few remarks about these two defendants at the beginning of
this afternoon’s session. He will try to make them as short as possible.
In that way the British Delegation will have the two hours which it
needs to present the case of Hess.

Consequently, may it please the Court, M. Quatre will take the floor for
an hour at two o’clock and then give way to the British Delegation.

THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M.
Mounier, as to the documents against the other defendants, other than
Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in
them?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.
President, Your Honors, I have the honor today to bring to a close the
presentation of the French Prosecution by recapitulating the charges
against the Defendants Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. Before going into
my statement, I shall ask the Tribunal for permission to present a few
observations. First of all, to spare the time of the Tribunal, we have
joined the two defendants in the same brief. Their activities were
carried on so much in common that in separating them we would run the
risk of tedious repetitions and for this reason, I am condensing as far
as possible what I have to say.

This presentation consists of three parts. In an introduction, I have
endeavored to show the position of the two defendants in the general
design of their activities. The first part following this deals with the
preparation of plans of aggression, and will only be mentioned. It has
already been sufficiently expounded so that it need not be brought up
again.

The second part will claim my special attention. It concerns the
responsibility incurred by the defendants for the crimes committed in
the course of the war. In this connection, I shall not mention all the
documents, testimonies, and interrogatories concerning these two
defendants. If their guilt is a function of the repetition of their
crimes, its main characteristic is the criminal intent which caused
these crimes to be carried out. This criminal intent is made
particularly clear by the few documents to which I have limited myself.
I shall ask the Tribunal’s permission to make a few intentionally brief
quotations from these.

The documents quoted will be first quoted under the session number,
which you will find written in red in the margin of the copy before you.
I shall thereupon indicate the original number. If the document has
already been submitted, I shall furnish the date at which it was
submitted and the number under which it was submitted.

As Chief of the National Socialist Party and subsequently as Chancellor
of the Reich, Hitler endeavored to gain sole control of the German Army.
He wanted the unity which he had established between Party and State to
prevail throughout the Army, the State, and the Party. Only under these
conditions would the war machine be capable of fulfilling its function.
The initial impulse would come from the Party, the State would translate
it into action, and the Army would impose it, if necessary, both at home
and abroad.

To achieve this aim it was necessary first of all to impose legislation
which would in fact bring the whole military organization under the
Führer’s orders. It was also necessary to take steps to eliminate
personalities too unyielding to submit to these measures. The execution
of Von Schleicher in 1934 and the disgrace of Blomberg in 1938 are two
examples. All that remained was to provide for their replacement by
military chiefs whose conscience was sufficiently elastic to allow them
to play the part of faithful executives. Keitel and Jodl were among
these.

Their personal convictions and their rapid rise to eminence prove this.
Questioned on 3 August 1945 by Colonel Ecer of the Czechoslovakian
Military Judiciary, the Defendant Keitel spoke thus of his relations
with Hitler and the National Socialist Party, (Exhibit Number RF-1430,
formerly Document Number RF-710):

    “In my innermost thoughts I was a faithful supporter of Adolf
    Hitler and my political convictions were National Socialist.
    When the Führer accorded me his confidence, my personal contact
    with him further influenced me towards National Socialism. Today
    I am still a firm partisan of Adolf Hitler, which does not imply
    that I adhere to all the points of the program and policy of the
    Party.”

On 7 November 1943, in a speech delivered in Munich to the leaders of
the Reich and of the provinces on the strategic position of Germany at
the beginning of the fifth year of the war, Jodl made the following
statement by way of peroration, Exhibit Number RF-1431, Document Number
L-172, submitted by the American Prosecution of 27 November 1945 under
Number USA-34:

    “At this moment I should like to testify, not only with my lips
    but from the bottom of my heart, that our trust and confidence
    in the Führer are boundless.”

Keitel, who entered the Army in 1901, was still a colonel in 1931. Jodl,
who was 3 years younger, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel
only in 1932, in spite of the opportunities offered by the war of
1914-18. The past years had brought them only mediocre advancement.
Those which lay before them were to lead them to the heights of honor
and responsibility. They saw their star rising at last simultaneously
with that of the new master of Germany. The immediate result was their
admission to public life.

During the years preceding the war, Keitel did not cease to exercise
high functions in the most exalted ranks of the German Armed Forces. As
he was in special favor with the new master of Germany, he adopted every
possible means of strengthening the influence of Nazi ideology within
the Army from the moment of Hitler’s accession to power. His activities
in the Armed Forces Department were particularly fruitful. This was a
ministerial organization which temporarily replaced the Reich Ministry
of War and was responsible among other things for the preparation and
co-ordination of plans affecting the German Army. The defendant’s period
in office is rendered the more noteworthy by the fact that sweeping
changes in organization had just been effected. The Reichswehr of the
professional soldier was replaced by the Wehrmacht, recruited by
compulsory military service. It was not enough to call the whole youth
of Germany to the flag; it had to be clothed and fed and supplied with
powerful modern weapons. This increase in the number of men under arms,
these beginnings of a military economy and of a policy of rearmament,
were largely due to the efforts of the defendant, who at that time
enjoyed, in fact if not in theory, the prerogatives of a Minister of
War.

On 4 February 1938, when Hitler abolished the War Ministry and
proclaimed himself Commander-in-Chief, he transferred the chief powers
of the Ministry to the High Command of the Armed Forces and its chief,
Keitel, became at the same time Chief of the Führer’s personal staff.

The defendant was to retain these functions until the German Army
capitulated. As Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Keitel
did not exercise direct authority over the three services composing the
Armed Forces: the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, which were directly
under Hitler. His particular function was the co-ordination of matters
affecting the three services; he acted as liaison agent between Hitler
and these three services, but he did more than this. His main role was
that of adviser. He collated the information reaching him from the
different services under his orders. This included reports from the
Operations Staff under Jodl, information from the office of Admiral
Canaris, reports made by the economic Armament Office under General
Thomas, and by the administrative, financial, and legal branches. No
matter how personal and authoritative Hitler’s way of working may have
been, it did not exclude the regular and constant participation of
Keitel in the acts of his master. It was he who was in a position to
carry out his chief’s demands, to suggest, to prepare, or to modify his
decisions.

If we consider his qualifications as a member of the Defense Council of
the Reich and as a member of the Secret Cabinet Council and also
consider their political importance, it is easy to see the scope of the
role played by the defendant in every sphere, whether in the preparation
of military plans in the strict sense of the term, the life or conduct
of the German Army, the distribution of manpower, or the utilization of
the economic resources of Germany.

Whenever a meeting was held at general headquarters or at the
Chancellery, Keitel was present. He was present when Hitler made
decisions of major importance. He was at his side on marches into the
countries to be annexed. When orders by Hitler had to be transmitted, he
in his turn would give orders, elaborating his chief’s ideas and adding
his personal contribution. In countersigning Hitler’s decrees, Keitel
did not alter the validity of these texts as regards the law of the
Third Reich, but he gave Hitler a guarantee of their usefulness for the
Wehrmacht and their execution to the last detail. It was in that way in
particular that he acknowledged responsibility.

Like Keitel, Jodl was one of those men who staked their success on the
success of the new regime and its creator. His attitude, his orders, and
his activities show that he was a general inspired by political
considerations, attached to Hitler, who showered favors on him. In
assuming the direction of the general Operations Staff of the High
Command of the Armed Forces, he also took an active and important part
in the elaboration of his chief’s orders.

Hitler represented the exclusive right to make decisions (Page 9 of my
brief) but the two defendants who shared his every-day life during the
period of hostilities brought his decisions into being, elaborated them,
and ensured their execution.

Jodl fulfilled this role of counsellor, although in theory his authority
was by no means equal to Keitel’s. This did not prevent him from
intervening in matters outside the field of pure operations, but in
which he likewise engaged his personal responsibility.

This responsibility of the two defendants has a bearing on the
preparation and execution of plans of aggression. We shall not come back
to this point. In this matter our British colleague, Mr. Roberts, has
brought out perfectly the role played by these two defendants, and we
shall consider more particularly their responsibility in the conduct of
the war.

First of all, their responsibility for the murder and ill-treatment of
civilians, collective sanctions, and the murder of hostages (Page 13 of
my brief).

From the beginning of the war and keeping pace with the occupation of
new territories by the German armies, there appeared measures against
the civilian population, in violation of the laws of war and of the law
of nations. These violations range from the apparently harmless to the
most severe sanctions, the most cruel treatment, the most senseless and
inhuman executions.

If we turn to the occupied territories in the East, towards Norway,
towards the western countries, we find everywhere the same reactions,
the same scrupulous execution of the same directives. On 16 September
1941, Keitel signed an order regarding the repression of communist
insurrectionary movements in the occupied territories. This is Exhibit
Number RF-1432, Document Number 389-PS. If the Tribunal will permit me,
I should like to read briefly from this document. Keitel’s directives
are the following:

    “Every case of insurrection against the German occupying power
    is to be attributed to communist initiative irrespective of the
    particular circumstances.

    “The most severe measures are to be taken to nip the rising in
    the bud at the first signs, so as to uphold the authority of the
    forces of occupation and to prevent such movements from
    spreading. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the
    countries in question human life often means nothing and that
    intimidation can be achieved only by unusual severity. In this
    case, the death penalty must as a general rule be considered a
    fitting reprisal for the death of a German soldier.”

THE PRESIDENT: We have had this read already.

M. QUATRE: I am sorry, Mr. President. On 5 May 1942, addressing himself
to Belgium and France in particular, Keitel ordered hostages to be taken
and executed in these two countries. They were to be chosen from the
nationalists, the democrats, and the communists. This is Exhibit Number
RF-1433 (Document Number 1590-PS), the original of which is now in the
hands of the Prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
which will not fail to submit it in the course of its presentation. This
order merely confirms previous directives, since orders given in August
and September 1941 by General Von Stülpnagel, Commander-in-Chief in
France, already concerned the execution of hostages. This is Exhibit
Number RF-1434 (Document Number 1588-PS) submitted 29 January 1946 by
the French Prosecution under Exhibit Number RF-274.

To impose order in the occupied territories and to protect the members
of the German Army from attempted violence, Keitel did not hesitate to
violate the stipulations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention,
which forbid the use by the occupying power of all means of coercion or
collective reprisals and which, on the contrary, impose respect for the
lives of individuals.

These were not isolated cases of violation; the same things are repeated
in all the occupied countries. These preventive arrests were built up
into a system. They are well suited to the goal that the High Command
had set itself: That of assuring in this manner a certain attitude on
the part of the population which should be advantageous from a military
point of view. The terms of Exhibit Number RF-1433, which I have just
quoted, are perfectly definite:

    “. . . the military commanders should always have on hand a
    certain number of hostages of various political leanings. . . .

    “It is important that these should include personalities in the
    public eye. . . .

    “In cases of attempted violence, hostages belonging to the same
    group as the guilty person are to be shot.”

The reign of terror thus instituted was to reach its climax in the
regulations for applying the Nacht und Nebel decree, issued by Keitel on
12 December 1941. This is Exhibit Number RF-1436, which I submit today
as Document Number 669-PS. If the Tribunal will allow me, I shall read a
few characteristic lines indicating Keitel’s intentions.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had it more than once already.

M. QUATRE: I apologize, Mr. President, and I shall go on. This is the
starting point of the deportations to which France, among other
countries, has contributed in such a great degree. It is unnecessary to
labor the point. You know the treatment inflicted upon these women and
men, torn from their homes in contempt of every law; and the atrocities
committed on them are present to all our minds.

Let us likewise call attention to Exhibit Number RF-1437 (Document
Number UK-20) submitted 9 January 1946 as Exhibit Number GB-163. That is
an order of 26 May 1943, signed on his behalf, in which Keitel
prescribed in Paragraph 3 that detailed investigations are to be made in
given cases regarding the relatives of Frenchmen fighting for the
Russians, if these relatives reside in the occupied zone of France. If
the investigation reveals that these relatives have helped to facilitate
their flight from France, severe measures are to be taken.

On 22 September 1943 the High Command of the Armed Forces, this time
over Jodl’s signature, sent the Commander-in-Chief in Denmark a telegram
interesting from two points of view. It is Exhibit Number RF-1438
(Document Number UK-56) already submitted on 31 January 1946, under
Exhibit Number RF-335. The first paragraph authorizes the enrollment of
Danish nationals in the military formations of the occupying army, in SS
formations. Apart from being injurious to the honor of the individuals,
it contravenes the terms of the preamble of the Hague Convention, which
stipulates that, in cases not included in the regular provisions, the
population and the belligerents must remain under the safeguard of the
laws of humanity and the exigencies of the public conscience. This
attempt at Germanization ignored completely the exigencies of the public
conscience.

As for the second paragraph of this telegram ordering the Jews to be
deported from Denmark to Germany, that is the application of the general
principle of the deportation of Jewish populations which was to lead to
their utter extermination. The Tribunal is sufficiently informed on this
point, so it is unnecessary to labor it.

I now come to the unwarranted devastation and destruction of cities,
towns, and villages (Page 20 of my brief). The policy of terrorism
carried on by the German armies in France against the resistance
movement, against the Free French Forces, broke all bounds when the
occupying power took steps, not against the members of the resistance
forces themselves, but against the inhabitants of villages and towns
suspected of harboring these resistance forces or giving them aid. I
quote in this connection from a brochure put out by the High Command of
the German Armed Forces under the date of 6 May 1944, which bears the
signature of the Defendant Jodl in the name of the Chief of the OKW.
This is Exhibit Number RF-1439, formerly Document Number F-665,
submitted 31 January 1946 under Exhibit Number RF-411. Paragraph 161 of
this notice reads as follows:

    “The cleaning up of villages suspected of concealing bands needs
    experience. The forces of the Security Service and the rural
    Secret Police are to be employed. The real helpers of the bands
    are to be identified and the most rigorous measures taken
    against them. Collective measures against the populations of
    entire villages, including the burning of the places in
    question, can be ordered only in exceptional cases and then only
    by divisional commanders, SS leaders, or chiefs of police.”
    (Page 21 of my brief.)

But what the Defendant Jodl had ordered as an exceptional measure became
the general rule in France in the spring and in the summer of 1944.
Actions which had been exceptional when this order was signed now took
on the aspect of large-scale operations, ordered and carried out in
violation of the law of nations by army units assisted by the forces of
the Security Service and the rural secret police.

On the pretext of investigating or making reprisals against local
resistance elements, German officers and men scrupulously carried out
the orders given by the Chief of the Operations Staff.

It was in this way that the withdrawal of German armies in France was
marked by dead towns such as those which bore the names of
Oradour-sur-Glane, Maillé, Cerizay, Saint-Dié, and Vassieux-en-Vercors.
Jodl is responsible for these “mopping-up” operations, which began with
the most arbitrary arrests and went on by progressive stages to torture,
the wholesale massacre of men, women, old people, and children—even
infants in arms—and the looting and burning of the villages themselves.
No distinction was made among the inhabitants; all of them, even the
babies, were “genuine auxiliaries.”

Never have the necessities of war justified such measures, all of which
constituted violations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention.

I come now (Page 23 of my brief) to the mobilization of civilian workers
and to the deportation of civilians for forced labor. The decree
appointing Sauckel Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, under date of
21 March 1942, is signed by Hitler, Lammers, Chief of the Reich
Chancellery, and the Defendant Keitel. This is Exhibit Number RF-1440
(Document Number 1666-PS) submitted by the American Prosecution on 12
December 1945 under Exhibit Number USA-208.

The first paragraph provides for the recruiting of all available
civilian labor for employment in the German war industry and
particularly in the armament industry. All unemployed workers in
Germany, the Protectorate, the Government General, and all the occupied
territories were liable for this. This constitutes a violation of
Article 52 of the Hague Convention.

On 7 November 1943, in the course of the speech to which we have already
alluded, the Defendant Jodl, speaking of the tasks incumbent upon the
populations of German-occupied territories, declared in Exhibit Number
RF-1431 (Document Number L-172) which I quoted some time ago:

    “In my opinion the time has come when we must have no scruples
    in taking stern and resolute measures in Denmark, Holland,
    France, and Belgium in order to force thousands of unemployed to
    work on fortifications, which is more essential than any other
    work. The necessary orders have already been given.”

Sauckel would not have expressed himself otherwise. Jodl also champions
this requisitioning of services to utilize the potential labor of the
western occupied territories for military purposes in the exclusive
interest of Germany. It matters little that the Hague Convention
prohibits such procedure. For him, too, total warfare and the triumph of
Germany take precedence over respect for international conventions or
the customs of war.

I now come to the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel in the sphere
of economic spoliation and looting of art treasures. I shall be
extremely brief. I point out to the Tribunal three documents which have
already been submitted to it. I simply refer to them: Exhibit Number
RF-1441 submitted yesterday by my colleague of the Economic Section
under Exhibit Number RF-1302, and Exhibit Number RF-1400 (Document
Number 137-PS) submitted 18 December 1945 by the American Prosecution
under Number USA-379, and finally Exhibit Number RF-1443 (Document
Number 138-PS), submitted yesterday under Exhibit Number RF-1310.

In regard to this, I shall merely submit to the Tribunal today a short
letter consisting of five lines, addressed by Keitel to Rosenberg, Chief
of the Einsatzstab. This is Exhibit Number RF-1444, (Document Number
148-PS) which reads as follows:

    “Most Honored Reich Minister.

    “In reply to your letter of 20 February I inform you that I have
    instructed the High Command of the Army to make the necessary
    arrangements with your delegate for the work of your special
    units in the operational area.”

It can therefore be said that Rosenberg’s activities received the
continued support and assistance of the Army from the very first and in
this way Keitel also made a personal contribution to the looting of the
art treasures of France and the western countries. These measures were
at first invested with an appearance of legal justification. They did
not take place, according to Keitel, by virtue of a right to take, but
simply as a guarantee for future peace negotiations. But these measures
quickly degenerated into a general plundering of the art treasures of
all kinds possessed by these western countries, in violation of the
stipulations of Articles 46, 47, and 56 of the Hague Convention, which
forbid the confiscation of private property and the pillage or seizure
of works of art and science by the members of the occupying army.

I have now reached the last main part of my brief, which concerns (Page
28) the violations of conventions and laws of war relating to prisoners
of war. In this field, in particular, Keitel and Jodl have made
themselves guilty of peculiarly unwarrantable measures, contrary to the
laws of war.

To begin with, they have violated Article 6 of the Appendix to the Hague
Convention, which stipulates that “work carried out by war prisoners
shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with war
operations.”

Now, in a memorandum signed on his behalf, dated 31 October 1941,
Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, forces Russian prisoners of war, interned
in the Reich, to perform work connected with war operations. This is
proved by Exhibit Number RF-1445 (Document Number EC-194) submitted by
the American Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number
USA-214. In this text Keitel expresses himself thus:

    “The Führer has just ordered that even the labor capacity of
    Russian prisoners of war must be placed at the disposal of the
    German war economy on a large scale.”

That is the signal for the immediate setting up of a program for
incorporating these prisoners into the German war economy. It is true
that in 1941, this document concerns only Russian prisoners of war; but
from 21 March 1942, the incorporation of all war prisoners into the
German war industry, and more especially the armament industry, is put
into practice. The decree signed by Hitler appointing Sauckel
Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, to which reference already has
been made, provides, likewise, for the use of all prisoners of war in
the German armaments industry. This is shown by Document RF-1440, which
reveals the violation of Articles 27, 31, 32, and 33 of the Geneva
Convention.

One month later, on 20 April 1942, Sauckel expressed himself thus, in
his mobilization program for the labor forces, Exhibit Number RF-1446
(Document Number 016-PS) submitted 11 December 1945 by the American
Prosecution, under Exhibit Number USA-168:

    “It is absolutely necessary to make the fullest possible use of
    all prisoners of war and to employ the greatest possible number
    of new civilian workers, both men and women, if the labor
    program in this war is to be realized.”

In this way Sauckel succeeded in incorporating 1,658,000 prisoners of
war into the war economy of the Reich by 6 February 1943, as he
announced in a speech made at Posen. This is shown by Exhibit Number
RF-1447 (Document Number 1739-PS), submitted on 8 January 1946 by the
French Prosecution under Exhibit Number RF-10.

The 1,658,000 prisoners of war were the following: Belgians, 55,000;
French, 932,000; British, 45,000; Yugoslavs, 101,000; Poles, 33,000;
Russians, 488,000; Others, 4,000; Total: 1,658,000.

The fact that such a large contingent was put at the disposal of the
German war economy implies perfect collusion between Sauckel’s labor
services and Keitel, who, in his capacity of Chief of the High Command,
was responsible for this reservoir of manpower and the use to which it
was put.

These flagrant violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were later
accompanied by measures inspired or authorized by the defendants, which
were even more serious because they no longer violated only the war
prisoners’ rights as such but also involved physical assaults on their
persons, which might even cause their deaths. These violations have a
bearing, first of all, on the violation of security (Page 32 of my
brief).

Exhibit Number RF-1448, (Document Number 823-PS), submitted 30 January
1946 under Exhibit Number RF-359 offers us a report drawn up by the
office of the Operations Staff for the Chief of the High Command. It
relates to the establishment of camps for British and American Air Force
prisoners in German bombed towns. The Operations Staff of the Luftwaffe
proposed this arrangement so that the presence of these air force
prisoners might protect the population of the cities concerned against
possible attacks by the British and American Air Forces and in order to
transfer all the existing camps for air force prisoners to these places.

Jodl approved this measure on behalf of the General Staff of the High
Command, considering that if it was limited to the establishment of new
camps, it would not be contrary to international law.

If we did not know the reason underlying this decision we might believe,
like the Defendant Jodl, that it does not run counter to international
law. But this measure, as the first lines of this document specify, is
above all an indirect means of safeguarding the German urban population.
The Allied war prisoners are only a means of warding off possible air
attacks; and to attain this end no hesitation is shown in aggravating
their condition by exposing them to the dangers of war. This is a grave
violation of the obligation regarding the safety of prisoners imposed by
Article 9 of the Geneva Convention upon the power detaining prisoners of
war.

Keitel writes only two words on the first page of the document—“No
objections”—and adds his initials.

I now come (Page 34) to the measures taken against escaped prisoners.
The nature of these measures later became particularly serious, as is
shown by Exhibit Number RF-1449 (Document Number 1650-PS), submitted on
13 December 1945 by the American Prosecution under Number USA-246. The
Tribunal is sufficiently informed as to this and it is not necessary, I
think, for me to read it.

This document reveals the “Aktion Kugel” which was designed to put a
stop to the escapes of officers and noncommissioned officers. Its only
purpose was to turn escaped prisoners over to police organizations. This
is the Sonderbehandlung mentioned in orders and reports, but this
“special treatment,” as you know, is nothing more or less than
extermination.

Yet, in the terms of Article 47 and succeeding articles of the Geneva
Convention, only disciplinary punishment in the form of arrest can be
inflicted by the detaining power on escaped prisoners of war. Keitel did
not hesitate to abandon these methods for more radical means.

DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The French prosecutor is
about to refer to a document which is in the document book under RF-711
and has been presented to the Court under Document RF-1450. This
document is marked as a summary of an interrogation of General Westhoff,
and it forms a particularly grave charge against the Defendant Keitel.
It concerns the shooting of R.A.F. officers who had escaped from the
Camp of Sagan. I protest against the use of this document in evidence
for the following reasons:

1. The original is not an affidavit but only a summarized report of
General Westhoff’s statements. 2. The report submitted is not signed by
Colonel Williams, who conducted the interrogation. It is not signed at
all but has only a translator’s note on it. 3. One cannot see, from the
document, who drafted it. 4. In addition, one cannot see from that
report whether General Westhoff was questioned under oath. 5. General
Westhoff is, as far as I know, right here in Nuremberg. 6. There is a
protocol concerning General Westhoff’s interrogation. For these reasons
I ask the Court to verify whether that document, which has been
presented as a résumé of General Westhoff’s interrogation, can be
admitted in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: [_Turning to M. Quatre._] Well, what do you say to the
various points raised by Dr. Nelte?

M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I recognize the soundness of the request by
the Defense and I shall be in a position at the end of this session to
produce before the Tribunal the complete minutes of the interrogation of
General Westhoff, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
I regret not being able to produce them at the moment. I received these
minutes late for certain reasons and I thought it better not to add them
to my document book.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the document which you have
submitted to us cannot be admitted. It is a mere résumé. The Tribunal
thinks, also, that it can allow the interrogatory to be used only if a
copy of it is handed to the defendants’ counsel and the witness who made
the interrogatory is submitted to the defendants’ counsel for
cross-examination, if they wish to cross-examine him. Otherwise you must
call General Westhoff and examine him orally. Is that clear? I will
repeat it if you like.

The document you have submitted to us is rejected. You can either call
General Westhoff as a witness, in which case, of course, he will be
liable to cross-examination; or you can put in the interrogatory after
you have supplied a copy of it to Defense Counsel, and then General
Westhoff, who made the interrogatory, will be liable to
cross-examination by the Defense Counsel.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal allow me to intervene for one
moment?

The document to which my learned friend referred a moment ago as having
been certified by myself is a report of the United Nations War Crimes
Commission, which I received from the Chairman, Lord Reith, and
certified as such a report. It therefore, in my respectful submission,
becomes admissible under Article 21 of the Charter. It is not merely a
transcript of the interrogation. That is the document to which my
learned friend referred and that is available and can be procured quite
shortly.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I follow that point, but at the same time that
does not altogether meet the situation. If it is true that General
Westhoff is in Nuremberg at the present moment, it would scarcely be
fair that a document of that sort should be put in unless the person who
made the statement or from whose interrogatory the statement was
composed was submitted for cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, My Lord, I should
like the Tribunal to consider that point because the Tribunal has not
got the document in front of it; but it is a report to the United
Nations War Crimes Commission, based on the interrogatory. It therefore,
in my respectful submission, becomes admissible as a report within the
actual words of Article 21 and therefore is a matter which the Tribunal
shall, under the Charter, take judicial notice of.

THE PRESIDENT: Would your submission be that the right course would be
to take that report into consideration and leave it to the defendants,
if they wished it, to call General Westhoff?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be my submission—that is my
submission because of the effect of Article 21 or the course which is
contemplated in view of the special powers and special validity given to
such reports by Article 21.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the interrogation
was made by the Prosecution in Nuremberg?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told that the interrogation was made in
London. I did not know that General Westhoff was in Nuremberg. I will
make inquiries on that point.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, were you able to inform us whether or not the
interrogation was made in Nuremberg or in London?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told it was made in London.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is now?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not know he was in Nuremberg until Your
Lordship mentioned it, but I can easily verify that point.

DR. NELTE: Last week I received a letter from General Westhoff, from the
witnesses’ block of the prison here in Nuremberg, with answers to other
questions. So you see that he was here last week.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if I might just add one or two words to
clarify the position. I do this because this is a matter to which the
British Government, in particular, attached very great importance.

The position was that last September—on 25 September—the British
Government sent a full report of this incident to the United Nations War
Crimes Commission. That report included statements before a court of
inquiry, statements of Allied witnesses, statements taken from German
witnesses, including General Westhoff, a copy of the official lists of
the dead, and a report of the protecting power. All that was sent by the
British Government to the United Nations War Crimes Commission last
September; and the statement of General Westhoff, which I certified as
being a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, was part of
an appendix to that report which was then in the custody of the United
Nations War Crimes Commission and of which a copy was sent to me here.

I provided that to my French colleagues and that refers to an earlier
report made by General Westhoff at an interrogation which took place in
London as a part of the matter of that report.

The document which my learned friend was adducing today was a summary of
a subsequent interrogation of General Westhoff taken in Nuremberg. My
Lord, I wanted to get the position perfectly clear, if I could, to the
Tribunal, because, as I say, the incident is one of some importance and
the British Government report will be, I hope, tendered the Tribunal by
my Soviet colleague, as the incident lies to the east of the line which
we have drawn through the center of Berlin and therefore falls within
the Soviet case.

But I do not want the Tribunal to be under any misapprehension as to the
nature of the earlier report that was made, the one which my learned
friend referred to as being able to put in later should the Tribunal
desire it.

THE PRESIDENT: But you are agreed that the document which is now being
offered to the Tribunal is not a government document within Article 21
of the Charter?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I quite respectfully agree that that is not
really the document on which I intervened. I intervened on the second
one.

THE PRESIDENT: At this stage we are not concerned with that document,
only with the document offered in evidence to which Dr. Nelte objected,
and that document is not a government document within Article 21.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That I understand is so, but I was really
intervening to explain that the second document comes. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand, yes. The Tribunal allows the
objection of Dr. Nelte. It considers that the document which has been
submitted is not a governmental document within Article 21 of the
Charter and is therefore rejected. The Tribunal adheres to the decision
which I announced just before we adjourned, namely, that if the
Prosecution desires to do so, they can produce the interrogation of
which the document submitted to them is understood by them to be a
résumé; and if they do so, then they must produce the witness, General
Westhoff, for cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel. In the
alternative, they can produce and call General Westhoff himself and
then, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination by the
defendants’ counsel.

M. QUATRE: I take notice of the Tribunal’s decisions and I should like
to state that as I am eager not to lose time, and much time has already
been lost in the course of today’s session, we shall not make use of
this document now, nor shall we call General Westhoff. I shall simply
request the Tribunal to note that we reserve the right to call General
Westhoff, if necessary, when the defendants are cross-examined. May I
continue, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: You may.

M. QUATRE: I had reached, Gentlemen, Page 36 of my brief, concerning the
treatment of Allied airmen who were prisoners. This point had already
been discussed at some length before you.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to say that the Tribunal will be willing
to sit this evening until half past five, in order that the case against
the Defendant Hess may be concluded; but it is very important that the
case should be concluded tonight, against the Defendant Hess, because
the Soviet Prosecution will require the whole day for their presentation
tomorrow.

M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I shall pass straight
on to my conclusion. I shall say nothing about the treatment of Allied
airmen. You know the circumstances, as well as the treatment of commando
troops, and I once more beg the Tribunal’s pardon for having
unintentionally spoken at such length. I shall now conclude.

It is definitely the conception of criminal intention which was present
in the drafting of the orders and directives which we have just
examined. The reality of the acts perpetrated as a result of these
decisions cannot be denied, nor should we overlook or underestimate this
moral element, qualified by French penal law, to use the formula of an
eminent jurist as “knowledge on the part of the agent of the illicit
character of the acts performed by him.” The two defendants were fully
cognizant of the illicit nature of orders which they knew would be
scrupulously carried out.

With Keitel and Jodl the systematic rejection of the laws and customs
that mitigate the horrors of war and the setting up, as a matter of
principle, of the most barbarous practices, are the reflection of the
norms and precepts of National Socialism and its leader, for whom all
international rules, all conventions, any ethical code represented an
intolerable restraint, an obstacle to the goal to be attained, inasmuch
as they interfered with the higher interests of the German community.

It is not a matter of indifference to know whether Keitel and Jodl were
urged by personal ambition or whether, true to the pan-German tradition
of the German General Staff, they yielded to the National Socialist
frenzy in the hope of one day seeing the arrogant pretensions of Germany
fully realized.

The most important point in our opinion is the personal contribution
which they consciously and voluntarily made to the enterprise of
destruction carried out by the Third Reich.

For 10 years Keitel was the “king pin” of the German Army and from 1936
onward Jodl did not cease to be his collaborator. Before the war they
worked to promote the war, and during the war they deliberately flouted
the rules of law and justice, the sole safeguards of fighting men, held
the dignity of mankind in utter contempt, and thus failed to do their
duty as soldiers.

Nacht und Nebel, the Kugel Aktion, the Sonderbehandlung, the destruction
of our cities—all this will be forever associated with the names of
these men, and particularly with the name of Keitel who dared to
proclaim that human life was less than nothing.

And at this moment we cannot prevent our thoughts from turning towards
the innumerable absent ones who for that reason sacrificed their lives.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the
United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present
the evidence upon Counts One and Two of the Indictment against the
Defendant Hess.

My Lord, the trial brief, which I believe the Tribunal have before them,
has been made out in the form of a fairly full note of the evidence to
which I intend to refer, and it may be of convenience to the Tribunal to
have it before them during the court sitting.

May I first prove the positions which he held and which are set out in
Appendix A of the Indictment, and say a word about his early life.

The defendant was born in 1894. He is now 52 years old. He served in the
German Army during the last war and in 1919 he went to Munich
University. There he became the leader of the Nazi organization in that
university and in 1920 he became a member of the Nazi Party itself. He
was among the first of the SA, and he became the leader of the students’
corps of police. In 1923 he took part in the Munich Putsch, and as a
result of that he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Half of that
period he served in jail with Hitler himself. I stress that, because it
was during those seven and one-half months in prison with Hitler that
Hitler dictated _Mein Kampf_.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got. . . .

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I think I know what the difficulty is. This
case was originally scheduled to be presented by the American Delegation
and they did have a brief of their own. It may be that that is the brief
which Mr. Biddle has before him. I will hand you up a spare copy.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Sir.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It was during that time that Hitler dictated
_Mein Kampf_ to this defendant.

Now, dealing with his actual appointments: From 1925 until 1932 he was
private secretary and aide-de-camp to Hitler. In 1932 he became the
Chairman of the Central Political Committee of the Party, in succession
to Gregor Strasser. In March 1933, after the Nazi Party became a power,
he became a member of the Reichstag, and in April of that year he was
appointed Deputy to the Führer, a position which he held until he flew
to England in May of 1941.

That evidence so far is all contained in two documents, one a book
called _Dates of the History of the Nazi Party_, by Volz, which is
already in evidence as Document Number 3132-PS and was put in evidence
as Exhibit Number USA-592, and the other the _Deutsches Führerlexikon_,
Document Number 3191-PS, Exhibit Number USA-593.

On the first of December 1933, he became Reich Minister without
Portfolio, another position which he held throughout the remainder of
his time in Germany. That appears in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. It is
Document Number 3178-PS and it goes in now as GB-248. On the 4th of
February 1938 he became a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. My Lord,
that is Document Number 3189-PS, and becomes GB-249.

On the 30th of August 1939 he became a member of the Council of
Ministers for Defense of the Reich, Document Number 2018-PS, which
becomes GB-250. On the 1st of September 1939 he was appointed successor
designate to the Führer, after Göring. Göring, it will be remembered,
was successor Number 1, and during that time Hess held the positions of
Obergruppenführer in the SS and in the SA.

That completes the formal proof of the positions charged against him in
the Indictment. I would say a word upon the authority he exercised under
and holding these positions. The Tribunal will remember that in
appointing Hess as his Deputy, the Führer decreed, in the decree by
which he made the appointment, as follows: “I hereby appoint Hess as my
Deputy and give him full power to make decisions in my name on all
questions of Party leadership.” The extent of his office as Deputy
Führer can be seen from the Party year book of 1941, to which I would
briefly refer the Tribunal, as it appears on Page 104 of the Tribunal’s
document book. It is Document Number 3163-PS and has already been put in
as USA-255. I quote from that year book:

    “By decree of the Führer of 21 April 1933 the Deputy of the
    Führer received full power, to decide in the name of the Führer
    on all matters concerning Party leadership. Thus, the Deputy of
    the Führer is the representative of the Führer, with full power
    over the entire leadership of the National Socialist German
    Workers Party. The office of the Deputy of the Führer is
    therefore an office of the Führer.

    “In essence, it is the duty of the Deputy of the Führer to
    direct the basic policies of Party work, to give directives, and
    take care that all Party work be done in agreement with National
    Socialist principles.

    “All the threads of the Party work are gathered together by the
    Deputy of the Führer. He gives the final Party word on all
    intra-Party plans and all questions vital for the existence of
    the German people. The Deputy of the Führer gives the directives
    required for all the Party work, in order to maintain the unity,
    determination, and striking power of the National Socialist
    German Workers Party as the bearer of the National Socialist
    philosophy.

    “In addition to the duties of Party leadership, the Deputy of
    the Führer has far reaching powers in the field of the State.
    These are:

    “1. Participation in national and state legislation, including
    the preparation of Führer decrees. The Deputy of the Führer in
    this way validates the conception of the Party as the guardian
    of National Socialist philosophy.

    “2. Approval of the Deputy of the Führer of proposed
    appointments for officials and labor service leaders.

    “3. Securing the influence of the Party over the self-government
    of the regional administrations.”

I would refer the Tribunal to Page 119 of the document book, which is a
chart which shows the organization of the Deputy of the Führer’s office.
It is Document Number 3201-PS which becomes GB-251. I would particularly
refer the Tribunal to the square in the center, showing the liaison
officer of the Wehrmacht, and showing his close association with the
Army; and in the right-hand column at the top: “Chief of the Foreign
Organization,” of which I shall tell the Tribunal in a moment;
“Commissioner for Foreign Policy,” showing his concern with the foreign
policy of the German State; “Commissioner for All Technological Matters
and Organization”; “Commissioner for All University Matters”;
“Commissioner of University Policy,” showing his concern with the
education of Germany; and further down “Office for Racial Policy,”
showing his concern with the anti-Jew policy of the Nazi Government that
followed; and at the bottom again, “Specialist on Education.”

But a glance at that chart will show that he was really involved in
every aspect and every branch of Nazi life and the organization and
administration of the State. As Reich Minister without Portfolio, in the
Law to Secure the Unity of Party and State of 1 December 1933, it was
stated that his task was to guarantee the close working co-operation of
the Party and the SA with public authority. Put in as Document Number
1395-PS, it becomes GB-252.

He acquired wide legislative powers, as it has already been seen from
the extract which I have read from the Nazi year book of 1941. I would
particularly draw the attention of the Tribunal to a decree of Hitler’s
dated 27 July. The extract which I wish to quote is set out in the trial
brief. It has already been read and therefore I will do nothing now
other than to draw the attention of the Tribunal to it. The document is
Document Number D-138 and has been put in as USA-403. By the law for the
protection of people in November 1933, it will be remembered that Hitler
and his cabinet obtained for themselves full powers of legislation,
independently of the Reichstag, and this defendant, being a member of
the cabinet, of course, shared in these powers.

His approval of that procedure can be seen from a speech he made on the
16th of January 1937, and a short extract is again set out in the trial
brief that the Tribunal has before them:

    “National Socialism has seen to it that vital necessities of our
    nation can today no longer be taken away by a Reichstag and made
    the object of the haggling of parties. You have seen that in the
    new Germany decisions of historic importance are made by the
    Führer and his cabinet within a few hours, decisions which in
    other countries must be preceded by parliamentary debates
    lasting days and weeks.”

That last extract is taken from Document Number 2426-PS, which becomes
Exhibit Number GB-253.

That these powers and offices were no sinecure is clear from Hess’ own
order which he issued in October 1934. I will not read it now because it
has already been read. It is Document Number D-139 and was put in as
USA-404; and the Tribunal will remember that he is there issuing a
decree saying he has been given the right to participate in legislation
by the Führer and any office that is promoting legislation, in which he
therefore ought to take part, must let him have the draft in time to
take effective action on it if he disapproves of it.

I think again the extract I have read from the year book sufficiently
describes the powers that he had without my referring to more than two
other documents upon this matter. On Page 5 of the trial brief it will
be seen that he acquired powers and took part in the organization and
production under the Four Year Plan. I quote from a lecture given by the
Defendant Frick on the 7th of March 1940, which is Document Number
2608-PS and has already been put in as USA-714. But the short passage
that I quote now was not actually read. In that lecture Frick said:

    “In order to guarantee the co-ordination of the various economic
    agencies of the Four Year Plan, those agencies were formed into
    a general council, under the chairmanship of Göring. Its members
    are the state secretaries of the agencies working in the field
    of war economy, the Chief of the Military Office of Economy, and
    a representative of the Deputy of the Führer.”

And lastly, a quotation from the _National Zeitung_ of the 27th of April
1941, which is Document Number M-102 and becomes GB-254. My Lord, it
appears on Page 4 of the trial brief. I quote from these passages, set
out simply to save the Tribunal’s time in referring to the document
book. It does appear on Page 12 of the document book if the Tribunal
desires to refer to the full extract:

    “A long while ago—it was still before the outbreak of the
    war—Rudolf Hess was once called the ‘Conscience of the Party.’
    If we ask why the Führer’s Deputy was given this undoubtedly
    honorable title, the reason for this is plain to see. There is
    no aspect of our public life which is not the concern of the
    Führer’s Deputy. So enormously many-sided and diverse is his
    work and sphere of duty that it cannot be outlined in a few
    words; and it lies in the nature of the duties laid on the
    Führer’s Deputy that the public at large hears little of the
    work of Rudolf Hess. Few know that many government measures
    taken, especially in the sphere of war economy and the Party,
    which meet with such hearty approbation when they are proclaimed
    because they voice true public feeling, can be traced back to
    the direct initiation of the Führer’s Deputy.”

Perhaps I ought to remind the Tribunal that in the decree appointing a
Secret Cabinet Council, that council was appointed by Hitler to advise
him in the conduct of foreign policy. The Tribunal will find attached to
that document book a few photos. They are of little importance. They
were really to emphasize or remind the Tribunal of the film that was
shown earlier in the course of these proceedings, when, it will be
remembered, the Defendant Hess appeared in practically every scene of
that film “The Rise to Power of the Nazi Party.” These photographs are
not actually photographs from that film; they are somewhat similar and I
produce an affidavit with them to state they were taken by Hitler’s own
private photographer. That affidavit becomes Document Number GB-255.

That, then, is the evidence of his position and of his authority; and
perhaps I might be allowed to make one short submission upon that. I
make it in respect of this Defendant Hess, although it is perhaps a
submission which can be made in respect of every one of these
defendants.

The Prosecution has presented these cases against the individual
defendants in the form of a collection of the documents which directly
refer and which directly connect these defendants with specific
instances of participation in the various crimes that were committed by
the German people. My Lord, it will be my submission that it is
sufficient to justify and bring home the conviction of this man and his
colleagues to produce simply evidence of their positions in the Nazi
State and the control of that State and also the general evidence of the
crimes which were committed by the German people. It is only perhaps
now, at this late stage in the trial, as day by day the extent and scope
of those crimes is becoming clearer, that we realize that they cannot
have happened by themselves. Crimes on that scale must be organized,
co-ordinated, and directed. If the government of Nazi Germany, or the
government of any country, is not the organization which directed and
co-ordinated, what is? If the members of the German nation who are
committing those crimes are not people responsible for them, then, in my
submission, one is entitled to ask, Who is?

My Lord, there can be no question that these men had knowledge. Again,
as the picture unfolds, it will be my submission that everybody in
Germany must have had knowledge of what was going on; and if everybody
had knowledge, then, my submission is, these men must certainly have had
knowledge; and I would urge upon this Tribunal the fact that the
conviction of these men does not rely upon the mere chance of how many
documents happened to have been captured bearing their signatures. It
might well have been that no documents at all had been captured. But, in
the submission of the Prosecution, these men could equally well and
equally justifiably have been proved guilty in the part they took,
beyond any kind of doubt, upon the evidence of the positions that they
held and the evidence of the scope and extent of the crimes that were
committed by the people they controlled.

My Lord, that is my submission, and in view of that, I would perhaps
deal briefly, for the convenience of the Tribunal, with the small
matters, the many matters, which do directly connect him with, as I say,
almost every aspect of the crimes and life of Nazi Germany.

I turn to Page 6 of the trial brief. . . .

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Rudolf Hess): The
prosecuting attorney just mentioned a sworn statement. I cannot find
this sworn statement either in the document book or in his trial brief.
I can, consequently, take no position in regard to this sworn statement,
nor, especially, can I go into the question as to whether there is any
objection to the statement as regards the terms of the Charter. I
request the prosecuting attorney to present me with this sworn
statement.

THE PRESIDENT: We couldn’t hear the rest of the translation through.
Well, go on!

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I am not sure how much of the translation you
heard.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is some document that you are saying is not
in the document book?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I intend to say that the photographs are in the
book. The affidavit by the photographer was by mistake omitted from the
book; the original is here. I will produce a copy for Dr. Seidl, and I
regret it was not done before. It was not a very important document.

My Lord, it might be expected that, in the positions he held, the
Defendant Hess took a leading part in the acquisition of power by the
Nazi Party and in its consolidation of control over the State. By the
law of the 1st of August the office of Reich President. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: 1934?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I beg your pardon, 1934, yes. [_Continuing_]
. . . and of Reich Chancellor were joined together under Hitler. Hitler
held both offices. That decree was signed by others and by Hess. Hess
also signed a decree on the 20th of December 1934, a decree entitled
“Laws against Treacherous Acts against the State and Party.” By Article
1 of that decree penalties were imposed upon anybody making false
statements injuring the prestige of the government, the Party, or its
agencies; and by Article 2 penalties were imposed for statements proving
a malicious attitude against the Party or its leading personalities. The
decree was signed by Hess, and it was Hess who had to issue the
necessary regulations for carrying the decree into effect.

He took a leading part in the gaining of control over government
appointments. I quote again in all these matters only a few examples. If
one wanted to quote every decree that the defendant signed and every act
he took in participation of these matters, it would really entail
writing a history of the Nazi Party from 1920 until 1941, and a history
of Germany from 1933 until 1941. Set out in the trial brief at Page 7,
it will be seen that there are various decrees, all signed by Hess: On
the 24th of September 1935, a decree providing for his consultation in
the appointment of Reich civil servants; 3rd April 1936, providing for
his participation in the appointment of labor service officials; and I
refer again to the 10th of July 1937, another decree under which he
participated by having to be consulted upon the appointment of other
minor civil servants.

With respect to the control of the Nazi Party gained over the German
youth, again there are various decrees signed by this defendant and I
set out in the trial brief, particularly, a reference to the book which
has already been put in, Volz’ dates of the Nazi Party, where it appears
that he appointed a University Commission of the Party, which, was under
his supervision. The Tribunal will remember that we have already seen
from the chart of his staff that he had a department dealing with
universities and with teachers.

And I am quoting from the same document. On the 18th of July 1934, the
Nazi League of German Students was directly subordinated to the Deputy
of the Führer.

The defendant, as the Tribunal has heard, was an Obergruppenführer
himself in the SS and the SA. His responsibility for an association with
those organizations can be seen from three documents. Amongst the papers
found in the Krupp files was a circular sent by Hess, apparently to
various industries, asking for funds or subscriptions for the Adolf
Hitler Fund for German Industry. The document is Document Number D-151,
which I put in now as Exhibit Number GB-256, and the relevant extract
again is set out in the trial brief for convenience:

    “The ‘Adolf Hitler Fund for German Economy’ is founded upon an
    agreement between the Reich management of the NSDAP and leading
    representatives of German industry.”

Then its purpose is set out:

    “To put, firstly, at the disposal of the Reich leadership the
    funds required for the unified execution of the tasks which fall
    to the lot of the SA, SS, St., HJ and other political
    organizations. . . .”

He signed a decree on the 9th of June 1934.

For the convenience of the Tribunal, perhaps I ought to mention that
that last document I mentioned can be found at Page 5 of the document
book.

On the 9th of June 1934 he signed a decree by which the Security Service
of the Reichsführer SS was established as the sole political news and
defense service of the Party.

On the 14th of December 1938, he issued a decree by which the SD, which
Himmler had established, was taken off the establishment of the Party;
and it was, under that decree, to be organized by the SS. Those were
both Hess decrees; and they are here both the same document, Document
Number 3385-PS, which becomes GB-257; and they appear at Page 172 of the
Tribunal’s document book.

My Lord, there has already been given much evidence of the subversion of
the churches in order to eliminate any hostile parties there may have
been to the Nazi Party. Hess again took his share in that legislation,
and there are set out in the trial brief, on Pages 8 and 9, a series of
decrees which have already been put before the Tribunal during the
presentation of the case against Bormann.

Bormann, it will be remembered, was at this time and throughout, until
Hess flew to England, Hess’ deputy; and therefore, it will be my
submission that decrees issued by Bormann as deputy for the Deputy of
the Führer are, of course, the responsibility of this defendant as well.

For the sake of time I believe the Tribunal has a reference to the
decrees and will bear in mind the evidence that was offered against the
Defendant Bormann.

I come now, then, to his activity in the general persecution of the
Jews. Again it will be remembered that the chart of his organization
showed an office of his which described itself as the Office for Racial
Policy. His own views about this matter are found in a speech which he
made on the 16th of January 1937 and which is reported in a volume of
his speeches which is Document Number 3124-PS. It is already in as
Exhibit Number GB-253. The extract I desire to quote is set out in the
trial brief. The document can be found on Page 98 of the document book.

    “The organizations of the NSDAP will be used for the
    enlightenment of the people on questions concerning race and
    health with the aim of improving the latter and increasing the
    population. . . .”

    “As at home, so in foreign countries, the Germans will be
    influenced in the National Socialist sense by the Landesgruppen
    or local groups of the Party. They will be educated to become
    again proudly conscious of their German origin, to stand
    together in mutual esteem and will be taught to place the German
    higher than any foreigner, irrespective of state or descent.”

It was Hess who signed the Law for Protection of Blood and Honor, one of
the Nuremberg decrees of the 15th of September 1935. It is Document
Number 3179-PS. It is already in evidence as Exhibit USA-200. It will be
remembered that under that decree and under the other Reich Citizenship
Law of the same date, it was the Deputy of the Führer who was to issue
the necessary decrees and regulations for the carrying out and
supplementing of those laws, the Nuremberg Decrees.

On the 14th of November 1935, it was Hess who issued an ordinance under
the Reich Citizenship Law which deprived the Jews of the right to vote
or to hold public office. That is Document Number 1417-PS and becomes
Exhibit Number GB-258.

By a further decree of the 20th of May 1938, those Nuremberg laws were
extended to Austria, that law of extension again being signed by this
defendant—Document Number 2124-PS, Exhibit Number GB-259.

As I said, those are only a few examples of the decrees and activities
of this man in the acquisition of power and consolidation of power in
the Nazi Party. There is a document which I will hand up to the Tribunal
that perhaps it might add to its document books, and there is a copy in
French for the learned French Judge. There are examples in this and
other exhibits which I have not mentioned now but which are already
before the Tribunal, put in when the case of Bormann was put before the
Tribunal, for which, as I have already said, this defendant must take
responsibility.

You will see that under various headings—there are one or two German
copies and the rest are in English—there are various documents set out
under the headings, “Association with the SD and Gestapo”; “Subversion
of the Churches”; and again, “The Persecution of the Jews.”

I turn then to the part which he played in the actual planning and
preparation for aggressive war. We find that as early as in 1932 he was
concerned with the rearmament and reorganization of the Air Force. The
Tribunal will remember a Document Number 1143-PS, Exhibit USA-40, dated
the 20th of October 1932, which showed that a report on the preparation
of material and the training of air personnel to provide for the
armament of the Air Force was sent to Hess by Rosenberg’s chief of
staff. That document, for reference, appears on Page 43 of the
Tribunal’s document book.

That was in 1932. Throughout the years we find him connected with the
rearmament of the German Armed Forces. On the 16th of March 1935 it was
Hess who signed the decree for the introduction of compulsory military
service. On the 11th of October 1936 in a speech that he made, he took
up Göring’s cry of “Guns before Butter,” when he said:

    “We are prepared in the future, too, if need be, at times to eat
    a little less fat, a little less pork, a few eggs less, since we
    know that this little sacrifice is a sacrifice on the altar of
    the freedom of our people. We know that the foreign exchange
    which we thereby save will benefit our armaments. The phrase
    still holds good today: ‘guns instead of butter.’”

That document is Document Number M-104. It becomes Exhibit Number
GB-260, and will be found on Page 14 of the Tribunal’s document book.

In May of 1941 he was making a speech at the Messerschmidt Works, of
which occasion the Tribunal has already got a photograph before it. It
was one of those four photographs we were looking at a moment ago. Then
he said:

    “The German soldier must understand that for the uniqueness and
    abundance of his weapons and his material, he has to thank Adolf
    Hitler’s untiring efforts of many years.”

A report of that speech appears in the _Völkischer Beobachter_ on the 2d
of May 1941. It is Document Number M-105 and becomes Exhibit Number
GB-261. It is on Page 15 of the Tribunal’s document book.

One of the most important parts that this defendant took in the
preparation for aggressive war was his organization of the famous German
Fifth Column. He was the responsible person, as Deputy of the Führer, of
the Auslands-Organisation of the Party, that is to say, the foreign
organization of the Party. A history of that organization, a very brief
history, will be found in an American state publication, Document Number
3258-PS. It becomes Exhibit Number GB-262. It is on Page 147 of the
document book.

I would only mention now two matters. In October 1933 that organization
was placed directly under Hess’s control, and a year later it was Hess
himself who gave it its present name of the Foreign Organization,
(Auslands-Organisation).

For the convenience again of the Tribunal, a chart is set out in the
organization book for 1938, which is Document Number 2354-PS, Exhibit
Number USA-430, and is on Page 69 of the Tribunal’s document book, and I
think it is unnecessary to refer to it now in detail. It had the various
offices—civil services offices, cultural offices, press and propaganda
offices, labor front offices, and the foreign trade offices, the various
offices dealing with the German merchant marine—which afforded, of
course, an excellent medium for spreading Nazi propaganda to every port
through the world.

The Tribunal has heard a good deal about a somewhat similar organization
of Rosenberg, the APA. Very briefly and in a word, I think the
distinction between the two can be said to be that the APA was concerned
with the enrollment and propaganda for non-Germans, for foreigners,
whereas the Auslands-Organisation was concerned with Germans living
abroad, who, of course, were to form the basis of Fifth Column
activities in future years.

I think the Tribunal will see that there are set out under the heading,
“Scope of the Organization’s Work,” two documents. I think that perhaps
it is sufficient to refer to the first of them now, Document Number
3401-PS, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-263 and which the Tribunal will
find on Page 173 of that document book.

That is an article from the _Völkischer Beobachter_, which starts off by
saying, “National Socialism is a philosophy which takes hold of our
fellow Germans and strengthens them in holding fast to the German race
and customs,” and then goes on to say that the authority for the
practical application of that policy and principle is the foreign
organization of the NSDAP, which is directly subordinated to the Deputy
of the Führer, Hess. I quote the last three lines of that paragraph.

    “The activities of the Auslands-Organisation extend literally
    round the globe. With full justice there might be displayed over
    its offices at the Harvestehuderweg in Hamburg the device ‘My
    field is the world.’ The Auslands-Organisation under the
    leadership of Gauleiter Bohle, who is aided by a large staff of
    experts and qualified coworkers, today includes over 350
    Landesgruppen and bases of the NSDAP in all parts of the world.
    In addition to this it looks after a large number of individual
    Party members in the most varied places.”

My Lord, in view of the time, I will not refer to any further documents
about the activity and the scope of that organization. They will be
found as set out in the following document, Document Number 3258-PS,
which is at Page 150 of the document book. I beg your pardon, that is
Exhibit Number GB-262, already in evidence. There is another extract
from the British Basic Handbook on Germany, which is in the addendum to
the document book. It is not, I think, actually put into the Tribunal’s
brief. It appears under the Document Number M-122, and becomes Exhibit
Number GB-264.

Two of the various other organizations which were run by the Foreign
Organization were known as the League for Germans Abroad, the VDA, and
the German Eastern League, the BDO.

I would refer the Tribunal to a document which they will find on Page 38
of the document book. It is Document Number 837-PS, which becomes
Exhibit Number GF-265. That is a letter, which it will be seen on the
next page is signed by Hess, dated 3 February 1939. It is a circular
order, “Not for publication.” The subject is the League of Germans
Abroad and the German Eastern League. I quote from the first paragraph:

    “The director of the agency for racial Germans, SS Gruppenführer
    Lorenz. . . .”

The agency for racial Germans, which was the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle,
was another similar organization, but one run by Himmler and the SS. All
these gentlemen appear to have had their own foreign organizations. No
doubt they were all engaged for the same purpose. Himmler’s was called
the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. I quote again:

    “The director for that agency has instigated on my behalf the
    following new ruling for questions affecting racial work and
    work in the border country. The League for Germans Abroad, the
    VDA, is the association responsible for national work beyond the
    frontiers.”

I go down to the last two lines of that paragraph:

    “The VDA is organized into state associations which correspond
    in area to the Gaue of the NSDAP.”

And the first two lines of the next paragraph:

    “The German Eastern League, the BDO, is the association
    responsible for work in the border country.”

I turn to the next page, Paragraph 4 of that letter:

    “The VDA is solely responsible for racial work beyond the
    frontiers. I hereby forbid the Party, its organizations, and
    affiliated associations from all racial work abroad. The only
    competent body for this task is the agency for racial Germans
    and the VDA as its camouflaged tool. Within the Reich, the VDA,
    generally speaking, is responsible only for providing the means
    for racial work beyond the frontiers. In this task VDA must be
    supported in every way by the Party offices. Any outward
    appearance of connection with the Party is, however, to be
    avoided.”

Then it goes on to set up the activity of the BDO and in the last
paragraph:

    “The activity of the VDA and the BDO is to be supported in every
    way by the Party offices. The National Socialist leaders of both
    associations will assure energetic co-operation, on their part,
    in all tasks assigned to them by the NSDAP. Their nature is
    determined by considerations of foreign policy and the
    associations must bear this in mind when representing

Now I come to the activity, therefore, of the Foreign Organization,
which as I say, was the basis of the Fifth Column movement when war
eventually broke out. I pass, then, to consideration of Hess’ part in
the preliminary occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, which led up
to the aggressive wars themselves.

Hess is seen to be participating in the preparations to occupy Austria
from the very beginning. In the autumn of 1934 it was he that appointed
Reinthaller as leader of the Austrian peasants in the Nazi Party in
Austria, after the failure of the July 1934 rising. That has already
been given in evidence as Document Number 812-PS, (Exhibit Number
USA-61) and the relevant passage was read into the transcript at Page
504 (Volume II, Page 372).

Another document that has already been put in evidence, Document Number
3254-PS (Exhibit Number USA-704), is Seyss-Inquart’s statement of the
10th of December 1945, when he mentions that he held meetings with
Göring and Hess in 1936.

On the morning that the German troops eventually marched into Austria,
the 12th of March 1938, Hess and Himmler, together, were the first of
the leaders of the German Government to appear in Vienna; and they were
there by midday on that day.

It was Hess who signed the law of the 13th of March, the next day, for
the reunion of Austria with the German Reich; and the Tribunal will no
doubt remember the occasion, which was described fully by Mr. Alderman,
of the shocking celebrations which were held in anniversary of the
murder of Dollfuss, the celebrations being held the 24th of July 1938,
when the high-light of the occasion was a speech by Hess.

I would refer the Tribunal to a document which appears on Page 165 of
the document book, which throws some light on his own words, both on his
activity as far as Austria was concerned and also with Czechoslovakia.
This was a speech he made on 28 August 1938 at the annual meeting of the
Foreign Organization. It is Document Number 3258-PS. It is already in as
Exhibit Number GB-262. I quote from the third to last paragraph on Page
165 of the document book:

    “At the close of his talk Rudolf Hess recalls the days, last
    year, in Stuttgart, when German men and women, German boys and
    girls in their native costumes appeared here in Stuttgart aglow
    with enthusiasm for the ideal of greater Germany, passionately
    moved by National Socialism, but nevertheless outwardly
    ‘Volksdeutsche’ Germans of foreign citizenship.

    “‘Today,’ Rudolf Hess continued, ‘they also stand openly in our
    ranks. Proudly and happily they will march in the formation of
    the National Socialist movement past their Führer in Nuremberg,
    this time with German citizens. With all our hearts we rejoice
    as we see them. They have fought a long and tough battle, a
    battle against a treacherous and mendacious enemy.’”—and so on.

And then on the next page, Number 166, where he turns to discuss the
struggle of the Sudeten German:

    “The German people look at the German racial comrades in
    Czechoslovakia with the profoundest sympathy for their
    suffering. No one in the world who loves his own people and is
    proud of his own people will find fault with us if from this
    place here we also turn our thoughts to the Sudeten German. If
    we say to them that, filled with admiration, we see how they are
    maintaining an iron discipline, despite the worst chicanery,
    despite terror and murder. If it had, in general, required a
    proof. . . .”

I don’t think, perhaps, it is necessary for me to read any more of that
document; but it shows, as I say, his interest in Czechoslovakia; and by
Document Number 3061-PS, which has already been put in as Exhibit Number
USA-126, it has been shown that during the summer of 1938—that speech
was made in August 1938—during the whole of that summer continuous
conversations were being held between Henlein and Hitler, Hess, and
Ribbentrop, informing the Reich Government of the general situation in
Czechoslovakia. That document has been read into the Record; but, if
anything condemns Hess as participating in this action, it is a letter
dated the 27th of September 1938, which was a letter, it will be
remembered, that the Tribunal has had before it. It was written by
Keitel to Hess, asking for the Party’s participation in the secret
mobilization, which was intended to take place without even issuing the
code word for mobilization. It was on the 27th of September 1938 that
that letter was written. It is Document Number 388-PS and has been put
in as Exhibit Number USA-26, and it appears on Page 30 of the Tribunal’s
document book.

I would refer the Tribunal to one short document on Page 120 of the
document book, on which begins another speech by the defendant, a speech
he made on the 7th of November 1938 on the occasion of the initiation of
the Sudeten German Party into the NSDAP.

    “If we have had to defend our rights, then they would have
    really got to know us, we, the National Socialist Germans. The
    Führer”—Rudolf Hess declared amidst the ringing cheers of the
    masses—“learned his lessons. He armed at a speed that no one
    would have believed possible. When the Führer has gained the
    power and, especially since the Führer has awakened the
    resolution of the German people to put their strength behind
    their rights, then Germany’s right will be conceded!”

One might wonder what all those rights were at that time, November 1938,
when already Hitler had said on the 26th of September that he had no
more territorial demands, at any rate, to make in Europe.

I turn then to some fragment of evidence of the part he played in the
waging of aggressive war against Poland. On Page 16 of the document book
there is a report of a speech that he made on the 27th of August 1939,
which shows at least that he was taking part in the official propaganda
that was being thrown at the world in those days, two days before the
war was declared. I quote from the second paragraph:

    “Rudolf Hess, constantly interrupted with strong applause from
    the German citizens living abroad as well as fellow countrymen
    from the District of Styria, stressed the unexampled forbearance
    shown by Germany towards Poland in the magnanimous offer of the
    Führer that had assured peace between Germany and Poland—an
    offer that Mr. Chamberlain seems to have forgotten, for he says
    he has heard nothing of Germany’s having tried to solve certain
    acute present-day questions by peaceful discussion. What else
    was the German offer then, if it was not such an attempt?”

Then he goes on to accuse Poland of agitating for war, Poland’s lack of
responsibility and so on. In view of the time, I shall quote no more of
that. The Document Number M-107 is in evidence and it becomes Exhibit
Number GB-266.

After the conquest of Poland, it was Hess that signed the decree
incorporating Danzig into the Reich, the decree of the 1st of September
1939, a decree incorporating Polish territories into the Reich on the
8th of October 1939 and on the 12th of October 1939, a decree of Polish
territory, in which it was stated that regulations were to be made for
the planning of German Lebensraum and economic scope. Those are all
decrees in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. I regret that the last two that I
mentioned are not actually included in the Tribunal’s document book, but
the effect of them is set out in the trial brief. That, in view of the
evidence that has been given as to his Fifth Column organization, is all
that I propose to offer in respect to Poland. It must be clear that my
submission will be that he was deeply involved both in the planning and
in the preparation for aggressive war.

I turn to an example of his participation in War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity and would refer only to two documents; one appears as
set out on Page 18 of the trial brief, Document Number 3245-PS, which
becomes Exhibit Number GB-267. It was an order issued by Hess through
the Party Chancellery demanding support from the Party for recruiting
members for the Waffen-SS; and one paragraph, which is set out in the
trial brief, I quote:

    “The units of the Waffen-SS, consisting of National Socialists,
    are more suitable than other armed units for the specific tasks
    to be solved in the Occupied Eastern Territories due to their
    intensive National Socialist training in regard to questions of
    race and nationality.”

But, in view of what was happening and what was going to happen in the
Occupied Eastern Territories because of the Waffen-SS, we haven’t, I
know, forgotten the part they played in the destruction of the Warsaw
Ghetto. I suggest that the inference that can be drawn from that letter
is damning.

There is one further document. That document will be found on Page 121
of the Tribunal’s document book. The other document that I would refer
to in this respect is Document Number R-96, which becomes Exhibit Number
GB-268, and again that will be found on Page 175 of the document book.
It is a letter written by the Reich Minister of Justice to the Chief of
the Reich Chancellery on the 17th of April 1941, and it is discussing
proposed penal laws for Jews and Poles in the Occupied Eastern
Territories. It shows quite clearly that Hess has been involved in
discussions on this subject because it refers to certain proposals that
he, himself, has made. My Lord, I would venture to draw the attention of
the Tribunal to one or two passages. I quote from the beginning of that
letter on Page 175:

    “It has been my opinion from the outset that special conditions
    prevailing in the annexed eastern territories require special
    measures of penal law and penal procedure against Poles and
    Jews.”

And then I go on to the second paragraph, the first two lines:

    “The aim to create a special law for Poles and Jews in the
    eastern territories was pursued further according to plan by the
    ordinance dated 6 June 1940. By this ordinance German penal law,
    which had been used in the eastern territories already from the
    outset was formally made applicable.”

There I skip three lines.

    “The procedure for enforcing a prosecution has been abrogated
    for it seems intolerable that Poles or Jews should be able to
    force the German public prosecutor to launch an accusation.
    Poles and Jews have also been deprived of the right to prosecute
    in their own names or join the public prosecutor in an action.
    In addition to this special law in the sphere of procedure, some
    special conditions have been included in Article 2 of the
    introductory ordinance. These provisions were established in
    agreement with the Reich Minister of the Interior by reason of
    requirements which had arisen. From the beginning it was
    intended to augment the special conditions in case of need. This
    need, which had become apparent in the meantime, should be met
    by an executive and supplementary order to be added to the
    original ordinance and which was referred to in the letter from
    the Deputy of the Führer. . . .”

I turn to the next page, top of the page:

    “After I was informed of the express wish of the Führer that, as
    a matter of principle, Poles and presumably the Jews, too, are
    to be treated differently from the Germans within this sphere of
    penal law, after preliminary discussions,”—_et cetera_,—“I
    draw up the enclosed draft concerning criminal law and procedure
    against Poles and Jews. . . .”

I skip to the next paragraph:

    “The draft represents altogether special law, both in the sphere
    of penal law and penal procedure. The suggestions of the Deputy
    of the Führer have been taken into consideration to a far
    reaching extent. Number 1, Paragraph 3, contains a general crime
    formula on the basis of which any Pole or Jew in the eastern
    territory can in future be prosecuted and any kind of punishment
    can be inflicted on him for any attitude or action which is
    considered punishable and is directed against Germans.”

Then I go on to the next paragraph:

    “In accordance with the opinion of the Deputy of the Führer, I
    started from the point of view that the Pole is less susceptible
    to the infliction of ordinary imprisonment.”

And a few lines further down:

    “Under these new kinds of punishment prisoners are to be lodged
    outside prisons in camps and are to be forced to do heavy and
    heaviest labor.”

I go to the next page, second paragraph:

    “The introduction of corporal punishment, and that is either as
    penal punishment or as disciplinary measure, which the Deputy of
    the Führer has brought up for discussion, has not been included
    in the draft. I cannot agree to this type of punishment because
    its infliction does not, in my opinion, correspond to the
    cultural level of the German people.”

My Lord, as I said, the purpose of that document is to show that the
Deputy of the Führer was well aware of what was going on in the Eastern
Occupied Territories and indeed was advocating even stronger measures
than the Reich Minister of Justice was prepared to accept.

I turn then to give such evidence as I can upon the flight of the
Defendant Hess to England on the 10th of May 1941.

On that evening he landed in Scotland, within 12 miles of the home of
the Duke of Hamilton; and on landing he at once asked to be taken to the
Duke of Hamilton, whom he wanted to see. He gave a false name and was
shut up; and on the following day, the 11th of May, he had an interview
with the Duke of Hamilton, a report of which is set out in the addendum
to the document book, if the Tribunal would now turn to the small
addendum to the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Has this been put in evidence yet or not?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I am putting it in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it properly authenticated?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is authenticated, and the original is
certified as being a government report from the files of the Foreign
Office in London. There are four reports altogether, which come from the
Foreign Office file and which have been certified as reports from the
Foreign Office.

The first one that I would refer to is Document Number M-116, which
becomes Exhibit Number GB-269 and which is a report on the interview
that he had with the Duke of Hamilton on the 11th of May 1941. I can
summarize most of the contents of that report by saying that he
introduced himself as Hess. He said that he had met the Duke of Hamilton
at the Olympic Games in 1936, and that his old friend, Haushofer, under
whom he studied at Munich University after the last war, had suggested
that he, Hess, should make contact with the Duke of Hamilton.

And he said that, in order to do so, he had already tried to fly three
times before, the first time being in December of 1940, the previous
year. The reasons he then gave for his visit will be found on the second
page of that document. I quote from the end of the fourth line.

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I ought to say really before that, he said
that he had said, earlier in the interview, that Germany was willing to
have peace with England; she was certain to win the war; and he himself
was anxious to stop the unnecessary slaughter that would otherwise
inevitably take place.

    “He asked me if I could get together leading members of my party
    to talk over things with a view to making peace proposals. I
    replied that there was now only one party in this country. He
    then said he could tell me what Hitler’s peace terms would be.
    First, he would insist on an arrangement whereby our two
    countries would never go to war again. I questioned him as to
    how that arrangement could be brought about; and he replied that
    one of the conditions, of course, is that Britain would give up
    her traditional policy of always opposing the strongest power in
    Europe.”

I think I need really read no more of that document, because he enlarges
upon those proposals in the subsequent interviews that he had on the
13th, 14th, and 15th of May with Mr. Kirkpatrick of the Foreign Office.

I turn to Document Number M-117, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-270,
which is another official report of the interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick
on the 13th of May. Again I can summarize practically all of it.

He started off by explaining the chain of circumstances which led up to
his present situation, which really involved a history of Europe from
the end of the last war up to that time. He dealt with Austria,
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, saying in each case that Germany was
justified and it was all England’s and France’s fault that they had had
to get in it. He blamed England entirely for starting the war. He did
say—and I quote one line which is of interest, dealing with Munich—he
said: “The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Where are you reading?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am reading from the fifth paragraph, my Lord.
It starts off:

    “The Czechoslovakian crisis was caused by the French
    determination, expressed by the French Air Ministry, to make
    Czechoslovakia an air base against Germany. It was Hitler’s duty
    to scotch this plot. The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain and the
    Munich conference had been a source of great relief to Hitler.”

If one remembers somewhere having heard in the course of this case,
Hitler saying that he had of course no intention of abiding by that
agreement at all, that that would never do. . . .

I go on with that document. He then says that Germany must win the war.
He says that the bombing of England had only just started and only just
started with the greatest reluctance. As he puts it at the top of Page
2, the German production of U-boats was enormous. They had enormous raw
material resources in occupied territory, and the confidence in Hitler
and in final victory in Germany was complete; and that there was no kind
of hope for any revolution among the German people.

He gave his reasons for his flight, his personal reasons again, that he
was horrified at the prospect of a long war. England could not win, and
therefore she had better make peace now. He said the Führer entertained
no designs against England. He had no idea of world domination, and he
would greatly regret the collapse of the British Empire.

I quote from the last three lines of the large paragraph in the center
of the page:

    “At this point Hess tried to make my flesh creep by emphasizing
    that the avaricious Americans had fell designs upon the Empire.
    Canada would certainly be incorporated into the United States.

    “Reverting to Hitler’s attitude, he said that only as recently
    as May 3rd, after his Reichstag speech, Hitler had declared to
    him that he had no oppressive demands to make of England.

    “The solution which Herr Hess proposed was that England should
    give Germany a free hand in Europe, and Germany would give
    England a completely free hand in the Empire, with the sole
    reservation that we should return Germany’s ex-colonies, which
    she required as a source of raw materials. I asked, in order to
    draw him on the subject of Hitler’s attitude to Russia, whether
    he included Russia in Europe or in Asia. He replied, ‘In Asia’.
    I then retorted that under the terms of his proposal, since
    Germany would only have a free hand in Europe, she would not be
    at liberty to attack Russia. Herr Hess reacted quickly by
    remarking that Germany had certain demands to make of Russia
    which would have to be satisfied either by negotiation or as the
    result of a war. He added, however, that there was no foundation
    for the rumors now being spread that Hitler was contemplating an
    early attack on Russia.

    “I then asked about Italian aims and he said that he did not
    know. I replied that it was a matter of some importance. He
    brushed this aside and said that he was sure that Italy’s claims
    would not be excessive. I suggested that Italy scarcely deserved
    anything, but he begged to differ. Italy had rendered
    considerable services to Germany; and, besides, England had
    compensated defeated nations like Romania after the last war.

    “Finally, as we were leaving the room, Herr Hess delivered a
    parting shot. He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that
    the proposal could only be considered on the understanding that
    it was negotiated by Germany with an English Government other
    than the present British Government. Mr. Churchill, who had
    planned the war since 1936, and his colleagues, who had lent
    themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the
    Führer could negotiate.”

My Lord, presumably when he came over he was not attempting to be funny.
One can only conclude from these reports that at that time the people in
Germany and the German Government really had no kind of idea of what the
conditions in England were like at all; but throughout it appears that
this man thought England was ruled by Churchill and a small
war-mongering gang. It only needed him to come over and make a peace
proposal for Churchill to be turned out in the course of two or three
days.

I go on, then, to the next document, My Lord. I am afraid that it is now
half past five. I have only the other reports and one further document
to refer the Tribunal to.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better go on. We will finish tonight.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am sorry it has taken so long. I go on to the
next interview of the 14th of May, which is Document Number M-118 and
becomes Exhibit Number GB-271.

He started off that interview by making certain complaints about the
treatment, asking for a number of things, including _Three Men in a
Boat_, the book which perhaps is one of the few signs that any of these
defendants have shown any kind of culture or normal feelings at all.

He described his flight to England, and then I quote from the third
paragraph:

    “He then passed to political questions. He said that, on
    reflection, he had omitted to explain that there were two
    further conditions attached to his peace proposals. First,
    Germany could not leave Iraq in the lurch. The Iraqis had fought
    for Germany and Germany would, therefore, have to require us to
    evacuate Iraq. I observed that this was going considerably
    beyond the original proposal that German interests should be
    confined to Europe, but he retorted that, taken as a whole, his
    proposals were more than fair. The second condition was that the
    peace agreement should contain a provision for the reciprocal
    indemnification of British and German nationals, whose property
    had been expropriated as the result of war.

    “Herr Hess concluded by saying that he wished to impress on us
    that Germany must win the war by blockade. We had no conception
    of the number of submarines now building in Germany. Hitler
    always did things on a grand scale and devastating submarine
    war, supported by new types of aircraft, would very shortly
    succeed in establishing a completely effective blockade of
    England. It was fruitless for anyone here to imagine that
    England could capitulate and that the war could be waged from
    the Empire. It was Hitler’s intention, in such an eventuality,
    to continue the blockade of England, even though the island had
    capitulated, so that we would have to face the deliberate
    starvation of the population of these islands.”

I think I can leave then that interview. Nothing more was added and I
turn to the next document, Document Number M-119, which becomes Exhibit
Number GB-272 and which is the report of the interview of the 15th of
May, the third and last interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick. I quote from the
third paragraph and then there was some mention of Iraq at the beginning
of the interview and then Mr. Kirkpatrick writes:

    “I then threw a fly over him about Ireland. He said that in all
    his talks with Hitler, the subject of Ireland had never been
    mentioned except incidentally. Ireland had done nothing for
    Germany in this war and it was therefore to be supposed that
    Hitler would not concern himself in Anglo-Irish relations. We
    had some little conversation about the difficulty of reconciling
    the wishes of the South and North and from this we pass to
    American interest in Ireland, and so to America.

    “On the subject of America, Hess took the following line.

    “1. The Germans reckoned with American intervention and were not
    afraid of it. They knew all about American aircraft production
    and the quality of the aircraft. Germany could outbuild England
    and America combined.

    “2. Germany had no designs on America. The so-called German
    peril was a ludicrous figment of imagination. Hitler’s interests
    were European.

    “3. If we made peace now, America would be furious. America
    really wanted to inhabit the British Empire.

    “Hess concluded by saying that Hitler really wanted a permanent
    understanding with us on a basis which preserved the Empire
    intact. His own flight was intended to give us a chance of
    opening conversations without loss of prestige. If we reject
    this chance, it would be clear proof that we desired no
    understanding with Germany and Hitler would be entitled—in fact
    it would be his duty—to destroy us utterly and to keep us after
    the war in a state of permanent subjection.”

My Lord, those reports show the substance and indeed the whole substance
of the visit. His humanitarian reasons for coming, which sounded so well
on the 10th or between the 10th and 15th of May, took on quite a
different light when barely a little more than a month later Germany
attacked the Soviet Union.

One cannot help remembering an exact parallel between this business and
that which took place before Germany attacked Poland, when every effort
was made to keep England out of the war and so let her fight her battle
on one front only. Here the same thing appears to be happening; and what
is more, we have it from himself in the course of those interviews that,
at that time, Germany had no intentions of attacking Russia immediately
at all. But that must be untrue, because it will be remembered and the
evidence is set out in the trial brief, that so far back as November
1940 plans were being made, initial plans, for the invasion of Russia.

On the 18th of December 1940 a directive ordered preparations to be
completed by the 15th of May 1941. On the 3rd of April 1941 orders were
given delaying the “Case Barbarossa” for 5 weeks; and on the 30th of
April 1941, 10 days before he arrived in England, D-Day was actually
fixed for the invasion of Russia for the 22d of June.

Well now, in my submission, nobody who held the position that this
defendant did at that time—in charge of the foreign organization,
Deputy to the Führer, having been made designate successor Number 2 only
a year ago—never in that position could he have been kept in ignorance
of those preparations and of those plans.

My Lord, my submission, therefore, is that the only reason he came to
England was not humanitarian at all, but purely, as I say, to allow
Germany to fight her battle against Russia on one front only.

There is—and I hesitate to refer the Tribunal to any other
document—but there is one document, which is a document of extreme
interest from many points of view and has only just come to light. I did
ask that it should be put in at the back of the Tribunal’s document
book; but if it has not been, I have some spare copies which perhaps the
clerk may now hand out.

It is Document Number 1866-PS, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-273, and
it is an account of conversations between Ribbentrop and Mussolini and
Ciano on the 13th of May 1941, signed by Schmidt.

It carries the question very little further, but of course the question
has existed, and still does exist—the question, of course, as to
whether or not the flight to England was undertaken with the knowledge
and approval of Hitler, or any other members of the Government, or on
his own initiative and in complete secrecy. He himself has always
maintained that he did it secretly. On the other hand, it is difficult
to see how he could have been planning it and practicing it for months
before and having tried three times before, without anybody knowing.

This account of the conversations with the Italians casts little further
light on it; but it does show anyway what Ribbentrop is saying to the
Italians, their allies, three days later. I would ask the Tribunal to
look at and read the first page of this document, and the paragraph of
the next page:

    “To begin with, the Reich Foreign Minister conveyed the Führer’s
    greetings to the Duce.

    “He would shortly propose to the Duce a date for the planned
    meeting, which he would like to take place as soon as possible.
    As the place for the meeting he would probably prefer the
    Brenner. At the present moment he was, as the Duce could well
    understand, still busy with the Hess affair and with a few
    military matters.

    “The Duce replied that he would agree with all the Führer’s
    proposals. . . .”—and so on.

    “The Reich Foreign Minister then said that the Führer had sent
    him to the Duce in order to inform him about the Hess affair and
    the conversations with Admiral Darlan. With regard to Hess’s
    affair he remarked that the Führer and his staff had been
    completely taken aback by Hess’s action and that it had been the
    deed of a lunatic.

    “Hess had been suffering for a long time from bilious attacks
    and had fallen into the hands of magnetists and nature-cure
    doctors who caused his state of health to become worse.

    “All these matters were being investigated at the moment, as
    well as the responsibility of the aides-de-camp who had known
    about Hess’s forbidden flights. Hess had for weeks carried out
    secret practice flights in an ME-110. Naturally he had acted
    only from idealistic motives. Disloyalty towards the Führer was
    utterly out of the question. His conduct had to be explained by
    a kind of abstractness and a state of mind caused by his
    illness.”

And it goes on, and the gist of it really is that Ribbentrop is
emphasizing again that it was done without the authority of Hitler or
without the knowledge of anybody else in Germany. I say he does not
carry. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Can’t you read the beginning of the next paragraph?

    LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: “Being sympathetically inclined towards
    England, he had conceived the crazy idea of using Great
    Britain’s fascist circles to persuade the British to give in. He
    had explained all this in a long and confused letter to the
    Führer. When this letter reached the Führer, Hess was already in
    England. It was hoped in Germany that he would perhaps meet with
    an accident on the way, but he was now really in England and had
    tried to contact the former Marquis of Clydesdale, the present
    Duke of Hamilton. Hess quite wrongly considered him as a great
    friend of Germany and had flown to the neighborhood of his
    castle in Scotland.”

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is what Ribbentrop is saying to Mussolini.
Ribbentrop, we know, is a liar, and indeed what he said later on in an
interview proves it, and I would refer to Page 5—or rather to the
bottom of Page 4—if the Tribunal would bear with me while I read that,
because it would have been put in previously during this trial had this
document been known of. And as I am putting it in now, perhaps I might
be allowed to read this one paragraph which really concerns the
Defendant Ribbentrop.

    “The Duce returned to his remark concerning the united front of
    Europe against England and the two countries, Spain and Russia,
    that were absent from it, with the remark that to him it seemed
    that it would be advantageous if a policy of collaboration with
    Russia could be carried out. He asked the Reich Foreign Minister
    whether Germany excluded such a possibility, that is,
    collaboration with Russia. The Reich Foreign Minister replied
    that Germany had treaties with Russia and that the relations
    between the two countries were, by the way, correct. He
    personally did not believe that Stalin would undertake anything
    against Germany, but should he do so, or should he follow a
    policy that was intolerable to Germany, then he would be
    destroyed within three months. The Duce agreed to this. The
    Führer would certainly not look for any quarrel, but he had
    nevertheless taken precautions”—this is again, I think,
    Ribbentrop speaking—“The Führer would certainly not look for
    any quarrel, but he had nevertheless taken precautions for all
    eventualities. He had in no way come to any decision, but as a
    result of certain occurrences and want of clearness on the
    Russian side, he had become suspicious. Thus for example, the
    Russians had strengthened their forces along their western
    frontier, which of course, caused Germany to reinforce her
    troops too, but only after the Russians started it.”

It really must have been a remarkable position in the German Government
if undoubtedly the Führer and the foreign secretary knew on the 13th of
May 1941 that Germany was going to attack Russia a month later.

My Lord, that is the evidence which I have to present to the Tribunal on
this matter. I regret that this should have taken so long. I am grateful
to Your Honors for your patience.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-FOURTH DAY
                         Friday, 8 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

    [Note.—Because citations were not required by the Tribunal for
    documents quoted in the opening address of the Russian
    Prosecution it has been impossible to verify the wording against
    the text of the original documents. In the presentation of 8
    February many of the quotations from documents originally in the
    German and English languages have been translated into Russian
    and then translated again into English for the record of the
    Trial. For this publication these retranslations have been used
    in some instances.]

THE PRESIDENT: I call on General Rudenko for the Soviet Union.

GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please
Your Honors, on delivering my opening statement, the last to be made at
this Trial by the chief prosecutors, I am fully conscious of the supreme
historical importance of these proceedings.

For the first time in the history of mankind is justice confronted with
crimes committed on so vast a scale, with crimes which have entailed
such grave consequences. It is for the first time that criminals who
have seized an entire state and made this state an instrument of their
monstrous crimes appear before a court of justice.

It is also for the first time that, by judging these defendants, we sit
in judgment not only on the defendants themselves, but also on the
criminal institutions and organizations which they created and on the
inhuman theories and ideas which they promulgated with a view to
committing crimes against peace and humanity, crimes which were designed
by them far in advance of their perpetration.

Nine months ago, after having tortured for a number of years of bloody
warfare the freedom-loving nations of Europe, Hitlerite Germany
collapsed under the hammer blows of the combined armed forces of the
Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. On 8 May 1945 Hitlerite Germany was
compelled to lay down her arms, having suffered a military and political
defeat hitherto unequalled in history.

Hitlerism imposed upon the world a war which caused the freedom-loving
nations innumerable privations and endless sufferings. Millions of
people fell victims of the war initiated by the Hitlerite brigands who
embarked on a dream of conquering the free peoples of the democratic
countries and of establishing the rule of Hitlerite tyranny in Europe
and in the entire world.

The day has come when the peoples of the world demand a just retribution
and a severe punishment of the Hitlerite hangmen, when they demand
severe punishment of the criminals.

All the outrages individually or jointly committed by the major
Hitlerite war criminals, all together and each one individually, will be
considered by you, Your Honors, with all the thoroughness and attention
which the law, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal,
justice, and our conscience require.

We charge the defendants with the initiation, instigation, and direct
execution, individually and through their agents, of the criminal plan
of conspiracy. To the execution of this plan was committed the entire
machinery of the Hitlerite State with all its governmental agencies and
institutions, with its army, police, the so-called public agencies, as
set out in the Indictment and particularly in Appendix B.

Before entering upon the examination of the concrete events and facts
which lie at the foundation of the charges raised against the
defendants, I think it necessary to dwell on certain general legal
questions connected with the proceedings. This is indispensable, because
the present Trial is the first one in history where justice is being
done by an agency of an international legal system—the International
Military Tribunal. This also becomes necessary, since special
consideration was given to questions of law in both the written and oral
motions made before the Tribunal.

The first and the most general legal problem which, in my opinion, has
to be considered by the Tribunal is the problem of legality. Contrary to
the system of fascist tyranny and arbitrary fascist practices, the great
democracies which have established this Tribunal, as well as all
democracies throughout the world, exist and act on a firm legal basis.
But neither the concrete law nor the concept of law can be identical in
the national and in the international meaning of these terms. _Lex_ in
its meaning in national law is an act of legislative power of a state,
clothed in a proper form. In its meaning in international law it is
different. In the international field there never existed, nor now
exist, any legislative bodies which are competent to pass laws which are
binding on individual states. The legal system of international
relations, which include those relations which are manifested in the
co-ordinated effort to combat criminality, is based on different legal
principles. In the international field the basic source of law and the
only legislative act is a treaty, an agreement between states.
Accordingly, just as duly promulgated laws passed by legislative bodies
and properly published are an absolute and sufficient legal basis for
the administration of national justice, so in the international field an
international treaty is an absolute and sufficient legal basis for the
implementation and the activity of agencies of international justice
created by the signatories.

The International Military Tribunal was established for the trial and
punishment of major war criminals on the basis of the London Agreement,
dated 8 August 1945, signed by the four countries acting in the
interests of all freedom-loving nations. Being an integral part of this
agreement, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal is to be
considered an unquestionable and sufficient legislative act, defining
and determining the basis and the procedure for the trial and punishment
of major war criminals. Provoked by fear of responsibility or, at best,
by insufficient knowledge of the organic nature of international
justice, the references to the principle _nullum crimen sine lege_, or
to the principle that “a statute cannot have retroactive power,” are not
applicable because of the following fundamental, decisive fact: The
Charter of the Tribunal is in force and in operation and all its
provisions possess absolute and binding force.

Pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter, the defendants are charged with
Crimes against Peace, crimes committed in violation of rules and customs
of war, and Crimes against Humanity. We must state with great
satisfaction that in placing on such actions the stigma of criminality
the Charter of the Tribunal has reduced to rules of law those
international principles and ideas which for many years have been set
forth in the defense of law and justice in the field of international
relations.

First of all—criminal aggression. For a number of decades nations
interested in strengthening the cause of peace have proclaimed and
advocated the idea that aggression constitutes the gravest encroachment
on the peaceful relations between nations, a most serious international
crime. These hopes and demands on the part of nations found their
expression in a series of acts and documents which officially recognized
aggression as an international crime.

On 27 August 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed in Paris:

    “Persuaded”—proclaimed the agreement—“that the time has come
    when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national
    policy should be made . . . convinced that all changes in their
    relations with one another should be sought only by pacific
    means . . . the High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the
    names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to
    war for the solution of international controversies, and
    renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their
    relations with one another.”

In 1929—a year after the signing of the Paris Pact—at the Congress of
the International Association of Criminal Law at Bucharest a resolution
was passed which squarely raised the question of criminal responsibility
for aggression. “Whereas war has been outlawed by the Paris Pact of
1928, and acknowledging the necessity of securing international order
and harmony by means of effective sanctions. . .” the Congress
considered imperative “the establishment of an international penal
judicial system” as well as of the principle of criminal responsibility
of states and single individuals for acts of aggression.

Thus long ago was proclaimed the principle of penal responsibility for
criminal aggression, the principle which found its clear legal
expression in Subparagraph (a) of Article 6 of the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal.

Consequently, the fascist aggressors, the defendants, knew that by their
predatory attacks on other countries they committed the gravest Crimes
against Peace. They knew it, and they know it now, and that is the
reason why they attempted and are now attempting to camouflage their
criminal aggression with lies about defense.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and authoritatively declared that
violations of laws and customs of war established by international
conventions must entail criminal responsibility.

In this connection it is necessary to note that the gravest outrages in
violation of laws and customs of war committed by the
Hitlerites—murder, violence, arson, and plunder—are considered
punishable criminal acts by all criminal codes throughout the world.
Moreover, the international conventions signed especially for the
purpose of establishing laws and rules of war stipulate criminal
responsibility for violation of these laws and rules. Thus Article 56 of
the Hague Convention in 1907 declares:

    “The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated
    to religion, charity and education, the arts, and sciences, even
    when state property, shall be treated as private property. All
    seizure of, destruction, or willful damage done to institutions
    of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science,
    is forbidden, and shall be made the subject of legal
    proceedings.”

Thus, the Hague Convention not only forbids the violation of rules of
war, but also stipulates that these violations “should be made the
subject of legal proceedings”, that is, must entail criminal
responsibility.

Article 29 of the 1929 Geneva Convention states with still greater
precision that:

    “The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose penal
    laws may not be adequate shall likewise take or recommend to
    their legislatures the necessary measures to repress in time of
    war all acts in contravention of the provisions of the present
    convention.”

Finally, the principle of criminal responsibility for all acts in
violation of the laws and customs of war is expressed with the utmost
precision in Article 3 of the provisions of the Washington Conference
for the Reduction of Armaments and for the Pacific and Far Eastern
Problems, which states that:

    “The Contracting Powers, wishing to ensure the execution of
    promulgated laws . . . declare that any person in the service of
    any power who violates one of these rules, and independently of
    the fact whether he is subordinated to an official personality
    or not, will be considered a transgressor of the laws of war and
    will be liable to be tried by civilian or military authorities.”

Consequently, according to the directives of the Hague and Geneva
Conventions and according to the provisions of the Washington
Conference, the enforcing of criminal responsibility for the violation
of the laws and customs of war is not only possible, but is actually
compulsory.

Thus, Subparagraph (b) of Article 6 of the Charter of the International
Military Tribunal, concerning War Crimes, defined with greater precision
and generalized the principles and rules contained in the international
conventions previously signed.

The defendants knew that cynical mockery of the laws and customs of war
constituted the gravest of crimes. They knew it, but they hoped that
total war, by securing victory, would also secure their impunity. But
victory did not arrive on the heels of the crimes. Instead came the
complete and unconditional surrender of Germany, and with it came an
hour of grim reckoning for all the outrages they had committed.

I myself, speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union, and my honored
colleagues, the chief prosecutors of the United States of America,
England, and France, we all accuse the defendants of having ruled over
the entire German State and war machine through a criminal conspiracy
and of turning the machinery of the German State into a mechanism for
the preparation and prosecution of criminal aggression, into a mechanism
for the extermination of millions of innocent people.

When several criminals conspire to commit a murder, every one of them
plays a definite part. One works out the plan of murder, another waits
in the car, and the third actually fires at the victim. But whatever may
be the part played by any individual participant, they all are murderers
and any court of law in any country will reject any attempts to assert
that the first two should not be considered murderers, since they
themselves had not fired the bullet.

The more complicated and hazardous the conceived crime, the more
complicated and less tangible the links connecting the individual
participants. When a gang of bandits commits an assault, responsibility
for the raid is also shared by those members of the gang who did not
actually take part in the assault. But when the size of the gang attains
extraordinary proportions, when the gang happens to be at the helm of
the ship of state, when the gang commits numerous and very grave
international crimes, then of course, the ties and mutual relations
among the members of the gang become entangled to the utmost. A highly
ramified mechanism is here at work. It consisted of a whole system of
links and blocks, (Zellenleiter, Blockleiter, Gauleiter, Reichsleiter,
_et cetera_) extending from ministerial chairs to the hands of the
executioners.

This is a consolidated and powerful mechanism, yet it is powerless to
conceal the basic and decisive fact that at the core of the entire
system operated a gang of conspirators who were setting in motion the
whole organization which they had created.

When entire regions of flourishing countryside were turned into desert
areas, and the soil was drenched with the blood of those executed, it
was the work of their hands, of their organization, their instigation,
their leadership. And just because the masses of the German people were
made to participate in these outrages, because, prior to setting packs
of dogs and executioners on millions of innocent people, the defendants
for years had poisoned the conscience and the mind of an entire
generation of Germans by developing in them the conceit of “the chosen,”
the morals of cannibals, and the greed of burglars, can it be said on
account of these facts that the guilt of the Hitlerite conspirators is
any less great or any less grave?

Expressing the will of nations, the Charter of the International
Military Tribunal has settled this question:

    “Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating
    in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or
    Conspiracy”—against peace, against the laws and customs of
    warfare, or against humanity—“to commit any of the foregoing
    crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in
    execution of such plan.” (Article 6)

For the purpose of successful execution of their criminal plans these
conspirators—Göring, Hess, Rosenberg, Fritzsche, Schirach, and the
other defendants—developed a fiendish theory of the superior or master
race. By means of this so-called theory they had in mind to justify the
claims of German fascism for the domination of other nations which were
declared by their theory to be nations of inferior race.

It followed from this theory that Germans, since they belonged to the
“master race,” have the “right” to build their own welfare on the bones
of other races and nations. This theory proclaimed that German fascist
usurpers are not bound by any laws or commonly accepted rules of human
morality. The “master race” is permitted to do anything. No matter how
revolting and shameless, cruel, and monstrous were the actions of those
individuals, they were based on the idea of the superiority of this
race.

Said Hitler:

    “We want to make a selection for a class of new masters who will
    be devoid of moral pity, a class which will realize that because
    of its better race it has the right to dominate others, a class
    that will be able to establish and maintain without hesitation
    its domination over the masses.” (Otwalt, Ernst, _Deutschland
    erwache!_, 1932, Page 353.)

This German fascist racial theory had at the same time to serve as a
“scientific” basis for the preparation by the Hitlerites of an attack
against democratic nations, as a justification for aggressive wars for
which the Hitlerites made feverish preparation during the whole time of
their domination of Germany. In such manner, the function of racism was
to justify the conspiracy—to fulfill the predatory aims of the German
imperialistic clique.

By order of the German fascist authorities, the racial doctrine was
introduced into the educational plans as a most important and obligatory
subject. In the hands of German fascism, the schools and universities
became dangerous centers for the intellectual and moral mutilation of
the people and, as such, the greatest menace to civilization. All
branches of science were militarized. All aspects of art were subjected
to the aims of aggression.

    “We approach science unbiased by knowledge and scholarly
    education.”—declared the fascist review _Politische
    Wissenschaft_, Number 3 for 1934—“The student must come to
    college with the demand that science be as soldierly as his own
    bearing and that the professor possess the qualities of a leader
    and the bearing of a soldier.”

    “We want arms again!”—said Hitler—“Then indeed from the
    child’s primer to the last newspaper, every theater and every
    movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard—all
    must be pressed into the service of this one great
    mission. . . .” (Hitler, Adolf, _Mein Kampf_, Munich, 1933, Page
    715.)

Geography became the instrument for propagating the “preeminent
importance of the Germans in the world,” of their “right to dominate”
other peoples. A feeling of racial superiority, arrogance, hatred,
contempt, and cruelty toward other peoples was cultivated in the young.

These are the words of a German fascist song:

    “If all the world lies in ruins,

    What the devil do we care?

    We still will go marching on

    For today Germany belongs to us

    And tomorrow the whole world.”

The German fascist ideology set loose the wildest and lowest instincts.
The fascists made a principle of arbitrary actions, violence, and
debasement of the people. They declared as dangerous for the “master
races” the ideas of freedom, the ideas of enlightenment, and the demands
of humanity. Said Hitler:

    “I am freeing men from the wearisome restrictions of the mind,
    from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a chimera
    called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a
    freedom and personal independence which a very few enjoy.”
    (Rauschning, Hermann, _The Voice of Destruction_, New York,
    1940, Page 225.)

In the spirit of such principles the entire German fascist system of
education was built up with a view to adapting and preparing them to a
blind obedience in the execution of all predatory plans and aims put
before Germany by the Hitlerite rulers. As a result of fascist
propaganda and the whole system of measures cultivated by the German
State, the German mind was systematically poisoned by the fumes of
chauvinism and hatred of mankind. The aggressive plans of German fascism
ripened more and more with every year since the Hitlerites’ seizure of
power until at last they led to war. This war was planned, worked out
and started by the Hitlerites’ Germany as Blitzkrieg and should,
according to the schemes of the conspirators, have resulted in a rapid
and easy victory for the gang of Hitlerite cut-throats and in their
domination over all the countries in Europe.

The criminal conspiracy aimed at the establishment of a predatory New
Order in Europe. This New Order was a regime of terror by which, in the
countries seized by the Hitlerites, all democratic institutions were
abolished and all civil rights of the population were abrogated, while
the countries themselves were plundered and rapaciously exploited. The
population of these countries, and of the Slav countries above all
others—especially Russians, Ukrainians, Bielorussians, Poles, Czechs,
Serbians, Slovenes, Jews—were subjected to merciless persecution and
mass extermination.

The conspirators failed to achieve their objective. The valiant struggle
of the peoples of the democratic countries, led by a coalition of the
three great powers—the Soviet Union, the United States of America, and
Great Britain—resulted in the liberation of the European countries from
the Hitlerite yoke. The victory of the Soviet and Allied armies wrecked
the criminal plans of the fascist conspirators and liberated the peoples
of Europe from the terrible threat of Hitlerite domination.

We, the Prosecutors, are obliged by law and duty before the peoples of
the democratic countries and all mankind to formulate and present to the
International Military Tribunal evidence proving the guilt of the
defendants in committing the most grievous crimes.

Permit me to perform my duty, jointly with my colleagues, by presenting
to the International Military Tribunal the evidence which, together with
the materials already presented by the Prosecution on behalf of the
United States of America, Great Britain, and France, will give a
complete and exhaustive body of proof in this case.

The Defendants Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Raeder, Rosenberg,
Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Frick, Dönitz, Fritzsche, and others are charged
with the organization of a conspiracy to establish by force the
domination of German imperialism and the setting up of the fascist
regime in all European countries and, later, throughout the world.

The core of this plan was the organization of aggressive wars and the
rearrangement of the map of the whole world by use of force. In
execution of this plan for aggression the criminal Hitlerite Government
and the German General Staff prepared and executed the seizure of
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Poland,
Greece, and Yugoslavia. They also prepared and undertook a predatory
military campaign against the Soviet Union.

My colleagues of the American, British, and French Prosecution have
already submitted to the Tribunal weighty and irrefutable evidence which
establishes the fact of German aggression against their own countries,
as well as against Belgium, Holland, Greece, and a number of the other
states which had become victims of the predatory Hitlerite imperialism.

May it please Your Honors, I will now produce proofs of the monstrous
crimes of the defendants in the preparation and initiation of aggressive
wars against freedom loving peoples.

The document submitted in this case and known as “Fall Grün” contains a
plan for an attack on the Czechoslovakian Republic. This directive,
signed by Hitler, was distributed together with a covering note bearing
the signatures of Keitel. The directive begins with “Political
Prerequisites,” which read precisely as follows:

    “My unalterable decision is that Czechoslovakia should be
    smashed in the immediate future by means of a single military
    operation. To abide the time and to create a suitable political
    and military situation—this is the task of political
    leadership. The inevitable development of conditions within
    Czechoslovakia or other political events in Europe, which might
    never again bring about such an unexpectedly favorable
    situation, may force me to action even before the designated
    date. The proper choice and the resolute exploitation of the
    opportune moment are the surest guaranties of success.
    Accordingly, all preparations should be made immediately.”

Turning to the exposition of the political possibilities and
prerequisites regarding the initiation of the attack, Hitler cynically
disclosed these prerequisites: a) A suitable military pretext and in
this connection; b) a satisfactory political justification; c) a
surprise action which should take the enemy, as far as possible,
unawares.

It was Hitler’s idea that the most propitious moment, both from the
military and political point of view, would be a lightning, secretly
prepared, German attack under the pretext of some incident which could
morally justify the use of military force, at least in the eyes of a
certain portion of the public opinion of the world.

The directive envisaged the actual preparation for an attack on
Czechoslovakia to be executed by certain branches of the Armed Forces.
Thus the Directive Grün, which bears as early a date as May 1938,
clearly and definitely testifies to the fact of a carefully planned
preparation for the seizure of Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Prosecution
will submit documents taken from the files of the German Ministry of
Foreign Affairs which reveal the criminal methods used by the Hitlerites
in preparing for the seizure of Czechoslovakia.

You, Your Honors, as well as the entire world, well know how
methodically and ruthlessly this criminal scheme was executed by the
predatory imperialism of the Hitlerites.

Having set up in occupied Czechoslovakia an insufferable regime of
terrorism, the Hitlerites drove into German slavery many thousands of
Czechoslovak citizens, showing no mercy even to children, who were sent
to industrial plants, farms, and mines. The youth of Czechoslovakia was
deprived of all opportunities for education. When, in 1942, a Czech
delegation appealed to Frank for permission to reopen the higher
Czechoslovak educational institutions, he cynically replied, “Should the
war be won by England, you will reopen your schools yourselves; should
Germany win, then five-grade elementary schools will be enough for you.”

Everyone remembers the sanguinary reprisals of the Hitlerite hangmen
committed against the Czechoslovak population. One of the numerous cases
of such monstrous reprisals against the peaceful population was made
public in the German newspaper _Der Neue Tag_ of 11 June 1942.

    “During the search for the murderer of SS Obergruppenführer
    Heydrich, it was incontestably proved that the inhabitants of
    the village of Lidice, near Kladno, were aiding and abetting the
    perpetrators of the crime. This has been proven in spite of the
    fact that the population denies any such assistance. The
    attitude of the population in regard to such crimes is also
    evidenced by other hostile acts against the Reich. There were
    discovered, for instance, subversive literature, stores of arms
    and ammunition, as well as the existence of a radio transmitter
    and a large quantity of rationed goods held in unlawful
    possession. The entire adult male population was executed by
    firing squads. Women were deported to concentration camps, and
    children were sent to proper places for their further
    upbringing. All buildings in this village were levelled to the
    ground and the name of the village was done away with.”

The Prosecution has at its disposal official data collected by the
Czechoslovakian Government on the shocking crimes which were perpetrated
by the Hitlerite invaders on the territory of Czechoslovakia. In the
report of the Czechoslovakian Government, which to a large extent is
devoted to the description of the regime established by the Hitlerites
in Czechoslovakia during the occupation, are cited numerous cases of
terrorism: shooting of hostages, mass deportations to concentration
camps, murder of women and children.

That is how Fall Grün worked.

On 1 September 1939 the fascist aggressors invaded Polish territory in
treacherous violation of existing treaties. The Polish people were
subjected to mass extermination, and their cities and villages were
mercilessly destroyed. Official documents exposing this aggression have
already been presented to the Tribunal by my colleagues. Among such
documents we must mention in the first place a top-secret report on a
conference, presided over by Hitler, which took place on 23 May 1939,
and at which, besides Hitler and other persons, the Defendants Göring,
Raeder, and Keitel were present.

At this conference Hitler made a lengthy statement concerning “the
present situation and the political aims.” Hitler said:

    “The Pole is in no way an additional enemy. Poland will always
    be on the side of our opponents. It is not a question of Danzig
    only; it is the question of Lebensraum in the East, the
    safeguarding of our food supplies, and the solution of the
    Baltic problem.

    “Thus”—said Hitler—“sparing Poland is out of the question, and
    the decision remains to invade her at the first opportunity. We
    cannot expect the repetition of what we achieved in the case of
    Czechoslovakia. This time it means war.”

Hitler then said:

    “The important fact in the conflict with Poland, which will
    begin with an attack on Poland, is that it can be successful for
    us only if the West does not participate. If this should be
    impossible, it would be better to attack the Western Powers and
    at the same time destroy Poland.”

The second part of Hitler’s statement was specially devoted to a number
of questions of military strategy connected with his decision to attack
Poland. This is how the gangster assault of Hitler’s Germany on Poland
was prepared in advance. It was put into execution in September 1939. We
shall present documentary evidence of the monstrous crimes committed by
the Hitlerites in Poland.

Yugoslavia was another Slav state which was the subject of a sudden
attack on the part of Hitlerite Germany. It is well known that on
numerous occasions Hitler’s Government had given false assurance to the
effect that Germany had no aggressive intentions towards Yugoslavia.
Thus, on 28 April 1939 Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag, stated
that Germany was ready to give assurances to a number of states, and in
particular to Yugoslavia, that Germany wished to maintain with them
relations of mutual understanding, as she was bound to them by alliances
and by “close ties of friendship.”

Even prior to this, on 28 April 1938, the Berlin News Agency (DNB) had
announced:

    “Confidential representatives have informed the Yugoslav
    Government on Germany’s behalf that Germany’s intentions do not
    extend beyond Austria and that the Yugoslav frontier will remain
    inviolate.”

In spite of these repeated and categorical declarations, Hitler’s armies
invaded Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941 and occupied this country. This
attack was unexpected only by the victims, for the Nazi clique had
carefully planned this assault in advance as it had done in the
above-mentioned cases.

A top-secret directive issued from the Führer’s headquarters on 27 March
1941 and intended only for higher commanding officers of the German Army
said:

    “My intention is to invade Yugoslavia by powerful thrusts from
    the area of Fiume-Graz and from Sofia in the general direction
    of Belgrade and further to the south, with the objective of
    inflicting on the Yugoslav army a decisive defeat as well as to
    cut off the southern part of Yugoslavia from the rest of the
    country and to turn it into a base for further operations of the
    German-Italian forces against Greece. By proposing the return of
    Macedonia and Banat, attempts will be made to bring about the
    participation of Bulgaria and Hungary in the operations.

    “The internal political crisis in Yugoslavia will be aggravated
    by political guarantees promised to the Croats.”

Further on, the directive lays down a detailed strategic plan for the
invasion of Yugoslavia and provides for actual participation in this
aggression of the German Armed Forces, including the 10th Air Corps,
which had to be transferred from Italy in order to take part in these
operations.

Consequently, on the basis of the evidence supplied by original
documents of the Hitlerite Government and High Command of the German
Armed Forces, we can establish that all attacks by Hitlerite Germany on
Slav states were based on a plan prepared in advance, a plan which was
only a part of a common criminal conspiracy of the predatory German
imperialism against freedom-loving nations.

Yugoslavia as well as Poland became a victim of the German fascist
aggressors who covered this flourishing state with ruins, and its
fields, gardens, and ploughed land with corpses of many thousands of
Yugoslav patriots who fell in the heroic struggle against the foreign
invaders and enslavers, in the struggle for the freedom and independence
of their native land.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off for 10
minutes?

                        [_A recess was taken._]

GEN. RUDENKO: May it please the Tribunal, I will now describe the crimes
committed by the Hitlerite aggressors against my own country, against
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On 22 June 1941 the U.S.S.R.
was perfidiously attacked by Hitlerite Germany. However, it is not this
date that should be considered as the actual beginning of the execution
of Hitlerite Germany’s plan of aggression against the Soviet Union. What
took place on 22 June 1941 was conceived, prepared, and planned long
before that.

The Hitlerite conspirators pursued these preparations continuously. All
Germany’s aggressive actions against a number of European states, during
the period between 1938 and 1941, were actually only preliminary
measures for the main blow in the East. For fascist Germany had
conceived the criminal design of seizing the territory of the Soviet
Union in order to plunder and to exploit the peoples of the U.S.S.R.

We need not seek confirmation thereof in Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_ or in the
writings of the Hitlerite ringleaders, which, as is known, contained,
together with a direct menace to the U.S.S.R., indications that the
aggression of German imperialism must be directed toward the East in
order to conquer the so-called “living space.” This tendency of
predatory German imperialism is expressed in the well-known formula
“Drang nach Osten.”

I revert for evidence to the official documents of the Hitlerite
Government, which fully disclose the defendants’ guilt in committing the
criminal actions with which they are charged under the present
Indictment.

I beg to be allowed to refer, in the first case, to the document
entitled, “Report Concerning the Conference of 23 May 1939.” As can be
seen from this document, this conference took place in Hitler’s study at
the new Reich Chancellery, and the minutes were taken down by Lieutenant
Colonel Schmundt of the German General Staff. There were present at this
conference: Hitler, Göring, Raeder, Brauchitsch, Keitel, General Milch,
General of the Artillery Halder, and other representatives of the German
High Command. The report states that the subject of the conference was,
“Instructions concerning the present situation and the objects of our
policy.” Speaking at this conference, Hitler frequently broached the
subject of the seizure of territory in the East. He declared:

    “If fate forces us into a conflict with the West, it would be
    desirable that we possess more extensive space in the East.”

And further:

    “Our problem is to extend our living space in the East, secure
    our food supplies, and solve the problems of the Baltic Sea and
    States. As regards food supplies, we can only rely upon the
    thinly populated areas. The thoroughness of German agriculture,
    together with the fertility of the soil, will show itself
    favorably in the manifold increase of food production.”

In another document known as the “Minutes of the Führer’s Conference
with the Commander-in-Chief on 23 November 1939,” Hitler stressed the
necessity of solving the problem of the struggle for oil, rubber, and
useful minerals; and at that conference, Hitler formulated the main
tasks as follows:

    “. . . adapt the living space to the density of the
    population. . . .

    “This is an eternal problem: to establish the necessary balance
    between the number of Germans and their territory, and to secure
    the necessary living space. Sharp ingenuity can be of no avail
    here. The problem can be solved only by the sword.”

At this conference Hitler with complete frankness disclosed his plans
concerning the drive to the East. Boasting of his successful seizures of
Moravia, Bohemia, and Poland he no longer kept secret his intentions of
pursuing his aggression eastwards.

    “I did not resurrect the armed forces”—said Hitler—“for the
    purpose of keeping them inactive. The determination to act has
    always been alive in me. I always meant to solve this
    problem—sooner or later.”

In that the Nazi Government felt itself in no way restrained by the
existence of a non-aggression pact signed between Germany and U.S.S.R.
on 23 August 1939. However, Hitler’s cynical declaration that treaties
need only be respected as long as they serve a purpose is now
universally known.

My American colleague has already quoted in his address the speech made
by the Defendant Jodl at the conference held by the Reich Gauleiter in
Munich in January 1943. In his speech the Defendant Jodl said, “Hitler
informed me, while we were still fighting in the West, of his plans to
fight the U.S.S.R.” In his turn, the Defendant Raeder at his preliminary
examination testified that the idea of a military campaign against the
U.S.S.R. had been born in Hitler’s mind long ago, and it grew ever
stronger with the decrease of the probability of an invasion of England
in June 1940.

According to the Defendant Keitel’s statement, Hitler had decided to
attack the U.S.S.R. at the end of 1940. Already in the spring of 1940 a
plan of assault had been worked out. Conferences on this subject had
been held during the summer. In July 1940 at a military conference in
Reichenhall, the plan of attack on the U.S.S.R. was examined.

This is also confirmed by the statement of the Defendant Jodl, who at
his preliminary examination testified that the plans of attack on the
U.S.S.R. were actually worked out in the months of November-December
1940 and that during that period the first directives were given to the
Army, to the Navy, and to the Air Force. Speaking of these directives,
Jodl refers to a document known as the Case Barbarossa. This document is
signed by Hitler, Jodl, and Keitel. This directive, intended only for
the High Command of the German Army, contains an elaborate and detailed
plan for a sudden attack on the U.S.S.R. I quote:

    “The German Armed Forces must be prepared to crush Soviet Russia
    in a quick campaign even before the end of the war against
    England.

    “For this purpose the Army will have to employ all available
    units with the reservation that the occupied territories will
    have to be safeguarded against any surprises.”

The directive, Case Barbarossa, emphasizes that “great importance
attaches to the fact that the intention of an attack will not be
recognized.”

The directive further states that in case of emergency the order for
attack against Soviet Russia will be given 8 weeks in advance of the
intended beginning of operations, and that “preparations requiring more
time to start are, if this has not already been done, to begin presently
and are to be completed by 15 May 1941.”

And, finally, the same directive contains a detailed strategic plan of
an attack on the U.S.S.R., which plan already contemplated the actual
form of participation on the part of Romania and Finland in this
aggression. In particular, the directive says bluntly:

    “Probable Allies and their tasks.

    “1. At the flanks of our operations the active participation, in
    the war against Soviet Russia, of Romania and Finland may be
    counted upon.”

The directive also states that:

    “we may count on the possibility that Swedish railroads and
    highways may become available for the deployment of the German
    Group North not later than the beginning of actual operations.”

Thus, it is incontestable that the Hitlerite Government at this time had
already secured the assent of the Romanian and Finnish Governments for
the participation of these countries, together with Germany, in the
aggression against the U.S.S.R.

This situation is apparent not only from the text of the directive, Case
Barbarossa, but also from the other facts at our disposal. For example,
in a statement by the German General of the Infantry Buschenhagen which
we shall present to the Tribunal, the following appears:

    “At the end of December 1940 (approximately on the 20th), I, as
    the Chief of Staff of the German Forces in Norway, with the rank
    of colonel, was invited to take part in a conference of the
    chiefs of staff of the Armies at the OKH (High Command of the
    Army) at Zossen (near Berlin), which lasted several days. At
    this meeting the Chief of the General Staff, General Halder,
    expounded the Barbarossa plan of attack on the Soviet Union.
    Present at Zossen at the time of the meeting was the Chief of
    the General Staff of the Finnish Army, General Heinrichs, who
    was conferring with General Halder. . . .”

Buschenhagen further tells us how in February 1941 he left for Helsinki,
where, together with a representative of the Finnish Army, he worked out
a definite plan for the attack on the U.S.S.R. On 2 or 3 March 1941,
upon his return to Oslo, he compiled and submitted to the OKW a report
on his mission.

    “On the basis of these documents”—states Buschenhagen—“the
    operational plan ‘Blue Fox’ was drawn up, envisaging an attack
    on the Murmansk railroad from the area of Kuusamo, Rovaniemi,
    and Petsamo. The plan of operations in the area of
    Kirkenes-Petsamo was called ‘Reindeer’; that in the area of
    Rovaniemi, ‘Silver Fox.’”

Further, as narrated by Buschenhagen, towards the end of April or the
beginning of May 1941 he flew again to Helsinki where:

    “. . . at the Finnish General Staff negotiations took place with
    Generals Heinrichs and Airo and Colonel Tapola, in the course of
    which we ascertained that the Finnish General Staff was fully
    prepared to participate in the coming war against the Soviet
    Union.”

In his personal written testimony given to the investigating authorities
of the Soviet Union, which will be presented to the Tribunal, Marshal
Ion Antonescu gives an account of his meetings with Hitler in November
1940, January 1941, and May 1941, at which were discussed the questions
with regard to the preparation of war against the Soviet Union.

During the first conference between Antonescu and Hitler, in which
Ribbentrop and Hitler’s personal interpreter, Schmidt, took part,
problems directly concerning the preparation of the German aggression
against the U.S.S.R. and the Romanian participation therein were
discussed.

In reply to the question put by the Soviet investigating authorities to
Antonescu, whether his first conference with Hitler should be considered
as his initial step towards an understanding with the Germans for the
preparation of aggressive war against the Soviet Union, he stated, “I
reply in the affirmative. Hitler undoubtedly had this in mind when
working out the plans for attacking the Soviet Union.”

At the second meeting between Antonescu and Hitler, which took place in
January 1941, the Defendants Ribbentrop, Keitel, and Jodl were present.
Hitler requested Antonescu to permit the German armies concentrated on
Hungarian territory to pass through Romania in order to enable them to
assist the Italians in the war against Greece.

Antonescu testifies:

    “I expressed my apprehension that the movement of German troops
    through Romania might serve as a pretext for military action by
    the Soviet Union against Romania, thus placing Romania in a very
    difficult position, as the Romanian army was not mobilized. To
    this Hitler replied that he will give an order for part of the
    German troops intended for operations against Greece to remain
    in Romania.

    “Hitler also emphasized that, according to the information at
    his disposal, the Soviet Union had no intention to fight either
    against Germany or Romania.

    “Satisfied with this statement of Hitler’s, I have agreed to
    allow the German troops to pass through Romanian territory.

    “General Jodl, who was present at this conference, described to
    me the strategic situation of the German Army, emphasizing the
    necessity of an attack on Greece through Bulgaria.”

Speaking of the third meeting with Hitler in May 1941, in the city of
Munich, at which the Defendant Ribbentrop was present, Antonescu
declared:

    “At this meeting . . . we had definitely agreed upon our joint
    assault on the Soviet Union.

    “Hitler stated that he had decided to attack the Soviet Union.
    ‘Having prepared this attack,’ said Hitler, ‘we must launch it
    unexpectedly along the entire frontier of the Soviet Union from
    the Black Sea to the Baltic. The suddenness of this military
    attack,’ continued Hitler, ‘will enable Germany and Romania to
    overcome in a very short time one of our most dangerous
    opponents.’

    “In connection with his war plans, Hitler asked me to place at
    his disposal Romanian territory for the concentration of German
    troops, and in conjunction with this to take a direct part in
    carrying out the attack on the Soviet Union.”

By entering the conspiracy on the side of Germany and preparing to
attack the Soviet Union, Romania in her turn pursued aggressive aims.

Antonescu in the same statements spoke of Hitler’s promises as follows:

    “Hitler emphasized that Romania should not remain out of this
    war, as in order to get back Bessarabia and northern Bukovina
    she had no other way but to fight on the side of Germany. He
    added to this that in return for our help in the war Romania
    could occupy and administer other Soviet territories up to the
    Dnieper.”

Antonescu further testified:

    “As Hitler’s proposal to start jointly the war against U.S.S.R.
    was in line with my aggressive intentions, I declared my
    readiness to participate in the assault on the Soviet Union and
    undertook to prepare the required number of Romanian troops and
    at the time to increase the deliveries of oil and farm produce
    for the needs of Germany.

    “After my return to Bucharest from Munich I began energetic
    preparations for the coming war.”

These facts are likewise confirmed by the documents from the archives of
Antonescu, which will also be submitted to the Tribunal.

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the records of a conversation
which took place between Antonescu and Dörnberg, head of the protocol
department of the German Foreign Office, on the 10th of February 1942, a
conversation after meeting at the frontier:

    “. . . I declared”—remarks Antonescu—“that Romania entered
    into an alliance with the Axis not for the purpose of altering
    the treaty of Versailles but in order to fight the Slavs. . . .”

It will be seen from this record that hatred towards the Slav peoples
united Hitler and Antonescu in their preparation and realization of a
war of aggression.

Documents which are to be presented to the Tribunal will show quite
clearly the complicity of Hungary in the conspiracy to violate peace and
in the preparation of an aggressive war against the Soviet Union.
Hungary was assigned the definite role of attacking the rear of the Red
Army through the Carpathian Mountains at the very moment when the German
and the Romanian Armies were to open military operations against the
Soviet Union. Thus the criminal block of aggressors against the
peace-loving nations was set up with fascist Germany in the van.

Reverting to the so-called Case Barbarossa, I wish to dwell on the more
important points of this document. Case Barbarossa consists of three
parts. The first sets forth its general aims; the second indicates
allies of Germany in the war against the Soviet Union. The third part is
devoted to the execution of military operations on land, in the air, and
on sea. This document has the highly pertinent feature of having been
issued, in view of its top-secret contents, in nine copies only, to
comply fully with the demand for absolute secrecy on Germany’s
preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union.

The first part of the plan reads as follows:

    “Troops of the Russian Army massed in the western part of Russia
    must be destroyed, and the retreat into the vast expanses of
    Russian territory of combat units must be prevented. Then, by
    rapid pursuit, a line must be reached from which the Russian air
    force will not be able to carry out attacks against German
    territory.”

The document further states that the ultimate objective of this plan was
to consolidate the line Archangel-Volga, paralyze the last remaining
industrial area in the Urals by air operations, put the Baltic fleet out
of commission, and prevent the possibility of active interference on the
part of the Russian air force. In the third part of the document we find
the directive to seize Leningrad and Kronstadt and to continue offensive
operations with the objective of taking the most important center of
communications and war-production, Moscow. “The seizure of this
city”—according to the plan—“will mean a decisive success both
politically and economically.”

Such was the plan to invade the U.S.S.R.—conceived, worked out, and
prepared long in advance by Hitlerite Germany.

While undertaking strategic and diplomatic measures to prepare for its
treacherous attack against the U.S.S.R., the Hitlerite Government
conceived and planned beforehand to commit war crimes on the territory
of the U.S.S.R. The so-called Case Barbarossa was a strategic plan. But
this plan was supplemented by a number of instructions and orders
designed to embrace all the measures relative to the problems connected
with the invasion of the Soviet Union. Among these measures we must
mention in the very first place the directive issued on 13 March 1941 by
the headquarters of the German High Command.

This directive deals with a series of organizational problems of a
civilian nature and in particular with the problems relative to the
organization of administrative authorities. It is of importance to note
that this instruction placed German troops stationed in East Prussia and
the so-called Government General (that is to say, Poland) under the laws
and regulations destined for the zone of operations at least 4 weeks
prior to the opening of the campaign. By this directive the High Command
of the German Armed Forces was authorized to assume executive power and
to delegate it to the commanding generals of the army groups and armies.

One also cannot overlook in this directive Subparagraph B, which
characterizes the tasks and objectives pursued by the conspirators. In
this subparagraph it states:

    “In the theater of army operations, the Reichsführer SS, by
    order of the Führer, is given some special tasks for the
    preparation of political administration, arising from the
    decisive struggle between two opposing political systems. Within
    the limits of these tasks the Reichsführer of the SS acts
    independently, upon his own responsibility.”

Mankind is now well aware of the meaning of these “special tasks,” the
execution of which was exclusively entrusted to the SS generals and
officers, who made full use of this right to act “independently” and
“upon their own responsibility.” It meant unheard of terror, plundering,
violence, and killing of prisoners of war and peaceful citizens.
Further, this directive, in a very specific way, gave the High Command
also such tasks as the plundering and predatory exploitation of the
areas occupied by the German troops. The directive is signed by the
Defendant Keitel.

In another instruction, issued in June 1941 as a supplement to the Plan
Barbarossa, orders are issued which, in the guise of propaganda
directives, prescribe the ruthless treatment of all those who oppose the
German aggressors. As to actual propaganda, the directives frankly
mention the usual Hitlerite methods of dirty calumny, lies, and
provocation, which were to be used by the so-called “propaganda
companies.”

