Afternoon Session
THE MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendants Hess, Fritzsche, and Von Ribbentrop are absent.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue the examination of this witness, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, how far from the town of Smolensk were the burial grounds where the corpses were discovered?
PROSOROVSKI: A commission of medico-legal experts, together with members of the special commission, Academician Burdenko, Academician Potemkin, Academician Tolstoy, and other members of this commission, betook themselves on 14 January 1944 to the burial grounds of the Polish officers in the so-called Katyn wood. This spot is located about 15 kilometers from the town of Smolensk. These burial grounds were situated on a slope at a distance of about 200 meters from the Vitebsk high road. One of these graves was about 60 meters long and 60 meters wide; the other one, situated a small distance from this first grave, was about 7 meters long and 6 meters wide.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many corpses were exhumed by the commission you headed?
PROSOROVSKI: In the Katyn wood the commission of medical experts exhumed and examined, from various graves and from various depths, altogether 925 corpses.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How was the work of exhumation done and how many assistants were employed by you on this work?
PROSOROVSKI: Specialists and medico-legal experts participated in the work of this commission. In September and October 1943 they had exhumed and examined the corpses of the victims shot by the Germans...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Where was the examination of the corpses performed?
PROSOROVSKI: They examined them in the town and the neighborhood of Smolensk. Among the members of this commission were Professor Prosorovski; Professor Smolianinov; the eldest and most learned collaborator of the Medico-Legal Research Institute, Dr. Semenovski; Professor of Pathological Anatomy Voropaev; Professor of Legal Chemistry Schwaikova, who was invited for consultations on chemico-legal subjects. To assist this commission, they called also medico-legal experts from the forces. Among them were the medical student Nikolski, Dr. Soubbotin...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I doubt whether the Tribunal is interested in all these names. I ask you to answer the following question: What method of examination was chosen by you? What I mean is, did you strip the corpses of their clothes and were you satisfied with the customary post mortem examination or was every single one of these 925 corpses thoroughly examined?
PROSOROVSKI: After exhumation of the corpses, they were thoroughly searched, particularly their clothing. Then an exterior examination was carried out and then they were subjected to a complete medico-legal dissection of all three parts of the body; that is to say, the skull, the chest, and the abdomen, as well as all the inner organs of these corpses.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me whether the corpses exhumed from these burial grounds bore traces of a previous medical examination?
PROSOROVSKI: Out of the 925 corpses which we examined, only three had already been dissected; and that was a partial examination of the skulls only. On all the others no traces of previous medical examination could be ascertained. They were clothed; and the jackets, trousers, and shirts were buttoned, the belts were strapped, and the knots of ties had not been undone. Neither on the head nor on the body were there any traces of cuts or other traces of medico-legal examination. Therefore this excludes the possibility of their having been subjected to any previous medico-legal examination.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During the medico-legal examination which was carried out by your commission, did you open the skulls?
PROSOROVSKI: Of course. At the examination of quite a number of corpses the skull was opened and the contents of the skull were examined.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Are you acquainted with the expression “pseudocallus?”
PROSOROVSKI: I heard of it when I received a book in 1945 in the Institute of Medico-Legal Science. Before that not a single medical legal expert observed any similar phenomena in the Soviet Union.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Among the 925 skulls which you examined, were there many cases of pseudocallus?
PROSOROVSKI: Not one of the medico-legal experts who were examining these 925 corpses observed lime deposits on the inner side of the cranium or on any other part of the skull.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, there was no sign of pseudocallus on any of the skulls.
PROSOROVSKI: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was the clothing also examined?
PROSOROVSKI: As already stated, the clothing was thoroughly examined. Upon the request of the Special Commission, and in the presence of its members and of the Metropolitan Nikolai, Academician Burdenko, and others, the medico-legal experts examined the clothing, the pockets of the trousers, of the coats, and of the overcoats. As a rule, the pockets were either turned, torn open, or cut open, and this testified to the fact that they had already been searched. The clothing itself, the overcoats, the jackets, and the trousers as well as the shirts, were moist with corpse liquids. This clothing could not be torn asunder, in spite of violent effort.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, the tissue of the clothing was solid?
PROSOROVSKI: Yes, the tissue was very solid, and of course, it was besmeared with earth.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During the examination, did you look into the pockets of the clothing and did you find any documents in them?
PROSOROVSKI: As I said, most of the pockets were turned out or cut; but some of them remained intact. In these pockets, and also under the lining of the overcoats and of the trousers we discovered, for instance, notes, pamphlets, papers, closed and open letters and postcards, cigarette paper, cigarette holders, pipes, and so forth, and even valuables were found, such as ingots of gold and gold coins.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These details are not very relevant, and therefore I beg you to refrain from giving them. I would like you to answer the following question: Did you discover in the clothing documents dated the end of 1940 and also dated 1941?
PROSOROVSKI: Yes. I discovered such documents, and my colleagues also found some. Professor Smolianinov, for instance, discovered on one of the corpses a letter written in Russian, and it was sent by Sophie Zigon, addressed to the Red Cross in Moscow, with the request to communicate to her the address of her husband, Thomas Zigon. The date of this letter was 12 September 1940. Besides the envelope bore the stamp of a post office in Warsaw of September 1940, and also the stamp of the Moscow post office, dated 28 September 1940.
Another document of the same sort was discovered. It was a postcard sent from Tarnopol, with the post office cancellation: “Tarnopol, 12 September 1940.”
Then we discovered receipts with dates, one in particular with the name—if I am not mistaken—of Orashkevitch, certifying to the receipt of money with the date of 6 April 1941, and another receipt in his name, also referring to a money deposit, was dated 5 May 1941.
Then, I myself discovered a letter with the date 20 June 1941, with the name of Irene Tutchinski, as well as other documents of the same sort.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During the medico-legal examination of the corpses, were any bullets or cartridge cases discovered? Please tell us what was the mark on these cartridge cases? Were they of Soviet make or of foreign make; and if they were foreign make, which one, and what was the caliber?
PROSOROVSKI: The cause of death of the Polish officers was bullet wounds in the nape of the neck. In the tissue of the brain or in the bone of the skull we discovered bullets which were more or less deformed. As to cartridge cases, we did indeed discover, during the exhumation, cartridge cases of German origin, for on their bases we found the mark G-e-c-o, Geco.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One minute, Witness.
I will now read an original German document and I beg the permission of the Tribunal to submit a series of documents which have been offered us by our American colleagues, Document Number 402-PS, Exhibit USSR-507. It concerns German correspondence and telegrams on Katyn, and these telegrams are sent by an official of the Government General, Heinrich, to the Government of the Government General.
