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.