Finally one cannot overlook another instruction, known under the name of
“Orders Concerning Military Jurisdiction in the Barbarossa Area and
Special Measures To Be Taken by the Troops.” These orders, while
sanctioning arbitrary action on the part of the German authorities and
troops in regard to the civilian population in the territories seized by
the German armed forces, begin with an invitation addressed to the
German troops to “protect” themselves ruthlessly against hostile actions
of the civilian population. In the order prescribing the adoption of
Draconian measures against peaceful populations and partisans, we find
indications as to the brutal punishment to be imposed upon persons
defined in those orders as “suspected elements.”

With the permission of the Tribunal, I will read only two subparagraphs
of these orders—Subparagraphs 4 and 5:

    “4. In those places where it is too late to adopt these measures
    or where it had not been possible to do so immediately,
    suspected elements must be handed over to an officer without
    delay; he will decide whether or not they should be shot.

    “5. It is absolutely prohibited to hold these suspects for trial
    by courts which at a later date will be instituted for the local
    population.”

Thus, according to these so-called orders, the fate and life of every
apprehended person depended exclusively on an officer, and it was
prohibited, as the order cynically stressed, “to hold the suspects for
trial.” In other words, it was a definite order to exterminate the
“suspects.” Moreover, in the case of attacks against the German Armed
Forces, the order prescribed “mass measures of repression,” that is to
say, the wholesale extermination of absolutely innocent people.

What heights of cynicism were reached by the German High Command in the
application of sanguinary terror can be seen from the fact that this
order freed the German soldiers, officers, and officials of any
responsibility for the commission of crimes against the peaceful Soviet
population. According to these orders, the German troop commanders were
entitled to confirm only those sentences which, as the said document
states, were in accordance with the “political objectives of the
leaders.” Consequently, long before 22 June 1941 the Hitlerite
Government and the German High Command, whose representatives are now in
the dock, planned and prepared in detail those war crimes which were
subsequently committed in the territory of the U.S.S.R. These plans
inexorably disclose that the defendants premeditated the monstrous
crimes which were organized by them.

On 22 June 1941 the Hitlerite conspirators, having perfidiously violated
the pact of non-aggression between the U.S.S.R. and Germany without any
declaration of war, started an attack against Soviet territory,
initiating thereby an aggressive war against the U.S.S.R. without the
slightest provocation on the part of the Soviet Union. Enormous masses
of German troops, secretly concentrated on the borders beforehand, were
thrown against the U.S.S.R. As planned, Finnish troops took part in the
attack on the U.S.S.R. in the north, and Hungarian and Romanian troops
in the south. In order to create panic and confusion, the German Air
Force immediately began the bombing of peaceful towns, thereby
subjecting them to destruction.

Less than a month after the perpetration of this perfidious act Hitler
called a conference, which was attended by Rosenberg, Göring, Bormann,
Lammers, and Keitel. At this conference Hitler instructed those present
not to disclose to the outside world the true aims of the war begun by
the Hitlerites. Referring to their activities in regard to Norway,
Denmark, Holland, and Belgium, Hitler stressed the necessity of
continuing this line of action, that is, to conceal by all possible
means the real intentions of the conspirators:

    “Therefore”—said Hitler—“we shall emphasize again that we were
    compelled to occupy a region to establish order and security
    there . . . our method of regulation is the natural outcome of
    this. Thus it must not be revealed that this may bring about a
    final solution. However, despite and notwithstanding this, we
    shall take all necessary measures such as mass shootings,
    deportation, _et cetera_.”

Any kind of violence against the peaceful population, deportation into
German slavery, shooting, and looting were called “regulation” in the
words of Hitler and his accomplices.

At this conference the conspirators defined the ulterior aims of the
Hitlerite Government in respect of the Soviet Union as follows:

    “In the main, the problem amounts to this . . . first, to
    conquer it, secondly, to rule it and thirdly, to exploit
    it. . . .

    “The basic idea: The creation of a military power west of the
    Urals must never occur again, even if, in order to prevent it,
    we have to fight for a hundred years. All the adherents of the
    Führer must know this. The Reich will only be secure if no
    foreign military force exists west of the Urals.

    “The iron law must be: None but the Germans shall be permitted
    to bear arms . . . only a German has the right to carry a
    weapon; no Slav, no Czech, no Cossack, no Ukrainian.

    “Hitler continued: The Baltic countries must become a province
    of the Reich. The Crimea and a considerable area to the north
    must likewise become a province of the Reich. These areas must
    be as extensive as possible. . . The Volga colony must become a
    territory of the Reich, the Baku region a German concession
    (military colony).

    “The Finns want East Karelia. However, because of its great
    nickel production, the Kola peninsula must go to Germany. . . .

    “The Finns claim the Leningrad region. Level Leningrad to the
    ground, then give it to the Finns.”

The rapacious aims of the war launched by Germany against the U.S.S.R.
are frankly set forth in an article by the director of the fascist
propaganda, the notorious Goebbels, under the title “What For?” Goebbels
wrote:

    “This war is not a war for a throne nor an altar; this is a war
    for grain and bread, a war for a well-laden breakfast, dinner,
    and supper table . . . a war for raw materials, for rubber,
    iron, and ore.” (Goebbels, Joseph, _Das eherne Herz_,
    Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Munich, 1943, Pages 334-336.)

Göring in his turn in an address at the Harvest Festival in the Berlin
Sports Palace, 5 October 1942, published in the _Völkischer Beobachter_
of 6 October 1942, exclaimed greedily:

    “Don’t forget we have taken away from the Russians their best
    regions. . . . Eggs, butter, and flour are there in such
    quantities as you can hardly imagine. . . . We will have to see
    that everything is properly collected and properly processed on
    the spot. . . .”

The Defendant Rosenberg worked feverishly at inventing new names for
Soviet cities, such as “Gotenburg” for Simferopol and “Theodorichshafen”
for Sevastopol. This occupation Rosenberg combined with the leadership
of a special staff concerned with the collection from the Caucasus. All
that shows very clearly the real predatory plans and schemes of the
Hitlerite aggressors against the Soviet Union. Above all, those criminal
designs aimed at plundering the Soviet Union and the enslavement and
exploitation of the Soviet people.

At the same time these were all steps on the road to establishing
Hitlerite domination in Europe and in the whole world. It was precisely
for this reason that, in a document submitted in the case, published by
the High Command of the Navy, dealing with the plans for an invasion of
North Africa, Gibraltar, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, the Hitlerite
Government stated that the realization of the above plan would depend
entirely on the results of the war against the Soviet Union.

In its attempt to conceal its imperialistic aims the Hitlerite clique
hysterically shrieked, as usual, about a danger alleged to be
forthcoming from the U.S.S.R. and proclaimed that the predatory war
which it started against the Soviet Union with aggressive purposes was a
“preventive” war.

A pitiful effort!

What “preventive” war can we speak of, when documents prove that long in
advance Germany worked out and prepared a plan for an attack on the
U.S.S.R., formulated the predatory aims of this attack, earmarked the
territories of the Soviet Union which she intended to seize, established
the methods for pillaging of these territories and for the extermination
of their population, mobilized her army in good time, and moved to the
borders of the U.S.S.R. 170 fully equipped divisions only waiting for
the signal to advance?

The fact of aggression committed by fascist Germany against the
U.S.S.R., as well as the original documents of the Hitlerite Government
which now have been made public, definitely show to the whole world and
to history how untrue and laughable was the assertion of the Hitlerite
propaganda about the “preventive” character of the war against the
U.S.S.R.

Much as the fascist wolf might disguise himself in a sheep’s skin, he
cannot hide his teeth!

Having committed the perfidious attack on the U.S.S.R., the Hitlerite
Government calculated that lengthy preparation for this attack, the
concentration of all the armed forces of Germany for this thrust, the
participation of Romanian and Finnish armies, as well as of Italian and
Hungarian units in this operation, and, finally, the advantage of
surprise would assure a rapid defeat of the U.S.S.R.

However, all these calculations of the aggressors were frustrated by the
heroic resistance of the Red Army, which with self-denial defended the
honor and the independence of its country. The German plans of attack
were broken up one after another. I shall not describe all the phases of
the patriotic war of the Soviet People against the German fascist
invaders and the great and courageous struggle of the Red Army with
German, Romanian, Finnish, and other armies that invaded the soil of the
Soviet. The whole world watched this struggle with admiration, and it
will never be forgotten by history.

The Soviet people, in battles the scale and ferocity of which were
unmatched in history, steadfastly defended and saved the freedom and
independence of their country and, together with the Allied armies,
liberated the freedom-loving nations throughout the whole world from the
terrible menace of Nazi enslavement.

Having prepared and carried out the perfidious assault against the
freedom-loving nations, fascist Germany turned the war into a system of
militarized banditry. The murder of war prisoners, extermination of
civilian populations, plunder of occupied territories, and other war
crimes were committed as part of a totalitarian lightning war program
projected by the fascists. In particular the terrorism practiced by the
fascists on the temporarily occupied Soviet territories reached fabulous
proportions and was carried out with an outspoken cruelty.

    “We shall”—said Hitler to Rauschning—“have to develop a
    technique of systematic depopulation. If you ask me what I mean
    by ‘depopulation,’ I mean removal of entire racial units. And
    that is what I intend to carry out—that, roughly, is my task.
    Nature is cruel; therefore we, too, may be cruel. If I can send
    the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the
    smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then
    surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race
    that breeds like vermin!” (Rauschning, Hermann, _The Voice of
    Destruction_, New York, 1940, Pages 137, 138.)

The Soviet Prosecution has at its disposal numerous documents, collected
by the Extraordinary State Commission for the Soviet Union for the
prosecution and investigation of crimes committed by the German fascist
aggressors and their accomplices, which constitute irrefutable evidence
of countless crimes perpetrated by German authorities.

We have at our disposal a document, known as the “Appendix Number 2 to
the Operational Order Number 8 of the Chief of the Sipo and SD,” dated
Berlin, 17 June 1941, and signed by Heydrich, who at that time held the
office of Himmler’s deputy. This document was worked out in
collaboration with the High Command of the German Armed Forces. The
appendices to Order Number 8, as well as Orders Number 9 and 14 and the
appendices thereto, make it evident that the systematic extermination of
Soviet people in fascist concentration camps in the territories of
U.S.S.R. and other countries occupied by the fascist aggressors was
carried out under the form of “filtration,” “cleansing measures,”
“purges,” “extraordinary measures,” “special treatment,” “liquidation,”
“execution,” and so on.

The perpetration of these crimes was entrusted to the Sonderkommandos
especially formed for this purpose by agreement between the Chief of
Police and the SD and the High Command of the German Armed Forces. The
Appendix Number 1 to Order Number 14 shows that these Sonderkommandos
acted independently “on the basis of their special powers and in
accordance with general directives given to them within the scope of
camp regulations,” maintaining close contact with the camp commanders
and counterintelligence officers.

It is to be noted that during the German offensive aimed at Moscow the
fascists created a special Sonderkommando Moscow, which was supposed to
carry out the mass killings of the inhabitants of Moscow.

Hitler’s Government and the German Military Command were afraid that
these monstrous Orders Number 8 and Number 14 might fall into the hands
of the Red Army and the Soviet Government, and they took all possible
measures to keep these orders completely secret. In Order Number 14,
Heydrich declared:

    “I especially emphasize that Operational Orders Number 8 and
    Number 14, as well as the regulations pertaining thereto, must
    be immediately destroyed in case of imminent danger. Their
    destruction is to be reported to me.”

Besides the above-mentioned orders containing the program and plan for
the fascist annihilation of the Soviet population, numerous orders and
regulations were issued to the civil administration, as well as to the
German military authorities, prescribing mass extermination and
far-reaching application of the death penalty against the Soviet people.
Keitel’s order of 12 December 1941 reads as follows:

    “In the Führer’s opinion the punishment by imprisonment or even
    by hard labor for life would be considered a sign of weakness.
    Effective and lasting determent can be realized only by capital
    punishment or measures which would leave the population in
    complete ignorance of the criminal’s fate. This latter aim is
    reached through the deportation of criminals into Germany. The
    attached instructions for the prosecution of criminals are in
    accordance with this opinion of the Führer’s. It is approved by
    him.”—Signed—“Keitel.”

Among the means employed by the Hitlerites for the extermination of
Soviet citizens were also intentional infection with spotted typhus and
murdering by poison gas in gas vans which were called the “murderess” in
Russian, _et alia_.

Upon investigations by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union, it was found that at the front, behind their main line of
defense, the Hitlerites had systematically constructed special
concentration camps where they kept tens of thousands of children, women
who were unfit for work, and old men. The approaches to these camps were
mined. No buildings or shelters of any kind existed within the areas of
the camps, not even any barracks, and the internees had to camp on the
bare ground. The internees were punished with death for the slightest
attempt to infringe upon the established ruthless camp regulations. Many
thousands of typhus patients were found in these camps. The population
forcibly brought there from the surrounding villages was systematically
infected there with this disease. The document which will be presented
by the Soviet Prosecution describes in detail these heinous crimes
perpetrated by the Germano-fascist occupants.

The Prosecution possesses a document signed by Untersturmführer Becker,
dated 16 May 1942. This document is a report to his superiors concerning
the use of gas vans. This is what one reads in this monstrous document:

    “The place of execution is located at about 10 to 15 kilometers
    off a thoroughfare and is difficult to reach because of its
    location. In wet or damp weather it is entirely inaccessible.
    Whether the people to be executed are led or brought in vehicles
    to this spot, they immediately realize what awaits them and
    become restless; this should be avoided by loading them into
    trucks at an assembly point, and driving them to the place of
    execution.

    “I gave orders for the trucks of group D to be camouflaged as
    trailers and that a window be inserted on each side of the
    smaller vehicles, and in the larger trucks, two windows, all of
    the country peasant cottage type. However, these machines became
    so well known that not only the officials but even the
    population called them the “death vans” as soon as they saw
    them. In my opinion it is impossible to camouflage and keep them
    secret for any length of time. I also gave orders that during
    asphyxiation by gas the operating personnel should keep away
    from the machine so that their health would not be impaired by
    escaping gas. In this connection I would like to call attention
    to the following: In certain units men are ordered to unload the
    machines after gassing. I have drawn the attention of the
    commanders of the corresponding Sonderkommandos to the immense
    physical and moral injury this kind of work could cause the men,
    if not immediately, then later. The men complained of headaches
    after every unloading. Nevertheless they do not want to change
    the procedure, for they are afraid that prisoners entrusted with
    the work may use this favorable moment to escape. To protect the
    men from this injury, I would ask that appropriate orders be
    issued.

    “The procedure of poisoning by gas is not always carried out in
    a correct manner. So as to end the business as quickly as
    possible, the drivers always open the throttle wide. As a
    consequence of this measure the condemned die of asphyxiation
    rather than falling asleep as had been originally intended. As a
    result of my orders death follows more rapidly, if the lever is
    set correctly, and in addition, the condemned people drop off
    peacefully to sleep. Distorted faces and defecations, two
    symptoms which formerly had been noticed, were no longer
    observed.

    “Today I will proceed to Group B, whence I shall send a further
    report.

    “Dr. Becker, Untersturmführer.”

The names have already been mentioned here of the camps of Maidanek and
Auschwitz with their gas chambers, in which over 5,500,000 completely
innocent people, citizens of Poland, Czechoslovakia, U.S.S.R., U.S.A.,
Great Britain, France, and other democratic countries were killed. I
must name the concentration camps of Smolensk, Stavropol, Kharkov, Kiev,
Lvov, Poltava, Novgorod, Orel, Rovno, Dniepropetrovsk, Odessa,
Kamenetz-Podolsk, Gomel, Kerch, of the Stalingrad region, of Kaunas,
Riga, Mariampol (Lithuanian) of Kloga (Estonian) and many others, in
which hundreds of thousands of Soviet nationals belonging to the
civilian population, as well as soldiers and officers of the Red Army,
were tortured to death by the Hitlerites.

The Germans also carried out mass shootings of Soviet citizens in the
Lisenitz forest, which is on the outskirts of Lvov in the direction of
Tarnopol. It was to this forest that the Germans daily drove, or brought
in motor vehicles, large parties of Soviet prisoners of war from the
Citadel camp, internees from the Yanov camp and from the Lvov prison, as
well as peaceful Soviet citizens who had been seized on the squares and
streets of Lvov in the course of numerous roundups. Investigations made
by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union established
the fact that the Germans shot over 200,000 people in the Lisenitz
forest.

These mass murders, this regime of tyranny and terror, were fully
approved by the Defendant Rosenberg who declared in his speech at the
meeting of the German Labor Front in November 1942:

    “Apparently, if we are to subjugate all these peoples”—that is,
    peoples inhabiting the territory of the U.S.S.R.—“then
    arbitrary rule and tyranny will be an extremely suitable form of
    government.”

Later, when the Red Army began to clear out the Germano-fascist hordes
from the Soviet Union territory they had temporarily occupied and when
the Soviet authorities began to discover the abominable crimes
perpetrated by the fascist monsters and to find numerous graves of
Soviet citizens, soldiers, and officers tortured to death by the
fascists, the German Command took urgent measures to conceal and destroy
all traces of their crimes. For this purpose, the German Command
organized everywhere exhumations of corpses from their graves and their
cremation. A special order of an Obersturmführer, dated “Rovno, 3 August
1943-IUAI No. 35/43c,” addressed to the Regional Commander of
Gendarmerie in Kamen-Kashirsk, ordered him immediately to supply
information concerning location and number of common graves of persons
to whom special repressive measures had been applied in the district.

Among the documents discovered in the Gestapo building of the Rovno
district has been found a report concerning the execution of the
above-mentioned order, with the enumeration of about 200 localities,
where such graves were registered. One can see from this list that the
Germano-fascist henchmen primarily chose inaccessible and isolated spots
for the interment of their victims. At the end of the list we read, “The
list includes all the graves, including those of the commandos who
worked here previously.”

I will now quote an extract of the appeal to the public opinion of the
world from the representatives of several thousand former internees at
Auschwitz:

    “The gassing of unbelievable numbers of people took place upon
    the arrival of transports from various countries: France,
    Belgium, Holland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
    Germany, Poland, the U.S.S.R., Norway, and others. The new
    arrivals had to pass before an SS doctor or else before the SS
    commandant of the camp. The latter pointed his finger to the
    right or left. The left meant death by gas. Out of a transport
    of 1,500, an average of 1,200 to 1,300 were immediately to be
    gassed. Rarely the quota of people sent into the camp was a
    little higher. It often occurred that the SS doctors Mengele and
    Thilo performed this selection while whistling a lively tune.
    The people destined to be gassed were obliged to strip in front
    of the gas chambers, after which they were driven with whips
    into the gas chambers. Then the door of the underground
    gas-chamber was closed, and the people were gassed. Death
    occurred approximately 4 minutes later. After 8 minutes the gas
    chamber was opened, and workmen belonging to a special commando,
    the so-called Sonderkommando, transported the bodies to the
    cremation ovens which burned day and night.

    “There was a shortage of ovens at the time of the arrival of
    transports from Hungary; consequently enormous ditches were dug
    for the purpose of cremating the bodies. Fires made of wood
    soaked in gasoline were laid in these ditches and the bodies
    were thrown into them. However, the SS men frequently hurled
    live children and adults into those ditches, where these unhappy
    victims died a terrible death. To save gasoline, the fats and
    oils necessary for cremations were partly derived from the
    bodies of gassed people. Fats and oils for technical purposes
    and for the manufacture of soap were also obtained from the
    corpses.”

The appeal ends with the following words:

    “Together with 10,000 rescued inmates of all nationalities, we
    demand that the crimes and the inconceivable atrocities of the
    Hitlerites should not remain unpunished.”

This just demand is supported by the entire civilized world and by all
freedom-loving people. The organized mass annihilation of prisoners of
war constitutes one of the vilest crimes of the Hitlerite conspirators.

Numerous facts of murders, tortures, and maltreatment to which prisoners
of war were subjected have been definitely established. They were
tortured with red-hot irons, their eyes were gouged out, their
extremities severed, _et cetera_. The systematic atrocities and
short-shrift justice against captured officers and men of the Red Army
were not chance episodes or the results of criminal activities of
individual officers of the German Army and of German officials. The
Hitlerite Government and the High Command of the German Army ruthlessly
exterminated prisoners of war. Numerous documents, orders, and decrees
of the fascist Government and orders of the German Supreme Command
testify to this fact.

As early as March 1941—as the German Lieutenant General Österreich
testified during his interrogation—a secret conference took place at
the headquarters of the High Command in Berlin, where measures were
planned for the organization of camps for Russian prisoners of war and
rules laid down for their treatment. According to Österreich’s evidence
these rules and measures for Soviet prisoners of war were essentially a
plan for their extermination.

Many Soviet prisoners of war were shot or hanged while others perished
from hunger and infectious diseases, from cold, and from torture
systematically employed by the Germans according to a plan which was
developed beforehand and had as its object the mass extermination of
Soviet persons.

In Appendix 3 to Order Number 8 for the Chief of the Security Police and
SD, dated 17 July 1941, a list is given of prisoner-of-war camps set up
in the area of the 1st Military District and of the so-called Government
General. In the 1st Military District camps were set up in particular in
Prokuls, Heidekrug, Schierwind, Schützenrode (Ebenrode) in Prostken,
Suwalki, Fischbor-Gersen and Ostrolenko. In the so-called Government
General, camps were set up at Ostrov-Mesovetsky, Sedlce, Byelopedlasko,
Kholm, Jaroslav, _et cetera_. In the appendix to Operational Order
Number 9, issued in development of Order Number 8 of 17 July 1942, lists
are given of the camps for Soviet prisoners of war situated in the
territory of military districts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, XI, and XIII, at
Hammerstein, Schneidemühl, and many other places.

THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time to break off?

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court, I desire to
announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Hess will be absent until
further notice on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to you and the Soviet Delegation
if the Tribunal sat in open session until half past 11 tomorrow morning,
and then after that we would adjourn for a closed session for
administrative business? Would that be convenient to the Soviet
Delegation?

GEN. RUDENKO: We, that is the Soviet Delegation, have no objection.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, that is what we will do. The Tribunal
will sit tomorrow from 10 until half past 11 in open session and will
then adjourn.

GEN. RUDENKO: In these prisoner-of-war camps, as well as in camps for
the civilian population, extermination and torture were practiced,
referred to by the Germans as “filtering,” “execution,” and “special
treatment.” The “Grosslazarett” set up by the Germans in the town of
Slavuta has left grim memories. The whole world is familiar with the
atrocities perpetrated by the Germans against Soviet prisoners of war
and those of other democratic states at Auschwitz, Maidanek, and many
other camps.

The directives of the German Security Police and of the SD—worked out
in collaboration with the Staff of the Supreme Command of the Armed
Forces, whose chief was the Defendant Keitel—were applied here.

Operational Order Number 8 stated:

    “Executions must not take place in the camp or in the immediate
    vicinity of the camp. If the camps in the Government General are
    situated in the immediate vicinity of the frontier, the
    prisoners intended for special treatment should, if possible, be
    transported to former Soviet districts. Should executions be
    necessary owing to violations of camp discipline, the chief of
    the operational unit should in this case approach the camp
    commander.

    “The activities of the special task forces sanctioned by the
    army commanders of the rear areas (district commandants dealing
    with affairs connected with prisoners of war) must be conducted
    in such a way as to carry out filtering with as little notice as
    possible, while the liquidation must be carried out without
    delay and at such a distance from the transit camps themselves,
    and from populated places, as to remain unknown to the rest of
    the prisoners of war and to the population.”

The following “form” for the carrying out of executions is recommended
in Appendix 1 to Operational Order Number 14 of the Chief of the
Security Police and SD, dated “Berlin, the 29th of October, 1941, No. 21
B/41 GRS-IV A.I.Z.”:

    “Chiefs of operational groups decide questions about execution
    on their own responsibility and give appropriate instructions to
    the special task forces. In order to carry out the measures laid
    down in the directives issued, the Kommandos are to demand from
    the commandants of the camp the handing over to them of the
    prisoners. The High Command of the Army has issued instructions
    to the commandants for meeting such demands.

    “Executions must take place unnoticed, in convenient places,
    and, in any event, not in the camp itself nor in its immediate
    vicinity. It is necessary to take care that the bodies are
    buried immediately and properly.”

The report of the operational Kommando (Obersturmbannführer Lipper to
Brigadeführer, Dr. Thomas) in Vinnitza, dated December 1941, speaks of
the way in which all the above-mentioned instructions were carried out.

It is pointed out in this report that, after the so-called “filtering”
of the camp, only 25 persons who could be classed as “suspects” remained
in the camp at Vinnitza.

    “This limited number”—the report states—“is explained by the
    fact that the local organizations, in conjunction with the
    commandants or with the appropriate counterintelligence
    officers, daily undertook the necessary measures, in accordance
    with the rules of the Security Police, against the undesirable
    elements in the permanent prisoner-of-war camps.”

Thus, apart from the mass executions conducted by Sonderkommandos
specially created for this purpose, the systematic extermination of
Soviet persons was widely practiced by commandants and their
subordinates in camps for Soviet prisoners of war.

Among the documents of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union for the investigation of crimes committed by Germans in the
temporarily seized territories of the U.S.S.R. there are several notes
of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, on the
subject of the extermination of prisoners of war and of their cruel
treatment, and in these notes numerous instances are given of these
monstrous crimes of the Hitlerite Government and of the German Supreme
Command.

The note of V. M. Molotov, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs,
dated 25 November 1941, on the subject of the revolting bestialities of
the German authorities against Soviet prisoners of war, addressed to all
ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary of the countries with which
the U.S.S.R. has diplomatic relations, points out that the German High
Command and German military units subjected the Red Army soldiers to
brutal tortures and killings.

The wild fascist fanatics stabbed and shot on the spot defenseless,
sick, and wounded Red Army soldiers who were in the camps; they raped
hospital nurses and medical aid women, and brutally murdered members of
the medical personnel. A special count of the victims of these
executions was conducted on instructions of the German Government and
the Supreme Command.

Thus, the directive given in Appendix 2 to Heydrich’s Order Number 8,
points out the necessity for keeping an account of the executions
performed, that is, of the extermination of prisoners of war, in the
following form: 1) serial number, 2) surname and first name, 3) date and
place of birth, 4) profession, 5) last place of domicile, 6) grounds for
execution, 7) date and place of execution.

A further specification of the tasks to be carried out by the special
task forces for the extermination of Soviet prisoners of war was given
in Operational Order Number 14, of the Chief of the Security Police and
SD, dated 29 October 1941.

Among brutalities against Soviet prisoners of war must be included
branding with special identification marks, which was laid down by a
special order of the German Supreme Command, dated 20 July 1942. This
order provides for the following methods of branding: “The tightly drawn
skin is to be cut superficially with a heated lancet dipped in india
ink.”

The Hague Convention of 1907, regarding prisoners of war, prescribed not
only humane treatment for prisoners of war, but also respect for their
patriotic feelings and forbids their being used to fight against their
own fatherland.

Article 3 of the Convention, which refers to the laws and customs of
war, forbids the combatants to force enemy subjects to participate in
military operations directed against their own country, even in cases
where these subjects had been in their service before the outbreak of
war. The Hitlerites trod underfoot even this elementary principle of
international law. By beatings and threats of shooting they forced
prisoners to work as drivers of carts, motor vehicles, and transports
carrying ammunition and other equipment to the front, as supply bearers
to the firing line, as auxiliaries in anti-aircraft artillery, _et
cetera_.

In the Leningrad district, in the Yelny region of the Smolensk district,
in the Gomel district of Bielorussia, in the Poltava district, and in
other places, cases were recorded where the German command, under threat
of shooting, drove captured Red Army soldiers forward in front of their
advancing columns during attacks.

The mass extermination of Soviet prisoners of war, established by
special investigations of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union, is also confirmed by the documents of the German police
and of the Supreme Command captured by the Soviet and Allied armies on
German territory. In these documents it is stated that many Soviet
prisoners of war died of hunger, typhus, and other diseases. The camp
commandants forbade the civil population to give food to the prisoners
and doomed them to death by starvation.

In many cases prisoners of war who were unable to keep in line on the
march because of starvation and exhaustion were shot in full view of the
civil population and their bodies left unburied. In many camps no
arrangements of any sort were made for living quarters for the prisoners
of war. They lay in the open in rain and snow. They were not even given
tools to dig themselves pits or burrows in the ground. One could hear
the arguments of the Hitlerites: “The more prisoners who die, the better
for us.”

On the basis of the above exposition, I declare, on behalf of the Soviet
Government and People, that the responsibility for the bloody butchery
perpetrated on Soviet prisoners of war in violation of all the
universally accepted rules and customs of war, rests with the criminal
Hitlerite Government and German Supreme Command, the representatives of
which are now sitting on the defendants’ benches.

Outstanding in the long chain of vile crimes committed by the German
fascist invaders is the forced deportation to Germany of peaceful
citizens, men, women, and children, for slave and forced labor.

Documentary evidence proves the fact the Hitlerite Government and the
German Supreme Command carried out the deportation of Soviet citizens
into German slavery by deceit, threats, and force. Soviet citizens were
sold into slavery by the fascist invaders to concerns and private
individuals in Germany. These slaves were doomed to hunger, brutal
treatment, and, in the end, to an agonizing death.

I shall dwell later on the inhuman and barbarous directives, edicts, and
orders of the Hitlerite Government and the Supreme Command, which were
issued for the purpose of effecting the deportation of Soviet persons to
German slavery and for which the defendants now being prosecuted are
responsible, particularly Göring, Keitel, Rosenberg, Sauckel, and
others. Documents at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution, captured by
the Red Army from the staffs of the smashed Germano-fascist armies,
demonstrate the defendants to have perpetrated these crimes.

In a report read at a meeting of the German Labor Front in November
1942, Rosenberg presented facts and figures confirming the vast scale of
the deportation of Soviet citizens to slave and serf labor in Germany
which were organized by Sauckel.

On 7 November 1941 a secret conference took place in Berlin, at which
Göring gave directives to his officials concerning the utilization of
Soviet citizens for forced labor. These directives came to our knowledge
from a document which is Secret Circular Number 42006/41 of the Economic
Staff of the German Command in the East, dated 4 December 1941. This is
how these directives run:

    “1. Russians must be used chiefly for road and railway
    construction, cleaning-up operations, demining and airfield
    construction. German construction battalions must be disbanded
    (for instance those of the air force). Skilled German workers
    must work in war production; they must not dig and break
    stones—the Russian is there for that purpose.

    “2. It is essential to utilize the Russian primarily for the
    following types of work: Mining, road construction, war
    production (tanks, guns, aircraft equipment), agriculture,
    building, in large workshops (shoemaking) and in special
    detachments for urgent unforeseen jobs.

    “3. In taking measures to keep order, the decisive
    considerations are speed and severity. Only the following types
    of punishment, without any intermediate punitive sanctions, will
    be imposed: deprivation of food or death by sentence of
    court-martial.”

The Defendant Fritz Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary General for
the Allocation of Labor by Hitler’s order of 21 March 1942. On 20 April
1942 Sauckel sent to several government and military organs his
top-secret “Program of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of
Labor,” which is no less foul than the circular referred to above. This
is what is said in the “Program”:

    “It is extremely necessary fully to utilize the human reserves
    available in occupied Soviet territories. If attempts to attract
    the necessary labor voluntarily do not succeed, it will be
    necessary to resort immediately to recruitment or to the
    compulsory signing of individual contracts.

    “Besides the prisoners of war we already have, and who are still
    located in the occupied territories, there is need mainly for
    the recruitment of skilled male and female civilian workers over
    15 years of age from the Soviet provinces for utilization in
    Germany.

    “In order that the burden on the overworked German peasant woman
    should be noticeably lightened, the Führer has ordered me to
    bring 400,000 to 500,000 selected, healthy, and strong girls to
    Germany from the Eastern territories.”

Yet another secret document concerning the utilization of women workers
from the Eastern territories, for domestic labor in Germany, has been
presented to the Tribunal by the Prosecution. This document is composed
of excerpts from the report on a meeting held by Sauckel on 3 September
1942. I quote some of these excerpts:

    “1. The Führer has ordered that between 400,000 and 500,000
    Ukrainian women aged between 15 and 35 be brought immediately
    for domestic labor.

    “2. The Führer has expressed categorically his desire that a
    large number of these girls . . . be Germanized.

    “3. It is the Führer’s will that, in 100 years’ time, 250
    million German-speaking people should live in Europe.

    “4. . . . to consider these women workers from the Ukraine as
    workers from the East, and to put the sign ‘Ost’ “—East—” on
    them.

    “5. Gauleiter Sauckel added that apart from the introduction of
    women workers for domestic labor it was intended to utilize an
    additional million workers from the East.

    “6. References to the difficulty of bringing stocks of grain to
    Germany from other countries did not worry him (Sauckel) at all.
    He would find ways and means to utilize Ukrainian grain and
    cattle, even if he would have to mobilize all the Jews in Europe
    and make of them a living chain of conveyors to get all the
    necessary boxes to the Ukraine.”

Foreseeing the inevitability of the failure of existing measures to
recruit Soviet citizens by force for labor in Germany, Sauckel ordered,
in a secret directive of 31 March 1942, Number FA 578028/729:

    “The recruitments for which you are responsible must be enforced
    by all available means, including the severe application of the
    principle of compulsory labor.”

Sauckel and his agents used all possible methods of pressure and terror
to carry out the plans of recruitment. They starved the Soviet citizens
condemned to this recruitment, lured them to the stations under pretense
of distribution of bread, surrounded them with soldiers, loaded them
into trains under the threat of shooting them, and took them to Germany.
But even these coercive methods did not help. The recruitment was not
successful. Then Sauckel and his agents had recourse to a quota system.
This is testified to by an order of a German commandant, captured by the
Red Army forces when the occupied part of the Province of Leningrad was
liberated. It runs as follows:

    “To the mayors of village communities. . . . Since a very small
    number of people have so far presented themselves for labor in
    Germany, every mayor of a village community must, in accord with
    the elders of the villages, provide 15 or more persons from each
    village community for labor in Germany. Healthy people aged
    between 15 and 50 must be provided.”

The chief of the political police and of the Security Service in Kharkov
stated in his report on the situation in the town of Kharkov, covering
the period from 24 July to 9 September 1942:

    “The recruitment of labor is worrying the competent agencies,
    since an extremely antagonistic attitude to transportation for
    work in Germany is observed among the population. At present the
    situation is such that everyone tries by every available means
    to escape recruitment (malingering, escape into the forests,
    bribery of officials, _et cetera_). As for working in Germany
    voluntarily, this has been out of the question for a long time
    past.”

That citizens deported to German slavery were subjected to the most
brutal treatment is shown by a vast quantity of complaints and
statements collected by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union for ascertaining and investigating the crimes of the
Germano-fascist invaders.

Polish, Czechoslovak, and Yugoslav citizens deported to German slavery
suffered the same fate.

In carrying out their plans of conquest and plunder, the Hitlerites
systematically destroyed towns and villages, destroyed the treasures
created by labors of many generations and plundered the peaceful
population. Together with their accomplices—the criminal Governments of
Finland and Romania—the Hitlerites developed their plans for the
destruction of the largest cities of the Soviet Union. A document,
emanating from the naval war staff, dated 29 September 1941 and entitled
“The Future of the City of Leningrad,” contains the following statement:

    “The Führer has decided to wipe the city of Leningrad from the
    face of the earth. Finland has also declared clearly that she is
    not interested in the further existence of the city in the
    immediate vicinity of her new boundary.”

On 5 October 1941 Hitler addressed a letter to Antonescu, the special
object of which was to co-ordinate their plans for seizing and
destroying the city of Odessa.

An order of the German Commander-in-Chief, dated 7 October 1941 and
signed by the Defendant Jodl, prescribed that Leningrad and Moscow
should be wiped from the face of the earth.

    “In the case of all other towns, too”—states the order—“the
    rule should hold that, prior to their occupation, they should be
    reduced to ruins by artillery fire and by air raids. It is
    inadmissible that a German soldier’s life should be risked in
    order that Russian towns be saved from fire.”

These directives of central German authorities were widely applied by
military commanders of all ranks. Thus an order to the 512th German
Infantry Regiment, signed by Colonel Schittnig, prescribes that the
regions and districts conquered by the Hitlerites be turned into a
desert area. In order that this crime should lead to the most
destructive results, the order gives a detailed plan for the
annihilation of inhabited localities.

    “Preparations for the destruction of inhabited localities”—the
    order states—“should be made in such a manner that: (a) No
    suspicion be aroused among the civilian population, prior to
    announcement; (b) it should be possible to start the
    destructions at once, by one blow, at an appointed time. . . .
    On the day designated, particularly strict watch should be kept
    on inhabited localities so as not to allow any civilians to
    leave them, especially from the moment the announcement
    regarding the destruction is made.”

An order by the commander of the 98th German Infantry Division, dated 24
December 1941, is even entitled, “Program of Destruction.” This order
gives concrete directions regarding the destruction of a number of
inhabited localities and suggests that:

    “Available stocks of hay, straw, food supplies, _et cetera_, are
    to be burnt. All stoves in homes should be put out of action by
    hand grenades so that their further use be made impossible. On
    no account is this order to fall into the hands of the enemy.”

Special squads of fire raisers (torch bearers) were formed, which set
fire to the treasures created by the labor of generations.

Your Honors, I wish to draw your attention to the document known as
“Directives for the Control of Economy in the Newly Occupied Eastern
Territories”—the “Green File.” Göring is the author of these
directives. This secret document is dated “Berlin, June 1941.” I will
quote only a few excerpts from it. The first quotation is:

    “Pursuant to the Führer’s”—Hitler’s—“orders, it is necessary
    to take all measures for the immediate and full exploitation of
    the occupied territories for Germany’s benefit. To obtain for
    Germany the largest possible amount of food supplies and crude
    oil—such is the main economic objective of the campaign. At the
    same time German industry must also be supplied with other kinds
    of raw materials from the occupied territories. The first task
    is to supply the German armies with the utmost speed entirely
    from the resources of the occupied territories.”

Second quotation:

    “The opinion that the occupied territories should be restored to
    order as soon as possible, and their economy re-established, is
    quite out of place. . . . The . . . restoration of order must
    take place only in those areas from which we can obtain
    considerable supplies of agricultural products and crude oil; in
    others . . . economic activity must be limited to the
    exploitation of such stocks as are discovered.”

Third quotation:

    “All raw materials, semi-manufactured, and finished goods must
    be withdrawn from the markets by means of orders, requisitions,
    and confiscations. Platinum, magnesium, and rubber should be
    collected immediately and removed to Germany. Foodstuffs, as
    well as articles of domestic and personal use, and clothing
    discovered in the combat zone and in the rear areas, are to be
    placed, in the first instance, at the disposal of the economic
    detachments to satisfy the needs of the armies. . . . What is
    rejected by them will be passed on to the next highest war
    economy agency.”

As I have already said at the beginning, the main objective of the
German aggression against the Soviet Union was to plunder the Soviet
country and to obtain the economic resources necessary for Hitlerite
Germany, without which she could not carry out her imperialistic plans
of aggression.

Göring’s Green File represented the extensive program, developed
beforehand by the fascist conspirators, for the organized plunder of the
Soviet Union.

This program laid down in advance concrete plans for plunder: The
forcible confiscation of valuables, the organization of slave labor in
our cities and villages, the abolition of wages in industrial
establishments, the uncontrolled issue of completely insecure currency,
_et cetera_. To materialize this program of plunder, the creation of
special machinery was provided with its own economic command, economic
staffs, its own intelligence, inspectorate, army units, detachments for
collecting means of production, detachments for collecting raw
materials, military agronomists, agricultural officers, _et cetera_.

Together with the advancing German armies, there also moved detachments
of the economic departments of the Army, whose task was to determine the
available supplies of grain, cattle, fuel, and other property. These
detachments were subordinated to a special economic inspectorate which
had its seat in the rear areas.

Soon after the attack on the U.S.S.R. Hitler’s decree of 29 June 1941
placed the entire control of the loot of occupied territories in the
hands of the Defendant Göring. By this decree Göring was given the right
to take “all measures necessary for the maximum utilization of all
stocks discovered and of the country’s economic capacity in the
interests of German war economy.” The Defendant Göring directed the
predatory activities of the German military and economic detachments
with the greatest zeal.

At a conference held on 6 August 1942 with the Reich commissioners and
representatives of the military command, Göring demanded that the
plunder of occupied territories be intensified:

    “You are sent there”—Göring pointed out—“not to work for the
    benefit of the peoples entrusted to you, but in order to pump
    out of them all that is possible.”—And further on—“I intend to
    plunder and to plunder effectively.”

As established by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union, these directives of Göring were carried out by the Reich
ministers and representatives of German firms, under whose control were
various kinds of economic groups, technical battalions, economic staffs,
and economic inspectorates. Particularly active in the plunder of
property of the Soviet Union were the German firms Friedrich Krupp A.G.;
Hermann Göring; Siemens-Schuckert; the Mining and Metallurgical Company
“Ost”; the Corporation “Nord”; Heinrich Lanz; Landmaschinenbauindustrie;
I. G. Farbenindustrie, and many others.

While they plundered and pillaged state and private property, the
Hitlerite invaders doomed to starvation and death the population of the
districts thus plundered. Field Marshal Reichenau’s order of 10 October
1941, which was distributed as a model among all German units together
with a note saying that Hitler considered it an excellent order,
contained the following incitement to plunder and exterminate the
population, “To supply local inhabitants and prisoners of war with food
is an act of unnecessary humanity.”

The notes on the conference held in Rovno, from 26 to 28 August 1942,
which were discovered in Defendant Rosenberg’s files, state:

    “The object of our work is to make the Ukrainians work for
    Germany; we are not here to make these people happy. The Ukraine
    can give us what is lacking in Germany. This object must be
    achieved irrespective of losses.”

Following the directives of the Defendant Göring, the local authorities
mercilessly and completely plundered the population of the occupied
territories. An order discovered at a number of places in the Kursk and
Orel districts by units of the Red Army contains a list of property to
be handed over to the military authorities. Things like scales, sacks,
salt, lamps, saucepans, oilcloth, blinds, and gramophones with records
are mentioned in the order. “All this property,” the order states, “must
be delivered to the commander. Those guilty of infringing this order
will be shot.”

In their fierce hatred of the Soviet people and their culture, the
German invaders destroyed scientific and artistic institutions,
historical and cultural monuments, schools and hospitals, clubs and
theaters.

“No historic or artistic treasures in the East”, Field Marshal Reichenau
decreed in his order, “are of importance.”

The destruction of historical and cultural treasures carried out by the
Hitlerites assumed vast proportions. Thus, in a letter of 29 September
1941 from the Plenipotentiary General for Bielorussia to Rosenberg, it
is stated:

    “According to the report of the major of the 707th Division, who
    today handed over to me the remaining treasures, the SS men left
    the rest of the pictures and works of art to be plundered by the
    armed forces; these included extremely valuable pictures and
    furniture dating from the 18th and 19th centuries, vases, marble
    sculptures, _et cetera_. . . .

    “. . . the museum of history was also completely destroyed. From
    the geographical section, valuable precious and semi-precious
    stones were looted. In the university, scientific instruments to
    a total value of hundreds of thousands of marks were senselessly
    smashed or stolen.”

In the territory of those districts of the Moscow province which were
temporarily occupied by the fascists, the occupants destroyed and looted
112 libraries, 4 museums, and 54 theaters and cinemas. The Hitlerites
looted and burnt the famous museum at Borodino, whose historical relics
pertaining to the patriotic war of 1812 are particularly dear to the
Russian people. In the small village of Polotnyanny Zavod the occupants
looted and burnt Pushkin’s house, which had been turned into a museum.
The Germans destroyed manuscripts, books and pictures which had belonged
to Leo Tolstoy at Yasnaya Polyana. The German barbarians desecrated the
grave of the great author.

The occupants looted the Bielorussian Academy of Science housing
extremely rare collections of historic documents and books, and
destroyed hundreds of schools, clubs, and theaters in Bielorussia (White
Russia).

From the Pevlovsk Palace in the town of Slutzk the extremely valuable
palace furniture, made by outstanding craftsmen of the 18th century, was
removed to Germany. From the Peterhof palaces the Germans removed all
the remaining sculptured and carved ornaments, carpets, pictures, and
statues. The Great Palace of Peterhof, constructed in the reign of Peter
I, was barbarously burnt after it had been looted. The German vandals
destroyed the State Public Library at Odessa, containing over 2 million
volumes.

At Tchernigov a famous collection of Ukrainian antiquities was looted.
At the Kievo-Petchersk Monastery the Germans seized documents from the
archives of the metropolitans of Kiev and books from the private library
of Peter Mogila, who had collected extremely valuable works on world
literature. They looted the precious collections of the Lvov and Odessa
museums and removed to Germany or partially destroyed the treasures of
the libraries of Vinnitza and Poltava, where extremely rare copies of
medieval literary manuscripts, the first printed editions of the 16th
and the 17th centuries, and ancient missals were kept.

The wholesale plunder in the occupied regions of the U.S.S.R., carried
out on direct orders of the German Government, was not only directed by
the Defendants Göring and Rosenberg and by the various staffs and
detachments subordinated to them, but the Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
with the Defendant Ribbentrop at its head, also took part in the looting
through a special organization.

The statement by Obersturmführer, Dr. Norman Förster of the 4th Company,
Special Task Battalion of the SS Troops (Waffen-SS), published by the
press at that time, bears witness of the fact. Förster stated in his
deposition:

    “In August 1941, while I was in Berlin, I was detached from the
    87th Antitank Division and assigned to the Special Task
    Battalion of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, through the help
    of Dr. Focke, an old acquaintance of mine at Berlin University,
    who was then working in the Press Division of the Ministry for
    Foreign Affairs. This battalion was formed on the initiative of
    Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, and acted under his
    direction. . . . The task of this Special Task Battalion
    consisted in seizing, immediately after the fall of large
    cities, their cultural and historical treasures, libraries of
    scientific institutions, selecting valuable editions of books
    and films, and then sending all these to Germany.”

And further:

    “We obtained rich trophies in the library of the Ukrainian
    Academy of Science, treasuring the rarest Persian, Abyssinian,
    and Chinese manuscripts, Russian and Ukrainian chronicles, the
    initial copies of books printed by the first Russian printer,
    Ivan Fyodorov, and rare editions of works by Shevtchenko,
    Mitzkevitch, and Ivan Franko.”

Side by side with the barbarous destruction and looting of villages,
towns, and national cultural monuments, the Hitlerites also mocked the
religious feelings of the believers among the Soviet population. They
burnt, looted, destroyed, and desecrated on Soviet territory 1,670 Greek
Orthodox churches, 237 Roman Catholic churches, 69 chapels, 532
synagogues, and 258 other buildings belonging to religious institutions.

They destroyed the Uspensky Church of the famous Kievo-Petchersky
Monastery, built in 1073, and with it eight monastery buildings. At
Tchernigov, the Germano-fascist armies destroyed the ancient
Borisoglebsky Cathedral, built at the beginning of the 12th century, the
Cathedral of the Efrosiniev Monastery of Polotzk, built in 1160, and the
Church of Paraskeva-Piatniza-in-the-Market, an extremely valuable
monument of 12th century Russian architecture. At Novgorod the
Hitlerites destroyed the Antoniev, Khutynsky, Zverin, Derevyanitzky and
other ancient monasteries, the famous church of Spas-Nereditza, and a
series of other churches.

The German soldiers scoffed at the religious feelings of the people.
They dressed up in church vestments, kept horses and dogs in the
churches, and made bunks out of the icons. In the ancient Staritzky
Monastery, units of the Red Army found the naked bodies of tortured Red
Army prisoners of war, stacked in piles.

The damage inflicted on the Soviet Union as a result of the destructive
and predatory activities of German army units is extremely great.

The German armies and occupational authorities, carrying out the orders
of the criminal Hitlerite Government and of the High Command of the
Armed Forces, destroyed and looted Soviet towns and villages and
industrial establishments and collective farms seized by them; destroyed
works of art, demolished, stole, and removed to Germany machinery,
stocks of raw and other materials and finished goods, art and historic
treasures, and carried out the general plundering of the urban and rural
population. In the occupied territories of the Soviet Union 88 million
persons lived before the war; gross industrial production amounted to 46
million rubles (at the fixed Government prices of 1926-27); there were
109 million head of livestock, including 31 million head of horned
cattle and 12 million horses; 71 million hectares of cultivated land,
and 122,000 kilometers of railway lines.

The German fascist invaders completely or partially destroyed or burned
1,710 cities and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets; they burned or
destroyed over 6 million buildings and rendered some 25 million persons
homeless. Among the damaged cities which suffered most were the big
industrial and cultural centers of Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Leningrad,
Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, Orel, Kharkov, Voronezh,
Rostov-on-Don, and many others.

The Germano-fascist invaders destroyed 31,850 industrial establishments
employing some 4 million workers; they destroyed or removed from the
country 239,000 electric motors and 175,000 metal cutting machines.

The Germans destroyed 65,000 kilometers of railway tracks, 4,100 railway
stations, 36,000 post and telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, and
other installations for communications.

The Germans destroyed or devastated 40,000 hospitals and other medical
institutions, 84,000 schools, technical colleges, universities,
institutes for scientific research, and 43,000 public libraries.

The Hitlerites destroyed and looted 98,000 collective farms, 1,876 state
farms, and 2,890 machine and tractor stations; they slaughtered, seized
or drove into Germany 7 million horses, 17 million head of horned
cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep and goats, and 110 million
head of poultry.

The total damage caused to the Soviet Union by the criminal acts of the
Hitlerite armies has been estimated at 679,000 million rubles at the
Government prices of 1941.

All the defendants prepared, organized, and perpetrated indescribable
and blasphemous crimes, such as have never before been committed in
history, against humanity and against the principles of human ethics and
of international law.

In the statement of the offense in Count Four of the Indictment, it is
rightly pointed out that the very plan or conspiracy was organized also
for committing Crimes against Humanity. The fascist conspirators started
committing Crimes against Humanity from the moment of the formation of
the Hitler Party. These crimes attained vast proportions after the
coming into power of the Hitlerites.

The concentration camp of Buchenwald, set up in 1938, and the camp at
Dachau, established in 1934, turned out to be only the anemic prototypes
of Maidanek, Auschwitz, Slavuta, and numerous death camps, set up by the
Hitlerites in the territories of Latvia, Bielorussia, and the Ukraine.

The very coming into power of the Hitlerites was marked by many
provocations which served as an excuse for committing grave Crimes
against Humanity. Inflicting punishments without due process of law by
the Hitlerites upon all who did not share the ideology of the fascist
clique became widespread.

    “We deny the protection of law to the enemies of the people. We
    National Socialists knowingly take a stand against false
    soft-heartedness and false humaneness. We do not recognize the
    sophistry of tricky lawyers and cunning juridical
    subtleties”—wrote Göring, as early as 1934, in an article
    published overseas in the Hearst press. (Göring, Hermann, _Reden
    und Aufsätze_, Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Munich, 1940, Page 159.)

In one of the articles, dated 1933, Göring regarded it as his special
merit that he had reorganized the entire management of the Gestapo,
having placed the Secret Police under his immediate control and
organized concentration camps to be used in fighting political
opponents.

    “Thus”—spoke Göring—“arose the concentration camps in which we
    soon had to stick thousands of people belonging to the Communist
    and Social Democratic Party machines.”

At the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution are the notes of Martin
Bormann, found in the archives of the German Foreign Office and captured
by the Soviet troops in Berlin, on the conference held by Hitler on 2
October 1940. This document refers to occupied Poland. It will be
submitted to the Tribunal. At the moment I shall only quote from it a
few points of the Hitlerite leadership program. The conference started
with the statement by Frank that his activities as Governor General
could be considered very successful: The Jews in Warsaw and other cities
were locked up in ghettos. Very soon Kraków would be entirely cleared of
Jews.

    “There must be no Polish gentry”—the document went on to
    state—“wherever they may be, they must be exterminated, no
    matter how brutal this may sound.

    “. . . all representatives of the Polish intelligentsia must be
    exterminated. This sounds brutal, but such is the law of
    life. . . . Priests will be paid by us and, as a result, they
    will preach what we want. If we find a priest acting otherwise
    short work is to be made of him. The task of the priest consists
    in keeping the Poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted. This is
    entirely in our interests. The lowest German workman and the
    lowest German peasant must always stand above any Pole
    economically.”

A special place among the unheard-of crimes of the Hitlerites is
occupied by the bloody butchery of the Slavic and Jewish peoples. Hitler
said to Rauschning:

    “After all these centuries of whining about the protection of
    the poor and the lowly, it is about time we decided to protect
    the strong against the inferior. It will be one of the chief
    tasks of German statesmanship for all times to prevent, by every
    means in our power, the further increase of the Slav races.
    Natural instincts bid all living beings not merely to conquer
    their enemies but to destroy them. In former days it was the
    victor’s prerogative to destroy entire tribes, entire peoples.”
    (Rauschning, H., _The Voice of Destruction_, New York, 1940,
    Page 138.)

If Your Honors please, you have already heard the testimony of the
witness, Eric Von dem Bach-Zelewski, about Himmler’s aims, as given by
him in his speech at the beginning of 1941.

In answer to a question by a representative of the Soviet Prosecution,
the witness declared, “Himmler mentioned in his speech that it was
necessary to cut down the number of Slavs by 30 million.” The Tribunal
will see by this what monstrous proportions the criminal ideas of the
Hitlerite fanatics attained.

The Hitlerites vented their ferocity particularly on the Soviet
intelligentsia. Even before the attack on the U.S.S.R., directives were
prepared regarding the merciless annihilation of Soviet people for
political and racial reasons. In Appendix 2 to Operational Order Number
8 of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, dated 17 June 1941, it was
stated:

    “It is above all essential to ascertain the identity of all
    prominent Government and party officials, particularly
    professional revolutionaries, persons working for the Comintern,
    all influential members of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R.
    and the affiliated organizations in the Central Committee and
    the district and regional committees, all people’s commissars
    and their deputies, all former political commissars in the Red
    Army, leading personalities of the state institutions of the
    central and middle administrative levels, leading personalities
    in economic life, the Soviet Russian intelligentsia, and all
    Jews.”

In a directive of 17 June 1941 for Security Police and SD detachments it
is pointed out that it is necessary to take such measures, not only
against the Russian people, but also against the Ukrainians,
Bielorussians, Azerbaidzhanians, Armenians, Georgians, Turks, and other
nationalities.

The Soviet Prosecution will present to the Tribunal actual documents and
facts in this connection. The fascist conspirators planned the
extermination to the last man of the Jewish population of the world and
carried out this extermination throughout the whole of their
conspiratorial activity from 1933 onwards.

My American colleague has already quoted Hitler’s statement of 24
February 1942, that “the Jews will be annihilated.” In a speech by the
Defendant Frank, published in the _Kraków Gazette_ on 18 August 1942, it
is stated:

    “Anyone who passes through Kraków, Lvov, Warsaw, Radom, or
    Lublin today must in all fairness admit that the efforts of the
    German administration have been crowned with real success, as
    one now sees hardly any Jews.”

The bestial annihilation of the Jewish population took place in the
Ukraine, in Bielorussia, and in the Baltic States. In the town of Riga
some 80,000 Jews lived before the German occupation. At the moment of
the liberation of Riga by the Red Army there were 140 Jews left there.

It is impossible to enumerate in an opening statement the crimes
committed by the defendants against humanity. The Soviet Prosecution has
at its disposal considerable documentary material which will be
presented to the Tribunal.

If Your Honors please, I here appear as the representative of the Union
of the Soviet Socialist Republics, which bore the main brunt of the
blows of the fascist invaders and which vastly contributed to the
smashing of Hitlerite Germany and its satellites. On behalf of the
Soviet Union, I charge the defendants on all the counts enumerated in
Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal.

Together with the Chief Prosecutors of the United States of America,
Great Britain, and France, I charge the defendants with having prepared
and carried out a perfidious attack on the peoples of my country and on
all freedom-loving nations.

I accuse them of the fact that, having initiated a world war, they, in
violation of the fundamental rules of international law and of the
treaties to which they were signatories, turned war into an instrument
of extermination of peaceful citizens—an instrument of plunder,
violence, and pillage.

I accuse the defendants of the fact that, having proclaimed themselves
to be the representatives of the “master race,” a thing which they have
invented, they set up, wherever their domination spread, an arbitrary
regime of tyranny; a regime founded on the disregard for the elementary
principles of humanity.

Now, when as a result of the heroic struggle of the Red Army and of the
Allied forces, Hitlerite Germany is broken and overwhelmed, we have no
right to forget the victims who have suffered. We have no right to leave
unpunished those who organized and were guilty of monstrous crimes.

In sacred memory of millions of innocent victims of the fascist terror,
for the sake of the consolidation of peace throughout the world, for the
sake of the future security of nations, we are presenting the defendants
with a just and complete account which must be settled. This is an
account on behalf of all mankind, an account backed by the will and the
conscience of all freedom loving nations.

May justice be done!

THE PRESIDENT: We shall now adjourn. General Rudenko, your delegation
will be prepared to go on after the adjournment, will you not?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes. I would also prefer that there should now be an
adjournment.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an adjournment altogether for the day or what
the Tribunal proposed, to adjourn now for 10 or 15 minutes, then
continue until 5 o’clock? Would that not be convenient to you?

GEN. RUDENKO: All right; yes, Sir.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

GEN. RUDENKO: If it please Your Honors, Colonel Karev will report on the
order of submitting the documents to the Tribunal.

COLONEL D. S. KAREV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): The Soviet
Prosecution begins its presentation of evidence on all counts of the
Indictment. The Tribunal is already familiar with the large number of
important documents presented on behalf of the Prosecution by our
honorable colleagues. On its own part the Soviet Prosecution has at its
disposal numerous documents relating to the criminal activities of the
fascist conspirators.

In connection with Count One, dealing with the Crimes against Peace, we
shall submit the following types of documents: Administrative
regulations by the German authorities, orders and plans by the German
military command, diaries and personal archives of several of the
leaders of the fascist party and the German Government, as well as other
documents. These documents were in part found by units of the Red Army
on German soldiers and officers, or were discovered in concentration
camps and in offices of German authorities.

In connection with Counts Two and Three, that is, War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity, we shall offer in evidence, in the first place, the
reports and files of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union for the determination and investigation of crimes committed by the
German fascist invaders and their accomplices. This commission was set
up by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.,
dated 2 November 1942. For local work there were set up state, regional,
district, and municipal commissions to assist in the work of the
Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the determination
and investigation of the misdeeds committed by the Germano-fascist
invaders. Both the central office, as well as the local offices of the
Extraordinary State Commission, were composed of prominent statesmen and
representatives of different public scientific and cultural
organizations, as well as of religious denominations. The Extraordinary
State Commission, through its representatives and with the assistance of
representatives of local groups and local state authorities has
collected and checked data and drawn up protocols on the atrocities of
the German invaders and on the damage caused to the Soviet Union and its
citizens. Counting only the crimes committed by the Germano-fascist
monsters against the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union, 54,784 files
were drawn up. In accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal, these files represent unquestionable
evidence. Of all these files of the Extraordinary State Commission, only
an insignificant number will at present be submitted to the Tribunal by
the Soviet Prosecution. In the possession of the Soviet Prosecution are
also photographs showing the atrocities and destruction committed by the
German invaders in the temporarily occupied territories of the U.S.S.R.
Part of these photographs will be submitted to the Tribunal. Several
documentary films will be offered to the Tribunal in evidence by the
Soviet Prosecution. In submitting evidence relating to War Crimes
committed by the conspirators, the Soviet Prosecution will also use
several German documents, photographs, and films which were captured
from the Germans.

The Soviet Prosecution will also submit evidence relative to crimes
committed by the defendants and their accomplices against
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia. Out of this evidence special
mention must be made of the official report by the Czechoslovakian
Government entitled “German Crimes against Czechoslovakia.” This report
was prepared on the direction of the Czechoslovakian Government by the
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Dr. Boguslav Ecer, the
representative of Czechoslovakia in the United Nations Commission for
Investigation of War Crimes. There are documents appended to the
official report on German crimes against Czechoslovakia. Among these
documents there are laws, decrees, orders, _et cetera_, issued and
officially published by the Germano-fascist authorities; documents from
the archives of the Czechoslovak Government; and affidavits by persons
who held prominent positions in Czechoslovakia during the occupation.
There will be shown a special film concerning the destruction of Lidice.
It was, in its time, prepared by official German agencies. The film was
found by officials of the Czechoslovakian Ministry of the Interior. The
official report on the German crimes against Czechoslovakia, as well as
the documents appended thereto, on the strength of Article 21 of the
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, represent unquestionable
evidence and will be presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-60
(Document Number USSR-60).

The Soviet Prosecution will likewise present evidence regarding the
crimes perpetrated by the conspirators in Poland. The basic document to
be presented on this subject by the Soviet Prosecution will be the
report of the Polish Government dated 22 January 1946. The official
documents of the Polish Government were the primary source of the report
of the Polish Government on the German crimes committed in Poland. Both
the official report of the Polish Government and the documents appended
thereto, on the strength of Article 21 of the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal, represent unquestionable evidence.

And finally, the Soviet Delegation will present to the Tribunal
documents concerning the crimes of German invaders committed on Yugoslav
territory. The investigation of the criminal activity of the German
Command and of the German occupational authorities in Yugoslavia was
carried out by the Yugoslav State Commission for the investigation of
crimes committed by the German occupants. The commission was created on
29 November 1943 by a decision of the Yugoslav Anti-Fascist Committee
for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia. This commission, which from
the beginning has always been presided over by Dr. Doushan
Nedelkovitsch, professor at Belgrade University, started its work when a
part of Yugoslavia was still under the domination of the German,
Italian, Hungarian, and other occupants. Besides the Yugoslav State
Commission, the investigation of the crimes committed by the
Germano-fascist invaders was carried out by eight specially created
federal commissions, as well as by district and regional commissions. On
the strength of the material collected, the Yugoslav State Commission
has issued 53 communiques describing the atrocities committed by the
German occupants and submits its report dated 26 December 1945. This
report represents unquestionable evidence, and is submitted by us as
Exhibit USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36).

It is my duty to mention that documentary evidence which has been
already presented by our honorable American, British, and French
colleagues will, to some extent, be used by the representatives of the
Soviet Prosecution.

May it please Your Honors, in conclusion I would like to make known to
the Tribunal the order in which the prosecutors from the U.S.S.R. will
present their case.

The Count dealing with the Crimes against Peace (aggression against
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia) will be presented by Colonel
Pokrovsky, the U.S.S.R. Deputy Chief Prosecutor.

The Count dealing with the aggression against the U.S.S.R. will be
presented by State Counsellor of Justice, Third Class, Zorya.

Thereupon, Colonel Pokrovsky will present to the Tribunal the crimes
committed in violation of the laws and customs of war relating to the
treatment of prisoners of war.

The Count on crimes against the peaceful population of the U.S.S.R.,
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia will be presented by Chief
Counsellor of Justice Smirnov.

Report on the subject of the plunder of private, public, and state
property will be made by General Shenin, State Counsellor of Justice of
the Second Class.

Report on the plunder and destruction of cultural treasures and wanton
destruction and annihilation of towns and villages will be presented by
Raginsky, State Counsellor of Justice of the Second Class.

State Counsellor of Justice of the Third Class Zorya will speak on the
subject of forced labor and deportation into German slavery.

Finally, Chief Counsellor of Justice Smirnov will present the report on
the last subject, Crimes against Humanity.

I now end my statement.

COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Your
Honors, Mr. President, the opening statements of the Chief Prosecutor
have dealt with the question of how fascist Germany pursued the
ideological preparation for aggressive war.

The connection between Hitlerite propaganda and acts of aggression
against peace was also revealed in the statement of the U.S.S.R. Chief
Prosecutor. Therefore may I be allowed to quote just one short extract
from Horst von Metzsch’s book entitled _Krieg als Saat_ (_War as Seed_),
which was published in Breslau in 1934. I quote:

    “It is impossible to conceive of the National Socialist movement
    without war. German soldier glory is its father; its finest
    musketeer is its leader; and war’s hardy spirit is its soul.”

That is not just a phrase dropped by a garrulous fascist penman; that is
a program which is blurted out. War, and only war, was considered by the
Hitlerite conspirators as the most effective means of attaining the
objectives of their foreign policy. It is, therefore, only natural that
Germany was turned into an armed camp and became a constant menace to
her neighbors after the fascists had seized power in the country.

The East was the first objective of the fascist conspirators.

In his book _Mein Kampf_—it is already at the disposal of the
Tribunal—Hitler wrote, as far back as 1930—in that document book which
is now being handed to each member of the Tribunal, you will find the
passage I am quoting from _Mein Kampf_ in Volume I, Page 1—I consider
it advisable to inform the Tribunal that for its convenience all the
passages which I shall quote are marked in red pencil.

I quote: “The movement eastwards is continuing, even though Russia must
be erased from the list of European powers,” (Page 732, of _Mein Kampf_,
1930 edition).

Hypocritically proclaiming her love of peace and giving all her
neighbors assurances of her intention to live in peace with them,
Hitlerite Germany merely strove to conceal her real, her ever-present
aggressive intentions. The conspirators gladly concluded any agreement
on arbitration, non-aggression, _et cetera_. They did it not because
they were really striving for peace, but with the sole intention of
waiting for a suitable moment to strike the next treacherous blow and of
lulling to sleep the vigilance of the nations. Having committed one of
their scheduled aggressive acts, they strove with still greater energy
to convince everybody that from now on they had no further aggressive
plans. A combination of hypocrisy and fraud, of treason and aggression,
ruled the entire system of German foreign policy.

With incredible insolence the fascist conspirators violated all their
international obligations, all their international agreements, including
those which directly prohibited the use of war as a solution of
international disputes. Not one of the wars provided by the Hitlerites
can be classified under the concept of defensive wars. In every instance
the Germano-fascists acted as aggressors. They admitted, themselves,
that they did not hesitate to resort to provocation in order to have an
excuse for attacking their next victim at the most propitious moment.

Count Two of the Indictment contains a complete list of the wars which
were provoked, prepared, initiated, and waged by the fascist
conspirators.

The insane imagination of the Hitlerites visualized the East as a
paradise for the fascist invaders, a paradise built on the bones and
blood of the millions of people who inhabited these lands.

Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has informed the Tribunal that the Soviet
Delegation would submit some new evidence regarding the criminal
conspiracy against peace, and also warned you that certain repetitions
could not be avoided. While striving to reduce these repetitions to a
minimum, I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to some of the
documents relating to the criminal aggression of the fascist
conspirators.

As documentary evidence I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit USSR-60
(Document Number USSR-60), an official Czechoslovak report. It begins
with the following significant phrase—and this phrase will be found on
Page 10 of the document book, Volume I, Part 1, and is marked in red
pencil: “Czechoslovakia was an obstacle to the German ‘Drang nach Osten’
(Drive to the East) or to the domination of Europe.” That is followed by
an analysis of the strategic and political aspects of the aggression
against Czechoslovakia.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, when you want to put in a document in
evidence, you will produce the original document, will you not, and hand
it to the Secretary of the Tribunal?

COL. POKROVSKY: As I stated, this (Document Number USSR-60) is followed
by an analysis of the strategic and political aspects of the aggression
against Czechoslovakia. I quote, beginning with the second sentence of
Subparagraph (a), which for convenience is marked with a red pencil. I
quote:

    “Czechoslovakia was indeed of foremost strategic importance as a
    natural obstacle and a fortress against a military drive towards
    the Danube basin, and from there eastwards, across the eastern
    Carpathians and along the valley of the Danube, towards the
    Balkans.”

The gist of Subparagraph (b) is that Czechoslovakia was a democratic
country; and finally Subparagraph (c) gives an analysis of
Czechoslovakia from the national point of view. I shall quote this
subparagraph as it is formulated in the report. You will find this in
Volume I, Part 1, end of Page 11 and beginning of Page 12:

    “c. From the national point of view, Czechoslovakia, as far as
    the vast majority of its population is concerned, was a Slav
    country, intensely conscious of the unity of all Slavs.”

The Tribunal will remember that the annihilation of Slavism and the
destruction of democratic principles was one of the basic aims of the
fascist conspiracy.

The Tribunal may have noticed that the methods of execution of
aggression by the Hitlerite conspirators nearly always followed the same
pattern. In all cases, lightning speed and suddenness of military attack
were considered indispensable. They endeavored to attain the element of
surprise by giving the prospective enemy treacherous and hypocritical
assurances of their sincerely peaceful intentions. Simultaneously, wide
use was made of the foul system of bribery, blackmail, provocation,
financing of various kinds of pro-fascist organizations, and using as
paid agents unprincipled politicians and downright traitors to their
respective countries.

Mr. Alderman began his presentation of documents by giving several
examples of this nature. He told the Tribunal in detail and proved by
documentary evidence that the representatives of the so-called Slovak
autonomous movement were bought with German money—that is, one Hans
Karmazin, and the same also applies to Deputy Prime Minister Durcanski,
to the notorious Tuka, and many other leaders of the Hlinka Party.

It was presented to you that at the beginning of March 1939, that is,
immediately prior to the day planned for the final entry of the Nazis
into Czechoslovakia, the activity of the Fifth Column reached its
climax.

I believe I should present to the Tribunal certain facts about the
Hitlerite organizations established for the purpose of subversive
activity, and also about the part played by the SS official, Lorenz,
whose name I shall mention later on in connection with the action
against Czechoslovakia.

Himmler, the holder of several offices, combined in his person the
position of Reichsleiter of the security units (SS) and of Reich
Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality (Reichskommissar
für die Festigung des deutschen Volkstums). As such, he was charged with
the leadership of all State and Party organs within Germany, which, in
turn, controlled the German settlements, the work among the
Germano-fascist minorities in other countries and the remigration of
Germans into Germany. In this field his executive apparatus was the
so-called Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. The leader of this organization,
and therefore the actual deputy of Himmler, in this special sphere, was
SS Obergruppenführer Lorenz, who will be discussed later.

There was also another criminal organization. I have in mind the foreign
organization of the NSDAP (Auslands-Organisation der NSDAP), abbreviated
to AO. It played an important part in creating the Fifth Column in
countries which were later subjected to Hitlerite aggression.

AO united such Germans who were members of the Nazi Party living outside
Germany. Apart from the wide propaganda of fascism, AO was engaged in
political and other kinds of espionage. Germans living in other
countries received material help through AO and maintained contact with
various pro-German and espionage groups of the country in which they
lived.

The sub-branches of the Hitlerite party abroad were under the guidance
of German diplomatic missions. For this purpose the leader of AO,
Gauleiter Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, was installed in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs with the rank of State Secretary.

There are several appendices to the official Czechoslovak report. One of
them is registered under Document Number 3061-PS. It contains excerpts
from the testimony of Karl Hermann Frank, former deputy of the Reich
Protector. I submit this document to the Tribunal and, without reading
it in its entirety, I wish to refer briefly to those parts of the
document which deal with question of the Fifth Column.

At the interrogation of 9 October 1945—the Tribunal will find the
passage quoted in Volume I, Part 1, Page 185 of the document book—Frank
declared that in his opinion the Henlein Party received money from
Germany from 1936 onwards. In 1938 it received funds from the so-called
Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle in Berlin, through the German Minister in
Prague. Frank confirmed that, together with Henlein, he several times
visited the German Minister in Prague, who handed him and Henlein money
for the Party. Frank admits that the acceptance of this money was
incompatible with the duties of a Czechoslovak citizen. Frank further
admitted that he visited the German Legation in Prague several times,
alone, informed the German Minister of the inner political situation in
Czechoslovakia and thus, considering the character of the information
communicated, committed high treason.

Frank testifies—what I am now quoting will be found in Volume I, Part
1, Page 187:

    “All negotiations in the summer of 1938 between Henlein and
    myself on the one hand, and the Reich authorities, in particular
    Adolf Hitler, Hess, and Ribbentrop on the other hand, were
    conducted for the purpose of providing the Reich authorities
    with information on the development of the political situation
    in Czechoslovakia. These discussions took place on the
    initiative of the Reich authorities.”

I have quoted this excerpt from Page 5 of the Russian translation,
Document Number 3061-PS.

On Page 188 of your document book you will find another excerpt which I
shall now submit to you. Frank confesses that he was aware of “the
treason committed by the Party and its central leadership corps by
receiving money from abroad for effecting measures inimical to the
State.”

The so-called Henlein Free Corps (Sudeten Freikorps) was established in
Bohemia and Moravia. During the interrogation of 15 August 1945, Karl
Hermann Frank testified that Henlein and his staff were in Tandorf
Castle near Reuch. Henlein himself was the chief of staff of the corps,
which bore the title “Freikorps Führers.” According to Frank the Free
Corps was established by Hitler’s order. Part of that corps which was in
the territory of the German Reich was equipped with small arms in small
quantities, as stated by Frank. According to him, the Free Corps
consisted of about fifteen thousand people, chiefly Sudeten Germans. We
find this information on Page 3 of the Russian translation of Document
Number 3061-PS. In your book it is Page 185 of Volume I, Part 1.

Among the trophies collected by our heroic Red Army are the archives of
the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Soviet Delegation has at
its disposal new documents which I consider advisable to read in part in
order to supplement the data previously submitted to the Tribunal. They
are particularly interesting, if we bear in mind that one of the
favorite pretexts for aggression of the Hitlerite conspirators was their
intention to protect the interests of the German minorities.

I shall read an excerpt from the top-secret minutes of the meeting held
in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs at noon, 29 March 1938 in Berlin
especially on the subject of the Sudeten Germans. I shall refer to our
Document Number USSR-271. You will find this passage on Page 196, Volume
I, Part 1. I quote:

    “The conference was attended by the gentlemen mentioned in the
    attached list: In his opening address the Reich Minister
    emphasized the importance of keeping this conference strictly
    secret and later, referring to the Führer’s instruction which he
    had personally given to Konrad Henlein yesterday afternoon, he
    stated that there were primarily two questions of importance to
    the political guidance of the Sudeten German Party.

    “1) The Sudeten Germans must know that they are backed by a
    German nation of 75 million inhabitants who will not tolerate
    any further oppression of the Sudeten Germans by the Government
    of Czechoslovakia.

    “2) It is the responsibility of the Sudeten German Party to
    submit to the Czechoslovak Government those demands the
    fulfillment of which it considered necessary to achieve the
    liberties it desired.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I am sorry to interrupt you but it is
not quite clear, on the translation that has come through, whether you
have deposited the original of this document and have given it an
exhibit number, that is, if it has already been put in.

COL. POKROVSKY: All the documents presented by the Soviet Delegation are
submitted by us to the Tribunal in Russian and they are then handed for
translation to the international translators’ pool, which is charged to
serve the Tribunal with translation into all the other languages. This
document is referred to by me in precise correspondence with its
registration number—our Number USSR-271.

THE PRESIDENT: If the original document is not in Russian, it must be
deposited with the Tribunal in its original condition. I do not know
what the document is. It is about a conference, apparently, and I
suppose the original is in German.

COL. POKROVSKY: The original document is in German.

THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, we would like to see the original in
German.

COL. POKROVSKY: The photostatic copy of the original document, in the
German language, is at present at the disposal of the Tribunal. May I
continue?

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Is this the original?

COL. POKROVSKY: It is a photostat.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid that we must insist upon having the original.

COL. POKROVSKY: The original document is at the disposal of the Soviet
Government and, if the Tribunal wishes, it can be sent for and presented
to the Tribunal a little later. The photostat is certified.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid we must have the original documents. After
the original documents have been produced and exhibit numbers given to
them, they will remain in the hands of the Tribunal. Of course, the
subject of the translations is quite a different one, but for the
purpose of insuring that we get really genuine evidence we must have the
originals deposited with the General Secretary.

COL. POKROVSKY: I note the wish of the Tribunal and we shall give
instruction for the original documents to be submitted to the Tribunal,
although in this case we have followed the established precedent where
the Tribunal considers it sufficient to accept the certified photostats.
We can submit the original, but we shall have to do it somewhat later,
as not all the requisite material is in Nuremberg at the present time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so long as you undertake to do it. But I do not
think you are right in saying that it is the practice that has been
already established, because we have been demanding the production of
the original document from the French prosecutors, and they have been
produced.

COL. POKROVSKY: We shall take the necessary measures so that the
Tribunal will receive, although of course somewhat later, all the
original documents from which the present photostats were taken. May I
now continue? I now continue the quotation. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I imagine that you will be able to
produce tomorrow the originals of the documents which were referred to
today.

COL. POKROVSKY: I cannot promise that, because not all the originals are
here. A considerable part of these documents are unique and consequently
not kept in Nuremberg. Here we keep only a certain part of the
originals. All that I can do is to submit, in the future, the originals
at our disposal. Those which we do not have here we shall request the
Soviet Government to send over in exchange for the photostats. This we
can do.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal had better adjourn for the purpose
of considering this matter.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the matter of the deposition
of original documents, and they wish the following procedure to be
adopted:

In the first place, they want original documents deposited with the
General Secretary of the Tribunal, wherever possible. Secondly, where it
is impossible for original documents to be deposited, or highly
inconvenient, they will accept photostat copies of the original
documents, provided that a certificate accompanies the photostat
document that it is a true copy of an original document, and that the
original is an authentic document, giving the origin of the original
document and the place of its present custody. Thirdly, they will accept
photostat copies for the present, on the undertaking of counsel that
certificates, such as I have indicated, will be furnished as soon as
possible.

Is that clear, Colonel Pokrovsky?

COL. POKROVSKY: I would ask the Tribunal to explain one point to me. Do
I understand that the Tribunal only confirms its former decision and
practice, which was established in connection with the presentation of
the document in evidence by my American and British colleagues, or is it
something new that the Tribunal is introducing? I am asking this because
a similar document to the one which caused the interruption in my
presentation today has already been accepted as a photostat in the same
Trial under Exhibit Number USA-95 or Document 2788-PS. Therefore, it is
not quite clear to me whether I am dealing with a new decision or with
the confirmation of an old practice.

THE PRESIDENT: I think what you have stated is true, that this
particular document does not appear to have any certificate that it is a
true copy. But the Tribunal expects that the United States will produce
such a certificate that it is a true copy of an authentic document and
will state the origin and the custody of the original document.

COL. POKROVSKY: Pray forgive me, but I consider that the question which
I wish to elucidate is of equal interest to all the prosecutors. Am I,
and with me all the representatives of the Prosecution, to understand
the decision of the Tribunal to mean that we are to present
supplementary documentation in support of all photostats, including the
photostats previously accepted by the Tribunal, or does it only refer to
documents which the Soviet Delegation will present in the future?

THE PRESIDENT: If a document had been accepted in photostatic form and
there has been no certificate that it was a true copy of an authentic
document, then such a certificate must be given. And we desire that the
certificate should also show that the document was authentic, and the
place of its present custody. And that applies equally to all the chief
prosecutors.

COL. POKROVSKY: Now, I understand that the Tribunal is confirming its
former practice which means that we can present a photostat, but that
they must be certified and that the originals should be presented
whenever possible. Have I understood you correctly?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we desire originals, if possible. If it is
impossible or if it is highly inconvenient, then we will accept
photostats. And in the meantime, and for your convenience—because this
practice has not been perhaps adequately stated before—we will accept
photostat copies without certificate, on your undertaking that you will
have the certificate later on. Is that clear?

COL. POKROVSKY: I understand. The former practice will continue in
operation.

If the Tribunal will permit me, I shall draw your attention to the
paragraph the misunderstanding about which led to the interruption of my
presentation. I have in mind the three last lines of Page 196 of the
document book before you:

    “The final aim of the forthcoming negotiations between the
    Sudeten German Party and the Czechoslovakian Government is to
    avoid entering the Government by widening the scope of their
    demands and by formulating them with ever-increasing precision.
    In the course of negotiations it must be pointed out very
    clearly that the sole partner in these negotiations with the
    Czechoslovakian Government is the Sudeten German Party, and not
    the Reich Government. . . .”

Now I can omit a few lines and go on to Page 199:

    “. . . for purposes of further collaboration Konrad Henlein was
    advised to maintain the closest possible contact with the Reich
    Minister and with the leader of the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle,
    as well as with the German Minister in Prague, who was
    representing the Reich Foreign Minister there. The task of the
    German Minister in Prague was to uphold, unofficially, the
    Sudeten German Party’s demands, especially in private
    discussions with Czechoslovakian statesmen, by referring to them
    as reasonable, but without exerting any direct influence on the
    scope of the Party’s demands.

    “Finally, the question of the advisability of the Sudeten German
    Party’s collaboration with the other national minorities in
    Czechoslovakia, especially with the Slovaks, was discussed. The
    Reich Minister decided that ‘the Party should be given a free
    hand to contact the other national groups with activities of a
    parallel nature which might be considered useful. Berlin, 29
    March 1938.’”

Mr. President, Your Honors, you will find on Page 200, Volume I, Part 1
of the document book, a list of those present at the conference of 29
March 1938, in Berlin. The part which I shall quote is marked with a red
pencil:

    “Reichsminister Von Ribbentrop, State Secretary Von Mackensen,
    Ministerialdirektor Weizsäcker, Minister Plenipotentiary to
    Prague Eisenlohr, Minister Stiebe, Legationsrat Von Twardovsky,
    Legationsrat Altenburg, Legationsrat Kordt (Ministry of Foreign
    Affairs). Others of the group were SS Obergruppenführer Lorenz,
    Professor Haushofer (Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle), Konrad
    Henlein, Karl Hermann Frank, Dr. Kuenzel, Dr. Kreisel (Sudeten
    German Party).”

It is not difficult to draw the correct conclusions as to the genuine
intentions of the fascist conspirators with respect to Czechoslovakia,
if only from the sole fact that among those attending the conference
were such people as the Defendant Ribbentrop, two ministers, two
representatives of the so-called Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle, including
one Obergruppenführer of the SS, the prospective Secretary of State of
the Czecho-Moravian Protectorate, Karl Hermann Frank, and the leader of
the so-called Sudeten German Party, Konrad Henlein, a paid _factotum_
and _agent provocateur_ of Hitler.

German diplomatic missions directed the activities of Nazi Party
branches abroad. For this purpose the leader of the AO, Gauleiter Ernst
Wilhelm Bohle, was appointed State Secretary in the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.

On 3 June 1938 two documents were prepared by SS-man Lorenz, a
participant of the conference to which I have just called the attention
of the Tribunal. I shall read both of them. The first one, referring to
the interview with Ward Price, indicates that Henlein was under the
direct control of the SS, and it was to the SS that he was responsible
for his activities. This document also contains the direct threat to
resort to a “radical operation” in order to bring about the solution of
the so-called Sudeten German problem.

I will read this short document into the Record under Document Number
USSR-270 in full; it is on Page 202, Volume I, Part 1, of the document
book:

    “Regarding the interview with Ward Price which appeared in the
    foreign press, SS Obergruppenführer Lorenz requested an
    explanation from Henlein. Henlein stated about as follows:

    “Ward Price was present at the burial of those executed in the
    town of Eger. He asked Henlein’s collaborator, Sebekovsky, to
    arrange a meeting with Henlein for him. Henlein knew of the
    interview given by the Führer to Ward Price. He had a talk with
    Ward Price over a cup of tea. There was no real interview. The
    conversation about the Sudeten German and the Czech problems
    took the form of a talk about appendicitis. In this connection
    Henlein said that one could suffer chronic attacks of
    appendicitis, but the best thing was a radical operation. Later
    on, when Ward Price published an account of this conversation,
    Henlein intended to disavow him. But at that moment, an order
    came through the Legation in Prague from the Minister of Foreign
    Affairs, that Henlein should settle the matter with Ward Price
    amicably, since the latter was in the Führer’s confidence and
    was in no way to be insulted by Sudeten Germans. When Henlein
    met W. P. again, he backed out, putting the blame on the members
    of the Sudeten German Party. For this reason, he wrote a letter
    to W. P., thus settling the matter. Lorenz.”

The second document, which is on Page 203, which is our Document Number
USSR-268, shows that, upon direct orders of the SS and the leaders of
the Hitlerite conspiracy, Henlein negotiated with the Czech Government
for the settlement of the Sudeten German question solely to create a
provocation, and that these negotiations were closely followed by the
leaders of the fascist conspiracy who guided Henlein’s further steps.

I would now like to quote from that document:

    “In his conversation with SS Obergruppenführer Lorenz, Henlein
    put the following question: ‘What shall I do if Czechoslovakia,
    under foreign pressure, suddenly fulfills all my demands and as
    counterdemand asks me to enter the Government?’

    “It was quite clear that this question at that moment would not
    be acute, and that further lengthy and painful negotiations were
    inevitable. Nevertheless he asked for instructions on his
    possible line of action regarding this problem, in case he were
    not able to communicate with Germany.

    “He himself suggested the following: If Czechoslovakia accedes
    to all my requests I will answer, ‘Yes,’ but I will insist upon
    the change of its foreign policy. This the Czechs would never
    accept. Henlein was promised that this question would be
    elucidated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Lorenz.”

A very brief excerpt from a top-secret document of state. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t it time to break off? It is now a quarter past 5.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 9 February 1946, at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-FIFTH DAY
                        Saturday, 9 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

COL. POKROVSKY: May I continue with my statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.

COL. POKROVSKY: The end of the session prevented me yesterday from
quoting a brief excerpt from a very secret, a very important state
document, dated 22 September 1938. I propose to begin today’s work as
from this point, and to read into the record the first six lines of the
document submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-267 (Document Number
USSR-267), which you will find, Your Honors, in Volume I, Part 1, Page
202 of your document book. This brief excerpt shows with absolute
clearness the questions about the meaning of the so-called
Sudetendeutsche Freikorps, the existence of which was briefly referred
to in former sessions.

I quote the first six lines from notes made after a telephone
conversation which took place in Berlin between one of the leaders of
the so-called Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the Government in Berlin,
at 1900 hours on 22 September 1938. Permit me to read these six lines
into the record:

    “Herr Schmidt, from the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle, telephoned
    at 1900 as follows:

    “The Command of the Sudetendeutsche Freikorps has just
    communicated the following:

    “First Lieutenant Köchling transmitted the following Führer
    order: ‘Freikorps has to carry out the occupation of regions
    evacuated by the Czechs. Large-scale operations, however, may be
    executed only with the Führer’s personal approval.’”

The rest of this document, signed by Von Stechow, is of no interest and
I will not read it into the record.

As far as I can judge, the minutes of Hitler’s reception of the Czech
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Chvalkovsky, on 21 January 1939—that is
shortly before the complete occupation of Czechoslovakia—are of great
interest. Hitler’s mendacious and pompous statements with respect to the
independence of small nations, statements recorded in the document I am
about to quote, are characteristic of his perfidious tactics.

The document which I am going to read into the record as Exhibit Number
USSR-266 (Document Number USSR-266) you will find, Your Honors, on Page
203, Part 1 of Volume I of our document book:

    “Chvalkovsky began by thanking the Führer for having done his
    country the honor of receiving the Minister for Foreign Affairs
    twice within 3 months. He had come here to inform the Führer
    that he had strictly fulfilled the promise made to him on 14
    October although this had cost him a very great deal of
    trouble. . . .

    “The Führer thanked him for his statements. The foreign policy
    of a people is determined by its home policy. It is quite
    impossible to carry out a foreign policy of type ‘A’ and at the
    same time a home policy of type ‘B.’ It could succeed only for a
    short time. From the very beginning the development of events in
    Czechoslovakia was bound to lead to a catastrophe. This
    catastrophe had been averted thanks to the moderate conduct of
    Germany.

    “Had Germany not followed the National Socialist principles
    which do not permit of territorial annexations the fate of
    Czechoslovakia would have followed another course. Whatever
    remains today of Czechoslovakia has been rescued not by Beneš,
    but by the National Socialist tendencies.”

I omit a few sentences and continue:

    “For instance, the strength of the Dutch and Danish armies rests
    not in themselves alone but in realizing the fact that the whole
    world was convinced of the absolute neutrality of these states.
    When war broke out, it was well known that the problem of
    neutrality was one of extreme importance to these countries. The
    case of Belgium was somewhat different, as that country had an
    agreement with the French General Staff. In this particular case
    Germany was compelled to forestall possible eventualities. These
    small countries were defended not by their armies but by the
    trust shown in their neutrality.”

You will find a further part of this quotation on Page 207:

    “Chvalkovsky, backed by Mastny, again spoke about the situation
    in Czechoslovakia and about the healthy farmers there. Before
    the crisis, the people did not know what to expect of Germany.
    But when they saw that they would not be exterminated and that
    the Germans wished only to lead their people back home, they
    heaved a sigh of relief.

    “World propaganda, against which the Führer had been struggling
    for so long a time, was now focused on tiny Czechoslovakia.
    Chvalkovsky begged the Führer to address, from time to time, a
    few kind words to the Czech people. That might work miracles.
    The Führer is unaware of the great value attached to his words
    by the Czech people. If he would only openly declare that he
    intended to collaborate with the Czech people—and with the
    people, themselves, not with the Minister for Foreign
    Affairs—all foreign propaganda would be utterly defeated.

    “The Führer concluded the conversation by expressing his belief
    in a promising future.”

These notes are signed by Hewel.

It would now be opportune to refer once again to a document which has
already been mentioned in the Tribunal. I mean a so-called top-secret
document, for officers only, of the 30th of May 1938. It bears the
number OKW 42/38, and under Document Number 388-PS has already been
presented to the Tribunal by my honorable colleagues of the United
States Delegation. The Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. likewise
referred to this document in his opening statement.

Formulating the gist of the fascist conspiracy against Czechoslovakia,
Hitler announced that it was his irrevocable decision to defeat
Czechoslovakia in the immediate future and by one single military
operation. He divided his task into two parts: political and military.
Then, with his characteristic and unbounded cynicism, he declares—his
quotation is to be found on Page 209 of Volume I, Part 1 of the document
book:

    “The most favorable, both from the political and military
    standpoint, would be a lightning blow to be delivered under the
    pretext of some incident which will provoke Germany to abrupt
    action. . . .”

The document bears Hitler’s signature. Such was the authentic program of
Hitler and his accomplices concerning Czechoslovakia, drawn up for a
long time in advance of the day when Chvalkovsky requested that criminal
“to address from time to time a few kind words to the Czech people.”

Even if in his public utterances Hitler sometimes used what Chvalkovsky
called “kind words,” the line of the actual relations was developing in
an entirely different direction. But even this is not all. We shall
postpone the question of the provocative incident until the end.

The notes to the report on Fall Grün of 24 August 1938 have already been
read into the record in the most important part, as Document Number
388-PS. Here are two additional paragraphs which should be read. Your
Honors will find on Page 214 of Volume I of the document book:

    “Fall Grün will start with the creation of an incident in
    Czechoslovakia which will give Germany a pretext for military
    intervention.

    “It is of the greatest importance to fix the exact day and hour
    for staging the incident.

    “This incident must be provoked under weather conditions
    favorable for our superior air force in carrying out the
    operation and it should be timed in such a way that the
    respective notification should authentically reach us by midday
    of X-1 Day. This will enable us to follow it up immediately by
    issuing the order X, on X-1 Day, at 1400 hours.”

The document concluded as follows—see Page 215 of your document book:

    “The purpose of these statements is to show how greatly
    interested the Armed Forces are in the incident, and that they
    should know well in advance the intentions of the Führer,
    inasmuch as the organization of the incident will be entrusted,
    in any case, to the Abwehr.”

The document is signed by Jodl. These are not mere words. This is a plan
of infamous provocation; a plan which, as we already know, has been
carried into effect.

Document Number 388-PS has already been accepted by you as evidence
presented by the Delegation of the United States. I should like only to
stress one point: The murderers and invaders not only develop in cold
blood the plans of their crimes but are also anxious to put them into
effect under the most advantageous conditions possible for themselves.
They need fine weather and at least 24 hours for the final preparation.
Moreover, they need an incident, provoked by themselves, to justify
their foul crimes in the “eyes of at least some part of the world
community.” This latter fact demonstrates that the Hitlerites themselves
were perfectly aware of the criminality of their actions.

In passing, I wish to draw your attention to one point: OKW bears direct
responsibility for the criminal character of these actions. They cannot
plead, “We know not what we did.” The _agents provocateurs_ and
aggressors, in the uniform of the highest ranks of the German Army, were
the first to name themselves _agents provocateurs_ and aggressors.

Finally, I have to inform the Tribunal that one of the ultimate aims of
the fascist invasion of Czechoslovakia was the liquidation of this
historically constituted Slav state.

On Page 36 of the official report of the Czechoslovak Government, the
original of which was submitted to you yesterday, we can read the
following quotation from a statement made by Hitler in the summer of
1932 in the presence of Darré, Rauschning, and other high fascist
officials. I shall quote this excerpt, which is on Page 38 of the Volume
I, Part 1 of your document book:

    “The Bohemian-Moravian Basin . . . will be colonized with German
    peasants. We shall transplant the Czechs to Siberia or the
    Volhynian district. They must get out of Central Europe. . . .”

This statement by Hitler is quoted in the Czechoslovak report from
Rauschning’s book _Hitler Speaks_, Page 46.

I consider it necessary to read into the record a passage from the
Czechoslovak report, which immediately follows the above-mentioned
quotation—Page 36 of the Russian translation, the last paragraph at the
end of the page. You will find this quotation on Page 39, Volume I, Part
1 of the document book, in the last paragraph of this page:

    “This criminal plan was approved by Karl Hermann Frank,
    Secretary of State of the Reich Protector in Prague from 17
    March 1939 and Minister of State in Prague from 1943, known to
    the world as the Butcher of Lidice. Interrogated on this point
    by Colonel Ecer, in Wiesbaden on 29 May 1945, Frank declared:

    “‘The plan for the evacuation of the Czech people to the East,
    as mentioned above and decided in Party circles, roughly
    coincides with the passage quoted.’”

The Defendant Neurath was Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia from
17 March 1938 to 28 September 1941. He did much to destroy
Czechoslovakia as a state entity.

Appendix 1 to the Report of the Czechoslovak Government reads as
follows—you will find this extract on Page 167 of Volume I, Part 2 of
the document book: “The Reich Protector was the highest of the Reich
authorities, agencies, and officials in the Protectorate.” The Defendant
Neurath must not escape responsibility for these crimes.

My colleagues of the Soviet Delegation will submit evidence to show the
Tribunal the upheaval in the life of the work-loving Czech people, from
the moment that the Hitlerite aggressors began to put into practice
their plan for the destruction of Czechoslovakia as a state entity.

When we turn to the material concerning the aggression against Poland,
we find there many features in common with the crimes of the
conspirators directed against Czechoslovakia.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I think it is only a mistake in the
translation into English, but it is stated in our copy that the
Defendant Neurath was Reich Protector for Czechoslovakia and Moravia
from the 17th of March 1938. No doubt you said 1939. Did you?

COL. POKROVSKY: I am afraid that what I said was not quite correctly
heard. I said from 17 March 1938 to 28 September 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: It should have been 1939, should it not?

COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, if I am not mistaken, that would be correct.

I take the liberty of repeating that when studying the documents with
regard to the aggression against Poland, we find there many features in
common with the crimes which the conspirators committed against
Czechoslovakia. I have in mind the systematic violation of treaties and
solemn declarations, false assurances, the creation of a paid Fifth
Column organized on a military footing, and the sudden infliction of a
treacherous blow. This can be proved by a whole series of documents.

An official report of the Polish Government contains a detailed list of
the treaties violated by the conspirators. We submit the document to the
Tribunal under Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93).
Inasmuch as we are concerned with the facts of common knowledge and of
those already commented on in the opening statements of the prosecutor,
I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this part of the Polish
report without further proof, namely of the first two articles of the
Count “Crimes against Peace.”

I wish to read into the record four lines from Paragraph 3 of this Count
which begins on Page 219 of your document book. This concerns the
Polish-German declaration of 26 January 1934:

    “Both governments are convinced that the relations between their
    respective countries will in this manner develop fruitfully and
    lead to the establishment of neighborly relationships which will
    contribute to the well-being not only of both their countries,
    but of the other peoples of Europe as well.”

The Defendant Von Neurath signed this declaration on behalf of Germany.

I now deem it necessary to read into the record an excerpt from a
declaration made by the Defendant Göring during his visit to Warsaw on
16 February 1937, which is contained in the report of the Polish
Government. You will find this excerpt which I want to quote, on Page
220, Volume II, Part 1 of the document book. Göring made this
declaration to the representatives of the Polish Government. I quote:

    “On the German side, there is no desire whatever to deprive
    Poland of any part of her territory. Germany is completely
    reconciled to her present territorial status. Germany would not
    attack Poland and has no intention of seizing the Polish
    Corridor. We do not want the Corridor. I say sincerely and
    categorically that we do not need the Corridor. Just as Germany
    trusts and believes that Poland has no intention of seizing
    Eastern Prussia and the remaining part of Silesia, so can Poland
    believe that Germany has no intention of depriving her of any
    rights and possessions.”

I think that Paragraph 6 of the Polish official report also deserves to
be read in full. This paragraph is on Page 220 of your document
book—Point 6:

    “On 5 November 1937 the Polish and German Governments issued
    identical declarations concerning the treatment of minorities.
    The declaration concludes with the following passage:

    “‘The above principles should in no way affect the duties of the
    minorities of complete loyalty to the state to which they
    belong. They have been inspired by a desire to secure for the
    minorities equitable conditions of life and harmonious
    collaboration with the nationals of the state in which they
    live—a state of affairs which will contribute to the
    progressive strengthening of the friendly and good-neighborly
    relations between Poland and Germany.’”

On 2 September 1939 Polish antiaircraft units brought down a German
aircraft near Posen. A secret order issued by the Wehrmacht was found on
the pilots. It contained, among others, the following sentence—this
quotation you will find on Page 224, Volume I, Part 2 of the document
book: “Reservists of German race should attempt to avoid being mobilized
in the Polish Army and should join the German Army.”

Then follows the detailed enumeration of insignia by which all people
“who assist the German Army” would be recognized. The order states that
they will be supplied with—I quote one paragraph as it is stated in the
original Polish report on the same page, that is 224: “2. For
weapons—pistols of type Numbers 14 and 34 and also, in certain cases,
with grenades of the Czech type.” It is quite obvious that the latter
was done for the purpose of provocation. The order bore the signature of
“Major Reiss.”

Inasmuch as this fact is ascertained in the manner provided for by
Article 21 of the Charter, I request you to accept the fact stated by me
as evidence.

I wish to submit to the Tribunal one more excerpt from Exhibit Number
USSR-93. The part quoted is on Page 7, Paragraph 23 and it bears the
customary red pencil mark used in our work for convenience. You will
find that quotation on Page 223, Volume I, Part 2 of the document book:

    “Evidence gathered by the Polish Army in the course of the
    campaign of September 1939 indicates the following:

    “a) As regards the diversionist activities in southwestern
    Poland, those activities were organized beforehand and were only
    carried out by agents dropped by parachutes. German espionage
    was organized by special emissaries posing as travelling
    teachers who trained spies and diversionists. Every year a
    number of young Germans would leave every German colony to
    proceed to the Reich. There they received special training, and
    upon their return to Poland, did penance. They contacted the
    local authorities, told them about cruelties of the Nazi and
    expressed their joy at having returned to their ‘dear homeland.’
    But these same Germans retained constant contact with their
    agents in Germany and supplied them with information either by
    mail or through the travelling teachers.

    “b) Besides the agents who were recruited among the young people
    and appointed to collaborate with the German section of the
    population, there also existed a group of leaders and
    instructors, consisting of officers who were supplied with
    regular passports and who came to Poland long before the
    outbreak of hostilities.”

Thanks to evidence discovered in the course of investigation, the Polish
Government has ascertained that the main diversionist nucleus consisted
of Hitler Youth groups known as the Hitler Jugend. The Defendant
Schirach was, as we know, the leader of this fascist organization.

In Paragraph 21 of our Exhibit USSR-93, we find information on this
subject, which deserves to be read into the record. Volume I, Part 2,
Page 223.

Here are the details relating to the organization of the system of
diversionist activities:

    “a) The agents were recruited mainly from among the groups of
    young people known as the Hitler Jugend, and also among men and
    women, mainly of German nationality, who were recruited in
    Poland.

    “b) Special courses, lasting from 2 weeks to 3 months, were
    organized for these agents on Reich territory.

    “c) The members of these courses were split up into two
    categories. The first consisted of individuals possessing a
    thorough knowledge of the Polish language who were entrusted
    with special missions to be carried out in the rear of the
    Polish Army. The second category consisted of individuals who
    were to mingle with the crowds of Poles fleeing from the war and
    the air-raids.

    “d) Shortly before the war the students went through an
    additional course of instruction in special camps where they
    were assigned to ‘districts for diversionist activities.’”

And now I shall turn to the documents, demonstrating the falsehood and
hypocrisy of other declarations made by the Hitlerite conspirators on
international questions concerning Poland. For this purpose, I shall
quote Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the section entitled “Crimes against
Peace,” again our Exhibit Number USSR-93. These would be the last
paragraphs on Page 4 and the top of Page 5 of the Russian text: In your
document book these quotations are marked on Page 220 of Volume I, Part
2, and on Page 221. I shall announce it when I pass on to Page 221.

    “Paragraph 7: On 5 November 1937 the then Polish Ambassador was
    received by Hitler in the presence of the Defendant Von Neurath.
    On this occasion Hitler declared:

    “‘There will be no changes in the legal and political status of
    Danzig. The rights of the Polish population in Danzig will be
    respected. The rights of Poland in Danzig will not be violated.’

    “Twice on this occasion, Hitler repeated with pathos, ‘Danzig
    ist mit Polen verbunden (Danzig is bound to Poland).’

    “Paragraph 8: The first hints of the changes in the status of
    Danzig were made by the Defendant Ribbentrop on 25 October 1938.
    He hinted at the incorporation of Danzig in the Reich in
    exchange for an extension of the German-Polish pact for 25 years
    and a guarantee of the German-Polish frontiers. Poland was to
    keep the Danzig railroads and to retain economic facilities in
    return for her assent to the building of an ex-territorial
    Autobahn and a railroad through Pomerania.

    “This proposal was rejected.

    “Paragraph 9”—this is Page 221, Volume I, Part 2 of the
    document book.—“Later on, during his visit to Warsaw, the
    Defendant Ribbentrop assured the Polish Government that there
    would be no _fait accompli_ on the territory of the Free
    City—25-27 January 1939.”

It is known that during the last months preceding 1 September 1939
concentrations of German mobilized military forces were carried out.
Border clashes then took place. I think that the cause of these clashes
will become quite obvious after I have read into the record the notes on
Fall Grün, Document Number 388-PS, signed by Jodl.

On 15 April 1939 the late President of the United States of America,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, made an appeal to the world and to the
leaders of Germany and Poland with a view to preventing further
complications in Europe.

On 28 April and 5 May 1939 the Polish Government proposed to the
Government of Hitler Germany a practical solution for the problem of the
Free City of Danzig.

On 23 August 1939 the King of Belgium addressed to the world a radio
appeal for peace.

On 24 August 1939 the President of the United States of America appealed
once again to the leaders of the Reich and Poland.

The Polish Ambassador in Berlin, acting on the advice of the British
Ambassador in Warsaw, had a conference with Ribbentrop on 31 August.

I should like to quote two paragraphs, 18 and 19, of Exhibit Number
USSR-93, marked with red pencil on Page 6 of the Russian original; in
your document book they are found on Page 222, Volume I, Part 2:

    “18. The German note stating the conditions for the settlement
    of the conflict with Poland was broadcast over the German radio
    on 31 August 1939, at 9 p.m. This note, however, was not handed
    to the Polish Ambassador until the evening of 1 September 1939.
    This was a few hours after German Armed Forces, both from the
    air and the land, were in the process of seizing Polish
    territory, in the early hours of 1 September 1939.

    “19. In this way Germany attacked Poland in violation of her
    international assurance, without a previous declaration of war
    and at a time when her actions had convinced the Polish
    Government that further negotiations between the two countries
    were pending, with a view to arriving at a peaceful settlement
    of this dispute.”

I have at my disposal the original document concerning the Danzig
question, found by the Red Army in the archives of the German Ministry
for Foreign Affairs. I present it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-185 (Document Number USSR-185), and I must inform you that acting
upon a request formulated yesterday, we have added to the photostat copy
already on our files, the original copy of this highly important
historical document. It has now been placed at the disposal of the
Tribunal.

On the first page you will see a telegram form, which proves that on 1
September 1939 at 5 a.m. a telegram was handed in at the telegraph
office at Danzig; this telegram, registered as Number 0166, consisted of
202 words and was addressed to the Führer and Reich Chancellor in
Berlin. On the second page you will see the text of this telegram of 202
words, which bears the seal of the Gauleiter of the Nazi Party in
Danzig. I take the liberty of reading to you these 202 words which form
a part of the history of the fascist conspirators’ Crimes against Peace:

    “Telegram to the Führer.

    “My Führer:

    “I have just signed, and by this act have put into force, the
    following basic state law providing for the reunion of Danzig
    with the German Reich:

    “Basic state law of the Free City of Danzig of 1 September 1939,
    concerning the reunion of Danzig with the German Reich.

    “For the purpose of relieving the dire needs of the people and
    the state of the Free City of Danzig, I promulgate the following
    basic state law:

    “Article I:

    Hereby the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig is
    immediately abrogated.

    “Article II:

    Legislative and executive power will, in the future, be
    exercised exclusively by the Chief of State.

    “Article III:

    The Free City of Danzig, together with its territory and
    population, immediately becomes an integral part of the German
    Reich.

    “Article IV:

    Until the definite decision about the introduction of the Law of
    the German Reich by the Führer, all the laws, the Constitution
    excepted, in force at the moment of the promulgation of the
    present basic law, remain in force.

    “Danzig, 1 September 1939. Signed: Albert Forster, Gauleiter.

    “I beg you, my Führer, on behalf of Danzig and of its
    population, to approve this basic state law and to confirm by
    Reich statute the reunion with the German Reich.

    “Danzig enthusiastically extends to you, my Führer, a feeling of
    endless gratitude and eternal devotion.

    “Heil to you, my Führer. Albert Forster, Gauleiter.”

And now that the documents which establish the actual line of conduct of
the fascist conspirators with regard to Poland have been submitted to
the Tribunal, it seems to me opportune to refer, be it only summarily,
to excerpts from Fall Weiss as well as from the statements and
pronouncements by Hitler and Ribbentrop, after which I shall read into
the record a new document, which is Exhibit Number USSR-172 (Document
Number USSR-172). This document represents the secret notes by Bormann
concerning a conversation on Poland which took place in Hitler’s
apartment on 2 October 1940.

On 30 January 1934 Hitler made a speech in his capacity of Chancellor of
the Reich. It concerned a number of problems, including relations with
Poland. There is no need to quote it in detail. At present, only two or
three sentences can be of interest to us. I quote excerpts from Document
Number TC-70:

    “. . . It seems to me that we must show, by a concrete example,
    that disagreements, however indisputable, need not prevent the
    finding of a _modus vivendi_ which would serve usefully the
    cause of peace as well as the welfare of both nations.”

I shall now skip several paragraphs and quote one of the concluding
sentences. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, it is pointed out to me, and I
intervene for the purpose of getting the record correct, that the
document is dated not the 30th of January 1934, but 30 January 1943. Do
you agree with this?

COL. POKROVSKY: In my report I see the date 30 January 1934.

THE PRESIDENT: That is right, yes.

COL. POKROVSKY: I shall continue the quotation which concludes Hitler’s
pronouncement:

    “The German Government is resolved and prepared to develop its
    political and economic relations with Poland, in accordance with
    the present agreement, in such a way as to ensure that a period
    of useful co-operation may follow one of fruitless reticence.

    “The Chancellor has here expressed his particular satisfaction
    with the clarification of relations between Danzig and Poland.”

On 26 September 1938 Hitler again spoke of Poland in one of his usual
speeches. I consider it essential to quote a short excerpt from this
speech—Document Number TC-29:

    “The most difficult problem with which I was confronted was that
    of our relations with Poland. There was a danger that Poles and
    Germans would regard each other as hereditary enemies. I wanted
    to prevent it.”

I do not consider it necessary to read the entire document, and I will
therefore omit a few sentences.

    “Precisely a year later it was possible to reach an agreement
    which, in the first place, definitely eliminated the danger of a
    conflict for a period of 10 years.

    “We are all convinced that this agreement will lead to a lasting
    pacification. We realize that here are two peoples which have to
    exist side by side, and neither can eliminate the other.

    “A state with a 33 million population will always strive for an
    outlet to the sea.

    “Because of that, a way for understanding had to be found. It
    has been found and will be more and more consolidated.”

In absolute conformity with this official and, from beginning to end,
deceitful speech of Hitler’s, the Defendant Ribbentrop, speaking in
Warsaw on 25 January 1939, stated—this quotation will be found in
Document Number 2530-PS:

    “It is a fundamental part of German foreign policy in accordance
    with the firm will of the Führer of the German people that the
    friendly relations between Germany and Poland, based on the
    existing treaty, be strengthened progressively and deepened.”

Omitting one paragraph of this document, which has already been read in
court and submitted to the Tribunal as the Document Number 2530-PS, I
wish to repeat only one sentence of it:

    “Thus Poland and Germany can look forward to the future with
    complete confidence upon the solid basis of their mutual
    relations.”

Need I remind the Tribunal that in the Document L-79 already presented,
which is a record of the conference on 23 May 1939 at Hitler’s new Reich
Chancellery, among the many other openly aggressive declarations and
statements of policy by Hitler, this man uttered the following sentence:

    “Thus, there is no question of sparing Poland, and the decision
    remains to attack Poland at the first opportunity. It is
    impossible to expect a repetition of the operation against
    Czechoslovakia. This time it will mean war.”

It must be stated in all fairness that this war was a surprise for
Poland only. The fascist conspirators had, for a long time, carefully
prepared for it. I now turn to Document C-120, a considerable part of
which has already been read into the record. I should like to submit
several excerpts from this document concerning the conspiracy of the
Hitlerites directed against Poland, excerpts which have not yet been
read into the record. I should like to draw your attention to individual
sentences, which naturally did not attract the attention of the counsel
who offered this document in evidence because they deal with relatively
small details. But now these sentences are decisive and are of primary
importance. They are highly characteristic and essential to a correct
evaluation of the material I am about to present.

In the Document Number C-120 (Exhibit Number GB-41), marked, “for
commanding officers only; top secret; matter for Chief of Staff; only
through officer; General Headquarters of the Armed Forces WFA 37/39
Chefs (L-Ia)” just preceding the text of the document the subject is
indicated as follows:

    “Subject: Instructions for the Armed Forces for 1939-1940.
    Directive concerning the uniform preparation of the Armed Forces
    for 1939-1940 is hereby restated.”

This sentence clearly and definitely indicates that already previously,
that is, before 3 April 1939, there existed some other directives on
this very question.

The following is said in Paragraph 3 of the document cited:

    “Opinions of the three branches of the Armed Forces, as well as
    the data for the calendar schedule, will be submitted to the OKW
    on 1 May 1939.”

Already by 1 May 1939 Germany had a revised, modernized, and detailed
plan for an aggression against Poland. And Hitler, while playing the
part of one insulted by Poland, waited only for a suitable moment to
declare that he had no choice but to destroy the Polish State.

In one of the appendices to the document quoted—it is also listed as
Document Number C-120 (Exhibit Number GB-41) but was not read into the
record—there is one feature of great importance. The document is signed
by Hitler and bears the date 11 April 1939. It was prepared in five
originals only. I offer in evidence a copy of the second original.

    “Directive concerning the uniform preparation of the Armed
    Forces for 1939-1940.

    “I will expound, at a later date, the future objectives of the
    Armed Forces as well as the preparations for war which follow
    therefrom.

    “Until the directive becomes effective, the Armed Forces must be
    ready to accomplish the following tasks:

    “I) Securing the frontiers of the German Reich and protection
    from sudden air offensives; II) Fall Weiss; III) Occupation of
    Danzig.

    “Signed: Hitler.”

I will now read into the record the first paragraph of Appendix 3,
entitled the “Occupation of Danzig.”

    “The surprise occupation of the Free City of Danzig may come
    into question—independently of Fall Weiss—in utilization of a
    favorable political condition.”

I think that we can dispense with the reading of the remaining text of
the document.

If it please the Tribunal, it is worthy of note that, according to
German plans the occupation of Danzig was regarded either as an integral
part of the aggression against Poland or, in case of a different
political situation, as a completely independent operation, but in both
cases it was planned well in advance.

The same set of documents, listed as Number C-120, includes a top-secret
directive intended exclusively for commanding officers and was to be
transmitted through officers only. It is important to note that the
subject of this document, which I submit to the Tribunal, is indicated
as follows: Instructions concerning the uniform preparation for war of
the Armed Forces for the years 1939-1940. Just as the previous ones,
this document was not intended for a wide circle of readers. It was
typed in seven originals only. The fascist conspirators were not very
anxious to popularize their planned preparation for war.

And again, in the appendix to directive OKW 37/39, which I have already
submitted to the Tribunal and which is entitled, “Special Orders for
Fall Weiss,” there is one very significant sentence. I shall read into
the Record the penultimate subparagraph of Paragraph 2:

    “In case of a public announcement of general mobilization
    (Mobplan) for the Armed Forces, the mobilization will
    automatically cover the entire civilian network, including war
    production. A public announcement, however, of mobilization
    should not be counted on, should military events be confined to
    Fall Weiss.”

It seems highly significant to me that the fascist conspirators, though
fully conscious of the fact that war was to begin, had planned the
execution of their criminal intent without announcing any mobilization.

And finally, I should like to point out that in Keitel’s order to the
Armed Forces, Number 37/39, of 3 April 1939, issued in connection with
Fall Weiss, the following directives by Hitler were made public:

    “I. Operational plan Fall Weiss must be elaborated with a view
    to the fact that its execution must be possible at any time, as
    from 1 September 1939.”

We know that the invasion of Poland was, in fact, started on 1 September
1939—in short, on the very first day on which the German Armed Forces
had to be fully ready for action.

Operational Order Number 1, 25039, of 21 August 1939, issued to the
Command of Naval Group OST, on board the battleship _Schleswig
Holstein_, stated as follows—this document has already been submitted
to the Tribunal as a German photostatic copy:

    “I. General situation. a) Political: All the armed forces must
    be defeated by means of a lightning thrust, to enable the
    creation in the East of a situation favorable for the defense of
    the Reich. The Free City of Danzig will be declared a Reich
    city.”

It is worth while to bear this sentence in mind when speaking of the
“free expression of will by the Danzig population,” which allegedly
aspired to become part of the Reich. It must not be forgotten that this
free expression of will had been foreseen by the above operational Order
Number 1, to the very day.

To conclude, I consider it essential to read into the record, almost in
full, a rather long but exceptionally important document. I have in mind
a note by the Defendant Bormann of 2 October 1940, referring to a
conversation about Poland. This conversation was held after a dinner
which took place in Hitler’s apartment. You will find this note on Page
311, Volume I, Part 2 of the document book:

    “Secret; Berlin, 2 October 1940; note.

    “On 2 October 1940, after dinner at the Führer’s apartment, a
    conversation arose on the nature of the Government General, the
    treatment of the Poles and the incorporation, already approved
    by the Führer, of the Districts of Piotrokow and Tomassov into
    the Warthegau.

    “The conversation began when the Reich Minister, Dr. Frank,
    informed the Führer that the activities in the Government
    General could be termed very successful. The Jews in Warsaw and
    other cities had been locked up in the ghetto; Kraków would very
    shortly be cleared of them.”

I now consider it possible to omit a few paragraphs.

    “The Führer further emphasized that the Poles, in direct
    contrast to our German workmen, are specially born for low
    labor; we must give every possibility of advancement to our
    German workers; as to the Poles—there can be no question of
    improvement for them. On the contrary, it is necessary to keep
    the standard of life low in Poland and it must not be permitted
    to rise.

    “The Government General must, under no condition whatsoever, be
    an isolated and uniform economic region; it must not produce
    independently, even in part, any manufactured goods necessary
    for its subsistence; the Government General should be used by us
    merely as a source of unskilled labor (in industries such as
    brick manufacturing, road construction, _et cetera_). One cannot
    change the nature of a Slav, as the Führer has already
    emphasized. While as a rule our German workers are by nature
    assiduous and diligent, the Poles are lazy and it is necessary
    to use compulsion to make them work.

    “However, there is no reason to expect that the Government
    General will become an independent economic region, as there are
    no mineral resources, and even should such be available the
    Poles are not capable of utilizing them.

    “The Führer has explained that the Reich needs large estates to
    provide food for our large cities; these large estates, as well
    as other agricultural enterprises, are in need of labor, and
    cheap labor in particular, for the cultivation of the soil and
    for harvesting. As soon as the harvest time is over, the
    laborers can go back to Poland because should they be employed
    in agriculture the whole year round they themselves would use up
    an important part of the crops. The best solution would thus be
    to import from Poland temporary laborers for the duration of the
    sowing and for the harvesting. Our industrial districts are
    overpopulated, while at the same time there is a lack of
    manpower in agriculture. That is where we can make use of the
    Polish laborers. For this reason, it would be quite right to
    have a surplus of manpower in the Government General, so that
    every year the laborers needed by the Reich could be procured
    from there. It is indispensable to bear in mind that the Polish
    gentry must cease to exist; however cruel this may sound,
    wherever they are, they must be exterminated.

    “There must, of course, be no sexual intercourse with Poles. It
    would consequently be a correct procedure if Polish harvesters,
    both men and women, came together to the Reich. Whatever the
    mutual relationships were in their camps would not be a matter
    of our concern—no zealous Protestant should poke his nose into
    these affairs.

    “The Führer stressed once more that there should be one master
    only for the Poles—the German; two masters, side by side,
    cannot and must not exist; therefore, all representatives of the
    Polish intelligentsia are to be exterminated. This sounds cruel,
    but such is the law of life.

    “The Government General represents a Polish reserve of
    manpower—a vast Polish labor camp. The Poles will also benefit
    from this, as we look after their health and see to it that they
    do not starve, _et cetera_, but they must never be raised to a
    higher level, for they will then become anarchists and
    Communists. It will therefore be proper for the Poles to remain
    Roman Catholics; Polish priests will receive food from us and
    will, for that very reason, direct their little sheep along the
    path we favor. The priests will be paid by us and will, in
    return, preach what we wish them to preach. If any priest acts
    differently, we shall make short work of him. The task of the
    priest is to keep the Poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted. This
    is entirely in our interests. Should the Poles rise to a higher
    level of development, they will cease to be that manpower of
    which we are in need. In other respects it will suffice for a
    Pole to possess a small holding in the Government General—a
    large farm is not at all necessary; he will have to earn the
    money he requires in Germany. It is precisely this cheap labor
    we need; every German and every German worker will benefit by
    this cheap labor.

    “A strict German administration must exist in the Government
    General to keep order in the labor reservations. These
    reservations mean for us the maintenance of agriculture,
    particularly of our large estates, and they are, besides, a
    source of supply of labor.”

I see no necessity to read into the record the exchange of views between
those present, although it is mentioned in the document, and I shall go
on directly to Hitler’s final statements:

    “To sum up, the Führer wants to state once more:

    “1. The lowest German workman and the lowest German peasant must
    always stand economically 10 percent above any Pole.”

I omit the second paragraph and pass to the third which is of great
interest:

    “3. I do not wish”—the Führer stressed—“that a German workman
    should, as a rule work more than 8 hours when we return to
    normal conditions; if a Pole, however, works 14 hours, he is
    still, in spite of that, to earn less than a German workman.

    “4. The ideal picture is this: A Pole must possess a small
    holding in the Government General which will, to a certain
    extent, provide him and his family with food. The money required
    by him for clothes, supplementary foods, _et cetera_, _et
    cetera_, he must earn by working in Germany. The Government
    General must become a center for supplying seasonal unskilled
    labor, particularly agricultural laborers. The existence of
    these workmen will be fully guaranteed, because they will always
    be used as cheap labor.”

This document deals with the question of Hitler’s attitude towards
Poland and the Polish people with such exhaustive clarity that it calls
for no further comment.

I wish only to draw Your Honors’ attention to three points.

Firstly, Hitler definitely states and develops in detail the idea that
in the new fascist order in Europe the Polish people and the Polish
State must be nothing but a Polish labor camp for fascist Germany.

Secondly, Hitler is convinced that the Poles will benefit from such a
state of affairs, since the fascist conspirators intend to care for the
health and adequate nourishment of the Poles whom they have reduced to
slavery. I beg Your Honors to consider the fact that by “adequate
nourishment” Hitler understands a state of affairs according to which
every Pole should be maintained at an economic level considerably below
that of the most wretched German. By “care” he means that the standard
of living in Poland should be low and that it should not improve, so
that no Pole be engaged otherwise than in heavy unskilled labor, 14
hours a day.

Finally, Hitler sets the task for the extermination of the entire
intelligentsia, stating arrogantly that there should exist only one
master for the Poles—the German.

In the course of further presentation of documents to the Tribunal we
shall prove that Hitler and his followers, in the persons of the
participants in the fascist conspiracy, strove to exterminate the Polish
people and to reduce the standard of living of the Poles to the most
pitiable and beggarly level. Their very existence depended solely on the
fact that it assured cheap manpower for the fascist masters.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 11 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-SIXTH DAY
                        Monday, 11 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

COL. POKROVSKY: The Tribunal has at its disposal the diaries of the
Defendant Frank.

In the one marked “Diary of the Year 1943, V,” we find on Pages
1070-1072 an important entry; in the Russian translation this passage is
on Page 5 of the addenda to the “Excerpts from Frank’s Diaries,” and on
Page 321 of your document book, marked in pencil. I quote this passage:

    “Kraków, 23 October 1943.

    “The Governor General makes a report at the Administrative
    Academy on ‘The Leadership Principle in Government.’ From the
    point of view of constitutional and international law, the
    Government General, as an appendage to Greater Germany,
    constitutes a part of the territory over which the power of
    Greater Germany in Europe extends. The sovereignty over this
    territory belongs to the Führer of Greater Germany and on his
    behalf it is exercised by the Governor General who, as the
    deputy of the Führer, possesses all his powers.”

I would like to inform you, Your Honors, of two more documents of a
strictly official nature.

In the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ for 1939, Part I, Page 2077—Page 333 of your
document book presented by us as Exhibit Number USSR-296 (Document
Number USSR-296)—is published the “Führer’s and Reich Chancellor’s
Decree on the Administration of the Occupied Polish Territory,” dated 12
October 1939.

I shall read into the record Paragraph 2 of this decree. It consists of
two subparagraphs:

    “Paragraph 2:

    “1. I appoint Reich Minister Dr. Frank as Governor General of
    the occupied Polish territories.

    “2. I appoint Reich Minister Dr. Seyss-Inquart as Deputy
    Governor General.”

In the same _Reichsgesetzblatt_, but this time for 1940, Part I, Page
399, is published a decree regarding the power to grant pardons in the
occupied Polish territories. It is registered with the Tribunal as
Document USSR-289 (Exhibit Number USSR-289) and is on Page 336 of the
document book. It reads:

    “In the occupied Polish territories I delegate to the Governor
    General of occupied Polish territories the power to confirm
    death sentences as well as pardons or to reject applications for
    pardons, with the right further to delegate his powers.”

The power of life and death, the sovereign prerogative, was entrusted in
a Poland occupied by the Hitlerites, to the Defendant Frank.

