Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the witnesses and documents to be called and produced on behalf of the first four defendants and that decision will be communicated as soon as possible this afternoon to counsel for those defendants and will also be posted in the Defendants’ Information Center.
Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief Prosecutor for France with reference to the calling of two additional witnesses. The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to call any witnesses after closing the case on behalf of any of the chief prosecutors, that a written application should be made to the Tribunal for the calling of such witnesses, and the Tribunal also desires me to draw the attention of Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense to the terms of Article 24, Subsection (e), which refers to rebutting evidence. In the event of Counsel for the Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense wishing to call rebutting evidence when the proper time comes, after the case for the Prosecution and the Defense has been closed, such application to call rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in writing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would allow me to say something on a matter on which I promised to get information yesterday.
Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn edition of the Daily Telegraph of the 31st of August 1939, and I promised the Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had a telegram from the Daily Telegraph, which I received this morning, and it says:
“No edition of the Daily Telegraph withdrawn on 31 August 1939 or any other day thereabouts. The Telegraph of the 31st gave a brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop had taken place but without details.
“On 1st September carried summary of Germany’s 16 points for Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text of the note did not appear until September 2, when extracted from the Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents.”
I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information, that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose to send a copy of that to Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may necessitate a slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was proposing to make.
DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and Warlimont as witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to answer one question; namely, to tell me if the Court has decided yet that the Generals Halder and Warlimont, whom I have named as witnesses, and whose relevancy has been admitted by the Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for Keitel so that we can count with certainty on their appearing in the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this morning was that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they wanted to have them to cross-examine them now or call them as witnesses on behalf of one or other of the defendants, and therefore that was a decision that the Defense Counsel would be able to call them on behalf of one of the defendants if they determined to do so.
Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they were called before. If the Defendant Göring wanted to call them then they would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when they were called for Göring, because of the fundamental rule that a witness is only to be called once.
DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel who are interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and Warlimont are agreed that these generals should be called in the course of the presentation of evidence by the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
Colonel Smirnov . . . I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this witness.
Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march to the camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were accommodated in a stable. Was this stable roofed?
KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and since the farm had previously been evacuated, the shed had not been cleaned for a very long time and was in a state of complete neglect. And if we add to this state of neglect the fact that it had been pouring with rain all that day, we must also add that it was half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite impossible to settle down in the stables and barns since they were filled with left-over manure, so that all the people stayed out of doors.
DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate these prisoners in a better way?
KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, for I am not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, and, on the other hand, we were brought to this village late at night and I do not know whether there were more convenient places where the prisoners could have been quartered.
DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you entered this village, you yourself saw no possibility for better accommodations?
KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but because it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, although it was a rather large village and it seems to me that there was a sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people might have easily been billeted more conveniently for the night.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that in the prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as a physician. Did the German prisoner-of-war administration ever place any medical supplies at your disposal so that you could treat your sick comrades?
KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated step by step from one camp to another, we received no medical equipment at all from the Germans; but subsequently when I was in a stationary camp, Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, though never in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of all the wounded.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have only one question. The witness has stated that the stable was evacuated. What do you mean by that term?
KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had been driven off beyond the zone of military operations.
HERR BABEL: By whom was this done?
KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had entered and who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army units who had not been surrounded as we were.
HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back to Russian territory?
KIVELISHA: From this village, yes.
HERR BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions?
Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of war whilst you were prisoner of war?
KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo; in the district of the town of Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying of labor Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, at that time, were named the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp.
THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until you got to that stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since I did not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything in re-examination?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept as one of the proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the prisoner-of-war camps certain documents which I should like to submit to the Tribunal at the request of our honorable British colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does this all the more readily in that it considers this documentation of the British Prosecution of essential importance in establishing the criminal contravention by the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and customs of war accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of prisoners of war.
I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial the documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding the cruel murder of 50 prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air Force, who were captured while attempting to escape en masse from Stalag Luft III at Sagan and shot after their capture by the German criminals in the night of 24-25 March 1944.
These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite crimes, signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British Armed Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held in Sagan by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Luft III and forwarded to the protecting power.
Included with these documents are the statements of the following Allied witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant Tonder, Flight Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, Flight Lieutenant Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant Nelson, Flight Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P. S. M. Hicks.
