Part II of this case:

“1. On the flanks of our operation, we can count upon the active participation of Romania and Finland in the war against Soviet Russia.

“The Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces will, at the appropriate time, settle and lay down in what way the armed forces of the two countries will be subordinated to the German command on their entry into the war.

“2. Romania’s task will be to tie up, in co-operation with the group of the armed forces advancing there, the enemy forces facing her, and, for the rest, to maintain the auxiliary services in the rear area.

“3. Finland will have to cover the advance of the German northern landing group (units of Group XXI) due to arrive from Norway, and then operate together with it. In addition, it will be up to Finland to eliminate Hangö.

“4. It is possible to count upon the Swedish railways and coal being available for the movements of the German northern group not later than the beginning of the operation.”

In the speech of the Chief Prosecutor from the U.S.S.R., General Rudenko, attention was drawn to the opening sentence of this section:

“On the flanks of our operation, we can count upon the active participation of Romania and Finland in the war against Soviet Russia.”

This justified the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. in pointing out in his speech that on 18 December 1940, the date of the Barbarossa document, Romania and Finland were already following in the wake of the predatory policy of the Hitlerite conspirators.

There is only one more document which was submitted by the United States Prosecution and which mentioned Germany’s presumed allies in her aggression against the U.S.S.R.

This document, numbered C-39, is entitled “Provisional Case Barbarossa.” It is, as the Defendant Keitel pointed out in his covering letter, a timetable for the preparations of Plan Barbarossa after June 1941. This timetable was confirmed by Hitler. The text of this plan is on Page 57 of the document book. In Part II of this document, entitled “Negotiations with Friendly Powers,” we read:

“a) A request has been sent to Bulgaria not to reduce to any large extent the units stationed for security reasons on the Turkish frontier.

“b) The Romanians have begun, at the instigation of the Commander-in-Chief of the German troops in Romania, a partial, camouflaged mobilization in order to be able to close their frontiers against a presumed attack by the Russians.

“c) Hungarian territory will be used for the deployment of Army Group South only insofar as it would be expedient for introducing German units to link up the Hungarian and Romanian forces. Until the middle of June, however, no representations on this subject will be made to Hungary.

“d) Two German divisions have been deployed in the eastern part of Slovakia; the next ones will be unloaded in the area of Prosov.

“e) Preliminary negotiations with the Finnish general staff take place as from 25 May.”

Mr. President, in order to correlate the following documents with the testimony given by Paulus, I shall merely refer to the fact that this witness testified to the previous preparations for military aggression in that fortress which was Romania, thereby proving that corresponding measures for the reorganization of the Romanian Army, founded in the image and pattern of the German Army, were taken in September 1940 when a special military mission was sent to Romania. The chief of this mission was Cavalry General Hansen. His Chief of Staff was Major General Hauffe, his chief quartermaster Major Merk. Major General Von Rotkirch commanded the 13th Panzer Division.

The task of this military mission was the reorganization of the Romanian Army and its preparation for the subsequent attack on the Soviet Union in the spirit of Plan Barbarossa. The preliminary trend of this task, as Paulus has testified, was given to Hansen and his Chief of Staff by Paulus and they got the last directives from the Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.

General Hansen received directives from two sources: from the OKW where his military mission was concerned, and from the OKH in all questions dealing with the Army. Directives of a military and political nature were received only from the OKW.

The military mission acted as liaison between the German and the Romanian general staffs.

The form assumed by the agreement and, even more, the publication of the true aims of high-ranking fascist leaders in the country, did not always suit the satellites.

I now present, as Exhibit Number USSR-233 (Document Number USSR-233), the minutes of a conversation between Ion Antonescu and the Defendant Ribbentrop which took place on 12 February 1942. This document was taken from the personal archives of Marshal Antonescu which were captured by the advance units of the Red Army. This document, Your Honors, figures on Pages 59-62 of your document book.

In connection with Ribbentrop’s speech in Budapest on the subject of Transylvania, Antonescu makes the following annotation in the course of this speech—last paragraph, Page 2 of the Russian text of the document, Page 60 of the document book:

“Without hesitation, I stressed the point that as early as 6 September, when I took over the government of the country, supported only by Monsieur Mihai Antonescu, I declared, without asking the opinion of my people, that we must follow a policy of adherence to the Axis powers. I said that this was the only example in the history of nations when two persons dare to make an open declaration and to call upon their people to follow a policy which no doubt could only appear odious. . . .”

When making this cynical entry, Ion Antonescu could hardly have expected it to receive such wide publicity.

Mr. President, I intend to read into the record a long document which will take considerable time.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 12 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTY-SEVENTH DAY Tuesday, 12 February 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, you were going to recall the witness who was being called yesterday, Field Marshal Paulus, were you not, so that the defendants’ counsel may have the opportunity of questioning him? Will you do that now?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, according to the wish of the Tribunal the witness is in the Palace of Justice.

[_The witness, Paulus, took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Field Marshal Paulus, I want to remind you that you should pause after the question that has been asked you before you answer it, in order that the translation shall get through. Do you follow what I mean?

PAULUS: I have understood.

DR. NELTE: Witness, I should like to ask several questions. On 3 September 1940, you came as Chief Quartermaster I to the High Command of the Army; is that correct?

PAULUS: That is correct.

DR. NELTE: Who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Army at that time?

PAULUS: It will be very well known to you that at that time the Commander-in-Chief of the Army was Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.

DR. NELTE: I believe that the phraseology that you have used is not correct because I did not put this question for any other reason than just to explain the situation to the people who are assembled here. It is known to us but may not be known to the Tribunal. Who was at that time the Chief of Staff of the Army?

PAULUS: It was Generaloberst Halder.

DR. NELTE: Were you, as Chief Quartermaster I, the permanent representative of the Chief of Staff?

PAULUS: I was the deputy of the Chief of Staff for those cases which he told me to supervise, and as for the rest I had to execute the tasks with which he charged me.

DR. NELTE: In this case were you especially charged with the adaptation of the plan which we later learned to know as Plan Barbarossa?

PAULUS: Yes, to the extent of which I told you yesterday.

DR. NELTE: Field Marshal Brauchitsch, your former Commander-in-Chief and superior, in an affidavit presented by the Prosecution has made a statement about the treatment of military plans. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to ask you to tell me whether this statement by Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch is also your opinion. I quote:

“When Hitler decided to use military pressure or force to achieve his political aims, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, if he was involved, first received orally a sort of orientation or a corresponding order.”

Is that your opinion also?

PAULUS: I have no knowledge of that.

DR. NELTE: Generaloberst Halder, your immediate superior, in an affidavit which also has been submitted by the Prosecution, has said the following about the handling of such military operational things:

“Special military affairs were the responsibility of those parts of the Wehrmacht, that is, Army, Navy, and Air Force, which were immediately under the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, that is to say, under the command of Hitler, who was at the same time the Chief of the Reich.”

Is that your opinion likewise?

PAULUS: I ask you please to repeat this once more because I could not understand exactly what you meant.

DR. NELTE: It is about the question: Who were the military persons responsible to Hitler in the forming of important plans? In respect to that, Von Brauchitsch said what you have just heard, and Halder said the following:

“Special military affairs were the responsibility of those parts of the Wehrmacht, that is, Army, Navy, and Air Force, which were immediately under the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, that is to say, under the command of Hitler, who was at the same time the Chief of the Reich.”

Is that so?

PAULUS: We received the orders about military measures from the High Command of the Wehrmacht. Such was the Directive Number 21. I thought that those people held responsibility who were the first military advisers of Hitler in the High Command of the Wehrmacht.

DR. NELTE: If you have seen Directive Number 21, then you must also know who signed it. Who was that?

PAULUS: As far as I can remember, that was signed by Hitler; and Keitel and Jodl initialed it.

DR. NELTE: But, at any rate, signed by Hitler, like all directives—is that correct?

PAULUS: At any rate, most of the directives, unless they were signed by other people in his name.

DR. NELTE: In other words, I may conclude that the man who gave the orders was the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, that is to say, Hitler?

PAULUS: That is correct.

DR. NELTE: From the statements of Von Brauchitsch and Halder we can see, in my opinion, that the General Staff of the Army with its large machinery was to work out ideas which Hitler conceived, work them out in detail. Do you not believe that?

PAULUS: That is correct. It had to relegate the orders which were given it by the Supreme Command to the proper departments.

DR. NELTE: It is clear that these orders were given to the High Command, that is, the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht. There was in all planning, as I can see from your statement also, in the execution of such aggressive plans a close collaboration between Hitler as Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht and the General Staff of the Army. Is that correct?

PAULUS: This co-operation exists between the Supreme Command and all persons who are charged to carry out the orders of the Supreme Commander.

DR. NELTE: From your explanation I believe I can conclude that the incomplete plan which you found on 3 September 1940—that you have developed that, and that then, after you had achieved a certain measure of completeness, you presented it to the Supreme Commander, Hitler, personally, or through General Halder?

PAULUS: The detailed completion of the plan was presented by the Chief of the General Staff or by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army; then it was either accepted or rejected.

DR. NELTE: That is, it had to be accepted by Hitler or refused?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: Did I understand you correctly yesterday to say that you had already in the fall of 1940 understood that Hitler wanted to attack the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: I said yesterday that the preparation of that plan of operations was the theoretical preparation for an attack.

DR. NELTE: But already at that time you thought that that was Hitler’s intention, didn’t you?

PAULUS: From the way in which this task was started one could see that, after the theoretical preparation, a practical application would follow.

DR. NELTE: Furthermore, you said yesterday that no news of the Abwehr had been received which would prove that there were any intentions of the Soviet Union to attack.

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: Did anybody in the circle of the General Staff of the Army ever speak about these matters?

PAULUS: Yes, these matters were discussed. They had serious misgivings about them, but no reports about any visible preparations for war on the side of the Soviet Union were ever made known to me.

DR. NELTE: So you were firmly convinced that it was a straight attack on the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: At any rate, the indications did not exclude that.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness must speak more slowly.

DR. NELTE: The witness has said, if I understood correctly, that there were signs which did not exclude these inferences.

PAULUS: The order for the execution of this theoretical study of the conditions for attack was considered not only by myself but also by other informed experts as the first step for the preparation for an attack, that is to say, an aggressive attack on the Soviet Union.

DR. NELTE: In realizing these facts, did you or the General Staff of the Army or the Commander-in-Chief of the Army make any protests to Hitler about it?

PAULUS: Personally, I do not know in what form or whether the Commander-in-Chief of the Army made any protests.

DR. NELTE: Did you, yourself, speak about having any doubts to Generaloberst Halder or to Commander-in-Chief Von Brauchitsch?

PAULUS: If I judge correctly, then I believe that I am supposed to be here as a witness for the events with which the defendants are charged. I ask the Tribunal, therefore, to relieve me of the responsibility of answering these questions which are directed against myself.

DR. NELTE: Field Marshal Paulus, you do not seem to know that you also belong to the circle of the defendants, because you belonged to the organization of the High Command which is indicted here as criminal.

PAULUS: And, therefore, since I believe that I am here as witness for the events which have led to the indictment of these defendants here, I have asked to be relieved of answering this question which concerns myself.

DR. NELTE: I ask the Tribunal to decide.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that you must answer the questions that have been put up to date.

PAULUS: Then may I ask for a repetition of the question, please?

DR. NELTE: I have asked you whether, since you realized that there were serious doubts, you talked to your chief, Halder, or to Commander-in-Chief Von Brauchitsch, about these things?

PAULUS: I cannot remember having talked to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army about it, but I did so with the Chief of the General Staff, Generaloberst Halder, who was my superior.

DR. NELTE: Was he of the same opinion?

PAULUS: Yes, he was of the same opinion, that is to say, of the opinion of great anxiety for such a plan.

DR. NELTE: For military or moral reasons?

PAULUS: For many reasons, both military and moral.

DR. NELTE: It is certain, then, that you and the Chief of Staff, Von Halder, realized these facts which would have stamped the war against Russia as a criminal attack and that you nevertheless did nothing against it? In your statement you have said that later you became Commander-in-Chief of the 6th Army; is that right?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: With knowledge of all these facts just stated you accepted the command of an army which was to push against Stalingrad. Did you have any scruples about being made a tool of that attack which in your opinion was a criminal one?

PAULUS: As the situation at that time presented itself for the soldier, in connection also with the extraordinary propaganda which was put into play, I had at that time, as so many others believed, to do my duty toward my fatherland.

DR. NELTE: But you knew about the facts which were against that opinion?

PAULUS: The facts which became clear to me afterwards, due to my experiences as Commander of the 6th Army which found their climax at Stalingrad, those facts I did not know at that time. Also, about that criminal attack—that knowledge came later, when I thought about all the circumstances, because before I could only see part of the whole.

DR. NELTE: Then I have to consider your expression “criminal attack” or any other expressions for the war mongers—I have to consider that as something that you found out later?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. NELTE: And I may say then that in spite of your having serious doubts and knowledge about the facts which marked the war against Russia as a criminal action of aggression, that in spite of your knowledge, you considered it your duty to take the command of the 6th Army and to hold Stalingrad until the last moment?

PAULUS: I have just explained that at that time, when I took over the command, I did not see the extent of the crime which was considered in the beginning and execution of this war of aggression; that I did not see the entire extent of it and could not see it, as my experiences as Commander of the 6th Army which I was able to gather at Stalingrad have shown to me later.

DR. NELTE: You speak of the extent, but the fact is that you knew the causes. Maybe you were one of the few who knew them. You have not mentioned that.

PAULUS: I did not know then. I knew the instigation of this war to be aggression, from the attitude of the greater part of the officers’ corps. In keeping with the prevailing concept I saw nothing unusual in the basing of the fate of a people and a nation upon power politics.

DR. NELTE: So you agreed to these ideologies?

PAULUS: Not to the tendency which appeared later, but I did not conclude therefrom that the fate of a country could be built upon power politics. It was a mistake that at this time, and in the 20th Century, only the democracies and the concept of the nationality principle were the decisive factors.

DR. NELTE: Would you grant to others also, who were not so near to the sources, the good faith that they only wanted what was best for their fatherland?

PAULUS: Yes, I do, of course.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Von Schirach and Funk): Witness, yesterday you mentioned that you consider the Hitler Government as the guilty ones. Is that correct?

PAULUS: Yes, I have done so. . . .

DR. SAUTER: In your written deposition which you made on 9 January 1946—in a prisoner-of-war camp it is said—there is nothing about that; at least, I have not found anything about it so far.

PAULUS: This letter has nothing to do with that. This is a letter to the Soviet Government, in which I explained several questions which came up within the 6th Army in Russia, and several of my own experiences.

DR. SAUTER: In this letter of 9 January 1946, you said explicitly—and I quote:

“Today, when the crimes of Hitler and his helpers are being judged, I find myself obliged to tell the Soviet Government everything which I have known and which may serve as proof of the guilt of the war criminals in the Nuremberg Trials.”

In spite of that, in this written declaration, which is very detailed, there is nothing about it.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, if you cross-examine the witness on this letter, you must put the letter in evidence, the whole letter.

DR. SAUTER: That is the statement which the witness has given, on the. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I have no doubt it is; all I say is, if you cross-examine him on the letter and put the letter to him, you must put the letter in evidence. You have a copy of the letter?

DR. SAUTER: Yes. It is in the statement which the Soviet Prosecutor yesterday put up to the witness and in regard to which the witness made the statement that he considers it correct and will repeat it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I follow it. I was not sure whether it was actually put in or not or whether it was withdrawn upon the promise to produce the witness. Is the letter actually in?

DR. SAUTER: But the witness has said, after the Prosecutor asked him, that he will repeat that statement.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Willey, has the letter been put in?

MR. HAROLD B. WILLEY (American Secretary): It has not been put in, no.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you can go on cross-examining about it, but the document has got to be put in, that is all.

DR. SAUTER: [_Turning to the witness._] Now I would like to know, Witness, what you mean by “Hitler Government”? Do you mean the leaders of the Party or do you mean the Reich Cabinet, or what exactly do you mean?

PAULUS: I mean everyone who is responsible.

DR. SAUTER: I would like you to answer the question more precisely.

PAULUS: In my statement yesterday I have only explained what I have seen myself, what I have experienced myself. I did not intend to make any statements about individual personalities in the Government because that would not be within my knowledge.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, but you spoke about the Hitler Government, did you not?

PAULUS: I just meant the concept of the Hitlerite leadership of the State.

DR. SAUTER: Of the Hitlerite leadership of State? That means, first, the Reich Cabinet, does it not?

PAULUS: Yes, inasmuch as it is responsible for the directives given by the Government.

DR. SAUTER: For this reason I would like to know the following:

The Defendant Funk, who is sitting over there, was also a member of the Reich Cabinet and the Defendant Von Schirach is also counted as a member of the Reich Cabinet by the Prosecution. Do you know anything as to whether the Defendant Funk and the Defendant Von Schirach, like you, for instance, knew anything about these plans of Hitler?

PAULUS: I do not know.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know whether, during the war, since you were at the OKW, there were any meetings of the Cabinet at all?

PAULUS: I do not know that either.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know that Hitler, in the interests of secrecy of his war plans, even ordered that at conferences between himself and his military advisers the members of the Reich Cabinet, as for instance Funk, could not be admitted?

PAULUS: I do not know about that.

DR. SAUTER: Did it not come to your knowledge, perhaps through Herr Jodl or through Herr Keitel, that Hitler even forbade that civilian members of the Reich Cabinet should be present at such military conferences?

PAULUS: I do not know anything about that at all.

DR. SAUTER: Another question. After Stalingrad was encircled and the situation had become hopeless, there were several telegrams of devotion sent to Hitler from inside the fortress. Do you know anything about that?

PAULUS: If you speak of telegrams of devotion, I only know about the end, when efforts were made to find a meaning for the catastrophe that had happened there, to find a meaning for all the suffering and dying of so many soldiers. Therefore these things had been depicted as heroism in the telegram, to be forever remembered. I am sorry, but at that time, due to the prevailing situation, I let that pass and did not stop it.

DR. SAUTER: These telegrams were yours, were they not?

PAULUS: I do not know to which telegrams you are referring, with the exception of the last one.

DR. SAUTER: Several telegrams of devotion, in which there was a promise to hold out to the last man; those telegrams about which the German people were horrified. They are said to have your signature.

PAULUS: I request to have them presented to me, because there is nothing known to me about them.

DR. SAUTER: Do you have any idea what was in the last telegram?

PAULUS: In the last telegram there was a short description of what the army had done, of the achievement of the army, and it was pointed out that it did not intend to capitulate, and that that should be an example for the future.

DR. SAUTER: The answer was, I think, your promotion to General Field Marshal?

PAULUS: I do not know that this was the answer.

DR. SAUTER: But you were promoted to General Field Marshal, and you still have that title because the statement which I have submitted to the Court is signed “Paulus, General Field Marshal.”

PAULUS: Well, I have to say. . . . Do you mean this statement?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, this statement.

PAULUS: Yes, I had to take that title which was conferred upon me.

DR. SAUTER: In this statement which I have submitted to the Court as proof, there is the last sentence:

“I bear the responsibility for the fact that I did not give due attention to the execution of the order of 14 January 1943 about the surrender of the prisoners”—namely, all Russian prisoners. . . .

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: “. . . to the Russians, and, furthermore, that I. . . .”

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: “. . . did not devote myself sufficiently to taking care of the prisoners.”—That is to say, the Russian prisoners.

I would like to hear your statement about the following: In that detailed letter why did you forget the several hundred thousands of German soldiers who were under your command and who lost under your command their freedom, their health, and their lives? There is no word about that.

PAULUS: No.

DR. SAUTER: No?

PAULUS: That is not the question in this letter. This letter to the Soviet Government was concerned with what happened to the Russian civilian population in the area of Stalingrad and the Russian prisoners of war. At this time I could not say anything about my soldiers, of course not.

DR. SAUTER: Not one word?

PAULUS: No, I could not speak here, because that had to be done at a different time. Of course, it is so that all the operational orders which led to the terrible conditions of Stalingrad, in spite of my objections. . . . About 20 January, as I said, I had made a report that conditions had reached such a measure of misery and of suffering through cold, hunger, and epidemics as to be unbearable, and that to continue the fighting would be beyond human possibility. The answer given to me by the Supreme Command was:

“Capitulation is impossible. The 6th Army will do its historic duty by fighting to the utmost, in order to make the reconstruction of the Eastern front possible.”

DR. SAUTER: And that is why you continued your efforts in the crime you have described until the very end?

PAULUS: That is correct.

DR. SAUTER: Because, according to your own statements, everything from the very beginning was a crime, which clearly and for a long time had come to your mind?

PAULUS: I did not say that it was clear to me as a crime from the very beginning, but that later I had this impression, as a result of retrospective considerations. My knowledge comes actually from my experience at Stalingrad.

DR. SAUTER: Then I would like to know, in closing: Was it not clear to you from the very beginning, when you were charged with the development of plans for the attack on Russia, as a specialist for such task—was it not clear to you from the very beginning that this attack on Russia could be made only under violations of international treaties, to which Germany was bound?

PAULUS: Yes, under violation of international law, but not under those conditions which developed later.

DR. SAUTER: No, I asked whether it was clear to you that this plan could only be executed by violation of international treaties?

PAULUS: It was clear to me that an attack of that kind could only be made under violation of the treaty which had existed with Russia since the fall of ’39.

DR. SAUTER: I have no more questions. Thank you.

[_Dr. Exner approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, I have already told the witness, and defendants’ counsel have been told over and over again, that it is of the utmost importance that they should ask their questions slowly, that they ask one question at a time, and that they should pause between the question and the answer and between the answer and the next question. Will you try to observe that rule, please?

PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Witness, in September of 1940 at the OKW you were charged with the execution of an operational study against Russia, that is, to continue work on a plan which existed already. Do you know about how strong the German forces in the East were at that time?

PAULUS: I can only clarify, in the OKH I have. . . .

DR. EXNER: Yes, we have the OKH in mind.

PAULUS: I do not know any longer how strong the forces in the East were at that time. It was at a time shortly after the end of the campaign against France.

DR. EXNER: You do not know about how many divisions were in the East at that time for the protection of the German border?

PAULUS: No, I cannot remember that.

DR. EXNER: In February of 1941 our transports to the East began. Can you say how strong at that time the Russian forces were, along the German-Russian demarcation line and the Romanian-Russian border?

PAULUS: No, I cannot say that. The information which reached us about the Soviet Union and their forces was so extraordinarily scarce and incomplete that for a long time we had no clear picture at all.

DR. EXNER: But did not Halder at that time talk to the Führer frequently about the strength and deployment of the Russian forces?

PAULUS: That is possible, but I cannot remember it, because I had nothing to do with these questions after that time—with the theoretical development of our ideas. In December the operations department of the Army took the work over.

DR. EXNER: At this time you had theoretical war exercises?

PAULUS: That was in the beginning of December.

DR. EXNER: Then you probably used, as a basis of these exercises, information you had about the actual strength of the enemy?

PAULUS: That was just what we assumed about the strength of the enemy.

DR. EXNER: Well, you have collaborated intensively with that operational plan. You have tried it out by theoretical war exercises. Tell me, what was the difference between your work and Jodl’s at that time?

PAULUS: I do not think I am able to judge that.

DR. EXNER: I do not understand. That was General Staff work, was it not?

PAULUS: Yes, it was General Staff work, with which I was charged by the Chief of Staff.

DR. EXNER: Yes, and the activity of Jodl as Chief of the Wehrmacht Führungsstab. . . .

PAULUS: The difference is that he had a view of the entire situation from the point where he was, whereas I could only see a small section, only that which I needed for my work, and that is all the information I received.

DR. EXNER: But the activity in both cases was one of General Staff preparation for the war?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. EXNER: I would also be interested to know something about Stalingrad. In your written statement, or written declaration, you have said that Keitel and Jodl were guilty with regard to the prohibition of capitulation, which had such tragic consequences. How do you know that?

PAULUS: I just wanted to say it was the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht who was responsible for that order. It had the responsibility, and it makes no difference whether it was one person or another. At any rate, the responsibility was with the office as such.

DR. EXNER: At any rate, you do not know anything about the personal participation of any one of these two gentlemen? You only thought of. . . .

PAULUS: The OKW, which is represented by these persons.

DR. EXNER: Why, when the situation at Stalingrad was so hopeless and terrible—as you have indicated today—did you not, in spite of the order by the Führer to the contrary, try to break out?

PAULUS: Because at that time it was represented to me that by holding out with the army which I led, the fate of the German people would be decided.

DR. EXNER: Do you know that you enjoyed the confidence of Hitler in a special measure?

PAULUS: I do not know about that.

DR. EXNER: Do you know that he had already decided that you would become the successor to Jodl if the Stalingrad operation would be successful, because he did not like to work with Jodl any more?

PAULUS: I do not know about that in this form, but there was a rumor that late in the summer or early in the fall of 1942 a change was planned in the leadership. That was a rumor which the Chief of Staff of the Luftwaffe told me at that time, but I did not get any official information about that. There was other information, that I should be relieved of the command of that army and should be used to lead a new army group which was to be formed.

DR. EXNER: Do you remember the telegram which you sent to the Führer when you were promoted to the rank of Field Marshal at Stalingrad?

PAULUS: I did not send a telegram then. After my promotion I did not send a telegram.

DR. EXNER: Have you not thanked the Führer in any way?

PAULUS: No.

DR. EXNER: That is quite contrary to statements which other people have made. Witness, you are said to be or to have been a teacher at the Military Academy at Moscow. Is that correct?

PAULUS: That is not right, either.

DR. EXNER: Did you have another position in Moscow?

PAULUS: I was never in Russia before the war.

DR. EXNER: But now, since you became a prisoner of war?

PAULUS: I have been in a prisoner-of-war camp, like my other comrades.

DR. EXNER: Were you a member of the German Freedom Committee?

PAULUS: I was a member of a movement of German men, soldiers of all ranks and men of all classes, who had made it their aim to warn the German people at the last moment from the abyss, and to arouse them to overthrow this Hitler regime which had brought all this misery to many nations and especially to our German people. I have done that with the proclamation of 8 August 1944.

DR. EXNER: Did you do anything about that before?

PAULUS: No, I did not.

DR. EXNER: Thank you.

DR. LATERNSER: I have only a few more questions to ask the witness.

[_Turning to the witness_] Witness, did you not know when you took over your office as Chief Quartermaster I that these preparations which Major General Marx already had begun, and which you then continued, were intended only for an eventual case?

PAULUS: One could think so, of course, but very soon in the course of the work things appeared which made it seem very probable that these theoretical preparations were to be put to practical use. In connection with the formulation of this plan of operations for an attack in which, from the very beginning, we were thinking in terms of using the Romanian area—during that very time we saw the dispatching of the first military mission with training groups and an entire Panzer division, just into that area for which the first theoretical preparations for an attack were being made. Thus, gradually, the impression became intensified that this was a plan which eventually would be executed.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, the reason for my question is this: I believe the date which you mentioned, since which the plan was to have already been in existence, the fall of 1940, is a little early, isn’t it?

PAULUS: The documents which I was given for that plan of offense I explained in detail yesterday. They were submitted on 3 September, for upon the basis of these documents everything was developed, and everything was actually executed like that later.

DR. LATERNSER: I mean this: That first this plan was considered or conceived for an eventual case, and then at a later date, after a decision had been taken, it was used.

PAULUS: In retrospect, they fit together in perfect sequence, first the theoretical preparation, and then the practical preparation and execution.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you know Directive Number 18 of 12 November 1940, issued by the former Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht?

PAULUS: I cannot remember it.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I refer now to a document which has already been submitted by the United States Prosecution, Number 444-PS. [_Handing the document to the witness_] I submit it to you, Witness. Page 8 is the one to which I am referring.

PAULUS: I cannot remember that I have ever seen this.

DR. LATERNSER: To inform the Court I am going to quote the passage—it is very short—which I have just shown to the witness. It is Page 8 of the Document 444-PS, this paragraph I quote: “5. Russia: Political conferences with the aim of clarifying the attitude of Russia for the near future have been started.”

Witness, after you have seen that passage you will have to admit that I am right in saying that the time at which the decision was taken to attack the Soviet Union must have been later than the time you told us yesterday.

PAULUS: I can only say from my personal experience and my own opinion as I look back now, following the entire development, that there was a clear plan from the beginning, the conception of that plan on 3 September 1940, then the directive of 21 December, and then its execution. Just at which precisely measurable date the decision was taken, I do not know, of course.

DR. LATERNSER: Did you know that in 1939 the Soviet Union marched into Poland with very strong forces which bore no relationship—according to opinions of German military experts—with the military problem to be solved at that time?

PAULUS: I only know of the fact that Soviet forces marched into Poland, but I have never heard anything about the size of the forces, nor have I ever heard anyone marvel at the strength of the forces that had taken part in the invasion.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you know that before the German deployment on the Eastern border many strong Soviet forces had been deployed along that border, especially very strong Panzer forces in the area of Bialystok?

PAULUS: No, in that form I have never known of this.

DR. LATERNSER: Were not the first divisions from West to East transferred only after very strong Soviet forces already were standing along the Eastern border?

PAULUS: About the relationship of troop movements from West to East—the practical execution of the plan—I do not know anything, because I had nothing to do with the practical execution. First of all, in the months of April and May, because of other duties, I was present in the High Command of the Army for only a very short time.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you said yesterday that at the end of March 1940 there was a conference at the Reich Chancellery, and there Generaloberst Halder gave you several points as a reason for the intended attack on Yugoslavia. You mentioned first the elimination of danger to the flank; second, the taking possession of the rail line to Nish, and you stressed the fact that in case of an attack against Russia the right flank would be free to move.

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: Were the reasons for this attack not different ones? Were not there reasons which were more important than those you mentioned?

PAULUS: I do not know of any others.

DR. LATERNSER: As to this attack upon Yugoslavia, was not that also to be done to relieve the Italians?

PAULUS: Yes, of course. That was the initial reason why an operation against Greece was considered, and why that menace to the flank had to be eliminated if we were to push forward into Greece from Bulgaria.

DR. LATERNSER: Was not there at that time some concern about co-operation between Yugoslavia and Greece, which would have put England into the position of being able to land on the Greek coast and thereby gain a way to reach the Romanian oil fields?

PAULUS: Yes, but it would also have been impossible to carry out the Plan Barbarossa, which would have been menaced on its right flank and unprotected.

DR. LATERNSER: I have received different information. In the decision to attack Yugoslavia the Plan Barbarossa did not play the important role which you said yesterday it did.

PAULUS: The Plan Barbarossa could not have been carried out if the area of Greece and Serbia, after reinforcement by the British landing, would have fallen into the hands of the enemy.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can adjourn.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: I am told that the interpreters, using the words “question” and “answer” before the question and answer, assist the shorthand writers and the press, and therefore the interpreters may continue to say “question” and “answer” before the question and answer is given. That only makes it more obvious that the real remedy for the difficulties which arise is for the counsel and witnesses to pause after the question has been asked and after the answer has been given, and it seems to the Tribunal that counsel and witnesses ought to be able to hear when the translation of the question has been given, and the witness can then give his answer. And when the translation of the answer has been given, which counsel can hear, he should then put a further question. Is it clear what I mean?

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you were just speaking of the attack on Yugoslavia. If I understood you correctly, you said that this attack had to be carried out before the Plan Barbarossa could be undertaken, as otherwise there would have been a serious threat to the flanks. Did I understand you correctly?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: You said yesterday that the overthrow of the government in Yugoslavia was the cause for Hitler’s attack on Yugoslavia. Do you know whether any plans for such an attack existed even before the revolution in Yugoslavia?

PAULUS: That is not known to me.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you happen to know that particularly the plan of attack against Yugoslavia came at a very inconvenient time, and that it caused a delay of the attack against the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: That is exactly what I said yesterday. It caused a postponement of the attack on Russia, which had originally been planned for the middle of May, the weather permitting.

DR. LATERNSER: But then there is a sort of contradiction here, if you say that the attack against Yugoslavia took place at that time although it was inconvenient, as the attack against Russia was to be made.

PAULUS: I do not see any contradiction in that. As I saw the situation then, the Yugoslavian Government had made an agreement with us which placed the railway line from Belgrade to Nish at our disposal, and that after that agreement was concluded, a revolution took place in Yugoslavia which created a different policy. Therefore, this plan of attack was believed necessary to eliminate a danger. In other words, I do not see that the decision to attack Yugoslavia and to delay Barbarossa form a contradiction. I merely see that one is a prerequisite for the execution of the other.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, were you present at a conference of the General Staff on the Obersalzberg on 3 February 1941?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: Are you aware of the fact that at that time the strength of the Soviet Russian deployment was estimated at 100 infantry divisions, 25 cavalry divisions, and 30 mechanized divisions, and that this was reported by Generaloberst Halder?

PAULUS: I cannot remember that. Nor am I sure whether Generaloberst Halder was actually present during that conference.

DR. LATERNSER: But, witness, such a conference must have been an unusual one?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: And I believe that that conference must at least have given the impression that a very strong concentration of troops on the Eastern Front was in question.

PAULUS: I myself have at least no recollection of any such impression.

DR. LATERNSER: At the beginning of that attack against the Soviet Union, were you still Chief Quartermaster I?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: As far as I have in the meantime been informed, it is part of the tasks of that service department to make positive suggestions regarding military operations on land, is that correct?

PAULUS: That was once the case during a different division of tasks. At the time when I was Chief Quartermaster I did not get that task as part of my job. The operational department was not under my control but immediately under the personal control of the Chief of the General Staff. The General Staff Department, first of all, gave me the task of running the training department and then the organization department, and that was in autumn 1941. Therefore, it was not part of my sphere of activities to make suggestions to the Chief of the General Staff regarding operations which were in progress, or any other operations. I merely had to carry out the special tasks which were given to me.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, can you give information on the subject of how German prisoners of war were treated in the Soviet Union?

PAULUS: That question, about which such an incredible amount of propaganda has been made, which led to the suicide of so many German officers and enlisted personnel in the cauldron of Stalingrad, I have obligated myself to consider in the interest of truth. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Cross-examination is questioning on questions which are either relevant to the issues which the Tribunal has to try or questions relevant to the credibility of the witness. Questions which relate to the treatment of prisoners in the Soviet Union have got nothing whatever to do with any of the issues which we have got to try, and they are not relevant to the credibility of the witness. The Tribunal, therefore, will not hear them.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I give a reason why I ask that question? May I make a short statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: I should like to put that question for the reason that I could ascertain how, actually, prisoners of war were treated, so that a large number of German families, who are extremely worried on that subject, could in that manner be given information on the subject, so that their worries would cease.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of opinion that that is not a matter with which the Tribunal is concerned.

DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions to ask the witness.

DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Witness, do you know the Defendant Fritzsche?

PAULUS: Yes, I do.

DR. FRITZ: Are you aware of the fact that during the summer and autumn of 1942 he was with your army?

PAULUS: Yes.

DR. FRITZ: Witness, in the course of this Trial there was a discussion about the command of the OKW which, as I hear, was also sharply criticized by you, according to which all the captured commissars of the Russian Army were to be shot. Are you aware of that order?

PAULUS: Yes. It came to my knowledge.

DR. FRITZ: Do you recollect that the Defendant Fritzsche, after he had become aware of that order in the course of his duties in the East, made a proposal to you and your I.C. officers, according to which that order should be cancelled as far as your army zone was concerned?

PAULUS: I cannot recollect that incident. I think it is perfectly possible that Herr Fritzsche did discuss that question with my staff, but when I took over that army on 20 January 1942, that order was not carried out in my zone. As far as I know, this order, which in practice did not become operative, was in fact cancelled later on.

DR. FRITZ: Perhaps, so as to refresh your memory, I might ask another question: Do you recollect, perhaps, that Fritzsche suggested to you or your I.C. officers the scattering of pamphlets with a corresponding content over the Russian front?

PAULUS: I personally cannot recollect that, but I consider it perfectly possible that such a discussion with the I.C. officer who was responsible for that sort of thing took place.

DR. FRITZ: Then one last question: As far as you know the character of the Defendant Fritzsche, would you consider it entirely possible and probable that he made this proposal?

PAULUS: Yes, indeed I do.

DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): Witness, in your position you supported Hitler right to the very end, despite the fact that you knew that an aggressive war was being waged. How much could the political leaders know of this?

PAULUS: I cannot answer that question, because it is out of my knowledge.

DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand by political leaders?

PAULUS: May I ask another question in return? What does the defendant’s counsel understand by political leaders, concerning whom he asks the question?

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the organization of the Party does not seem to be clear to you. There is an organization of political leaders which is indicted in this Trial. They are to be declared criminal to this extent that, from the Reichsleiter to the Blockleiter, they may be punished because of their participation in the conspiracy to commit all the acts which are being tried here. This organization of political leaders is composed in such a way that 93 percent are local group leaders with their staffs and all their subordinates.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you can ask this witness about this. He does not know anything about it. He is not concerned with the charge against the political leadership. I do not think that is proper cross-examination at all.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I was going to ask him to what extent these political leaders might have had knowledge, and then I was going to ask a second question, whether he was aware that he, as a witness, has contributed materially to the fact that these people, the political leaders, supported Hitler because they believed in the facade which the witness himself had assisted in setting up.

THE PRESIDENT: I have already answered you that he did not know to what extent the political leaders had been informed.

DR. SERVATIUS: I am also appearing for the Defendant Sauckel, who was responsible for the labor supply.

[_Turning to the witness_] Have you any knowledge as to whether German prisoners of war were used in Russian armament industries?

PAULUS: I have no authentic or personal information on that subject. The prisoners of war whom I myself have seen, in the camps where I have been, worked for the immediate requirements of the camp or in the near vicinity of the camp. They worked at agriculture or forestry, and I know from the papers that some German units of workers, who had voluntarily formed groups and were working in industry, were proud of the results of their work. But I do not know in what branches of industry these people worked.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to put to this witness.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): A statement made by you yesterday has already been discussed once more today, namely, how much knowledge did individual members of the German Government have regarding important decisions? I gathered from your reply that you did not consider the Reich Government, regarding its personalities, one homogeneous body. In this Trial the difficulty repeatedly arises that normal conditions are assumed. One is especially prone to the conception that most important political and military decisions, as is otherwise customary, are made within a government body of important persons or within the military supreme command; in other words, that questions are discussed and decided within a group to which belongs a larger number of personalities. Witness, from the knowledge you have gained in your high military rank, could one assume this to be true of Adolf Hitler’s Government? Has Adolf Hitler, in his personality and methods, to speak politely, as a man of an unusual type, chiefly employed a completely different procedure here? Did he not always make his decisions independently or, at most, in closest consultation with a very few assistants, and can we not derive from that that leading personalities in political and military fields had no knowledge of impending events?

PAULUS: I must say to that that my military service in the General Staff of the Army did not give me an insight into the methods of the leadership of the State and of the Reich Government. My concept of a governing body of a nation is that of a united group who, regardless of the methods the state intends to use, have such a sense of responsibility toward the people for the deeds of the government, that they will not allow just anything to be done by even the head of the state—in this case Hitler with his usual brutal and autocratic ways—but, even if not required to do so, would themselves intervene in time with the necessary measures, at the very latest as soon as it was clear to the whole world that this government was being led by an insane criminal.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, you belong to the second circle of people which you mentioned. It is an established fact that you have not intervened, and, surely, you would have had important reasons for that. I believe that it would be better if, as far as other personalities are concerned, you would not pass judgment, but would answer my questions as far as actual facts are concerned.

My question was whether, according to your knowledge gained not only in your military position but also in your particular and leading position—whether they were right or wrong is unnecessary for establishing the fact—you knew what the methods in military and political matters were and what they were not. According to your knowledge, were resolutions made by a large body of military and political personalities who met and passed these resolutions, or were decisions generally made and resolutions passed in a very much smaller circle of people, probably sometimes only by Hitler alone?

PAULUS: How decisions of the Reich Government were made is not known to me. Therefore, in my previous answer, I have merely given you my general conception of this question and I believe that I have answered it therewith. I cannot imagine that one man alone could have done everything that was done. In order to exert his influence in a small circle he finally needed the co-operation of his immediate assistants. In other words, it was quite impossible for him to achieve his aims otherwise.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: As to the co-operation of his closest assistants, do you believe that some trained minister, a minister of labor or some other minister who was specially trained, was ever consulted by Hitler about his plans for aggression?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the witness has already said that he does not know how the decisions of the Reich Government were arrived at. What he may think about it is really not relevant. He does not know.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, is it your impression that plans for aggression were made by Hitler many years in advance, or are you of the opinion that they were made to meet certain circumstances, on the basis of the intuition which you say he always had?

PAULUS: That is entirely outside my knowledge. My observations began on 3 September 1940 and continued from that time until January 1942. What I observed during that period is something I explained yesterday. About the time prior to that I am not informed.

DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Witness, you said just now that you were a member of a body which had the aim of saving Germany from disaster. My question is: What possibilities to carry out these intentions were at the disposal of yourself and the other members of that group?

PAULUS: We had the possibility of making ourselves heard and understood by the German people, and believed it our duty to make known to the German people our view, not only of military events but also of the events of 20 July, and to tell them of the convictions we had since gained. In this regard the initiative came chiefly from the ranks of the army I had led to Stalingrad. There we experienced how, through the orders of those military and political leaders against whom we were now taking a stand, more than 100,000 soldiers died of hunger, cold, and snow. There we experienced in concentrated form the horrors and terrors of a war of conquest.

DR. HORN: Did you have any other possibility apart from propaganda?

PAULUS: Apart from the possibility of making propaganda through radio and those newspapers which we had created, apart from that propaganda to the German people, we had no other facilities.

THE PRESIDENT: What has the Tribunal got to do with this?

DR. HORN: I merely wanted to ascertain what conclusions I could draw on the credibility of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: I cannot see that it has any bearing on his credibility.

DR. HORN: It is perfectly possible that we have knowledge of other possibilities which were available, which the witness has not mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that what the witness thought or did when he was a prisoner of war in Russian hands has got nothing to do with his credibility, at least as far as the questions that you have asked are concerned, and they will not allow the questions to be put.

DR. HORN: May I have permission to ask the witness one more question?

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

DR. HORN: Did you, during the time you were a prisoner, have an opportunity to place your military experiences in any way at the disposal of anybody else?

PAULUS: In no way, in no case.

THE PRESIDENT: Then I understand that that concludes the cross-examination. Does the Soviet Prosecutor wish to ask any more questions?

GEN. RUDENKO: No, Mr. President. We consider that the questions have been comprehensively explained.

THE TRIBUNAL: (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): General, you said that when you became Quartermaster General of the Army on 3 September 1940, you found an unfinished plan for an attack against the Soviet Union. Do you know how long that plan had been in preparation before you saw it?

PAULUS: I cannot say exactly how long the period of preparation lasted, but I would estimate that it lasted 2 to 3 weeks.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know who had given the orders for the preparation of the plan?

PAULUS: I assume that they originated from the same source, namely, the OKW via the High Command of the Army. The Chief of the General Staff of the Army had given to Major General Marx the same documents that he had given me.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): At the conferences on the Plan Barbarossa how many members of the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces were usually present?

PAULUS: The departments concerned, the Operational Department, the Department for Foreign Armies, the General Quartermaster for Supplies, and the Chief of Transportation. Those were generally the chief departments which were involved.

THE TRIBUNAL: (Mr. Biddle): How many members of the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces were familiar with the orders and directives as they were being signed?

PAULUS: In the course of time, that is, up to December, while the actual marching orders were being prepared, more or less, all General Staff officers had knowledge of the plan. Just how many had been informed previously, in the individual periods, is something which I can no longer say exactly.