I submit the original document to the Court. I am only going to read one document, a very short one, in connection with the cartridge cases discovered in the mass graves. The telegram is addressed to the Government of the Government General, care of First Administrative Counsellor Weirauch in Kraków. It is marked:
“Urgent, to be delivered at once, secret.
“Part of the Polish Red Cross returned yesterday from Katyn. The employees of the Polish Red Cross have brought with them the cartridge cases which were used in shooting the victims of Katyn. It appears that these are German munitions. The caliber is 7.65. They are from the firm Geco. Letter follows.” signed—“Heinrich.”
[Turning to the witness.] Were the cartridge cases and cartridges which were discovered by you of the same caliber and did they bear the mark of the same firm?
PROSOROVSKI: As I have already stated, the bullets discovered in the bullet wounds were 7.65 caliber. The cases discovered during the exhumation did indeed bear the trademark of the firm Geco.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I now ask you to describe in detail the condition of the body tissues and of the inner organs of the corpses exhumed from the graves of Katyn.
PROSOROVSKI: The skin and the inner organs of the corpses were well preserved. The muscles of the body and of the limbs had kept their structure. The muscles of the heart had also kept their characteristic structure. The substance of the brain was, in some cases, putrified; but in most cases, it had kept its structural characteristics quite definitely, showing a clear distinction between the gray and white matters. Changes in the inner organs were mainly a sagging and shrinking. The hair from the head could be easily pulled out.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: From the examination of the corpses, to what conclusion did you come as to the date of death and date of burial?
PROSOROVSKI: On the basis of the experience I have gained and on the experiences of Smolianinov, Semenovski, and other members of the commission...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One moment, Witness. I would like you to tell the Tribunal briefly what these experiences were and how many corpses were exhumed. Did you personally exhume them or were they exhumed in your presence?
PROSOROVSKI: In the course of the great War, I was often medico-legal expert during the exhumation and the examination of corpses of victims who were shot by the Germans. These executions occurred in the town of Krasnodar and its neighborhood, in the town of Kharkov and its neighborhood, in the town of Smolensk and its neighborhood, in the so-called extermination camp of Maidanek, near Lublin, so that all told more than 5,000 corpses were exhumed and examined with my personal co-operation.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Considering your experience and your objective observations, to what conclusions did you arrive as to the date of the death and the burial of the victims of Katyn?
PROSOROVSKI: What I have just said applies to me as well as to many of my colleagues who participated in this work. The commission came to the unanimous conclusion that the burial of the Polish officers in the Katyn graves was carried out about 2 years before, if you count from January, the month of January 1944—that is to say that the date was autumn 1941.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did the condition of the corpses allow the conclusion that they were buried in 1940, objectively speaking?
PROSOROVSKI: The medico-legal examination of the corpses buried in the Katyn wood, when compared with the modifications and changes which were noticed by us during former exhumations on many occasions and also material evidence, allowed us to come to the conclusion that the time of the burial could not have been previous to the autumn of 1941.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, the year 1940 is out of question?
PROSOROVSKI: Yes, it is completely excluded.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I understood you rightly you were also medico-legal expert in the case of other shootings in the district of Smolensk?
PROSOROVSKI: In the district of Smolensk and its environs I have exhumed and examined together with my assistants another 1,173 corpses, besides those of Katyn. They were exhumed from 87 graves.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How did the Germans camouflage the common graves of the victims which they had shot?
PROSOROVSKI: In the district of Smolensk, in Gadeonovka, the following method was used:
The top layer of earth on these graves was covered with turf, and in some cases, as in Gadeonovka, young trees were planted as well as bushes; all this with a view to camouflaging. Besides, in the so-called Engineers’ Garden of the town of Smolensk, the graves were covered with bricks and paths were laid out.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So you exhumed more than 5,000 corpses in various parts of the Soviet Union.
PROSOROVSKI: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What were the causes of death of the victims in most cases?
PROSOROVSKI: In most cases the cause of death was a bullet wound in the head, or in the nape of the neck.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were the causes of death at Katyn similar to those met with in other parts of the Soviet Union? I am speaking of mass-shootings.
PROSOROVSKI: All shootings were carried out by one and the same method, namely, a shot in the nape of the neck, at pointblank range. The exit hole was usually on the forehead or in the face.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will read the last paragraph of your account on Katyn, mentioned in the report of the Extraordinary Soviet State Commission:
“The commission of the experts emphasizes the absolute uniformity of the method of shooting the Polish prisoners of war with that used for the shootings of Soviet prisoners of war and Soviet civilians. Such shootings were carried out on a vast scale by the German Fascist authorities during the temporary occupation of territories of the U.S.S.R., for instance, in the towns of Smolensk, Orel, Kharkov, Krasnodar and Voroneszh.”
Do you corroborate this conclusion?
PROSOROVSKI: Yes, this is the typical method used by the Germans to exterminate peace-loving citizens.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this witness, Mr. President.
DR. STAHMER: Where is your permanent residence, Witness?
PROSOROVSKI: I was born in Moscow and have my domicile there.
DR. STAHMER: How long have you been in the Commissariat for Health?
PROSOROVSKI: I have been working in institutions for public health since 1931 and am at present in the Ministry of Public Health. Before that I was a candidate for the chair of forensic medicine at Moscow University.
DR. STAHMER: In this commission were there also foreign scientists?
PROSOROVSKI: In this commission there were no foreign medico-legal experts, but the exhumation and examination of these corpses could be attended by anybody who was interested. Foreign journalists, I believe 12 in number, came to the burial grounds and I showed them the corpses, the graves, the clothing, and so on—in short everything they were interested in.
DR. STAHMER: Were there any foreign scientists present?
PROSOROVSKI: I repeat again that no one was present apart from Soviet experts of the medico-legal commission.
DR. STAHMER: Can you give the names of the members of the press?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, he was giving a long list of names before and he was stopped by his counsel.
Why do you shake your head?
DR. STAHMER: I did not understand, Mr. President, the one list of names. He gave a list of names of the members of the commission. My question is that: The witness has just said that members of the foreign press were present and that the results of the investigation were presented to them. I am now asking for the names of these members of the foreign press.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, go on.
DR. STAHMER: Will you please give me the names of the members of the press, or at least the names of those who were present and to whom you presented the results of the examination?
PROSOROVSKI: Unhappily I cannot give you those names now here; but I believe that if it is necessary, I would be able to find them. I shall ascertain the names of all those foreign correspondents who were present at the exhumation of the corpses.
DR. STAHMER: The statement about the number of corpses exhumed and examined by you seems to have changed somewhat according to my notes, but I may have misunderstood. Once you mentioned 5,000 and another time 925. Which figure is the correct one?
PROSOROVSKI: You did not hear properly. I said that 925 corpses had been exhumed in the Katyn wood, but in general I personally exhumed or was present at the exhumation of over 5,000 in many towns of the Soviet Union after the liberation of the territories from the Germans.