The material evidence is also corroborated by statements taken from the following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs und Kriminalrat Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner.
There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of those who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the representative of the protecting power during his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944.
I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous crime of the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier Shapcott. Your Honors will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 163, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin:
“On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50 officers the following information was given by the German authorities. . . .”
The following information was given by the German authorities who stated that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting to escape. Actually this statement was the customary routine lie of the Hitlerites, since the very thorough investigation carried out by the British military authorities proved indubitably that the British R.A.F. officers had been vilely murdered after recapture by the German police.
I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented by the British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was committed by order of Göring and Keitel. The passage which I wish to submit to the Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, Russian text.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing the witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here once before. The Prosecution at the time—I do not have the document here now—submitted a report regarding the interrogation of Major General Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my objection, refused to have this document read in Court.
I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document which the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it concerns a new document which I do not know as yet. I draw your attention to the fact that General Westhoff is here in person; in other words, he could be called as a witness on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. Nelte said. As I understood it—I am not sure if I got the name right—but he referred to General Westhoff’s evidence which has been tendered, and which had been rejected because the Tribunal thought that if that evidence was to be given, General Westhoff ought to be called. Is it right that the document you are putting in has got nothing to do with General Westhoff at all, has it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only one part of the official British report.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, is it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am now submitting an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one passage in the text of the official British report mentions Major General Westhoff, but this mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory of Major General Westhoff which will be brought up later.
MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, perhaps I might assist in this matter—because I am partly responsible for that report—with the kind indulgence of my learned friend, my Russian colleague.
My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that General Westhoff’s name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a different document to the document which my French colleagues tendered and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official government report.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been saying, Your Honor. This is an official report of the British Government.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov.
Mr. Roberts—I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte—why do you say that it is an official government report so as to come within Article 21 of the Charter?
MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it has been certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military Department of the Judge Advocate General’s office. I think you have the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom was it made, this report?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the collection of evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it is headed, “German War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for the Killing of 50 R.A.F. Officers,” and then it starts to say—then it states the sources on which the material has been based. Your Lordship will see on the last page of the report the appendix, “Material upon which the foregoing report is based”:
“1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan. . . . 2. Statements of the following Allied witnesses. . . . 3. Statements taken from the following German. . . . 4. Photostat copy of the official list of dead, transmitted by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation. . . . 5. Report of the Representative of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5th June 1944.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for the Tribunal or for the War Crimes Commission?
MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial?
MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British Delegation for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British general made to the British Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept the phrase “report of a British general.” I would say “a report of a government department.” It is signed and certified by a British general.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My Lords may exactly read in Article 21: “The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations. . . .”
My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, a government department, for the purpose of this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was collected and sent in by the government will be official evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I read it and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.
It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis of testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also Major General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of this document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under the terms of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is involved here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, who is at the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including his testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would not comply with the Tribunal’s desire that it should represent the best method to discover the truth.
The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain literally what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which is subject to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I believe the Defense must also have an opportunity in their turn, to hear and examine a witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the witnesses who had been examined by one of the committees set up by the government had not made a report to the government at all, but an affidavit or something of that sort; and that had been offered to the Court and the witness had been available, the Court might very possibly have refused to entertain that affidavit or report. But if that report was the foundation for a government report or for a government official document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is directed to entertain such a report.
Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they wouldn’t have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit comes within Article 21.
DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship’s view is correct. I should merely like to bring up the question whether, when one has two different types of evidence, namely, the report and the possibility of examining a witness, it should not be taken into consideration to question the witness, not in order to correct the official report, but in order to clarify what the witness actually said, because from the report we cannot know what he actually said.
This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance for the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the escaped fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is available, this witness should be heard instead of an official report which already actually contains an evaluation.
THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not proceed only or even substantially upon the evidence of General Westhoff. There are a number of other origins of the report, and the second thing is that the whole object of Article 21 was to make government reports admissible and not to necessitate the calling of the witnesses upon whose evidence they proceeded.
DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other matters, namely, the shooting. . . The other witnesses who were mentioned were questioned on other facts. On the question of whether Keitel issued such an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one mentioned in the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my earphones on.
DR. NELTE: I said, in that report other witnesses are also mentioned but, as far as I know, they did not make a statement on the question of whether or not Keitel issued an order to shoot the fliers. Westhoff was the only one among the witnesses listed who could and did make a statement on that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further in argument upon the admissibility of the document?