THE TRIBUNAL (Major General I.T. Nikitchenko, Member for the U.S.S.R.): What exactly did the General Staff of the German Army represent? Did it deal exclusively with the elaboration of technical questions, was it the apparatus elaborating technical problems according to instructions of the Supreme Command, or, again, was the General Staff an organization which prepared, elaborated, and submitted its findings to the Supreme Command independently?

PAULUS: It was a technical executive body which had the task of carrying out existing instructions.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Therefore the General Staff was merely a technical apparatus?

PAULUS: That is how it was in practice. The General Staff, as such, was an advisory organization to the Supreme Commander of the Army, and not an executive body.

THE TRIBUNAL: (Gen. Nikitchenko): To what extent did the General Staff conscientiously carry out the instructions received from the Supreme Command?

PAULUS: They carried out these instructions absolutely.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did any conflict exist between the General Staff and the Supreme Command?

PAULUS: It is a known fact that certain differences of opinion did exist, although I am unable to explain that in detail. At any rate, I know through my immediate superior that he had frequently had differences of opinion with the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Could such officers remain? Did they, in fact, remain in the service of the General Staff if they disagreed with the policy of the Supreme Command?

PAULUS: Political questions did not arise in that connection. Generally speaking, political questions were not discussed in the circle of the Army Supreme Command.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am not speaking of political questions in the narrow sense of the word. I am speaking of the policy of planning for war, of the policy of preparations and aggression. That is what I had in mind. Was it intended, in case you know about it, to transform that part of the Soviet Union, occupied by the German Forces?

PAULUS: I never did know what the itemized plans were. My knowledge is restricted to a knowledge of such plans as were contained in the so-called Green Folder for the exploitation of the country.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What do you mean by exploitation?

PAULUS: The economic exploitation of the country, so that by utilizing its resources one could bring the war in the West to a close and also to guarantee future supremacy in Europe.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did the nature of the exploitation differ from the economic exploitation applied inside Germany?

PAULUS: In that respect I have no personal impressions, since I only led that army in Russia for three-quarters of a year; and I was captured early, in January 1943.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What did you know of the directives issued by Government organizations in Germany and by the Supreme Command, concerning the treatment of the Soviet population by the Army?

PAULUS: I remember that instructions did appear, but I cannot recollect the date at the moment. In those instructions definite rules were given for the manner of conducting the war in the East. I believe that this principal decree was included in that so-called Green Folder, but there may have been separate and special orders to the effect that no particular consideration should be shown the population.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What do you mean by “not to show particular consideration”—or perhaps the translation is not quite correct?

PAULUS: That meant that only military necessities should be considered a basis for all measures that were taken.

THE PRESIDENT: Were there any divisions under your command consisting entirely of SS troops?

PAULUS: During the time I led the Army I had no SS troops at all under my command, as I remember. Even in the cauldron at Stalingrad, where I had 20 German infantry, armored, and motorized divisions, and two Romanian divisions, there were no SS units.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the SA did not form units, did they? The SA?

PAULUS: I have never heard of SA units, but the existence of SS units is a known fact.

THE PRESIDENT: And did you have any branches of the Gestapo attached to your army?

PAULUS: No, I did not have those either.

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, I did ask you whether you had any questions to ask, and you said no, I take it.

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

[_The witness left the stand, and Gen. Zorya approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: Please, go on, General.

GEN. ZORYA: Yesterday, I stopped at the questions connected with the relations between the fascist conspirators and the Romanian aggressors. It seems to me that now is the most opportune moment to read into the Record the testimony of Ion Antonescu, which the Soviet Prosecution has at its disposal.

The interrogation of Ion Antonescu was conducted in conformance with the laws of the Soviet Union and I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-153 (Document Number USSR-153) the record of his deposition, which is of exceptional importance in making clear the characteristics of the relationship between Germany and her satellites. I consider it necessary to read the greater part of these depositions, beginning with the second paragraph on Page 1 of the record. It corresponds to Pages 63 and 64 of the document book. I quote:

“Throughout the entire period during which I held office in Romania”—testifies Ion Antonescu—“I followed the policy of strengthening the alliance with Germany and resorted to her help for retraining and rearming the Romanian army. For this purpose I had several meetings with Hitler. The first meeting with Hitler took place in November 1940, soon after I became the head of the Romanian State. This meeting took place on my initiative, in Berlin, at Hitler’s official residence, in the presence of the German Foreign Minister, Ribbentrop, and Hitler’s personal interpreter, Schmidt. The conversation with Hitler lasted over 4 hours.

“I assured Hitler that Romania remained true to the previously concluded agreement regarding Romania’s adherence to the Tripartite Pact.

“In reply to my assurances of loyalty to the pact with Germany, Hitler declared that the German soldiers would guarantee the frontiers of Romania.

“At the same time, Hitler told me that the Vienna arbitration should not be considered as final and thus gave me to understand that Romania could count on a revision of the decision previously taken in Vienna, on the question of Transylvania.

“Hitler and I agreed that the German Military Mission in Romania should continue its work of reconstructing the Romanian Army on German lines.

“In the same way I also concluded an economic agreement, in accordance with which the Germans would at a later date supply Romania with Messerschmidts 109, tanks, tractors, antiaircraft and antitank guns, automatic rifles, and other armaments, while they, in return, would receive from Romania wheat and oil for the needs of the German armies.

“To the question put to me as to whether this, my first conversation with Hitler, could be regarded as the beginning of my agreement with the Germans concerning the preparations for war against the Soviet Union—I replied in the affirmative. There is no doubt that Hitler had this fact in mind, when he elaborated his plans for the attack on the Soviet Union.

“In January 1941, through the offices of the German Minister in Romania, Fabricius, I was invited to Germany and had my second meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. The following persons were present: Ribbentrop, Fabricius, and the newly appointed German Minister to Bucharest, Killinger. Besides these, Field Marshal Keitel and General Jodl were also present as representing the German Armed Forces.

“At the beginning of the conversation Hitler introduced Killinger to me, emphasizing that the latter was one of his closest friends. After this, Hitler described the military situation in the Balkans and declared that Mussolini had appealed to him for help in connection with the Italian failures in the war against Greece, and that he, Hitler, intended to give this help to Italy.

“While on this subject Hitler asked me to allow the German troops concentrated on Hungarian territory to pass through Romania, so that they could render speedy assistance to the Italians.

“Knowing that the passage of German troops through Romania to the Balkans would constitute an unfriendly act towards the Soviet Union, I asked Hitler what, in his opinion, would be the subsequent reaction of the Soviet Government.

“Hitler reminded me that at our first meeting, in November 1940, he had already given appropriate guarantees to Romania and had taken upon himself the obligation of protecting Romania by force of arms.

“I expressed my fears that the passage of German troops through Romania might serve as a pretext for military operations on the part of the Soviet Union, and that Romania would then be in a difficult position since the Romanian Army had not been mobilized.

“Hitler announced that he would give orders for some of the German troops intended for participation in the operations against Greece to be left in Romania. Hitler also stressed that, according to the information at his disposal, the Soviet Union did not intend to fight either Germany or Romania.

“Satisfied with Hitler’s declaration, I agreed to the passage of German troops through Romanian territory.

“General Jodl, who was present at this conference, described to me the strategic situation of the German Army and stressed the necessity for an attack against Greece launched from Bulgaria.

“My third meeting with Hitler took place in Munich in May 1941.

“At this meeting at which, in addition to ourselves, there were present Ribbentrop and Hitler’s personal interpreter, Schmidt, we reached a final agreement with regard to a joint attack on the Soviet Union.

“Hitler informed me that he had decided on an armed attack on the Soviet Union. ‘Once we have prepared this attack,’ said Hitler, ‘we must carry it out without warning, along the entire extent of the Soviet frontier, from the Black to the Baltic Seas.’

“The unexpectedness of the military attack—Hitler went on to say—would in a short time give Germany and Romania a chance to liquidate one of our most dangerous adversaries.

“As a result of his military plans, Hitler suggested the use of Romanian territory for concentrations of German troops, and, at the same time, he requested me to participate directly in the attack on the Soviet Union.

“Hitler stressed the point that Romania must not remain outside this war, for, if she wished to have Bessarabia and North Bukovina returned to her, she had no other alternative but to fight on Germany’s side. At the same time he pointed out that, in return for our assistance in the war, Romania would be allowed to occupy and administer other Soviet territories, right up to the River Dnieper.

“Since Hitler’s offer to initiate a joint campaign against the U.S.S.R. corresponded to my own aggressive intentions, I announced my agreement to participate in the attack on the Soviet Union and pledged myself to prepare the necessary number of Romanian troops and, at the same time, to increase deliveries of the oil and food required by the German armies.

“Before Hitler and I took the decision to attack Russia, I asked Hitler whether he had any understanding with Hungary regarding her participation in the war.

“Hitler replied that the Hungarians had already given their consent to participate in the war against the U.S.S.R. in alliance with Germany. When, exactly, the Germans had agreed on this joint attack with the Hungarians, Hitler did not specify.

“On my return from Munich to Bucharest I began active preparations for the coming campaign.”

Antonescu concludes his testimony in the following manner—I refer to Page 67 in the document book, the last paragraph of the testimony.

“After the Romanian troops under my supreme command had invaded the Soviet territory Hitler sent me a letter in which he expressed his gratitude to me and to the Romanian army for the assistance given.

“Signed, Marshal Antonescu.”

The date of the beginning of Romanian preparations for war against the U.S.S.R. can be established from the depositions furnished by the former Vice Minister, Mihai Antonescu, who was also interrogated by the Soviet authorities upon the request of the Soviet Prosecution: I now submit his testimony as Exhibit Number USSR-152 (Document Number USSR-152). I shall not quote these depositions in detail since their greater part is a repetition of some of the facts described already in the testimony of Ion Antonescu. I shall only refer to a few paragraphs. I would refer you to Page 1 of the testimony which is translated into Russian, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5. This corresponds to Page 68 of the document book:

“In November 1940 Marshal Antonescu, accompanied by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Studza, left for Germany, where he had a meeting with Hitler.

“During the negotiations with Hitler, Marshal Antonescu signed the agreement for Romania’s adherence to the Tripartite Pact and received Hitler’s promise for the later revision, in favor of Romania, of the decisions of the Vienna Arbitration Treaty.

“The first journey of Marshal Antonescu was the initial step of a policy which subsequently led to a joint German and Romanian attack on the Soviet Union.”

Your Honors, the evidence of the witness, Paulus, as well as the testimonies of Ion Antonescu and Mihai Antonescu, which have just been submitted to the Tribunal, justify the Soviet Prosecution in making the following statement:

1. The decision to send to Romania a military mission of the German General Staff for the reorganization of the Romanian Army, in order to prepare for and subsequently to attack the U.S.S.R., was taken no later than September 1940, that is, no less than 9 months prior to the attack on the U.S.S.R. 2. In November of the same year, Romanian war preparations had been fully developed.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be a good time to break off.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

GEN. ZORYA: Mr. President, at a further stage in my statement I had intended presenting to the Tribunal a statement of General Buschenhagen, general of the former German Army. I do not, however, intend to do so now, since the Soviet Prosecution has the possibility of examining this witness in court during the session. I, on my part, request your permission to have this witness brought to the court for examination.

THE PRESIDENT: You wish to call him now?

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, that would be convenient, in view of several technical reasons, and would facilitate the task of the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

[_The witness, Buschenhagen, took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

ERICH BUSCHENHAGEN (Witness): Erich Buschenhagen.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

GEN. ZORYA: Witness, will you tell the Tribunal when and where you were born?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I was born on 8 December 1895 in Strasbourg, in Alsace.

GEN. ZORYA: Will you name your last military rank, please.

BUSCHENHAGEN: I was general in the infantry in the German Army. My last position was that of Commanding General of the 52d Army Corps.

GEN. ZORYA: Will you tell us please, did you on 26 December 1945 appeal to us with a statement in connection with the Helsinki trials?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes.

GEN. ZORYA: Do you confirm this statement now?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes, I do.

GEN. ZORYA: Will you please tell us what you know about the preparations made by fascist Germany for attacking the Soviet Union?

BUSCHENHAGEN: At the end of December 1940, in my position as Chief of the General Staff of the German forces in Norway, I was called to the OKH, where the then Chief of the General Staff, Generaloberst Halder, had a conference with the chiefs of general staffs of the army groups and of the independent armies, one of which was mine. At this conference we were informed of the OKW’s Directive Number 21, the Plan Barbarossa, which was issued on 18 December 1940. We were given in lectures the basic reasons for the intended operations against Soviet Russia.

From this directive I learned that troops of my army also would take part in this operation. Therefore, I was especially interested in one speech made by the Chief of Staff of the Finnish Army, Lieutenant General Heinrichs, who was then also with the OKH. He spoke at that time about the military actions in the winter war between Finland and the Soviet Union. He drew a picture of the methods of warfare and the fighting value of the Soviet Army and also of the Finnish troops.

General Heinrichs also had conferences with Generaloberst Halder at that time, in which I did not take part myself, but I assume that they were concerned with possible co-operation between the Finnish and German troops in case of a conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. There existed since the fall of 1940 a military co-operation between Germany and Finland, and the German Air Force had made arrangements with the Finnish General Staff for through traffic from northern Norway to the Finnish harbors in the transport of men and material. As the result of conferences, which the German military attaché had held in Helsinki by order of the OKW, this through traffic was extended in the winter of 1940 to a general through traffic of the German Wehrmacht from northern Norway to the Finnish Baltic seaports. In order to carry out this traffic, a German Army administration center was set up in the main city of Lapland, Rovanjemi, and a German army transport unit was transferred to the Arctic Strait of Rovanjemi and Petsamo-Rovanjemi. Furthermore, offices for supply were installed along this Arctic Sea route and along the railroad which led from Rovanjemi to ports on the Finnish south coast.

In December to January 1940-41, I had, with the OKW, discussions about details of the participation of troops from Norway together with Finnish troops in attacks against the Soviet Union.

GEN. ZORYA: Didn’t you also have conferences with the Finnish General Staff about joint operations against the Soviet Union?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes, I did.

GEN. ZORYA: Tell us, who instructed you to negotiate with the Finnish Government and what course did these negotiations follow?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I had orders and authorizations from the OKW, which was the immediate superior of myself and my army. In February 1941 I received—after the basic facts had been cleared in regard to the participation of the troops from Norway based in Finland—I received the order to travel to Helsinki and to get in touch there, personally, with the Finnish General Staff and to discuss with them these operations from middle and northern Finland.

On 18 February 1941 I reached Helsinki and on the 2 following days, I had conferences with the Finnish Chief of General Staff, General Heinrichs, his deputy, General Airo, and the Chief of the Operations Detachment of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola. In these conferences we discussed the possibilities for operations from middle and northern Finland, especially from the area around Kuusamo and Rovanjemi; also from the area of Petsamo. These conferences led to an agreement of the different opinions.

After these conferences I travelled, together with the Chief of the Operation Detachment of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola, to middle and northern Finland in order to study the area of Urinsalmo-Kuusamo, the area east of Rovanjemi-Petsamo, the terrain, the possibilities for deployment and billeting, and for operations from that sector. For these reconnaissance trips the local Finnish commanders were present. The trip ended on 28 February in Torneo, on the Finnish-Swedish border. In a final conference it was determined that an operation from the area of Kuusamo and Helsinki and an operation from the area east of Rovanjemi in the direction of Basikamo would prove successful; that, on the other hand, the operations from Petsamo towards Rovanjemi would have considerable difficulty with the terrain. That was the end of my first series of conferences with the Finnish General Staff.

As a result of these discussions there was worked out by the German High Command of Norway a plan of operations for an operation from the Finnish areas. The operational study was presented to the OKW and found its approval. It then received through the High Command of Norway the name of “Blaufuchs.”

In May, that is, on 24 May, I met the Finnish Chief of Staff Heinrichs, who had been invited to the Führer’s headquarters at Brandenburg and flew with him to Munich, where I had with him and his chief of the Operational Department of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola, a discussion in preparation for another conference at Salzburg.

On the 25th there was at Salzburg a conference between the OKW, Field Marshal Keitel, Generaloberst Jodl on the one side, and on the other, Lieutenant General Heinrichs and Colonel Tapola, at which the basic plans for co-operation between German and Finnish troops were laid down.

After this conference I travelled, together with General Heinrichs, to Berlin. There we had further conferences at the Economic Armament Office of the OKW, as to the delivery of material to the Finnish Army. There were also conferences with the General Staff of the Air Force concerning joint questions of the air war and the reinforcement of the Finnish Air Force with matériel. General Heinrichs, after these discussions, also had a meeting with Generaloberst Halder, in which I did not participate.

For the third time I met the Finnish General Staff on 2 June. In my statement of 26 December I said that this conference took place at the end of April or the beginning of May; that was a mistake. As a matter of fact, it took place on 2 June.

At these conferences, which again took place between General Heinrichs, General Halder, and Colonel Tapola, the details of this collaboration were worked out, such as the timetable, the schedule, measures of secrecy as to the Finnish mobilization; there it was decided that the Finnish mobilization should first take the form of reinforcement of the border patrols, and then the form of further enlistments for the military training of reservists and reserve officers; a decision was also reached about the deployment and formation of German-Finnish forces in such a way that the main Finnish forces, under the command of Field Marshal Mannerheim in the south, should operate together with the German Army Group North, coming from East Prussia, in the direction of Leningrad and also towards the east of Lake Ladoga.

The other Finnish forces were to be under the command of Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst north of the Rivers Ulo and Ulojoki. For this army of Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst there were three directions of attack; a southern group from the area of Kuusamo through Kerskienski against the Murmansk railroad; the middle group east of Rovanjemi through Salla Kandalaksha and finally, a northern group starting from around Petsamo against Murmansk. There was complete agreement on all these questions and also there were details discussed about exchange of information, about the use of Finnish means of transportation and by representatives of the Air Force about joint questions of air warfare and about the use of Finnish airports by the German Air Force.

After these discussions I returned to Germany in order to work out their results and put them into action on behalf of Germany. Then again, on 12 or 13 July I flew to Helsinki for the purpose of conferring with Lieutenant General Erfurt, who was the German liaison officer with the Finnish Armed Forces. We met General Heinrichs at Helsinki and gave him a memorandum on the points which we had agreed upon in previous conferences. He agreed to these points, except for a minor detail. Then I turned over my duties as liaison officer with the Finnish General Staff to Lieutenant General Erfurt, to take up my activities as Chief of General Staff of the German Army in Lapland.

GEN. ZORYA: I should like to ask you a last question. If it is not too difficult for you, will you please indicate what was the exact character of these preparations of the OKW and the Finnish General Staff? More especially, at the planning of these operations was the necessity of defense taken into consideration?

BUSCHENHAGEN: All agreements between the OKW and the Finnish General Staff had as their sole purpose from the very beginning the participation of the Finnish Army and the German troops on Finnish territory in the aggressive war against the Soviet Union. There was no doubt about that. If the Finnish General Staff, to the outside world, always pointed out that all these measures had only the character of defense measures, that was just camouflage. There was—from the very beginning—no doubt among the Finnish General Staff that all these preparations would serve only in the attack against the Soviet Union, for all the preparations that we made pointed in that same direction, namely, the plans for mobilization; above all, the objectives for the attack. Nobody ever reckoned with the possibility of a Russian attack on Finland.

Since, for cogent military reasons, the operations for attack from Finnish territory could start only 8 to 10 days after the beginning of the attack against Russia, certain security measures were taken during and after the attack, but the whole formation and lining-up of the troops was for offensive and not defensive purposes. I believe you can see sufficiently from that the aggressive character of all these preparations.

GEN. ZORYA: I have no further questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to ask any questions?

FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States Prosecution wish to ask any questions?

UNITED STATES PROSECUTOR: No questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants’ counsel wish to cross-examine?

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, in this Trial a group of people are under indictment with the purpose of declaring them criminals. Included in this group, to state it shortly, are all the commanders-in-chief of the several parts of the Armed Forces.

Have you ever had any knowledge before the beginning of the attack against the Soviet Union that an order came out, according to which the captured commissars had to be executed?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: Did you at any time speak to your commanding general, Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst, concerning this order?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: What opinion did Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst and yourself hold concerning this order?

BUSCHENHAGEN: That this was a criminal order.

DR. LATERNSER: Since you had that opinion, I would like to ask you whether, within your army, this order was carried out?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Actually it was not carried out.

DR. LATERNSER: For what reasons was it not carried out? Perhaps because the commander and his chief and you, Witness, were of the opinion that this order should not be carried out or because it would not have been practicable, for, as it is known, the Soviet commissars fought until the last and fell and, in cases where they were captured, their papers, which showed them to be commissars, had already been destroyed?

For what reason was this order not actually carried out?

BUSCHENHAGEN: Firstly, in view of the line taken by Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst and myself, comments were added to it before it was passed on, in other words, we let the troops know that inwardly we were not in agreement with it—and we found our commanding generals to show a full understanding. Secondly, because of the reason given by you, because, as a matter of fact, not a single commissar fell into our hands, as far as I can remember.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, do you know any other commanders who had the same attitude as you had with regard to this order?

BUSCHENHAGEN: No.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you answer “no” because you did not speak to others?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I did not speak to others because in Norway I was so isolated from other armies that I had no opportunity of speaking to others.

DR. LATERNSER: Witness, aren’t you of the opinion that the great majority of the commanding generals had the same attitude concerning this order as you and your commanding general?

BUSCHENHAGEN: I cannot answer that because I cannot speak the minds of the others.

DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions? General, do you wish to ask any questions in re-examination?

GEN. ZORYA: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness will retire.

[_The witness left the stand._]

GEN. ZORYA: This morning I had to stop before reading the testimony of Pantazi, Romania’s former Minister of War, which I intend to present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-154 (Document Number USSR-154). Pantazi describes in detail the preparations of Romania for war. I would ask you to accept this testimony as evidence. You will find it on Page 71 of the document book. I shall now read such extracts of this document as are of interest to us:

“Romania’s preparations for war against the Soviet Union began in November 1940 when, in accordance with the agreement signed by Marshal Antonescu in Bucharest, regarding Romania’s adherence to the Tripartite Pact, there arrived in Bucharest German military missions, consisting of groups of German officer-instructors; those for the army were headed by General Hansen, those for the Air Force by Major General Speidel.

“With the arrival of the German military missions in Romania, the Chief of the General Staff of the Romanian Army, General Joanitiu, acting on the orders of Antonescu, issued an order to the army, regarding the admission of German officer-instructors into units and groups, for the purpose of reorganizing and re-educating the Romanian forces in accordance with the code of regulations of the German Army.

“At the same time, and still acting on Marshal Antonescu’s orders, all reserve officers of the Romanian Army were called up for a course of 2 months of retraining and underwent instruction under German direction.

“During the period of the retraining of officers, the General Staff of the Romanian Army drafted a plan for calling up into the Army 12 age groups due for mobilization in case of war, the training of all these groups to be carried out in accordance with the demands of the code of regulations of the German Army, to be completed by 1 July 1941.

“The higher Romanian officers underwent similar retraining in their respective branches of the service.

“In this way, under German leadership and prior to the beginning of the war by Germany and Romania against the Soviet Union, the whole of the Romanian Army and Air Force were reorganized and retrained along German lines.”

I shall omit two paragraphs which are of no importance and I pass to the second paragraph, which you will find on Page 72 in the document book. These are also depositions of Pantazi.

THE PRESIDENT: General, in view of the evidence which you have already presented to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is inclined to think you could omit these details of the preparations made in Romania and go on to the place where you deal with the number of German divisions who deployed on the Romanian frontier.

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, this question is of importance. I hesitate at present to point out the exact passage which deals with it—it must be on Page 74 in the document book:

“In this connection the following units which were already mobilized and ready for action against the Soviet Union were, in February 1941, on Marshal Antonescu’s orders, directed to the frontiers of North Bukovina and Bessarabia: The 4th Alpine Rifle Division, the 7th, 8th, and 21st Infantry Divisions, the Infantry Division of the Guards, a cavalry corps and another infantry division whose name I do not recall at present. In addition, 3 German divisions, selected from the 21 German divisions moving to Greece across Romania, were sent to the U.S.S.R. frontier.”

I omit several paragraphs. On Page 73 of your book of documents we find the following extract from Pantazi’s testimony, marked in pencil:

“In accordance with instructions from Marshal Antonescu in May 1941, the following divisions were likewise sent to the frontier: The Frontier Division, the 3rd and 1st Alpine Rifle Divisions, the 13th Infantry Division, and a Panzer division. Concurrently with these divisions the Germans transferred to the U.S.S.R. frontier seven German divisions.

“Consequently, prior to the beginning of the Romanian and German attack on the Soviet Union, there were concentrated on the frontier between Romania and the U.S.S.R. 12 Romanian and 10 German divisions, totalling up to 600,000 men.”

Thus the documents which have just been submitted to the Tribunal justify the assertion that Romania’s preparations for aggression against the Soviet Union on the directions received from the staff of the fascist conspirators had begun long before they found expression on paper in Plan Barbarossa. Having attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s lackeys expected gratitude from their masters for services rendered. On 27 July 1941 Hitler sent a letter addressed to Antonescu expressing gratitude to him and to his army.

I submit to the Tribunal this letter from Hitler, addressed to Antonescu as Exhibit Number USSR-237 (Document Number USSR-237). Hitler writes in this letter—Page 1 of the Russian translation of the letter, Paragraph 3, Page 74 in the document book presented to the Tribunal:

“To congratulate you wholeheartedly on this great success is for me personally as great a happiness as it is a satisfaction easy to understand. The winning back of Bessarabia will be the most natural reward for your effort and those of your gallant troops.”

The promises of the fascist bosses were not limited to Bessarabia alone.

I beg for permission to return to the conversation of 12 February 1942, between Antonescu and the Defendant Ribbentrop. This conversation is set forth in a document which I presented as Exhibit Number USSR-233 (Document USSR-233). I am now referring to Paragraph 3 of the Russian translation of this document—3rd paragraph from the top of this page—which you will find on Page 61 of the document book. It consists of the following entry made by Antonescu:

“I reminded Herr Von Ribbentrop that, at the banquet given by him, he raised his glass to the happiness of a great Romania, to which I replied that we have entered into an alliance with the Axis in order to create a ‘Great Romania.’”

What, then, was this “Great Romania” to represent, to which the Defendant Ribbentrop had raised his glass?

This can be seen from the document which I now submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-242 (Document USSR-242). This document is one of Antonescu’s letters—a copy of a letter—to Hitler, dated 17 August 1941. I request you to read this document into the record, and I consider it necessary to read Paragraphs 2 and 4 from it, which correspond to Page 2 of the Russian translation in the document book in your possession. The corresponding text is on Page 78. I quote Paragraph 2. Antonescu writes:

“In compliance with the wish of Your Excellency, I take upon myself the responsibility for guarding the territory between the Rivers Dniester and Dnieper, for maintaining order there, and for its security, in which connection it will only be necessary to delineate a boundary to this territory on the north.”

Paragraph 4 of this letter:

“In order to maintain order and to control the economic exploitation of the occupied territory, and foreseeing the continuation of the war, I consider it absolutely necessary that unity of command should be established.

“I therefore beg Your Excellency to give precise instructions defining my rights and responsibilities for the administration and economic exploitation of the territory between the Rivers Dniester and Bug, as well as for the guarding, the maintenance of order and the security of the whole territory between the Rivers Dniester and Dnieper.

“I beg you, Your Excellency, to accept the best assurances from your devoted Marshal Antonescu.”

Two days after this letter was written Antonescu appointed a governor of the occupied regions of the Soviet Union, to which he gave the name of the “Transnistrian” regions.

I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-295 (Document Number USSR-295), the testimony of this “governor,” George Alexianu, who was taken prisoner by the Red Army, and beg you to accept it as evidence.

Alexianu, giving details of his nomination, testifies as follows—Page 2, Paragraph 2, of the Russian text, Page 79 in the document book which is in your possession. I quote:

“Antonescu said that, in connection with the successful advance of the German Army, Hitler wrote him a personal letter in which he offered to annex to Romania the Soviet territories extending from the Dniester to the Dnieper which had been captured by the German troops and to establish there their own occupational authorities.”

On Page 80 of the document book at the top of Page 3 of the Russian text of the testimony, Alexianu states that in the summer of 1942 he was present at the Council of Romanian Ministers at which Marshal Antonescu, referring to the successes of the German and the Romanian armies on the Eastern Front, stated:

“It is now evident for us all that I acted rightly when, as early as November 1940 I came to an agreement with Hitler on the joint attack against the Soviet Union.”

However, the generosity of the fascist Führer, who gave Soviet territories away, right and left, to his vassals, diminished noticeably in the course of the war as the Red Army successes grew.

I have here before me one of Hitler’s letters to Ion Antonescu, dated 25 October 1943. I beg the Tribunal to accept it as evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-240 (Document Number USSR-240). Something like 2 years and 3 months had passed since the moment when Hitler complimented his Romanian satrap on the seizure of Bessarabia. Quite recently, Antonescu had still been worrying over the question of organizing a “unified” administration in Transnistria. Circumstances and conditions had altered. Hitler now writes—I quote the second paragraph from the top of Page 1, which you will find on Pages 82-83 of your document book:

“My further request concerns the essential exploitation of Transnistria, that as a rear theater of operations for Army Groups A and South it should not be hampered by any formal juridical or economic considerations and difficulties. I must further request you to put at the disposal of the German authorities the entire network of the Transnistrian railways. . . .”

As a poor consolation Hitler adds—Page 82 of the document book:

“All military measures . . . have, as their final aim, the preservation of Transnistria for Romania.”

Then even Antonescu, who had so many times subserviently assured Hitler of his submissiveness, reached the end of his endurance. On 15 November 1943 he wrote a lengthy reply to Hitler. In this letter Antonescu wrote unrestrainedly how he fulfilled the will of his master at the expense of his people.

I present Antonescu’s letter to Hitler as Exhibit Number USSR-239 (Document Number USSR-239). His letter is dated Bucharest, 15 November 1943. I quote, beginning with Paragraph 2 of this letter, towards the end of Page 5 of the Russian text. It is on Page 88 of the document book:

“As to the regime in Transnistria we agree with your Excellency that it is neither opportune nor timely to examine in the spirit of a banker the problem of this territory as a military zone, a zone of supply, _et cetera_.

“I should like to begin by explaining the causes of my anxiety.

“I do not know whether the truth about the Romanian participation in the war, from 1941 to the present moment, has always been told you: That this war has cost Romania 300,000 million lei; that during this period we gave Germany more than 8 million tons of oil, thus threatening our own national stocks, as well as the deposits themselves; that we are bearing heavy expenses incurred in supporting the families of 250,000 men who lost their lives in battle.”

Here I omit four paragraphs which have no bearing in the gist of the matter and continue to read on Page 89 of the document book.

“Of course, the arrival of troops on the Transnistrian territory is, as you say, a shield on the gates of Romania. Our only desire is that all be in good order and utilized in the most advantageous manner possible. . . .

“As regards the transfer of the Transnistrian railways into German hands for the purpose of increasing transportation, I beg Your Excellency to reconsider this question. In our opinion this transfer is not necessary.

“Transnistrian railways, from 1941 to the present day, functioned well under Romanian administration. They always satisfied German demands and their management was always highly appreciated.”

I request you to turn one page of the document book. I now read an extract from Page 90 of the book:

“If the traffic capacity of the Transnistrian railways cannot still be further increased in pursuance to the generally established joint plan, we cannot bear any responsibility for that fact. Here too we kept our obligations.”

And two paragraphs further on, the same page, the following statement is made:

“I am sure that our railway administration could carry out the measures necessary in order to increase the traffic capacity and to improve the organization.

“As I personally was in charge of the organization of the administration and economics of this region, it would be a great mortification to me if the administration of the railways were to pass to German hands, since one would justly say that our incapacity in this respect was the reason for such measure.”

There came a moment in the relations between the two aggressors when the former harmony, based on the seizure of foreign lands and wealth, gave place to arguments on the question as to who should bear the great financial responsibility for the losses suffered as a result of the criminal adventure embarked upon by both partners.

This is revealed by the following document, captured from the personal archives of Antonescu and which I intend to present to the honorable Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-245 (Document Number USSR-245). I should like to read a quotation from this document, which is lengthy but which is very important in enabling us to realize the relationship between fascist Germany and her satellites. This document is entitled, “General Hansen’s Meeting with Marshal Antonescu on 7 July 1943.”

As Your Honors will no doubt remember, General Hansen was the head of the German Military Mission of the German General Staff in Romania. I shall read into the record excerpts from this document, underlined in red pencil, on Pages 92 and 93 of the document book. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t it be possible for you to summarize these documents with reference to Romania? Because you have already drawn our attention to a considerable amount of evidence with reference to Romania’s participation, General Antonescu’s statements and other evidence of that sort. Possibly you would be able to go on then to the question of the Hungarian participation—in Document Number USSR-294. What you are reading us now really shows the extent, no doubt, of the Romanian participation, but it is all after the aggression. I thought, from looking at it, that you could possibly go on to USSR-294.

GEN. ZORYA: If the Tribunal wishes, I shall certainly do so.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it would save time and would not detract from the case at all.

GEN. ZORYA: I shall summarize this document in a few sentences, and I shall then pass on to the next document.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

GEN. ZORYA: The sense of this conversation is interesting insofar as it reveals the shameless bargaining which went on between Hansen and Antonescu. The objects of this bargaining were money, war supplies, and human lives. Antonescu, who was beginning to feel the disadvantage of the absence of any kind of proper agreement with Germany, insisted that all subsequent dealings, whether of a material or any other nature, be subjected to appropriate official agreements. He demanded from Germany the delivery of various war supplies either of a technical or, in last analysis, of a monetary nature. And when General Hansen said that Germany had no lei, Antonescu replied, “If you have no lei, give us at least arms and equipment.” That is how the document describes the policy pursued by fascist Germany for extracting the most varied resources from her vassals.

Now, I should like to touch briefly upon certain methods of foreign policy which the Hitlerites used in dealing with their vassals. I should like to dwell on the policy pursued by the Hitlerite conspirators in regard to the question of Transylvania. Holding out the question of Transylvania as bait, the Hitlerite conspirators forced their Hungarian and Romanian vassals to work out their own promotion.

I submit, as Document Number USSR-294, the depositions of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger, a former Generaloberst of the Hungarian Army.

Prior to May 1941, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger held important posts in the Hungarian Foreign Ministry. Subsequently, prior to September 1942 he commanded an army corps, after which he became Deputy War Minister of Hungary.

Now, I should like to read the deposition of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger, concerning the Transylvanian question. The passages which I should like to read into the record are on Page 3 and on the top of Page 4 of the Russian text, which corresponds to Pages 102 and 103 of the document book:

“The second Vienna Arbitration Treaty assumed the form of a decision which was of little profit to Hungary. The district of Megyes-Kissármés, where natural oil could be obtained, was reserved for Romania. In Hungarian political and military circles this was interpreted in such a way that in the Second Vienna Arbitration Treaty Hitler thought himself in alliance with Romania in the war against Soviet Russia. The fact that Hitler considered Romania a more important ally than Hungary was explained on the grounds that in an eventual war with the Soviet Union, Germany would undoubtedly need Romania’s southern wing which extends to the Black Sea.

“In an official conversation which took place towards November 1940 the Chief of the Operational Group of the Hungarian General Staff, Colonel Laszlo, told me the following:

“‘The second Vienna Arbitration Treaty has aroused bitter envy of Romania in Hungary, and it is up to us to obtain advantages from Hitler.’”

I would remind you that Antonescu, in his testimony, presented to the Tribunal earlier in the day, said, when speaking of his negotiations with Hitler:

“In November 1941 Hitler told me that the final word had not been spoken in the Vienna Arbitration Treaty, thereby giving me to understand that Romania could still count upon a revision of the decision previously adopted on the question of Transylvania.”

However, soon after, while visiting Budapest, the Defendant Ribbentrop expressed an entirely opposite point of view.

I shall present to the Tribunal three documents which illustrate the attitude of Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Göring under these circumstances. I submit in evidence Exhibit Number USSR-235 (Document Number USSR-235), containing the minutes of one of the subsequent conversations between Antonescu and Hitler, which took place on 3 April 1942. This document will be found on Pages 113-116 of the document book. I shall read some excerpts from this document, on Page 3 of the Russian translation, which corresponds to Page 113 in the document book. I quote:

“I”—Antonescu—“reminded him”—Hitler—“that the Hungarian statesmen did not hesitate to declare openly in Parliament and in the press after Ribbentrop’s visit to Budapest that should they intervene”—that is, should they send their troops—“Transylvania is to remain Hungarian; such rumors circulate, and they greatly demoralize the Romanians. Hitler gave me his word of honor that such promises had not been made and could not have been made, and that this does not correspond to actual facts.”

In this way Hitler juggled with promises to encourage his satellites.

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for 10 minutes?

[_A recess was taken._]

GEN. ZORYA: The next document, which I am submitting to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-183 (Document Number USSR-183), concerns the Transylvanian question and the Defendant Ribbentrop. It is the record of a conference between Antonescu and Von Dörnberg, Chief of Protocol of the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which took place at the frontier on 10 February 1942. I am asking the Tribunal to accept this record as evidence. This document, taken from the personal archives of Marshal Antonescu, was captured by the advancing Red Army. I do not consider it necessary to read the entire document into the record, and I shall merely confine myself to a few excerpts. Will you please open your document book on Page 116, where there is a record of the conference between Antonescu and Von Dörnberg of 10 February 1942. I quote:

“He openly introduced the subject of the Order of Charles the First which Herr Von Ribbentrop was claiming for himself through various German official channels in our country, as well as through the Romanian officials accredited to the German Government.”

I pass to the next page, Page 117 of the document book. I quote:

“I told Herr Von Dörnberg that I would not be able to grant this award until Herr Von Ribbentrop, at the very first opportunity, made a public declaration also to Romania, a declaration which would bolster up the faith of the Romanian people in their struggle for the cause of justice and for their legitimate claims in the Europe of the future. I would, therefore, grant him this award on condition that it be made public only after he had made this declaration.

“Herr Von Dörnberg asked for time to reflect on the matter.

“Next day, before entering the railway coach, he asked me to hand him the decoration, telling me that Von Ribbentrop wanted it and requesting me not to divulge our conversation to Ribbentrop, since he now promised to make the award public only upon the fulfillment of my conditions. On this condition I gave him the decoration, without the appropriate certificate.”

Thus Ribbentrop was prepared to disclaim his Budapest statement on receipt of the Romanian order.

I have also at my disposal a record of a conference between Antonescu and Göring. Will you kindly turn to Page 118 of the document book. Unfortunately, this document, discovered together with other documents in Antonescu’s personal files, previously mentioned by me, is undated. We submit this document as found. I present it as Exhibit Number USSR-238 (Document USSR-238), and I am reading one excerpt only. I quote:

“During the conversation at Karinhall, Marshal Göring was very reticent on the problem of Transylvania. On the way, in the car, he said to the Marshal”—that is to Antonescu:

“‘After all, why do you quarrel with Hungary about Transylvania, which is actually more German than Romanian or Hungarian.’”

We may, presumably, agree that on this occasion Göring had expressed the viewpoint of the fascist conspirators on the problem of Transylvania with a sufficient degree of truthfulness.

With a view to concluding the clarification of Germany’s mutual relations with her vassal, Romania, I should like to emphasize the subject of crude oil. In this field, Romania was one of Germany’s principal suppliers.

Both before and during the war the Hitlerites extracted oil from Romania by all possible means. Antonescu, by the way, refers to this in one of his letters which has already been read into the record. I shall now submit two documents which sufficiently prove how important this question was to Germany, and how significant it was considered by the Hitlerites themselves. As Exhibit Number USSR-244 (Document Number USSR-244), I present an urgent telegram from the Defendant Keitel, addressed to Marshal Antonescu and received by the latter on 31 October 1942. I shall not explain in detail how this document was taken from the personal archives of Antonescu, in the same way as the previous one. I now read this telegram into the record and would ask you to accept it as evidence—to be found on Page 119 of the document book:

“Telegram to the German Mission for direct transmission to Marshal Antonescu.

“Herr Marshal! In the name of the Führer I approach Your Excellency with a request for your personal intervention in the matter of accelerating, as far as possible, the delivery of the maximum possible quantity of fuel to the Italian Fleet, which is absolutely essential to the latter for the continuance of military operations in the Mediterranean.

“The absence and lack of all means of transport for further operations have resulted in a critical situation in North Africa, and the transport of supplies depends entirely on the delivery of adequate quantities of fuel.

“I beg Your Excellency to increase to the maximum degree those deliveries of fuel to Italy, which are exclusively reserved for supplying the fleet called upon to maintain important positions in the Mediterranean for the purpose of the joint warfare.

“I have chosen this method of direct appeal to you because I am sure that your personal intervention will result in the assistance required.

“Yours in comradely esteem, signed Keitel, Field Marshal.”

Allow me now to submit the telegram which Antonescu sent in reply to Keitel. Please turn to Page 120 of the document book, Exhibit Number USSR-244(a), (Document Number USSR-244(a)).

THE PRESIDENT: Could you summarize the contents of this document.

GEN. ZORYA: I can summarize the contents of that telegram in two sentences. In reply to the Defendant Keitel’s tearful appeal to increase to the maximum degree the fuel supplies, Antonescu replied, in a wire addressed to Keitel, that he would meet his engagements in full, but that the supplies previously requested by the German officials had already been delivered and that it was impossible to send any more. If something could eventually be saved from the quantities used inside Romania then perhaps, somehow or other, Romania might be able to help her allies. On the whole, Antonescu begged General Keitel to accept his expressions of regard and high esteem, but would not give him any more oil.

Allow me to remind you, Your Honors, that in October and November 1942 Rommel’s fate was being decided in North Africa, and that at the same time the Red Army was barring Germany’s advance on the Grozny and Baku oil fields on the borders of Mozdok. It is obvious that the Germans lacked sufficient quantities of crude oil.

I shall read one extract from the minutes of a conversation which took place on 12 February 1942, between Antonescu and the Defendant Ribbentrop, which has not, as yet, been read into the record. I have previously submitted to the Tribunal the record of this conversation as Exhibit Number USSR-233. I ask you to turn to the end of Page 51 and to Page 52 of the document book, which corresponds to Page 4 of the Russian text. There you will find the following lines. In reply to Ribbentrop’s question on the subject of crude oil, Antonescu stated:

“As for crude oil, Romania has contributed the maximum which it was in her power to contribute; she can give no more. The only way out of the situation would be to seize territories rich in oil.”

We should note here that Antonescu was not at all original in his idea of seizing other people’s territories, rich in oil.

I am asking Your Honors to refer to Pages 121-129 of the document book. There is one document taken from the private office of the Defendant Rosenberg, which is entitled, “About the Organization of the Caucasus.” I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-58 (Document Number USSR-58), and I would ask you to accept it as evidence. In July 1941 the Defendant Rosenberg formulated the German opinion on this question—Page 122 of the document book as follows:

“Germany is interested in creating a stable position in the entire Caucasus in order to secure the safety of continental Europe, that is, to safeguard for herself the link with the Near East. It is only this link with the oil fields that can make Germany and the rest of Europe independent, in the future, of any coalition of maritime powers. The aim of German policy is to control the Caucasus and the adjoining lands to the south, both politically and militarily.”

Will you please turn to Page 124 of the document book as well as to Page 4 of the Russian text of the document from which I am quoting. The same idea is formulated there by the Defendant Rosenberg with extreme clarity. I quote, “Economically, the German Reich must take all oil into its hands.”

Your Honors, I shall not dwell in detail on the relations between the fascist conspirators and their other satellite, Finland, inasmuch as the witness, Buschenhagen, offered sufficiently conclusive evidence on this question; and the Tribunal has probably already got some definite ideas on the subject. I just want to remind the Tribunal that according to Paragraph 3, Section 2, of Plan Barbarossa, Finland was to cover the advance of the German landing of Group North, consisting of units of the 21st Group, which was due to arrive from Norway, and then to operate jointly with that group. According to Plan Barbarossa, the liquidation of the Russian forces at Hangö was also assigned to Finland.