It would not be misplaced to recall that it was this same Hitler who had
said that he would show, by the concrete example of a mutual
relationship between the Polish and the German peoples, that such a form
of intercourse had been found “which would usefully serve the cause of
peace as well as the welfare of both nations.”

I have spoken of the kind of example that was intended, and what the
welfare was to which reference had been made.

The 6 April 1941 was marked by a new crime planned and carefully
prepared beforehand by the Hitlerite conspirators. Without any warning
or declaration of war, they attacked Yugoslavia.

The attack on Yugoslavia was a gross breach of Article 3 of the Hague
Convention of 18 October 1907, and of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 27
August 1928. The Delegations of Great Britain and of the United States
have already submitted to the Tribunal a considerable number of
documents referring to the subject of the treacherous attack on
Yugoslavia. I have only to submit a few new proofs and to establish a
connection between these new documents and those already read into the
record. Official German documents enable us to reconstitute events with
exceptional vividness. In this case German pedantry turns against the
authors of the criminal plan.

On 27 March 1941 Adolf Hitler held a special conference regarding the
situation in Yugoslavia. On the same day he signed a top-secret
Directive 025, for the High Command (Oberbefehlshaber) only. Both
documents, filed under Document Number 1746-PS, are among the evidence
already accepted by the Tribunal.

Subparagraph 2 of Directive 025 has already been quoted in full in the
speech of the Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R. The first subparagraph
of this document was also read into the record on 7 December 1945. I
should like to add a few more lines and read Paragraph 3 into the
record. This passage is on Page 337 of the document book. It states as
follows:

    “In detail I order the following:

    “a) As soon as the concentration of sufficient forces is
    concluded and meteorological conditions permit, all Yugoslav
    antiaircraft and Belgrade must be destroyed by continuous day
    and night air attacks.

    “b) If possible, simultaneously, but under no circumstances
    sooner, Operation Marita must be started, with the primary
    limited objective to seize the harbor of Salonika.”

I believe that three points should be stressed here:

1) The intention of carrying out the total destruction of the capital of
the state;

2) The correlation between the aggression against Yugoslavia and the
aggression against another country, Greece—the aggression against
Greece was coded, as the Tribunal knows, under the name of Operation
Marita;

3) The necessity to complete the concentration of German forces as well
as meteorological conditions were the factors that determined the time
limits for the attack.

As in all previous cases of criminal fascist aggression, we see one and
the same thing—the criminal intent of the predatory invader, treachery,
and cold calculation.

Preparations for the successive acts which had been carried on over a
very long period followed the customary Hitler routine, already
disclosed by the prosecutors: Fifth Column activities, the use of the
protection of the German minority as a slogan and the lying practice of
peaceable declarations combined with unceasing preparations for
invasion. As I have already stated, the preparation of the crime was
carried on over a very long period and followed the customary Hitler
routine already disclosed by the prosecutors.

On 27 March 1941, on the very day when Hitler signed Directive 025, he
personally conducted, in Berlin, a special conference on the situation
in Yugoslavia. The minutes of this conference were presented by the
United States Prosecution on 4 December 1945 as Document Number 1746-PS.

Other documents relating to this conference have also been registered
under the same number. At the conference, the objective was determined
with absolute precision and a plan of action was presented. You will,
Your Honors, find the passage I have quoted on Page 349.

Hitler declared:

    “. . . we are not going to wait for any declarations of loyalty
    by the new government, but to carry out all preparations for the
    destruction of the Yugoslav armed forces and of Yugoslavia
    itself as a national unit.

    “. . . it is especially important from the political point of
    view that the blow against Yugoslavia should be carried out with
    the utmost violence and that its military destruction should be
    effected with lightning speed.”

And a little further back in the document is stated:

    “No diplomatic inquiries will be made and no ultimatum
    presented. . . . The attack will start as soon as the necessary
    supplies and troops are ready.”

Thus, Hitler was not in the least interested in the factual attitude of
one or the other Yugoslav Government toward Germany, but in the factual
destruction of Yugoslavia as a state; and he strove to accomplish this
destruction with cruelty and lightning speed.

The operational staff of the OKW, meticulously following Hitler’s
directive regarding a cruel and rapid destruction of Yugoslavia,
speedily worked out a detailed plan for co-ordinated operations of the
German and Italian Armies. It was issued as an official operational
directive dated 28 March 1941. I consider it essential to reread three
lines of this document, already submitted to the Tribunal under the same
Document Number 1746-PS. You will find it on Page 352 of the document
book. I read Paragraph 4 of this document into the record.

    “. . . The German task is to attack Yugoslavia with the greatest
    possible concentration of forces, to smash its armed forces and
    destroy it as a state.”

I cannot but remind the Tribunal of the terminology used by Hitler and
the other fascist conspirators. Hitler said, “There can be no question
of sparing Poland.” He demanded, “Yugoslavia is to be eliminated as a
state, ruthlessly and with lightning speed.” Mercilessness,
ruthlessness, extermination of peoples and states: such was the style
and meaning of the actions of the fascist conspirators.

The aggression against Czechoslovakia, the attack on Poland, the desire
to destroy Yugoslavia, all these were links in the same chain. But the
chain does not end with these links.

The task of the next representative of the U.S.S.R. Prosecution will be
to show Your Honors that the fundamental purpose of these criminals, the
main link in the center of all of the Hitlerite conspiracies, was the
attack on the U.S.S.R.

The documents relating to the crimes against Yugoslavia will prove that,
in attacking that country, the fascist conspirators strictly followed
their customary methods. Even in detail they repeated their earlier
crimes perpetrated against Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. Even in
case we did not know who actually organized the attack on Yugoslavia,
the very nature of the facts, the sequence of events, the manner in
which the crimes were perpetrated, would unmistakably indicate the
culprits.

I turn to Document USSR-36, (Exhibit Number USSR-36) under which number
I offer in evidence the Official Report of the Yugoslav Government.

The first section, entitled “The Systematic Preparation of the
Conspiracy for the Enslavement and the Destruction of Yugoslavia,”
contains a series of valuable information. I wish to cite that excerpt
from this document which you will find on Page 355 of the document book,
Paragraph 4 on Page 3 of the Russian text, 3rd paragraph from the top
reads:

    “The Government of the Third Reich and the Hitlerite Party
    secretly organized the German minority. Settled in Yugoslavia by
    the Austrian emperors over a century ago, the Germans enjoyed as
    brothers full rights and a cultural autonomy. They had their own
    schools and their representatives in parliaments as well as in
    the local government. They numbered half a million (that is
    about three percent of the total population). From 1920 they had
    their mass organization—the Swabian-German Cultural
    Union—‘Kulturbund’ for short. And out of this very organization
    and through it, as well as out of all the Germans in Yugoslavia,
    the Nazi Party created a political and military organ for the
    destruction of Yugoslavia.”

I believe I can skip several lines without loss and quote further:

    “In Yugoslavia, the Nazi Gaue were secretly formed and Gauleiter
    appointed. Under the guise of various physical training and
    sport associations, Hitlerite units were organized half a
    million strong. Numerous ‘tourists,’ ‘travellers,’
    ‘businessmen,’ and ‘relatives’ came from the Reich—in reality
    they were Nazi instructors and organizers.”

I skip a number of details which can be disregarded, and pass to the
second paragraph of the same section on Page 4—that would be Page 356
in your document book—where the manner is described in which the Fifth
Column was further strengthened. I now shall read into the record
Paragraph 2, beginning with the second subparagraph:

    “The Hitlerites drew into their orbit all the separatist and
    chauvinistic elements, as for instance, Pavelich’s Ustasha; the
    Zbor, a movement headed by Ljoteč; the MFRO (the Macedonian
    fascist movement), headed by Vanca Mihajlovič; and organized
    them as terrorist organizations with headquarters in Berlin. On
    the other hand, acting through their agents, Prince Paul,
    Stojadinovič, Cvetkovič, and Ćincar-Marcovič, they attracted the
    pan-Serbian centralists and turned them into a terrorist group
    which, from the vantage points of governmental authority, was
    ‘peacefully’ to deliver Yugoslavia into slavery by adhering to
    the Tripartite Pact.”

Further, the report emphasizes the fact that, while organizing numerous
branches of the Fifth Column, the Hitlerites continually gave newer and
more perfidious assurances about their ostensibly friendly intentions
with regard to Yugoslavia. This is discussed in Paragraph 3 on Page 5 of
the Russian text; our Document Number USSR-36. You will find this
passage, Your Honors, on Page 357 of the document book:

    “3. At the time when both the Hitlerite Government and the Party
    were so thoroughly and with such versatility preparing their
    conspiracy to invade and occupy Yugoslavia, Hitler seized every
    opportunity to declare to the whole world, on behalf of the same
    Government, the same Party, and the whole of Germany, that
    Yugoslavia could count on them as devoted friends.”

On 17 January 1938, that is, some weeks before the occupation of
Austria, Hitler had a meeting with the then Prime Minister of Yugoslavia
at which the Defendants Göring and Von Neurath were present. The
original document from which I shall quote certain passages was
submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number TC-92. The extract which I
shall quote further on as documentary evidence, is dated 4 December
1945. You will find it on Page 411 of the document book.

On 4 December 1945 a printed collection of German documents dealing with
the conflict with Yugoslavia and Greece was offered to you in evidence.
In the listing of documentary evidence it is referred to as Document
Number TC-92.

On Page 68—and you will find it as I have already stated on Page 411 in
your document book, as Document Number 28 of that collection—we have a
transcript of the conversations which took place during the conference
of 17 January 1938. I consider there is no need to read the entire
document into the record. I shall limit myself to the following three
remarks made by Hitler on that occasion, “As regards Yugoslavia, Germany
is highly interested in the existence of a strong Yugoslavia.” Somewhat
later in the course of the same conversation Hitler spoke the second
sentence, “Whatever may happen there, Yugoslavia’s present boundary will
remain as inviolable as the border on the Brenner is today.” In addition
Hitler, at this meeting, made the following statement, “. . . the German
nationality group in Yugoslavia was loyal to the Yugoslav
Government. . . .”

On 30 January 1939, some weeks before the occupation of the Czechoslovak
Republic, Hitler made the following declaration about Yugoslavia in his
speech before the Reichstag—this quotation is to be found on Page 412
in your document book:

    “. . . a state which since the Great War has more and more
    attracted the attention of our people, in Yugoslavia. The
    respect which the German soldier felt for that valiant people in
    the past, has grown ever stronger and developed into sincere
    friendship. . . .”

The fascist conspirators considered it useful to include this speech as
Document Number 32 in the book from which I just have quoted and
presented to the Tribunal as Document Number TC-92.

On 1 June 1939, that is, before the fascist attack on Poland, Prince
Paul of Yugoslavia, whom the official report of the Yugoslav Government
calls a Hitlerite agent, paid a visit to Hitler. On this occasion,
Hitler stated in Berlin—you will find the passage on Page 413 in your
document book:

    “. . . Germany’s friendship with the Yugoslav nation did not
    spring up suddenly. It was deepened and strengthened by the
    tragic complications of the World War.”

Then, after having made a few more statements which are of no interest
to the Tribunal, he continued:

    “I am all the more confident that now when, as a result of the
    historic events, we have become neighbors with common frontiers
    established forever, the friendly relations between Germany and
    Yugoslavia, trustful and steadfast, will not only secure lasting
    peace between both our peoples and countries, but moreover will
    serve as a calming element for our nervous, excitable
    continent.”

I repeat once more that I quote from the book, Document Number TC-92.

In his next customary speech after the defeat of Poland, before the
Reichstag on 6 October, Hitler reassured Yugoslavia of his love of peace
and of his friendly attitude in the following words:

    “. . . after the annexation had taken place, I assured
    Yugoslavia in the same manner that her frontier with this
    country shall be regarded as inviolable by Germany from this
    moment on, and that we want to live in peace and friendship with
    her. . . .”

I am now going to read into the record a few paragraphs from
Subparagraph 2 on the first section of the report of the Yugoslav State
Commission for the investigation of the crimes perpetrated by the
aggressors. The excerpts in question begin with Paragraph 3, on Page 6
of Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36). In your document
book it is Volume I, Section I.

Thus, Hitler regularly gave assurances about friendly relations with
Yugoslavia and about the inviolability of her boundaries while, at the
same time, his band of conspirators and enslavers were already
tightening the ring of war around Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia was
completely surrounded by Hitler’s Panzer divisions, and when the
government of the Centralist Fifth Column of Prince Paul, Cvetovič, and
Maček was ready to join the Tripartite Pact on 25 March 1941, that is,
10 days before the attack on Yugoslavia, the Defendant Ribbentrop stated
as follows—on Page 413 of your document book you will find it, in
Document Number 2450-PS:

    “Germany herself—and I solemnly state this—has neither
    territorial nor political interests in this region.”

The Tribunal has already been handed a certified extract from Document
Number 72 of the above-mentioned German book.

An official note from the Reich Government of the same date reads as
follows—you will find this on Page 415 of the document book:

    “Mr. Prime Minister: On behalf and on the direction of the
    German Government, I have the honor to report to Your Excellency
    as follows:

    “In connection with today’s adherence of Yugoslavia to the
    Tripartite Pact, the German Government affirms its resolution to
    respect at all times the sovereignty and territorial integrity
    of Yugoslavia. . . .

    “Signed, Joachim von Ribbentrop.”

The culminating point in the execution of the breach of faith so
cunningly prepared by the fascists is the following statement made by
Hitler on 6 April 1941, that is, at the moment when the perfidious and
treacherous attack on Yugoslavia had already begun. It is under Document
Number TC-92 in your book of documents, on Page 414:

    “The German people feel no hatred towards the Serbian people.
    Above all, the German people see no reason to start a war
    against the Croats and Slovenes; they want nothing from these
    peoples.”

Certified excerpts have been handed to the Tribunal from the documents
of the German book already quoted on Pages 1 and 4.

At the same time when he was speaking in this manner, the occupation,
annexation, and dismemberment of the Yugoslav State was already taking
place. Soon after began the bombing of undefended cities, towns, and
settlements; forcible evictions; deportations to camps; punitive
expeditions; and hundreds of other acts that were a part of the planned
extermination of the Yugoslav people, which resulted in the death of
1,650,000 Yugoslav men, women, and children.

On the question of the preparation for the attack on Yugoslavia and the
individuals who directly supervised this crime, we have at our disposal
two very valuable pieces of evidence.

The first is the original affidavit of the German General Löhr. Prior to
and at the time of the aggression against Yugoslavia, he was in command
of the 4th Air Fleet. It was precisely his air units which carried out
the raids on Belgrade. He is undoubtedly a man well acquainted with the
course of operations and its leaders.

On 24 May 1945 General Löhr was taken prisoner by the Yugoslav forces.
During interrogations to which he was subjected between 24 May and 6
June 1945 he states—you will find the respective excerpts on Page 416,
as excerpts from our Document Number USSR-253 (Exhibit Number USSR-253).
We submit the originals of these excerpts to the Tribunal:

    “I and my staff went on March 26 to Sofia as the campaign
    against Greece was about to begin.

    “On the following day, 27 March 1941, the _coup d’état_ took
    place in Yugoslavia. I was called unexpectedly to Berlin, where
    I received orders from Reich Marshal Göring to prepare for air
    operations against Yugoslavia. . . .

    “After this, preparations against Yugoslavia were begun. At my
    first meeting with Göring I was not told of the date of the
    beginning of the war against Yugoslavia. At Vienna, I received a
    written order in which the beginning of the operations was fixed
    for 6 April.”

Passing over the rest of the statement, I proceed to read into the
record excerpts from the minutes of the interrogation of the former
Field Marshal of the German Army, Friedrich Paulus. In accordance with
the wish of the Tribunal, we submit the original of this interrogation.

Friedrich Paulus was interrogated on 12 January 1946 by the Chief
Prosecutors of the U.S.S.R. His testimony is registered with us as
Exhibit Number USSR-182 (Document Number USSR-182). You will find the
passage quoted on Page 419 of your document book. My colleagues of the
Soviet Delegation will probably revert to this document when dealing
with subsequent matters. I shall therefore merely quote that part which
refers to the preparations for the attack on Yugoslavia.

    “It was clear to both German and Hungarian officers that these
    military preparations must have been based on the preparation of
    military collaboration between Germany and Hungary.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal understand that the first
interrogatory to which you refer—General Löhr’s—which is contained in
Document Number USSR-253, is an official document?

COL. POKROVSKY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The official document of your Government. The other
interrogatory to which you refer, of Field Marshal Paulus, is not an
official document, is it?

COL. POKROVSKY: The minutes of the interrogation of Field Marshal Paulus
have been compiled in compliance with all legal standards of procedure
applying to such interrogations by judicial organizations in the
U.S.S.R. He is interrogated as a witness with the warning that he must
tell the truth, in accordance with Articles 95 and 92 of our penal code.
These documents, in the U.S.S.R., are considered as absolutely official
documents, of full probative value, to be submitted to the Tribunal when
necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us where the interrogatory was made?

COL. POKROVSKY: Paulus was interrogated in person in Moscow, on 12
January 1946. This, Sir, must have been pointed out at the beginning of
the interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: The date is on the document, but not the place. Go on,
Colonel.

COL. POKROVSKY: With your permission, I shall continue my quotation from
the minutes of the interrogation of Field Marshal Paulus, submitted to
you:

    “It was clear to the Hungarians that Germany’s assistance was in
    order to prepare the Hungarian Army in good time and in advance
    for future combined military operations, thus incorporating an
    ally into its ranks.

    “With the later attack on Yugoslavia, which followed this, there
    was no need for special explanations as to the object of these
    military preparations.

    “It was clear that armed forces were being made ready for war
    with the U.S.S.R., as the attack on Yugoslavia was part of the
    operational plan for the attack on the U.S.S.R.

    “With the defeat of Yugoslavia, the right flank, which was to be
    formed at the beginning of military operations against Russia,
    was secured.”

I shall leave out one paragraph which deals with another subject, and
continue to quote:

    “The preparation of the combined German-Hungarian attack on
    Yugoslavia was entrusted to me. On 27 or 28 March 1941 I was
    called before Hitler at the Reich Chancellery where, besides
    Hitler, Keitel, Jodl, Halder, and Brauchitsch were present.
    Halder met me with the following words:

    “‘The Führer has decided to attack Yugoslavia in order to
    eliminate the threat to the flank during the offensive against
    Greece and to seize the main Belgrade-Nish railway line which
    runs in a southerly direction. But the main objective of the
    attack on Yugoslavia is to have our right flank secure when
    later on the Plan Barbarossa shall be carried out.

    “‘Your task is to go to Vienna immediately in my special train,
    and to transmit the orders and explain the situation to Field
    Marshal List (12th Army Group), General Von Kleist (Panzer
    group), and Colonel Von Witzleben (Chief of Staff of the 2d
    Army), who have been called there.

    “‘From Vienna, you are to proceed to Budapest and there to
    co-ordinate with the Hungarian General Staff the strategic
    employment of the German forces on Hungarian territory and the
    participation of the Hungarian forces in the invasion of
    Yugoslavia.’”

The participation of Hitlerite generals of the very highest rank in the
treacherous attack on Yugoslavia simply does not fit, in any way at all,
into the execution of purely military tasks only.

I shall read one more document into the records, Document Number
1195-PS. You will find it in your document book on Page 423.

On 9 January 1946 four lines were read here from the second section. The
time has now come to read it in full:

    “Copy. Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, Operational Staff,
    Section L, (IV/QU), Number 00630/41; top secret, commanders
    only; Führer’s headquarters, 12. 4. 1941.

    “Reference: OKW/L, (IV/QU), Number 4434/41; top secret,
    commanders only, of 3 April 1941.

    “Provisional Directives for the Partition of Yugoslavia.

    “I. The Führer has issued the following directions for the
    partition of Yugoslavia:

    “1) Former territory of Styria and Carniola.

    “The territory of the former Styria, extended to the south by a
    strip of about 90 kilometers in breadth and 10 to 15 kilometers
    in depth, will go to Gau Styria.

    “The northern part of Carniola, with a borderline running south
    only as far as the river Sava but north of Ljubljana, according
    to the attached OKH map, is to become part of Carinthia.

    “The High Command of the Army (OKH) is to hand over the
    territory occupied by the German troops, to the competent
    Gauleiter, subarea by subarea, as soon as the pacification of
    the country permits.

    “The handing over of the territory occupied by the Italians will
    be prepared by a letter from the Führer to the Duce and carried
    out under direct orders from the Foreign Office. Until that time
    no measures whatever are to be taken on the German side.
    (Teletype OKH-General Quartermaster, Abt. Kr. Verw., A., Ob.
    Kdo. 2 I, Number 801/41, top secret, is hereby executed.)

    “2) The territory beyond the River Mur (Übermur-Gebiet).

    “The territory beyond the River Mur borders closely upon
    Hungary, conforming with the historic boundary. A later
    colonization of the German population living in the northwestern
    part of this territory has been taken into consideration. The
    handing over of this territory to the Hungarians will be
    regulated by the High Command of the Army.

    “3) Banat.

    “The territory from the point where the River Drava cuts the
    Hungarian boundary to the confluence of the River Tisa with the
    Danube is to go to Hungary. The territory east of the Tisa will
    be at first under German protection, as will the territory south
    of the Danube and east of the general line: confluence of the
    River Morava and the
    Danube-Pozarevac-Petrovac-Boljavac-Knjazevac-Kalna. This
    territory includes the Bor copper mines and the adjoining coal
    district in the southeast. The above line is considered as the
    basis and provisional demarcation line. At first, German
    military government is to be established under the High Command
    of the Army.

    “4) Southern Serbia.

    “The territory inhabited by Bulgarian Macedonians goes to
    Bulgaria, in conformity with the ethnographical boundary.
    Preliminary delimitation of the frontier, from the military
    viewpoint, will be carried out by the Supreme Command of the
    Army, which will prepare the handing over to Bulgaria.

    “5) Old Serbia.

    “The territory of old Serbia will be placed under German
    military administration under the High Command of the Army.

    “6) Croatia.

    “Croatia becomes an independent state within its ethnographical
    boundaries. There will be no interference on the part of Germany
    with its internal policy.

    “7) Remaining territories including Bosnia and Montenegro.

    “The political organization of these territories will be left to
    Italy. Here also the restoration of an independent state of
    Montenegro can be considered.

    “II. The Demarcation of Boundaries:

    “1) As far as the demarcation of boundaries has not been laid
    down in Part I, it will be carried out through the Supreme
    Command of the Armed Forces in agreement with the Foreign
    Office, the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, and the
    Reich Minister of the Interior.

    “The Operational Staff of the Supreme Command Armed Forces (L IV
    QU) is the executive organ for the Supreme Command of the Armed
    Forces.

    “2) The High Command of the Army will forward as soon as
    possible to the Operational Staff, Supreme Command of the Armed
    Forces its military recommendations relative to the drawing up
    of boundaries outside the territory of the protectorate south of
    the Danube, where this has not been already laid down by the
    Führer.

    “3) The War Economic and Armament Office of the OKW will forward
    as soon as possible to the Operational Staff (Section L) its
    recommendations regarding the boundaries of the territory of the
    protectorate south of the Danube (Part I, Paragraph 3).

    “4) As far as the Italians are concerned, the tactical
    boundaries between the armies hold good in the meantime.

    “Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, signed,
    Keitel.”

This document, signed by the Defendant Keitel, smashes to pieces the
mendacious statement of the nonparticipation of the OKW in the political
side of the fascist plan or conspiracy. The German generals, as a body,
were not merely an obedient tool in Hitler’s hands.

The OKW, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and the Gestapo were
interwoven into one sole entity. This is also borne out by the next
document.

General Nedič, ex-Prime Minister of the quisling Yugoslav Government, in
his depositions gives some interesting information on this question.

Before reading into the record a few excerpts from his depositions, I
must say a few words concerning four Germans, whom Nedič mentions by
name. He speaks of Kraus, Turner, Kiesel, and Kronholz.

Dr. Kraus was chief of the Gestapo South East, with central offices in
Belgrade. Dr. Turner was chief of staff of the civil administration
department attached to the German Military Command in Serbia. Dr. Kiesel
was Dr. Turner’s deputy. Kronholz held no official post. He had lived in
Yugoslavia even before the war and was director of the German transport
firm Schenker A.G. Subsequently he turned out to be an important German
intelligence agent. This information is certified by the Yugoslav
Extraordinary Commission for the investigation of German atrocities.
After this explanation, I shall read into the record a short excerpt
from the evidence of the Serbian quisling, General Nedič. A true copy of
the interrogation or rather excerpts from his minutes are registered by
us as Document Number USSR-288. I am able to submit to you now, for your
perusal, the original of these minutes with Nedič’s signature.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to leave it with you in its
entirety because it refers to a case concerning Yugoslavia which has not
yet been finished, but I can hand it to you for perusal by the Tribunal,
while the certified excerpts remain with us as evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal understand that you wish
to put this document in as evidence and then to withdraw it for the
purpose of its being used in some other cases; is that right?

COL. POKROVSKY: I should like to submit to you as evidence in this case,
the excerpts from the minutes, duly certified by the Yugoslav
Extraordinary Commission, in order that the minutes now in your hands,
that is—the original minutes—may be returned to Belgrade where they
will be presented as a document needed in another case which is still
under investigation. I would therefore request you to keep a copy for
the Tribunal after you have satisfied yourselves that this copy tallies
with the original.

THE PRESIDENT: Well then, if that is so, we must ask you to deposit with
this Tribunal a photostatic copy of this document, because, of course,
all the documents or photostatic copies which are put in evidence must
be deposited with the General Secretary of this Tribunal. So, if you
will undertake to have a photostatic copy made of this document and left
with the General Secretary, I think the Tribunal is agreed that you may
do so, that you may use this document.

COL. POKROVSKY: Will the Tribunal be satisfied with the certified
photostatic copy, in addition to the certified excerpts and a
photostatic copy of the part which I am about to quote?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you.

    “I came to know Kronholz during the occupation period, before I
    became Prime Minister. As far as I can remember, he was brought
    to me by the Chief of the Gestapo, Dr. Kraus. . . . Then
    Kronholz insisted that I should accept the proposed post.

    “Turner received me in the presence of Dr. Kiesel and said that
    he authorized me, through General Dankelmann, the German
    military commander in Serbia, to form an authoritarian
    government. . . .

    “Almost simultaneously with the creation of my government, the
    Germans established contact with a group of Chetniks under the
    command of Pečanač, who had until then been hiding in the
    forests. The contact was also established through the Chief of
    the Gestapo, Dr. Kraus. Shortly after this, Pečanač arrived in
    Belgrade, called to see me, and offered his services. That is
    how my government came to form its first armed units.”

A little farther on, in the same minutes, we find the following record
of Nedič’s testimonies:

    “As soon as the formation of my government had been proclaimed
    at the beginning of September 1941, a delegation with authority
    from Draga Michailovič called on me to start negotiations.”

Nedič enumerates the terms, which are of no interest to us, and then
says:

    “I, for my part, accepted all these terms and offers. Draga
    Michailovič received money and the Germans permitted this.”

This is the end of the quotation.

Still another part of this record seems of importance to me; it concerns
Nedič’s visit to Hitler and the Defendant Ribbentrop. Nedič stated:

    “I noticed that at the meeting with the Defendant Ribbentrop, a
    demand was made that I should place all the spiritual and
    material resources of Serbia at the disposal of the German Reich
    for the continuation of the war.”

Speaking of this meeting with Hitler, Nedič stated:

    “He shouted at me, emphasizing that the order concerning 100 for
    one not only would have to be altered, but that it should have
    been increased to 1000 for one. He added also that he was
    prepared to exterminate the entire population if the Serbians
    continued to act like rebels.”

The head of fascist Germany wished to control the Slav countries as if
they were his own patrimony. Here he was helped by generals, diplomats,
industrialists, and intelligence officers. All the acts of aggression
were prepared and realized with their direct participation.

I repeat: The German generals as a body were not merely an obedient tool
in Hitler’s hands. The Defendants Keitel, Jodl, and Göring personally
participated in the planning, preparation, and realization of crimes
against peoples and states.

Document 1195-PS added yet another proof in the establishment of this
fact. The above named defendants, together with Neurath, Frick,
Schirach, Frank, Seyss-Inquart, and Ribbentrop, are directly guilty of
the very grave crimes which I reported to the Tribunal.

National Socialism cannot be separated from the idea of war. This is
acknowledged by the Hitler slaves themselves.

In other words, Hitlerism and aggressive war are one and the same thing.
And if wars are not always planned by military leaders only, it is
always they who conduct them. The responsibility for aggression, for
aggressive war, for the death of millions, for bestialities, for the
destruction of cultural treasures and material wealth, must be borne by
all the major war criminals now sitting in the dock.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I would like to ask the Tribunal for a ruling
as to a general question of submission of evidence. The Russian
Delegation has submitted books which contain statements by generals and
statesmen, without these statements being accompanied by an official
remark by the Soviet authorities.

The documents which have been given to me today—USSR-149, 150, and
294—are only photostats of handwritten manuscripts. They contain
neither a remark which could qualify them as affidavits, nor do they
represent testimonies taken before a Soviet official or officer, nor do
they represent governmental or official declarations.

I should be grateful to the Tribunal if it would make a decision on this
question in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. The opinion of
the Defense Counsel is that such statements have only the value of a
personal presentation by the Prosecution but no probative value.

THE PRESIDENT: May I see the documents?

[_The documents were presented to the Tribunal._]

The Tribunal have no objection to the course taken by Dr. Nelte in
drawing their attention to these documents at this stage. But they think
it will be better for them to wait until the documents are actually
offered in evidence before they consider whether or not they will admit
them. If and when the documents are offered in evidence, they will then
consider whether they will admit them or not.

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I wish to present
Major General Zorya, State Councillor of Justice of the 3rd Class, who
will present the materials on the following theme of “Aggression against
the Soviet Union.”

DR. LATERNSER: I should like to point out that the decision of the
Tribunal, that every defendant’s counsel should receive, sufficiently in
advance, a copy of all documents which are to be submitted as evidence
in the course of the proceedings, has not been complied with. It is,
therefore, difficult for the Defense to follow the proceedings because
the documents submitted have not been distributed in sufficient
quantity.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the Tribunal have ever imposed upon the
Prosecution the duty of supplying a copy of every document to every
member of defendants’ counsel.

You no doubt have before you a copy of the Tribunal’s order upon the
subject, and I believe that the order is posted upon the board in the
defendants’ Information Center. If I remember correctly, it is that a
certain number of originals or photostatic copies shall be deposited in
the Information Center, and that a certain number of copies of the
documents shall be supplied to the defendants’ counsel, and that, for
the rest, the defendants’ counsel must rely upon the fact that every
document or part of a document which is put in evidence is read in open
court and, therefore, comes through the earphones to defendants’ counsel
and will appear in the shorthand notes. We have provided that copies of
the shorthand notes shall be supplied to defendants’ counsel as soon as
possible after the day on which the evidence is given. Beyond that we
have not thought it right to impose a duty upon the Prosecution to
supply documents to the defendants’ counsel.

Is that not in accordance with your recollection?

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the American Prosecution, the British
Prosecution, and also the French Prosecution, in the course of the
proceedings, handled this in such a way that enough copies of all
documents were made available to the Defense for each defendant’s
counsel to have one copy before him. I believe that what is possible for
the other Prosecution should also be possible for the Soviet
Prosecution, in order to facilitate the work.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a belief on your part which is not strictly in
accordance with the Tribunal’s orders. The Tribunal has not made that
order, and it may be that the United States and Great Britain have gone
beyond the Tribunal’s orders, and have supplied a copy to each
defendant’s counsel. But, as I say, the Tribunal has not as yet seen fit
to impose that duty upon the Prosecution.

I suppose you don’t really know exactly how many copies of these Soviet
documents have been deposited in the Information Center?

DR. LATERNSER: I don’t know the exact number. At any rate, there were
not enough for each defendant’s counsel to get a copy of each document,
as was the case, so far, with the other Prosecutions.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you no doubt understand the very great difficulties
of making translations and making copies. I am sure that the Soviet
prosecutors will do everything in their power to assist defendants’
counsel, but, as I say, we have not imposed upon the Prosecution the
duty of supplying one copy of a translation into German of each document
for each defendants’ counsel. I can only express the hope that the
Soviet prosecutors will do the best they can.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I remember, when the fact became known
that the press had received 250 copies of the documents, you, Mr.
President, expressed the opinion that it should then also be possible to
distribute 25 copies to the defendants’ counsel. That was, at that time,
the opinion of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal’s orders on this subject are in writing and
you will find them in the defendants’ Information Center. I have stated
my recollection of them; if I am wrong, you can bring me a copy of the
document and I will withdraw my statement.

MAJOR GENERAL N. D. ZORYA (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May
it please Your Honors, it is my task to present the documentary evidence
dealing with the aggression against the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, organized by the fascist war criminals now sitting in the
dock.

This charge of the crime, mentioned in Subparagraph a, Article VI of the
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, was formulated in
Paragraph 6, Section 4, Count One of the Indictment in the present case,
and in Section IV of the opening statement by the Chief Prosecutor from
the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko.

Among the many criminal wars which German fascism, with predatory aim,
waged against the freedom-loving nations, the attack on the Union of the
Soviet Socialist Republics occupies a place by itself.

It can be safely said that the predatory war against the Soviet Union
was the keynote of the entire fascist conspiracy against peace. The
aggressive actions on the part of German fascism committed prior to the
attack on the U.S.S.R., and in part the German aggression against
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, were, as has been demonstrated
by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, merely stages on the road to the
attack on the Soviet Union.

Ukrainian wheat and coal from the Don Basin, nickel from the Kola
Peninsula, and oil from the Caucasus, the fertile steppes of the
pre-Volga region and the forests of Bielorussia all played a decisive
part in the criminal schemes of the fascist aggressors.

The war against the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics was also
waged by fascist Germany with the intent of enslaving and exploiting the
Soviet peoples.

In the war of fascist Germany against the Soviet Union, the animal
hatred of the Hitlerites against the Slav peoples found its full
horrifying expression.

And finally, German imperialism, appearing in its fascist edition, saw
in the seizure of the wealth of the Soviet Union and in its incalculable
resources of food and raw materials a base for the realization of their
far-reaching aggressive aims to achieve, first, ascendancy over Europe,
and, later on, ascendancy over the whole world.

The well-known formula of German imperialism, “Drang nach Osten,”
mentioned in the opening statement of the Chief Prosecutor of the
U.S.S.R., was at different times and in many different ways disguised by
the fascist criminals, but always, in all their aggressive plans, pride
of place was given to the attack on the Soviet Union.

    “If new territory is desired”—wrote Hitler in his book, _Mein
    Kampf_—“in substance it can be secured at the expense of
    Russia. The new empire must move along the paths trodden by the
    knights of old.” (Hitler, Adolf, _Mein Kampf_, Munich edition,
    1930, Page 742.)

The fact that having definitely brought fascist aggression to a head in
1939, Hitler began the war in the West, did not substantially change
anything in this basic conception of fascism.

Under Document Number 789-PS the United States Prosecution submitted to
the Tribunal the transcript of the conference held on 23 November 1939
between Hitler and the members of the German Supreme Command.

At this conference, Hitler, according to his own expression, gave a
“survey of the thoughts dominating him in connection with the events to
come.”

In the course of this survey he declared—you will find the passage I am
now reading on Page 3 in the document book lying on the table of the
Tribunal, Page 2 of the Russian text:

    “For a long time I hesitated whether I should not begin with an
    attack in the East, and only then with the one in the West. It
    came about by force of events that for the nearest future the
    East dropped out of the picture.”

This statement by Hitler bore witness to the fact that the attack on the
Soviet Union remained within the plans of fascist aggression, and the
whole question was reduced only to the problem of selecting the most
favorable moment for this attack.

It should be noted that this western version of the start of fascist
aggression was not considered as the most favorable version by the
authors of the aggression.

This same Hitler, exactly 5 months prior to the above-mentioned
conference, at another conference of 23 May 1939 (Document Number L-79),
while briefing his accomplices on the present situation and political
aims, had said—the passage I am now quoting is Page 6 of the document
book, “If fate forces us into a conflict with the West, it would be
desirable that we, by that time, possess more expanse in the East.”

The vast expanses in the East, according to the aspirations of Hitler’s
conspirators, were to play a decisive part during the conflict in the
West.

Therefore, when the fascist hordes were unable to force the Channel,
stopped at its shores, and were obliged to find new ways of aggression,
the conspirators immediately began to prepare for an attack on the
Soviet Union. This attack was the basis of all their plans of
aggression, without which they could not be realized.

I believe it is not necessary to refer to documents of an earlier
period, and particularly to quote any further from Hitler’s book, _Mein
Kampf_, where questions connected with the predatory attack on the
Soviet Union were formulated long before 1939.

This book has already been presented to the Tribunal, and relevant
passages from it were quoted as evidence by our United States and
British colleagues.

The Soviet Prosecution desires to submit to the Tribunal a series of
documents which bear witness to the fact that the aggression of fascist
Germany against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was committed
with malice aforethought.

Among these documents there are files from various archives captured by
units of the advancing Red Army, statements by fascist leaders published
in the press, including those by several of the defendants, and
depositions by persons who were in possession of reliable information as
to how the preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union were actually
carried out.

The documents of the Soviet Prosecution are presented under the
following sections:

1. Preparations for war in Germany itself. 2. Assuring the security of
the preparations for war by the intelligence activities. 3. The securing
by the fascist conspirators of the participation of the satellite
countries in the aggression against the Soviet Union.

I shall begin with Section 1, which I shall call, “Preparations for War
in Germany Herself.”

The statements of Hitler and his accomplices demonstrate that the idea
of a criminal attack on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had for
a long time been ripe in the minds of the fascist conspirators. But
apart from this fact, we are also interested in the question as to when
this intention began to take on the concrete form of direct military
preparations for the predatory war against the Soviet Union.

On 18 December 1940 the directive known to the Tribunal as directive
Number 21, Plan Barbarossa—the document of the United States
Prosecution numbered 446-PS—was put into its official form. The moment
when the signature of the Supreme Command appears on such a document is
the moment which crowns long and intensive work by all who formed the
links in the chain of military administration.

This work may not have been governed by written orders. The secrecy
camouflaging this work often made it necessary to have recourse to
verbal orders. And, on the other hand, many orders of a routine nature,
on the strength of an already existing strategic project, became
correlated, although outwardly they seemed to have no connection with
it.

It therefore appears that, with regard to establishing the actual moment
at which military plans for the attack on the Soviet Union began. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: General Zorya, the Tribunal observes that you are about
to read a deposition of General Warlimont, who, the Tribunal
understands, is in Nuremberg, and the Tribunal considers that, in
accordance with the order that it made the other day in another case, in
the case of another deposition, that if the defendants’ counsel desired,
and you wish to use this deposition, you ought to be prepared to allow
General Warlimont to be submitted to the defendants’ counsel for
cross-examination.

GEN. ZORYA: I am about to read into the record an extract from the
interrogation of General Warlimont. This interrogation was carried out
by General Alexandrov of the Soviet Prosecution, and if the Defense
desires to call General Warlimont for cross-examination here before the
Tribunal, the Soviet Prosecution will do its utmost to satisfy this
request.

THE PRESIDENT: That is, of course, on the supposition that I am right to
saying that General Warlimont is in Nuremberg—available in Nuremberg.
Go on.

GEN. ZORYA: I am definitely of the opinion that it would be useful, when
establishing the actual moment of the beginning of military operations
for the attack on the Soviet Union, to resort not to documents only—for
not everything is always put down in writing—but to revert to the
testimony of people who participated directly in the realization of
these preparations.

I should now like to pass on to those depositions of Walter Warlimont
which you, Mr. President, have just mentioned. These depositions were
given by Warlimont on 13 November 1945. I am presenting them as evidence
under Document Number USSR-263.

Walter Warlimont, as is known, was the Chief of the Department of
National Defense in the OKW, and later Deputy Chief of the Operational
Staff.

I shall read into the Record that part of his deposition which touches
on the question before us. I ask you to turn to Page 2 of the Russian
text of this document, which is on Page 20 in the bundle of documents
presented by the Russian Prosecution on the question, and the answers to
questions put to Warlimont:

    “Personally, I first heard of this plan”—that is Plan
    Barbarossa—“on 29 July 1940. On that day General Jodl arrived
    in a special train at Bad Reichenhall, where Department ‘L’ of
    the Operational Staff was stationed. Hitler was in
    Berchtesgaden. This struck us immediately, because General Jodl
    had, till then, hardly ever, I believe, come to see us. Besides
    myself, the three other senior officers were ordered to be
    present.”

I now skip several lines and pass on to Page 3 of the minutes of
Warlimont’s interrogation; this will be Page 21 in the bundle of
documents:

    “I cannot repeat his statements verbatim. The meaning was as
    follows: Jodl said that the Führer had decided to prepare for
    war against Russia. The Führer justified this by saying that war
    had to come one way or another, so that it would be better to
    prosecute this war in connection with the one already being
    fought, and, in any case, to start the necessary preparations
    for it.”

I skip several lines which are not relevant to the question we are
dealing with and continue:

    “Then or at a later date Jodl declared that Hitler intended to
    begin the war against the Soviet Union as early as the autumn of
    1940, but later he gave up this idea. The reason was that the
    deployment of the troops at that time could not yet be executed.
    For this purpose the necessary conditions in Poland did not
    exist; railways, quarters, and bridges were not prepared for the
    advance of the tanks; communication lines and airdromes were not
    organized. . . . Therefore an order was given to establish all
    the conditions for the preparation and execution of such a
    campaign.”

To the question put by the Prosecution as to whether this order was
issued on 9 August 1941 and called “Aufbau Ost,” Warlimont replied:

    “Yes, this order was prepared by the staff leaders in accordance
    with the instructions of General Jodl. . . .

    “In General Jodl’s opinion, the concentration could take place
    only after all the preparations indicated in this order had been
    made.”

Further on in his statement, Warlimont said that Plan Barbarossa,
originally called “Fritz,” was presented to Hitler on 5 December 1940,
after which it was re-edited and issued on 18 December.

I think that the testimony of a man like Friedrich Paulus, a former
field marshal of the German Army, who, as is known, was directly
concerned both in the preparations and in the execution of Plan
Barbarossa, can give considerable help in investigating the preparation
of this plan.

I present the testimony of Friedrich Paulus, dated 9 January 1946, given
in a camp for prisoners of war, and marked Document Number USSR-156, and
request that it be accepted as evidence.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I just wanted to remark that I do not possess
a copy of the document concerning Paulus. But it seems to be the same
statement which it has not yet been possible to give to the defendants’
counsel. If the Soviet Prosecution could give me the statement now, I
would then decide if I could present my protest for decision now in the
form in which I raised it at the beginning of this session.

[_Copies of the document were submitted to Dr. Nelte._]

According to the original before me now, this is a similar statement by
Field Marshal Paulus. Paulus has expressed his opinion in a letter to
the Government of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Delegation has, I
assume, now presented the original to you. This photostat bears no
official certification by the Soviet authorities, nor is the statement
an affidavit which could be admitted as evidence.

Therefore, I ask the Tribunal in this particular case to give a general
decision on the question which I raised at the beginning of this session
as well, so that in the future the Soviet Prosecution will be familiar
with the treatment of such statements by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to make any answer to what Dr. Nelte has
said?

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, I do.

In accordance with the wish of the Tribunal, as expressed in a previous
session, the Soviet Prosecution has taken the necessary measures for
originals of all the documents of the Soviet Prosecution, or else
documents certifying the authenticity of these documents to be placed at
the disposal of the Tribunal through the good offices of the General
Secretary, with indications of the places where they are to be found.

Moreover, bearing in mind that certain witnesses, whose evidence will be
presented in a forthcoming session by the Soviet Prosecution, are of
considerable interest and that it is possible that the Defense may wish
to cross-examine them, the Soviet Prosecution will take all necessary
measures to bring some of these witnesses to Nuremberg in order to hear
their verbal evidence. Special interest attaches to the deposition of
Paulus, extracts from which I propose to quote in my report, and which
must be checked no later than this evening, after which Friedrich Paulus
will be brought to the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Then I understood from what you said, General, that as
far as the photostatic copy of Field Marshal Paulus’ statement is
concerned, a certificate will be furnished—as we indicated the Tribunal
wishes—that the photostatic copy is a true copy of the original, and so
far as the question of producing witnesses of importance is concerned,
Field Marshal Paulus will be produced as a witness for the defendants’
counsel to cross-examine.

That meets your objection, I think, Dr. Nelte.

DR. NELTE: The basic principle of this question, as it appears to me,
lies in the fact that official proof should be given that the statements
contained in the documents submitted really represent what the persons
who made them meant to say. Written statements are never more than a
dubious substitute for a personal examination of a witness.

The Defense is fully aware of the difficulties encountered, particularly
by the Soviet Prosecution, in producing witnesses where, for instance,
reports are to be found. The Defense realizes the fact, but in those
cases in which the individuality of the witness and the importance of
certain questions really do matter, the personal examination of
witnesses should be preferred to any statement. Wherever this is
impossible, for reasons which we are unable to judge, it would however,
at any rate, be desirable that those people who have made these
statements should make them in the form of an affidavit or an
interrogatory.

If the Soviet Delegation should produce a certificate to the effect that
these statements are corresponding to the original statements, it would
not mean that the documents would acquire an increased value in our
eyes. We do not doubt for one moment that statements of this kind are in
the possession of the Soviet Delegation. The Defense is interested not
so much in the formal confirmation of the statements as in the
possibility of increasing the material evidence. If the Soviet
Prosecution could assist us in this respect, we should be grateful.

THE PRESIDENT: You can go on, General.

GEN. ZORYA: I repeat, I believe that the testimony of Friedrich Paulus
can be of great assistance to us in our investigation. I present the
testimony of Friedrich Paulus to which I have just referred and shall
now read into the Record that part of his testimony which refers to the
history of the preparation of Plan Barbarossa.

I request you to open the bundle of documents submitted to the Tribunal
on Page 27, and there, in the text of Paulus’ testimony, on Page 2, you
will find the passages underlined in pencil, which I now intend reading
into the Record. From 3 September. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, General, since it is now a quarter to one you
had better not begin this document before the adjournment.

GEN. ZORYA: I obey, Mr. President.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, in pursuance of the statement made by the
Soviet Delegation, I will ask for permission to bring before the
Tribunal for direct examination the field marshal of the former German
Army, Friedrich Paulus, who will be examined by the Chief Prosecutor of
the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well; the witness may be brought in.

[_The witness, Paulus, took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you please tell me your name?

FRIEDRICH PAULUS (Witness): Friedrich Paulus.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: “I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.”

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: Would you like to sit down?

GEN. RUDENKO: Your name is Friedrich Paulus?

PAULUS: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: You were born 1898?

PAULUS: 1890.

GEN. RUDENKO: You were born in the village of Breitenau, in the district
of Kassel, in Germany?

PAULUS: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: By nationality you are a German?

PAULUS: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: You are field marshal of the former German Army?

PAULUS: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: Your last official position was Commander-in-Chief of the
6th Army at Stalingrad?

PAULUS: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: Will you please tell us, Witness, did you on 8 January
1946, make a statement to the Government of the Soviet Socialist
Republics?

PAULUS: Yes, I did.

GEN. RUDENKO: You confirm this statement?

PAULUS: Yes, I confirm this statement.

GEN. RUDENKO: Please, tell us, Witness, what you know regarding the
preparation by the Hitlerite Government and the German High Command of
the armed attack on the Soviet Union.

PAULUS: From personal experience, I can state the following: On 3
September 1940 I took office with the High Command of the Army as Chief
Quartermaster I of the General Staff. As such I was deputy to the Chief
of the General Staff, and had in addition to carry out the instructions
of a general operational nature which he delegated to me.

When I took office I found in my sphere of work, among other things, a
still incomplete operational plan dealing with an attack on the Soviet
Union. This operational plan had been worked out by the then Major
General Marx, Chief of the General Staff of the 18th Army, who for this
purpose had been temporarily transferred to the High Command of the
Army.

The Chief of the General Staff of the Army, General Oberst Halder,
turned over to me the continuation of the work which was ordered by the
Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, on the following basis:

An investigation was to be made as to the possibilities of an attack
against the Soviet Union, with regard to the terrain, the points of the
attack, the manpower needed, and so forth. In addition it was stated
that altogether about 130 to 140 German divisions would be available for
this operation. It was furthermore to be taken into consideration that
from the beginning Romanian territory was to be utilized for the
deployment of the German southern army. On the northern flank the
participation of Finland in the war was taken into account, but was
ignored in this operational plan of the army.

Then, in addition, as a basis for the plan which was to be worked out,
the aims—the instructions of the OKW—were given: First, the
destruction of those parts of the Russian Army stationed in the west of
Russia, to prevent the units which were fit for fighting from escaping
deep into Russia; second, the reaching of a line from which the Russian
air force would be unable to attack German territory effectively, and
the final aim was the reaching of the Volga-Archangel line.

The operational plan which I just outlined was completed at the
beginning of November and was followed by two military exercises with
the command of which the General Staff of the Army entrusted me. Senior
officers of the General Staff of the Army were also assigned. The basic
strength requirements assumed in these military exercises were: The
launching of one army group south of the Pripet territory, specifically
from southern Poland and from Romanian territory, with the aim of
reaching the Dnieper-Kiev line and south of it; north of the Pripet
territory another army group, the strongest, from the area around Warsaw
and northward, with the general direction of attack being the
Minsk-Smolensk line, the intention being to direct it against Moscow
later; then a further army group, namely Army Group North, from the area
of East Prussia, with the initial direction of attack being through the
Baltic States toward Leningrad.

The conclusion which was drawn from these military exercises was at that
time that in case of actual hostilities provision should be made firstly
for reaching the general line Dnieper-Smolensk-Leningrad, and then the
operation was to be carried forward if the situation developed
favorably, supply lines, _et cetera_ being adjusted accordingly. In
connection with these military exercises and for the evaluation of the
theoretical experience gained therefrom, there was a further conference
of the Chief of the General Staff of the Army and the chiefs of the
general staffs of the army groups which had been planned for the East.
And further, in connection with this conference, there was a speech
about Russia by the then chief of the section Foreign Armies East,
Colonel Kinsel, describing Russia’s geographic and economic conditions,
the Red Army, _et cetera_. The most significant point here was that no
preparations whatever for an attack by the Soviet had come to our
attention.

With these military exercises and conferences that I have just described
the theoretical considerations and plans for this offensive were
concluded. Immediately thereafter, that is on 18 December 1940, the
Supreme Command of the Armed Forces issued Directive Number 21. This was
the basis for all military and economic preparations which were to be
carried out. In the Supreme Command of the Army this directive resulted
in going ahead with the drafting and working out of directions for troop
deployments for this operation. These first directions for troop
deployment were authorized on 3 February 1941 by Hitler after a report
by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army at the Obersalzberg; thereupon
they were forwarded to the troops. Later on several supplements were
issued. For the beginning of the attack the Supreme Command of the Armed
Forces had calculated the time which would make it possible for large
troop movements to be made on Russian territory. That was expected from
about the middle of May on. Preparations were made in accordance with
this. Then at the end of March this date underwent a change, when Hitler
decided, due to the development of the situation in Yugoslavia, to
attack this country. Consequently, in the orders issued at the beginning
of April 1941 this tentative date for the start of the operation. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid you are a little too fast. I think you had
better begin again where you said that at the end of March Hitler made a
change in the plan.

PAULUS: [_Continuing_] Because of his decision to attack Yugoslavia, the
date foreseen for the beginning of the attack had to be postponed by
about five weeks, that is to the last half of June. And, indeed, this
attack then did take place on 22 June 1941.

In conclusion, I confirm the fact that the preparation for this attack
on the Soviet Union, which actually took place on 22 June 1941, dated
back to the autumn of 1940.

GEN. RUDENKO: In what way and under what circumstances. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Did the witness give the date? He said that
preparations for this attack had been made, and what I want to know is,
did he give the date from which it had been prepared?

[_To the witness_] Did you give the date from which the preparations
went forward?

PAULUS: I gave it at the beginning: From the time my personal
observations began, when I entered office, on 3 September 1940.

GEN. RUDENKO: In what way and under what circumstances was the
participation of the satellite states secured?

PAULUS: From personal observation, I can say the following regarding
this:

About September 1940, just at the time when I had received this
operational study for the attack on the Soviet Union there was planned
from the outset the use of Romanian territory for the deployment of the
German right or, that is to say, south wing, and that was taken into
consideration from the outset. A military mission headed by the then
Lieutenant General of Cavalry, Hansen, was sent to Romania. A whole
panzer division, the 13th, was transferred to Romania as a training
unit. To those who knew about the plans for the future it was obvious
that this step could only serve the purpose of preparing the future
partner in the war for the task intended for him.

Further, in regard to Hungary:

In December 1940 Colonel Lazslo, the chief of the operational group of
the Hungarian General Staff, came to the headquarters of the Army High
Command at Zossen. He asked for a conference regarding questions of
organization. The Hungarian Army at that time was concerned with the
question of regrouping its units, which were organized in brigades, into
divisions and also with the setting up of motorized troops and of panzer
units. The chief of the Organization Division of the General Staff of
the Army, then Major General Buhle, and myself advised Colonel Lazslo.
At the same time, several Hungarian military commissions were in Berlin,
and with them also the Hungarian Minister of War, General Von Bartha,
and they discussed armament deliveries to Hungary with German
authorities.

It was clear to all of us who were informed as to future plans that all
these measures, including the supplying of arms to other armies, were
only conceivable at that time if these weapons were to be employed in
future military projects.

Regarding Hungary there is a further point:

Due to the development of events in Yugoslavia, Hitler, at the end of
March 1941, decided to attack Yugoslavia. On 27 or 28 March I was called
to the Reich Chancellery in Berlin, where there had just been a
conference between Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl, in which the
Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of Staff of the Army had participated,
that is, had been ordered to be present.

When I arrived I was advised by the Chief of Staff of the Army, General
Halder, that Hitler had decided to attack Yugoslavia in the first place
to eliminate a threat to the flank of the intended operation against
Greece, and get hold of the rail line going from Belgrade southward
through Nish, and then also with an eye to the future—to Plan
Barbarossa—to keep the right flank free from the outset.

I was instructed to go to Vienna, taking with me a number of competent
General Staff officers of the Army, to deliver and explain pertinent
orders to German commanders, and then to travel on without fail to the
Hungarian General Staff in Budapest and to reach an understanding with
it on the deployment of German troops on Hungarian territory and the
participation of Hungarian troops in the attack on Yugoslavia.

On 30 March, early in the morning, I arrived in Budapest and had a
conference with the Chief of the Hungarian General Staff, General Werth,
of the infantry and then with the chief of the operational group of the
Hungarian General Staff, Colonel Lazslo. These conferences went along in
good order and ended very quickly, and the desired result was achieved.
This result was then put down on maps. The map that I received from the
Hungarian General Staff contained not only the deployment of the troops
intended for the attack against Yugoslavia, but also forces on the
Carpatho-Ukrainian border, which were to be placed there to protect our
rear against the Soviet Union.

The fact of the creation and existence of this force is a sign that even
on the side of Hungary there was the realization that an attack by
Germany against Yugoslavia would have to be considered as an aggressive
action by the Soviet Union.

As regards the principle of calling upon Hungary in the preparation and
later in the execution of the planned operations, I learned Hitler’s
view at that time. He was of the opinion that Hungary was anxious,
through German help, to recapture and expand the areas lost in 1918; and
in addition, that she was afraid of falling behind Romania which was
allied with Germany. Hitler saw Hungary from this point of view also
with regard to his policy. But he was, as I could observe in many
instances myself, very reserved toward Hungary, and for two reasons. For
one, he did not believe Hungary could guarantee secrecy with regard to
future war plans, due to her close connections with foreign countries
hostile to Germany, and secondly, he did not want to make Hungary too
many premature promises of territory. I can cite one example: The
question of the Dragowitsch oil territory. Later, when the attack began
against Soviet Russia, the 17th German Army which was fighting at that
point had the explicit order from the Supreme Command to take the
Dragowitsch oil fields at all costs before the arrival of the
Hungarians.

Regarding this future partner, according to my observation the procedure
of Hitler was such that he counted on her certain participation and
therefore delivered the armament to her and helped with the training,
but that he kept to himself the time when he would initiate the ally
into his plans.

Thirdly, the Finnish question. In December 1940 the first visit of the
Chief of the Finnish General Staff, Lieutenant General Heinrichs, was
made to the headquarters of the High Command of the Army in Zossen.
Lieutenant General Heinrichs had a conference with the Chief of the Army
General Staff, the contents of which I no longer remember; but he made a
speech about the Russo-Finnish war of 1939-1940 before the General Staff
officers of the High Command of the Army, and the General Staff officers
of the Army groups who happened to be present at the time in connection
with the discussion of the military exercises.

This speech before these General Staff officers had its great
significance at that time because of the fact that it was delivered at
the same time that Directive Number 21 of 18 December was issued. This
speech was significant, it dealt with experiences won in the war with
the Red Army and in addition gave an insight into the value of the
Finnish troops as possible future partners in the war.

I took part in a second conference with the Chief of the Finnish General
Staff at the headquarters of the High Command of the Army in Zossen, in
the second half of May 1941. The Chief of the Finnish General Staff
arrived from Salzburg where he had had conferences with the High Command
of the Army. The subject of the subsequent conferences in Zossen with
the General Staff of the High Command of the Army was the co-operation
of the Finnish forces in the south in Plan Barbarossa—in co-operation
with Army Group North—which was to proceed from the deployment area in
East Prussia towards Leningrad. At that time the agreement was reached
that the Finnish troops in the south were to synchronize their movements
with the advance of German Army Group North and likewise that the joint
advance later against Leningrad should be subject to consultations and
agreements depending on the development of events.

Those are the personal observations which I made regarding the first
appearance and the enlistment of allies in preparations for the
aggression.

GEN. RUDENKO: How, and under what circumstances, was the armed attack on
the U.S.S.R. carried out—the attack which was prepared by the Hitlerite
Government and the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces?

PAULUS: The attack on the Soviet Union took place as I have related,
according to a plan prepared carefully and well in advance. The troops
for this attack were at first assembled in the rear of the deployment
area. By special orders they were then moved by groups into jumping-off
positions, and then took up their position along the entire long front
from Romania to East Prussia for a simultaneous attack. The Finnish
theater of war was excluded from this operation.

Just as the large-scale operational plan, as I described it at the
beginning, was to a certain extent tried out theoretically, the detailed
employment of troops was discussed during military exercises by the
staffs of army groups, corps, and divisions and drawn up in orders down
to the details long before the beginning of the war.

A large-scale diversion, which was to be organized in Norway and along
the coast of France was designed to simulate an invasion of Britain in
June 1941 and thus divert Russia’s attention.

All measures were taken not only for operational but also for tactical
surprise, as for instance, the prohibition of open reconnaissance on and
across the boundary before the beginning of the war. That meant on the
one hand, that possible losses which might be caused due to the lack of
reconnaissance had to be taken into account for the sake of surprise,
but on the other hand it meant that a surprise attack across the
boundary by the enemy was not feared.

All of these measures show that it was a question of a criminal attack.

GEN. RUDENKO: How would you define the aims pursued by Germany in
attacking Soviet Russia?

PAULUS: The aim to reach the Volga-Archangel line, which was far beyond
German strength, is in itself characteristic of Hitler’s and the
National Socialist leadership’s boundless policy of conquest. From a
strategic point of view, the achievement of these aims would have meant
the destruction of the armed forces of the Soviet Union. With the
winning of the line I have mentioned the main areas of Soviet Russia
with the capital, Moscow, would have been conquered and subjugated,
together with the leading political and economic center of the Soviet
Union. Economically, the winning of this line would have meant the
possession of important agricultural areas, the most important natural
resources, including the oil wells of the Caucasus and the main centers
of production in Russia, and also the main network of communications in
European Russia.

How much Hitler was bent on taking economic objectives in this war can
best be shown from an example out of my personal experience.

On 1 June 1942, on the occasion of a conference of commanders-in-chief
in the region of Army Group South in Poltava, Hitler declared, “If I do
not get the oil of Maikop and Grosny, then I must end this war.”

For the utilization and the administration of the territories to be
conquered, economic and administrative organizations had already been
formed and were kept in readiness long before the beginning of the war.

To summarize I should like to state that the objectives given indicate
the conquest of the Russian territories for the purpose of colonization
with the utilization and spoliation of and with the resources of which
the war in the West was to be brought to a conclusion, with the aim of
finally establishing domination over Europe.

GEN. RUDENKO: And one last question: Whom do you consider as guilty of
the criminal initiation of the war against Soviet Russia?

PAULUS: May I please have the question repeated?

GEN. RUDENKO: I repeat the question. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is about to address an observation to
General Rudenko. The Tribunal thinks that a question such as you have
just put, as to who was guilty for the aggression upon Soviet territory,
is one of the main questions which the Tribunal has to decide, and
therefore is not a question upon which the witness ought to give his
opinion.

Is that what Counsel for the Defense wish to object to?

DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Mr. President, that is what I want to do.

GEN. RUDENKO: Then perhaps the Tribunal will permit me to put this
question rather differently.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: Who of the defendants was an active participant in the
initiation of a war of aggression against the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: Of the defendants, as far as I observed them, the top military
advisers to Hitler. They are the Chief of the Supreme Command of the
Armed Forces, Keitel; Chief of the Operations Branch, Jodl; and Göring,
in his capacity as Reich Marshal, as Commander-in-Chief of the Air
Forces and as Plenipotentiary for Armament Economy.

GEN. RUDENKO: In concluding the interrogation I shall make a summary.
Have I rightly concluded from your testimony, that long before 22 June
the Hitlerite Government and the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces
were planning an aggressive war against the Soviet Union for the purpose
of colonizing the territory of the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: That is beyond doubt according to all the developments as I
described them, and also in connection with all the directives issued in
the well-known Green File.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no more questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the French Prosecution wish to ask any
questions?

FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: The British?

BRITISH PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: The United States?

UNITED STATES PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Any member of the defendants’ counsel?

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, as Counsel for the General Staff, I ask
you to afford me the opportunity to examine the witness tomorrow
morning. The presentation of the witness by the Prosecution came as a
surprise to the defendants’ counsel, at any rate, and I think a
consultation about the questions to be asked, especially in view of the
importance of the testimony, is absolutely necessary. I therefore ask to
be permitted to conduct the cross-examination at the beginning of
tomorrow morning’s session.

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, if the Prosecution has no objection, the
Tribunal thinks that this application ought to be granted.

GEN. RUDENKO: If the Tribunal so wishes, the Prosecution will not
object.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. I don’t know whether any other member of
the defendants’ counsel would prefer to cross-examine now.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I assume that all defendants’ counsel may
conduct their cross-examination of the witness, General Paulus, tomorrow
morning?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. I was only asking whether any other
member of the defendants’ counsel would prefer to cross-examine now.

DR. NELTE: I personally would be able to put my questions after the
recess.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the witness can retire and the case will
go on. He will be recalled tomorrow morning and in the meantime you will
go on with your case.

[_The witness left the stand, and Major General Zorya approached the
lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: General, you won’t, I presume, think it necessary to read
any more of Field Marshal Paulus’ statement, will you?

GEN. ZORYA: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on, then.

GEN. ZORYA: Referring to the explanation concerning the beginning of the
criminal attack of Fascist Germany on the Soviet Union, I should like to
remind the Tribunal that in the morning session of the Tribunal on 30
November 1945, the witness, Lahousen, was interrogated and gave evidence
of sufficient interest in our case.

Among other things, this witness, when enumerating the more intimate
members of the inner circle of Admiral Canaris, Chief of the
Intelligence and Counterintelligence Services of the German Army,
mentioned Pieckenbrock by name.

I present to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-228, the testimony of
the former chief of Section I of the German Military Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Services, Lieutenant General of the former German
Army, Hans Pieckenbrock, former chief and colleague of Lahousen.
Pieckenbrock gave this testimony in the order prescribed by the laws of
the Soviet Union, in Moscow, on 12 December 1945.

For the moment I should like to read a few lines only into the record
from Pieckenbrock’s testimony, relating to the matter which we are now
investigating. These lines are on Page 1 of the Russian text of his
testimony and they are marked with a red pencil. This Page 1 corresponds
to Page 34 of the document book.

    “I must say”—said Pieckenbrock—“that already since August and
    September 1940 the Foreign Armies East of the General Staff of
    the Army began to increase considerably its intelligence
    assignments to the Abwehr concerning the U.S.S.R. These
    assignments were unquestionably connected with the preparation
    of war against Russia.

    “The more precise dates for Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union
    I learned in January 1941 from Canaris. I do not know what
    sources Canaris used, but he told me that the attack on the
    Soviet Union was fixed for 15 May.”

The Soviet Prosecution also has at its disposal the testimony of the
former chief of Department III of the German Military Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Services, Lieutenant General Franz von Bentivegni of
the former German Army, which was given by him on 28 December 1945. I
present those documents under Document Number USSR-230.

I shall at the same time also only read into the record those parts of
Bentivegni’s testimony underlined in red pencil, which have a direct
bearing on the beginning of military preparations against the Soviet
Union. These first two excerpts of the testimony are on Page 37 in the
document book which is submitted to the Military Tribunal:

    “I learned first of Germany’s preparation for a military attack
    on the Soviet Union in August 1940, from the head of the German
    Intelligence and Counterintelligence Service, Admiral Canaris.
    In an unofficial conversation which took place in Canaris’
    office he told me that Hitler had started to take measures for
    an Eastern campaign, which he had spoken about as early as 1938
    in his speech at a meeting of Gauleiter in Berlin.

    “Canaris said to me that these plans of Hitler’s had now begun
    to take concrete form. This was evident from the fact that
    divisions of the German Army were being forwarded in large
    numbers from the West to the eastern frontiers and, in
    accordance with a special order by Hitler, were taking up
    positions from which to start the coming invasion of Russia.”

These are the first two paragraphs of Bentivegni’s testimony.

And finally, in order to finish with the question of the actual time of
fascist Germany’s military preparations for the treacherous attack on
the Soviet Union, I should like to dwell for a moment on the testimony
of General Müller. This testimony, dated 8 January 1946, was written in
a camp for prisoners of war. I present it to the Tribunal as Document
Number USSR-149.

All the material to which I have so far referred emanated from circles
of the highest commanding officers of the German Army.

THE PRESIDENT: General, on this document of General Müller, does it
appear where that document was made and where General Müller is now?

GEN. ZORYA: The photostat bears a date written in General Müller’s hand.
This date is 8 January 1946.

THE PRESIDENT: Where?

GEN. ZORYA: If I might have a look at the photostatic copy which I have
just presented to the Tribunal, I would be able to tell you where the
date is written.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but there are many prisoners-of-war camps. We want
to know which one and where it is.

GEN. ZORYA: In a camp located near Moscow.

THE PRESIDENT: Has this document got any authenticating signature on it
at all? So far as we are concerned, isn’t it simply a photostatic copy
of a writing by somebody?

GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, this document, like all other documents which
have been submitted so far by the Soviet Delegation, is a noncertified
photostatic copy.

Taking into consideration the wish of the Tribunal and in execution of
this wish the Soviet Prosecution took measures to ensure that only the
originals of these documents or documents whose authenticity is
certified will be presented in complete order to the General Secretary.
This will be done in the course of several days and all the material
will be given in best order to the General Secretary.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us where the writer of the document is now?

GEN. ZORYA: I am hardly in a position to say more than I have already.
If the Tribunal will permit me, I can consult my colleagues, make
inquiries, and report to the Tribunal as soon as possible on the
general’s whereabouts.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will adjourn now. That will enable you to
consult your colleagues.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, to my regret I must present the same
objections to this document submitted by the prosecutor of the Soviet
Union under USSR-149, and must submit the same request which I made this
morning. As far as I know, the High Tribunal have not yet made a
decision in regard to this question.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Nelte. The Tribunal has already
made a decision.

I think it would be better if, when defendants’ counsel go to the place
from which they wish to speak, they would arrange these earphones before
they speak.

I say the Tribunal has already made a decision which governs this case.
They pointed out the other day to counsel for the Soviet Union that
documents which were not identified as authentic documents, must be
identified as authentic, and the Soviet prosecutor at that time
undertook to certify that all documents which he made use of were
certified as authentic documents. And if they are not so certified, they
will be struck out of the record. That ruling applies to this document.

This document is a document which appears to be a document, a letter, or
report to the Government of the Soviet Union, but it does not contain
upon its face any certification showing that it is an authentic
document. The Counsel for the Soviet Union said before we adjourned,
that he undertook—as he had already undertaken—to produce a
certificate that the document was an authentic document; that is to say,
that it was written by the person who purported to write it, and in
those circumstances, the Tribunal accepts the document provisionally.

If no such certificate is forthcoming, then the document will be
stricken from the record.

DR. NELTE: If I understand you correctly, the Tribunal will accept a
letter written to the Soviet Government or a statement as documentary
evidence for the contents of this statement.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I have already said provided that it is
certified as an authentic document. I have said that more than once.

DR. NELTE: In this way, every letter sent to the Prosecution or the
Government of the Soviet Union or to any other Prosecution would become
documentary evidence by the certification that it has actually been
written by the person who signed it, which would make it impossible for
the Defense to cross-examine the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: That depends on where the witness is. We are dealing with
witnesses who are scattered all over the globe, and as we are informed
that it is not the practice in the Soviet Union for affidavits to be
made in such cases, the Tribunal considers such a document to fall
within Article 19—provided it is an authentic document.

We are affording the defendants’ counsel the greatest assistance in
bringing witnesses to this Court, but we cannot undertake to bring
witnesses from all over the world upon questions which are very often of
very little importance.

DR. NELTE: I quite appreciate the difficulties, and I am grateful to the
Tribunal for their willingness to assist us. Therefore I only request to
ascertain in each case where the person, who has made that statement,
has his residence, so that the Defense may try to reach him.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If the witness is in, or in the immediate vicinity
of, Nuremberg, the Tribunal would think that it was only fair, if such a
document as this were to be put in evidence, that he should be produced
for examination or cross-examination by the defendants’ counsel, but we
do understand that the man who wrote this letter is not in the vicinity
of Nuremberg. We have no reason to think he is, and I am reminding
defendants’ counsel that they can always apply, if they think right, to
issue interrogatories which would be put to any such person as this who
has written such a document as this.

DR. NELTE: Thank you.

GEN. ZORYA: I have availed myself of the recess to make inquiries about
General Müller. General Müller is in a prisoner-of-war camp, Number 27,
in Krasnogorsk, in the Moscow region.

May I continue my statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

GEN. ZORYA: All the material, Your Honors, which I have mentioned to
date emanated from circles of the Supreme Command of the German Armed
Forces. If I can so express myself, General Müller belonged to the
middle category of German generals. He was Chief of Staff of an army; he
commanded an army group. His testimony reflects a series of events which
may be considered worthy of attention, since they explain the
circumstances accompanying Germany’s preparations against the Soviet
Union.

I wish to refer to Page 40 of the document book. There you will find the
first page of General Müller’s statement. The first paragraph, Page 1,
of the statement is marked with red pencil. I now proceed to quote from
it:

    “The preparation for the attack on the Soviet Union began as
    early as July 1940. At that time I was first general staff
    officer in the staff of Army Group C at Dijon in France. General
    Field Marshal Von Leeb was commander-in-chief. This army group
    consisted of the 1st, 2d, and 7th Armies, which were occupation
    armies in France. Besides this, Army Group A (Rundstedt), whose
    task was to prepare ‘Case Sea Lion’ (the invasion of England by
    Army Group B—Von Bock) was also in France. The staff of Army
    Group B was transferred to the East (Posen) during July and was
    given the following forces, transferred from France—part of the
    armies of occupation: The 12th Army Command (List), 4th Army
    Command (Von Kluge), and 18th Army Command (Von Küchler), plus
    several general commands and about thirty divisions. A greater
    part of this number was taken from Army Group C (Von Leeb).

    “Directly after the campaign in the West, the OKH gave the order
    for the demobilization of 20 divisions. This order was
    cancelled, and the 20 divisions were not demobilized. Instead of
    this, after their return to Germany they were sent on leave, and
    thus kept ready for rapid mobilization.

    “Both measures, the transfer of about five hundred thousand men
    to the Russian frontier and the cancellation of the order
    disbanding about three hundred thousand men, show that already
    in July 1940 plans existed for war operations in the East.

    “The next order which gives evidence of Germany’s preparations
    for attacking the Soviet Union, was the written OKH order issued
    in September 1940 regarding the formation in Leipzig of a new
    army command (A.O.K. 11) of several general commands and about
    forty divisions and panzer divisions. The forming of these units
    was carried out from September 1940 onwards by the commander of
    the reserve army (Generaloberst Fromm), partly in France, but
    mainly in Germany. Towards the end of September 1940 the OKH
    called me to Fontainebleau. The Chief Quartermaster I in the
    General Staff of the Army, then Lieutenant General (afterwards
    Field Marshal) Paulus, informed me, at first orally, of the
    order that my staff (Army Group C) was to be transferred to
    Dresden by 1 November and that Army High Command II
    (Generaloberst Weichs) which was under the command of the staff,
    should be transferred at the same time to Munich. The task was
    the leading of training of the above-mentioned 40 divisions
    which were to be newly created.

    “In accordance with this order, confirmed later by signature by
    the Chief of the General Staff Halder, the transfer of these
    units was carried out on time. These 40 divisions were put into
    action in the invasion of the Soviet Union.”

Thus initiated, the preparation for the military attack on the Soviet
Union was carried out at a heightened tempo and with customary German
pedantry.

I would, Your Honors, remind the Tribunal that the witness, Paulus,
stated at this session that in August 1940 the elaboration of the
previous plan of attack on the Soviet Union, known as Plan Barbarossa,
was already so far advanced as to render possible the conducting of two
military exercises under the direction of Paulus.

THE PRESIDENT: General, I don’t think it is necessary to read the
statement of Field Marshal Paulus, as he has already given the evidence
in the witness box.

GEN. ZORYA: I am not reading it into the record. I am merely referring
to a circumstance which will enable me to proceed to General Müller’s
statement that this system of military exercises, which originated in
the General Staff of the German Army, eventually spread over the entire
Army and that the entire armed forces participated in the execution of
these games which, _per se_, were already a preparation for the attack
on the Soviet Union. I am reading into the record that passage of the
statement which is underlined in blue pencil, Page 41 of the bundle of
documents:

    “Insofar”—General Müller states—“as in the future the Army was
    to attack the Soviet Union, the first plan was to train soldiers
    and general staff officers.

    “Towards the end of January 1941 I received telegraphic orders
    from the Chief of the General Staff Halder to attend the
    military exercises of Rundstedt’s army group at St. Germain,
    near Paris. The object of this military exercise was the attack
    and advance from Romania and South Poland in the direction of
    Kiev and southwards. The plan had in mind the intention also of
    the participation of Romanian troops. In the main this military
    exercise anticipated the conditions of the future order
    concerning the strategic deployment of forces, to which I will
    refer later.

    “The director of the military exercises was the Chief of the
    General Staff of the Rundstedt army group. There were present:
    Rundstedt, Halder, the Chiefs of the General Staff of the 6th
    Army, Colonel Heim, of the 11th Army, Colonel Wöhler, and of
    Kleist’s tank group, Colonel Zwickler and several generals of
    the panzer forces. The military exercises were held at the place
    occupied by Rundstedt’s army group, approximately between the
    31st January and 2d February 1941. The exercise demonstrated the
    necessity for a strong concentration of tank forces.”

The documents I have presented to date characterize the measures of the
military command of the German Armed Forces for the preparation of the
strategic deployment of the German armies for launching an attack
against the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.

As for time, these measures embraced a considerable period of 1940 and
were put into action at least 6 months prior to the appearance on the
scene of Directive Number 21 concerning the Plan Barbarossa.

I shall now proceed to the second group of documents presented by the
Soviet Prosecution which characterize the espionage measures undertaken
by the fascist conspirators in preparation for war against the Soviet
Union.

Trend and task of espionage work in connection with Plan Barbarossa
were, as we know, determined by a directive from the Supreme Command of
the German Armed Forces, addressed to counterintelligence on 6 September
1940 and signed by the Defendant Jodl.

This document was presented by the American Prosecution under Number
1229-PS; it is to be found on Pages 46 and 47 of our document bundle. I
do not intend to quote this document again, but I do consider it
essential to remind you that in it the intelligence organizations demand
that the regrouping of armies on Germany’s Eastern front should be
camouflaged in every possible way and that the Soviet Union should
remain under the impression that action of some kind was brewing against
the Balkans.

The activities of the intelligence organizations were strictly
regulated. These activities included measures for concealing, as far as
possible, the number of German forces in the East and of giving an
impression of insignificant concentrations in the north of the Eastern
provinces, at the same time conveying the impression of very
considerable concentrations of forces in the southern part, in the
Protectorate and in Austria.

The necessity was pointed out of creating an exaggerated impression of
the number of antiaircraft units and of the insignificant extent of
roadbuilding activities.

I here take the liberty of making two pertinent observations. According
to Pieckenbrock’s testimony, the intensification of the work of this
intelligence organization against the Soviet Union began prior to the
appearance of this directive in August 1940. And this work, of course,
was not limited to the spreading of false information on the regrouping
of forces from West to East.

I beg you, Your Honors, to revert to the testimony, which I have already
presented, of the former Chief of Department III of the Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Services of the German Armed Forces, Von Bentivegni.

On Pages 1, 2, and 3 of the Russian text of Bentivegni’s deposition, it
is said—I quote the passage underlined in blue pencil—beginning at the
last paragraph, Page 1 of the document which corresponds to Page 37 of
the document book:

    “In connection with this, as early as November 1940 I received
    from Canaris orders to intensify the work for
    counterintelligence in the localities where concentration of the
    German armies on the Soviet German frontier was taking place.”

On Page 2 of the statement, Page 38 of the document book, Paragraph 1,
Bentivegni continues:

    “In accordance with this order, I immediately gave a
    corresponding order to the German Abwehr agencies, Danzig,
    Königsberg, Posen, Kraków, Breslau, and Vienna.”

And finally, on Page 3 of the statement, which corresponds to Page 39 of
the document book, I read:

    “In March 1941 I received from Canaris the following directives
    for the preparations for the execution of the Plan Barbarossa.

    “a) Preparation of all links of Abwehr III for carrying out
    active counterintelligence work against the Soviet Union, as for
    instance the creation of the necessary counterintelligence
    groups, their distribution among various fighting units intended
    for taking part in the operations on the Eastern front, and
    paralyzing the activity of the Soviet intelligence and
    counterintelligence organs.

    “b) Spreading false information via their foreign intelligence
    agencies, partly by creating the semblance of an improvement in
    relations with the Soviet Union and of preparations for a blow
    against Great Britain.

    “c) Counterintelligence measures to keep secret the preparations
    being made for war with the Soviet Union and to ensure that the
    transfer of troops to the East be kept secret.”

The same question is touched upon in the minutes of the interrogation of
the Chief of the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Department I of
the German Army, Pieckenbrock, which I have already presented in
evidence. This statement contains the following passage regarding the
activities of the intelligence service of the German Army in connection
with the preparations for the realization of Plan Barbarossa. I would
refer you to Page 35 of the document book and to Paragraph 2 from the
top. This corresponds to Page 2 of Pieckenbrock’s testimony.
Pieckenbrock states:

    “In March 1941 I was present at a conversation between Canaris
    and the chief of the espionage detachment (Abwehr II), Colonel
    Lahousen, about measures connected with Plan Barbarossa. During
    this conversation they kept referring to a written order on this
    subject, which Lahousen had. I, personally, as head of Abwehr I,
    beginning in February 1941 and up to 22 June 1941, more than
    once had official talks with the Chief Quartermaster IV,
    Lieutenant General Tippelskirch, and with the head of the
    detachment Foreign Armies East, Colonel Kienzl. These
    conversations dealt with the more precise definition of various
    tasks assigned to Abwehr, with regard to the Soviet Union, and
    in particular with the verification of old intelligence data
    about the Red Army, and also details about the dislocation of
    the Soviet armies during the period of preparation of the attack
    on the Soviet Union.”

I now skip one paragraph of Pieckenbrock’s statement and read further:

    “All Abwehrstellen which were working with the espionage against
    Russia were given the task of intensifying the dispatch of
    agents to the U.S.S.R. A similar task—the intensification of
    espionage work against Russia—was given to all intelligence
    organs existing in the armies and army groups. For the more
    successful direction of all these field Abwehr organs, a special
    intelligence staff was created in May 1941 under the code name
    of Wally I. This staff was in the vicinity of Warsaw in the
    village Sulajewek. Major Baun, as the best specialist on work
    against Russia, was appointed chief of the staff of Wally I.
    Later, when following our example, Abwehr II and Abwehr III had
    also established staffs Wally II and Wally III, this organ
    became known as a whole staff Wally, and directed the entire
    intelligence, counterintelligence, and diversionary work against
    the U.S.S.R. as a staff had to become active in the front line.
    At the head of staff ‘Wally’ was Lieutenant Colonel
    Schmalschläger.”

I now pass on to the last paragraph of Pieckenbrock’s statement on Page
36 of the document book:

    “From numerous reports given by Colonel Lahousen and Canaris, at
    which I was also present, I know that a great amount of
    preparatory work for the war with the Soviet Union was carried
    out by this department. In the period of February to May 1941
    many conferences of the leaders of Abwehr II took place at the
    quarters of Jodl’s deputy, General Warlimont. They were held in
    a cavalry school in Krampnitz. One particular question settled
    at these conferences in accordance with the needs of the war
    with Russia, was that of increasing the special task units,
    Brandenburg 800, and of distributing contingents of these units
    among the individual army groups.”

In Pieckenbrock’s testimony which has just been read into the record,
special attention is drawn to his references to the special tasks with
which Lahousen’s department had been entrusted, and to special task
units known under the code name of Brandenburg 800.

Here these points are clarified by the testimony of a former colonel of
the German Army, Erwin Stolze, who was Lahousen’s deputy in Department
II, Ausland Abwehr, attached to the Supreme Command of the German Armed
Forces. Stolze was taken prisoner by the Red Army. I wish to submit to
the Tribunal as evidence Stolze’s testimony of 25 December 1945, which
was given to Lieutenant Colonel Burashnikov, of the Counterintelligence
Service of the Red Army and which I submit to the Tribunal as Document
Number USSR-231 (Exhibit Number USSR-231), which I beg you to accept as
evidence. I shall read into the record individual extracts from this
testimony which are underlined in red pencil. I begin the quotation from
Page 48 of the document book. Stolze testified as follows:

    “I received instructions from Lahousen to organize and to lead a
    special group under code name ‘A,’ which had to engage in the
    preparation of diversionary acts and in the work of
    disintegration of the Soviet rear in connection with the
    intended attack on the U.S.S.R.

    “At the same time, in order that I should become acquainted with
    it and for my guidance, Lahousen gave me an order which came
    from the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces and which
    contained basic directives for the conduct of subversive
    activities in the territory of the U.S.S.R. after Germany’s
    attack on the Soviet Union. This order was signed by Field
    Marshal Keitel and initialed by General Jodl (or by General
    Warlimont on Keitel’s instructions—I do not quite remember
    which.)”

I am omitting two lines which are irrelevant to our case and read on:

    “It was pointed out in the order that for the purpose of
    delivering a lightning blow against the Soviet Union, Abwehr II,
    in conducting subversive work against Russia, with the help of a
    net of V men, must use its agents for kindling national
    antagonism among the people of the Soviet Union.”

I now request you to turn over the page and on Page 49 in the document
book on Page 2 of the minutes of the interrogation, and to note the
following passages in his testimony:

    “In carrying out the above-mentioned instructions of Keitel and
    Jodl, I contacted Ukrainian National Socialists who were in the
    German Intelligence Service and other members of the nationalist
    fascist groups, whom I roped in to carry out the tasks as set
    out above.

    “In particular, instructions were given by me personally to the
    leaders of the Ukrainian Nationalists, Melnik (code name ‘Consul
    I’) and Bandara, to organize immediately upon Germany’s attack
    on the Soviet Union, and to provoke demonstrations in the
    Ukraine in order to disrupt the immediate rear of the Soviet
    armies, and also to convince international public opinion of
    alleged disintegration of the Soviet rear.

    “We also prepared special diversionist groups by Abwehr II for
    subversive activities in the Baltic republics of the Soviet
    Union.”

I must again request you to turn over the page. On Page 50 in the
document book, beginning with the third line from the top you will find
Stolze’s testimony:

    “Apart from this, a special military unit was trained for
    subversive activities on Soviet territory, a special duty
    training regiment for special tasks, Brandenburg 800, under the
    immediate command of the head of Abwehr II, Lahousen. Among the
    objects of this special unit, created in 1940, was the seizure
    of operationally important points, such as bridges, tunnels, and
    important military installations, and holding them till the
    arrival of the advance units of the German Army.

    “Contrary to the international rules governing the conduct of
    war, the personnel of this regiment, mainly composed of Germans
    from beyond the border, made extensive use of enemy uniforms and
    equipment in order to camouflage their operations.

    “During the course of preparations for Germany’s attack on the
    U.S.S.R., the command of the Brandenburg Regiment also collected
    supplies of Red Army uniforms, equipment, and arms, and
    organized separate detachments of Germans acquainted with the
    Russian language.”

Your Honors, the testimonies of Stolze, Bentivegni, and Pieckenbrock,
which I have presented in evidence, disclose the working methods of the
German Intelligence Service in the preparation and execution of Plan
Barbarossa.

I shall not detain the Tribunal any further with these questions. But
before proceeding to a further presentation, I should like to point out
that the department of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner was likewise
interested in intelligence work. I shall limit myself to submitting one
document which is typical of the manner in which the Hitlerites, by
exploiting their connections, created difficulties in Iran, through
which country, as was known, the supply routes passed for the delivery
to the U.S.S.R. of motor vehicles and war material of the most varied
nature.

The document, which I intend to submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-178 (Document Number USSR-178) was taken by us from the German
Foreign Office archives, which fell into the hands of advance units of
the Red Army. This document is the Defendant Kaltenbrunner’s letter to
the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The letter is typed on a sheet of note
paper with the letterhead of the Chief of the Security Police and SD. In
the document book before you, you will find this document on Page 52. I
read into the record the underlined extracts from this letter:

    “28 June 1943; top secret.

    “To the Foreign Minister Herr Von Ribbentrop; Berlin; Object:
    Elections to the Iranian Parliament.

    “Most honorable Herr Reich Minister: We have made direct contact
    with Iran and have received information on the possibilities of
    exercising German influence on the course of the imminent
    Iranian parliamentary elections.”

And a few lines further on it is stated:

    “In order to exercise a decisive influence on the results of the
    elections, bribery is necessary. For Teheran 400,000 tomans, and
    for the rest of Iran at least 600,000 tomans are
    necessary. . . . It should also be noted that nationally
    oriented Iranian circles expect the intervention of Germany.

    “I beg you to inform me whether it is possible to obtain one
    million tomans from the Foreign Office. This money can be sent
    by the people whom we are sending there by airplane.

    “Heil Hitler. Yours devotedly, Kaltenbrunner, SS
    Obergruppenführer.”

This document will help you to form an idea of the range of questions
which interested the Reich Foreign Minister. Such a peculiar activity of
the Foreign Office was not in the nature of a chance episode.

In the course of time, the collaboration of the German Foreign Office
and of the Reich Führer SS waxed in strength and developed more and
more. As a result, a very curious document appeared, which might be
considered as an agreement between Himmler and Ribbentrop on the
organization of espionage work.

I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-120 (Document USSR-120),
and request the Tribunal to accept it as documentary evidence. This
document is on Page 53 and 55 of the document book before you. The text
of this agreement will be read into the record with a few remarks. The
text of the agreement reads:

    “By the order dated 12 February 1944, the Führer has entrusted
    the Reich Führer SS with the creation of a unified German Secret
    Intelligence Service. The Secret Intelligence Service has as its
    purpose, so far as foreign countries are concerned, to get
    information in the political, military, economic, and technical
    spheres for the Reich. In addition, the Führer has established
    that the direction of the Intelligence Service, insofar as
    foreign countries are concerned, must be conducted in agreement
    with the Foreign Minister. In this connection, the following
    agreement between the Reich Foreign Minister and the Reich
    Führer SS had been reached:

    “1. The Secret Intelligence Service of the Reich Führer SS
    represents an important instrument for obtaining information in
    the sphere of foreign politics, and this instrument is placed at
    the disposal of the Foreign Minister. The first condition for
    this is close, comradely, and loyal co-operation between the
    Foreign Office and the main office of the Reich Security
    Service. The collection of information on foreign politics by
    the diplomatic service is not affected by this.

    “2. The Foreign Office places at the disposal of the main office
    of the Reich Security Service the information on the situation
    in the field of foreign politics necessary for the conduct of
    the Intelligence Service and the directive regarding German
    foreign policy. It hands over to the main office of the Reich
    Security Service its intelligence and other tasks in the sphere
    of foreign policy, which are to be performed by the organs of
    the Secret Intelligence Service.

    “3. Intelligence material in the field of foreign politics,
    obtained by the Secret Intelligence Service, is placed. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t it be a sufficient summary of this document with
which you are dealing to say that it is a document signed by Himmler and
Ribbentrop and that it shows that there was a unification of the German
Secret Intelligence Service? The details of that unification are not
really a matter which very much concerns this Tribunal, and therefore,
as we are directed by the Charter to be as expeditious as possible, it
is not necessary to read all the details of this unification.

GEN. ZORYA: I summarize this document and would add that this agreement,
signed by Himmler and Ribbentrop, created such a state of affairs that
it became extremely difficult to differentiate prevailing conditions in
fascist Germany or to distinguish where Himmler’s Gestapo service ended
and the Foreign Office activities of the Defendant Ribbentrop began.

I shall now, with the permission of the Tribunal, proceed to the
presentation of the next document. The document which I have just
read—I am referring to the Himmler-Ribbentrop agreement concerning the
conduct of intelligence work abroad—also justifies the assumption that
under the name of German diplomatic representation in such countries
which maintained normal diplomatic relations with Germany, a whole
intelligence network of the Gestapo was actively functioning.

If this summary, in the opinion of the Tribunal, corresponds to the
contents of the document, I shall proceed to the following section of
the report, “The Satellites of Germany.”

When Plan Barbarossa was read into the record in Court, there was one
part of the entire case which, in my opinion, received comparatively
little attention. I refer to Part II of Plan Barbarossa, Document Number
446-PS. This part bears the name of “Presumed Allies and Their Tasks.” I
should like, here and now, to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the
questions touched on in this part. In the first place, I consider it
essential to remind you of the contents of this part by repeating it.
Document Number 446-PS, Plan Barbarossa, is on Page 14 of the bundle of
documents submitted to the Tribunal. I consider it essential to read out
Part II of this case:

    “1. On the flanks of our operation, we can count upon the active
    participation of Romania and Finland in the war against Soviet
    Russia.

    “The Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces will, at the
    appropriate time, settle and lay down in what way the armed
    forces of the two countries will be subordinated to the German
    command on their entry into the war.

    “2. Romania’s task will be to tie up, in co-operation with the
    group of the armed forces advancing there, the enemy forces
    facing her, and, for the rest, to maintain the auxiliary
    services in the rear area.

    “3. Finland will have to cover the advance of the German
    northern landing group (units of Group XXI) due to arrive from
    Norway, and then operate together with it. In addition, it will
    be up to Finland to eliminate Hangö.

    “4. It is possible to count upon the Swedish railways and coal
    being available for the movements of the German northern group
    not later than the beginning of the operation.”

In the speech of the Chief Prosecutor from the U.S.S.R., General
Rudenko, attention was drawn to the opening sentence of this section:

    “On the flanks of our operation, we can count upon the active
    participation of Romania and Finland in the war against Soviet
    Russia.”

This justified the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. in pointing out in
his speech that on 18 December 1940, the date of the Barbarossa
document, Romania and Finland were already following in the wake of the
predatory policy of the Hitlerite conspirators.

There is only one more document which was submitted by the United States
Prosecution and which mentioned Germany’s presumed allies in her
aggression against the U.S.S.R.

This document, numbered C-39, is entitled “Provisional Case Barbarossa.”
It is, as the Defendant Keitel pointed out in his covering letter, a
timetable for the preparations of Plan Barbarossa after June 1941. This
timetable was confirmed by Hitler. The text of this plan is on Page 57
of the document book. In Part II of this document, entitled
“Negotiations with Friendly Powers,” we read:

    “a) A request has been sent to Bulgaria not to reduce to any
    large extent the units stationed for security reasons on the
    Turkish frontier.

    “b) The Romanians have begun, at the instigation of the
    Commander-in-Chief of the German troops in Romania, a partial,
    camouflaged mobilization in order to be able to close their
    frontiers against a presumed attack by the Russians.

    “c) Hungarian territory will be used for the deployment of Army
    Group South only insofar as it would be expedient for
    introducing German units to link up the Hungarian and Romanian
    forces. Until the middle of June, however, no representations on
    this subject will be made to Hungary.

    “d) Two German divisions have been deployed in the eastern part
    of Slovakia; the next ones will be unloaded in the area of
    Prosov.

    “e) Preliminary negotiations with the Finnish general staff take
    place as from 25 May.”

Mr. President, in order to correlate the following documents with the
testimony given by Paulus, I shall merely refer to the fact that this
witness testified to the previous preparations for military aggression
in that fortress which was Romania, thereby proving that corresponding
measures for the reorganization of the Romanian Army, founded in the
image and pattern of the German Army, were taken in September 1940 when
a special military mission was sent to Romania. The chief of this
mission was Cavalry General Hansen. His Chief of Staff was Major General
Hauffe, his chief quartermaster Major Merk. Major General Von Rotkirch
commanded the 13th Panzer Division.

The task of this military mission was the reorganization of the Romanian
Army and its preparation for the subsequent attack on the Soviet Union
in the spirit of Plan Barbarossa. The preliminary trend of this task, as
Paulus has testified, was given to Hansen and his Chief of Staff by
Paulus and they got the last directives from the Commander-in-Chief,
Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.

General Hansen received directives from two sources: from the OKW where
his military mission was concerned, and from the OKH in all questions
dealing with the Army. Directives of a military and political nature
were received only from the OKW.

The military mission acted as liaison between the German and the
Romanian general staffs.

The form assumed by the agreement and, even more, the publication of the
true aims of high-ranking fascist leaders in the country, did not always
suit the satellites.

I now present, as Exhibit Number USSR-233 (Document Number USSR-233),
the minutes of a conversation between Ion Antonescu and the Defendant
Ribbentrop which took place on 12 February 1942. This document was taken
from the personal archives of Marshal Antonescu which were captured by
the advance units of the Red Army. This document, Your Honors, figures
on Pages 59-62 of your document book.

In connection with Ribbentrop’s speech in Budapest on the subject of
Transylvania, Antonescu makes the following annotation in the course of
this speech—last paragraph, Page 2 of the Russian text of the document,
Page 60 of the document book:

    “Without hesitation, I stressed the point that as early as 6
    September, when I took over the government of the country,
    supported only by Monsieur Mihai Antonescu, I declared, without
    asking the opinion of my people, that we must follow a policy of
    adherence to the Axis powers. I said that this was the only
    example in the history of nations when two persons dare to make
    an open declaration and to call upon their people to follow a
    policy which no doubt could only appear odious. . . .”

When making this cynical entry, Ion Antonescu could hardly have expected
it to receive such wide publicity.

Mr. President, I intend to read into the record a long document which
will take considerable time.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 12 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                           FIFTY-SEVENTH DAY
                        Tuesday, 12 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, you were going to recall the witness who
was being called yesterday, Field Marshal Paulus, were you not, so that
the defendants’ counsel may have the opportunity of questioning him?
Will you do that now?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, according to the wish of the Tribunal the witness is
in the Palace of Justice.

[_The witness, Paulus, took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Field Marshal Paulus, I want to remind you that you
should pause after the question that has been asked you before you
answer it, in order that the translation shall get through. Do you
follow what I mean?

PAULUS: I have understood.

DR. NELTE: Witness, I should like to ask several questions. On 3
September 1940, you came as Chief Quartermaster I to the High Command of
the Army; is that correct?

PAULUS: That is correct.

DR. NELTE: Who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Army at that time?

PAULUS: It will be very well known to you that at that time the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army was Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.

DR. NELTE: I believe that the phraseology that you have used is not
correct because I did not put this question for any other reason than
just to explain the situation to the people who are assembled here. It
is known to us but may not be known to the Tribunal. Who was at that
time the Chief of Staff of the Army?

PAULUS: It was Generaloberst Halder.

DR. NELTE: Were you, as Chief Quartermaster I, the permanent
representative of the Chief of Staff?

PAULUS: I was the deputy of the Chief of Staff for those cases which he
told me to supervise, and as for the rest I had to execute the tasks
with which he charged me.

DR. NELTE: In this case were you especially charged with the adaptation
of the plan which we later learned to know as Plan Barbarossa?

PAULUS: Yes, to the extent of which I told you yesterday.

DR. NELTE: Field Marshal Brauchitsch, your former Commander-in-Chief and
superior, in an affidavit presented by the Prosecution has made a
statement about the treatment of military plans. With the permission of
the Tribunal, I should like to ask you to tell me whether this statement
by Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch is also your opinion. I quote:

    “When Hitler decided to use military pressure or force to
    achieve his political aims, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army,
    if he was involved, first received orally a sort of orientation
    or a corresponding order.”

Is that your opinion also?

PAULUS: I have no knowledge of that.

DR. NELTE: Generaloberst Halder, your immediate superior, in an
affidavit which also has been submitted by the Prosecution, has said the
following about the handling of such military operational things:

    “Special military affairs were the responsibility of those parts
    of the Wehrmacht, that is, Army, Navy, and Air Force, which were
    immediately under the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, that is
    to say, under the command of Hitler, who was at the same time
    the Chief of the Reich.”

Is that your opinion likewise?

PAULUS: I ask you please to repeat this once more because I could not
understand exactly what you meant.

DR. NELTE: It is about the question: Who were the military persons
responsible to Hitler in the forming of important plans? In respect to
that, Von Brauchitsch said what you have just heard, and Halder said the
following:

    “Special military affairs were the responsibility of those parts
    of the Wehrmacht, that is, Army, Navy, and Air Force, which were
    immediately under the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, that is
    to say, under the command of Hitler, who was at the same time
    the Chief of the Reich.”

Is that so?

PAULUS: We received the orders about military measures from the High
Command of the Wehrmacht. Such was the Directive Number 21. I thought
that those people held responsibility who were the first military
advisers of Hitler in the High Command of the Wehrmacht.

DR. NELTE: If you have seen Directive Number 21, then you must also know
who signed it. Who was that?

PAULUS: As far as I can remember, that was signed by Hitler; and Keitel
and Jodl initialed it.

DR. NELTE: But, at any rate, signed by Hitler, like all directives—is
that correct?

PAULUS: At any rate, most of the directives, unless they were signed by
other people in his name.

DR. NELTE: In other words, I may conclude that the man who gave the
orders was the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, that is to say,
Hitler?

PAULUS: That is correct.

DR. NELTE: From the statements of Von Brauchitsch and Halder we can see,
in my opinion, that the General Staff of the Army with its large
machinery was to work out ideas which Hitler conceived, work them out in
detail. Do you not believe that?

PAULUS: That is correct. It had to relegate the orders which were given
it by the Supreme Command to the proper departments.

DR. NELTE: It is clear that these orders were given to the High Command,
that is, the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht. There was in all
planning, as I can see from your statement also, in the execution of
such aggressive plans a close collaboration between Hitler as Supreme
Commander of the Wehrmacht and the General Staff of the Army. Is that
correct?

PAULUS: This co-operation exists between the Supreme Command and all
persons who are charged to carry out the orders of the Supreme
Commander.

DR. NELTE: From your explanation I believe I can conclude that the
incomplete plan which you found on 3 September 1940—that you have
developed that, and that then, after you had achieved a certain measure
of completeness, you presented it to the Supreme Commander, Hitler,
personally, or through General Halder?

PAULUS: The detailed completion of the plan was presented by the Chief
of the General Staff or by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army; then it
was either accepted or rejected.

DR. NELTE: That is, it had to be accepted by Hitler or refused?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: Did I understand you correctly yesterday to say that you had
already in the fall of 1940 understood that Hitler wanted to attack the
Soviet Union?

PAULUS: I said yesterday that the preparation of that plan of operations
was the theoretical preparation for an attack.

DR. NELTE: But already at that time you thought that that was Hitler’s
intention, didn’t you?

PAULUS: From the way in which this task was started one could see that,
after the theoretical preparation, a practical application would follow.

DR. NELTE: Furthermore, you said yesterday that no news of the Abwehr
had been received which would prove that there were any intentions of
the Soviet Union to attack.

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: Did anybody in the circle of the General Staff of the Army
ever speak about these matters?

PAULUS: Yes, these matters were discussed. They had serious misgivings
about them, but no reports about any visible preparations for war on the
side of the Soviet Union were ever made known to me.

DR. NELTE: So you were firmly convinced that it was a straight attack on
the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: At any rate, the indications did not exclude that.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness must speak more slowly.

DR. NELTE: The witness has said, if I understood correctly, that there
were signs which did not exclude these inferences.

PAULUS: The order for the execution of this theoretical study of the
conditions for attack was considered not only by myself but also by
other informed experts as the first step for the preparation for an
attack, that is to say, an aggressive attack on the Soviet Union.

DR. NELTE: In realizing these facts, did you or the General Staff of the
Army or the Commander-in-Chief of the Army make any protests to Hitler
about it?

PAULUS: Personally, I do not know in what form or whether the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army made any protests.

DR. NELTE: Did you, yourself, speak about having any doubts to
Generaloberst Halder or to Commander-in-Chief Von Brauchitsch?

PAULUS: If I judge correctly, then I believe that I am supposed to be
here as a witness for the events with which the defendants are charged.
I ask the Tribunal, therefore, to relieve me of the responsibility of
answering these questions which are directed against myself.

DR. NELTE: Field Marshal Paulus, you do not seem to know that you also
belong to the circle of the defendants, because you belonged to the
organization of the High Command which is indicted here as criminal.

PAULUS: And, therefore, since I believe that I am here as witness for
the events which have led to the indictment of these defendants here, I
have asked to be relieved of answering this question which concerns
myself.

DR. NELTE: I ask the Tribunal to decide.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that you must answer the questions
that have been put up to date.

PAULUS: Then may I ask for a repetition of the question, please?

DR. NELTE: I have asked you whether, since you realized that there were
serious doubts, you talked to your chief, Halder, or to
Commander-in-Chief Von Brauchitsch, about these things?

PAULUS: I cannot remember having talked to the Commander-in-Chief of the
Army about it, but I did so with the Chief of the General Staff,
Generaloberst Halder, who was my superior.

DR. NELTE: Was he of the same opinion?

PAULUS: Yes, he was of the same opinion, that is to say, of the opinion
of great anxiety for such a plan.

DR. NELTE: For military or moral reasons?

PAULUS: For many reasons, both military and moral.

DR. NELTE: It is certain, then, that you and the Chief of Staff, Von
Halder, realized these facts which would have stamped the war against
Russia as a criminal attack and that you nevertheless did nothing
against it? In your statement you have said that later you became
Commander-in-Chief of the 6th Army; is that right?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: With knowledge of all these facts just stated you accepted
the command of an army which was to push against Stalingrad. Did you
have any scruples about being made a tool of that attack which in your
opinion was a criminal one?

PAULUS: As the situation at that time presented itself for the soldier,
in connection also with the extraordinary propaganda which was put into
play, I had at that time, as so many others believed, to do my duty
toward my fatherland.

DR. NELTE: But you knew about the facts which were against that opinion?

PAULUS: The facts which became clear to me afterwards, due to my
experiences as Commander of the 6th Army which found their climax at
Stalingrad, those facts I did not know at that time. Also, about that
criminal attack—that knowledge came later, when I thought about all the
circumstances, because before I could only see part of the whole.

DR. NELTE: Then I have to consider your expression “criminal attack” or
any other expressions for the war mongers—I have to consider that as
something that you found out later?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: And I may say then that in spite of your having serious
doubts and knowledge about the facts which marked the war against Russia
as a criminal action of aggression, that in spite of your knowledge, you
considered it your duty to take the command of the 6th Army and to hold
Stalingrad until the last moment?

PAULUS: I have just explained that at that time, when I took over the
command, I did not see the extent of the crime which was considered in
the beginning and execution of this war of aggression; that I did not
see the entire extent of it and could not see it, as my experiences as
Commander of the 6th Army which I was able to gather at Stalingrad have
shown to me later.

DR. NELTE: You speak of the extent, but the fact is that you knew the
causes. Maybe you were one of the few who knew them. You have not
mentioned that.

PAULUS: I did not know then. I knew the instigation of this war to be
aggression, from the attitude of the greater part of the officers’
corps. In keeping with the prevailing concept I saw nothing unusual in
the basing of the fate of a people and a nation upon power politics.

DR. NELTE: So you agreed to these ideologies?

PAULUS: Not to the tendency which appeared later, but I did not conclude
therefrom that the fate of a country could be built upon power politics.
It was a mistake that at this time, and in the 20th Century, only the
democracies and the concept of the nationality principle were the
decisive factors.

DR. NELTE: Would you grant to others also, who were not so near to the
sources, the good faith that they only wanted what was best for their
fatherland?

PAULUS: Yes, I do, of course.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Von Schirach and Funk):
Witness, yesterday you mentioned that you consider the Hitler Government
as the guilty ones. Is that correct?

PAULUS: Yes, I have done so. . . .

DR. SAUTER: In your written deposition which you made on 9 January
1946—in a prisoner-of-war camp it is said—there is nothing about that;
at least, I have not found anything about it so far.

PAULUS: This letter has nothing to do with that. This is a letter to the
Soviet Government, in which I explained several questions which came up
within the 6th Army in Russia, and several of my own experiences.

DR. SAUTER: In this letter of 9 January 1946, you said explicitly—and I
quote:

    “Today, when the crimes of Hitler and his helpers are being
    judged, I find myself obliged to tell the Soviet Government
    everything which I have known and which may serve as proof of
    the guilt of the war criminals in the Nuremberg Trials.”

In spite of that, in this written declaration, which is very detailed,
there is nothing about it.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, if you cross-examine the witness on this
letter, you must put the letter in evidence, the whole letter.

DR. SAUTER: That is the statement which the witness has given, on
the. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I have no doubt it is; all I say is, if you cross-examine
him on the letter and put the letter to him, you must put the letter in
evidence. You have a copy of the letter?

DR. SAUTER: Yes. It is in the statement which the Soviet Prosecutor
yesterday put up to the witness and in regard to which the witness made
the statement that he considers it correct and will repeat it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I follow it. I was not sure whether it was actually
put in or not or whether it was withdrawn upon the promise to produce
the witness. Is the letter actually in?

DR. SAUTER: But the witness has said, after the Prosecutor asked him,
that he will repeat that statement.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Willey, has the letter been put in?

MR. HAROLD B. WILLEY (American Secretary): It has not been put in, no.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you can go on cross-examining about it, but
the document has got to be put in, that is all.

DR. SAUTER: [_Turning to the witness._] Now I would like to know,
Witness, what you mean by “Hitler Government”? Do you mean the leaders
of the Party or do you mean the Reich Cabinet, or what exactly do you
mean?

PAULUS: I mean everyone who is responsible.

DR. SAUTER: I would like you to answer the question more precisely.

PAULUS: In my statement yesterday I have only explained what I have seen
myself, what I have experienced myself. I did not intend to make any
statements about individual personalities in the Government because that
would not be within my knowledge.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, but you spoke about the Hitler Government, did you not?

PAULUS: I just meant the concept of the Hitlerite leadership of the
State.

DR. SAUTER: Of the Hitlerite leadership of State? That means, first, the
Reich Cabinet, does it not?

PAULUS: Yes, inasmuch as it is responsible for the directives given by
the Government.

DR. SAUTER: For this reason I would like to know the following:

The Defendant Funk, who is sitting over there, was also a member of the
Reich Cabinet and the Defendant Von Schirach is also counted as a member
of the Reich Cabinet by the Prosecution. Do you know anything as to
whether the Defendant Funk and the Defendant Von Schirach, like you, for
instance, knew anything about these plans of Hitler?

PAULUS: I do not know.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know whether, during the war, since you were at the
OKW, there were any meetings of the Cabinet at all?

PAULUS: I do not know that either.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know that Hitler, in the interests of secrecy of his
war plans, even ordered that at conferences between himself and his
military advisers the members of the Reich Cabinet, as for instance
Funk, could not be admitted?

PAULUS: I do not know about that.

DR. SAUTER: Did it not come to your knowledge, perhaps through Herr Jodl
or through Herr Keitel, that Hitler even forbade that civilian members
of the Reich Cabinet should be present at such military conferences?

PAULUS: I do not know anything about that at all.

DR. SAUTER: Another question. After Stalingrad was encircled and the
situation had become hopeless, there were several telegrams of devotion
sent to Hitler from inside the fortress. Do you know anything about
that?

PAULUS: If you speak of telegrams of devotion, I only know about the
end, when efforts were made to find a meaning for the catastrophe that
had happened there, to find a meaning for all the suffering and dying of
so many soldiers. Therefore these things had been depicted as heroism in
the telegram, to be forever remembered. I am sorry, but at that time,
due to the prevailing situation, I let that pass and did not stop it.

DR. SAUTER: These telegrams were yours, were they not?

PAULUS: I do not know to which telegrams you are referring, with the
exception of the last one.

DR. SAUTER: Several telegrams of devotion, in which there was a promise
to hold out to the last man; those telegrams about which the German
people were horrified. They are said to have your signature.

PAULUS: I request to have them presented to me, because there is nothing
known to me about them.

DR. SAUTER: Do you have any idea what was in the last telegram?

PAULUS: In the last telegram there was a short description of what the
army had done, of the achievement of the army, and it was pointed out
that it did not intend to capitulate, and that that should be an example
for the future.

DR. SAUTER: The answer was, I think, your promotion to General Field
Marshal?

PAULUS: I do not know that this was the answer.

DR. SAUTER: But you were promoted to General Field Marshal, and you
still have that title because the statement which I have submitted to
the Court is signed “Paulus, General Field Marshal.”

PAULUS: Well, I have to say. . . . Do you mean this statement?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, this statement.

PAULUS: Yes, I had to take that title which was conferred upon me.

DR. SAUTER: In this statement which I have submitted to the Court as
proof, there is the last sentence:

    “I bear the responsibility for the fact that I did not give due
    attention to the execution of the order of 14 January 1943 about
    the surrender of the prisoners”—namely, all Russian
    prisoners. . . .

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: “. . . to the Russians, and, furthermore, that I. . . .”

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: “. . . did not devote myself sufficiently to taking care of
the prisoners.”—That is to say, the Russian prisoners.

I would like to hear your statement about the following: In that
detailed letter why did you forget the several hundred thousands of
German soldiers who were under your command and who lost under your
command their freedom, their health, and their lives? There is no word
about that.

PAULUS: No.

DR. SAUTER: No?

PAULUS: That is not the question in this letter. This letter to the
Soviet Government was concerned with what happened to the Russian
civilian population in the area of Stalingrad and the Russian prisoners
of war. At this time I could not say anything about my soldiers, of
course not.

DR. SAUTER: Not one word?

PAULUS: No, I could not speak here, because that had to be done at a
different time. Of course, it is so that all the operational orders
which led to the terrible conditions of Stalingrad, in spite of my
objections. . . . About 20 January, as I said, I had made a report that
conditions had reached such a measure of misery and of suffering through
cold, hunger, and epidemics as to be unbearable, and that to continue
the fighting would be beyond human possibility. The answer given to me
by the Supreme Command was:

    “Capitulation is impossible. The 6th Army will do its historic
    duty by fighting to the utmost, in order to make the
    reconstruction of the Eastern front possible.”

DR. SAUTER: And that is why you continued your efforts in the crime you
have described until the very end?

PAULUS: That is correct.

DR. SAUTER: Because, according to your own statements, everything from
the very beginning was a crime, which clearly and for a long time had
come to your mind?

PAULUS: I did not say that it was clear to me as a crime from the very
beginning, but that later I had this impression, as a result of
retrospective considerations. My knowledge comes actually from my
experience at Stalingrad.

DR. SAUTER: Then I would like to know, in closing: Was it not clear to
you from the very beginning, when you were charged with the development
of plans for the attack on Russia, as a specialist for such task—was it
not clear to you from the very beginning that this attack on Russia
could be made only under violations of international treaties, to which
Germany was bound?

PAULUS: Yes, under violation of international law, but not under those
conditions which developed later.

DR. SAUTER: No, I asked whether it was clear to you that this plan could
only be executed by violation of international treaties?

PAULUS: It was clear to me that an attack of that kind could only be
made under violation of the treaty which had existed with Russia since
the fall of ’39.

DR. SAUTER: I have no more questions. Thank you.

[_Dr. Exner approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, I have already told the witness, and
defendants’ counsel have been told over and over again, that it is of
the utmost importance that they should ask their questions slowly, that
they ask one question at a time, and that they should pause between the
question and the answer and between the answer and the next question.
Will you try to observe that rule, please?

PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Witness, in
September of 1940 at the OKW you were charged with the execution of an
operational study against Russia, that is, to continue work on a plan
which existed already. Do you know about how strong the German forces in
the East were at that time?

PAULUS: I can only clarify, in the OKH I have. . . .

DR. EXNER: Yes, we have the OKH in mind.

PAULUS: I do not know any longer how strong the forces in the East were
at that time. It was at a time shortly after the end of the campaign
against France.

DR. EXNER: You do not know about how many divisions were in the East at
that time for the protection of the German border?

PAULUS: No, I cannot remember that.

DR. EXNER: In February of 1941 our transports to the East began. Can you
say how strong at that time the Russian forces were, along the
German-Russian demarcation line and the Romanian-Russian border?

PAULUS: No, I cannot say that. The information which reached us about
the Soviet Union and their forces was so extraordinarily scarce and
incomplete that for a long time we had no clear picture at all.

DR. EXNER: But did not Halder at that time talk to the Führer frequently
about the strength and deployment of the Russian forces?

PAULUS: That is possible, but I cannot remember it, because I had
nothing to do with these questions after that time—with the theoretical
development of our ideas. In December the operations department of the
Army took the work over.

DR. EXNER: At this time you had theoretical war exercises?

PAULUS: That was in the beginning of December.

DR. EXNER: Then you probably used, as a basis of these exercises,
information you had about the actual strength of the enemy?

PAULUS: That was just what we assumed about the strength of the enemy.

DR. EXNER: Well, you have collaborated intensively with that operational
plan. You have tried it out by theoretical war exercises. Tell me, what
was the difference between your work and Jodl’s at that time?

PAULUS: I do not think I am able to judge that.

DR. EXNER: I do not understand. That was General Staff work, was it not?

PAULUS: Yes, it was General Staff work, with which I was charged by the
Chief of Staff.

DR. EXNER: Yes, and the activity of Jodl as Chief of the Wehrmacht
Führungsstab. . . .

PAULUS: The difference is that he had a view of the entire situation
from the point where he was, whereas I could only see a small section,
only that which I needed for my work, and that is all the information I
received.

DR. EXNER: But the activity in both cases was one of General Staff
preparation for the war?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. EXNER: I would also be interested to know something about
Stalingrad. In your written statement, or written declaration, you have
said that Keitel and Jodl were guilty with regard to the prohibition of
capitulation, which had such tragic consequences. How do you know that?

PAULUS: I just wanted to say it was the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht
who was responsible for that order. It had the responsibility, and it
makes no difference whether it was one person or another. At any rate,
the responsibility was with the office as such.

DR. EXNER: At any rate, you do not know anything about the personal
participation of any one of these two gentlemen? You only thought
of. . . .

PAULUS: The OKW, which is represented by these persons.

DR. EXNER: Why, when the situation at Stalingrad was so hopeless and
terrible—as you have indicated today—did you not, in spite of the
order by the Führer to the contrary, try to break out?

PAULUS: Because at that time it was represented to me that by holding
out with the army which I led, the fate of the German people would be
decided.

DR. EXNER: Do you know that you enjoyed the confidence of Hitler in a
special measure?

PAULUS: I do not know about that.

DR. EXNER: Do you know that he had already decided that you would become
the successor to Jodl if the Stalingrad operation would be successful,
because he did not like to work with Jodl any more?

PAULUS: I do not know about that in this form, but there was a rumor
that late in the summer or early in the fall of 1942 a change was
planned in the leadership. That was a rumor which the Chief of Staff of
the Luftwaffe told me at that time, but I did not get any official
information about that. There was other information, that I should be
relieved of the command of that army and should be used to lead a new
army group which was to be formed.

DR. EXNER: Do you remember the telegram which you sent to the Führer
when you were promoted to the rank of Field Marshal at Stalingrad?

PAULUS: I did not send a telegram then. After my promotion I did not
send a telegram.

DR. EXNER: Have you not thanked the Führer in any way?

PAULUS: No.

DR. EXNER: That is quite contrary to statements which other people have
made. Witness, you are said to be or to have been a teacher at the
Military Academy at Moscow. Is that correct?

PAULUS: That is not right, either.

DR. EXNER: Did you have another position in Moscow?

PAULUS: I was never in Russia before the war.

DR. EXNER: But now, since you became a prisoner of war?

PAULUS: I have been in a prisoner-of-war camp, like my other comrades.

DR. EXNER: Were you a member of the German Freedom Committee?

PAULUS: I was a member of a movement of German men, soldiers of all
ranks and men of all classes, who had made it their aim to warn the
German people at the last moment from the abyss, and to arouse them to
overthrow this Hitler regime which had brought all this misery to many
nations and especially to our German people. I have done that with the
proclamation of 8 August 1944.

DR. EXNER: Did you do anything about that before?

PAULUS: No, I did not.

DR. EXNER: Thank you.

DR. LATERNSER: I have only a few more questions to ask the witness.

[_Turning to the witness_] Witness, did you not know when you took over
your office as Chief Quartermaster I that these preparations which Major
General Marx already had begun, and which you then continued, were
intended only for an eventual case?

PAULUS: One could think so, of course, but very soon in the course of
the work things appeared which made it seem very probable that these
theoretical preparations were to be put to practical use. In connection
with the formulation of this plan of operations for an attack in which,
from the very beginning, we were thinking in terms of using the Romanian
area—during that very time we saw the dispatching of the first military
mission with training groups and an entire Panzer division, just into
that area for which the first theoretical preparations for an attack
were being made. Thus, gradually, the impression became intensified that
this was a plan which eventually would be executed.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, the reason for my question is this: I believe
the date which you mentioned, since which the plan was to have already
been in existence, the fall of 1940, is a little early, isn’t it?

PAULUS: The documents which I was given for that plan of offense I
explained in detail yesterday. They were submitted on 3 September, for
upon the basis of these documents everything was developed, and
everything was actually executed like that later.

DR. LATERNSER: I mean this: That first this plan was considered or
conceived for an eventual case, and then at a later date, after a
decision had been taken, it was used.

PAULUS: In retrospect, they fit together in perfect sequence, first the
theoretical preparation, and then the practical preparation and
execution.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you know Directive Number 18 of 12 November 1940,
issued by the former Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht?

PAULUS: I cannot remember it.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I refer now to a document which has
already been submitted by the United States Prosecution, Number 444-PS.
[_Handing the document to the witness_] I submit it to you, Witness.
Page 8 is the one to which I am referring.

PAULUS: I cannot remember that I have ever seen this.

DR. LATERNSER: To inform the Court I am going to quote the passage—it
is very short—which I have just shown to the witness. It is Page 8 of
the Document 444-PS, this paragraph I quote: “5. Russia: Political
conferences with the aim of clarifying the attitude of Russia for the
near future have been started.”

Witness, after you have seen that passage you will have to admit that I
am right in saying that the time at which the decision was taken to
attack the Soviet Union must have been later than the time you told us
yesterday.

PAULUS: I can only say from my personal experience and my own opinion as
I look back now, following the entire development, that there was a
clear plan from the beginning, the conception of that plan on 3
September 1940, then the directive of 21 December, and then its
execution. Just at which precisely measurable date the decision was
taken, I do not know, of course.

DR. LATERNSER: Did you know that in 1939 the Soviet Union marched into
Poland with very strong forces which bore no relationship—according to
opinions of German military experts—with the military problem to be
solved at that time?

PAULUS: I only know of the fact that Soviet forces marched into Poland,
but I have never heard anything about the size of the forces, nor have I
ever heard anyone marvel at the strength of the forces that had taken
part in the invasion.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you know that before the German deployment on the
Eastern border many strong Soviet forces had been deployed along that
border, especially very strong Panzer forces in the area of Bialystok?

PAULUS: No, in that form I have never known of this.

DR. LATERNSER: Were not the first divisions from West to East
transferred only after very strong Soviet forces already were standing
along the Eastern border?

PAULUS: About the relationship of troop movements from West to East—the
practical execution of the plan—I do not know anything, because I had
nothing to do with the practical execution. First of all, in the months
of April and May, because of other duties, I was present in the High
Command of the Army for only a very short time.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you said yesterday that at the end of March 1940
there was a conference at the Reich Chancellery, and there Generaloberst
Halder gave you several points as a reason for the intended attack on
Yugoslavia. You mentioned first the elimination of danger to the flank;
second, the taking possession of the rail line to Nish, and you stressed
the fact that in case of an attack against Russia the right flank would
be free to move.

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: Were the reasons for this attack not different ones? Were
not there reasons which were more important than those you mentioned?

PAULUS: I do not know of any others.

DR. LATERNSER: As to this attack upon Yugoslavia, was not that also to
be done to relieve the Italians?

PAULUS: Yes, of course. That was the initial reason why an operation
against Greece was considered, and why that menace to the flank had to
be eliminated if we were to push forward into Greece from Bulgaria.

DR. LATERNSER: Was not there at that time some concern about
co-operation between Yugoslavia and Greece, which would have put England
into the position of being able to land on the Greek coast and thereby
gain a way to reach the Romanian oil fields?

PAULUS: Yes, but it would also have been impossible to carry out the
Plan Barbarossa, which would have been menaced on its right flank and
unprotected.

DR. LATERNSER: I have received different information. In the decision to
attack Yugoslavia the Plan Barbarossa did not play the important role
which you said yesterday it did.

PAULUS: The Plan Barbarossa could not have been carried out if the area
of Greece and Serbia, after reinforcement by the British landing, would
have fallen into the hands of the enemy.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can adjourn.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: I am told that the interpreters, using the words
“question” and “answer” before the question and answer, assist the
shorthand writers and the press, and therefore the interpreters may
continue to say “question” and “answer” before the question and answer
is given. That only makes it more obvious that the real remedy for the
difficulties which arise is for the counsel and witnesses to pause after
the question has been asked and after the answer has been given, and it
seems to the Tribunal that counsel and witnesses ought to be able to
hear when the translation of the question has been given, and the
witness can then give his answer. And when the translation of the answer
has been given, which counsel can hear, he should then put a further
question. Is it clear what I mean?

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you were just speaking of the attack on
Yugoslavia. If I understood you correctly, you said that this attack had
to be carried out before the Plan Barbarossa could be undertaken, as
otherwise there would have been a serious threat to the flanks. Did I
understand you correctly?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: You said yesterday that the overthrow of the government
in Yugoslavia was the cause for Hitler’s attack on Yugoslavia. Do you
know whether any plans for such an attack existed even before the
revolution in Yugoslavia?