DR. NELTE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It appears to me, Mr. President, that that part of the document which refers to Major General Westhoff occupies merely one paragraph, namely, Paragraph 7, of the document in question. This part deals with the initial stage of the perpetration of the crime, namely, with the stage of the conception, the stage of the planning of the crime.
The document also speaks of other stages in the commission of this crime. Moreover, it is an official document, presented according to Article 21 of the Charter. It seems to me that I have thereby said all that is necessary, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I merely ask the Court to decide; in that case I should have to request that General Westhoff be admitted as a witness to testify that the conclusion drawn in this report does not correspond with what he said.
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen and for the Reich Cabinet): May I make a few legal remarks, a few generally legal remarks regarding Article 21 of the Charter?
In all criminal procedure of every country we find the primary principle of oral court proceedings. Only if this cannot be carried out are part of the proceedings, so to say, transferred outside the court. In most codes of criminal procedure of the various countries we have a provision similar to that of Article 21 of the Charter that previous decisions of a court should not be re-examined in new proceedings, but that such decisions should be binding.
In this Trial the Charter extends this provision further to cases which obviously, because of their scope, should not be further discussed here. Therefore the decision that government reports should be considered as evidence is clearly taken up in Paragraph 21. It is clear to every jurist that this provision in itself is to an extent a flaw in proceedings because through it certain rights are lost to the defendants. On the other hand one cannot, of course, ignore the argument that there is subject matter which, because of its extent, cannot be practically discussed in a trial in which the time is limited.
Paragraph 21 of the Charter therefore gave the Tribunal the possibility of accepting such reports as valid evidence. But this provision is not compulsory for the Tribunal. So far as I can see from the German text before me it is provided that the Tribunal should accept these reports, but it does not say that the Tribunal must do so. Therefore it is in every case left to the discretion of the Tribunal whether the nature of the report makes it advisable to accept such a report in evidence.
We now have here a rather striking case which, in my opinion, clearly shows that the Tribunal can make use of its discretion and reject this document. The Defense have taken the position that this subject of evidence could be taken care of by a witness. The examination of the witness would have provided the Defense with the right of cross-examination.
Since, for tactical reasons inherent in the nature of the Trial, the witness will not be called, the subsequent transfer of his evidence into a government report means curtailing the right of the defendant to cross-examination, and is thus contrary to the corresponding article of the Charter.
DR. STAHMER: It was not until today that the accusation was made that Göring knew of or ordered the execution of these fliers. I could not take this act into consideration when I recently offered my evidence, because I did not know of it; and I must, therefore, reserve the right to call additional witnesses on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I say a few words, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: On the question of the admissibility?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I consider the arguments put forward by the second Defense Counsel as entirely incomprehensible from a legal point of view since he introduces certain numerical and quantitative criteria into the legal nature of the evidence. According to this Counsel, Article 21 of the Charter deals only with evidence of crimes committed on an enormous scale, but cannot touch crimes of a smaller caliber.
To me, viewing the matter from a legal point of view, this argumentation appears rotten from the root upwards and I consider that Article 21 of the Charter applies, in toto, to any crime committed by the Hitlerites, regardless of the fact if they be committed on a very large or on a slightly smaller scale. That is all I wish to say, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal would like to know where these appendices which are referred to in Paragraph 9 of the report are.
MR. ROBERTS: I think they are in the Tribunal now, in the charge of the Officer of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: They are in the court now? You can undertake, I suppose, to produce them all if they are not any of them there?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, most certainly. I understood the whole of the material is not necessary—the original, of course—but I understood the whole of the material to be there, all in the original, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then the Tribunal decides that the document will be admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is available—and we think he is—General Westhoff; and that will be, in effect, granting the defendants’ application to call General Westhoff, and also to call the officer mentioned in Paragraph 3(b) of the appendix, whose surname appears to be Wielen. I do not know whether you know where he is.
MR. ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I can assure the Tribunal that we will do everything in our power to get the witnesses that are required for the defense, namely, General Westhoff, who is in Nuremberg, I understand, and General Wielen. I am not certain where he is, but I will find out.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, you made a remark during the session with which the Defense Counsel are very much concerned. If we understood this remark, it was said that private affidavits would not be accepted by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that we must offer our evidence now, this question of affidavits is very urgent. That is why I am forced to clarify that question. The Defense Counsel has. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, I do not think I said that affidavits could not be admitted. What I said was, it might be that affidavits would not be admitted, if the witness was available to give direct evidence. That is the rule which we have enforced throughout the Trial.