I would also like to remind the Tribunal that Section 2 of the temporary Plan Barbarossa, which has been presented to the Tribunal by the American Prosecution as Document Number C-39, mentions Finland’s participation in the war; as I have already reported to the Tribunal, the following sentence is to be found in this section, which corresponds to Page 52 of the document book. “The preliminary negotiations with the Finnish General Staff have been under way since 25 May.”

I should also like to invite your attention to the following paragraph of the same document, Page 58 of the document book:

“Provision has been made for transportation from the Reich to Norway of one security division and 18 artillery battalions, and for transportation to Finland of one reinforced infantry division complete with army corps units. Of the units, one infantry division, two mountain divisions and the SS Group North are designated for Case Silver Fox.

“It has been planned, on the outbreak of military operations, to bring by rail, through Sweden, a further division for the attack on Hangö.”

I consider that I am now justified in stating that the date of 25 May 1941, indicated in the temporary Plan Barbarossa as the date on which the negotiations with the Finnish General Staff were opened, was incorrect. The indication of this date, which did not correspond to reality, was an attempt to disguise the preparations for aggression, presenting them to the outside world as preparations for a so-called preventive war.

In addition to the testimony of the witness, Buschenhagen, already given to the Tribunal, I shall now present, as Exhibit Number USSR-229 (Document Number USSR-229), the depositions of a former colonel of the German Army, Kitchmann, which I beg you to accept as evidence.

Kitchmann held the office of military attaché in the German Embassy at Helsinki since 1 October 1941. You will find this testimony on Page 130 of the document book. I shall read a very short extract therefrom into the record:

“A long time before 22 June 1941, the German Government and the High Command of the German Armed Forces jointly carried out secret negotiations with the Finnish Government and the General Staff of the Finnish Army and prepared the attack on the Soviet Union. I learned about the preparation for the attack on the Soviet Union by the German and Finnish Armies under the following circumstances: On my arrival at Helsinki in October 1941, as acting German military attaché, I had numerous conversations with Major Von Albedill, the aide of the German military attaché who formerly served in the Military Attaché’s Department in the OKH, General Staff of the Army.

“Albedill acquainted me with the situation in Finland and its military and political background, since Major General Rössing, the military attaché, was seriously ill and receiving treatment at the health resort of Merano in the Tyrol. In the course of these conversations Albedill told me that already in September 1940, Major General Rössing, acting on an order of Hitler and of the German General Staff, had organized the visit of Major General Taloela, Plenipotentiary of Marshal Mannerheim, to the Führer’s headquarters in Berlin. During this visit an agreement was reached between the German and Finnish General Staffs for joint preparations for the attack and for warfare against the Soviet Union.

“In this connection General Taloela told me, during a conference at his staff headquarters in Aunus in November 1941, that he, acting on Marshal Mannerheim’s personal orders, had—as far back as September 1940—been one of the first to contact the German High Command with a view to joint preparation for a German and Finnish attack on the Soviet Union.”

I ask your permission to conclude herewith the presentation of the documents concerning the relations between fascist Germany and her satellite, Finland, since—I repeat—Buschenhagen’s testimony has relieved me of this necessity.

I should like to make one brief résumé:

Buschenhagen’s testimony disposes of all attempts to assert that the war waged by Finland was a separate war and was disassociated from the war aims of fascist Germany. Finland’s entry into the war had been envisaged in the war plans of the fascist conspirators and corresponded to the aggressive intentions of the Finnish rulers. The Finns, like the other satellites of Germany, waged war in the hope of gaining whole regions and republics of the Soviet Union.

At the conference of 16 July 1941 Hitler spoke of the Finnish claims to Eastern Karelia, the Leningrad region, and the city of Leningrad. In proof of this fact I refer to Document Number L-221 presented by the United States Prosecution. The extracts quoted from this document will be found on the corresponding page of the document book, Page 141.

Romania and Finland were two German satellites discussed in full detail in Plan Barbarossa. The part these countries played in the plans of German fascism was determined not only by the desire to utilize their war potential—which without doubt was of some importance—but also by their geographical position as operational bases on the flanks of the Soviet Union.

The documents presented to the Tribunal bear witness to the fact that the inclusion of these countries in the preparation for attack against the U.S.S.R. had been carefully plotted by the fascist conspirators, in the same way as were all the preparations connected with Plan Barbarossa.

The third satellite of Germany, Hungary, is not mentioned at all in Plan Barbarossa. However, this certainly cannot be taken to mean that the participation of Hungary in the aggression against the Soviet Union had not been planned by the fascist conspirators.

I ask permission to refer to the testimony of Paulus—although he has already testified before the Tribunal—which formulates very clearly. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You aren’t going to give us Paulus’ affidavit over again, are you? We have already had Paulus’ evidence in full.

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, I have already mentioned that this is on Page 182. It is the record of the interrogation of Paulus by General Rudenko. A copy of this record may be produced before the Tribunal now and, furthermore, it is on Page 143 of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: We have got his actual oral evidence; we don’t want his interrogation.

GEN. ZORYA: But I really need one particular paragraph of his testimony in order to show the connection between the subsequent documents relating to Hungary and the contents of my statement. It is just a few lines.

THE PRESIDENT: It must surely be cumulative, is it not?

GEN. ZORYA: That which was presented to the Tribunal, I could express in my own words, in two sentences.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it in any way different from what Paulus has already said?

GEN. ZORYA: Yes. Do forgive me! I have just been told that Colonel Pokrovsky has already read that extract into the record. I shall therefore merely give a very brief summary of the extract and then pass on to a further subject and shall not repeat myself.

I have in mind, on the one hand, those paragraphs of Paulus’ affidavit which state that the leading factor of Hungary’s policy was the full recognition of Germany’s leading rule and that it was determined by two basic factors, that is, the aspiration to territorial conquests with the help of Germany and the fear of the growing power of Romania as Germany’s ally; and, on the other hand, I have in mind that passage where Paulus states that Hitler was far more prudent in disclosing his plans to Hungary than to the other satellites, because he considered the Hungarians as garrulous. It is true that Paulus immediately adds, on Page 2 of his affidavit, that:

“The essential reason was Hitler’s unwillingness to give Hungary a chance of seizing the oil fields in the Russian oil district of Dragovitch.”

Following the opening of the offensive against the Soviet Union, the Supreme Command of the Army, the OKH, issued an order to the 17th Army to seize Dragovitch prior to the arrival of the Hungarians.

Further, Paulus describes the circumstances of his negotiations with the Hungarians regarding armament supplies. This—all this—has already been mentioned by Colonel Pokrovsky. I wish only to refer to the fact that this testimony of Paulus’ has undoubtedly lifted a corner of the veil of mystery shrouding the mutual relations between the German and Hungarian aggressors.

In this connection, I consider it imperative to return to the depositions by Ruszkiczay-Ruediger which are already at the disposal of the Tribunal. This document has been presented as Exhibit Number USSR-294.

Touching on the occupation by Hungary of the Transcarpathian Ukraine in 1939, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger testified—see Page 2, Paragraph 3 of the Russian text of the depositions which can be found on Page 101 of the document book. I quote the following—the quotation is underlined:

“This took place not long before the outbreak of the German-Polish war. It then appeared as if economic advantages and a new liberation from the Trianon Treaty were, for Hungary, the primary objectives.

“But from the time when the region of the Transcarpathian Ukraine acquired a common boundary with Soviet Russia, we began to attach a perfectly different significance to this region by military preparations concerning this area. It was clear to us, the high-ranking officers, that the political leadership both of Germany and Hungary also considered this region strategically important for future military operations against Soviet Russia.”

On Page 9, Paragraph 2 from the bottom, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger tells us of a conference which took place at the end of March 1941, in the course of which the Hungarian Minister of War, Bartha, outlined the objectives of the war with Yugoslavia. Among these objectives Bartha pointed directly to the necessity of eliminating Yugoslavia as a possible ally of the Soviet Union.

However, a more complete picture of Germano-Hungarian relations, which were determined by the preparation of an attack against the Soviet Union, is contained in the statement by the Hungarian Major General, Esteban Ujszaszy. From 1 May 1939 to 1 July 1942, Ujszaszy was Chief of the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Services of the Hungarian General Staff. In his official capacity during these years, he had inside information on the secrets which shrouded this preparation. Some of the things which he knew, he communicated to us in the document which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-155 (Document Number USSR-155). I ask you to accept this document as evidence.

I will read into the record that part of Ujszaszy’s statement which may clarify the question at issue. Beginning from Page 2 of the Russian text—this corresponds to Page 149 of the document book—we find Section 2 entitled, “Preparation of Germany and Hungary for War against Soviet Russia.” Paragraph 1 of this section is devoted to “Halder’s letters.” I quote:

“In November 1940 the German military attaché in Budapest, Colonel Günther Krappe of the German General Staff, was received in audience by the Chief of the Royal Hungarian General Staff, Henry Werth. Krappe brought a letter from the Chief of the General Staff of the German Army, Generaloberst Halder.

“In that letter Halder informed Werth that in the spring of 1941, ‘Yugoslavia would have to be compelled, if necessary by force of arms, to adopt a definite position in order to exclude, at a later date, the menace of a Russian attack from the rear. In this preventive war, possibly against Yugoslavia and definitely against Soviet Russia, Hungary would have to participate if only in her own interests.’”

Werth replied that he agreed with Halder’s concept but drew attention to the lack of equipment in the Hungarian Army, which, at that time, was not ready for war against Soviet Russia. His request, on the whole, was for the completion, by Germany, of Hungary’s armaments. He was informed of Halder’s letter and Werth’s reply thereto, by General Werth in person. After that a Hungarian armament commission was invited to Berlin. It consisted of officer-specialists from the Main Ordinance Supply Division of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Defense, and in December 1940 the commission left for Berlin. The Hungarian requests were as follows. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: General, couldn’t you pass on to December 1940, where Field Marshal Keitel invites the Hungarian Minister of Defense to come to Berlin. It is just a few sentences down.

GEN. ZORYA: Yes, I am passing on to this paragraph:

“In December 1940, the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed forces (OKW), Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, invited the Hungarian Minister of Home Defense, General Carl Bartha, to come to Berlin in order to: a) discuss personally the problem of armaments; b) elaborate a plan of military and political collaboration between Germany and Hungary for the spring of 1941.

“This invitation was transmitted to Budapest through the Royal Hungarian Military Attaché in Berlin, Colonel in the General Staff Alexander Homlok. At the same time, I received a similar invitation from Admiral Canaris, Chief of the Foreign and Defense Sections of the OKW.”

I omit a long list given by Ujszaszy of persons who accompanied Bartha on his trip, and I read further from Page 151 of the document book:

“The information which we received follows:

“In the spring of 1941 the position of Yugoslavia will be clarified, the menace of a Russian Soviet attack in the rear eliminated. . . . For this purpose the Hungarian Honved Army, reinforced by the delivery of 10-centimeter field howitzers and with up-to-date tanks for a ‘Mobile Brigade’ will be ready for action. For the war against Russia, Hungary must make available 15 operational units (including 3 mobilized, cavalry, and Panzer units); she must also complete, by 1 June 1941, the erection of fortifications in Transcarpathian Russia, assist the advance of the German troops in the area adjacent to the Hungarian-Yugoslav and the Hungarian-Soviet frontiers and facilitate the deployment and the passage of supplies for the troops through Hungary. The details for the operational preparation will be determined later by representatives of the German General Staff about to be sent to Hungary. As a political compensation for her participation, Hungary will receive territory in Yugoslavia and in Soviet Russia (the ancient Principality of Halicz) and the land at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains, up to the River Dniester.”

In March 1941 Eberhard Kienzl, a colonel of the German General Staff, visited Budapest. The purpose of this visit was to make final arrangements about the question of attack on Yugoslavia.

This is what Ujszaszy has to say on the matter—Page 5 of the Russian text, Paragraph 3, from the bottom of Page 152 of the document book:

“The Colonel of the German General Staff, Eberhard Kienzl, detachment Foreign Armies East in the OKH (High Command of the Army), arrived in Budapest in March 1941 bringing with him a letter from Generaloberst Halder to Generaloberst Werth. This letter contained an insistent request on the part of Germany that Hungary should participate in the possible war against Yugoslavia by mobilizing the following army corps: I. Budapest, II. Szekesfeherwar, III. Szombathely, IV. Pecs, V. Szeged, and in the war against Soviet Russia by mobilizing 15 operational units, including 1 cavalry division, 2 mechanized brigades, and 1 mountain (rifle) brigade.

“The letter announced the imminent arrival in Budapest of a German delegation, headed by Lieutenant General Paulus, for discussing combined operations and the deployment of German troops against Yugoslavia through Hungarian territory.

“In reply to this letter General Werth issued an invitation to the German commission, held out prospects of Hungary’s participation in the war against Yugoslavia and of producing, for this purpose, 3 army corps, that is, the 1st, 4th, and 5th.

“Concerning the war against Soviet Russia, he agreed in principle, promising at least to mobilize the 8th Army Corps (Kressikosice) as well as the mechanized operation units demanded by Halder.

“I was informed personally about this exchange of correspondence by Colonel of the German General Staff, Kienzl.”

THE PRESIDENT: General, speaking for myself, I cannot see that it makes the slightest difference to this Tribunal whether Hungary was going to put one army corps, or two army corps, or three army corps against the Russians. It was absolutely clear from what you have already read, if we are to believe it, that Field Marshal Keitel, in December 1940, was demanding that Hungary should put at Germany’s disposal, for the war against Russia, certain units. What does it matter if subsequent negotiations alter the number of units?

It seems to me that this evidence which is given is entirely cumulative. It doesn’t add anything in the least to what you have already given us, and you could go on to the next document, which is Number USSR-150 (Exhibit Number USSR-150). Everything up to there is simply the negotiations between members of the German and Hungarian General Staffs as to exactly what units of the Hungarian Army were to be used.

GEN. ZORYA: I quite agree with the President that the presentation of the documents on this question should be restricted.

THE PRESIDENT: The next one is 150?

GEN. ZORYA: The Ujszaszy document contains certain information pertaining not only to the number of units pledged by Hungary to Germany in case of war with the Soviet Union; but there is, for example, an indication as to what methods in the preparation for war were being used by the fascist clique in Hungary, in agreement with the Hitlerite conspirators. I consider it imperative to dwell on these methods, and that is why I request your permission to quote certain passages in this document.

What I now have in mind, for instance, is the falsification of the information regarding the number of Soviet units concentrated on the Hungarian-Russian border.

THE PRESIDENT: Please, go on.

GEN. ZORYA: Page 155 of the document book reads as follows:

“My immediate superior, General Laszlo, as chief of the operational group ordered the second section of the General Staff to prepare a situation report according to which 14 Soviet Russian operational units were concentrated on the Hungarian border, including 8 motorized units. This situation report was prepared by Colonel Cornel Hidai, of Intelligence.

“I should like to point out that according to subsequent explanations supplied by the second section of the Royal Hungarian General Staff, there were only four Soviet operational units actually concentrated on the Hungarian border. This circumstance I truthfully reported to Generaloberst Werth and General Laszlo, but the latter altered my truthful, objective report in accordance with his wishes.”

Further, Ujszaszy speaks of plans for provocation drawn up by the militarist clique in Hungary for the purpose of creating incidents abroad to justify an attack on the Soviet Union. Ujszaszy states—Page 10, Line 4 from the top of the document, Page 157 of the document book:

“These plans emanated from Lieutenant General Fütterer, from his assistant Lieutenant Colonel Frimond, and from General Laszlo. They proposed that, if necessary, German aircraft, camouflaged as Russian planes, should bomb the eastern border districts of Hungary, with bombs of Soviet Russian origin.”

And finally, Ujszaszy describes the events of the few days preceding the attack on the Soviet Union—this is Page 11 of the document, Page 158 of the document book:

“On 24 June 1941 (if I remember correctly), at 12:30 noon, I was informed that Soviet Russian planes were bombing Raho in Carpathian Russia and firing on trains in the vicinity with machine gun fire. On the same afternoon news reached us that Soviet Russian planes were bombing Kassá (Košice). The Crown Council, with the Regent in the chair, met on the same evening and, on the strength of Soviet Russia’s provocation, decided to declare war on that country. I am convinced that the bombarding was carried out by German planes with Russian markings. My conclusion was based on the following facts:

“a) Lieutenant General Fütterer and the German propaganda machine publicized this bombing on a very vast scale.

“b) Lieutenant General Laszlo immediately gave me orders, through the Propaganda Subsection of Section 2 of the Royal Hungarian General Staff, to obtain photographs of such fragments of the ‘Soviet Russian bombs’ as could still be found and to publish these photographs in the press of the fascist countries.

“c) Lieutenant General Fütterer, General Laszlo, and Lieutenant General Frimond spread, by a whispering campaign, the rumor that Slovakian pilots in Russian service had bombed Kassá (Košice). The excellence of the hits was explained by the fact that these pilots were well acquainted with the terrain.”

This happened, according to Ujszaszy, on 24 June 1941, at 12:30 p.m. We have a document that establishes the fact that long before this date the participation of Hungary in the war against the Soviet Union had been decided. The document presented to the Tribunal and which contains the depositions of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger explains the reasons for the Hungarian assault on the Soviet Union. It may be that Ruszkiczay-Ruediger’s viewpoint is not shared by everybody, but still, as it is the testimony of the Hungarian Deputy Minister of War, this statement can, of course, not be devoid of interest.

On Page 10 of the Russian text of his testimony, Ruszkiczay-Ruediger states that towards the end of May 1941 he received an order to supply, first of all, the troops concentrated in the Transcarpathian Ukraine; 2 days afterwards a secret meeting of the army corps commanders took place at the headquarters of General Werth, Chief of the General Staff, at which the forthcoming attack on the Soviet Union was announced.

I quote from the testimony of Ruszkiczay-Ruediger—Page 108 of the document book and Page 9 of the document itself. I am only quoting the passages underlined, in order to save time. I quote:

“. . . General of the Infantry Werth gave us an account of the military and political situation.

“It appears that an attack against the Soviet Union by Germany is forthcoming, in which Romania and Hungary will take an active part on the side of Germany.”

Ruszkiczay-Ruediger further points out that:

“The decision to declare war was taken by the Council of Ministers, after Premier Bardossy and Minister Bartha had made their reports, and was ratified by the Crown Council. The question was not submitted to Parliament. “These decisions of the Council of Ministers and the Crown Council caused no surprise at all, and were the result of the voluntary military collaboration with Germany which had actually existed for many years past.

“The Hungarian General Staff and the political leaders of Hungary as from the beginning of the aggression against Czechoslovakia, considered Germany as their mainstay in their plans of revision. Afterwards followed the occupation of Transcarpathian Ukraine and the strategic organization of this region as a military base in preparation for an attack on Soviet Russia.”

Ujszaszy, in his report, mentioned the German military attaché in Budapest, Krappe. The former Lieutenant General of the German Army, Günther Krappe, was the German military attaché in Budapest from November 1939 to 30 April 1941. After that, Krappe commanded the 10th Corps of SS troops of the Army Group “Vistula,” and was captured by Red Army units.

I request the Tribunal to accept in evidence a statement made by Krappe in January of this year and presented as Exhibit Number USSR-150 (Document Number USSR-150). It should be noted that the main circumstances mentioned in Krappe’s statement coincide with those on Ujszaszy’s report. I shall therefore read only a few excerpts from Page 4 of Krappe’s document, corresponding to Page 165 of the document book:

“In October 1940 I was ordered by the OKH to report on the conditions of fortifications in the region bordering Russia, that is, in the Carpathian Ukraine. The Chief of the Operations Section, Colonel Laszlo, informed me that, so far, there were only simple antitank obstacles in existence, varying in depth from 1 to 2 kilometers and that the construction of barracks for quartering troops had just begun. The necessary surveys for building concrete pillboxes along the border and the highways would be made during the winter and in the spring of 1941 it would be possible to proceed with the actual construction. It appeared to be a question of raising some 6 million pengö.

“General Werth gave me permission to make an automobile trip through Munkac to Urzok Pass. . . .

“I communicated the results of the inspection trip and of the information obtained from Colonel Laszlo to Berlin. Some time later Colonel Laszlo informed me that the necessary sums for the building of these fortifications had already been allotted.”

In order to save time, Your Honors, I shall briefly expose the remaining part of Krappe’s testimony. An agreement was reached with the War Minister, Von Bartha, to organize war communications and war transports of the German Army in Hungary. In connection with this a special organization therefore arrived which was entrusted with these transports. At the same time, Your Honors, permission was received to establish jointly with the postal services, a special communication system for military needs, and, furthermore, a number of German officers were attached to the Hungarian Army for the interchange of experiences and instruction of the troops. Krappe states that as from December 1940, Hungarian industry was reorganized and worked for the increase of the German military potential. General Leeb, the Chief of the Armament Department, was in charge.

In concluding the presentation of documents concerning the setting up of an aggressive bloc against the Soviet Union by the fascist war criminals, I consider it necessary to make a few comments of a general nature as derived from these documents.

The fascist conspirators began to adopt immediate measures for securing the participation of Romania, Finland, and Hungary in the preparation for the predatory attack on the Soviet Union at least as early as September 1940, when a military mission was sent to Romania.

The negotiations concerning the military preparations for aggression against the Soviet Union, in each of these countries, were mainly concluded during the period September-December 1940. The negotiations were conducted by the general staffs of the German and the satellite armies. The subject of the negotiations in each case was of a purely military character, such as the retraining of the troops, the transportation of military units, the coordination of strategic plans, the deciding on the number of divisions needed to attack the Soviet Union, _et cetera_.

Such character of negotiations testifies to the fact that there existed between the fascist Government of Germany and the Governments of Romania, Finland, and Hungary, a preliminary agreement with regard to aggression against the Soviet Union even before the negotiations began.

And, finally, the documents submitted reveal that to each of these countries, one way or the other, the fascist conspirators had promised some territory belonging to the Soviet Union.

I should like to point out one more circumstance.

In order fully to grasp the consequences of the predatory fascist attack on the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it is not enough to confine ourselves to Plan Barbarossa. This is a strategic plan, a plan for military attack, a plan for the beginning of aggression.

And close on the heels of the attack followed, as it is well known, the so-called “assimilation” and “organization” of the occupied territories. The plans for the “assimilation” and “organization,” which were plans for the extermination of the peaceful civilian population and the plundering of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, were also prepared in advance, in the same way as Plan Barbarossa.

The Soviet Prosecution declares that the documents at the disposal of the Tribunal, and especially such documents as the directive of 13 March 1941 (Document Number 447-PS), signed by the Defendant Keitel; the order for the application of military jurisdiction, dated 15 May 1941 (Document Number C-50), also signed by Keitel; the propaganda directive for Plan Barbarossa (Document Number C-26); and others, testify to the destruction not only of legal but of all moral standards of behavior by the hordes of the fascist usurpers on the temporarily occupied Soviet territories, this destruction having been premeditated and planned long before the attack on the Soviet Union.

Even before the attack on the Soviet Union, the Hitlerites had decided and outlined in appropriate paragraphs of these instructions, directions, and orders, the terroristic methods for dealing with the civilian population and the measures and means for plundering the land of the Soviet Union and reducing it to a colony of the Third Reich. And when war did break out and the whole secret was laid bare, the fascists did not hesitate to publish all these plans in their press.

I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-59 (Document Number USSR-59), an article, published on 20 August 1942, in _Das Schwarze Korps_, an SS paper and organ of the Reich Führer of the SS. This article, entitled, “Should We Germanize?”—Page 180 of the document book—states openly:

“The Reich Führer of the SS chose the following slogan for one of the editions of the newspaper _Deutsche Arbeit_, devoted to the problems of resettlement in the East:

“Our duty in the East is not Germanization in the former sense of the term, that is, imposing the German language and the German laws upon the population, but to ensure that only people of pure German blood should inhabit the East.”

This negation of Germanization is not new. However, falling from the lips of the Reich Führer of the SS, acting as Reich Commissioner for the strengthening of the Volkstum, it becomes an order. Such is the exact meaning of these words.

The rejection of the idea of germanizing the population of the occupied territories, and the assertion that the East should be inhabited only by people of pure German blood, signified, in practice, the mass extermination of Soviet citizens, their spoliation and their deportation to slave labor, the annihilation of centuries of Russian culture, and the destruction of our cities and villages. I shall confine myself to what I have just said, as the same theme, or rather themes, have already been elaborated and will be presented to the Tribunal by my colleagues.

On 22 June 1941, after prolonged preparations, the German fascist hordes hurled themselves on the Soviet Union. One hundred and seventy divisions, concentrated on the borders of the Soviet Union from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, started the invasion.

The military problems connected with the attack were formulated in Plan Barbarossa:

“The German Army should be ready, even prior to the end of the war with England, to defeat Soviet Russia by operating with lightning speed.

“To this end the Army will have to utilize all units at its disposal, with the sole reservation that the territories occupied must be adequately protected against all unexpected eventualities.”

Plan Barbarossa foresaw the necessity of annihilating the Red Army, of cutting off the possible retreat towards the interior of all Red Army units still fit for battle and of permitting the German fascist invaders speedily to reach a line of combat which would place the land of Germany beyond the range of the Soviet Air Force.

As an ultimate aim, Plan Barbarossa provided for the strengthening of the Astrakhan-Archangel line, the destruction by bombardment of the Ural industries, the seizure of Leningrad and Kronstadt, and finally, the capture of Moscow.

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

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 13 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTY-EIGHTH DAY Wednesday, 13 February 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Please continue.

GEN. ZORYA: Your Honors, yesterday afternoon I dwelt on the fact that Plan Barbarossa had foreseen the necessity of annihilating the Red Army, of excluding the possibility of a retreat into the interior of such Red Army units as were still capable of fighting, and of obtaining, by rapid action, a combat line for the German-fascist invaders which would place the regions of Germany beyond the range of the Soviet Air Force. The final aim, according to Plan Barbarossa, was fortification of the Astrakhan-Archangel Line, the destruction from the air of the Ural industries, the seizure of Leningrad and Kronstadt and, as a decisive finale, the capture of Moscow.

The political aims which determined the military plans were formulated by the Hitlerites in the many documents which were read into the record in this courtroom. But these aims were stated particularly clearly at the meeting in Hitler’s headquarters on 16 July 1941. This document was presented by the United States Prosecution as Document Number L-221. You will find it on Page 141 of the document book. At this meeting Hitler, Göring, Rosenberg, Keitel, and other fascist conspirators were deciding, as they thought, the subsequent fortunes of the Soviet Union.

The Crimea, together with the adjoining regions of the Ukraine, the Baltic regions, the Bialystok Forests and the Kola Peninsula, were declared as “annexed” to Germany. The Volga colonies were also to become a part of the Reich. The Baku area was envisaged as a German military colony. Bessarabia and Odessa were to be handed over to Romania, while Finland was to acquire Eastern Karelia, Leningrad, and the Leningrad region.

As you well know, Your Honors, the Hitlerites always strove to prevent their real piratical aims from receiving publicity. At the same meeting at general headquarters, on 16 July 1941, Hitler, for instance, said that it was most important not to reveal their aims to the whole world, not to complicate their path by unnecessary declarations, and, when offering reasons for their actions, to ascribe them primarily to tactical intentions.

The Defendant Rosenberg stated, 20 June 1941, at a conference on the Eastern question—a record of which was presented by the United States Prosecution as Document Number 1058-PS—that tactics were very important and that political aims would be determined as the occasion arose, when one slogan or another could be given publicity. This particular excerpt from Rosenberg’s declaration you will find on Page 17 of the Russian text of the document, which corresponds to Page 201 in the document book.

Taking this circumstance into consideration, Your Honors, it appears of value for our investigation to refer to some statements by the fascist war criminals which refer to the period when they considered it possible to make public some of their political aims. In 1941-42 the fascist hordes broke through territories of the Soviet Union on an extensive scale and approached Moscow. Battles were waged on the banks of the Volga. The specter of a “Greater Germany” ruling the world appeared as a beacon before the eyes of the Hitlerite conspirators. It would appear that the opportunity had arrived about which Defendant Rosenberg spoke when, from the standpoint of the fascist criminals, it was possible that “certain political slogans could be made public.”

I presented to the Tribunal, under Exhibit Number USSR-58 (Document Number USSR-58), a document from the archives of the Defendant Rosenberg’s office relating to questions of German policy in the occupied regions of the Caucasus. Once again I ask you to refer to this document. I turn to Page 203 in the document book and Page 9 of the Russian text, which is the translation of this document.

Rosenberg, on 27 July 1942, solved the Eastern problem in this fashion, and I quote:

“The Eastern problem consists in bringing the Baltic peoples under the influence of German culture and in preparing widely conceived military frontiers for Germany. The Ukrainian problem consists in securing food supplies for Germany and Europe and supplies of raw materials for the Continent.

“The problem of the Caucasus is primarily a political task, and its solution means the expansion of continental Europe, under German leadership, from the Caucasian isthmus to the Near East.”

On 27 November 1941 the Defendant Ribbentrop made a report on the international situation. The text of this report was published in Number 329-A of the _Hamburger Fremdenblatt_. I present this report as Exhibit Number USSR-347 (Document Number USSR-347).

Ribbentrop said in this report:

“I should like to summarize the consequences of this defeat of Soviet Russia and of the occupation of the far greater part of European Russia in 1941, as follows:

“First, from a military point of view, England’s last ally on the Continent has thereby ceased to exist as a significant factor. Germany and Italy, with their allies, thus become unassailable in Europe. And powerful forces will be released.

“Second, in the economic field the Axis powers, together with their friends, which means the whole of Europe, have achieved independence from countries overseas. Europe has once and for all been freed from the threat of blockade. The grain and raw materials of European Russia can fully cover the needs of Europe. Its war production will serve Germany’s war economy and that of her allies, as a result of which Europe’s war potential will increase, and increase more powerfully. The organization of this gigantic area is already in full swing.

“Thus, the last two decisive prerequisites for the victory of the Axis and its allies over England have been created.”

I shall take the liberty of presenting another document on this same subject. It is Goebbels’ speech in Munich, published on 19 October 1942 in the main organ of the Nazi Party, the _Völkischer Beobachter_, South German edition. The text of this speech is presented to the Military Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-250 (Document Number USSR-250). That is on Page 205 in the document book. In his address Goebbels said:

“Over and above that, we have captured the most important grain, coal, and iron ore producing regions of the Soviet Union. What the enemy has lost we now possess. And since what the enemy lacks has come to us, it is, according to Adam Riese, of double value. While in the past we were a people without space, this is today no longer the case. Today we have only to give a shape to this space conquered by our soldiers, to organize it, and render it useful to us; and this requires a certain period of time. But if the English were to contend that we have lost the war because we have lost time, then this contention will only prove how completely they have misunderstood the entire situation. Time only works against those who have no space and no raw materials. If we make use of our time to organize the space we have conquered, then time will work not against us, but for us.”

Your Honors, that which Goebbels, the Defendants Ribbentrop, and Rosenberg said about exploiting the space captured by the soldiers, took on, at the OKW, the shape of plans for further aggression.

In this respect the following document—which I now submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-336 (Document Number USSR-336)—is of interest and I ask you to accept this as evidence. This document is a letter from the Staff of the German Navy to the commanding generals of Groups West, North, and South. This document was discovered in German archives by the Allied troops. The letter, which you will find on Page 209 in the document book, is entitled, “Objectives for the Further Conduct of War upon the Termination of the Campaign in the East.” It is numbered 1385/41 and is dated 8 August 1941.

In those days the fascist conspirators considered that victory over the Soviet Union was really only a question of time; and they, therefore, planned for further aggression. This letter which I am about to quote begins with the following words:

“The Naval Operations Staff has just received the draft about further intentions on termination of the campaign in the East.

“The following declarations describe these intentions in broad lines and are only intended for the personal information of the commanding generals and the Chiefs of Staff.”

There follows Part 2, Paragraph P, the eight subparagraphs of which detail the plans to be carried out on the termination of the campaign in the East.

I omit, Your Honors, the first two subparagraphs dealing with the tasks of the so-called pacification of the Occupied Eastern Territories and with the assignment to other fronts of troops which had become available.

Subparagraph 3 details the intentions of the fascist conspirators in North Africa. I quote:

“Strengthening of the Armed Forces in North Africa with a view to rendering possible the capture of Tobruk. In order to guarantee the passage of necessary transports according to plan, attacks by the German Air Force on Malta should be resumed.

“Provided that weather conditions cause no delay and the service of transports is assured as planned, it can be assumed that the campaign against Tobruk will begin in mid-September.”

In August 1941 the Hitlerites intended, with the aid of fascist Spain, to seize Gibraltar during the same year. Subparagraph 4 of Part 2 of the letter just submitted to you envisaged that:

“Plan Felix, that is, the seizure of Gibraltar with the active participation of Spain, must be executed in 1941.”

The Hitlerites planned the execution of an attack against Syria and Palestine in the direction of Egypt. Subparagraph 5 of the above-mentioned letter states as follows:

“If, once the termination of the campaign in the East has been made known, we succeed in bringing Turkey to our side, an attack on Syria and Palestine in the direction of Egypt is foreseen after a minimum period of 85 days for the preparation of the necessary forces and a preliminary securing of the Chersonese passes and an improvement of Anatolian transportation routes through Turkey, with German help.”

Two subparagraphs later, we find, in the same letter, in Subparagraph 8, a possible variation of this plan:

“If, even after the defeat of Soviet Russia, it would still prove impossible to bring Turkey over to our side, a southward thrust through Anatolia would have to be carried out against her will.”

Your Honors, in the plans of fascist aggression Egypt played a large part. It is mentioned in Subparagraphs 6 and 7 of Part 2 of the letter quoted. Subparagraph 6 mentions—I quote word for word:

“An attack on Egypt from Cyrenaica, after the fall of Tobruk could probably not be carried out before the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942.”

Subparagraph 7 stated:

“If the collapse of Soviet Russia creates the necessary conditions, an advance by a motorized expeditionary force through Transcaucasia, in the direction of the Persian Gulf, and in the direction of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt is envisaged.

“Because of weather conditions, this attack will only become possible at the beginning of 1942.”

This document, which I have just presented to the Tribunal, shows the turn of events intended by the fascist conspirators had the Red Army not put an end to their aggression. The fascist aggressors hoped to destroy the Soviet Union in a lightning war, to seize her wealth, to subjugate the Soviet people, and, by these means, to open for themselves the road to world domination.

Now, Your Honors, I have come to the end of my presentation. In concluding the presentation of documentary evidence regarding the aggression of the fascist conspirators against the Soviet Union, may I ask the Tribunal’s permission to sum up briefly as follows:

1. The criminal intent of attacking the U.S.S.R. for the purpose of plundering the Soviet Union and exploiting its riches for purposes of further German aggression was conceived by the fascist conspirators long before the actual launching of the attack.

2. The military preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union were conducted by the fascist criminals for at least a year and embraced not only Germany, but also satellite countries, particularly Romania, Finland, and Hungary.

3. The execution of the criminal designs of the fascist aggression consisting of the extermination of the peaceful population, the plunder of the Soviet Union, and the wresting of its territories, was planned long before the attack on the Soviet Union.

Fortunately for all freedom-loving nations in the world, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet people, and their Red Army completely overthrew all the fiendish plans of the fascist aggressors. The Red Army not only withstood and stopped the fascist aggression; but, together with the armies of its allies, brought Hitler Germany to complete catastrophe and the fascist war criminals to the dock.

I thus end my presentation, Your Honors.

COL. POKROVSKY: Your Honors, my task today is to present to you material on the “Criminal Violation of the Laws and Customs of War in the Treatment of Prisoners of War.”

Before beginning the presentation of evidence relative to the overwhelming guilt of the defendants in regard to the persons who were captured by the German Army, I consider it essential to make a few brief remarks.

As early as the end of the last century, the Hague Convention of 1899 established certain rules regulating the rights and responsibilities of belligerents in regard to prisoners of war. In pursuance of the provisions of the 1899 Convention, a number of states drew up the necessary instructions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. I would like to cite three or four sentences taken from such instructions:

“The exclusive aim of the prisonership is to prevent the further participation of prisoners in the war.

“A State may do everything necessary for the holding of prisoners, but nothing more. . . .

“Prisoners of war may be employed to perform moderate work in conformity with their social position. . . .

“In any case, such work must not be detrimental to health and must not be of a humiliating nature. It must not contribute directly to military operations against the native country of the prisoners. . . .

“Prisoners of war lose their freedom but retain their rights. In other words, military confinement is not an act of mercy on the part of the captor, but the right of disarmed persons.”

It may surprise you to learn that the instructions cited are those issued by the German General Staff in Volume 18 of the circular published in 1902. The principle of humane treatment of prisoners and wounded servicemen was further developed in the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929.

Germany’s adherence to these conventions was definitely reflected in the German law regarding wartime courts-martial. I have in mind, particularly, the German law of 17 August 1938, and, in particular, Part “e”, Articles 73 and 75, which contain direct reference to the Convention of 1929. That was at a time when Hitlerite Germany had already begun the execution of her aggressive plans.

As the Tribunal will remember, the 23rd Article of the Hague Convention of 1907 states, “. . . it is forbidden . . . to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms and possessing no means of defense, has unconditionally surrendered.”

It cannot be said that the brief code of the laws of war, which was, in fact, drawn up at The Hague and Geneva, encompassed the whole range of questions relating to the laws of war. The authors of these documents had, therefore, inserted the following proviso, and I will cite this excerpt:

“Until the opportunity presents itself of issuing a more complete code of the laws of war, the High Contracting Parties”—and I would remind the Tribunal that Germany was one of those contracting parties—“consider it appropriate to affirm that, in cases not provided for in the rules established by them, the population and the belligerents remain safeguarded by the principles of international law insofar as these principles ensue from the customs, laws of humanity, and dictates of public conscience in force between civilized nations.”

I should like to emphasize that in the appendix to the Convention on the Laws and Customs of Land War (Second Peace Conference, 1907), Article 4 of Chapter 2, concerning prisoners of war, states as follows—and you, Sir, will find the quotation on Page 4 of the document book, where it is underlined with red pencil:

“Prisoners of war remain in the custody of the enemy government and not of the individuals or troops which had captured them.

“They must be treated humanely.

“All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and military papers, will remain in their possession.”

It may, therefore, be considered definitely established that the governments of a number of states, including Germany, had unconditionally recognized their obligations to insure conditions under which prisoners of war should not suffer from arbitrary actions on the part of members of the Armed Forces of any state. The natural conclusion presents itself that in cases of violations of this obligation, the responsibility for any crime against a prisoner of war and especially for a definite system of crimes against the dignity, person, health, and life of prisoners of war, must fall on the government of the country which had signed the Convention.

In the light of the facts which I shall submit to you, on the basis of irrefutable documents, Germany’s solemn undertakings in regard to prisoners of war will appear to be nothing but unparalleled and cynical mockery of the very conception of treaties, laws, culture, and humanity.

I present to the Court, as our Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51), a note submitted by Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., dated 25 November 1941, concerning the outrageous atrocities committed by the German authorities against Soviet prisoners of war; and I quote several extracts from this note, which you will find on Page 5 of the document presented to you:

“The Soviet Government is in possession of numerous facts testifying to the systematic outrages and atrocities committed by the German authorities against Red Army soldiers and against commanders of the Red Army. Lately these facts have become particularly numerous and have positively cried to high heaven, thereby revealing once again the German war machine and the German Government as a gang of bandits who utterly ignored all codes of international law and all laws of human ethics.

“The Soviet Military Command is aware of numerous cases of the subjection of captured Red Army men, the majority of them wounded, to savage torture, ill-usage, and murder at the hands of the German Military Command and German military units. Captured Red Army men are tortured with bars of red-hot iron; their eyes are gouged out, their feet, hands, fingers, ears, and noses are hacked off, their stomachs ripped open, and they are tied to tanks and torn asunder. Enormities and shameful crimes of this sort are committed by German fascist officers and men along the whole front, wherever they may be and wherever men and commanders of the Red Army fall into their hands.

“For example, in the Ukrainian S.S.R., on the Island of Khortitsa, on the Dnieper, after the German troops were forced to retreat by the Red Army, the bodies of captured Red Army soldiers who had been tortured by the Germans were found. The prisoners’ hands had been cut off, their eyes gouged out, their stomachs ripped open. In a southwesterly direction, in the village of Repki in the Ukraine, after the Germans had retreated from the positions they had occupied, the bodies of Battalion Commander Bobrov, Political Officer Pyatigorsky, and two privates were found. Their arms and legs had been nailed to stakes, and on their bodies five-pointed stars had been cut with red-hot knives. The faces of the dead men were cut and burnt. Near these bodies was found the body of a Red Army man whom the Germans had captured the previous day. His feet were burnt and his ears were cut off. When our units captured the village of Kholmy, on the Northwestern front, the mutilated bodies of Red Army men were found. One of these had been thrown into a bonfire. This was Private Adrei Ossipov of the Kazak S.S.R. At Greigovo Station (Ukrainian S.S.R.), German units captured a small group of Red Army men and kept them without food or drink for several days. A number of the prisoners had their ears slashed off, eyes gouged out, and hands cut off, after which they had been run through with bayonets. In July of this year, at Schumilino Station, German units captured a group of severely wounded Red Army men and put them to death on the spot. In the same month, in the vicinity of the town of Borisov, (Bielorussian S.S.R.), the Hitlerites captured 70 severely wounded Red Army men and poisoned them all with arsenic. In August, near the township of Zabolotye, the Germans captured 17 severely wounded Red Army men on the battlefield. For 3 days they gave them no food. The 17 men, their wounds still bleeding, were then tied to telegraph posts, as a result of which three of them died. The remaining 14 were saved from certain death by the timely arrival of a Soviet tank unit commanded by Senior Lieutenant Rybin. In the village of Lagutino, in the vicinity of Bryansk, the Germans tied a Red Army man to two tanks and tore him to pieces. At a point west of Bryansk, not far from the Collective Farm, ‘Red October,’ 11 charred bodies of men and officers of the Red Army captured by the fascists were found. The arms and back of one of these Red Army men bore traces of torture with a red-hot iron rod.

“There are a number of cases on record where the German Command has driven captured Red Army men in front of their advancing columns, during an attack, on pain of shooting. Such cases in particular have been registered in the vicinity of the Vybor State Farm, in the Leningrad region; in the vicinity of Yelna, in the Smolensk region; in the Gomel region of the Bielorussian S.S.R.; in the Poltava region of the Ukrainian S.S.R., and in a number of other places.

“Wounded and sick Red Army men in hospitals which fell into the hands of the German invaders were also systematically subjected to outrageous indignities, torture, and savage ill-usage. On innumerable occasions defenseless sick and wounded Red Army men in hospitals have been bayonetted or shot by the fascist fiends on the spot. Thus, at Malaya Rudnya, in the Smolensk Region, fascist German units captured a Soviet field hospital and shot the wounded Red Army men, and the male and female hospital attendants. Among the victims were Privates Shalamov and Asimov and Lieutenant Dileyev, who were wounded, and Verya Boiko, a 17 year-old hospital attendant, and others.

“There have been numerous cases of the abuse and violation of woman’s honor when female hospital nurses and hospital workers fell into the hands of the Hitlerite invaders.”

There are many similar facts in the same note. Then it continues:

“Marauding is rife among the men and officers of the Hitler army. When the cold winter weather sets in, marauding assumes a mass character, the Hitlerite robbers stopping at nothing in their quest of war clothing. They not only strip warm clothes and boots from the dead bodies of Soviet soldiers; but divest wounded men of literally all their warm clothing—felt boots, boots, socks, jerseys, quilted jackets, and warm caps—leaving them stark naked. They did not even stop at taking the women’s warm clothing from killed or wounded hospital nurses.