DR. STAHMER: Were you actually present at the exhumation?
PROSOROVSKI: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: How long did you work at these exhumations?
PROSOROVSKI: As I told you, on 14 January a group of medico-legal experts left for the site of the burial grounds together with the members of a special commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you not just say how long it took—the whole exhumation? In other words, to shorten it, can you not say how long it took?
PROSOROVSKI: Very well. The exhumation and part of the examination of the corpses lasted from 16 to 23 January 1944.
DR. STAHMER: Did you find only Polish officers?
PROSOROVSKI: All the corpses, with the exception of two which were found in civilian clothing, were in Polish uniforms and were therefore members of the Polish Army.
DR. STAHMER: Did you try to determine from what camp these Polish officers came originally?
PROSOROVSKI: That was not one of my duties. I was concerned only with the medico-legal examination of the corpses.
DR. STAHMER: You did not learn in any other way from what camp they came?
PROSOROVSKI: In the receipts which were found, dated 1941, it was stated that the money was received in camp 10-N. It can therefore be assumed that the camp number was obviously of particular importance.
DR. STAHMER: Did you know of the Kosielsk Camp?
PROSOROVSKI: Only from hearsay. I have not been there.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know that Polish officers were kept prisoners there?
PROSOROVSKI: I can say only what I heard. I heard that Polish officers were there, but I have not seen them myself nor have I been anywhere near there.
DR. STAHMER: Did you learn anything about the fate of these officers?
PROSOROVSKI: Since I did not make the investigations, I cannot say anything about the fate of these officers. About the fate of the officers, whose corpses were discovered in the graves of Katyn, I have already spoken.
DR. STAHMER: How many officers did you find altogether in the burial grounds at Katyn?
PROSOROVSKI: We did not separate the corpses according to their rank; but, in all, there were 925 corpses exhumed and examined.
DR. STAHMER: Was that the majority?
PROSOROVSKI: The coats and tunics of many corpses bore shoulder straps with insignia indicating officers’ rank. But even today I could not distinguish the insignia of rank of the Polish officers.
DR. STAHMER: What happened to the documents which were found on the Polish prisoners?
PROSOROVSKI: By order of the special commission the searching of the clothing was done by the medico-legal experts. When these experts discovered documents they looked them through, examined them, and handed them over to the members of the special commission, either to Academician Burdenko or Academician Tolstoy, Potemkin, or any other members of the commission. Obviously these documents are in the archives of the Extraordinary State Commission.
DR. STAHMER: Are you of the opinion that from the medical findings regarding the corpses the time when they were killed can be determined with certainty?
PROSOROVSKI: In determining the date on which these corpses had presumably been buried, we were guided by the experience which we had gathered in numerous previous exhumations and also found support by material evidence discovered by the medico-legal experts. Thus we were able to establish beyond doubt that the Polish officers were buried in the fall of 1941.
DR. STAHMER: I asked whether from the medical findings you could determine this definitely and whether you did so.
PROSOROVSKI: I can again confirm what I have already said. Since we had great experience in mass exhumations, we came to that conclusion, in corroboration of which we also had much material evidence, which enabled us to determine the autumn of 1941 as the time of the burial of the Polish officers.
DR. STAHMER: I have no more questions to put to this witness. Mr. President, an explanation regarding the document which was just submitted; I have here only a copy signed by Heinrich; I have not seen the original.
THE PRESIDENT: I imagine the original is there.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov, do you want to re-examine?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness; but with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to make a brief statement.
We were allowed to choose from among the 120 witnesses whom we interrogated in the case of Katyn, only three. If the Tribunal is interested in hearing any other witnesses named in the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission, we have, in the majority of cases, adequate affidavits which we can submit at the Tribunal’s request. Moreover, any one of these persons can be called to this Court if the Tribunal so desires.
That is all I have to say upon this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: I have no objection to the further presentation of evidence as long as it is on an equal basis; that is, if I, too, have the opportunity to offer further evidence. I am also in a position to call further witnesses and experts for the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already made its order; it does not propose to hear further evidence.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
The Tribunal wishes to hear Dr. Bergold with reference to finishing the case of the Defendant Bormann, and the Tribunal also understands that counsel for the Defendant Von Neurath has some documents which he wishes to present.
Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, have you some documents for Von Neurath?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you present them now?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I have here two types of documents. One type includes the documents which I have already offered in presenting my evidence, and to which I have called the attention of the Court. They are all in the document books which have been submitted to the Court, and I believe it will be sufficient to hand these documents to the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lüdinghausen, you have already offered them in evidence and they all have numbers, have they not?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Then I have a number of documents, probably 12 or 15, which have also been included in my document books, in translation. However, I have not yet mentioned these documents in my presentation recently, and have not yet asked the Court to take judicial notice of them. If I may refer to them briefly, they are as follows:
A letter from Von Neurath to Hitler of 19 June 1933.
A copy of the minutes of the withdrawal of the Inter-Allied Military Commission in 1926.
A speech...
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly give them the exhibit numbers which they are to have as you offer them in evidence?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The first one is a letter to Hitler of 19 June 1933. What number will that letter have?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: That is Number 12.
Number 32, minutes on the withdrawal of the Inter-Allied Military Commission.
Number 50, a speech of Prime Minister MacDonald of 16 March 1933.
Number 51, an article of Von Neurath on the League of Nations, in the periodical Der Völkerbund of 11 May 1933.
Number 52, Hitler’s speech of 17 May 1933, the so-called “Peace Speech.”
Number 53, a statement of the German Ambassador Nadolny, in Geneva, of 19 May 1933.
Number 54, a statement of the American representative, Norman Davies, at the Disarmament Conference, of 22 May 1933.
Number 55, a statement of the German Ambassador Nadolny, at the Disarmament Conference of 27 May 1935.
Number 81, a speech by the then Minister Beneš of 2 July 1934.
Number 82, an excerpt from the speech of Marshal Pétain of 22 July 1934.
Number 83, the communiqué of the Reich Government of 26 July 1934.
Number 85, the communiqué of the Reich Government of 10 September 1934.
Number 86, a speech of Herr Von Neurath of 17 September 1934.
Number 88, excerpts from the speech of Marshal Smuts of 12 November 1934.
Number 119, a statement of the British Minister in the House of Commons of 20 July 1936.
Those are the documents which I had not yet named, but which are already contained in my document books. Mr. President, may I take this opportunity to submit the following application, namely: The Court...
THE PRESIDENT: Those documents have all been translated, have they not, Dr. Lüdinghausen?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes, they are all included, in translation, in the document books which have been submitted.