PAULUS: That is not known to me.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you happen to know that particularly the plan of
attack against Yugoslavia came at a very inconvenient time, and that it
caused a delay of the attack against the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: That is exactly what I said yesterday. It caused a postponement
of the attack on Russia, which had originally been planned for the
middle of May, the weather permitting.

DR. LATERNSER: But then there is a sort of contradiction here, if you
say that the attack against Yugoslavia took place at that time although
it was inconvenient, as the attack against Russia was to be made.

PAULUS: I do not see any contradiction in that. As I saw the situation
then, the Yugoslavian Government had made an agreement with us which
placed the railway line from Belgrade to Nish at our disposal, and that
after that agreement was concluded, a revolution took place in
Yugoslavia which created a different policy. Therefore, this plan of
attack was believed necessary to eliminate a danger. In other words, I
do not see that the decision to attack Yugoslavia and to delay
Barbarossa form a contradiction. I merely see that one is a prerequisite
for the execution of the other.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, were you present at a conference of the General
Staff on the Obersalzberg on 3 February 1941?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: Are you aware of the fact that at that time the strength
of the Soviet Russian deployment was estimated at 100 infantry
divisions, 25 cavalry divisions, and 30 mechanized divisions, and that
this was reported by Generaloberst Halder?

PAULUS: I cannot remember that. Nor am I sure whether Generaloberst
Halder was actually present during that conference.

DR. LATERNSER: But, witness, such a conference must have been an unusual
one?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: And I believe that that conference must at least have
given the impression that a very strong concentration of troops on the
Eastern Front was in question.

PAULUS: I myself have at least no recollection of any such impression.

DR. LATERNSER: At the beginning of that attack against the Soviet Union,
were you still Chief Quartermaster I?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: As far as I have in the meantime been informed, it is
part of the tasks of that service department to make positive
suggestions regarding military operations on land, is that correct?

PAULUS: That was once the case during a different division of tasks. At
the time when I was Chief Quartermaster I did not get that task as part
of my job. The operational department was not under my control but
immediately under the personal control of the Chief of the General
Staff. The General Staff Department, first of all, gave me the task of
running the training department and then the organization department,
and that was in autumn 1941. Therefore, it was not part of my sphere of
activities to make suggestions to the Chief of the General Staff
regarding operations which were in progress, or any other operations. I
merely had to carry out the special tasks which were given to me.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, can you give information on the subject of how
German prisoners of war were treated in the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: That question, about which such an incredible amount of
propaganda has been made, which led to the suicide of so many German
officers and enlisted personnel in the cauldron of Stalingrad, I have
obligated myself to consider in the interest of truth. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Cross-examination is questioning on questions
which are either relevant to the issues which the Tribunal has to try or
questions relevant to the credibility of the witness. Questions which
relate to the treatment of prisoners in the Soviet Union have got
nothing whatever to do with any of the issues which we have got to try,
and they are not relevant to the credibility of the witness. The
Tribunal, therefore, will not hear them.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I give a reason why I ask that
question? May I make a short statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: I should like to put that question for the reason that I
could ascertain how, actually, prisoners of war were treated, so that a
large number of German families, who are extremely worried on that
subject, could in that manner be given information on the subject, so
that their worries would cease.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of opinion that that is not a matter with
which the Tribunal is concerned.

DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions to ask the witness.

DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Witness, do you know
the Defendant Fritzsche?

PAULUS: Yes, I do.

DR. FRITZ: Are you aware of the fact that during the summer and autumn
of 1942 he was with your army?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. FRITZ: Witness, in the course of this Trial there was a discussion
about the command of the OKW which, as I hear, was also sharply
criticized by you, according to which all the captured commissars of the
Russian Army were to be shot. Are you aware of that order?

PAULUS: Yes. It came to my knowledge.

DR. FRITZ: Do you recollect that the Defendant Fritzsche, after he had
become aware of that order in the course of his duties in the East, made
a proposal to you and your I.C. officers, according to which that order
should be cancelled as far as your army zone was concerned?

PAULUS: I cannot recollect that incident. I think it is perfectly
possible that Herr Fritzsche did discuss that question with my staff,
but when I took over that army on 20 January 1942, that order was not
carried out in my zone. As far as I know, this order, which in practice
did not become operative, was in fact cancelled later on.

DR. FRITZ: Perhaps, so as to refresh your memory, I might ask another
question: Do you recollect, perhaps, that Fritzsche suggested to you or
your I.C. officers the scattering of pamphlets with a corresponding
content over the Russian front?

PAULUS: I personally cannot recollect that, but I consider it perfectly
possible that such a discussion with the I.C. officer who was
responsible for that sort of thing took place.

DR. FRITZ: Then one last question: As far as you know the character of
the Defendant Fritzsche, would you consider it entirely possible and
probable that he made this proposal?

PAULUS: Yes, indeed I do.

DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Leadership Corps of the Nazi
Party): Witness, in your position you supported Hitler right to the very
end, despite the fact that you knew that an aggressive war was being
waged. How much could the political leaders know of this?

PAULUS: I cannot answer that question, because it is out of my
knowledge.

DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand by political leaders?

PAULUS: May I ask another question in return? What does the defendant’s
counsel understand by political leaders, concerning whom he asks the
question?

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the organization of the Party does not seem to
be clear to you. There is an organization of political leaders which is
indicted in this Trial. They are to be declared criminal to this extent
that, from the Reichsleiter to the Blockleiter, they may be punished
because of their participation in the conspiracy to commit all the acts
which are being tried here. This organization of political leaders is
composed in such a way that 93 percent are local group leaders with
their staffs and all their subordinates.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you can ask this witness about this. He
does not know anything about it. He is not concerned with the charge
against the political leadership. I do not think that is proper
cross-examination at all.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I was going to ask him to what extent
these political leaders might have had knowledge, and then I was going
to ask a second question, whether he was aware that he, as a witness,
has contributed materially to the fact that these people, the political
leaders, supported Hitler because they believed in the facade which the
witness himself had assisted in setting up.

THE PRESIDENT: I have already answered you that he did not know to what
extent the political leaders had been informed.

DR. SERVATIUS: I am also appearing for the Defendant Sauckel, who was
responsible for the labor supply.

[_Turning to the witness_] Have you any knowledge as to whether German
prisoners of war were used in Russian armament industries?

PAULUS: I have no authentic or personal information on that subject. The
prisoners of war whom I myself have seen, in the camps where I have
been, worked for the immediate requirements of the camp or in the near
vicinity of the camp. They worked at agriculture or forestry, and I know
from the papers that some German units of workers, who had voluntarily
formed groups and were working in industry, were proud of the results of
their work. But I do not know in what branches of industry these people
worked.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to put to this witness.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): A statement made by
you yesterday has already been discussed once more today, namely, how
much knowledge did individual members of the German Government have
regarding important decisions? I gathered from your reply that you did
not consider the Reich Government, regarding its personalities, one
homogeneous body. In this Trial the difficulty repeatedly arises that
normal conditions are assumed. One is especially prone to the conception
that most important political and military decisions, as is otherwise
customary, are made within a government body of important persons or
within the military supreme command; in other words, that questions are
discussed and decided within a group to which belongs a larger number of
personalities. Witness, from the knowledge you have gained in your high
military rank, could one assume this to be true of Adolf Hitler’s
Government? Has Adolf Hitler, in his personality and methods, to speak
politely, as a man of an unusual type, chiefly employed a completely
different procedure here? Did he not always make his decisions
independently or, at most, in closest consultation with a very few
assistants, and can we not derive from that that leading personalities
in political and military fields had no knowledge of impending events?

PAULUS: I must say to that that my military service in the General Staff
of the Army did not give me an insight into the methods of the
leadership of the State and of the Reich Government. My concept of a
governing body of a nation is that of a united group who, regardless of
the methods the state intends to use, have such a sense of
responsibility toward the people for the deeds of the government, that
they will not allow just anything to be done by even the head of the
state—in this case Hitler with his usual brutal and autocratic
ways—but, even if not required to do so, would themselves intervene in
time with the necessary measures, at the very latest as soon as it was
clear to the whole world that this government was being led by an insane
criminal.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, you belong to the second circle of people which
you mentioned. It is an established fact that you have not intervened,
and, surely, you would have had important reasons for that. I believe
that it would be better if, as far as other personalities are concerned,
you would not pass judgment, but would answer my questions as far as
actual facts are concerned.

My question was whether, according to your knowledge gained not only in
your military position but also in your particular and leading
position—whether they were right or wrong is unnecessary for
establishing the fact—you knew what the methods in military and
political matters were and what they were not. According to your
knowledge, were resolutions made by a large body of military and
political personalities who met and passed these resolutions, or were
decisions generally made and resolutions passed in a very much smaller
circle of people, probably sometimes only by Hitler alone?

PAULUS: How decisions of the Reich Government were made is not known to
me. Therefore, in my previous answer, I have merely given you my general
conception of this question and I believe that I have answered it
therewith. I cannot imagine that one man alone could have done
everything that was done. In order to exert his influence in a small
circle he finally needed the co-operation of his immediate assistants.
In other words, it was quite impossible for him to achieve his aims
otherwise.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: As to the co-operation of his closest assistants, do you
believe that some trained minister, a minister of labor or some other
minister who was specially trained, was ever consulted by Hitler about
his plans for aggression?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the witness has already said that he does not
know how the decisions of the Reich Government were arrived at. What he
may think about it is really not relevant. He does not know.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, is it your impression that plans for aggression
were made by Hitler many years in advance, or are you of the opinion
that they were made to meet certain circumstances, on the basis of the
intuition which you say he always had?

PAULUS: That is entirely outside my knowledge. My observations began on
3 September 1940 and continued from that time until January 1942. What I
observed during that period is something I explained yesterday. About
the time prior to that I am not informed.

DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Witness, you
said just now that you were a member of a body which had the aim of
saving Germany from disaster. My question is: What possibilities to
carry out these intentions were at the disposal of yourself and the
other members of that group?

PAULUS: We had the possibility of making ourselves heard and understood
by the German people, and believed it our duty to make known to the
German people our view, not only of military events but also of the
events of 20 July, and to tell them of the convictions we had since
gained. In this regard the initiative came chiefly from the ranks of the
army I had led to Stalingrad. There we experienced how, through the
orders of those military and political leaders against whom we were now
taking a stand, more than 100,000 soldiers died of hunger, cold, and
snow. There we experienced in concentrated form the horrors and terrors
of a war of conquest.

DR. HORN: Did you have any other possibility apart from propaganda?

PAULUS: Apart from the possibility of making propaganda through radio
and those newspapers which we had created, apart from that propaganda to
the German people, we had no other facilities.

THE PRESIDENT: What has the Tribunal got to do with this?

DR. HORN: I merely wanted to ascertain what conclusions I could draw on
the credibility of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: I cannot see that it has any bearing on his credibility.

DR. HORN: It is perfectly possible that we have knowledge of other
possibilities which were available, which the witness has not mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that what the witness
thought or did when he was a prisoner of war in Russian hands has got
nothing to do with his credibility, at least as far as the questions
that you have asked are concerned, and they will not allow the questions
to be put.

DR. HORN: May I have permission to ask the witness one more question?

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

DR. HORN: Did you, during the time you were a prisoner, have an
opportunity to place your military experiences in any way at the
disposal of anybody else?

PAULUS: In no way, in no case.

THE PRESIDENT: Then I understand that that concludes the
cross-examination. Does the Soviet Prosecutor wish to ask any more
questions?

GEN. RUDENKO: No, Mr. President. We consider that the questions have
been comprehensively explained.

THE TRIBUNAL: (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States):
General, you said that when you became Quartermaster General of the Army
on 3 September 1940, you found an unfinished plan for an attack against
the Soviet Union. Do you know how long that plan had been in preparation
before you saw it?

PAULUS: I cannot say exactly how long the period of preparation lasted,
but I would estimate that it lasted 2 to 3 weeks.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know who had given the orders for the
preparation of the plan?

PAULUS: I assume that they originated from the same source, namely, the
OKW via the High Command of the Army. The Chief of the General Staff of
the Army had given to Major General Marx the same documents that he had
given me.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): At the conferences on the Plan Barbarossa how
many members of the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed
Forces were usually present?

PAULUS: The departments concerned, the Operational Department, the
Department for Foreign Armies, the General Quartermaster for Supplies,
and the Chief of Transportation. Those were generally the chief
departments which were involved.

THE TRIBUNAL: (Mr. Biddle): How many members of the General Staff and
High Command of the German Armed Forces were familiar with the orders
and directives as they were being signed?

PAULUS: In the course of time, that is, up to December, while the actual
marching orders were being prepared, more or less, all General Staff
officers had knowledge of the plan. Just how many had been informed
previously, in the individual periods, is something which I can no
longer say exactly.

THE TRIBUNAL (Major General I.T. Nikitchenko, Member for the U.S.S.R.):
What exactly did the General Staff of the German Army represent? Did it
deal exclusively with the elaboration of technical questions, was it the
apparatus elaborating technical problems according to instructions of
the Supreme Command, or, again, was the General Staff an organization
which prepared, elaborated, and submitted its findings to the Supreme
Command independently?

PAULUS: It was a technical executive body which had the task of carrying
out existing instructions.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Therefore the General Staff was merely
a technical apparatus?

PAULUS: That is how it was in practice. The General Staff, as such, was
an advisory organization to the Supreme Commander of the Army, and not
an executive body.

THE TRIBUNAL: (Gen. Nikitchenko): To what extent did the General Staff
conscientiously carry out the instructions received from the Supreme
Command?

PAULUS: They carried out these instructions absolutely.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did any conflict exist between the
General Staff and the Supreme Command?

PAULUS: It is a known fact that certain differences of opinion did
exist, although I am unable to explain that in detail. At any rate, I
know through my immediate superior that he had frequently had
differences of opinion with the Supreme Command of the German Armed
Forces.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Could such officers remain? Did they,
in fact, remain in the service of the General Staff if they disagreed
with the policy of the Supreme Command?

PAULUS: Political questions did not arise in that connection. Generally
speaking, political questions were not discussed in the circle of the
Army Supreme Command.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am not speaking of political
questions in the narrow sense of the word. I am speaking of the policy
of planning for war, of the policy of preparations and aggression. That
is what I had in mind. Was it intended, in case you know about it, to
transform that part of the Soviet Union, occupied by the German Forces?

PAULUS: I never did know what the itemized plans were. My knowledge is
restricted to a knowledge of such plans as were contained in the
so-called Green Folder for the exploitation of the country.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What do you mean by exploitation?

PAULUS: The economic exploitation of the country, so that by utilizing
its resources one could bring the war in the West to a close and also to
guarantee future supremacy in Europe.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did the nature of the exploitation
differ from the economic exploitation applied inside Germany?

PAULUS: In that respect I have no personal impressions, since I only led
that army in Russia for three-quarters of a year; and I was captured
early, in January 1943.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What did you know of the directives
issued by Government organizations in Germany and by the Supreme
Command, concerning the treatment of the Soviet population by the Army?

PAULUS: I remember that instructions did appear, but I cannot recollect
the date at the moment. In those instructions definite rules were given
for the manner of conducting the war in the East. I believe that this
principal decree was included in that so-called Green Folder, but there
may have been separate and special orders to the effect that no
particular consideration should be shown the population.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What do you mean by “not to show
particular consideration”—or perhaps the translation is not quite
correct?

PAULUS: That meant that only military necessities should be considered a
basis for all measures that were taken.

THE PRESIDENT: Were there any divisions under your command consisting
entirely of SS troops?

PAULUS: During the time I led the Army I had no SS troops at all under
my command, as I remember. Even in the cauldron at Stalingrad, where I
had 20 German infantry, armored, and motorized divisions, and two
Romanian divisions, there were no SS units.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the SA did not form units, did they?
The SA?

PAULUS: I have never heard of SA units, but the existence of SS units is
a known fact.

THE PRESIDENT: And did you have any branches of the Gestapo attached to
your army?

PAULUS: No, I did not have those either.

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, I did ask you whether you had any
questions to ask, and you said no, I take it.

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

[_The witness left the stand, and Gen. Zorya approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: Please, go on, General.

GEN. ZORYA: Yesterday, I stopped at the questions connected with the
relations between the fascist conspirators and the Romanian aggressors.
It seems to me that now is the most opportune moment to read into the
Record the testimony of Ion Antonescu, which the Soviet Prosecution has
at its disposal.

The interrogation of Ion Antonescu was conducted in conformance with the
laws of the Soviet Union and I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-153 (Document Number USSR-153) the record of his deposition, which
is of exceptional importance in making clear the characteristics of the
relationship between Germany and her satellites. I consider it necessary
to read the greater part of these depositions, beginning with the second
paragraph on Page 1 of the record. It corresponds to Pages 63 and 64 of
the document book. I quote:

    “Throughout the entire period during which I held office in
    Romania”—testifies Ion Antonescu—“I followed the policy of
    strengthening the alliance with Germany and resorted to her help
    for retraining and rearming the Romanian army. For this purpose
    I had several meetings with Hitler. The first meeting with
    Hitler took place in November 1940, soon after I became the head
    of the Romanian State. This meeting took place on my initiative,
    in Berlin, at Hitler’s official residence, in the presence of
    the German Foreign Minister, Ribbentrop, and Hitler’s personal
    interpreter, Schmidt. The conversation with Hitler lasted over 4
    hours.

    “I assured Hitler that Romania remained true to the previously
    concluded agreement regarding Romania’s adherence to the
    Tripartite Pact.

    “In reply to my assurances of loyalty to the pact with Germany,
    Hitler declared that the German soldiers would guarantee the
    frontiers of Romania.

    “At the same time, Hitler told me that the Vienna arbitration
    should not be considered as final and thus gave me to understand
    that Romania could count on a revision of the decision
    previously taken in Vienna, on the question of Transylvania.

    “Hitler and I agreed that the German Military Mission in Romania
    should continue its work of reconstructing the Romanian Army on
    German lines.

    “In the same way I also concluded an economic agreement, in
    accordance with which the Germans would at a later date supply
    Romania with Messerschmidts 109, tanks, tractors, antiaircraft
    and antitank guns, automatic rifles, and other armaments, while
    they, in return, would receive from Romania wheat and oil for
    the needs of the German armies.

    “To the question put to me as to whether this, my first
    conversation with Hitler, could be regarded as the beginning of
    my agreement with the Germans concerning the preparations for
    war against the Soviet Union—I replied in the affirmative.
    There is no doubt that Hitler had this fact in mind, when he
    elaborated his plans for the attack on the Soviet Union.

    “In January 1941, through the offices of the German Minister in
    Romania, Fabricius, I was invited to Germany and had my second
    meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. The following persons were
    present: Ribbentrop, Fabricius, and the newly appointed German
    Minister to Bucharest, Killinger. Besides these, Field Marshal
    Keitel and General Jodl were also present as representing the
    German Armed Forces.

    “At the beginning of the conversation Hitler introduced
    Killinger to me, emphasizing that the latter was one of his
    closest friends. After this, Hitler described the military
    situation in the Balkans and declared that Mussolini had
    appealed to him for help in connection with the Italian failures
    in the war against Greece, and that he, Hitler, intended to give
    this help to Italy.

    “While on this subject Hitler asked me to allow the German
    troops concentrated on Hungarian territory to pass through
    Romania, so that they could render speedy assistance to the
    Italians.

    “Knowing that the passage of German troops through Romania to
    the Balkans would constitute an unfriendly act towards the
    Soviet Union, I asked Hitler what, in his opinion, would be the
    subsequent reaction of the Soviet Government.

    “Hitler reminded me that at our first meeting, in November 1940,
    he had already given appropriate guarantees to Romania and had
    taken upon himself the obligation of protecting Romania by force
    of arms.

    “I expressed my fears that the passage of German troops through
    Romania might serve as a pretext for military operations on the
    part of the Soviet Union, and that Romania would then be in a
    difficult position since the Romanian Army had not been
    mobilized.

    “Hitler announced that he would give orders for some of the
    German troops intended for participation in the operations
    against Greece to be left in Romania. Hitler also stressed that,
    according to the information at his disposal, the Soviet Union
    did not intend to fight either Germany or Romania.

    “Satisfied with Hitler’s declaration, I agreed to the passage of
    German troops through Romanian territory.

    “General Jodl, who was present at this conference, described to
    me the strategic situation of the German Army and stressed the
    necessity for an attack against Greece launched from Bulgaria.

    “My third meeting with Hitler took place in Munich in May 1941.

    “At this meeting at which, in addition to ourselves, there were
    present Ribbentrop and Hitler’s personal interpreter, Schmidt,
    we reached a final agreement with regard to a joint attack on
    the Soviet Union.

    “Hitler informed me that he had decided on an armed attack on
    the Soviet Union. ‘Once we have prepared this attack,’ said
    Hitler, ‘we must carry it out without warning, along the entire
    extent of the Soviet frontier, from the Black to the Baltic
    Seas.’

    “The unexpectedness of the military attack—Hitler went on to
    say—would in a short time give Germany and Romania a chance to
    liquidate one of our most dangerous adversaries.

    “As a result of his military plans, Hitler suggested the use of
    Romanian territory for concentrations of German troops, and, at
    the same time, he requested me to participate directly in the
    attack on the Soviet Union.

    “Hitler stressed the point that Romania must not remain outside
    this war, for, if she wished to have Bessarabia and North
    Bukovina returned to her, she had no other alternative but to
    fight on Germany’s side. At the same time he pointed out that,
    in return for our assistance in the war, Romania would be
    allowed to occupy and administer other Soviet territories, right
    up to the River Dnieper.

    “Since Hitler’s offer to initiate a joint campaign against the
    U.S.S.R. corresponded to my own aggressive intentions, I
    announced my agreement to participate in the attack on the
    Soviet Union and pledged myself to prepare the necessary number
    of Romanian troops and, at the same time, to increase deliveries
    of the oil and food required by the German armies.

    “Before Hitler and I took the decision to attack Russia, I asked
    Hitler whether he had any understanding with Hungary regarding
    her participation in the war.

    “Hitler replied that the Hungarians had already given their
    consent to participate in the war against the U.S.S.R. in
    alliance with Germany. When, exactly, the Germans had agreed on
    this joint attack with the Hungarians, Hitler did not specify.

    “On my return from Munich to Bucharest I began active
    preparations for the coming campaign.”

Antonescu concludes his testimony in the following manner—I refer to
Page 67 in the document book, the last paragraph of the testimony.

    “After the Romanian troops under my supreme command had invaded
    the Soviet territory Hitler sent me a letter in which he
    expressed his gratitude to me and to the Romanian army for the
    assistance given.

    “Signed, Marshal Antonescu.”

The date of the beginning of Romanian preparations for war against the
U.S.S.R. can be established from the depositions furnished by the former
Vice Minister, Mihai Antonescu, who was also interrogated by the Soviet
authorities upon the request of the Soviet Prosecution: I now submit his
testimony as Exhibit Number USSR-152 (Document Number USSR-152). I shall
not quote these depositions in detail since their greater part is a
repetition of some of the facts described already in the testimony of
Ion Antonescu. I shall only refer to a few paragraphs. I would refer you
to Page 1 of the testimony which is translated into Russian, Paragraphs
1, 2, and 5. This corresponds to Page 68 of the document book:

    “In November 1940 Marshal Antonescu, accompanied by the then
    Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Studza, left for Germany,
    where he had a meeting with Hitler.

    “During the negotiations with Hitler, Marshal Antonescu signed
    the agreement for Romania’s adherence to the Tripartite Pact and
    received Hitler’s promise for the later revision, in favor of
    Romania, of the decisions of the Vienna Arbitration Treaty.

    “The first journey of Marshal Antonescu was the initial step of
    a policy which subsequently led to a joint German and Romanian
    attack on the Soviet Union.”

Your Honors, the evidence of the witness, Paulus, as well as the
testimonies of Ion Antonescu and Mihai Antonescu, which have just been
submitted to the Tribunal, justify the Soviet Prosecution in making the
following statement:

1. The decision to send to Romania a military mission of the German
General Staff for the reorganization of the Romanian Army, in order to
prepare for and subsequently to attack the U.S.S.R., was taken no later
than September 1940, that is, no less than 9 months prior to the attack
on the U.S.S.R. 2. In November of the same year, Romanian war
preparations had been fully developed.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be a good time to break off.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, at a further stage in my statement I had
intended presenting to the Tribunal a statement of General Buschenhagen,
general of the former German Army. I do not, however, intend to do so
now, since the Soviet Prosecution has the possibility of examining this
witness in court during the session. I, on my part, request your
permission to have this witness brought to the court for examination.

THE PRESIDENT: You wish to call him now?

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, that would be convenient, in view of several technical
reasons, and would facilitate the task of the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

[_The witness, Buschenhagen, took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

ERICH BUSCHENHAGEN (Witness): Erich Buschenhagen.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: “I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.”

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

GEN. ZORYA: Witness, will you tell the Tribunal when and where you were
born?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I was born on 8 December 1895 in Strasbourg, in Alsace.

GEN. ZORYA: Will you name your last military rank, please.

BUSCHENHAGEN: I was general in the infantry in the German Army. My last
position was that of Commanding General of the 52d Army Corps.

GEN. ZORYA: Will you tell us please, did you on 26 December 1945 appeal
to us with a statement in connection with the Helsinki trials?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes.

GEN. ZORYA: Do you confirm this statement now?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes, I do.

GEN. ZORYA: Will you please tell us what you know about the preparations
made by fascist Germany for attacking the Soviet Union?

BUSCHENHAGEN: At the end of December 1940, in my position as Chief of
the General Staff of the German forces in Norway, I was called to the
OKH, where the then Chief of the General Staff, Generaloberst Halder,
had a conference with the chiefs of general staffs of the army groups
and of the independent armies, one of which was mine. At this conference
we were informed of the OKW’s Directive Number 21, the Plan Barbarossa,
which was issued on 18 December 1940. We were given in lectures the
basic reasons for the intended operations against Soviet Russia.

From this directive I learned that troops of my army also would take
part in this operation. Therefore, I was especially interested in one
speech made by the Chief of Staff of the Finnish Army, Lieutenant
General Heinrichs, who was then also with the OKH. He spoke at that time
about the military actions in the winter war between Finland and the
Soviet Union. He drew a picture of the methods of warfare and the
fighting value of the Soviet Army and also of the Finnish troops.

General Heinrichs also had conferences with Generaloberst Halder at that
time, in which I did not take part myself, but I assume that they were
concerned with possible co-operation between the Finnish and German
troops in case of a conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. There
existed since the fall of 1940 a military co-operation between Germany
and Finland, and the German Air Force had made arrangements with the
Finnish General Staff for through traffic from northern Norway to the
Finnish harbors in the transport of men and material. As the result of
conferences, which the German military attaché had held in Helsinki by
order of the OKW, this through traffic was extended in the winter of
1940 to a general through traffic of the German Wehrmacht from northern
Norway to the Finnish Baltic seaports. In order to carry out this
traffic, a German Army administration center was set up in the main city
of Lapland, Rovanjemi, and a German army transport unit was transferred
to the Arctic Strait of Rovanjemi and Petsamo-Rovanjemi. Furthermore,
offices for supply were installed along this Arctic Sea route and along
the railroad which led from Rovanjemi to ports on the Finnish south
coast.

In December to January 1940-41, I had, with the OKW, discussions about
details of the participation of troops from Norway together with Finnish
troops in attacks against the Soviet Union.

GEN. ZORYA: Didn’t you also have conferences with the Finnish General
Staff about joint operations against the Soviet Union?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes, I did.

GEN. ZORYA: Tell us, who instructed you to negotiate with the Finnish
Government and what course did these negotiations follow?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I had orders and authorizations from the OKW, which was
the immediate superior of myself and my army. In February 1941 I
received—after the basic facts had been cleared in regard to the
participation of the troops from Norway based in Finland—I received the
order to travel to Helsinki and to get in touch there, personally, with
the Finnish General Staff and to discuss with them these operations from
middle and northern Finland.

On 18 February 1941 I reached Helsinki and on the 2 following days, I
had conferences with the Finnish Chief of General Staff, General
Heinrichs, his deputy, General Airo, and the Chief of the Operations
Detachment of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola. In these
conferences we discussed the possibilities for operations from middle
and northern Finland, especially from the area around Kuusamo and
Rovanjemi; also from the area of Petsamo. These conferences led to an
agreement of the different opinions.

After these conferences I travelled, together with the Chief of the
Operation Detachment of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola, to
middle and northern Finland in order to study the area of
Urinsalmo-Kuusamo, the area east of Rovanjemi-Petsamo, the terrain, the
possibilities for deployment and billeting, and for operations from that
sector. For these reconnaissance trips the local Finnish commanders were
present. The trip ended on 28 February in Torneo, on the Finnish-Swedish
border. In a final conference it was determined that an operation from
the area of Kuusamo and Helsinki and an operation from the area east of
Rovanjemi in the direction of Basikamo would prove successful; that, on
the other hand, the operations from Petsamo towards Rovanjemi would have
considerable difficulty with the terrain. That was the end of my first
series of conferences with the Finnish General Staff.

As a result of these discussions there was worked out by the German High
Command of Norway a plan of operations for an operation from the Finnish
areas. The operational study was presented to the OKW and found its
approval. It then received through the High Command of Norway the name
of “Blaufuchs.”

In May, that is, on 24 May, I met the Finnish Chief of Staff Heinrichs,
who had been invited to the Führer’s headquarters at Brandenburg and
flew with him to Munich, where I had with him and his chief of the
Operational Department of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola, a
discussion in preparation for another conference at Salzburg.

On the 25th there was at Salzburg a conference between the OKW, Field
Marshal Keitel, Generaloberst Jodl on the one side, and on the other,
Lieutenant General Heinrichs and Colonel Tapola, at which the basic
plans for co-operation between German and Finnish troops were laid down.

After this conference I travelled, together with General Heinrichs, to
Berlin. There we had further conferences at the Economic Armament Office
of the OKW, as to the delivery of material to the Finnish Army. There
were also conferences with the General Staff of the Air Force concerning
joint questions of the air war and the reinforcement of the Finnish Air
Force with matériel. General Heinrichs, after these discussions, also
had a meeting with Generaloberst Halder, in which I did not participate.

For the third time I met the Finnish General Staff on 2 June. In my
statement of 26 December I said that this conference took place at the
end of April or the beginning of May; that was a mistake. As a matter of
fact, it took place on 2 June.

At these conferences, which again took place between General Heinrichs,
General Halder, and Colonel Tapola, the details of this collaboration
were worked out, such as the timetable, the schedule, measures of
secrecy as to the Finnish mobilization; there it was decided that the
Finnish mobilization should first take the form of reinforcement of the
border patrols, and then the form of further enlistments for the
military training of reservists and reserve officers; a decision was
also reached about the deployment and formation of German-Finnish forces
in such a way that the main Finnish forces, under the command of Field
Marshal Mannerheim in the south, should operate together with the German
Army Group North, coming from East Prussia, in the direction of
Leningrad and also towards the east of Lake Ladoga.

The other Finnish forces were to be under the command of Generaloberst
Von Falkenhorst north of the Rivers Ulo and Ulojoki. For this army of
Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst there were three directions of attack; a
southern group from the area of Kuusamo through Kerskienski against the
Murmansk railroad; the middle group east of Rovanjemi through Salla
Kandalaksha and finally, a northern group starting from around Petsamo
against Murmansk. There was complete agreement on all these questions
and also there were details discussed about exchange of information,
about the use of Finnish means of transportation and by representatives
of the Air Force about joint questions of air warfare and about the use
of Finnish airports by the German Air Force.

After these discussions I returned to Germany in order to work out their
results and put them into action on behalf of Germany. Then again, on 12
or 13 July I flew to Helsinki for the purpose of conferring with
Lieutenant General Erfurt, who was the German liaison officer with the
Finnish Armed Forces. We met General Heinrichs at Helsinki and gave him
a memorandum on the points which we had agreed upon in previous
conferences. He agreed to these points, except for a minor detail. Then
I turned over my duties as liaison officer with the Finnish General
Staff to Lieutenant General Erfurt, to take up my activities as Chief of
General Staff of the German Army in Lapland.

GEN. ZORYA: I should like to ask you a last question. If it is not too
difficult for you, will you please indicate what was the exact character
of these preparations of the OKW and the Finnish General Staff? More
especially, at the planning of these operations was the necessity of
defense taken into consideration?

BUSCHENHAGEN: All agreements between the OKW and the Finnish General
Staff had as their sole purpose from the very beginning the
participation of the Finnish Army and the German troops on Finnish
territory in the aggressive war against the Soviet Union. There was no
doubt about that. If the Finnish General Staff, to the outside world,
always pointed out that all these measures had only the character of
defense measures, that was just camouflage. There was—from the very
beginning—no doubt among the Finnish General Staff that all these
preparations would serve only in the attack against the Soviet Union,
for all the preparations that we made pointed in that same direction,
namely, the plans for mobilization; above all, the objectives for the
attack. Nobody ever reckoned with the possibility of a Russian attack on
Finland.

Since, for cogent military reasons, the operations for attack from
Finnish territory could start only 8 to 10 days after the beginning of
the attack against Russia, certain security measures were taken during
and after the attack, but the whole formation and lining-up of the
troops was for offensive and not defensive purposes. I believe you can
see sufficiently from that the aggressive character of all these
preparations.

GEN. ZORYA: I have no further questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to ask any questions?

FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States Prosecution wish to ask any
questions?

UNITED STATES PROSECUTOR: No questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants’ counsel wish to cross-examine?

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, in this Trial a group of people are under
indictment with the purpose of declaring them criminals. Included in
this group, to state it shortly, are all the commanders-in-chief of the
several parts of the Armed Forces.

Have you ever had any knowledge before the beginning of the attack
against the Soviet Union that an order came out, according to which the
captured commissars had to be executed?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: Did you at any time speak to your commanding general,
Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst, concerning this order?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: What opinion did Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst and
yourself hold concerning this order?

BUSCHENHAGEN: That this was a criminal order.

DR. LATERNSER: Since you had that opinion, I would like to ask you
whether, within your army, this order was carried out?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Actually it was not carried out.

DR. LATERNSER: For what reasons was it not carried out? Perhaps because
the commander and his chief and you, Witness, were of the opinion that
this order should not be carried out or because it would not have been
practicable, for, as it is known, the Soviet commissars fought until the
last and fell and, in cases where they were captured, their papers,
which showed them to be commissars, had already been destroyed?

For what reason was this order not actually carried out?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Firstly, in view of the line taken by Generaloberst Von
Falkenhorst and myself, comments were added to it before it was passed
on, in other words, we let the troops know that inwardly we were not in
agreement with it—and we found our commanding generals to show a full
understanding. Secondly, because of the reason given by you, because, as
a matter of fact, not a single commissar fell into our hands, as far as
I can remember.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, do you know any other commanders who had the
same attitude as you had with regard to this order?

BUSCHENHAGEN: No.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you answer “no” because you did not speak to others?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I did not speak to others because in Norway I was so
isolated from other armies that I had no opportunity of speaking to
others.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, aren’t you of the opinion that the great
majority of the commanding generals had the same attitude concerning
this order as you and your commanding general?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I cannot answer that because I cannot speak the minds of
the others.

DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions?
General, do you wish to ask any questions in re-examination?

GEN. ZORYA: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness will retire.

[_The witness left the stand._]

GEN. ZORYA: This morning I had to stop before reading the testimony of
Pantazi, Romania’s former Minister of War, which I intend to present to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-154 (Document Number USSR-154).
Pantazi describes in detail the preparations of Romania for war. I would
ask you to accept this testimony as evidence. You will find it on Page
71 of the document book. I shall now read such extracts of this document
as are of interest to us:

    “Romania’s preparations for war against the Soviet Union began
    in November 1940 when, in accordance with the agreement signed
    by Marshal Antonescu in Bucharest, regarding Romania’s adherence
    to the Tripartite Pact, there arrived in Bucharest German
    military missions, consisting of groups of German
    officer-instructors; those for the army were headed by General
    Hansen, those for the Air Force by Major General Speidel.

    “With the arrival of the German military missions in Romania,
    the Chief of the General Staff of the Romanian Army, General
    Joanitiu, acting on the orders of Antonescu, issued an order to
    the army, regarding the admission of German officer-instructors
    into units and groups, for the purpose of reorganizing and
    re-educating the Romanian forces in accordance with the code of
    regulations of the German Army.

    “At the same time, and still acting on Marshal Antonescu’s
    orders, all reserve officers of the Romanian Army were called up
    for a course of 2 months of retraining and underwent instruction
    under German direction.

    “During the period of the retraining of officers, the General
    Staff of the Romanian Army drafted a plan for calling up into
    the Army 12 age groups due for mobilization in case of war, the
    training of all these groups to be carried out in accordance
    with the demands of the code of regulations of the German Army,
    to be completed by 1 July 1941.

    “The higher Romanian officers underwent similar retraining in
    their respective branches of the service.

    “In this way, under German leadership and prior to the beginning
    of the war by Germany and Romania against the Soviet Union, the
    whole of the Romanian Army and Air Force were reorganized and
    retrained along German lines.”

I shall omit two paragraphs which are of no importance and I pass to the
second paragraph, which you will find on Page 72 in the document book.
These are also depositions of Pantazi.

THE PRESIDENT: General, in view of the evidence which you have already
presented to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is inclined to think you could
omit these details of the preparations made in Romania and go on to the
place where you deal with the number of German divisions who deployed on
the Romanian frontier.

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, this question is of importance. I hesitate at present
to point out the exact passage which deals with it—it must be on Page
74 in the document book:

    “In this connection the following units which were already
    mobilized and ready for action against the Soviet Union were, in
    February 1941, on Marshal Antonescu’s orders, directed to the
    frontiers of North Bukovina and Bessarabia: The 4th Alpine Rifle
    Division, the 7th, 8th, and 21st Infantry Divisions, the
    Infantry Division of the Guards, a cavalry corps and another
    infantry division whose name I do not recall at present. In
    addition, 3 German divisions, selected from the 21 German
    divisions moving to Greece across Romania, were sent to the
    U.S.S.R. frontier.”

I omit several paragraphs. On Page 73 of your book of documents we find
the following extract from Pantazi’s testimony, marked in pencil:

    “In accordance with instructions from Marshal Antonescu in May
    1941, the following divisions were likewise sent to the
    frontier: The Frontier Division, the 3rd and 1st Alpine Rifle
    Divisions, the 13th Infantry Division, and a Panzer division.
    Concurrently with these divisions the Germans transferred to the
    U.S.S.R. frontier seven German divisions.

    “Consequently, prior to the beginning of the Romanian and German
    attack on the Soviet Union, there were concentrated on the
    frontier between Romania and the U.S.S.R. 12 Romanian and 10
    German divisions, totalling up to 600,000 men.”

Thus the documents which have just been submitted to the Tribunal
justify the assertion that Romania’s preparations for aggression against
the Soviet Union on the directions received from the staff of the
fascist conspirators had begun long before they found expression on
paper in Plan Barbarossa. Having attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s
lackeys expected gratitude from their masters for services rendered. On
27 July 1941 Hitler sent a letter addressed to Antonescu expressing
gratitude to him and to his army.

I submit to the Tribunal this letter from Hitler, addressed to Antonescu
as Exhibit Number USSR-237 (Document Number USSR-237). Hitler writes in
this letter—Page 1 of the Russian translation of the letter, Paragraph
3, Page 74 in the document book presented to the Tribunal:

    “To congratulate you wholeheartedly on this great success is for
    me personally as great a happiness as it is a satisfaction easy
    to understand. The winning back of Bessarabia will be the most
    natural reward for your effort and those of your gallant
    troops.”

The promises of the fascist bosses were not limited to Bessarabia alone.

I beg for permission to return to the conversation of 12 February 1942,
between Antonescu and the Defendant Ribbentrop. This conversation is set
forth in a document which I presented as Exhibit Number USSR-233
(Document USSR-233). I am now referring to Paragraph 3 of the Russian
translation of this document—3rd paragraph from the top of this
page—which you will find on Page 61 of the document book. It consists
of the following entry made by Antonescu:

    “I reminded Herr Von Ribbentrop that, at the banquet given by
    him, he raised his glass to the happiness of a great Romania, to
    which I replied that we have entered into an alliance with the
    Axis in order to create a ‘Great Romania.’”

What, then, was this “Great Romania” to represent, to which the
Defendant Ribbentrop had raised his glass?

This can be seen from the document which I now submit to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-242 (Document USSR-242). This document is one of
Antonescu’s letters—a copy of a letter—to Hitler, dated 17 August
1941. I request you to read this document into the record, and I
consider it necessary to read Paragraphs 2 and 4 from it, which
correspond to Page 2 of the Russian translation in the document book in
your possession. The corresponding text is on Page 78. I quote Paragraph
2. Antonescu writes:

    “In compliance with the wish of Your Excellency, I take upon
    myself the responsibility for guarding the territory between the
    Rivers Dniester and Dnieper, for maintaining order there, and
    for its security, in which connection it will only be necessary
    to delineate a boundary to this territory on the north.”

Paragraph 4 of this letter:

    “In order to maintain order and to control the economic
    exploitation of the occupied territory, and foreseeing the
    continuation of the war, I consider it absolutely necessary that
    unity of command should be established.

    “I therefore beg Your Excellency to give precise instructions
    defining my rights and responsibilities for the administration
    and economic exploitation of the territory between the Rivers
    Dniester and Bug, as well as for the guarding, the maintenance
    of order and the security of the whole territory between the
    Rivers Dniester and Dnieper.

    “I beg you, Your Excellency, to accept the best assurances from
    your devoted Marshal Antonescu.”

Two days after this letter was written Antonescu appointed a governor of
the occupied regions of the Soviet Union, to which he gave the name of
the “Transnistrian” regions.

I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-295 (Document Number
USSR-295), the testimony of this “governor,” George Alexianu, who was
taken prisoner by the Red Army, and beg you to accept it as evidence.

Alexianu, giving details of his nomination, testifies as follows—Page
2, Paragraph 2, of the Russian text, Page 79 in the document book which
is in your possession. I quote:

    “Antonescu said that, in connection with the successful advance
    of the German Army, Hitler wrote him a personal letter in which
    he offered to annex to Romania the Soviet territories extending
    from the Dniester to the Dnieper which had been captured by the
    German troops and to establish there their own occupational
    authorities.”

On Page 80 of the document book at the top of Page 3 of the Russian text
of the testimony, Alexianu states that in the summer of 1942 he was
present at the Council of Romanian Ministers at which Marshal Antonescu,
referring to the successes of the German and the Romanian armies on the
Eastern Front, stated:

    “It is now evident for us all that I acted rightly when, as
    early as November 1940 I came to an agreement with Hitler on the
    joint attack against the Soviet Union.”

However, the generosity of the fascist Führer, who gave Soviet
territories away, right and left, to his vassals, diminished noticeably
in the course of the war as the Red Army successes grew.

I have here before me one of Hitler’s letters to Ion Antonescu, dated 25
October 1943. I beg the Tribunal to accept it as evidence as Exhibit
Number USSR-240 (Document Number USSR-240). Something like 2 years and 3
months had passed since the moment when Hitler complimented his Romanian
satrap on the seizure of Bessarabia. Quite recently, Antonescu had still
been worrying over the question of organizing a “unified” administration
in Transnistria. Circumstances and conditions had altered. Hitler now
writes—I quote the second paragraph from the top of Page 1, which you
will find on Pages 82-83 of your document book:

    “My further request concerns the essential exploitation of
    Transnistria, that as a rear theater of operations for Army
    Groups A and South it should not be hampered by any formal
    juridical or economic considerations and difficulties. I must
    further request you to put at the disposal of the German
    authorities the entire network of the Transnistrian
    railways. . . .”

As a poor consolation Hitler adds—Page 82 of the document book:

    “All military measures . . . have, as their final aim, the
    preservation of Transnistria for Romania.”

Then even Antonescu, who had so many times subserviently assured Hitler
of his submissiveness, reached the end of his endurance. On 15 November
1943 he wrote a lengthy reply to Hitler. In this letter Antonescu wrote
unrestrainedly how he fulfilled the will of his master at the expense of
his people.

I present Antonescu’s letter to Hitler as Exhibit Number USSR-239
(Document Number USSR-239). His letter is dated Bucharest, 15 November
1943. I quote, beginning with Paragraph 2 of this letter, towards the
end of Page 5 of the Russian text. It is on Page 88 of the document
book:

    “As to the regime in Transnistria we agree with your Excellency
    that it is neither opportune nor timely to examine in the spirit
    of a banker the problem of this territory as a military zone, a
    zone of supply, _et cetera_.

    “I should like to begin by explaining the causes of my anxiety.

    “I do not know whether the truth about the Romanian
    participation in the war, from 1941 to the present moment, has
    always been told you: That this war has cost Romania 300,000
    million lei; that during this period we gave Germany more than 8
    million tons of oil, thus threatening our own national stocks,
    as well as the deposits themselves; that we are bearing heavy
    expenses incurred in supporting the families of 250,000 men who
    lost their lives in battle.”

Here I omit four paragraphs which have no bearing in the gist of the
matter and continue to read on Page 89 of the document book.

    “Of course, the arrival of troops on the Transnistrian territory
    is, as you say, a shield on the gates of Romania. Our only
    desire is that all be in good order and utilized in the most
    advantageous manner possible. . . .

    “As regards the transfer of the Transnistrian railways into
    German hands for the purpose of increasing transportation, I beg
    Your Excellency to reconsider this question. In our opinion this
    transfer is not necessary.

    “Transnistrian railways, from 1941 to the present day,
    functioned well under Romanian administration. They always
    satisfied German demands and their management was always highly
    appreciated.”

I request you to turn one page of the document book. I now read an
extract from Page 90 of the book:

    “If the traffic capacity of the Transnistrian railways cannot
    still be further increased in pursuance to the generally
    established joint plan, we cannot bear any responsibility for
    that fact. Here too we kept our obligations.”

And two paragraphs further on, the same page, the following statement is
made:

    “I am sure that our railway administration could carry out the
    measures necessary in order to increase the traffic capacity and
    to improve the organization.

    “As I personally was in charge of the organization of the
    administration and economics of this region, it would be a great
    mortification to me if the administration of the railways were
    to pass to German hands, since one would justly say that our
    incapacity in this respect was the reason for such measure.”

There came a moment in the relations between the two aggressors when the
former harmony, based on the seizure of foreign lands and wealth, gave
place to arguments on the question as to who should bear the great
financial responsibility for the losses suffered as a result of the
criminal adventure embarked upon by both partners.

This is revealed by the following document, captured from the personal
archives of Antonescu and which I intend to present to the honorable
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-245 (Document Number USSR-245). I should
like to read a quotation from this document, which is lengthy but which
is very important in enabling us to realize the relationship between
fascist Germany and her satellites. This document is entitled, “General
Hansen’s Meeting with Marshal Antonescu on 7 July 1943.”

As Your Honors will no doubt remember, General Hansen was the head of
the German Military Mission of the German General Staff in Romania. I
shall read into the record excerpts from this document, underlined in
red pencil, on Pages 92 and 93 of the document book. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t it be possible for you to summarize these
documents with reference to Romania? Because you have already drawn our
attention to a considerable amount of evidence with reference to
Romania’s participation, General Antonescu’s statements and other
evidence of that sort. Possibly you would be able to go on then to the
question of the Hungarian participation—in Document Number USSR-294.
What you are reading us now really shows the extent, no doubt, of the
Romanian participation, but it is all after the aggression. I thought,
from looking at it, that you could possibly go on to USSR-294.

GEN. ZORYA: If the Tribunal wishes, I shall certainly do so.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it would save time and would not detract from the
case at all.

GEN. ZORYA: I shall summarize this document in a few sentences, and I
shall then pass on to the next document.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

GEN. ZORYA: The sense of this conversation is interesting insofar as it
reveals the shameless bargaining which went on between Hansen and
Antonescu. The objects of this bargaining were money, war supplies, and
human lives. Antonescu, who was beginning to feel the disadvantage of
the absence of any kind of proper agreement with Germany, insisted that
all subsequent dealings, whether of a material or any other nature, be
subjected to appropriate official agreements. He demanded from Germany
the delivery of various war supplies either of a technical or, in last
analysis, of a monetary nature. And when General Hansen said that
Germany had no lei, Antonescu replied, “If you have no lei, give us at
least arms and equipment.” That is how the document describes the policy
pursued by fascist Germany for extracting the most varied resources from
her vassals.

Now, I should like to touch briefly upon certain methods of foreign
policy which the Hitlerites used in dealing with their vassals. I should
like to dwell on the policy pursued by the Hitlerite conspirators in
regard to the question of Transylvania. Holding out the question of
Transylvania as bait, the Hitlerite conspirators forced their Hungarian
and Romanian vassals to work out their own promotion.

I submit, as Document Number USSR-294, the depositions of
Ruszkiczay-Ruediger, a former Generaloberst of the Hungarian Army.

Prior to May 1941, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger held important posts in the
Hungarian Foreign Ministry. Subsequently, prior to September 1942 he
commanded an army corps, after which he became Deputy War Minister of
Hungary.

Now, I should like to read the deposition of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger,
concerning the Transylvanian question. The passages which I should like
to read into the record are on Page 3 and on the top of Page 4 of the
Russian text, which corresponds to Pages 102 and 103 of the document
book:

    “The second Vienna Arbitration Treaty assumed the form of a
    decision which was of little profit to Hungary. The district of
    Megyes-Kissármés, where natural oil could be obtained, was
    reserved for Romania. In Hungarian political and military
    circles this was interpreted in such a way that in the Second
    Vienna Arbitration Treaty Hitler thought himself in alliance
    with Romania in the war against Soviet Russia. The fact that
    Hitler considered Romania a more important ally than Hungary was
    explained on the grounds that in an eventual war with the Soviet
    Union, Germany would undoubtedly need Romania’s southern wing
    which extends to the Black Sea.

    “In an official conversation which took place towards November
    1940 the Chief of the Operational Group of the Hungarian General
    Staff, Colonel Laszlo, told me the following:

    “‘The second Vienna Arbitration Treaty has aroused bitter envy
    of Romania in Hungary, and it is up to us to obtain advantages
    from Hitler.’”

I would remind you that Antonescu, in his testimony, presented to the
Tribunal earlier in the day, said, when speaking of his negotiations
with Hitler:

    “In November 1941 Hitler told me that the final word had not
    been spoken in the Vienna Arbitration Treaty, thereby giving me
    to understand that Romania could still count upon a revision of
    the decision previously adopted on the question of
    Transylvania.”

However, soon after, while visiting Budapest, the Defendant Ribbentrop
expressed an entirely opposite point of view.

I shall present to the Tribunal three documents which illustrate the
attitude of Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Göring under these circumstances. I
submit in evidence Exhibit Number USSR-235 (Document Number USSR-235),
containing the minutes of one of the subsequent conversations between
Antonescu and Hitler, which took place on 3 April 1942. This document
will be found on Pages 113-116 of the document book. I shall read some
excerpts from this document, on Page 3 of the Russian translation, which
corresponds to Page 113 in the document book. I quote:

    “I”—Antonescu—“reminded him”—Hitler—“that the Hungarian
    statesmen did not hesitate to declare openly in Parliament and
    in the press after Ribbentrop’s visit to Budapest that should
    they intervene”—that is, should they send their
    troops—“Transylvania is to remain Hungarian; such rumors
    circulate, and they greatly demoralize the Romanians. Hitler
    gave me his word of honor that such promises had not been made
    and could not have been made, and that this does not correspond
    to actual facts.”

In this way Hitler juggled with promises to encourage his satellites.

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for 10 minutes?

                        [_A recess was taken._]

GEN. ZORYA: The next document, which I am submitting to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-183 (Document Number USSR-183), concerns the
Transylvanian question and the Defendant Ribbentrop. It is the record of
a conference between Antonescu and Von Dörnberg, Chief of Protocol of
the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which took place at the
frontier on 10 February 1942. I am asking the Tribunal to accept this
record as evidence. This document, taken from the personal archives of
Marshal Antonescu, was captured by the advancing Red Army. I do not
consider it necessary to read the entire document into the record, and I
shall merely confine myself to a few excerpts. Will you please open your
document book on Page 116, where there is a record of the conference
between Antonescu and Von Dörnberg of 10 February 1942. I quote:

    “He openly introduced the subject of the Order of Charles the
    First which Herr Von Ribbentrop was claiming for himself through
    various German official channels in our country, as well as
    through the Romanian officials accredited to the German
    Government.”

I pass to the next page, Page 117 of the document book. I quote:

    “I told Herr Von Dörnberg that I would not be able to grant this
    award until Herr Von Ribbentrop, at the very first opportunity,
    made a public declaration also to Romania, a declaration which
    would bolster up the faith of the Romanian people in their
    struggle for the cause of justice and for their legitimate
    claims in the Europe of the future. I would, therefore, grant
    him this award on condition that it be made public only after he
    had made this declaration.

    “Herr Von Dörnberg asked for time to reflect on the matter.

    “Next day, before entering the railway coach, he asked me to
    hand him the decoration, telling me that Von Ribbentrop wanted
    it and requesting me not to divulge our conversation to
    Ribbentrop, since he now promised to make the award public only
    upon the fulfillment of my conditions. On this condition I gave
    him the decoration, without the appropriate certificate.”

Thus Ribbentrop was prepared to disclaim his Budapest statement on
receipt of the Romanian order.

I have also at my disposal a record of a conference between Antonescu
and Göring. Will you kindly turn to Page 118 of the document book.
Unfortunately, this document, discovered together with other documents
in Antonescu’s personal files, previously mentioned by me, is undated.
We submit this document as found. I present it as Exhibit Number
USSR-238 (Document USSR-238), and I am reading one excerpt only. I
quote:

    “During the conversation at Karinhall, Marshal Göring was very
    reticent on the problem of Transylvania. On the way, in the car,
    he said to the Marshal”—that is to Antonescu:

    “‘After all, why do you quarrel with Hungary about Transylvania,
    which is actually more German than Romanian or Hungarian.’”

We may, presumably, agree that on this occasion Göring had expressed the
viewpoint of the fascist conspirators on the problem of Transylvania
with a sufficient degree of truthfulness.

With a view to concluding the clarification of Germany’s mutual
relations with her vassal, Romania, I should like to emphasize the
subject of crude oil. In this field, Romania was one of Germany’s
principal suppliers.

Both before and during the war the Hitlerites extracted oil from Romania
by all possible means. Antonescu, by the way, refers to this in one of
his letters which has already been read into the record. I shall now
submit two documents which sufficiently prove how important this
question was to Germany, and how significant it was considered by the
Hitlerites themselves. As Exhibit Number USSR-244 (Document Number
USSR-244), I present an urgent telegram from the Defendant Keitel,
addressed to Marshal Antonescu and received by the latter on 31 October
1942. I shall not explain in detail how this document was taken from the
personal archives of Antonescu, in the same way as the previous one. I
now read this telegram into the record and would ask you to accept it as
evidence—to be found on Page 119 of the document book:

    “Telegram to the German Mission for direct transmission to
    Marshal Antonescu.

    “Herr Marshal! In the name of the Führer I approach Your
    Excellency with a request for your personal intervention in the
    matter of accelerating, as far as possible, the delivery of the
    maximum possible quantity of fuel to the Italian Fleet, which is
    absolutely essential to the latter for the continuance of
    military operations in the Mediterranean.

    “The absence and lack of all means of transport for further
    operations have resulted in a critical situation in North
    Africa, and the transport of supplies depends entirely on the
    delivery of adequate quantities of fuel.

    “I beg Your Excellency to increase to the maximum degree those
    deliveries of fuel to Italy, which are exclusively reserved for
    supplying the fleet called upon to maintain important positions
    in the Mediterranean for the purpose of the joint warfare.

    “I have chosen this method of direct appeal to you because I am
    sure that your personal intervention will result in the
    assistance required.

    “Yours in comradely esteem, signed Keitel, Field Marshal.”

Allow me now to submit the telegram which Antonescu sent in reply to
Keitel. Please turn to Page 120 of the document book, Exhibit Number
USSR-244(a), (Document Number USSR-244(a)).

THE PRESIDENT: Could you summarize the contents of this document.

GEN. ZORYA: I can summarize the contents of that telegram in two
sentences. In reply to the Defendant Keitel’s tearful appeal to increase
to the maximum degree the fuel supplies, Antonescu replied, in a wire
addressed to Keitel, that he would meet his engagements in full, but
that the supplies previously requested by the German officials had
already been delivered and that it was impossible to send any more. If
something could eventually be saved from the quantities used inside
Romania then perhaps, somehow or other, Romania might be able to help
her allies. On the whole, Antonescu begged General Keitel to accept his
expressions of regard and high esteem, but would not give him any more
oil.

Allow me to remind you, Your Honors, that in October and November 1942
Rommel’s fate was being decided in North Africa, and that at the same
time the Red Army was barring Germany’s advance on the Grozny and Baku
oil fields on the borders of Mozdok. It is obvious that the Germans
lacked sufficient quantities of crude oil.

I shall read one extract from the minutes of a conversation which took
place on 12 February 1942, between Antonescu and the Defendant
Ribbentrop, which has not, as yet, been read into the record. I have
previously submitted to the Tribunal the record of this conversation as
Exhibit Number USSR-233. I ask you to turn to the end of Page 51 and to
Page 52 of the document book, which corresponds to Page 4 of the Russian
text. There you will find the following lines. In reply to Ribbentrop’s
question on the subject of crude oil, Antonescu stated:

    “As for crude oil, Romania has contributed the maximum which it
    was in her power to contribute; she can give no more. The only
    way out of the situation would be to seize territories rich in
    oil.”

We should note here that Antonescu was not at all original in his idea
of seizing other people’s territories, rich in oil.

I am asking Your Honors to refer to Pages 121-129 of the document book.
There is one document taken from the private office of the Defendant
Rosenberg, which is entitled, “About the Organization of the Caucasus.”
I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-58
(Document Number USSR-58), and I would ask you to accept it as evidence.
In July 1941 the Defendant Rosenberg formulated the German opinion on
this question—Page 122 of the document book as follows:

    “Germany is interested in creating a stable position in the
    entire Caucasus in order to secure the safety of continental
    Europe, that is, to safeguard for herself the link with the Near
    East. It is only this link with the oil fields that can make
    Germany and the rest of Europe independent, in the future, of
    any coalition of maritime powers. The aim of German policy is to
    control the Caucasus and the adjoining lands to the south, both
    politically and militarily.”

Will you please turn to Page 124 of the document book as well as to Page
4 of the Russian text of the document from which I am quoting. The same
idea is formulated there by the Defendant Rosenberg with extreme
clarity. I quote, “Economically, the German Reich must take all oil into
its hands.”

Your Honors, I shall not dwell in detail on the relations between the
fascist conspirators and their other satellite, Finland, inasmuch as the
witness, Buschenhagen, offered sufficiently conclusive evidence on this
question; and the Tribunal has probably already got some definite ideas
on the subject. I just want to remind the Tribunal that according to
Paragraph 3, Section 2, of Plan Barbarossa, Finland was to cover the
advance of the German landing of Group North, consisting of units of the
21st Group, which was due to arrive from Norway, and then to operate
jointly with that group. According to Plan Barbarossa, the liquidation
of the Russian forces at Hangö was also assigned to Finland.

I would also like to remind the Tribunal that Section 2 of the temporary
Plan Barbarossa, which has been presented to the Tribunal by the
American Prosecution as Document Number C-39, mentions Finland’s
participation in the war; as I have already reported to the Tribunal,
the following sentence is to be found in this section, which corresponds
to Page 52 of the document book. “The preliminary negotiations with the
Finnish General Staff have been under way since 25 May.”

I should also like to invite your attention to the following paragraph
of the same document, Page 58 of the document book:

    “Provision has been made for transportation from the Reich to
    Norway of one security division and 18 artillery battalions, and
    for transportation to Finland of one reinforced infantry
    division complete with army corps units. Of the units, one
    infantry division, two mountain divisions and the SS Group North
    are designated for Case Silver Fox.

    “It has been planned, on the outbreak of military operations, to
    bring by rail, through Sweden, a further division for the attack
    on Hangö.”

I consider that I am now justified in stating that the date of 25 May
1941, indicated in the temporary Plan Barbarossa as the date on which
the negotiations with the Finnish General Staff were opened, was
incorrect. The indication of this date, which did not correspond to
reality, was an attempt to disguise the preparations for aggression,
presenting them to the outside world as preparations for a so-called
preventive war.

In addition to the testimony of the witness, Buschenhagen, already given
to the Tribunal, I shall now present, as Exhibit Number USSR-229
(Document Number USSR-229), the depositions of a former colonel of the
German Army, Kitchmann, which I beg you to accept as evidence.

Kitchmann held the office of military attaché in the German Embassy at
Helsinki since 1 October 1941. You will find this testimony on Page 130
of the document book. I shall read a very short extract therefrom into
the record:

    “A long time before 22 June 1941, the German Government and the
    High Command of the German Armed Forces jointly carried out
    secret negotiations with the Finnish Government and the General
    Staff of the Finnish Army and prepared the attack on the Soviet
    Union. I learned about the preparation for the attack on the
    Soviet Union by the German and Finnish Armies under the
    following circumstances: On my arrival at Helsinki in October
    1941, as acting German military attaché, I had numerous
    conversations with Major Von Albedill, the aide of the German
    military attaché who formerly served in the Military Attaché’s
    Department in the OKH, General Staff of the Army.

    “Albedill acquainted me with the situation in Finland and its
    military and political background, since Major General Rössing,
    the military attaché, was seriously ill and receiving treatment
    at the health resort of Merano in the Tyrol. In the course of
    these conversations Albedill told me that already in September
    1940, Major General Rössing, acting on an order of Hitler and of
    the German General Staff, had organized the visit of Major
    General Taloela, Plenipotentiary of Marshal Mannerheim, to the
    Führer’s headquarters in Berlin. During this visit an agreement
    was reached between the German and Finnish General Staffs for
    joint preparations for the attack and for warfare against the
    Soviet Union.

    “In this connection General Taloela told me, during a conference
    at his staff headquarters in Aunus in November 1941, that he,
    acting on Marshal Mannerheim’s personal orders, had—as far back
    as September 1940—been one of the first to contact the German
    High Command with a view to joint preparation for a German and
    Finnish attack on the Soviet Union.”

I ask your permission to conclude herewith the presentation of the
documents concerning the relations between fascist Germany and her
satellite, Finland, since—I repeat—Buschenhagen’s testimony has
relieved me of this necessity.

I should like to make one brief résumé:

Buschenhagen’s testimony disposes of all attempts to assert that the war
waged by Finland was a separate war and was disassociated from the war
aims of fascist Germany. Finland’s entry into the war had been envisaged
in the war plans of the fascist conspirators and corresponded to the
aggressive intentions of the Finnish rulers. The Finns, like the other
satellites of Germany, waged war in the hope of gaining whole regions
and republics of the Soviet Union.

At the conference of 16 July 1941 Hitler spoke of the Finnish claims to
Eastern Karelia, the Leningrad region, and the city of Leningrad. In
proof of this fact I refer to Document Number L-221 presented by the
United States Prosecution. The extracts quoted from this document will
be found on the corresponding page of the document book, Page 141.

Romania and Finland were two German satellites discussed in full detail
in Plan Barbarossa. The part these countries played in the plans of
German fascism was determined not only by the desire to utilize their
war potential—which without doubt was of some importance—but also by
their geographical position as operational bases on the flanks of the
Soviet Union.

The documents presented to the Tribunal bear witness to the fact that
the inclusion of these countries in the preparation for attack against
the U.S.S.R. had been carefully plotted by the fascist conspirators, in
the same way as were all the preparations connected with Plan
Barbarossa.

The third satellite of Germany, Hungary, is not mentioned at all in Plan
Barbarossa. However, this certainly cannot be taken to mean that the
participation of Hungary in the aggression against the Soviet Union had
not been planned by the fascist conspirators.

I ask permission to refer to the testimony of Paulus—although he has
already testified before the Tribunal—which formulates very
clearly. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You aren’t going to give us Paulus’ affidavit over again,
are you? We have already had Paulus’ evidence in full.

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, I have already mentioned that this is on Page 182. It
is the record of the interrogation of Paulus by General Rudenko. A copy
of this record may be produced before the Tribunal now and, furthermore,
it is on Page 143 of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: We have got his actual oral evidence; we don’t want his
interrogation.

GEN. ZORYA: But I really need one particular paragraph of his testimony
in order to show the connection between the subsequent documents
relating to Hungary and the contents of my statement. It is just a few
lines.

THE PRESIDENT: It must surely be cumulative, is it not?

GEN. ZORYA: That which was presented to the Tribunal, I could express in
my own words, in two sentences.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it in any way different from what Paulus has already
said?

GEN. ZORYA: Yes. Do forgive me! I have just been told that Colonel
Pokrovsky has already read that extract into the record. I shall
therefore merely give a very brief summary of the extract and then pass
on to a further subject and shall not repeat myself.

I have in mind, on the one hand, those paragraphs of Paulus’ affidavit
which state that the leading factor of Hungary’s policy was the full
recognition of Germany’s leading rule and that it was determined by two
basic factors, that is, the aspiration to territorial conquests with the
help of Germany and the fear of the growing power of Romania as
Germany’s ally; and, on the other hand, I have in mind that passage
where Paulus states that Hitler was far more prudent in disclosing his
plans to Hungary than to the other satellites, because he considered the
Hungarians as garrulous. It is true that Paulus immediately adds, on
Page 2 of his affidavit, that:

    “The essential reason was Hitler’s unwillingness to give Hungary
    a chance of seizing the oil fields in the Russian oil district
    of Dragovitch.”

Following the opening of the offensive against the Soviet Union, the
Supreme Command of the Army, the OKH, issued an order to the 17th Army
to seize Dragovitch prior to the arrival of the Hungarians.

Further, Paulus describes the circumstances of his negotiations with the
Hungarians regarding armament supplies. This—all this—has already been
mentioned by Colonel Pokrovsky. I wish only to refer to the fact that
this testimony of Paulus’ has undoubtedly lifted a corner of the veil of
mystery shrouding the mutual relations between the German and Hungarian
aggressors.

In this connection, I consider it imperative to return to the
depositions by Ruszkiczay-Ruediger which are already at the disposal of
the Tribunal. This document has been presented as Exhibit Number
USSR-294.

Touching on the occupation by Hungary of the Transcarpathian Ukraine in
1939, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger testified—see Page 2, Paragraph 3 of the
Russian text of the depositions which can be found on Page 101 of the
document book. I quote the following—the quotation is underlined:

    “This took place not long before the outbreak of the
    German-Polish war. It then appeared as if economic advantages
    and a new liberation from the Trianon Treaty were, for Hungary,
    the primary objectives.

    “But from the time when the region of the Transcarpathian
    Ukraine acquired a common boundary with Soviet Russia, we began
    to attach a perfectly different significance to this region by
    military preparations concerning this area. It was clear to us,
    the high-ranking officers, that the political leadership both of
    Germany and Hungary also considered this region strategically
    important for future military operations against Soviet Russia.”

On Page 9, Paragraph 2 from the bottom, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger tells us of
a conference which took place at the end of March 1941, in the course of
which the Hungarian Minister of War, Bartha, outlined the objectives of
the war with Yugoslavia. Among these objectives Bartha pointed directly
to the necessity of eliminating Yugoslavia as a possible ally of the
Soviet Union.

However, a more complete picture of Germano-Hungarian relations, which
were determined by the preparation of an attack against the Soviet
Union, is contained in the statement by the Hungarian Major General,
Esteban Ujszaszy. From 1 May 1939 to 1 July 1942, Ujszaszy was Chief of
the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Services of the Hungarian
General Staff. In his official capacity during these years, he had
inside information on the secrets which shrouded this preparation. Some
of the things which he knew, he communicated to us in the document which
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-155 (Document Number
USSR-155). I ask you to accept this document as evidence.

I will read into the record that part of Ujszaszy’s statement which may
clarify the question at issue. Beginning from Page 2 of the Russian
text—this corresponds to Page 149 of the document book—we find Section
2 entitled, “Preparation of Germany and Hungary for War against Soviet
Russia.” Paragraph 1 of this section is devoted to “Halder’s letters.” I
quote:

    “In November 1940 the German military attaché in Budapest,
    Colonel Günther Krappe of the German General Staff, was received
    in audience by the Chief of the Royal Hungarian General Staff,
    Henry Werth. Krappe brought a letter from the Chief of the
    General Staff of the German Army, Generaloberst Halder.

    “In that letter Halder informed Werth that in the spring of
    1941, ‘Yugoslavia would have to be compelled, if necessary by
    force of arms, to adopt a definite position in order to exclude,
    at a later date, the menace of a Russian attack from the rear.
    In this preventive war, possibly against Yugoslavia and
    definitely against Soviet Russia, Hungary would have to
    participate if only in her own interests.’”

Werth replied that he agreed with Halder’s concept but drew attention to
the lack of equipment in the Hungarian Army, which, at that time, was
not ready for war against Soviet Russia. His request, on the whole, was
for the completion, by Germany, of Hungary’s armaments. He was informed
of Halder’s letter and Werth’s reply thereto, by General Werth in
person. After that a Hungarian armament commission was invited to
Berlin. It consisted of officer-specialists from the Main Ordinance
Supply Division of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Defense, and in
December 1940 the commission left for Berlin. The Hungarian requests
were as follows. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: General, couldn’t you pass on to December 1940, where
Field Marshal Keitel invites the Hungarian Minister of Defense to come
to Berlin. It is just a few sentences down.

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, I am passing on to this paragraph:

    “In December 1940, the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed
    forces (OKW), Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, invited the
    Hungarian Minister of Home Defense, General Carl Bartha, to come
    to Berlin in order to: a) discuss personally the problem of
    armaments; b) elaborate a plan of military and political
    collaboration between Germany and Hungary for the spring of
    1941.

    “This invitation was transmitted to Budapest through the Royal
    Hungarian Military Attaché in Berlin, Colonel in the General
    Staff Alexander Homlok. At the same time, I received a similar
    invitation from Admiral Canaris, Chief of the Foreign and
    Defense Sections of the OKW.”

I omit a long list given by Ujszaszy of persons who accompanied Bartha
on his trip, and I read further from Page 151 of the document book:

    “The information which we received follows:

    “In the spring of 1941 the position of Yugoslavia will be
    clarified, the menace of a Russian Soviet attack in the rear
    eliminated. . . . For this purpose the Hungarian Honved Army,
    reinforced by the delivery of 10-centimeter field howitzers and
    with up-to-date tanks for a ‘Mobile Brigade’ will be ready for
    action. For the war against Russia, Hungary must make available
    15 operational units (including 3 mobilized, cavalry, and Panzer
    units); she must also complete, by 1 June 1941, the erection of
    fortifications in Transcarpathian Russia, assist the advance of
    the German troops in the area adjacent to the Hungarian-Yugoslav
    and the Hungarian-Soviet frontiers and facilitate the deployment
    and the passage of supplies for the troops through Hungary. The
    details for the operational preparation will be determined later
    by representatives of the German General Staff about to be sent
    to Hungary. As a political compensation for her participation,
    Hungary will receive territory in Yugoslavia and in Soviet
    Russia (the ancient Principality of Halicz) and the land at the
    foot of the Carpathian Mountains, up to the River Dniester.”

In March 1941 Eberhard Kienzl, a colonel of the German General Staff,
visited Budapest. The purpose of this visit was to make final
arrangements about the question of attack on Yugoslavia.

This is what Ujszaszy has to say on the matter—Page 5 of the Russian
text, Paragraph 3, from the bottom of Page 152 of the document book:

    “The Colonel of the German General Staff, Eberhard Kienzl,
    detachment Foreign Armies East in the OKH (High Command of the
    Army), arrived in Budapest in March 1941 bringing with him a
    letter from Generaloberst Halder to Generaloberst Werth. This
    letter contained an insistent request on the part of Germany
    that Hungary should participate in the possible war against
    Yugoslavia by mobilizing the following army corps: I. Budapest,
    II. Szekesfeherwar, III. Szombathely, IV. Pecs, V. Szeged, and
    in the war against Soviet Russia by mobilizing 15 operational
    units, including 1 cavalry division, 2 mechanized brigades, and
    1 mountain (rifle) brigade.

    “The letter announced the imminent arrival in Budapest of a
    German delegation, headed by Lieutenant General Paulus, for
    discussing combined operations and the deployment of German
    troops against Yugoslavia through Hungarian territory.

    “In reply to this letter General Werth issued an invitation to
    the German commission, held out prospects of Hungary’s
    participation in the war against Yugoslavia and of producing,
    for this purpose, 3 army corps, that is, the 1st, 4th, and 5th.

    “Concerning the war against Soviet Russia, he agreed in
    principle, promising at least to mobilize the 8th Army Corps
    (Kressikosice) as well as the mechanized operation units
    demanded by Halder.

    “I was informed personally about this exchange of correspondence
    by Colonel of the German General Staff, Kienzl.”

THE PRESIDENT: General, speaking for myself, I cannot see that it makes
the slightest difference to this Tribunal whether Hungary was going to
put one army corps, or two army corps, or three army corps against the
Russians. It was absolutely clear from what you have already read, if we
are to believe it, that Field Marshal Keitel, in December 1940, was
demanding that Hungary should put at Germany’s disposal, for the war
against Russia, certain units. What does it matter if subsequent
negotiations alter the number of units?

It seems to me that this evidence which is given is entirely cumulative.
It doesn’t add anything in the least to what you have already given us,
and you could go on to the next document, which is Number USSR-150
(Exhibit Number USSR-150). Everything up to there is simply the
negotiations between members of the German and Hungarian General Staffs
as to exactly what units of the Hungarian Army were to be used.

GEN. ZORYA: I quite agree with the President that the presentation of
the documents on this question should be restricted.

THE PRESIDENT: The next one is 150?

GEN. ZORYA: The Ujszaszy document contains certain information
pertaining not only to the number of units pledged by Hungary to Germany
in case of war with the Soviet Union; but there is, for example, an
indication as to what methods in the preparation for war were being used
by the fascist clique in Hungary, in agreement with the Hitlerite
conspirators. I consider it imperative to dwell on these methods, and
that is why I request your permission to quote certain passages in this
document.

What I now have in mind, for instance, is the falsification of the
information regarding the number of Soviet units concentrated on the
Hungarian-Russian border.

THE PRESIDENT: Please, go on.

GEN. ZORYA: Page 155 of the document book reads as follows:

    “My immediate superior, General Laszlo, as chief of the
    operational group ordered the second section of the General
    Staff to prepare a situation report according to which 14 Soviet
    Russian operational units were concentrated on the Hungarian
    border, including 8 motorized units. This situation report was
    prepared by Colonel Cornel Hidai, of Intelligence.

    “I should like to point out that according to subsequent
    explanations supplied by the second section of the Royal
    Hungarian General Staff, there were only four Soviet operational
    units actually concentrated on the Hungarian border. This
    circumstance I truthfully reported to Generaloberst Werth and
    General Laszlo, but the latter altered my truthful, objective
    report in accordance with his wishes.”

Further, Ujszaszy speaks of plans for provocation drawn up by the
militarist clique in Hungary for the purpose of creating incidents
abroad to justify an attack on the Soviet Union. Ujszaszy states—Page
10, Line 4 from the top of the document, Page 157 of the document book:

    “These plans emanated from Lieutenant General Fütterer, from his
    assistant Lieutenant Colonel Frimond, and from General Laszlo.
    They proposed that, if necessary, German aircraft, camouflaged
    as Russian planes, should bomb the eastern border districts of
    Hungary, with bombs of Soviet Russian origin.”

And finally, Ujszaszy describes the events of the few days preceding the
attack on the Soviet Union—this is Page 11 of the document, Page 158 of
the document book:

    “On 24 June 1941 (if I remember correctly), at 12:30 noon, I was
    informed that Soviet Russian planes were bombing Raho in
    Carpathian Russia and firing on trains in the vicinity with
    machine gun fire. On the same afternoon news reached us that
    Soviet Russian planes were bombing Kassá (Košice). The Crown
    Council, with the Regent in the chair, met on the same evening
    and, on the strength of Soviet Russia’s provocation, decided to
    declare war on that country. I am convinced that the bombarding
    was carried out by German planes with Russian markings. My
    conclusion was based on the following facts:

    “a) Lieutenant General Fütterer and the German propaganda
    machine publicized this bombing on a very vast scale.

    “b) Lieutenant General Laszlo immediately gave me orders,
    through the Propaganda Subsection of Section 2 of the Royal
    Hungarian General Staff, to obtain photographs of such fragments
    of the ‘Soviet Russian bombs’ as could still be found and to
    publish these photographs in the press of the fascist countries.

    “c) Lieutenant General Fütterer, General Laszlo, and Lieutenant
    General Frimond spread, by a whispering campaign, the rumor that
    Slovakian pilots in Russian service had bombed Kassá (Košice).
    The excellence of the hits was explained by the fact that these
    pilots were well acquainted with the terrain.”

This happened, according to Ujszaszy, on 24 June 1941, at 12:30 p.m. We
have a document that establishes the fact that long before this date the
participation of Hungary in the war against the Soviet Union had been
decided. The document presented to the Tribunal and which contains the
depositions of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger explains the reasons for the
Hungarian assault on the Soviet Union. It may be that
Ruszkiczay-Ruediger’s viewpoint is not shared by everybody, but still,
as it is the testimony of the Hungarian Deputy Minister of War, this
statement can, of course, not be devoid of interest.

On Page 10 of the Russian text of his testimony, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger
states that towards the end of May 1941 he received an order to supply,
first of all, the troops concentrated in the Transcarpathian Ukraine; 2
days afterwards a secret meeting of the army corps commanders took place
at the headquarters of General Werth, Chief of the General Staff, at
which the forthcoming attack on the Soviet Union was announced.

I quote from the testimony of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger—Page 108 of the
document book and Page 9 of the document itself. I am only quoting the
passages underlined, in order to save time. I quote:

    “. . . General of the Infantry Werth gave us an account of the
    military and political situation.

    “It appears that an attack against the Soviet Union by Germany
    is forthcoming, in which Romania and Hungary will take an active
    part on the side of Germany.”

Ruszkiczay-Ruediger further points out that:

    “The decision to declare war was taken by the Council of
    Ministers, after Premier Bardossy and Minister Bartha had made
    their reports, and was ratified by the Crown Council. The
    question was not submitted to Parliament. “These decisions of
    the Council of Ministers and the Crown Council caused no
    surprise at all, and were the result of the voluntary military
    collaboration with Germany which had actually existed for many
    years past.

    “The Hungarian General Staff and the political leaders of
    Hungary as from the beginning of the aggression against
    Czechoslovakia, considered Germany as their mainstay in their
    plans of revision. Afterwards followed the occupation of
    Transcarpathian Ukraine and the strategic organization of this
    region as a military base in preparation for an attack on Soviet
    Russia.”

Ujszaszy, in his report, mentioned the German military attaché in
Budapest, Krappe. The former Lieutenant General of the German Army,
Günther Krappe, was the German military attaché in Budapest from
November 1939 to 30 April 1941. After that, Krappe commanded the 10th
Corps of SS troops of the Army Group “Vistula,” and was captured by Red
Army units.

I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a statement made by Krappe
in January of this year and presented as Exhibit Number USSR-150
(Document Number USSR-150). It should be noted that the main
circumstances mentioned in Krappe’s statement coincide with those on
Ujszaszy’s report. I shall therefore read only a few excerpts from Page
4 of Krappe’s document, corresponding to Page 165 of the document book:

    “In October 1940 I was ordered by the OKH to report on the
    conditions of fortifications in the region bordering Russia,
    that is, in the Carpathian Ukraine. The Chief of the Operations
    Section, Colonel Laszlo, informed me that, so far, there were
    only simple antitank obstacles in existence, varying in depth
    from 1 to 2 kilometers and that the construction of barracks for
    quartering troops had just begun. The necessary surveys for
    building concrete pillboxes along the border and the highways
    would be made during the winter and in the spring of 1941 it
    would be possible to proceed with the actual construction. It
    appeared to be a question of raising some 6 million pengö.

    “General Werth gave me permission to make an automobile trip
    through Munkac to Urzok Pass. . . .

    “I communicated the results of the inspection trip and of the
    information obtained from Colonel Laszlo to Berlin. Some time
    later Colonel Laszlo informed me that the necessary sums for the
    building of these fortifications had already been allotted.”

In order to save time, Your Honors, I shall briefly expose the remaining
part of Krappe’s testimony. An agreement was reached with the War
Minister, Von Bartha, to organize war communications and war transports
of the German Army in Hungary. In connection with this a special
organization therefore arrived which was entrusted with these
transports. At the same time, Your Honors, permission was received to
establish jointly with the postal services, a special communication
system for military needs, and, furthermore, a number of German officers
were attached to the Hungarian Army for the interchange of experiences
and instruction of the troops. Krappe states that as from December 1940,
Hungarian industry was reorganized and worked for the increase of the
German military potential. General Leeb, the Chief of the Armament
Department, was in charge.

In concluding the presentation of documents concerning the setting up of
an aggressive bloc against the Soviet Union by the fascist war
criminals, I consider it necessary to make a few comments of a general
nature as derived from these documents.

The fascist conspirators began to adopt immediate measures for securing
the participation of Romania, Finland, and Hungary in the preparation
for the predatory attack on the Soviet Union at least as early as
September 1940, when a military mission was sent to Romania.

The negotiations concerning the military preparations for aggression
against the Soviet Union, in each of these countries, were mainly
concluded during the period September-December 1940. The negotiations
were conducted by the general staffs of the German and the satellite
armies. The subject of the negotiations in each case was of a purely
military character, such as the retraining of the troops, the
transportation of military units, the coordination of strategic plans,
the deciding on the number of divisions needed to attack the Soviet
Union, _et cetera_.

Such character of negotiations testifies to the fact that there existed
between the fascist Government of Germany and the Governments of
Romania, Finland, and Hungary, a preliminary agreement with regard to
aggression against the Soviet Union even before the negotiations began.

And, finally, the documents submitted reveal that to each of these
countries, one way or the other, the fascist conspirators had promised
some territory belonging to the Soviet Union.

I should like to point out one more circumstance.

In order fully to grasp the consequences of the predatory fascist attack
on the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it is not enough to
confine ourselves to Plan Barbarossa. This is a strategic plan, a plan
for military attack, a plan for the beginning of aggression.

And close on the heels of the attack followed, as it is well known, the
so-called “assimilation” and “organization” of the occupied territories.
The plans for the “assimilation” and “organization,” which were plans
for the extermination of the peaceful civilian population and the
plundering of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, were also
prepared in advance, in the same way as Plan Barbarossa.

The Soviet Prosecution declares that the documents at the disposal of
the Tribunal, and especially such documents as the directive of 13 March
1941 (Document Number 447-PS), signed by the Defendant Keitel; the order
for the application of military jurisdiction, dated 15 May 1941
(Document Number C-50), also signed by Keitel; the propaganda directive
for Plan Barbarossa (Document Number C-26); and others, testify to the
destruction not only of legal but of all moral standards of behavior by
the hordes of the fascist usurpers on the temporarily occupied Soviet
territories, this destruction having been premeditated and planned long
before the attack on the Soviet Union.

Even before the attack on the Soviet Union, the Hitlerites had decided
and outlined in appropriate paragraphs of these instructions,
directions, and orders, the terroristic methods for dealing with the
civilian population and the measures and means for plundering the land
of the Soviet Union and reducing it to a colony of the Third Reich. And
when war did break out and the whole secret was laid bare, the fascists
did not hesitate to publish all these plans in their press.

I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-59 (Document Number
USSR-59), an article, published on 20 August 1942, in _Das Schwarze
Korps_, an SS paper and organ of the Reich Führer of the SS. This
article, entitled, “Should We Germanize?”—Page 180 of the document
book—states openly:

    “The Reich Führer of the SS chose the following slogan for one
    of the editions of the newspaper _Deutsche Arbeit_, devoted to
    the problems of resettlement in the East:

    “Our duty in the East is not Germanization in the former sense
    of the term, that is, imposing the German language and the
    German laws upon the population, but to ensure that only people
    of pure German blood should inhabit the East.”

This negation of Germanization is not new. However, falling from the
lips of the Reich Führer of the SS, acting as Reich Commissioner for the
strengthening of the Volkstum, it becomes an order. Such is the exact
meaning of these words.

The rejection of the idea of germanizing the population of the occupied
territories, and the assertion that the East should be inhabited only by
people of pure German blood, signified, in practice, the mass
extermination of Soviet citizens, their spoliation and their deportation
to slave labor, the annihilation of centuries of Russian culture, and
the destruction of our cities and villages. I shall confine myself to
what I have just said, as the same theme, or rather themes, have already
been elaborated and will be presented to the Tribunal by my colleagues.

On 22 June 1941, after prolonged preparations, the German fascist hordes
hurled themselves on the Soviet Union. One hundred and seventy
divisions, concentrated on the borders of the Soviet Union from the
Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, started the invasion.

The military problems connected with the attack were formulated in Plan
Barbarossa:

    “The German Army should be ready, even prior to the end of the
    war with England, to defeat Soviet Russia by operating with
    lightning speed.

    “To this end the Army will have to utilize all units at its
    disposal, with the sole reservation that the territories
    occupied must be adequately protected against all unexpected
    eventualities.”

Plan Barbarossa foresaw the necessity of annihilating the Red Army, of
cutting off the possible retreat towards the interior of all Red Army
units still fit for battle and of permitting the German fascist invaders
speedily to reach a line of combat which would place the land of Germany
beyond the range of the Soviet Air Force.

As an ultimate aim, Plan Barbarossa provided for the strengthening of
the Astrakhan-Archangel line, the destruction by bombardment of the Ural
industries, the seizure of Leningrad and Kronstadt, and finally, the
capture of Moscow.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a good time to break off?

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 13 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-EIGHTH DAY
                       Wednesday, 13 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Please continue.

GEN. ZORYA: Your Honors, yesterday afternoon I dwelt on the fact that
Plan Barbarossa had foreseen the necessity of annihilating the Red Army,
of excluding the possibility of a retreat into the interior of such Red
Army units as were still capable of fighting, and of obtaining, by rapid
action, a combat line for the German-fascist invaders which would place
the regions of Germany beyond the range of the Soviet Air Force. The
final aim, according to Plan Barbarossa, was fortification of the
Astrakhan-Archangel Line, the destruction from the air of the Ural
industries, the seizure of Leningrad and Kronstadt and, as a decisive
finale, the capture of Moscow.

The political aims which determined the military plans were formulated
by the Hitlerites in the many documents which were read into the record
in this courtroom. But these aims were stated particularly clearly at
the meeting in Hitler’s headquarters on 16 July 1941. This document was
presented by the United States Prosecution as Document Number L-221. You
will find it on Page 141 of the document book. At this meeting Hitler,
Göring, Rosenberg, Keitel, and other fascist conspirators were deciding,
as they thought, the subsequent fortunes of the Soviet Union.

The Crimea, together with the adjoining regions of the Ukraine, the
Baltic regions, the Bialystok Forests and the Kola Peninsula, were
declared as “annexed” to Germany. The Volga colonies were also to become
a part of the Reich. The Baku area was envisaged as a German military
colony. Bessarabia and Odessa were to be handed over to Romania, while
Finland was to acquire Eastern Karelia, Leningrad, and the Leningrad
region.

As you well know, Your Honors, the Hitlerites always strove to prevent
their real piratical aims from receiving publicity. At the same meeting
at general headquarters, on 16 July 1941, Hitler, for instance, said
that it was most important not to reveal their aims to the whole world,
not to complicate their path by unnecessary declarations, and, when
offering reasons for their actions, to ascribe them primarily to
tactical intentions.

The Defendant Rosenberg stated, 20 June 1941, at a conference on the
Eastern question—a record of which was presented by the United States
Prosecution as Document Number 1058-PS—that tactics were very important
and that political aims would be determined as the occasion arose, when
one slogan or another could be given publicity. This particular excerpt
from Rosenberg’s declaration you will find on Page 17 of the Russian
text of the document, which corresponds to Page 201 in the document
book.

Taking this circumstance into consideration, Your Honors, it appears of
value for our investigation to refer to some statements by the fascist
war criminals which refer to the period when they considered it possible
to make public some of their political aims. In 1941-42 the fascist
hordes broke through territories of the Soviet Union on an extensive
scale and approached Moscow. Battles were waged on the banks of the
Volga. The specter of a “Greater Germany” ruling the world appeared as a
beacon before the eyes of the Hitlerite conspirators. It would appear
that the opportunity had arrived about which Defendant Rosenberg spoke
when, from the standpoint of the fascist criminals, it was possible that
“certain political slogans could be made public.”

I presented to the Tribunal, under Exhibit Number USSR-58 (Document
Number USSR-58), a document from the archives of the Defendant
Rosenberg’s office relating to questions of German policy in the
occupied regions of the Caucasus. Once again I ask you to refer to this
document. I turn to Page 203 in the document book and Page 9 of the
Russian text, which is the translation of this document.

Rosenberg, on 27 July 1942, solved the Eastern problem in this fashion,
and I quote:

    “The Eastern problem consists in bringing the Baltic peoples
    under the influence of German culture and in preparing widely
    conceived military frontiers for Germany. The Ukrainian problem
    consists in securing food supplies for Germany and Europe and
    supplies of raw materials for the Continent.

    “The problem of the Caucasus is primarily a political task, and
    its solution means the expansion of continental Europe, under
    German leadership, from the Caucasian isthmus to the Near East.”

On 27 November 1941 the Defendant Ribbentrop made a report on the
international situation. The text of this report was published in Number
329-A of the _Hamburger Fremdenblatt_. I present this report as Exhibit
Number USSR-347 (Document Number USSR-347).

Ribbentrop said in this report:

    “I should like to summarize the consequences of this defeat of
    Soviet Russia and of the occupation of the far greater part of
    European Russia in 1941, as follows:

    “First, from a military point of view, England’s last ally on
    the Continent has thereby ceased to exist as a significant
    factor. Germany and Italy, with their allies, thus become
    unassailable in Europe. And powerful forces will be released.

    “Second, in the economic field the Axis powers, together with
    their friends, which means the whole of Europe, have achieved
    independence from countries overseas. Europe has once and for
    all been freed from the threat of blockade. The grain and raw
    materials of European Russia can fully cover the needs of
    Europe. Its war production will serve Germany’s war economy and
    that of her allies, as a result of which Europe’s war potential
    will increase, and increase more powerfully. The organization of
    this gigantic area is already in full swing.

    “Thus, the last two decisive prerequisites for the victory of
    the Axis and its allies over England have been created.”

I shall take the liberty of presenting another document on this same
subject. It is Goebbels’ speech in Munich, published on 19 October 1942
in the main organ of the Nazi Party, the _Völkischer Beobachter_, South
German edition. The text of this speech is presented to the Military
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-250 (Document Number USSR-250). That is
on Page 205 in the document book. In his address Goebbels said:

    “Over and above that, we have captured the most important grain,
    coal, and iron ore producing regions of the Soviet Union. What
    the enemy has lost we now possess. And since what the enemy
    lacks has come to us, it is, according to Adam Riese, of double
    value. While in the past we were a people without space, this is
    today no longer the case. Today we have only to give a shape to
    this space conquered by our soldiers, to organize it, and render
    it useful to us; and this requires a certain period of time. But
    if the English were to contend that we have lost the war because
    we have lost time, then this contention will only prove how
    completely they have misunderstood the entire situation. Time
    only works against those who have no space and no raw materials.
    If we make use of our time to organize the space we have
    conquered, then time will work not against us, but for us.”

Your Honors, that which Goebbels, the Defendants Ribbentrop, and
Rosenberg said about exploiting the space captured by the soldiers, took
on, at the OKW, the shape of plans for further aggression.

In this respect the following document—which I now submit to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-336 (Document Number USSR-336)—is of
interest and I ask you to accept this as evidence. This document is a
letter from the Staff of the German Navy to the commanding generals of
Groups West, North, and South. This document was discovered in German
archives by the Allied troops. The letter, which you will find on Page
209 in the document book, is entitled, “Objectives for the Further
Conduct of War upon the Termination of the Campaign in the East.” It is
numbered 1385/41 and is dated 8 August 1941.

In those days the fascist conspirators considered that victory over the
Soviet Union was really only a question of time; and they, therefore,
planned for further aggression. This letter which I am about to quote
begins with the following words:

    “The Naval Operations Staff has just received the draft about
    further intentions on termination of the campaign in the East.

    “The following declarations describe these intentions in broad
    lines and are only intended for the personal information of the
    commanding generals and the Chiefs of Staff.”

There follows Part 2, Paragraph P, the eight subparagraphs of which
detail the plans to be carried out on the termination of the campaign in
the East.

I omit, Your Honors, the first two subparagraphs dealing with the tasks
of the so-called pacification of the Occupied Eastern Territories and
with the assignment to other fronts of troops which had become
available.

Subparagraph 3 details the intentions of the fascist conspirators in
North Africa. I quote:

    “Strengthening of the Armed Forces in North Africa with a view
    to rendering possible the capture of Tobruk. In order to
    guarantee the passage of necessary transports according to plan,
    attacks by the German Air Force on Malta should be resumed.

    “Provided that weather conditions cause no delay and the service
    of transports is assured as planned, it can be assumed that the
    campaign against Tobruk will begin in mid-September.”

In August 1941 the Hitlerites intended, with the aid of fascist Spain,
to seize Gibraltar during the same year. Subparagraph 4 of Part 2 of the
letter just submitted to you envisaged that:

    “Plan Felix, that is, the seizure of Gibraltar with the active
    participation of Spain, must be executed in 1941.”

The Hitlerites planned the execution of an attack against Syria and
Palestine in the direction of Egypt. Subparagraph 5 of the
above-mentioned letter states as follows:

    “If, once the termination of the campaign in the East has been
    made known, we succeed in bringing Turkey to our side, an attack
    on Syria and Palestine in the direction of Egypt is foreseen
    after a minimum period of 85 days for the preparation of the
    necessary forces and a preliminary securing of the Chersonese
    passes and an improvement of Anatolian transportation routes
    through Turkey, with German help.”

Two subparagraphs later, we find, in the same letter, in Subparagraph 8,
a possible variation of this plan:

    “If, even after the defeat of Soviet Russia, it would still
    prove impossible to bring Turkey over to our side, a southward
    thrust through Anatolia would have to be carried out against her
    will.”

Your Honors, in the plans of fascist aggression Egypt played a large
part. It is mentioned in Subparagraphs 6 and 7 of Part 2 of the letter
quoted. Subparagraph 6 mentions—I quote word for word:

    “An attack on Egypt from Cyrenaica, after the fall of Tobruk
    could probably not be carried out before the end of 1941 or the
    beginning of 1942.”

Subparagraph 7 stated:

    “If the collapse of Soviet Russia creates the necessary
    conditions, an advance by a motorized expeditionary force
    through Transcaucasia, in the direction of the Persian Gulf, and
    in the direction of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt is envisaged.

    “Because of weather conditions, this attack will only become
    possible at the beginning of 1942.”

This document, which I have just presented to the Tribunal, shows the
turn of events intended by the fascist conspirators had the Red Army not
put an end to their aggression. The fascist aggressors hoped to destroy
the Soviet Union in a lightning war, to seize her wealth, to subjugate
the Soviet people, and, by these means, to open for themselves the road
to world domination.

Now, Your Honors, I have come to the end of my presentation. In
concluding the presentation of documentary evidence regarding the
aggression of the fascist conspirators against the Soviet Union, may I
ask the Tribunal’s permission to sum up briefly as follows:

1. The criminal intent of attacking the U.S.S.R. for the purpose of
plundering the Soviet Union and exploiting its riches for purposes of
further German aggression was conceived by the fascist conspirators long
before the actual launching of the attack.

2. The military preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union were
conducted by the fascist criminals for at least a year and embraced not
only Germany, but also satellite countries, particularly Romania,
Finland, and Hungary.

3. The execution of the criminal designs of the fascist aggression
consisting of the extermination of the peaceful population, the plunder
of the Soviet Union, and the wresting of its territories, was planned
long before the attack on the Soviet Union.

Fortunately for all freedom-loving nations in the world, the Union of
the Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet people, and their Red Army
completely overthrew all the fiendish plans of the fascist aggressors.
The Red Army not only withstood and stopped the fascist aggression; but,
together with the armies of its allies, brought Hitler Germany to
complete catastrophe and the fascist war criminals to the dock.

I thus end my presentation, Your Honors.

COL. POKROVSKY: Your Honors, my task today is to present to you material
on the “Criminal Violation of the Laws and Customs of War in the
Treatment of Prisoners of War.”

Before beginning the presentation of evidence relative to the
overwhelming guilt of the defendants in regard to the persons who were
captured by the German Army, I consider it essential to make a few brief
remarks.

As early as the end of the last century, the Hague Convention of 1899
established certain rules regulating the rights and responsibilities of
belligerents in regard to prisoners of war. In pursuance of the
provisions of the 1899 Convention, a number of states drew up the
necessary instructions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. I
would like to cite three or four sentences taken from such instructions:

    “The exclusive aim of the prisonership is to prevent the further
    participation of prisoners in the war.

    “A State may do everything necessary for the holding of
    prisoners, but nothing more. . . .

    “Prisoners of war may be employed to perform moderate work in
    conformity with their social position. . . .

    “In any case, such work must not be detrimental to health and
    must not be of a humiliating nature. It must not contribute
    directly to military operations against the native country of
    the prisoners. . . .

    “Prisoners of war lose their freedom but retain their rights. In
    other words, military confinement is not an act of mercy on the
    part of the captor, but the right of disarmed persons.”

It may surprise you to learn that the instructions cited are those
issued by the German General Staff in Volume 18 of the circular
published in 1902. The principle of humane treatment of prisoners and
wounded servicemen was further developed in the Hague Convention of 1907
and the Geneva Convention of 1929.

Germany’s adherence to these conventions was definitely reflected in the
German law regarding wartime courts-martial. I have in mind,
particularly, the German law of 17 August 1938, and, in particular, Part
“e”, Articles 73 and 75, which contain direct reference to the
Convention of 1929. That was at a time when Hitlerite Germany had
already begun the execution of her aggressive plans.

As the Tribunal will remember, the 23rd Article of the Hague Convention
of 1907 states, “. . . it is forbidden . . . to kill or wound an enemy
who, having laid down his arms and possessing no means of defense, has
unconditionally surrendered.”

It cannot be said that the brief code of the laws of war, which was, in
fact, drawn up at The Hague and Geneva, encompassed the whole range of
questions relating to the laws of war. The authors of these documents
had, therefore, inserted the following proviso, and I will cite this
excerpt:

    “Until the opportunity presents itself of issuing a more
    complete code of the laws of war, the High Contracting
    Parties”—and I would remind the Tribunal that Germany was one
    of those contracting parties—“consider it appropriate to affirm
    that, in cases not provided for in the rules established by
    them, the population and the belligerents remain safeguarded by
    the principles of international law insofar as these principles
    ensue from the customs, laws of humanity, and dictates of public
    conscience in force between civilized nations.”

I should like to emphasize that in the appendix to the Convention on the
Laws and Customs of Land War (Second Peace Conference, 1907), Article 4
of Chapter 2, concerning prisoners of war, states as follows—and you,
Sir, will find the quotation on Page 4 of the document book, where it is
underlined with red pencil:

    “Prisoners of war remain in the custody of the enemy government
    and not of the individuals or troops which had captured them.

    “They must be treated humanely.

    “All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and military
    papers, will remain in their possession.”

It may, therefore, be considered definitely established that the
governments of a number of states, including Germany, had
unconditionally recognized their obligations to insure conditions under
which prisoners of war should not suffer from arbitrary actions on the
part of members of the Armed Forces of any state. The natural conclusion
presents itself that in cases of violations of this obligation, the
responsibility for any crime against a prisoner of war and especially
for a definite system of crimes against the dignity, person, health, and
life of prisoners of war, must fall on the government of the country
which had signed the Convention.

In the light of the facts which I shall submit to you, on the basis of
irrefutable documents, Germany’s solemn undertakings in regard to
prisoners of war will appear to be nothing but unparalleled and cynical
mockery of the very conception of treaties, laws, culture, and humanity.

I present to the Court, as our Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number
USSR-51), a note submitted by Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, People’s
Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., dated 25 November 1941,
concerning the outrageous atrocities committed by the German authorities
against Soviet prisoners of war; and I quote several extracts from this
note, which you will find on Page 5 of the document presented to you:

    “The Soviet Government is in possession of numerous facts
    testifying to the systematic outrages and atrocities committed
    by the German authorities against Red Army soldiers and against
    commanders of the Red Army. Lately these facts have become
    particularly numerous and have positively cried to high heaven,
    thereby revealing once again the German war machine and the
    German Government as a gang of bandits who utterly ignored all
    codes of international law and all laws of human ethics.

    “The Soviet Military Command is aware of numerous cases of the
    subjection of captured Red Army men, the majority of them
    wounded, to savage torture, ill-usage, and murder at the hands
    of the German Military Command and German military units.
    Captured Red Army men are tortured with bars of red-hot iron;
    their eyes are gouged out, their feet, hands, fingers, ears, and
    noses are hacked off, their stomachs ripped open, and they are
    tied to tanks and torn asunder. Enormities and shameful crimes
    of this sort are committed by German fascist officers and men
    along the whole front, wherever they may be and wherever men and
    commanders of the Red Army fall into their hands.

    “For example, in the Ukrainian S.S.R., on the Island of
    Khortitsa, on the Dnieper, after the German troops were forced
    to retreat by the Red Army, the bodies of captured Red Army
    soldiers who had been tortured by the Germans were found. The
    prisoners’ hands had been cut off, their eyes gouged out, their
    stomachs ripped open. In a southwesterly direction, in the
    village of Repki in the Ukraine, after the Germans had retreated
    from the positions they had occupied, the bodies of Battalion
    Commander Bobrov, Political Officer Pyatigorsky, and two
    privates were found. Their arms and legs had been nailed to
    stakes, and on their bodies five-pointed stars had been cut with
    red-hot knives. The faces of the dead men were cut and burnt.
    Near these bodies was found the body of a Red Army man whom the
    Germans had captured the previous day. His feet were burnt and
    his ears were cut off. When our units captured the village of
    Kholmy, on the Northwestern front, the mutilated bodies of Red
    Army men were found. One of these had been thrown into a
    bonfire. This was Private Adrei Ossipov of the Kazak S.S.R. At
    Greigovo Station (Ukrainian S.S.R.), German units captured a
    small group of Red Army men and kept them without food or drink
    for several days. A number of the prisoners had their ears
    slashed off, eyes gouged out, and hands cut off, after which
    they had been run through with bayonets. In July of this year,
    at Schumilino Station, German units captured a group of severely
    wounded Red Army men and put them to death on the spot. In the
    same month, in the vicinity of the town of Borisov,
    (Bielorussian S.S.R.), the Hitlerites captured 70 severely
    wounded Red Army men and poisoned them all with arsenic. In
    August, near the township of Zabolotye, the Germans captured 17
    severely wounded Red Army men on the battlefield. For 3 days
    they gave them no food. The 17 men, their wounds still bleeding,
    were then tied to telegraph posts, as a result of which three of
    them died. The remaining 14 were saved from certain death by the
    timely arrival of a Soviet tank unit commanded by Senior
    Lieutenant Rybin. In the village of Lagutino, in the vicinity of
    Bryansk, the Germans tied a Red Army man to two tanks and tore
    him to pieces. At a point west of Bryansk, not far from the
    Collective Farm, ‘Red October,’ 11 charred bodies of men and
    officers of the Red Army captured by the fascists were found.
    The arms and back of one of these Red Army men bore traces of
    torture with a red-hot iron rod.

    “There are a number of cases on record where the German Command
    has driven captured Red Army men in front of their advancing
    columns, during an attack, on pain of shooting. Such cases in
    particular have been registered in the vicinity of the Vybor
    State Farm, in the Leningrad region; in the vicinity of Yelna,
    in the Smolensk region; in the Gomel region of the Bielorussian
    S.S.R.; in the Poltava region of the Ukrainian S.S.R., and in a
    number of other places.

    “Wounded and sick Red Army men in hospitals which fell into the
    hands of the German invaders were also systematically subjected
    to outrageous indignities, torture, and savage ill-usage. On
    innumerable occasions defenseless sick and wounded Red Army men
    in hospitals have been bayonetted or shot by the fascist fiends
    on the spot. Thus, at Malaya Rudnya, in the Smolensk Region,
    fascist German units captured a Soviet field hospital and shot
    the wounded Red Army men, and the male and female hospital
    attendants. Among the victims were Privates Shalamov and Asimov
    and Lieutenant Dileyev, who were wounded, and Verya Boiko, a 17
    year-old hospital attendant, and others.

    “There have been numerous cases of the abuse and violation of
    woman’s honor when female hospital nurses and hospital workers
    fell into the hands of the Hitlerite invaders.”

There are many similar facts in the same note. Then it continues:

    “Marauding is rife among the men and officers of the Hitler
    army. When the cold winter weather sets in, marauding assumes a
    mass character, the Hitlerite robbers stopping at nothing in
    their quest of war clothing. They not only strip warm clothes
    and boots from the dead bodies of Soviet soldiers; but divest
    wounded men of literally all their warm clothing—felt boots,
    boots, socks, jerseys, quilted jackets, and warm caps—leaving
    them stark naked. They did not even stop at taking the women’s
    warm clothing from killed or wounded hospital nurses.

    “Red Army prisoners were starved to death; they were left
    without food for weeks or issued infinitesimal rations of moldy
    bread or rotten potatoes. Depriving the Soviet prisoners of war
    of food, the Hitlerites compelled them to rake the garbage cans
    for remnants of food which the German soldiers had thrown out
    or, as happened in a number of camps, including the camp at the
    hamlet of Malaya Korma (Bielorussian S.S.R.), they fling the
    carcasses of horses over the barbed wire fence to the Soviet
    prisoners of war. In the Vitebsk camp, in Bielorussia, the Red
    Army prisoners received almost no food at all for 4 months. When
    a group of Red Army prisoners sent to the German Command a
    written request for food to keep them alive, a German officer
    inquired as to who wrote the statement. Five Red Army men who
    affirmed that they had written it were shot on the spot.

    “Similar cases of unbridled tyranny and brutality are to be
    observed in other camps, Shitkiv, Demyan, and others.

    “The German authorities and the German Government have
    established a savage regime in the camps for Soviet prisoners of
    war, with the object of mass extermination of Soviet prisoners
    of war. The German High Command and the Ministry of Food and
    Agriculture have issued a regulation establishing a food ration
    for Soviet prisoners of war far inferior in quantity and quality
    to that for prisoners of war of other countries. For instance,
    this ration consists of 6,000 grams of bread and 400 grams of
    meat per month, which dooms the Soviet prisoners of war to a
    painful death from starvation.

    “While enforcing this disgraceful and obviously unlawful regime
    for Soviet prisoners of war with inhuman cruelty, the German
    Government is doing its utmost to conceal from the public the
    regulation it issued on this question. Thus, in reply to an
    inquiry made by the Soviet Government, the Swedish Government
    stated that the information concerning the aforesaid regulation
    of the German Government published in the European and American
    press was correct, but that the text of this regulation had not
    been published and was therefore not available.”

The regulation which had not been available for the Swedish Government
in the autumn of 1941 has now become available for the International
Military Tribunal.

I assume that a very important circumstance is that these regulations
were distributed through two channels: The High Command and the Nazi
Party. In such a way, the extermination by starvation of the Soviet
prisoners of war captured by the Germans had been planned and carried
out both by the German High Command and by the Nazi Party.

I present to the Court these documents which were not available some
time ago, as a heavy load on the scale of the Prosecution. On Page 17,
Your Honors, you will find the document which has been cited by me. It
bears the Document Number D-225 (Exhibit Number USSR-349):

    “High Command of the Army, Army Equipment and the
    Commander-in-Chief of the Replacement Training Army.

    “Berlin, 6 August 1941.

    “Subject: Food ration of Soviet prisoners of war.

    “The Soviet Union did not subscribe to the agreement of 27 July
    1929, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. Consequently
    we are not obliged to supply Soviet prisoners of war with food
    corresponding in quantity or quality to the requirements of this
    regulation. Taking the general food situation into
    consideration, the following rations for Soviet prisoners of war
    were established, which rations were considered adequate
    according to medical findings:

    “The ration in the camps for the prisoners of war (not employed
    on essential work) amounted to:

    “1. Bread, 6 kilograms; meat, 400 grams; fat, 440 grams; sugar,
    600 grams, for 28 days.

    “2. For prisoners doing special work: Bread, 9 kilograms; meat,
    600 grams; fat, 520 grams; sugar, 900 grams, for 28 days.”

A similar regulation, headed, “Food Ration for Soviet Prisoners of War,”
was sent as secret information by the Chancellery of the Nazi Party on
17 December 1941. I shall quote only one sentence from that Party
directive, which you will find on Page 18 of the document book:

    “An open discussion of the question regarding the food supply of
    the prisoners of war either orally or in writing is forbidden
    because of the possibility of enemy propaganda.”

Furthermore, the authors of the document emphasize that there is no
danger of any substantial deterioration of the food supply of “our
German people.” I consider that the hint is sufficiently clear. The
document was distributed to the High Command of the Army, to the
commands of corps areas, to the military authorities in Bohemia and
Moravia, and to military commissioners in a number of cities.

The fascist conspirators established particularly low rations for men of
the Red Army. On the basis of their own estimates the monthly ration for
Soviet prisoners of war was 42 percent in regard to fats, 66 percent in
regard to sugar and bread and 0 percent in regard to meat, as compared
with the amount of food provided for prisoners of war from other armies
fighting against Germany. Moreover, there was a special note in the
directive itself. You will find the special note on Page 19 of the
document book:

    “If the ration for non-Soviet prisoners of war is reduced, the
    ration for Soviet prisoners of war must be lowered accordingly.”

But even these starvation rations, which could not sustain the life of
an adult person, more often than not existed only on paper.

I present another document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-177
(Document Number USSR-177). . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I do not think it matters very much,
but when you said “0 percent” in regard to meat, when you were dealing
with the percentage, was that correct? Because in setting out the amount
of food which they were allowed, or were supposed to be allowed, there
was 400 grams of meat for ordinary men and 600 grams of meat for other
men doing special work, and I do not see how 400 grams can be 0 percent
of the ration allowed to other non-Soviet prisoners.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right, Sir. I have the same figures here,
but there is no contradiction here at all. I am reporting to the
Tribunal now that there were several directives, and the first one
appears to be the best for the Soviet prisoners of war. It states that
400 grams of meat was the ration. The next directive, which established
the percentage of food supply for the Soviet prisoners of war and
others, shows 0 percent. As far as I understand it, if there was not
meat for all of the prisoners of war, the Soviet prisoners would not
receive any meat at all.

THE PRESIDENT: I see. Then you say that the words “on the basis of their
own estimates” are referring to some estimates other than the estimate
which you give. It does not matter about that, but I understand you to
say that there are other estimates which show they did not give them
anything. Please proceed.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right, Sir.

I present to the Tribunal one more document dealing with the same
question. That is Exhibit Number USSR-177. You will find it on Page 21
of your document book. This is a record of a conference of the Reich
Ministry of Food (REM) under the direction of State Secretary Backe and
Ministerial Director Moritz. The document is dated 24 November 1941,
1630 hours. Among those who took part in the conference were
representatives of various departments, in particular General
Reinecke—probably the Tribunal will remember that it was Reinecke who
headed that particular phase of the work dealing with the prisoners of
war—and Ministerial Director Mansfeld. The subject under discussion was
the supply of food to Russian prisoners of war and civilian workers. I
quote—Page 21 of your document book:

    “1. Types of food.

    “Attempts to produce a special Russian bread have proved that a
    useful mixture consists of 50 percent rye bran, 20 percent
    residue of sugar beet, 20 percent cellulose flour and 10 percent
    flour made of straw or leaves.

    “Meat not usually employed for human consumption can never
    sufficiently satisfy a demand for meat. Russians must,
    therefore, be fed entirely on horse flesh and on the meat of
    animals which had not been adequately slaughtered and which, at
    present, is issued in double quantities on the ration cards.

    “With the present technique of fat production, inferior fats no
    longer exist; the Russian will, therefore, receive good edible
    fats.”

These derisive words can scarcely pass unnoticed. Russian prisoners of
war, who had been receiving “meat not usually employed for human
consumption,” were now receiving on their starvation rations only “meat
which is today issued in double quantities on ration cards”; and instead
of fats they were to get certain substances which can only be used for
food because of “the present technique of the fat production.” And these
products are called “good edible fats.”

The second part of the document is entitled “Rations.” I quote; the part
being cited by me is on Pages 21 and 22 in your document book:

    “Since there is a great discrepancy among the estimates of the
    present experts of the Health Administration, the Reich Office
    of Public Health, and the Army Medical Inspectorate as to the
    necessary caloric requirements, a final decision concerning the
    ration will be made in the course of the week by a smaller
    circle of experts. Seven days of flour soup as a transition diet
    and cancellation of the words ‘without work’ are from now on
    decreed for such Russians as are at present in German camps.

    “III. The number of Russians whom the Reich Ministry of Supply
    can supply with food.”

I should note here that this sentence means, “The number of Russians
whom the Reich Ministry of Food (REM) can provide has now been
established.”

    “State Secretary Backe was noncommittal in answer to persistent
    questioning by General Reinecke and Ministerial Director
    Mansfeld.”

It seems to me useful to point out that there is on the document a note
in pencil to the effect that:

    “It is requested to follow up the matter of the rations because
    State Secretary Backe is, apparently, beginning to lose his
    nerve.”

The signature is illegible.

It seems to me that this note vividly discloses the arguments that were
going on over establishing a norm. Not by accident does it speak here of
the wide discrepancy in the estimates concerning necessary caloric
requirements of the experts of the Reich Health Administration and the
Army Medical Inspectorate. As the Tribunal will remember, the witness
Blaha testified in reply to my questions that almost all prisoners of
war who died of starvation in the Dachau Camp were men of the Red Army.
I shall submit evidence showing that the Dachau Camp was not an
exception in that respect.

On 27 April 1942 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the
U.S.S.R. was forced to submit a new note. I present this note in our
exhibit under Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). You will find
the place I am referring to on Page 13 in your document book where it is
marked in red pencil for your convenience. I quote:

    “The Soviet Government now has at its disposal many hundreds of
    new documents confirming the bloody crimes committed against
    Soviet prisoners of war, dealt with in the note of the
    Government of the U.S.S.R. dated 25 November 1941.

    “It has been incontrovertibly established that the German
    Command, desiring to take revenge for the defeats inflicted on
    its army in the last few months, has everywhere introduced the
    practice of physical extermination of Soviet prisoners of war.

    “Along the entire length of the front, from the Arctic to the
    Black Sea, bodies of slain Soviet war prisoners and tortured war
    prisoners have been discovered. In almost every case these
    corpses bear traces of the horrible torture which precedes
    murder. In dugouts from which Red Army troops have driven the
    Germans, in fortifications, and also in populated centers,
    bodies of Soviet prisoners are found who have been murdered
    after savage torture. Facts like the following, recorded in
    affidavits signed by eye-witnesses, are being uncovered with
    increasing frequency.

    “On 2 and 6 March 1942, on the Crimean front, in the Lilly
    region at 66.3, village of Jantora, the bodies of nine Red Army
    men who had been taken prisoner were found so brutally tortured
    by the fascists that only two of the corpses could be
    identified. The nails had been drawn from the fingers of the
    tortured prisoners of war, their eyes had been gouged out and
    the right breast of one corpse had been completely cut out;
    there were traces of torture by fire, numerous knife wounds, and
    broken jaws.

    “In Theodosia scores of bodies of tortured Azerbaijanian Red
    Army men were found. Among them were Ismail-Zadch Jafarov, whose
    eyes had been gouged out and ears slashed off by the Hitlerites;
    Kuli-Zadch Alibekov, whose arms had been dislocated by the
    Hitlerites, after which he had been bayonetted; Corporal Ali
    Ogly Islom-Mahmed, whose stomach had been ripped open by the
    Hitlerites; Mustafa Ogly Asherov, who had been bound to a post
    with wire and died of his wounds in this position.”

And then, in the same note, is cited:

    “In the village of Krasnaperovo, (Smolensk region) attacking
    units of the Red Army found 29 dead and two naked bodies of
    captured Red Army men and officers, none of whom had a single
    bullet wound. All the prisoners had been knifed to death. In the
    same district, in the village of Babaevo, the Hitlerites placed
    58 captive Red Army men and two women ambulance workers in a
    haystack and then set fire to the hay. When the people who had
    been doomed to death attempted to escape from the flames, the
    Germans shot them.

    “In the village of Kuleshovka, the Germans captured 16 severely
    wounded men and officers, stripped the prisoners, tore the
    dressings from their wounds, tormented them with hunger, stabbed
    them with bayonets, broke their arms, tore open their wounds,
    and subjected them to other tortures, after which those who were
    still alive were locked up in a house, which was then set on
    fire.

    “In the village of Strenevo of the Kalinin region, the Germans
    locked 50 wounded captive Red Army men in a school building and
    burnt them to death.

    “In the town of Volokolamsk the invaders forbade Red Army men
    who had been locked on the fifth floor of house Number 3/6
    Proleterskaja Street to leave the house when a fire broke out.
    Those who attempted to leave or to jump from the windows were
    shot. Sixty prisoners perished in the flames or were killed by
    bullets.

    “In the village of Popovka (Tula region), the Germans drove 140
    captive Red Army men into a barn and set fire to it. Ninety five
    perished in the flames. Six kilometers from Pegostye Station, in
    the Leningrad region, the Germans, in the course of their
    retreat, under pressure of the Red Army troops, used explosive
    bullets to kill over 150 Soviet war prisoners after frightful
    beatings and savage torture. On most of the bodies the ears had
    been slashed off, the eyes gouged out, and the fingers chopped
    off, while several had had one or both hands hacked off and
    their tongues torn out. Stars had been cut out on the backs of
    three Red Army men. Not long before the liberation of the town
    of Kondrovo, Smolensk region, by units of the Red Army in
    December 1941, the Germans executed over 200 Red Army prisoners
    of war whom they had taken through the city, naked and barefoot,
    to the outskirts, shooting on the spot those who were exhausted
    and unable to walk any further, as well as those local citizens
    who gave them bread on their way through the city.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

COL. POKROVSKY: In their desire to exterminate as many Soviet prisoners
of war as possible, the Nazi conspirators excelled themselves by
inventing newer and ever newer methods of extermination. The note
states:

    “Of late a number of new cases have been established in which
    the German Command made use of Soviet war prisoners for clearing
    mine fields and for other hazardous work. Thus, in the district
    of the villages of Bolshaja and Malaja Vloya, for 4 days the
    Germans drove scores of prisoners lined up in close ranks, back
    and forth over a mine field. Every day several prisoners were
    blown to pieces by mines. Provision is made for this method of
    killing prisoners in the orders of the German Command. Order
    Number 109 to the 203rd Infantry Regiment states:

    “‘General Field Marshal Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief of the
    Army, has ordered that apart from military operations, the
    search for mines and the clearing of mine fields be done by
    Russian prisoners, with a view to sparing German blood. This
    also refers to German mines.’”

The marauding mentioned in the previous note is regarded not only as
something possible, but is proclaimed as obligatory to all the soldiers
of the German Army. The People’s Commissar refers to the following
documents issued by the German Command, in stressing the fact that this
marauding, done in wintertime, doomed the Red Army men to freeze to
death:

    “An order of the Staff of the 88th Regiment of the 34th German
    Infantry Division, headed ‘Situation with Respect to Clothing,’
    imposed: ‘Boots should be removed from Russian prisoners of war
    without hesitation.’

    “That this order is not an accidental one is seen from the fact
    that even before the perfidious attack on the U.S.S.R., the
    German Command provided for recourse to this system of supplying
    its troops.

    “Among the documents of the 234th Infantry Regiment of the 56th
    Division, a circular was found numbered 121/4 and dated 6 June
    1941, bearing the heading, ‘On the Principles of Supply in the
    Eastern Areas.’ This circular states on Page 8:

    “‘You must not count on being furnished clothing. Therefore it
    is particularly important to remove serviceable boots from
    prisoners of war and to make immediate use of all suitable
    clothing, underwear, socks, et cetera.’”

The note points out:

    “The Germans, with a view to exterminating Soviet prisoners of
    war, deprived them of food, condemned them to slow starvation
    and in some cases used a bad quality food. Soviet authorities
    have in their possession Order Number 202 of the Staff of the
    above mentioned 88th Regiment, which states:

    “‘Carcasses of horses will serve as food for Russian prisoners
    of war. Such points where carcasses of horses have been dumped
    are designated by signs. They can be found along the highways in
    Malo-Yaroslavets and in the villages of Romanovo and
    Beloussovo.’

    “Order Number 166/41 to the 60th Motorized Infantry Division is
    quite outspoken in demanding the mass murder of Soviet prisoners
    of war. This order states:

    “‘Russian soldiers and noncommissioned officers are extremely
    courageous in battle. Even small isolated units are always ready
    to attack. Therefore no humane attitude towards the prisoners is
    permissible. The destruction of the enemy by fire or by cold
    steel must be continued until he is rendered completely
    harmless. . . .’

    “The regulations issued by the German Command on the treatment
    of Soviet war prisoners, under Number 1/3058, contain the
    following instructions:

    “‘At the slightest sign of insubordination energetic and direct
    action must be taken. Arms must be used ruthlessly. Bludgeons,
    canes, and whips must not be used. Leniency, even towards
    obedient and hard-working prisoners only indicates weakness and
    must not be indulged in.’”—from Point 2.

    “‘At work the distance to the prisoner must always be such as to
    permit of immediate recourse to arms.’”—from Point 3.

    “All this proved to be insufficient. The Order of the High
    Command of the German Army, dated 14 January 1942 and issued in
    the name of Hitler as Commander-in-Chief, states”—Paragraph 2:

    “‘All clemency or humaneness towards prisoners of war is
    strictly condemned. A German soldier must always make his
    prisoner feel his superiority. . . . Every delay in resorting to
    arms against a war prisoner harbors danger. The
    Commander-in-Chief of the Army hopes that these directions will
    be fully carried out.’

    “The Soviet Government continues to receive reliable information
    on the condition of captive Red Army men in the German-occupied
    territories of the U.S.S.R. as well as in the German rear, and
    in the German-occupied European countries. This information
    testifies to the further deterioration of the regime instituted
    for captive Red Army men, and that they are particularly bad off
    in comparison with the war prisoners of other countries. It
    further testifies to the mass dying of Soviet prisoners of war
    from starvation and illness, from foul indignities and bloody
    cruelty systematically applied to the Red Army men by the
    Hitlerite authorities who have long since violated the most
    elementary requirements of international law and human ethics.”

The note specially stresses the fact that the inhuman atrocities and the
cruelty perpetrated by the German fascist gangsters against the Soviet
war prisoners exceed the atrocities of Genghis Dhenghis-Khan, Baty, and
Mamay.

In spite of that the note, which you will find on Page 14 of the
document book, states:

    “. . . In spite of all that, the Soviet Government, true to the
    principles of humanity and respect for its international
    obligations, has no intention, even in the given circumstances,
    of applying retaliatory repressive measures against German
    prisoners of war, and continues, as heretofore, to observe the
    obligations undertaken by the Soviet Union with regard to the
    regime for war prisoners specified by the Hague Convention of
    1907, which was likewise signed but so perfidiously violated in
    every one of its points by Germany.”