“Red Army prisoners were starved to death; they were left without food for weeks or issued infinitesimal rations of moldy bread or rotten potatoes. Depriving the Soviet prisoners of war of food, the Hitlerites compelled them to rake the garbage cans for remnants of food which the German soldiers had thrown out or, as happened in a number of camps, including the camp at the hamlet of Malaya Korma (Bielorussian S.S.R.), they fling the carcasses of horses over the barbed wire fence to the Soviet prisoners of war. In the Vitebsk camp, in Bielorussia, the Red Army prisoners received almost no food at all for 4 months. When a group of Red Army prisoners sent to the German Command a written request for food to keep them alive, a German officer inquired as to who wrote the statement. Five Red Army men who affirmed that they had written it were shot on the spot.

“Similar cases of unbridled tyranny and brutality are to be observed in other camps, Shitkiv, Demyan, and others.

“The German authorities and the German Government have established a savage regime in the camps for Soviet prisoners of war, with the object of mass extermination of Soviet prisoners of war. The German High Command and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture have issued a regulation establishing a food ration for Soviet prisoners of war far inferior in quantity and quality to that for prisoners of war of other countries. For instance, this ration consists of 6,000 grams of bread and 400 grams of meat per month, which dooms the Soviet prisoners of war to a painful death from starvation.

“While enforcing this disgraceful and obviously unlawful regime for Soviet prisoners of war with inhuman cruelty, the German Government is doing its utmost to conceal from the public the regulation it issued on this question. Thus, in reply to an inquiry made by the Soviet Government, the Swedish Government stated that the information concerning the aforesaid regulation of the German Government published in the European and American press was correct, but that the text of this regulation had not been published and was therefore not available.”

The regulation which had not been available for the Swedish Government in the autumn of 1941 has now become available for the International Military Tribunal.

I assume that a very important circumstance is that these regulations were distributed through two channels: The High Command and the Nazi Party. In such a way, the extermination by starvation of the Soviet prisoners of war captured by the Germans had been planned and carried out both by the German High Command and by the Nazi Party.

I present to the Court these documents which were not available some time ago, as a heavy load on the scale of the Prosecution. On Page 17, Your Honors, you will find the document which has been cited by me. It bears the Document Number D-225 (Exhibit Number USSR-349):

“High Command of the Army, Army Equipment and the Commander-in-Chief of the Replacement Training Army.

“Berlin, 6 August 1941.

“Subject: Food ration of Soviet prisoners of war.

“The Soviet Union did not subscribe to the agreement of 27 July 1929, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. Consequently we are not obliged to supply Soviet prisoners of war with food corresponding in quantity or quality to the requirements of this regulation. Taking the general food situation into consideration, the following rations for Soviet prisoners of war were established, which rations were considered adequate according to medical findings:

“The ration in the camps for the prisoners of war (not employed on essential work) amounted to:

“1. Bread, 6 kilograms; meat, 400 grams; fat, 440 grams; sugar, 600 grams, for 28 days.

“2. For prisoners doing special work: Bread, 9 kilograms; meat, 600 grams; fat, 520 grams; sugar, 900 grams, for 28 days.”

A similar regulation, headed, “Food Ration for Soviet Prisoners of War,” was sent as secret information by the Chancellery of the Nazi Party on 17 December 1941. I shall quote only one sentence from that Party directive, which you will find on Page 18 of the document book:

“An open discussion of the question regarding the food supply of the prisoners of war either orally or in writing is forbidden because of the possibility of enemy propaganda.”

Furthermore, the authors of the document emphasize that there is no danger of any substantial deterioration of the food supply of “our German people.” I consider that the hint is sufficiently clear. The document was distributed to the High Command of the Army, to the commands of corps areas, to the military authorities in Bohemia and Moravia, and to military commissioners in a number of cities.

The fascist conspirators established particularly low rations for men of the Red Army. On the basis of their own estimates the monthly ration for Soviet prisoners of war was 42 percent in regard to fats, 66 percent in regard to sugar and bread and 0 percent in regard to meat, as compared with the amount of food provided for prisoners of war from other armies fighting against Germany. Moreover, there was a special note in the directive itself. You will find the special note on Page 19 of the document book:

“If the ration for non-Soviet prisoners of war is reduced, the ration for Soviet prisoners of war must be lowered accordingly.”

But even these starvation rations, which could not sustain the life of an adult person, more often than not existed only on paper.

I present another document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-177 (Document Number USSR-177). . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I do not think it matters very much, but when you said “0 percent” in regard to meat, when you were dealing with the percentage, was that correct? Because in setting out the amount of food which they were allowed, or were supposed to be allowed, there was 400 grams of meat for ordinary men and 600 grams of meat for other men doing special work, and I do not see how 400 grams can be 0 percent of the ration allowed to other non-Soviet prisoners.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right, Sir. I have the same figures here, but there is no contradiction here at all. I am reporting to the Tribunal now that there were several directives, and the first one appears to be the best for the Soviet prisoners of war. It states that 400 grams of meat was the ration. The next directive, which established the percentage of food supply for the Soviet prisoners of war and others, shows 0 percent. As far as I understand it, if there was not meat for all of the prisoners of war, the Soviet prisoners would not receive any meat at all.

THE PRESIDENT: I see. Then you say that the words “on the basis of their own estimates” are referring to some estimates other than the estimate which you give. It does not matter about that, but I understand you to say that there are other estimates which show they did not give them anything. Please proceed.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right, Sir.

I present to the Tribunal one more document dealing with the same question. That is Exhibit Number USSR-177. You will find it on Page 21 of your document book. This is a record of a conference of the Reich Ministry of Food (REM) under the direction of State Secretary Backe and Ministerial Director Moritz. The document is dated 24 November 1941, 1630 hours. Among those who took part in the conference were representatives of various departments, in particular General Reinecke—probably the Tribunal will remember that it was Reinecke who headed that particular phase of the work dealing with the prisoners of war—and Ministerial Director Mansfeld. The subject under discussion was the supply of food to Russian prisoners of war and civilian workers. I quote—Page 21 of your document book:

“1. Types of food.

“Attempts to produce a special Russian bread have proved that a useful mixture consists of 50 percent rye bran, 20 percent residue of sugar beet, 20 percent cellulose flour and 10 percent flour made of straw or leaves.

“Meat not usually employed for human consumption can never sufficiently satisfy a demand for meat. Russians must, therefore, be fed entirely on horse flesh and on the meat of animals which had not been adequately slaughtered and which, at present, is issued in double quantities on the ration cards.

“With the present technique of fat production, inferior fats no longer exist; the Russian will, therefore, receive good edible fats.”

These derisive words can scarcely pass unnoticed. Russian prisoners of war, who had been receiving “meat not usually employed for human consumption,” were now receiving on their starvation rations only “meat which is today issued in double quantities on ration cards”; and instead of fats they were to get certain substances which can only be used for food because of “the present technique of the fat production.” And these products are called “good edible fats.”

The second part of the document is entitled “Rations.” I quote; the part being cited by me is on Pages 21 and 22 in your document book:

“Since there is a great discrepancy among the estimates of the present experts of the Health Administration, the Reich Office of Public Health, and the Army Medical Inspectorate as to the necessary caloric requirements, a final decision concerning the ration will be made in the course of the week by a smaller circle of experts. Seven days of flour soup as a transition diet and cancellation of the words ‘without work’ are from now on decreed for such Russians as are at present in German camps.

“III. The number of Russians whom the Reich Ministry of Supply can supply with food.”

I should note here that this sentence means, “The number of Russians whom the Reich Ministry of Food (REM) can provide has now been established.”

“State Secretary Backe was noncommittal in answer to persistent questioning by General Reinecke and Ministerial Director Mansfeld.”

It seems to me useful to point out that there is on the document a note in pencil to the effect that:

“It is requested to follow up the matter of the rations because State Secretary Backe is, apparently, beginning to lose his nerve.”

The signature is illegible.

It seems to me that this note vividly discloses the arguments that were going on over establishing a norm. Not by accident does it speak here of the wide discrepancy in the estimates concerning necessary caloric requirements of the experts of the Reich Health Administration and the Army Medical Inspectorate. As the Tribunal will remember, the witness Blaha testified in reply to my questions that almost all prisoners of war who died of starvation in the Dachau Camp were men of the Red Army. I shall submit evidence showing that the Dachau Camp was not an exception in that respect.

On 27 April 1942 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. was forced to submit a new note. I present this note in our exhibit under Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). You will find the place I am referring to on Page 13 in your document book where it is marked in red pencil for your convenience. I quote:

“The Soviet Government now has at its disposal many hundreds of new documents confirming the bloody crimes committed against Soviet prisoners of war, dealt with in the note of the Government of the U.S.S.R. dated 25 November 1941.

“It has been incontrovertibly established that the German Command, desiring to take revenge for the defeats inflicted on its army in the last few months, has everywhere introduced the practice of physical extermination of Soviet prisoners of war.

“Along the entire length of the front, from the Arctic to the Black Sea, bodies of slain Soviet war prisoners and tortured war prisoners have been discovered. In almost every case these corpses bear traces of the horrible torture which precedes murder. In dugouts from which Red Army troops have driven the Germans, in fortifications, and also in populated centers, bodies of Soviet prisoners are found who have been murdered after savage torture. Facts like the following, recorded in affidavits signed by eye-witnesses, are being uncovered with increasing frequency.

“On 2 and 6 March 1942, on the Crimean front, in the Lilly region at 66.3, village of Jantora, the bodies of nine Red Army men who had been taken prisoner were found so brutally tortured by the fascists that only two of the corpses could be identified. The nails had been drawn from the fingers of the tortured prisoners of war, their eyes had been gouged out and the right breast of one corpse had been completely cut out; there were traces of torture by fire, numerous knife wounds, and broken jaws.

“In Theodosia scores of bodies of tortured Azerbaijanian Red Army men were found. Among them were Ismail-Zadch Jafarov, whose eyes had been gouged out and ears slashed off by the Hitlerites; Kuli-Zadch Alibekov, whose arms had been dislocated by the Hitlerites, after which he had been bayonetted; Corporal Ali Ogly Islom-Mahmed, whose stomach had been ripped open by the Hitlerites; Mustafa Ogly Asherov, who had been bound to a post with wire and died of his wounds in this position.”

And then, in the same note, is cited:

“In the village of Krasnaperovo, (Smolensk region) attacking units of the Red Army found 29 dead and two naked bodies of captured Red Army men and officers, none of whom had a single bullet wound. All the prisoners had been knifed to death. In the same district, in the village of Babaevo, the Hitlerites placed 58 captive Red Army men and two women ambulance workers in a haystack and then set fire to the hay. When the people who had been doomed to death attempted to escape from the flames, the Germans shot them.

“In the village of Kuleshovka, the Germans captured 16 severely wounded men and officers, stripped the prisoners, tore the dressings from their wounds, tormented them with hunger, stabbed them with bayonets, broke their arms, tore open their wounds, and subjected them to other tortures, after which those who were still alive were locked up in a house, which was then set on fire.

“In the village of Strenevo of the Kalinin region, the Germans locked 50 wounded captive Red Army men in a school building and burnt them to death.

“In the town of Volokolamsk the invaders forbade Red Army men who had been locked on the fifth floor of house Number 3/6 Proleterskaja Street to leave the house when a fire broke out. Those who attempted to leave or to jump from the windows were shot. Sixty prisoners perished in the flames or were killed by bullets.

“In the village of Popovka (Tula region), the Germans drove 140 captive Red Army men into a barn and set fire to it. Ninety five perished in the flames. Six kilometers from Pegostye Station, in the Leningrad region, the Germans, in the course of their retreat, under pressure of the Red Army troops, used explosive bullets to kill over 150 Soviet war prisoners after frightful beatings and savage torture. On most of the bodies the ears had been slashed off, the eyes gouged out, and the fingers chopped off, while several had had one or both hands hacked off and their tongues torn out. Stars had been cut out on the backs of three Red Army men. Not long before the liberation of the town of Kondrovo, Smolensk region, by units of the Red Army in December 1941, the Germans executed over 200 Red Army prisoners of war whom they had taken through the city, naked and barefoot, to the outskirts, shooting on the spot those who were exhausted and unable to walk any further, as well as those local citizens who gave them bread on their way through the city.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

COL. POKROVSKY: In their desire to exterminate as many Soviet prisoners of war as possible, the Nazi conspirators excelled themselves by inventing newer and ever newer methods of extermination. The note states:

“Of late a number of new cases have been established in which the German Command made use of Soviet war prisoners for clearing mine fields and for other hazardous work. Thus, in the district of the villages of Bolshaja and Malaja Vloya, for 4 days the Germans drove scores of prisoners lined up in close ranks, back and forth over a mine field. Every day several prisoners were blown to pieces by mines. Provision is made for this method of killing prisoners in the orders of the German Command. Order Number 109 to the 203rd Infantry Regiment states:

“‘General Field Marshal Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, has ordered that apart from military operations, the search for mines and the clearing of mine fields be done by Russian prisoners, with a view to sparing German blood. This also refers to German mines.’”

The marauding mentioned in the previous note is regarded not only as something possible, but is proclaimed as obligatory to all the soldiers of the German Army. The People’s Commissar refers to the following documents issued by the German Command, in stressing the fact that this marauding, done in wintertime, doomed the Red Army men to freeze to death:

“An order of the Staff of the 88th Regiment of the 34th German Infantry Division, headed ‘Situation with Respect to Clothing,’ imposed: ‘Boots should be removed from Russian prisoners of war without hesitation.’

“That this order is not an accidental one is seen from the fact that even before the perfidious attack on the U.S.S.R., the German Command provided for recourse to this system of supplying its troops.

“Among the documents of the 234th Infantry Regiment of the 56th Division, a circular was found numbered 121/4 and dated 6 June 1941, bearing the heading, ‘On the Principles of Supply in the Eastern Areas.’ This circular states on Page 8:

“‘You must not count on being furnished clothing. Therefore it is particularly important to remove serviceable boots from prisoners of war and to make immediate use of all suitable clothing, underwear, socks, et cetera.’”

The note points out:

“The Germans, with a view to exterminating Soviet prisoners of war, deprived them of food, condemned them to slow starvation and in some cases used a bad quality food. Soviet authorities have in their possession Order Number 202 of the Staff of the above mentioned 88th Regiment, which states:

“‘Carcasses of horses will serve as food for Russian prisoners of war. Such points where carcasses of horses have been dumped are designated by signs. They can be found along the highways in Malo-Yaroslavets and in the villages of Romanovo and Beloussovo.’

“Order Number 166/41 to the 60th Motorized Infantry Division is quite outspoken in demanding the mass murder of Soviet prisoners of war. This order states:

“‘Russian soldiers and noncommissioned officers are extremely courageous in battle. Even small isolated units are always ready to attack. Therefore no humane attitude towards the prisoners is permissible. The destruction of the enemy by fire or by cold steel must be continued until he is rendered completely harmless. . . .’

“The regulations issued by the German Command on the treatment of Soviet war prisoners, under Number 1/3058, contain the following instructions:

“‘At the slightest sign of insubordination energetic and direct action must be taken. Arms must be used ruthlessly. Bludgeons, canes, and whips must not be used. Leniency, even towards obedient and hard-working prisoners only indicates weakness and must not be indulged in.’”—from Point 2.

“‘At work the distance to the prisoner must always be such as to permit of immediate recourse to arms.’”—from Point 3.

“All this proved to be insufficient. The Order of the High Command of the German Army, dated 14 January 1942 and issued in the name of Hitler as Commander-in-Chief, states”—Paragraph 2:

“‘All clemency or humaneness towards prisoners of war is strictly condemned. A German soldier must always make his prisoner feel his superiority. . . . Every delay in resorting to arms against a war prisoner harbors danger. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army hopes that these directions will be fully carried out.’

“The Soviet Government continues to receive reliable information on the condition of captive Red Army men in the German-occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. as well as in the German rear, and in the German-occupied European countries. This information testifies to the further deterioration of the regime instituted for captive Red Army men, and that they are particularly bad off in comparison with the war prisoners of other countries. It further testifies to the mass dying of Soviet prisoners of war from starvation and illness, from foul indignities and bloody cruelty systematically applied to the Red Army men by the Hitlerite authorities who have long since violated the most elementary requirements of international law and human ethics.”

The note specially stresses the fact that the inhuman atrocities and the cruelty perpetrated by the German fascist gangsters against the Soviet war prisoners exceed the atrocities of Genghis Dhenghis-Khan, Baty, and Mamay.

In spite of that the note, which you will find on Page 14 of the document book, states:

“. . . In spite of all that, the Soviet Government, true to the principles of humanity and respect for its international obligations, has no intention, even in the given circumstances, of applying retaliatory repressive measures against German prisoners of war, and continues, as heretofore, to observe the obligations undertaken by the Soviet Union with regard to the regime for war prisoners specified by the Hague Convention of 1907, which was likewise signed but so perfidiously violated in every one of its points by Germany.”

Later I shall quote a document written by a group of German prisoners of war. The authors of the document, on one hand, by a series of new facts, have added to the number of atrocities committed by the conspirators against the Soviet war prisoners; and on the other hand, they have confirmed that the Soviet Command is true to the principle of humanity in its attitude towards the German captives.

The military victory of the democratic powers opened the innermost secrets of Hitler’s archives. Along with a large number of documents that raise the curtain on the criminal plans of the conspirators, we have also obtained a wide opportunity of interrogating living witnesses. A whole series of questions become finally clear as, and when, the witnesses’ depositions are being cross-checked with the documentary archives. Much new evidence has also been received by us on the subject of the crimes against the prisoners of war.

Some information with regard to the criminal Hitlerite practice of exterminating the Soviet prisoners of war appeared as of 27 April 1942, in the official communication of V. M. Molotov, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R.

I shall here prove that this crime was part of the general conspiracy and was planned in advance of the aggressive war against the Soviet Union. The Tribunal will see that the regime for war prisoners was really the sum total of diverse methods for their extermination. Let us turn to the testimony of the witnesses.

The former Chief of Staff of the OKH, Franz Halder, interrogated on 31 October 1945, testified—I submit to the Tribunal an excerpt from this document, Exhibit Number USSR-341 (Document Number USSR-341):

“Witness: ‘Prior to the attack on Russia, the Führer called a conference of all the commanders and persons connected with the Supreme Command on the question of the forthcoming attack on Russia. I cannot recall the exact date of this conference. I no longer know whether it took place before or after the invasion of Yugoslavia. At this conference the Führer stated that the methods used in the war against the Russians will have to be different from those used in the war against the West.’”

I beg your pardon, I have forgotten to tell you that the place which I quoted from was on Page 24 of your document book.

“Investigating Officer: ‘What else did he say?’

“Witness: ‘He said that the struggle between Russia and Germany is a Russian struggle. He stated that since the Russians were not signatories to the Hague Convention, the treatment of their prisoners of war does not have to follow the articles of the Convention.’”

DR. NELTE: Your Honor, Generaloberst Halder is in the military prison here at Nuremberg, and he is a very important witness not only to the testimony at hand but also in general. And I believe, according to our principles, which have been formulated by the High Tribunal in connection with Article 21 of the Charter, it might be important to hear this witness personally rather than use written testimony; and I ask the Tribunal to decide this question.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, did you wish to make any answer to Dr. Nelte’s request?

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will submit to him my consideration in this case.

The testimony of Halder is of importance to us in one respect only, namely, that he states the fact of a special conference called by Hitler before the war; a conference at which the question of the treatment of Russian prisoners of war attracted particular attention. This fact also finds confirmation in other testimonies which were submitted by us to this Tribunal; and, therefore, I think that there is no reason and no need for examining this witness, since this interrogation may cause further delay as it will refer to this question only and the German Defense Counsel may ask unnecessary questions. In case the German Defense Counsel would consider it advisable to request the Tribunal to bring witness Halder here for cross-examination, it should be proper for the Defense to submit to the Tribunal, in accordance with established procedure, an application and explain for what reason it wants to cross-examine Witness Halder. The Tribunal would then have occasion to discuss this application and to grant it should they deem it proper to do so.

That is all I wanted to point out concerning this question.

[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that if the interrogation of General Halder is to be used, and it has been used, that General Halder must be brought for cross-examination, provided it is true that he is in Nuremberg.

When a witness is called he is liable to cross-examination and the only reason for allowing interrogations to be used is on account of the difficulty of bringing witnesses to Nuremberg. Therefore, if an interrogation is allowed to be used and the witness is in Nuremberg, the witness must be produced for cross-examination. I mean, of course, at a time which is convenient to Counsel.

Colonel Pokrovsky, if this witness, General Halder, is in Nuremberg, you will have him brought here at a time which is convenient to you during the presentation of your case.

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Court, we will finally find out where Halder is at the present time and, if he is really in Nuremberg, he will be produced as a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. POKROVSKY: We must here note a common fascist lie. Hitler was intentionally misrepresenting facts. That the Soviet Union had pledged to follow the statutes of the Hague Convention is generally known. Even the criminal code of the Soviet Union provides for the defense of the rights of prisoners of war, in accordance with international law, and those guilty of violations are considered criminally responsible. The note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R., Mr. V. M. Molotov, on 27 April 1942, once again mentions the obligations of the Hague Convention which the Soviet Union had pledged to follow. To that note I have already referred.

Continuing, I shall again quote from Halder’s deposition concerning Hitler’s speech. You will find it on Page 24:

“Furthermore, he”—Hitler—“said that in view of the political level of the Russian troops”—at this point several dots follow in the original—“to be brief—he said that the so-called commissars should not be considered prisoners of war.”

It is impossible not to remark here that, owing to the superior political consciousness of the Red Army soldiers, the Hitlerites saw a commissar or a communist in almost every prisoner of war. Then there is recorded the following question of the investigating officer and the reply to it:

“Investigating Officer: ‘Did the Führer say anything about an order which should be issued on the subject?’

“Witness: ‘What I have just said was his order. He said that he wanted it carried out even if no written order followed.’”

After Halder’s deposition, in the document book on your table, there is an extract from the deposition of the former Deputy Chief of the Operations Section of OKW headquarters, General Warlimont, dated 12 November 1945. He was testifying on oath before Lieutenant Colonel Hinkel of the American Army. This document is the result of work accomplished by our American colleagues. The American Prosecution has kindly placed this document at our disposal, which we in turn submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-263(a) (Document Number USSR-263(a)). I think the Defense Counsel wishes to submit another request to the Tribunal. I therefore cede my place.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President! Regarding General Warlimont, we have the same reasons which I just mentioned regarding Generaloberst Halder. General Warlimont is also present in Nuremberg and is at your disposal for examination in the court. Concerning the importance. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to request now?

DR. NELTE: My application consists in the request to disallow the use of the document which the Soviet Prosecutor has just wished to read out loud, and to direct that the witness, Warlimont, now present in Nuremberg, be called as a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has just ruled that the interrogation of General Halder may be used, but if it is used—and it is being used—he must be submitted for cross-examination by counsel for the defendants. What more do you want?

DR. NELTE: I am not speaking about Generaloberst Halder but about General Warlimont.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had already ruled upon General Warlimont; that he had to be called—that is, only yesterday or the day before.

DR. NELTE: I believe that this ruling has escaped the memory of the Soviet Prosecutor, otherwise he would not be reading this document out loud but would be introducing General Warlimont to the Court in person.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the ruling of the Tribunal was that the Prosecutor should be entitled to use the interrogation, but if he did so, he must submit the witness for cross-examination. Therefore, the Soviet Prosecutor is entitled to read the interrogation and General Warlimont will then be produced for the purpose of cross-examination.

DR. NELTE: Is he obliged to do this or may he use his own discretion?

THE PRESIDENT: I suppose he might use his own discretion and call the witness if he wanted to and not put in the interrogation.

You see, Dr. Nelte, the position of the Tribunal is this. If the prosecuting counsel chooses to call the witness and not to use the interrogation, of course, he calls the witness, examines the witness, and the witness is liable to cross-examination by Defense Counsel. If, on the other hand, the prosecuting counsel wishes to use the interrogation, which he already has, he can do so; but if the witness is available in or near Nuremberg, he must still be produced for cross-examination.

The discretion which Counsel for the Prosecution has is as to whether they use an interrogation which they already have or call the witness. But in either case, the witness, if he is here, must be produced for cross-examination.

DR. NELTE: The witnesses, Generaloberst Halder and General Warlimont, are both in Nuremberg and at our disposal. I merely wish to know whether the date when he is to be presented depends on the discretion of the Chief Prosecutor. We are interested in the possibility of holding the cross-examination when the Prosecution has read out the written statement.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought that was a matter you might settle with the prosecuting counsel as to whether you wish to cross-examine him directly after the interrogation has been presented or after a short delay. If I were to say that he is to be cross-examined immediately after the interrogation has been put in probably Defense Counsel would say he wanted time to consider the interrogation. But you can surely settle that with Colonel Pokrovsky.

DR. NELTE: Then I will deal with Colonel Pokrovsky on this matter. Thank you.

COL. POKROVSKY: I take the liberty of starting from the point where I broke off. We now present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-263(a), consisting of the minutes of the interrogation, under oath, of the witness, Warlimont, given to Lieutenant Colonel Hinkel of the American Army. I do not intend to read this document into the record in full. Warlimont, in many cases, repeats Halder. The important thing is that he confirms two facts in their entirety:

(1) That it was Hitler who conducted the meeting of which we were informed by Halder’s testimony. (2) That, even before the war, Hitler had issued a directive to shoot prisoners of war; pointing out that special units were to be created for this purpose and that the SD would follow the Army.

Warlimont further testified—I quote, and Your Honors will find the excerpt which I quote on Page 26:

“He”—that is Hitler—“further said that he did not expect the officer corps to understand his orders, but he demanded that they obey his orders unconditionally.”

We have some more testimonies, those of Lieutenant General of the German Army, Kurt von Österreich. He was the former Commander of the Prisoner of War Section of the Danzig Military District. He personally handed his testimonies to the representatives of the Red Army on 29 December 1945. His testimonies, registered as Exhibit Number USSR-151 (Document Number USSR-151), are contained in your document book. I shall read certain excerpts into the record:

“I began my work as Commander of the Prisoner of War Section at the headquarters of Military District XX (Danzig) on 1 February 1941.

“Prior to that I was the commanding officer of the 207th Infantry Division, located in France.

“It was towards March 1941 that I was summoned to Berlin to attend a secret meeting at the headquarters of the OKW. This conference was conducted by Lieutenant General Reinecke, then Chief of Headquarters’ Prisoner of War Section.

“Over 20 chiefs of the district prisoner of war sections from various regions attended this conference, as well as several staff officers of the headquarters. I cannot, at present, remember the names of these officers.

“General Reinecke told us, as a great secret, that a tentative invasion of the Soviet territory had been planned for the beginning of summer 1941 and that in this connection the OKW had elaborated essential measures, including the preparation of camps for Russian prisoners of war expected after the beginning of operations on the Eastern front.”

I omit 3 paragraphs and shall go on to several details of greater importance:

“On this occasion he ordered us to construct open air camps surrounded only by barbed wire in such cases where there would be no time to construct roofed-in barracks for the Russian prisoners.

“Moreover, Reinecke gave us instructions as to the treatment of Russian prisoners of war, directing us to shoot without any warning those prisoners who might attempt to escape.”

In my opinion, the next two long paragraphs can be omitted in order to save time.

“After some time”—I pass on to Page 28 of your document book—“I received a directive from the headquarters of the OKW confirming Reinecke’s instructions to shoot without any warning all Russian prisoners attempting to escape. I do not now remember who signed this directive.”

The witness further testifies how he was called, either towards the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 to a conference in Berlin of the military district chiefs on prisoner-of-war affairs. The conference was conducted by Major General Von Graevenitz. The question under discussion was what to do with those Russian prisoners of war who were unable to work as the result of wounds or exhaustion. I think it might be useful to quote a few lines. They are on Page 29 in your document book:

“On the proposal of General Von Graevenitz this question was discussed by several officers present, including doctors, who stated that such prisoners of war unable to work should be concentrated in one place—either in camp or in hospital—and killed by poisoning. As a result of this discussion General Von Graevenitz ordered us to murder war prisoners incapable of work, using for this purpose the camp medical personnel.”

The witness asserts that when he arrived on duty in the Ukraine in the summer of 1942, he learned there, as he says—you will find these two lines on Page 29, “A method of murdering Russian prisoners of war by poisoning is already adopted there.”

The witness quotes actual figures, actual facts connected with this crime. I think it important to note a reference to this fact quoted on the fourth page of the Russian text, third paragraph from the top, on Page 29 of your document book:

“When I was in the Ukraine I received from headquarters a top-secret order signed by Himmler, directing that, as from August 1942, Russian war prisoners must be branded with a special mark.

“Russian war prisoners were kept in concentration camps under severe conditions, were poorly fed, subjected to moral outrages, and died of hunger and disease.”

Österreich names facts which confirm this testimony. The following episode is revealingly characteristic. I quote the second paragraph of the fifth page; it is on Page 31 in your document book:

“In the beginning of 1942 when an echelon of Russian war prisoners was being moved from the Ukraine to the city of Torun, approximately 75 people died there, the corpses of whom were not taken away but left in the railway car together with the living. . . . About 100 prisoners of war who could not bear these conditions and tried to escape were shot.”

These and similar cases are known to the witness. He enumerates them, but I do not think it is necessary to cite all of them to the Tribunal. They are all alike.

THE PRESIDENT: Please, proceed.

COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you. I thought the members of the Tribunal were deliberating. I, therefore, interrupted my report. Thank you.

Österreich also speaks about directives which provide for the shooting of all political commissars of the Red Army, Communists, and Jews. Such an arrangement practically opened the way for the extermination of any Soviet prisoner of war under the pretext that he was suspected of belonging to the Communist Party or if he looked like a Jew.

In rounding up General Österreich’s testimony it is necessary to quote a sentence mentioned, as I believe, by the Commander-in-Chief, General Field Marshal Von Reichenau, in “The Conduct of the Army in the East.” I submit this document to the Tribunal as our Exhibit Number USSR-12 (Document Number USSR-12). This quotation is on Page 33 in your document book, “Supplying the civilian population and the prisoners of war with food is a misunderstood humanitarian act as well as . . .” I submit to the Military Tribunal this despicable directive of Hitler’s Field Marshal and request it be accepted as evidence. This document is registered under Number USSR-12.

Three of Hitler’s high-ranking officers confirmed that even at the beginning of the war, at a special conference. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us if this order was issued by Field Marshal Von Reichenau? By the general himself?

COL. POKROVSKY: The order is signed by General Field Marshal Von Reichenau.

THE PRESIDENT: Was it captured or what?

COL. POKROVSKY: This document was one of the trophies captured by the Russian Army.

THE PRESIDENT: By the Russian Army?

COL. POKROVSKY: By the Russian Army.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

COL. POKROVSKY: Three of Hitler’s high-ranking officers have confirmed that already at the beginning of the war the question of exterminating Soviet prisoners of war was settled during a special conference. They—the witnesses—differ slightly in detail, but the fact itself has been quite definitely established. The sentence which I quoted from the directive of Field Marshal Reichenau also confirms that even the supply of food to the soldiers of the Red Army taken prisoner by the Germans was considered as “unnecessary humanity.”

It is useful perhaps to submit to you Document Number 884-PS (Exhibit USSR-351). It bears the signature of Warlimont and a postscript by the Defendant Jodl. The document was drawn up at the Führer’s headquarters on 12 May 1941. It said, “OKH had submitted the draft of a directive dealing with the treatment of responsible political workers and similar persons.” You have this quotation on Page 35 in the document book, as well as the two following excerpts which I am going to quote.

The draft foresaw the “removal” of persons of this category. The decision whether a prisoner of war falls into the group “to be removed” is up to the officer. The document states; “By an officer with authority to impose punishment for breach of discipline.” Thus, any junior officer was endowed with powers of life and death over any captured Red Army soldier, regardless of his rank or service. Paragraph 3 of this document states:

“Political commissars of the army are not recognized as prisoners of war and are to be liquidated, at the latest, in the transient prisoner-of-war camps. No evacuation to the rear areas.”

The Defendant Jodl added the, for him, characteristic postscript—you will find it on Page 37 of the document book:

“We must reckon with possible reprisals against German airmen. It would, therefore, be better to consider all these measures in the nature of reprisals.”

General Österreich’s testimony concerning the existence of the order to brand Soviet prisoners of war is fully confirmed. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-15 (Document Number USSR-15), Order Number 14-802/42, given by the Chief of Gendarmerie of the Vice Governor in the Region of Styria. It is stated in the order that it is a question of disclosing the order of the Chief of Police. The first paragraph of the order of the chief of the regular police states—the paragraph quoted is on Page 38 of the document book:

“1. Soviet prisoners of war are to be branded with a special and lasting mark.

“2. The brand is to consist of an acute angle of about 45 degrees with a 1-centimeter length of side, pointing downwards on the left buttock, at about a hand’s width from the rectum. This brand is to be made with the lancets available in all military units. Indian ink is to be used as coloring matter.”

The third paragraph underlines that, “Branding is not a sanitary precaution.”

It is stated in Paragraph 5 that, together with all Soviet prisoners of war now entering the regions of the Baltic States, the Ukraine, and the province of the Governor General commanded by the German Armed Forces, all the remaining prisoners of war in the area of the Supreme Army Command (OKW) up to September 1942 are to be subjected to branding.

The same directive was issued to the presidents of the regional labor offices and the Reich Inspectors for Allocation of Labor. In this Document Number 1191-PS, Page 40 of the document book, it is stated that the order of the OKW, dated 10 July 1942, was brought to the attention of the presidents of regional labor offices and to the Reich Inspectors for Allocation of Labor.

Our documents numbered USSR-121, 122, and 123 are excerpts taken from orders issued by the German military authorities, such as regimental and divisional commanders, and confirm that the prisoners of war, in order to “spare German blood,” were forced to clear mine fields and carry on work which endangered their lives. Order Number 16641 of the 60th German Infantry Division states, in explanation of the bestial treatment of the Soviet warriors:

“Russian soldiers and noncommissioned officers are very brave in battle. Even a small isolated unit will always attack. In this connection a humane attitude towards the prisoners is not permissible.”

This quotation is on Page 44 in the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: We have had that already, have we not, or an almost identical one?

COL. POKROVSKY: You are right, Sir, I quoted this excerpt as a part of the note of the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Molotov; and now I quote it as part of a special German document. I consider that it is an unprecedented event in history when, instead of respecting an enemy for his military valor, the senior officers of Hitler’s army, in reply to such military valor, ordered their subordinates to treat this same enemy ruthlessly and inhumanly.

In the document submitted to you as Number 3257-PS (Exhibit Number USSR-352), there is a sentence directly relating to my theme. It has been read into the record. Document 3257-PS is a secret report of the Armament Inspector in the Ukraine, dated 2 December 1941, and addressed to the Chief of Armament Section of the OKW. It states—the excerpt quoted is at the end of Page 45 and the beginning of Page 46 of your document book:

“Living conditions, food, clothing conditions, and the health of the prisoners of war are bad; mortality is very high. We may reckon on the fact that during this winter people will perish at the rate of tens and even hundreds of thousands.”

I submit a document under Document Number D-339 (Exhibit USSR-350). The chief camp and factory physician, Jäger, having inspected the camp in Naeggerath Street, informed the medical department of the Central Administration of Camps, in a top-secret medical report on 2 September 1944—you will find the excerpt quoted on Page 47 of your document book—as follows:

“The prisoner-of-war camp in Naeggerath Street is in an atrocious condition. The men live in dustbins, in kennels, in ovens no longer used, and in huts made by themselves. Food is barely sufficient. Krupp is responsible for shelter and the food supply. Medicine and bandages were so scarce that in many cases medical treatment was completely impossible. The blame for this appalling state of affairs rests on the permanent camp.”

In the files of the Defendant Rosenberg was found, among other documents, one numbered Document 081-PS (Exhibit USSR-353). As far as we can understand, it is a letter from Rosenberg to Keitel, dated 28 February 1942, on the subject of the prisoners of war. A copy found in Rosenberg’s files is unsigned, but there is no doubt that such a letter was either addressed to Keitel or prepared for dispatch to the chief of the Armed Forces. The letter states that the fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is a tragedy on an enormous scale.

I will now read into the record the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of the Russian text—you will find it on Page 48 of the document book:

“Out of 3,600,000. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I think the United States read this letter, did they not?

COL. POKROVSKY: The document has been partially read, but I would ask permission to read part of a short excerpt a second time, since it is of importance to my further report. It will, quite literally, only take a minute and a half of our time.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we have been preventing other prosecuting counsel from reading documents which have already been read and we are directed by the Charter to conduct an expeditious trial; and I do not really see how it can be expeditious if documents are read more than once.

COL. POKROVSKY: This document, which is already known to the Tribunal, presents a very clear picture of what happened in the camp. The author of this letter states that attempts had been made by the population to supply the prisoners with food but that in most cases the attempts were foiled by the energetic opposition of the camp commanders.

There is no reason to suspect the author of that letter of piling on the agony, or of having any liking for the Soviet people. On the contrary, there is every reason to state that the question has not yet been fully elucidated. This document, addressed by one defendant to another, enables us to imagine the acts that took place in the camps for Soviet prisoners of war.

I began by presenting to you documents of German origin, and this with a definite aim in view. After you have been informed of the attitude of the Hitlerites themselves towards the Soviet prisoners of war and as soon as you have learned however briefly, what the camps for the Soviet prisoners looked like from the words of the Hitlerites themselves, it will be easier for you to estimate the probative value of the documents of non-German origin.

I stop, because it seems to me the Tribunal wants to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be a convenient time to adjourn.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel, the Tribunal proposes to adjourn at half past four this afternoon, as they have some administrative work to do.

COL. POKROVSKY: I return to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the investigation of atrocities committed by the German fascist invaders in Smolensk and in the region of Smolensk. The greater part of this report is dedicated to the mass annihilation of prisoners of war by the Germans. I should like to read into the Record excerpts from this document, submitted to you as Exhibit Number USSR-56 (Document Number USSR-56), Page 6, Paragraph 4 from the top; you will find it on Page 58 of our document book. It reads as follows:

“The German fascist invaders systematically exterminated the wounded and captured Soviet citizens. Physicians A. N. Smirnov, A. N. Glasunov, A. M. Demidov, A. S. Pogrebnov, and others, formerly interned in the war prisoners’ camp, stated that on the road from Vyasma to Smolensk the Hitlerites shot several thousand people.

“In the autumn of 1941 the German occupational forces drove a party of prisoners of war from Vyasma to Smolensk. Many of the prisoners were unable to stand, as a result of continuous beating and exhaustion. Whenever the citizens attempted to give any of the prisoners a piece of bread, the German soldiers drove the Soviet citizens off, beat them with sticks and rifle butts, and fatally shot them. On the Bolshaya Sovetskaya Street, on the Roslavskoye and Kievskoye high roads, the fascist blackguards opened a disorderly fire on a column of prisoners of war. The prisoners attempted to escape, but the soldiers overtook and shot them. In that way nearly 5,000 Soviet people were fatally shot. The corpses were left lying about the streets for several days.”

It is not difficult to see that this extract fully coincides with the statement in Document Number 081-PS, which has already been read into the Record, the contents of which I once before related to the Tribunal very briefly and in my own words.

We are completing the document only by factual evidence. On the same Page 6—which corresponds to Page 58 of the Document Book—two lines lower down, it is said:

“The German military authorities tortured the prisoners of war. On the way to Smolensk and especially at the camp, the prisoners were killed by tens and hundreds. In Prisoner-of-War Camp Number 126, the Soviet people were subjected to torture; sick people were sent to heavy labor; no medical assistance was rendered. The prisoners in the camp were tortured, forced to do work beyond their strength, shot. About 150 to 200 people died every day of torture, by starvation, typhus and dysentery epidemics, freezing to death, exhausting work, and bloody terror. Over 60,000 peaceful citizens and prisoners of war were exterminated in the camp by the German fascist invaders. The facts of the extermination of the imprisoned officers and men of the Red Army and of the peaceful citizens were confirmed by the testimony of physicians imprisoned in the camp; Smirnov, Shmouroff, Pogrebnov, Erpoulov, Demidov, hospital nurses Shubina and Lenkovskya, and also by Red Army soldiers and inhabitants of the city of Smolensk.

“Thousands of prisoners of war were shot in the camp under the directions of Sonderführer Eduard Gyss.

“Sergeant Gatlyn brutally avenged himself on the prisoners. Being aware of the fact, they tried to keep out of his way. So Gatlyn dressed in the uniform of a Red Army soldier, mixed with the crowd, and, having picked himself a victim, would beat him half dead.

“Private Rudolf Radtke, a former wrestler from the German circuses, prepared a special lash made of aluminum wire, with which he beat the prisoners black and blue. On Sundays he would come to the camp drunk, throw himself on the first prisoner he met, torture and kill him.

“Emaciated and exhausted Soviet invalids were forced by the fascists to work at the Smolensk power plant. Many occasions were observed when prisoners, worn out by starvation, would collapse under the strain of work beyond their strength and were immediately shot by Sonderführer Szepalsky, Sonderführer Bram, Hofmann Mauser, and Sonderführer Wagner.

“There was, in Smolensk, a hospital for prisoners of war; Soviet doctors working at that hospital stated: Up to July 1942, the patients lay unbandaged on the floor. Their clothes and bedding were covered not only with dirt but with pus. The rooms were unheated and the floors of the corridors coated with ice.”

A report of a medico-legal examination is appended, Your Honors, to the statement of the Extraordinary State Commission which I have just quoted. Experts such as Academician Burdenko, member of the Extraordinary Commission, Dr. Prosorovsky, chief medico-forensic expert of the People’s Commissariat for the Care of Public Health in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Smolianov, Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Second Moscow Medical Institute, and other specialists, conducted—from 1 to 16 October 1943—numerous exhumations and medico-legal autopsies on the corpses in Smolensk and the vicinity of Smolensk. A great many mass graves were opened which contained the corpses of such persons who had been killed during the German fascist occupation. The number of corpses which were found in these graves was between 500 and 4,500 at each place where such mass executions took place.

I shall read into the Record only such excerpts from the findings of the experts’ investigation as have a direct bearing on my subject. You will find the paragraph which I am now quoting on Page 61 of your document book, corresponding to Page 9 of our Exhibit Number USSR-56 (Document Number USSR-56).

“The corpses found in the pits were for the most part either partially or completely-naked, or else clothed in worn-out underwear; only in the minority of cases did the bodies disinterred wear clothes or military uniforms.”

It is stated in Paragraph 2 on the next page of the Document Number USSR-56—page 62 of the document book—Paragraph 2:

“Identity documents were found in 16 cases only—3 passports, 1 Red Army book, and 12 military identity ‘medallions.’ By ‘medallions’ I mean the small tube-like cases, not unlike a needle case in appearance, issued to each soldier in the Red Army. A document giving the soldier’s name, his father’s name, surname, and rank, together with his home address, is slipped into this tube.

“In some cases partly preserved articles of clothing and tattoo marks alone could help in establishing the identity of the deceased.”

This circumstance confirms the fact that the Germans endeavored to make the identification of their victims impossible, as demanded in special German directives. The first paragraph on Page 11 of Document Number 56, corresponding to your Page 63 in the document book, says:

“The autopsies performed on corpses taken from graves in the area of the large and small concentration camps at Plant 35, of the former German hospital for prisoners of war, of a sawmill, and of concentration camps near the villages of Becherskaya and Rakytna, revealed that, according to the data of the autopsies, death in an overwhelming majority of cases could be ascribed to hunger, starvation, and acute infectious diseases.