Mr. President, may I now make an application to the Court? It is to the effect that the Court should permit me to call again the Defendant Von Neurath to the witness stand, for the following reason. As may be recalled, in the course of cross-examination Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe presented Document 3859-PS to the defendant, which document was a photostatic copy of a letter from the defendant, dated 31 August 1940, to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, with two enclosures. In this letter the defendant asked Lammers to submit the two enclosures to Hitler and to arrange, if possible, a personal conference or an interview on the question of alleged Germanization mentioned therein. The two enclosures of this letter to Lammers are reports and suggestions on the future form of the Protectorate and concern the assimilation or possible Germanization of the Czech people.
The Court will recall that the presentation of this rather extensive document—it has 30 or 40 pages in this photostatic form if not more—surprised the defendant, and at that moment he could not recall the matter clearly enough to give positive and exhaustive information about these documents immediately. Nevertheless, in cross-examination, after a very brief look at these reports, he expressed doubts as to whether these reports, as presented here in photostatic form, were actually identical with the reports which were enclosed, according to his instructions, in the letter to Lammers to be submitted to Hitler. A careful examination of these photostatic copies was not possible in the course of cross-examination; and, of course, I myself, since I did not know the documents, was not able to comment upon them. Since Herr Von Neurath was obviously overtired and exhausted after the cross-examination it was not possible for me to examine the question and discuss it with him on the same day; that was possible only on the following day.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, the defendant may be recalled for the purpose of being questioned about these two documents; but, of course, it is an exceptional license which is allowed on this occasion, because the object of re-examination is to enable counsel to elucidate such matters as this.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may call him.
[The Defendant Von Neurath resumed the stand.]
You are still under oath, of course.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Herr Von Neurath, do you recall the reason for your letter to Dr. Lammers of 31 August 1940 and your request for him to arrange a conference, an interview with Hitler?
VON NEURATH: Yes. As I said during my examination, in the course of the summer of 1940 I learned that various Reich and Party agencies, among others particularly the Gauleiter of the neighboring Gaue and Himmler, had sent more or less radical reports and suggestions to Hitler. I knew that Himmler, particularly, made quite extreme suggestions regarding a partition of the Protectorate area and complete annihilation of the Czech folkdom and people. These agencies were urging Hitler to put these plans into effect as quickly as possible.
Since, as I have already emphasized, I was opposed to such plans and, on the contrary, wanted to preserve the Czech people and folkdom and protect them against the intentions of Himmler and his companions to destroy them, I decided to make an attempt to induce Hitler not to carry out any Germanization plans but to forbid them and to send a categorical order to this effect to the Party and its agencies.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Do you recall how these two reports came about, which were to be included in your letter to Lammers?
VON NEURATH: As far as I can recall, things developed as follows: Either I myself dictated a report or one of my officials drew it up according to my instructions; I believe the latter was the case. But I recall definitely that this report was much briefer than the one submitted here in photostatic copy. I remember, furthermore, that the conclusions drawn in it were similar but much sharper and that the whole problem had to be considered very carefully.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now, tell us how and why the second report of Frank came to be made.
VON NEURATH: From the various discussions which I had with Frank, I knew that he, too, was opposed to this partition of the Protectorate territory and the evacuation of the Czech population as proposed by Himmler and that he shared my opinions, at least to that extent. Therefore I considered it expedient, since Hitler had assigned Frank to me as State Secretary because he knew the Czech country and people very well, to point out to Hitler that this man, too, was opposed to Himmler’s plans and advised Hitler against accepting them.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But for what reason did you especially emphasize in your letter to Lammers that you shared the opinions expressed in Frank’s report?
VON NEURATH: I considered it right to do this because Frank was a member of the SS and a subordinate and confidant of Himmler. On the other hand, I knew already at that time that Hitler was prejudiced against me, because of my attitude toward the Czech people, which he considered much too mild and lenient; and I was, therefore, convinced that together with Frank I would be more likely to be successful in influencing Hitler to my way of thinking than if I went to him alone. That was the reason why I suggested that Frank should participate in the report. For the same reason I did not write directly to Hitler, as I did usually, but to Lammers. According to previous experience, I had to assume that if I had written directly to Hitler, who on top of it was not in Berlin at the time, he would either not read the report at all or would refer it to Himmler.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: How was this letter to Lammers and its enclosures handled in your office?
VON NEURATH: I had the draft of the report of Frank submitted to me. Then I dictated my letter to Lammers, and I sent it with my report and Frank’s draft back to Frank’s office for a final review of the Frank report and for the dispatch of the letter to Lammers together with both versions. I did not see the letter to Lammers and the two reports again before they were sent out nor did I see them, by the way, in Berlin at the conference with Hitler.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The last question. How did you reach the conviction that the photostatic copies, submitted here, of the two reports could not be identical with the reports which were enclosed in the letter to Lammers, according to your instructions?
VON NEURATH: As for the first report which I prepared, I have already stated that according to my recollection it was much shorter than the one submitted here in photostatic copy. Furthermore, this photostatic copy does not bear my signature, not even my initials. But it is out of the question that the final copy of this report, which was enclosed at my office in the letter to Lammers, would not have been signed or at least initialed by me; and the certificate of correctness, which, remarkably enough, is contained in this report and which was prepared by an SS Obersturmbannführer, is not signed. The photostatic copy which is said to have been enclosed in the letter to Lammers does not even bear my initials. The most noticeable thing, however, is the certificate of correctness on the photostatic copy. This can have a meaning only if the document enclosed in the letter to Lammers, in spite of not bearing my signature, was enclosed in the letter nevertheless. But since the final copy which my office sent to State Secretary Frank’s office with the letter to Lammers was certainly signed by me, this certificate proves that it was not the report signed by me which was enclosed in the letter sent to Lammers but another one drafted by Frank or by officials in his office. As for Frank’s own report, the text of the photostatic copy here, to my recollection, is not identical with the text of the report which I approved and which I then sent on together with my report to Lammers...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, we have heard the explanation more than once, I think, that the enclosure which was in the letter was not the same as the one which he drew up. It does not get any more convincing by getting told over again.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I only wanted to express it again. But if the Tribunal believes that that explanation has been made previously, I may dispense with it.
VON NEURATH: Mr. President, may I be permitted to make another statement as to how I imagine—of course, I can only imagine—these things took place? I am firmly convinced that if the two photostatic copies submitted here were actually enclosed in the letter to Lammers, they were prepared in Frank’s office, and enclosed without my knowledge. Another possibility would be, of course, that Czech...
THE PRESIDENT: We are quite as able to imagine possibilities as you are.
The fact is that the letter was signed in his name, was it not? The letter itself was signed?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And he refers expressly to the enclosure?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we understand it.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes. I wanted it to be made clear to the Court. For, as I have said, I could not thoroughly examine the remarkable characteristics of these two reports, the outer form and the text at the moment of cross-examination. I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the dock.