Later I shall quote a document written by a group of German prisoners of
war. The authors of the document, on one hand, by a series of new facts,
have added to the number of atrocities committed by the conspirators
against the Soviet war prisoners; and on the other hand, they have
confirmed that the Soviet Command is true to the principle of humanity
in its attitude towards the German captives.

The military victory of the democratic powers opened the innermost
secrets of Hitler’s archives. Along with a large number of documents
that raise the curtain on the criminal plans of the conspirators, we
have also obtained a wide opportunity of interrogating living witnesses.
A whole series of questions become finally clear as, and when, the
witnesses’ depositions are being cross-checked with the documentary
archives. Much new evidence has also been received by us on the subject
of the crimes against the prisoners of war.

Some information with regard to the criminal Hitlerite practice of
exterminating the Soviet prisoners of war appeared as of 27 April 1942,
in the official communication of V. M. Molotov, People’s Commissar for
Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R.

I shall here prove that this crime was part of the general conspiracy
and was planned in advance of the aggressive war against the Soviet
Union. The Tribunal will see that the regime for war prisoners was
really the sum total of diverse methods for their extermination. Let us
turn to the testimony of the witnesses.

The former Chief of Staff of the OKH, Franz Halder, interrogated on 31
October 1945, testified—I submit to the Tribunal an excerpt from this
document, Exhibit Number USSR-341 (Document Number USSR-341):

    “Witness: ‘Prior to the attack on Russia, the Führer called a
    conference of all the commanders and persons connected with the
    Supreme Command on the question of the forthcoming attack on
    Russia. I cannot recall the exact date of this conference. I no
    longer know whether it took place before or after the invasion
    of Yugoslavia. At this conference the Führer stated that the
    methods used in the war against the Russians will have to be
    different from those used in the war against the West.’”

I beg your pardon, I have forgotten to tell you that the place which I
quoted from was on Page 24 of your document book.

    “Investigating Officer: ‘What else did he say?’

    “Witness: ‘He said that the struggle between Russia and Germany
    is a Russian struggle. He stated that since the Russians were
    not signatories to the Hague Convention, the treatment of their
    prisoners of war does not have to follow the articles of the
    Convention.’”

DR. NELTE: Your Honor, Generaloberst Halder is in the military prison
here at Nuremberg, and he is a very important witness not only to the
testimony at hand but also in general. And I believe, according to our
principles, which have been formulated by the High Tribunal in
connection with Article 21 of the Charter, it might be important to hear
this witness personally rather than use written testimony; and I ask the
Tribunal to decide this question.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, did you wish to make any answer to Dr.
Nelte’s request?

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will submit to
him my consideration in this case.

The testimony of Halder is of importance to us in one respect only,
namely, that he states the fact of a special conference called by Hitler
before the war; a conference at which the question of the treatment of
Russian prisoners of war attracted particular attention. This fact also
finds confirmation in other testimonies which were submitted by us to
this Tribunal; and, therefore, I think that there is no reason and no
need for examining this witness, since this interrogation may cause
further delay as it will refer to this question only and the German
Defense Counsel may ask unnecessary questions. In case the German
Defense Counsel would consider it advisable to request the Tribunal to
bring witness Halder here for cross-examination, it should be proper for
the Defense to submit to the Tribunal, in accordance with established
procedure, an application and explain for what reason it wants to
cross-examine Witness Halder. The Tribunal would then have occasion to
discuss this application and to grant it should they deem it proper to
do so.

That is all I wanted to point out concerning this question.

[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that if the interrogation of
General Halder is to be used, and it has been used, that General Halder
must be brought for cross-examination, provided it is true that he is in
Nuremberg.

When a witness is called he is liable to cross-examination and the only
reason for allowing interrogations to be used is on account of the
difficulty of bringing witnesses to Nuremberg. Therefore, if an
interrogation is allowed to be used and the witness is in Nuremberg, the
witness must be produced for cross-examination. I mean, of course, at a
time which is convenient to Counsel.

Colonel Pokrovsky, if this witness, General Halder, is in Nuremberg, you
will have him brought here at a time which is convenient to you during
the presentation of your case.

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Court, we will finally find
out where Halder is at the present time and, if he is really in
Nuremberg, he will be produced as a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. POKROVSKY: We must here note a common fascist lie. Hitler was
intentionally misrepresenting facts. That the Soviet Union had pledged
to follow the statutes of the Hague Convention is generally known. Even
the criminal code of the Soviet Union provides for the defense of the
rights of prisoners of war, in accordance with international law, and
those guilty of violations are considered criminally responsible. The
note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R., Mr.
V. M. Molotov, on 27 April 1942, once again mentions the obligations of
the Hague Convention which the Soviet Union had pledged to follow. To
that note I have already referred.

Continuing, I shall again quote from Halder’s deposition concerning
Hitler’s speech. You will find it on Page 24:

    “Furthermore, he”—Hitler—“said that in view of the political
    level of the Russian troops”—at this point several dots follow
    in the original—“to be brief—he said that the so-called
    commissars should not be considered prisoners of war.”

It is impossible not to remark here that, owing to the superior
political consciousness of the Red Army soldiers, the Hitlerites saw a
commissar or a communist in almost every prisoner of war. Then there is
recorded the following question of the investigating officer and the
reply to it:

    “Investigating Officer: ‘Did the Führer say anything about an
    order which should be issued on the subject?’

    “Witness: ‘What I have just said was his order. He said that he
    wanted it carried out even if no written order followed.’”

After Halder’s deposition, in the document book on your table, there is
an extract from the deposition of the former Deputy Chief of the
Operations Section of OKW headquarters, General Warlimont, dated 12
November 1945. He was testifying on oath before Lieutenant Colonel
Hinkel of the American Army. This document is the result of work
accomplished by our American colleagues. The American Prosecution has
kindly placed this document at our disposal, which we in turn submit to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-263(a) (Document Number
USSR-263(a)). I think the Defense Counsel wishes to submit another
request to the Tribunal. I therefore cede my place.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President! Regarding General Warlimont, we have the same
reasons which I just mentioned regarding Generaloberst Halder. General
Warlimont is also present in Nuremberg and is at your disposal for
examination in the court. Concerning the importance. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to request now?

DR. NELTE: My application consists in the request to disallow the use of
the document which the Soviet Prosecutor has just wished to read out
loud, and to direct that the witness, Warlimont, now present in
Nuremberg, be called as a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has just ruled that the interrogation of
General Halder may be used, but if it is used—and it is being used—he
must be submitted for cross-examination by counsel for the defendants.
What more do you want?

DR. NELTE: I am not speaking about Generaloberst Halder but about
General Warlimont.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had already ruled upon General Warlimont;
that he had to be called—that is, only yesterday or the day before.

DR. NELTE: I believe that this ruling has escaped the memory of the
Soviet Prosecutor, otherwise he would not be reading this document out
loud but would be introducing General Warlimont to the Court in person.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the ruling of the Tribunal was that the
Prosecutor should be entitled to use the interrogation, but if he did
so, he must submit the witness for cross-examination. Therefore, the
Soviet Prosecutor is entitled to read the interrogation and General
Warlimont will then be produced for the purpose of cross-examination.

DR. NELTE: Is he obliged to do this or may he use his own discretion?

THE PRESIDENT: I suppose he might use his own discretion and call the
witness if he wanted to and not put in the interrogation.

You see, Dr. Nelte, the position of the Tribunal is this. If the
prosecuting counsel chooses to call the witness and not to use the
interrogation, of course, he calls the witness, examines the witness,
and the witness is liable to cross-examination by Defense Counsel. If,
on the other hand, the prosecuting counsel wishes to use the
interrogation, which he already has, he can do so; but if the witness is
available in or near Nuremberg, he must still be produced for
cross-examination.

The discretion which Counsel for the Prosecution has is as to whether
they use an interrogation which they already have or call the witness.
But in either case, the witness, if he is here, must be produced for
cross-examination.

DR. NELTE: The witnesses, Generaloberst Halder and General Warlimont,
are both in Nuremberg and at our disposal. I merely wish to know whether
the date when he is to be presented depends on the discretion of the
Chief Prosecutor. We are interested in the possibility of holding the
cross-examination when the Prosecution has read out the written
statement.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought that was a matter you might settle with the
prosecuting counsel as to whether you wish to cross-examine him directly
after the interrogation has been presented or after a short delay. If I
were to say that he is to be cross-examined immediately after the
interrogation has been put in probably Defense Counsel would say he
wanted time to consider the interrogation. But you can surely settle
that with Colonel Pokrovsky.

DR. NELTE: Then I will deal with Colonel Pokrovsky on this matter. Thank
you.

COL. POKROVSKY: I take the liberty of starting from the point where I
broke off. We now present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-263(a),
consisting of the minutes of the interrogation, under oath, of the
witness, Warlimont, given to Lieutenant Colonel Hinkel of the American
Army. I do not intend to read this document into the record in full.
Warlimont, in many cases, repeats Halder. The important thing is that he
confirms two facts in their entirety:

(1) That it was Hitler who conducted the meeting of which we were
informed by Halder’s testimony. (2) That, even before the war, Hitler
had issued a directive to shoot prisoners of war; pointing out that
special units were to be created for this purpose and that the SD would
follow the Army.

Warlimont further testified—I quote, and Your Honors will find the
excerpt which I quote on Page 26:

    “He”—that is Hitler—“further said that he did not expect the
    officer corps to understand his orders, but he demanded that
    they obey his orders unconditionally.”

We have some more testimonies, those of Lieutenant General of the German
Army, Kurt von Österreich. He was the former Commander of the Prisoner
of War Section of the Danzig Military District. He personally handed his
testimonies to the representatives of the Red Army on 29 December 1945.
His testimonies, registered as Exhibit Number USSR-151 (Document Number
USSR-151), are contained in your document book. I shall read certain
excerpts into the record:

    “I began my work as Commander of the Prisoner of War Section at
    the headquarters of Military District XX (Danzig) on 1 February
    1941.

    “Prior to that I was the commanding officer of the 207th
    Infantry Division, located in France.

    “It was towards March 1941 that I was summoned to Berlin to
    attend a secret meeting at the headquarters of the OKW. This
    conference was conducted by Lieutenant General Reinecke, then
    Chief of Headquarters’ Prisoner of War Section.

    “Over 20 chiefs of the district prisoner of war sections from
    various regions attended this conference, as well as several
    staff officers of the headquarters. I cannot, at present,
    remember the names of these officers.

    “General Reinecke told us, as a great secret, that a tentative
    invasion of the Soviet territory had been planned for the
    beginning of summer 1941 and that in this connection the OKW had
    elaborated essential measures, including the preparation of
    camps for Russian prisoners of war expected after the beginning
    of operations on the Eastern front.”

I omit 3 paragraphs and shall go on to several details of greater
importance:

    “On this occasion he ordered us to construct open air camps
    surrounded only by barbed wire in such cases where there would
    be no time to construct roofed-in barracks for the Russian
    prisoners.

    “Moreover, Reinecke gave us instructions as to the treatment of
    Russian prisoners of war, directing us to shoot without any
    warning those prisoners who might attempt to escape.”

In my opinion, the next two long paragraphs can be omitted in order to
save time.

    “After some time”—I pass on to Page 28 of your document
    book—“I received a directive from the headquarters of the OKW
    confirming Reinecke’s instructions to shoot without any warning
    all Russian prisoners attempting to escape. I do not now
    remember who signed this directive.”

The witness further testifies how he was called, either towards the end
of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 to a conference in Berlin of the
military district chiefs on prisoner-of-war affairs. The conference was
conducted by Major General Von Graevenitz. The question under discussion
was what to do with those Russian prisoners of war who were unable to
work as the result of wounds or exhaustion. I think it might be useful
to quote a few lines. They are on Page 29 in your document book:

    “On the proposal of General Von Graevenitz this question was
    discussed by several officers present, including doctors, who
    stated that such prisoners of war unable to work should be
    concentrated in one place—either in camp or in hospital—and
    killed by poisoning. As a result of this discussion General Von
    Graevenitz ordered us to murder war prisoners incapable of work,
    using for this purpose the camp medical personnel.”

The witness asserts that when he arrived on duty in the Ukraine in the
summer of 1942, he learned there, as he says—you will find these two
lines on Page 29, “A method of murdering Russian prisoners of war by
poisoning is already adopted there.”

The witness quotes actual figures, actual facts connected with this
crime. I think it important to note a reference to this fact quoted on
the fourth page of the Russian text, third paragraph from the top, on
Page 29 of your document book:

    “When I was in the Ukraine I received from headquarters a
    top-secret order signed by Himmler, directing that, as from
    August 1942, Russian war prisoners must be branded with a
    special mark.

    “Russian war prisoners were kept in concentration camps under
    severe conditions, were poorly fed, subjected to moral outrages,
    and died of hunger and disease.”

Österreich names facts which confirm this testimony. The following
episode is revealingly characteristic. I quote the second paragraph of
the fifth page; it is on Page 31 in your document book:

    “In the beginning of 1942 when an echelon of Russian war
    prisoners was being moved from the Ukraine to the city of Torun,
    approximately 75 people died there, the corpses of whom were not
    taken away but left in the railway car together with the
    living. . . . About 100 prisoners of war who could not bear
    these conditions and tried to escape were shot.”

These and similar cases are known to the witness. He enumerates them,
but I do not think it is necessary to cite all of them to the Tribunal.
They are all alike.

THE PRESIDENT: Please, proceed.

COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you. I thought the members of the Tribunal were
deliberating. I, therefore, interrupted my report. Thank you.

Österreich also speaks about directives which provide for the shooting
of all political commissars of the Red Army, Communists, and Jews. Such
an arrangement practically opened the way for the extermination of any
Soviet prisoner of war under the pretext that he was suspected of
belonging to the Communist Party or if he looked like a Jew.

In rounding up General Österreich’s testimony it is necessary to quote a
sentence mentioned, as I believe, by the Commander-in-Chief, General
Field Marshal Von Reichenau, in “The Conduct of the Army in the East.” I
submit this document to the Tribunal as our Exhibit Number USSR-12
(Document Number USSR-12). This quotation is on Page 33 in your document
book, “Supplying the civilian population and the prisoners of war with
food is a misunderstood humanitarian act as well as . . .” I submit to
the Military Tribunal this despicable directive of Hitler’s Field
Marshal and request it be accepted as evidence. This document is
registered under Number USSR-12.

Three of Hitler’s high-ranking officers confirmed that even at the
beginning of the war, at a special conference. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us if this order was issued by Field
Marshal Von Reichenau? By the general himself?

COL. POKROVSKY: The order is signed by General Field Marshal Von
Reichenau.

THE PRESIDENT: Was it captured or what?

COL. POKROVSKY: This document was one of the trophies captured by the
Russian Army.

THE PRESIDENT: By the Russian Army?

COL. POKROVSKY: By the Russian Army.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

COL. POKROVSKY: Three of Hitler’s high-ranking officers have confirmed
that already at the beginning of the war the question of exterminating
Soviet prisoners of war was settled during a special conference.
They—the witnesses—differ slightly in detail, but the fact itself has
been quite definitely established. The sentence which I quoted from the
directive of Field Marshal Reichenau also confirms that even the supply
of food to the soldiers of the Red Army taken prisoner by the Germans
was considered as “unnecessary humanity.”

It is useful perhaps to submit to you Document Number 884-PS (Exhibit
USSR-351). It bears the signature of Warlimont and a postscript by the
Defendant Jodl. The document was drawn up at the Führer’s headquarters
on 12 May 1941. It said, “OKH had submitted the draft of a directive
dealing with the treatment of responsible political workers and similar
persons.” You have this quotation on Page 35 in the document book, as
well as the two following excerpts which I am going to quote.

The draft foresaw the “removal” of persons of this category. The
decision whether a prisoner of war falls into the group “to be removed”
is up to the officer. The document states; “By an officer with authority
to impose punishment for breach of discipline.” Thus, any junior officer
was endowed with powers of life and death over any captured Red Army
soldier, regardless of his rank or service. Paragraph 3 of this document
states:

    “Political commissars of the army are not recognized as
    prisoners of war and are to be liquidated, at the latest, in the
    transient prisoner-of-war camps. No evacuation to the rear
    areas.”

The Defendant Jodl added the, for him, characteristic postscript—you
will find it on Page 37 of the document book:

    “We must reckon with possible reprisals against German airmen.
    It would, therefore, be better to consider all these measures in
    the nature of reprisals.”

General Österreich’s testimony concerning the existence of the order to
brand Soviet prisoners of war is fully confirmed. I submit to the
Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-15 (Document Number USSR-15), Order
Number 14-802/42, given by the Chief of Gendarmerie of the Vice Governor
in the Region of Styria. It is stated in the order that it is a question
of disclosing the order of the Chief of Police. The first paragraph of
the order of the chief of the regular police states—the paragraph
quoted is on Page 38 of the document book:

    “1. Soviet prisoners of war are to be branded with a special and
    lasting mark.

    “2. The brand is to consist of an acute angle of about 45
    degrees with a 1-centimeter length of side, pointing downwards
    on the left buttock, at about a hand’s width from the rectum.
    This brand is to be made with the lancets available in all
    military units. Indian ink is to be used as coloring matter.”

The third paragraph underlines that, “Branding is not a sanitary
precaution.”

It is stated in Paragraph 5 that, together with all Soviet prisoners of
war now entering the regions of the Baltic States, the Ukraine, and the
province of the Governor General commanded by the German Armed Forces,
all the remaining prisoners of war in the area of the Supreme Army
Command (OKW) up to September 1942 are to be subjected to branding.

The same directive was issued to the presidents of the regional labor
offices and the Reich Inspectors for Allocation of Labor. In this
Document Number 1191-PS, Page 40 of the document book, it is stated that
the order of the OKW, dated 10 July 1942, was brought to the attention
of the presidents of regional labor offices and to the Reich Inspectors
for Allocation of Labor.

Our documents numbered USSR-121, 122, and 123 are excerpts taken from
orders issued by the German military authorities, such as regimental and
divisional commanders, and confirm that the prisoners of war, in order
to “spare German blood,” were forced to clear mine fields and carry on
work which endangered their lives. Order Number 16641 of the 60th German
Infantry Division states, in explanation of the bestial treatment of the
Soviet warriors:

    “Russian soldiers and noncommissioned officers are very brave in
    battle. Even a small isolated unit will always attack. In this
    connection a humane attitude towards the prisoners is not
    permissible.”

This quotation is on Page 44 in the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: We have had that already, have we not, or an almost
identical one?

COL. POKROVSKY: You are right, Sir, I quoted this excerpt as a part of
the note of the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Molotov; and now I quote
it as part of a special German document. I consider that it is an
unprecedented event in history when, instead of respecting an enemy for
his military valor, the senior officers of Hitler’s army, in reply to
such military valor, ordered their subordinates to treat this same enemy
ruthlessly and inhumanly.

In the document submitted to you as Number 3257-PS (Exhibit Number
USSR-352), there is a sentence directly relating to my theme. It has
been read into the record. Document 3257-PS is a secret report of the
Armament Inspector in the Ukraine, dated 2 December 1941, and addressed
to the Chief of Armament Section of the OKW. It states—the excerpt
quoted is at the end of Page 45 and the beginning of Page 46 of your
document book:

    “Living conditions, food, clothing conditions, and the health of
    the prisoners of war are bad; mortality is very high. We may
    reckon on the fact that during this winter people will perish at
    the rate of tens and even hundreds of thousands.”

I submit a document under Document Number D-339 (Exhibit USSR-350). The
chief camp and factory physician, Jäger, having inspected the camp in
Naeggerath Street, informed the medical department of the Central
Administration of Camps, in a top-secret medical report on 2 September
1944—you will find the excerpt quoted on Page 47 of your document
book—as follows:

    “The prisoner-of-war camp in Naeggerath Street is in an
    atrocious condition. The men live in dustbins, in kennels, in
    ovens no longer used, and in huts made by themselves. Food is
    barely sufficient. Krupp is responsible for shelter and the food
    supply. Medicine and bandages were so scarce that in many cases
    medical treatment was completely impossible. The blame for this
    appalling state of affairs rests on the permanent camp.”

In the files of the Defendant Rosenberg was found, among other
documents, one numbered Document 081-PS (Exhibit USSR-353). As far as we
can understand, it is a letter from Rosenberg to Keitel, dated 28
February 1942, on the subject of the prisoners of war. A copy found in
Rosenberg’s files is unsigned, but there is no doubt that such a letter
was either addressed to Keitel or prepared for dispatch to the chief of
the Armed Forces. The letter states that the fate of the Soviet
prisoners of war in Germany is a tragedy on an enormous scale.

I will now read into the record the second sentence of the fifth
paragraph of the Russian text—you will find it on Page 48 of the
document book:

    “Out of 3,600,000. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I think the United States read this letter, did they not?

COL. POKROVSKY: The document has been partially read, but I would ask
permission to read part of a short excerpt a second time, since it is of
importance to my further report. It will, quite literally, only take a
minute and a half of our time.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we have been preventing other
prosecuting counsel from reading documents which have already been read
and we are directed by the Charter to conduct an expeditious trial; and
I do not really see how it can be expeditious if documents are read more
than once.

COL. POKROVSKY: This document, which is already known to the Tribunal,
presents a very clear picture of what happened in the camp. The author
of this letter states that attempts had been made by the population to
supply the prisoners with food but that in most cases the attempts were
foiled by the energetic opposition of the camp commanders.

There is no reason to suspect the author of that letter of piling on the
agony, or of having any liking for the Soviet people. On the contrary,
there is every reason to state that the question has not yet been fully
elucidated. This document, addressed by one defendant to another,
enables us to imagine the acts that took place in the camps for Soviet
prisoners of war.

I began by presenting to you documents of German origin, and this with a
definite aim in view. After you have been informed of the attitude of
the Hitlerites themselves towards the Soviet prisoners of war and as
soon as you have learned however briefly, what the camps for the Soviet
prisoners looked like from the words of the Hitlerites themselves, it
will be easier for you to estimate the probative value of the documents
of non-German origin.

I stop, because it seems to me the Tribunal wants to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be a convenient time to adjourn.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel, the Tribunal proposes to adjourn at half past
four this afternoon, as they have some administrative work to do.

COL. POKROVSKY: I return to the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission of the Soviet Union for the investigation of atrocities
committed by the German fascist invaders in Smolensk and in the region
of Smolensk. The greater part of this report is dedicated to the mass
annihilation of prisoners of war by the Germans. I should like to read
into the Record excerpts from this document, submitted to you as Exhibit
Number USSR-56 (Document Number USSR-56), Page 6, Paragraph 4 from the
top; you will find it on Page 58 of our document book. It reads as
follows:

    “The German fascist invaders systematically exterminated the
    wounded and captured Soviet citizens. Physicians A. N. Smirnov,
    A. N. Glasunov, A. M. Demidov, A. S. Pogrebnov, and others,
    formerly interned in the war prisoners’ camp, stated that on the
    road from Vyasma to Smolensk the Hitlerites shot several
    thousand people.

    “In the autumn of 1941 the German occupational forces drove a
    party of prisoners of war from Vyasma to Smolensk. Many of the
    prisoners were unable to stand, as a result of continuous
    beating and exhaustion. Whenever the citizens attempted to give
    any of the prisoners a piece of bread, the German soldiers drove
    the Soviet citizens off, beat them with sticks and rifle butts,
    and fatally shot them. On the Bolshaya Sovetskaya Street, on the
    Roslavskoye and Kievskoye high roads, the fascist blackguards
    opened a disorderly fire on a column of prisoners of war. The
    prisoners attempted to escape, but the soldiers overtook and
    shot them. In that way nearly 5,000 Soviet people were fatally
    shot. The corpses were left lying about the streets for several
    days.”

It is not difficult to see that this extract fully coincides with the
statement in Document Number 081-PS, which has already been read into
the Record, the contents of which I once before related to the Tribunal
very briefly and in my own words.

We are completing the document only by factual evidence. On the same
Page 6—which corresponds to Page 58 of the Document Book—two lines
lower down, it is said:

    “The German military authorities tortured the prisoners of war.
    On the way to Smolensk and especially at the camp, the prisoners
    were killed by tens and hundreds. In Prisoner-of-War Camp Number
    126, the Soviet people were subjected to torture; sick people
    were sent to heavy labor; no medical assistance was rendered.
    The prisoners in the camp were tortured, forced to do work
    beyond their strength, shot. About 150 to 200 people died every
    day of torture, by starvation, typhus and dysentery epidemics,
    freezing to death, exhausting work, and bloody terror. Over
    60,000 peaceful citizens and prisoners of war were exterminated
    in the camp by the German fascist invaders. The facts of the
    extermination of the imprisoned officers and men of the Red Army
    and of the peaceful citizens were confirmed by the testimony of
    physicians imprisoned in the camp; Smirnov, Shmouroff,
    Pogrebnov, Erpoulov, Demidov, hospital nurses Shubina and
    Lenkovskya, and also by Red Army soldiers and inhabitants of the
    city of Smolensk.

    “Thousands of prisoners of war were shot in the camp under the
    directions of Sonderführer Eduard Gyss.

    “Sergeant Gatlyn brutally avenged himself on the prisoners.
    Being aware of the fact, they tried to keep out of his way. So
    Gatlyn dressed in the uniform of a Red Army soldier, mixed with
    the crowd, and, having picked himself a victim, would beat him
    half dead.

    “Private Rudolf Radtke, a former wrestler from the German
    circuses, prepared a special lash made of aluminum wire, with
    which he beat the prisoners black and blue. On Sundays he would
    come to the camp drunk, throw himself on the first prisoner he
    met, torture and kill him.

    “Emaciated and exhausted Soviet invalids were forced by the
    fascists to work at the Smolensk power plant. Many occasions
    were observed when prisoners, worn out by starvation, would
    collapse under the strain of work beyond their strength and were
    immediately shot by Sonderführer Szepalsky, Sonderführer Bram,
    Hofmann Mauser, and Sonderführer Wagner.

    “There was, in Smolensk, a hospital for prisoners of war; Soviet
    doctors working at that hospital stated: Up to July 1942, the
    patients lay unbandaged on the floor. Their clothes and bedding
    were covered not only with dirt but with pus. The rooms were
    unheated and the floors of the corridors coated with ice.”

A report of a medico-legal examination is appended, Your Honors, to the
statement of the Extraordinary State Commission which I have just
quoted. Experts such as Academician Burdenko, member of the
Extraordinary Commission, Dr. Prosorovsky, chief medico-forensic expert
of the People’s Commissariat for the Care of Public Health in the Union
of the Soviet Socialist Republics, Doctor of Medical Sciences,
Smolianov, Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Second Moscow Medical
Institute, and other specialists, conducted—from 1 to 16 October
1943—numerous exhumations and medico-legal autopsies on the corpses in
Smolensk and the vicinity of Smolensk. A great many mass graves were
opened which contained the corpses of such persons who had been killed
during the German fascist occupation. The number of corpses which were
found in these graves was between 500 and 4,500 at each place where such
mass executions took place.

I shall read into the Record only such excerpts from the findings of the
experts’ investigation as have a direct bearing on my subject. You will
find the paragraph which I am now quoting on Page 61 of your document
book, corresponding to Page 9 of our Exhibit Number USSR-56 (Document
Number USSR-56).

    “The corpses found in the pits were for the most part either
    partially or completely-naked, or else clothed in worn-out
    underwear; only in the minority of cases did the bodies
    disinterred wear clothes or military uniforms.”

It is stated in Paragraph 2 on the next page of the Document Number
USSR-56—page 62 of the document book—Paragraph 2:

    “Identity documents were found in 16 cases only—3 passports, 1
    Red Army book, and 12 military identity ‘medallions.’ By
    ‘medallions’ I mean the small tube-like cases, not unlike a
    needle case in appearance, issued to each soldier in the Red
    Army. A document giving the soldier’s name, his father’s name,
    surname, and rank, together with his home address, is slipped
    into this tube.

    “In some cases partly preserved articles of clothing and tattoo
    marks alone could help in establishing the identity of the
    deceased.”

This circumstance confirms the fact that the Germans endeavored to make
the identification of their victims impossible, as demanded in special
German directives. The first paragraph on Page 11 of Document Number 56,
corresponding to your Page 63 in the document book, says:

    “The autopsies performed on corpses taken from graves in the
    area of the large and small concentration camps at Plant 35, of
    the former German hospital for prisoners of war, of a sawmill,
    and of concentration camps near the villages of Becherskaya and
    Rakytna, revealed that, according to the data of the autopsies,
    death in an overwhelming majority of cases could be ascribed to
    hunger, starvation, and acute infectious diseases.

    “An objective proof of death from starvation, over and above the
    total absence of all subcutaneous fatty tissues, as disclosed
    during the autopsies, was the discovery, in a number of cases,
    of grassy substances, remains of rough leaves and plant stalks
    in the abdominal cavity.”

On the same page, but rather lower down, in Paragraph 4, we read:

    “The considerable number of burial-pits opened (87), filled with
    masses of corpses, together with the estimated differences in
    the time of burial, differences ranging from the second half of
    1941, 1942, and 1943, testify to the systematic extermination of
    Soviet citizens.

    “The victims, in an overwhelming majority of cases, were men and
    men mostly in the prime of life, that is, between the ages of 20
    and 40.”

Somewhat lower, on the same page:

    “Special attention was attracted by the fact that the exhumed
    corpses, with few exceptions, regularly lacked footwear.
    Clothing, too, was absent, as a rule, or consisted of worn-out
    underwear or parts of outer garments. The natural conclusion
    drawn from these facts is that the removal of clothes and
    footwear of any value had become the usual and officially
    recognized procedure preceding the extermination of Soviet
    citizens.”

In conclusion, the commission deals with the means of extermination,
that is, shooting, asphyxiation by gas, and so forth. All this is not
new to us and it is not necessary at present to read this part of the
conclusion.

In our document, Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (Document Number USSR-6(c)),
minutes are quoted from the report of the medico-legal experts as well
as the findings of the board of medical experts. We find them on Pages
9, 10, 11, and 12 of the document. I shall set forth, in brief, the
contents of the minutes and shall quote a few words from the findings.
According to the minutes, the Hitlerites had set up a large camp for
prisoners of war in the town of Rawa-Ruska, 52 kilometers northeast from
the city of Lvov. In this camp a large number of Soviet and French
prisoners of war were interned, and there they perished; they were shot,
died of infectious diseases, or starved to death. The commission of
medico-legal experts opened up a large number of graves. Some of these
graves had been camouflaged by green shrubs and grass. A considerable
number of bodies unearthed were dressed in military or semi-military
clothing. In some cases identity medallions of Red Army soldiers were
discovered inside the clothes. The ages of the prisoners whose bodies
were recovered from the graves ranged from 20 to 40 years.

It is said in the findings—the extract quoted is on Page 70 of the
document book:

    “The data of the autopsies performed on the exhumed bodies
    justify the conclusion that bodies of Soviet prisoners of war
    had, in effect, been buried in the forementioned graves. The
    burial was on a mass scale. The bodies were placed in each grave
    at a rate of 350-400 corpses (the grave measuring 7 by 4
    meters), in layers, one layer on the other. The bodies were
    buried in the clothes they had worn at the time of death. The
    absence of footwear on all the corpses indicates that the Soviet
    prisoners, when alive, were kept unshod or else that their
    footwear was removed after death. The prisoners were interned in
    appallingly unsanitary conditions, since all the clothing found
    was vermin-infested. Judging by the clothes, death, in the
    majority of cases, must have occurred during the cold season of
    the year. Nevertheless, practically no warm clothing was found
    on any of the bodies. To escape the cold, the prisoners of war
    had dressed in two or three sets of summer uniforms, had wrapped
    themselves up in sacking, towels. . . .”

I omit a few sentences from this statement and wish to read into the
Record the part dealing with the total number of corpses. It is on Page
70 of your document book:

    “The number of graves (36), their size, and the number of bodies
    discovered justify us in believing that from 10,000 to 12,000
    bodies of Soviet prisoners of war were buried in this area. The
    degree of their decomposition points to the fact that the
    corpses had been buried underground for about 3 years, that is,
    the time of burial must be placed somewhere in the late autumn
    or in the winter of 1941-1942.”

A special section of the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of
the Soviet Union for the determination and investigation of atrocities
committed by the German fascist invaders in the city and region of
Orel—which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-46 (Document
Number USSR-46)—records the mass extermination of prisoners of war
carried out over a long period of time.

The prisoner-of-war camp was set up in the city jail of Orel. After the
Hitlerite invaders had been driven from Orel, the Extraordinary
Commission was able to secure the testimony of doctors who had been in
this camp and who had fortuitously escaped with their lives. Included in
this report are the personal observations of a member of the
Extraordinary State Committee, Academician Burdenko, who personally
examined people liberated by the Red Army from the camp, from the camp
premises, and from the so-called camp hospital. The general conclusion
is that in the camp of Orel and in others the Hitlerites bodily
exterminated the Soviet people with characteristic German thoroughness.

The prisoners received 200 grams of bread and a liter of soup made from
rotten soy beans and moldy flour. The bread was baked with an admixture
of sawdust. The camp administration, doctors included, treated the
prisoners atrociously. I should like to quote a few excerpts from the
report of the commission, and I shall start from Paragraph 5, Page 2 of
the document, which you will find on Page 72 of the document book:

    “The camp commander, Major Hoffmann, flogged the prisoners and
    forced persons exhausted by hunger to carry out heavy manual
    work in the local quarries and in the unloading of ammunition.

    “Boots and shoes were taken from the prisoners and replaced by
    wooden clogs.

    “In the winter these clogs became slippery and the prisoners,
    when walking, and especially when going up to the 2d and 3rd
    floor, would slip on the stairs and be lamed.”

Dr. H. I. Zvetkov, a former inmate of the prisoner-of-war camp,
testified as follows. I quote, and you will find the excerpt quoted on
Page 72 and at the beginning of Page 73:

    “I can only describe the attitude of the German Command towards
    the prisoners of war, during my stay in the camp at Orel, as one
    of deliberate extermination of manpower in the person of the
    prisoners. The food ration, which at best contained a maximum of
    only 700 calories, led, when work was hard and beyond their
    strength, to complete exhaustion of the organism (cachexia) and
    to death. . . .

    “Despite our categorical protests and our struggle against this
    mass murder of the people of the Soviet, the German camp
    doctors, Kuper and Beckel, maintained that the diet was
    perfectly satisfactory. Moreover, they denied that the oedemata
    from which so many of the prisoners suffered were due to
    starvation and quite calmly ascribed the condition entirely to
    heart or kidney troubles. The very mention of the term ‘hunger
    oedema’ was forbidden in the diagnosis. Mortality in the camp
    assumed mass proportions. Of the total number of persons
    murdered, 3,000 died of starvation and of complications arising
    from malnutrition.

    “The prisoners lived in indescribably appalling conditions. The
    overcrowding was incredible. Fuel and water were completely
    lacking. Everything was infested by vermin. From 50 to 80 people
    were crammed into a ward 15 to 20 square meters in size.
    Prisoners would die at the rate of five or six per ward, and the
    living would have to sleep on the dead.”

It is further said that a particularly terrible regime existed for those
included in the category of recalcitrants. They were put into a special
building, named the death block. The inmates of this block were shot on
schedule, five to six persons being taken to execution every Tuesday and
Friday. The German physician Kuper was one of those present at the
shootings. Academician Burdenko established that in the so-called
hospital people were exterminated in the same manner as in the rest of
the camp.

In the penultimate paragraph, on Page 3, we read—members of the
Tribunal will find this passage on Page 73 of the document book:

    “The scenes which I had to witness defy all imagination. My joy
    at the sight of the liberated people was marred by the fact that
    their faces bore an expression of utter stupor. This made me
    think, ‘What is the matter here?’ Evidently the sufferings they
    had undergone erased from their minds all distinction between
    life and death.

    “I observed these people for 3 days and bandaged their wounds
    while moving them from the camp, but the mental stupor remained.
    Something similar could also be seen on the faces of the doctors
    during the first few days.

    “People perished in the camp from disease, starvation, and
    floggings. In the so-called ‘hospital’ prison they died of
    wound-infection, sepsis, and starvation.”

On the 2d day of May 1945, there was captured in Berlin a member of the
SS, Paul Ludwig Gottlieb Waldmann. The son of a shopkeeper, Ludwig
Waldmann, he was born in Berlin on 17 October 1914. From information
received, his mother, up to the time of his capture, was living in the
city of Brunswick, Donnerburweg 60.

He testified personally to facts known to him regarding the mass
extermination of Soviet prisoners of war. He witnessed these
exterminations while working as a driver in different camps and himself
participated in the mass killings. His testimony is on Page 9 of Exhibit
Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52), entitled, “Camp Auschwitz.” He
provides more detailed information on the murders in the camp at
Sachsenhausen.

Towards the end of summer 1941, the Sonderkommando of the Security
Police in this camp exterminated Russian prisoners of war daily for a
whole month. Paul Ludwig Gottlieb Waldmann testified—you will find the
excerpt I am quoting on Page 82—that:

    “The Russian prisoners of war had to walk about one kilometer
    from the station to the camp. In the camp they stayed one night
    without food. The next night they were led away for execution.
    The prisoners were constantly being transferred from the inner
    camp on three trucks, one of which was driven by me. The inner
    camp was approximately one and three-quarters of a kilometer
    from the execution grounds. The execution itself took place in
    the barracks which had recently been constructed for this
    purpose.

    “One room was reserved for undressing and another for waiting;
    in one of them a radio played rather loudly. It was done
    purposely so that the prisoners could not guess that death
    awaited them. From the second room they went, one by one,
    through a passage into a small fenced-in room with an iron grid
    let into the floor. Under the grid was a drain. As soon as a
    prisoner of war was killed, the corpse was carried out by two
    German prisoners while the blood was washed off the grid.

    “In this small room there was a slot in the wall, approximately
    50 centimeters in length. The prisoner of war stood with the
    back of his head against the slot and a sniper shot at him from
    behind the slot since the sniper often missed the prisoner.
    After 8 days a new arrangement was made. The prisoner, as
    before, was placed against the wall; an iron plate was then
    slowly lowered onto his head. The prisoner was under the
    impression that he was being measured for height. The iron plate
    contained a ramrod which shot out suddenly and pole-axed the
    prisoner with a blow on the back of the head. He dropped dead.
    The iron plate was operated by a foot lever in a corner of the
    room. The personnel working in the room belonged to the
    above-mentioned Sonderkommando.

    “By request of the execution squad, I was also forced to work
    this apparatus. I shall refer to the subject later. The bodies
    of prisoners thus murdered were burned in four mobile
    crematories transported in trailers and attached to motor cars.
    I had to ride constantly from the inner camp to the execution
    yard. I had to make 10 trips a night with 10 minutes’ interval
    between trips. It was during these intervals that I witnessed
    the executions. . . .”

It is a long way from these individual murders to the death factories of
Treblinka, Dachau, and Auschwitz, but the tendency, the line of action
are identical. Methods and extent of the killings varied. The Hitlerites
endeavored to discover ways and means for the rapid mass extermination
of human beings. They spent much time on the solution of this problem.
To realize their ambition they began to work on the solution even prior
to their attack on the Soviet Union by inventing different implements
and instruments of murder, while peaceful inhabitants and prisoners of
war alike ended up as victims of Hitler’s executioners.

I present to the Tribunal the report of the Extraordinary Commission on
the German atrocities in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. This
is Exhibit Number USSR-7 (Document Number USSR-7). Here, as in other
places, the mass extermination of Soviet prisoners of war formed part of
the savage plan of the fascist aggressors. I shall quote a few sentences
from Page 6 of this document. In your copy it is marked with pencil, on
Page 86 of the document book:

    “In Kaunas, in Fort Number 6, there was a camp, Number 336, for
    Soviet prisoners of war. The prisoners in the camp were
    subjected to cruel torture and insult, in strict accordance with
    the inhuman ‘directions to the supervisors and escorts attached
    to labor detachments.’ The prisoners of war in Fort Number 6
    were doomed to inanition and death from starvation.

    “The witness, Medishevskaja, informed the Commission: ‘The
    prisoners of war were terribly starved; I saw them pluck grass
    and eat it.’”

I omit a few sentences and read on:

    “At the entrance to Camp Number 336, there still exists a board
    with the following inscription in German, Lithuanian, and
    Russian: ‘All those who maintain contact with prisoners of war,
    especially those who try to give them food, cigarettes, or
    civilian clothes, will be shot!’

    “There was in the camp at Fort Number 6 a ‘hospital’ for
    prisoners of war which in reality served as a point of transfer
    from the camp to the grave. The prisoners of war thrown into
    this ‘hospital’ were doomed to death.

    “According to monthly statistics of sickness among the prisoners
    of war in Fort Number 6, from September 1941 to July 1942, that
    is, over a period of 11 months only, the number of dead Soviet
    prisoners amounted to 13,936.”

I shall abstain from reading the list of graves opened; I shall merely
quote the sentence indicating the sum total of the graves. “All told,
35,000 prisoners of war were buried in these graves, according to the
camp documents.”

Besides Camp Number 336, in the same town of Kaunas, there existed
another, unnumbered camp on the southwestern border of the airfield. It
is stated, in connection with this camp, that:

    “As in Fort Number 6, starvation, the lash, and the truncheon
    reigned in this camp. Exhausted prisoners of war, no longer able
    to move, were carried out every day beyond the precincts of the
    camp, placed alive in previously prepared pits, and covered with
    earth.”

The last three lines of the left column, on Page 6 of the Document.
Number USSR-7—Page 86 of your document book—state as follows:

    “The records, documents, and testimonies of witnesses enabled
    the commission to establish that here, within the precincts of
    the airfield, nearly 10,000 Soviet prisoners had been tortured
    to death and buried.”

The report mentions one more camp, Number 133, near the town of Alitus,
and a few more which had been established in July 1941 and existed up to
April 1943. In these camps the prisoners froze to death. When unloaded
from the railway coaches, such prisoners of war who were unable to walk
were shot out of hand. The remaining prisoners were tortured until they
lost consciousness, hanged by their feet on chains, brought back to
consciousness by having cold water dashed over them; then the whole
process would be repeated all over again.

Giving the sum total of prisoners murdered, the commission writes—the
few lines which I am about to quote are likewise on the same page, 86,
of the document book:

    “It had been established that no less than 165,000 Soviet
    prisoners of war were executed by the Germans in the
    above-mentioned camps of the Lithuanian S.S.R.”

The extermination of Soviet prisoners of war was, quite literally,
carried out in every camp. Thousands of Soviet soldiers likewise
perished in the extermination camp of Maidanek. The second paragraph of
Page 5 of the joint Polish and Soviet communiqué of the Extraordinary
Commission, which is presented to you as Exhibit Number USSR-29
(Document Number USSR-29)—corresponding to your Page 92 of the document
book—states that:

    “The entire bloodstained history of this camp begins with the
    mass shooting of Soviet prisoners of war, organized by the SS in
    November and December 1941. Out of a group of 2,000 Soviet war
    prisoners, only 80 remained alive. All the rest were shot except
    a few who were racked and tortured to death.

    “Between January and April 1942 more transports of Soviet
    prisoners of war were brought to the camp and shot. Nedzelek
    Jan, hired to work in the camp as a truck driver, testified:

    “‘About 5,000 Russian prisoners of war were exterminated by the
    Germans in the winter of 1942 by the following method: They were
    taken from their barracks in trucks and driven to the pits of a
    former stone quarry, and in these pits they were shot.’

    “Prisoners of war of the former Polish Army, captured as far
    back as 1939 and imprisoned in various German camps, were
    already concentrated, in 1940, in the Lublin camp on Lipovoja
    Street and were soon after transferred, in batches, to the
    extermination camp of Maidanek, where they suffered the same
    fate: systematic torture, murder, mass shooting, _et cetera_.

    “The witness, Reznik, testified as follows:

    “‘In January 1941, we, a party of approximately 4,000 Jewish
    prisoners of war, were placed into railway coaches and sent to
    the East. . . . We were brought to Lublin, unloaded and handed
    over to the SS. About September or October 1942, it was decided
    that only those people who were qualified as skilled plant and
    factory workers, and therefore needed in the town, were to be
    left in the camp on Number 7 Lipovoja Street, while the rest,
    and I among them, were transferred to Maidanek Camp. All of us
    already knew—and knew far too well—that deportation to
    Maidanek meant death. Of this party of more than 4,000 prisoners
    of war, only a few individuals, who had managed to escape while
    engaged in work outside the camp, remained alive.

    “‘In the summer of 1943, 300 Soviet officers, including two
    colonels, four majors, with the remainder consisting of captains
    and senior lieutenants, were brought to Maidanek. The officers
    in question were shot in the camp.’”

Huge camps for the extermination of Soviet prisoners of war had been
organized by German fascists in the territory of the Latvian Soviet
Socialist Republic. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission for
the investigation of atrocities committed by the German invaders on the
territory of this republic—we present to the Tribunal this report as
Exhibit Number USSR-41 (Document Number USSR-41)—contains the following
data on the extermination of 327,000 Soviet prisoners of war. I quote
excerpts from Page 7, on the right column of the above-mentioned report.
You, Sir, as well as the other members of the Tribunal, will find the
excerpt on Page 97 of the document book:

    “In Riga, the Germans organized a camp, Stalag 350, for Soviet
    prisoners of war, on the premises of the former barracks on
    Pernovskaja and Rudolf Streets, which existed from July 1941 to
    October 1944. There Soviet prisoners of war were kept in inhuman
    conditions. The building where they were lodged had neither
    windows nor heat. In spite of heavy forced labor from 12 to 14
    hours a day, their rations consisted only of 150-200 grams of
    bread and so-called soup made of grass, rotten potatoes, leaves
    of trees, and other refuse.”

In my opinion, it is necessary to stress the monotony of the rations
issued to the prisoners of war. Testimonies given by witnesses coincide
entirely with the official directive on the quantities of food allotted
to the prisoners of war, which I have already read into the Record
today.

A former prisoner of war, P. F. Yakovenko, who was imprisoned in Stalag
350, testified—this is on Page 97 in your document book; forgive me, I
forgot to mention it:

    “We were given 180 grams of bread, half consisting of sawdust
    and straw, one liter of unsalted soup made of unpeeled rotten
    potatoes. We slept on the bare ground and were eaten up by lice.
    Between December 1941 to May 1942, 30,000 prisoners of war
    perished in this camp from starvation, cold, flogging, typhus,
    and shooting. The Germans daily shot prisoners of war who, owing
    to weakness or illness, were unable to go to work; they mocked
    at them and beat them without any reason at all.”

G. B. Novitzkis, who had worked as senior nurse in the hospital for
Soviet prisoners of war in Number 1, Gymnastitcheskaya Street, testified
that she had repeatedly seen patients eat grass and tree leaves in order
to quell the pangs of hunger.

    “In sections of Stalag 350, on the territory of a former
    brewery, and in the Panzer barracks, over 19,000 persons
    perished between September 1941 and April 1942 alone, of
    starvation, torture, and epidemics. The Germans also shot
    wounded prisoners of war. In addition, Soviet prisoners of war
    perished en route to the camp, since the Germans left them
    without food or water.”

A female witness, A.V. Taukulis testified:

    “In the fall of 1941 a transport of Soviet prisoners of war,
    consisting of 50-60 coaches, arrived at the station of
    Salaspils. When the cars were opened, the stench of corpses
    spread over a great distance. Half the men were dead; many were
    at the point of death. Men who were able to climb out of the
    coaches dashed towards water, but the guards opened fire and
    shot a score or two of them.”

I shall not enumerate other facts which took place in Stalag 350, I
shall merely read into the Record the final sentence, referring to this
camp. I fear that there is a misprint in this sentence in your document
book. If I am not mistaken, your document book mentions the shooting of
120,000 Soviet prisoners. This figure is inaccurate; in the original
document, which I shall now read into the Record, another figure is
mentioned, “In Stalag 350 and in its branches, the Germans tortured to
death and shot over 130,000 Soviet prisoners of war.”

On Page 97 of your document book you can find the following part of this
report:

    “There was a camp for Soviet prisoners of war, Stalag 340, in
    Daugavpilce (Dvinsk), known among the internees and the town’s
    inhabitants as the ‘Death Camp,’ where in 3 years over 124,000
    Soviet prisoners of war perished from starvation, tortures, and
    shootings.”

The butchering of prisoners of war by German executioners usually began
on the way to the camp. In the summer, prisoners of war were transported
in tightly-closed wagons, in winter in freight coaches and on platform
trucks. Masses of prisoners perished from hunger and thirst. They
suffocated in the summer; they froze in the winter.

Witness T.K. Ussenko stated:

    “In November 1941 I was on duty, as signalman, at the station of
    Most, and I saw a transport, consisting of more than 30 coaches,
    move into the ‘Kilometer 217’ siding”—this was the name given
    to that particular part of the track—“Not a living soul was
    discovered in the coaches. No fewer than 1,500 dead bodies were
    unloaded from this transport. They were dressed in nothing but
    their underclothes. The corpses lay around the railway track for
    nearly a week.”

The hospital attached to the camp was likewise dedicated to the
extermination of prisoners of war. Schoolteacher V. A. Efimova, who
worked at the hospital, told the Commission:

    “It was rarely that any one left this hospital alive. Five
    shifts of grave-diggers, selected from among the prisoners,
    carried the dead to the cemetery in handcarts. It frequently
    happened that a man who was still alive would be thrown into the
    cart and six to seven corpses or bodies of executed people piled
    on top of him. The living were buried with the dead. At the
    hospital sick people, tossing in delirium, were bludgeoned to
    death.”

When an epidemic broke out in the camp, the Hitlerites drove to the
airfield all the prisoners from any barrack where typhus patients had
been discovered and shot them. About 45,000 Soviet prisoners of war were
thus exterminated.

Appalling facts are quoted in the documents of the Extraordinary State
Commission, which investigated the crimes of the German fascist invaders
in the neighborhood of Sevastopol, Kerch, and at the health resort of
Teberda. I shall read into the Record some data from our Exhibit Number
USSR-63(5) (Document Number USSR-63(5)). At the Sevastopol prison, the
German fascist command organized a hospital for sick and wounded
prisoners of war. Here the Soviet warriors perished in masses. I shall
quote a few sentences, which you will find in your document book on Page
99:

    “At the time the hospital was organized, the sick and wounded
    were not given any water or bread for 5 or 6 days by the
    Germans, who cynically said: ‘This is the punishment for the
    specially stubborn defense of Sevastopol by the Russians.’

    “The wounded brought in from the battlefield were given no
    medical aid. Soldiers and officers were thrown on the cement
    floor, where they lay bleeding for 7 and 8 days on end.

    “During the defense of Sevastopol, a military hospital and a
    medico-sanitary battalion, Number 47, were installed in the
    vaults of the champagne factory at Inkermann. After the retreat
    of the Red Army, a large number of wounded soldiers and officers
    were left behind in Vault Numbers 10, 11, 12, and 13, since
    there had been no time to evacuate them. When the German savages
    captured the factory, they all became drunk and set fire to the
    vaults.”

I omit a whole number of facts, the majority of which, strictly
speaking, should have been specially reported to the Tribunal. I pass on
to the description of the last crime mentioned in the statement of the
commission. I pay special attention to it because it describes the
brutal extermination of a very large number of wounded Red Army
soldiers. You will also find this excerpt on Page 99 of your document
book:

    “On 4 December 1943 there arrived at the station of Sevastopol,
    from the city of Kerch, three transports of wounded prisoners of
    war belonging to the Kerch landing forces. Having loaded them on
    a 2,500-ton barge moored in the southern bay near the landing
    stage, the Germans set fire to it. The heart-rending screams of
    the prisoners filled the air. Women who were not far from the
    barge could render no assistance to the wounded, since they were
    driven from the site of the fire by gendarmes. Not more than 15
    men were saved. Thousands perished in the fire.

    “On the following day the same barge was loaded with 2,000 men
    from among the wounded brought from Kerch. The barge sailed from
    Sevastopol in an unknown direction, and all the wounded in it
    were drowned at sea.”

I repeat that I am omitting a considerable number of facts established
by the commission.

There is but little difference in character between the documentary
evidence already read into the Record and the data on the atrocities
perpetrated by the German fascist invaders on Soviet prisoners of war in
the region of Stalino. In our Number USSR-2(a) we find, among a lot of
other documents, two documents about the extermination of Soviet
prisoners of war. The first document is dated Stalino, 22 September
1943, and is submitted by a special commission with the President of the
Stalinozavodsk Regional Council of Workers’ Deputies at its head. I
shall read into the Record that part of the document which contains
items of interest to us. The official report begins in the left-hand
column of Page 3 of Document USSR-2(a), and the extracts which I am
reading into the Record are printed on Page 108 of your document book:

    “The circumstances of the case: In the Stalinozavodsk district
    of the town of Stalino, in the Lenin Club, the German fascist
    invaders organized a camp for Soviet prisoners of war; at times
    there were up to 20,000 men in this camp; the camp commandant, a
    German officer named Gavbel, established an intolerable diet for
    the Soviet prisoners of war.

    “Examined as witnesses, Ivan Vasilyetch Plakhoff and Konstantin
    Semyonovitch Shatzky, former prisoners of war who had been
    interned in this camp and managed to escape, testified that
    prisoners of war were starved; a loaf of bread weighing 1,200
    grams and made of poor-quality, burned flour was issued to eight
    men; once a day one liter of hot liquid food was issued,
    consisting of a small quantity of burned bran, occasionally
    mixed with sawdust. The premises in which the prisoners of war
    were housed had no glass in their windows; in summer and winter
    alike, even in the coldest weather, only 5 kilograms of coal per
    day were allowed for heating purposes. This amount could not, of
    course, heat the vast premises where up to a thousand prisoners
    lived in a perpetual draught. Mass cases of frostbite were
    observed. There were no baths. Generally speaking, people did
    not wash for 6 months and were overrun by enormous quantities of
    vermin. In the hot summer months the prisoners suffered from the
    heat. They were left without drinking water for 3 to 5 days on
    end.”

The regime in the camp organized in the region of Stalinozavodsk was, as
is clear from the extracts read into the Record, precisely the same as
the regime in other German prisoner-of-war camps. This has been proved
beyond all doubt by the discovery of general directives.

The following excerpt shows that, over and above these directives, camp
commanders had opportunities for committing atrocities themselves, each
man according to his own particular method, and yet remained unpunished.
On Page 105 of your document book you will find the following extract
which I am now quoting:

    “Prisoners of war were beaten with sticks and rifle butts on the
    slightest provocation, and a punishment of 720 strokes with the
    lash was imposed for any attempt at escape; the strokes were
    administered over a period of 8 days—30 strokes of the lash at
    a time—morning, noon, and evening. At the same time, the
    culprits were deprived of their bread ration, while the liquid
    ration was halved.”

Mortality in the camp following this regime was enormous. In winter, up
to 200 persons died every day. Epidemics broke out in the camp. Numerous
cases of oedemata—the result of hunger and death by starvation—were
registered.

The guards derived much pleasure in degrading the prisoners of war by
setting one against the other. Thus Shatzky testified that he was
flogged by German policemen, receiving 120 strokes with the lash and 15
with sticks, for disobeying the order to flog his fellow prisoners of
war. The floggings were supervised by German officers.

Provisions brought by civilians for handing to the prisoners of war did
not reach them. The commission came to the conclusion that no fewer than
25,000 Soviet prisoners of war were buried in the grounds of the camp
and of the central polyclinic. This conclusion is based on the
measurement and number of graves and on the evidence of witnesses.

Mass killings and murders of prisoners of war were also organized by the
German fascist invaders in another town in the Don Basin, Artemovsk. A
special commission, consisting of the military prosecutor of the town of
Artemovsk, of the priest of the Pokrovskaya Church, Ziumin, of
representatives of the intelligentsia, public organizations, and army
units, drew up an official report on the mass murders of Soviet
prisoners of war organized by the fascist invaders. This official report
is on Page 4 of Exhibit Number USSR-2(a). It is also on Page 105 of your
document book. It is said in the report:

    “In November 1941, soon after the occupation of the town of
    Artemovsk by German fascist invaders, a prisoner-of-war camp was
    established in the territory of the small military town lying
    beyond the northern station, housing 1,000 captured Red Army
    prisoners of war.”

I omit one paragraph and pass on to the question of living conditions in
the camp:

    “In the spring of 1942 prisoners of war, driven desperate by
    hunger, used to leave the camp and, creeping on all fours like
    animals, plucked and ate grass. In order to deprive the men even
    of this modicum of food, the Germans fenced off the camp
    building by a double row of barbed wire, with a distance of 2
    meters between the rows and barbed wire entanglements placed
    between them.”

I omit one paragraph and am preparing to read the conclusions into the
Record:

    “Twenty-five graves were discovered near the camp—three of them
    mass graves. The first grave measured 20 by 15 meters; it
    contained the remains of about 1,000 corpses. The second grave
    measured 27 by 14 meters and contained the remains of about 900
    corpses. In the third grave, 20 meters by 1, the remains of up
    to 500 corpses were discovered; and in the remaining graves,
    from 25 to 30 in each, making up, all told, a total of some
    3,000 corpses.”

In the neighborhood of the small farm of Vertyatchy, in the
Goroditschtchensky region of the Stalingrad area, the Hitlerites
established a prisoner-of-war camp. Here, as in other camps, and with
their customary and characteristic sadism, they exterminated the war
prisoners of the Red Army.

I present to you, as evidence, our Exhibit Number USSR-63(3) (Document
Number USSR-63(3)), which contains an official report of 21 June 1943.
It is duly drawn up and certified and contains the following
information—this is on Page 110 of the document book:

    “As a result of the atrocious regime, at least 1,500 Soviet
    prisoners of war perished of starvation, torture, sickness, and
    executions in the camp near Vertyatchy, during the 3½ months of
    its existence.

    “The Germans forced the prisoners to work from 14 to 16 hours
    per day, and fed them once a day, the ration consisting of 3 to
    4 spoonfuls of stewed rye or a ladleful of unsalted rye soup
    together with a piece of horse carrion.

    “A few days before the arrival of the Red Army the Germans
    ceased to feed the prisoners altogether and condemned them to
    death by starvation. Nearly all the prisoners suffered from
    dysentery. Many had open wounds, but the prisoners received no
    medical assistance whatsoever.”

I omit one paragraph and pass on to the next, which deals with the
humiliating treatment of prisoners of war:

    “Germans mocked the patriotism of the Soviet prisoners of war by
    forcing them to work on German military constructions, to dig
    trenches and dugouts, and to build mud huts and shelters for
    military technical equipment. The Hitlerites systematically
    humiliated Soviet prisoners of war by making them kneel before
    the Germans.”

It is noted in the official report that the commission examined material
evidence: tools used for the torture of Soviet prisoners of war, a
leather thong and dagger, picked up among the disarmed bodies, with the
well-known Hitlerite slogan “Blood and Honor” (“Blut und Ehre”). The
circumstances in which the dagger was discovered give every possibility
of understanding what was meant by German “honor” and for whose blood
the dagger was intended.

The documents of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union
relating to the town of Kerch describe the characteristic crimes of the
Hitlerite invaders. I submit to the Tribunal the documents of the
Extraordinary State Commission as Exhibit Number USSR-63(6) (Document
Number USSR-63(6)), and I shall read several extracts into the Record.
In your copy they are all marked so as to enable the Tribunal to follow
the text quoted—Page 115.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we might break off now.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

COL. POKROVSKY: On Page 115 of the document book you will find the
excerpt I am about to quote from the testimony of Citizeness P. Y.
Bulytchyeva:

    “Citizeness P. Y. Bulytchyeva, born in the city of Kerch in
    1894, testified:

    “‘I witnessed how our Red Army prisoners of war, both soldiers
    and officers, were repeatedly driven along the street and how
    the weak and wounded were shot out of hand by Germans in the
    street itself when, through sheer debility, they fell out of the
    ranks. Many times I witnessed this terrible scene. Once, in the
    freezing cold, I saw a group of exhausted, ragged, and
    barefooted prisoners driven along. Those who attempted to snatch
    the pieces of bread thrown to them by the citizens were beaten
    up with rubber truncheons and rifle butts. Those who fell under
    the blows were promptly shot.’”

I am omitting a few sentences which, in my opinion, need not be read
into the Record.

    “At the time of the second occupation, when the Germans broke
    into Kerch again, they began to avenge themselves with even
    greater fury on perfectly innocent people.”

The witness testifies that the fascist butchers first of all avenged
themselves on the military personnel and that they beat wounded soldiers
to death with rifle butts. On the same page, 115, you will find the
following excerpt:

    “The prisoners of war were driven into large buildings, which
    were then set on fire. Thus, the Voikov school was burned down,
    together with the club for engineering and technical workers
    containing 400 soldiers and officers of the Red Army.

    “Not a man succeeded in escaping from the burning building. All
    those who attempted to save themselves were mowed down by
    machine gun fire.

    “Wounded soldiers were savagely tortured to death in the small
    fishing village of Mayak.”

Another woman witness who lived in this village, A. P. Buryatchenko,
testified:

    “On 28 May 1942 the Germans shot all the peaceful inhabitants
    who had remained in the village and had not succeeded in hiding.
    The fascist monsters mistreated the wounded Soviet prisoners of
    war, beat them with rifle butts, and then shot them. In my home,
    the Germans discovered a girl in military uniform, who resisted
    the fascists, crying, ‘Shoot, you vipers, I die for the Soviet
    people and for Stalin, but you, you monsters, will die a dog’s
    death.’ This girl patriot was shot on the spot.”

There is, in the district of Kerch, the stone quarry of Adjimushkaisk.
Red Army soldiers were exterminated and poisoned by gas. N. N. Dashkova,
a woman from the village of Adjimushkaisk, testified:

    “I myself saw the Germans, who had caught about 900 Red Army
    soldiers in the quarry, first ill-treat and then shoot them. The
    fascists used gas.”

I omit several sentences. On the same page, 115, you will find the
following quotation:

    “At the time of the occupation a camp for Soviet prisoners of
    war, housing over 1,000 captives, was set up in the Engels Club.
    The Germans ill-treated them, fed them only once a day, drove
    them off to heavy labor beyond their strength, and shot on the
    spot all those who, exhausted, fell by the road.”

I consider it essential to quote a few more testimonies. N. J.
Shumilova, a woman from the hamlet of Gorki, testified:

    “I myself saw a group of prisoners of war being led past my
    courtyard. Three of them were unable to move and were promptly
    shot by the German escort.”

P. I. Gerassimenko, a woman living in the hamlet of Samostroy,
testified:

    “Many Red Army soldiers and officers were driven to our village.
    The area which they occupied was surrounded by barbed wire.
    Here, naked and barefoot, they perished from cold and hunger.
    They were kept in the most frightful and inhumane conditions. By
    the side of the living lay the bodies of the dead, and these
    bodies were not moved for days on end. Such conditions rendered
    life in the camp still more intolerable. The prisoners were
    beaten with rifle butts, flogged by the lash, and fed on refuse.
    Any inhabitant who attempted to give food and bread to the
    prisoners was beaten up, while prisoners attempting to hand over
    these gifts were shot.”

In a Kerch school, Number 24, the Germans set up a camp for prisoners of
war. A. N. Naumova, a school teacher, testified as follows concerning
the regime in the camp:

    “There were many wounded in the camp. These unhappy people,
    though bleeding profusely, were left without any help. I
    collected medicine and bandages for the wounded, and their
    wounds were dressed by a medical orderly from among the
    captives. The prisoners suffered from dysentery since they were
    fed hog-wash instead of bread. People dropped from exhaustion
    and disease; they died in agony. On 20 June 1942 three prisoners
    of war were given the lash for attempting to escape from the
    camp. The wounded were shot. In June one of the escaped
    prisoners was caught and executed.”

Koshenikove, a teacher in the Stalin School, in the area of the factory
kitchen and Voikov works, witnessed the execution of a group of Red Army
men and officers. In 1943 the German criminals drove Red Army prisoners
all the way from the Caucasus. The entire road from the ferry to the
town, a distance of some 18 to 20 kilometers, was littered with the dead
bodies of Red Army men. There were many sick and wounded among the
prisoners of war. Whoever was unable to walk, either through exhaustion
or sickness, was shot on the way.

Among other facts there is one which deserves special attention:

In 1942 the fascists threw 100 Red Army prisoners of war, alive, into
the village well of Adjimushkray; their bodies were subsequently
extracted by the inhabitants and buried in a communal grave in the
sacred brotherhood of death. This information is contained in the same
report, extracts of which I have just quoted to you.

On 29 January 1946 the witness, Paul Roser, was cross-examined here
before the Tribunal. He testified that in the course of 4 months, out of
10,000 Russians, whom he had seen as prisoners of war in the German camp
at the city of Rawa-Ruska, only 2,000 remained alive.

We possess evidence from yet another eyewitness of the numerous
atrocities and endless tortures inflicted on the prisoners of war at
Rawa-Ruska. Witness V. S. Kotchan, who was duly interrogated according
to the procedure prescribed by our laws, testified before the captain of
the guard of justice, Ryshov, on 27 September 1944—the minutes of his
interrogation are hereby submitted to you as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c)
(Document Number USSR-6(c)):

    “I worked under the Germans as a digger at the prisoner-of-war
    camp for Red Army soldiers, from December 1941 to April 1942.”

This is on Page 124 of the document book. I omit a few lines irrelevant
to the matter, and I quote further:

    “This camp was set up by the Germans in the barracks near the
    railway. The entire area of the camp was surrounded by barbed
    wire. According to personal statements by the prisoners of war,
    the Germans drove from 12,000 to 15,000 men into this camp.
    While we were working, we watched the Germans mock the Red Army
    prisoners of war. They fed them once a day on unpeeled, frozen
    potatoes baked in their skins and covered with dirt. They kept
    the prisoners of war in the cold barracks all through the
    winter.

    “I know for a fact that, when the Germans drove the prisoners of
    war into this camp, all clothes, overcoats, boots, and shoes
    which were at all serviceable were taken from the prisoners,
    leaving them barefoot and in rags. The prisoners of war were
    taken to work daily under escort from 4 to 5 in the morning and
    kept working until 10 o’clock at night. Then, worn out, cold,
    and hungry, the prisoners were marched back to their barracks,
    where doors and windows had purposely been left open all day so
    that the frost might enter these barracks and freeze the
    prisoners to death. In the morning, under the supervision of
    German soldiers, hundreds of corpses would be taken away in a
    tractor by the prisoners of war; they were buried in
    previously-prepared pits in the forest of Volkovitch. When the
    prisoners were marched off to work in the morning, under escort,
    the Germans would place a detachment of soldiers armed with
    rifles and stakes by the exit gates of the camp; they pole-axed
    them with stakes, stabbed them with bayonets, and chased the
    hungry and exhausted prisoners who were unable to move
    properly.”

The same witness describes also some other German atrocities:

    “The German camp administration brought out completely-naked
    prisoners of war, bound them with ropes to a wall surrounded by
    barbed wire and kept them there, in the cold of the December
    winter, until they froze to death. The air of the camp resounded
    continually with the groans and cries of people maimed by rifle
    butts. Some were pole-axed with rifle butts on the spot.

    “When, starving and exhausted, the prisoners were brought to the
    camp, they would hurl themselves on a heap of rotten and frozen
    potatoes. This, in turn, would be followed by a shot from the
    German escort.”

I present to the Tribunal, under the same Number USSR-6(c)—Page 120 of
the document book—the deposition of a French prisoner of war, Emilie
Leger, a soldier of the 43rd Colonial Infantry Regiment, Serial Number
29. In his deposition the camp at Rawa-Ruska is called the “famous camp
of lingering death, Stalag 325.”

It appears to me that this phrase serves, as it were, as a supplement to
the testimonies of witnesses Roser and Kochau. The Soviet Prosecution
has at its disposal a considerable quantity of material disclosing as
well numerous crimes of the Hitlerite invaders perpetrated against
prisoners of war in the territory of the Lvov district.

It seems to me sufficient to read into the Record extracts from the
evidence submitted by D. Sh. Manussevitch, and I wish to state that this
evidence is confirmed by the testimony of two other witnesses: F. G. Ash
and G. Y. Khamaydes. I am presenting all three documents as Document
Number USSR-6(c).

Witnesses Manussevitch, Ash, and Khamaydes worked for some time in the
detachment which cremated the dead bodies of men shot by the Germans in
the region of Lvov and particularly in the Lissenitzky camps. Witness
Manussevitch states—I quote, beginning with Line 20 at the bottom of
Page 2 of our Number 6(c), and on Page 129 of your document book:

    “When we (the Brigade of Death) had completed the cremation of
    the corpses, we were conveyed at night in cars to the
    Lissenitzky forest, opposite the yeast factory at Lvov. There
    were about 45 pits in this forest, containing the bodies of
    people previously shot in 1941-42. There were between 500 and
    3,500 bodies in the pits. These were not only the bodies of
    soldiers of the Italian, French, Belgian, and Russian armies,
    that is, of prisoners of war, but of peaceful inhabitants as
    well. All the prisoners of war were buried in their clothes.
    Therefore, when digging them out of the pits, I could recognize
    the dead by their uniforms, insignia, buttons, medals, and
    decorations, as well as by their spoons and mess cups. All these
    were burned once the corpses had been exhumed. As in the camp at
    Yanovsky, grass was sown on the site of the pits, and trees and
    dead tree trunks were planted so as to erase any trace of the
    crimes, which are certainly unprecedented in the history of
    mankind.”

In addition to the testimony of the victims and of many Soviet citizens
we have at our disposal the testimonies of members of the German Armed
Forces. I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-62 (Document
Number USSR-62) a document which was signed by more than 60 persons
belonging to different units and branches of the German Army. We find
their signature on written protests addressed to the International Red
Cross in January 1942. We also have a communication of the International
Red Cross acknowledging the receipt of this document. In this letter
they mentioned facts relating to the criminal treatment of Soviet
prisoners of war, of which they had personal knowledge. The persons who
signed this protest were themselves prisoners of war at Soviet Camp
Number 78. Their protest is the result of the comparison made by the
authors of the document between the treatment meted out to Soviet
prisoners, which they had seen for themselves, and the treatment they
received at Camp Number 78. I will quote a few excerpts from this
document—the text with the following words—Page 135 of the document
book:

    “We, the German prisoners of war of Camp Number 78, have read
    the note by the Peoples’ Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the
    Soviet Government, Mr. Molotov, concerning the treatment of
    prisoners of war in Germany. We might consider the cruelties
    described in that note as impossible had we not witnessed such
    atrocities for ourselves. In order that truth should prevail, we
    must confirm that prisoners of war—citizens of the Soviet
    Union—were often subjected to terrible ill-treatment by
    representatives of the German Army and were even shot by them.”

Concrete examples of crimes known to the authors are quoted further on
in the text. Hans Drews, of Regenwalde, a soldier of Company 4 of the
6th Tank Regiment, stated:

    “I am acquainted with the order issued by Lieutenant General
    Model to the 3rd Tank Division to the effect that prisoners
    should not be taken. A similar order was issued by Major General
    Nehring, commanding officer of the 18th Tank Division. Two days
    prior to the attack on Russia we were told at the briefing
    session of 20 June that in the forthcoming campaign wounded Red
    Army men should not have their wounds dressed, since the German
    Army would have no time to bother with the wounded.”

The fact of the preliminary issuance of this order also has been
confirmed by a soldier of the 18th Tank Division Headquarters, Harry
Marek, a native of the neighborhood of Breslau:

    “On 21 June, a day before the beginning of the war against
    Russia, we received the following order from our offices:

    “‘The commissars of the Red Army are to be shot on the spot,
    since there is no need to stand upon any ceremony with them.
    Neither is there any necessity to bother ourselves unduly with
    the Russian wounded; they must be finished off immediately.’”

Wilhelm Metzick, a soldier of the 399th Infantry Regiment of the 170th
Division, from Hamburg-Altona, quotes the following case:

    “On 23 June, when we entered Russia, we came to a small hamlet
    near Beltsa. There I saw with my own eyes how two German
    soldiers shot five Russian prisoners in the back with submachine
    guns.”

Wolfgang Scharte, a soldier in Company 2 of the 3rd Tank Destroyer
Battalion, a native of Gerhardtschagen, near Brunswick, testified
concerning the question of exterminating the Red commissars of the Red
Army:

    “On the day before we opened the campaign against the Soviet
    Union, the officers told us:

    “‘If on the way you should happen to meet Russian
    commissars—they can always be recognized by the Soviet star on
    their sleeve—and Russian women in uniform, they must be shot
    immediately. Anyone failing to do so and to comply with this
    order will be held responsible and punished.’

    “On 29 June I myself saw representatives of the German Army
    shoot wounded Red Army men lying in a field of grain near the
    town of Dubno. After this they were run through with bayonets to
    make quite sure that they were dead. German officers stood
    nearby and laughed.”

Joseph Berndsen of Oberhausen, a soldier of the 6th Tank Division,
stated; “Even before entering Russia we were told, at one of the
briefing sessions, ‘Commissars must be shot.’”

Jacob Korzillias, of Horforst, near Treves, a German officer, a
lieutenant of the 112th Engineer Battalion of the 112th Infantry
Division, certified:

    “In a village near Bolva, 15 wounded Red Army men were thrown
    out of the hut where they were lying, stripped, and bayonetted
    on the order of Lieutenant Kierick, adjutant of the 112th
    Engineer Battalion. This was done with the knowledge of the
    division commander, Lieutenant General Mitt.”

Alois Goetz, from Hagenbach-am-Rhine, a soldier of Company 8 of the
427th Infantry Regiment, stated, “On 27 June, in a forest near
Augustovo, two Red Army commissars were shot on the order of the
battalion commander, Captain Wittmann.”

On Page 3 of our Exhibit Number USSR-62 we find the following statement
by Paul Sender of Königsberg, a soldier of the 4th Platoon of Company
13, Infantry Field Artillery, attached to the 2d Infantry Regiment—Page
137 of the document book:

    “On 14 July, on the road between Porchov and Staraya-Russa,
    Corporal Schneider, of Company 1 of the 2d Infantry Regiment,
    shot 12 captured Red Army men in the gutter. When I questioned
    him on the matter, Schneider answered, ‘Why should I bother with
    them? They are not even worth a bullet.’ I also know of another
    case.

    “During the battles around Porchov, a Red Army man was captured.
    Shortly after he was shot by a corporal of Company 1. As soon as
    the Red Army soldier fell, the corporal took from his knapsack
    all the food in it.”

To conclude the reading of excerpts from the protest of the German
prisoners of war, I should like to quote two more depositions by Fritz
Rummler and Richard Gillig, respectively. We find their depositions at
the bottom of Page 4. Fritz Rummler, a native of Strehlen in Silesia and
a corporal of Company 9, Battalion 3, of the 518th Regiment of the 295th
Infantry Division, reported the following cases—this excerpt is on Page
138 of the document book:

    “In August, in the town of Zlatopol, I saw how two officers of
    the SS units and two soldiers shot two captured Red Army
    soldiers after first taking their army overcoats from them.
    These officers and soldiers belonged to the Panzer tank forces
    of General Von Kleist. In September the crew of a German tank on
    the road to Krasnograd crushed two captured Red Army soldiers to
    death with their tank. This act was inspired purely by lust for
    blood and murder. The tank commander was a noncommissioned
    officer, Schneider, belonging to Von Kleist’s Panzer forces. I
    saw how four captured Red Army soldiers were questioned in our
    battalion. This happened at Voroshilovsk. The Red Army soldiers
    refused to answer questions of a military nature asked by the
    battalion commander, Major Warnecke. He flew into a rage and
    with his own hands beat the prisoners unconscious.”

Corporal Richard Gillig, of the 9th Transportation Platoon, of the 34th
Division, stated:

    “Many a time I witnessed the inhuman and cruel treatment of
    Russian prisoners of war. Before my own eyes and on the orders
    of their officers, German soldiers removed the boots from the
    captured Red Army soldiers and drove them on barefooted. I
    witnessed many such facts at Tarutino. I was an eyewitness of
    the following incident: One prisoner refused to surrender his
    boots voluntarily. Soldiers of the escort beat him till he could
    no longer move. I saw other prisoners being stripped, not only
    of their boots, but of their uniform clothing, right down to
    their underwear.”

I omit a few sentences and go on to the end of the statement.

    “I saw, during the retreat of our column, near the town of
    Medyn, German soldiers beating up captured Red Army soldiers.
    One prisoner was very tired and unsteady on his legs. A soldier
    of the escort raced up to the captive and started kicking and
    beating him with the butt of his rifle. Other soldiers followed
    his example and the prisoner dropped dead when we reached the
    town.”

The statement reads on:

    “It is no secret that, in the front line of the German Army
    division headquarters, specialists existed whose work it was to
    torture Red Army soldiers and Soviet officers in order to force
    them, in this manner, to disclose military orders and
    information.”

I submit to the Tribunal the photostat of this statement. You can see
that there are 60 signatures appended to it by members of the German
Armed Forces, with the indication of the regiments and smaller
subdivisions to which they belonged.

I submit to the Tribunal four photographs of German origin. Each of
these photographs was taken by Germans; time and place when the
photographs were taken are indicated. One photograph shows the
distribution of food; the third and fourth are pictures of the
prisoner-of-war camp at Uman.

THE PRESIDENT: Where are the pictures?

COL. POKROVSKY: If I am not mistaken, you have been given the photostat
of the statement, but not the photographs.

THE PRESIDENT: This is not a copy of the photographs; these are the
signatures of the 60 German prisoners.

COL. POKROVSKY: The photographs will be submitted immediately. They have
evidently, by an oversight, not been included in the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on.

COL. POKROVSKY: It is obvious from the first picture that the food
distributed is insufficient. Men are practically fighting for the right
of getting at it. The second photograph shows hungry Soviet prisoners of
war wandering round an empty barn and eating the oil cakes stored for
cattle food and which they had discovered. As to the third and fourth
photographs, I can submit to the Tribunal important testimony by the
witness, Bingel. Excerpts from his testimony have a direct bearing on
the question of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war.

I interrogated Bingel myself and I now submit the minutes of his
interrogation to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-111 (Document
Number USSR-111), dated 27 December 1945. Bingel, who formerly commanded
a company in the German Army, testified—I quote an excerpt from Page 8
of the minutes of his interrogation—as follows:

    “A: Tn one of my reports I made a statement concerning the
    regime inside the prisoner-of-war camp at Uman. . . . This camp
    was guarded by a company of our subsection of the 783rd
    Battalion, and I was therefore familiar with everything which
    occurred in the camp. It was the task of this battalion to guard
    the prisoners of war and to control the highways and railroads.

    “‘This camp was calculated to hold, under normal conditions,
    from 6,000 to 7,000 men; at that time, however, it housed 74,000
    men.’

    “Q: ‘Were there barracks?’

    “A: ‘No. It was formerly a brickyard and consisted exclusively
    of low sheds for drying bricks.’

    “Q: ‘Were the prisoners of war housed there?’

    “A: ‘It can scarcely be said that they were housed, since each
    shed, at the utmost, could not contain more than 200 to 300 men;
    the rest had to sleep in the open.’

    “Q: ‘What was the regime like at that camp?’

    “A: ‘The regime in that camp was definitely peculiar. The
    existing conditions gave one the impression that the camp
    commander, Captain Bekker, was quite unable to handle and feed
    so large a number of men. There were two kitchens in the camp,
    although they could hardly be called kitchens. Iron barrels had
    been placed on stone and concrete floors, and the food for the
    prisoners was prepared in these barrels. But the kitchens, even
    if operating for 24 hours on end, could only prepare food for
    approximately 2,000 people daily. The usual diet for the
    prisoner was very insufficient. The daily ration for six men
    consisted of one loaf of bread which, again, could scarcely be
    described as bread. Disturbances frequently arose during the
    distribution of the hot food, for the prisoners—and there were
    70,000 of them in the camp—struggled to get at the victuals. In
    cases like these the guards resorted to clubs—a usual procedure
    in the camp. I obtained the general impression that in all the
    camps the club was inevitably the foundation of all things.’”

Please forgive the digression, but I have been told, Your Honor, that
two photographs are attached to the Record and that their authenticity
is certified. I am now submitting them to the Tribunal. The other two
will be handed to you very shortly. I continue to quote from the Record:

    “Q: ‘Do you know anything about the death rate at the camp?’

    “A: ‘Sixty to seventy men died at the camp daily.’

    “Q: ‘From what causes?’

    “A: ‘Before the epidemics broke out one mostly spoke of people
    being killed.’

    “Q: ‘Killed during the distribution of food?’

    “A: ‘Both during the distribution of food and during working
    hours; generally speaking, people were being killed all day
    long.’”

Bingel was interrogated by us for the second time, and he was shown the
photographs of the camp at Uman. These are the same photographs that you
now have in your hands, Your Honors. He was then asked the following
question, “The camp shown here, is it the one you spoke about, or some
other camp?” After this he was shown photographs from a negative, 13×18,
of 14 August 1941 and from a negative, 13×22, of the same date. Bingel
replied:

    “Yes, this is the camp of which I spoke. As a matter of fact,
    this is not the camp proper but a clay pit belonging to the
    camp; here the prisoners were housed as soon as they arrived
    from the front. Later on they were assigned to various sections
    of the camp.”

    “Q: ‘What can you tell us about the second photograph?’

    “A: ‘The second one shows the camp photographed from another
    angle, that is, from the right side. The buildings shown here
    were practically the only brick buildings in the camp. These
    brick buildings, though quite empty and undamaged, with
    excellent and spacious quarters, were not used for housing the
    prisoners of war.’”

It is difficult to say whether or not that what the Hitlerites did to
the Soviet prisoners of war at the so-called “Grosslazarett” of the town
of Slavuta, in the Kamenetzk-Podolsky region, should be considered as
the limit of human vileness. Be that as it may, the extermination of
Soviet prisoners of war by the Hitlerites at the “Grosslazarett” is one
of the darkest pages in the annals of fascist crime.

I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-5 (Document Number
USSR-5), the report of the Extraordinary State Commission, and I shall
read into the Record several excerpts from the report itself, as well as
from the appendices thereto.

    “On the expulsion of the fascist hordes from the town of
    Slavuta, units of the Red Army discovered, on the site of the
    restricted military area, the establishment which the Germans
    called the ‘Grosslazarett’ for Soviet prisoners of war. Over 500
    emaciated, critically sick men were found in the ‘Lazarett.’ The
    interrogation of these men and the special investigation carried
    out by medico-forensic experts and by experts of the Central
    Institute for Food, of the People’s Commissariat for Health in
    the U.S.S.R., led to a detailed reconstruction of the
    extermination of an immense number of Soviet prisoners of war in
    that appalling institution.”

You will find the passage I am about to quote on Page 153 of the
document book:

    “In the fall of 1941, German fascist invaders occupied the town
    of Slavuta, where they organized a ‘Lazarett’ for wounded and
    sick officers and men of the Red Army, under the name of
    Grosslazarett, Slavuta, Teillager 301.

    “The ‘Lazarett’ was located about 1½ to 2 kilometers to the
    southeast of Slavuta and occupied 10 three-storied stone
    buildings. The Hitlerites surrounded all these buildings by a
    strong barbed wire fence. All along the barbed wire, 10 meters
    apart, towers were built, in which guns, searchlights, and
    guards were placed.

    “The administrative staff, the German doctors and the guard of
    the ‘Grosslazarett,’ the latter represented by the commanding
    officer, Captain Plank (later replaced by Major Pavlisk), the
    deputy commander, Kronsdorfer, Captain Boye, Dr. Borbe, with his
    deputy, Dr. Sturm, Master Sergeant Ilseman, and Technical
    Sergeant Bekker carried out a mass extermination of Soviet
    prisoners of war by imposing a special regime of hunger,
    overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions, by torture and direct
    murder, by depriving the sick and wounded of all medical
    assistance, and by subjecting utterly exhausted men to heavy
    labor.”

The Extraordinary State Commission refers to the “Grosslazarett” as the
“Hospital of Death.” I shall quote a short excerpt from a section under
the selfsame name. It is on Page 3 of the Russian original and on Page
153 of the document book:

    “The German authorities concentrated at the ‘Grosslazarett’
    15,000 to 18,000 severely and slightly wounded Soviet prisoners
    of war, together with prisoners suffering from various
    contagious and noncontagious diseases.

    “To replace the ranks of the dead, fresh batches of sick and
    wounded prisoners of war were continually brought in. On the
    journey the captives were tortured, starved, and murdered. The
    Hitlerites threw out hundreds of corpses from each car of the
    incoming transports as they reached the ‘Lazarett.’”

According to data received from the investigating commission, 800 to 900
dead bodies would be thrown out of each train as it unloaded at a branch
line. A further report of the Commission states:

    “Thousands of Soviet prisoners on the march perished from
    hunger, thirst, lack of care, and the savage club-law of the
    German guards . . . as a routine practice the Hitlerites would
    greet a group of prisoners at the ‘Lazarett’ gates with blows
    from rifle butts and rubber truncheons, after which the new
    arrivals would be stripped of their leather footwear, warm
    clothing, and personal belongings.”

In the next section, on the same page, the State Commission reports that
infectious diseases were deliberately spread among the prisoners of war
by German medical officers in the “Lazarett”:

    “In the ‘Grosslazarett’ the German medical officers artificially
    created an incredible state of overcrowding. The prisoners were
    forced to stand close to each other; they succumbed to
    exhaustion, dropped down, and died.”

The fascists resorted to various methods for reducing the living room in
the “Lazarett”. A former prisoner of war, I.Y. Chuazhev, reported that:

    “The Germans reduced the floor space in the ‘Lazarett’ by firing
    off submachine guns, since the prisoners, perforce, pressed more
    closely to each other; then the Hitlerites pushed in more sick
    and wounded and the door was closed.”

The premeditated spreading of infectious diseases in this death camp,
derisively named a “Lazarett,” was achieved by extremely primitive
means:

    “Patients suffering from spotted fever, tuberculosis, or
    dysentery, severely and lightly wounded cases, were one and all
    put in the same block and the same ward.”

In a ward intended, under normal conditions, to hold not more than 400
patients, the number of spotted fever and tuberculosis cases alone
amounted to 1800.

    “The rooms were never cleaned. The sick remained, for months on
    end, in the same underclothes in which they were captured. They
    slept on the bare boards. Many were half-undressed, others
    entirely naked. The buildings were unheated, and the primitive
    stoves, constructed by the prisoners themselves, fell to pieces.
    There was no water for washing in this ‘Lazarett,’ not even for
    drinking. As a result of these unsanitary conditions, the
    ‘hospital’ was, to a monstrous extent, overrun by lice.”

Annihilation by the premeditated spreading of diseases went hand in hand
with starvation. The daily food ration consisted of 250 grams of ersatz
bread and two liters of so-called “Balanda soup.” The flour used for
baking the bread for sick and wounded prisoners of war was brought from
Germany. Fifteen tons of flour were discovered in one of the “Lazarett”
storerooms. The factory-packed paper bags, containing 40 kilos each,
bore a label with the word “Spelzmehl.” Samples of this ersatz flour
were sent for analysis to the Central Food Institute of the People’s
Commissariat for Public Health of the U.S.S.R.

I present the document dealing with the annihilation of Soviet prisoners
of war by the Hitlerites in the “Grosslazarett” as Exhibit Number
USSR-5(a), (Document Number USSR-5(a)). On Pages 9, 10, and 11 of this
document the Tribunal can see the photostat of the Central Food
Institute’s report.

This report was established on the one hand on the basis of an analysis
made by the field military laboratory and, on the other hand, on the
basis of an analysis carried out in the Central Food Institute itself.
Sample bakings of bread were made from the ersatz flour and from the
ersatz flour mixed with a small addition of real flour. It seems that it
was impossible to bake a loaf with ersatz flour alone. The Institute’s
report states:

    “It is evident that the bread was made with the addition of a
    certain quantity of natural flour for binding the dough. A diet
    of this so-called ‘bread,’ in the absence of all other food and
    food products of a full dietetic value, inevitably led to
    starvation and acute exhaustion.”

The analysis proved that the “flour” consisted of nothing but straw
chopped evenly though rather roughly. Some particles were 2 and some 3
millimeters in length. Under the microscope, in every optical field of
vision—according to the report—we discovered, “Together with food and
vegetable fiber, minute quantities of grains of starch, resembling
grains of oats in structure.” The Institute came to the conclusion that
“The use of this bread, owing to the irritant action of the soft crumb,
resulted in diseases of the digestive tract.”

Anticipating a little, I should like to report the results of the
medico-legal autopsies performed on 112 corpses exhumed from Site Number
1 and of the external examination of approximately 500 bodies. In the
first instance exhaustion was proved to have caused the death of 96
victims. In the second case, as stated in the findings—see Page
7—mentioned in Exhibit Number USSR-5(a), (Document Number USSR-5(a)):

    “The statement that exhaustion was the fundamental cause of
    mortality in the prisoners’ camp was likewise proved by the
    results of the external examinations of some 500 corpses, when
    it was disclosed that the proportion of victims dead of acute
    exhaustion had approached 100 percent.”

A little further on, in the same report, in Subparagraph “d” of
Paragraph 5, the experts, supported by numerous witnesses, state that
the diet in the Slavuta “Grosslazarett” can be characterized as
completely useless for human consumption. I quote, “Bread contained 64
percent sawdust; ‘Balanda soup’ was made of rotten potatoes with the
addition of refuse, rat-droppings, _et cetera_.”

Such prisoners of war who had survived the tyranny of the Hitler hangmen
and had lived to see the liberation of Slavuta declared—I quote an
excerpt from Page 4 of Exhibit Number USSR-5, Page 153 of the document
book:

    “In the ‘Grosslazarett’ we periodically observed outbreaks of a
    mysterious disease of an unknown nature, referred to as
    ‘para-cholera’ by the German doctors. The appearance of
    ‘para-cholera’ was the result of barbarous experiments by the
    German doctors. These outbreaks would vanish as suddenly as they
    appeared. The mortality rate in ‘para-cholera’ rose to 60-80
    percent. German physicians performed autopsies on the bodies of
    some of the victims, and no captured Russian medical officers
    were admitted to these autopsies.”

In conclusion, it is stated in Subparagraph 8 of the medico-legal expert
report—Page 7 of Exhibit Number USSR-5(a), Page 159 of the document
book—that:

    “No objective circumstances can justify the conditions under
    which the prisoners of war were housed in the camp. All the
    more, since it has been revealed by thoroughgoing investigations
    that there were enormous food supplies in the German military
    depots at Slavuta and that both medical supplies and surgical
    bandages abounded in the military dispensaries.”

The “Grosslazarett” staff included a considerable number of medical
personnel. Nevertheless, according to the statement of the government
commission, sick and wounded officers and men of the Red Army did not
receive even the most elementary medical attention. And how could there
be any talk of medical attention when the entire object of the
“Grosslazarett” was directly opposed to such assistance? The
administration of the “Grosslazarett” not only strove to destroy the
prisoners of war physically, but they also endeavored to fill the last
days of the sick and wounded with suffering and anguish.

One part of the commission’s statement is entitled “Torture and shooting
of Soviet prisoners of war.” I shall read into the Record a passage
taken from this part. It is on Page 4, Exhibit Number USSR-5, Page 153
of the document book:

    “Soviet prisoners of war in the ‘Grosslazarett’ were subjected
    to torture and torment, beaten up when food was distributed and
    again when setting out to work. Even the dying were not spared
    by the fascist murderers. The medico-legal examination of the
    exhumed corpses revealed, among a number of other bodies of
    prisoners of war, the body of a prisoner who, in his death
    agony, had been wounded in the groin with a knife. He had been
    thrown into his grave while still alive, with the knife sticking
    in the wound, and was then covered over with earth.

    “One method of mass torture in the ‘Lazarett’ consisted in
    locking the sick and wounded in a detention cell—a room without
    heat and with a concrete floor. The prisoners in this cell were
    left without food for days on end, and many died there. In order
    to exhaust the ill and weak prisoners still further, the
    Hitlerites forced the sick and enfeebled patients to run round
    the ‘Lazarett’ building; those who could not run were flogged
    almost to death. There were many cases where the German guards
    murdered the prisoners just for fun.

    “A former prisoner of war, Buchtichyuk, reported how the Germans
    threw the intestines of dead horses on the barbed wire
    surrounding the interior of the camp. When the prisoners,
    maddened with hunger, ran up to the barbed wire, the guards
    opened fire on them with submachine guns. The witness, Kirsanov,
    saw one prisoner of war bayonetted for picking up a potato
    tuber. A former prisoner of war, Shatalov, was an eyewitness to
    the shooting of a prisoner by his escort merely for trying to
    obtain a second helping of ‘Balanda soup.’

    “In February 1942 Shatalov saw a sentry wound a prisoner who was
    searching the garbage heap for remnants of food left over from
    the kitchen of the German personnel; the wounded man was
    immediately brought to the pit, stripped, and executed.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 14 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            FIFTY-NINTH DAY
                       Thursday, 14 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make which concerns the
defendants’ counsel. The Tribunal will sit in open session on Saturday
morning from 10 o’clock to hear the application of the defendants’
counsel for an adjournment.

They will hear one counsel on either side, that is to say, one counsel
for the Prosecution and one counsel for the Defense, for 15 minutes
each, and after that open session the Tribunal will adjourn into closed
session upon procedural matters.

COL. POKROVSKY: Yesterday, in the course of my representation, I
referred to four photographs in our possession, two of which were
submitted to the Tribunal there and then. These photographs have been
made by the Germans and they show the prisoner-of-war camp at Uman. I
must apologize that yesterday, for technical reasons, we were unable to
produce the remaining two at the proper time. The first of these
photographs shows the distribution of food to the prisoners; the second,
hungry Soviet prisoners searching for and eating oil cakes intended as
cattle food. I now submit the originals of these two photographs
(Document Numbers USSR-358 and 359) as Exhibit Numbers USSR-358 and
USSR-359.

An autopsy of the exhumed bodies, performed during the investigation of
fascist crimes in the so-called “Lager,” Slavuta, confirms that:

    “The headquarters command and the camp guards repeatedly
    resorted to refined forms of torture. Among the bodies exhumed
    on which autopsies were performed, the medico-legal examination
    established that the corpses of four prisoners of war, murdered
    with cold steel, had received bayonet wounds penetrating the
    cavity of the skull.”

You will find this passage, Your Honors, on Page 153 of the document
book.

    “The Hitlerites compelled sick and wounded prisoners, despite
    their extreme weakness and acute state of exhaustion, to carry
    out work which was entirely beyond their strength. The prisoners
    had to carry heavy burdens, were forced to shoulder the bodies
    of murdered Soviet citizens and carry them out of the camp.
    Exhausted prisoners who fell by the way were shot on the spot.
    The road to and from work, according to a report of the Roman
    Catholic priest at Slavuta, was marked, as by milestones, with
    small grave mounds.”

The fascist fanatics did not always have the patience to wait for the
actual death of one or another prisoner of war, and they buried persons
who were still alive. I quote from a document which I have previously
submitted to the Tribunal. You will find this quotation once again on
Page 153 of your document book:

    “As a result of the discovery of a considerable quantity of
    grains of sand in the lower respiratory tracts of the corpses of
    four prisoners, grains which penetrated right down to the very
    smallest bronchial tube, and which could not have penetrated
    thus far unless propelled by the respiratory movements of
    persons smothered by sand, the medico-legal experts found that
    at the ‘Gross-Lazarett’ the guards of the commander had buried
    the Soviet citizens alive. This was done with the connivance of
    the German doctors.”

Prisoner-of-war Pankin, a former inmate of the “Gross-Lazarett,” knew of
one case where, in February 1943, an unconscious patient was brought to
the morgue. There he recovered consciousness, but when it was reported
to the officer in charge of barracks that a live man had been taken to
the morgue, he ordered him to be left there. The sick man was buried.

Some prisoners, spurred by the intolerable regime, ignored the immense
risks attached to the venture and attempted to escape, either singly or
in groups. Such martyrs who succeeded in getting out of the “hospital”
hell sought refuge with the local population of Slavuta and the
surrounding hamlets. The Hitlerite brutes mercilessly shot anybody who
had rendered any kind of assistance to a fugitive.

The town of Slavuta lies in the Shepetov district. On 15 January 1942,
the District Commissioner of Shepetov, Dr. Worbs, issued a special order
to the effect that if those directly responsible for helping escaped
prisoners were not found, 10 hostages would be shot in every case.
Father Dhynkovsky reported that 26 peace-loving citizens were arrested
and shot for helping prisoners of war flee.

A medical examination of the 525 prisoners liberated from the
“Gross-Lazarett” revealed that 435 suffered from extreme exhaustion, 59
from complications following untended, infected wounds, and that 31
suffered from neuro-psychiatric disturbances.

The commission notes, and I quote—with the permission of the
Tribunal—the last and the penultimate paragraphs of the left column, on
Page 5 of our document. In your file this quotation is on Page 154 of
the document book:

    “During the 2 years of Slavuta’s occupation, the Hitlerites,
    with the connivance of the German doctors Borbe, Sturm, and
    other medical personnel in the ‘Gross-Lazarett,’ exterminated
    about 150,000 Red Army officers and men.”

The German fascist executioners, perfectly aware of the unbounded
bestiality of their crimes, attempted to conceal by all possible means
the traces of the atrocities committed. They especially endeavored to
camouflage the burial sites of the Soviet prisoners of war. Thus, for
instance, on the cross of Grave Number 623, only eight surnames of
persons buried were indicated, whereas upon excavation 32 bodies were
actually found in that grave. Such, too, was the case when Grave Number
624 was opened up. In other graves, layers of earth were placed between
several rows of corpses. For instance, 10 bodies were found in Grave
Number 625. When a layer of earth, 30 centimeters thick, had been
removed, two further rows of corpses were found in the same grave; the
same occurred at the excavation of Graves Number 627 and 628.

Numerous graves were camouflaged by flower-beds, trees, plants, paths,
_et cetera_, but no disguise can ever hide the bloody crimes committed
by the Hitlerite evildoers.

If I am not mistaken, there was a case when one of the participants in
these trials, evidently forgetting where he was and under what
circumstances, expressed a wish to follow the procedure laid down by
German law. The Tribunal immediately made the necessary inquiries, and
the intention of operating in accordance with the standards of German
law was, of course, promptly rejected. At present I am fully able to
submit to the Tribunal documents which, in my opinion, are of importance
in our case, although they are compiled in complete accordance with the
rules laid down by German law.

Among the numerous documents found in the police archives of the town of
Zhitomir, Red Army troops seized a certain piece of correspondence. This
is a police inquiry. The authors of this document could not foretell
that it would be read into the record at a session of the International
Tribunal for the punishment of the major war criminals. The documents
constituting this correspondence were intended exclusively for the
chiefs of police, and they were compiled in accordance with all the
customary requirements of German law and of the police investigations of
fascist Germany. From this point of view, those who would like to
examine the documentation in question can be well satisfied.

At the same time this correspondence is useful to us. So much has been
said in the comparatively small number of pages that I should have to
analyze the documentation section by section in order that you could
appreciate it fully and from every angle. I submit this correspondence
to you both in the German photostats and in the Russian translation. I
repeat—this is a police inquiry. The document is submitted to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-311 (Document Number USSR-311); and we
have, in accordance with the wishes of the Tribunal, asked for the
original copy which we may possibly receive from Moscow this very day.

On 24 December 1942, 78 prisoners of war from the Berditchev section of
the Educational Labor Camp were to be subjected to “special treatment.”
All the 78 prisoners were Soviet citizens. There is, in the
correspondence, a report addressed to the authorities by SS
Obersturmführer Kuntze, of 27 December 1942. You will find it on Page
170 of your document book. At the end of the first paragraph there is
one sentence which, for greater clarity, has been marked with a red
pencil. It says:

    “There is no proof that these prisoners of war had ever
    participated in any communistic activities during the time of
    the Soviet regime.”

Kuntze’s next sentence fully elucidates the question of how and why
these prisoners of war entered the Educational Labor Camp. He states:

    “It seems that the Wehrmacht had, at the time, placed these
    prisoners of war at the disposal of our local authorities for
    special treatment. . . .”

We became convinced that they had been directed to this camp by the
military authorities. The specialist—in this case undoubtedly
Obersturmführer Kuntze—states that they were sent here especially to be
subjected to the treatment of the “special regime.”

In an attempt to shorten, if ever so slightly, this very abundant
documentation which forms the correspondence, I shall tell you, in my
own words, that the 78 people in question were all that remained of a
far larger group. Sturmscharführer SS Fritz Knop reports—Page 163 of
your document book:

    “. . . some of the prisoners at that time were transported in a
    truck, to some place in the neighborhood and unloaded. Later on
    further unloadings of prisoners of war were suspended, following
    objections raised by the Army.”

A little later I shall be more explicit when dealing with the nature of
these transfers and the objections raised by the Army. Please permit me
now to pass over to a brief summary of the gist of the matter. It
appears to me more useful to describe it in the words of one of the
documents. I quote:

    “Commander of the Security Police and SD in Zhitomir;
    Berditchev, 24 December 1942.

    “When summoned to appear, SS Sturmscharführer and Chief
    Secretary of the Kripo, Fritz Knop, complied. He was born on 18
    February 1897, at Neuklinz, in the district of Köslin. Fritz
    Knop testified as follows:

    “‘As from the middle of August 1 was head of the Berditchev
    field office of the commander of the Security Police and SD in
    the town of Zhitomir. On 23 December 1942 the Deputy Commander,
    Hauptsturmführer of the SS Kallbach, inspected the local office
    and also the Educational Labor Camp which was supervised by my
    office. In this Educational Labor Camp, as from the end of
    October or the beginning of November, there were 78 former
    prisoners of war who had been dismissed from the permanent camp
    (Stalag) in Zhitomir as being unfit for work. A considerable
    number of prisoners of war had, in the past, been handed over
    and placed at the disposal of the Commander of the Security
    Police and SD.”

I think there is no necessity to explain in detail that the transfer of
the prisoners of war and the placing of them at the disposal of the
Security Police had been provided for by special directives of the SS
and the SD, especially referring to persons condemned to physical
extermination. I quote further, on the same page of your document book,
163:

    “In Zhitomir a few of them, who up to a certain point were fit
    for work, had been set aside. The remaining 78 persons were
    transferred to the local Educational Labor Camp.”

I omit two more extracts.

    “The 78 prisoners of war in the local camp were, one and all,
    severely wounded men. Some had lost both legs; others both arms;
    others again had lost one or the other of their limbs. Only a
    few of them had all their arms and legs, although they were so
    mutilated by other kinds of wounds that they were totally unfit
    for work. The latter had to nurse the former.

    “At the time he was inspecting the Educational Labor Camp on 23
    December 1942, SS Hauptsturmführer Kallbach issued an order to
    the effect that the surviving 68 or 70 prisoners of war, the
    others having died in the meantime, should this very day be
    subjected to ‘special treatment.’ For this purpose he assigned a
    motor truck, driven by SS man Schäfer from the command division,
    who arrived here today at 1130 hours. I entrusted the
    preparations for the execution early this morning to my
    colleagues in the local administration, SS Unterscharführer
    Paal, SS Rottenführer Hesselbach, and SS Sturmmann Vollprecht.”

I shall, with your permission, omit a further part of the quotation
which, in any case, already figures in your files. I think I may safely
do so in order to save time. It is a description of the technical
preparations for the execution. One passage, however, does appear to me
to be of interest; and I quote:

    “Usually the execution of the Jews was carried out in the
    precincts of the labor camp which could not be seen from the
    outside. For this particular execution I issued orders to choose
    a site outside on a terrain behind the permanent camp.
    Concerning the three above-mentioned persons whom I entrusted
    with the shooting of the prisoners of war, I knew that they had,
    in Kiev, participated in the mass executions of many thousands
    of persons and that they had before, that is during my time of
    service, been entrusted by the local administration with the
    shooting of many hundreds of victims.”

I should like to invite your attention to another instance which again
shows the meaning which the Hitlerites usually attached to the words
“execution” and “treatment by special regime.” Here, in one sentence
alone, the words “mass execution” and “shooting” are definitely used as
synonymous terms, while a little higher up it is made quite clear to us
what “transporting by trucks to some place in the neighborhood” and
“treatment by special regime” mean. Unquestionably, these four terms
have an identical significance.

After this digression I continue my quotation. Having made a few more
omissions from the passage already printed in your document book, I
proceed to the following paragraph, your Page 165, if only to maintain
the sense of the statement:

    “They were armed with a German submachine gun, a Russian
    automatic rifle, an 0.8 pistol, and a carbine. I would point out
    that I had intended to give these three persons, as an
    assistant, SS Hauptscharführer Wenzel, but SS Sturmmann
    Vollprecht declined, remarking that three men were perfectly
    able to execute this order.

    “Concerning the indictment: It never entered my head, to ensure
    the smooth procedure of an ordinary execution, to send a larger
    detachment, since the execution ground was hidden from public
    view and the captives were. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT These words “Concerning the indictment,” are they in the
original document?

COL. POKROVSKY: It is the text of the explanation of the evidence which
the signatory of the document handed to his police chief. I, with the
permission of the Tribunal, shall quote the original German documents of
the inquiry. The persons responsible for carrying out the execution were
accused of provoking, by their indiscretion and carelessness, that which
they called an “incident” and they produced an explanation of the cause
of this indictment.

    “Concerning the charge: It never entered my head, to ensure the
    smooth procedure of an ordinary execution, to send a larger
    detachment, since the execution ground was hidden from public
    view and the captives were unable to escape by reason of their
    physical infirmities.

    “At about 1500 hours I received a telephone call from the camp
    to the effect that one of the co-workers in my department, in
    charge of this special task, had been wounded and that one man
    had run away. I promptly sent SS Hauptscharführer Wenzel and SS
    Oberscharführer Fritsch to the execution ground in a horse cart.
    Some time later I received another telephone call from the camp,
    informing me that the co-workers of my department had been
    killed.”

I think it useless to read into the record details of a purely technical
nature. I shall omit at this point a considerable part of those
references which I had previously intended to quote, and I shall proceed
to that part of Knop’s evidence which he had handed to his police chief.
You will find the passage in question on Page 166:

    “I wish to point out that the incident I have described took
    place during the second execution. It had been preceded by the
    shooting of approximately twenty prisoners of war which had
    passed without any incident at all. As soon as I returned, I
    informed the command headquarters at Zhitomir accordingly.

    “I cannot give any further evidence. I declare that my evidence
    is absolutely true and I am aware that any false evidence on my
    part would result in punishment and in exclusion from the SS.

    “Signed: Fritz Knop, SS Sturmscharführer; certified: Kuntze, SS
    Obersturmführer.”

Next to be interrogated was the executioner. We have at our disposal a
document on this subject. You will find the extract in question on Page
166 of your document book. I quote the minutes of the inquiry:

    “SS Rottenführer of the Waffen-SS, Hesselbach, Friederich, born
    24 January 1909 in Freudingen, district of Wittgenstein
    (Westphalia), was then summoned and testified as follows:

    “‘I have been informed concerning the subject of the forthcoming
    interrogation. It has been pointed out to me that any false
    statements on my part will result in punishment and expulsion
    from the SS.’”

After this routine part of the investigation—where he was warned of the
penalties awaiting him—Hesselbach gave the following testimony on the
matter:

    “Yesterday evening I was told by SS Unterscharführer Paal that I
    would have to take part in the execution of prisoners of war.
    Later on I received a corresponding order from Hauptscharführer
    Wenzel, in the presence of SS Sturmscharführer Knop. This
    morning, at 0800 hours, SS Hauptscharführer Berger, SS
    Unterscharführer Paal, SS Sturmmann Vollprecht, and myself,
    drove in a truck lent us by the tannery and driven by a
    Ukrainian driver, to a place situated approximately one and a
    half kilometers behind the camp, in order to dig a pit, with
    eight inmates of our prison.”

Later he describes the digging of the pit. I think that we can skip that
part. Then they returned.

    “At the entrance to the camp, Vollprecht, acting on Paal’s
    instructions, left the car. By these instructions Paal intended
    not to betray our intentions to the prisoners by the presence of
    a large number of SS men. Therefore, only I, Paal, and a few
    militia men loaded the prisoners onto the truck. On Paal’s
    order, the whole first group consisted almost exclusively of the
    prisoners who had lost their legs.”

I omit a few extracts which are of no interest to the Tribunal and I
quote from Page 6 of the Russian translation, the underlined passages,
printed on Page 168 of your document book:

    “After having executed the first three prisoners I suddenly
    heard shouting beyond the pit. Since the fourth prisoner was
    already next in line, I shot him on the spot, and looking up, I
    noticed a terrific disturbance near the truck. A moment before
    already I had heard some shots being fired and I now saw the
    prisoners running away in all directions. I cannot give any
    precise particulars as to what actually happened near the truck,
    since I was about 40 to 50 meters away from the place and
    everything was very confusing. I can only say that I saw two of
    my comrades lying on the ground, and two prisoners shooting at
    me and the driver with the firearms they had seized. When I
    realized what was happening, I fired the four remaining
    cartridges in my magazine at the prisoners shooting at us, put
    in a new clip, and suddenly noticed that a bullet had struck the
    ground near me. I had the feeling that I had been hit, but
    realized later that I was wrong. I now ascribe this sensation to
    nervous shock. Anyway, I was shooting at the fugitives with the
    cartridges from my second clip, though I cannot tell whether I
    hit any of them.”

I would inform you that the last part of Hesselbach’s testimony deals
with the subject of organizing the search for the scattered cripples, a
search which yielded no results.

Finally, I would like to quote a few excerpts from the last document in
the correspondence. This is a report of SS Obersturmführer Kuntze. It
concludes with the statement that the funeral of the SS men killed took
place at 1400 hours at the Police and SS Heroes’ Cemetery in Hegewalde.
It seems to me that this detail is of a certain interest. I shall now
quote the opening part of the above-mentioned report. I shall omit the
first report already appearing in your document book, in order to
shorten the time taken by my work. He reports that 78 people were
supposed to have been killed after the inspection of the camp by
Kallbach. Because of their inability to work, these prisoners of war
were a burden to the camp.

    “For this reason, SS Hauptsturmführer Kallbach ordered the
    execution of the former prisoners of war, and that on 24
    December. Neither in the local nor in the regional offices could
    anybody discover why the former commandant had taken charge of
    these crippled prisoners and sent them to the Educational Labor
    Camp. In this case there did not exist any data whatsoever
    concerning communistic activities of the prisoners in question
    during the entire period of the Soviet regime. Evidently the
    military authorities have, in their own time, placed these
    prisoners at the disposal of the local branch in order to submit
    them to the ‘special regime,’ since owing to their physical
    condition, they could not be made to work.

    “So SS Hauptsturmführer Kallbach ordered the execution for 24
    December. On 24 December at about 1700 hours, the head of the
    Berditchev regional office, SS Sturmscharführer Knop, telephoned
    that during the execution of the ‘special regime’ operation, the
    two officials of the branch, SS Unterscharführer Paal and SS
    Sturmmann Vollprecht, were assaulted by the prisoners and killed
    with their own firearms.”

I shall now omit a considerable part of SS Obersturmführer Kuntze’s idle
talk and shall quote only three more paragraphs. You will find them on
Pages 172 and 173:

    “Thus, of the 28 prisoners, 4 were shot in the pit and 2 while
    trying to escape; the remaining 22 managed to get away.

    “The efforts to recapture the fugitives, promptly undertaken by
    SS Rottenführer Hesselbach with the help of the guards from the
    neighboring camp, were expedient though unsuccessful. The head
    of the Berditchev Department ordered an immediate search for the
    fugitives and instructed all the police and military agencies to
    this effect. However, the names of the fugitives are unknown and
    this fact alone would render the search more difficult. The
    records merely contained the names of all the prisoners
    subjected to the ’special regime’ and it was therefore necessary
    to declare as escapees even those who had already been shot.

    “On 25 December, on the same spot, a ‘special regime’ execution
    of the 20 surviving prisoners of war was carried out under my
    direction. As I feared that the fugitives might already have
    established contact with some partisan unit, I again had the
    camp send a detachment of 20 men, armed with light submachine
    guns and carbines, in order to guard the surrounding territory.
    The execution went off without any trouble.”

It is enough to imagine these 20 unfortunate men, without arms, without
legs, being escorted to their death by a strong contingent of SS men and
soldiers, soldiers armed with submachine guns. I continue:

    “As a measure of reprisal I ordered the military police to check
    up on all released prisoners of war in the adjoining regions to
    ascertain their political activities during the entire period of
    Soviet rule, so as to arrest and submit to the ‘special regime’
    20 activists and members of the Communist Party.”

To conclude the presentation of the evidence pertaining to this
monstrous crime of the Hitlerites, I should like to invite the
Tribunal’s attention to certain facts.

I would, first of all, like to refer to the “objections raised by the
Army,” reported by the member of the SS, Knop. Knop said—you will find
the passage quoted on Page 163:

    “In the future all evacuations of prisoners of war will be
    suspended due to objections raised by the Army. I do not wish my
    words to be misunderstood. The Army did not so much object to
    such evacuations, rather it expressed the wish that the
    prisoners of war, once they had been released and sent
    elsewhere, should be given some kind of shelter.”

It is not difficult to guess what “shelter” he was referring to. It was
the “shelter” provided when, in the words of Knop, they were
“transported in a truck to a place in the neighborhood.”

The second fact which, to me, appears of importance, is the scale of the
outrages committed. Referring to the executioners, Paal, Hesselbach, and
Vollprecht, Knop writes:

    “With reference to the three above-mentioned persons whom I
    entrusted with the shooting of prisoners of war, I knew that
    they had, in Kiev, participated in the mass executions of many
    thousands of persons and that they had already before, that is,
    during my period of service, been entrusted by the local
    administration with the shooting of many hundreds of victims.”

In reference to Hesselbach, I should like to note two not very important
but extremely characteristic traits. The first is his terminology. Here
are his words:

    “After having executed the first three prisoners I suddenly
    heard shouting beyond the pit; since the fourth prisoner was
    already next in line, I shot him on the spot.”

Any bandit, any habitual murderer would, naturally, use such language in
speaking of the destruction of a human being. For the fascist
executioners the murder of a soldier who had honestly fought for his
country and become an invalid, the brief expression “shot on the spot”
is good enough; when occupied in killing, the executioners do not even
consider it necessary to find out whom they really are murdering. Thanks
to this, shame and confusion cover the police. They order a search both
for those who had escaped and for those who were shot.

Secondly, the very sound of a bullet passing nearby gives him a
sensation of being wounded, and people of this type are then called
“heroes” by their superiors.

It would be an omission on my part not to emphasize the exceptional
brutality displayed by Kuntze—this typical representative of the SS.
Twenty persons captured at random, captured anyhow, without any fault on
their part, must be murdered. What for? Only because 22 armless and
legless invalids had succeeded in escaping from death.

The Tribunal, of course, is quite aware of the fact that by all the laws
of God and man these 22 invalids should not have perished by the hand of
the executioner, but should have been placed under the protection of the
German Government as prisoners of war.

The confession of Kuntze, concerning the motives for which the military
authorities directed invalids to the camp for treatment by “special
regime,” is of particular value. He frankly states that the cause of it
was their physical condition which had rendered them unfit for any kind
of work. In this connection I submit a series of documents to the
Tribunal. They show that only from the angle of possibility of obtaining
slaves were the representatives of the German Command and the German
authorities occasionally interested in the prisoners of war. You have in
your possession a circular of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces to
the effect that Soviet prisoners of war should be branded and that this
branding would not be considered as a medical measure. I am submitting
to you another equally shameful document. It bears the following
identifying marks: Az. 2,24.82h, Commander of Camps for Prisoners of
War, Number 3142/42; Berlin-Schöneberg; 20.7.1942; 51, Badensche
Strasse. This document is Exhibit Number USSR-343 (Document Number
USSR-343). I shall not read it into the record. It resembles identically
those which I have already read into the record. But it is
characteristic of the extent to which the Hitlerite conspirators had
abandoned the thesis that “a state can do everything which is necessary
to hold prisoners of war in their own safekeeping, but it cannot do
anything more.”

A regime based on hard labor, on an unending stream of insult and
torture, drove Soviet people to manifestations of stark despair, such as
attacks on camp guards who were armed to the teeth. We know of such
truly heroic deeds. Testimonies of eyewitnesses are in our hands. I am
submitting to you, as Exhibit Number USSR-314 (Document Number
USSR-314), the personally written testimony of the witness, Lampe—you
interrogated him a few days ago in this court—together with the
testimony of the witness, Ribol—our Exhibit Number USSR-315 (Document
Number USSR-315). I shall read out such passages of the testimony as
appear on Page 348 of your document book. These witnesses reported that
in the beginning of February 1945, in the extermination camp of
Mauthausen, 800 Red Army prisoners of war who were interned there, had
broken out of the fascist hell after first disarming the guards and
piercing the electrified barbed wire. Lampe testifies how brutally the
SS treated those whom they were able to recapture. I am quoting a few
lines:

    “All those who returned to the camp were savagely tortured and
    then shot. I myself saw the escaped prisoners, who were being
    brought back to Block Number 20.”—I wish to interpolate that
    Block 20 was the death block.—“They were beaten and the head of
    one of them was badly bleeding. They were followed by 10 SS men,
    among whom were three or four officers. They carried whips and
    were laughing loudly, giving the impression of pleasurably
    anticipating the tortures they were going to inflict upon the
    three unfortunate prisoners. The courage of the insurgents and
    the cruelty of the repression have left an undying impression on
    all the internees of Mauthausen.”

The fascist conspirators behaved with equal hatred toward all Soviet
citizens. If any altercations ever arose among them, they would only be
in connection with the methods of destruction to be inflicted on their
victims. Some strove to kill off the prisoners immediately; others
deemed it wiser to exploit their prisoners’ blood and strength in the
mills, factories, military workshops, and in the construction of
military undertakings.

Any long war is responsible for labor shortage in industry and
agriculture. Fascist Germany solved this problem by importing white male
and female slaves. The greatest number of them were prisoners of war.
They were sent to heavy labor where masses perished from exhaustion,
overwork, hunger, and savage treatment by the guards.

I submit to the Tribunal Document Number 744-PS, and quote the following
three paragraphs:

    “To carry out the augmented iron-steel industry program, the
    Führer ordered on 7 July that a sufficient coal supply be
    guaranteed and that prisoners of war be utilized for this
    purpose.”

I am omitting several sentence from the documents dealing with the
technicalities of this question and quote Point 2 of this directive:

    “2. All Soviet prisoners of war, captured since 5 July 1943, are
    to be sent to the OKW camps and from there directly, or by way
    of labor exchange, put at the disposal of the Plenipotentiary
    for the Allocation of Labor, for use in the coal mining
    industry.”

The fourth point is of special interest. It contains a definite
directive on how to convert all men between the ages of 16 and 55 into
prisoners of war. I quote Point 4:

    “4. All male prisoners between the ages of 16 and 55, captured
    in battles with the partisans in the operational area of the
    Army, of the eastern commissariats, of the Government General,
    and of the Balkans, are to be regarded in the future as
    prisoners of war. The same applies to men in newly conquered
    districts of the East. They must be sent to the prisoner-of-war
    camps and then to work in Germany.”

The second document, Number 744-PS, issued by the Chief of the OKW on 8
July 1943, duplicates this directive. The document is signed by Keitel.
There is a postscript to the text of the document which was signed by
Keitel. It is addressed to all the higher authorities of the SS and is
signed by Himmler. The text has already been read into the record on 20
December 1945; I shall therefore refer only to the contents. It concerns
the transportation of children, old people, and of young women. Himmler
indicates how and by what methods they should be sent to Germany through
Sauckel’s organization. In this case, too, Himmler, Keitel, and Sauckel
act in perfect agreement, almost as a single entity.

I consider Exhibit Number USSR-354 (Document Number USSR-354) to be of
primary importance. It is a report on the prison camp in Minsk. The
report was compiled in Rosenberg’s office on 10 July 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: Has it been put in already?

COL. POKROVSKY: This document has not yet been read into the record.
Permit me, Your Honor, to read a few excerpts. I quote Page 183:

    “The prison camp in Minsk, covering a space about the size of
    the Wilhelmsplatz, accommodates about one hundred thousand
    prisoners of war and forty thousand civilian prisoners. The
    prisoners, crowded together in this small space, can hardly
    move, and are therefore forced to relieve nature at the very
    place where they happen to be. The camp is guarded by a detail
    of soldiers on active duty, of company strength. Due to the
    small strength of the guard detail, the watch over the camp can
    only be accomplished by the application of brute force.”

I omit a paragraph and turn to the page which continues the original
idea:

    “The only possible language for a small guard, which remains on
    duty both day and night without being relieved, is the firearm,
    of which ruthless use is made.”

Next, the authors of this document complain about the impossibility of
carrying out the selection of prisoners according to physical and racial
classification for various forms of hard labor:

    “On the second day this selection of civilian prisoners was
    forbidden to the O.T., referring to an order of General Field
    Marshal Kluge, according to which he alone had the right to
    release civilian prisoners.”

I shall read into the record two documents demonstrating how the
Hitlerites, in their hatred of the Soviet people, considered the regime
of bestial cruelty and systematic insults which they had set up for the
Soviet prisoners of war as being too mild, and demanded that it be made
still more severe.

On 29 January 1943 an order was issued on the “Rights of Self-Defense
against the Prisoners of War,” under the signature of the Chief of the
OKH. This order bears the number 3868/42, and is registered by the
United States Delegation as Document Number 696-PS. We submit it to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-355, since it has not been read into the
record. I shall read a few short extracts from this document. You will
find the passage quoted on Page 185 of your document book. It starts as
follows:

    “The military organizations and the organizations of the
    National Socialist Party have, on numerous occasions, raised the
    question of the treatment of the prisoners of war, and they are
    of the opinion that the punishments provided for by the 1929
    Agreement (H. Dv. 38/2) are inadequate.”

This document explains that the previous agreement regarding the
treatment of all prisoners of war, with the exception of Soviet
nationals, remains in force. The Order Number 389/42-S issued by the OKW
Section for Prisoners-of-War Affairs, determines the treatment of the
latter. This order was issued on 24 March 1942.

The second document is the circular of the Nazi Party bureau, submitted
as Order Number 12/43-S. This circular, signed by Bormann, was issued by
the chief of the Party bureau, at the Führer’s main headquarters on 12
February 1943. The circular was sent out by the Reichsführer to the
Gauleiter and to the commanding officers of military units. It speaks of
Secret Order Number 3868/42-S of the Chief of the General Staff. It is
therefore proved once more, and proved beyond any manner of doubt, that
the leaders of the Nazi Party and the military command bear equal
responsibility for the atrocities perpetrated on the Soviet prisoners of
war.

The Navy regulations regarding prisoners of war remain in force for all
but Soviet prisoners, and where the Soviet prisoners were concerned the
“regulations of the OKW” which I have already mentioned, “remain in
force.”

Thus, absolute criminal agreement between the Party leaders and the OKW
can be considered as existing as I already have shown to the Tribunal. I
stress the circumstance and I would remind you that all this happened in
the country whose representative had declared as far back as 1902:

    “The only purpose in capturing prisoners of war is to prevent
    their further participation in the war. Although prisoners of
    war lose their freedom, they do not lose their rights. In other
    words, captivity is not an act of mercy on the part of the
    conqueror. It is the right of the disarmed soldier.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we have had that document read to us
more than once.

COL. POKROVSKY: I am not rereading it. I am merely recalling its
contents.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must give the Tribunal credit for some
recollection. As I say, that document has been read more than once
before.