“An objective proof of death from starvation, over and above the total absence of all subcutaneous fatty tissues, as disclosed during the autopsies, was the discovery, in a number of cases, of grassy substances, remains of rough leaves and plant stalks in the abdominal cavity.”

On the same page, but rather lower down, in Paragraph 4, we read:

“The considerable number of burial-pits opened (87), filled with masses of corpses, together with the estimated differences in the time of burial, differences ranging from the second half of 1941, 1942, and 1943, testify to the systematic extermination of Soviet citizens.

“The victims, in an overwhelming majority of cases, were men and men mostly in the prime of life, that is, between the ages of 20 and 40.”

Somewhat lower, on the same page:

“Special attention was attracted by the fact that the exhumed corpses, with few exceptions, regularly lacked footwear. Clothing, too, was absent, as a rule, or consisted of worn-out underwear or parts of outer garments. The natural conclusion drawn from these facts is that the removal of clothes and footwear of any value had become the usual and officially recognized procedure preceding the extermination of Soviet citizens.”

In conclusion, the commission deals with the means of extermination, that is, shooting, asphyxiation by gas, and so forth. All this is not new to us and it is not necessary at present to read this part of the conclusion.

In our document, Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (Document Number USSR-6(c)), minutes are quoted from the report of the medico-legal experts as well as the findings of the board of medical experts. We find them on Pages 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the document. I shall set forth, in brief, the contents of the minutes and shall quote a few words from the findings. According to the minutes, the Hitlerites had set up a large camp for prisoners of war in the town of Rawa-Ruska, 52 kilometers northeast from the city of Lvov. In this camp a large number of Soviet and French prisoners of war were interned, and there they perished; they were shot, died of infectious diseases, or starved to death. The commission of medico-legal experts opened up a large number of graves. Some of these graves had been camouflaged by green shrubs and grass. A considerable number of bodies unearthed were dressed in military or semi-military clothing. In some cases identity medallions of Red Army soldiers were discovered inside the clothes. The ages of the prisoners whose bodies were recovered from the graves ranged from 20 to 40 years.

It is said in the findings—the extract quoted is on Page 70 of the document book:

“The data of the autopsies performed on the exhumed bodies justify the conclusion that bodies of Soviet prisoners of war had, in effect, been buried in the forementioned graves. The burial was on a mass scale. The bodies were placed in each grave at a rate of 350-400 corpses (the grave measuring 7 by 4 meters), in layers, one layer on the other. The bodies were buried in the clothes they had worn at the time of death. The absence of footwear on all the corpses indicates that the Soviet prisoners, when alive, were kept unshod or else that their footwear was removed after death. The prisoners were interned in appallingly unsanitary conditions, since all the clothing found was vermin-infested. Judging by the clothes, death, in the majority of cases, must have occurred during the cold season of the year. Nevertheless, practically no warm clothing was found on any of the bodies. To escape the cold, the prisoners of war had dressed in two or three sets of summer uniforms, had wrapped themselves up in sacking, towels. . . .”

I omit a few sentences from this statement and wish to read into the Record the part dealing with the total number of corpses. It is on Page 70 of your document book:

“The number of graves (36), their size, and the number of bodies discovered justify us in believing that from 10,000 to 12,000 bodies of Soviet prisoners of war were buried in this area. The degree of their decomposition points to the fact that the corpses had been buried underground for about 3 years, that is, the time of burial must be placed somewhere in the late autumn or in the winter of 1941-1942.”

A special section of the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the determination and investigation of atrocities committed by the German fascist invaders in the city and region of Orel—which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-46 (Document Number USSR-46)—records the mass extermination of prisoners of war carried out over a long period of time.

The prisoner-of-war camp was set up in the city jail of Orel. After the Hitlerite invaders had been driven from Orel, the Extraordinary Commission was able to secure the testimony of doctors who had been in this camp and who had fortuitously escaped with their lives. Included in this report are the personal observations of a member of the Extraordinary State Committee, Academician Burdenko, who personally examined people liberated by the Red Army from the camp, from the camp premises, and from the so-called camp hospital. The general conclusion is that in the camp of Orel and in others the Hitlerites bodily exterminated the Soviet people with characteristic German thoroughness.

The prisoners received 200 grams of bread and a liter of soup made from rotten soy beans and moldy flour. The bread was baked with an admixture of sawdust. The camp administration, doctors included, treated the prisoners atrociously. I should like to quote a few excerpts from the report of the commission, and I shall start from Paragraph 5, Page 2 of the document, which you will find on Page 72 of the document book:

“The camp commander, Major Hoffmann, flogged the prisoners and forced persons exhausted by hunger to carry out heavy manual work in the local quarries and in the unloading of ammunition.

“Boots and shoes were taken from the prisoners and replaced by wooden clogs.

“In the winter these clogs became slippery and the prisoners, when walking, and especially when going up to the 2d and 3rd floor, would slip on the stairs and be lamed.”

Dr. H. I. Zvetkov, a former inmate of the prisoner-of-war camp, testified as follows. I quote, and you will find the excerpt quoted on Page 72 and at the beginning of Page 73:

“I can only describe the attitude of the German Command towards the prisoners of war, during my stay in the camp at Orel, as one of deliberate extermination of manpower in the person of the prisoners. The food ration, which at best contained a maximum of only 700 calories, led, when work was hard and beyond their strength, to complete exhaustion of the organism (cachexia) and to death. . . .

“Despite our categorical protests and our struggle against this mass murder of the people of the Soviet, the German camp doctors, Kuper and Beckel, maintained that the diet was perfectly satisfactory. Moreover, they denied that the oedemata from which so many of the prisoners suffered were due to starvation and quite calmly ascribed the condition entirely to heart or kidney troubles. The very mention of the term ‘hunger oedema’ was forbidden in the diagnosis. Mortality in the camp assumed mass proportions. Of the total number of persons murdered, 3,000 died of starvation and of complications arising from malnutrition.

“The prisoners lived in indescribably appalling conditions. The overcrowding was incredible. Fuel and water were completely lacking. Everything was infested by vermin. From 50 to 80 people were crammed into a ward 15 to 20 square meters in size. Prisoners would die at the rate of five or six per ward, and the living would have to sleep on the dead.”

It is further said that a particularly terrible regime existed for those included in the category of recalcitrants. They were put into a special building, named the death block. The inmates of this block were shot on schedule, five to six persons being taken to execution every Tuesday and Friday. The German physician Kuper was one of those present at the shootings. Academician Burdenko established that in the so-called hospital people were exterminated in the same manner as in the rest of the camp.

In the penultimate paragraph, on Page 3, we read—members of the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 73 of the document book:

“The scenes which I had to witness defy all imagination. My joy at the sight of the liberated people was marred by the fact that their faces bore an expression of utter stupor. This made me think, ‘What is the matter here?’ Evidently the sufferings they had undergone erased from their minds all distinction between life and death.

“I observed these people for 3 days and bandaged their wounds while moving them from the camp, but the mental stupor remained. Something similar could also be seen on the faces of the doctors during the first few days.

“People perished in the camp from disease, starvation, and floggings. In the so-called ‘hospital’ prison they died of wound-infection, sepsis, and starvation.”

On the 2d day of May 1945, there was captured in Berlin a member of the SS, Paul Ludwig Gottlieb Waldmann. The son of a shopkeeper, Ludwig Waldmann, he was born in Berlin on 17 October 1914. From information received, his mother, up to the time of his capture, was living in the city of Brunswick, Donnerburweg 60.

He testified personally to facts known to him regarding the mass extermination of Soviet prisoners of war. He witnessed these exterminations while working as a driver in different camps and himself participated in the mass killings. His testimony is on Page 9 of Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52), entitled, “Camp Auschwitz.” He provides more detailed information on the murders in the camp at Sachsenhausen.

Towards the end of summer 1941, the Sonderkommando of the Security Police in this camp exterminated Russian prisoners of war daily for a whole month. Paul Ludwig Gottlieb Waldmann testified—you will find the excerpt I am quoting on Page 82—that:

“The Russian prisoners of war had to walk about one kilometer from the station to the camp. In the camp they stayed one night without food. The next night they were led away for execution. The prisoners were constantly being transferred from the inner camp on three trucks, one of which was driven by me. The inner camp was approximately one and three-quarters of a kilometer from the execution grounds. The execution itself took place in the barracks which had recently been constructed for this purpose.

“One room was reserved for undressing and another for waiting; in one of them a radio played rather loudly. It was done purposely so that the prisoners could not guess that death awaited them. From the second room they went, one by one, through a passage into a small fenced-in room with an iron grid let into the floor. Under the grid was a drain. As soon as a prisoner of war was killed, the corpse was carried out by two German prisoners while the blood was washed off the grid.

“In this small room there was a slot in the wall, approximately 50 centimeters in length. The prisoner of war stood with the back of his head against the slot and a sniper shot at him from behind the slot since the sniper often missed the prisoner. After 8 days a new arrangement was made. The prisoner, as before, was placed against the wall; an iron plate was then slowly lowered onto his head. The prisoner was under the impression that he was being measured for height. The iron plate contained a ramrod which shot out suddenly and pole-axed the prisoner with a blow on the back of the head. He dropped dead. The iron plate was operated by a foot lever in a corner of the room. The personnel working in the room belonged to the above-mentioned Sonderkommando.

“By request of the execution squad, I was also forced to work this apparatus. I shall refer to the subject later. The bodies of prisoners thus murdered were burned in four mobile crematories transported in trailers and attached to motor cars. I had to ride constantly from the inner camp to the execution yard. I had to make 10 trips a night with 10 minutes’ interval between trips. It was during these intervals that I witnessed the executions. . . .”

It is a long way from these individual murders to the death factories of Treblinka, Dachau, and Auschwitz, but the tendency, the line of action are identical. Methods and extent of the killings varied. The Hitlerites endeavored to discover ways and means for the rapid mass extermination of human beings. They spent much time on the solution of this problem. To realize their ambition they began to work on the solution even prior to their attack on the Soviet Union by inventing different implements and instruments of murder, while peaceful inhabitants and prisoners of war alike ended up as victims of Hitler’s executioners.

I present to the Tribunal the report of the Extraordinary Commission on the German atrocities in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. This is Exhibit Number USSR-7 (Document Number USSR-7). Here, as in other places, the mass extermination of Soviet prisoners of war formed part of the savage plan of the fascist aggressors. I shall quote a few sentences from Page 6 of this document. In your copy it is marked with pencil, on Page 86 of the document book:

“In Kaunas, in Fort Number 6, there was a camp, Number 336, for Soviet prisoners of war. The prisoners in the camp were subjected to cruel torture and insult, in strict accordance with the inhuman ‘directions to the supervisors and escorts attached to labor detachments.’ The prisoners of war in Fort Number 6 were doomed to inanition and death from starvation.

“The witness, Medishevskaja, informed the Commission: ‘The prisoners of war were terribly starved; I saw them pluck grass and eat it.’”

I omit a few sentences and read on:

“At the entrance to Camp Number 336, there still exists a board with the following inscription in German, Lithuanian, and Russian: ‘All those who maintain contact with prisoners of war, especially those who try to give them food, cigarettes, or civilian clothes, will be shot!’

“There was in the camp at Fort Number 6 a ‘hospital’ for prisoners of war which in reality served as a point of transfer from the camp to the grave. The prisoners of war thrown into this ‘hospital’ were doomed to death.

“According to monthly statistics of sickness among the prisoners of war in Fort Number 6, from September 1941 to July 1942, that is, over a period of 11 months only, the number of dead Soviet prisoners amounted to 13,936.”

I shall abstain from reading the list of graves opened; I shall merely quote the sentence indicating the sum total of the graves. “All told, 35,000 prisoners of war were buried in these graves, according to the camp documents.”

Besides Camp Number 336, in the same town of Kaunas, there existed another, unnumbered camp on the southwestern border of the airfield. It is stated, in connection with this camp, that:

“As in Fort Number 6, starvation, the lash, and the truncheon reigned in this camp. Exhausted prisoners of war, no longer able to move, were carried out every day beyond the precincts of the camp, placed alive in previously prepared pits, and covered with earth.”

The last three lines of the left column, on Page 6 of the Document. Number USSR-7—Page 86 of your document book—state as follows:

“The records, documents, and testimonies of witnesses enabled the commission to establish that here, within the precincts of the airfield, nearly 10,000 Soviet prisoners had been tortured to death and buried.”

The report mentions one more camp, Number 133, near the town of Alitus, and a few more which had been established in July 1941 and existed up to April 1943. In these camps the prisoners froze to death. When unloaded from the railway coaches, such prisoners of war who were unable to walk were shot out of hand. The remaining prisoners were tortured until they lost consciousness, hanged by their feet on chains, brought back to consciousness by having cold water dashed over them; then the whole process would be repeated all over again.

Giving the sum total of prisoners murdered, the commission writes—the few lines which I am about to quote are likewise on the same page, 86, of the document book:

“It had been established that no less than 165,000 Soviet prisoners of war were executed by the Germans in the above-mentioned camps of the Lithuanian S.S.R.”

The extermination of Soviet prisoners of war was, quite literally, carried out in every camp. Thousands of Soviet soldiers likewise perished in the extermination camp of Maidanek. The second paragraph of Page 5 of the joint Polish and Soviet communiqué of the Extraordinary Commission, which is presented to you as Exhibit Number USSR-29 (Document Number USSR-29)—corresponding to your Page 92 of the document book—states that:

“The entire bloodstained history of this camp begins with the mass shooting of Soviet prisoners of war, organized by the SS in November and December 1941. Out of a group of 2,000 Soviet war prisoners, only 80 remained alive. All the rest were shot except a few who were racked and tortured to death.

“Between January and April 1942 more transports of Soviet prisoners of war were brought to the camp and shot. Nedzelek Jan, hired to work in the camp as a truck driver, testified:

“‘About 5,000 Russian prisoners of war were exterminated by the Germans in the winter of 1942 by the following method: They were taken from their barracks in trucks and driven to the pits of a former stone quarry, and in these pits they were shot.’

“Prisoners of war of the former Polish Army, captured as far back as 1939 and imprisoned in various German camps, were already concentrated, in 1940, in the Lublin camp on Lipovoja Street and were soon after transferred, in batches, to the extermination camp of Maidanek, where they suffered the same fate: systematic torture, murder, mass shooting, _et cetera_.

“The witness, Reznik, testified as follows:

“‘In January 1941, we, a party of approximately 4,000 Jewish prisoners of war, were placed into railway coaches and sent to the East. . . . We were brought to Lublin, unloaded and handed over to the SS. About September or October 1942, it was decided that only those people who were qualified as skilled plant and factory workers, and therefore needed in the town, were to be left in the camp on Number 7 Lipovoja Street, while the rest, and I among them, were transferred to Maidanek Camp. All of us already knew—and knew far too well—that deportation to Maidanek meant death. Of this party of more than 4,000 prisoners of war, only a few individuals, who had managed to escape while engaged in work outside the camp, remained alive.

“‘In the summer of 1943, 300 Soviet officers, including two colonels, four majors, with the remainder consisting of captains and senior lieutenants, were brought to Maidanek. The officers in question were shot in the camp.’”

Huge camps for the extermination of Soviet prisoners of war had been organized by German fascists in the territory of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. The report of the Extraordinary State Commission for the investigation of atrocities committed by the German invaders on the territory of this republic—we present to the Tribunal this report as Exhibit Number USSR-41 (Document Number USSR-41)—contains the following data on the extermination of 327,000 Soviet prisoners of war. I quote excerpts from Page 7, on the right column of the above-mentioned report. You, Sir, as well as the other members of the Tribunal, will find the excerpt on Page 97 of the document book:

“In Riga, the Germans organized a camp, Stalag 350, for Soviet prisoners of war, on the premises of the former barracks on Pernovskaja and Rudolf Streets, which existed from July 1941 to October 1944. There Soviet prisoners of war were kept in inhuman conditions. The building where they were lodged had neither windows nor heat. In spite of heavy forced labor from 12 to 14 hours a day, their rations consisted only of 150-200 grams of bread and so-called soup made of grass, rotten potatoes, leaves of trees, and other refuse.”

In my opinion, it is necessary to stress the monotony of the rations issued to the prisoners of war. Testimonies given by witnesses coincide entirely with the official directive on the quantities of food allotted to the prisoners of war, which I have already read into the Record today.

A former prisoner of war, P. F. Yakovenko, who was imprisoned in Stalag 350, testified—this is on Page 97 in your document book; forgive me, I forgot to mention it:

“We were given 180 grams of bread, half consisting of sawdust and straw, one liter of unsalted soup made of unpeeled rotten potatoes. We slept on the bare ground and were eaten up by lice. Between December 1941 to May 1942, 30,000 prisoners of war perished in this camp from starvation, cold, flogging, typhus, and shooting. The Germans daily shot prisoners of war who, owing to weakness or illness, were unable to go to work; they mocked at them and beat them without any reason at all.”

G. B. Novitzkis, who had worked as senior nurse in the hospital for Soviet prisoners of war in Number 1, Gymnastitcheskaya Street, testified that she had repeatedly seen patients eat grass and tree leaves in order to quell the pangs of hunger.

“In sections of Stalag 350, on the territory of a former brewery, and in the Panzer barracks, over 19,000 persons perished between September 1941 and April 1942 alone, of starvation, torture, and epidemics. The Germans also shot wounded prisoners of war. In addition, Soviet prisoners of war perished en route to the camp, since the Germans left them without food or water.”

A female witness, A.V. Taukulis testified:

“In the fall of 1941 a transport of Soviet prisoners of war, consisting of 50-60 coaches, arrived at the station of Salaspils. When the cars were opened, the stench of corpses spread over a great distance. Half the men were dead; many were at the point of death. Men who were able to climb out of the coaches dashed towards water, but the guards opened fire and shot a score or two of them.”

I shall not enumerate other facts which took place in Stalag 350, I shall merely read into the Record the final sentence, referring to this camp. I fear that there is a misprint in this sentence in your document book. If I am not mistaken, your document book mentions the shooting of 120,000 Soviet prisoners. This figure is inaccurate; in the original document, which I shall now read into the Record, another figure is mentioned, “In Stalag 350 and in its branches, the Germans tortured to death and shot over 130,000 Soviet prisoners of war.”

On Page 97 of your document book you can find the following part of this report:

“There was a camp for Soviet prisoners of war, Stalag 340, in Daugavpilce (Dvinsk), known among the internees and the town’s inhabitants as the ‘Death Camp,’ where in 3 years over 124,000 Soviet prisoners of war perished from starvation, tortures, and shootings.”

The butchering of prisoners of war by German executioners usually began on the way to the camp. In the summer, prisoners of war were transported in tightly-closed wagons, in winter in freight coaches and on platform trucks. Masses of prisoners perished from hunger and thirst. They suffocated in the summer; they froze in the winter.

Witness T.K. Ussenko stated:

“In November 1941 I was on duty, as signalman, at the station of Most, and I saw a transport, consisting of more than 30 coaches, move into the ‘Kilometer 217’ siding”—this was the name given to that particular part of the track—“Not a living soul was discovered in the coaches. No fewer than 1,500 dead bodies were unloaded from this transport. They were dressed in nothing but their underclothes. The corpses lay around the railway track for nearly a week.”

The hospital attached to the camp was likewise dedicated to the extermination of prisoners of war. Schoolteacher V. A. Efimova, who worked at the hospital, told the Commission:

“It was rarely that any one left this hospital alive. Five shifts of grave-diggers, selected from among the prisoners, carried the dead to the cemetery in handcarts. It frequently happened that a man who was still alive would be thrown into the cart and six to seven corpses or bodies of executed people piled on top of him. The living were buried with the dead. At the hospital sick people, tossing in delirium, were bludgeoned to death.”

When an epidemic broke out in the camp, the Hitlerites drove to the airfield all the prisoners from any barrack where typhus patients had been discovered and shot them. About 45,000 Soviet prisoners of war were thus exterminated.

Appalling facts are quoted in the documents of the Extraordinary State Commission, which investigated the crimes of the German fascist invaders in the neighborhood of Sevastopol, Kerch, and at the health resort of Teberda. I shall read into the Record some data from our Exhibit Number USSR-63(5) (Document Number USSR-63(5)). At the Sevastopol prison, the German fascist command organized a hospital for sick and wounded prisoners of war. Here the Soviet warriors perished in masses. I shall quote a few sentences, which you will find in your document book on Page 99:

“At the time the hospital was organized, the sick and wounded were not given any water or bread for 5 or 6 days by the Germans, who cynically said: ‘This is the punishment for the specially stubborn defense of Sevastopol by the Russians.’

“The wounded brought in from the battlefield were given no medical aid. Soldiers and officers were thrown on the cement floor, where they lay bleeding for 7 and 8 days on end.

“During the defense of Sevastopol, a military hospital and a medico-sanitary battalion, Number 47, were installed in the vaults of the champagne factory at Inkermann. After the retreat of the Red Army, a large number of wounded soldiers and officers were left behind in Vault Numbers 10, 11, 12, and 13, since there had been no time to evacuate them. When the German savages captured the factory, they all became drunk and set fire to the vaults.”

I omit a whole number of facts, the majority of which, strictly speaking, should have been specially reported to the Tribunal. I pass on to the description of the last crime mentioned in the statement of the commission. I pay special attention to it because it describes the brutal extermination of a very large number of wounded Red Army soldiers. You will also find this excerpt on Page 99 of your document book:

“On 4 December 1943 there arrived at the station of Sevastopol, from the city of Kerch, three transports of wounded prisoners of war belonging to the Kerch landing forces. Having loaded them on a 2,500-ton barge moored in the southern bay near the landing stage, the Germans set fire to it. The heart-rending screams of the prisoners filled the air. Women who were not far from the barge could render no assistance to the wounded, since they were driven from the site of the fire by gendarmes. Not more than 15 men were saved. Thousands perished in the fire.

“On the following day the same barge was loaded with 2,000 men from among the wounded brought from Kerch. The barge sailed from Sevastopol in an unknown direction, and all the wounded in it were drowned at sea.”

I repeat that I am omitting a considerable number of facts established by the commission.

There is but little difference in character between the documentary evidence already read into the Record and the data on the atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist invaders on Soviet prisoners of war in the region of Stalino. In our Number USSR-2(a) we find, among a lot of other documents, two documents about the extermination of Soviet prisoners of war. The first document is dated Stalino, 22 September 1943, and is submitted by a special commission with the President of the Stalinozavodsk Regional Council of Workers’ Deputies at its head. I shall read into the Record that part of the document which contains items of interest to us. The official report begins in the left-hand column of Page 3 of Document USSR-2(a), and the extracts which I am reading into the Record are printed on Page 108 of your document book:

“The circumstances of the case: In the Stalinozavodsk district of the town of Stalino, in the Lenin Club, the German fascist invaders organized a camp for Soviet prisoners of war; at times there were up to 20,000 men in this camp; the camp commandant, a German officer named Gavbel, established an intolerable diet for the Soviet prisoners of war.

“Examined as witnesses, Ivan Vasilyetch Plakhoff and Konstantin Semyonovitch Shatzky, former prisoners of war who had been interned in this camp and managed to escape, testified that prisoners of war were starved; a loaf of bread weighing 1,200 grams and made of poor-quality, burned flour was issued to eight men; once a day one liter of hot liquid food was issued, consisting of a small quantity of burned bran, occasionally mixed with sawdust. The premises in which the prisoners of war were housed had no glass in their windows; in summer and winter alike, even in the coldest weather, only 5 kilograms of coal per day were allowed for heating purposes. This amount could not, of course, heat the vast premises where up to a thousand prisoners lived in a perpetual draught. Mass cases of frostbite were observed. There were no baths. Generally speaking, people did not wash for 6 months and were overrun by enormous quantities of vermin. In the hot summer months the prisoners suffered from the heat. They were left without drinking water for 3 to 5 days on end.”

The regime in the camp organized in the region of Stalinozavodsk was, as is clear from the extracts read into the Record, precisely the same as the regime in other German prisoner-of-war camps. This has been proved beyond all doubt by the discovery of general directives.

The following excerpt shows that, over and above these directives, camp commanders had opportunities for committing atrocities themselves, each man according to his own particular method, and yet remained unpunished. On Page 105 of your document book you will find the following extract which I am now quoting:

“Prisoners of war were beaten with sticks and rifle butts on the slightest provocation, and a punishment of 720 strokes with the lash was imposed for any attempt at escape; the strokes were administered over a period of 8 days—30 strokes of the lash at a time—morning, noon, and evening. At the same time, the culprits were deprived of their bread ration, while the liquid ration was halved.”

Mortality in the camp following this regime was enormous. In winter, up to 200 persons died every day. Epidemics broke out in the camp. Numerous cases of oedemata—the result of hunger and death by starvation—were registered.

The guards derived much pleasure in degrading the prisoners of war by setting one against the other. Thus Shatzky testified that he was flogged by German policemen, receiving 120 strokes with the lash and 15 with sticks, for disobeying the order to flog his fellow prisoners of war. The floggings were supervised by German officers.

Provisions brought by civilians for handing to the prisoners of war did not reach them. The commission came to the conclusion that no fewer than 25,000 Soviet prisoners of war were buried in the grounds of the camp and of the central polyclinic. This conclusion is based on the measurement and number of graves and on the evidence of witnesses.

Mass killings and murders of prisoners of war were also organized by the German fascist invaders in another town in the Don Basin, Artemovsk. A special commission, consisting of the military prosecutor of the town of Artemovsk, of the priest of the Pokrovskaya Church, Ziumin, of representatives of the intelligentsia, public organizations, and army units, drew up an official report on the mass murders of Soviet prisoners of war organized by the fascist invaders. This official report is on Page 4 of Exhibit Number USSR-2(a). It is also on Page 105 of your document book. It is said in the report:

“In November 1941, soon after the occupation of the town of Artemovsk by German fascist invaders, a prisoner-of-war camp was established in the territory of the small military town lying beyond the northern station, housing 1,000 captured Red Army prisoners of war.”

I omit one paragraph and pass on to the question of living conditions in the camp:

“In the spring of 1942 prisoners of war, driven desperate by hunger, used to leave the camp and, creeping on all fours like animals, plucked and ate grass. In order to deprive the men even of this modicum of food, the Germans fenced off the camp building by a double row of barbed wire, with a distance of 2 meters between the rows and barbed wire entanglements placed between them.”

I omit one paragraph and am preparing to read the conclusions into the Record:

“Twenty-five graves were discovered near the camp—three of them mass graves. The first grave measured 20 by 15 meters; it contained the remains of about 1,000 corpses. The second grave measured 27 by 14 meters and contained the remains of about 900 corpses. In the third grave, 20 meters by 1, the remains of up to 500 corpses were discovered; and in the remaining graves, from 25 to 30 in each, making up, all told, a total of some 3,000 corpses.”

In the neighborhood of the small farm of Vertyatchy, in the Goroditschtchensky region of the Stalingrad area, the Hitlerites established a prisoner-of-war camp. Here, as in other camps, and with their customary and characteristic sadism, they exterminated the war prisoners of the Red Army.

I present to you, as evidence, our Exhibit Number USSR-63(3) (Document Number USSR-63(3)), which contains an official report of 21 June 1943. It is duly drawn up and certified and contains the following information—this is on Page 110 of the document book:

“As a result of the atrocious regime, at least 1,500 Soviet prisoners of war perished of starvation, torture, sickness, and executions in the camp near Vertyatchy, during the 3½ months of its existence.

“The Germans forced the prisoners to work from 14 to 16 hours per day, and fed them once a day, the ration consisting of 3 to 4 spoonfuls of stewed rye or a ladleful of unsalted rye soup together with a piece of horse carrion.

“A few days before the arrival of the Red Army the Germans ceased to feed the prisoners altogether and condemned them to death by starvation. Nearly all the prisoners suffered from dysentery. Many had open wounds, but the prisoners received no medical assistance whatsoever.”

I omit one paragraph and pass on to the next, which deals with the humiliating treatment of prisoners of war:

“Germans mocked the patriotism of the Soviet prisoners of war by forcing them to work on German military constructions, to dig trenches and dugouts, and to build mud huts and shelters for military technical equipment. The Hitlerites systematically humiliated Soviet prisoners of war by making them kneel before the Germans.”

It is noted in the official report that the commission examined material evidence: tools used for the torture of Soviet prisoners of war, a leather thong and dagger, picked up among the disarmed bodies, with the well-known Hitlerite slogan “Blood and Honor” (“Blut und Ehre”). The circumstances in which the dagger was discovered give every possibility of understanding what was meant by German “honor” and for whose blood the dagger was intended.

The documents of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union relating to the town of Kerch describe the characteristic crimes of the Hitlerite invaders. I submit to the Tribunal the documents of the Extraordinary State Commission as Exhibit Number USSR-63(6) (Document Number USSR-63(6)), and I shall read several extracts into the Record. In your copy they are all marked so as to enable the Tribunal to follow the text quoted—Page 115.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we might break off now.

[_A recess was taken._]

COL. POKROVSKY: On Page 115 of the document book you will find the excerpt I am about to quote from the testimony of Citizeness P. Y. Bulytchyeva:

“Citizeness P. Y. Bulytchyeva, born in the city of Kerch in 1894, testified:

“‘I witnessed how our Red Army prisoners of war, both soldiers and officers, were repeatedly driven along the street and how the weak and wounded were shot out of hand by Germans in the street itself when, through sheer debility, they fell out of the ranks. Many times I witnessed this terrible scene. Once, in the freezing cold, I saw a group of exhausted, ragged, and barefooted prisoners driven along. Those who attempted to snatch the pieces of bread thrown to them by the citizens were beaten up with rubber truncheons and rifle butts. Those who fell under the blows were promptly shot.’”

I am omitting a few sentences which, in my opinion, need not be read into the Record.

“At the time of the second occupation, when the Germans broke into Kerch again, they began to avenge themselves with even greater fury on perfectly innocent people.”

The witness testifies that the fascist butchers first of all avenged themselves on the military personnel and that they beat wounded soldiers to death with rifle butts. On the same page, 115, you will find the following excerpt:

“The prisoners of war were driven into large buildings, which were then set on fire. Thus, the Voikov school was burned down, together with the club for engineering and technical workers containing 400 soldiers and officers of the Red Army.

“Not a man succeeded in escaping from the burning building. All those who attempted to save themselves were mowed down by machine gun fire.

“Wounded soldiers were savagely tortured to death in the small fishing village of Mayak.”

Another woman witness who lived in this village, A. P. Buryatchenko, testified:

“On 28 May 1942 the Germans shot all the peaceful inhabitants who had remained in the village and had not succeeded in hiding. The fascist monsters mistreated the wounded Soviet prisoners of war, beat them with rifle butts, and then shot them. In my home, the Germans discovered a girl in military uniform, who resisted the fascists, crying, ‘Shoot, you vipers, I die for the Soviet people and for Stalin, but you, you monsters, will die a dog’s death.’ This girl patriot was shot on the spot.”

There is, in the district of Kerch, the stone quarry of Adjimushkaisk. Red Army soldiers were exterminated and poisoned by gas. N. N. Dashkova, a woman from the village of Adjimushkaisk, testified:

“I myself saw the Germans, who had caught about 900 Red Army soldiers in the quarry, first ill-treat and then shoot them. The fascists used gas.”

I omit several sentences. On the same page, 115, you will find the following quotation:

“At the time of the occupation a camp for Soviet prisoners of war, housing over 1,000 captives, was set up in the Engels Club. The Germans ill-treated them, fed them only once a day, drove them off to heavy labor beyond their strength, and shot on the spot all those who, exhausted, fell by the road.”

I consider it essential to quote a few more testimonies. N. J. Shumilova, a woman from the hamlet of Gorki, testified:

“I myself saw a group of prisoners of war being led past my courtyard. Three of them were unable to move and were promptly shot by the German escort.”

P. I. Gerassimenko, a woman living in the hamlet of Samostroy, testified:

“Many Red Army soldiers and officers were driven to our village. The area which they occupied was surrounded by barbed wire. Here, naked and barefoot, they perished from cold and hunger. They were kept in the most frightful and inhumane conditions. By the side of the living lay the bodies of the dead, and these bodies were not moved for days on end. Such conditions rendered life in the camp still more intolerable. The prisoners were beaten with rifle butts, flogged by the lash, and fed on refuse. Any inhabitant who attempted to give food and bread to the prisoners was beaten up, while prisoners attempting to hand over these gifts were shot.”

In a Kerch school, Number 24, the Germans set up a camp for prisoners of war. A. N. Naumova, a school teacher, testified as follows concerning the regime in the camp:

“There were many wounded in the camp. These unhappy people, though bleeding profusely, were left without any help. I collected medicine and bandages for the wounded, and their wounds were dressed by a medical orderly from among the captives. The prisoners suffered from dysentery since they were fed hog-wash instead of bread. People dropped from exhaustion and disease; they died in agony. On 20 June 1942 three prisoners of war were given the lash for attempting to escape from the camp. The wounded were shot. In June one of the escaped prisoners was caught and executed.”

Koshenikove, a teacher in the Stalin School, in the area of the factory kitchen and Voikov works, witnessed the execution of a group of Red Army men and officers. In 1943 the German criminals drove Red Army prisoners all the way from the Caucasus. The entire road from the ferry to the town, a distance of some 18 to 20 kilometers, was littered with the dead bodies of Red Army men. There were many sick and wounded among the prisoners of war. Whoever was unable to walk, either through exhaustion or sickness, was shot on the way.

Among other facts there is one which deserves special attention:

In 1942 the fascists threw 100 Red Army prisoners of war, alive, into the village well of Adjimushkray; their bodies were subsequently extracted by the inhabitants and buried in a communal grave in the sacred brotherhood of death. This information is contained in the same report, extracts of which I have just quoted to you.

On 29 January 1946 the witness, Paul Roser, was cross-examined here before the Tribunal. He testified that in the course of 4 months, out of 10,000 Russians, whom he had seen as prisoners of war in the German camp at the city of Rawa-Ruska, only 2,000 remained alive.

We possess evidence from yet another eyewitness of the numerous atrocities and endless tortures inflicted on the prisoners of war at Rawa-Ruska. Witness V. S. Kotchan, who was duly interrogated according to the procedure prescribed by our laws, testified before the captain of the guard of justice, Ryshov, on 27 September 1944—the minutes of his interrogation are hereby submitted to you as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (Document Number USSR-6(c)):

“I worked under the Germans as a digger at the prisoner-of-war camp for Red Army soldiers, from December 1941 to April 1942.”

This is on Page 124 of the document book. I omit a few lines irrelevant to the matter, and I quote further:

“This camp was set up by the Germans in the barracks near the railway. The entire area of the camp was surrounded by barbed wire. According to personal statements by the prisoners of war, the Germans drove from 12,000 to 15,000 men into this camp. While we were working, we watched the Germans mock the Red Army prisoners of war. They fed them once a day on unpeeled, frozen potatoes baked in their skins and covered with dirt. They kept the prisoners of war in the cold barracks all through the winter.

“I know for a fact that, when the Germans drove the prisoners of war into this camp, all clothes, overcoats, boots, and shoes which were at all serviceable were taken from the prisoners, leaving them barefoot and in rags. The prisoners of war were taken to work daily under escort from 4 to 5 in the morning and kept working until 10 o’clock at night. Then, worn out, cold, and hungry, the prisoners were marched back to their barracks, where doors and windows had purposely been left open all day so that the frost might enter these barracks and freeze the prisoners to death. In the morning, under the supervision of German soldiers, hundreds of corpses would be taken away in a tractor by the prisoners of war; they were buried in previously-prepared pits in the forest of Volkovitch. When the prisoners were marched off to work in the morning, under escort, the Germans would place a detachment of soldiers armed with rifles and stakes by the exit gates of the camp; they pole-axed them with stakes, stabbed them with bayonets, and chased the hungry and exhausted prisoners who were unable to move properly.”

The same witness describes also some other German atrocities:

“The German camp administration brought out completely-naked prisoners of war, bound them with ropes to a wall surrounded by barbed wire and kept them there, in the cold of the December winter, until they froze to death. The air of the camp resounded continually with the groans and cries of people maimed by rifle butts. Some were pole-axed with rifle butts on the spot.

“When, starving and exhausted, the prisoners were brought to the camp, they would hurl themselves on a heap of rotten and frozen potatoes. This, in turn, would be followed by a shot from the German escort.”

I present to the Tribunal, under the same Number USSR-6(c)—Page 120 of the document book—the deposition of a French prisoner of war, Emilie Leger, a soldier of the 43rd Colonial Infantry Regiment, Serial Number 29. In his deposition the camp at Rawa-Ruska is called the “famous camp of lingering death, Stalag 325.”

It appears to me that this phrase serves, as it were, as a supplement to the testimonies of witnesses Roser and Kochau. The Soviet Prosecution has at its disposal a considerable quantity of material disclosing as well numerous crimes of the Hitlerite invaders perpetrated against prisoners of war in the territory of the Lvov district.

It seems to me sufficient to read into the Record extracts from the evidence submitted by D. Sh. Manussevitch, and I wish to state that this evidence is confirmed by the testimony of two other witnesses: F. G. Ash and G. Y. Khamaydes. I am presenting all three documents as Document Number USSR-6(c).

Witnesses Manussevitch, Ash, and Khamaydes worked for some time in the detachment which cremated the dead bodies of men shot by the Germans in the region of Lvov and particularly in the Lissenitzky camps. Witness Manussevitch states—I quote, beginning with Line 20 at the bottom of Page 2 of our Number 6(c), and on Page 129 of your document book:

“When we (the Brigade of Death) had completed the cremation of the corpses, we were conveyed at night in cars to the Lissenitzky forest, opposite the yeast factory at Lvov. There were about 45 pits in this forest, containing the bodies of people previously shot in 1941-42. There were between 500 and 3,500 bodies in the pits. These were not only the bodies of soldiers of the Italian, French, Belgian, and Russian armies, that is, of prisoners of war, but of peaceful inhabitants as well. All the prisoners of war were buried in their clothes. Therefore, when digging them out of the pits, I could recognize the dead by their uniforms, insignia, buttons, medals, and decorations, as well as by their spoons and mess cups. All these were burned once the corpses had been exhumed. As in the camp at Yanovsky, grass was sown on the site of the pits, and trees and dead tree trunks were planted so as to erase any trace of the crimes, which are certainly unprecedented in the history of mankind.”

In addition to the testimony of the victims and of many Soviet citizens we have at our disposal the testimonies of members of the German Armed Forces. I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-62 (Document Number USSR-62) a document which was signed by more than 60 persons belonging to different units and branches of the German Army. We find their signature on written protests addressed to the International Red Cross in January 1942. We also have a communication of the International Red Cross acknowledging the receipt of this document. In this letter they mentioned facts relating to the criminal treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, of which they had personal knowledge. The persons who signed this protest were themselves prisoners of war at Soviet Camp Number 78. Their protest is the result of the comparison made by the authors of the document between the treatment meted out to Soviet prisoners, which they had seen for themselves, and the treatment they received at Camp Number 78. I will quote a few excerpts from this document—the text with the following words—Page 135 of the document book:

“We, the German prisoners of war of Camp Number 78, have read the note by the Peoples’ Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Government, Mr. Molotov, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war in Germany. We might consider the cruelties described in that note as impossible had we not witnessed such atrocities for ourselves. In order that truth should prevail, we must confirm that prisoners of war—citizens of the Soviet Union—were often subjected to terrible ill-treatment by representatives of the German Army and were even shot by them.”

Concrete examples of crimes known to the authors are quoted further on in the text. Hans Drews, of Regenwalde, a soldier of Company 4 of the 6th Tank Regiment, stated:

“I am acquainted with the order issued by Lieutenant General Model to the 3rd Tank Division to the effect that prisoners should not be taken. A similar order was issued by Major General Nehring, commanding officer of the 18th Tank Division. Two days prior to the attack on Russia we were told at the briefing session of 20 June that in the forthcoming campaign wounded Red Army men should not have their wounds dressed, since the German Army would have no time to bother with the wounded.”

The fact of the preliminary issuance of this order also has been confirmed by a soldier of the 18th Tank Division Headquarters, Harry Marek, a native of the neighborhood of Breslau:

“On 21 June, a day before the beginning of the war against Russia, we received the following order from our offices:

“‘The commissars of the Red Army are to be shot on the spot, since there is no need to stand upon any ceremony with them. Neither is there any necessity to bother ourselves unduly with the Russian wounded; they must be finished off immediately.’”

Wilhelm Metzick, a soldier of the 399th Infantry Regiment of the 170th Division, from Hamburg-Altona, quotes the following case:

“On 23 June, when we entered Russia, we came to a small hamlet near Beltsa. There I saw with my own eyes how two German soldiers shot five Russian prisoners in the back with submachine guns.”

Wolfgang Scharte, a soldier in Company 2 of the 3rd Tank Destroyer Battalion, a native of Gerhardtschagen, near Brunswick, testified concerning the question of exterminating the Red commissars of the Red Army:

“On the day before we opened the campaign against the Soviet Union, the officers told us:

“‘If on the way you should happen to meet Russian commissars—they can always be recognized by the Soviet star on their sleeve—and Russian women in uniform, they must be shot immediately. Anyone failing to do so and to comply with this order will be held responsible and punished.’

“On 29 June I myself saw representatives of the German Army shoot wounded Red Army men lying in a field of grain near the town of Dubno. After this they were run through with bayonets to make quite sure that they were dead. German officers stood nearby and laughed.”

Joseph Berndsen of Oberhausen, a soldier of the 6th Tank Division, stated; “Even before entering Russia we were told, at one of the briefing sessions, ‘Commissars must be shot.’”

Jacob Korzillias, of Horforst, near Treves, a German officer, a lieutenant of the 112th Engineer Battalion of the 112th Infantry Division, certified:

“In a village near Bolva, 15 wounded Red Army men were thrown out of the hut where they were lying, stripped, and bayonetted on the order of Lieutenant Kierick, adjutant of the 112th Engineer Battalion. This was done with the knowledge of the division commander, Lieutenant General Mitt.”

Alois Goetz, from Hagenbach-am-Rhine, a soldier of Company 8 of the 427th Infantry Regiment, stated, “On 27 June, in a forest near Augustovo, two Red Army commissars were shot on the order of the battalion commander, Captain Wittmann.”

On Page 3 of our Exhibit Number USSR-62 we find the following statement by Paul Sender of Königsberg, a soldier of the 4th Platoon of Company 13, Infantry Field Artillery, attached to the 2d Infantry Regiment—Page 137 of the document book:

“On 14 July, on the road between Porchov and Staraya-Russa, Corporal Schneider, of Company 1 of the 2d Infantry Regiment, shot 12 captured Red Army men in the gutter. When I questioned him on the matter, Schneider answered, ‘Why should I bother with them? They are not even worth a bullet.’ I also know of another case.

“During the battles around Porchov, a Red Army man was captured. Shortly after he was shot by a corporal of Company 1. As soon as the Red Army soldier fell, the corporal took from his knapsack all the food in it.”

To conclude the reading of excerpts from the protest of the German prisoners of war, I should like to quote two more depositions by Fritz Rummler and Richard Gillig, respectively. We find their depositions at the bottom of Page 4. Fritz Rummler, a native of Strehlen in Silesia and a corporal of Company 9, Battalion 3, of the 518th Regiment of the 295th Infantry Division, reported the following cases—this excerpt is on Page 138 of the document book:

“In August, in the town of Zlatopol, I saw how two officers of the SS units and two soldiers shot two captured Red Army soldiers after first taking their army overcoats from them. These officers and soldiers belonged to the Panzer tank forces of General Von Kleist. In September the crew of a German tank on the road to Krasnograd crushed two captured Red Army soldiers to death with their tank. This act was inspired purely by lust for blood and murder. The tank commander was a noncommissioned officer, Schneider, belonging to Von Kleist’s Panzer forces. I saw how four captured Red Army soldiers were questioned in our battalion. This happened at Voroshilovsk. The Red Army soldiers refused to answer questions of a military nature asked by the battalion commander, Major Warnecke. He flew into a rage and with his own hands beat the prisoners unconscious.”