Do you want to ask any questions, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not think so. If the Court would just allow me, I should like to look at the document while the Court is recessed and see whether there is any point that I might like to question on.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now.
[A recess was taken.]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have considered the matter; and I think it is really in the stage of argument and not cross-examination; but, My Lord, I should like Your Lordship just to observe, as the matter has been raised, that there is a certificate, given by Captain Hochwald on behalf of General Ecer, which states that the exhibit which was put in is a photostat taken from the original of a document found in the archives of the Reich Protector’s office in Prague, so that that theory appears, from the certificate and the exhibit, that the copy-letter to Dr. Lammers and the two memoranda were preserved and found in the office of the Reich Protector. I do not want to say anything further in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the defendant come back to the witness box. Oh—no he need not come back. Dr. Bergold. Dr. Bergold?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, since Dr. Bergold is absent at present, I should like to ask whether I may submit the three documents in my case which are still outstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Kranzbühler.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I am offering as Exhibit Dönitz-100, the affidavit subscribed by the chief of the American Navy, Admiral Nimitz, as to American U-boat war against the Japanese Navy. The Tribunal already knows what I wish to prove with this. I need not read anything now because in the final presentation of my argument I shall have to come back to this point.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have the document read, Dr. Kranzbühler.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have the original text in English, Mr. President, and I shall therefore have to read in English:
“At the request of the International Military Tribunal, the following interrogatories were on this date, 11 May 1940, put to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz...”
THE PRESIDENT: You must have given the wrong date—1946, is it not?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: 11 May 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: “...put to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, U.S. Navy, by Lieutenant Commander Joseph L. Broderick, United States Naval Reserve, of the International Law Section, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Navy Department, Washington, D.C., who recorded verbatim the testimony of the witness. Admiral Nimitz was duly sworn by Lieutenant Commander Broderick and interrogated as follows:
“Q: ‘What is your name, rank, and present station?’
“A: ‘Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, United States Navy, Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy.’
“1. Q: ‘What positions in the U.S. Navy did you hold from December 1941 until May 1945?’
“A: ‘Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet.’
“2. Q: ‘Did the U.S.A. in her sea warfare against Japan announce certain waters to be areas of operation, blockade, danger, restriction, warning, or the like?’
“A: ‘Yes. For the purpose of command of operations against Japan the Pacific Ocean areas were declared a theater of operations.’
“3. Q: ‘If yes, was it customary in such areas for submarines to attack merchantmen without warning, with the exception of her own and those of her Allies?’
“A: ‘Yes, with the exception of hospital ships and other vessels under “safe conduct” voyages for humanitarian purposes.’
“4. Q: ‘Were you under orders to do so?’
“A: ‘The Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941 ordered unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.’
“5. Q: ‘Was it customary for the submarines to attack Japanese merchantmen without warning—outside of announced operation or similar areas since the outbreak of the war?’
“A: ‘The reply to this interrogatory involves matters outside the limits of my command during the war; therefore I make no reply thereto.’
“6. Q: ‘Were you under orders to do so?’
“A: ‘The reply to this interrogatory involves matters outside the limits of my command during the war; therefore I make no reply thereto.’
“7. Q: ‘If the practice of attacking without warning did not exist since the outbreak of the war, did it exist from a later date on? From what date on?’
“A: ‘The practice existed from 7 December 1941 in the declared zone of operations.’
“8. Q: ‘Did this practice correspond to issued orders?’
“A: ‘Yes.’
“9. Q: ‘Did it become known to the U.S. naval authorities that Japanese merchantmen were under orders to report any sighted U.S. submarine to the Japanese Armed Forces by radio? If yes, when did it become known?’
“A: ‘During the course of the war, it became known to the U.S. naval authorities that Japanese merchantmen in fact reported by radio to Japanese Armed Forces any information regarding sighting of U.S. submarines.’
“10. Q: ‘Did the U.S. submarines thereupon receive the order to attack without warning Japanese merchantmen, if this order did not exist already before? If yes, when?’
“A: ‘The order existed from 7 December 1941.’
“11. Q: ‘Did it become known to the U.S. naval authorities that the Japanese merchantmen were under orders to attack any U.S. submarine in any way suitable according to the situation; for instance, by ramming, gunfire, or by depth charges? If yes, when did it become known?’
“A: ‘Japanese merchantmen were usually armed and always attacked by any available means when feasible.’
“12. Q: ‘Did the U.S. submarines thereupon receive the order of attacking without warning Japanese merchantmen, if this order did not already exist before. If yes, when?’
“A: ‘The order existed from 7 December 1941.’
“13. Q: ‘Were, by order or on general principles, the U.S. submarines prohibited from carrying out rescue measures toward passengers and crews of ships sunk without warning in those cases where by doing so the safety of their own boat was endangered?’
“A: ‘On general principles, the U.S. submarines did not rescue enemy survivors if undue additional hazard to the submarine resulted or the submarine would thereby be prevented from accomplishing its further mission. U.S. submarines were limited in rescue measures by small passenger-carrying facilities combined with the known desperate and suicidal character of the enemy. Therefore, it was unsafe to pick up many survivors. Frequently survivors were given rubber boats and/or provisions. Almost invariably survivors did not come aboard the submarine voluntarily, and it was necessary to take them prisoner by force.’
“14. Q: ‘If such an order or principle did not exist, did the U.S. submarine actually carry out rescue measures in the above-mentioned cases?’
“A: ‘In numerous cases enemy survivors were rescued by U.S. submarines.’
“15. Q: ‘In answering the above question, does the expression “merchantmen” mean any other kind of ships than those which were not warships?’
“A: ‘No. By “merchantmen” I mean all types of ships which were not combatant ships. Used in this sense, it includes fishing boats, et cetera.’
“16. Q: ‘If yes, what kind of ships?’
“A: ‘The last answer covers this question.’
“17. Q: ‘Has any order of the U.S. naval authorities mentioned in the above questionnaire concerning the tactics of U.S. submarines toward Japanese merchantmen been based on the grounds of reprisal? If yes, what orders?’
“A: ‘The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered on 7 December 1941 resulted from the recognition of Japanese tactics revealed on that date. No further orders to U.S. submarines concerning tactics toward Japanese merchantmen throughout the war were based on reprisal, although specific instances of Japanese submarines committing atrocities toward U.S. merchant marine survivors became known and would have justified such a course.’
“18. Q: ‘Has this order or have these orders of the Japanese Government been announced as reprisals?’
“A: ‘The question is not clear. Therefore I make no reply thereto.’
“19. Q: ‘On the basis of what Japanese tactics was reprisal considered justified?’
“A: ‘The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered by the Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941 was justified by the Japanese attacks on that date on U.S. bases and on both armed and unarmed ships and nationals without warning or declaration of war.’