COL. POKROVSKY: We have at our disposal an official note signed by
Lammers. This document is registered under Document Number 073-PS. We
submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-361—it has not yet
been read into the record. The document states—you will find this
excerpt on Page 191 of your document book:

    “1. Prisoners of war are foreigners. Influencing them is the
    task . . . of foreign propaganda and therefore the task of the
    Foreign Office.”

I omit a few sentences.

    “Excepted from this ruling are the Soviet prisoners who are
    placed under the control of the Reich Minister for the Occupied
    Territories of the East because the Geneva Convention is not
    valid for them and because they have a special political
    status.”

In this connection, I wish to submit to you as Exhibit Number USSR-356
(Document Number USSR-356), another German document. It consists of
notes composed at the headquarters of the Foreign Counterintelligence
Office on the 15 November 1941 for the “OKW Chief of Staff.” I shall
read into the record a few extracts, of which you will find the opening
lines on Page 192 of your document book:

    “The Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war is not valid
    between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore, the only rules in
    force are the principles of general international law regarding
    the treatment of prisoners of war, which since the 18th century
    have so developed that war captivity represented neither revenge
    nor punishment, but a security measure, the sole object of which
    was to prevent prisoners from further participating in the war.
    This principle developed in connection with the prevalent
    opinion that, from a military standpoint, the killing or
    wounding of prisoners was inadmissible. In addition, it is to
    the interest of each belligerent to be assured against
    ill-treatment of its soldiers in case of their capture. Appendix
    I states the directives, based on different premises as can be
    seen at the beginning of this paragraph, concerning the
    treatment of Soviet prisoners of war.”

To save time I shall omit several sentences and shall read the end of
the paragraph into the record:

    “. . . and, in addition, eliminated much which from past
    experience was considered not only as useful from a military
    viewpoint but as indispensable to the maintenance of discipline
    and high striking power.

    “The orders are drawn up in very general terms. But, if we bear
    in mind the ruling basic tendency, then the ‘measures’ permitted
    by these orders are bound to result in wanton and unpunished
    murder, even though officially the law of violence has been
    abolished.

    “This is obvious from the directive regarding the use of weapons
    against recalcitrance. The guards and their commanding officers,
    who often do not understand the language of the prisoner of war,
    will not be able to know whether the prisoners’ disobedience was
    due to recalcitrance or to a misunderstanding of the orders. The
    principle that use of weapons against Soviet prisoners of war
    is, as a rule, justified absolves the guards from any duty of
    making reflections about their actions.”

Omitting two paragraphs not directly relating to this matter, I quote as
follows:

    “The organization of camp police equipped with clubs, whips, and
    similar weapons, even in camps where all labor is done by the
    prisoners, is against military rule and tradition. In addition
    the military authorities thus give into other hands the means
    for applying punishment without providing adequate control as to
    how these means are employed.”

I wish to quote one more sentence taken from Paragraph 5 of these
notes—you will find it on Page 194:

    “Appendix 2 contains a translation of the Russian decree
    regarding prisoners of war which is in accord with the basic
    principles of international law as well as with the rules of the
    Geneva Convention.”

I shall refrain from quoting the rest of the document as it is of little
interest. This document is signed by the Chief of the Foreign
Counterintelligence Service, Admiral Canaris. It includes directives
containing instructions relating to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of
war, dwelling in detail on such sections which Canaris considered as
violations of the basic principles of international law and of the
Geneva Convention.

I should like to supplement this document with a few excerpts from the
minutes of the interrogation by Dr. Wengler, a former counsellor of the
Foreign Counterintelligence Service of the OKW. This document is
submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-129 (Document Number
USSR-129). Wengler was questioned by me on 19 December 1945, and his
testimony is important for purposes of evaluating the line of conduct
both of the OKW and Keitel himself.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I ask that the document, Exhibit Number
USSR-129, which the Russian Prosecutor intends to read, should not be
read, but that the witness mentioned in this document, Dr. Wengler, be
called personally to testify in Court, if the Soviet Prosecution is
willing.

This document, USSR-129, is a record of an interrogation of Dr. Wengler,
who was active in Counterintelligence Service in the OKW. It is a
question of determining whether the nonapplication of the Geneva
Convention as regards Russia is due to the fault of the German
Government, the OKW, and the Defendant Keitel. I do not need to state
that the clarification of this question is of the utmost significance in
judging the responsible persons, not only because of the Counts in the
Indictment, but because of the terrible guilt in face of the German
people, if the testimony given by this witness should be true. The
witness was interrogated in Nuremberg on 19 December 1945. Whether he is
still here or in Berlin—he gave his address at the time of the
inquiry—I cannot say. But I do believe that the basic decisions of the
Tribunal concerning the interpretation of Article 21 of the Charter will
justify my request in this respect since, firstly, the summoning of the
witness from Berlin does not entail great difficulties, secondly we are
concerned with a question of such tremendous significance, even in this
setting, that the personal testimony and interrogation by this Tribunal
should not be replaced by the mere lecture of the minutes of an inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you anything you wish to say in answer to that
objection?

COL. POKROVSKY: With your permission I should like first of all, in
order to clarify the matter, to ask where the witness actually is at the
present moment? He is not in Nuremberg. He was brought here especially
for this interrogation under the greatest technical difficulties. The
interrogation was conducted according to all the rules of our judicial
proceedings, so that this document could be submitted to the Tribunal
and accepted as evidence, if the Tribunal so judges, according to
Article 19 of the Charter.

All the problems concerning this subject, which were of interest to the
Soviet Prosecution, are already sufficiently clear from the Document
Number USSR-129, which we submit to you, and I see no possibility of
having this witness brought here in the near future. Maybe the
representatives of the Defense Counsel imagine that it is very easy to
produce him, but I do not see any technical possibility of bringing him
here a second time. And I repeat that, if the Tribunal does not consider
it feasible to accept this document in the suitable manner in which we
have formulated it, then we would even agree to refrain from submitting
it as evidence and to replace it by other evidence—even though we
believe it to be incorrect. But we consider it easier than to bring the
witness here a second time. That is all I have to say in reply to this
request.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that you could not bring the witness here,
and that as you could not bring him here you would not press the
introduction of the document?

COL. POKROVSKY: No, I put it differently. I said that we insist that
this document be admitted, since the Tribunal has the right, according
to Article 19 of the Charter, to accept this document as evidence. But
if we were to choose between two possibilities, either by adding this
evidence to the record or by summoning the witness a second time, the
technical obstacles which prevent us from so doing would compel us, by
preference, to accept the exclusion of this document from the record, in
order to avoid any repetition of the difficulties already experienced.
We consider that the document is quite correctly compiled, in accordance
with all the rules of the Charter, and that the Tribunal should receive
it as evidence according to Article 19 of the Charter.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know first of all, why is it
difficult or impossible to bring the witness to Nuremberg in the same
way that he was brought to Nuremberg in December 1945; and secondly, has
Dr. Nelte and have the other defendants’ counsel got full copies in
German of the document?

COL. POKROVSKY: Dr. Wengler was interrogated in his native German
tongue. The original of his record, of his interrogation, has been
submitted to the Tribunal in an adequate number of copies, which are at
the disposal of the Defense Counsel.

As regards the technical difficulties, I cannot, at present, undertake
to give the Tribunal a precise description of all the technical
difficulties reported to me by my collaborators, since I can no longer
remember them. But I do know that, when they were working on this
matter, establishing the existence of the witness, searching for him,
bringing him here, they—my collaborators—declared that they could do
this once but that they would not be able to do it a second time.
Consequently, Dr. Wengler, a free agent, was here in Nuremberg, not for
1 day, but for many days, precisely for the time needed adequately to
clear up all the questions which were of interest to us and to
interrogate him, since we foresaw the impossibility of summoning him a
second time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the deponent, the
witness, was brought from when he was brought to Nuremberg.

COL. POKROVSKY: From Berlin. He was brought the last time from Berlin.

THE PRESIDENT: Then is he now in Berlin?

COL. POKROVSKY: I do not undertake to answer this question now without
making further inquiries. He is not interned.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Nelte, do you want to say anything?

DR. NELTE: I should just like to refer to the last page of the minutes,
where the address is given: Dr. Wilhelm Wengler, Berlin-Hermsdorf,
Ringstrasse Number 32. We are simply concerned with the question: Which
technical difficulties are involved to bring this witness from Berlin to
Nuremberg a second time? Of course, I do not know whether the witness is
in Berlin, but I assume that he is there.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow the deposition to be put in
evidence, should the Soviet Prosecutor decide to do so. If the document
is put in evidence, the Tribunal will desire that the Prosecutor should
secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness for
cross-examination. If the Prosecution is unable to secure the attendance
of the deponent as a witness, then the Tribunal will itself attempt to
secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness, for
cross-examination.

COL. POKROVSKY: I can report to the Tribunal that I attempted to employ
the time spent by the Tribunal in deliberating this problem in
discovering if we could bring this witness back again and that I did not
receive a conclusive reply from my organization. According to the wish
of the Tribunal, I shall omit the topic of his cross-examination and
shall only refer to it again if I am informed by my collaborators that
we can once more bring the witness before the Tribunal. This would seem
to me in accordance with the wishes of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I am not quite sure that you
appreciated quite what I said. What I said was that you are at liberty
to put in the document now, if you wish to do so. That is one thing.
But, if you do so, you must attempt to secure the attendance of the
witness, and should you fail to do so, the Tribunal will attempt to
secure the attendance of the witness; but the document will still be in
evidence and will not be struck out, although, of course, it will be
open to the criticism that it is only a deposition or an affidavit and
that the witness has not been produced for cross-examination and
therefore the weight that attaches to the testimony will not be so great
as it would be if the witness had been produced for cross-examination.

Is that clear?

COL. POKROVSKY: Wengler was interrogated by me. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I fear I used inaccurately the word “affidavit.” It is
only an interrogation. It is not made upon oath and that, of course,
will be taken into consideration. But the point is that you can put in
the document now if you decide to do so. That is a matter for your
discretion. If you do so, you must attempt to secure the attendance of
the witness for cross-examination. If you are unable to get him, then
the Tribunal will attempt to get him here for cross-examination.

COL. POKROVSKY: When reporting to the Tribunal on the measures we had
adopted, I started from the point of view that the Tribunal desired that
each witness, whose testimony had been read into the record, could, if
necessary, be summoned to appear before the Tribunal for a supplementary
cross-examination. That is why I have already attempted to find out
whether we can call up this witness now, and since I have not yet
received any definite answer from our organization, I wish to invite the
attention of the Tribunal to the possibility that we will simply abstain
from mentioning these minutes now, as we only need them for the
confirmation of one point, already confirmed by a document which has
just been presented to the Tribunal. This is the report signed by
Canaris. What is the meaning of Wengler’s interrogation? The meaning of
Wengler’s interrogation is that it shows that the OKW knew of the
treatment meted out to the Soviet prisoners. Canaris said the same.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must decide, Colonel Pokrovsky, whether you
wish to put in the document or not. If you wish to put in the document,
you may do so, but I do not think it is right for you to state the
contents of the document and at the same time not to put it in. If you
wish to put it in, then you must try to secure the attendance of the
witness, and if you cannot secure the attendance, the Tribunal will try
to secure it.

COL. POKROVSKY: I consider that Wengler’s testimony is not important
enough for us to pay so very much attention to it. If we can find this
witness, we shall examine him at a later date.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. POKROVSKY: In the light of the documents read into the record, and
also in view of the protest of the German prisoners of war in Camp 78,
which shows how humanely the Soviet authorities treated German military
prisoners of the German Army, the sentence from Appendix I of Operations
Order Number 14 of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD,
concerning the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, is nothing less
than a brazen insult. This sentence can be found on Page 7 of the
document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-3 (Document
Number USSR-3). You will find it on Page 204 of your document book:

    “Thus the Bolshevik soldier has lost his right to be treated as
    an honest soldier and in accordance with the rules of the Geneva
    Convention.”

I beg the Tribunal to recollect that the following directive, dated 7
November 1941, appears in Appendix II of Order Number 11 of the General
Staff of the OKW. I quote from Exhibit Number USSR-3, extracts from
which appear on Page 233 of your document book—last paragraph in the
right column.

    “The work of the Special Squad, by license of the rear area
    commander (officer in charge of prisoner-of-war affairs of the
    district) must be done in such a way that the selecting and
    sorting out is practically unnoticeable. Executions must be
    carried out without delay, and at sufficient distance from the
    camp and from habitations to keep them secret from the other
    prisoners and the population.”

These are the transfers of prisoners “to some place in the neighborhood”
that Kuntze, the expert executioner, had in mind when he reported to his
chiefs on the incidents which occurred during the execution of the 28
crippled prisoners of war.

Among the documents submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Delegation
are data regarding the shooting, on 7 April 1945, at the Seelhorst
Cemetery in Hanover, of 150 Soviet prisoners of war and civilians. We
submit this data as Exhibit Number USSR-112 (Document Number USSR-112).
You will find the data in question on Page 207 of your document book.
They have been placed at our disposal by the American investigation
authorities. They consist of a number of testimonies, including that of
Peter Palnikov, a Red Army officer who had fortuitously escaped the
execution. You will find the minutes to which I refer on the same page,
207 of your document book. We also have the testimonies of other members
of the local population who had been questioned under oath by the
American investigation authorities. Their evidence is corroborated by
medical reports on bodies exhumed from the graves at Seelhorst Cemetery.
In addition, we submit duly certified photographs.

I shall not read all these documents into the record but shall merely
point out that the 167 corpses thus exhumed were specially noted in the
concluding report of the commission, as enabling the commission to
judge, from their appearance, of the “pronounced degree of insufficient
nourishment.”

This circumstance must be stressed so that the Tribunal may have a
perfectly clear picture of the food situation prevalent among Soviet
prisoners of war in the various camps. Regardless of the territory in
which the camp was located, all Soviet prisoners of war were exposed to
a regime of hunger with the same sustained and systematic cruelty.

While I am thus reporting on the Hitlerian atrocities perpetrated on the
prisoners, I find that we now have at our disposal several court
verdicts pronounced on the fascist criminals who committed their crimes
in the temporarily occupied territories. In accordance with Article 21
of the Charter, I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-87
(Document Number USSR-87) the verdict of a district military tribunal.
You will find the entire verdict on Page 214 up to Page 221. It was
pronounced in Smolensk, on 19 December 1945. The Tribunal inflicted
penalties varying from 12 years hard labor to death by hanging, on 10
Hitlerites directly guilty of the numerous crimes committed in the city
and region of Smolensk.

I shall not quote the document, but shall merely mention that on Pages
4, 5, and 6 of the verdict, in passages marked in your copies—these
pages, that is, 4, 5, and 6 of the verdict, are to be found in your
document book on Pages 218, 219, and 222—information is contained how,
as a result of pseudo-scientific experiments on prisoners of war by
persons who, to the undying shame of German medicine, were known in
Germany as professors and doctors, tortured and murdered the prisoners
by blood poisoning. The sentence presents further evidence that, as a
result of savage ill-treatment by the German escort conveying Soviet
prisoners of war, some 10,000 exhausted, half-dead captives perished
between Vyasma and Smolensk.

It is precisely this passage, this information, which you will find in
Subparagraph 3 of the verdict. It appears on Page 218 of your document
book. The verdict reflects the systematic mass shooting of prisoners of
war in Camp 126, in the city of Smolensk—“in Transit Camp 126
South”—during the transfer of the prisoners to the camp and to the
hospital. The verdict particularly emphasizes the fact that prisoners of
war, too exhausted to work, were shot.

I should now like to turn to the brutalities committed by the Hitlerites
towards members of the Czechoslovakian, Polish, and Yugoslavian Armies.
We find, in the Indictment, that one of the most important criminal acts
for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution
of Polish prisoners of war, shot in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk by
the German fascist invaders.

I submit to the Tribunal, as a proof of this crime, official documents
of the special commission for the establishment and the investigation of
the circumstances which attended the executions. The commission acted in
accordance with a directive of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union. In addition to members of the Extraordinary State
Commission—namely Academicians Burdenko, Alexis Tolstoy, and the
Metropolitan Nicolas—this commission was composed of the President of
the Pan-Slavonia Committee, Lieutenant General Gundorov; the chairman of
the Executive Committee of the Union of the Red Cross and Red Crescent,
Kolesnikov; of the People’s Commissar for Education in the R.S.S.F.R.,
Academician Potemkin; the Supreme Chief of the Medical Department of the
Red Army, General Smirnov; and the Chairman of the District Executive
Committee of Smolensk, Melnikov. The commission also included several of
the best known medico-legal experts.

It would take too long to read into the record that precise and detailed
document which I now submit to you as Exhibit Number USSR-54 (Document
Number USSR-54), which is a result of the investigation. I shall read
into the record only a few comparatively short excerpts. On Page 2 of
the document, which is Page 223 in your document book, we read—this
passage is marked in your file:

    “According to the estimates of medico-legal experts, the total
    number of bodies amounts to over 11,000. The medico-legal
    experts carried out a thorough examination of the bodies
    exhumed, and of the documents and material evidence found on the
    bodies and in the graves. During the exhumation and examination
    of the corpses, the commission questioned many witnesses among
    the local inhabitants. Their testimony permitted the
    determination of the exact time and circumstances of the crimes
    committed by the German invaders.”

I believe that I need not quote everything that the Extraordinary
Commission ascertained during its investigation about the crimes of the
Germans. I only read into the record the general conclusions, which
summarize the work of the commission. You will find the lines read into
the record on Page 43 of Exhibit Number USSR-54 if you turn to the
original document, or on Page 264 of your document book:

    “General conclusions:

    “On perusal of all the material at the disposal of the special
    commission, that is, the depositions of over 100 witnesses
    questioned, the data of the medico-legal experts, the documents
    and the material evidence and belongings taken from the graves
    in Katyn Forest, we can arrive at the following definite
    conclusions:

    “1. The Polish prisoners of war imprisoned in the three camps
    west of Smolensk and engaged in railway construction before the
    war, remained there after the occupation of Smolensk by the
    Germans, right up to September 1941.

    “2. In the autumn of 1941, in Katyn Forest, the German
    occupational authorities carried out mass shootings of the
    Polish prisoners of war from the above-mentioned camps.

    “3. Mass shootings of Polish prisoners of war in Katyn Forest
    were carried out by German military organizations disguised
    under the specific name, ‘Staff 537, Engineer Construction
    Battalion,’ commanded by Oberleutnant Arnes and his colleagues,
    Oberleutnant Rex and Leutnant Hott.

    “4. In connection with the deterioration, for Germany, of the
    general military and political machinery at the beginning of
    1943, the German occupational authorities, with a view to
    provoking incidents, undertook a whole series of measures to
    ascribe their own misdeeds to organizations of the Soviet
    authorities, in order to make mischief between the Russians and
    the Poles.

    “5. For these purposes:

    “a. The German fascist invaders, by persuasion, attempts at
    bribery, threats, and by barbarous tortures, endeavored to find
    ‘witnesses’ among the Soviet citizens from whom they obtained
    false testimony, alleging that the Polish prisoners of war had
    been shot by organizations of the Soviet authorities in the
    spring of 1940.

    “b. The German occupational authorities, in the spring of 1943,
    brought from other places the bodies of Polish prisoners of war
    whom they had shot, and laid them in the turned up graves of
    Katyn Forest with the dual purpose of covering up the traces of
    their own atrocities and of increasing the numbers of ‘victims
    of Bolshevist atrocities’ in Katyn Forest,

    “c. While preparing their provocative measures, the German
    occupational authorities employed up to 500 Russian prisoners of
    war for the task of digging up the graves in Katyn Forest. Once
    the graves had been dug, the Russian prisoners of war were shot
    by the Germans in order to destroy thus all proof and material
    evidence on the matter.

    “6. The date of the legal and medical examination determined,
    without any shadow of doubt:

    “a. That the time of shooting was autumn 1941.

    “b. The application by the German executioners, when shooting
    Polish prisoners of war, of the identical method—a pistol shot
    in the nape of the neck—as used by them in the mass murders of
    the Soviet citizens in other towns, especially in Orel,
    Voronetz, Krasnodar and in Smolensk itself.”

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

COL. POKROVSKY: Point 7 of the general conclusions of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union, on which I reported in the
preceding session, states:

    “The conclusions reached, after studying the affidavits and
    medico-legal examinations concerning the shooting of Polish
    military prisoners of war by Germans in the autumn of 1941,
    fully confirmed the material evidence and documents discovered
    in the Katyn graves.

    “8. By shooting the Polish prisoners of war in Katyn Forest, the
    German fascist invaders consistently realized their policy for
    the physical extermination of the Slav peoples.”

Here follow the signatures of all the members of the Commission.

The Katyn massacres did not exhaust the Hitler crimes against the
soldiers of the Polish Army. In the report of the Polish Government,
submitted by me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document
Number USSR-93), we find a series of proofs confirming the breach by the
Hitlerite conspirators of the elementary rules of international law
governing the customs and laws of war; on Page 36 of this report by the
Polish Government—it is on Page 285 of your document book—we find, as
an outstanding part of the material collected, the ill-treatment of
prisoners of war and their extermination. It is said in the report—and
I quote:

    “As and when the Polish officers and other ranks returned from
    German prisoner-of-war camps, we learn further details
    concerning conditions prevailing in the German camps. All these
    details undeniably prove the existence of a line of policy,
    instructions, and orders concerning the Polish prisoners of war.
    Ill-treatment, hardship, and inhuman conditions were of common
    occurrence. Murders and grievous bodily injuries were frequently
    encountered. A few examples confirmed by witnesses under oath
    are submitted later on.”

I take the liberty of reading into the record some of the examples
quoted in the Polish report. As a first example, I shall quote the
description of an incident which occurred in a temporary prisoner-of-war
camp in the city of Belsk. This material figures on Page 285 of your
document book:

    “On 10 October 1939 the camp commandant assembled all the
    prisoners and ordered those who had joined the Polish Army as
    volunteers to raise their hands. Three prisoners obeyed his
    order. They were immediately led out of the rank and placed at a
    distance of 25 meters from a detachment of German soldiers armed
    with machine guns. The commandant gave the order to open fire.
    He then spoke to the remaining prisoners and told them that the
    three volunteers had been shot as an example to the others.”

In this case we are not faced with the simple murder of three unarmed
soldiers of the Polish Army. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel, you forgive my interrupting you, but you
remember that I have interrupted all the other prosecutors to point out
to them that one opening speech had been made on behalf of their
delegation, and that really their function was to present the documents.

Now, you have just presented a document which states that three
volunteers were shot. I think that any comment upon that is really
unnecessary.

COL. POKROVSKY: I now proceed to the quotation of the second excerpt on
Page 37, Subparagraph d—Page 226 of your document book:

    “In the autumn of 1939 Camp (Stalag) VIII-S was established in
    Kounau, near Sagan on the River Bober, a tributary of the Oder.
    Depositions from this camp read as follows:

    “The camp in Kounau was an open space surrounded by barbed wire,
    with large tents, each holding 180 or 200 persons. In spite of
    very cold weather (the temperature was below 25 degrees
    centigrade) there was, in December 1939, no heating appliance
    whatsoever in the camp. Consequently, some of the internees
    suffered from frozen hands, feet, and ears. Since the prisoners
    had no blankets and since their uniforms were too worn out to
    protect them from the cold, disease broke out, while
    malnutrition resulted in extreme debility. Moreover, the guards
    constantly ill-treated the prisoners. They were beaten on the
    slightest pretext. Two men were especially noted for their
    brutality, Lieutenant Schinke and Sergeant Major Grau. They hit
    the prisoners in the face and beat them, broke their ribs and
    arms, and gouged out their eyes. Such inhuman treatment resulted
    in several cases of suicide and insanity among the soldiers.”

I think we can now pass on at once to the general conclusions and to
read into the Record to this end Subparagraph g on Page 39—Page 287 of
the document book:

    “The above-mentioned treatment of Polish prisoners of war by
    individuals as well as by the German military authorities,
    flagrantly violated the articles of the Geneva Convention of
    1929, Articles 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 29, 30, 50, and 54. The
    convention in question had been ratified by Germany on 21
    February 1934.”

Soldiers of the Yugoslav Army, captured by the German troops, were
subjected to unbridled ill-treatment by the fascist invaders.
Ill-treatment, torture, and torment, together with mass executions were
introduced as a part of the system. Here, too, the Hitler criminals were
perfectly aware of what they were doing. To whitewash themselves, if
only a little, in the eyes of the world, they referred in all documents
concerning the destruction of Yugoslav prisoners of war, to the officers
and men of the Yugoslav Army as “bandits.”

The second paragraph from the bottom of Page 23 of the official Yugoslav
report with regard to the above matter reads as follows—I quote Page 23
of Document Number USSR-305. This quotation begins on Page 326 of your
document book:

    “. . . everywhere where the Germans used the so-called actions
    against ‘bands and bandits’ as a pretext for the annihilation of
    the civilian population (women, children, and old people), units
    of the Yugoslav National Army of Liberation and partisan units
    had actually been involved. . . .

    “Being under military command and wearing recognizable military
    emblems and insignia, they conducted an armed struggle against
    the fascist occupational forces and, moreover, they were fully
    recognized by all the Allies. Besides, we will see later on that
    on some of its documents, the German Command itself unmistakably
    recognized this fact; but in its attitude towards the Yugoslav
    warriors it continued unrestrainedly to violate the principles
    of the international laws of war.”

As an additional confirmation of the report, the form of which is in
accordance with the requirements of Article 21 of the Charter concerning
the admissibility of evidence, I also submit to the Tribunal Document
Number USSR-305. This is an excerpt from the report by the Yugoslav
State Commission concerning the determination of crimes committed by the
occupational forces and their accomplices. The State Commission reports
that there is at its disposal a secret report by Lieutenant General
Hoesslin, the officer in command of the 188th Mountain Infantry Reserve
Division, numbered 9070/44. The report is of great importance because of
the following considerations which I will explain to the Tribunal in the
terms of Document Number USSR-305. I quote:

    “Although the report refers to our divisions, brigades, and
    artillery battalions under their proper names and proper
    numbers—in cases of military engagements—all our army is
    called in this report by the general name of ‘bandits,’ and for
    the very simple reason that by so doing they are attempting to
    divest us of the rights of belligerents, they themselves
    assuming the right to shoot prisoners of war, to kill the
    wounded, and to have a pretext for employing repressive measures
    against the peaceful non-combatant population, allegedly because
    of their assistance to the ‘bandits.’ Lieutenant General
    Hoesslin admits that the combat group of Colonel Christel after
    ‘a night engagement with weak bandit forces’—these are the
    precise words of the report—‘burnt down Laskovitz, Lazna, and
    Cepovan, and destroyed a hospital.’

    “In General Hoesslin’s report it is further stated that the
    division, together with the 3rd Brandenburg Regiment and other
    German army and police units, participated in ‘a free-for-all
    manhunt for bandits in the neighborhood of Klana’ (Operation
    Ernst). . . .”

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-132 (Document Number
USSR-132), Page 363 of your document book. This represents an excerpt
from the directives issued by Major General Kübler concerning the
conduct of troops in action, an extract which was certified by the
Yugoslav State Commission. I read these excerpts into the Record:

    “Secret; 118th Jäger Division; Abt Ic; Br. B. No. 1418/43
    secret; Div. Hqs., 12. 5. 1943.

    “Directives for the Conduct of Troops in Action.

    “2. Prisoners:

    “Anyone having participated openly in the fight against the
    German Armed Forces and having been taken prisoner is to be shot
    after interrogation.”

I further submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-304 (Document
Number USSR-304). This number has been given to the excerpt from
Memorandum Number 6 of the Yugoslav State Commission for the
determination of the crimes committed by the occupational forces and by
their accomplices. In the last paragraph of Exhibit Number
USSR-304—Page 2 of the Russian text—is stated as follows—your Page
365 of the document book:

    “On 3 May 1945 the Germans brought from one of the partisan
    hospitals 35 manacled patients and hospital orderlies. Ten of
    the patients who were unable to walk were stood against the wall
    and shot. Their bodies were piled in a heap, covered with wood
    and set on fire.”

As Exhibit Number USSR-307 (Document Number USSR-307) I submit another
extract from statement Number 6 of the same State Commission. This
statement is found on Page 85 to 115 of the first book entitled
“Memoranda on Crimes Committed by the Occupation Forces and their
Accomplices.” I shall now proceed to quote a part of this extract:

    “On 5 June 1944 Hitler’s criminals captured two soldiers of the
    Yugoslav Liberation Army and the Slovene Partisan Detachments.
    They brought them to Razori, where they cut off their noses and
    ears with bayonets, gouged out their eyes and then asked them if
    they could see their Comrade Tito. Thereupon they assembled the
    peasants and beheaded the two victims in their presence. . . .
    They then placed both the heads on a table.”

In accordance with their usual practice of photographing the bodies of
their victims, the fascists then took photographs, and, as is further
stated in the extract quoted by me:

    “Later, in the course of the fighting, the photographs were
    found on a fallen German. From this it can be seen that they
    confirm the above described incident at Razori.”

These pictures will be submitted to the Tribunal together with other
Yugoslav photographic evidence.

Under Document USSR-65(a) I submit to the Tribunal an announcement
signed by the Commander of the SS and police detachments of the 18th
Military District, SS Gruppenführer and Lieutenant General of Police,
Rösener. I shall now proceed to read into the Record a part of this
announcement. You will thus be able to see that the warriors of the
Yugoslav Armed Forces who were taken prisoner were either hanged or
shot. This document is on Page 367 of your document book, “In connection
with the various clashes between police detachments and Yugoslav
units. . . .”

I skip several sentences of this document concerning a description of
the encounters between detachments of Polish and Yugoslav units.

    “Eighteen bandits were recently killed in action and a
    considerable number taken prisoner.

    “The following bandits, who were among the prisoners, were
    publicly hanged at Stein on 30 June 1942. . . .”

This statement is followed by the names of eight Yugoslav soldiers
between the ages of 21 and 40 years. I will not read this list into the
Record.

On Page 36 of our Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36)—your
Page 339—the first paragraph from the bottom reads, “We can find the
identical evidence in a collection of official notes on the staff
conferences of Gauleiter Uiberreiter.” Thus, for example, it is stated
in the minutes of the conference held on 23 March 1942, “Fifteen bandits
were executed in Maribor today.” I omit some sentences from the minutes
of the conference held on 27 July 1942, “Many bandits have been shot
recently.”

The minutes of the conference of 21 December 1941 contain a passage:

    “Since the bandits started their activities in July 1941, 164
    bandits have been shot by the uniformed police and 1,043 by
    special procedure (Sonderverfahren).”

The minutes of 25 January 1943 state:

    “The number of guerilla troops liquidated on 8 January 1942 by
    the Security Police and the uniformed branch is 86, including
    wounded and prisoners, 77 of whom were killed.”

Such notes can be found in almost every one of the minutes of these
conferences held by Uiberreiter.

A certain number of prisoners of war who had escaped immediate
annihilation were moved into special camps where they were gradually
killed off by hunger and by exhausting heavy labor. I will now read into
the Record the last paragraph on Page 37 of the report of the Yugoslav
Government, which was previously mentioned by me and offered in evidence
as Exhibit Number USSR-36. It is on Page 340 of the document book:

    “One such camp was established in 1942 at Boten, near Rognan.
    Nearly 1,000 Yugoslav prisoners of war were brought into this
    camp; and in the course of a few months all of them, to the last
    man, died of illness, hunger, physical torture, or execution by
    shooting. They were forced every day to do the very hardest work
    on a road and some dams. Their working hours lasted from dawn
    until 1800 hours, under the worst possible climatic conditions
    in this far northern part of Norway. During their work the
    prisoners were beaten incessantly and in the camp, itself, were
    exposed to terrible ill-treatment.

    “Thus, for example, in August 1942 the prisoners were ordered by
    the German staff of the camp to have all their hair removed from
    their armpits and around their genitals, as otherwise they would
    be shot. Not one prisoner received a razor from the Germans,
    though the Germans knew well that they had none. The prisoners
    spent the whole of the night plucking out their hair with their
    hands and assisting one another. However, in the morning the
    guards killed four prisoners and wounded three by rifle fire.

    “On 26 November 1943, German soldiers, in the middle of the
    night, broke into the hospital and dragged out into the
    courtyard 80 sick prisoners; after they had been forced to strip
    in the bitter cold, they were all shot. On 26 January 1943, 50
    more prisoners died in torment from the beatings received.
    Throughout the winter many prisoners were killed in the
    following manner: They would be buried up to their waist in the
    snow, and water poured over them, so that they formed statues of
    ice. It was established that 880 Yugoslav prisoners of war were
    killed in the above-mentioned camp in various ways.”

Further, on Page 38, Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36),
information is contained of the shooting of Yugoslav prisoners of war in
the camp at Bajsfjord, Norway. After 10 July 1942, when an epidemic of
spotted fever broke out in the camp and spread to six others, the
Germans found no other way of fighting this epidemic than by shooting
all the patients. This was done on 17 July 1942. On the same page, 38,
there is a reference to a Norwegian report of 22 January 1942, compiled
on a basis of statements made by Norwegian guards of this camp who had
fled. It is stated in this report that of 900 Yugoslav prisoners of war,
320 were shot, while the remainder, with a view to isolating them, were
transferred to another camp, Bjerfjel. I will read into the Record Page
38 of Exhibit Number USSR-36, beginning with the fifth paragraph from
the bottom, Page 341 of your document book:

    “When an epidemic of spotted fever broke out in the new camp, an
    average of 12 men a day were shot in the course of the following
    5 to 6 weeks. By the end of August 1942 only 350 of these
    prisoners were returned to Bajsfjord, where German SS troops
    continued to exterminate them. In the end only 200 men remained
    alive and were transferred to camp Osen.”

I will now skip two paragraphs and pass to the last paragraph of the
same report:

    “On 22 June 1943 a transport containing 900 Yugoslav prisoners
    arrived in Norway. Most of them were intellectuals, workers and
    peasants, and prisoners from the ranks of the former Yugoslav
    Army or else captured partisans or men seized as so-called
    ‘politically suspicious elements.’ Some of them—about 400—were
    placed in the still unfinished camp at Korgen, while the other
    group of about 500 was sent 10 to 20 kilometers further on to
    Osen. The commandant of both camps, from June 1942 until the end
    of March 1943, was the SS Sturmbannführer Dolps. . . .

    “Men were constantly dying of hunger. Forty-five were placed in
    a hut which normally accommodated six men only. . . . There was
    no medicine. . . . They worked under most difficult conditions
    on road building, in the bitter cold, without clothing and caps,
    in the wind and rain, 12 hours a day.

    “The prisoners in the camp at Osen used to sleep in their shirts
    without any underpants, without any cover whatsoever, on the
    bare boards. Dolps personally visited the huts and carried out
    inspections. The prisoners who were caught sleeping in their
    underpants were killed on the spot by Dolps with his submachine
    gun. In the same manner he killed all those who appeared on
    parade, which he reviewed personally, in soiled underwear. . . .
    By the end of 1942 only 90 still remained alive of the first
    group of 400 in Korgen. Out of about 500 prisoners who were
    taken to the camp of Osen by the end of June 1942, there were,
    in March 1943, only 30 men left alive.”

I will read into the record an excerpt from Page 39, Exhibit Number
USSR-36 beginning with the third paragraph from the bottom, Page 342 of
your document book:

    “Besides this terrible treatment of the captured soldiers of the
    Yugoslav National Army of Liberation and the Partisan
    Detachments, the Germans also treated prisoners of war from the
    ranks of the old Yugoslav Army in complete contravention of
    international law and contrary to the Geneva Convention on the
    Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 1929. In April 1941,
    immediately after the occupation of the Yugoslav territory, the
    Germans drove into captivity in Germany about 300,000
    noncommissioned officers and men. The Yugoslav State Commission
    has at its disposal much evidence of the unlawful ill-treatment
    of these prisoners. We shall give here a few examples only.

    “On 14 July 1943 in the officers’ SS camp at Osnabrück, 740
    captured Yugoslav officers were separated from the remainder and
    placed in a special penitentiary camp called Camp D. Here they
    were all crowded together in four huts; all contact with the
    rest of the camp was prohibited. The treatment of these officers
    directly contravened the provisions of the Geneva Convention
    even more so than the treatment of the other prisoners. In this
    penitentiary camp were placed all those whom the Germans
    considered as supporters of the National-Liberation movement and
    against whom they very frequently applied measures of mass
    punishments.

    “The Germans gambled with the lives of the prisoners and
    frequently shot them from sheer caprice. Thus, for instance, at
    the aforesaid camp at Osnabrück, on 11 January 1942, a German
    guard fired at a group of prisoners, severely wounding Captain
    Peter Nozinic. On 22 July 1942 a guard fired on a group of
    officers. On 2 September 1942, a guard fired on the Yugoslav
    lieutenant, Vladislav Vajs, who was incapacitated by a wound he
    had received some time before. On 22 September 1942, a guard
    from the prison tower again fired on a group of officers. On 18
    December 1942 the guard fired on a group of officers because,
    from their huts, they were watching some English prisoners
    passing by. On 20 February 1943 a guard fired on an officer
    merely because this officer was smoking. On 11 March 1943 a
    guard opened fire on the doors of a hut and killed General
    Dimitri Pavlovic. On 21 June 1943 a guard fired at the Yugoslav
    lieutenant colonel, Branko Popanic. On 26 April 1944 a German
    noncommissioned officer, Richards, fired on Lieutenant Vladislav
    Gaider, who subsequently died of his wounds.

    “On 26 June 1944 the German captain, Kuntze, fired on two
    Yugoslav officers, severely wounding Lieutenant Djorjevic.

    “All these shootings were carried out without any serious
    reasons or pretext and only as a result of brutal orders issued
    by the German camp commandants, who threatened that firearms
    would be used even in the case of the most insignificant
    offenses.

    “All these incidents occurred in one single camp. But this was
    the treatment applied in all the remaining camps for Yugoslav
    officers and soldiers—captives in the hands of the Germans.”

A certain incident is described in the Czechoslovak Government report
which I should like to mention here. Its importance lies not in the fact
that it throws a new light on the methods employed in fascist crimes but
that it took place at the time when the Hitlerites clearly realized that
their days were numbered. This incident is described in Appendix 4 to
the Czechoslovak Government’s report, and I shall describe it briefly
and in my own words.

There was an airfield at Gavlichkov Brod at which various military
installations were located, while the former lunatic asylum was used as
an SS hospital. When the question arose regarding the formalities for
the surrender of the German military units at the airfield—in
1945—Staff Captain Sula with one of his fellow officers as official
representative of the Czechoslovak Army took himself to the airfield.
Neither of them ever came back. Later the airfield and the hospital were
occupied by the Czech national units and an investigation was carried
out. It showed that the negotiators, together with six other persons who
had previously disappeared at Gavlichkov Brod, were taken by the Germans
to the SS hospital where they were subjected to cruel tortures. In the
case of Captain Sula the Germans cut out his tongue, gouged out his
eyes, and cut his chest open. The others suffered similar treatment.
Most of them had been castrated. I am in possession of photographic
evidence in support of this fact which I am submitting to the Tribunal.

My presentation has lasted several hours. But surely, neither time nor
any word of living human speech will ever suffice to describe even a
thousandth part of the sufferings borne by the soldiers of my fatherland
and of the other democratic countries who had the misfortune of falling
into the hands of the fascist executioners.

I have only been able to show the Tribunal, in a very condensed form,
the manner in which the monstrous fascist directives regarding the
ill-treatment of prisoners of war and their mass extermination were
carried out, an ill-treatment before which the horrors of the Middle
Ages pale.

We shall here attempt, if only quite briefly, to fill in the gaps. In
tens of thousands the witnesses will pass before your eyes. They have
been called before the Tribunal to testify in this case. I cannot summon
them by name, no oath will you ever administer to them and yet their
evidence will never be denied—for the dead do not lie. Most of the
films pertaining to German atrocities which will be presented by the
Soviet Prosecution pertain to crimes against prisoners of war. The
silent testimony of the helpless prisoners burned alive in hospitals, of
prisoners mutilated beyond all recognition, of prisoners tortured and
starved to death will, I am certain, be far more eloquent than any word
of mine.

Blood drips from the hands of the accused—the blood of the victims of
Rostov and Kharkov, the martyrs of Auschwitz and all the extermination
camps created by the Hitlerites. Treacherously the enemy attacked our
country. The people rose in arms to defend their mother country, her
freedom, and her independence, the honor and lives of their families.
They joined the ranks of the fighting men. They fell into the hands of
the enemy. Now see how the enemy dishonored them when they stood
helpless and unarmed.

So may these major criminals, who bear the main responsibility for the
evil deeds of the fascists, be forced to answer to the martyrs to the
full extent of the law of international justice for the indescribable
atrocities which you will see with your own eyes, and for the many other
crimes which will forever remain unknown.

Allow me to present to the Tribunal Chief Counsellor L. N. Smirnov,
Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., who will submit to the Tribunal
the documentation pertaining to the crimes committed against the
civilian population of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, and
Czechoslovakia.

CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R.): Your Honors, my problem today consists of presenting to you
the written documents and other judicial evidence testifying to the very
grievous crimes committed by the Hitlerian conspirators against the
peaceful population in the territories of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia,
Poland, and Czechoslovakia when under temporary occupation.

The number of such depositions at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution
is unusually great. Suffice it to say that in the reports of the
Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the determination
and investigation of the atrocities of the German fascist invaders and
the accomplices, there are 54,784 reports of the crimes by the Hitlerian
criminals, directed against the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union.

But even these documents do not, by a long way, cover all the crimes
perpetrated by these war criminals against the peaceful population. The
Soviet Prosecution asserts and I submit to the Tribunal evidence to this
effect, that along the entire length of the far-flung front, from the
Barents to the Black Sea, and throughout the entire depths of the
infiltration of the German hordes into my mother country, wherever the
German soldier or the men of the SS set foot, crimes of unspeakable
cruelty were committed and the victims of these crimes were the women,
the children, and the old.

The crimes of the German fascist criminals became apparent as and when
the Red Army units moved west. The reports on these Hitlerite crimes
against the peaceful population were made by officers of the advance
units of the Red Army, by local authorities, and public organizations.

The Soviet people did not, in the first moment, learn of the crimes of
the German fascist invaders from circulars of the German Command, from
the notices posted up by the Reich leaders, or from the directives
issued by the SS Obergruppenführers both in incoming and outgoing
bulletins of the competent German chancelleries, although such documents
were captured in very large quantities by the advance units of the Red
Army and are currently in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution. Far
different were the sources of their information. Returning to their
native haunts the soldiers of the Army of Liberation saw the many
villages, towns, and cities which had been reduced to so much wasteland.

At the foot of the communal graves where rest the bodies of the Soviet
people murdered by “typical German methods”—I shall, later on, present
to the Tribunal evidence of these methods and of the regularity of their
application—at the foot of the gallows where the feet of the
adolescents danced on the air, at the ovens of the gigantic crematories
where the murdered internees from the extermination camps were burned,
at the sight of the dead women and girls, victims of some sadistic whim
of the fascist bandits, at the sight of children, who had been torn in
half—by all this evidence did the Soviet people recognize the mighty
chain of crime extending, as the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. so
aptly said, “from the ministerial armchair to the hands of the
executioner.”

All these monstrous crimes had a definite system of their own. There was
uniformity in the murder methods: One and the same system prevailed in
the construction of the gas chambers, in the mass production of the
round tins containing the poisonous substances “Cyclone A” or “Cyclone
B,” the ovens of the crematories are all built on the same typical
lines, and one was the plan extending over all the camps of destruction.
There was uniformity in the construction of the evil-smelling death
machines, which the Germans referred to as “gaswagen” but which our
people called the “soul destroyers”; and there was the same technical
elaboration in the construction of mobile mills for grinding human
bones. All this indicates one sole and evil will uniting all the
individual assassins and executioners.

It became obvious that German thermotechnicians and chemists,
architects, toxicologists, mechanics, and physicians were engaged in
this rationalization of mass murder on instructions received from
Hitler’s government and from the Supreme Command of the German Armed
Forces. It was also evident that the “death factories” brought into
existence an entire series of auxiliary industries.

But the unity of this will-to-evil was not only apparent there, where a
special technique had been evolved to serve the purpose of very evil
murder. The unity of this will-to-evil was also apparent from the
similarity of the methods employed by the murderers, from the uniformity
of type in the murder technique evolved as well as from the fact that,
in cases where no special technique was employed, use was made of
ordinary weapons of the German Armed Forces.

From the evidence which I shall submit later on you will see that the
sites where the Germans buried their victims were opened up by Soviet
legal doctors in the north and south of the country. These sites were
separated from each other by thousands of kilometers, and it is quite
evident that the crimes were perpetrated by perfectly different people;
but the methods employed were absolutely identical. The wounds were
invariably inflicted on the same parts of the body. And identical, too,
were the preparations for camouflaging the gigantic graves as antitank
ditches and trenches. Everywhere the unarmed and defenseless people, on
their arrival at the execution ground, were ordered, in practically the
same terms, to undress and lie face downwards in previously prepared
pits. As soon as the first batch was shot, whether in the swamps of
Bielorussia or the foothills of the Caucasus, the row was covered with
quicklime and the second batch of unarmed and defenseless people, of
people about to die, were again ordered by the murderers to undress and
lie down on that corrosive, blood-soaked mass which covered the first
batch of victims.

This is testified to not only by the uniformity of instructions and
orders received from high commands. So similar were the methods employed
that it became clear that execution squads were being trained in special
schools which had systematized beforehand and provided for every
eventuality, from the order to undress prior to the shooting right down
to the shooting proper. These assumptions, based on an analysis of
assembled facts, were later confirmed by documents captured by the Red
Army and by the testimony of prisoners of war.

From the very first months of the war it became clear to the Soviet
Government that the innumerable crimes of the German fascist aggressors
against the peaceful citizens of my mother country represented, not the
excesses of undisciplined military units or the isolated crimes of
individual officers and soldiers, but that they represented a system
prepared in advance, not merely sanctioned by the criminal Hitler
Government, but consciously planned and encouraged by this government.

I submit to the Tribunal in evidence according to Article 21 of the
Charter, one of the official notes of V. M. Molotov, People’s Commissar
for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R., dated as early as 6 January 1942.
This document is registered as Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number
USSR-51). It is on the first page of your document book, beginning at
the third paragraph after the heading:

    “As and when the Red Army, in the course of its continued and
    victorious counter-offensive, liberated numerous cities and
    rural committees which had, for a certain time, been in the
    hands of the German invader, an incredible picture emerged more
    clearly with every passing day—a picture of the looting which
    took place in every community, of general devastation, of
    revolting acts of rape, ill-treatment, and mass murder—all
    committed against peaceful citizens by the fascist German
    occupational forces during their advance, during the occupation,
    and during their withdrawal. The great amount of documentary
    material which the Soviet Government has at its disposal
    witnesses to the plundering and despoiling of the population,
    accompanied by bestial acts of violence and mass murders,
    carried out in all territories which came under the heels of the
    German invaders. Unquestionable facts prove that the regimes of
    robbery and of bloody terror inflicted on the peaceful
    population of the occupied villages and cities did not consist
    of certain excesses of individual undisciplined military units
    or individual German officers and soldiers. Rather does it point
    to a definite system, planned far in advance and encouraged by
    the German Government and the German Army Command, a system
    which intentionally unleashed within their army the lowest
    animal instincts among the officers and men.

    “Every step of the German fascist army and its allies in the
    invaded Soviet territories of the Ukraine and Moldavia, of
    Bielorussia and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, in the
    Karelian-Finnish lands, in the Russian zones and regions, led to
    annihilation and to the destruction of priceless material and
    cultural treasures—the property of the nation; for the civilian
    population it led to the loss of hard-won property, slave labor,
    famine, and bloody massacre before whose horror the most savage
    crimes in history have paled.

    “The Soviet Government and its organizations record all these
    infamous crimes of the Hitler army for which the indignant
    Soviet people justifiably demand and will obtain retribution.

    “The Soviet Government considers it a duty to bring to the
    notice of all civilized humanity, of honest men all the world
    over, its declaration concerning the monstrous crimes
    perpetrated against the peaceful people of all occupied
    territories of the Soviet Union by the Hitlerite armies.”

I now proceed to read into the record Paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of the
concluding statement of this note. Your Honors will find the place in
question on the reverse side of Page 4 of the document quoted, Paragraph
5, Column 1 of the text:

    “The Hitlerite Government in Germany which had so treacherously
    attacked the Soviet Union pays no heed, in warfare, to any
    standards of international law or to any of the moral
    requirements. It wages war primarily against the peaceful and
    unarmed populations, against women, children, and old men,
    thereby revealing its own essential vileness. This government of
    robbers, which only recognizes violence and rapine, must be
    crushed by the all-powerful strength of the freedom-loving
    peoples, in whose ranks the Soviet nation will carry out its
    mighty task of liberation to the end.

    “In bringing all the atrocities committed by the German invaders
    to the knowledge of all the governments with which the Soviet
    Union maintains diplomatic relations, the Soviet Government
    announces that it holds Germany’s criminal Hitlerite Government
    responsible for all the inhuman and rapacious acts perpetrated
    by the German Armed Forces.

    “At the same time the Government of the Soviet Union declares
    with unshakable conviction that the Soviet Union’s fight for
    liberation is a fight for the rights and liberty not only of the
    peoples of the Soviet Union, but also for the rights and liberty
    of all freedom-loving peoples of the world and that this war can
    only end with the complete destruction of the Hitler armies and
    with complete victory over the Hitler tyranny.”

The large quantity of the materials and facts which I have to submit to
the Tribunal renders necessary the adherence to a very strict
systematization of the materials in question.

Evidence will be submitted to the Tribunal successively.

Firstly, with regard to the deliberate encouragement by the major war
criminals of the lowest instincts of German officers, men, and officials
detailed to the Eastern areas where they were incited to murder the
civilian population and to indulge in every form of violence against it.
They also created that atmosphere of impunity which surrounded the
murderers and legalized the regime of terror. Secondly, with regard to
the special training and selection of units designated to put into
effect both the mass murders and the regime of terror inflicted on the
civilian population. Thirdly, with regard to the extent of the crime,
the ubiquity and the immense degree of the German fascist atrocities.
Fourthly, with regard to the gradual development and perfection of
methods for the realization of the monstrous crimes, from the first
shootings to the creation of the special extermination camps. Fifthly,
with regard to attempts to conceal all traces of the crimes and the
special measures taken for that purpose by order of the higher
authorities.

I shall now submit documents to prove the first two of the points just
mentioned.

The Tribunal has already received evidence that the actual orders,
circulars, and the so-called laws, promulgated by the Hitlerian
criminals for the legalization of terror directed against the peaceful
population and for the justification of rape and murder, are directly
connected with the inhuman theories of fascism. The Chief Prosecutor for
the U.S.S.R. has twice quoted from a book by the former president of the
Danzig Senate, at one time a very close friend of Hitler’s, Hermann
Rauschning, published in 1940 in New York under the title of _The Voice
of Destruction_. The same book (Document Number USSR-378) was published
in various other countries under different titles, such as, _What Hitler
Told Me_, or _Conversations with Hitler_, and so on.

Two quotations were made from Rauschning’s book, which I have submitted
to the Tribunal, in the speech of the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R.
The first is on Page 225 of the original. Your Honors will find it in
the last paragraph of Page 14. The contents of this quotation can be
summarized as follows: Hitler told Rauschning that he was freeing
mankind from the humiliating restrictions imposed by the “chimera of
conscience and morality.” The second quotation is also extremely
important. I will endeavor to prove by a series of concrete facts the
apparently abstract contents of this quotation. You will find it on
Pages 137-138. It concerns a conversation between Hitler and Rauschning
on the subject of a special technique of depopulation essential for the
physical extermination of entire nations and about the right of the
victor to exterminate entire populations.

And indeed, in order to murder millions of innocent and defenseless
people, it was necessary not only to develop the technical formula of
“Cyclone A,” to construct gas chambers and the crematory ovens, nor yet
to elaborate an elaborate procedure for mass shootings. It was also
essential to educate many thousands who would carry out these policies
“not in the letter, but in the spirit”—as stated by Himmler in one of
his speeches. It was necessary to train persons deprived both of heart
and conscience, perverted creatures who had deliberately cut themselves
off from the basic conceptions of morality and law. It was necessary to
legalize and theoretically establish the conformity to law of the
substitution of the concept of “guilt” by the concept of “preventive
purge of undesirable elements for political purposes,” of the concept of
“justice” by the concept of “the right of the master,” and of the
concept of “law” by an apologia of arbitrary administration and police
terror.

It was necessary, by orders, regulations, and decrees, to instill in the
minds of hundreds of thousands of human beings, trained as the
bloodhound is trained, to carry out the premeditated atrocities of the
major criminals, that they were in no way responsible for the crimes
committed. That is why Hitler freed them from the “chimera called
conscience.”

But the theoretical foundations laid down for the purpose still did not
constitute official instructions, nor did they introduce definite
retaliatory measures against those who were unduly mild and those who
did not fully recognize the “joys of cruelty.” This is why, even before
the beginning of the war with the Soviet Union, the German fascist
criminals issued a number of so-called handbooks, sermons, and similar
documents to the Germans who were being sent East. I submit one of these
documents to the Tribunal. Of all the documents in my possession I have
deliberately selected this small document, and I dwell on it because it
is not intended for the SS or police. It is intended for the so-called
agricultural leaders. This document is entitled, “The Twelve
Commandments for the Behavior of Germans in the East and for Their
Treatment of the Russians.”

I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-89
(Document Number USSR-89), and Your Honors will find it on Page 17 of
the document book. From these “Twelve Commandments” I shall quote just
one, the sixth, which has a direct bearing on my present theme. . . .

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the words “Twelve Commandments for the
Behavior of the Germans in the East and for Their Treatment” have been
written on Document Number USSR-89. That is all that is in my copy. This
document has no heading and no signature. As the question of
responsibility is involved, it would surely be desirable for the
Prosecution to name the author of these “Twelve Commandments.” So I
respectfully ask the Tribunal to decide whether this document is
admissible as evidence in its present form.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you inform us what the source of the document is?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document is included in the documentation
of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the
investigation and determination of German fascist atrocities. It was
received from the following sources—I must interrupt my further
presentation.

The Counsel for the Defense has pointed out that this document bears no
signature. If Your Honor will turn to the original of this document,
which I have submitted to you, you will find the signature of a certain
Backe. Unfortunately I cannot say who this Backe was, but I discovered
this signature on a whole series of German, or rather of German fascist
documents which, in rather peculiar juxtaposition, usually discussed two
subjects—cattle breeding and the Russian soul. Evidently the author of
this document was considered equally competent to deal with both
questions. But what his official position was I really cannot say.

I repeat, this document was captured by field units of our army, in the
region of Rossoshy, handed to the Extraordinary State Commission and the
original of this document is now being submitted to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: I have the original before me now. It is dated Berlin,
the 1st of June 1941, and has a signature which looks like B-a-c-k-e.
Perhaps Counsel for the Defense would like to see the original document.
It is, as I understand from the prosecuting counsel, made a part of the
Soviet Government report; and if so, we must take notice of it.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is so. I have information concerning
Backe’s official position. He was Minister of Food and Agriculture. I
did not know that before, because in practice I did not have the
occasion to come across this branch of German fascist life.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I believe I can identify the signature as
“Backe.” Backe was in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, was indeed
State Secretary at the time.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a convenient time to break.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, have I your permission to
proceed?

I now quote the sixth commandment of the twelve which have just been
submitted to the Tribunal. This sixth commandment, which is on Page 17
of the document book of the Tribunal, reads as follows:

    “6. The areas just opened up must be permanently acquired for
    Germany and Europe. Everything will depend upon your behavior.
    You must realize that you are the representatives of Greater
    Germany and the standard-bearers of the National Socialist
    Revolution and of the New Europe for centuries to come. You
    must, therefore, carry out with dignity even the hardest and
    most ruthless measures required by the necessities of the state.
    Weakness on the part of an individual will, on principle, be
    considered as just cause for his recall. Anyone who has been
    recalled for this reason will no longer be eligible for a
    responsible position in the Reich either.”

For what “hardest and most ruthless” measures the criminal Hitlerite
Government was preparing those whom it named “the standard-bearers of
the National Socialist Revolution,” and what crimes were committed by
them, we shall show later on.

In this manner the theoretical, abstract discussions were followed up by
official orders quite definite and allowing of no ambiguity. Execution
squads were trained in special educational institutions. The network of
these institutions extended almost to the lowest ranks.

I shall submit to the Tribunal the indictment drawn up for the
Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. by the examining magistrate of most important
affairs on the subject of German fascist atrocities in the city and
region of Kharkov. This document has already been fully confirmed by the
verdict of the military tribunal, which has also been submitted to the
Tribunal. The Tribunal will find this verdict on Page 20 of your
document book. The indictment and sentence are submitted to the Tribunal
as Exhibit Number USSR-32 (Document Number USSR-32).

There is on the first page of the indictment an extract from the
testimony of the Defendant Retzlav. It is on Page 24 of the document
book of the Tribunal, last paragraph. I quote an excerpt from the
testimony:

    “The accused senior corporal of the German Army, Reinhard
    Retzlav, who received his training in the special battalion
    ‘Altenburg,’ testified in the course of his interrogatory:

    “The course of training even included several lectures by
    leading officials of the GFP”—Secret Field Police—“who
    definitely declared that the peoples of the Soviet Union,
    especially those of Russian nationality, were subhuman and
    should be destroyed in an overwhelming majority, although an
    appreciable number was to be employed by the German landowners
    as slaves. These directives were the result of the policy of the
    German Government toward the peoples of the occupied
    territories; and, it must be confessed, were put into practice
    by every member of the Armed Forces, myself included.”

Such were the courses dedicated to the training and education of junior
police officials.

But the fascist training school for murderers acknowledged other forms
of education as well, forms specially dedicated to the technique of
destroying all traces of the crimes committed. The Tribunal has already
received the document registered as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (8)
(Document Number USSR-6(c) (8). This document is one of the appendices
to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on German atrocities
perpetrated on the territory of the region of Lvov. The document is the
testimony of the witness, Manusevitch, interrogated by the senior
assistant to the prosecutor of the Lvov region, by the special request
of the Extraordinary State Commission. The minutes of the interrogatory
are recorded in conformity with the legal code of the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic. The Tribunal will find these minutes on Page 48 of
the document book.

Manusevitch was imprisoned by the Germans in Yanov Camp, where he worked
in the prisoners’ squad for burning corpses of murdered Soviet citizens.
After the 40,000 corpses murdered in Yanov Camp were burned, the squad
was transferred for similar purposes to the camp in Lissenitzky Wood.

I now quote from the record of the interrogation, which the Tribunal
will find on Page 52 of the document book, Paragraph 2 from the top,
Line 26. I begin:

    “In the death factory of this camp special 10-day courses on
    corpse burning were organized, on which 12 men were employed.
    Pupils attending these courses came from the camps of Lublin,
    Warsaw, and others whose names escape me. I do not know the
    surnames of the pupils, but they were officers from colonels to
    sergeant majors, not soldiers from the rank and file. The
    instructor at these courses was the officer in command of
    crematories, Colonel Schallok. On the site where the bodies were
    exhumed and burned he explained the practical manner of their
    burning and how to set up the machinery for bone crushing.”

Later on, photographs of this machine will be submitted to the Tribunal
together with a description, or rather, I should say, technical
directions.

    “Schallock further explained the manner in which the pit was
    levelled over, the earth sifted, and trees planted over it, and
    how the ashes of the human corpses were scattered and concealed.
    Courses of this nature continued for a considerable period.
    During my sojourn, that is, during the 5½ months that I worked
    in the camps of Yanov and Lissenitzky, 10 groups of military
    students graduated successfully.”

For the education of adolescents, the German fascists created a special
organization, the so-called Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend). The Defendant
Baldur von Schirach was for quite a long time the head of this
organization.

What kind of methods were used for the education of German youth by the
fascist criminals is described by a French subject, Ida Vasso, the
directress of a hostel for aged Frenchmen in Lvov. During the German
occupation of Lvov, she had an opportunity of visiting the Lvov ghetto.
In her statement to the Extraordinary State Commission, Vasso described
the local system for the extermination of human beings.

From Vasso’s statement it is obvious that the Germans educated the
Hitler Youth by training these young fascists to shoot at living
targets—at children specially handed over to the Hitler Youth to serve
as targets.

Vasso’s statement was checked by the Extraordinary State Commission of
the Soviet Union and fully confirmed. In confirmation of this evidence I
will submit to the Court Exhibit Number USSR-6 (Document Number USSR-6),
which is a report by the Extraordinary State Commission, entitled,
“German Atrocities Perpetrated in the Territory of the Lvov Region.”

I now quote from Vasso’s statement in this connection. It is included in
the text of the report as a certified document, on Page 6-c of the
document book. The Tribunal will find Vasso’s statement on the reverse
side of Page 59, Paragraph 5, beginning from Line 14 from the beginning
of the paragraph:

    “. . . the little children were martyrs. They were handed over
    to the Hitler Youth who used them as living targets while
    learning how to shoot. No mercy for others, all for
    themselves—this was the motto of the Germans. The whole world
    must learn of their methods. We, who were the helpless witnesses
    of these revolting scenes, must speak of those horrors in order
    that everybody should know of them and, what is more important,
    should never forget them since no vengeance will ever bring the
    millions of dead back to life again.”

Your Honors can turn to the same Page 59 of the document book, Line 10
from the beginning of the second paragraph. Here the Tribunal will find
the official confirmation of Vasso’s statement. The Extraordinary State
Commission established that, in Lvov, the Germans:

    “Spared neither men, women, or children. The adults were simply
    killed on the spot; the children were given to the Hitler Youth
    for target practice.”

In this manner were created, educated, and trained the amoral
monstrosities who were called upon to materialize the program of the
major war criminals for the actual destruction of the population in the
Eastern European countries. The fascist government had no need to fear
that the “Standard Bearers of the National Socialist Revolution” in the
East would show any traces of humanity at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I hope you will forgive my interrupting
you; but as I had to point out to Colonel Pokrovsky just now, we really
don’t want any comment upon each one of these documents. The passage you
have just read to us now is nothing but comment upon the frightful
document which you have just read. It all takes time. If you could find
your way to cut out the comment after these documents and simply to
present us with the documents, it will save time.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will now quote an excerpt from the testimony
of the witness Manusevitch, previously submitted as Exhibit Number
USSR-6(c) (8), the passage where he speaks of the activities of the
Yanov Camp administration. He was a witness of these activities when
working in a special squad of prisoners employed for burning the corpses
of people murdered in this camp—Page 3 of the minutes of the
interrogatory. The Tribunal will find this document on Page 50 of the
document book, Line 25 from the top. I quote this passage as an
illustration of the execution squads created by the Hitlerites and of
some of the atrocities perpetrated by them:

    “Apart from the shootings in Yanov Camp various forms of torture
    were practiced, namely, in winter a barrel would be filled with
    water and a man, with hands and feet tied, would be thrown into
    the barrel, where he froze to death. Yanov Camp was surrounded
    by a barbed wire entanglement consisting of two rows of barbed
    wire, 120 centimeters apart. A man would be thrown in and left
    there for several days on end. He could not extricate himself
    from the wire and he eventually perished from hunger and thirst.
    But prior to being thrown into the barbed wire, he would nearly
    have been beaten to death. A man would be strung up by the neck,
    hands, and feet. Dogs would be set on him and the dogs would
    tear him to pieces. Human beings were used as targets for
    shooting practice. This was mostly done by the following members
    of the Gestapo: Heine, Müller, Blum, Camp Commandant Willhaus,
    and others whose names escape me. People would be beaten till
    they nearly died, dogs would then be set on them who tore the
    victims to pieces. A man was given a glass to hold and was then
    stood up to serve as a target in shooting practice; if the glass
    was hit, the man was spared, but if he was shot in the hand he
    was immediately killed after being told that he was no longer
    fit for work. Men would be taken by the legs and torn in two.
    Infants from 1 month to 3 years old were thrown into buckets of
    water and left to drown. A man would be tied to a post facing
    the sun and kept there till he died of sunstroke. In addition,
    before men were sent to work, they were subjected to a so-called
    examination for physical fitness. The men were made to run a
    distance of 50 meters and if one of them ran well—that
    is—rapidly and without stumbling—he remained alive while the
    rest were shot. There was, in the same camp, a small,
    grass-covered plot. Here, too, footraces were run and anybody
    who stumbled in the grass and fell was promptly shot. The grass
    grew higher than a man’s knee. Women were strung up by the hair,
    after first having been stripped naked, swung in the air, and
    left to hang till they died.

    “There was also the following case: a Gestapo man, Heine, made a
    young lad stand up and cut pieces of flesh from his body.
    Another man was wounded 28 times in the shoulders with a knife.
    The wounds healed and he worked in a death brigade. He was
    subsequently shot. Near the kitchen, during the distribution of
    coffee, the executioner Heine, whenever he was on duty, would go
    up to the first man in the line and ask, ‘Why are you standing
    in front of the others?’ and shoot him dead. In this way he shot
    quite a lot of people. He would then go to the end of the queue
    and ask, ‘Why are you the last in the line?’ and shoot him as
    well. I personally witnessed these atrocities during my
    imprisonment in Yanov Camp. . . .”

The testimony of the witness Manusevitch, which I have read into the
record, was fully confirmed by the official report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union entitled, “German Atrocities
Perpetrated in the Lvov Region.” Further on Manusevitch speaks mainly
about the activities of officials in the lower and middle rank of the
camp administration. It is evident from the official report of the
Extraordinary State Commission that a system of the vilest ill-treatment
practiced upon the helpless people was initiated and organized by the
upper ranks of the camp administration, who invariably set their
subordinates personal examples of inhuman behavior.

I will not make any comment on this document, although I do beg the
Tribunal to take note of a certain Obersturmführer Willhaus mentioned in
this document.

The Tribunal will find the excerpt which I shall now read into the
Record on Page 58 of the document book—on the reverse side of the page,
Column 1 of the text. I quote:

    “SS Hauptsturmführer Gebauer established a savage system of
    murder in Yanov Camp, which, after his transfer to another post,
    was perfected by the camp commandant, SS Obersturmführer Gustav
    Willhaus and SS Hauptsturmführer Franz Wartzok.

    “A former inmate of the camp told the commission:

    “‘I have seen with my own eyes how SS Hauptsturmführer Fritz
    Gebauer strangled women and children and froze men to death in
    barrels filled with water. The hands and feet of the victims
    were shackled before they were lowered into the water. Those
    doomed to die remained in the barrels until they froze to
    death.’

    “According to the testimonies of numerous Soviet prisoners of
    war and also of French citizens held in German camps, it was
    established that the German thugs invented the most vicious
    methods for exterminating human beings, a fact which they
    considered as particularly praiseworthy and in which they were
    encouraged both by the higher military command and by the
    government.

    “SS Hauptsturmführer Franz Wartzok, for instance, loved to hang
    internees by both feet on posts and leave them in this position
    until they died; Obersturmführer Rokita personally slashed open
    the bellies of the prisoners. The chairman of the investigation
    section of the Yanov Camp, Heine, pierced the bodies of
    internees with sticks or a piece of iron; he would tear out the
    finger nails of women with pliers, then he would strip his
    victims, hang them up by their hair, swing them out and shoot at
    the ‘moving targets.’

    “The commandant of the Yanov Camp, Obersturmführer Willhaus,
    systematically shot with an automatic rifle from the balcony of
    his office room the prisoners employed in the workshops, partly
    for sheer love of sport and partly to amuse his wife and
    daughters. He would then hand his rifle to his wife and she too
    had a shot at the prisoners. Sometimes, to please his 9-year-old
    daughter, he had children between the ages of 2 and 4 years
    tossed in the air and then took pot shots at them, while his
    daughter applauded and shrieked, ‘Papa, do it again; do it
    again, Papa!’ And he did it again.

    “The internees of this camp were exterminated for no reason at
    all, often as a result of a bet. A woman witness, Kirschner,
    informed the Investigating Commission that a Gestapo Commissar,
    Wepke, bet the other camp executioners that he could cut a boy
    in half with one stroke of the axe. They did not believe him. So
    he caught a 10-year-old boy on the road, made him kneel down,
    told him to hide his face in the folded palms of his hands, made
    one test stroke, placed the child’s head in a more convenient
    position and with one single stroke cut the boy in half. The
    Hitlerites heartily congratulated Wepke, shaking him warmly by
    the hand.

    “In 1943, for Hitler’s birthday—his 54th—the commandant of the
    Yanov Camp, Obersturmführer Willhaus, picked out 54 prisoners of
    war and shot them himself.

    “A special hospital for prisoners was organized in the camp. The
    German hangmen Brambauer and Birman checked up the patients on
    the 1st and 15th day of each month; and, if they discovered that
    among the patients there were some who had been in the hospital
    for over 14 days, they shot them on the spot. Six or seven
    people were killed during each investigation.

    “The Germans executed their tortures, ill-treatments, and
    shooting to the accompaniment of music. For this purpose they
    created a special orchestra selected from among the prisoners.
    They forced Professor Stricks and the famous conductor Mund to
    conduct this orchestra. They requested the composers to write a
    special tune, to be called the ‘Tango of Death.’ Shortly before
    dissolving the camp the Germans shot every member of the
    orchestra.”

Later on I will present to the Tribunal, as a photo-document,
photographs of this “orchestra of death.”

What took place in Yanov Camp was in no way exceptional. In exactly the
same manner the German fascist administration behaved in all
concentration camps in the occupied area of the Soviet Union, Poland,
Yugoslavia, and other Eastern European countries.

I submit to the International Military Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-29
(Document Number USSR-29). It is a communiqué of the Polish-Soviet
Extraordinary State Commission for the investigation of the crimes
perpetrated by the Germans in the extermination camp of Maidanek in the
city of Lublin. The Tribunal will find this communiqué on Page 63 of the
document book. I quote Section 3 of this document, “Tortures and Murder
in the Extermination Camp”—Page 64 reverse side of the document book,
beginning with the last paragraph of the first column of the text:

    “The forms of torture were extremely varied. Some of them were
    in the nature of so-called jokes which frequently ended in
    death. They included mock-shooting when the victim was rendered
    insensible by a blow over the head with a blunt instrument, and
    mock drownings in the pond of the camp which often ended in
    actual drowning.

    “Among the German executioners were specialists in particular
    methods of torture. Prisoners were killed by a blow with a stick
    on the back of the head, by a kick in the stomach, in the groin,
    _et cetera_.

    “The SS torturers drowned their victims in the dirty water
    flowing from the bathhouse through a narrow ditch. The head of
    the victim was plunged into the dirty water and kept under by
    the boot of an SS man until he died. A favorite method of the
    Hitler SS was to hang prisoners with their hands bound behind
    their back. The Frenchman, De Courantin, who suffered the
    torture in question, stated that a man hanged in this manner
    lost consciousness very rapidly, whereupon the hanging would be
    interrupted. He was hanged again as soon as consciousness was
    recovered and the process was repeated several times.

    “For the smallest offense, particularly for any suspicion of
    escape, the camp internees were hanged by the German fiends. In
    the middle of each field stood a post with a cross beam 2 meters
    above ground, from which the victims were hanged. ‘I saw from my
    barracks,’ said witness Demashev, former camp internee and
    Soviet prisoner of war, ‘how people were hanged from the beam in
    the middle of the field.’

    “Close to the laundry, in the entresol between the first and
    second floor, was a special shed with beams from the ceilings
    where prisoners were hanged in whole groups.”

The women interned in the camp were subjected to the same ill-treatment
and torture; they suffered the same forms of control, of work beyond
their strength, of beating, and ill-treatment. The greatest cruelty was
exercised by the female personnel of the SS. The worst were the chief
woman supervisor Erich, and the supervisors Braunstein, Anni David,
Weber, Knoblick, Ellert, and Radli.

The Commission has established many facts of unparalleled brutality
perpetrated by the German executioners in the camp.

The German, Heinz Stalbe, chief of the camp police, at a plenary meeting
stated that he had seen with his own eyes how the director of the
crematory, Oberscharführer Mussfeld, tied the arms and legs of a Polish
woman and threw her into the furnace alive. The witnesses Yelinski and
Olech—workers in the camp—also stated that internees had been burned
alive in the crematory ovens:

    “An infant was snatched from its mother’s breast and dashed
    before her eyes against the wall of the barrack”—stated witness
    Atrochov—“I saw for myself how infants were taken from their
    mothers and murdered before their eyes: One small leg would be
    seized by a hand, the executioner would stand on the other and
    the infant would be torn in half”—stated witness Edward Baran.

    “The deputy camp commandant, SS-Obersturmführer Tumann was
    particularly noted for his sadistic tendencies. He forced groups
    of internees to kneel in a row and then killed them by blows on
    the head with a stick. He set Alsatian dogs on the internees. He
    participated actively and energetically in all executions and
    killings of the prisoners.

    “Thus hunger, work beyond their strength, torture, torment,
    ill-treatment, and murder accompanied by unheard-of sadism were
    employed for the mass extermination of the captives in the
    camp.”

To prove that these sophisticated and sadistic crimes were not
exclusively characteristic of the SS or the special police units, but
that the major war criminals had deliberately plunged whole strata of
the personnel of the German Armed Forces into the very depths of moral
degradation, I turn to the contents of a note by the People’s Commissar
for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., V. M. Molotov, dated 6 January
1942, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51.
Your Honors will find the passage I am about to quote on the reverse
side of the document book, Paragraph 4, Column 1 of the text. I begin
the quotation:

    “There are no bounds to the wrath and indignation aroused among
    the Soviet population and in the Red Army by the innumerable and
    despicable acts of violence, the foul outrages perpetrated
    against the honor of the women and the mass murders of Soviet
    citizens, both men and women, carried out by the German fascist
    officers and men. Wherever the rule of the German bayonet begins
    to hold sway, an unbearable regime of bloody terror, agonizing
    torture, and savage murder is introduced. The robberies
    committed everywhere by the German officers and men are
    invariably accompanied by the beating and murder of immense
    numbers of entirely innocent people. For failure to deliver up
    food supplies to the very last crumb, and all clothing, down to
    the very last shirt, the occupants torture and hang old and
    young, women and children. At forced labor they beat up and
    shoot for all defective execution of the established quota of
    work.

    “On 30 June Hitler’s thugs entered the city of Lvov, and on the
    very next day they started a massacre under the slogan, ‘Kill
    the Jews and the Poles.’ After hundreds had been put to death
    the Hitler gangsters arranged an ‘exhibition’ of the murdered
    citizens by building an arcade. The mutilated bodies, mostly of
    women, were laid out along the walls of the houses. The place of
    honor in this ghastly ‘exhibition’ was occupied by the corpse of
    a woman whose baby had been pinned to her with a bayonet.

    “Such were the monstrous atrocities of the fascists from the
    very outbreak of the war. Wallowing in innocent blood, the
    Hitlerite blackguards are still continuing their dastardly
    crimes.

    “In the hamlet of Krasnaya Polyana near Moscow, on 2 December,
    the German fascist dastards assembled all the local inhabitants
    between the ages of 15 and 16, locked them up in the icy
    premises of the district executive committee building in which
    all the window panes had been knocked out, and kept them there
    for 8 days without food or water. The infant children of the
    women workers of the Krasnaya Polyana factory, A. Zaitseva, T.
    Gudkina, O. Naletkina, and M. Mikhailova, died in the arms of
    their mothers during this ordeal.

    “Numerous instances are on record of Soviet children having been
    used as practice targets by the Hitlerites.

    “In the village of Bely Rast, in the Krasnaya Polyana district,
    a gang of drunken German soldiers put 12-year-old Volodia
    Tkachev up on the porch of one of the houses as a target and
    opened fire on the boy with an automatic rifle. The boy was
    riddled with bullets. After that the thugs began to fire random
    shots at the windows of houses. They stopped a collective farm
    woman, I. Mossolova, who was passing in the street with her
    three children, and there and then shot her and the children
    dead.

    “In the village of Voskressenskoye of the Dubinin District, the
    Hitlerites used a 3-year-old boy as their target, firing at him
    with their machine guns.

    “In the regional center of Volovo in the Region of Kursk, where
    the Germans stayed for a space of 4 hours, a German officer
    killed the 2-year-old son of a woman named Boikova by dashing
    the child’s head against a wall merely because it was crying.

    “In the village soviet of Zlobin, in the district of Orel, the
    fascists killed the 2-year-old child of a collective farmer,
    Kratov, because his crying disturbed their sleep.

    “In the village of Semenovskoe, in the region of Kalinin, the
    Germans bound with twine the arms of Olga Tikhonova, the
    25-year-old wife of a Red Army man and mother of three children,
    who was in the last stage of pregnancy, and raped her. After
    violating her the Germans cut her throat, stabbed her through
    both breasts, and sadistically bored them out. In the same
    village the occupants shot a boy of 13 and cut out a
    five-pointed star on his forehead.

    “In November the telegraph operator of the town of Kalinin,
    Ivanova, went to visit relatives in the village of Burashevo,
    near Kalinin, together with her 13-year-old son Leonid. When
    they left the town they were noticed by some Hitlerites, who
    began shooting at them from a distance of 60 meters; as a result
    the boy was killed. The mother made several attempts to carry
    away the child’s body, but whenever she tried to do so the
    Germans opened fire and she had to leave the body there. For 8
    days the German soldiers would not let her remove the body. It
    was only removed and buried by the mother when the place was
    occupied by our troops.”

Mention is made, further on in the note, of another child victim of the
fascists. The Tribunal will see this murdered boy in our filmed
documentary evidence. I would ask the Tribunal to pay attention to the
further words of the “note” which I shall read into the Record:

    “In Rostov-on-Don a pupil of the commercial school, 15-year old
    Vitya Cherevichny, was playing in the yard with his pigeons.
    Some passing German soldiers began to steal the birds. The boy
    protested. The Germans took him away and shot him, at the corner
    of 27th Line and 2d Maisky Street for refusing to surrender his
    pigeons. With the heels of their boots the Hitlerites trampled
    his face out of all recognition.

    “The village of Bassmanova, in the Glinka district of the
    Smolensk region, liberated by our troops early in September was
    one mass of ashes after the German occupation. On the very first
    day of their arrival, the fascist fiends drove into the fields
    over 200 schoolboys and girls who had come to the village to
    help in the harvesting. There they surrounded them and savagely
    shot them all. A large group of schoolgirls was abducted to the
    rear ‘for their lordships, the officers.’

    “The seizure of towns or villages usually begins with the
    erection of a gallows on which the German executioners hang the
    first civilians they can lay their hands on. Moreover, they
    leave the bodies hanging on the gallows for days and even weeks.
    They do the same with the people they shoot in the streets of
    the towns and villages, leaving the bodies untended for days on
    end.

    “After the seizure of Kharkov, the German thugs hanged several
    people from the windows of a large house in the center of the
    city. Furthermore, in the same city of Kharkov on 16 November 19
    persons, including one woman, were hanged from the balconies of
    a number of houses.”

The bestial acts of violence perpetrated against the women everywhere
testify to the profound moral corruption of the criminals. I shall quote
from that passage in the note which Your Honors will find on Page 4,
Paragraph 4, of the document book:

    “Women and young girls are vilely outraged in all the occupied
    areas.

    “In the Ukrainian village of Borodayevka, in the Dniepropetrovsk
    region, the fascists violated every one of the women and girls.

    “In the village of Berezovka, in the region of Smolensk, drunken
    German soldiers assaulted and carried off all the women and
    girls between the ages of 16 and 30.

    “In the city of Smolensk the German Command opened a brothel for
    officers in one of the hotels into which hundreds of women and
    girls were driven; they were mercilessly dragged down the street
    by their arms and hair.

    “Everywhere the lust-maddened German gangsters break into the
    houses, they rape the women and girls under the very eyes of
    their kinfolk and children, jeer at the women they have
    violated, and then brutally murder their victims.

    “In the city of Lvov, 32 women working in a garment factory were
    first violated and then murdered by German storm troopers.
    Drunken German soldiers dragged the girls and young women of
    Lvov into Kesciuszko Park, where they savagely raped them. An
    old priest, V. I. Pomaznew, who, cross in hand, tried to prevent
    these outrages, was beaten up by the fascists. They tore off his
    cassock, singed his beard, and bayonetted him to death.

    “Near the town of Borissov in Bielorussia, 75 women and girls
    attempting to flee at the approach of the German troops, fell
    into their hands. The Germans first raped and then savagely
    murdered 36 of their number. By order of a German officer named
    Hummer, the soldiers marched L. I. Melchukova, a 16-year-old
    girl, into the forest, where they raped her. A little later some
    other women who had also been dragged into the forest saw some
    boards near the trees and the dying Melchukova nailed to the
    boards. The Germans had cut off her breasts in the presence of
    these women, among whom were V. I. Alperenko, and V. H.
    Bereznikova.

    “On retreating from the village of Borovka, in the Zvenigorod
    district of the Moscow region, the fascists forcibly abducted
    several women, tearing them away from their little children in
    spite of their protests and prayers.

    “In the town of Tikhvin in the Leningrad region, a 15-year-old
    girl named H. Koledetskaya, who had been wounded by shell
    splinters, was taken to a hospital (a former monastery) where
    there were wounded German soldiers. Despite her injuries the
    girl was raped by a group of German soldiers and died as a
    result of the assault.”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

    “But, the Hitlerites do not stop at the murder of individual
    Soviet citizens. Among the most appalling atrocities in the
    history of Hitlerite lawlessness and terrorism on German
    occupied Soviet territory are the nightmare mass murders of
    Soviet citizens which usually accompany the temporary seizure by
    the Germans of Soviet towns, villages, and other inhabited
    centers.

    “Here are a few instances of wholesale bloody murders carried
    out by the Germans against entire villages. In Yaskino, a
    village in the region of Smolensk, the Hitlerites shot all the
    old men and adolescents, and burnt the houses down to the
    ground. In the village of Pochinok of the same region, the
    Germans drove all the old men, old women, and children into the
    collective farm office, locked the doors and burnt them all
    alive. In the Ukrainian village of Yomelchino in the region of
    Zhitomir, the Germans locked 68 people into a small hut, sealed
    the doors and windows and asphyxiated to death everybody inside.
    In the village of Yershevo, of the Zvenigorod district in the
    Moscow region now liberated by our troops, the Germans prior to
    their withdrawal drove about 100 peaceful citizens and wounded
    Red Army men into a church, locked them in, and blew up the
    building. In the village of Agrafenovka of the Rostov region, on
    16 November, the fascists arrested the entire male population
    between the ages of 16 and 70 and shot one man of every three.”

The subsequent part of the note deals with the mass German crimes known
as “actions” and particularly to the “actions” in Kiev. I invite the
attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the figure of those murdered
in Babye-Yar—as mentioned in this note—is an understatement. After the
liberation of Kiev it was established that the extent of the atrocities
perpetrated by the German fascist invaders far exceeds the German crimes
as stated in the first instance.

From further information submitted to the Extraordinary State Commission
of the Soviet Union, in connection with the city of Kiev, it is evident
that during the monstrous so-called German mass “action” in Babye-Yar
not 52,000 but 100,000 were shot. I now continue to quote from Page 4,
of the document book, Paragraph 3:

    “Terrible massacres and pogroms were carried out by the German
    invaders in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev. In the course of a
    few days the German bandits tortured and murdered 52,000 men and
    women, aged people and children, ruthlessly doing to death all
    Ukrainians, Russians, and Jews who in any way displayed their
    loyalty to the power of the Soviet. Soviet citizens who
    succeeded in escaping from Kiev give a shattering picture of one
    of these mass executions: A large number of Jews, including
    women and children of all ages, were assembled in the Jewish
    cemetery. Before shooting them the Germans stripped them naked
    and then beat them. The first group marked for execution was
    forced to lie, face downwards at the bottom of a ditch, where
    the Jews were shot with automatic rifles. The Germans then
    lightly sprinkled some earth over the dead bodies, made the next
    batch lie down in a row over the first and shot them in the same
    way.”

I skip a paragraph and continue with the quotation. You will have the
opportunity of seeing the Hitlerite crimes mentioned in the note. The
German atrocities in Rostov are shown in great detail in the filmed
documentary evidence.

    “The Nazi blood-thirstiness towards the citizens of Rostov has
    become well known. During their 10 days’ sojourn in Rostov the
    Germans not only wreaked vengeance on separate individuals and
    families, but in their blood-lust they annihilated tens and
    hundreds of inhabitants, especially in the working-class
    districts of the city. Near the premises of the Railway Board,
    German machinegunners shot 48 people in broad daylight. Sixty
    people were shot by the Hitlerite assassins on the sidewalks of
    the main street of Rostov. Two hundred people were murdered in
    the Armenian cemetery. Even after their expulsion from Rostov by
    our troops, German generals and officers publicly boasted that
    they would return to Rostov purposely to vent bloody retribution
    on the inhabitants, who had actively helped to drive their
    mortal enemy from their native city.”

On the immediate initiative of the command and officers of the units and
formations of the German fascist armies, the advancing and retreating
movements of their troops were often protected by the peaceful citizens,
preferably by women, old men, and children.

I make no comment but I do consider it necessary to stress the fact that
only those people acted like that who had perfectly understood Keitel’s
directive—so well known to the Tribunal—that human life “in the
countries to which the directive refers, is worth exactly nothing at
all.”

I quote further from the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, Page 7 of the document book, the last paragraph:

    “In addition to all that has already been stated, the Soviet
    Government have in their possession documentation bearing on the
    systematically repeated monstrous atrocities of the German
    fascist command, such as the use of Soviet civilians to cover
    German troops during battle with the Red Army.

    “On 28 August 1941 German fascist troops attempted to force the
    River Ipput. Powerless to overcome the stubborn resistance of
    the Red Army units, they assembled the population of the
    Bielorussian town of Dobrush in the Gomel region, and by
    threatening to shoot those who refused, drove women, children,
    and old people before them, using them as a shield when they
    attacked in battle formation.

    “The same dastardly crime against the civilian population was
    repeated by the German Command in the Vybori Collective Farm
    Sector of the Leningrad region as well as in the district of
    Yelna, in the region of Smolensk. The fascist thugs continue to
    resort to this brutal and cowardly method right up to the
    present day. On 8 December the Hitlerites made use of the local
    civil population to cover their retreat from the village of
    Yamnoye, in the region of Tula. On 12 December, in the same
    region, they assembled 120 persons—old people and children—and
    made them march in the vanguard of their troops during
    engagements with the advancing units of the Red Army. In the
    fight by our troops for the liberation of the city of Kalinin,
    units of the German 303rd Regiment, 162d Division, attempting to
    launch a counter-attack, assembled the women of one of the
    suburban villages, placed them in the vanguard of their troops,
    and then went into action. Fortunately the Soviet troops
    succeeded, when beating off the attack, in driving a wedge
    between the Hitlerites and their victims thereby saving the
    lives of the women.”

In order to satisfy the needs of the German fascist armies and in
violation of all international conventions, the criminals employed the
civil population for particularly dangerous work, especially for
clearing the mine fields. I will quote an extract from the second part
of this note, which the Tribunal will find on Page 2 of the document
book, Paragraph 4. I quote:

    “Wherever German troops and German authorities made their
    appearance on Soviet territory, a regime of brutal exploitation,
    tyranny, and arbitrary rule was immediately established as far
    as the defenseless civil population was concerned. With a
    complete disregard for age or conditions of health, and after
    having taken or destroyed the houses of the Soviet citizens, a
    great number of these were brought to concentration camps by the
    Hitlerites and were compelled, under threat of torture,
    shooting, or death by starvation, to perform, gratuitously,
    various kinds of heavy labor, including work of a military
    nature. In a number of cases, civilians employed on one or
    another job of a military nature were summarily shot to ensure
    secrecy.

    “Thus, for instance, in the village of Kolpino, in the region of
    Smolensk, the invaders drove all the farmers off to work on
    building bridges and dugouts for German units. Upon the
    completion of the construction of these fortifications, all
    these farmers were shot.”

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break: off.

COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, sir.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 15 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                              SIXTIETH DAY
                        Friday, 15 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: There are certain matters of a procedural nature which
the Tribunal desire to consider before they consider the question of an
adjournment. Accordingly they will not sit tomorrow in open session for
consideration of the question of an adjournment, but they will sit
tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock in closed session for consideration of
these matters of a procedural character, and they will sit on Monday
morning at 10 o’clock for half an hour to hear argument in open session
on the question of an adjournment, one counsel being heard on each side
and only for 15 minutes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I interrupted the quotation of a document on
Page 3 of the document file, second paragraph, first column of the text.
I consider it possible to skip many items contained in this document, as
these facts simply confirm further the general conclusions which were
expressed in the beginning of the document and which were already
confirmed by many facts read into the record by me yesterday. I only beg
the Tribunal to allow me to draw their attention to one of the
stipulations in the note which the Tribunal will find on Page 3 of the
book of documents, second paragraph, first column of the text. It states
that the civilian inhabitants were forcibly sent to concentration camps,
thus artificially and illegally increasing the number of prisoners of
war and subjecting the peaceful population to the inhuman regime which
was established by the German fascist authorities for the prisoners of
war.

I submit to the Tribunal further an extract from the minutes of the
court-martial of a military tribunal of the 374th Liuban Infantry
Division, held on 29 October 1944. This document is submitted as Exhibit
Number USSR-162 (Document Number USSR-162). The Tribunal will find this
document on Page 67 of the document file.

DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): I would like
to make two motions regarding the questions relative to the submission
of evidence in this case as well as to the general procedure. The first
motion is that I would like to ask, with reference to Article 21, that
the submission of documents to the investigation commission, as well as
any reference to them, be prohibited inasmuch as these documents do not
contain definite information about the source of the information
discussed here; secondly, that the written statements, which contain
only summary information be read without any personal observations, and
that the reading of such statements be permitted only if the
cross-examination of the author as a witness is possible.

I should like to submit the following reasons: Article 19 of the Charter
permits all evidence which has probative value. Article 21 gives the
Court the right to ask for proof regarding documents submitted to the
so-called “investigation committees.” The purpose of both articles,
however, is to facilitate the submission of proof. The admission of
written statements of various kinds leads to the danger that such
statements would discriminate against an entire people and an entire
nation. Then the demand of the Defense that only such proof, such
documents where this danger has been eliminated, as far as possible, be
admitted, seems to be justified.

Many of the written statements and excerpts from committee reports read
by the Russian Prosecution have had no probative value; but,
furthermore, since they cannot be checked—their contents cannot be
checked—they design to give a wrong impression about historical events.

THE PRESIDENT: Why does it not come within the last two lines of Article
21: “The records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of
the United Nations?”

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, the Defense is of the opinion that Article 21
permits an interpretation. Article 21 permits the reading of such
documents and such reports, but does not say anything about the extent
to which it has been necessary for the defendants’ counsel to check the
sources upon which these reports of the investigating authorities are
based. We are of the opinion that the witnesses who have been
questioned, for reasons of compassion, of vengeance, _et cetera_, have
not been in a position to describe the events objectively. As jurists we
know that it is exceedingly difficult to describe even simple events
truthfully. Therefore, we have the duty and the responsibility for the
German people to try to check these sources and to help thereby to
explain and clarify the real course of events, which we see somewhat
differently.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendants’ counsel will have the opportunity at the
proper time of criticizing any evidence which is offered by the
Prosecution. They will be able to point out whether it is possible that
certain evidence was given out of sympathy; they will be able to
criticize the evidence which is given in any way they choose at the
proper time. But this is not the proper time.

Article 21 is perfectly clear, and it directs the Tribunal to take
judicial notice of the various documents which are there set out, and
expressly refers to the records and findings of military or other
tribunals of any of the United Nations. This is a record and finding of
a military tribunal of a Soviet court. Therefore, the Tribunal is
directed in express terms by Article 21 to take judicial notice of it.
That does not prevent defendants’ counsel, when they make their speeches
in defense, from criticizing the evidence upon which that record and
findings proceed; but to say it ought not to be admitted appears to me,
at any rate, and I think to the other members of the Tribunal, to be
really entirely unfounded as an objection.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I thank you.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President. Thus the document
which has been submitted to the Tribunal will be found on Page 67 of the
document file in their possession. I shall allow myself to repeat in my
own words the biographical data concerning the Defendant Le Court, who
was brought before a court-martial.

He was not an SS man, but a non-Party senior corporal of the German
Army, 27 years old. He was born and lived, before the war, in the town
of Stargard; was owner of a cinema, and was later mobilized in the army,
where he served in the 1st Company of the 4th Airborne Division. I begin
to quote the statements in evidence given by Le Court contained in the
section entitled “Judicial Investigation” beginning with Paragraph 2.
The Tribunal will find this place in the document book on Page 68, fifth
paragraph. Le Court stated:

    “Prior to my capture by Red Army soldiers, that is, before
    February 1944, I served as laboratory assistant in the 1st
    Bicycle Company of the 2d Air Force Infantry Regiment of the 4th
    Air Force Infantry Division at the headquarters of Air Field
    Service E 33/XI.

    “In addition to photographic material, I handled other work when
    not on duty, that is to say, I spent my free time for my own
    pleasure in shooting Red Army prisoners of war and peaceful
    citizens and soldiers. I used to jot down in a special book the
    number of prisoners of war and peaceful citizens I had shot.”

I omit three paragraphs describing the shooting of prisoners of war by
Le Court, and continue the quotation. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the passage that you read a moment ago
about jotting down the numbers in his book does not occur in the
translation which is before me. I do not know whether it is in your
original. I suppose it is. Are you sure it is in the original?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It is there, Mr. President. Mr. President, I
just verified this extract which I am quoting with the original book of
documents. It corresponds exactly to the text.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. I only wanted to be certain that it was in the
original, as it did not occur in the translation before me. You can
continue.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I interrupted the quotation on Page 68, and
omitted three paragraphs. Thus, I came to Page 69. Perhaps this is the
reason why the President of the Tribunal could not find the sentence I
quoted. I continue the quotation:

    “Besides the shooting of prisoners of war, I also shot
    guerrillas, peaceful citizens, and burned houses, together with
    their inhabitants.

    “In November 1942 I participated in the shooting of 92 Soviet
    citizens.

    “From April to December 1942, while a member of the Air Force
    Infantry Regiment, I participated in the shooting of 55 Soviet
    citizens. I took care of the actual shooting.”

I omit a paragraph and continue:

    “In addition, I participated in punitive expeditions when I
    personally set fire to houses.

    “Altogether more than 30 houses in various villages were burned
    down by me. I arrived in the village with the punitive
    expedition, entered the houses and warned the population that no
    one was to leave the houses, which were going to be burned. I
    set fire to a house, and when anybody tried to save
    himself—nobody was allowed to leave—I drove him back into the
    house or shot him. In that way I burned more than 30 houses and
    70 peaceful citizens, mainly aged men, women, and children.

    “Altogether I have personally shot 1,200 persons.”

For the purpose of saving time I omit six paragraphs and quote further.
You will find this on Page 70 of the document book:

    “The German High Command promoted in every way the shooting and
    killing of Soviet citizens. In recognition of good work and
    service in the German Army, which found expression in the
    shooting by me of prisoners of war and Soviet citizens, I was
    promoted before my promotion was due, on 1 November 1941, to the
    rank of senior corporal. This promotion should have come about
    on the 1st of November 1942; at the same time I was awarded the
    East Medal.”

Le Court was in no way an exception, and in confirmation of this I shall
now refer briefly to the verdict of the trial held in the town of
Smolensk by the district military tribunal against a group of former
members of the German Army who were brought to justice for committing
atrocities against peaceful citizens and prisoners of war in the town of
Smolensk. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by my colleague,
Colonel Pokrovsky, as Exhibit Number USSR-87 (Document Number USSR-87),
and joined to the record of the present Trial. The Tribunal will find
this document on Page 71 of the document book.

I omit all the general part of the verdict, and beg to be allowed to
draw the attention of the Tribunal to that part of the verdict which is
in the ninth paragraph on Page 71 of the document book, which says that
in 80 graves alone, which were opened up and examined by legal-medical
experts in the town of Smolensk and in the district of Smolensk, over
135,000 corpses of Soviet citizens—women, children, and men of various
ages—were discovered.

I skip the second page of the verdict and come to that part of the
document which gives a description of the criminal deeds of individual
defendants brought to trial under these charges. I shall not quote data
regarding all 10 defendants, but only 2 or 3 of them.

The Tribunal will find this part on Page 73 of the document book. This
is the sixth paragraph of the text. I quote:

    “Hirschfeld was interpreter for the German Military Command in
    the District Kommandantur of Smolensk. He personally beat and
    seized for treason perfectly innocent Soviet citizens, without
    consideration for sex and age, and forced them to make false
    statements. On receiving these false statements forced from them
    by beatings, the arrested persons were shot by the Kommandantur
    troops. Hirschfeld participated personally in the annihilation
    of Soviet citizens in Smolensk in May 1943, by means of
    asphyxiation through carbon-monoxide in gas vans. In January and
    February 1943, he participated in punitive expeditions against
    guerrillas and against peaceful Soviet citizens in the district
    of Newel-Uswjati. While he was commanding the German punitive
    unit, he committed, together with his soldiers, acts of violence
    against the peaceful population.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, in the Tribunal’s translation into
English, we have missing pages from 34 up to 45. Do you think that those
pages could be found? On our pages—I think your pagination is
different—but the document that you are now referring to, USSR-87,
begins on Page 34 of our translation, and the translation then skips to
Page 45.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I am not quoting the numbers of
pages of the translation, but the pages of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I follow that, but I was only wondering whether, by
a slip possibly, that these pages had been translated and perhaps had
not got into our copy of the documents and whether they could be found.
You see, we have all pages missing in the translation.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have not yet seen the
translation. If the President will allow me, during the intermission I
shall verify the translation, and shall put the translation file into
complete order.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Go on in the meantime.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Together with his soldiers, he burned nine
Soviet villages and hamlets. He plundered farmers and shot innocent
peaceful Soviet citizens who came out of the woods to get to the piles
of ashes remaining from their burned-down homes in order to search for
food. He participated in the deportation of Soviet citizens into German
slavery.

I shall allow myself to quote still another excerpt concerning the
defendant named Modisch who was a medical assistant in the German
Military Hospital Number 551. The Tribunal will find this part on Page
73 of the document book, in the last paragraph:

    2. “Modisch was a medical assistant in the 551st German Military
    Hospital in the city of Smolensk from September 1941 until April
    1943. He was an eyewitness and immediate participant in the
    killing of prisoners of war, wounded soldiers, and officers of
    the Red Army, upon whom the German professors and doctors,
    Schemm, Gette, Müller, Ott, Stefen, Wagner, and others carried
    out, under the pretext of a cure, various experiments with
    previously unknown biological and chemical medicines. After
    that, the wounded prisoners of war were infected with
    septicaemia and killed.”

And what had Modisch personally done? I quote further from the same
document:

    “Modisch himself killed, by means of injections of great
    quantities of strophantin and arsenic, no less than 24 prisoners
    of war, both Red Army men and officers of the Red Army. In
    addition, he used, for medical treatment of German military
    personnel, the blood of Soviet children, ranging in age from 6
    to 8 years, by taking great quantities of blood from them, after
    which the children died. He extracted from Russian prisoners of
    war the spinal fluid, whereupon because of emaciation they
    suffered paralysis of the lower extremities. He participated
    also in the plundering of Soviet medical institutions in the
    city of Smolensk.”

I skip another page in the document. The Tribunal can convince itself
that every one of these 10 defendants brought to trial committed such a
long series of crimes that, according to the laws of any civilized
country, they would be condemned to death. I quote as an example one of
the charges proved during this trial regarding the Defendant Kurt
Gaudian. The extract referring to him will be found by the Tribunal on
Page 74 and on Page 75. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact
that Gaudian raped seven young girls and then killed them.

I conclude this part by quoting only three lines which state:

    “In the month of July 1943, with his participation, 60
    inhabitants of the district of Osipowitschi were burned in a
    stable. The village itself was also burned.”

I skip a part concerning Hentschke and quote only five lines, on Page 75
of the document file from that part of the verdict which concerns
Müller, a lance corporal in the 335th Guard Battalion:

    “At various times, the Defendant Müller killed 96 Soviet
    citizens, among them old men, women, and babies. Müller raped 32
    Soviet women, of whom 6 were killed after having been raped.
    Among the women raped, several were 14- or 15-year-old girls.”

I do not know whether it is necessary to continue this quotation. I
believe that the nature of these criminals, 7 out of 10 of whom already
have ended their lives on the gallows, has been made clear to the
Tribunal. However, in order to characterize, not the ones who committed
the crimes, but those who were actually responsible for the lives of the
population of the occupied territory in the East, I beg the Tribunal to
allow me to turn to the diary of the Defendant Hans Frank, which has
already been submitted to the Tribunal by our American colleagues as
Document Number 2233-PS. We quote certain extracts from Frank’s diary as
Exhibit Number USSR-223. The Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page
78 of the document book. I quote that part of the excerpt which the
Tribunal will find on Page 86 of the document book, third paragraph, the
first column of the text.

On 6 February 1940 Frank gave an interview to the _Völkischer
Beobachter_ correspondent, Kleiss. I quote that section of the interview
which was already pointed out to the Tribunal. I begin the quotation:

    “Interview given by the Governor General to the _Völkischer
    Beobachter_ correspondent, Kleiss, on 6 February 1940, Page 3:

    “Kleiss: ‘It might be interesting to develop the thesis which
    distinguishes a Protectorate from a Government General.’

    “The Governor General: I might state a striking difference: In
    Prague, for instance, there were hung up red posters announcing
    that seven Czechs had been shot that day. I then said to myself:

    “‘“If I wished to order that one should hang up posters about
    every seven Poles shot, there would not be enough forests in
    Poland with which to make the paper for these posters. Indeed,
    we must act cruelly.”’”

The offensive on the Western Front, which began on 10 May 1940, diverted
the attention of world public opinion from the crimes committed under
the personal direction of Frank and permitted Frank to have several
thousand representatives of the Polish intelligentsia condemned to death
by court-martial and physically exterminated.

I quote Frank’s statement at the police conference held on 30 May 1940,
where this crime was finally decided upon. I begin this quotation on
Page 86 of the document book, sixth paragraph, first column of the text:

    “The offensive in the West began on 10 May. On that day the
    center of interest shifted from the events taking place here. It
    would be a matter of complete indifference to me whether the
    deeds attributed by atrocity propaganda and lying reports all
    over the world to the National Socialist authorities in these
    districts worried the Americans, the French, the Jews, or the
    Pope in Rome for that matter. But it was terrible for me and for
    all of them to be told unceasingly during all these months by
    the Ministry of Propaganda, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
    Ministry of the Interior, and even the Army, that ours was a
    regime of murder, that these crimes of ours were to cease and so
    forth. And we had to say, of course, we would no longer do it.
    It was equally clear that up to that moment, under the
    cross-fire of the whole world, we could not do anything of the
    kind on a large scale. But since 10 May we are completely
    indifferent to this atrocity propaganda. We must use the
    opportunity in our hands.”

I skip now two paragraphs and continue with the quotation:

    “I frankly admit that it will cost the lives of some thousands
    of Poles and that these will be taken mainly from leading
    members of the Polish intelligentsia. In these times we, as
    National Socialists, are bound to ensure that no further
    resistance is offered by the Polish people.”—I draw the
    attention of the Tribunal to this sentence particularly:

    “I realize the responsibility we are thus assuming.”

I skip one paragraph and continue the quotation, which the Tribunal will
find on Page 86 of the document file, fifth paragraph.

    “Furthermore, SS-Obergruppenführer Krüger and I have decided
    that appeasement measures should be speeded up. I pray you,
    gentlemen, to take the most rigorous measures possible to help
    us in this task. For my own part, I will do everything in my
    power in order to facilitate its execution. I appeal to you as
    the champions of National Socialism, and I need surely say
    nothing further. We will carry out this measure and I may tell
    you in confidence that we shall be acting on the Führer’s
    orders. The Führer said to me, ‘The handling of German policy in
    the Government General and its establishment on a firm basis is
    a matter which devolves personally on the responsible men in the
    Government General.’

    “He expressed himself in this way: The men capable of leadership
    whom we have found to exist in Poland must be liquidated. Those
    following men must . . . be eliminated in their turn. There is
    no need to burden the Reich and the Reich police organization
    with this. There is no need to send these elements to Reich
    concentration camps, and by so doing involve ourselves in
    disputes and unnecessary correspondence with their relations. We
    will liquidate our difficulties in the country itself, and we
    will do it in the simplest way possible.”

I conclude this quotation and pass on to Page 87, second paragraph,
first column of the text. I think that this quotation is characteristic,
for it was precisely Frank, as the diary proves, who first thought about
the creation of special concentration camps, later officially known as
“Vernichtungslager” (extermination camps).

I quote the same speech of Frank, Page 9, first paragraph:

    “As to the concentration camps, we know perfectly well that
    concentration camps in the true sense of the word are not going
    to be organized in the Government General. Every suspected
    person must be immediately liquidated. Internees from the
    Government General at present in concentration camps in the
    Reich must be handed over to us for ‘Operation AB’ or liquidated
    there.”

I quote further from the same speech in the section—further excerpts
from the diary of Hans Frank concerning the year 1940. The Tribunal will
find this place on Page 94 of the document book, fifth paragraph, first
column of the text. I quote:

    “We cannot burden the concentration camps in the Reich with our
    affairs. We had terrible trouble with the Kraków professors. If
    we had done the thing from here, it would have been different.
    For this reason I would ask you most urgently not to send any
    more people to concentration camps in the Reich but to liquidate
    them here or to impose punishment according to regulations. Any
    other method is a burden for the Reich and a perpetual source of
    trouble. We have an entirely different method of treatment here
    and we must adhere to it. I must point out expressly that even
    if peace is concluded, this treatment will not be altered. Peace
    will mean only that as a world power we should continue more
    intensively the same general political operations. . . .”

I deem it opportune to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact
that all the major extermination camps were indeed located on the
territory of the Government General.

There was its own periodicity or cycles in the fascist crimes and in the
proportions they assumed, and if in 1940 Frank made a long speech to the
policemen justifying the so-called “actions” with regard to several
thousand Polish intellectuals, then on 18 March 1944, in his speech at
the Reichshof, he stated—I quote from Page 93 of the document file,
third paragraph, second column. I begin the quotation:

    “18 March 1944, Speech at the Reichshof.

    “Dr. Frank: ‘If I had gone to the Führer and said, “My Führer, I
    have to report that I have destroyed a further 150,000 Poles,”
    he would say, “All right, if it was necessary.”’”

This fascist specialist on legal questions annihilated 3 million Jews in
the territory under his jurisdiction which fell only temporarily into
the hands of the fascist invaders. On this occasion Frank said—I quote
his speech at a business meeting of the NSDAP orators in Kraków on 4
March 1944. The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 93 of the
document book, second paragraph, second column of the text; I begin the
quotation of Dr. Frank:

    “If there are any woebegone souls today who bemoan the fate of
    the Jews and say with tears in their eyes, ‘Isn’t it awful what
    is being done to the Jews,’ we should ask them if they are still
    of the same opinion now. If we had there 2 million Jews carrying
    on their activities and opposed to them the few German men in
    the country today, we would no longer have control of the
    situation. . . . Jews are a race which must be eradicated. When
    we catch one of them, it is the end of him.”

I pass on to that part of Frank’s diary. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now?

                        [_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I received information from our
staff that the 11 pages which were not incorporated into the English
text in your possession were handed to you. Is it true, Sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Please do.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am quoting now from Frank’s diary at the place
which the Tribunal will find on Page 93 of the document file, in the
second column of the text, second paragraph below the title, “Meeting of
Political Leaders of NSDAP in Kraków, on 15 January 1944.” It begins
thus, Dr. Frank, “I did not hesitate to say that for every German
killed, up to a hundred Poles would be shot.”

In these dark days the Polish people regarded the victims of Frank and
of his henchmen as martyrs. That is the reason it seems to me that, on
16 December 1942, at a government meeting in Kraków, Frank stated—I am
quoting excerpts from the diary on Page 92 in the document book, third
paragraph after the heading, the first column of the text. I begin the
quotation:

    “We must consider whether, for practical reasons, executions
    should be carried out as far as possible on the spot where the
    murder of a German was attempted. It might also be as well to
    consider whether special places for execution should be set up,
    as it has been established that the Polish population streams to
    the places of execution, which are accessible to everyone, for
    the purpose of filling vessels with the bloodstained earth, and
    taking them to church.”

I brought Frank’s diary to your attention, Your Honors, because he was
one of Hitler’s closest associates and because this very well-known
“learned” jurist of fascism was actually a positive _alter ego_ of those
who cut in two the bodies of children in the Yanov Camp. At the same
time he was one of the creators of that part of the legal code of the
German fascists which completely negated justice. After all, the whole
miserable juridical wisdom of _Mein Kampf_ fundamentally comes down to
just one wicked formula, that is, that “might is right.” I studied this
book and found no other sense in the text. I quote the 64th edition,
Page 740.

Frank was to Hitler that necessary evil gnome of jurisprudence whom
Hitler needed to clothe in legal form the inhuman theories of fascism.
In support of the fact as to how far the profanation of the basic ideas
of justice incorporated in the criminal and civil law of all civilized
people went, I submit to the Tribunal the original copy of one of
Frank’s directives published in the official bulletin of the Governor
General for 1943. It is dated 2 October 1943 and is being presented by
the Soviet delegation to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-335
(Document Number USSR-335). The Tribunal will find the document quoted
on Page 95 of the document book. I quote the document in full:

    “Decree: The combating of attacks on German construction work in
    the Government General, issued 2 October 1943.

    “On the basis of Paragraph 5, Section 1, of the Führer’s decree
    of 12 October 1939 (_Reichsgesetzblatt_ I, Page 2077) I decree,
    until further notice:

    “Paragraph 1.

    “(1) Non-Germans who violate laws, decrees, official
    regulations, or orders with the intention of hampering or
    interfering with German construction work in the Government
    General will be punished by death.

    “(2) Section 1 does not apply to nationals of countries allied
    to the Greater German Reich or those who are not at war with the
    Reich.

    “Paragraph 2.

    “The abettor and the accomplice will be considered as equally
    guilty with the perpetrator; the same penalty will be exacted in
    the case of attempted violations as in the case of those
    actually committed.

    “Paragraph 3.

    “(1) The summary courts of the police will be competent to pass
    judgment.

    “(2) The summary court of the Security Police may pass the
    matter to the German Public Prosecution if there are special
    reasons for doing so.

    “Paragraph 4.

    “The summary courts of the Security Police will consist of an
    SS-Führer belonging to the office of the Commander of the
    Security Police and Security Service and two members of the
    office.

    “Paragraph 5.

    “(1) The following shall be recorded in writing: 1. The names of
    the judges; 2. the names of those on whom sentence is passed; 3.
    the evidence on which judgment was based; 4. the offense; 5. the
    date on which the sentence was imposed; 6. the date on which the
    sentence was put into effect.

    “(2) In matters not covered by the above, the summary court of
    the Security Police will decide upon its procedure after proper
    consideration.

    “Paragraph 6.

    “Sentences passed by the summary court of the Security Police
    will be put into effect without delay.

    “Paragraph 7.

    “In cases where an offense against Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this
    decree also constitutes a further offense which must be dealt
    with by the summary court, only those paragraphs of this decree
    are applicable which relate to procedure.

    “Paragraph 8.

    “This decree will come into force on 10 October 1943.

    “Kraków, 2 October 1943; The Governor General, Frank.”

In this manner, Point 1 of the first paragraph established one single
punishment, that is, death, for practically any action of a
“non-German,” regardless of whether such action was classified by the
German overlords as constituting a breach of law or a violation of an
administrative order. The same punishment was to be administered for any
attempt at similar actions in which the police officials could include
practically any actions or expressions of a suspected person—Paragraph
2 of the above-quoted document.

The defendant was deprived of any procedural rights and guarantees. The
document which, in accordance with Paragraph 5, was to take the place of
the court verdict was, as is evident from the series of questions which
had to be recorded in writing, actually for the purpose of registering
individual cases of summary justice and not for the purpose of finding
justifiable bases for the application of punishment. Every possibility
of cassation or appeal to the higher authorities was excluded. The
verdict was to be carried out immediately.

And finally, even the “court” procedure itself, founded on Frank’s
directives, was actually merely a mockery of justice. The court—and it
seems to me the word “court” should be in quotation marks—consisted of
three officials of the same SD which kept arresting innocent people on
the streets of Polish towns and organizing wanton mass shootings of
hostages.

How justified are the conclusions which are made by me on the basis of
the aforementioned document, you will see from the text of another
document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-332 (Document
Number USSR-332). In the document file which is being submitted to the
Court, is contained the original copy of the minutes of interrogation of
the attorney, Stefan Korbonski. It also contains a translation of the
document into Russian, which was certified by the members of the Polish
Delegation. Stefan Korbonski lives in Warsaw and, according to
information received from the Polish Delegation, should the Tribunal
consider it necessary to call Korbonski for cross-examination, he can be
brought to the Tribunal session.

I shall take the liberty to express in my own words the introductory
part of the document. After having been sworn in Warsaw on 31 October
1945, Stefan Korbonski, who is a lawyer, was interrogated and testified
that he was one of the leaders of resistance among the Polish people
against the German invaders. This place can be found in the first
paragraph of the text of the minutes. In the second half of the minutes
the Tribunal will find a place in the document book on Page 98—and it
goes on to Page 102—where Stefan Korbonski speaks of exactly the same
directives of Frank’s which were read into the record by me just now. In
Paragraph 1 of the interrogation minutes he states that in the beginning
of October 1943 the Germans posted on the walls of the houses in Warsaw
and other cities of the Government General the text of that particular
order which was read into the record by me.

I continue the quotation to the end, omitting the first part on Page 99
in the document book which is in the possession of the Tribunal, because
it seems to me that this document is very characteristic. I begin the
quotation:

    “Soon after the publication of this decree and quite
    independently from the increasing number of executions performed
    by the Germans in secret in what used to be the Warsaw ghetto,
    in the Warsaw jail, which was called Paviac, the Germans began
    to introduce public executions, that is, shooting of whole
    groups of Poles ranging from 20 to 200 persons in each.

    “These public executions were performed in various districts of
    the city, in streets opened to normal traffic, which were
    surrounded by the Gestapo guards immediately before the actual
    executions, so that the Polish population caught within the
    surrounding district would have to watch the executions either
    in the streets, or from the windows of the houses situated right
    behind the backs of the Gestapo men.

    “During these executions the Germans shot either people from the
    Paviac jail where they were confined after their arrest during
    raids in the streets, or people caught immediately before the
    actual execution. The number of these public executions, as well
    as the number of persons executed each time, kept increasing
    until it reached 200 persons who had to be shot at every
    execution. These executions continued until the very beginning
    of the Warsaw insurrection.

    “At first the Germans transported the Poles to the place of
    execution in covered trucks. They were clad in civilian clothes,
    and sometimes their hands were tied behind their backs. However,
    as the victims thus brought to the place of execution usually
    shouted, ‘Down with Hitler,’ ‘Long live Poland,’ ‘Down with the
    Germans,’ and similar things, the Germans took steps to prevent
    the possibility of any such disturbances and began to fill their
    mouths with cement, or seal their lips with adhesive tape. The
    victims were brought from the Paviac clad in shirts, or in
    clothes made out of paper.

    “I often received information from our underground organization
    through our agents who were working in the Paviac jail, that
    shortly before the execution the Germans usually performed
    operations on the condemned. They bled them and injected various
    chemical substances to cause physical weakness, thus preventing
    any attempts at escape or at resistance.

    “This was the reason why the condemned were brought to the place
    of execution pale, weak, and apathetic, and barely able to stand
    on their feet. But even so, they acted as heroes and never
    begged for mercy.

    “The bodies of those who were shot were loaded into trucks by
    other prisoners and were taken to a former ghetto, where they
    were usually burned. The prisoners whose duty it was to
    transport and to burn the corpses were mostly those confined in
    the Paviac prison. It was their steady assignment.

    “The Polish population immediately covered with flowers the
    blood spots which were left on the ground. Lighted candles were
    placed where the corpses previously had lain, and crosses and
    ikons were hung on the surrounding walls. During the night
    members of the underground organizations would put an
    inscription in lacquer on the walls, such as ‘Glory to Heroes,’
    ‘Glory to those who perished for the fatherland,’ and so forth.

    “When the Germans noticed these inscriptions they arrested all
    those who happened to be on the spot and led them to the Paviac
    prison. Sometimes the Germans shot at groups of people kneeling
    and praying at the execution spots. Such an incident took place
    on Senator Street where several people were shot at and quite a
    few were wounded.

    “After each public execution the Germans would put on the walls
    of houses lists of the names of those who were just executed;
    the names of hostages who would be shot in case the German
    regulations were not obeyed were given below.

    “In Warsaw alone the Germans shot several thousand Poles by
    means of these public executions. This does not include the
    victims who were shot in other towns. In the Kraków district
    several thousand men were similarly shot.”

Thus was put into action Hans Frank’s directive which was already
submitted by me to the Tribunal. In the light of Korbonski’s testimony
it becomes clear why, on 16 December 1943, there appears in Frank’s
diary. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn’t that be 1942?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The 16th of December 1943, Mr. President. One
minute—I shall check that.

THE PRESIDENT: It reads “1942” in our document.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honor, evidently the translator put the
wrong date into the text before you. I repeat that, in accordance with
the text in my possession, this statement was made by Frank on 16
December 1943 at a government meeting in Kraków. If you will permit me I
shall again verify the text of the quotation.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, in our statement of the document itself it is
translated as 16 December 1942. Evidently it is wrong in one place or
the other.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In the testimony itself, in Paragraph 1,
Korbonski mentions that in the beginning of December 1943 the Germans
posted these lists on the walls of the houses. If the Tribunal will
refer to the original of the document it will find “at the beginning of
December 1943.”

THE PRESIDENT: I see, it is 1943. It was wrongly translated in the first
place.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, 1943. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you, Sir. I shall speak of the change in
the procedure of the executions. It was on the Polish territory that the
criminal code introducing special rights for the “master race” and
Draconic laws for the other nations whom the fascist “masters”
considered completely vanquished, was put into practice for the first
time.

The report of the Polish Government which had already been submitted to
the International Military Tribunal by my colleagues as irrefutable
evidence in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter gives a brief
description of the regime of lawlessness and despotism which reigned in
occupied Poland under the guise of special legislation.

To characterize this legislation I shall take the liberty, if Your
Honors please, to refer to two excerpts from the report of the
Government of the Polish Republic, which has already been presented to
the Tribunal by my colleagues as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number
USSR-93). I shall first read into the record a paragraph which will be
found on Page 110 in the document file in possession of the Tribunal,
the section dealing with “Germanization of the Polish Law.” It is the
fourth paragraph after the heading, and I shall quote only two
paragraphs of this section:

    “In the Government General the machinery of justice was changed
    particularly by a decree of 26 October 1939. It bears the
    signature of Frank. (Encl. 2)

    “Polish courts became subjected to supervision of German courts
    established in the Government General. Their jurisdiction,
    heavily curtailed, was confined to those cases only for which
    the German courts had no competence. New ideas of law were
    introduced. Punishment could be inflicted by intuition; the
    accused deprived of the right to choose a counsel and to appeal.

    “German law was introduced, and Polish law germanized.”

I omit the entire section of the report which deals with this subject
and continue the quotation on Page 51 of the Russian text. The Tribunal
will find it on Page 129 in the document book in the third paragraph of
the text under “Judicial Murders.” That is Page 129, the third paragraph
of the text. I begin the quotation:

    “a) On 4 December 1941, Göring, Frick, and Lammers signed a
    decree referred to above which virtually outlawed all Poles and
    Jews in the incorporated Polish territories. The decree made
    Poles and Jews a different and second-rank group of citizens. It
    meant that Poles and Jews were obliged to obey the Reich
    unconditionally; but on the other hand, as second-class citizens
    they were not entitled to the protection given by law to
    others.”

I omit one paragraph and I continue the quotation of the part which
deals with the application of death sentences. It begins this way:

    “Death sentences could be passed in the following cases:

    “1. For removing or publicly damaging posters set up by the
    German authorities.

    “2. For acts of violence against members of the German forces.

    “3. For lowering the dignity of the Reich or harming its
    interests.

    “4. For damaging furniture to be used by the German authorities.

    “5. For damaging things intended for the work or public order.

    “6. For causing disobedience to regulations and orders issued by
    German authorities—and several other cases which in fact
    justified imprisonment for a short period at the most.”

I shall omit one passage and I shall limit my quotation to the following
two paragraphs:

    “b) No Pole”—stated the official Nazi instruction—“was allowed
    to approach a German woman to stain the noble blood of the
    Herrenvolk. Those who dared to do it or even those who did not
    get beyond the stage of attempting to do so, were inevitably
    facing death. But it was not only a court but the German court
    which was called upon to pass sentence in these cases. It was
    found superfluous to arrange trials—a simple order of the
    police proved sufficient to deprive people of their life.”

I conclude this quotation and pass on to a subject which in my opinion
is very correctly referred to as the “Judicial Terror of the German
Fascists in Czechoslovakia” in the report of the Czechoslovak
Government. In this country we can systematically follow the
ever-increasing destruction by the Hitlerites of all the accepted moral
and legal standards.

The report of the Czechoslovak Government, already submitted to the
Tribunal by my colleagues as Exhibit Number USSR-60, describes this
process in detail, beginning with the so-called “people’s courts,” up to
the organization of the so-called “Standgerichte.” I do not know what
would be a correct translation of this term, so I shall use the term
“Standgerichte” throughout. They are already familiar to us as organs of
the Nazi arbitrary rule in Poland.

This process of the deterioration or rather collapse of the entire
judicial system under the fascist rule is described in the report in
great detail; I shall quote only a few short excerpts. I shall begin my
quotation on Page 162 of the document book in the possession of the
Tribunal, the last paragraph. I begin:

    “The power to proclaim a state of emergency was applied not
    later than 28 September 1941. In accordance with a decree issued
    on the same date and signed by Heydrich, a state of civil
    emergency was proclaimed in the ‘Oberlandrat’ district in
    Prague; and, a few days later, in the remaining parts of the
    protectorate. ‘Standgerichte,’ which were set up immediately,
    were active during the entire period and pronounced 778 death
    sentences. All were executed and 1,000 people were turned over
    to the Gestapo, that is, sent to concentration camps.”

I omit the end of the paragraph, and I quote the following paragraph:

    “The only directive as to the administration, organization, and
    rules of procedure at the ‘Standgerichte’ is contained in the
    decree of 27 September 1941.”

I omit the rest of the paragraph and I continue the quotation on Page
163, fifth paragraph of the book of documents.

    “The decree does not indicate as to who may fill the position of
    judge in Standgerichte, whether the judges should be
    professional people or laymen, and whether the sentences are to
    be pronounced by a jury or by the judge alone. The decree merely
    states Standgerichte may be set up by the Reich Protector; he is
    competent to choose people who are to perform the duties of a
    judge.”

I omit the rest and continue the quotation on Page 163 of the book of
documents, the last paragraph:

    “On the basis of the information that we have at hand at present
    the judges at the Standgerichte were professional judges only in
    exceptional cases.

    “The most important attribute was political reliability. This is
    the reason why the judges were, one could almost say without
    exception, members and executives of the NSDAP or other National
    Socialist organizations; that is, people who with rare
    exceptions, possessed not the slightest knowledge of law and had
    no experience in criminal trials.”