Corporal Richard Gillig, of the 9th Transportation Platoon, of the 34th Division, stated:

“Many a time I witnessed the inhuman and cruel treatment of Russian prisoners of war. Before my own eyes and on the orders of their officers, German soldiers removed the boots from the captured Red Army soldiers and drove them on barefooted. I witnessed many such facts at Tarutino. I was an eyewitness of the following incident: One prisoner refused to surrender his boots voluntarily. Soldiers of the escort beat him till he could no longer move. I saw other prisoners being stripped, not only of their boots, but of their uniform clothing, right down to their underwear.”

I omit a few sentences and go on to the end of the statement.

“I saw, during the retreat of our column, near the town of Medyn, German soldiers beating up captured Red Army soldiers. One prisoner was very tired and unsteady on his legs. A soldier of the escort raced up to the captive and started kicking and beating him with the butt of his rifle. Other soldiers followed his example and the prisoner dropped dead when we reached the town.”

The statement reads on:

“It is no secret that, in the front line of the German Army division headquarters, specialists existed whose work it was to torture Red Army soldiers and Soviet officers in order to force them, in this manner, to disclose military orders and information.”

I submit to the Tribunal the photostat of this statement. You can see that there are 60 signatures appended to it by members of the German Armed Forces, with the indication of the regiments and smaller subdivisions to which they belonged.

I submit to the Tribunal four photographs of German origin. Each of these photographs was taken by Germans; time and place when the photographs were taken are indicated. One photograph shows the distribution of food; the third and fourth are pictures of the prisoner-of-war camp at Uman.

THE PRESIDENT: Where are the pictures?

COL. POKROVSKY: If I am not mistaken, you have been given the photostat of the statement, but not the photographs.

THE PRESIDENT: This is not a copy of the photographs; these are the signatures of the 60 German prisoners.

COL. POKROVSKY: The photographs will be submitted immediately. They have evidently, by an oversight, not been included in the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on.

COL. POKROVSKY: It is obvious from the first picture that the food distributed is insufficient. Men are practically fighting for the right of getting at it. The second photograph shows hungry Soviet prisoners of war wandering round an empty barn and eating the oil cakes stored for cattle food and which they had discovered. As to the third and fourth photographs, I can submit to the Tribunal important testimony by the witness, Bingel. Excerpts from his testimony have a direct bearing on the question of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war.

I interrogated Bingel myself and I now submit the minutes of his interrogation to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-111 (Document Number USSR-111), dated 27 December 1945. Bingel, who formerly commanded a company in the German Army, testified—I quote an excerpt from Page 8 of the minutes of his interrogation—as follows:

“A: Tn one of my reports I made a statement concerning the regime inside the prisoner-of-war camp at Uman. . . . This camp was guarded by a company of our subsection of the 783rd Battalion, and I was therefore familiar with everything which occurred in the camp. It was the task of this battalion to guard the prisoners of war and to control the highways and railroads.

“‘This camp was calculated to hold, under normal conditions, from 6,000 to 7,000 men; at that time, however, it housed 74,000 men.’

“Q: ‘Were there barracks?’

“A: ‘No. It was formerly a brickyard and consisted exclusively of low sheds for drying bricks.’

“Q: ‘Were the prisoners of war housed there?’

“A: ‘It can scarcely be said that they were housed, since each shed, at the utmost, could not contain more than 200 to 300 men; the rest had to sleep in the open.’

“Q: ‘What was the regime like at that camp?’

“A: ‘The regime in that camp was definitely peculiar. The existing conditions gave one the impression that the camp commander, Captain Bekker, was quite unable to handle and feed so large a number of men. There were two kitchens in the camp, although they could hardly be called kitchens. Iron barrels had been placed on stone and concrete floors, and the food for the prisoners was prepared in these barrels. But the kitchens, even if operating for 24 hours on end, could only prepare food for approximately 2,000 people daily. The usual diet for the prisoner was very insufficient. The daily ration for six men consisted of one loaf of bread which, again, could scarcely be described as bread. Disturbances frequently arose during the distribution of the hot food, for the prisoners—and there were 70,000 of them in the camp—struggled to get at the victuals. In cases like these the guards resorted to clubs—a usual procedure in the camp. I obtained the general impression that in all the camps the club was inevitably the foundation of all things.’”

Please forgive the digression, but I have been told, Your Honor, that two photographs are attached to the Record and that their authenticity is certified. I am now submitting them to the Tribunal. The other two will be handed to you very shortly. I continue to quote from the Record:

“Q: ‘Do you know anything about the death rate at the camp?’

“A: ‘Sixty to seventy men died at the camp daily.’

“Q: ‘From what causes?’

“A: ‘Before the epidemics broke out one mostly spoke of people being killed.’

“Q: ‘Killed during the distribution of food?’

“A: ‘Both during the distribution of food and during working hours; generally speaking, people were being killed all day long.’”

Bingel was interrogated by us for the second time, and he was shown the photographs of the camp at Uman. These are the same photographs that you now have in your hands, Your Honors. He was then asked the following question, “The camp shown here, is it the one you spoke about, or some other camp?” After this he was shown photographs from a negative, 13×18, of 14 August 1941 and from a negative, 13×22, of the same date. Bingel replied:

“Yes, this is the camp of which I spoke. As a matter of fact, this is not the camp proper but a clay pit belonging to the camp; here the prisoners were housed as soon as they arrived from the front. Later on they were assigned to various sections of the camp.”

“Q: ‘What can you tell us about the second photograph?’

“A: ‘The second one shows the camp photographed from another angle, that is, from the right side. The buildings shown here were practically the only brick buildings in the camp. These brick buildings, though quite empty and undamaged, with excellent and spacious quarters, were not used for housing the prisoners of war.’”

It is difficult to say whether or not that what the Hitlerites did to the Soviet prisoners of war at the so-called “Grosslazarett” of the town of Slavuta, in the Kamenetzk-Podolsky region, should be considered as the limit of human vileness. Be that as it may, the extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by the Hitlerites at the “Grosslazarett” is one of the darkest pages in the annals of fascist crime.

I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-5 (Document Number USSR-5), the report of the Extraordinary State Commission, and I shall read into the Record several excerpts from the report itself, as well as from the appendices thereto.

“On the expulsion of the fascist hordes from the town of Slavuta, units of the Red Army discovered, on the site of the restricted military area, the establishment which the Germans called the ‘Grosslazarett’ for Soviet prisoners of war. Over 500 emaciated, critically sick men were found in the ‘Lazarett.’ The interrogation of these men and the special investigation carried out by medico-forensic experts and by experts of the Central Institute for Food, of the People’s Commissariat for Health in the U.S.S.R., led to a detailed reconstruction of the extermination of an immense number of Soviet prisoners of war in that appalling institution.”

You will find the passage I am about to quote on Page 153 of the document book:

“In the fall of 1941, German fascist invaders occupied the town of Slavuta, where they organized a ‘Lazarett’ for wounded and sick officers and men of the Red Army, under the name of Grosslazarett, Slavuta, Teillager 301.

“The ‘Lazarett’ was located about 1½ to 2 kilometers to the southeast of Slavuta and occupied 10 three-storied stone buildings. The Hitlerites surrounded all these buildings by a strong barbed wire fence. All along the barbed wire, 10 meters apart, towers were built, in which guns, searchlights, and guards were placed.

“The administrative staff, the German doctors and the guard of the ‘Grosslazarett,’ the latter represented by the commanding officer, Captain Plank (later replaced by Major Pavlisk), the deputy commander, Kronsdorfer, Captain Boye, Dr. Borbe, with his deputy, Dr. Sturm, Master Sergeant Ilseman, and Technical Sergeant Bekker carried out a mass extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by imposing a special regime of hunger, overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions, by torture and direct murder, by depriving the sick and wounded of all medical assistance, and by subjecting utterly exhausted men to heavy labor.”

The Extraordinary State Commission refers to the “Grosslazarett” as the “Hospital of Death.” I shall quote a short excerpt from a section under the selfsame name. It is on Page 3 of the Russian original and on Page 153 of the document book:

“The German authorities concentrated at the ‘Grosslazarett’ 15,000 to 18,000 severely and slightly wounded Soviet prisoners of war, together with prisoners suffering from various contagious and noncontagious diseases.

“To replace the ranks of the dead, fresh batches of sick and wounded prisoners of war were continually brought in. On the journey the captives were tortured, starved, and murdered. The Hitlerites threw out hundreds of corpses from each car of the incoming transports as they reached the ‘Lazarett.’”

According to data received from the investigating commission, 800 to 900 dead bodies would be thrown out of each train as it unloaded at a branch line. A further report of the Commission states:

“Thousands of Soviet prisoners on the march perished from hunger, thirst, lack of care, and the savage club-law of the German guards . . . as a routine practice the Hitlerites would greet a group of prisoners at the ‘Lazarett’ gates with blows from rifle butts and rubber truncheons, after which the new arrivals would be stripped of their leather footwear, warm clothing, and personal belongings.”

In the next section, on the same page, the State Commission reports that infectious diseases were deliberately spread among the prisoners of war by German medical officers in the “Lazarett”:

“In the ‘Grosslazarett’ the German medical officers artificially created an incredible state of overcrowding. The prisoners were forced to stand close to each other; they succumbed to exhaustion, dropped down, and died.”

The fascists resorted to various methods for reducing the living room in the “Lazarett”. A former prisoner of war, I.Y. Chuazhev, reported that:

“The Germans reduced the floor space in the ‘Lazarett’ by firing off submachine guns, since the prisoners, perforce, pressed more closely to each other; then the Hitlerites pushed in more sick and wounded and the door was closed.”

The premeditated spreading of infectious diseases in this death camp, derisively named a “Lazarett,” was achieved by extremely primitive means:

“Patients suffering from spotted fever, tuberculosis, or dysentery, severely and lightly wounded cases, were one and all put in the same block and the same ward.”

In a ward intended, under normal conditions, to hold not more than 400 patients, the number of spotted fever and tuberculosis cases alone amounted to 1800.

“The rooms were never cleaned. The sick remained, for months on end, in the same underclothes in which they were captured. They slept on the bare boards. Many were half-undressed, others entirely naked. The buildings were unheated, and the primitive stoves, constructed by the prisoners themselves, fell to pieces. There was no water for washing in this ‘Lazarett,’ not even for drinking. As a result of these unsanitary conditions, the ‘hospital’ was, to a monstrous extent, overrun by lice.”

Annihilation by the premeditated spreading of diseases went hand in hand with starvation. The daily food ration consisted of 250 grams of ersatz bread and two liters of so-called “Balanda soup.” The flour used for baking the bread for sick and wounded prisoners of war was brought from Germany. Fifteen tons of flour were discovered in one of the “Lazarett” storerooms. The factory-packed paper bags, containing 40 kilos each, bore a label with the word “Spelzmehl.” Samples of this ersatz flour were sent for analysis to the Central Food Institute of the People’s Commissariat for Public Health of the U.S.S.R.

I present the document dealing with the annihilation of Soviet prisoners of war by the Hitlerites in the “Grosslazarett” as Exhibit Number USSR-5(a), (Document Number USSR-5(a)). On Pages 9, 10, and 11 of this document the Tribunal can see the photostat of the Central Food Institute’s report.

This report was established on the one hand on the basis of an analysis made by the field military laboratory and, on the other hand, on the basis of an analysis carried out in the Central Food Institute itself. Sample bakings of bread were made from the ersatz flour and from the ersatz flour mixed with a small addition of real flour. It seems that it was impossible to bake a loaf with ersatz flour alone. The Institute’s report states:

“It is evident that the bread was made with the addition of a certain quantity of natural flour for binding the dough. A diet of this so-called ‘bread,’ in the absence of all other food and food products of a full dietetic value, inevitably led to starvation and acute exhaustion.”

The analysis proved that the “flour” consisted of nothing but straw chopped evenly though rather roughly. Some particles were 2 and some 3 millimeters in length. Under the microscope, in every optical field of vision—according to the report—we discovered, “Together with food and vegetable fiber, minute quantities of grains of starch, resembling grains of oats in structure.” The Institute came to the conclusion that “The use of this bread, owing to the irritant action of the soft crumb, resulted in diseases of the digestive tract.”

Anticipating a little, I should like to report the results of the medico-legal autopsies performed on 112 corpses exhumed from Site Number 1 and of the external examination of approximately 500 bodies. In the first instance exhaustion was proved to have caused the death of 96 victims. In the second case, as stated in the findings—see Page 7—mentioned in Exhibit Number USSR-5(a), (Document Number USSR-5(a)):

“The statement that exhaustion was the fundamental cause of mortality in the prisoners’ camp was likewise proved by the results of the external examinations of some 500 corpses, when it was disclosed that the proportion of victims dead of acute exhaustion had approached 100 percent.”

A little further on, in the same report, in Subparagraph “d” of Paragraph 5, the experts, supported by numerous witnesses, state that the diet in the Slavuta “Grosslazarett” can be characterized as completely useless for human consumption. I quote, “Bread contained 64 percent sawdust; ‘Balanda soup’ was made of rotten potatoes with the addition of refuse, rat-droppings, _et cetera_.”

Such prisoners of war who had survived the tyranny of the Hitler hangmen and had lived to see the liberation of Slavuta declared—I quote an excerpt from Page 4 of Exhibit Number USSR-5, Page 153 of the document book:

“In the ‘Grosslazarett’ we periodically observed outbreaks of a mysterious disease of an unknown nature, referred to as ‘para-cholera’ by the German doctors. The appearance of ‘para-cholera’ was the result of barbarous experiments by the German doctors. These outbreaks would vanish as suddenly as they appeared. The mortality rate in ‘para-cholera’ rose to 60-80 percent. German physicians performed autopsies on the bodies of some of the victims, and no captured Russian medical officers were admitted to these autopsies.”

In conclusion, it is stated in Subparagraph 8 of the medico-legal expert report—Page 7 of Exhibit Number USSR-5(a), Page 159 of the document book—that:

“No objective circumstances can justify the conditions under which the prisoners of war were housed in the camp. All the more, since it has been revealed by thoroughgoing investigations that there were enormous food supplies in the German military depots at Slavuta and that both medical supplies and surgical bandages abounded in the military dispensaries.”

The “Grosslazarett” staff included a considerable number of medical personnel. Nevertheless, according to the statement of the government commission, sick and wounded officers and men of the Red Army did not receive even the most elementary medical attention. And how could there be any talk of medical attention when the entire object of the “Grosslazarett” was directly opposed to such assistance? The administration of the “Grosslazarett” not only strove to destroy the prisoners of war physically, but they also endeavored to fill the last days of the sick and wounded with suffering and anguish.

One part of the commission’s statement is entitled “Torture and shooting of Soviet prisoners of war.” I shall read into the Record a passage taken from this part. It is on Page 4, Exhibit Number USSR-5, Page 153 of the document book:

“Soviet prisoners of war in the ‘Grosslazarett’ were subjected to torture and torment, beaten up when food was distributed and again when setting out to work. Even the dying were not spared by the fascist murderers. The medico-legal examination of the exhumed corpses revealed, among a number of other bodies of prisoners of war, the body of a prisoner who, in his death agony, had been wounded in the groin with a knife. He had been thrown into his grave while still alive, with the knife sticking in the wound, and was then covered over with earth.

“One method of mass torture in the ‘Lazarett’ consisted in locking the sick and wounded in a detention cell—a room without heat and with a concrete floor. The prisoners in this cell were left without food for days on end, and many died there. In order to exhaust the ill and weak prisoners still further, the Hitlerites forced the sick and enfeebled patients to run round the ‘Lazarett’ building; those who could not run were flogged almost to death. There were many cases where the German guards murdered the prisoners just for fun.

“A former prisoner of war, Buchtichyuk, reported how the Germans threw the intestines of dead horses on the barbed wire surrounding the interior of the camp. When the prisoners, maddened with hunger, ran up to the barbed wire, the guards opened fire on them with submachine guns. The witness, Kirsanov, saw one prisoner of war bayonetted for picking up a potato tuber. A former prisoner of war, Shatalov, was an eyewitness to the shooting of a prisoner by his escort merely for trying to obtain a second helping of ‘Balanda soup.’

“In February 1942 Shatalov saw a sentry wound a prisoner who was searching the garbage heap for remnants of food left over from the kitchen of the German personnel; the wounded man was immediately brought to the pit, stripped, and executed.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 14 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTY-NINTH DAY Thursday, 14 February 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make which concerns the defendants’ counsel. The Tribunal will sit in open session on Saturday morning from 10 o’clock to hear the application of the defendants’ counsel for an adjournment.

They will hear one counsel on either side, that is to say, one counsel for the Prosecution and one counsel for the Defense, for 15 minutes each, and after that open session the Tribunal will adjourn into closed session upon procedural matters.

COL. POKROVSKY: Yesterday, in the course of my representation, I referred to four photographs in our possession, two of which were submitted to the Tribunal there and then. These photographs have been made by the Germans and they show the prisoner-of-war camp at Uman. I must apologize that yesterday, for technical reasons, we were unable to produce the remaining two at the proper time. The first of these photographs shows the distribution of food to the prisoners; the second, hungry Soviet prisoners searching for and eating oil cakes intended as cattle food. I now submit the originals of these two photographs (Document Numbers USSR-358 and 359) as Exhibit Numbers USSR-358 and USSR-359.

An autopsy of the exhumed bodies, performed during the investigation of fascist crimes in the so-called “Lager,” Slavuta, confirms that:

“The headquarters command and the camp guards repeatedly resorted to refined forms of torture. Among the bodies exhumed on which autopsies were performed, the medico-legal examination established that the corpses of four prisoners of war, murdered with cold steel, had received bayonet wounds penetrating the cavity of the skull.”

You will find this passage, Your Honors, on Page 153 of the document book.

“The Hitlerites compelled sick and wounded prisoners, despite their extreme weakness and acute state of exhaustion, to carry out work which was entirely beyond their strength. The prisoners had to carry heavy burdens, were forced to shoulder the bodies of murdered Soviet citizens and carry them out of the camp. Exhausted prisoners who fell by the way were shot on the spot. The road to and from work, according to a report of the Roman Catholic priest at Slavuta, was marked, as by milestones, with small grave mounds.”

The fascist fanatics did not always have the patience to wait for the actual death of one or another prisoner of war, and they buried persons who were still alive. I quote from a document which I have previously submitted to the Tribunal. You will find this quotation once again on Page 153 of your document book:

“As a result of the discovery of a considerable quantity of grains of sand in the lower respiratory tracts of the corpses of four prisoners, grains which penetrated right down to the very smallest bronchial tube, and which could not have penetrated thus far unless propelled by the respiratory movements of persons smothered by sand, the medico-legal experts found that at the ‘Gross-Lazarett’ the guards of the commander had buried the Soviet citizens alive. This was done with the connivance of the German doctors.”

Prisoner-of-war Pankin, a former inmate of the “Gross-Lazarett,” knew of one case where, in February 1943, an unconscious patient was brought to the morgue. There he recovered consciousness, but when it was reported to the officer in charge of barracks that a live man had been taken to the morgue, he ordered him to be left there. The sick man was buried.

Some prisoners, spurred by the intolerable regime, ignored the immense risks attached to the venture and attempted to escape, either singly or in groups. Such martyrs who succeeded in getting out of the “hospital” hell sought refuge with the local population of Slavuta and the surrounding hamlets. The Hitlerite brutes mercilessly shot anybody who had rendered any kind of assistance to a fugitive.

The town of Slavuta lies in the Shepetov district. On 15 January 1942, the District Commissioner of Shepetov, Dr. Worbs, issued a special order to the effect that if those directly responsible for helping escaped prisoners were not found, 10 hostages would be shot in every case. Father Dhynkovsky reported that 26 peace-loving citizens were arrested and shot for helping prisoners of war flee.

A medical examination of the 525 prisoners liberated from the “Gross-Lazarett” revealed that 435 suffered from extreme exhaustion, 59 from complications following untended, infected wounds, and that 31 suffered from neuro-psychiatric disturbances.

The commission notes, and I quote—with the permission of the Tribunal—the last and the penultimate paragraphs of the left column, on Page 5 of our document. In your file this quotation is on Page 154 of the document book:

“During the 2 years of Slavuta’s occupation, the Hitlerites, with the connivance of the German doctors Borbe, Sturm, and other medical personnel in the ‘Gross-Lazarett,’ exterminated about 150,000 Red Army officers and men.”

The German fascist executioners, perfectly aware of the unbounded bestiality of their crimes, attempted to conceal by all possible means the traces of the atrocities committed. They especially endeavored to camouflage the burial sites of the Soviet prisoners of war. Thus, for instance, on the cross of Grave Number 623, only eight surnames of persons buried were indicated, whereas upon excavation 32 bodies were actually found in that grave. Such, too, was the case when Grave Number 624 was opened up. In other graves, layers of earth were placed between several rows of corpses. For instance, 10 bodies were found in Grave Number 625. When a layer of earth, 30 centimeters thick, had been removed, two further rows of corpses were found in the same grave; the same occurred at the excavation of Graves Number 627 and 628.

Numerous graves were camouflaged by flower-beds, trees, plants, paths, _et cetera_, but no disguise can ever hide the bloody crimes committed by the Hitlerite evildoers.

If I am not mistaken, there was a case when one of the participants in these trials, evidently forgetting where he was and under what circumstances, expressed a wish to follow the procedure laid down by German law. The Tribunal immediately made the necessary inquiries, and the intention of operating in accordance with the standards of German law was, of course, promptly rejected. At present I am fully able to submit to the Tribunal documents which, in my opinion, are of importance in our case, although they are compiled in complete accordance with the rules laid down by German law.

Among the numerous documents found in the police archives of the town of Zhitomir, Red Army troops seized a certain piece of correspondence. This is a police inquiry. The authors of this document could not foretell that it would be read into the record at a session of the International Tribunal for the punishment of the major war criminals. The documents constituting this correspondence were intended exclusively for the chiefs of police, and they were compiled in accordance with all the customary requirements of German law and of the police investigations of fascist Germany. From this point of view, those who would like to examine the documentation in question can be well satisfied.

At the same time this correspondence is useful to us. So much has been said in the comparatively small number of pages that I should have to analyze the documentation section by section in order that you could appreciate it fully and from every angle. I submit this correspondence to you both in the German photostats and in the Russian translation. I repeat—this is a police inquiry. The document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-311 (Document Number USSR-311); and we have, in accordance with the wishes of the Tribunal, asked for the original copy which we may possibly receive from Moscow this very day.

On 24 December 1942, 78 prisoners of war from the Berditchev section of the Educational Labor Camp were to be subjected to “special treatment.” All the 78 prisoners were Soviet citizens. There is, in the correspondence, a report addressed to the authorities by SS Obersturmführer Kuntze, of 27 December 1942. You will find it on Page 170 of your document book. At the end of the first paragraph there is one sentence which, for greater clarity, has been marked with a red pencil. It says:

“There is no proof that these prisoners of war had ever participated in any communistic activities during the time of the Soviet regime.”

Kuntze’s next sentence fully elucidates the question of how and why these prisoners of war entered the Educational Labor Camp. He states:

“It seems that the Wehrmacht had, at the time, placed these prisoners of war at the disposal of our local authorities for special treatment. . . .”

We became convinced that they had been directed to this camp by the military authorities. The specialist—in this case undoubtedly Obersturmführer Kuntze—states that they were sent here especially to be subjected to the treatment of the “special regime.”

In an attempt to shorten, if ever so slightly, this very abundant documentation which forms the correspondence, I shall tell you, in my own words, that the 78 people in question were all that remained of a far larger group. Sturmscharführer SS Fritz Knop reports—Page 163 of your document book:

“. . . some of the prisoners at that time were transported in a truck, to some place in the neighborhood and unloaded. Later on further unloadings of prisoners of war were suspended, following objections raised by the Army.”

A little later I shall be more explicit when dealing with the nature of these transfers and the objections raised by the Army. Please permit me now to pass over to a brief summary of the gist of the matter. It appears to me more useful to describe it in the words of one of the documents. I quote:

“Commander of the Security Police and SD in Zhitomir; Berditchev, 24 December 1942.

“When summoned to appear, SS Sturmscharführer and Chief Secretary of the Kripo, Fritz Knop, complied. He was born on 18 February 1897, at Neuklinz, in the district of Köslin. Fritz Knop testified as follows:

“‘As from the middle of August 1 was head of the Berditchev field office of the commander of the Security Police and SD in the town of Zhitomir. On 23 December 1942 the Deputy Commander, Hauptsturmführer of the SS Kallbach, inspected the local office and also the Educational Labor Camp which was supervised by my office. In this Educational Labor Camp, as from the end of October or the beginning of November, there were 78 former prisoners of war who had been dismissed from the permanent camp (Stalag) in Zhitomir as being unfit for work. A considerable number of prisoners of war had, in the past, been handed over and placed at the disposal of the Commander of the Security Police and SD.”

I think there is no necessity to explain in detail that the transfer of the prisoners of war and the placing of them at the disposal of the Security Police had been provided for by special directives of the SS and the SD, especially referring to persons condemned to physical extermination. I quote further, on the same page of your document book, 163:

“In Zhitomir a few of them, who up to a certain point were fit for work, had been set aside. The remaining 78 persons were transferred to the local Educational Labor Camp.”

I omit two more extracts.

“The 78 prisoners of war in the local camp were, one and all, severely wounded men. Some had lost both legs; others both arms; others again had lost one or the other of their limbs. Only a few of them had all their arms and legs, although they were so mutilated by other kinds of wounds that they were totally unfit for work. The latter had to nurse the former.

“At the time he was inspecting the Educational Labor Camp on 23 December 1942, SS Hauptsturmführer Kallbach issued an order to the effect that the surviving 68 or 70 prisoners of war, the others having died in the meantime, should this very day be subjected to ‘special treatment.’ For this purpose he assigned a motor truck, driven by SS man Schäfer from the command division, who arrived here today at 1130 hours. I entrusted the preparations for the execution early this morning to my colleagues in the local administration, SS Unterscharführer Paal, SS Rottenführer Hesselbach, and SS Sturmmann Vollprecht.”

I shall, with your permission, omit a further part of the quotation which, in any case, already figures in your files. I think I may safely do so in order to save time. It is a description of the technical preparations for the execution. One passage, however, does appear to me to be of interest; and I quote:

“Usually the execution of the Jews was carried out in the precincts of the labor camp which could not be seen from the outside. For this particular execution I issued orders to choose a site outside on a terrain behind the permanent camp. Concerning the three above-mentioned persons whom I entrusted with the shooting of the prisoners of war, I knew that they had, in Kiev, participated in the mass executions of many thousands of persons and that they had before, that is during my time of service, been entrusted by the local administration with the shooting of many hundreds of victims.”

I should like to invite your attention to another instance which again shows the meaning which the Hitlerites usually attached to the words “execution” and “treatment by special regime.” Here, in one sentence alone, the words “mass execution” and “shooting” are definitely used as synonymous terms, while a little higher up it is made quite clear to us what “transporting by trucks to some place in the neighborhood” and “treatment by special regime” mean. Unquestionably, these four terms have an identical significance.

After this digression I continue my quotation. Having made a few more omissions from the passage already printed in your document book, I proceed to the following paragraph, your Page 165, if only to maintain the sense of the statement:

“They were armed with a German submachine gun, a Russian automatic rifle, an 0.8 pistol, and a carbine. I would point out that I had intended to give these three persons, as an assistant, SS Hauptscharführer Wenzel, but SS Sturmmann Vollprecht declined, remarking that three men were perfectly able to execute this order.

“Concerning the indictment: It never entered my head, to ensure the smooth procedure of an ordinary execution, to send a larger detachment, since the execution ground was hidden from public view and the captives were. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT These words “Concerning the indictment,” are they in the original document?

COL. POKROVSKY: It is the text of the explanation of the evidence which the signatory of the document handed to his police chief. I, with the permission of the Tribunal, shall quote the original German documents of the inquiry. The persons responsible for carrying out the execution were accused of provoking, by their indiscretion and carelessness, that which they called an “incident” and they produced an explanation of the cause of this indictment.

“Concerning the charge: It never entered my head, to ensure the smooth procedure of an ordinary execution, to send a larger detachment, since the execution ground was hidden from public view and the captives were unable to escape by reason of their physical infirmities.

“At about 1500 hours I received a telephone call from the camp to the effect that one of the co-workers in my department, in charge of this special task, had been wounded and that one man had run away. I promptly sent SS Hauptscharführer Wenzel and SS Oberscharführer Fritsch to the execution ground in a horse cart. Some time later I received another telephone call from the camp, informing me that the co-workers of my department had been killed.”

I think it useless to read into the record details of a purely technical nature. I shall omit at this point a considerable part of those references which I had previously intended to quote, and I shall proceed to that part of Knop’s evidence which he had handed to his police chief. You will find the passage in question on Page 166:

“I wish to point out that the incident I have described took place during the second execution. It had been preceded by the shooting of approximately twenty prisoners of war which had passed without any incident at all. As soon as I returned, I informed the command headquarters at Zhitomir accordingly.

“I cannot give any further evidence. I declare that my evidence is absolutely true and I am aware that any false evidence on my part would result in punishment and in exclusion from the SS.

“Signed: Fritz Knop, SS Sturmscharführer; certified: Kuntze, SS Obersturmführer.”

Next to be interrogated was the executioner. We have at our disposal a document on this subject. You will find the extract in question on Page 166 of your document book. I quote the minutes of the inquiry:

“SS Rottenführer of the Waffen-SS, Hesselbach, Friederich, born 24 January 1909 in Freudingen, district of Wittgenstein (Westphalia), was then summoned and testified as follows:

“‘I have been informed concerning the subject of the forthcoming interrogation. It has been pointed out to me that any false statements on my part will result in punishment and expulsion from the SS.’”

After this routine part of the investigation—where he was warned of the penalties awaiting him—Hesselbach gave the following testimony on the matter:

“Yesterday evening I was told by SS Unterscharführer Paal that I would have to take part in the execution of prisoners of war. Later on I received a corresponding order from Hauptscharführer Wenzel, in the presence of SS Sturmscharführer Knop. This morning, at 0800 hours, SS Hauptscharführer Berger, SS Unterscharführer Paal, SS Sturmmann Vollprecht, and myself, drove in a truck lent us by the tannery and driven by a Ukrainian driver, to a place situated approximately one and a half kilometers behind the camp, in order to dig a pit, with eight inmates of our prison.”

Later he describes the digging of the pit. I think that we can skip that part. Then they returned.

“At the entrance to the camp, Vollprecht, acting on Paal’s instructions, left the car. By these instructions Paal intended not to betray our intentions to the prisoners by the presence of a large number of SS men. Therefore, only I, Paal, and a few militia men loaded the prisoners onto the truck. On Paal’s order, the whole first group consisted almost exclusively of the prisoners who had lost their legs.”

I omit a few extracts which are of no interest to the Tribunal and I quote from Page 6 of the Russian translation, the underlined passages, printed on Page 168 of your document book:

“After having executed the first three prisoners I suddenly heard shouting beyond the pit. Since the fourth prisoner was already next in line, I shot him on the spot, and looking up, I noticed a terrific disturbance near the truck. A moment before already I had heard some shots being fired and I now saw the prisoners running away in all directions. I cannot give any precise particulars as to what actually happened near the truck, since I was about 40 to 50 meters away from the place and everything was very confusing. I can only say that I saw two of my comrades lying on the ground, and two prisoners shooting at me and the driver with the firearms they had seized. When I realized what was happening, I fired the four remaining cartridges in my magazine at the prisoners shooting at us, put in a new clip, and suddenly noticed that a bullet had struck the ground near me. I had the feeling that I had been hit, but realized later that I was wrong. I now ascribe this sensation to nervous shock. Anyway, I was shooting at the fugitives with the cartridges from my second clip, though I cannot tell whether I hit any of them.”

I would inform you that the last part of Hesselbach’s testimony deals with the subject of organizing the search for the scattered cripples, a search which yielded no results.

Finally, I would like to quote a few excerpts from the last document in the correspondence. This is a report of SS Obersturmführer Kuntze. It concludes with the statement that the funeral of the SS men killed took place at 1400 hours at the Police and SS Heroes’ Cemetery in Hegewalde. It seems to me that this detail is of a certain interest. I shall now quote the opening part of the above-mentioned report. I shall omit the first report already appearing in your document book, in order to shorten the time taken by my work. He reports that 78 people were supposed to have been killed after the inspection of the camp by Kallbach. Because of their inability to work, these prisoners of war were a burden to the camp.

“For this reason, SS Hauptsturmführer Kallbach ordered the execution of the former prisoners of war, and that on 24 December. Neither in the local nor in the regional offices could anybody discover why the former commandant had taken charge of these crippled prisoners and sent them to the Educational Labor Camp. In this case there did not exist any data whatsoever concerning communistic activities of the prisoners in question during the entire period of the Soviet regime. Evidently the military authorities have, in their own time, placed these prisoners at the disposal of the local branch in order to submit them to the ‘special regime,’ since owing to their physical condition, they could not be made to work.

“So SS Hauptsturmführer Kallbach ordered the execution for 24 December. On 24 December at about 1700 hours, the head of the Berditchev regional office, SS Sturmscharführer Knop, telephoned that during the execution of the ‘special regime’ operation, the two officials of the branch, SS Unterscharführer Paal and SS Sturmmann Vollprecht, were assaulted by the prisoners and killed with their own firearms.”

I shall now omit a considerable part of SS Obersturmführer Kuntze’s idle talk and shall quote only three more paragraphs. You will find them on Pages 172 and 173:

“Thus, of the 28 prisoners, 4 were shot in the pit and 2 while trying to escape; the remaining 22 managed to get away.

“The efforts to recapture the fugitives, promptly undertaken by SS Rottenführer Hesselbach with the help of the guards from the neighboring camp, were expedient though unsuccessful. The head of the Berditchev Department ordered an immediate search for the fugitives and instructed all the police and military agencies to this effect. However, the names of the fugitives are unknown and this fact alone would render the search more difficult. The records merely contained the names of all the prisoners subjected to the ’special regime’ and it was therefore necessary to declare as escapees even those who had already been shot.

“On 25 December, on the same spot, a ‘special regime’ execution of the 20 surviving prisoners of war was carried out under my direction. As I feared that the fugitives might already have established contact with some partisan unit, I again had the camp send a detachment of 20 men, armed with light submachine guns and carbines, in order to guard the surrounding territory. The execution went off without any trouble.”

It is enough to imagine these 20 unfortunate men, without arms, without legs, being escorted to their death by a strong contingent of SS men and soldiers, soldiers armed with submachine guns. I continue:

“As a measure of reprisal I ordered the military police to check up on all released prisoners of war in the adjoining regions to ascertain their political activities during the entire period of Soviet rule, so as to arrest and submit to the ‘special regime’ 20 activists and members of the Communist Party.”

To conclude the presentation of the evidence pertaining to this monstrous crime of the Hitlerites, I should like to invite the Tribunal’s attention to certain facts.

I would, first of all, like to refer to the “objections raised by the Army,” reported by the member of the SS, Knop. Knop said—you will find the passage quoted on Page 163:

“In the future all evacuations of prisoners of war will be suspended due to objections raised by the Army. I do not wish my words to be misunderstood. The Army did not so much object to such evacuations, rather it expressed the wish that the prisoners of war, once they had been released and sent elsewhere, should be given some kind of shelter.”

It is not difficult to guess what “shelter” he was referring to. It was the “shelter” provided when, in the words of Knop, they were “transported in a truck to a place in the neighborhood.”

The second fact which, to me, appears of importance, is the scale of the outrages committed. Referring to the executioners, Paal, Hesselbach, and Vollprecht, Knop writes:

“With reference to the three above-mentioned persons whom I entrusted with the shooting of prisoners of war, I knew that they had, in Kiev, participated in the mass executions of many thousands of persons and that they had already before, that is, during my period of service, been entrusted by the local administration with the shooting of many hundreds of victims.”

In reference to Hesselbach, I should like to note two not very important but extremely characteristic traits. The first is his terminology. Here are his words:

“After having executed the first three prisoners I suddenly heard shouting beyond the pit; since the fourth prisoner was already next in line, I shot him on the spot.”

Any bandit, any habitual murderer would, naturally, use such language in speaking of the destruction of a human being. For the fascist executioners the murder of a soldier who had honestly fought for his country and become an invalid, the brief expression “shot on the spot” is good enough; when occupied in killing, the executioners do not even consider it necessary to find out whom they really are murdering. Thanks to this, shame and confusion cover the police. They order a search both for those who had escaped and for those who were shot.

Secondly, the very sound of a bullet passing nearby gives him a sensation of being wounded, and people of this type are then called “heroes” by their superiors.

It would be an omission on my part not to emphasize the exceptional brutality displayed by Kuntze—this typical representative of the SS. Twenty persons captured at random, captured anyhow, without any fault on their part, must be murdered. What for? Only because 22 armless and legless invalids had succeeded in escaping from death.

The Tribunal, of course, is quite aware of the fact that by all the laws of God and man these 22 invalids should not have perished by the hand of the executioner, but should have been placed under the protection of the German Government as prisoners of war.

The confession of Kuntze, concerning the motives for which the military authorities directed invalids to the camp for treatment by “special regime,” is of particular value. He frankly states that the cause of it was their physical condition which had rendered them unfit for any kind of work. In this connection I submit a series of documents to the Tribunal. They show that only from the angle of possibility of obtaining slaves were the representatives of the German Command and the German authorities occasionally interested in the prisoners of war. You have in your possession a circular of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces to the effect that Soviet prisoners of war should be branded and that this branding would not be considered as a medical measure. I am submitting to you another equally shameful document. It bears the following identifying marks: Az. 2,24.82h, Commander of Camps for Prisoners of War, Number 3142/42; Berlin-Schöneberg; 20.7.1942; 51, Badensche Strasse. This document is Exhibit Number USSR-343 (Document Number USSR-343). I shall not read it into the record. It resembles identically those which I have already read into the record. But it is characteristic of the extent to which the Hitlerite conspirators had abandoned the thesis that “a state can do everything which is necessary to hold prisoners of war in their own safekeeping, but it cannot do anything more.”

A regime based on hard labor, on an unending stream of insult and torture, drove Soviet people to manifestations of stark despair, such as attacks on camp guards who were armed to the teeth. We know of such truly heroic deeds. Testimonies of eyewitnesses are in our hands. I am submitting to you, as Exhibit Number USSR-314 (Document Number USSR-314), the personally written testimony of the witness, Lampe—you interrogated him a few days ago in this court—together with the testimony of the witness, Ribol—our Exhibit Number USSR-315 (Document Number USSR-315). I shall read out such passages of the testimony as appear on Page 348 of your document book. These witnesses reported that in the beginning of February 1945, in the extermination camp of Mauthausen, 800 Red Army prisoners of war who were interned there, had broken out of the fascist hell after first disarming the guards and piercing the electrified barbed wire. Lampe testifies how brutally the SS treated those whom they were able to recapture. I am quoting a few lines:

“All those who returned to the camp were savagely tortured and then shot. I myself saw the escaped prisoners, who were being brought back to Block Number 20.”—I wish to interpolate that Block 20 was the death block.—“They were beaten and the head of one of them was badly bleeding. They were followed by 10 SS men, among whom were three or four officers. They carried whips and were laughing loudly, giving the impression of pleasurably anticipating the tortures they were going to inflict upon the three unfortunate prisoners. The courage of the insurgents and the cruelty of the repression have left an undying impression on all the internees of Mauthausen.”

The fascist conspirators behaved with equal hatred toward all Soviet citizens. If any altercations ever arose among them, they would only be in connection with the methods of destruction to be inflicted on their victims. Some strove to kill off the prisoners immediately; others deemed it wiser to exploit their prisoners’ blood and strength in the mills, factories, military workshops, and in the construction of military undertakings.

Any long war is responsible for labor shortage in industry and agriculture. Fascist Germany solved this problem by importing white male and female slaves. The greatest number of them were prisoners of war. They were sent to heavy labor where masses perished from exhaustion, overwork, hunger, and savage treatment by the guards.

I submit to the Tribunal Document Number 744-PS, and quote the following three paragraphs:

“To carry out the augmented iron-steel industry program, the Führer ordered on 7 July that a sufficient coal supply be guaranteed and that prisoners of war be utilized for this purpose.”

I am omitting several sentence from the documents dealing with the technicalities of this question and quote Point 2 of this directive:

“2. All Soviet prisoners of war, captured since 5 July 1943, are to be sent to the OKW camps and from there directly, or by way of labor exchange, put at the disposal of the Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, for use in the coal mining industry.”

The fourth point is of special interest. It contains a definite directive on how to convert all men between the ages of 16 and 55 into prisoners of war. I quote Point 4:

“4. All male prisoners between the ages of 16 and 55, captured in battles with the partisans in the operational area of the Army, of the eastern commissariats, of the Government General, and of the Balkans, are to be regarded in the future as prisoners of war. The same applies to men in newly conquered districts of the East. They must be sent to the prisoner-of-war camps and then to work in Germany.”

The second document, Number 744-PS, issued by the Chief of the OKW on 8 July 1943, duplicates this directive. The document is signed by Keitel. There is a postscript to the text of the document which was signed by Keitel. It is addressed to all the higher authorities of the SS and is signed by Himmler. The text has already been read into the record on 20 December 1945; I shall therefore refer only to the contents. It concerns the transportation of children, old people, and of young women. Himmler indicates how and by what methods they should be sent to Germany through Sauckel’s organization. In this case, too, Himmler, Keitel, and Sauckel act in perfect agreement, almost as a single entity.

I consider Exhibit Number USSR-354 (Document Number USSR-354) to be of primary importance. It is a report on the prison camp in Minsk. The report was compiled in Rosenberg’s office on 10 July 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: Has it been put in already?

COL. POKROVSKY: This document has not yet been read into the record. Permit me, Your Honor, to read a few excerpts. I quote Page 183:

“The prison camp in Minsk, covering a space about the size of the Wilhelmsplatz, accommodates about one hundred thousand prisoners of war and forty thousand civilian prisoners. The prisoners, crowded together in this small space, can hardly move, and are therefore forced to relieve nature at the very place where they happen to be. The camp is guarded by a detail of soldiers on active duty, of company strength. Due to the small strength of the guard detail, the watch over the camp can only be accomplished by the application of brute force.”

I omit a paragraph and turn to the page which continues the original idea:

“The only possible language for a small guard, which remains on duty both day and night without being relieved, is the firearm, of which ruthless use is made.”

Next, the authors of this document complain about the impossibility of carrying out the selection of prisoners according to physical and racial classification for various forms of hard labor:

“On the second day this selection of civilian prisoners was forbidden to the O.T., referring to an order of General Field Marshal Kluge, according to which he alone had the right to release civilian prisoners.”

I shall read into the record two documents demonstrating how the Hitlerites, in their hatred of the Soviet people, considered the regime of bestial cruelty and systematic insults which they had set up for the Soviet prisoners of war as being too mild, and demanded that it be made still more severe.

On 29 January 1943 an order was issued on the “Rights of Self-Defense against the Prisoners of War,” under the signature of the Chief of the OKH. This order bears the number 3868/42, and is registered by the United States Delegation as Document Number 696-PS. We submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-355, since it has not been read into the record. I shall read a few short extracts from this document. You will find the passage quoted on Page 185 of your document book. It starts as follows:

“The military organizations and the organizations of the National Socialist Party have, on numerous occasions, raised the question of the treatment of the prisoners of war, and they are of the opinion that the punishments provided for by the 1929 Agreement (H. Dv. 38/2) are inadequate.”