“The above record of testimony has been examined by me on this date and is in all respects accurate and true.”—signed—“Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy.”
This document bears the number Dönitz-100.
As my next document I submit an expert opinion given by the former naval judge, Jäckel, on the jurisdiction of the naval courts for the protection of the native population against encroachments by marines. This document has been admitted by the Tribunal and is available in translation and therefore I do not need to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the number?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Dönitz-49, Mr. President.
Then, Mr. President, some weeks back I made application to admit extracts from the records of a war crimes court at Oslo. These had been used by the Prosecution on the occasion of the cross-examination of Grossadmiral Dönitz. At that time they were not numbered. From these records I selected some extracts which prove that torpedo boat Number 345, whose crew were shot by reason of the Commando Order, was a boat which was charged with sabotage acts. Due to this fact the High Command of the Navy and also Admiral Dönitz were not informed about the treatment meted out to these prisoners, and this question was settled directly by means of discussions between Gauleiter Terboven and the Führer’s headquarters. I ask that the High Tribunal admit this document as evidence, since this document was used by the Prosecution. It would receive the Number Dönitz-107.
COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, I do not know if the Tribunal has before it the answer which the Prosecution have put into this application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have just looked at it now.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Broadly speaking, it comes to this, that we are quite prepared to put in the whole proceedings, but we should object to extracts being put in; that is, amongst the affidavits and the evidence of some of the witnesses, material to support the points for which counsel for Defendant Dönitz contends. There is, on the other hand, a body of evidence the other way on all those points. That is why, My Lord...
THE PRESIDENT: Would it not save translation if you put in the passages in the document upon which you rely?
COL. PHILLIMORE: If that would be more convenient, My Lord, we can do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know how long the document is. It may be very long indeed.
COL. PHILLIMORE: The whole proceedings are very long. The trial lasted for 4 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it would be appropriate that you should pick out the parts on which you rely and Dr. Kranzbühler can put in...
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, it is put in the answer that the document against this defendant, which was proved in the defendant’s case, was an affidavit by the Judge Advocate, who set out the effect of the evidence accepted by the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal follows that, but it thinks that it is desirable that you should put in the passages upon which you as well as the defense counsel rely.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: May I submit this document, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number again, please?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Number Dönitz-107, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And it contains extracts from these proceedings, does it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution will put in their extracts and we will consider them both.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, then I have another question dealing with the documents of the case which we have just dealt with, the case of Katyn.
The witness, Professor Markov, mentioned the expert opinion given by the Italian expert, Professor Palmieri, which is in the German White Book. I should also like to submit this opinion as evidence, for the reason that there is no mention of insects being found on the corpses as Professor Markov asserted, but rather, “larvae.” To me the difference appears to be that insects fly about during the summer whereas larvae conceal themselves during the winter months, Mr. President, may I submit this document?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to make just one factual remark. In Professor Palmieri’s report it was indicated that the “larvae” were discovered in the throats of the corpses. I cannot imagine that “insects” were ever found in the throat of a corpse. That is why I do not think that the presentation of the document by defendant’s counsel serves a purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, you are specifying a particular document referred to in the White Book, is that right?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And you mean the whole of the document?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: That document is about one page, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you may put it in, subject to its being translated.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Very well, Mr. President.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we are talking about a document which is an account on the dissection of a corpse performed by Professor Palmieri. It is no report but merely an account of an autopsy carried out by Professor Palmieri himself.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it referred to in the conclusions or not?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: It is put in the general record to the same extent as the record of Professor Markov. It is the findings on the autopsy which Professor Palmieri performed.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, I have still another document in the case of Katyn, which I received from Polish sources just a few days ago. This is a document which was written in English and appeared in London in 1946. The title is, Report on the Massacre of Polish Officers in the Katyn Wood. In this document Polish sources are used, and I should like to offer this document to the Tribunal as evidence.
However, before I present certain lines of evidence, I would like to ask that the High Tribunal examine this document, for there may be doubts whether it can be used as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, this document is printed for private circulation only. It has no printer’s name on it, and it is entirely anonymous.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President, these were the doubts which I entertained. I submitted this document as I assumed that in view of the importance of this case, the Tribunal would nevertheless want to take official notice of the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal thinks it would be improper to look at a document of this nature.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I should just like to make one remark, as in fact the Tribunal has already indicated its decision. The statement of the defendant’s counsel that this document was received from the Polish Delegation astounds me to say the least. I should like to know from what Polish Delegation he received this document, because the Polish Delegation represented here could not possibly produce such a Fascist propaganda document as this.
THE PRESIDENT: I think General Rudenko misunderstood what Dr. Kranzbühler said.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, four interrogatories were granted to me on behalf of the Defendant Funk. When I presented my case, I could not yet submit these affidavits because they had not been translated. In the meantime, I have received these translations; and they have been submitted to the Tribunal. I ask to be permitted to present them briefly to the Tribunal at this point.
One of them, in Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement Number 2, will be numbered Exhibit Number Funk-16. This is the very comprehensive interrogation of the witness Landfried who held the position of state secretary in the Ministry of the Defendant Funk. This witness—I do not believe I need to read this record in detail—in answer to the first question, deals with the economic policy of the Defendant Funk in the occupied countries. He describes it in exactly the same way as it was presented by Funk. In answer to the second question, he deals similarly with the directions given by the Defendant Funk to the military commanders and to the Reich Commissioners of the occupied countries.
Under Question 4, the witness deals with the question of the plundering of the occupied territories. He confirms the fact that the Defendant Funk always opposed such plundering, that he fought the black markets, that he opposed devaluation of the currency, that he tried to maintain currency in the occupied territory on the original level.
In reply to Question 5, the witness describes in detail how the Defendant Funk tried to prevent financial overburdening of the occupied countries, especially to lower the costs of occupation as far as possible.
Then in the other questions, in Part 2, particularly in reply to Question 11, the witness discusses the activities of the Defendant Funk in the Ministry of Economics, with regard to German preparations in the event of a war.
Then, in reply to Question 12, the witness examines the position of the Plenipotentiary General for Economy and he concludes that in practice it was the position of a figurehead only. However, I do not wish to read these detailed statements and take up too much of the time of the Tribunal, for in the main these are only repetitions of statements that have already been made.
In the last two questions, Numbers 14 and 15, the witness Landfried, who, as I have already said, was for years the defendant’s deputy, describes the defendant’s attitude toward the policy of terror and his fundamental attitude in regard to the use of foreign workers and similar matters. I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this very detailed testimony and that these brief statements will suffice.