I omit the following excerpts and continue the quotation on Page 166 of
the document book, at the beginning of the last paragraph; from there I
go on to Page 167:

    “Standgerichte were never held publicly. Inasmuch as the public
    was excluded from the preliminary investigations of the
    Standgerichte, the very existence of this tribunal increased the
    feeling of insecurity under the prevalent law. There was no
    appeal against sentences passed by Standgerichte. The records of
    the investigations of the Standgerichte contain only lists of
    names of the judges, defendants, and witnesses as well as
    descriptions of the crimes and the dates of the sentences
    (Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the decree). Directives permitting
    and even encouraging such meager records can have only one
    aim—to prevent any control and to keep secret everything that
    took place during the investigation, thus covering up all the
    traces of what had been done.

    “According to Section 4, Paragraph 1, of the directive, the
    Standgerichte could only pass death sentences or turn over the
    defendants to the Gestapo.”

I omit the following paragraphs containing certain general comments on
the same matter and continue my quotation on Page 168, the first
paragraph:

    “Sentences passed by the Standgerichte must be carried out
    immediately. (Section 4, Paragraph 3, of the decree). Numerous
    examples demonstrate that this brutal National Socialist
    legislation was never toned down. At the end of the so-called
    trial, it was left to the judges to decide whether the condemned
    should be shot or hanged. (Section 4, Paragraph 3, of the
    decree). The condemned person was not granted even a short
    respite to prepare for death. There was not even a question in
    the decree about a reprieve. In any case, the brutal haste with
    which the sentence was carried out, made any reprieve
    impossible.”

I conclude this excerpt, as well as the entire section devoted to the
terrorist legislation of the Hitlerites in Czechoslovakia, with a
quotation from Page 169, the fourth line from the top, and further. It
is stated there:

    “It is quite evident that the Standgerichte did not possess the
    characteristics which, in accordance with the general opinion,
    are those of a tribunal and that the trials of the Standgerichte
    in reality violated all the principles which should be observed
    in the legislations of all civilized people. Standgerichte
    cannot be called tribunals and its court examination cannot be
    called a trial and a decision. I think the proper term would be
    ‘verdict.’

    “The executions resulting from the verdicts of the Standgerichte
    differ in no way from executions performed without trial. They
    should be classified as murders.

    “It is impossible to find in the regulations which determined
    the methods of procedure of the Standgerichte even a trace of
    humanity. For instance, the rule which imposed immediate
    execution and accorded practically no time to the condemned to
    prepare for death, is a form of cruelty which, just as the
    entire institution of the Standgerichte, had as its aim the
    terrorization of the population.”

I shall conclude the quotation with this excerpt, and I shall take the
liberty of remarking that the institution of the Standgerichte did not
countermand or exclude simple police sentences passed by means of a
procedure similar to the one which was established by Frank in Poland.

It seems to me that all the laws which were cited by me above testify to
the fact that the Hitlerites tried to turn the legislation, intended to
punish crimes, into one which commits crimes. This is the sole purpose
why their “laws” were created.

If Your Honors please, I shall now turn to the terroristic laws and
directives of Hitlerite criminals which were issued for the civilian
population of the Soviet Union.

Having started the criminal war against the U.S.S.R., the German fascist
gang of bandits considered even these laws and “legal” principles
especially created for the justification of their crimes, insufficient.

Most of these documents had already been submitted to the Tribunal and I
shall confine myself to some very brief quotations. With the Tribunal’s
permission I shall read only three lines from a previously submitted
document. I am referring to Document Number L-221 submitted to the
Tribunal by the United States Prosecution. It contains a brusque reply
made by Hitler to Göring at a meeting on 16 July 1941. The Tribunal will
find the place on Page 189 in the document file in the first paragraph,
first line.

THE PRESIDENT: That document has been read already.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Your Honor. I shall take the liberty of
quoting only three lines of this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, go on; but I think that the rest of the page which
you are reading is all comments, and you could go straight on to the
next document. Read these three lines and then I think you will
find. . . .

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This is not quite correct, but I shall now quote
those three lines. Hitler said, “The gigantic territory must be quieted
as soon as possible.” I am quoting from the next sentence, where Hitler
said, “The best way to attain this objective is to shoot everyone, even
those who only cast an ugly look.” I am citing these lines because they
are the “Leitmotiv” which passes in all the directives and orders of
Hitlerites.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, what I am suggesting to you is that the rest of the
page which you are now passing in our translation is quite unnecessary
to read and you can go straight on, at any rate, to the directive of
Keitel of the 16th of September 1941.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: All right, Mr. President. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote a directive of Keitel. This directive
was submitted to the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution under
Document Number C-148 (Exhibit Number USA-555). I quote, on Page 190 of
your document book, Paragraph 3, Line 4.

    “One must bear in mind that human life in the countries
    concerned is often of no value whatever, and that intimidating
    reaction is only possible in the form of application of
    extraordinary hardness.”

I am further presenting to the Tribunal a photostat of the document
which was already submitted as Document Number 459-PS. I shall not quote
a single excerpt from it; but I shall take the liberty to remind the
Tribunal that point 6 of this document states that any sort of
resistance will be broken, not by means of juridical punishment, but if
the occupying authorities will succeed in instilling in the population a
fear which is the only thing capable, as it is said in the directive,
“of depriving the population of any will to resist.”

I take the liberty to confirm this by quoting very briefly just two
lines from the directive of the Commander of the 6th Army, General Field
Marshal Von Reichenau, which was already presented to the Tribunal by my
colleague as Exhibit Number USSR-12 (Document Number USSR-12). The
Tribunal will find it on Page 194 of the document book, Line 19 from the
top. It is said there, “The fear of German countermeasures must be
stronger than the threats from Bolshevist remnants still wandering
around.”

I wanted to read into the record one document which bears the seal of
the pseudo-legal argumentation of Hans Frank and which is so
characteristic of his ordinances and directives. It has been pointed out
that this document had already been presented to the Tribunal and I do
not wish to retain the attention of the Tribunal on a document which had
already been read during a Tribunal session. I am referring to the
circular order of the Reich Security Main Office, Number 567-42-176,
dated 5 November 1942. It develops that this document has already been
presented by the American colleagues as Document Number L-316. I just
wish to remind the Tribunal that this document states that even the
principles used for determining the activities of non-Germans should be
different and that any actions of a non-German should be examined not
from the point of view of justice but exclusively from the point of view
of prevention. I think that this document is well known to the Tribunal
and I shall refrain from quoting it.

Thus in those territories of the occupied countries where the SS
followed in the footsteps of the aggressors’ troops, the peaceful
population was abandoned to the arbitrary will of the specially trained
and fierce representatives of the police forces of German fascism.

I shall take the liberty, while presenting the photostat of the document
previously submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number 447-PS, to quote
only one line of this document, which the Tribunal will find on Page 197
of the document book, fifth paragraph, after the heading, “The Region of
the Operations.” It deals with the special powers of the Reichsführer SS
and indicates that “within the scope of these assignments the
Reichsführer SS shall act independently and under his own
responsibility.”

It is well known what the Reichsführer SS really was. Of the many
statements of Himmler, I shall limit myself to only one quotation which
is, however, rather characteristic as a leading directive to the
responsible officials of the SS who were subordinated to Himmler. On 4
October 1943 at the conference of the SS Gruppenführer at Posen, Himmler
said—this document was submitted to the Tribunal by the United States
Prosecution as Document Number 1919-PS and was read into the record on
19 December 1945. I shall quote six lines from Page 23 of the photostat
of this document. The Tribunal will find the document on Page 201 in the
document book. There figures a short quotation.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that if a document has already been
read, it should not be read again.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It seems to me that this particular excerpt was
not read into the record. The document was submitted on 19 December 1945
as Document Number 1919-PS. But this particular excerpt which I wish to
quote now, was not read into the record of the Tribunal. It contains
only six lines.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, if you have verified that and can state
that with certainty, then you can certainly read it.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I perused the transcript and could not find this
excerpt. Therefore it seems to me that it was not read into the record.
I shall confine myself literally to six lines. The question at present
is only a matter of six lines.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you better go on and quote it then because these
interruptions take up a very long time.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I begin the quotation:

    “Whether other nations live in prosperity or starve to death
    interests me only insofar as we need them as slaves for our
    culture. Otherwise I am not interested. I am not interested
    whether 10,000 Russian females die of exhaustion while digging
    an antitank ditch, as long as the antitank ditch for Germany is
    finished.”

A document was already submitted to the Tribunal which establishes that
the legalization of mass murders and extermination of the peaceful
population of the Soviet Union carried out by the Army with a view to
terrorizing the population was begun by Hitler and his clique as early
as 13 May 1941, that is, over a month before the beginning of the war.
In this case I refer to a directive already well known to the Tribunal.
This directive emanates from Keitel and is entitled, “Application of
Military Jurisdiction in the Barbarossa Region and Special Army
Measures.” This document was already read into the record as Exhibit
Number C-50 by the United States Prosecution on 7 January 1946. I shall
not quote this document because I think that it is well known to the
Tribunal. I merely wish to remind the Tribunal that this document
categorically denies the necessity for establishing guilt; suspicion
alone was sufficient for the application of a death sentence. An
official system of group responsibility and mass repressions was set up.
Furthermore, it was stated that the “suspect” should be exterminated in
any case. This is plainly said in Paragraph 5 of the first section of
the directive.

THE PRESIDENT: We better adjourn now.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In accordance with your instructions, Mr.
President, I omit the following documents to which I wished to refer and
which have already been submitted to the Tribunal—Document 654-PS, for
instance.

I now proceed to the next document, which was submitted to the Tribunal
yesterday by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, as Exhibit Number USSR-3.
It is the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union, entitled, “Directives and Orders of the Hitlerite Government and
the German Military Command Regarding the Extermination of the Soviet
People.”

My colleague read into the record yesterday a short excerpt from the
fourth part of this document concerning the carrying out of mass
executions, the so-called executions in camps, where both peaceful
citizens and prisoners of war were interned. As this section has already
been read into the record, I omit it and proceed to other sections of
this report, dealing with the organization by the German fascist
criminals, from the very first days of the war with the Soviet Union, of
the so-called Sonderkommandos (special task forces).

The document which I am quoting refers to the organization of
Sonderkommandos in the camps where prisoners of war and peaceful
citizens were interned. I quote this excerpt because the term
“Sonderkommando” acquired in the early days of the war a terrible
meaning among the civilian population of the temporarily occupied
territories of the Soviet Union. It was one of the most cruel and most
brutal organizations ever created by the German fascists for the
wholesale slaughter of human beings.

I request the Tribunal to revert to Page 207 of the document book,
Column 1 of the text. I begin the quotation:

    “It is evident, from the documents discovered, that even before
    the attack on the U.S.S.R. Hitler’s butchers had compiled lists
    and index files and collected the necessary information about
    such leading Soviet workers as their bloodthirsty plans had
    doomed to extermination. In this manner they prepared the
    following: ‘Special Index Files for the U.S.S.R.,’ ‘The German
    Index File,’ ‘Lists for Establishing Domiciles,’ and other index
    files and lists of the same kind which would facilitate the work
    of the Hitlerite murderers in the extermination of progressive
    circles within the population of the U.S.S.R.

    “However, the document entitled, ‘Appendix Number 2 to
    Operational Order Number 8 of the Chief of the Sipo and the SD,
    Berlin,’ dated 17 July 1941 and signed by Heydrich, who was at
    that time acting as Himmler’s deputy, emphasizes the lack of
    such lists and index files and stresses the importance of not
    hampering the initiative of those who perpetrated the murders.
    The document states:

    “‘There is no possibility of lending any assistance to the
    Kommandos for the realization of your plans. The “German Index
    File,” “Lists for Establishing Domiciles,” and “Special Index
    Files for the U.S.S.R.” will only prove useful in a few cases.
    The “Special Index Files for the U.S.S.R.” are therefore
    insufficient, as only an insignificant number of Soviet Russian
    nationals, considered as dangerous, have been entered in these
    files.’”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

    “For the realization of their criminal plans the German invaders
    created Sonderkommandos, both in the transient and permanent
    camps for prisoners of war, on German territory, in the
    so-called Polish Government General, and in the temporarily
    occupied territory of the Soviet Union.”

I further omit seven paragraphs and continue the quotation on Page 207
of the document book, Paragraph 6, Column 2 of the text:

    “The procedure in the formation of the Sonderkommando is
    described in Appendix Number 1 to Operational Order Number 14 of
    the Chief of the Sipo and SD, marked state top secret, Copy
    Number 15, dated Berlin, 29 October 1941.

    “The formation of the Sonderkommandos of the Sipo and SD is
    carried out in accordance with the agreement of 7 October 1941,
    reached between the Chief of the Sipo and the SD on the one hand
    and the OKW on the other hand.

    “By virtue of special powers the Kommandos will act
    independently in conformity with general directives, within the
    scope of the camp regulations. The Kommandos, of course,
    maintain close contact with the camp commandants and the
    officers of the Intelligence Service.”

I omit the following text and continue the quotation from Page 208 of
the document book, Paragraph 1. The Tribunal will observe how much the
Reich leadership extended the installation of these highly dangerous
police organizations. The Sonderkommandos were organized all the way
from the town of Krasnogvardeisk—a suburb of Leningrad—to the town of
Nikolaiev on the Black Sea. I now continue with my quotation:

    “The order of the Chief of the Sipo and SD of 29 October 1941,
    regarding the organization of the Sonderkommandos, was sent to
    the operational groups in Krasnogvardeisk, Smolensk, Kiev, and
    Nikolaiev, and for information to Riga, Moghilev, and Krivoy
    Rog.”

I would also point out that during their attack on Moscow the Hitlerites
organized in Smolensk a special Sonderkommando Moscow, entrusted with
the task of mass-murdering the Moscow citizens.

Mention has previously been made of the wide range of authoritative
power granted to the Sonderkommando. In the document which I am quoting
it is said:

    “The tasks of the Sonderkommandos are outlined in the
    operational directives attached to Decree Number 8 of the Chief
    of the Sipo and SD, dated Berlin, 17 July 1941, which, under the
    pretext of a screening of civilians and suspected prisoners of
    war captured in the Eastern campaign indicate that:

    “The special nature of the Eastern campaign calls for special
    measures, to be carried out on personal responsibility beyond
    the range of any bureaucratic influences.”

I omit the next extract from this document, since it is merely a
repetition of the basic rules which I have already read into the record.

Having launched their criminal war, the Hitlerites directed it towards a
mass extermination of the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union and the
countries of Eastern Europe. I have already read into the record several
documents depicting the character of the Hitlerite murderers and the
nature of their crimes. The latter consisted in the formation of large
criminal units, specially trained by the leaders of the Hitlerite gang.
It will, however, be clear to any criminologist that it is not
sufficient to create these foul and criminal gangs—it is essential that
once the crime has been perpetrated the criminal should feel that he has
acted with complete impunity. In order that the crimes envisaged by the
major criminals be fulfilled in their monstrous entirety, it became
necessary to create for the minor criminals an atmosphere of complete
impunity. In accordance with your wishes, Mr. President, I shall not
quote the document previously read into the record as Number C-50 by the
United States Prosecution, entitled, “Instructions Governing the
Application of Martial Law and Special Measures To Be Adopted by the
Army in the Barbarossa Area.” But it appears to me that the contents of
this document should be firmly borne in mind, for unless the meaning of
this document is clearly understood it is quite impossible to envisage
the series of wholesale crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerite criminals on
the territory of the Soviet Union.

This order, signed by Keitel, though issued in Hitler’s name, was
accepted by all the soldiers and all the officers of the fascist army as
a personal order from Hitler. What conclusions the German soldiery drew
from this order of Keitel’s is confirmed by a communication of the
Extraordinary State Commission, to which I shall now refer. It deals
with the atrocities committed in the city of Minsk by the German fascist
invaders.

I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-38
(Document Number USSR-38). It contains an excerpt from the testimony of
the president of the military tribunal of the 267th German Rifle
Division, Captain Julius Reichhof. I would ask the Tribunal to turn to
Page 215 of the document book, to Column 1 of the text. I quote from the
communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the subject of
Julius Reichhof’s testimony:

    “According to an order issued by Hitler, German soldiers could
    not be committed to trial by court-martial for acts committed
    against Soviet citizens. The soldier could be punished only by
    the commander of his own unit, should the latter deem the
    punishment necessary. By the same order Hitler granted even more
    extensive rights to all German Army officers. They could destroy
    the Russian population according to their own discretion.

    “The commander had full right to apply punitive measures to the
    peaceful population: He was allowed to burn down, _in toto_,
    villages and towns, rob the population of supplies and
    livestock, and, on his own responsibility, deport Soviet
    citizens to Germany for slave labor. Hitler’s order was brought
    to the attention of every single soldier of the German Army on
    the eve of the attack on the Soviet Union. In accordance with
    Hitler’s order, the German soldiers, under the leadership of
    their officers, committed all sorts of atrocities.”

But even this appeared insufficient to the Hitlerite leaders. In 1942
they considered it necessary to reconfirm, by a sharp directive brooking
no exception, that any crime perpetrated by the German fascist soldiery
against the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union should go completely
unpunished. The Reich and military leaders particularly emphasized the
fact that atrocities committed should so remain unpunished, even if the
victims of these atrocities happened to be women and children.

THE PRESIDENT: What was the reference to what you called “sharp
directive”?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will at once submit to the Tribunal this
directive as Exhibit Number USSR-16 (Document Number USSR-16). It is a
photostatic copy of the document certified by the Extraordinary State
Commission. The Tribunal will find the text of this directive on Page
219 of the document book. This directive is signed by Keitel and
entitled “The Combating of Guerrillas.” The document is dated 16
December 1942. I will quote this document practically in full, starting
with the title.

    “Subject: The Combating of Guerillas; top secret.

    “The Führer has been informed that certain members of the
    Wehrmacht who took part in the struggle against the guerilla
    bandits were later called to account for their behavior while
    fighting.”

My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, Mr. President, explained to the
Tribunal yesterday that any resistance movement on the part of the
peaceful population was termed “banditry.” I will therefore not detain
the Tribunal’s attention any longer in an attempt to decode this German
fascist term.

    “In this connection the Führer ordered. . . .”

I omit one paragraph and continue the quotation, Page 219 of the
document book:

    “If the repression of the guerillas in the East, as well as in
    the Balkans, is not pursued with the most brutal means, it will
    not be long before the forces at our disposal will prove
    insufficient to exterminate this plague.

    “The troops therefore have the right and the duty to use, in
    this struggle, any and unlimited means, even against women and
    children, if only conducive to success.”

I emphasize that the directive mentions all possible means of
retribution against women and children. I continue to quote:

    “Scruples of any sort whatsoever are a crime against the German
    people and against the front-line soldier who bears the
    consequences of attacks by guerillas and who has no
    comprehension for any regard shown to the guerillas or their
    associates.

    “These principles must serve as a basis for using the ‘Directive
    for Combating Guerillas in the East.’

    “2. No German participating in combat action against guerillas
    or their associates is to be held responsible for acts of
    violence either from a disciplinary or a judicial point of view.

    “Commanders of troops engaged in combat action against the bands
    are obliged to see to it that all officers of units under their
    command be immediately and thoroughly notified of this order,
    that their legal advisers be immediately acquainted therewith,
    and that no judgments be passed which are in contradiction to
    this order.

    “Signed, Keitel.”

I hereby conclude the presentation of the documents referring to the
first two sections of the list read into the record at the opening of
the report. The materials which I have hitherto submitted to the
Tribunal were to prove three facts:

1. Direct instigation, by the major criminals, to the perpetration of
appalling crimes against wide circles of the peaceful population, by the
German Armed Forces.

2. Special education by the Hitler leadership of mass criminal units for
the practical realization of its plans for the extermination of peoples.

3. General unleashing of the criminals’ basest instincts in an
atmosphere of complete impunity for the perpetrators of the crimes.

These purposes were fully achieved by the major war criminals. The
Hitlerites committed crimes against the peaceful populations in the
occupied territories of the Soviet Union and in the Eastern occupied
countries which, in their extent, in the cruelty of the methods applied,
as well as in the cynicism and brutality of purpose of the organizers
and perpetrators of the crimes, are without precedent in the history of
the world.

I should like to submit evidence which characterizes the extent and the
methods of these crimes of the German fascists. I should like to show
exactly what Keitel’s order for the “pacification” of the occupied
territories meant in the lives of the peaceful population.

The introduction of this regime of terror was the first sign of the
arrival of the fascist authorities, whether military or civilian, in the
territory of the U.S.S.R. or of other Eastern European countries.
Moreover, this regime of terror was not exclusively confined to more
savage forms of brutality. It also assumed the form of shameless
outrages perpetrated against the honor and dignity of the victims of the
German fascists. At the same time the terrorists primarily vented their
misdeeds on the heads of such citizens whom they considered politically
active and most capable of resisting them.

In confirmation of this fact I refer to a document which I have
previously presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-6 (Document
Number USSR-6), which is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission
on “Crimes Committed by the Germans in the Territory of the Lvov
Region.” The Tribunal will find the passage to which I am referring on
Page 58 of the document book, in the first column of the text, in the
last paragraph. I begin the quotation:

    “Even before the seizure of Lvov the Gestapo detachments had at
    their disposal, pursuant to an order by the German Government,
    lists of the most prominent representatives of the
    Intelligentsia doomed _a priori_ to annihilation. Mass arrests
    and executions began immediately after the seizure of Lvov. The
    Gestapo arrested a member of the Union of Soviet Authors, an
    author of numerous literary works, Professor Thaddeus
    Boi-Dhelensky, a professor of the Medical Institute; Roman
    Renzky, the principal of the University; Vladimir Seradsky,
    Professor of Forensic Medicine; Roman Longchamp de Berrier,
    Doctor of Juridical Science, together with his three sons,
    Professor Thaddeus Ostrovsky, Professor Jan Grek, and Professor
    of Surgery Heinrich Gilyarovich. . . .”

There follows a long list containing 31 names of outstanding
intellectuals of the city of Lvov. I omit the enumeration of their names
and continue quoting from the next paragraph:

    “Groer, a professor of the Medical Institute at Lvov, who
    fortuitously escaped death, has told the Commission what
    follows:

    “‘When I was arrested at midnight of 3 July 1941 and placed in a
    truck, I met Professors Grek, Boi-Dhelensky, and others. We were
    taken to the hostel of the Abragamovitch Theological College.
    While we were led along the corridor the members of the Gestapo
    jeered at us, hitting us with rifle butts, pulling our hair, and
    hitting us over the head. . . . Later on I saw, from the hostel
    of the Abragamovitch Theological College, the Germans leading
    five professors under escort, four of whom were carrying the
    blood-bespattered body of the son of the famous surgeon Rouff,
    murdered by the Germans during his interrogation. Young Rouff,
    too, had been a specialist. The entire group of professors were
    taken under escort to the Kadetsky Heights, and 15 to 20 minutes
    later I heard rifle fire from the direction in which the
    professors were taken.’”

In order to humiliate dignity, the Germans resorted to the most refined
methods of torture and then shot their victims. Goldsman, an inhabitant
of Lvov, has testified before the special commission that he personally
saw how, in July 1941:

    “Twenty people, including four professors, lawyers, and
    physicians, were brought by the SS into the courtyard of House
    Number 8, on Artishevsky Street. One of them I know by name,
    Doctor of Juridical Science Krebs. Among them were five or six
    women. The SS forced them to wash the stairs leading from the
    seven entrances to the four-story house, with their tongues and
    lips. After those stairways were washed, the same people were
    forced to collect garbage in the courtyard with their lips. All
    garbage had to be transferred to one place in the
    courtyard. . . .”

I omit the end of this paragraph and continue from the next paragraph:

    “The fascist invaders carefully concealed the extermination of
    the intelligentsia. To repeated requests of relatives and
    friends concerning the fate of these men of science, the Germans
    replied, ‘Nothing is known.’

    “In the autumn of 1943, on the order of Reich Minister Himmler,
    the Gestapo men burned the bodies of the murdered professors.
    Mandel and Korn, former internees of the Yanovsky Camp, who
    dealt with the exhumation of the bodies, have told the
    Commission the following:

    “‘During the night of 5 October 1943, acting on orders from the
    Gestapo, we opened a pit between Kadetskaya and Bouletskaya
    streets by the light of searchlights and took from it 35 bodies.
    We burned all these corpses.

    “‘While lifting the corpses from the pit we found the documents
    of Professor Ostrovsky, of Otoshek, Doctor of Natural Science,
    and of Kasimir Bartel, Professor of the Polytechnical
    Institute.’

    “The investigation established that during the first few months
    of the occupation the Germans arrested or killed more than 70 of
    the most prominent scientists, technologists, and artists in the
    city of Lvov.”

What I have just said does not in any way infer that the leaders of
local organizations and representatives of the intelligentsia alone were
victims of the fascist terror. I only wanted to make it clear that the
fascist terror was directed in the first instance against these people.

But one of the characteristic features of Hitlerite terrorism was the
fact that it was decreed by the German fascist leaders and materialized
by the executioners as a general reign of terror.

To confirm this I refer to a document previously submitted to the
Tribunal but not read into the record. It is Document Number USSR-63,
which is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission for the
investigation of German atrocities in the town of Kerch.

Kerch is a comparatively small town. It is separated from Lvov by many
hundred of kilometers. Although the German invaders arrived in Lvov in
the beginning of July 1941, they only reached Kerch in November. In
January 1942 they had already been driven out by Red Army units.

Thus, the entire period of the first occupation of the city of
Kerch—the city of Kerch has been occupied two times—by the Germans was
short-lived and did not last more than 2 months. But here are the crimes
perpetrated by the German fascists in this town. I begin the quotation.
The Tribunal will find the passage in question on Page 227 of the
document book, Column 2, Paragraph 5:

    “After capturing the city in November 1941, the Hitlerites
    immediately issued an order to the following effect:

    “The inhabitants of Kerch are ordered to deliver all family food
    stocks to the German Kommandos. Owners of undelivered and
    detected supplies will be shot.

    “By the next order, Number 2, the town council ordered the
    inhabitants to register immediately all hens, roosters, ducks,
    chickens, turkeys, geese, sheep, cows, calves, and cattle.
    Poultry owners were strictly prohibited from using fowl and
    cattle for their own needs without special permission of the
    German commandant. After the publication of these orders a
    wholesale search of all apartments and houses began.

    “The members of the Gestapo behaved outrageously. For each
    kilogram of beans or flour discovered in excess, the head of the
    family was shot.

    “The Germans initiated their monstrous atrocities by poisoning
    245 children of school age.”

Later on you will see the small bodies of these children in our
documentary film. The infants’ bodies were thrown into the city moat.

    “According to instructions issued by the German commandant, all
    the school children were ordered to appear at the school at a
    given time. On arrival, the 245 children, school books in hand,
    were sent to a factory school outside the town, allegedly for a
    walk. There the cold and hungry infants were offered coffee and
    poisoned pies. Since there was not enough coffee to go round,
    those who did not get any were sent to the infirmary where a
    German orderly smeared their lips with a quick-acting poison. In
    a few minutes all the children were dead. School children of the
    higher grades were carried off in trucks and shot down by
    machine gun fire 8 kilometers outside of the town. The bodies of
    the first batch of murdered children were brought to the same
    spot—a very large, very long, antitank trench.”

I continue the quotation:

    “On the evening of 28 November 1941 an order, Number 4, of the
    Gestapo was posted in the town. In compliance with this order
    the inhabitants who had been previously registered with the
    Gestapo were to present themselves on 29 November between 0800
    and 1200 hours at the Sennaya Square, with a 3 days’ supply of
    food. All the men and women were to appear, regardless of their
    age or state of health. Those who did not present themselves
    were threatened with public execution. Those who arrived at the
    square on 29 November were persuaded that they had been summoned
    in order to be sent to work. At noon over 7,000 people assembled
    in the square. There were young boys, young girls, children of
    all ages, very old men, and pregnant women. All were transferred
    to the city prison by the men of the Gestapo. This monstrous
    extermination of the peaceful population in the prison was
    carried out by the Germans according to a previously formulated
    plan of the Gestapo. First of all, the prisoners were asked to
    hand over the keys of their apartments and to give their exact
    addresses to the prison commandant. Then all the valuables were
    taken from the arrested people, including watches, rings, and
    ornaments. In spite of the cold, boots, felt-boots, shoes,
    costumes, and coats were removed from all the persons
    incarcerated. Many women and girls in their teens were separated
    from the rest of the internees by the fascist blackguards and
    locked in separate cells, where the unfortunate creatures were
    subjected to particularly outrageous forms of torture. They were
    raped, their breasts cut off, their stomachs ripped open, their
    feet and hands cut off, and their eyes gouged out.

    “After the Germans had been thrown out of Kerch, on 30 December
    1941, Red Army soldiers discovered, in the prison yard, a
    formless mass of bodies of young girls, naked, mutilated, and
    unrecognizable, who had been savagely and cynically tortured to
    death by the fascists.

    “As a site for the mass execution, the Hitlerites selected an
    antitank ditch near the village of Baguerovsko where for 3 days
    on end autobuses brought entire families which had been
    condemned to death.

    “When the Red Army entered Kerch, in January 1942, the
    Baguerovsko trench was investigated. It was discovered that this
    trench—1 kilometer in length, 4 meters in width, and 2 meters
    in depth—was filled to overflowing with bodies of women,
    children, old men, and boys and girls in their teens. Near the
    trench were frozen pools of blood. Children’s caps, toys,
    ribbons, torn-off buttons, gloves, milk bottles, and rubber
    comforters, small shoes, galoshes, together with torn-off hands,
    feet, and other parts of human bodies were lying nearby.
    Everything was spattered with blood and brains.

    “The fascist savages shot down the defenseless population with
    dum-dum bullets. Near the edge of the trench lay the mutilated
    body of a young woman. In her arms was a baby carefully wrapped
    up in a white lace cover. Next to this woman lay an 8-year-old
    girl and a boy of 5, killed with dum-dum bullets. Their hands
    still gripped the mother’s dress.”

The circumstances of the executions are confirmed by the statements of
numerous witnesses who were lucky enough to escape unharmed from the
open grave. I am going to quote two statements. Twenty-year-old Anatol
Ignatievich Bondarenko, now a soldier in the Red Army, states:

    “When we were brought up to the antitank trench and lined up
    alongside this fearful grave, we still believed that we had been
    fetched in order to fill in the trench with earth or to dig new
    ones. We did not think we had been brought there to be shot, but
    when we heard the first shots from the automatic guns trained on
    us, I realized we were about to be murdered. I immediately
    hurled myself into the trench and hid between two corpses. Thus,
    unharmed and half fainting, I lay nearly until the evening.
    While lying in the trench I heard several of the wounded call to
    the gendarmes shooting them, ‘Finish me off, blackguard!’ ‘You
    missed me, scoundrel! Shoot again!’ Then, when the Germans went
    off to dinner, an inhabitant of my village called out from the
    trench, ‘Get up, those of you who are still alive.’ I got up and
    the two of us began to drag out the living from underneath the
    corpses. I was covered with blood. A light mist hung over the
    trench—steam arising from the rapidly-congealing mass of dead
    bodies, from the pools of blood, and from the last breath of the
    dying. We dragged out Theodor Naoumenko and my father, but my
    father had been killed outright by a dum-dum bullet in the
    heart. Late at night I reached the house of some friends in the
    Village of Baguerovsko and stayed with them until the arrival of
    the Red Army.”

Witness A. Kamenev stated:

    “The chauffeur stopped the car behind the airdrome, and we saw
    Germans shooting people near the trench. We were dragged out of
    the car and pushed toward the trench in batches of 10. My son
    and I were among the first 10. We reached the trench. We were
    lined up facing it, and the Germans began their preparations to
    shoot us in the nape of the neck. My son turned to them and
    shouted, ‘Why are you shooting the peaceful population?’ But the
    shots rang out and my son instantly jumped into the trench. I
    threw myself in after him. Dead bodies began to fall upon me in
    the trench. About 3 p.m. an 11-year-old boy stood up from among
    the pile of corpses and began to call, ‘Little fathers, those of
    you who are still alive, get up. The Germans have gone.’ I was
    afraid to do so, since I thought that the boy was shouting by
    order of the policeman. The boy called out a second time, and
    then my son answered him. He stood up and asked, ‘Dad, are you
    alive?’ I could not say anything and merely nodded. My son and
    the other boy dragged me out from under the bodies. We saw some
    others who were still alive and who were shouting, ‘Help us.’
    Some were wounded. All the time, while I had been lying in the
    trench, under the bodies of the dead, I could hear the shrieks
    and wails of the women and children. The Germans had started
    shooting old men, women, and children after shooting us.”

I interrupt the quotation here. Although the subsequent text does deal
with many other appalling atrocities committed by the Germans, it is, in
substance, analogous to the passages which I have already read into the
record, relating to crimes perpetrated by the Germans in the town of
Kerch. I would, however, invite the Tribunal’s attention to the part
referring to the ill-treatment of children. On the whole, these crimes
are highly characteristic of the German fascist terror. I quote:

    “The German barbarians, in their atrocious ill-treatment of the
    Soviet people, did not even spare the children. A school
    teacher, M. N. Kolessnikova, stated that the Germans killed a
    13-year-old boy for taking an old car tire and trying to swim in
    it while bathing in the sea.

    “The following incident happened, according to the testimony of
    E. N. Sapelnikova:

    “Maria Bondarenko, who lived in the village of Adjimushkaya, in
    an attempt to save her three children from starvation, appealed
    to some Germans working in the kitchen, for a little food. They
    poured some thin gruel into a small bowl. The Bondarenko family
    ate it greedily. A few hours later the mother and all three
    children were dead. The fascist henchmen had poisoned them.

    “It has been ascertained from the testimony of N. H. Shoumilova
    that in July a German officer shot a 6-year-old boy merely
    because he was singing a Soviet song in the streets of the town.

    “Practically all summer long the dead body of a 9-year-old boy
    dangled in the ‘Sacco and Vanzetti’ garden; the child had been
    hanged for plucking some apricots from a tree.”

Here I end my quotation from the report on the town of Kerch.

In my statement I have dwelt on the example of Kerch not because the
atrocities committed by the Hitlerites in this town were on a
particularly large scale or because they stood out, by reason of their
cruelty, among the other crimes perpetrated by the Germans—the
documents relevant to these latter crimes are at our disposal. Certainly
not. On the contrary, I have quoted the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission only because it gives a detailed and objective record
of Hitlerite military crimes committed against peaceful citizens of one
of the many towns which, as a result of a monstrous war unleashed by the
German fascist criminals, were doomed to become the victims of a
terrorist regime. Such atrocities were perpetrated by the Hitlerites in
all the temporarily occupied cities of the Soviet Union.

In confirmation of this statement I now turn to a document of a general
nature, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51) but parts of which have not yet
been read into the record. I am referring to the note of the People’s
Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, of 27 April 1942. In their
introduction to this note, the Soviet Government made the following
statement—I start my quotation from Paragraph 2 of the reverse side of
the Russian text, Paragraph 3 after the heading of the document book.
There you will find the following remarks:

    “Fresh information and documents are being submitted to the
    Soviet Government to the effect that the Hitlerite invaders are
    carrying on a wholesale looting of the Soviet population and do
    not shrink from any crimes and acts of cruelty or violence on
    the territories which they temporarily occupied or which they
    still continue to occupy. The Soviet Government have already
    declared that these atrocities do not represent accidental
    excesses perpetrated by single undisciplined military units or
    by individual German officers or men. The Soviet Government are
    now in possession of documents recently seized in the staffs of
    routed German formations, which prove that the carnage and
    atrocities committed by the fascist German Army were perpetrated
    in accordance with carefully elaborated plans issued by the
    German Government, in pursuance of orders from the German High
    Command.”

I omit the subsequent parts and continue with Section V of the note. The
Tribunal will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 8 of
the document book, Column 1 of the text, Paragraph 5.

I should like to add a few introductory words to the quotation. It is
quite evident from the text of this note how the orders of the Reich
leadership concerning the establishment of a regime of terror were
executed, in the occupied territories, by the various commissioners of
the occupied territories, by the Gauleiter, and by the commanders of
German military units. I quote the beginning of Section V of this
note—Page 8 of your document book, Column 1, Paragraph 5:

    “The inhuman cruelty which the Hitlerite clique—begotten in
    violence and against the will of the German people—displayed
    against the inhabitants of the European countries temporarily
    occupied by the German Army was multiplied a hundredfold by the
    enemy forces after their invasion of the Soviet Union.

    “The carnage to which the Hitlerites exposed the peaceful
    population of the Soviet Union has far overshadowed the most
    bloodstained pages of the annals of mankind, as well as of the
    current world war, and fully reveals the bloodthirsty and
    criminal plans of the fascists, aimed at the extermination of
    the Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and other nationals of the
    Soviet Union.

    “These monstrous fascist plans inspired the orders and
    instructions of the German High Command for the extermination of
    the peaceful Soviet citizens.

    “Thus, for instance, the instructions of the German Supreme
    Command, entitled, ‘Treatment of the Civilian Population and of
    Enemy Prisoners of War,’ reads to the effect that officers are
    responsible that the treatment of the civilian population be
    absolutely merciless, and commands that ‘force be used against
    the entire mass of the population.’ The instructions issued by
    the German High Command as a directive for the occupational
    authorities on Bielorussian territory read as follows:

    “‘All hostile behavior on the part of the population toward the
    German Armed Forces and their organizations will be punished by
    death. Whosoever shelters Red Army soldiers or partisans will be
    punished by death. If the partisan cannot be found, hostages
    must be taken from among the population.’”

THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number of what you are reading now?
What is the U.S.S.R. number of what you are reading now?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document was submitted as Exhibit Number
USSR-51. It is one of the notes of the People’s Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, Molotov, dated 27 April 1942. All together, four notes have
been submitted to the Tribunal under this number. The beginning of the
note which I am now quoting is on Page 4 of your document book. The
quotation which I am now reading into the record is on Page 8 of your
document book.

THE PRESIDENT: It is thought that this is part of the document you read
yesterday. Are you sure that it is not?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President. Yesterday I read into the
record a note dated 6 January 1942, and the note which I am quoting now
is dated 27 April.

Have I your permission to continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

    MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: “‘These hostages must be hanged if the
    guilty parties or their accomplices are not found within 24
    hours. During the following 24 hours, double the number of
    hostages will be hanged on the same spot.’

    “Point 7 of Order Number 431/41 of the German commandant of the
    town of Feodosia, Captain Eberhard, states:

    “‘During an alarm every citizen appearing on the street must be
    shot. Groups of citizens who appear must be surrounded and
    mercilessly shot. Leaders and inciters are to be publicly
    hanged.’

    “In a directive addressed to the 260th German Infantry Division,
    concerning the treatment of the civilian population, it is
    pointed out to the individual officers that ‘sufficient severity
    is not being applied everywhere.’

    “Orders posted by the occupants in the Soviet towns and villages
    announce the death penalty for the most varied reasons: For
    being on the streets after 1700 hours; for offering lodging for
    the night to strangers; for not handing over Red Army soldiers
    to the authorities; for failing to hand over property; for
    attempting to put out a fire in an inhabited spot intended to be
    burned down; for travelling from one inhabited spot to another;
    for refusing to do forced labor; and so on.”

I continue this quotation on Page 8, reverse side of the second column
of the text, Paragraph 2:

    “The German fascist High Command not only tolerates but actually
    orders the murder of women and children. Organized infanticide
    in some of the orders is presented as a means for fighting the
    partisan movement. Thus, an order of the commander of the 254th
    German Division, Lieutenant General Von Beschnitz, dated 2
    December 1941, considers the fact that ‘old people, women, and
    children of all ages’ move about behind the German lines as
    proof of ‘careless good nature,’ and orders the shooting without
    warning of ‘every civilian person regardless of age or sex
    approaching our front lines.’ It also orders that the ‘mayors be
    made responsible for reporting immediately the appearance of any
    unknown persons, and especially of children, to the local
    Kommandantur’ and to ‘shoot immediately any person suspected of
    espionage.’”

Some data regarding the directives received from the Reich authorities
by the fascist authorities in the temporarily occupied territories are
also contained in the note. I quote from Page 9 of your document book,
Paragraph 3, Column 1 of the text:

    “Some of the crimes of the German occupiers committed by them
    during the very first weeks of their piratical attack on the
    U.S.S.R., and their savage extermination of the civilian
    population of Bielorussia, the Ukraine, and the Baltic Soviet
    republics, have only now been documentarily established. Thus,
    when units of the Red Army in the district of the town of
    Toropetz, in January 1942, smashed a German SS cavalry brigade,
    among the documents captured was found a report of the 1st
    Cavalry Regiment of this brigade concerning the ‘pacification’
    by this unit of the Starobinsk district in Bielorussia. The
    commander of the regiment reports that besides taking 239
    prisoners a detachment of his regiment has also shot 6,504
    peaceful civilians. The report further states that the
    detachment acted in pursuance of Order Number 42 issued to the
    regiment, dated 27 July 1941. The commander of the 2d Regiment
    of this brigade, Von Magill, states, in his ‘Report Concerning
    the Execution of Repressive Operations on the River Pripet
    between 27 July and 11 August 1941,’ the following:

    “‘We drove the women and children into the swamp, but that did
    not produce the desired result, since the swamp was not deep
    enough for them to drown. One can usually feel bottom (possibly
    sand) at a depth of 1 meter.’

    “In the same headquarters a telegram, Number 37, was found, sent
    by the commander of the SS Cavalry Brigade.”

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for 10 minutes?

                        [_A recess was taken._]

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, regarding the Defendant Hess, he will
be absent until further notice on account of illness.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation:

    “In the same headquarters there was discovered a telegram,
    Number 37, from the commander of the Cavalry Brigade, an
    SS-Standartenführer, to a cavalry unit of the above-mentioned 2d
    Cavalry Regiment, dated 2 August 1941. It mentioned that the
    Reichsführer of the SS and the Police, Himmler, considers the
    number of the exterminated peaceful civilians far too
    insignificant; and it points out that ‘it is necessary to take
    radical measures’ and ‘the unit commanders conduct the
    operations too mildly.’ He also orders to report every day on
    the number of people shot.”

In this connection we cannot abstain from mentioning the criminal
activities of the Defendant Rosenberg in carrying out the general
instructions of the Reich leadership for establishing a regime of terror
in the Occupied Eastern Territories or rather, if we wish to be more
accurate, for issuing, in his capacity as chief author of these
instructions, a series of laws in Ostland—this, as we know, was the
name given to the occupied regions of the Baltic States—while similar
orders and instructions of a terroristic nature were also issued by
high-ranking officials of the fascist administration set up by
Rosenberg.

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-39 (Document Number
USSR-39), the report of the Extraordinary Commission on the atrocities
of the German fascist invaders in the territory of the Estonian S.S.R. I
quote an excerpt which Your Honors will find on Page 232 of the document
book in the first column of the text, Paragraph 3. It begins as follows:

    “On 17 July 1941 Hitler issued a decree turning over the
    legislative powers of the territory of Estonia to Reich Minister
    Rosenberg, who later turned over this legislative power to the
    German district authorities.

    “Despotism was introduced into Estonia and the peaceful
    population subjected to brutal terrorism. Reich Minister
    Rosenberg, the Reich Commissioner for the Baltic regions, Lose,
    and the Commissioner General of Estonia, Litzmann, completely
    deprived the Estonian people of all political rights. On the
    basis of Hitler’s decree of 17 July 1941, Reich Minister
    Rosenberg promulgated, on 17 February 1942, a special law for
    people of non-Germanic nationality, providing capital punishment
    for the slightest resistance against Germanization and for any
    act of violence against people of German nationality.

    “For workers and employees of Estonian origin the occupants
    introduced corporal punishment. On 20 February 1942 an official
    of the railroad administration in Riga, Walk, sent the following
    telegram to the administration of the Estonian railroads:

    “‘Every violation of discipline on the part of a native
    employee, especially absenteeism, being late for work, coming
    drunk to work, disobeying orders, and so forth, shall from now
    on be punished with the utmost severity: (a) For the first
    offense, 15 strokes with a lash on the bare body; (b) if the
    offense is repeated, 20 strokes with a lash on the bare body.’

    “On 12 January 1942 Reich Minister Rosenberg established
    ‘special courts,’ consisting of a police officer, as president,
    and two subordinate policemen. The procedural rules were
    determined by this court at its own discretion. These ‘courts’
    pronounced death sentences with confiscation of property. No
    other penalty was ever decreed. No appeal against the sentences
    was admitted. In addition to the ‘courts’ established by
    Rosenberg, death sentences were pronounced by the German
    political police, and these sentences were carried out on the
    very same day.

    “For the examination of criminal and civilian cases,
    Commissioner General Litzmann introduced local courts. Judges,
    prosecutors, investigating magistrates, notary publics [notaries
    public], and lawyers—all, without exception, were personally
    appointed by Litzmann.”

I end the quotation.

I further submit to the Tribunal, as our Exhibit Number USSR-18
(Document Number USSR-18), a photostat of a plain-spoken terroristic
order of the German military authorities, and I beg Your Honors to
accept this document as a relevant part of the evidence. This is an
order of the German town commander of the city of Pskov. The Tribunal
will find the text of this order on Page 235 of the document book. It is
evident from this document that the peaceful civilian population was
even forbidden to appear on the highways of their own locality. Any
peaceful citizens seen there by the German soldiers were to be shot. I
quote the text of the document, beginning with Paragraph 3:

    “Therefore, I order:

    “1. All members of the civilian population, regardless of age or
    sex, seen on or in the vicinity of railroad tracks are to be
    considered as bandits and shot as such. Excepted, of course, are
    the labor units under guard.

    “2. All people mentioned in the first paragraph who cross the
    fields are to be shot.

    “3. All persons mentioned in Paragraph 1 who are found on the
    roads at night or at dawn are to be shot.

    “4. Persons mentioned in Paragraph 1, if found on the roads
    during the daytime, are subject to arrest and the most detailed
    examination.”

Such were the terroristic decrees and orders based upon the so-called
Leadership Principle that were issued by high-ranking officials and
representatives of the military authorities of the fascist German
Government. But the right of relentless reprisals against the peaceful
populations was not confined to them only; any local Kommandantur, any
commander of a small unit, and, finally, any soldier of Hitler’s army
acquired the right of reprisal against the peaceful population of the
occupied regions.

I shall now submit to the Tribunal several documents which will reveal
how the Hitlerite criminals invariably made the most of this right,
introducing into the crimes perpetrated against the Soviet people the
cruel devices of base and evil creatures who had been granted the right
of mocking and murdering with impunity. I submit to the Tribunal, as
Exhibit Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9), a report of the
Extraordinary State Commission on the atrocities perpetrated by the
German fascist occupiers in the city of Kiev. The Tribunal will find the
passage in question on Page 238 of the document file, Paragraph 5 of
Column 1 of the text. I quote:

    “The German executioners, from the very first days of their
    occupation of Kiev, carried out a wholesale slaughter of the
    population by torture, shooting, hanging, and poisoning by gas
    in the murder vans. People were seized in the streets and shot
    either in large batches or singly. Announcements of the
    shootings were posted in order to intimidate the population.”

I shall interrupt my quotation at this point, and I ask the Tribunal to
accept in evidence photostats of several of these posters. Partial
mention has already been made of them in the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission. From among their number, I would request the Tribunal
to accept in evidence the photostat of one such poster, which I submit
as Exhibit Number USSR-290 (Document Number USSR-290). The text reads as
follows—I ask the Tribunal to excuse me if the translation is, perhaps,
slightly incorrect, since the original text is in Ukrainian. I am a
Russian, I understand the meaning of the Ukrainian text, but the
translation might possibly not be quite correct in every detail. A
translation will be made. Here is the text:

    “As a reprisal for an act of sabotage, 100 inhabitants of the
    city of Kiev were shot this day. Let this be a warning.

    “Every inhabitant of Kiev is co-responsible for every act of
    sabotage.

    “Kiev, 22 October 1941; The Town Commandant.”

Under Exhibit Number USSR-291 (Document Number USSR-291)—the Tribunal
will find the text on Page 243 of the document book—I submit a
photostat of the following poster, signed by the commandant of the city
of Kiev. I quote the text:

    “Means of communication—telephone and telegraph wires—have
    been damaged in Kiev. Since the saboteurs could not be found,
    400 men have been shot in the city.

    “This should serve as a warning to the population, and once
    again I demand that all suspects be immediately reported to the
    German troops or the German police in order that the criminals
    may be adequately punished.

    “Signed: Eberhard, Major General and City Commandant, Kiev; 29
    November 1941.”

As Exhibit Number USSR-333 (Document Number USSR-333), I submit a
photostat of the third and last poster in Kiev. The Tribunal will find
the text of this poster on Page 242 of the document book at the disposal
of the Tribunal. I quote:

    “Repeated cases of arson and sabotage in Kiev force me to resort
    to extreme measures. Consequently, 300 inhabitants of Kiev will
    be shot today. For every new case of arson or sabotage, several
    times this number will be shot. Every inhabitant of Kiev is
    obliged to report any suspects to the German police. I shall
    maintain order and calm in Kiev by all measures at my disposal
    and under any circumstances.

    “Kiev, 2 November 1941; Eberhard, Major General and City
    Commandant.”

I refer to another document which has not even been partially read into
the record. I refer to Exhibit Number USSR-63 (Document Number USSR-63)
of the Commissar of the Djerjinski District Council of the city of
Stalingrad. I invite the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that this
official act, which was drawn up by the members of the local Soviet
authorities and the community of the Djerjinski District of Stalingrad,
was approved by the Extraordinary State Commission under the signature
of a member of the commission, Academician Trainin, and of other
persons. The members of the Tribunal will find the act in question on
Page 222 of the document book, Column 1 of the text.

I shall begin the quotation of the report of the commission, which
investigated the territory of the Djerjinski District of Stalingrad
after the rout of the Germans at Stalingrad. This report contains
information regarding the announcements posted in the streets of
Stalingrad by the German Kommandantur and concerning the results of
these posters. I begin my quotation on Page 222 of the document book in
the possession of the members of the Tribunal, in Column 1 of the text,
last paragraph:

    “. . . the military Kommandantur sowed death everywhere. It
    posted announcements in the streets, threatening death by
    shooting at every step. For instance, the following announcement
    was posted up in Aral Street: ‘Death to him who passes here.’ On
    the corner of Nevskaya and Medveditzkaya Streets: ‘Right of way
    forbidden to Russians; for violation of this order—death.’

    “As a matter of fact, the Germans shot the citizens at every
    step: Hundreds of graves along the streets of the Djerjinski
    District of the city of Stalingrad bear witness to the shooting.
    The bodies of those who were tortured, shot, or hanged in the
    Kommandantur proper were at first thrown into a pit near the
    building of the Kommandantur. After the invaders had been thrown
    out, there were found 31 corpses in this pit. When the pit was
    full, the corpses were brought to the cemetery 2 kilometers away
    from the Kommandantur. At the cemetery there was another pit, 6
    meters deep, 40 meters long, and 12 meters wide.

    “After the invaders had been thrown out, 516 corpses of Soviet
    citizens were found in this grave, including the bodies of 50
    children who had been tortured to death, shot, or hanged in the
    building of the Kommandantur and in other places. An examination
    of the bodies on 25 March 1943 established that the Hitlerites
    had savagely tortured the Soviet people before murdering them.
    In addition to the bodies of the children, the corpses of 323
    women, 69 old men, and 74 younger men were discovered. One
    hundred and forty-one corpses bore traces of wounds inflicted by
    firearms in the head and on the chests; 92 corpses had marks on
    their necks which showed that they had been hanged. All the
    other bodies were mutilated and bore traces of torture. One
    hundred and thirty victims, women and girls, had their arms
    twisted behind their backs and tied with wire, and 18 of the
    corpses had their breasts cut off, some had their ears, fingers,
    and toes chopped off, and the majority showed traces of burns on
    their bodies.

    “An examination of these corpses revealed that 21 women died of
    torture and wounds and that the remainder had been first
    tortured and then shot.

    “Even the corpses of children were mutilated. Some had their
    small fingers cut off, their buttocks chopped up, their eyes
    gouged out.”

I now cease to quote from this document, and, in compliance with the
wishes of the Tribunal to the effect that not details but instances
testifying to some new data in the system of the Hitler terror be
reported, I omit three pages of the report and turn to the following
section on the presentation of evidence: “On Tortures Inflicted by the
Hitlerites in the Course of Interrogation.”

In general, tortures were officially provided for and sanctioned by the
Hitlerites. I present to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-11
(Document Number USSR-11), one of the documents testifying to the fact
that tortures were sanctioned officially. This document is an official
guide for concentration camps, “The Concentration Camp Statutes,”
published in Berlin in 1941. You will find the excerpt I am quoting on
Page 244 of the document book in your possession. Section 3 of the
instructions, for instance, entitled, “Corporal Punishment,” states:

    “Between 5 and 25 strokes are permitted on the loins and
    buttocks. The number of strokes is to be determined by the camp
    commandant and is to be entered in the corresponding space in
    the directives governing punishment.”

I should have liked to refer to one more document, but, as it already
has been presented to the Tribunal, in compliance with the Tribunal’s
instructions, I will omit this document—it was presented as Document
L-89—and continue.

Official formulas to be used in “especially severe interrogations” or,
rather, interrogations with application of torture, were issued by the
corresponding German police departments. I submit it to the Tribunal and
would request them to accept in evidence an original formula of such an
“especially severe interrogation.” I submit it as Exhibit Number
USSR-254 (Document Number USSR-254). It represents an appendix to the
report of the Yugoslav Government. This form, as is evident from the
certificate attached to it, was seized from the German archives by units
of the Yugoslav Army. I shall not describe this form in my own words but
shall quote the report of the Yugoslav Government on Page 21 of the
document, from the last paragraph at the bottom of the page. The
Tribunal will find this passage on Page 256 of the document book, in the
last paragraph. I begin the quotation:

    “In order to give a clearer description of the savage cruelty in
    carrying out this plan of extermination, we submit to the
    Tribunal another original document which was seized in the
    German archives in Yugoslavia. It is a blank form for the
    so-called ‘especially severe interrogations’ of the victims of
    the Nazi criminals. Such interrogations were conducted in
    Slovenia by the Security Police and the SD.

    “On the first page of the form the police office suggests
    submitting one particular person to an ‘especially severe
    interrogation.’ On the second page the competent officer of the
    SS agrees to such an interrogation. The answer to the
    question—what this special ‘severe interrogation’ consisted
    of—is found in the following instructions of this form:

    “The especially severe interrogation should consist of. . . .
    Minutes of the interrogation should be kept. A doctor may (or
    may not) be asked to be present.

    “The mention of the doctor and of his presence at the
    interrogation leaves no doubt at all that the person
    interrogated was to be physically tortured. The fact that
    printed instructions existed for these interrogations obviously
    suggests a wholesale resort to such criminal methods.”

The Reichsführer SS clearly foresaw cases of attempted suicide by
persons under suspicion. The SS leader therefore not only permitted but
even ordered the prisoners to be tied hand and foot or shackled in
chains. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-298 (Document
Number USSR-298), a photostat of a directive of the Chief of the German
Police, Number 202/43, of 1 June 1943. The document is certified by the
Extraordinary State Commission, and I quote the text of the document.
The document is dated 1 June 1943. I quote only the text:

    “Subject: Prevention of Escape during Interrogations.

    “In order to prevent escape during interrogations in all cases
    where, owing to circumstances or the importance of the prisoner,
    there exists an increased possibility of escape or of an attempt
    to commit suicide, I order the hands and feet of the arrested
    person to be bound in such a way that escape is impossible.
    Rings and chains should be used if available.”

I have not submitted the official directives of the German central
police authorities to the Tribunal merely to prove that the German
officials provided for the application of torture and torment during
interrogations. This fact is well known and calls for no special
evidence. But I am submitting a document, in the possession of the
Soviet Prosecution, which will show how far tortures to which arrested
persons were subjected in the police cells exceeded even the
instructions issued by the criminals and the officially sanctioned forms
of torture.

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1),
which is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of
the German fascist aggressors in the region of Stavropol. The
investigation of these crimes was conducted under the leadership of the
eminent academician and Russian author, the late Alexei Nikolaievitch
Tolstoy. The Tribunal will find this document on Page 272 of the
document book. I begin my quotation from the first paragraph.
Academician A. N. Tolstoy, as the Tribunal will doubtless remember, was
a member of the Extraordinary State Commission. I begin the quotation:

    “Tortures and torments, exceptional in their cruelty, were
    applied to the Soviet citizens on the premises of the Gestapo.
    Thus, for instance, Citizen Phillip Akimovitch Kovalchuk, born
    in 1891 and an inhabitant of the town of Pyatigorsk, was
    arrested on 27 October 1942 in his own apartment, beaten
    unconscious, taken to the Gestapo, and thrown into one of the
    cells. Twenty-four hours later the Gestapo began to torture him;
    he was interrogated and beaten at night only. For the
    interrogation he was put in a separate torture chamber equipped
    with special devices for torture, such as chains with handcuffs
    for shackling both hands and feet. These chains were fastened to
    the cement floor of the chamber. To begin with, the prisoners
    were stripped to the skin and laid on the floor. Then their
    hands and feet were shackled. Citizen Kovalchuk was subjected to
    this form of torture. When in chains, he was completely unable
    to move. He lay on his stomach and in this position was lashed
    with rubber truncheons for 16 days.

    “Apart from these inhuman forms of torture, the Gestapo also
    resorted to the following: A wide board was placed on the back
    of the shackled prisoner, and blows were struck on this board
    with heavy dumbbells. As a result of these blows, the prisoner
    bled from the nose, mouth, and ears and lost consciousness.

    “The torture chamber of the Gestapo was so constructed that
    while one prisoner was being tortured the prisoners awaiting
    their turn in the neighboring cell could watch the torture and
    ill-treatment.

    “After the torture, the unconscious prisoner would be thrown on
    one side, while the next victim of the Gestapo would be forcibly
    dragged in from the neighboring cell, shackled, and tortured in
    the same fashion.

    “The torture chambers were always covered with blood. The board
    placed on the back of the prisoners was also soaked in it. The
    rubber cudgels used for beating the prisoners were red with
    blood.

    “The arrested Soviet people, doomed to be shot after unspeakable
    torture and beatings, were dragged into trucks, driven out of
    town, and there shot.”

I omit two paragraphs and continue my quotation:

    “Witness Barbara Ivanovna Tchaika, born in 1912, domiciled in
    Number 31, Djerjinskaya Street (Apartment Number 3), states that
    during her incarceration in the prison of the Gestapo she had
    been subjected to incredible torture by the Chief of the
    Gestapo, Captain Wintz. Witness B. I. Tchaika said on this
    subject:

    “‘I was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the Chief of
    the Gestapo, the German, Captain Wintz. He summoned me to the
    torture chamber once for an interrogation. There were four
    tables in the cell, wooden grills on the floor, and two basins
    of water in which leather thongs had been placed. Two rings were
    attached to the ceiling, with ropes drawn through them, from
    which the prisoners were suspended during the time of their
    torment. By order of Captain Wintz I was laid on the table by
    the Gestapo men, stripped, and beaten severely with leather
    thongs. I was beaten twice. In all I received 75 strokes of the
    lash; my kidneys were almost torn out and I lost eight of my
    teeth.’”

What occurred in the torture chambers of Stavropol was no exception at
all. The same misdeeds were perpetrated everywhere. In confirmation I
will refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission regarding
the depredations and atrocities committed by the German fascist
aggressors in the city of Kiev. That is Exhibit USSR-9 (Document Number
USSR-9). The Tribunal will find this document on Page 238 of the
document book, Paragraph 2 from the top, Column 2. I begin the
quotation:

    “Murders were often preceded by sadistic torture. The
    Archimandrite Valerian testified that the fascists beat sick and
    feeble people till they were half-dead, poured water over them
    when the temperature was below zero, and finally shot them in
    the torture chamber of the German police, established in the
    Kievo-Petchersk Abbey.”

I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the
Kievo-Petchersk Abbey is one of the most ancient architectural monuments
in the Soviet Union. It is a specially cherished cultural treasure, very
dear to the heart of the Soviet citizens as a tangible memory of the far
distant past. The torture chamber of the police had been purposely
established in the Abbey. The Tribunal will learn of its eventual fate
from the subsequent reports of my colleagues.

When the city of Odessa was under the rule of the fascist invaders,
interrogations were accompanied by tortures of an exceptionally cruel
nature. I refer to a testimony contained in the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission, entitled, “On the Atrocities Committed
by the German and Romanian Invaders in the City of Odessa and in the
Territory of the Odessa Regions.”

I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-47
(Document Number USSR-47) and request that it be accepted as irrefutable
evidence in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. I shall quote
this document, which is on Page 282 of your document book, Paragraph 4,
Line 10. It contains the testimony of Paul Krapyvny, producer of news
reels. I quote this passage from the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission, Page 282:

    “The interrogator had a voltage control switch on the table, and
    whenever the person interrogated did not answer the question as
    the examiner wished, the dial of the voltage control would be
    mercilessly turned to increase the voltage; the body of the
    person interrogated would begin to tremble and his eyes to
    protrude from their sockets.

    “The person interrogated, with his hands tied behind his back,
    would be hoisted up to the ceiling . . . where he would be spun
    round and round. After having been rotated 200 times in one
    direction, the victim, still suspended on the cord, would begin
    to turn at an insane speed in the opposite direction. At that
    particular moment the executioners would beat him on both sides
    with rubber truncheons. The man became unconscious both from the
    insane speed of the rotation and from the beating.”

I refer to the document already presented by my colleague, Colonel
Pokrovsky, Exhibit Number USSR-41 (Document Number USSR-41), which is a
communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes
committed by the German fascist invaders in the territory of the Latvian
Soviet Socialist Republic. I shall quote from this document, beginning
on Page 286 on the reverse side of the document book, Paragraph 2,
Column 2 of the text. I begin the quotation:

    “In the camps and prisons the German executioners subjected
    prisoners to ill-treatment, torture, and shooting. In the
    central prison the internees were beaten and tortured. Day and
    night shrieks and groans were heard in the torture chambers.
    Every day from 30 to 35 people died as a result of the tortures.
    Whoever survived the ill-treatment and torture would return to
    his cell absolutely unrecognizable, burned to the bone, with
    parts of his body torn to pieces. No medical aid was given to
    the tortured.”

The Hitlerites subjected Soviet citizens to ill-treatment and torture in
every town of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Your Honors will find analogous statements in the text of every
communication of the Extraordinary State Commission. I shall not delay
the Tribunal by quoting any further excerpts, I consider the evidence
already presented as sufficient.

I shall now proceed to the next section of my report: murder of
hostages.

I shall make a few introductory remarks.

One of the most shameful crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites in Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia was the use everywhere by the German
fascists of the bestial system of taking hostages. This system was
introduced by the Hitlerites into all the countries that fell as victims
of their aggression. The German criminals resorted to particularly
ruthless methods when murdering hostages in Eastern Europe. In
introducing the hostage-seizing system the Hitlerites violated every law
and custom of warfare.

However, it is difficult to speak of the murder of hostages where the
Soviet Union is concerned, since the crimes committed by the Hitlerites
everywhere in the temporarily occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. go
beyond even this criminal practice of taking hostages. To a great extent
the same remarks apply to Poland and particularly to Yugoslavia. Here
the Hitlerites, under the pretext of the hostage-seizing system, were
really perpetrating immeasurably greater war crimes, whose ultimate aim
was the extermination of entire nations.

I shall now present some brief data from documents concerning the
different countries of Eastern Europe.

I submit an extract from the report of the Government of the Polish
Republic. The Tribunal will find the passage quoted on Page 128 of the
document book, Paragraph 6. I begin the quotation:

    “a) One of the most disgraceful features of the Hitlerite
    occupation of Poland was the introduction of the hostage-seizing
    system. Collective responsibility, payment of collective fines,
    and the bartering of human life were considered to be the best
    methods for enslaving the Polish people.

    “b) Here are some typical cases of mass reprisals; they
    illustrate the methods employed by the German occupants.

    “c) In November 1939 an unknown person set fire to a barn filled
    with grain on the outskirts of Nove Miasto Lubavske. The barn
    was the property of a German. As a result of this action, a
    certain SS-Standartenführer, Sperling, received an order from
    the higher authorities to resort to reprisals. A number of Poles
    from among the most prominent citizens were arrested. Out of
    those, 15 were selected and publicly shot by SS soldiers. Among
    the victims were the two brothers Jankovsky, one a lawyer, the
    other a priest, the tailor Malkovsky, the blacksmith Zemny,
    Major of the Army Reserve Vona, the son of an innkeeper, the
    publisher of a newspaper, and a priest, Bronislav Dembenovsky.

    “d) In October 1939 the German authorities captured a certain
    number of Poles in the city of Inovrozlav and imprisoned them as
    hostages. They were brought to the prison courtyard, where they
    were unmercifully flogged and shot, one by one. Altogether, 70
    men were killed, including the city mayor and his deputy. Among
    the victims were the most prominent citizens of the town.”

I omit the next sentence. I quote further:

    “e) On 7 March 1941 the film star, Igo Sym, who considered
    himself as being of German nationality and who was in charge of
    the German theaters in Warsaw, was murdered in his own
    apartment. Although the murderers were never found, the Governor
    of Warsaw, Fischer, said that Sym was murdered by the Poles and
    ordered the arrest of a large number of hostages. He also closed
    the theaters and imposed a curfew on the Polish population. The
    hostages were taken in order to secure the arrest of the
    murderers. About 200 people were arrested, including teachers,
    priests, physicians, lawyers, and actors. The population of
    Warsaw was given 3 days to find Sym’s murderers. After the
    expiration of the 3 days, the killers still remaining unknown,
    17 hostages were executed, among them Professor Kopetz, his son,
    and Professor Zakrzhevsky.”

I conclude this quotation from the report of the Polish Government and
ask the Tribunal’s permission to refer to a short excerpt from the
report of the Czechoslovakian Government. There is one part I would like
to read into the record. Your Honors will find it on Page 141 of the
document book. I begin the quotation:

    “Even before the beginning of the war, thousands of Czech
    patriots and especially Catholic and Protestant clergymen,
    lawyers, doctors, teachers, and so on, were arrested.
    Furthermore, in every district lists were drawn up of persons
    who were subject to arrest as hostages at the first sign of any
    breach of ‘public order and security.’ At first these were only
    threats. In 1940 Karl Frank announced, in a speech to the
    leaders of the Movement of National Unity, that 2,000 Czech
    hostages, interned in concentration camps, would be shot if
    prominent Czech statesmen refused to sign the declaration of
    loyalty. Sometime after the attempt on Heydrich’s life, many of
    these hostages were executed.

    “Threats of reprisals against directors of factories in case of
    some hitch in the work at the factory were a typical method of
    Nazi terrorism. Thus, in 1939 the Gestapo summoned all the
    directors as well as the managers of warehouses belonging to
    various industrial firms and informed them that they would be
    shot in case of a strike. On leaving they had to sign the
    following declaration: I am aware of the fact that I would be
    shot immediately should my factory cease working without a
    justifiable reason.’

    “In the same way, school teachers were held responsible for the
    loyal behavior of their pupils. Many teachers were arrested only
    because the pupils in their schools were caught writing
    anti-German slogans or reading forbidden books.”

I now interrupt the quotation from the report of the Government of the
Czechoslovakian Republic, and I begin to read the section recording the
killings of hostages in Yugoslavia.

I shall just say a few words by way of introduction. These criminal
murders of the peaceful population developed on their own particular
lines in Yugoslavia. As a matter of fact, it is impossible at this point
to speak of the execution of hostages, although the Hitlerites
constantly make use of this term in their official documents, which will
be presented to the Tribunal at a later date.

Truth to tell, under the alleged killing of hostages, the Hitlerite
criminals were realizing, on an enormous scale, the regime of
terroristic extermination of the peaceful citizens not only for crimes
which somebody or other had committed, but also for crimes which, to
Hitler’s way of thinking, might be committed.

I submit the document that confirms this fact. It contains excerpts from
the report of the Yugoslav Government, which Your Honors will find on
Page 259 in the document book in their possession, Paragraph 1. I begin
the quotation:

    “The murder of hostages was one of those methods which were used
    by military authorities and the Reich Government on an
    incredible scale for the mass extermination of the Yugoslav
    population.

    “The Yugoslav State Commission for the investigation of War
    Crimes has at its disposal an innumerable quantity of concrete
    details and original evidence taken from the German archives. We
    submit only a very limited number of such details and evidence,
    which are, however, sufficient proof that the killing of
    hostages was merely an item in the common plan in the systematic
    Nazi crime.”

Further, the report of the Yugoslav Government quotes an order of the
commander of the so-called Group West, General Brauner. I quote the
following excerpt:

    “In regions captured by partisans, the seizure of hostages from
    all strata of the population remains in force as the only really
    successful means of intimidation.”

To confirm the vast scale of the crimes of the Hitlerites in connection
with the murder of hostages, the Yugoslav Government presents to the
Tribunal six documents, which I now submit to Your Honors, and I ask for
them to be incorporated into the record as evidence. I submit the
following documents to the Tribunal:

Firstly, under Exhibit Number USSR-261 (Document Number USSR-261), a
certified photostat of a poster of the commanding general and
Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, dated 25 December 1942, in which he
announces the shooting of 50 hostages. Secondly, as Exhibit Number
USSR-319 (Document Number USSR-319), a certified photostat of a poster
of the same commanding general, dated 19 February 1943, in which he
announces the shooting of 400 hostages, which was carried out in
Belgrade on the same date. Thirdly, as Exhibit Number USSR-320 (Document
Number USSR-320), a certified photostat of a poster of the regional
Kommandantur in Pozarevatz, dated 3 April 1943, announcing the shooting
of 75 hostages. Fourthly, as Exhibit Number USSR-321 (Document Number
USSR-321), a certified photostat of a poster of the same regional
Kommandantur of Pozarevatz, dated 16 April 1943, announcing the shooting
of 30 hostages. Fifthly, a certified copy of a poster of the military
commandant of Belgrade, dated 14 October 1943, in which he announces the
shooting of 100 hostages. I submit this document as Exhibit Number
USSR-322 (Document Number USSR-322).

I continue my quotation from the report of the Yugoslav Government:

    “Planned and systematic murder of hostages is revealed by the
    following testimonies, collected by the Yugoslav State
    Commission for the investigation of war crimes on the basis of
    confiscated German archives and data found in the archives. The
    testimonies refer to Serbia only:

    “Four hundred and fifty hostages were shot on 3 October 1941 in
    Belgrade; 200 hostages were shot on 17 October 1941, in
    Belgrade; 50 hostages were shot on 27 October 1941, in Belgrade;
    100 hostages were shot on 3 November 1941, in Belgrade.

    “Further testimonies show the terrible increasing number of
    these crimes at that time:

    “Ten hostages shot on 12 December 1942, in Kraguevatz; 10
    hostages shot on 12 December 1942, in Krusevatz; 30 hostages
    shot on 15 December 1942, in Brush; 50 hostages shot on 17
    December 1942, in Petrovatz; 10 hostages shot on 20 December
    1942, in Brush; 50 hostages shot on 25 December 1942, in
    Petrovatz; 10 hostages shot on 26 December 1942, in Brush; 250
    hostages shot on 26 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 25 hostages
    shot on 27 December 1942, in Krusevatz.”

One really could, I think, agree with the statement of the Yugoslav
Government that such figures could be cited _ad infinitum_. I continue
my quotation:

    “The shooting of hostages was, as a rule, conducted in a most
    barbaric fashion. The victims were mostly forced to stand one
    behind the other in batches, waiting their turn and witnessing
    the execution of the preceding batch. In this manner the batches
    were one after another exterminated.”

I shall submit further to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-205
(Document Number USSR-205), the report of the police administration of
the quisling administration of Milan Nedich. It mentions the shooting,
on 11 December 1941 in Leskovatz, of 310 hostages, of whom 293 were
Gypsies. I continue to quote the report of the Yugoslav Government:

    “By an examination of the site and an interrogation of the
    Gypsies by the regional administration investigating war crimes
    in Leskovatz, the methods were established by which this
    shooting was carried out.”

Before reading the excerpt, I submit to the Tribunal the document which
was referred to by the Government of the Yugoslav Republic, as Exhibit
Number USSR-226 (Document Number USSR-226), and request it be
incorporated as evidence. In the report of the Yugoslav Government, the
following lines of this document are quoted:

    “On 11 December 1941, from 0600 hours to 1600 hours, the Germans
    transported the arrested hostages in their trucks in batches of
    about 20 persons each. All of them had their hands bound. They
    were taken to the foot of the Mountain of Hisar. From there they
    were driven on foot across the mountain . . . and then made to
    stand in ranks near recently dug graves, were shot, and then
    thrown into the graves.”

THE PRESIDENT: I think this will be a good time to break off.

Colonel Smirnov, the Tribunal appreciates the efforts that you have made
to leave out unnecessary detail and to cut down the length of your
address, and it hopes that during the adjournment you will continue your
efforts in that direction.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Certainly, Mr. President.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 18 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            SIXTY-FIRST DAY
                        Monday, 18 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make, and I make it in this
order, in the form of paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: The Tribunal cannot accept Paragraph 1 of the Prosecution’s
motion, as to the evidence of the defendants, dated 11 February 1946,
but directs that, in complying with Article 24(d) of the Charter,
counsel for the defendants shall confine their evidence to what is
required for meeting the charges in the Indictment.

The Tribunal will announce later their decision with regard to
Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Prosecution’s motion.

Paragraph 2: With regard to the naming of witnesses, _et cetera_, by the
Defense under Article 24(d) of the Charter, which is referred to in
Paragraph 1 of Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum to the Tribunal, dated 4
February 1946, the Tribunal makes the following order:

In order to avoid delay in securing the attendance of witnesses and
procuring of documents, without prejudice to the defendant’s right to
make further application at the conclusion of the case for the
Prosecution, counsel for the Defendants Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, and
Keitel shall, before 5 p.m. on Thursday, the 21st of February, file with
the General Secretary written statements giving the names of the
witnesses and particulars of the documents they respectively desire to
call or put in evidence, with a summary of the facts to be proved
thereby and an exposition of the relevance thereof.

The Tribunal hereby appoints Saturday, the 23rd of February, at 1000
hours—that is to say, 10 o’clock—for the hearing of argument upon such
statements in open session.

Paragraph 3: The Tribunal will, in due course, issue directions as to
the filing of similar statements on behalf of the other defendants.

Paragraph 4: The Tribunal will announce later their decision on the
other matters raised in Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum.

The Tribunal will now hear the defendants’ counsel’s application for a
recess.

PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Professor
Kraus, representing defendants’ counsel.

The defendants’ counsel are grateful for the opportunity granted by the
Tribunal to state in detail the reason for their application of 4
February for an adjournment of the Trial after the conclusion of the
Prosecution. This application is the result of a series of proposals
with which the Defense have striven to achieve a simple, clear, and as
rapid a presentation as possible of its case.

Only a few points of this application call for further amplification.

All the defendants are accused of participation in a conspiracy. That is
apparently intended to mean that every act brought up in the course of
this Trial, no matter by whom it was committed and to whom it was done,
is charged against every one of these defendants, and that he can be
convicted on every one of these acts. Even though the individual Defense
Counsel finds certain fields with which he must concern himself
particularly, there are, nevertheless, no fields at all which he can
entirely ignore.

Since most of the Defense Counsel are working with only one assistant
and sometimes alone, it can be seen how enormous is the extent of the
labor involved in the examination and discussion of the material that is
daily presented by the Prosecution. The necessary discussions with the
defendants use up the evening hours and the days on which there are no
sessions. These discussions are, moreover, because of the security
measures that have been taken, very exhausting.

It is, therefore, simply beyond the strength of the individual defense
lawyer, along with his attendance at the Trial and his continuous
working over of the material presented at the Trial, to make those
intellectual and technical preparations that can justifiably be expected
in a trial of such significance as this.

The material presented is not yet conclusive. The Russian Prosecution is
presenting new evidence daily. In the opinion of the Defense Counsel, it
would lead to an incorrect evaluation of the extent and importance of
accusations which the Russian Delegation is presenting if the Defense
Counsel were expected to conclude their preparations for their defense
before they had even heard the conclusions of the case for the
Prosecution.

The Tribunal has already been informed in written application of the
difficulties involved in obtaining evidence. A few examples might be
cited in this respect, examples to which every member of the Defense
Counsel could contribute.

One member of the Defense Counsel, in November of last year, applied for
a certain witness to be called who was of decisive importance in the
presentation of his case. The application was approved by the Tribunal.
Although this witness was a very highly placed German official, it was
only in January of this year that the camp in which he was interned
could be located. The witness has not, as yet, appeared in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the Counsel for the Defense has, so far, no idea as to which
questions this witness can testify on and what he would testify.

In numerous cases the place of residence of witnesses, whose appearance
at the Trial had been requested by the Tribunal in November or December
of last year, could not be established. Consequently the Defense Counsel
are quite unable to help in locating them in such cases where witnesses,
interned in Allied prisoner-of-war camps, have had no opportunity of
providing information as to their whereabouts. It has been suggested to
some of the Defense Counsel to interrogate witnesses outside Germany by
presenting them with questionnaires which would enable them to be
interrogated at their place of residence. In no single case have answers
to these questionnaires reached the respective counsel for the Defense.

In the case of witnesses living inside Germany, the Defense Counsel have
repeatedly been asked either to conduct the interrogation themselves or
to present a written affidavit. Since the Defense Counsel are confined
to Nuremberg during the sessions, they could only carry out this task
during a prolonged recess.

Finally, one member of the Defense had, at the beginning of November,
applied for permission to submit a series of documents indispensable to
his case. These documents are in the possession of one of the
signatories of the Charter. They have been examined by the Prosecution
and have been submitted in evidence by the Prosecution insofar as they
serve to implicate the defendant in question. The Defense Counsel is
still not in possession of these exonerating documents.

We should like to emphasize again the purely technical difficulties that
arise from the mimeographing and multiple translations. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Professor Kraus. You referred to a
document which you said was indispensable, which was in the possession
of a signatory power, examined by the Prosecution, and put in evidence
in this case, and the defendants are still not in possession of it.

What is the reference to that document?

DR. KRAUS: No, Mr. President; it is a collection of documents in which
the incriminating parts were presented by the Prosecution; but we, the
Defense Counsel, are not yet in possession of the exonerating parts of
that documentation. Dr. Kranzbühler, who, too, is affected by this case
can give you more detailed information.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is an application, I know, by Dr.
Kranzbühler; but if it is really a part of a document, the Tribunal has
ruled on several occasions that if the Prosecution puts in a certain
part of a document, the whole of that document must be available to the
defendant’s counsel so that they can criticize and comment upon any
other part of it which may throw light upon the part of the document
which is put in evidence.

DR. KRAUS: Yes, Mr. President; we are dealing here not with one single
document, but with a whole collection of documents and Dr. Kranzbühler
only wishes to extract from this collection the documents which would
assist him in exonerating his client, after the incriminating documents
have been presented by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: You may continue.

DR. KRAUS: The Defense is grateful to the Prosecution for the readiness
they have expressed in assisting the Defense in technical questions. The
great difficulties which the Prosecution themselves have experienced in
this connection, and which have repeatedly led to discussions by the
Tribunal, show, nevertheless, that an efficient solution of this problem
calls for a suitable length of time. The Defense consider it important
to assure the Tribunal of their readiness and their determination not to
prolong the Trial unnecessarily. They are, however, of opinion that an
inadequate a priori preparation will lead to a corresponding increase in
the duration of the Defense, and that the subsequent results might not
at all suffice to allow the Tribunal to give a fair verdict.

The Defense Counsel think they are in agreement with the Tribunal in
saying that this Trial, so important in the history of humanity, should
be conducted throughout with the peace and reflection which have
hitherto characterized its course. Per contra, undue importance should
not be attached to the understandable impatience of those who insist on
a rapid termination of the Trial. In this sense the Defense requests the
Prosecution to support their application. The length of time applied
for, that is, 3 weeks, cannot be considered unreasonable in view of the
total length of time which the Prosecution have envisaged for the
completion of their case. The granting of this length of time would, on
the other hand, allow for the fact that the Defense, in the conduct of
their case, find themselves both spiritually and materially in a very
difficult position. Mention should be made that a number of us have
subscribed to today’s application, contrary to the opinion of the
defendants we represent, who desire a rapid termination of these
proceedings. We feel that we are accountable to none but our own
consciences and our professional duties as Counsel for the Defense.

I therefore request the Tribunal to take note that, after serious and
thorough consideration, my colleagues and I, without exception, are
convinced that the length of time applied for, that is, 3 weeks, is the
minimum time which they consider essential for an orderly preparation of
the defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal would like to know, if you can
answer the question, whether defendants’ counsel have by this time
ascertained all, or nearly all, the witnesses whom they desire to call
in evidence; whether they have made up their minds, up to this stage, as
to what witnesses they desire to call.

DR. KRAUS: I cannot answer this question, since that would call for a
general inquiry. I should have to ask my colleagues. The cases to my
knowledge vary from one lawyer to another. Some of the lawyers of the
Defense are more or less ready in this respect; others are not.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I think it would be
convenient if I followed the admirably lucid exposition of Professor
Kraus by asking the Tribunal to direct its attention to two aspects of
the matter: First, what Professor Kraus called the intellectual
preparation, and secondly, the mechanical necessities of presentation of
the Defense.

On the first point I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the way that
it is put in the written application signed by Dr. Stahmer, which was
followed in the main by Professor Kraus today. It is stated that a
respite is required for the construction of the Defense after conclusion
of the Indictment, that is, of the Prosecution; secondly, that the
Defense Counsel have, until now, not had the time to prepare their
defense in such a manner that smooth functioning is guaranteed; and
thirdly, a line or two lower down, in justice it cannot be expected of
the Defense Counsel that they will be able to answer on the spot.

I respectfully request the Tribunal’s attention to some matters of
dates.

The Indictment in this case was filed on the 18th of October, which is
exactly 4 months ago today. The defendants were immediately acquainted
with the contents of the Indictment, and it is a document of sufficient
public importance to give ground for the belief that Defense Counsel
must have, at any rate, had its general contents very quickly in mind.

On that day General Nikitchenko, presiding over this Tribunal, stated at
Berlin, “It must be understood that the Tribunal, which is directed by
the Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the
charges, will not permit any delay either in the preparation of the
defense or of the Trial.”

I remind the Tribunal that the Indictment contains more full particulars
than probably any indictment in the history of jurisprudence.

The third point is that preliminary lists of documents were placed in
the defendants’ Information Center on the 1st of November. The lodgment
of preliminary documents, not complete but amounting to many hundreds,
was made on the 15th of November. Except for one, Dr. Bergold, on behalf
of the Defendant Bormann, all the counsel representing individual
defendants were appointed by the 10th of November.

Next, there have been four detailed speeches by the Prosecution
explaining the scope and emphasis of the Prosecution’s case. Every
experienced advocate knows that the opening speech giving the emphasis
is one of the most important matters for the Defense.

As Professor Kraus said, from the beginning of November there have been
applications for witnesses. I shall deal later with certain of the
individual points, but I want to say this generally, that any one who
has read these applications must be aware that the Defense, from an
early date, have appreciated not only the case they have to meet, but
the line which they wish to pursue.

My eighth point is that, having heard practically the whole case on
Counts One and Two, the common plan and aggressive war, the defendants
received a 12-day recess at Christmas, and it was indicated by the
President that this was, in part at any rate, for their assistance.

It is a point of fair comment that most of us have been engaged in quite
considerable trials where men’s lives have been at stake, when any
question of any adjournment at all would not come into the picture. But
this case does not stop there.

My next point is that on Counts One and Two, the common plan and
aggressive war, the cases against the individual defendants were
co-ordinated and the relevant documents collected in the individual
presentations. In every case defendants’ counsel had these documents and
trial briefs by the latest at the middle of January. All the
presentations were concluded by the 17th of January except for four. The
matter has been brought up to date by the expositions of M. Dubost, M.
Quatre, and by my Soviet colleagues as they went along. In addition, the
transcripts, of which each defendant receives a copy in German, show the
weight and emphasis which the Prosecution attach to the different
individual cases.

We all know, from our own experience, that you cannot prepare any
defense in any trial without the burning of midnight oil; but I do
impress upon the Tribunal that the assistance which has been given and
the time which has been allowed is remarkable in this case.

I want to deal much more shortly with the mechanical side of it, because
Professor Kraus has been fair enough and good enough to say that the
Prosecution have given assistance. And I want to say this, that we are
quite prepared, when there is any question of photostating a German
document, or of mimeographing or reproducing a document in any other
way, or providing additional clerical assistance, to go beyond what we
have done and to meet any request made to us to the utmost of our
ability.

Now I want to deal with the essential point which Professor Kraus has
made, that the Prosecution have had a long time to prepare and develop
their case, and Defense have corresponding rights.

In my respectful submission, there is this essential difference between
the case for the Prosecution and the case for the Defense. The
Prosecution must cover the whole field; the Defense selects the issues
on which it will make its fight.

I respectfully disagree with the contention of Professor Kraus that that
is altered by the fact that we are here dealing with a conspiracy
charge. Whether the charge is conspiracy or not, there are certain facts
which are not in dispute. There are certain facts which will be, as is
indicated by Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum, the subject of legal argument or
discussion as to the true inference to be drawn from them; and the fact
that a case is based on conspiracy does not alter the fact that certain
matters are either going to be contradicted by evidence or left
uncontradicted.

I, myself, have seen nothing to suggest that, for example, the
re-establishment of military forces in Germany, the occupation of the
Rhineland, the Anschluss in Austria, the existence and circumstances of
concentration camps, many of the actions of certain SS-divisions and
bodies under Himmler, are going to be disputed at all, because the
defendants’ counsel have had the opportunity of cross-examining
witnesses on many of these matters, and there has been no challenge by
cross-examination.

I do not question for the moment nor seek to deal with the decision of
the Tribunal this morning, which, of course, I accept with the utmost
loyalty, but I hope the Tribunal will not think it wrong for me to
mention in explanation that the Prosecution were anxious for the Defense
to eliminate the matters in issue and would have been prepared, so far
as it lies with them, to agree to a certain time being given for that
purpose. But yet, the defendants have said—and again I make no
complaint—that they are not prepared to do it. Therefore, that reason
for adjournment disappears.

I do not want the Tribunal to think that we are either unimaginative or
unreasonable. We know, because we have seen the other side of the
shield, that there are certain mechanical matters and matters of
conclusion of preparation which have to be done before a case is put
forward. We quite appreciate that the defenders of Göring, of Hess, and
of Ribbentrop may require a day or two to put their tackle in order, but
I want to make clear that that, in our view, is quite different from a 3
weeks’ adjournment.

I respectfully agree with every word that Professor Kraus has said about
the maintenance of the dignity of the Trial, but it is not essential, in
my respectful submission, for the maintenance of the dignity of the
Trial that the Trial should take place in slow time. That would not only
be wrong, but it would be directly contrary to the portion of the
Charter to which General Nikitchenko referred at Berlin.

With regard to the witnesses, there are, as the Tribunal knows, certain
difficult matters, in that, to begin with, the defendants asked for many
witnesses who were very largely repetitive; and they have, as I judge
the application, begun recently to get clear who are the essential
witnesses, and the Tribunal will rule on that finally as it has
indicated.

I only take one other example. Professor Kraus mentioned the question of
certain documents for which Dr. Kranzbühler was asking, which were, as I
understand it, U-boat diaries. I have arranged that Dr. Kranzbühler’s
assistant will be enabled to go to London and examine these documents at
his leisure in the Admiralty. That is on paper in our reply. I
respectfully submit that that sort of attitude is the best and most
helpful attitude for letting the Defense get what they wish.

Mr. President, I have nearly exhausted my time, and I only say this in
conclusion: The Prosecution has had to collate and co-ordinate actions
taking place over a long period, certainly 12 years, in some cases 20
years. We have collated and co-ordinated the evidence of these actions.
We have presented a case which is grounded mainly on the written
statements or written records of statements made by the defendants
themselves. The task before the Defense is to give the explanation that
what they say is the true color of words that have been proved—and not
disputed—to have come out of their own mouths.

They have had the time which I have stated and which I shall not repeat,
but that being the state of this case, it is the attitude of the
Prosecution, with, as I say, every desire to help in any way that is
possible in the actual work, whether it be mechanical or preparing
documents or otherwise, that the defense cannot rightfully ask for
further time for general reflection and consideration on a case which
has that basis. We therefore respectfully but firmly object to any
adjournment other than a matter of individual days, not more than a
week, certainly—we should say less than that—for the purpose of
completing preparations and putting mechanical tackle in order.

That, Mr. President, is the attitude of all my colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider its decision on this matter
and it will adjourn this afternoon at 4 o’clock in order to consider the
other matters which are raised in Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very good.

Before I sit down, I am asked by my colleagues to make this clear. I,
myself, did not tie myself in my argument to any number of days because
a weekend may intervene and different considerations may arise, but my
colleagues wish it to be before the Tribunal that their view is that,
taking into account the time which will elapse before the Soviet case is
concluded, and the argument on the organization for which time has to be
allowed, that 2 days is the figure they have in mind, although, as I
say, a weekend may intervene which may add to that. I want to make it
quite clear that we are quite definite.

I am very grateful.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, will you continue your address.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue with the presentation of evidence in
regard to Yugoslavia.

In corroboration of the criminal system of hostages which was fully
developed in Yugoslavia, the Government of Yugoslavia has submitted a
series of originals and certified photostatic copies of different
documents. I shall not submit my own comments on these documents which
were incorporated into the report of the Yugoslav Government. I shall
merely restrict myself to the presentation of the documents themselves,
since they are definite and do not call for further comment.

I present as Document Number USSR-256(a) the original of an
announcement, dated 12 August 1941, which mentioned the shooting of 10
hostages. The printed poster was signed by the German Police
Commissioner in Lasko, Hradetzky.

Further, as Document Number USSR-148, I present a certified photographic
copy of announcement of the shooting of 57 persons. This poster, from 13
November 1941, was signed by Kutschera.

Further, as Document Number USSR-144, I present a certified copy of an
announcement of 21 January 1942, relating to the shooting of 15
hostages. The poster was signed by Roesener.

Further, as Document Number USSR-145, I present a certified photographic
copy of a poster announcing the shooting of 51 hostages, and the date is
1942, month unknown. The poster is signed by Roesener.

Further, I present as Document Number USSR-146, an original announcement
printed as a poster, signed by Roesener, which announced that on 31
March 1942, 29 hostages were shot.

Further, I present as Document Number USSR-147 a certified photographic
copy of the announcement, printed as a poster, which stated that on 1
July 1942, 29 hostages had been shot.

I consider that the sum total of these documents is sufficient to prove
that the system of hostages was widely used in Yugoslavia.

To conclude my presentation of evidence in this particular field, I
refer to Exhibit Number USSR-304 (Document Number USSR-304), Report
Number 6 of the Yugoslav Extraordinary State Commission for the
investigation of war crimes. I read one paragraph of this document into
the record:

    “A group of hostages at Celje were strangled on hooks used by
    the butchers for hanging meat. In Maribor, the doomed, in groups
    of five, had to place the bodies of the hostages already
    executed in boxes and then load them into trucks. After that
    they themselves were shot, while the next group of five, in
    their turn, continued with the loading. This went on
    continuously. Sodna Street in Maribor was all soaked in blood
    pouring from the trucks.”

I end my quotation here.

It seems to me that in submitting to the Tribunal a summary of the
terroristic regime established in the countries of Western Europe, this
summary would be incomplete without some mention of a country like
Greece, a country which also was a victim of the terroristic regime
which the German fascists had established. Therefore I present to the
International Military Tribunal a report of the Government of the Greek
Republic. This report is duly certified with the signature and seal of
the Greek Ambassador in Great Britain, as well as of a member of the
British Foreign Office. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-79 (Document Number UK-82), and I shall read into
the record a few excerpts from this report which concerns the setting up
of the fascist terror regime in Greece and which also deals with the
same criminal system of hostages.

The war against Greece was declared by Germany on 6 April 1941, and
already on 31 May the German commanding general in Athens had published
a frankly terroristic order directed against the peaceful population of
Greece. The direct pretext for publishing this was the fact that on 30
May 1941 the Greek patriots had torn down the swastika from the
Acropolis.

I here quote this order of the commanding general of the German Armed
Forces in Greece, from the report of the Greek Government, on Page 33 of
the Russian translation. This order threatens severe punishment for the
following reasons:

    “a. Because in the night of 30-31 May, the German banner flying
    over the Acropolis was torn down by persons unknown. Those
    guilty of this act, as well as their accomplices, will be
    punished by death.

    “b. Because the press and the public opinion of all classes
    still express evident sympathy in favor of the English, now
    expelled from the continent of Europe.”

Therefore, even sympathy for the English brought the same terrible
punishment.

    “c. Because events in Crete were not only not condemned, but
    were even favorably commented on in many circles.”

Here the commander of the German Armed Forces was evidently referring to
the patriotic resistance of the inhabitants of the Island of Crete.

    “d. Because, although absolutely forbidden, repeated gestures of
    sympathy, such as gifts, flowers, fruit, cigarettes, _et
    cetera_, were made to British prisoners; and these
    demonstrations were tolerated by the Greek police who did not
    intervene to stop them with the means at their disposal.

    “e. Because the behavior of large number of Athenians towards
    the German Armed Forces has again become less friendly.”

From that time onwards the same regime of the German fascist terror was
established in Greece that characterized the actions of the Hitlerite
criminals in all the territories they occupied. In confirmation of that
fact I cite the report of the Greek Government on Page 34 of the Russian
translation. I quote, beginning with Line 4 from the top of the page:

    “In violation of Article 50 of the Hague Convention they
    systematically punished the innocent, adhering to the principle
    that the community as a whole must bear the responsibility in
    full for acts committed by individual persons.

    “They used starvation as an instrument of pressure and for
    weakening the spirit of resistance in the Greek population. Very
    few people were tried by courts-martial; and these, when held,
    were a mere parody of justice. They instituted a policy of
    reprisals, including the seizure and killing of hostages, mass
    murders, and the destruction and devastation of villages, for
    acts committed in their vicinity by individuals unknown.

    “The great majority of those executed were taken at random from
    the prisons and camps, without any possible relation to the act,
    in reprisal for which they were executed. The life of every
    citizen depended on the arbitrary decision of the local
    commander.”

It seems to me quite correct to consider the murder, in Greece, of
thousands of people by starvation, as one of the most powerful factors
of the terrorist regime established by the German fascists in Greece. In
connection with this subject, the following statement is made on Page 36
of the Russian text:

    “It is an incontestable fact that a great majority of the Greek
    population lived on the verge of starvation for nearly 3 years.
    Many thousands suffered from real starvation for several months
    before relief shipments could reach them. As a result, the death
    rate increased by 500 or 600 percent in the capital and 800 to
    1,000 percent in the Greek islands, as from September 1941 to
    April 1942. The infant mortality was 25 percent, and the health
    of the survivors was greatly undermined.”

The report of the Greek Government cites excerpts from reports of
neutral missions. I quote one of these excerpts, which is on Page 38 of
the Russian text of the Greek Government report. I begin the quotation:

    “During the winter of 1941-42 when famine reigned in the
    capital, conditions in the provinces were still tolerable.
    During the following winter, however, when Canadian relief for
    the larger towns had been swallowed up by the unrestricted
    market, the situation was very different. During our first tours
    of inspection, when investigating the situation in general, we
    met in March 1943 populations literally weeping for bread. Many
    villages lived only on a substitute bread baked with Ersatz
    flour, wild pears, and acorns—food ordinarily suitable for
    pigs. In many districts the population had seen no other bread
    since December. We were taken inside the houses and shown empty
    shelves and larders; we saw people cooking grass without oil,
    only to fill their stomachs somehow or other. The inhabitants of
    the poorer villages were all emaciated. The children, in
    particular, were often in a pitiful condition with skinny limbs
    and swollen stomachs. They had none of the vitality and
    happiness natural to children. It was quite usual for half the
    children to be unable to attend school.” (Report of the Swedish
    delegates to the Peloponnesian Islands, January 1944.)

In order to describe the hostage-holding regime established by the
Hitler criminals in Greece, I shall also quote excerpts from the Greek
Government report. From the text of this report it is quite evident that
shootings of hostages during the first weeks of the German occupation of
Greece were carried out on a wide scale. I quote, for this reason, an
excerpt from the Greek report on Page 41. I begin at the third line from
the top of the Russian text:

    “Hostages were taken indiscriminately and from every class of
    the population. Politicians, professors, scientists, lawyers,
    doctors, officers, civil servants, clergymen, manual workers,
    women, all those labeled as ‘suspect’ or ‘Communist’ were thrown
    into local prisons or concentration camps. Prisoners under
    interrogation were subjected to various ingenious forms of
    torture. Hostages were concentrated in places of confinement
    where the arrested persons were subjected to the most unbearable
    regime.”

The report of the Greek Government—also on Page 41 of the Russian
text—states with regard to this matter:

    “The inmates were starved, beaten, and tortured. They were made
    to live under perfectly inhuman conditions without medical help
    or sanitation. There they were subjected to the refined sadism
    of the SS guards. Many were shot or hanged. Others died from
    cruel treatment or starvation, and only a few were released and
    survived until the date of the liberation of the country.
    Hostages were also deported to concentration camps in Germany:
    Buchenwald, Dachau, _et cetera_.”

The report gives the total number of hostages murdered. The same page
contains the following statement, “The number of hostages shot amounts
to some 91,000.”

In order fully to understand on what a tremendous scale the Hitlerites
committed their crimes in connection with the physical extermination of
the Soviet people in the territory of the U.S.S.R., I ask the Tribunal
to refer to Page 299 in their document book.

THE PRESIDENT: You are now passing away from Greece, are you, Colonel
Smirnov?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess then.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With your permission, Mr. President, and in
accordance with the instruction of the Tribunal, I shall omit a number
of items in my statement. These items, which I shall exclude from the
text, amount to a number of pages; and I request your permission to tell
the interpreters how many pages I skip. I draw the attention of the
Tribunal to a document dealing with the large-scale extermination of
Soviet nationals in the temporarily occupied districts of the U.S.S.R.
In confirmation of this fact I refer to a document which you, Your
Honors, will find on Page 291 of the document book, at the end of the
last paragraph of the first column and on the second column of the text.
This deals with the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union concerning the destruction, plundering, and atrocities of
the German fascist invaders in the town of Rovno and the Rovno region. I
submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-45 (Document Number
USSR-45).

I quote the results of the examination by legal-medical experts
concerning the bodies of peaceful Soviet citizens murdered by the
Germans and subsequently exhumed:

    “1. In all investigated burial places in the city of Rovno and
    its surroundings, over 102,000 corpses of peaceful citizens and
    prisoners of war, shot or murdered by other methods, were
    discovered. Out of this figure:

    “a) In the city of Rovno, near the lumber yard on Belaya Street,
    49,000 corpses were discovered.

    “b) In the city of Rovno, on Belaya Street, in the vegetable
    gardens, 32,500.

    “c) In the village of Sossenki, 17,500.

    “d) In the stone quarries near the village of Vydumka, 3,000.

    “e) In the area surrounding Rovno prison, 500.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following text, where we
read indications as to the distribution of certain methods of murder
adopted by the criminals in the various periods. Mass shootings, as
shown in the following Subparagraphs a, b, and c, took place in 1941.
The extermination of peaceful citizens in the gas wagons occurred in
1943, as shown in Subparagraph d. Shootings followed by burnings of the
corpses in 1943, and shootings in the jail occurred in 1944.

I skip the next page, and draw the attention of the Tribunal to that
part of the document which is on Page 240, second column of the text; a
description of the methodical destruction of the inmates in Rovno
prison. I dwell on this point because similar methods of extermination
of Soviet people are typical of the terrorist regime established by the
Hitlerite invaders in the temporarily occupied territories of the
U.S.S.R. I begin my quotation on Page 240 of the document book:

    “On 18 March 1943 the Rovno paper _Volyn_ of the German
    occupational troops published the following announcement:

    “‘On 8 March 1943 inmates of Rovno prison attempted to escape,
    whereby they killed one German prison official and one guard.
    The escape was thwarted by the energetic action of the prison
    guard. By order of the commandant of the German Security Police
    and the SD, all the prison inmates were shot on that same day.’

    “In November 1943 the German district judge was murdered by a
    person unknown. As a measure of retaliation, the Hitlerites
    again shot over 350 inmates of Rovno prison.”

I will not quote any further examples of the executions in the prisons,
since in those documentary films which will be submitted to the
Tribunal, Your Honors will find a series of similar crimes committed by
the Hitlerite invaders on the territories of the U.S.S.R. I pass on to
the following part of my statement: “The retaliatory destruction of
village populations.”

In the infinite chain of German fascist crime, there are some which will
remain for a long time, perhaps forever, in the memory of indignant
mankind, even though mankind will have learned about still graver crimes
perpetrated by the Nazis. One of the crimes that will thus be remembered
is the destruction of a small Czechoslovak village called “Lidice” and
the bestial reprisal against the population of that village.

Many times and in even more cruel forms, the fate of Lidice was suffered
on the territory of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Poland; but
mankind will remember Lidice and will never forget it, for this little
village became a symbol of Nazi criminality. The destruction of Lidice
was a retaliation by the Nazis for the just execution of the Protector
of Bohemia and Moravia, Heydrich, by Czechoslovak patriots.

The Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., when speaking of Lidice, quoted an
official German report concerning this act of terror, which was
published in the paper _Der Neue Tag_ on 11 June 1942.

I will quote a very short extract from the report of the Czechoslovak
Government, which the Tribunal will find on Page 172 of the document
book:

    “On 9 June 1942 the village of Lidice was surrounded, on the
    order of the Gestapo, by soldiers who arrived from the hamlet of
    Slany in 10 large trucks. They allowed anyone to enter the
    village, but no one was permitted to leave. A 12-year-old boy
    tried to escape; a soldier shot him on the spot. A woman tried
    to escape; a bullet in the back mowed her down, and her corpse
    was found in the fields after the harvest.

    “The Gestapo dragged the women and children to the school.

    “The 10th of June was the last day of Lidice and of its
    inhabitants. The men were locked up in the cellar, the barn, and
    the stable of the Horak family farm. They foresaw their fate and
    awaited it calmly. The 73-year old priest, Sternbeck,
    strengthened their spirit by his prayers.”

I omit the following two paragraphs and pursue my quotation:

    “The men were led out of the Horak farm into the garden behind
    the barn, in batches of 10, and shot. The murders lasted from
    early morning until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Afterwards the
    executioners were photographed with the corpses at their feet.”

I skip the following four paragraphs and pass on to the fate of the
population of Lidice:

    “The fate of the men of Lidice has been described. One hundred
    seventy-two adult men and youths from 16 years upwards were shot
    on 10 June 1942. Nineteen men who worked on 9 and 10 June in the
    Kladno mines were arrested later on in the collieries or nearby
    woods, taken to Prague and shot.

    “Seven women from Lidice were shot in Prague as well. The
    remaining 195 women were deported to the Ravensbrück
    concentration camp. Forty-two died of ill-treatment; seven were
    gassed; three disappeared. Four of these women were taken from
    Lidice to a maternity hospital in Prague where their newly born
    infants were murdered; then the mothers were sent to
    Ravensbrück.

    “The children of Lidice were taken from their mothers a few days
    after the destruction of the village. Ninety children were sent
    to Lodz, in Poland, and thence to Gneisenau concentration camp,
    in the so-called Wartheland. So far no trace of these children
    has been found. Seven of the youngest, less than a year old,
    were taken to a German hospital in Prague. After examination by
    ‘racial experts’ they were sent to Germany, there to be brought
    up as Germans and under German names. Every trace of them has
    been lost.

    “Two or three infants were born in Ravensbrück concentration
    camp. They were killed at birth.”

The fate of Lidice was repeated in many Soviet villages. Many peaceful
citizens of these villages perished in even greater torment: They were
burned alive or died, victims of still more brutal forms of execution.

I have considerably reduced the volume of the examples which I wished to
quote, and I omit the next page of the text, drawing the attention of
the Tribunal to the text on Page 295, second column of the text. This
document, already submitted to the Tribunal by my colleague, Colonel
Pokrovsky, is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the
Soviet Union on the crimes of the Hitlerite invaders in the Lithuanian
Soviet Socialist Republic. I quote one paragraph only:

    “On 3 June 1944 in the village of Perchyoupa of the Trakai
    district, the Hitlerites broke into the village, surrounded and
    plundered it completely, after which, having driven all the men
    into one house and the women and children into three others,
    they set fire to the buildings. Those who attempted to flee were
    caught by the fascist monsters and thrown back into the burning
    houses. In this manner the entire population of the village, 119
    souls in all, 21 men, 29 women”—and I stress—“69 children,
    were burned to death.”

I close the quotation and beg the Tribunal to turn to another document,
which I submit as Exhibit Number USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279). It
is a communiqué of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of
the German fascist invaders in the cities of Viazma, Gjatsk, and Sychev,
of the Smolensk region, and also in the city of Rjev in the Kalinin
region.

I would have liked to dwell more fully on this report but I will now
summarize it in order to shorten my statement. I skip two pages of the
text and pass on to Page 145 of my text. I quote the sixth paragraph:

    “In the village of Zajtschiki, members of the Gestapo drove into
    one house the following persons: Michael Zaikov, age 61; Nikifor
    Belyakov, age 69; Catherine Begorova, age 70; Catherine
    Golubeva, age 70; Jegor Dadonov, age 5; Myra Zernova, age 7; and
    others—23 persons all told. The Gestapo set fire to the house
    and burned all the victims alive.”

I omit two paragraphs and quote one more paragraph:

    “In retreating from the village of Gratschevo in the district of
    Geschatsk, in March 1943, the assistant chief of the German
    Field Police, Lieutenant Boss, drove 200 inhabitants into the
    house of the peasant woman Chistyakowa.”—The names of still
    more villages are then given.—“He locked the doors, set fire to
    the house, and all the 200 were burned alive.”

I will not enumerate the names of the people, but I wish to draw the
attention of the Tribunal to the fact that some of these people were 63
and 70 years old, some of the children were 3, 4, and 5 years old.

I omit two paragraphs and quote another excerpt:

    “The fascists burned all the inhabitants, both young and old, of
    the villages of Kulikovo and Kolesniki, of the Geschatsk
    district, in one farmhouse.”

I conclude the reading of this document.

I now ask the Tribunal to accept in evidence a German document,
submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-119 (Document Number
USSR-119). This is a certified photostat of an operational report and
other documents of the 15th Police Regiment. Among them we find one
entitled, “Summary of a Punitive Expedition to the Village of Borysovka,
22 and 26 of September 1942.” The Tribunal will find this document on
Page 309 of the document book.

I quote in brief from this document, which proves beyond doubt that
under the guise of the anti-partisan struggle the Hitlerite criminals
mercilessly annihilated the peaceful population of the Soviet villages.
I quote the first part under the heading:

    “1. Mission: The 9th Company must destroy the village of
    Borysovka, which is infested by partisans.

    “2. Forces: Two platoons of the 9th Company of the 15th Police
    Regiment, one platoon of gendarmes of the 16th Motorized
    Regiment, and one tank platoon from Beresy-Kartuska.”

I emphasize, Your Honors, that the expedition included a tank platoon
from Beresy-Kartuska. Against whom were these tanks and the two platoons
supposed to operate? We find an answer to this question in the following
item of this report:

    “3. Execution of mission: The company assembled in the evening
    on 22 September 1942 in Dyvin. During the night from 22 to 23
    September 1942, they marched from Dyvin in the direction of
    Borysovka. The village was encircled from the north to the south
    by two platoons at 4 a.m. At daybreak the entire population of
    the village was collected by the village elder of Borysovka.
    After an investigation of the population with the assistance of
    the Security Police and the SD from Dyvin, five families were
    resettled in Dyvin. The remainder were shot by a specially
    detailed squad and buried 500 meters to the northeast of
    Borysovka. Altogether 169 persons were shot consisting of 49
    men, 97 women, and 23 children.”

I consider that these figures are so eloquent that I can conclude the
reading of this document and, omitting two pages, pass on to the next
part of my statement.

I beg the Tribunal to look at Page 316 of the document book, which
contains the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the
destruction caused by the German fascist invaders in the Stalinsk
region.

Hitherto I have submitted proof of the fact that in the villages the
German fascist invaders criminally exterminated the Soviet population by
burning their victims alive. In this report we find a confirmation of
the fact that people were burned alive equally in the cities and towns.
This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-2
(Document Number USSR-2). I quote from Page 316 of the document book:

    “In the city of Stalino, the German invaders drove the residents
    of a professor’s house into a barn, closed the entrance, blocked
    it, poured oil on the barn, and set it on fire. All those in the
    barn lost their lives, with the exception of two little girls,
    who saved themselves by pure chance.

    “On 11 November 1943 the members of this commission”—I omit the
    next part containing the composition of this commission—“made
    excavations on the site of the barn and while investigating it,
    they discovered 41 charred human corpses.”

From the very first days of the war against the U.S.S.R. the German
fascist terror toward the peaceful population assumed monstrous
proportions. This was noted in the reports of several German officers,
who had participated in the first World War and who stressed the fact
that even in the cruelty of the first World War they had never witnessed
anything similar.

I again refer to a German document and submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number USSR-293 (Document Number USSR-293), an authenticated photostat
of a report from the former commander of the 528th Regiment, Major
Roesler, and a report by Schirwindt, who was chief of the 9th Military
District. Since this document is of sufficient interest I will read it
into the record in full. You, Your Honors, will find the extract on Page
319 of the document book. I quote:

    “Kassel, 3 January ’42; Major Roesler; Report.

    “The matter entrusted to me by the 52d Reserve Regiment,
    entitled ‘Attitude towards the Civilian Population in the East,’
    prompts me to report the following:

    “At the end of July 1941 the 528th Infantry Regiment, then under
    my command, was on its way from the West to their rest area in
    Zhitomir. After I had moved with my staff into the staff
    quarters, on the afternoon of the day of our arrival, we heard
    rifle volleys, at a short distance from us, at regular
    intervals, followed a little later by pistol shots. I decided to
    find out what was happening and started out with my adjutant and
    the courier (First Lieutenant Von Bassevitz and Lieutenant
    Müller-Brodmann) in the direction of the rifle shots. We soon
    had the impression that something was happening, since after
    some time we saw numerous soldiers and civilians streaming
    toward the railway embankment behind which, as we were told,
    executions were taking place. We could not, at first, reach the
    other side of the embankment for a long time. After a certain
    definite interval, however, we heard the sound of a whistle
    followed by a volley of about 10 rifles, which in turn was
    followed, some time later, by pistol shots. When we finally
    scrambled over the embankment a picture of horror was revealed
    to us. A pit, about seven to eight meters long and perhaps four
    meters wide, had been dug in the ground. The upturned earth was
    piled on one side of the pit. This pile of earth and the side of
    the pit were completely soaked in blood. The pit itself was
    filled with numerous corpses of all ages and sexes. There were
    so many corpses that one could not even ascertain the depth of
    the pit.

    “Behind the pile of earth stood a police detachment under the
    command of a police officer. The uniforms of the police bore
    traces of blood. Many soldiers from the troops just billeted in
    the area stood around. Some of them wore shorts and lounged
    about as spectators. There were also a number of civilians;
    women and children. I approached the grave as near as possible
    in order to get a picture, which I was never able to forget.

    “In this grave lay, among others, an old man with a white beard,
    clutching a cane in his left hand. Since this man, judging from
    his sporadic breathing, still showed signs of life, I ordered
    one of the policemen to kill him off. He smilingly replied, ‘I
    have already shot him seven times in the stomach. He can die on
    his own now.’

    “The bodies lay in the grave, not in rows, but as they had
    fallen from the top of the pit. All these people had been killed
    by rifle shots in the nape of the neck and then in the pit were
    granted the coup-de-grace of a pistol shot.

    “I have never seen anything of the kind, either in the first
    World War, in the Russian, or in the French campaigns of the
    present war. I have witnessed many disagreeable things in the
    volunteer detachments in 1919, but I have never witnessed a
    similar scene.”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

    “I wish to add that according to the testimony of soldiers who
    have often watched these executions, apparently several hundred
    persons were shot by these methods every day.

    “Signed: Roesler.”

Characteristic is the comment in the covering note from the deputy
commander of the IXth Army Corps and commanding officer of the 9th
Military District, who forwarded Roesler’s report to the chief of the
army armament and equipment department, Berlin. I quote this document
which the Tribunal will find on Page 318 of the document book. I quote:

    “Subject: Atrocities perpetrated on the civilian population of
    the East.

    “With regard to the news of mass executions in Russia, which we
    are receiving, I was at first convinced that they had been
    unduly exaggerated. I am forwarding herewith a report from Major
    Roesler which fully confirms these rumors.”—The last sentence
    is also typical:

    “If these things are done openly, they will become known in the
    fatherland and give rise to criticism.

    “Signed: Schirwindt.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you know who was the deputy commander
of the IXth Army Corps and commander of the 9th Military District and do
you know who was the chief of the armament and equipment department in
Berlin? Do you know whether any reply was made to this report?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I can only give an answer on this subject at a
later date. These questions are unknown to me and must be elucidated in
a supplementary report. I shall shortly clarify them and give the
Tribunal the additional information and will submit the documents
dealing with this matter.

I beg to be allowed, in presenting this evidence, to submit to the
Tribunal a photostatic copy of a document. I present two albums
certified by the Extraordinary State Commission; they will be submitted
to each member of the Tribunal. (Exhibits Numbers USSR-387 and 391).

I beg the permission of the Tribunal to show certain photographs on the
screen. I must admit these documents have not been selected on the basis
of the impressiveness of the atrocities shown—the Tribunal will find
even more monstrous episodes of mass atrocities in the document
book—but rather, all these photographs have been selected because of
their typical character.

Before presenting these documentary photographs, I ask the permission of
the Tribunal to submit another German document as Exhibit Number
USSR-297 (Document Number USSR-297). It is a certified photostatic copy
of one of the reports of the chief of the Security Police and SD,
prohibiting the photographing of mass executions. It is very typical
that in many of these cases the photographs were taken by the Germans
themselves. This attracted the attention of the chief of police and
therefore photographing was prohibited to the German fascist criminals.

I quote only a short excerpt from this report—Page 321 of the document
book:

    “The Reichsführer SS has forbidden the photographing of
    executions by an order of 12 November 1941, Journal Number 1
    1461/41 Ads., and has ordered that insofar as such pictures are
    needed for official purpose that the entire exposed material be
    collected in archives.”

I omit the following paragraph and quote the third paragraph:

    “The leader of the Einsatzkommando or Sonderkommando or the
    company commander of the Waffen-SS and the section leader of the
    war correspondents are charged with the responsibility that
    plates, films, and prints of these photographs do not remain in
    the hands of individual members of these task force units.”

I skip the following part of the document in its entirety, as I consider
that the quotations which have been presented are sufficient proof that
the police authorities were uneasy about the fact that frequent
photographing of mass executions by the German fascists gave
confirmation of these executions. I beg the Tribunal for permission to
start the showing of several of these photo-documents. Would you permit
me to do so, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: What are you waiting for, Colonel Smirnov?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The lights should be turned off but apparently
there are some technical difficulties which are unfamiliar to me.
Therefore I cannot start with the showing of the photo-documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think you can go on with your statement and do the
photographs after the adjournment? How long do you think the photographs
will take?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I fully agree with you, Mr. President. I beg
your permission to present evidence concerning the second part of the
statement, namely, the mass annihilation by the German fascists of the
citizens of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

The mass extermination of peaceful populations of the Soviet Union and
of the countries of Eastern Europe was carried out by the German fascist
criminals everywhere, as can be seen from both the official orders and
the reports about the carrying out of these executions. In this regard
they had the following objectives in mind:

1. Physical elimination of those sections of the population which were
capable of resistance; 2. For racial reasons, that is, for the
materialization of racial theories inculcating hatred of mankind; 3. For
purposes of retaliation; 4. Supposedly “for the struggle against the
partisans” whom the German fascists could neither catch nor destroy, and
for this reason they vented the full force of their retaliatory measures
on the peaceful population.

The execution of children was a particularly cruel method of Hitlerite
terrorism. The use especially of torture devices for killing children
was one of the prime and most despicable characteristics of the
Hitlerite terror regime in the temporarily occupied territory of the
Soviet Union.

Immediately after the seizure of power by the fascists, Hermann Göring
began to issue laws against vivisection. He pitied dogs, guinea pigs,
and rabbits subjected to scientific experiment for the benefit of
humanity. In confirmation I refer to Göring’s book _Speeches and
Articles_ published in 1940 by Erich Gritzbach at Munich. (Document
Number USSR-377). On Page 80 of this book we find Göring’s speech, “The
Struggle Against Vivisection.” I shall not quote any lengthy extract
from this book and shall only mention one sentence which testifies that
for motives, so to speak, of love for animals, Hermann Göring widely
exercised his right to intern human beings in concentration camps.

At a certain meeting of SS-Gruppenführer at Posen, as the Tribunal
knows, Himmler stated, Document Number 1919-PS, “We Germans are the only
people who treat animals kindly.”

But these criminals—from Himmler to Keitel—who sentimentally discussed
the tortures of animals, persistently instructed their subordinates to
exterminate children senselessly, inhumanly, and cruelly. At the meeting
in question Himmler also stated:

    “If anyone would come to me and say, ‘You cannot build antitank
    trenches with children and women, it is inhuman since they will
    die,’ I should reply, ‘You are the murderers of your own
    blood.’”

Numerous investigations on the German fascist atrocities in the Soviet
Union have shown without any doubt that on occasion of mass shootings
many children have been thrown into the grave when still alive. In
confirmation of these facts I am referring to official documents, “The
German criminals threw into the grave children who were still alive.”

I invite the attention of the Tribunal to a document which has already
been submitted by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, as Exhibit Number
USSR-46. It is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the
crimes of the German fascist invaders in the city and region of Orel.
The Tribunal will find it on Page 334 of the document book, the last
three lines of the page, and on Page 335. I quote:

    “Those shot in the city were collected and thrown into ditches,
    preferably in forest areas. In jail the executions took place as
    follows: The men had to stand facing a wall while the gendarme
    fired his pistol into the nape of their necks. The shot
    penetrated the vital centers and death was instantaneous. In
    most cases women had to lie face downward on the ground and the
    gendarme shot them through the base of their neck.

    “A second method was to herd people in groups into a ditch, with
    their faces turned to one side. Then they were killed likewise
    by shots in the nape of the neck with machine guns. In the
    trenches corpses of children were discovered who, according to
    the testimony of witnesses, had been buried alive.”

Furthermore, I refer to a document which has already been submitted to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1, a report of the Extraordinary
State Commission on the crimes of the German fascist occupants in the
area of Stavropol. I quote from Page 271 of the document book, Paragraph
3, beginning as follows:

    “During the inspection of a ravine in the vicinity of Koltso
    Hill and a distance of 250 meters from the high road. . . .”

I omit the next sentence.

    “. . . a washed-out grave was discovered, 10 meters in depth,
    from which protruded separate parts of human bodies. As from 26
    to 29 July 1943, excavations were carried out at this spot and,
    as a result, 130 corpses were exhumed. The legal-medical
    examination proved that the corpse of a 4-months-old girl showed
    no traces of violence. The child had been thrown alive into the
    ditch where it perished from suffocation.”

I skip the next phrase and quote from the next paragraph:

    “The autopsy performed on bodies of dead infants by the
    legal-medical investigation proved that they had been thrown
    into the ditch alive, together with their mothers who had been
    shot. All the other corpses showed traces of torture.”

I will now refer to the verdict of the Military Tribunal of the 4th
Ukrainian Front, which I had already submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-32.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Have I your permission to continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Please do.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continuing the presentation of evidence on
atrocities of German fascist criminals with regard to children, I refer
to the testimony of the witness, Bespalov, included in the document
previously presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-32 (Document
Number USSR-32). The members of the Tribunal will find the place which I
refer to on Page 33, fifth paragraph of the document, Column 1 in the
document book. Bespalov testified:

    “At the end of June last year I myself saw up to 300 girls and
    women brought on 10 to 12 trucks to the forest park. The
    unfortunate women were throwing themselves from side to side,
    weeping, tearing their hair, and rending their clothes. Many
    fainted, but the German fascists paid no attention to this. By
    kicks and beatings with rifle butts and sticks they forced them
    to get up; the executioners themselves stripped and threw into
    the pits, those who did not rise. Several girls—among them
    children—tried to run away, but were killed.

    “I saw how, after a burst of machine gun fire, some of the
    women, swaying and helplessly flinging up their arms, staggered
    toward the standing Germans with heart-rending cries. At this
    time the Germans were shooting them with pistols. Maddened with
    terror and grief, mothers clutched their children to their
    breasts, running with terrible wails into the forest clearing,
    seeking help.

    “The Gestapo members snatched the children from them, seized
    them by the arms or legs, and threw them alive into the pit;
    when the mothers ran after them to the pit, they were shot.”

I quote one paragraph out of Exhibit Number USSR-9 (Document USSR-9),
already presented to the Tribunal. This is a report of the Extraordinary
State Commission of the Soviet Union of the crimes of the German fascist
invaders in the city of Kiev. The members of the Tribunal will find this
document on Page 238, second column of the text, sixth paragraph:

    “On 29 September 1941 Hitler’s bandits drove thousands of the
    peaceful Soviet citizens to the corner of Melnik and
    Doktorovskaya Streets and from there to Baybe-yar, where they
    shot them, after taking all their valuables from them.

    “Citizens N. F. Petrenko and N. T. Gorbacheva, who lived near
    Baybe-yar, stated that they had seen how the Germans threw
    babies at the breast into graves and buried them alive with
    their dead or wounded parents. One could see the surface of the
    ground moving over the buried people who were still alive.”

These were not individual occurrences, but a systematic plan. This
inhuman terror was practiced on children, since the chiefs of German
fascism understood that this form of terrorism would be particularly
frightful for the survivors. Compassion for the weak and the defenseless
is an inalienable human trait. By applying their particularly barbarous
methods to children, the German fascist criminals showed the rest of the
population that there was no crime, no cruelty at which they would stop
for the purpose of pacifying the occupied territories. Children did not
simply share the fate of their parents. The so-called “actions” were
frequently directed against the children themselves. They were taken
forcibly from their parents, concentrated in one place, then murdered.

I refer to a very brief report of the Extraordinary State Commission,
already submitted to the Tribunal, entitled, “Concerning the Crimes of
the German Conspirators in Latvia.” The members of the Tribunal will
find the place I refer to on Page 286, on the reverse side, in the
second column of the document book, Paragraph 5. Here it states, and I
quote:

    “In the main jail in Riga they murdered over 2,000 children who
    had been torn from their parents, and in the Salaspil Camp, more
    than 3,000.”

From the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of
the Hitlerites in Lithuania, the Tribunal will learn of the brutal
methods employed by the Germans to separate children from their parents
incarcerated in prisons, concentration camps, or ghettos—these methods
usually preceded the murder of the children. This document has already
been submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-7 (Document USSR-7) to the
Tribunal. The members of the Tribunal will find the place referred to on
Page 295, first column, sixth paragraph of the document book. I omit the
first paragraph, which mentions the organization of the camp. This has
no direct relation to children, and I begin with the second paragraph,
which shows what was done with them:

    “In the beginning of 1944 the Germans in this camp forcibly took
    children from 6 to 12 years old and carried them off. An
    inhabitant of the city of Kovno, Vladislav Blum, testified:

    “‘Heart-rending scenes occurred under my eyes. The Germans took
    the children away from their mothers and sent them, no one knows
    where. Many children were shot together with their mothers.’