This document explains that the previous agreement regarding the treatment of all prisoners of war, with the exception of Soviet nationals, remains in force. The Order Number 389/42-S issued by the OKW Section for Prisoners-of-War Affairs, determines the treatment of the latter. This order was issued on 24 March 1942.

The second document is the circular of the Nazi Party bureau, submitted as Order Number 12/43-S. This circular, signed by Bormann, was issued by the chief of the Party bureau, at the Führer’s main headquarters on 12 February 1943. The circular was sent out by the Reichsführer to the Gauleiter and to the commanding officers of military units. It speaks of Secret Order Number 3868/42-S of the Chief of the General Staff. It is therefore proved once more, and proved beyond any manner of doubt, that the leaders of the Nazi Party and the military command bear equal responsibility for the atrocities perpetrated on the Soviet prisoners of war.

The Navy regulations regarding prisoners of war remain in force for all but Soviet prisoners, and where the Soviet prisoners were concerned the “regulations of the OKW” which I have already mentioned, “remain in force.”

Thus, absolute criminal agreement between the Party leaders and the OKW can be considered as existing as I already have shown to the Tribunal. I stress the circumstance and I would remind you that all this happened in the country whose representative had declared as far back as 1902:

“The only purpose in capturing prisoners of war is to prevent their further participation in the war. Although prisoners of war lose their freedom, they do not lose their rights. In other words, captivity is not an act of mercy on the part of the conqueror. It is the right of the disarmed soldier.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we have had that document read to us more than once.

COL. POKROVSKY: I am not rereading it. I am merely recalling its contents.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must give the Tribunal credit for some recollection. As I say, that document has been read more than once before.

COL. POKROVSKY: We have at our disposal an official note signed by Lammers. This document is registered under Document Number 073-PS. We submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-361—it has not yet been read into the record. The document states—you will find this excerpt on Page 191 of your document book:

“1. Prisoners of war are foreigners. Influencing them is the task . . . of foreign propaganda and therefore the task of the Foreign Office.”

I omit a few sentences.

“Excepted from this ruling are the Soviet prisoners who are placed under the control of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Territories of the East because the Geneva Convention is not valid for them and because they have a special political status.”

In this connection, I wish to submit to you as Exhibit Number USSR-356 (Document Number USSR-356), another German document. It consists of notes composed at the headquarters of the Foreign Counterintelligence Office on the 15 November 1941 for the “OKW Chief of Staff.” I shall read into the record a few extracts, of which you will find the opening lines on Page 192 of your document book:

“The Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war is not valid between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore, the only rules in force are the principles of general international law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, which since the 18th century have so developed that war captivity represented neither revenge nor punishment, but a security measure, the sole object of which was to prevent prisoners from further participating in the war. This principle developed in connection with the prevalent opinion that, from a military standpoint, the killing or wounding of prisoners was inadmissible. In addition, it is to the interest of each belligerent to be assured against ill-treatment of its soldiers in case of their capture. Appendix I states the directives, based on different premises as can be seen at the beginning of this paragraph, concerning the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war.”

To save time I shall omit several sentences and shall read the end of the paragraph into the record:

“. . . and, in addition, eliminated much which from past experience was considered not only as useful from a military viewpoint but as indispensable to the maintenance of discipline and high striking power.

“The orders are drawn up in very general terms. But, if we bear in mind the ruling basic tendency, then the ‘measures’ permitted by these orders are bound to result in wanton and unpunished murder, even though officially the law of violence has been abolished.

“This is obvious from the directive regarding the use of weapons against recalcitrance. The guards and their commanding officers, who often do not understand the language of the prisoner of war, will not be able to know whether the prisoners’ disobedience was due to recalcitrance or to a misunderstanding of the orders. The principle that use of weapons against Soviet prisoners of war is, as a rule, justified absolves the guards from any duty of making reflections about their actions.”

Omitting two paragraphs not directly relating to this matter, I quote as follows:

“The organization of camp police equipped with clubs, whips, and similar weapons, even in camps where all labor is done by the prisoners, is against military rule and tradition. In addition the military authorities thus give into other hands the means for applying punishment without providing adequate control as to how these means are employed.”

I wish to quote one more sentence taken from Paragraph 5 of these notes—you will find it on Page 194:

“Appendix 2 contains a translation of the Russian decree regarding prisoners of war which is in accord with the basic principles of international law as well as with the rules of the Geneva Convention.”

I shall refrain from quoting the rest of the document as it is of little interest. This document is signed by the Chief of the Foreign Counterintelligence Service, Admiral Canaris. It includes directives containing instructions relating to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, dwelling in detail on such sections which Canaris considered as violations of the basic principles of international law and of the Geneva Convention.

I should like to supplement this document with a few excerpts from the minutes of the interrogation by Dr. Wengler, a former counsellor of the Foreign Counterintelligence Service of the OKW. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-129 (Document Number USSR-129). Wengler was questioned by me on 19 December 1945, and his testimony is important for purposes of evaluating the line of conduct both of the OKW and Keitel himself.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I ask that the document, Exhibit Number USSR-129, which the Russian Prosecutor intends to read, should not be read, but that the witness mentioned in this document, Dr. Wengler, be called personally to testify in Court, if the Soviet Prosecution is willing.

This document, USSR-129, is a record of an interrogation of Dr. Wengler, who was active in Counterintelligence Service in the OKW. It is a question of determining whether the nonapplication of the Geneva Convention as regards Russia is due to the fault of the German Government, the OKW, and the Defendant Keitel. I do not need to state that the clarification of this question is of the utmost significance in judging the responsible persons, not only because of the Counts in the Indictment, but because of the terrible guilt in face of the German people, if the testimony given by this witness should be true. The witness was interrogated in Nuremberg on 19 December 1945. Whether he is still here or in Berlin—he gave his address at the time of the inquiry—I cannot say. But I do believe that the basic decisions of the Tribunal concerning the interpretation of Article 21 of the Charter will justify my request in this respect since, firstly, the summoning of the witness from Berlin does not entail great difficulties, secondly we are concerned with a question of such tremendous significance, even in this setting, that the personal testimony and interrogation by this Tribunal should not be replaced by the mere lecture of the minutes of an inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you anything you wish to say in answer to that objection?

COL. POKROVSKY: With your permission I should like first of all, in order to clarify the matter, to ask where the witness actually is at the present moment? He is not in Nuremberg. He was brought here especially for this interrogation under the greatest technical difficulties. The interrogation was conducted according to all the rules of our judicial proceedings, so that this document could be submitted to the Tribunal and accepted as evidence, if the Tribunal so judges, according to Article 19 of the Charter.

All the problems concerning this subject, which were of interest to the Soviet Prosecution, are already sufficiently clear from the Document Number USSR-129, which we submit to you, and I see no possibility of having this witness brought here in the near future. Maybe the representatives of the Defense Counsel imagine that it is very easy to produce him, but I do not see any technical possibility of bringing him here a second time. And I repeat that, if the Tribunal does not consider it feasible to accept this document in the suitable manner in which we have formulated it, then we would even agree to refrain from submitting it as evidence and to replace it by other evidence—even though we believe it to be incorrect. But we consider it easier than to bring the witness here a second time. That is all I have to say in reply to this request.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that you could not bring the witness here, and that as you could not bring him here you would not press the introduction of the document?

COL. POKROVSKY: No, I put it differently. I said that we insist that this document be admitted, since the Tribunal has the right, according to Article 19 of the Charter, to accept this document as evidence. But if we were to choose between two possibilities, either by adding this evidence to the record or by summoning the witness a second time, the technical obstacles which prevent us from so doing would compel us, by preference, to accept the exclusion of this document from the record, in order to avoid any repetition of the difficulties already experienced. We consider that the document is quite correctly compiled, in accordance with all the rules of the Charter, and that the Tribunal should receive it as evidence according to Article 19 of the Charter.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know first of all, why is it difficult or impossible to bring the witness to Nuremberg in the same way that he was brought to Nuremberg in December 1945; and secondly, has Dr. Nelte and have the other defendants’ counsel got full copies in German of the document?

COL. POKROVSKY: Dr. Wengler was interrogated in his native German tongue. The original of his record, of his interrogation, has been submitted to the Tribunal in an adequate number of copies, which are at the disposal of the Defense Counsel.

As regards the technical difficulties, I cannot, at present, undertake to give the Tribunal a precise description of all the technical difficulties reported to me by my collaborators, since I can no longer remember them. But I do know that, when they were working on this matter, establishing the existence of the witness, searching for him, bringing him here, they—my collaborators—declared that they could do this once but that they would not be able to do it a second time. Consequently, Dr. Wengler, a free agent, was here in Nuremberg, not for 1 day, but for many days, precisely for the time needed adequately to clear up all the questions which were of interest to us and to interrogate him, since we foresaw the impossibility of summoning him a second time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the deponent, the witness, was brought from when he was brought to Nuremberg.

COL. POKROVSKY: From Berlin. He was brought the last time from Berlin.

THE PRESIDENT: Then is he now in Berlin?

COL. POKROVSKY: I do not undertake to answer this question now without making further inquiries. He is not interned.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Nelte, do you want to say anything?

DR. NELTE: I should just like to refer to the last page of the minutes, where the address is given: Dr. Wilhelm Wengler, Berlin-Hermsdorf, Ringstrasse Number 32. We are simply concerned with the question: Which technical difficulties are involved to bring this witness from Berlin to Nuremberg a second time? Of course, I do not know whether the witness is in Berlin, but I assume that he is there.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow the deposition to be put in evidence, should the Soviet Prosecutor decide to do so. If the document is put in evidence, the Tribunal will desire that the Prosecutor should secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness for cross-examination. If the Prosecution is unable to secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness, then the Tribunal will itself attempt to secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness, for cross-examination.

COL. POKROVSKY: I can report to the Tribunal that I attempted to employ the time spent by the Tribunal in deliberating this problem in discovering if we could bring this witness back again and that I did not receive a conclusive reply from my organization. According to the wish of the Tribunal, I shall omit the topic of his cross-examination and shall only refer to it again if I am informed by my collaborators that we can once more bring the witness before the Tribunal. This would seem to me in accordance with the wishes of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I am not quite sure that you appreciated quite what I said. What I said was that you are at liberty to put in the document now, if you wish to do so. That is one thing. But, if you do so, you must attempt to secure the attendance of the witness, and should you fail to do so, the Tribunal will attempt to secure the attendance of the witness; but the document will still be in evidence and will not be struck out, although, of course, it will be open to the criticism that it is only a deposition or an affidavit and that the witness has not been produced for cross-examination and therefore the weight that attaches to the testimony will not be so great as it would be if the witness had been produced for cross-examination.

Is that clear?

COL. POKROVSKY: Wengler was interrogated by me. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I fear I used inaccurately the word “affidavit.” It is only an interrogation. It is not made upon oath and that, of course, will be taken into consideration. But the point is that you can put in the document now if you decide to do so. That is a matter for your discretion. If you do so, you must attempt to secure the attendance of the witness for cross-examination. If you are unable to get him, then the Tribunal will attempt to get him here for cross-examination.

COL. POKROVSKY: When reporting to the Tribunal on the measures we had adopted, I started from the point of view that the Tribunal desired that each witness, whose testimony had been read into the record, could, if necessary, be summoned to appear before the Tribunal for a supplementary cross-examination. That is why I have already attempted to find out whether we can call up this witness now, and since I have not yet received any definite answer from our organization, I wish to invite the attention of the Tribunal to the possibility that we will simply abstain from mentioning these minutes now, as we only need them for the confirmation of one point, already confirmed by a document which has just been presented to the Tribunal. This is the report signed by Canaris. What is the meaning of Wengler’s interrogation? The meaning of Wengler’s interrogation is that it shows that the OKW knew of the treatment meted out to the Soviet prisoners. Canaris said the same.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must decide, Colonel Pokrovsky, whether you wish to put in the document or not. If you wish to put in the document, you may do so, but I do not think it is right for you to state the contents of the document and at the same time not to put it in. If you wish to put it in, then you must try to secure the attendance of the witness, and if you cannot secure the attendance, the Tribunal will try to secure it.

COL. POKROVSKY: I consider that Wengler’s testimony is not important enough for us to pay so very much attention to it. If we can find this witness, we shall examine him at a later date.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. POKROVSKY: In the light of the documents read into the record, and also in view of the protest of the German prisoners of war in Camp 78, which shows how humanely the Soviet authorities treated German military prisoners of the German Army, the sentence from Appendix I of Operations Order Number 14 of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, concerning the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, is nothing less than a brazen insult. This sentence can be found on Page 7 of the document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-3 (Document Number USSR-3). You will find it on Page 204 of your document book:

“Thus the Bolshevik soldier has lost his right to be treated as an honest soldier and in accordance with the rules of the Geneva Convention.”

I beg the Tribunal to recollect that the following directive, dated 7 November 1941, appears in Appendix II of Order Number 11 of the General Staff of the OKW. I quote from Exhibit Number USSR-3, extracts from which appear on Page 233 of your document book—last paragraph in the right column.

“The work of the Special Squad, by license of the rear area commander (officer in charge of prisoner-of-war affairs of the district) must be done in such a way that the selecting and sorting out is practically unnoticeable. Executions must be carried out without delay, and at sufficient distance from the camp and from habitations to keep them secret from the other prisoners and the population.”

These are the transfers of prisoners “to some place in the neighborhood” that Kuntze, the expert executioner, had in mind when he reported to his chiefs on the incidents which occurred during the execution of the 28 crippled prisoners of war.

Among the documents submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Delegation are data regarding the shooting, on 7 April 1945, at the Seelhorst Cemetery in Hanover, of 150 Soviet prisoners of war and civilians. We submit this data as Exhibit Number USSR-112 (Document Number USSR-112). You will find the data in question on Page 207 of your document book. They have been placed at our disposal by the American investigation authorities. They consist of a number of testimonies, including that of Peter Palnikov, a Red Army officer who had fortuitously escaped the execution. You will find the minutes to which I refer on the same page, 207 of your document book. We also have the testimonies of other members of the local population who had been questioned under oath by the American investigation authorities. Their evidence is corroborated by medical reports on bodies exhumed from the graves at Seelhorst Cemetery. In addition, we submit duly certified photographs.

I shall not read all these documents into the record but shall merely point out that the 167 corpses thus exhumed were specially noted in the concluding report of the commission, as enabling the commission to judge, from their appearance, of the “pronounced degree of insufficient nourishment.”

This circumstance must be stressed so that the Tribunal may have a perfectly clear picture of the food situation prevalent among Soviet prisoners of war in the various camps. Regardless of the territory in which the camp was located, all Soviet prisoners of war were exposed to a regime of hunger with the same sustained and systematic cruelty.

While I am thus reporting on the Hitlerian atrocities perpetrated on the prisoners, I find that we now have at our disposal several court verdicts pronounced on the fascist criminals who committed their crimes in the temporarily occupied territories. In accordance with Article 21 of the Charter, I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-87 (Document Number USSR-87) the verdict of a district military tribunal. You will find the entire verdict on Page 214 up to Page 221. It was pronounced in Smolensk, on 19 December 1945. The Tribunal inflicted penalties varying from 12 years hard labor to death by hanging, on 10 Hitlerites directly guilty of the numerous crimes committed in the city and region of Smolensk.

I shall not quote the document, but shall merely mention that on Pages 4, 5, and 6 of the verdict, in passages marked in your copies—these pages, that is, 4, 5, and 6 of the verdict, are to be found in your document book on Pages 218, 219, and 222—information is contained how, as a result of pseudo-scientific experiments on prisoners of war by persons who, to the undying shame of German medicine, were known in Germany as professors and doctors, tortured and murdered the prisoners by blood poisoning. The sentence presents further evidence that, as a result of savage ill-treatment by the German escort conveying Soviet prisoners of war, some 10,000 exhausted, half-dead captives perished between Vyasma and Smolensk.

It is precisely this passage, this information, which you will find in Subparagraph 3 of the verdict. It appears on Page 218 of your document book. The verdict reflects the systematic mass shooting of prisoners of war in Camp 126, in the city of Smolensk—“in Transit Camp 126 South”—during the transfer of the prisoners to the camp and to the hospital. The verdict particularly emphasizes the fact that prisoners of war, too exhausted to work, were shot.

I should now like to turn to the brutalities committed by the Hitlerites towards members of the Czechoslovakian, Polish, and Yugoslavian Armies. We find, in the Indictment, that one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war, shot in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk by the German fascist invaders.

I submit to the Tribunal, as a proof of this crime, official documents of the special commission for the establishment and the investigation of the circumstances which attended the executions. The commission acted in accordance with a directive of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union. In addition to members of the Extraordinary State Commission—namely Academicians Burdenko, Alexis Tolstoy, and the Metropolitan Nicolas—this commission was composed of the President of the Pan-Slavonia Committee, Lieutenant General Gundorov; the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Union of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Kolesnikov; of the People’s Commissar for Education in the R.S.S.F.R., Academician Potemkin; the Supreme Chief of the Medical Department of the Red Army, General Smirnov; and the Chairman of the District Executive Committee of Smolensk, Melnikov. The commission also included several of the best known medico-legal experts.

It would take too long to read into the record that precise and detailed document which I now submit to you as Exhibit Number USSR-54 (Document Number USSR-54), which is a result of the investigation. I shall read into the record only a few comparatively short excerpts. On Page 2 of the document, which is Page 223 in your document book, we read—this passage is marked in your file:

“According to the estimates of medico-legal experts, the total number of bodies amounts to over 11,000. The medico-legal experts carried out a thorough examination of the bodies exhumed, and of the documents and material evidence found on the bodies and in the graves. During the exhumation and examination of the corpses, the commission questioned many witnesses among the local inhabitants. Their testimony permitted the determination of the exact time and circumstances of the crimes committed by the German invaders.”

I believe that I need not quote everything that the Extraordinary Commission ascertained during its investigation about the crimes of the Germans. I only read into the record the general conclusions, which summarize the work of the commission. You will find the lines read into the record on Page 43 of Exhibit Number USSR-54 if you turn to the original document, or on Page 264 of your document book:

“General conclusions:

“On perusal of all the material at the disposal of the special commission, that is, the depositions of over 100 witnesses questioned, the data of the medico-legal experts, the documents and the material evidence and belongings taken from the graves in Katyn Forest, we can arrive at the following definite conclusions:

“1. The Polish prisoners of war imprisoned in the three camps west of Smolensk and engaged in railway construction before the war, remained there after the occupation of Smolensk by the Germans, right up to September 1941.

“2. In the autumn of 1941, in Katyn Forest, the German occupational authorities carried out mass shootings of the Polish prisoners of war from the above-mentioned camps.

“3. Mass shootings of Polish prisoners of war in Katyn Forest were carried out by German military organizations disguised under the specific name, ‘Staff 537, Engineer Construction Battalion,’ commanded by Oberleutnant Arnes and his colleagues, Oberleutnant Rex and Leutnant Hott.

“4. In connection with the deterioration, for Germany, of the general military and political machinery at the beginning of 1943, the German occupational authorities, with a view to provoking incidents, undertook a whole series of measures to ascribe their own misdeeds to organizations of the Soviet authorities, in order to make mischief between the Russians and the Poles.

“5. For these purposes:

“a. The German fascist invaders, by persuasion, attempts at bribery, threats, and by barbarous tortures, endeavored to find ‘witnesses’ among the Soviet citizens from whom they obtained false testimony, alleging that the Polish prisoners of war had been shot by organizations of the Soviet authorities in the spring of 1940.

“b. The German occupational authorities, in the spring of 1943, brought from other places the bodies of Polish prisoners of war whom they had shot, and laid them in the turned up graves of Katyn Forest with the dual purpose of covering up the traces of their own atrocities and of increasing the numbers of ‘victims of Bolshevist atrocities’ in Katyn Forest,

“c. While preparing their provocative measures, the German occupational authorities employed up to 500 Russian prisoners of war for the task of digging up the graves in Katyn Forest. Once the graves had been dug, the Russian prisoners of war were shot by the Germans in order to destroy thus all proof and material evidence on the matter.

“6. The date of the legal and medical examination determined, without any shadow of doubt:

“a. That the time of shooting was autumn 1941.

“b. The application by the German executioners, when shooting Polish prisoners of war, of the identical method—a pistol shot in the nape of the neck—as used by them in the mass murders of the Soviet citizens in other towns, especially in Orel, Voronetz, Krasnodar and in Smolensk itself.”

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

COL. POKROVSKY: Point 7 of the general conclusions of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, on which I reported in the preceding session, states:

“The conclusions reached, after studying the affidavits and medico-legal examinations concerning the shooting of Polish military prisoners of war by Germans in the autumn of 1941, fully confirmed the material evidence and documents discovered in the Katyn graves.

“8. By shooting the Polish prisoners of war in Katyn Forest, the German fascist invaders consistently realized their policy for the physical extermination of the Slav peoples.”

Here follow the signatures of all the members of the Commission.

The Katyn massacres did not exhaust the Hitler crimes against the soldiers of the Polish Army. In the report of the Polish Government, submitted by me to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93), we find a series of proofs confirming the breach by the Hitlerite conspirators of the elementary rules of international law governing the customs and laws of war; on Page 36 of this report by the Polish Government—it is on Page 285 of your document book—we find, as an outstanding part of the material collected, the ill-treatment of prisoners of war and their extermination. It is said in the report—and I quote:

“As and when the Polish officers and other ranks returned from German prisoner-of-war camps, we learn further details concerning conditions prevailing in the German camps. All these details undeniably prove the existence of a line of policy, instructions, and orders concerning the Polish prisoners of war. Ill-treatment, hardship, and inhuman conditions were of common occurrence. Murders and grievous bodily injuries were frequently encountered. A few examples confirmed by witnesses under oath are submitted later on.”

I take the liberty of reading into the record some of the examples quoted in the Polish report. As a first example, I shall quote the description of an incident which occurred in a temporary prisoner-of-war camp in the city of Belsk. This material figures on Page 285 of your document book:

“On 10 October 1939 the camp commandant assembled all the prisoners and ordered those who had joined the Polish Army as volunteers to raise their hands. Three prisoners obeyed his order. They were immediately led out of the rank and placed at a distance of 25 meters from a detachment of German soldiers armed with machine guns. The commandant gave the order to open fire. He then spoke to the remaining prisoners and told them that the three volunteers had been shot as an example to the others.”

In this case we are not faced with the simple murder of three unarmed soldiers of the Polish Army. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel, you forgive my interrupting you, but you remember that I have interrupted all the other prosecutors to point out to them that one opening speech had been made on behalf of their delegation, and that really their function was to present the documents.

Now, you have just presented a document which states that three volunteers were shot. I think that any comment upon that is really unnecessary.

COL. POKROVSKY: I now proceed to the quotation of the second excerpt on Page 37, Subparagraph d—Page 226 of your document book:

“In the autumn of 1939 Camp (Stalag) VIII-S was established in Kounau, near Sagan on the River Bober, a tributary of the Oder. Depositions from this camp read as follows:

“The camp in Kounau was an open space surrounded by barbed wire, with large tents, each holding 180 or 200 persons. In spite of very cold weather (the temperature was below 25 degrees centigrade) there was, in December 1939, no heating appliance whatsoever in the camp. Consequently, some of the internees suffered from frozen hands, feet, and ears. Since the prisoners had no blankets and since their uniforms were too worn out to protect them from the cold, disease broke out, while malnutrition resulted in extreme debility. Moreover, the guards constantly ill-treated the prisoners. They were beaten on the slightest pretext. Two men were especially noted for their brutality, Lieutenant Schinke and Sergeant Major Grau. They hit the prisoners in the face and beat them, broke their ribs and arms, and gouged out their eyes. Such inhuman treatment resulted in several cases of suicide and insanity among the soldiers.”

I think we can now pass on at once to the general conclusions and to read into the Record to this end Subparagraph g on Page 39—Page 287 of the document book:

“The above-mentioned treatment of Polish prisoners of war by individuals as well as by the German military authorities, flagrantly violated the articles of the Geneva Convention of 1929, Articles 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 29, 30, 50, and 54. The convention in question had been ratified by Germany on 21 February 1934.”

Soldiers of the Yugoslav Army, captured by the German troops, were subjected to unbridled ill-treatment by the fascist invaders. Ill-treatment, torture, and torment, together with mass executions were introduced as a part of the system. Here, too, the Hitler criminals were perfectly aware of what they were doing. To whitewash themselves, if only a little, in the eyes of the world, they referred in all documents concerning the destruction of Yugoslav prisoners of war, to the officers and men of the Yugoslav Army as “bandits.”

The second paragraph from the bottom of Page 23 of the official Yugoslav report with regard to the above matter reads as follows—I quote Page 23 of Document Number USSR-305. This quotation begins on Page 326 of your document book:

“. . . everywhere where the Germans used the so-called actions against ‘bands and bandits’ as a pretext for the annihilation of the civilian population (women, children, and old people), units of the Yugoslav National Army of Liberation and partisan units had actually been involved. . . .

“Being under military command and wearing recognizable military emblems and insignia, they conducted an armed struggle against the fascist occupational forces and, moreover, they were fully recognized by all the Allies. Besides, we will see later on that on some of its documents, the German Command itself unmistakably recognized this fact; but in its attitude towards the Yugoslav warriors it continued unrestrainedly to violate the principles of the international laws of war.”

As an additional confirmation of the report, the form of which is in accordance with the requirements of Article 21 of the Charter concerning the admissibility of evidence, I also submit to the Tribunal Document Number USSR-305. This is an excerpt from the report by the Yugoslav State Commission concerning the determination of crimes committed by the occupational forces and their accomplices. The State Commission reports that there is at its disposal a secret report by Lieutenant General Hoesslin, the officer in command of the 188th Mountain Infantry Reserve Division, numbered 9070/44. The report is of great importance because of the following considerations which I will explain to the Tribunal in the terms of Document Number USSR-305. I quote:

“Although the report refers to our divisions, brigades, and artillery battalions under their proper names and proper numbers—in cases of military engagements—all our army is called in this report by the general name of ‘bandits,’ and for the very simple reason that by so doing they are attempting to divest us of the rights of belligerents, they themselves assuming the right to shoot prisoners of war, to kill the wounded, and to have a pretext for employing repressive measures against the peaceful non-combatant population, allegedly because of their assistance to the ‘bandits.’ Lieutenant General Hoesslin admits that the combat group of Colonel Christel after ‘a night engagement with weak bandit forces’—these are the precise words of the report—‘burnt down Laskovitz, Lazna, and Cepovan, and destroyed a hospital.’

“In General Hoesslin’s report it is further stated that the division, together with the 3rd Brandenburg Regiment and other German army and police units, participated in ‘a free-for-all manhunt for bandits in the neighborhood of Klana’ (Operation Ernst). . . .”

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-132 (Document Number USSR-132), Page 363 of your document book. This represents an excerpt from the directives issued by Major General Kübler concerning the conduct of troops in action, an extract which was certified by the Yugoslav State Commission. I read these excerpts into the Record:

“Secret; 118th Jäger Division; Abt Ic; Br. B. No. 1418/43 secret; Div. Hqs., 12. 5. 1943.

“Directives for the Conduct of Troops in Action.

“2. Prisoners:

“Anyone having participated openly in the fight against the German Armed Forces and having been taken prisoner is to be shot after interrogation.”

I further submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-304 (Document Number USSR-304). This number has been given to the excerpt from Memorandum Number 6 of the Yugoslav State Commission for the determination of the crimes committed by the occupational forces and by their accomplices. In the last paragraph of Exhibit Number USSR-304—Page 2 of the Russian text—is stated as follows—your Page 365 of the document book:

“On 3 May 1945 the Germans brought from one of the partisan hospitals 35 manacled patients and hospital orderlies. Ten of the patients who were unable to walk were stood against the wall and shot. Their bodies were piled in a heap, covered with wood and set on fire.”

As Exhibit Number USSR-307 (Document Number USSR-307) I submit another extract from statement Number 6 of the same State Commission. This statement is found on Page 85 to 115 of the first book entitled “Memoranda on Crimes Committed by the Occupation Forces and their Accomplices.” I shall now proceed to quote a part of this extract:

“On 5 June 1944 Hitler’s criminals captured two soldiers of the Yugoslav Liberation Army and the Slovene Partisan Detachments. They brought them to Razori, where they cut off their noses and ears with bayonets, gouged out their eyes and then asked them if they could see their Comrade Tito. Thereupon they assembled the peasants and beheaded the two victims in their presence. . . . They then placed both the heads on a table.”

In accordance with their usual practice of photographing the bodies of their victims, the fascists then took photographs, and, as is further stated in the extract quoted by me:

“Later, in the course of the fighting, the photographs were found on a fallen German. From this it can be seen that they confirm the above described incident at Razori.”

These pictures will be submitted to the Tribunal together with other Yugoslav photographic evidence.

Under Document USSR-65(a) I submit to the Tribunal an announcement signed by the Commander of the SS and police detachments of the 18th Military District, SS Gruppenführer and Lieutenant General of Police, Rösener. I shall now proceed to read into the Record a part of this announcement. You will thus be able to see that the warriors of the Yugoslav Armed Forces who were taken prisoner were either hanged or shot. This document is on Page 367 of your document book, “In connection with the various clashes between police detachments and Yugoslav units. . . .”

I skip several sentences of this document concerning a description of the encounters between detachments of Polish and Yugoslav units.

“Eighteen bandits were recently killed in action and a considerable number taken prisoner.

“The following bandits, who were among the prisoners, were publicly hanged at Stein on 30 June 1942. . . .”

This statement is followed by the names of eight Yugoslav soldiers between the ages of 21 and 40 years. I will not read this list into the Record.

On Page 36 of our Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36)—your Page 339—the first paragraph from the bottom reads, “We can find the identical evidence in a collection of official notes on the staff conferences of Gauleiter Uiberreiter.” Thus, for example, it is stated in the minutes of the conference held on 23 March 1942, “Fifteen bandits were executed in Maribor today.” I omit some sentences from the minutes of the conference held on 27 July 1942, “Many bandits have been shot recently.”

The minutes of the conference of 21 December 1941 contain a passage:

“Since the bandits started their activities in July 1941, 164 bandits have been shot by the uniformed police and 1,043 by special procedure (Sonderverfahren).”

The minutes of 25 January 1943 state:

“The number of guerilla troops liquidated on 8 January 1942 by the Security Police and the uniformed branch is 86, including wounded and prisoners, 77 of whom were killed.”

Such notes can be found in almost every one of the minutes of these conferences held by Uiberreiter.

A certain number of prisoners of war who had escaped immediate annihilation were moved into special camps where they were gradually killed off by hunger and by exhausting heavy labor. I will now read into the Record the last paragraph on Page 37 of the report of the Yugoslav Government, which was previously mentioned by me and offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-36. It is on Page 340 of the document book:

“One such camp was established in 1942 at Boten, near Rognan. Nearly 1,000 Yugoslav prisoners of war were brought into this camp; and in the course of a few months all of them, to the last man, died of illness, hunger, physical torture, or execution by shooting. They were forced every day to do the very hardest work on a road and some dams. Their working hours lasted from dawn until 1800 hours, under the worst possible climatic conditions in this far northern part of Norway. During their work the prisoners were beaten incessantly and in the camp, itself, were exposed to terrible ill-treatment.

“Thus, for example, in August 1942 the prisoners were ordered by the German staff of the camp to have all their hair removed from their armpits and around their genitals, as otherwise they would be shot. Not one prisoner received a razor from the Germans, though the Germans knew well that they had none. The prisoners spent the whole of the night plucking out their hair with their hands and assisting one another. However, in the morning the guards killed four prisoners and wounded three by rifle fire.

“On 26 November 1943, German soldiers, in the middle of the night, broke into the hospital and dragged out into the courtyard 80 sick prisoners; after they had been forced to strip in the bitter cold, they were all shot. On 26 January 1943, 50 more prisoners died in torment from the beatings received. Throughout the winter many prisoners were killed in the following manner: They would be buried up to their waist in the snow, and water poured over them, so that they formed statues of ice. It was established that 880 Yugoslav prisoners of war were killed in the above-mentioned camp in various ways.”

Further, on Page 38, Exhibit Number USSR-36 (Document Number USSR-36), information is contained of the shooting of Yugoslav prisoners of war in the camp at Bajsfjord, Norway. After 10 July 1942, when an epidemic of spotted fever broke out in the camp and spread to six others, the Germans found no other way of fighting this epidemic than by shooting all the patients. This was done on 17 July 1942. On the same page, 38, there is a reference to a Norwegian report of 22 January 1942, compiled on a basis of statements made by Norwegian guards of this camp who had fled. It is stated in this report that of 900 Yugoslav prisoners of war, 320 were shot, while the remainder, with a view to isolating them, were transferred to another camp, Bjerfjel. I will read into the Record Page 38 of Exhibit Number USSR-36, beginning with the fifth paragraph from the bottom, Page 341 of your document book:

“When an epidemic of spotted fever broke out in the new camp, an average of 12 men a day were shot in the course of the following 5 to 6 weeks. By the end of August 1942 only 350 of these prisoners were returned to Bajsfjord, where German SS troops continued to exterminate them. In the end only 200 men remained alive and were transferred to camp Osen.”

I will now skip two paragraphs and pass to the last paragraph of the same report:

“On 22 June 1943 a transport containing 900 Yugoslav prisoners arrived in Norway. Most of them were intellectuals, workers and peasants, and prisoners from the ranks of the former Yugoslav Army or else captured partisans or men seized as so-called ‘politically suspicious elements.’ Some of them—about 400—were placed in the still unfinished camp at Korgen, while the other group of about 500 was sent 10 to 20 kilometers further on to Osen. The commandant of both camps, from June 1942 until the end of March 1943, was the SS Sturmbannführer Dolps. . . .

“Men were constantly dying of hunger. Forty-five were placed in a hut which normally accommodated six men only. . . . There was no medicine. . . . They worked under most difficult conditions on road building, in the bitter cold, without clothing and caps, in the wind and rain, 12 hours a day.

“The prisoners in the camp at Osen used to sleep in their shirts without any underpants, without any cover whatsoever, on the bare boards. Dolps personally visited the huts and carried out inspections. The prisoners who were caught sleeping in their underpants were killed on the spot by Dolps with his submachine gun. In the same manner he killed all those who appeared on parade, which he reviewed personally, in soiled underwear. . . . By the end of 1942 only 90 still remained alive of the first group of 400 in Korgen. Out of about 500 prisoners who were taken to the camp of Osen by the end of June 1942, there were, in March 1943, only 30 men left alive.”

I will read into the record an excerpt from Page 39, Exhibit Number USSR-36 beginning with the third paragraph from the bottom, Page 342 of your document book:

“Besides this terrible treatment of the captured soldiers of the Yugoslav National Army of Liberation and the Partisan Detachments, the Germans also treated prisoners of war from the ranks of the old Yugoslav Army in complete contravention of international law and contrary to the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 1929. In April 1941, immediately after the occupation of the Yugoslav territory, the Germans drove into captivity in Germany about 300,000 noncommissioned officers and men. The Yugoslav State Commission has at its disposal much evidence of the unlawful ill-treatment of these prisoners. We shall give here a few examples only.

“On 14 July 1943 in the officers’ SS camp at Osnabrück, 740 captured Yugoslav officers were separated from the remainder and placed in a special penitentiary camp called Camp D. Here they were all crowded together in four huts; all contact with the rest of the camp was prohibited. The treatment of these officers directly contravened the provisions of the Geneva Convention even more so than the treatment of the other prisoners. In this penitentiary camp were placed all those whom the Germans considered as supporters of the National-Liberation movement and against whom they very frequently applied measures of mass punishments.

“The Germans gambled with the lives of the prisoners and frequently shot them from sheer caprice. Thus, for instance, at the aforesaid camp at Osnabrück, on 11 January 1942, a German guard fired at a group of prisoners, severely wounding Captain Peter Nozinic. On 22 July 1942 a guard fired on a group of officers. On 2 September 1942, a guard fired on the Yugoslav lieutenant, Vladislav Vajs, who was incapacitated by a wound he had received some time before. On 22 September 1942, a guard from the prison tower again fired on a group of officers. On 18 December 1942 the guard fired on a group of officers because, from their huts, they were watching some English prisoners passing by. On 20 February 1943 a guard fired on an officer merely because this officer was smoking. On 11 March 1943 a guard opened fire on the doors of a hut and killed General Dimitri Pavlovic. On 21 June 1943 a guard fired at the Yugoslav lieutenant colonel, Branko Popanic. On 26 April 1944 a German noncommissioned officer, Richards, fired on Lieutenant Vladislav Gaider, who subsequently died of his wounds.

“On 26 June 1944 the German captain, Kuntze, fired on two Yugoslav officers, severely wounding Lieutenant Djorjevic.

“All these shootings were carried out without any serious reasons or pretext and only as a result of brutal orders issued by the German camp commandants, who threatened that firearms would be used even in the case of the most insignificant offenses.

“All these incidents occurred in one single camp. But this was the treatment applied in all the remaining camps for Yugoslav officers and soldiers—captives in the hands of the Germans.”

A certain incident is described in the Czechoslovak Government report which I should like to mention here. Its importance lies not in the fact that it throws a new light on the methods employed in fascist crimes but that it took place at the time when the Hitlerites clearly realized that their days were numbered. This incident is described in Appendix 4 to the Czechoslovak Government’s report, and I shall describe it briefly and in my own words.

There was an airfield at Gavlichkov Brod at which various military installations were located, while the former lunatic asylum was used as an SS hospital. When the question arose regarding the formalities for the surrender of the German military units at the airfield—in 1945—Staff Captain Sula with one of his fellow officers as official representative of the Czechoslovak Army took himself to the airfield. Neither of them ever came back. Later the airfield and the hospital were occupied by the Czech national units and an investigation was carried out. It showed that the negotiators, together with six other persons who had previously disappeared at Gavlichkov Brod, were taken by the Germans to the SS hospital where they were subjected to cruel tortures. In the case of Captain Sula the Germans cut out his tongue, gouged out his eyes, and cut his chest open. The others suffered similar treatment. Most of them had been castrated. I am in possession of photographic evidence in support of this fact which I am submitting to the Tribunal.

My presentation has lasted several hours. But surely, neither time nor any word of living human speech will ever suffice to describe even a thousandth part of the sufferings borne by the soldiers of my fatherland and of the other democratic countries who had the misfortune of falling into the hands of the fascist executioners.

I have only been able to show the Tribunal, in a very condensed form, the manner in which the monstrous fascist directives regarding the ill-treatment of prisoners of war and their mass extermination were carried out, an ill-treatment before which the horrors of the Middle Ages pale.

We shall here attempt, if only quite briefly, to fill in the gaps. In tens of thousands the witnesses will pass before your eyes. They have been called before the Tribunal to testify in this case. I cannot summon them by name, no oath will you ever administer to them and yet their evidence will never be denied—for the dead do not lie. Most of the films pertaining to German atrocities which will be presented by the Soviet Prosecution pertain to crimes against prisoners of war. The silent testimony of the helpless prisoners burned alive in hospitals, of prisoners mutilated beyond all recognition, of prisoners tortured and starved to death will, I am certain, be far more eloquent than any word of mine.

Blood drips from the hands of the accused—the blood of the victims of Rostov and Kharkov, the martyrs of Auschwitz and all the extermination camps created by the Hitlerites. Treacherously the enemy attacked our country. The people rose in arms to defend their mother country, her freedom, and her independence, the honor and lives of their families. They joined the ranks of the fighting men. They fell into the hands of the enemy. Now see how the enemy dishonored them when they stood helpless and unarmed.

So may these major criminals, who bear the main responsibility for the evil deeds of the fascists, be forced to answer to the martyrs to the full extent of the law of international justice for the indescribable atrocities which you will see with your own eyes, and for the many other crimes which will forever remain unknown.

Allow me to present to the Tribunal Chief Counsellor L. N. Smirnov, Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R., who will submit to the Tribunal the documentation pertaining to the crimes committed against the civilian population of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Your Honors, my problem today consists of presenting to you the written documents and other judicial evidence testifying to the very grievous crimes committed by the Hitlerian conspirators against the peaceful population in the territories of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia when under temporary occupation.

The number of such depositions at the disposal of the Soviet Prosecution is unusually great. Suffice it to say that in the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the determination and investigation of the atrocities of the German fascist invaders and the accomplices, there are 54,784 reports of the crimes by the Hitlerian criminals, directed against the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union.

But even these documents do not, by a long way, cover all the crimes perpetrated by these war criminals against the peaceful population. The Soviet Prosecution asserts and I submit to the Tribunal evidence to this effect, that along the entire length of the far-flung front, from the Barents to the Black Sea, and throughout the entire depths of the infiltration of the German hordes into my mother country, wherever the German soldier or the men of the SS set foot, crimes of unspeakable cruelty were committed and the victims of these crimes were the women, the children, and the old.

The crimes of the German fascist criminals became apparent as and when the Red Army units moved west. The reports on these Hitlerite crimes against the peaceful population were made by officers of the advance units of the Red Army, by local authorities, and public organizations.

The Soviet people did not, in the first moment, learn of the crimes of the German fascist invaders from circulars of the German Command, from the notices posted up by the Reich leaders, or from the directives issued by the SS Obergruppenführers both in incoming and outgoing bulletins of the competent German chancelleries, although such documents were captured in very large quantities by the advance units of the Red Army and are currently in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution. Far different were the sources of their information. Returning to their native haunts the soldiers of the Army of Liberation saw the many villages, towns, and cities which had been reduced to so much wasteland.

At the foot of the communal graves where rest the bodies of the Soviet people murdered by “typical German methods”—I shall, later on, present to the Tribunal evidence of these methods and of the regularity of their application—at the foot of the gallows where the feet of the adolescents danced on the air, at the ovens of the gigantic crematories where the murdered internees from the extermination camps were burned, at the sight of the dead women and girls, victims of some sadistic whim of the fascist bandits, at the sight of children, who had been torn in half—by all this evidence did the Soviet people recognize the mighty chain of crime extending, as the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. so aptly said, “from the ministerial armchair to the hands of the executioner.”

All these monstrous crimes had a definite system of their own. There was uniformity in the murder methods: One and the same system prevailed in the construction of the gas chambers, in the mass production of the round tins containing the poisonous substances “Cyclone A” or “Cyclone B,” the ovens of the crematories are all built on the same typical lines, and one was the plan extending over all the camps of destruction. There was uniformity in the construction of the evil-smelling death machines, which the Germans referred to as “gaswagen” but which our people called the “soul destroyers”; and there was the same technical elaboration in the construction of mobile mills for grinding human bones. All this indicates one sole and evil will uniting all the individual assassins and executioners.

It became obvious that German thermotechnicians and chemists, architects, toxicologists, mechanics, and physicians were engaged in this rationalization of mass murder on instructions received from Hitler’s government and from the Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces. It was also evident that the “death factories” brought into existence an entire series of auxiliary industries.

But the unity of this will-to-evil was not only apparent there, where a special technique had been evolved to serve the purpose of very evil murder. The unity of this will-to-evil was also apparent from the similarity of the methods employed by the murderers, from the uniformity of type in the murder technique evolved as well as from the fact that, in cases where no special technique was employed, use was made of ordinary weapons of the German Armed Forces.

From the evidence which I shall submit later on you will see that the sites where the Germans buried their victims were opened up by Soviet legal doctors in the north and south of the country. These sites were separated from each other by thousands of kilometers, and it is quite evident that the crimes were perpetrated by perfectly different people; but the methods employed were absolutely identical. The wounds were invariably inflicted on the same parts of the body. And identical, too, were the preparations for camouflaging the gigantic graves as antitank ditches and trenches. Everywhere the unarmed and defenseless people, on their arrival at the execution ground, were ordered, in practically the same terms, to undress and lie face downwards in previously prepared pits. As soon as the first batch was shot, whether in the swamps of Bielorussia or the foothills of the Caucasus, the row was covered with quicklime and the second batch of unarmed and defenseless people, of people about to die, were again ordered by the murderers to undress and lie down on that corrosive, blood-soaked mass which covered the first batch of victims.