DR. KRAUS: Yes, I understand you, Mr. President, to say that in principle we may offer affidavits, whether certified by notary public or by a lawyer or whether bearing only the signature of the person who makes the statement. These are the three forms we have: The simple letter written with the statement, “I declare under oath.” The second type is that in which the signature has been certified by a lawyer; and the third type is the one which has been declared before and certified by a notary public.
We have procured many documents of that kind, in order to expedite matters, and we would like to know whether or not we may expect to present them as evidence in order to avoid the calling of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will be considered when you present the applications for giving evidence by affidavit. We have, today, in dealing with the first four defendants, allowed, in a variety of instances, interrogatories to be administered to various witnesses where it appeared appropriate that that should be done in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will apply when you come to submit your applications.
DR. KRAUS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient to you to go on with your presentation now on this document which we have admitted, or do you wish to present a film?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to finish the presentation of this proof, that is, to read into the record the passages from the document I have quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; but the Tribunal, I think, desire that these two witnesses, Major General Westhoff and Wielen, whatever his rank may be, should be produced for examination as soon as possible afterwards. I don’t mean this afternoon, because that would not be possible, but, if possible, tomorrow.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I shall request the representative of the British Delegation to reply to this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he would ask you to answer, because I was saying that the Tribunal would like to have the witnesses called as soon as possible after the report was read.
MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about, so I heard, Sir, and I am trying to make inquiries now where Wielen is. If Your Lordship will give me a few minutes I will try to find out where Wielen can be located.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the Court, then, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: One minute, please.
Colonel Smirnov, would not it be equally convenient to go on with the film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can be presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses?
Otherwise, supposing Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wielen this afternoon, it might be that if you read the report now, there might be a week possibly—or even more—between the reading of the report and the evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with the film now?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What we are showing the Tribunal cannot be called a film in the full sense of the word. It is a series of photographic evidence, of photographs taken by the Germans themselves on the site where the crimes were committed, which were then rephotographed and transferred to a reel. It is not a film—it is a photo-document. We are presenting these photo-documents as Exhibit Number USSR-442 (Document Number USSR-442), and we are presenting only one part of these photo-documents. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Yugoslavia presented photo-documents for every section of the report. We have excluded the part dealing with the other sections and show only that part which deals with Crimes against Humanity. Thus, only a section of the documents is being shown to the Tribunal. May I show these photo-documents?
[The photographic document was then projected on the screen.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue with the presentation of the documentary evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in order to allow the British Prosecution to settle the question as to when the two witnesses will be summoned before the Tribunal, I take the liberty of passing to the next part of my statement. Have I your permission to do so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I pass on to that part which deals with the persecution of the Jews, Page 37 of the text. The excessive anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which assumed a perfectly zoological aspect, is only too well known. I shall not quote from the so-called theoretical works of the major war criminals—from Himmler and Göring to Papen and Streicher. In the Eastern European countries all the anti-Semitism of the Hitlerites was put into full effect and mostly in one way only—in the physical extermination of innocent people.
The United States Prosecution, in its own time, submitted to the Tribunal one of the reports of a special German fascist organization, the so-called Einsatzgruppe A, which was submitted as Exhibit USA-276 (Document Number L-180). Our American colleagues submitted this particular report which covered the period up to 15 October 1941. The Soviet Prosecution submits another report of this criminal German fascist organization, covering a further period of time and which might almost be considered as a continuation of the first document, namely the report on Einsatzgruppe A, from 10 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I submit to the Tribunal a photostatic copy of this report as Exhibit Number USSR-57 (Document Number USSR-57). I request the permission of the Tribunal to read into the record a very brief excerpt from Chapter 3 of the report of Einsatzgruppe A, entitled “The Jews,” and I would invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data presented in this report refer exclusively to one organization—Einsatzgruppe A. I quote one paragraph from Page 170 of the document book:
“The systematic task of purging the East was, according to fundamental orders, the liquidation of the Jews to the fullest possible extent. This objective has been practically realized, with the exception of Bielorussia, by the execution of 229,052 Jews. . . . The surviving Jews in the Baltic provinces are urgently needed for work, and have been quartered in ghettos.”