The next interrogatory comes from the witness Emil Puhl. This is the same witness who was interrogated in this courtroom about other questions, namely the question of gold teeth, et cetera. This is the interrogatory and the answers of the witness Emil Puhl, Document Book Funk, Supplement Number 3, Exhibit Funk-17.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has this interrogatory been granted?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave his evidence. We do not generally allow interrogatories to witnesses who have given their evidence.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter was like this: As far back as December I had applied for this interrogatory and repeatedly asked for it, but it did not arrive. And only after 2 days of cross-examining, was this witness Emil Puhl suddenly questioned by the Prosecution on entirely different subjects, that is the matter of gold deposits made by the SS, rather of gold teeth. This interrogation by the Prosecution did not refer to the interrogatory, which I believe was granted by you in February.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what I mean is this: Supposing the Tribunal is asked to grant an interrogatory and it grants the interrogatory, and then the witness is subsequently called to give evidence. When he is called to give evidence, he ought to be questioned upon all the matters which are relevant to the Trial. The Tribunal does not want to have to read his evidence in one place and then his interrogatory in some other place.
Is there any objection, Mr. Dodd, to accepting it in this case?
MR. DODD: No, I have no objection, Mr. President. That is the situation. It was granted before Puhl was called. He was called here for cross-examination and I do not recall offhand whether or not counsel inquired concerning these matters that are contained therein. We have no objections. It may be some annoyance to the Tribunal, which we regret.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the witness Puhl, during his examination in the French camp, also had the questions of the cross-examination submitted to him which the Prosecution asked for and they were answered by him. Thus he was interrogated not only about the points which I raised, but also about the questions put in the cross-examination by the Prosecution. Therefore, I take the liberty of submitting this document, which is an interrogatory of Emil Puhl, Document Book Number 3, Supplement Number 3, and to which is assigned Exhibit Number Funk-17.
This witness Puhl, who was the vice president of the Reichsbank, in this interrogatory deals solely with matters entirely different from the subjects dealt with here in his examination, namely, the preparations which the Reichsbank President, Dr. Funk, made in the event of war; that is Question Number 1, concerning the handling of the clearing debts, and Question Number 2, about the higher valuation of the Danish currency...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks you need not read the interrogatory but the Tribunal will allow it to go in in this case.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted only to sketch the contents of this testimony briefly.
Then I submit additional testimony, given by a witness, which has been granted by the Tribunal. It is the testimony given by the witness Heinz Kallus, to be found in Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement 4, and is assigned Exhibit Number Funk-18. I also submit this testimony to the General Secretary and I should like to ask, in order to save time, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of its contents.
As my fourth and last document there is an affidavit subscribed by Mr. Messersmith, a supplement to a previous statement which has already been submitted to the Tribunal. This is very brief, in fact it is but one sentence and it may be found in the Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement Number 5, with Exhibit Number Funk-19. I also submit this document. And now I have arrived at the conclusion of my report, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I should like to submit to the Tribunal the testimony of the witness Dr. Beil. Up to now I had received this testimony only in English. I have fetched it again from the Translation Division so that I could submit it as Exhibit Number Rosenberg-50. In this connection I have another request. This interrogatory contains important questions dealing with the attitude adopted by the East Ministry in the matter of allocation of labor and it is of such importance that I ask the permission of the Tribunal to have it read. Since I am not entirely conversant with the English language, I should like to ask to have an interpreter read this interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, has this document been offered in evidence before: It was granted by the Tribunal, was it not, this interrogatory?
DR. THOMA: Yes, it has already been granted by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to read it? Can you not submit it in evidence and the Tribunal will consider it?
DR. THOMA: I leave that, of course, to the Tribunal to decide. I wanted to point out only that this is very important and decisive testimony in regard to the question of manpower allocation in the East Ministry. However, I shall leave that to the judgment of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you not summarize it?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have received only an English translation, and I do not wish to attempt to do anything with it. But I believe there are only 2 pages—the interpreter will read that in no time at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the interpreter read it then.
INTERPRETER: Exhibit Number Rosenberg-50:
“Copy. Completed interrogatory of Ministerialrat Dr. Beil, on behalf of Rosenberg.
“The witness, having been duly sworn, states:
“Q: ‘Were you the permanent official (Sachbearbeiter) in the East Ministry (Ost Ministerium) in charge of the questions of labor and social policy?’
“A: ‘Yes, I was one of 10 permanent officials; we originally started with 52, but as the East Front receded the staff was finally reduced to 10. I was in charge of the administration side of the labor and social policy. The head of the department was Landesbauernführer Peukert.’
“Q: ‘Was the East Ministry in favor of voluntary recruiting of workers in the East?’
“A: ‘Yes, of voluntary recruiting only, my instructions being that it should only be carried out on this basis.’
“Q: ‘Are any results known?’
“A: ‘Yes, but the results were not as great as anticipated, only some 300,000 to 400,000 volunteered and most of these were from the Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia.’
“Q: ‘Were there any negotiations about decreasing the quotas ordered by the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor (GBA)?’
“A: ‘Yes, negotiations for decreasing the quotas took place but broke down owing to Sauckel demanding something like a million workers to be transferred to the interior.’
“Q: ‘Who was responsible for the care and control of the East Workers (Ostarbeiter) in the Reich?’
“A: ‘The German Labor Front (Arbeitsfront) and the Reich Food Estate (Reichsnährstand) were responsible for the care of the East Workers, the former for workers in munitions and heavy industry and the latter for agricultural workers.’
“Q: ‘What was the point of view of the Department ASO...’ ”
DR. THOMA: ASO, if I may interrupt, is the Labor, Social, and Political Department of the East Ministry.
INTERPRETER: [continuing.]
“Q: ‘What was the point of view of the Department ASO concerning the treatment of the East Workers in the Reich?’
“A: ‘The view of my Department ASO was that the voluntary recruiting of workers on a free movement basis, thus taking them out of the barbed-wire-enclosed factories, would be the best method of treatment; we also advocated the removal of the arm badges, worn originally on the arm and later over the left breast, which carried the word “East” so as to distinguish them from workers from the West, who never at any time wore badges. The wording being later changed to “Greater Russia,” “White Russia,” and “Ukraine,” the people from the Baltic States did not wear the arm badge. Certain Russians, small groups of Cossacks, Tartars, and one or two others were not compelled to wear the arm band, as they were anti-Bolshevistic and pro-German; and a certain proportion of these were eventually called up into the German Army. Some 7,000 youths of Ruthenia were called up by ASO and these were apprenticed at Junkers Works.’
“Q: ‘Is the Central Office (Zentralstelle) for the eastern people (Ostvölker) at the East Ministry known to you? How was this organized?’
“A: ‘Yes, it was considered to be a consulate for the East; members of the staff were partly Germans and partly local employees from the East, who were considered suitable for such employment. Some of the foreign employees were placed at the disposal of the country offices to look after the interests of their fellow countrymen working in the countries. At the Central Office were instituted offices for each of the eastern states, each office being controlled by a German, some of whom had originally come from these states. There was also a welfare branch which was run by persons from these eastern states, to look after the comfort, et cetera, of their individual countrymen; there was also a religious branch which was run by clergy from these countries, but this branch was not very successful as there was an insufficiency of priests.’
