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.