    “On the walls of the camp buildings inscriptions were discovered
    concerning the crimes of the Hitlerite monsters. Here are some
    of them:

    “‘Avenge us! Let the whole world know and understand how
    savagely our children were exterminated! Our days are counted!
    Farewell! Let the whole world know and let it not forget to
    avenge our innocent children! Women of all the world, remember
    and understand all the atrocities which befell our innocent
    children in the 20th century! My child is already dead, I am
    indifferent to everything!’”

Further, I refer to the document which has already been presented to the
Tribunal under Document Number USSR-63. This is an official report on
the torture and shooting of children in the Domachev children’s asylum
of the Brest region in the Bielorussian S.S.R. The members of the
Tribunal will find this document on the reverse side of Page 223, fifth
paragraph, first column. I shall quote three or four paragraphs out of
this document, omitting the remainder:

    “By order of the German occupational authorities of the
    district, the Chief of the Prokopchuk district ordered the
    principal of the children’s home, A. P. Pavliuk, to poison a
    sick 12-year-old child, Lena Renklach. After Pavliuk refused to
    carry out the order, the child was shot by policemen in the
    vicinity of the children’s home, allegedly ‘while trying to
    escape.’

    “In order to save the children from starvation and death, 11 of
    them were distributed among the local population in 1942, and 16
    children were taken by their relatives.”

And this was the further fate of those children. I continue with my
quotation:

    “On 23 September 1942, at 7 o’clock in the evening, a 5-ton
    truck appeared in the yard of the children’s home, bringing six
    armed Germans in military uniform. The group leader, named Max,
    explained that the children would be taken to Brest and ordered
    them to be placed in the truck. Fifty-five children and their
    teacher, Grocholskaya, were placed in the truck. One girl,
    9-year-old Tossia Schachmatova, succeeded in climbing out of the
    truck and escaping. The remaining 54 and the teacher were driven
    away in the truck in the direction of the station of Dubitz, 1½
    kilometers from the village of Leplevka. The car stopped at a
    frontier gun emplacement, 800 meters from the River West Bug.
    The children were undressed—which was proved by the fact that
    the children’s clothes were found in the truck after its return
    to Domachev—and shot.”

I omit the remaining part of this official report. It has been proved by
documents dealing with the shootings that in mass executions of children
they were torn in half while still alive and thrown into the flames. To
confirm this, I refer to the testimony of the witness, Hamaidas, a
native of the village of Lisbenitzky, in the Lvov region, who was
confined by the Germans in Yanov Camp at Lvov.

Hamaidas’ occupation in the camp consisted in burning the corpses of
those who had been shot. At the same time, he was a witness to the mass
shootings of the peaceful population—men, women, and children. The
testimony of Hamaidas, together with other documents concerning the Lvov
camps, has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-6(c) (Document USSR-6(c)); I quote two lines from the testimony of
Hamaidas, from Page 55 of the document book, 11th line from the bottom
of the page:

    “I was a witness to such facts. The executioner would seize
    children by the feet, tear them apart while they were still
    alive, and throw them into the fire.”

Having shot the parents, the German murderers considered it unnecessary
to waste ammunition on children. When they did not throw the children
into the grave pits they often murdered them simply by hitting them with
a heavy object or by pounding their heads against the ground. I refer,
in confirmation of this, to the document already presented to the
Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c), in which are other documents on
reports of legal-medical experts employed in the exhumation of corpses
in Yanov Camp. I shall quote only two lines of the conclusion. The
members of the Tribunal will find the place where I refer to the
conclusion of the legal-medical experts on Yanov Camp on Page 330 of the
document book, second paragraph at the top of the column, reverse of
Page 330. I quote this brief excerpt:

    “The executioners did not consider it necessary to waste
    ammunition on children. They simply killed them by hitting them
    over the head with a blunt instrument.

    “Children were often cut in half with rusty saws and subjected
    to other forms of torture.”

I ask the permission of the Court to read into the record only one
paragraph from a note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of
the U.S.S.R., dated 27 April 1942. The members of the Tribunal will find
the place to which I refer on Page 8, reverse side, second column, third
paragraph:

    “The invaders subjected children and adolescents to the most
    brutal tortures. Among the 160 wounded and maimed children,
    victims of the Hitlerite terror in the districts of the now
    liberated Moscow region, undergoing treatment in the Russakov
    Hospital in Moscow, there is, for instance, the case of a
    14-year-old boy, Vanya Gromov, from the village of Novinki, who
    had been strapped to a table by the Hitlerites and then had had
    his right arm sawed off with a rusty saw. The Germans chopped
    off both hands of 12-year-old Vanya Kryukov, of the village of
    Kryukovo, in the Kursk region, and drove him, bleeding
    profusely, toward the Soviet troops.”

I omit the rest of the quotation—two pages—since similar facts are
related in the document which confirm the above—mentioned episodes.

Children were the first victims of carbon-monoxide poisoning in the
German gas vans. In confirmation I refer to the material already
submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document USSR-1), which is the
report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the
crimes of the German fascist occupiers in the Stavropol region. The
members of the Tribunal will find that brief excerpt on Page 269 in the
document book, Paragraph 4:

    “It has been established that in December 1942, by order of the
    chief of the Gestapo for the town of Mikoian-Schachar,
    Oberleutnant Otto Weber, an extraordinarily cruel massacre was
    carried out on Soviet children undergoing treatment for bone
    tuberculosis in the sanatorium of the Teberda health resort.
    Eyewitnesses to this crime, members of the sanatorium, medical
    sister, S. E. Jvanova, and medical aide, Polypanova, have
    testified as follows:

    “Before the entrance of the first section of the sanatorium, on
    22 December 1942, a German automobile drew up. Seven German
    soldiers, who had arrived in the vehicle, dragged 54 seriously
    sick children, ranging in age from 3 years upward, out of the
    sanatorium (they were too ill to move and therefore were not
    driven forcibly into the van) and stacked them in layers inside
    the vehicle. They then closed the door, let in the
    carbon-monoxide gas, and drove off from the sanatorium. An hour
    later the vehicle returned to Teberda. All the children had
    perished. They had been exterminated by the Germans and their
    bodies thrown into the Teberda ravine near Gunachgir.”

Children were also drowned in the open sea. In confirmation, I refer to
the document already submitted, Exhibit Number USSR-63 (Document
USSR-63), on the “Indictment of German Atrocities in Sevastopol.” The
members of the Tribunal will find the place I am referring to on the
reverse side of Page 226, Paragraph 7, second column of the text:

    “In addition to the mass shootings, the Hitlerites cruelly
    drowned peaceful citizens in the open sea.

    “Prisoner Corporal Friedrich Heile, of Troop Battalion 2-19 MKA,
    Naval Transport Detachment, testified as follows:

    “‘When I was in the port of Sevastopol, I saw large groups of
    peaceful citizens, including women and children, brought to the
    harbor by trucks. All the Russians were loaded on barges. Many
    resisted. However, they were beaten and driven forcibly onto the
    barges. About 3,000 people, all told, were loaded on. The barges
    put out to sea. For a long time the crying was heard in the bay.
    Several hours passed, and the barges slipped again into their
    moorings. From the ships’ crews I found out that all the people
    had been thrown overboard.’”

Heavy artillery fire was openly directed by the German fascist criminals
against schools, children’s asylums, hospitals, and other children’s
institutions in Leningrad. I present to the Tribunal the summary report
of the Leningrad city commission for the investigation of German crimes.
This report is being submitted to the Honorable Tribunal as Exhibit
Number USSR-85 (Document Number USSR-85). I shall not quote any long
passage from this report. I shall merely draw the Tribunal’s attention
to the fact that on Page 347, Volume II, Paragraph 4, in the document
book, the Judges may see for themselves the list of targets exposed to
German artillery fire, which is testified to by the logs of the fighting
units. The following are some of those targets, “Number 736, a school in
Baburinsk Street; number 708, Institute for the Care of Mothers and
Infants; number 192, Palace of Pioneers.”

I also shall take the liberty of quoting only a short excerpt from the
testimony of the director of School Number 218, which the members of the
Tribunal will find on Page 348, Volume II, first paragraph. The director
of School Number 218, located at 13 Rubenstein Street, writes:

    “On 18 May 1942, School Number 218 underwent artillery fire. A
    12-year-old boy, Lenja Isarow, was killed. A little girl, Dona
    Binamowa, turned white and moaned with pain. ‘Mummy, how can I
    get along without my leg?’ she said. Leva Gendelev was bleeding
    to death. He was given aid, but it was too late. He died in the
    arms of his mother, calling out, ‘Accursed Hitler!’

    “Djenia Kutareva, though seriously wounded, begged that his
    father should not be disturbed because he suffered from heart
    disease. The teacher and all the pupils assisted the victims.”

I conclude the quotation concerning Leningrad. I omit two pages of the
text and draw the Tribunal’s attention to Page 355, Volume II, second
column, Paragraph 6. Your Honors will find there a document submitted as
Exhibit Number USSR-8 (Document Number USSR-8). This is a report of the
Extraordinary State Commission on “The Infamous Crimes of the German
Government in Auschwitz.” I shall quote several short passages from the
second report entitled, “Murderers of Children.” At the same time,
however, I would ask Your Honors to pay special attention to Page 47 of
the Auschwitz album (Exhibit Number USSR-30), as well as to Pages 48 and
49. The photographs on these pages clearly show how emaciated these
children were. I omit the first paragraph, and I quote:

    “Investigations have proved that the Germans completely sapped
    the strength of children between 8 and 10 years of age, by
    forcing them to do the same heavy work they gave to the adults.
    Toil beyond their strength, beatings, and torture soon exhausted
    the children—then they were killed.

    “Ex-prisoner Jacob Gordon, a doctor from Vilna, testified:

    “‘In the beginning of 1943 at Camp Birkenau 164 boys were taken
    away to the hospital, where they were killed by injections of
    carbolic acid in the heart.’

    “Ex-prisoner Bakasch Waltraut of Düsseldorf, Germany, testified:

    “‘In 1943 when we worked on the construction of a hedge
    surrounding Crematorium Number 5, I myself saw SS men throw
    several living children into bonfires.’”

Here is what some of the children, who were saved by the Red Army,
themselves testify about the tortures to which they were subjected. I
omit the next paragraph and ask the Tribunal, while I read, to refer to
Page 50 of the photographic documents of Auschwitz. Here we find the
photographs of a 12-year-old boy, Zihmlich, and a boy of 13, Mandel, and
the Tribunal can see the deformation of these children from exposure to
cold. I continue:

    “A 9-year-old boy, Andrasz Lerintsiakosz, a native of the city
    of Klez, Hungary, testified:

    “‘After we had been driven to Block 22 of the camp, we were
    beaten, mainly by German women who were put over us as guards.
    They beat us with sticks. During my stay in the camp, Dr.
    Mengele bled me very frequently. In November 1944 all the
    children were transferred to Camp A, known as the Gypsy Camp.
    During roll call it was discovered that one child was missing.
    Thereupon, the leader of the women’s camp, Brandem, and her
    assistant, Mendel, drove us all into the street at 1 o’clock in
    the morning and left us standing there in the cold until noon.’”

I omit the next three paragraphs of the quotation, and I read into the
record the last paragraph of this section:

    “There were, among the 180 children liberated from Auschwitz and
    examined by physicians, 52 under 8 years of age and 128 between
    the ages of 8 and 15. All arrived in the camp in the second half
    of 1944, that is, they spent between 3 to 6 months in the camp.
    All 180 children underwent a medical examination, which
    established that 72 suffered from tuberculosis of the lungs and
    glands, 49 suffered from the consequences of malnutrition and
    elementary dystrophy (complete exhaustion), and 31 from
    frostbite.”

I submit to the Tribunal and request Your Honors to accept as evidence
Exhibit Number USSR-92 (Document Number USSR-92). It is a directive from
the Administration of Food and Agriculture, entitled, “Treatment of
Pregnant Women of Non-Germanic Origin.” I refer this document to the
Tribunal because, in their hatred of the Slav race, the German fascist
criminals even attempted to murder babes in the womb. The members of the
Tribunal will find the document on Page 362, in Volume II of the
document book. I shall read two short paragraphs into the record. I
quote:

    “There has recently been a considerable increase in the birth
    rate among women of non-Germanic origin. Difficulties have
    arisen in consequence, not only in connection with the use of
    these people for labor but, to a greater extent, with a danger
    of a social-political nature, which should not be
    underestimated.”

I omit one paragraph and quote further:

    “The simplest method for overcoming these difficulties would be
    to inform, as soon as possible, the institutions which employ
    them for labor, of the pregnancy of the non-Germanic women.”

I draw your special attention to the last sentence, “These institutions
must attempt to compel the women to get rid of their children by
resorting to abortion.”

I conclude my quotation.

The analysis of the material connected with the Hitlerite terror in the
countries of Eastern Europe is positive proof that the atrocities
perpetrated on children will remain forever the most disgraceful page in
the history of German fascism.

I request permission, Your Honor, to present now the photographic
documentation which, owing to a technical difficulty, I was unable to
show before the luncheon recess. With your consent I shall show it at
once. Apparently the presentation will now be more successful than
earlier in the day. I should emphasize that in selecting the photographs
I was not guided, so to speak, by the horror of their contents, but
simply by the fact that they demonstrate typical procedures of the
German fascist crimes.

  [_Pictures were then projected on the screen._]*

(1) Here we see one person being shot. This snapshot was taken in the
Moscow region during the German advance on Moscow. The man was executed
in reprisal for the death of a German.

(2) Here we see four persons being shot. The four youths condemned to
death are standing on the edge of a pit which they dug. The members of
the Tribunal can see for themselves that the German criminals standing
on the outskirts of the wood are laughing at the victims.

(3) This snapshot was taken at the time of the execution. The killing is
carried out in the typical German style, that is, by a shot in the back
of the neck. You will observe that the victims are crying out at the
moment of death.

(4) The snapshots, Your Honors, which I am now showing were taken by the
German Obergruppenführer Karl Strock, chief of the Nipal Gestapo. It
represents a German mass execution. The victims have been ordered to
strip on the execution ground. Here you see a young girl seated, already
undressed, and next to her her brother Jacob, who has also been ordered
to strip. I wish to emphasize the fact that the snapshots were taken in
December, when the cold is intense.

(5) In addition to some native women condemned to be shot, this snapshot
also shows a very young girl endeavoring to hide behind her mother on
the left.

(6) In December naked women in this snapshot have also been taken to the
execution ground. Condemned to death, these women were forced by the
same Obergruppenführer Strock to pose before the camera.

(7) Here we have a group of men and with them a small child accompanied
by his mother. They are going to the execution ground. The child
clutches his mother closely.

(8) This is an amateur photograph, albeit a very clear one. Here, Your
Honors, you see a group of people and some dead bodies, with machine
guns to the right of them. I would ask the Tribunal to observe the
disposal of the dead bodies. The photograph is probably taken during the
first months of the German occupation because the bodies have been
thrown into the pit carelessly; in the latter months orders were given
to lay out the bodies tidily in rows.

(9) This is a snapshot of the same group. Here you see both women and
young girls condemned to death.

(10) In Yanov Camp the executions are carried out to the strains of the
“Death Tango” played by an orchestra conducted by Professor Striks, an
internee in the camp, together with his bandmaster, Mundt. I request
Your Honors to observe two points of interest in this snapshot. To the
right we see the camp commander, Obergruppenführer Gebauer, in white
uniform, and behind him his dog, Rex, known to us through many
interrogations as having been trained to harass living persons and to
tear them to pieces. It is evident that Gebauer is leading the orchestra
to the execution ground.

(11) One of the gallows used by the German fascists in their endeavor to
establish a regime of terror in the temporarily occupied territories of
the Soviet Union. The snapshot was found in the files of the Yanov
Gestapo. A woman of sorts is seen laughing at the foot of the gallows.

(12) A second gallows erected in the same market place, at Lvov, also
taken from the archives of the Gestapo.

(13) I am showing Your Honors the snapshot of an entire street festooned
with bodies of Soviet citizens. This is a street in the city of Lvov,
and I beg to remind the Tribunal that according to the records of the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs the same hangings also occurred in Kharkov.

(14) The same street in Lvov. The snapshot was taken from the archives
of the Lvov Gestapo.

(15) The gallows were not the only means of execution. The guillotine,
too, was used on a vast scale. In this snapshot you see the heads of
victims guillotined in the prison of Danzig. The snapshot was taken in
the Anatomic Institute in Danzig, where the bodies of the victims were
brought after execution.

(16) I shall not show you too many snapshots of tortures inflicted. I
only wish to show a few typical examples. This snapshot was taken from a
dead Gestapo soldier. It shows a young girl being flogged. Later you
will see what next they did to her.

(17) It is not quite clear whether the girl is being strung up by the
hair or hanged by the neck. Judging by the convulsive movement of her
hands, I think that a noose has just been placed round her neck. Observe
the bestial face of the scoundrel who is hanging her.

(18) Here is a snapshot taken from a dead Gestapo soldier. I wish to
emphasize the manner in which the German fascists mocked the chastity of
the Russian women. They had just forced these Ukrainian women to run
naked before the German brutes.

(19) This snapshot will help you to understand subsequent events. It
represents a machine for grinding human bones. Next to the machine
stands the prisoner of war who feeds the machine. It can grind the bones
of 200 persons at a time. As has been proved to the commission, it has a
constant yield of 200 cubic meters of bone flour.

That is all. Photographs are identified as Exhibits USSR-100, 101, 102,
212, 385, 388, 389, 390, 391.

-----

* Mr. Counsellor Smirnov’s explanations of the pictures were not
recorded by the Russian stenographers. They were recorded, however, in
English and German, and these notes are used in the English and German
editions respectively, even though the two texts differ in some
respects.

Will you now permit me to submit further documentary evidence?

In the first part of my presentation I dealt with German mass terrorism
and spoke specifically about the extermination of children and the
infamous methods used by the Germans with regard to them, since terror
applied to children—terror most savage, most brutal—is one of the
characteristic features of fascist bestiality.

I now present to the Tribunal evidence of mass extermination of the
population in various parts of Eastern Europe. I submit to the Tribunal
brief excerpts from the report of the Polish Government, which Your
Honors will find on Page 127 of the document book, in the second
paragraph of the text. It describes the so-called Anin massacre. I
quote:

    “At the end of December 1939 a Polish policeman was shot in the
    vicinity of Warsaw by a bandit. Subsequent investigations showed
    that the murderer was in a restaurant in Vaver, near Warsaw. Two
    German policemen tried to arrest him. When the police entered
    the restaurant, the bandit opened fire, killing one policeman
    and wounding another, that is, he apparently killed one and
    wounded another.

    “In reply the German authorities, on 26 December 1939, ordered
    mass reprisals, and a punitive expedition made its appearance in
    the village.

    “A detachment of ‘Landesschützen,’ under the command of an
    officer, was dispatched to Vaver and to the summer resort of
    Anin. Both of these localities were surrounded by a cordon of
    soldiers. The proprietor of the restaurant where the event
    occurred was immediately hanged, and his body suspended in front
    of his house for 3 days. At the same time the men were dragged
    out from every house. Having thus rounded up about 170 persons,
    the Germans made them stand in the railway station, facing the
    wall and with their hands held above their heads, for several
    hours. Afterwards their documents were checked and a few were
    dismissed, but the vast majority were informed that they would
    be executed. They were then taken to a field, split up into
    groups of 10 to 14, and executed by volleys from machine guns.

    “The number of individual graves discovered on the execution
    ground amounted to 107. Among those executed were two doctors,
    30 youths under 16 years of age, and 12 old men over 60. One was
    an American citizen of Polish origin. He was shot together with
    his son.”

I shall omit the next paragraph of the report of the Polish Government
dealing with the massacre in Piastoshyn, and I quote only an
announcement from a German paper, the _Weichsel Zeitung_, of 23 October
1939. This announcement was quoted in the Polish report. I read:

    “In the Tuchel district, the farm of a Reich citizen, Fritz, in
    the vicinity of Pretzin, was burned by Polish bandits in the
    night of 21-22 October. The citizen Fritz had a heart attack in
    consequence. By order of the chief of the Civil Administration a
    punitive expedition was dispatched to this locality, in order to
    teach the guilty bandits a lesson which would show them that
    acts of this kind would be severely punished. In reprisal 10
    Poles, known for their hostile attitude towards Germany, were
    shot. In addition an order was given to the Polish inhabitants
    of this locality to rebuild the burned buildings and to pay for
    the damage done.”

I shall omit half of the following page, and I quote briefly the
circumstances of the Yousefouv massacre in Poland. Your Honors will find
this quotation on Page 128, Paragraph 2 of the document book:

    “In the middle of January 1940 a family of German colonists in
    the village of Yousefouv was robbed and murdered by bandits, as
    the Germans themselves stated in the newspapers at a later date.
    A punitive expedition set out for Yousefouv.”

I omit the next paragraph, and then I continue:

    “The expedition started a large-scale massacre. All the males
    who were caught in Yousefouv and the vicinity, even 11-year-old
    boys, were arrested and shot on the spot. Altogether 300 people
    were murdered.”

Mass extermination of the peaceful population in Yugoslavia was of an
exceptionally cruel nature. I quote that part of the report of the
Yugoslav Government entitled, “Mass Murder of the Civilian Population
and the Destruction of Villages.” I beg the Tribunal to accept as
evidence a photostat of the order of Lieutenant General Neidtholt, which
is presented as Exhibit Number USSR-188 (Document Number USSR-188). I
cite this order, which was quoted in the report of the Yugoslav
Government:

    “The settlements of Zagniezde and Udora must be destroyed, the
    male population of these settlements hanged, and the women and
    children taken to Stoliac.”

I omit the next page of the text and begin the quotation regarding the
atrocities of the German fascist criminals in Kragujevac. In
confirmation of this report of the Yugoslav Government, we submit to the
Tribunal a certified photostat copy of a communication from the
commander of the garrison at Kragujevac, in which he admitted the
shooting of 2,300 people. This document is being submitted to the
Tribunal, and I ask the Court to accept this as evidence under Exhibit
Number USSR-74 (Document Number USSR-74). I quote from the report of the
Yugoslav Government on the mass murder in Kragujevac:

    “This was a mass murder committed on 21 October 1941, in
    Kragujevac, by a German punitive expedition under the command of
    Major König. Besides König, the regional commander,
    Bischofshausen, and the commandant of the settlement, Dr.
    Zimmermann, participated in the organization and realization of
    this crime.

    “Already 10 to 15 days before the crime in Kragujevac was
    committed, one battalion arrived to reinforce the German
    garrison. First of all, the following villages were destroyed in
    the vicinity of Kragujevac: Mechkovac, Marsic, and Groshnic. In
    Mechkovac the punitive expedition murdered 66 people, in Marsic,
    101, and in Groshnic, 100. All the victims were peaceful
    citizens of the villages in question.

    “When, after the perpetration of these crimes, the punitive
    expedition arrived in Kragujevac, they began by carrying out
    their plan to exterminate the citizens of Kragujevac, especially
    the Serbian intelligentsia. As early as the beginning of October
    the district commandant, Dr. Zimmermann, demanded of the
    director of schools in Kragujevac the regular attendance of the
    school children; otherwise they would be considered saboteurs
    and shot. After such a threat, all the pupils attended school
    regularly. On 18 October 1941, in conformity with a previously
    prepared list, all male Jews were arrested, as well as all
    persons who were considered Communists. They were imprisoned in
    the barracks of the former Yugoslav auto-transport headquarters
    in Stanovlensko Polje. They were kept without any food until 20
    October, and all were shot at about 6 o’clock in the evening;
    approximately 60 persons were killed.

    “The same day, that is, 20 October, they began to round up the
    entire male population of Kragujevac. After every exit from the
    city had been blocked, the Germans went into every public
    building and drove out all the employees. After that, all the
    professors and pupils from the fifth grade upward, together with
    the school masters, were taken from the high schools and
    seminaries.”

I omit the next two sentences and quote further:

    “Together with the others, all the prisoners from the Kragujevac
    prison were taken off to the barracks. Then the order was given
    to them to go into the courtyard of the barracks. Here all their
    personal belongings were taken from them. The first to be shot
    were those who were originally incarcerated in the
    prison—approximately 50 persons. The rest were locked up in
    barracks. The next day, 21 October, as from 7 o’clock in the
    morning, they were taken off in batches to Stanovlensko Polje,
    and there shot down by machine gun fire. Those who did not die
    at once were finished off by the Germans with automatic guns and
    rifles.”

I conclude this quotation and continue after the next three paragraphs.

    “The relatives of the victims of this mass slaughter were
    forbidden to visit the place of execution until the burial of
    the victims had been completed and all traces of the crime
    eliminated. They were also forbidden to hold any requiem masses
    or religious services for the victims. In the obituary notices
    in the papers it was forbidden to mention that the victims had
    met their death in the mass execution.”

I omit the next five paragraphs and invite the attention of the Tribunal
to a short part of the report of the Yugoslav Government dealing with
the so-called “death march” or “march of blood,” that march of dire fame
which took place in the camp of Yarak. I quote that particular part
which deals with this atrocious crime of the Hitlerites:

    “In the beginning of September 1941 a large German punitive
    expedition rounded up all the male population between the ages
    of 14 and 70 years and drove them from Shabatka across the Sava
    River into the settlement of Yarak in Sirinya. That was the
    so-called death march. About 5,000 men had to run a distance of
    23 kilometers and back again. Those who could not stand the pace
    and fell by the way were ruthlessly shot on the spot. Because
    many were old and weak, the number of victims was great,
    especially while crossing the bridge over the Sava.”

I conclude this, and I continue the next paragraph:

    “On the way back they met another group of 800 peasants who had
    to cover the same distance, but the treatment of this group was
    still more brutal. They had to run with their arms raised over
    their heads. They were systematically murdered on the way. Only
    300 men of the group reached Yarak alive.”

I interrupt the quotation here. I omit this page and the next, and,
concluding my presentation of the mass murders of the civilian
population in Yugoslavia, I would ask the Tribunal to accept in evidence
the public announcement of the Chief of the German Armed Forces in
Serbia. This document is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-200 (Document Number USSR-200). Without making any comment at all,
I simply quote this document, using the original text incorporated in
the report of the Yugoslav Government. In the report the
Commander-in-Chief in Serbia quotes the following facts:

    “In the village of Skela, a Communist detachment opened fire at
    a German military truck. It was established that several of the
    inhabitants had been watching and had seen the preparations for
    this attack. It was further established that these inhabitants
    could have warned the nearest station of the Serbian
    gendarmerie. It was also established that they could have
    secretly warned the German military trucks against the pending
    attempt. The inhabitants did not profit by the opportunity and
    had thus placed themselves on the side of the criminals. The
    village of Skela was burned to the ground. Supplies of
    ammunition exploded in several houses during the fire, and this
    was accepted as a proof of complicity on the part of the
    inhabitants. All the male inhabitants of the village whose
    participation in the attack had been proved were shot, and 50
    Communists were hanged on the spot.”

I now omit five pages of my presentation, and I invite the attention of
the Tribunal to the brief excerpts from the report of the Greek
Government, on Pages 39 and 40 of the Russian text of this report, from
which we can see that the same inhuman and criminal methods of mass
shootings were used by the Hitler criminals in the temporarily occupied
territory of Greece. I begin my quotation:

    “As soon as the island of Crete was occupied by the
    Germans. . . . In compliance with this announcement, the first
    reprisals were made, and several people, most of them absolutely
    innocent, were shot, and the villages of Skiki, Brassi, and
    Kanades”—perhaps I am stressing the wrong syllables, since I do
    not know how these words should be pronounced in Greek—“all
    these villages were burned down as a reprisal for an attack by
    collaborators of the Greek police during the invasion of Crete.
    On the sites where these villages formerly existed, posts were
    erected with inscriptions in Greek and in German: ‘Destroyed as
    a reprisal for the brutal murder of a detachment of paratroopers
    and half a platoon of sappers by armed men and women in the
    rear.’

    “Measures of reprisal, which at first were of a temporary
    nature, later grew in intensity, especially after the resistance
    made by organized partisan detachments throughout the country in
    the beginning of 1943. The technique was always the same. The
    day after some act of sabotage or any other action committed by
    the partisans near a village, the German troops would appear in
    this village. The inhabitants would be rounded up in the central
    square or some other place suitable for the occasion, to listen
    to a public announcement, but in reality to be killed on the
    spot by machine gun fire. After this the Germans either burned
    the villages or else, in some cases, they would first plunder a
    village and then open fire on it. The inhabitants were killed
    openly in the streets, houses, and fields, regardless of age and
    sex. There were few cases when only the male population from the
    age of 16 years and over were executed. In other cases, when the
    men succeeded in hiding in the mountains, the Germans would
    execute the old men, women, and children who had remained in the
    villages, hoping that their age and their sex would protect
    them. The villages of Arachovo, Kalovryta, Gestamon, Klessoura,
    Kommeno, and Lissovouni may be considered as typical examples.
    Some villages were destroyed for the sole reason that they were
    located in some region where partisans had been active.”

I omit the next sentence since it has a direct bearing on another text
of the report. I continue my quotation:

    “The number of people murdered amounts to nearly 30,000.”

I am now going over to the presentation of evidence of mass
exterminations of the peaceful population in the territory of the
U.S.S.R. by the Germans.

As to the circumstances of the mass executions, we may now judge them
not only by the testimony of eyewitnesses or of the perpetrators of the
atrocities; we may, in part, judge them on the basis of the material
collected by the legal and medical commission. I say “in part” because,
as from 1943, fearing retribution for the crimes committed, the
Hitlerites began to destroy the traces of their crimes. They exhumed and
burned corpses, ground bones, and strewed the ashes on the fields; they
also used the slag formed by the corpses cremated, as well as the bone
flour, for repairing the roads and fertilizing the fields. But
notwithstanding the efforts of the criminals to conceal the traces of
their crimes, it was impossible to destroy all the corpses of the people
murdered.

The first mass “action” of the Germans, when tens of thousands of
innocent and peaceful people were murdered at a time, was the “Kiev
action.” In order to realize the extent of these atrocities I refer Your
Honors to a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission already
submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-9. I quote from Page
238, on the reverse side of the document book, at the end of the third
paragraph from the top. I quote:

    “In Kiev, over 195,000 Soviet citizens were tortured to death,
    shot, and poisoned in the gas vans, as follows:

    “(1) In Baybe-yar, over 100,000 men, women, children, and old
    people.

    “(2) In Darnitza, over 68,000 Soviet prisoners of war and
    peaceful citizens.

    “(3) In the antitank trench in the vicinity of Syretzk Camp and
    in the camp proper, over 25,000 peaceful Soviet citizens and
    prisoners of war.

    “(4) In the grounds of the Hospital of St. Cyril, 800 insane
    patients.

    “(5) In the grounds of the Kiev-Pechersk Abbey, about 500
    peaceful citizens.

    “(6) In the cemetery of Ljukjanousk, about 400 peaceful
    citizens.”

I continue to quote from this document, Page 238, second column of the
text, Paragraph 6, and I give two short excerpts from this page. I
begin:

    “In 1943, sensing the uncertainty of their position in Kiev, the
    occupying forces, in an attempt to conceal the traces of their
    crimes, opened up the tombs of their victims and began to burn
    the corpses. The Germans relegated the burning of the corpses in
    Baybe-yar to the internees of Syretzk Camp. SS officer Topheide
    was placed in charge of this work, together with members of the
    gendarmerie, Johann Merkel and Vogt, and the commander of the SS
    platoon, Rever.

    “The witnesses, L. K. Ostrovski, C. B. Berlandt, W. Y. Davydov,
    Y. A. Steyuk, and J. M. Brodski, who had escaped the shootings
    at Baybe-yar on 29 September 1943, testified:

    “‘As prisoners of war we were interned in the Syretzk
    Concentration Camp in the outskirts of Kiev. On 18 August 100 of
    us were sent to Baybe-yar. There we were shackled in chains and
    ordered to exhume and burn the corpses of Soviet citizens who
    had been murdered by the Germans. Here the Germans brought
    granite monuments and iron railings from the cemetery. From
    these monuments we made platforms on which we placed rails, and
    on top of these rails we laid the iron grills to act as fire
    bars. On the iron grills a layer of firewood was placed, and on
    top of the firewood we placed a layer of corpses. On the corpses
    we placed a further layer of firewood and poured petroleum over
    the whole. Following this order the corpses were piled up in
    several layers and then ignited. About 2,500 to 3,000 corpses
    were placed in each of these “ovens.” The Germans detailed
    special crews for the removal of earrings, rings, and also gold
    teeth from the jaws of the dead.

    “‘When all the corpses were burned, new “ovens” were stacked,
    and so on. The bones were smashed into small particles by
    bulldozers and the ashes strewn over the Yar, so that no traces
    should be left. The men worked from 12 to 15 hours a day.

    “‘The Germans used excavators in order to expedite the work.
    From 18 August until the day of our escape—29
    September—approximately 70,000 corpses were burned.’”

I interrupt this quotation and invite the attention of the Tribunal to a
document on Page 287, Volume II, Paragraph 5 of the document book,
second column. This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on
crimes of the German fascist invaders in the territory of the Latvian
S.S.R. In the place to which I will draw the attention of the Tribunal
it is shown that the Hitlerites systematically carried out executions in
the forest of Birkeneck. I make a special point of quoting this because
further on we shall present documentary films showing full details of
these mass shootings. I begin the quotation:

    “In the forest of Birkeneck, on the outskirts of the city of
    Riga, the Hitlerites shot 46,500 peaceful citizens. The witness,
    M. Stabulnek, a woman who lived in the vicinity of the forest,
    stated that:

    “‘On Friday and Saturday before Easter, 1942, packed busses went
    from the city to the forest. I saw 41 busses passing my house
    from the beginning of Friday morning to noon. On Easter Sunday,
    many inhabitants—I among them—went into the forest to the site
    of the executions. There we saw one large open pit containing
    the bodies of women and children who had been shot; they were
    either naked or in their underwear. There were traces of torture
    and ill-treatment on the corpses of the women and children, many
    of whom had black and blue bruises on their faces and cuts on
    their heads. Some had had their hands and fingers cut off, their
    eyes gouged out, and their stomachs ripped open.’”

I now omit one paragraph and continue:

    “The commission discovered, on the execution ground, 55 graves
    covering a total area of 2,885 square meters.”

I quote one more paragraph from this communication:

    “In the forest of Dreilin, 5 to 7 kilometers east of Riga, along
    the highway to Luban, the Germans shot over 13,000 peaceful
    citizens and prisoners of war. The witness, W. S. Ganus,
    testified:

    “‘As from August 1944 the Germans organized excavation crews to
    open up the graves, and all through the week bodies were burned.
    The forest was surrounded by German guards armed with machine
    guns. On and after 20 August black, closed cars filled with
    citizens, among whom were women and children—so-called
    “refugees”—began to arrive; they were shot and their bodies
    burned immediately. I had hidden in the bushes and watched this
    fearful scene. The screams of the victims were terrible. I heard
    shouts of “Murderers,” “Hangmen” and the children crying, “Mama,
    don’t leave me.” The bullets of the murderers stopped the
    screams.’”

I conclude this document because it now contains only analogous facts. I
wish to invite the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that 38,000 people
were shot in this forest.

I further request the Tribunal to refer to a document already presented
to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-47, which is the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on crimes committed
by the German and Romanian invaders in Odessa and the region of Odessa.
I shall refer to two very brief excerpts of this report. Your Honors
will find one of the excerpts I wish to quote on Page 283, Volume II of
the document book, first column of the text, Paragraph 5. I begin:

    “On 21 December 1941 the Romanian gendarmes proceeded to execute
    the internees in the camp. The internees were brought, under
    guard, to a half-ruined building on the outskirts of the forest.
    There they were forced to kneel by the ravine; then they were
    shot. From the edge of the ravine those who were killed—and
    often those who were only wounded—fell to the foot of the
    ravine, where a gigantic fire of straw, reeds, and wood had been
    built. The smaller children were thrown alive into this fire by
    the executioners. The burning of the corpses went on for 24
    hours on end.”

Here I interrupt my quotation, since details of these crimes will follow
later, and I refer the members of the Tribunal to Page 283 of the
document book, Paragraph 3, Column 2, containing a complete summary of
the data available:

    “According to the preliminary figures, as established by the
    commission, the Germano-Romanian occupiers shot, tortured to
    death, and burned, in Odessa and the region of Odessa, up to
    200,000 people.”

In confirmation of the fact that during the mass executions, the
so-called “actions,” the German criminals buried people who were still
alive, I submit to the Tribunal, under Exhibit Number USSR-37 (Document
Number USSR-37), a report of the Extraordinary State Commission, dated
24 June 1943. I quote the act, which the members of the Tribunal will
find on Page 359, in Volume II of the document book. The place that I
refer to will be found on Page 362 of the document book:

    “While excavating the pit at the foot of Chalk Hill (Mielovaya
    Gora) in the town of Kupiansk, 71 bodies were discovered,
    including the bodies of 62 men, eight women, and one infant. All
    the victims were unshod and some of them were quite naked.”

I pass to the quotation of Paragraph 4, Page 362:

    “The Commission notes that there were many whose wounds were not
    fatal; they had evidently been thrown into the pit and buried
    alive. This has also been confirmed by citizens who passed near
    the pit soon after the shooting; they saw the ground stirring
    and heard dull groans emanating from the grave.”

In confirmation of this fact, I would request the Tribunal to read into
the record the original minutes, taken from the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission, on the interrogation of the witness,
Vassilievitch Joseph Ivanovitch, examined by the public prosecutor of
the city of Stanislav at the request of the Extraordinary State
Commission. We submit this document as Exhibit USSR-346 (Document Number
USSR-346). I shall quote only two paragraphs from the minutes of this
interrogation:

    “In the beginning of 1943 we burned people there in the
    cemetery, to which firewood was brought for this purpose. There
    were cases where women and children were thrown alive into the
    pits and there buried.

    “One woman—I do not know her name—begged an officer not to
    shoot her, and he gave her his word that she would not be shot.
    He even said, ‘I give you my word as an officer that you will
    not be shot.’ After the shooting of the group to which this
    woman belonged, this officer himself took her by the hand, threw
    her alive into the pit, and she was buried alive.”

Thus, in one whole series of cases, the victims were purposely buried
alive in order to add extra cruelty to the misdeeds of the criminals. In
other cases this was due to the fact that the Germans did not even
consider it necessary to verify whether the people to be liquidated were
dead or not.

An investigation of the data on the exhumation of these bodies, when the
German fascists no longer had the time to destroy the traces of their
crime by burning them, shows that towards the end of 1941 and in 1942
the criminals did not particularly attempt to camouflage the execution
grounds—and this despite the instructions, already known to the
Tribunal, issued by fascist headquarters on the camouflaging of
execution grounds and keeping secret the so-called executions. I am of
the opinion that this can be explained only by the fact that the
Germans, in spite of some set-backs, were convinced of their final
victory, and that, therefore, they hoped that their deeds would not be
punished.

I refer to the document already presented with other documents to the
Tribunal as Document Number USSR-2(a), a report of the Extraordinary
Commission of the Soviet Union on atrocities committed by the German
fascist invaders in the region of Stalinsk. There we find a report of
the medical-legal expert commission on the atrocities committed by the
German fascist invaders in the alabaster quarries near the city of
Artemovsk, in the Stalinsk district. I shall quote only a brief excerpt
from this document. I shall omit the greater part of the indictments.

In the document book, Page 366, fifth paragraph, of the first column of
the text, Your Honors will find the following:

    “Two kilometers to the east of the city of Artemovsk, in the
    tunnel of the quarry of the alabaster works, 400 meters from the
    entrance, there is a small opening walled up with bricks. When
    the bricks were removed a continuation of the tunnel was
    discovered. This was a narrow passage rising steeply, having at
    the end a broad, oval cavern, 20 meters in length, 30 meters in
    width, and 3 to 4 meters in height.

    “The entire cavern was filled with dead bodies and only a small
    area at the entrance and a narrow strip in the center were free
    of corpses. The bodies were closely pressed one against the
    other, with their backs turned to the entrance to the cavern.

    “This is typical because it shows the customary German routine
    of shooting in the nape of the neck.

    “The corpses were wedged so tightly that, at first glance, it
    appeared as though there was just one solid mass of intertwined
    bodies. The last layers had been heaped on the first, which were
    then closely pressed to the walls of the cavern.”

I omit the two following pages of the report, and I merely quote the
conclusion of the legal-medical expert commission. You will find this on
Page 366, Volume II, second column of the text, Paragraph 15:

    “According to the testimony of the inhabitants of Artemovsk, on
    9 February 1942 several thousand people were driven into the
    abandoned alabaster quarries, carrying their small household
    possessions and food.

    “As and when the cavern filled up, the people were shot either
    when standing or kneeling down; then another batch would be
    driven in and shot down on the corpses of the first batch; the
    corpses of the victims were piled one on top of another. Some
    people tried to flee from the impending murder, trampled one
    another down, and died in agony.”

I further omit three pages of my presentation and continue on Page 209.
During the period of the mass executions the German fascist criminals
elaborated a definite technique for the execution of their crimes. I
would like to mention some of the most typical methods employed, because
the Tribunal will realize, on hearing individual instances, how
criminally this technique of atrocities was perfected by the Germans and
how increasingly cynical was the premeditation of these monstrous
crimes. In confirmation of my statement, I should like to present some
documents to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: We shall have to break off now. It is 4 o’clock.

The Tribunal would be glad to know how much longer your presentation
will be.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall finish my presentation of evidence
tomorrow.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                            SIXTY-SECOND DAY
                        Tuesday, 19 February 1946


                           _Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.

The Defense motion for a recess cannot be granted. When a recess at
Christmas was decided upon, the Tribunal informed the Defense Counsel
that no further recess would be granted.

As Counsel for the Prosecution has pointed out, Defense Counsel have
already had several months in which to prepare their defenses to a case
which depends principally upon documents in the German language, written
by the defendants themselves or their associates. They have also had
constant assistance from the Tribunal and the Prosecution in connection
with documentary evidence and witnesses.

The Tribunal has observed that many of the Defense Counsel have already
found it possible, quite properly, to absent themselves from court, and
the Tribunal sees no reason why some of the time which must elapse for
the conclusion of the case for the Prosecution should not be utilized in
preparation of their defenses out of court.

The Tribunal therefore decides that, at the conclusion of the
Prosecution’s case against the individual defendants, the argument on
the groups or organizations alleged to be criminal shall take place and
that thereafter applications for documents and witnesses by those
defendants whose witnesses and documents have not already been decided
upon shall be heard in open session. In this way several days will be
occupied in which many of the Defense Counsel can be absent from court
and they can prepare their defenses out of court.

That is all. You may continue, Colonel.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honor, you asked me yesterday who, in
January 1942, was the chief of the military economy and armament
department of the German Army. I could not answer yesterday but today I
can report to you that General of the Infantry Thomas held this
position.

As to the second question which you put to me, that is, what measures
were taken in regard to the correspondence connected with the report of
Major Roesler, I requested information from Moscow, where this
correspondence is kept. There are only excerpts from this correspondence
in the archives, the rest of the correspondence is in another archive.
We requested information from this archive and as soon as the latest
disposition of this correspondence is ascertained, I will immediately
report to the Tribunal. This will take about a day or two.

Before continuing my statement, I wish to remark that today I should
conclude the presentation of all the evidence concerned with my
statement. I have to submit a considerable number of documents, and
therefore my statement will be rather fragmentary. I will not dwell on
particulars and will endeavor not to repeat what has already been said
by the prosecutors of other countries. This will render my statement
somewhat piecemeal, for which I must beg your indulgence.

I will now proceed with my statement.

The legal-medical expert’s report, drawn up in the city of Smolensk, has
already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-48
(Document Number USSR-48). It was signed by a member of the
Extraordinary State Commission for the Soviet Union, President of the
Medical Academy and eminent Soviet physician, Academician Burdenko, by
the principal legal-medical expert of the Ministry for Health, Dr.
Prozorovsky, and other experts. In addition to the final conclusions
which have already been presented by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, I
now submit to the Tribunal the actual record of these experts’
investigation. From this the Tribunal will be able to judge, not only
the final conclusion but also the methods used for this investigation.
The Tribunal can see for themselves the detailed description of each
burial ground investigated by experts, as well as the detailed
examination of the corpses exhumed from the ditches. I will not repeat
those parts of the account which have already been partially quoted by
Colonel Pokrovsky. Therefore I omit four pages of my statement and pass
on to Page 213. The part which I wish to quote now Your Honors will find
on Page 377 of the document book, Volume II, Paragraph 2 of the page.
The experts describe a typical scene of a burial site of the German
victims in 1941 and the beginning of 1942. I quote:

    “The ditches from which the corpses were exhumed were not common
    burial grounds. The corpses were not laid out in a row, one next
    to the other, but layer upon layer, a solid mass of women’s and
    men’s bodies heaped together in confusion. In this mass of
    corpses some were bent or half bent, some were lying on their
    faces, on their sides, or on their backs, some were on their
    knees, with faces down or up, with legs and arms interlinked. It
    was impossible to separate the corpses before they were exhumed
    from the ditch.”

However, this chaotic manner of burial of the corpses appears to
characterize only the mass burials of victims of the first mass
shootings which were carried out toward the end of 1941 and the
beginning of 1942. During subsequent exhumations the legal-medical
experts discovered very many burial grounds where the corpses were laid
down in orderly fashion, layer on layer.

A typical scene of such a burial ground the Tribunal can find in the
album regarding the Lvov Camp. On Page 15 of this album there is a
picture of a burial ground of the later period. The bodies are lying in
regular layers, and this can be explained by. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Which album is this?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It is the album which concerns the Lvov Camp,
Your Honor. It was submitted to the Tribunal yesterday. The picture I am
talking about is on Page 15 of the album. It is a photograph which was
discovered in the Gestapo headquarters at Lvov.

The reason that impelled this regular disposition of bodies will become
clear to the Tribunal from an excerpt of the Extraordinary State
Commission’s report on atrocities.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this a photograph of the bodies as they lay in the
trench or after they had been moved?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, it is a photograph taken by some Gestapo
official, Your Honor, and was discovered in the archives of the Lvov
Gestapo. If you will look at this picture, you will see that the corpses
are lying almost in regular rows on the spot of this mass shooting.

What was the reason for this regular laying out of the corpses? The
Tribunal will find the answer to this on Page 290 of the document book,
second column of the text, Paragraph 8. This is a report of the
Extraordinary State Commission on atrocities committed by the German
fascist invaders in the city and region of Rovno. I quote:

    “The witness Karpuk, a worker on a German farm near Belaya
    Street, testified:

    “‘Several times I saw how the Hitlerites exterminated Soviet
    citizens, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, and Jews. This took place
    usually in the following manner: The German butchers brought the
    doomed people to the place of execution, forced them to dig a
    ditch, ordered them to undress, and to lie down in the ditch,
    face downward. The Hitlerites fired at the back of the necks of
    the victims with automatic pistols. Then another group of people
    lay down on top of the bodies of those shot and were finished
    off in the same manner, and then a third row, and so on, until
    the ditch was filled. Then they poured quicklime over the
    corpses and covered them with earth.’”

One can judge how widespread was this infamous and cruel method of mass
execution from an excerpt concerning the executions in Maidanek. I quote
from a Soviet-Polish communiqué already presented to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-29 (Document Number USSR-29). The Tribunal will find
this on Page 65 of the document book, first column of the text,
Paragraph 14. I begin the quotation:

    “On 3 November 1943, 18,400 people were shot in the camp; 8,400
    came from the camp itself, and 10,000 were herded there from the
    city and other camps.”

I omit the next sentence.

    “The shootings started early in the morning and ceased late in
    the evening. The SS brought the people, stripped naked, to the
    ditches in groups of 50 or 100 men. They were packed into the
    bottom of the ditch face down and shot with automatic rifles.
    Then a new group of people were piled on the corpses and shot in
    the same manner; and so on until the pits were full.”

I especially concerned myself with determining the exact date when this
method was used for the first time. According to Soviet documents this
started in the second half of 1942. But in general, it may be stated
that similar methods of shooting were already adopted by the German
police detachments in Poland in 1939.

Thanks to the kindness of our British colleagues, I submit to the
Tribunal a document which was received by our delegation from the
British Prosecution. It is a photostat of the document—the original is
in the archives of the British Delegation and I think I am safe in
saying that if the Tribunal requires the original copy, it can be
presented. The authenticity of the information which is contained in
this correspondence cannot be questioned. It is a German report taken
from the archives of Hitler’s aide-de-camp. I quote one place, which the
Tribunal may find on Page 391 of the document book, second volume,
Paragraph 2, (Document USSR-342). The German staff doctors considered it
necessary to report to Hitler about these shootings because “since these
shootings were done publicly, enemy propaganda may derive much
material. . . .”

Out of this correspondence I quote a short excerpt from the record of
Corporal Paul Kluge’s interrogation. Paul Kluge belonged to a medical
detachment stationed in Shwetz. He heard that a shooting of Poles would
take place on Sunday, 8 October 1939, in the Jewish cemetery. Out of
curiosity he decided to visit the place of execution. I quote only that
part of his interrogation which relates the manner of shooting. The
Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 393 of the document book,
second volume, second paragraph (Document Number USSR-42). I start the
quotation:

    “We were already of the opinion that we were the victims of
    silly rumors and had returned to our barracks, when suddenly a
    large bus full of women and children drove into the cemetery. We
    returned to the cemetery. Then we saw a party consisting of a
    woman with three children, aged from 3 to 8 years, led to an
    open grave about 2 meters wide and 8 meters long. The woman was
    forced to descend into this grave and took the youngest child
    with her in her arms. Two men, members of the punitive
    expedition, handed the other two children to her. The woman was
    forced to lie, face down, in the grave and beside her three
    children, in the same manner, on her left. After that, four men
    of the detachment also climbed down into the grave, aimed their
    guns so that the barrels were about 30 centimeters away from the
    napes of their necks. Thus they shot the woman and her three
    children.

    “Then the chief of the detachment called on me to help fill in
    the grave. I obeyed this order and, being quite near, I could
    see the next party of women and children being shot in the same
    manner as were the first.

    “In all, there were nine or ten groups of women and children,
    all shot in the same way, four at a time in the same grave.”

We can therefore see that this method of mass shooting is of very early
origin.

I omit the next page of the report as it contains the minutes of another
interrogation with similar information, and submit to the Tribunal proof
of other, even more cruel methods of mass shootings which the Hitlerite
criminals invented, beginning with 1943 and continuing to the end of the
war.

The Hitlerite criminals, beginning with 1943, began to adopt different
methods to cover the traces of their crimes, in particular, to burn the
bodies. It has been proved by documents that the Hitlerites compelled
their victims, first to prepare the kindlings and logs, then to lie down
on these wood piles. Then the first group was shot. The next party of
condemned persons brought logs, laid them down on the layer of corpses,
and then lay down themselves on these logs and were then executed.

I beg Your Honors to turn to the album concerning the Auschwitz Camp,
where the pictures of another camp, Kloga, are also included. You will
find there a typical example of this cruel manner of shooting. In order
to prove this, I turn to a document which has already been submitted
previously to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-39. The excerpt which
I wish to quote is on Page 233 of the document book, second column of
the text, last paragraph. I start the quotation:

    “On 19 September 1944 the Germans began the liquidation of the
    Kloga Camp. Unterscharführer of the Camp, Schwarze, and the
    chief of the office, Hauptscharführer Max Dalmann, selected 300
    people from among the internees, and made them carry firewood to
    a clearing in the woods. Seven hundred other men were forced to
    build pyres. When these pyres were ready the German butchers
    began mass shootings of the internees.

    “In the first place, those who carried the wood and built up the
    fires were shot and then the remaining victims. The shooting was
    carried out in the following manner: At the point of a gun
    members of the SD Police units forced the prisoners to lie face
    down on the platforms of the pyres and then they shot them with
    submachine guns or revolvers. The bodies were burned on the
    fires.”

To save time I omit the next part of the quotation. In order to prove
that the methods in other camps were even more cruel but of the same
type as the ones described above, I beg the Tribunal to turn to a
document, which has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-38
(Document Number USSR-38). It is the report on the atrocities of the
German invaders in the town of Minsk. I refer to a quotation which the
Tribunal will find on Page 215 of the document book in the second column
of the text, last paragraph.

In the first part of this quotation you will read how, in order to
conceal the traces of their crimes, the German Hitlerite invaders built
near the camp in Maly Trostianets primitive crematorium installations. I
begin my quotation by that passage of the report which speaks of the
shootings which occurred in the immediate neighborhood of these
primitive crematorium installations. To facilitate the task of the
translators, I inform you that I omitted three pages of the text and I
read now from Page 223 of the Russian text of the speech.

I begin the quotation with the testimony of the witness Savinsky, who
stated as follows:

    “Having reached a point 10 kilometers from Minsk, near the
    village of Maly Trostianets, the car stopped near one of the
    barns. We all understood that we were brought here to be
    shot. . . . By order of the German butchers the interned women
    were brought out in groups of four from the car. Seeing that it
    was my turn, together with Anna Gobubovich, Yulia Semashko, and
    another woman whose name I do not know, I climbed on top of the
    pile of bodies. Shots were heard. I was slightly injured on the
    head and fell.”

I omit the next part of the quotation which described how this woman
saved herself. I quote the last paragraph:

    “The legal-medical experts discovered that there were bullet
    wounds in the necks of these bodies. In the barn and on the
    stacks of logs the Germans shot and burned 6,500 persons.”

I omit the next three pages of the text and next submit to the Tribunal
the proofs of the organization of the German fascist invaders. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through to us that 63 people were
killed. The translation in writing is 6,500.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The translation in writing is absolutely
correct, Mr. President. For the confirmation of this, one could turn to
the original document—the report of the Extraordinary State Commission
of the Soviet Union. This was a gross error on the part of the
interpreters. They diminished the number of those shot more than 10,000
times.

So I omit the following three pages of the statement and will present
evidence of the existence of special places of mass executions where the
number of victims was numbered by hundreds of thousands of persons and
where the doomed were brought in not only from the surrounding regions
but from many countries of Europe.

By means of brief excerpts I submit to the Tribunal proof of the
existence of two such centers, which were among the most famous. They
are the center of mass executions of Panary, 8 kilometers from Vilna,
and Fort Number 9, the “Fort of Death” in Kaunas, which has acquired a
particularly grim reputation.

I quote a report which has been submitted to the Tribunal, the report of
the Extraordinary State Commission on the atrocities of the Hitlerite
invaders in Lithuania. The Tribunal will find this quotation on Page
294, second column of the text, last paragraph. For the convenience of
the interpreters I inform you that I am quoting from Page 228. I omit
the first three paragraphs which state that the mass execution place at
Panary was organized in July 1941 and existed until June 1944. I
continue the quotation starting with the fourth paragraph where it is
related how the Hitlerites attempted to cover up the traces of their
crimes in this place of mass executions. I quote:

    “In December 1943”—stated witness Saydel Matvey Fedorovich—“we
    were forced to exhume and burn the corpses.”

I omit the next sentence and continue the quotation:

    “For this purpose, we placed on each pyre about 3,000 corpses,
    poured oil over them, placed incendiary bombs on four sides, and
    set it on fire.

    “The burning of corpses continued from the end of 1943 to June
    1944. During this period, more than 100,000 corpses were dug out
    from nine pits of a total volume of 21,179 cubic meters and were
    burned on fires. The last days before their retreat the
    Hitlerites did not have time to burn the bodies of the
    shot. . . .”

I omit the next few paragraphs and quote the results of the
medical-legal expert commission:

    “The corpses that were examined were, for the most part, those
    of the civilian population. A small number of corpses were found
    dressed in military uniforms. On some of the corpses were found
    objects of religious worship of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox
    faith. According to the objects and documents found, it has been
    established that among those who were shot, there were
    physicians, engineers, students, chauffeurs, mechanics, railroad
    workers, tailors, watchmakers, tradesmen, _et cetera_.”

I omit the next three paragraphs and pass on to the concluding sentence:

    “The medical-legal expert commission has established that the
    German fascist butchers shot and burned in Panary not less than
    100,000 people.”

I quote further proof concerning the Fort of Death in Kaunas. I begin
the quotation:

    “Fort Number 9 was called by the residents of Kaunas the ‘Fort
    of Death.’ This fort, located 6 kilometers northwest of the
    city, is an old iron-reinforced concrete fortification. Inside,
    there are numerous casements, which were used by the Germans as
    cells for prisoners. This fort is surrounded by a concrete wall
    and barbed wire.

    “In the very first days after their arrival in Kaunas, the
    Hitlerites drove some 1,000 Soviet war prisoners into the fort
    and forced them to dig ditches in a field of over 5 hectares in
    area, at the western wall of the fort. During the months of July
    and August 1941, 14 ditches were dug, each of them 3 meters
    wide, more than 200 meters long, and more than 2 meters in
    depth. Those who entered Fort Number 9 never survived. In
    columns of several thousand people, the Hitlerites drove in
    there women, children, adolescents, men, and aged persons for
    the purpose of shooting them and burning their bodies.”

I omit the next three paragraphs and continue my quotation:

    “In Fort Number 9 people of different nationalities were shot:
    Russians, Ukrainians, Bielorussians, Lithuanians, Poles, and
    Jews. The following people were shot in this fort: a deputy to
    the Supreme Soviet Council of the U.S.S.R., Bydzhinskiene; a
    deputy to the Supreme Soviet Council of the Lithuanian S.S.R.,
    Zhibertas; and others. Besides Soviet citizens the Hitlerites
    exterminated French, Austrian, and Czechoslovak citizens in Fort
    Number 9.

    “A former supervisor of Fort Number 9, the witness Naudjunas,
    testified:

    “‘The first group of foreigners, numbering 4,000, arrived at the
    fort in December 1941. I talked to one of the women, who said
    that they were being transported to Russia, allegedly for work.
    On 10 December 1941 the extermination of foreigners began. They
    were ordered to leave the fort in groups of 100 people,
    allegedly for inoculations. Those who left for inoculations did
    not return. All 4,000 foreigners were shot. On 15 December 1941
    another group arrived, numbering approximately 3,000 persons,
    which was also exterminated.’”

I omit the next paragraph on this page, and nearly the whole of the
following page, and quote only the conclusive data:

    “The Investigation Commission ascertained that the Hitlerites
    had exterminated in Fort Number 9 over 70,000 peaceful
    inhabitants.”

In numerous cases the German fascists used methods full of cruel cunning
for the mass extermination of peaceful Soviet citizens. In order to
prove this statement, I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission for the Stavropol region, which has already been submitted to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1). The
Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 268 of the Document Book; I
quote one paragraph—the second paragraph, of the text:

    “It is established that before retreating from the city of
    Geozgievsk on 9 and 10 January of this year, by order of the
    chief physician of the German hospitals in the city, Baron Von
    Heiman, the German soldiers sold alcohol and soda water at the
    city market, which proved to be methylated spirit and oxalic
    acid. The result consisted in mass poisoning of the inhabitants
    of this town.”

Among the crimes perpetrated by the German fascists on Soviet territory
I must mention especially the treatment to which they subjected the
inhabitants of Leningrad. I have already mentioned this in speaking of
the Leningrad children yesterday.

In order to shorten my quotation from the Extraordinary Commission’s
report on Leningrad—although, being a citizen of Leningrad myself, I
would like the Court to have an accurate picture of the sufferings
endured by the great city as a result of the German fascist terror—I
will quote only general data regarding the German destruction and crimes
in the city of Leningrad. The Tribunal will find this quotation on Page
345 of the document book, second volume. I begin the quotation:

    “During the 900-day siege of Leningrad, when the German fascist
    invaders were in possession of its suburbs, they perpetrated
    countless atrocities on the peaceful civilians.

    “The Germans dropped on Leningrad 107,000 demolition and
    incendiary bombs and 150,000 heavy artillery shells. Every
    minute throughout the siege each Leningrad resident was in the
    same danger as if he had been on a field of battle. Every
    instant he was threatened with death or mutilation. Bombing and
    artillery fire killed a total of 16,747 and wounded 33,782
    persons.”

I interrupt my quotation, omit the next page of my statement, and beg
the Tribunal to notice Page 347 of the second volume of the document
book, an excerpt from the diary of the German artillery men who shelled
Leningrad. These notes are most cynical and cruel.

I will now give figures of persons who died of hunger in Leningrad in
the terrible winter of 1941-1942. I quote only one line: “As a result of
the hunger blockade of Leningrad, 632,253 people perished.”

I omit the following two pages and pass on to evidence concerning the
adoption by the Hitlerites of special machines for the extermination of
people by monoxide gas—in special machines (Sondermaschinen), by “gas
vans” or “murder vans,” (_dushegubki_) as the Soviet people rightly
named them. The very fact of employing such machines for the mass murder
of people constitutes a very heavy charge against the leaders of German
fascism. The special equipment for mass extermination of people in
hermetically closed automobiles in which the exhaust pipes were
connected to the bodies of the car by means of special movable tubes was
utilized by the German fascists for the first time in the U.S.S.R. in
1942. I would like to remind the Tribunal that these gas vans were
mentioned for the first time in a report which I have already submitted
to the Tribunal concerning the atrocities of the German fascist
aggressors in the town of Kerch. This document was submitted as Document
Number USSR-63 and refers to the spring of 1942.

I remind the Tribunal of an excerpt from the statements of the witness
Darya Demchenko who saw how from two murder vans German military
personnel in Kerch dragged out the bodies of the murdered and dumped
them into an antitank ditch.

However, the mass extermination of people in gas vans was ascertained
without reasonable doubt for the first time in the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission on atrocities of the German occupiers in
the Stavropol region. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by me
earlier as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document USSR-1). Investigation of the
crimes committed by the German fascists in the Stavropol region was
directed by a prominent Soviet writer and member of the Extraordinary
State Commission, Academician Alexey Nikolaevitch Tolstoy, who now is
deceased.

This very thorough investigation was undertaken with the assistance of
the most prominent specialists in forensic medicine, inasmuch as human
imagination, having set definite logical limits to any crime, could only
with difficulty then accept the existence of these machines. However,
the results of the investigation corroborate in full the testimony of
surviving witnesses regarding the murder vans and the German fascist
mass murders of peaceful citizens executed by this means.

The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the Stavropol region
gives the first detailed description of the mechanism of these murder
vans; and I am reading a quotation which the Tribunal will find on Page
268 of the document book, Paragraph 4. I quote this excerpt in full as
the technical matter here detailed coincides with those technical
details which the American Prosecution so fully reported to the
Tribunal. This is corroborative evidence, and is therefore important. I
begin my quotation:

    “The mass extermination of peaceful citizens of the U.S.S.R. by
    the Germans was done by poisoning them with carbon monoxide in
    specially constructed machines or ‘murder vans.’

    “Prisoner of war E. M. Fenchel testified:

    “‘While working as a motor mechanic, I had the opportunity of
    studying in detail the van construction especially adopted for
    suffocating and exterminating people with exhaust gases. There
    were several such vans in the town of Stavropol at the disposal
    of the Gestapo.

    “‘Their construction was as follows: The body was approximately
    5 meters long by 2½ meters wide by approximately 2½ meters in
    height. It was shaped like a railway car without windows. Inside
    it was lined with galvanized sheet iron; on the floor, also
    covered with galvanized iron, was a wooden grating. The door of
    the body was lined with rubber and was tightly closed with an
    automatic lock. On the floor of the van, under the grating, were
    two metal pipes.’”

I omit the end of the sentence.

    “‘These pipes were connected with a transverse pipe of equal
    diameter. . . .’”

I omit the next part of the sentence.

    “‘These pipes had frequent holes a half centimeter in width.
    From the transverse pipe down through a hole in the galvanized
    iron floor went a rubber hose with a hexagonal screw at the end,
    threaded so as to fit the thread on the end of the engine
    exhaust pipe. This hose is screwed on to the exhaust pipe and
    when the engine is running all the exhaust gas goes into the
    body of this hermetically closed van. From the accumulation of
    these gases, a man inside the van died within a short space of
    time. The machine could contain approximately 70 to 80 people.
    The motor of this machine usually bore the trademark “Sauer.”’”

I omit the following part of the quotation, because the data contained
therein is already known to the Tribunal and I beg the Tribunal to pay
attention to Page 270 of the document book, first paragraph, which says
that in the Stavropol region the murder vans were used for the killing
of 660 people who were ill in the local hospital. Further I draw the
attention of the Tribunal to the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission regarding the Crimes of the German fascist criminals in
Krasnodar. I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-42 (Document Number USSR-42). It concerns the mass killing of
people in murder vans. I will not quote this document. I pass on to Page
243. I submit to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-55 the verdict of
the military tribunal of the North Caucasian Front. I wish only to quote
a short excerpt from this verdict in order to save time. The Tribunal
will find this on Page 439 of the document book, Volume II, Paragraph 2.
I begin the quotation:

    “The legal investigation has also ascertained as facts the
    systematic torture and burning, in the cellars of the Gestapo by
    the Hitlerite criminals, of many arrested Soviet citizens, as
    well as the extermination by carbon-monoxide gases in specially
    built cars (murder vans), that is, the asphyxiation of
    approximately 7,000 innocent Soviet people, including more than
    700 patients from the hospitals of the town in Krasnodar region;
    among them were 42 children, from 5 to 16 years old.”

I omit the pages of the text.

Next I submit to the Tribunal a report of the Extraordinary State
Commission of the Soviet Union on the atrocities of the German fascist
invaders in the town of Kharkov and the Kharkov region. I submit this
document to the Tribunal under Document Number USSR-43. I will not quote
this document, but will go over to another, more comprehensive document,
namely, the verdict of the military tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front
which was pronounced in this case. This document has been introduced to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-32 (Document Number USSR-32). The
Tribunal will find this excerpt which I would like to quote on Page 222
of the document book, first paragraph. I begin the quotation:

    “For the mass executions of Soviet citizens the German fascist
    invaders used the so-called gas wagons: Large, closed cars which
    were known to the Russians as ‘murder vans.’ Into these gas
    wagons the German fascist invaders drove Soviet citizens and
    murdered them by special poisonous gas, carbon-monoxide. In
    order to hide the traces of the monstrous crimes committed and
    the mass extermination of Soviet people by way of asphyxiation
    with carbon-monoxide in these gas wagons, the German fascists
    burned the bodies of their victims.”

I conclude this quotation and omit the next page of the text and another
page, and go on to Page 252 of my statement.

In order to prove that the murder vans were used not only at places I
mentioned, I now refer to a report of the Extraordinary State Commission
which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9), on the atrocities committed in the town
of Kiev. The Tribunal will find there a proof of the fact that murder
vans were used in Kiev.

THE PRESIDENT: We have just had handed up to us, in the written
translation of your address, Page 234. We already had Page 234. Do you
want this to be 234(a)? Is it just one page that you are handing up now?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: There is a different numbering in the English
text, Mr. President; and it is difficult for me to talk about the text
which is in your possession, because I simply do not know the numbering
of the English translation.

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe it is 234(a)?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am on Page 251 of the Russian text.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the better course will be to adjourn now and
perhaps the slight muddle in these translations can be cleared up.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have interrupted my report of the wide
application of murder vans in the temporarily occupied regions of the
U.S.S.R.—that is, I interrupted the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission concerning crimes in Rovno and the Rovno region. The members
of the Tribunal will find reference to this on Page 291, second column
of the text, Paragraph 10 of the document book. I limit myself to one
paragraph only. I begin the quotation:

    “The extermination of peaceful citizens and prisoners of war in
    the town of Rovno used to take place by means of mass shooting
    from tommy-guns and machine guns, murder with carbon-monoxide in
    murder vans, while in separate instances people were thrown into
    pits and buried alive. Some of the victims, particularly those
    executed at the quarries near the village of Vydumka, were
    burned on special places prepared in advance.”

I end my quotation and go over to Page 253 of the text, Paragraph 3.
Further, in conjunction with the same matter, I refer to the report of
the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes in Minsk. The members
of the Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 215 of the document
book, second paragraph, second column of the text. I read one quotation
from this report. I begin the quotation, “Thousands of Soviet citizens
have perished in concentration camps at the hands of the German
executioners.”

I omit the following four sentences and pass on to the testimony of
witness Moisievitch. He says—I begin the quotation:

    “I was an eyewitness to the manner in which the Germans killed
    people in their murder vans. From 70 to 80 people were forced
    into a murder van and then driven away to an unknown
    destination.”

I end my quotation, and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to draw its
attention to the fact that in Minsk the principle of the murder van was
used for stationary gas chambers, which were installed by the criminals
in common bath houses. It is also mentioned in this report of the
Extraordinary State Commission.

Further, I refer to the verdict of the court-martial of the Smolensk
military region, dated 15-19 December 1945, which the Tribunal will find
on Page 72 of the document book. There it is related that in Smolensk
the Germans also employed special gas automobiles, the so-called murder
vans for killing Soviet people with carbon-monoxide. It seems to me that
it is not merely coincidence that murder vans appeared in the territory
of the U.S.S.R. in the year of 1942. At that time the chief criminals
were still quite convinced of victory and started carrying out in
practice their premeditated plans for the extermination of the people of
Europe. They were not then afraid of responsibility for these crimes.
That is why in 1942 there appeared new links in the long chain of the
crimes committed by the leaders of German fascism. The fascist technique
of extermination was once again in full swing. It created murder vans,
gas chambers in the concentration camps, special electrical appliances
for the mass murder of the doomed, crematoria, and also “Zyklon” banks.

Now, I pass over to the next section of my presentation: “Concentration
camps for the peaceful population.”

Inasmuch as this subject has already been extensively treated by the
members of the Prosecution who presented their cases before me, I shall
try to be as brief as possible; I shall limit myself either only to
absolutely new information or to the text of the documents which serve
as an explanation to the movie films which will be shown today before
the Tribunal.

I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that at the end
of 1941 and in 1942 the scale of German fascist crimes committed in
concentration camps reached vast proportions. In particular, I refer to
the report of the Polish Government in confirmation of this statement.
On Page 138 of the document book the members of the Tribunal will find
the testimony to the effect that in 1942 one of the most terrifying
extermination camps, the Treblinka Camp Number 2, was in rapid process
of erection. The Germans called this “Treblinka B.” Further, I refer to
the report of the extraordinary State Commission on Auschwitz. The
members of the Tribunal will find the extract which I am going to quote
on Page 353 in the document book, Volume II, second column of the text,
Paragraph 2. I quote a short excerpt from Page 257:

    “In 1941 the first crematorium for burning the corpses of
    murdered people was built in the Auschwitz Camp. This
    crematorium had three ovens. Attached to the crematorium was a
    so-called ‘special purpose bath-house.’ That was a gas chamber
    for asphyxiating people.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following sentence:

    “In the summer of 1942 the Reichsführer SS Himmler inspected
    Auschwitz Camp and ordered it to be greatly enlarged and
    technically perfected.”

I end my quotation here, and I call the attention of the Tribunal to
Page 136 on the reverse side of the document book; this is from a report
of the Polish Government, which shows that the Camp Sobibur was founded
during the first and second liquidation of the Jewish ghetto. But the
extermination on a large scale in this camp really started at the
beginning of 1943. In this same report, in the last paragraph on Page
136 of the document book, we may read that Camp Belsen was founded in
1940; but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were
built in for mass extermination of people. Under the pretext that the
people were being led to the bath-house, the doomed were undressed and
then driven to the building where the floor was electrified in a special
way; there they were killed.

Usually the concentration camps of German fascism can be divided into
two groups: the labor concentration camps and the extermination camps.
It seems to me that such a differentiation is not quite correct, because
the labor camps also served the purpose of extermination.

I omit two pages of the text and I pass on to the Page 260. In
confirmation of what I said just now, I refer to the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission relative to Yanov Camp in the city of
Lvov. The Tribunal will find this on Page 59 in the document book,
Paragraph 5 of the first column of the text. But at the same time, I ask
the members of the Tribunal to refer to Page 6 of the album of documents
relative to the Lvov Camp. One of them is a picture of “a trench in the
valley of death.” The ground is soaked with human blood to the depth of
1½ meters. On the next pages are shown the belongings taken from the
executed persons. This picture was taken by the experts of legal
medicine about 2 months after the mass shootings.

From the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission on crimes in the
Yanov Camp it can be seen that here in what was officially a usual work
camp, over 200,000 Soviet citizens were exterminated, according to the
findings of the legal experts. I quote only the first paragraph on Page
261 of the Russian text. I begin the quotation:

    “In view of the total area of burial grounds and the area of 2
    square kilometers in which the ashes and bones were scattered as
    well the expert commission concluded that in the Yanov Camp
    there were exterminated over 200,000 Soviet citizens.”

I omit the next part of my presentation, which deals with the regime of
starvation in concentration camps. This was already very well presented
by the representative of the British Prosecution, Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe. This must be already quite clear to the Tribunal and I
don’t think it will be necessary to give any additional proofs. But I
ask the Tribunal’s permission for a presentation of evidence on a camp
which was created by the German fascists only during the last stage of
the war. I refer to Page 265 of my presentation.

Maidanek and Auschwitz camps served as a means of extermination only for
those who really were sent to these camps. These two camps were not a
direct menace for those people who were outside the walls of the camp;
but, in the course of the war, having already suffered grave defeats,
German fascism began to practice new bestialities for exterminating
peaceful citizens—thus, in Bielorussia camps of death, not only to
exterminate the inmates of the camp itself but, first and foremost, to
spread infectious diseases among the peaceful population and the ranks
of the Red Army. There were no crematoria and gas chambers in these
camps but these camps should in all justice be considered as among the
most brutal concentration camps which were created by fascism for
extermination of people.

I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-4 (Document Number
USSR-4) the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union for the investigation of the murder of people by means of
spreading typhus epidemics. Such evidence was not presented before, and
I shall therefore quote several excerpts from this report. I begin the
quotation on Page 454 of the document book, first column of the text,
first paragraph; last paragraph on Page 266 of the Russian text. I begin
the quotation:

    “On 19 March 1944 advancing Red Army units discovered, near the
    settlement of Osaritchi in the region of Polesskoy in the
    Bielorussian S.S.R., within the limits of German defense lines,
    three concentration camps in which there were over 33,000
    children, women, and old men incapable of work.”

I interrupt my quotation, and I omit one paragraph.

    “The camps were really open squares surrounded by barbed wire.
    The approaches to them were mined. There were no buildings
    whatever even of the most insignificant type in the camp
    grounds.”

I call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that all this happened in
March, in Bielorussia, when it is really very cold there.

    “The inmates were sitting on the ground. Many of them had lost
    their ability to move and were lying unconscious in the mud. It
    was forbidden to the inmates to build fires, to gather brush or
    branches for bedding. The Hitlerites shot Soviet people for the
    slightest attempt to violate this order.

    “For concentration camps close to the nearest line of defense,
    the Germans, in the first place, selected sites in such places
    where they did not hope to retain their position. Secondly, they
    concentrated large masses of Soviet people in the camps, placing
    there primarily women, children, and old men unable to work.
    Thirdly, they placed in these camps thousands of typhus patients
    who were brought from various temporarily occupied regions of
    the Bielorussian S.S.R., especially for this purpose. They were
    kept together with the starved, weak inmates who no longer could
    serve as labor and who were living there under the most
    unhygienic conditions.

    “Among those liberated from these camps were 15,960 children up
    to the age of 13; 13,072 women incapable of work, and 4,448 old
    men.”

I omit the next page and read Page 269 of the Russian text. I quote only
one paragraph which reveals the methods used by the criminals to drive
into the camps peaceful citizens from various regions of Bielorussia.
Witness Mrs. L. Pikarskaya, who was liberated from the camp, testified
before the commission:

    “On 12 March 1944 late in the afternoon, we, the inhabitants of
    the city of Jlobin, were forced to assemble within half an hour
    at the station Jlobin South. Here the Germans selected all the
    young ones and took them away. Having herded us into railroad
    cars, the Germans closed the doors tightly. Where we were going
    we didn’t know, but we all anticipated some evil. . . .

    “As we found out later on, we were taken along the Rudobelkovsky
    railway and unloaded late in the afternoon on 15 March. During
    the night, knee deep in sticky mud, we were driven into a camp.
    From this camp were driven into another one. On the way the
    Germans beat us, and those who lagged behind were shot. One
    woman was walking with three children. One of the children fell
    down. The Germans shot at him. Horrified, the mother and the two
    other children looked back; the monster soldiers shot them down
    one by one. The mother cried out in agony, but her shriek was
    interrupted by a direct shot. Another mother and son, the
    Bondarews, walked side by side. The child could not stand the
    tiring journey and fell down. The mother bent over him, she
    wanted to encourage him with a word; but neither the son nor the
    mother rose or saw the blue sky again; the Germans shot them.”

I omit the next page of this document and I pass to the presentation of
some evidence testifying to the fact that the Germans purposely
concentrated in this camp the typhus-stricken people. I quote three
paragraphs from Page 271 of this text:

    “A. S. Mitrachovich, a resident of the village of Novo-Belitza
    who was liberated from the camp, testified:

    “‘We who were sick with typhus were driven to the village of
    Mikul-Gorodok into a camp surrounded by barbed wire.’

    “An inhabitant of the hamlet of Novogrudok, Z. P. Gavrilchik,
    testified:

    “‘During 3 days typhus-stricken patients were brought in motor
    cars into camp, with the result that many who were healthy also
    became sick.’”

I omit the next two pages of the document and I pass over to what the
members of the Tribunal will find on Page 254, on the reverse side,
second column of the text, Paragraph 6. I quote:

    “The German Army Command used to send their own agents to the
    camps near the front line to observe how the typhus was
    spreading among the inmates and also among the Red Army units.”

Next there is the testimony of one of such agents, the traitor
Rastorguev. I omit this quotation.

To conclude the presentation of evidence relative to this matter, I
shall only quote a few excerpts from the findings of the medical experts
of epidemical diseases. The Tribunal will find it on the back of Page
454, second column of the text. This is Page 274 of the Russian text. I
begin the quotation:

    “(a) The German authorities placed together in concentration
    camps both the healthy and the typhus-stricken Soviet citizens.

    “(b) In order to expedite the dissemination of typhus in the
    camps, the Germans used to transfer the typhus patients from one
    camp to another.

    “(c) On many occasions when typhus patients refused to go into
    the camp, the German authorities used force.

    “(d) German aggressors used to move typhus patients from
    hospitals into the camps and mixed them with the healthy camp
    inmates.”

And the last paragraph:

    “(e) The infecting of the Soviet population with typhus began in
    second half of February and was practiced to the middle of
    March.”

The result of it was mass infection of the people interned in the camp,
and the members of the Tribunal will find proof of this in the next
paragraph where it is said that the Red Army Command sent 4,052 Soviet
citizens to the hospitals, among them 2,370 children below 13 years of
age, all liberated just from one hamlet of Ozarichi, in the Poless
region.

I omit those sections of my presentation where I wanted to give concrete
information as to the terrible conditions under which the inmates of
these concentration camps had to live, and I pass to Page 277 of my
statement where I deal with concentration camps of the “usual type.”

I quote short excerpts only from the report of the Yugoslav Government
dealing with Camp Banyitza, near Belgrade, from which it is evident that
the Yugoslavian camp, so far as bestial conditions are concerned, was
quite identical with the camps in other countries of Eastern Europe. The
members of the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 263 of the
document book, second paragraph. I quote the third paragraph of this
document:

    “Camp Banyitza, near Belgrade was established by the German
    occupational authorities as far back as June 1941. From the
    captured documents of this camp it is evident that 23,637
    inmates were registered there. However, from the testimony of
    the surviving witnesses, especially the employees of the
    quisling authorities who worked in this camp, it was possible to
    establish that in reality a much greater number of victims
    passed through this camp.”

I omit the next paragraph and continue my quotation:

    “The witness Monchilo Demyanóvich”—or Demyánovich, I don’t know
    where to put the accent—“at the end of 1943 participated in
    burning corpses of the victims from Camp Banyitza.”

I omit the following part of the paragraph and continue my quotation:

    “At the interrogation on 7 February 1945, he testified before
    the Yugoslav State Commission that during the period of his work
    there, he counted 68,000 corpses.”

I omit further five pages of the report, as the information contained
therein is well known to the Tribunal. I pass to Page 283 of the Russian
text. I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-193 (Document
USSR-193) an excerpt from an official register of the hospital at Camp
Saimyshte, near Belgrade.

The report of the Yugoslav Government justly states that this hospital
reminds one more of a camp chapel, where the bodies of the dead were
brought for the last rites. On some days—I beg the Tribunal to refer to
the entry Number 1070—there were delivered the bodies of tens and
hundreds of people who had died of starvation. For instance, under the
entry note 1070 are listed 87 corpses delivered to the hospital. Under
Number 1272, 122 bodies are noted, under Number 2041 there were 112
bodies delivered. I don’t consider that these figures need any comment
to illustrate the camp regime, especially as far as living conditions of
the inmates are concerned.

In the camps in the territory of the U.S.S.R. temporarily occupied by
Germans, the living conditions of the inmates at all camps were of
extreme grimness.

I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes in the Lithuanian S.S.R. I
begin the quotation:

    “In the territories of the Lithuanian S.S.R., the Hitlerites
    exterminated in great numbers not only the local population but
    also people who were driven here from the Orlov, Smolensk,
    Vitebsk, and Leningrad regions. From the summer of 1943 to June
    1944, 200,000 people passed through the camp for the evacuated
    population near the town of Alitous.”

You will see this camp in the movie document which will be presented
today.

I omit the next part of the quotation and I read two paragraphs further
down:

    “Due to the filthy living conditions, the unbelievable crowding,
    lack of water, starvation, disease, and mass shootings, about
    60,000 Soviet citizens perished during 14 months in this camp.”

I omit the two next pages of the text and I quote from Page 288 of the
report. It is mentioned here that for the families of Red Army soldiers
special concentration camps were set up in the territories of the
Lithuanian S.S.R. The following order was posted in this camp:

    “For expressing displeasure with German authorities and for
    violation of the camp regime the Soviet people shall be shot
    without trial, jailed, or sent on forced labor for life to
    Germany.”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

    “A German woman in command of four such camps, Elisabeth
    Zeeling, frequently announced to the inmates, ‘You are my
    slaves; I shall punish you in any way I want.’”

I refer further to the report of the State Extraordinary Commission
relative to the crimes in the city of Kiev. This report describes
murders in the camps which will be also shown in the films today. I
quote only one quotation from this report, which shows the methods of
extermination of people in the Syretzk Camp. I quote Page 289, Paragraph
3, of the Russian text:

    “Radomsky and Rieder used all kinds of devices for the
    extermination of Soviet citizens. For instance, they invented
    the following method of murder: Several Soviet prisoners would
    be forced to climb a tree and others had to saw it down. The
    prisoners would fall together with the tree and be killed.”

Further, I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission on crimes in the Estonian S.S.R. This excerpt describes
the very severe regime in the Estonian camps. I quote the last paragraph
on Page 90:

    “Daily in the camp there were public floggings of the inmates on
    a bench especially built for this purpose. Besides this, for the
    smallest offense people were kept without any food for 2 days;
    or, in the coldest weather, they were forced to stand tied to a
    post for 2 or 3 hours. Not only the SS guards but also the
    administration of the camp and the German physicians took part
    in torturing the internees. The German doctor, Botmann,
    personally beat two inmates, Dr. Salkinson and Dr. Tzetzov.
    Besides this, Dr. Botmann systematically poisoned sick inmates,
    injecting the poison (evipan) under their skin. The medical
    attendant Unterscharführer Gent killed 23 elderly inmates with
    an ax. The witness I. M. Ranter testified, ‘In February 1944 two
    children were born in the camp at Kloga. Both of them were
    thrown alive into the furnace of the crematorium and burned.’”

I interrupt my quotation, as I consider that the regime in these
concentration camps has already been sufficiently described. I pass on
to the presentation of evidence on the camps of extermination, the
so-called “Vernichtungslager.” Numerous proofs on this subject have
already been presented to the Tribunal and therefore I shall limit
myself to the presentation of evidence which is connected with the
documentary films which are to be shown to the Tribunal today. I
consider that the Tribunal has had enough proof of the fact that
citizens of all European countries were exterminated in concentration
camps. People both from Western Europe and from the countries of Eastern
Europe were brought into these camps. This is shown not only by official
reports on these camps, but also from a board with names of inmates of
one of the camp’s sections which Your Honors can find in the album of
documents on Auschwitz. The citizenry of all European countries may be
found.

A special technique was used in the extermination of the people and in
connection with this I draw the attention of Your Honors to one fact,
which I especially investigated when I was analyzing the materials
relating to concentration camps. I decided to ascertain the number of
individual firms in the German fascist state engaged in building
crematoria for the concentration camps.

I shall present to the Tribunal the evidence that in fascist Germany
there were at least three special firms engaged in building crematoria
and crematorium installations for concentration camps. This testifies to
the scale of the crimes committed in these camps. I omit the text from
Pages 295 to 303. I begin the presentation of evidence relating to this
section. I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Extraordinary
State Commission on the crimes of German fascist invaders in Auschwitz.
I quote the documents, which are on Page 353 in the document book of the
Tribunal, and which are quoted in the text of the report. I begin the
quotation:

    “Construction of new vast crematoria was entrusted to the German
    firm of Topf and Sons of Erfurt, which immediately began to
    build four powerful crematoria and gas chambers in Birkenau.
    Berlin demanded with impatience that the construction be
    expedited and all work completed by the beginning of 1943.

    “In the office records of the Auschwitz Camp there was
    discovered a voluminous correspondence between the
    administration of the camp and the firm of Topf and Sons. Among
    them the following letters:

    “‘I. A. Topf and Sons, Erfurt; 12 February 1943.

    “‘To Central Construction Office of SS and Police, Auschwitz.

    “‘Subject: Crematoria 2 and 3 for the camp for prisoners of war.

    “‘We acknowledge receipt of your wire of 10 February, as
    follows:

    “‘We again acknowledge receipt of your order for five triple
    furnaces, including two electric lifts for raising the corpses
    and one emergency lift. A practical installation for stoking
    coal was also ordered and one for transporting the ashes. You
    are to deliver the complete installation for Crematorium Number
    3. You are expected to take steps to ensure the immediate
    dispatch of all the machines complete with parts.’”

I omit the next document which deals with “bathhouses for special
purposes” (gas chambers), and present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-64 (Document Number USSR-64), a document which is appended to the
report of the Yugoslav Government. This is a certified photostat of a
document externally having all the official character of a business
document from a “sound business firm.” The name of the firm is
Didier-Werke. The subject of the correspondence—the construction of
crematoria “designed for a large camp in Belgrade.” The document
presented by me characterized the firm Didier as a firm with
considerable experience in construction of crematoria for concentration
camps and which advertised itself as a firm that understood the demands
of its clients. For placing the bodies into the furnace, the firm
designed a special conveyer with a two-wheeled shaft. The firm claimed
that it could fill this order much better than any other firms, and
asked for a small advance, to draw up draft plans for the construction
of a crematorium in the camp.

I quote a few short excerpts from this document—the first two
paragraphs:

    “With reference to your son’s visit and his conversation with
    our expert, Herr Storl, we note that the Belgrade SS unit
    intends to build a crematorium for a large camp and that you
    have received instructions to design and construct the building
    in collaboration with local architects.”

I interrupt my quotation and I shall quote one more excerpt:

    “For putting the bodies into the furnace, we suggest simply a
    metal fork moving on cylinders.

    “Each furnace will have an oven measuring only 600 millimeters
    in breadth and 450 millimeters in height, as coffins will not be
    used. For transporting the corpses from the storage point to the
    furnaces we suggest using light carts on wheels and we enclose
    diagrams of these drawn to scale.”

I interrupt my quotation here and I present to the Tribunal Exhibit
Number USSR-225 (Document Number USSR-225). This document will be
brought to you presently, Mr. President. May I refer to it? It will be
presented to you within a few minutes.

I submit the new document as Exhibit Number USSR-225; it deals also with
the construction of those crematoria for concentration camps in Belgrade
and contains the correspondence of the firm Kori, G.m.b.H. This is a
well-known firm, which considered that even every business letter must
be ended with “Heil Hitler!” As its clients were well known to it, the
firm Kori once again inquired whether “two furnaces would be
sufficient.” The firm, among other things, mentioned that it had already
built four furnaces for Dachau and five for Lublin; it emphasized that
its technically perfected furnaces gave full satisfaction in practice. I
quote a very short excerpt of this document which the Tribunal will find
on Page 471 in Volume II of the document book. I quote the first
paragraph; this is Page 38, first paragraph of the text:

    “Following our verbal discussion regarding the delivery of a
    crematorium installation of simple construction, we suggest our
    perfected coal-burning furnaces for crematoria which have
    hitherto given full satisfaction.

    “We suggest two crematoria furnaces for the building planned,
    but we advise you to make further inquiries to make sure that
    two ovens will be sufficient for your requirements.”

I omit the next paragraph and continue the quotation:

    “The area required for the furnaces, including space for the
    stokers and other personnel, is shown by the attached diagram.
    Sketch J. Number 8998 shows an installation with two furnaces.
    Sketch J. Number 9122 shows the arrangement of four furnaces in
    the construction projected for Dachau. A further sketch, J.
    Number 9080, shows the Lublin installation with 5 crematoria
    furnaces and two built-in compartments for stoking.”

I omit the next part of the document. The ending is very typical:

    “Awaiting your further news, we will be at your service. Heil
    Hitler! C. H. Kori, G.m.b.H.”

And so we have established that the design and construction of the
crematoria ovens for German concentration camps. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know, as they have not these
letters before them, to whom they were addressed.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This letter, Mr. President, was addressed to the
SS units in Belgrade. These documents were taken by the Yugoslav
Government. The SS units in Belgrade considered that the methods of
extermination practiced in Bandetz and Saimyshte, which I have already
described to the Tribunal, were not adequate and they decided to perfect
them. For this purpose they started building, or rather they designed
the construction of crematoria in the concentration camps. This was the
subject of the lively business correspondence between the SS police and
the SS units in Belgrade and the German firms, part of which I have just
presented to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Were the other letters that you referred to also
addressed to SS units?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President, they were also addressed to
the SS units. The first letter, addressed to the administration of the
Auschwitz Camp was from the firm Topf and Sons.

I shall now present to the Tribunal evidence of the fact that besides
the stationary crematoria, there existed also movable crematoria. The
Tribunal already knows about the movable gas chambers. These were
“murder vans.” There were also created transportable crematoria. An SS
member, Paul Waldmann, testifies to their existence. He was one of the
participants in the crime perpetrated by the German fascists when
840,000 Russian prisoners of war in Sachsenhausen were annihilated at
one time. The Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52) on
Auschwitz has already been presented to the Court. I quote that
particular extract from the testimony of an SS member, Waldmann, which
mentions the mass execution in Sachsenhausen:

    “The war prisoners murdered in this way were cremated in four
    movable crematoria, which were transported on car trailers.”

I omit the next two pages of my report which deals with gas chambers and
crematoria. I think the Tribunal already has a clear idea of this
question. But I ask the Tribunal to pay attention to the repugnant
methods introduced by the German fascists for industrial utilization of
corpses. Further I shall present to the Tribunal evidence which would
testify to even more repulsive utilization of the corpses. Now I shall
quote from a report on Auschwitz, which the Tribunal will find on Page
353, reverse side, of the document book. Beside this I ask the Tribunal
to refer to the Auschwitz album, where on Pages 34, 35, and 36 they will
see the photographs of 7 tons of hair which was taken from dead women,
packed for shipment to Germany. I begin the quotation:

    “From 1943 the Germans, in order to utilize the bones which were
    not burned, started to grind them and sell them to the firm
    Strem for the manufacture of superphosphates. In the camp there
    were found bills of lading, addressed to the firm Strem, of 112
    tons and 600 kilograms of bone meal from human corpses. The
    Germans also used for industrial purposes hair shorn from women
    who were doomed for extermination.”

I omit the next pages of my statement and I want to draw the Tribunal’s
attention to the findings of a commission of technical experts which the
Tribunal will find on Page 65, reverse side, of the document book,
Paragraph 2.

Special research took place in the gas chambers. On the basis of exact
chemical reactions it was established that poisoning in gas chambers was
done by means of hydrocyanic acid, Cyclone A and Cyclone B, and also
carbon-monoxide.

I quote one paragraph from the findings of the technical experts’
commission:

    “Technical and medical-chemical analysis of the gas chambers in
    the concentration camps in Maidanek”—that is on Page 319 of the
    document, third paragraph—“confirms and proves that all those
    chambers, especially the first, second, third, and fourth, were
    designed and used for systematic and mass extermination of
    people by means of poisonous gases, such as hydrocyanic acid and
    carbon-monoxide.”

I omit the following extracts of my statement which describe the regime
in the camps of Auschwitz and Maidanek. I consider that the Tribunal has
already a very clear idea of this. Part of the people were sent
immediately to their death in gas chambers, while the one-fifth or
one-sixth which was left in the camp were subjected to starvation and
killed afterwards. I had the intention of presenting many documents and
excerpts from documents which confirm this fact; but to save time, I
omit them, and pass on to Page 324 of my statement. I mention this for
the convenience of the interpreters. I quote several facts which deal
with cynical and repugnant plundering of inmates who were killed in
Maidanek and Auschwitz. I ask the Tribunal to refer simultaneously with
the text I am going to present to the Auschwitz album, where on Page 27
you will see a picture of suitcases, which were the property of the
inmates; on Page 28 suitcases with labels of different countries and on
Page 39 a colossal warehouse of children’s clothes; the same on Page 33.

The document which had not been presented in time, Your Honor, is the
correspondence with the Kori firm—now presented to the Tribunal. I ask
to be excused for the delay. I quote only that particular part of the
report on Auschwitz, which the Tribunal will find on Page 325, on the
reverse side, of the document book, where there is stated what was
discovered by the commission at the warehouses of this camp. I quote one
paragraph; this is on Page 325, second paragraph:

    “On the grounds of the Auschwitz Camp there were 35 special
    warehouses for sorting and packing the belongings and clothes.
    Before the retreat under the pressure of the Red Army, 29 of
    these warehouses were burned with the things stored in them. In
    the remaining six were discovered:

    “1. Men’s clothes and underwear, 348,820 sets; 2. female clothes
    and underwear, 836,255 sets; 3. women’s footwear, 5,525 pairs;
    4. men’s footwear, 38,000 pairs; 5. rugs and carpets, 13,964
    pieces.”

I omit the following two paragraphs and I quote . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: It is time to adjourn.

              [_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]




                          _Afternoon Session_

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, the same picture of organized
plundering of the murdered persons was ascertained by the commission
during the investigation of Maidanek. I will not quote in full this part
of the communiqué of the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary Commission, and
will quote only one excerpt of the general economic administration of
the SS which is contained in the communiqué of the Polish-Soviet
Extraordinary Commission, and which the Tribunal will find on the back
of Page 66 of the document book, first column of the text, third
paragraph. I begin the quotation:

    “To all commandants of the concentration camps:

    “According to a statement received from the Reich Security Main
    Office, parcels of clothing were sent from the concentration
    camps mainly to the Gestapo administration in Brünn and in some
    there were bullet holes and blood stains on the articles. Some
    of the parcels were damaged, so that outsiders could see what
    was inside them.

    “As the Reich Security Main Office will in the near future issue
    regulations concerning the utilization of articles of property
    belonging to the deceased inmates, the sending of these articles
    is to cease immediately until definite regulations have been
    issued as to the disposal of property belonging to internees who
    have been put to death.

    “Signed: Glücks, SS Brigadeführer and major general of the SS.”

I pass on to the presentation of evidence, depicting the scale of the
crimes committed.

In only two camps of death the criminals exterminated 5½ million people.
In proof of this I quote the conclusions of the Extraordinary State
Commission for Auschwitz. I will quote only a short excerpt. It is
preceded by a detailed calculation. The Tribunal will find this
reference on Page 356 of the document book, second column of the text,
fourth paragraph. I begin the quotation:

    “However, employing rectified coefficients for the part-time use
    of the crematorium ovens and for the periods when they stood
    empty, the technical expert commission has ascertained that
    during the period of time that the Auschwitz Camp existed the
    German butchers exterminated in this camp not less than 4
    million citizens of the U.S.S.R., Poland, France, Yugoslavia,
    Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium,
    and other countries.”

I quote the corresponding passages from the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary
Commission’s report on Maidanek. The Tribunal will find this quotation
on Page 66, reverse side, of the document book, second column of the
text, Paragraph 6. I begin the quotation:

    “The Polish-Soviet Extraordinary Commission has ascertained that
    during the 4 years’ existence of the extermination camp at
    Maidanek the Hitlerite hangmen, following the direct order of
    their criminal government, exterminated by mass shooting and
    mass killing in gas chambers approximately 1.5 million persons:
    Soviet prisoners of war, prisoners of war of the former Polish
    Army, and nationals of various countries—Poles, Frenchmen,
    Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, Croats, and a
    great number of Jews.”

With this document I conclude that section of my statement which
concerns the concentration camps and pass on to the last section
entitled, “Concealment of Traces of Crimes.”

During the period of their temporary military successes, the German
fascist criminals did not bother themselves very much with concealing
the trace of their crimes. They did not even consider it necessary to
camouflage the burial grounds in which they hurled the bodies of the
murdered persons after the shootings.

But after the defeat suffered by the Hitlerite war machine at
Stalingrad, the situation changed. Fearing retaliation, the criminals
began to take urgent measures to conceal the traces of their crimes.
Where possible, they burned the corpses. Where this could not be done,
the burial grounds were carefully camouflaged with moss or green
foliage. The earth which covered the graves of those shot was smoothed
out with special machines and with caterpillar tractors.

However, the main method adopted by the German fascist criminals for
camouflaging their crimes was the burning of the corpses. The ashes from
the burned bodies were strewn over the fields. The bones which had not
been calcinated were crushed in special machines and mixed with manure
for the preparation of fertilizers. In large camps the crushed bones of
the victims were sold to the German firms to be transformed into
superphosphates.

As proof of the enormous scale of the Hitlerites’ criminal activity
directed toward concealing the traces of their crimes, I shall submit to
the Tribunal a series of documents. I will refer, first of all, to the
communiqué of the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary State Commission on
Maidanek. This document was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
USSR-29 (Document Number USSR-29). The part of the communiqué to which I
refer will be found by the Tribunal on Page 65 of the document book, on
the other side, Column 2 of the text, last paragraph. In order to save
time, I will allow myself to summarize the contents of this document:

In the beginning of 1942 two ovens for the burning of corpses were
built:

    “As there were a great many corpses, the Germans, in 1942, began
    building, and by autumn of 1943 had concluded, the building of
    powerful crematoria consisting of five ovens. These ovens burned
    unceasingly. The temperature in these ovens could reach 1,500
    degrees Celsius. In order to be able to put as many bodies as
    possible into the ovens, the corpses were dissected and the
    limbs hacked off.”

I omit the next paragraphs and beg the Tribunal to pay attention to the
passage which is three paragraphs further down.

The ovens in the crematories proved to be inadequate, so the Germans
were compelled to resort to special primitive cremation installations
which had been made in the following way—I begin the quotation by
Paragraph 1, Page 334 of the text:

    “On rails or on automobile frames which served as grates planks
    were placed. Corpses were laid on the planks, then more planks,
    and again corpses. Five hundred to 1,000 corpses were piled on
    one pyre. All that was covered with gasoline and ignited.”

I quote a short excerpt which ascertains the scale of criminal actions
taken to conceal the trace of these crimes, Page 336, first paragraph:

    “The commission has ascertained that in the ovens of the
    crematoria alone more than 600,000 corpses were burned. More
    than 300,000 corpses were burned on the gigantic pyres in the
    Krempetz Woods; more than 80,000 corpses were burned in the two
    old ovens; not less than 400,000 corpses were burned on pyres in
    the camp itself, near the crematoria.”

As a proof of these same circumstances, that is to say, of the scale of
the criminal activity of the Hitlerites in concealing the traces of
their crimes, I refer now to the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission of the Soviet Union for the town of Minsk. The members of the
Tribunal will find this quotation on the back of Page 215, second column
of the text, Paragraph 4. I quote a short excerpt:

    “In the Blagovtschchina Woods 34 ditch graves were discovered,
    camouflaged with evergreen branches. Some of the graves reached
    a length of 50 meters. During a partial excavation of five of
    these graves, corpses and a layer of ashes 50 centimeters or 1
    meter thick was discovered at a depth of 3 meters. Near the
    graves the commission discovered a great number of small human
    bones, hair, false teeth, and numerous small personal articles.
    The investigation has ascertained that the fascist exterminated
    here up to 150,000 persons.

    “At a distance of 450 meters from the former hamlet of
    Petrashkevichi eight ditch graves have been discovered. Their
    size is 21 meters long, 4 meters wide, and 5 meters deep. Before
    every ditch grave there are enormous piles of ashes, remainders
    of the burned corpses.”

I omit the next page and in proof of this same circumstances I am now
referring to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning
the crimes of the German fascist invaders in the Lvov region. This
document has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number
USSR-6. I quote a very short excerpt from this document. The part which
I will quote will be found by the members of the Tribunal on Page 164,
on the reverse side, second column of the text, Paragraph 5:

    “Upon the order of Reich Minister Himmler and of Major General
    of Police Katzmann, special measures for exhuming and burning
    the corpses of murdered, peaceful citizens, Soviet prisoners of
    war, and citizens of foreign countries were carried out in June
    1943. In Lvov the Germans created a special Sonderkommando
    Number 1005 composed of 126 men. The chief of this Kommando was
    Hauptsturmbannführer Scherlack; his assistant,
    Hauptsturmbannführer Rauch. The duty of this Sonderkommando was
    to exhume and burn the corpses of the civilians and prisoners of
    war who had been liquidated by the Germans.”

I dwell on this extract, and I would beg the Tribunal to remember this
number, “Sonderkommando Number 1005.” This Kommando was the prototype of
similar Sonderkommandos created by the Germans. Later, the
Sonderkommandos created for this task received the numbers of 1005-A,
1005-B, _et cetera_.

I terminate the quotation with the conclusion of the medical-legal
experts. I quote the last paragraph on Page 340 of the text:

    “Thus the Hitlerite murderers adopted in the territory of the
    Lvov region the same methods for concealing their crimes which
    they employed earlier in connection with the murder of Polish
    officers in the Katyn Forest.

    “The expert commission ascertained full similarity of method in
    camouflaging the graves in Lissenitzach Forest with those used
    to camouflage the graves of the Polish officers killed by the
    Germans at Katyn.

    “To extend the experiments in exterminating people, cremating
    corpses, and camouflaging the crimes, the Germans set up in
    Lvov, in the Yanov Camp, a special school for the preparation of
    qualified cadre. The commandants of the camps of Lublin, Warsaw,
    Kraków, and other cities attended this school. The chief of the
    Sonderkommando Number 1005, Scherlack, taught the commandants on
    the spot how to organize the exhumation of the corpses from the
    graves, how to pile them on stacks, burn them, how to scatter
    the ashes, to crush the bones, to fill up the ditches, and how
    to plant trees and brush wood on the graves as camouflage.”

I now refer to a document which has already been submitted to the
Tribunal as Document Number USSR-61, which is the report of the
examination in the town of Lvov of the special machine for the crushing
of bones. This record may be found by the members of the Tribunal on
Page 473 of the document book. As I have very little time left at my
disposal, I shall only quote very short excerpts. I quote Paragraph I,
on Page 342:

    “The machine for crushing bones was mounted on a special
    carriage on the platform of a trailer. It is easily
    transportable by automobiles or other means of transportation
    without dismounting.”

I omit the next paragraph, and shall read one more short extract:

    “The machine will function in any spot and does not require
    additional adaptation. It can be transported by automobile or
    any other vehicle.

    “A machine of these dimensions can produce 3 cubic meters of
    calcinated bone powder during 1 hour.”

I omit the next four pages of the report, and submit to the Tribunal as
evidence the original record of the interrogation of Gerhard Adametz
(Exhibit USSR-80, Document Number USSR-80), taken by an American army
lieutenant, Patrick McMahon. Gerhard Adametz was interrogated under
oath. I dwell especially on this document, which has been put kindly at
our disposal by our American colleagues, because Adametz’ testimony, to
use a legal term, in some points corroborates our own evidential
material. The testimony is very lengthy, and I will limit myself to a
few short quotations.

Gerhard Adametz was a member of Sonderkommando 1005-B. I draw the
attention of the Tribunal again to the fact that the first
Sonderkommando was simply 1005; this one is Sonderkommando 1005-B. The
excerpt which I shall quote from the testimony of Gerhard Adametz will
be found by the members of the Tribunal on Page 480 of the document
book, beginning with the second paragraph. Gerhard Adametz said that,
together with 40 other members of the Schutzpolizei, he left
Dniepropetrovsk and was sent to Kiev. I remind the Tribunal of the name
of Baybe-yar, which the Tribunal has already heard. I begin to quote the
testimony of Adametz, Page 347:

    “Our Leutnant Winter reported about our column to Oberleutnant
    Hanisch, who was the Zugführer of the Schutzpolizei of Group
    1005-A. The place smelled of corpses. We felt faint, stopped our
    noses, and tried not to breathe. Oberleutnant Hanisch addressed
    us. I remember the following excerpts:

    “‘You have come to the place where you are to serve and support
    your comrades. You already smell an odor coming from the church
    behind us. We must all get used to this, and you must all do
    your duties. We will have to guard internees and do so very
    strictly. Everything that takes place here is the secret affair
    of the Reich. Everyone of you answers with his head if ever an
    internee under his guard succeeds in escaping; besides this, he
    will be subjected to a special regime. The same fate awaits
    anyone who lets out anything or is careless in his
    correspondence.’”

I omit the next sentence and continue the quotation:

    “After this speech of Oberleutnant Hanisch, we were led out so
    as to acquaint ourselves with the place where we were to serve.
    We left the cemetery and were brought to an adjoining field. The
    road which crossed this field was guarded on both sides by
    policemen, who chased away all those who tried to approach it.
    In the field we saw about 100 internees resting from work. The
    legs of each internee were in chains of about 75 centimeters
    long. The internees were dressed in civilian clothes.”

I omit the next part of the paragraph and continue the quotation:

    “The work of the internees consisted, as we found out later, of
    exhuming corpses which were buried here in two common graves,
    transporting them, piling them up in two enormous piles, and
    burning them. It is difficult to estimate; however, I believe
    that on this spot were buried from 40,000 to 45,000 corpses. One
    antitank ditch served as a grave and was partially filled with
    corpses. This ditch was 100 meters long, 10 meters wide, and 4
    to 5 meters deep.”

I interrupt my quotation, and continue with the last paragraph of the
text:

    “On the day of our arrival, about 10 September 1943, there were
    three or four small piles of corpses on the field.”

It is interesting to note what this fascist expert in the burning of
corpses understood by the words “small piles.” I continue the quotation:

    “Every such pile consisted of about 700 corpses. It was about 7
    meters long, 4 meters wide, and 2 meters high.”

I interrupt my quotation and continue from the next page:

    “Here and in other places I observed the following methods which
    were employed (burning of corpses):

    “With the aid of iron hooks, the corpses were dragged to certain
    spots and then piled on a wooden platform. Then the whole pile
    of corpses was surrounded with logs, petroleum was poured on and
    ignited.

    “We, the policemen of detachment 1005-B, were then led back to
    the cemetery to the church. However, not one of us could eat
    because of the terrible smell and because of all we had seen.”

Although further on the text is very interesting, I have to leave it out
in order to save time and continue the quotation from Page 351, second
paragraph. I quote this excerpt, as in the report of the Kiev
Extraordinary State Commission I already had the honor to report to the
Tribunal about statements of internees who had fled from these
Kommandos.

Adametz’ testimony gives full confirmation of this episode. I shall only
read a short quotation:

    “About 29 September 1943 at 4:15 a.m. during dense fog, about 30
    internees escaped. They tore off their foot chains, rushed out
    of their barracks with shouts, and ran away in different
    directions. Six of them were shot; because of the dense fog the
    others succeeded in escaping.”

I interrupt my quotation. I beg the Tribunal to pay attention to the
fact that as soon as the work of burning corpses was completed the
internees were murdered. In proof of this I quote the following excerpt
from Adametz’ statement, Page 352, second paragraph of the text:

    “In other places where I also served as guard, the internees
    were murdered after their work (exhuming and burning of corpses)
    had been concluded. For this purpose they were brought in groups
    or individually, under the escort of the policemen chosen for
    this purpose, to a spot designated by the SD. The police were
    afterwards sent back to bring along more internees. Then the
    members of the SD forced the internees to lie, face down, on a
    wooden platform, and immediately shot them in the nape of the
    neck. The internees in many cases obeyed this order without
    resistance and lay down next to their comrades who already had
    been shot.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the further career of the
Sonderkommando. You will find information on this subject in the same
record. This Sonderkommandant served in Kryvoy Rog, in Nikolaev, at
Voznessensk, and in Riga. That is to say, it crossed my country nearly
from the extreme south to the Baltic countries; a distance of thousands
of kilometers. Everywhere it carried out the same work. In confirmation
of this I will quote only a short excerpt regarding the last stage on
the Kommando’s work in Riga—Page 357 of the statement. I begin the
quotation, “We members of Kommando 1005-B received an order to go to
several newly built barracks which were situated about 250 meters from
six or seven mass graves.” I quote this passage, as Bikerneksky Forest
will be shown in the documentary film:

    “The latter were situated about 4 kilometers from the suburbs of
    Riga in the Bikern Forest”—in the record the name of the
    Bikerneksky Forest was spelled wrong—“there were about 10 or 12
    thousand. A fresh group of 50 or 60 internees was brought there,
    and in the middle of June 1944 work began (the exhumation and
    burning of corpses) in the same way as I described at the
    beginning. This work was completed by the end of July 1944. I
    believe that at that period the front was only about 300
    kilometers away. These 10,000 to 12,000 corpses were those of
    men, women, and children of all ages and had been buried about 2
    years ago.”

I remind Your Honors, that the extract from the report of the
Extraordinary State Commission which I quoted mentioned the date of the
shooting as 1942, and this proves that these two testimonies concur with
each other once again. I continue the quotation:

    “The policemen believed that these people had been shot by the
    SS. However, this was only a supposition. This fresh group of 50
    to 60 internees was murdered at the end of July 1944.”

I omit the following part of the document and will only quote the
conclusion of Gerhard Adametz’ record, Page 359, Paragraph 4:

    “Afterwards, we were of the opinion that the Nazis were actually
    afraid that the mass graves would be discovered by the advancing
    Russians and that these monstrous mass killings would become
    known to the civilized world. I believe that about 100,000
    corpses were exhumed from mass graves by the SD, serving with
    the Sonderkommandos 1005-A and 1005-B. I believe that similar
    Kommandos also were engaged on the same work, but I do not know
    how many. If I had thought or known that I would ever be
    compelled to carry out this dirty and degrading work I would
    have emigrated somewhere.”

I omit the last part; the record concludes with the text of the oath and
the signature of Gerhard Adametz.

Before submitting to the Tribunal the other evidence of another crime of
the Hitlerites, I beg the Tribunal to allow me to make a few
introductory remarks. The murder of several million people was carried
out by the German fascist out of motives dictated by their
mankind-hating, cannibal theories of racism and of the “right of
masters” to exterminate peoples. All these murders were planned in cold
blood. All these crimes, unprecedented in scale, were carried out at
exact dates set for this purpose. Moreover, as I showed many times
before, a special technique was invented for the mass killings and for
the concealment of the traces of their crimes.

But, besides this, there is another characteristic in the many crimes
committed by the German fascists which makes them even more detestable.
In many cases, the Germans, having killed their victims, did not stop
here, but made the corpses objects of jeers and mockery. Mockery of the
dead bodies of victims was common practice in all extermination camps. I
remind the Tribunal that the bones which had not been calcinated were
sold by the German fascists to the firm Strem. The hair of the murdered
women was cut off, packed in sacks, pressed and sent to Germany.

Among the same crimes are those on which I shall now submit evidence. On
numerous occasions, I have already pointed out that the principal method
used to cover up the traces was to burn the corpses, but the same base,
rationalized SS technical minds which created gas chambers and murder
vans, began devising such methods of complete annihilation of human
bodies, which would not only conceal the traces of their crimes, but
also serve in the manufacturing of certain products.

In the Danzig Anatomic Institute semi-industrial experiments in the
production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for
industrial purposes were carried out. I submit to the Tribunal, as
Exhibit Number USSR-197 (Document Number USSR-197), the testimony of one
of the direct participants in the production of soap from human fat. It
is the testimony of Sigmund Mazur, who was a laboratory assistant at the
Danzig Anatomic Institute.

I omit two pages of the statement and turn to Page 363. I begin the
quotation—it is rather long, but I think I shall have the necessary
time for the presentation of the evidence, and I beg to draw the
attention of Your Honors to this quotation:

    “Q: ‘Tell us how the soap was made out of human fat at the
    Danzig Anatomic Institute.’

    “A: ‘In the courtyard of the Anatomic Institute a one-story
    stone building of three rooms was built during the summer of
    1943. This building was erected for the utilization of human
    bodies and for the boiling of bones. This was officially
    announced by Professor Spanner. This laboratory was called a
    laboratory for the fabrication of skeletons, the burning of meat
    and unnecessary bones. But already during the winter of 1943-44
    Professor Spanner ordered us to collect human fat, and not to
    throw it away. This order was given to Reichert and Borkmann.

    “‘In February 1944 Professor Spanner gave me the recipe for the
    preparation of soap from human fat. According to this recipe 5
    kilos of human fat are mixed with 10 liters of water and 500 or
    1,000 grams of caustic soda. All this is boiled 2 or 3 hours and
    then cooled. The soap floats to the surface while the water and
    other sediment remain at the bottom. A bit of salt and soda is
    added to this mixture. Then fresh water is added, and the
    mixture again boiled 2 or 3 hours. After having cooled the soap
    is poured into molds.’”

I will present to the Tribunal these molds into which the soap was
poured. Further I shall prove that this half-finished sample of human
soap was really found in Danzig.

    “The soap had an unpleasant odor. In order to destroy this
    disagreeable odor, Benzolaldehyd was added.”

I omit the next part of the quotation, which explains from where they
received this preparation. This is of no importance at this stage, and I
continue the quotation on Page 364, Paragraph 4:

    “The fat of the human bodies was collected by Borkmann and
    Reichert. I boiled the soap out of the bodies of women and men.
    The process of boiling alone took several days—from 3 to 7.
    During two manufacturing processes, in which I directly
    participated, more than 25 kilograms of soap were produced. The
    amount of human fat necessary for these two processes was 70 to
    80 kilograms collected from some 40 bodies. The finished soap
    then went to Professor Spanner, who kept it personally.

    “The work for the production of soap from human bodies has, as
    far as I know, also interested Hitler’s Government. The Anatomic
    Institute was visited by the Minister of Education, Rust; the
    Reichsgesundheitsführer, Doctor Conti; the Gauleiter of Danzig,
    Albert Forster; as well as professors from other medical
    institutes.

    “I used this human soap for my personal needs, for toilet and
    for laundering. For myself I took 4 kilograms of this soap.”

I omit one paragraph and continue the quotation.

    “Reichert, Borkmann, Von Bargen, and our chief professor,
    Spanner, also personally used this soap.”

I omit the following paragraphs and conclude the quotation on Page 365,
from where I shall read one paragraph which concerns the industrial
utilization of human skin:

    “In the same way as for human fat, Professor Spanner ordered us
    to collect human skin, which after having been cleaned of fat
    was treated by certain chemical products. The work on human skin
    was carried out under the direction of the chief assistant, Von
    Bargen and Professor Spanner himself. The ‘finished’ skin was
    packed in boxes and used for special purposes which I don’t
    know.”

I now submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-196 (Document Number
USSR-196), the copy of the recipe for soap produced from the corpses of
the executed. I will not dwell on this recipe which is identical to that
which has already been described in Mazur’s testimony. But the proof of
the fact that this recipe is correct, Your Honors, can be found in
Mazur’s record, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under
Document Number USSR-197. I will not quote this record. In order to
prove that the record of Mazur’s interrogation corresponds to reality, I
shall now submit to the Tribunal two documents which have been kindly
put at our disposal. They are records of sworn statements by two British
prisoners of war; in particular that of John Henry Witton, a soldier of
the Royal Sussex Regiment. The document is submitted to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USSR-264 (Document Number USSR-264). The members of the
Tribunal will find this quotation in Paragraph 5, Page 495, of the
document book. I quote a very short excerpt from this record, if the
necessary time is granted to me. This is Page 367. I quote:

    “The corpses arrived at an average of seven to eight per day.
    All of them had been beheaded and were naked. They arrived
    sometimes in a Red Cross wagon containing five to six corpses in
    a wooden case and sometimes in a small truck which contained
    three to four corpses.”

I omit the next sentence.

    “The corpses were unloaded as quickly as possible and taken down
    into the cellar, which was entered from a side door in the main
    entrance hall of the Institute.”

I omit the next sentence.

    “They were then put into large metal containers where they were
    then left for approximately 4 months.”

I omit the next three sentences and continue the quotation:

    “Owing to the preservative mixture in which they were stored,
    this tissue came away from the bones very easily. The tissue was
    then put into a boiler about the size of a small kitchen
    table. . . . After boiling the liquid it was put into white
    trays about twice the size of a sheet of foolscap and about 3
    centimeters deep.”—These were the basins which I have already
    shown the Tribunal—“Approximately 3 to 4 trayfuls per day were
    obtained from the machine.”

This witness himself did not witness the application of the soap, but I
am submitting to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-272 (Document
Number USSR-272), the written testimony of a British citizen, William
Anderson Neely, a corporal of the Royal Signals. The members of the
Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 498 of the document book, Volume
2. I begin the quotation:

    “The corpses arrived at an average rate of 2 to 3 per day. All
    of them were naked and most of them had been beheaded.”

I interrupt the quotation—I omit two paragraphs and continue the
quotation:

    “A machine for the manufacture of soap was completed some time
    in March or April 1944. The British prisoners of war had
    constructed the building in which it was housed in June 1942.
    The machine itself was installed by a civilian firm from Danzig
    by the name of AJRD. It consisted, as far as I remember, of an
    electrically heated tank in which bones of the corpses were
    mixed with some acid and melted down.

    “This process of melting down took about 24 hours. The fatty
    portions of the corpses and particularly those of females were
    put into a crude enamel tank, heated by a couple of bunsen
    burners. Some acid was also used in this process.

    “I think it was caustic soda. When boiling had been completed,
    the mixture was allowed to cool and then cut into blocks for
    microscopic examination.”

I continue the quotation from the following paragraph:

    “I cannot estimate the quantity produced, but I saw it used by
    Danzigers in cleaning tables in the dissecting rooms. They all
    told me it was excellent soap for this purpose.”

I submit half-finished and some finished soap. (Exhibit USSR-393) Here
you shall see a small piece of finished soap, which from the exterior,
after lying about a few months, reminds you of ordinary household soap.
I give it over to the Tribunal. Beside this I now submit to the Tribunal
the samples of semi-tanned human skin (Exhibit USSR-394). The samples
which I now submit prove that the process of manufacturing soap was
already completely worked out by the Institute of Danzig; as to the skin
it still looks like a semi-finished product. The skin which resembles
most the leather used in manufacture is the one you see on top at the
left. So one can consider that the experiments on the industrial
fabrication of soap from human fats were quite completed in the Danzig
Institute. Experiments on tanning of human skin were still incomplete
and only the victorious advance of the Red Army put an end to this new
crime of the Nazis.

Gentlemen, I have now to submit to you only one more piece of evidence,
which is the last among the proofs concerning war crimes against the
peaceful population presented by the U.S.S.R. Prosecution. Besides,
certain witnesses may arrive here from the Soviet Union who may testify
concerning the points which I have submitted. I will beg the permission
of the Tribunal to examine these witnesses after the presentation of
further evidence is finished.

Before submitting my last proof, I beg the Tribunal to allow me to make
a few conclusive remarks.

The lengthy list of crimes against the peaceful inhabitants of the
temporarily occupied areas of the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Yugoslavia, and Greece cannot be exhausted even in the most detailed
statement. One can only point out a few very typical cases of cruelties,
of base and systematic methods adopted by the major criminals who had
conceived these crimes, as well as those who executed these crimes.
Those who are now in the dock have freed from “the chimera of so-called
conscience” hundreds of thousands and millions of criminals. They
educated these criminals and created for them an atmosphere of impunity
and drove their bloodthirsty hounds against peaceful citizens. They
mocked at human conscience and self-respect. But those who were poisoned
in murder vans and gas chambers, those who were torn to shreds, those
whose bodies were burned in the ovens of crematoria and whose ashes were
strewn to the winds, appeal to the conscience of the world. Now we
cannot yet name, or even number, many of the burial places where
millions of innocent people were vilely murdered. But on the damp walls
of the gas chambers, in the places of the shootings, in the forts of
death, on the stones and casemates of the prisons, we can still read
brief messages of the doomed, full of agony, calling for retribution.
Let the living ones remember these voices of the victims of German
fascist terror, who before dying appealed to the conscience of the world
for justice and for retribution.

As a last proof I submit to the Tribunal the script and the sworn
affidavit of the persons who assembled and made this documentary film. I
beg the Tribunal to accept as evidence this documentary film (Document
Number USSR-81). I also beg the Tribunal to allow, if possible, a short
recess—about 10 minutes—for the technical preparation of the
demonstration of these documents.

                        [_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honor, may I have permission to present now
the documentary evidence?

[_The documentary film entitled, “The Atrocities by the German Fascist
Invaders in the U.S.S.R.,” was then shown._]

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, have you finished your address?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have finished the presentation of my evidence,
Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you inform the Tribunal how much longer the Soviet
Delegation is likely to be?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I find it difficult to give you an answer to
this question. I will ask the Chief Prosecutor to do this.

GEN. RUDENKO: Tomorrow we shall begin the presentation of evidence on
spoliation and pillage of communal and private property, and we think
that the speaker on this question will conclude the presentation of the
materials tomorrow. Then there will be presented to the Tribunal the
evidence as to destruction of cities, villages, monuments of national
culture and art. That will take approximately a day and a half. In other
words, I mean half of Thursday’s or Friday’s session, and a half of the
following day’s session, taking into account that on this question we
shall also have to present a documentary film.

Then there will be presented evidence concerning deportation of slave
labor. This will take approximately 3 to 4 hours. The final presentation
deals with evidence of Crimes against Humanity. During the presentation
of the evidence in all the sections we shall call several witnesses,
with the permission of the Tribunal. I could not present to the Tribunal
today a list of the witnesses, because there are difficulties in
bringing them here to Nuremberg. This list will be formulated tomorrow
toward the end of the session.

To sum up, I think that altogether the Soviet Prosecution will conclude
the presentation of evidence either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We will adjourn now.

    [_The Tribunal adjourned until 20 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]




                           TRANSCRIBER NOTES

Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document;
however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus
“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes
French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals:
hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.

Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb
tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the
tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations
between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this
volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.

An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as
possible to the original document presentation and layout.

[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal Vol. VII_, by Various.]