I interrupt the quotation and read two further excerpts from a subparagraph, “Estonia,” on Page 2 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Page 171, Paragraph 2 of your document book. I begin the quotation:
“The execution of the Jews, insofar as they were not indispensable for working purposes, was carried out gradually by forces of the Sipo and the SD. At present there are no Jews left in Estonia.”
I quote a few brief excerpts from the subparagraphs entitled “Latvia.” I quote one line from the last paragraph on the second page of the Russian text, Page 171, Paragraph 5 of the document book. I begin:
“When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still 70,000 Jews left there.”
I break off the quotation and read one line on Page 3, Paragraph 2 of the Russian text, Page 171, last paragraph of the document book:
“By October 1941 the Sonderkommandos had executed about 30,000 Jews.”
I again break off and continue with the following paragraph:
“Further executions were later carried out. Thus, for instance, 11,034 Jews were executed on 9 November 1941 in Dünaburg. In the beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation carried out in Riga and following the order of the Higher Chief of the SS and Police, 27,800 persons were executed, and in mid-December 1941, in Libau, 2,350 Jews were executed. At present there are in ghettos, besides the Jews from Germany, about 2,500 Latvian Jews in Riga, about 950 in Dünaburg, and about 300 in Libau.”
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come from? Are they in an official report, or are they German figures?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These are the data published by the Germans themselves. This particular document was discovered in the Gestapo archives. It was brought out of Latvia by troops of the Red Army. I request Your Honors to take note that this document covers only the period between 16 October 1941 and 31 January 1942. This is therefore not conclusive data but merely data connected with one German operational group during this particular period of time.
Have I your permission to proceed, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote one line only from the subparagraph entitled “Lithuania,” which is on Page 173 of the document book, Paragraph 3:
“In numerous individual operations, 136,421 persons were liquidated all told.”
I request the Tribunal to allow me to quote in greater detail from the next subparagraph of the “A” group report, entitled “White Ruthenia.” I quote the last paragraph on Page 5 of the Russian text; Page 174, last paragraph, of the document book:
“The final and definite liquidation of the Jews remaining in the territory of White Ruthenia, after the arrival of the Germans, presented certain difficulties. As a matter of fact, it is precisely in this territory that the Jews constitute a high percentage of specialists and are indispensable for lack of other reserves. Moreover, Einsatzgruppe A took over the territory only after the hard frosts had set in, a fact which hampered the carrying out of the mass executions very seriously indeed. A further difficulty consists in the circumstance that the Jews are scattered all over the territory. Bearing in mind the fact that distances are vast, road conditions bad, transportation and petrol lacking, and the forces of the Security Police and SD insignificant, the executions could be carried out only by a maximum effort. Nevertheless, 41,000 Jews have already been shot. This figure does not include the persons executed by former Einsatzkommandos.”
I interrupt once more and proceed to read from the following paragraph—this corresponds to Page 175, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin the quotation:
“The Chief of Police in White Ruthenia, despite the difficult situation, has been given orders to solve the Jewish question as soon as possible. All the same, this calls for about two months’ time, according to the weather.
“The distribution of the remaining Jews in special ghettos of White Ruthenia is nearing its end.”
In order to show how mass executions of the Jews by the German criminals were carried out, I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-119(a) (Document Number USSR-119(a)) a photostatic copy, certified by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union of an original German document. This is the conclusive report of the commander of one of the companies of the 12th Regiment of Police, which carried out the mass extermination of the Jews assembled in the ghetto of the town of Pinsk. On 29 and 30 October 1942, the criminal elements from the 15th Regiment of Police murdered 26,200 Jews in Pinsk. This is how Company Commander Sauer described the crime. I shall not quote the document in toto since it is rather long, but I shall quote a few excerpts. The passage I am about to read—and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to read it into the record—is on Page 177 of your document book, Paragraph 3. I begin the quotation:
“The ordered encirclement of the districts was accomplished at 0430 hours; owing to the personal investigations made by the commanders and to the manner in which the secret was kept, the encirclement was carried out in the shortest time imaginable and it was impossible for the Jews to flee.