“Q: ‘Now, with the help of the DAF, were the complaints followed up?’
“A: ‘The interests of foreign workers were always looked after; missions were sent to the various concentrations of East Workers to find out how they were progressing and what kind of treatment they were receiving. These missions dealt with complaints submitted to them on their visits, but the Central Office had to deal also with written complaints received through the post.’
“Q: ‘Is a printed circular to the authorities in the country known to you, that ordered a just treatment? Details? What was the story about the families who were evacuated by the Army Group Center and about the children 10-14 years old?’
“A: ‘Yes, there was a circular issued, dealing with this question, and it gave details at great length for the just treatment of the East Workers. This circular was issued at the request of the Ministry of the East, through Sauckel. A second circular was issued by Rosenberg dealing with the just treatment of workers from the East only. I have no knowledge of this story, as this was dealt with entirely by the Army Group Center.’
“Q: ‘Does the witness know the pamphlet issued by the East Ministry to the managers of enterprises concerning the nations of eastern Europe and the attitude towards them?’ ”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, that affidavit does not seem to be short at all. It all seems to be cumulative. Every word of it is what we have heard before and heard not only once, but over and over again.
INTERPRETER: Dr. Thoma has just said that the last sentence is coming up.
DR. THOMA: There are two more short sentences.
INTERPRETER:
“A: ‘There were two pamphlets issued; one issued by Sauckel, and the other issued in conjunction with DAF and Sauckel and the Ministry for the East.’
“Q: ‘Has he one handy?’
“A: ‘I have not got a copy of this pamphlet.’
“(Signed) Beil.”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal rely on counsel, you know; and when you tell us that this is an important affidavit, we rely on what you tell us. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the reading of the affidavit was an absolute waste of the Tribunal’s time.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put another request to the Tribunal. I have asked that I be granted an interrogatory for the Reichshauptstellenleiter Dr. Oeppert, of the office of the Delegate of the Führer for the supervision of the entire ideological and mental relation of the NSDAP under Rosenberg’s office. This affidavit has not been granted to me, but I already have it on hand.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen it?
DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President, I do not think so. I submitted an application to the General Secretary. Whether this request has already been transmitted to the Prosecution, I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only application that we have got, as far as I can see, is an interrogatory to Dr. Köppen in lieu of Dr. Stellbrecht. Is that the one that you are speaking about now?
DR. THOMA: No. Mr. President, I was granted permission to interrogate Dr. Köppen instead of Dr. Stellbrecht, and the interrogatory has already been sent off. This, however, is a new application regarding Dr. Oeppert and has not yet been decided upon.
THE PRESIDENT: You had better submit it to the Prosecution and see whether they have any comment to make on it, and we can take it up tomorrow.
DR. THOMA: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the case of Papen there are six interrogatories which have not been disposed of. Three of them have been returned in the last few days and are in the stage of being translated. I asked, when I received my last interrogatory, to be allowed to submit all six at one time to the Tribunal.
Then, without my taking any steps to get it, I received an affidavit 3 days ago from a foreign journalist, Rademacher von Unna, from Milan, Italy. This affidavit is being translated at present. I submitted it to the British prosecutor, and he does not object. I ask to be allowed to submit this affidavit later with the remainder of my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly you may submit it. We shall then pass an opinion upon it as to its admissibility.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you, Mr. President.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Frank and Hess): Mr. President, I ask permission to submit the answers to the interrogatories from the witnesses which have not yet been submitted. As Exhibit Frank-19 I submit the answers to the interrogatory given by the witness Dr. Ernst Böpple. Böpple was State Secretary in the Government General, and he has answered 41 questions in all.
As Number Frank-20, I submit the answers to an interrogatory given by the witness Max Meidinger. Meidinger was chief of the chancellery of the Government General. He has answered 43 questions. This interrogatory, as well as the first interrogatory by Böpple, as far as I could make out, has not been translated yet, although I handed these interrogatories in to be translated about 10 days ago. But attached to the interrogatory there is an English translation which was made during the interrogation.
As Number Frank-21 I submit the answers given by the witness Gassner, who answered 49 questions. Gassner was press chief in the Government General.
Number Frank-22 will be the interrogatory deposed by the witness Dr. Stepp, who in the end was president of the Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht). He deals mainly with the efforts made by the Defendant Frank in the years 1933 and 1934, in his capacity as Bavarian Minister of Justice, for the dissolution of the concentration camp at Dachau.
I should also like to take this opportunity, Mr. President, of pointing out an error of translation which does not refer to the documents of Frank but to a document which was submitted on behalf of the Defendant Hess. Although it was not used by the Prosecution with regard to the personal responsibility of Rudolf Hess, it is found in the document book, and the document concerned is Exhibit USA-696, Document 062-PS. That is a directive of 13 March 1940, the same directive which was mentioned last Saturday in the case of the Defendant Bormann, on which occasion the President himself read Figure 4 of this directive, which was submitted as an appendix to this directive of 13 March. There is a very serious error in translation, which completely distorts the sense of the directive and which, I must say, can have very dangerous consequences.
Under Figure 4 the words “unschädlich gemacht” (made harmless) were translated as “liquidated.”
THE PRESIDENT: If there is an error in the translation, you had better apply to the General Secretary; and he will have the matter gone into by the Translation Division.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, but the matter does not seem to be as simple as that. The translator obviously had the feeling himself that his translation was not reproducing the sense quite accurately, because in parentheses he added “unschädlich gemacht.” In my opinion this sentence must be translated as follows: “Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or made harmless.” The sense was obviously that the parachutists...
THE PRESIDENT: I dare say, Dr. Seidl, but we do not have the document before us and we do not all of us understand the German language. Therefore, it had better be referred to the Translation Division. It is no good referring it to us.
DR. SEIDL: Then I shall put a written application to the General Secretary, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to these interrogatories which Dr. Seidl has been dealing with? Have the Prosecution had the opportunity of putting cross-interrogatories if they wanted to do so?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told that we think so, with the possible exception of the last one. Perhaps I could look into it overnight.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I will look into that point and let the Tribunal know.
My Lord, the Prosecution have a few documents to put in. I have eight, and I think my friend Mr. Dodd has three. I could do it very quickly, but it might be more convenient to do it tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go into all these documents tomorrow morning. There will be some others on behalf of some of the other defendants. We will also hear the witnesses Kempka and Walkenhorst, I believe it is, whom Dr. Bergold wishes to call.
The Tribunal desires Dr. Bergold to be here tomorrow morning in order to be able to examine these witnesses.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.