“The combing of the ghetto was to begin at 0600 hours, but owing to the darkness it was postponed for another half-hour. The Jews had noticed the proceedings and began to assemble voluntarily in all the streets. With the aid of two Wachtmeister (Staff Sergeants) it was possible to bring several thousand Jews to the assembly point within the very first hour. When the remaining Jews realized what was coming, they too joined this column, so that the screening planned by the SD at the assembly point could not be carried out in view of the enormous multitude which had gathered. (For the first day of the comb-out only one to two thousand persons had been counted on.) The first comb-out ended at 1700 hours without any incident. About 10,000 persons were executed on this first day. That night the company was standing by, ready for action, in a soldiers’ club.
“On 30 October 1942 the ghetto was combed a second time. On 31 October it was combed for the third time and on 1 November for the fourth time. About 15,000 Jews were rounded up, all told. Sick Jews and children left behind in the houses were executed on the spot in the yard of the ghetto. About 1,200 Jews were executed in the ghetto.”
I request the permission of the Tribunal to allow me to continue quoting the second page of the document which corresponds to Page 178 of the document book, Paragraph 6. I quote two points from the section “Experiences.” I begin to quote:
“3) Where there are no cellars and a considerable number of persons are huddled together in the small space between the floor and the ground, these places must be broken into from the outside, or else police dogs sent in (one police dog, Asta, put up a remarkably good performance in Pinsk), otherwise a hand grenade should be thrown in, after which the Jews invariably come out into the open.”
I further quote Point 5:
“We recommend persuading half-grown persons to disclose these hiding places by promising to spare their lives. This method has fully justified its application.”
This example of this police regiment, which I have just read into the record, is typical of the methods applied for the extermination of Jews who had been rounded up in the ghetto. But the German fascist invaders did not always apply this method when proceeding to the extermination of the peaceful Jewish population.
Another, similarly criminal device was the assembling of Jews in a given spot under the pretext of transferring them to some other locality. The assembled Jews would then be shot. I submit to the Tribunal an original poster which had been put up in the town of Kislovodsk by Kommandantur Number 12. Your Honors will find the text (Document Number USSR-434) quoted on Page 180. I shall quote some extracts from this poster which is a comparatively long one. I start with the first part:
“To all Jews! For the purpose of colonizing sparsely populated districts of the Ukraine, all Jews residing in Kislovodsk and all Jews who have no permanent abode are ordered to present themselves on Wednesday, 9 September 1942, at 5 a. m. Berlin time (6 a. m. Moscow time), at the goods’ station in Kislovodsk; the transport will take off at 6 a. m. (7 a. m. Moscow time).
“Every Jew is to bring luggage not exceeding 20 kilograms in weight, including food for a minimum of 2 days. Further food will be supplied by the German authorities at the railway stations.”
I omit the next paragraph and only quote one line:
“Also subjected to transfer are the Jews who have been baptized.”
I break off the quotation at this point.
In order to ascertain what happened to the Jewish population in the town of Kislovodsk—the same happened to the Jews in many other towns—I would request the Tribunal to refer to the contents of a document which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1). It is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Stavropol region.
The part which I wish to read, in brief, is on Page 187 of your document book. It states there that the 2,000 Jews who had assembled at the Kislovodsk station were sent to the station of Mineralniye Vody and shot in an antitank trench 2½ kilometers distant from the town. Here too, thousands of Jews, transferred from the towns of Essentuki and Piatigorsk, were shot on the same site.
In order to show the extent of the criminal extermination of the peaceful Jewish population in Eastern Europe, I now refer to the contents of reports received from the governments of the respective Eastern European countries, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal.
I quote a report of the Polish Government, on Page 136 of the Russian text of this document. I begin the quotation:
“The official statistical yearbook of Poland, in 1931, estimates the number of Jews at 3,115,000.
“According to unofficial figures collected in 1939 there were in Poland 3,500,000 Jews.
“After the liberation of Poland the Jews in that country numbered less than 100,000, and 200,000 Polish Jews are still in the U.S.S.R.
“Thus, about 3 million Jews perished in Poland.”
In Czechoslovakia, as seen from the data published on Pages 82-83 of the Russian text of the report, the Jews numbered 118,000. At present, in the entire country, they number only 6,000 all told. Of the total number of 15,000 Jewish children, only 28 have returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we leave off here?
[The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1946 at 1000 hours.]