This is testified to not only by the uniformity of instructions and orders received from high commands. So similar were the methods employed that it became clear that execution squads were being trained in special schools which had systematized beforehand and provided for every eventuality, from the order to undress prior to the shooting right down to the shooting proper. These assumptions, based on an analysis of assembled facts, were later confirmed by documents captured by the Red Army and by the testimony of prisoners of war.

From the very first months of the war it became clear to the Soviet Government that the innumerable crimes of the German fascist aggressors against the peaceful citizens of my mother country represented, not the excesses of undisciplined military units or the isolated crimes of individual officers and soldiers, but that they represented a system prepared in advance, not merely sanctioned by the criminal Hitler Government, but consciously planned and encouraged by this government.

I submit to the Tribunal in evidence according to Article 21 of the Charter, one of the official notes of V. M. Molotov, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R., dated as early as 6 January 1942. This document is registered as Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). It is on the first page of your document book, beginning at the third paragraph after the heading:

“As and when the Red Army, in the course of its continued and victorious counter-offensive, liberated numerous cities and rural committees which had, for a certain time, been in the hands of the German invader, an incredible picture emerged more clearly with every passing day—a picture of the looting which took place in every community, of general devastation, of revolting acts of rape, ill-treatment, and mass murder—all committed against peaceful citizens by the fascist German occupational forces during their advance, during the occupation, and during their withdrawal. The great amount of documentary material which the Soviet Government has at its disposal witnesses to the plundering and despoiling of the population, accompanied by bestial acts of violence and mass murders, carried out in all territories which came under the heels of the German invaders. Unquestionable facts prove that the regimes of robbery and of bloody terror inflicted on the peaceful population of the occupied villages and cities did not consist of certain excesses of individual undisciplined military units or individual German officers and soldiers. Rather does it point to a definite system, planned far in advance and encouraged by the German Government and the German Army Command, a system which intentionally unleashed within their army the lowest animal instincts among the officers and men.

“Every step of the German fascist army and its allies in the invaded Soviet territories of the Ukraine and Moldavia, of Bielorussia and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, in the Karelian-Finnish lands, in the Russian zones and regions, led to annihilation and to the destruction of priceless material and cultural treasures—the property of the nation; for the civilian population it led to the loss of hard-won property, slave labor, famine, and bloody massacre before whose horror the most savage crimes in history have paled.

“The Soviet Government and its organizations record all these infamous crimes of the Hitler army for which the indignant Soviet people justifiably demand and will obtain retribution.

“The Soviet Government considers it a duty to bring to the notice of all civilized humanity, of honest men all the world over, its declaration concerning the monstrous crimes perpetrated against the peaceful people of all occupied territories of the Soviet Union by the Hitlerite armies.”

I now proceed to read into the record Paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of the concluding statement of this note. Your Honors will find the place in question on the reverse side of Page 4 of the document quoted, Paragraph 5, Column 1 of the text:

“The Hitlerite Government in Germany which had so treacherously attacked the Soviet Union pays no heed, in warfare, to any standards of international law or to any of the moral requirements. It wages war primarily against the peaceful and unarmed populations, against women, children, and old men, thereby revealing its own essential vileness. This government of robbers, which only recognizes violence and rapine, must be crushed by the all-powerful strength of the freedom-loving peoples, in whose ranks the Soviet nation will carry out its mighty task of liberation to the end.

“In bringing all the atrocities committed by the German invaders to the knowledge of all the governments with which the Soviet Union maintains diplomatic relations, the Soviet Government announces that it holds Germany’s criminal Hitlerite Government responsible for all the inhuman and rapacious acts perpetrated by the German Armed Forces.

“At the same time the Government of the Soviet Union declares with unshakable conviction that the Soviet Union’s fight for liberation is a fight for the rights and liberty not only of the peoples of the Soviet Union, but also for the rights and liberty of all freedom-loving peoples of the world and that this war can only end with the complete destruction of the Hitler armies and with complete victory over the Hitler tyranny.”

The large quantity of the materials and facts which I have to submit to the Tribunal renders necessary the adherence to a very strict systematization of the materials in question.

Evidence will be submitted to the Tribunal successively.

Firstly, with regard to the deliberate encouragement by the major war criminals of the lowest instincts of German officers, men, and officials detailed to the Eastern areas where they were incited to murder the civilian population and to indulge in every form of violence against it. They also created that atmosphere of impunity which surrounded the murderers and legalized the regime of terror. Secondly, with regard to the special training and selection of units designated to put into effect both the mass murders and the regime of terror inflicted on the civilian population. Thirdly, with regard to the extent of the crime, the ubiquity and the immense degree of the German fascist atrocities. Fourthly, with regard to the gradual development and perfection of methods for the realization of the monstrous crimes, from the first shootings to the creation of the special extermination camps. Fifthly, with regard to attempts to conceal all traces of the crimes and the special measures taken for that purpose by order of the higher authorities.

I shall now submit documents to prove the first two of the points just mentioned.

The Tribunal has already received evidence that the actual orders, circulars, and the so-called laws, promulgated by the Hitlerian criminals for the legalization of terror directed against the peaceful population and for the justification of rape and murder, are directly connected with the inhuman theories of fascism. The Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R. has twice quoted from a book by the former president of the Danzig Senate, at one time a very close friend of Hitler’s, Hermann Rauschning, published in 1940 in New York under the title of _The Voice of Destruction_. The same book (Document Number USSR-378) was published in various other countries under different titles, such as, _What Hitler Told Me_, or _Conversations with Hitler_, and so on.

Two quotations were made from Rauschning’s book, which I have submitted to the Tribunal, in the speech of the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. The first is on Page 225 of the original. Your Honors will find it in the last paragraph of Page 14. The contents of this quotation can be summarized as follows: Hitler told Rauschning that he was freeing mankind from the humiliating restrictions imposed by the “chimera of conscience and morality.” The second quotation is also extremely important. I will endeavor to prove by a series of concrete facts the apparently abstract contents of this quotation. You will find it on Pages 137-138. It concerns a conversation between Hitler and Rauschning on the subject of a special technique of depopulation essential for the physical extermination of entire nations and about the right of the victor to exterminate entire populations.

And indeed, in order to murder millions of innocent and defenseless people, it was necessary not only to develop the technical formula of “Cyclone A,” to construct gas chambers and the crematory ovens, nor yet to elaborate an elaborate procedure for mass shootings. It was also essential to educate many thousands who would carry out these policies “not in the letter, but in the spirit”—as stated by Himmler in one of his speeches. It was necessary to train persons deprived both of heart and conscience, perverted creatures who had deliberately cut themselves off from the basic conceptions of morality and law. It was necessary to legalize and theoretically establish the conformity to law of the substitution of the concept of “guilt” by the concept of “preventive purge of undesirable elements for political purposes,” of the concept of “justice” by the concept of “the right of the master,” and of the concept of “law” by an apologia of arbitrary administration and police terror.

It was necessary, by orders, regulations, and decrees, to instill in the minds of hundreds of thousands of human beings, trained as the bloodhound is trained, to carry out the premeditated atrocities of the major criminals, that they were in no way responsible for the crimes committed. That is why Hitler freed them from the “chimera called conscience.”

But the theoretical foundations laid down for the purpose still did not constitute official instructions, nor did they introduce definite retaliatory measures against those who were unduly mild and those who did not fully recognize the “joys of cruelty.” This is why, even before the beginning of the war with the Soviet Union, the German fascist criminals issued a number of so-called handbooks, sermons, and similar documents to the Germans who were being sent East. I submit one of these documents to the Tribunal. Of all the documents in my possession I have deliberately selected this small document, and I dwell on it because it is not intended for the SS or police. It is intended for the so-called agricultural leaders. This document is entitled, “The Twelve Commandments for the Behavior of Germans in the East and for Their Treatment of the Russians.”

I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-89 (Document Number USSR-89), and Your Honors will find it on Page 17 of the document book. From these “Twelve Commandments” I shall quote just one, the sixth, which has a direct bearing on my present theme. . . .

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the words “Twelve Commandments for the Behavior of the Germans in the East and for Their Treatment” have been written on Document Number USSR-89. That is all that is in my copy. This document has no heading and no signature. As the question of responsibility is involved, it would surely be desirable for the Prosecution to name the author of these “Twelve Commandments.” So I respectfully ask the Tribunal to decide whether this document is admissible as evidence in its present form.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you inform us what the source of the document is?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document is included in the documentation of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the investigation and determination of German fascist atrocities. It was received from the following sources—I must interrupt my further presentation.

The Counsel for the Defense has pointed out that this document bears no signature. If Your Honor will turn to the original of this document, which I have submitted to you, you will find the signature of a certain Backe. Unfortunately I cannot say who this Backe was, but I discovered this signature on a whole series of German, or rather of German fascist documents which, in rather peculiar juxtaposition, usually discussed two subjects—cattle breeding and the Russian soul. Evidently the author of this document was considered equally competent to deal with both questions. But what his official position was I really cannot say.

I repeat, this document was captured by field units of our army, in the region of Rossoshy, handed to the Extraordinary State Commission and the original of this document is now being submitted to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: I have the original before me now. It is dated Berlin, the 1st of June 1941, and has a signature which looks like B-a-c-k-e. Perhaps Counsel for the Defense would like to see the original document. It is, as I understand from the prosecuting counsel, made a part of the Soviet Government report; and if so, we must take notice of it.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is so. I have information concerning Backe’s official position. He was Minister of Food and Agriculture. I did not know that before, because in practice I did not have the occasion to come across this branch of German fascist life.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I believe I can identify the signature as “Backe.” Backe was in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, was indeed State Secretary at the time.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a convenient time to break.

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, have I your permission to proceed?

I now quote the sixth commandment of the twelve which have just been submitted to the Tribunal. This sixth commandment, which is on Page 17 of the document book of the Tribunal, reads as follows:

“6. The areas just opened up must be permanently acquired for Germany and Europe. Everything will depend upon your behavior. You must realize that you are the representatives of Greater Germany and the standard-bearers of the National Socialist Revolution and of the New Europe for centuries to come. You must, therefore, carry out with dignity even the hardest and most ruthless measures required by the necessities of the state. Weakness on the part of an individual will, on principle, be considered as just cause for his recall. Anyone who has been recalled for this reason will no longer be eligible for a responsible position in the Reich either.”

For what “hardest and most ruthless” measures the criminal Hitlerite Government was preparing those whom it named “the standard-bearers of the National Socialist Revolution,” and what crimes were committed by them, we shall show later on.

In this manner the theoretical, abstract discussions were followed up by official orders quite definite and allowing of no ambiguity. Execution squads were trained in special educational institutions. The network of these institutions extended almost to the lowest ranks.

I shall submit to the Tribunal the indictment drawn up for the Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. by the examining magistrate of most important affairs on the subject of German fascist atrocities in the city and region of Kharkov. This document has already been fully confirmed by the verdict of the military tribunal, which has also been submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will find this verdict on Page 20 of your document book. The indictment and sentence are submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-32 (Document Number USSR-32).

There is on the first page of the indictment an extract from the testimony of the Defendant Retzlav. It is on Page 24 of the document book of the Tribunal, last paragraph. I quote an excerpt from the testimony:

“The accused senior corporal of the German Army, Reinhard Retzlav, who received his training in the special battalion ‘Altenburg,’ testified in the course of his interrogatory:

“The course of training even included several lectures by leading officials of the GFP”—Secret Field Police—“who definitely declared that the peoples of the Soviet Union, especially those of Russian nationality, were subhuman and should be destroyed in an overwhelming majority, although an appreciable number was to be employed by the German landowners as slaves. These directives were the result of the policy of the German Government toward the peoples of the occupied territories; and, it must be confessed, were put into practice by every member of the Armed Forces, myself included.”

Such were the courses dedicated to the training and education of junior police officials.

But the fascist training school for murderers acknowledged other forms of education as well, forms specially dedicated to the technique of destroying all traces of the crimes committed. The Tribunal has already received the document registered as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (8) (Document Number USSR-6(c) (8). This document is one of the appendices to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on German atrocities perpetrated on the territory of the region of Lvov. The document is the testimony of the witness, Manusevitch, interrogated by the senior assistant to the prosecutor of the Lvov region, by the special request of the Extraordinary State Commission. The minutes of the interrogatory are recorded in conformity with the legal code of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Tribunal will find these minutes on Page 48 of the document book.

Manusevitch was imprisoned by the Germans in Yanov Camp, where he worked in the prisoners’ squad for burning corpses of murdered Soviet citizens. After the 40,000 corpses murdered in Yanov Camp were burned, the squad was transferred for similar purposes to the camp in Lissenitzky Wood.

I now quote from the record of the interrogation, which the Tribunal will find on Page 52 of the document book, Paragraph 2 from the top, Line 26. I begin:

“In the death factory of this camp special 10-day courses on corpse burning were organized, on which 12 men were employed. Pupils attending these courses came from the camps of Lublin, Warsaw, and others whose names escape me. I do not know the surnames of the pupils, but they were officers from colonels to sergeant majors, not soldiers from the rank and file. The instructor at these courses was the officer in command of crematories, Colonel Schallok. On the site where the bodies were exhumed and burned he explained the practical manner of their burning and how to set up the machinery for bone crushing.”

Later on, photographs of this machine will be submitted to the Tribunal together with a description, or rather, I should say, technical directions.

“Schallock further explained the manner in which the pit was levelled over, the earth sifted, and trees planted over it, and how the ashes of the human corpses were scattered and concealed. Courses of this nature continued for a considerable period. During my sojourn, that is, during the 5½ months that I worked in the camps of Yanov and Lissenitzky, 10 groups of military students graduated successfully.”

For the education of adolescents, the German fascists created a special organization, the so-called Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend). The Defendant Baldur von Schirach was for quite a long time the head of this organization.

What kind of methods were used for the education of German youth by the fascist criminals is described by a French subject, Ida Vasso, the directress of a hostel for aged Frenchmen in Lvov. During the German occupation of Lvov, she had an opportunity of visiting the Lvov ghetto. In her statement to the Extraordinary State Commission, Vasso described the local system for the extermination of human beings.

From Vasso’s statement it is obvious that the Germans educated the Hitler Youth by training these young fascists to shoot at living targets—at children specially handed over to the Hitler Youth to serve as targets.

Vasso’s statement was checked by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union and fully confirmed. In confirmation of this evidence I will submit to the Court Exhibit Number USSR-6 (Document Number USSR-6), which is a report by the Extraordinary State Commission, entitled, “German Atrocities Perpetrated in the Territory of the Lvov Region.”

I now quote from Vasso’s statement in this connection. It is included in the text of the report as a certified document, on Page 6-c of the document book. The Tribunal will find Vasso’s statement on the reverse side of Page 59, Paragraph 5, beginning from Line 14 from the beginning of the paragraph:

“. . . the little children were martyrs. They were handed over to the Hitler Youth who used them as living targets while learning how to shoot. No mercy for others, all for themselves—this was the motto of the Germans. The whole world must learn of their methods. We, who were the helpless witnesses of these revolting scenes, must speak of those horrors in order that everybody should know of them and, what is more important, should never forget them since no vengeance will ever bring the millions of dead back to life again.”

Your Honors can turn to the same Page 59 of the document book, Line 10 from the beginning of the second paragraph. Here the Tribunal will find the official confirmation of Vasso’s statement. The Extraordinary State Commission established that, in Lvov, the Germans:

“Spared neither men, women, or children. The adults were simply killed on the spot; the children were given to the Hitler Youth for target practice.”

In this manner were created, educated, and trained the amoral monstrosities who were called upon to materialize the program of the major war criminals for the actual destruction of the population in the Eastern European countries. The fascist government had no need to fear that the “Standard Bearers of the National Socialist Revolution” in the East would show any traces of humanity at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I hope you will forgive my interrupting you; but as I had to point out to Colonel Pokrovsky just now, we really don’t want any comment upon each one of these documents. The passage you have just read to us now is nothing but comment upon the frightful document which you have just read. It all takes time. If you could find your way to cut out the comment after these documents and simply to present us with the documents, it will save time.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will now quote an excerpt from the testimony of the witness Manusevitch, previously submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (8), the passage where he speaks of the activities of the Yanov Camp administration. He was a witness of these activities when working in a special squad of prisoners employed for burning the corpses of people murdered in this camp—Page 3 of the minutes of the interrogatory. The Tribunal will find this document on Page 50 of the document book, Line 25 from the top. I quote this passage as an illustration of the execution squads created by the Hitlerites and of some of the atrocities perpetrated by them:

“Apart from the shootings in Yanov Camp various forms of torture were practiced, namely, in winter a barrel would be filled with water and a man, with hands and feet tied, would be thrown into the barrel, where he froze to death. Yanov Camp was surrounded by a barbed wire entanglement consisting of two rows of barbed wire, 120 centimeters apart. A man would be thrown in and left there for several days on end. He could not extricate himself from the wire and he eventually perished from hunger and thirst. But prior to being thrown into the barbed wire, he would nearly have been beaten to death. A man would be strung up by the neck, hands, and feet. Dogs would be set on him and the dogs would tear him to pieces. Human beings were used as targets for shooting practice. This was mostly done by the following members of the Gestapo: Heine, Müller, Blum, Camp Commandant Willhaus, and others whose names escape me. People would be beaten till they nearly died, dogs would then be set on them who tore the victims to pieces. A man was given a glass to hold and was then stood up to serve as a target in shooting practice; if the glass was hit, the man was spared, but if he was shot in the hand he was immediately killed after being told that he was no longer fit for work. Men would be taken by the legs and torn in two. Infants from 1 month to 3 years old were thrown into buckets of water and left to drown. A man would be tied to a post facing the sun and kept there till he died of sunstroke. In addition, before men were sent to work, they were subjected to a so-called examination for physical fitness. The men were made to run a distance of 50 meters and if one of them ran well—that is—rapidly and without stumbling—he remained alive while the rest were shot. There was, in the same camp, a small, grass-covered plot. Here, too, footraces were run and anybody who stumbled in the grass and fell was promptly shot. The grass grew higher than a man’s knee. Women were strung up by the hair, after first having been stripped naked, swung in the air, and left to hang till they died.

“There was also the following case: a Gestapo man, Heine, made a young lad stand up and cut pieces of flesh from his body. Another man was wounded 28 times in the shoulders with a knife. The wounds healed and he worked in a death brigade. He was subsequently shot. Near the kitchen, during the distribution of coffee, the executioner Heine, whenever he was on duty, would go up to the first man in the line and ask, ‘Why are you standing in front of the others?’ and shoot him dead. In this way he shot quite a lot of people. He would then go to the end of the queue and ask, ‘Why are you the last in the line?’ and shoot him as well. I personally witnessed these atrocities during my imprisonment in Yanov Camp. . . .”

The testimony of the witness Manusevitch, which I have read into the record, was fully confirmed by the official report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union entitled, “German Atrocities Perpetrated in the Lvov Region.” Further on Manusevitch speaks mainly about the activities of officials in the lower and middle rank of the camp administration. It is evident from the official report of the Extraordinary State Commission that a system of the vilest ill-treatment practiced upon the helpless people was initiated and organized by the upper ranks of the camp administration, who invariably set their subordinates personal examples of inhuman behavior.

I will not make any comment on this document, although I do beg the Tribunal to take note of a certain Obersturmführer Willhaus mentioned in this document.

The Tribunal will find the excerpt which I shall now read into the Record on Page 58 of the document book—on the reverse side of the page, Column 1 of the text. I quote:

“SS Hauptsturmführer Gebauer established a savage system of murder in Yanov Camp, which, after his transfer to another post, was perfected by the camp commandant, SS Obersturmführer Gustav Willhaus and SS Hauptsturmführer Franz Wartzok.

“A former inmate of the camp told the commission:

“‘I have seen with my own eyes how SS Hauptsturmführer Fritz Gebauer strangled women and children and froze men to death in barrels filled with water. The hands and feet of the victims were shackled before they were lowered into the water. Those doomed to die remained in the barrels until they froze to death.’

“According to the testimonies of numerous Soviet prisoners of war and also of French citizens held in German camps, it was established that the German thugs invented the most vicious methods for exterminating human beings, a fact which they considered as particularly praiseworthy and in which they were encouraged both by the higher military command and by the government.

“SS Hauptsturmführer Franz Wartzok, for instance, loved to hang internees by both feet on posts and leave them in this position until they died; Obersturmführer Rokita personally slashed open the bellies of the prisoners. The chairman of the investigation section of the Yanov Camp, Heine, pierced the bodies of internees with sticks or a piece of iron; he would tear out the finger nails of women with pliers, then he would strip his victims, hang them up by their hair, swing them out and shoot at the ‘moving targets.’

“The commandant of the Yanov Camp, Obersturmführer Willhaus, systematically shot with an automatic rifle from the balcony of his office room the prisoners employed in the workshops, partly for sheer love of sport and partly to amuse his wife and daughters. He would then hand his rifle to his wife and she too had a shot at the prisoners. Sometimes, to please his 9-year-old daughter, he had children between the ages of 2 and 4 years tossed in the air and then took pot shots at them, while his daughter applauded and shrieked, ‘Papa, do it again; do it again, Papa!’ And he did it again.

“The internees of this camp were exterminated for no reason at all, often as a result of a bet. A woman witness, Kirschner, informed the Investigating Commission that a Gestapo Commissar, Wepke, bet the other camp executioners that he could cut a boy in half with one stroke of the axe. They did not believe him. So he caught a 10-year-old boy on the road, made him kneel down, told him to hide his face in the folded palms of his hands, made one test stroke, placed the child’s head in a more convenient position and with one single stroke cut the boy in half. The Hitlerites heartily congratulated Wepke, shaking him warmly by the hand.

“In 1943, for Hitler’s birthday—his 54th—the commandant of the Yanov Camp, Obersturmführer Willhaus, picked out 54 prisoners of war and shot them himself.

“A special hospital for prisoners was organized in the camp. The German hangmen Brambauer and Birman checked up the patients on the 1st and 15th day of each month; and, if they discovered that among the patients there were some who had been in the hospital for over 14 days, they shot them on the spot. Six or seven people were killed during each investigation.

“The Germans executed their tortures, ill-treatments, and shooting to the accompaniment of music. For this purpose they created a special orchestra selected from among the prisoners. They forced Professor Stricks and the famous conductor Mund to conduct this orchestra. They requested the composers to write a special tune, to be called the ‘Tango of Death.’ Shortly before dissolving the camp the Germans shot every member of the orchestra.”

Later on I will present to the Tribunal, as a photo-document, photographs of this “orchestra of death.”

What took place in Yanov Camp was in no way exceptional. In exactly the same manner the German fascist administration behaved in all concentration camps in the occupied area of the Soviet Union, Poland, Yugoslavia, and other Eastern European countries.

I submit to the International Military Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-29 (Document Number USSR-29). It is a communiqué of the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary State Commission for the investigation of the crimes perpetrated by the Germans in the extermination camp of Maidanek in the city of Lublin. The Tribunal will find this communiqué on Page 63 of the document book. I quote Section 3 of this document, “Tortures and Murder in the Extermination Camp”—Page 64 reverse side of the document book, beginning with the last paragraph of the first column of the text:

“The forms of torture were extremely varied. Some of them were in the nature of so-called jokes which frequently ended in death. They included mock-shooting when the victim was rendered insensible by a blow over the head with a blunt instrument, and mock drownings in the pond of the camp which often ended in actual drowning.

“Among the German executioners were specialists in particular methods of torture. Prisoners were killed by a blow with a stick on the back of the head, by a kick in the stomach, in the groin, _et cetera_.

“The SS torturers drowned their victims in the dirty water flowing from the bathhouse through a narrow ditch. The head of the victim was plunged into the dirty water and kept under by the boot of an SS man until he died. A favorite method of the Hitler SS was to hang prisoners with their hands bound behind their back. The Frenchman, De Courantin, who suffered the torture in question, stated that a man hanged in this manner lost consciousness very rapidly, whereupon the hanging would be interrupted. He was hanged again as soon as consciousness was recovered and the process was repeated several times.

“For the smallest offense, particularly for any suspicion of escape, the camp internees were hanged by the German fiends. In the middle of each field stood a post with a cross beam 2 meters above ground, from which the victims were hanged. ‘I saw from my barracks,’ said witness Demashev, former camp internee and Soviet prisoner of war, ‘how people were hanged from the beam in the middle of the field.’

“Close to the laundry, in the entresol between the first and second floor, was a special shed with beams from the ceilings where prisoners were hanged in whole groups.”

The women interned in the camp were subjected to the same ill-treatment and torture; they suffered the same forms of control, of work beyond their strength, of beating, and ill-treatment. The greatest cruelty was exercised by the female personnel of the SS. The worst were the chief woman supervisor Erich, and the supervisors Braunstein, Anni David, Weber, Knoblick, Ellert, and Radli.

The Commission has established many facts of unparalleled brutality perpetrated by the German executioners in the camp.

The German, Heinz Stalbe, chief of the camp police, at a plenary meeting stated that he had seen with his own eyes how the director of the crematory, Oberscharführer Mussfeld, tied the arms and legs of a Polish woman and threw her into the furnace alive. The witnesses Yelinski and Olech—workers in the camp—also stated that internees had been burned alive in the crematory ovens:

“An infant was snatched from its mother’s breast and dashed before her eyes against the wall of the barrack”—stated witness Atrochov—“I saw for myself how infants were taken from their mothers and murdered before their eyes: One small leg would be seized by a hand, the executioner would stand on the other and the infant would be torn in half”—stated witness Edward Baran.

“The deputy camp commandant, SS-Obersturmführer Tumann was particularly noted for his sadistic tendencies. He forced groups of internees to kneel in a row and then killed them by blows on the head with a stick. He set Alsatian dogs on the internees. He participated actively and energetically in all executions and killings of the prisoners.

“Thus hunger, work beyond their strength, torture, torment, ill-treatment, and murder accompanied by unheard-of sadism were employed for the mass extermination of the captives in the camp.”

To prove that these sophisticated and sadistic crimes were not exclusively characteristic of the SS or the special police units, but that the major war criminals had deliberately plunged whole strata of the personnel of the German Armed Forces into the very depths of moral degradation, I turn to the contents of a note by the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., V. M. Molotov, dated 6 January 1942, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51. Your Honors will find the passage I am about to quote on the reverse side of the document book, Paragraph 4, Column 1 of the text. I begin the quotation:

“There are no bounds to the wrath and indignation aroused among the Soviet population and in the Red Army by the innumerable and despicable acts of violence, the foul outrages perpetrated against the honor of the women and the mass murders of Soviet citizens, both men and women, carried out by the German fascist officers and men. Wherever the rule of the German bayonet begins to hold sway, an unbearable regime of bloody terror, agonizing torture, and savage murder is introduced. The robberies committed everywhere by the German officers and men are invariably accompanied by the beating and murder of immense numbers of entirely innocent people. For failure to deliver up food supplies to the very last crumb, and all clothing, down to the very last shirt, the occupants torture and hang old and young, women and children. At forced labor they beat up and shoot for all defective execution of the established quota of work.

“On 30 June Hitler’s thugs entered the city of Lvov, and on the very next day they started a massacre under the slogan, ‘Kill the Jews and the Poles.’ After hundreds had been put to death the Hitler gangsters arranged an ‘exhibition’ of the murdered citizens by building an arcade. The mutilated bodies, mostly of women, were laid out along the walls of the houses. The place of honor in this ghastly ‘exhibition’ was occupied by the corpse of a woman whose baby had been pinned to her with a bayonet.

“Such were the monstrous atrocities of the fascists from the very outbreak of the war. Wallowing in innocent blood, the Hitlerite blackguards are still continuing their dastardly crimes.

“In the hamlet of Krasnaya Polyana near Moscow, on 2 December, the German fascist dastards assembled all the local inhabitants between the ages of 15 and 16, locked them up in the icy premises of the district executive committee building in which all the window panes had been knocked out, and kept them there for 8 days without food or water. The infant children of the women workers of the Krasnaya Polyana factory, A. Zaitseva, T. Gudkina, O. Naletkina, and M. Mikhailova, died in the arms of their mothers during this ordeal.

“Numerous instances are on record of Soviet children having been used as practice targets by the Hitlerites.

“In the village of Bely Rast, in the Krasnaya Polyana district, a gang of drunken German soldiers put 12-year-old Volodia Tkachev up on the porch of one of the houses as a target and opened fire on the boy with an automatic rifle. The boy was riddled with bullets. After that the thugs began to fire random shots at the windows of houses. They stopped a collective farm woman, I. Mossolova, who was passing in the street with her three children, and there and then shot her and the children dead.

“In the village of Voskressenskoye of the Dubinin District, the Hitlerites used a 3-year-old boy as their target, firing at him with their machine guns.

“In the regional center of Volovo in the Region of Kursk, where the Germans stayed for a space of 4 hours, a German officer killed the 2-year-old son of a woman named Boikova by dashing the child’s head against a wall merely because it was crying.

“In the village soviet of Zlobin, in the district of Orel, the fascists killed the 2-year-old child of a collective farmer, Kratov, because his crying disturbed their sleep.

“In the village of Semenovskoe, in the region of Kalinin, the Germans bound with twine the arms of Olga Tikhonova, the 25-year-old wife of a Red Army man and mother of three children, who was in the last stage of pregnancy, and raped her. After violating her the Germans cut her throat, stabbed her through both breasts, and sadistically bored them out. In the same village the occupants shot a boy of 13 and cut out a five-pointed star on his forehead.

“In November the telegraph operator of the town of Kalinin, Ivanova, went to visit relatives in the village of Burashevo, near Kalinin, together with her 13-year-old son Leonid. When they left the town they were noticed by some Hitlerites, who began shooting at them from a distance of 60 meters; as a result the boy was killed. The mother made several attempts to carry away the child’s body, but whenever she tried to do so the Germans opened fire and she had to leave the body there. For 8 days the German soldiers would not let her remove the body. It was only removed and buried by the mother when the place was occupied by our troops.”

Mention is made, further on in the note, of another child victim of the fascists. The Tribunal will see this murdered boy in our filmed documentary evidence. I would ask the Tribunal to pay attention to the further words of the “note” which I shall read into the Record:

“In Rostov-on-Don a pupil of the commercial school, 15-year old Vitya Cherevichny, was playing in the yard with his pigeons. Some passing German soldiers began to steal the birds. The boy protested. The Germans took him away and shot him, at the corner of 27th Line and 2d Maisky Street for refusing to surrender his pigeons. With the heels of their boots the Hitlerites trampled his face out of all recognition.

“The village of Bassmanova, in the Glinka district of the Smolensk region, liberated by our troops early in September was one mass of ashes after the German occupation. On the very first day of their arrival, the fascist fiends drove into the fields over 200 schoolboys and girls who had come to the village to help in the harvesting. There they surrounded them and savagely shot them all. A large group of schoolgirls was abducted to the rear ‘for their lordships, the officers.’

“The seizure of towns or villages usually begins with the erection of a gallows on which the German executioners hang the first civilians they can lay their hands on. Moreover, they leave the bodies hanging on the gallows for days and even weeks. They do the same with the people they shoot in the streets of the towns and villages, leaving the bodies untended for days on end.

“After the seizure of Kharkov, the German thugs hanged several people from the windows of a large house in the center of the city. Furthermore, in the same city of Kharkov on 16 November 19 persons, including one woman, were hanged from the balconies of a number of houses.”

The bestial acts of violence perpetrated against the women everywhere testify to the profound moral corruption of the criminals. I shall quote from that passage in the note which Your Honors will find on Page 4, Paragraph 4, of the document book:

“Women and young girls are vilely outraged in all the occupied areas.

“In the Ukrainian village of Borodayevka, in the Dniepropetrovsk region, the fascists violated every one of the women and girls.

“In the village of Berezovka, in the region of Smolensk, drunken German soldiers assaulted and carried off all the women and girls between the ages of 16 and 30.

“In the city of Smolensk the German Command opened a brothel for officers in one of the hotels into which hundreds of women and girls were driven; they were mercilessly dragged down the street by their arms and hair.

“Everywhere the lust-maddened German gangsters break into the houses, they rape the women and girls under the very eyes of their kinfolk and children, jeer at the women they have violated, and then brutally murder their victims.

“In the city of Lvov, 32 women working in a garment factory were first violated and then murdered by German storm troopers. Drunken German soldiers dragged the girls and young women of Lvov into Kesciuszko Park, where they savagely raped them. An old priest, V. I. Pomaznew, who, cross in hand, tried to prevent these outrages, was beaten up by the fascists. They tore off his cassock, singed his beard, and bayonetted him to death.

“Near the town of Borissov in Bielorussia, 75 women and girls attempting to flee at the approach of the German troops, fell into their hands. The Germans first raped and then savagely murdered 36 of their number. By order of a German officer named Hummer, the soldiers marched L. I. Melchukova, a 16-year-old girl, into the forest, where they raped her. A little later some other women who had also been dragged into the forest saw some boards near the trees and the dying Melchukova nailed to the boards. The Germans had cut off her breasts in the presence of these women, among whom were V. I. Alperenko, and V. H. Bereznikova.

“On retreating from the village of Borovka, in the Zvenigorod district of the Moscow region, the fascists forcibly abducted several women, tearing them away from their little children in spite of their protests and prayers.

“In the town of Tikhvin in the Leningrad region, a 15-year-old girl named H. Koledetskaya, who had been wounded by shell splinters, was taken to a hospital (a former monastery) where there were wounded German soldiers. Despite her injuries the girl was raped by a group of German soldiers and died as a result of the assault.”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

“But, the Hitlerites do not stop at the murder of individual Soviet citizens. Among the most appalling atrocities in the history of Hitlerite lawlessness and terrorism on German occupied Soviet territory are the nightmare mass murders of Soviet citizens which usually accompany the temporary seizure by the Germans of Soviet towns, villages, and other inhabited centers.

“Here are a few instances of wholesale bloody murders carried out by the Germans against entire villages. In Yaskino, a village in the region of Smolensk, the Hitlerites shot all the old men and adolescents, and burnt the houses down to the ground. In the village of Pochinok of the same region, the Germans drove all the old men, old women, and children into the collective farm office, locked the doors and burnt them all alive. In the Ukrainian village of Yomelchino in the region of Zhitomir, the Germans locked 68 people into a small hut, sealed the doors and windows and asphyxiated to death everybody inside. In the village of Yershevo, of the Zvenigorod district in the Moscow region now liberated by our troops, the Germans prior to their withdrawal drove about 100 peaceful citizens and wounded Red Army men into a church, locked them in, and blew up the building. In the village of Agrafenovka of the Rostov region, on 16 November, the fascists arrested the entire male population between the ages of 16 and 70 and shot one man of every three.”

The subsequent part of the note deals with the mass German crimes known as “actions” and particularly to the “actions” in Kiev. I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the figure of those murdered in Babye-Yar—as mentioned in this note—is an understatement. After the liberation of Kiev it was established that the extent of the atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist invaders far exceeds the German crimes as stated in the first instance.

From further information submitted to the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, in connection with the city of Kiev, it is evident that during the monstrous so-called German mass “action” in Babye-Yar not 52,000 but 100,000 were shot. I now continue to quote from Page 4, of the document book, Paragraph 3:

“Terrible massacres and pogroms were carried out by the German invaders in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev. In the course of a few days the German bandits tortured and murdered 52,000 men and women, aged people and children, ruthlessly doing to death all Ukrainians, Russians, and Jews who in any way displayed their loyalty to the power of the Soviet. Soviet citizens who succeeded in escaping from Kiev give a shattering picture of one of these mass executions: A large number of Jews, including women and children of all ages, were assembled in the Jewish cemetery. Before shooting them the Germans stripped them naked and then beat them. The first group marked for execution was forced to lie, face downwards at the bottom of a ditch, where the Jews were shot with automatic rifles. The Germans then lightly sprinkled some earth over the dead bodies, made the next batch lie down in a row over the first and shot them in the same way.”

I skip a paragraph and continue with the quotation. You will have the opportunity of seeing the Hitlerite crimes mentioned in the note. The German atrocities in Rostov are shown in great detail in the filmed documentary evidence.

“The Nazi blood-thirstiness towards the citizens of Rostov has become well known. During their 10 days’ sojourn in Rostov the Germans not only wreaked vengeance on separate individuals and families, but in their blood-lust they annihilated tens and hundreds of inhabitants, especially in the working-class districts of the city. Near the premises of the Railway Board, German machinegunners shot 48 people in broad daylight. Sixty people were shot by the Hitlerite assassins on the sidewalks of the main street of Rostov. Two hundred people were murdered in the Armenian cemetery. Even after their expulsion from Rostov by our troops, German generals and officers publicly boasted that they would return to Rostov purposely to vent bloody retribution on the inhabitants, who had actively helped to drive their mortal enemy from their native city.”

On the immediate initiative of the command and officers of the units and formations of the German fascist armies, the advancing and retreating movements of their troops were often protected by the peaceful citizens, preferably by women, old men, and children.

I make no comment but I do consider it necessary to stress the fact that only those people acted like that who had perfectly understood Keitel’s directive—so well known to the Tribunal—that human life “in the countries to which the directive refers, is worth exactly nothing at all.”

I quote further from the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Page 7 of the document book, the last paragraph:

“In addition to all that has already been stated, the Soviet Government have in their possession documentation bearing on the systematically repeated monstrous atrocities of the German fascist command, such as the use of Soviet civilians to cover German troops during battle with the Red Army.

“On 28 August 1941 German fascist troops attempted to force the River Ipput. Powerless to overcome the stubborn resistance of the Red Army units, they assembled the population of the Bielorussian town of Dobrush in the Gomel region, and by threatening to shoot those who refused, drove women, children, and old people before them, using them as a shield when they attacked in battle formation.

“The same dastardly crime against the civilian population was repeated by the German Command in the Vybori Collective Farm Sector of the Leningrad region as well as in the district of Yelna, in the region of Smolensk. The fascist thugs continue to resort to this brutal and cowardly method right up to the present day. On 8 December the Hitlerites made use of the local civil population to cover their retreat from the village of Yamnoye, in the region of Tula. On 12 December, in the same region, they assembled 120 persons—old people and children—and made them march in the vanguard of their troops during engagements with the advancing units of the Red Army. In the fight by our troops for the liberation of the city of Kalinin, units of the German 303rd Regiment, 162d Division, attempting to launch a counter-attack, assembled the women of one of the suburban villages, placed them in the vanguard of their troops, and then went into action. Fortunately the Soviet troops succeeded, when beating off the attack, in driving a wedge between the Hitlerites and their victims thereby saving the lives of the women.”

In order to satisfy the needs of the German fascist armies and in violation of all international conventions, the criminals employed the civil population for particularly dangerous work, especially for clearing the mine fields. I will quote an extract from the second part of this note, which the Tribunal will find on Page 2 of the document book, Paragraph 4. I quote:

“Wherever German troops and German authorities made their appearance on Soviet territory, a regime of brutal exploitation, tyranny, and arbitrary rule was immediately established as far as the defenseless civil population was concerned. With a complete disregard for age or conditions of health, and after having taken or destroyed the houses of the Soviet citizens, a great number of these were brought to concentration camps by the Hitlerites and were compelled, under threat of torture, shooting, or death by starvation, to perform, gratuitously, various kinds of heavy labor, including work of a military nature. In a number of cases, civilians employed on one or another job of a military nature were summarily shot to ensure secrecy.

“Thus, for instance, in the village of Kolpino, in the region of Smolensk, the invaders drove all the farmers off to work on building bridges and dugouts for German units. Upon the completion of the construction of these fortifications, all these farmers were shot.”

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break: off.

COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, sir.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 15 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

SIXTIETH DAY Friday, 15 February 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: There are certain matters of a procedural nature which the Tribunal desire to consider before they consider the question of an adjournment. Accordingly they will not sit tomorrow in open session for consideration of the question of an adjournment, but they will sit tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock in closed session for consideration of these matters of a procedural character, and they will sit on Monday morning at 10 o’clock for half an hour to hear argument in open session on the question of an adjournment, one counsel being heard on each side and only for 15 minutes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I interrupted the quotation of a document on Page 3 of the document file, second paragraph, first column of the text. I consider it possible to skip many items contained in this document, as these facts simply confirm further the general conclusions which were expressed in the beginning of the document and which were already confirmed by many facts read into the record by me yesterday. I only beg the Tribunal to allow me to draw their attention to one of the stipulations in the note which the Tribunal will find on Page 3 of the book of documents, second paragraph, first column of the text. It states that the civilian inhabitants were forcibly sent to concentration camps, thus artificially and illegally increasing the number of prisoners of war and subjecting the peaceful population to the inhuman regime which was established by the German fascist authorities for the prisoners of war.

I submit to the Tribunal further an extract from the minutes of the court-martial of a military tribunal of the 374th Liuban Infantry Division, held on 29 October 1944. This document is submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-162 (Document Number USSR-162). The Tribunal will find this document on Page 67 of the document file.

DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): I would like to make two motions regarding the questions relative to the submission of evidence in this case as well as to the general procedure. The first motion is that I would like to ask, with reference to Article 21, that the submission of documents to the investigation commission, as well as any reference to them, be prohibited inasmuch as these documents do not contain definite information about the source of the information discussed here; secondly, that the written statements, which contain only summary information be read without any personal observations, and that the reading of such statements be permitted only if the cross-examination of the author as a witness is possible.

I should like to submit the following reasons: Article 19 of the Charter permits all evidence which has probative value. Article 21 gives the Court the right to ask for proof regarding documents submitted to the so-called “investigation committees.” The purpose of both articles, however, is to facilitate the submission of proof. The admission of written statements of various kinds leads to the danger that such statements would discriminate against an entire people and an entire nation. Then the demand of the Defense that only such proof, such documents where this danger has been eliminated, as far as possible, be admitted, seems to be justified.

Many of the written statements and excerpts from committee reports read by the Russian Prosecution have had no probative value; but, furthermore, since they cannot be checked—their contents cannot be checked—they design to give a wrong impression about historical events.

THE PRESIDENT: Why does it not come within the last two lines of Article 21: “The records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations?”

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, the Defense is of the opinion that Article 21 permits an interpretation. Article 21 permits the reading of such documents and such reports, but does not say anything about the extent to which it has been necessary for the defendants’ counsel to check the sources upon which these reports of the investigating authorities are based. We are of the opinion that the witnesses who have been questioned, for reasons of compassion, of vengeance, _et cetera_, have not been in a position to describe the events objectively. As jurists we know that it is exceedingly difficult to describe even simple events truthfully. Therefore, we have the duty and the responsibility for the German people to try to check these sources and to help thereby to explain and clarify the real course of events, which we see somewhat differently.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendants’ counsel will have the opportunity at the proper time of criticizing any evidence which is offered by the Prosecution. They will be able to point out whether it is possible that certain evidence was given out of sympathy; they will be able to criticize the evidence which is given in any way they choose at the proper time. But this is not the proper time.

Article 21 is perfectly clear, and it directs the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the various documents which are there set out, and expressly refers to the records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations. This is a record and finding of a military tribunal of a Soviet court. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed in express terms by Article 21 to take judicial notice of it. That does not prevent defendants’ counsel, when they make their speeches in defense, from criticizing the evidence upon which that record and findings proceed; but to say it ought not to be admitted appears to me, at any rate, and I think to the other members of the Tribunal, to be really entirely unfounded as an objection.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I thank you.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President. Thus the document which has been submitted to the Tribunal will be found on Page 67 of the document file in their possession. I shall allow myself to repeat in my own words the biographical data concerning the Defendant Le Court, who was brought before a court-martial.

He was not an SS man, but a non-Party senior corporal of the German Army, 27 years old. He was born and lived, before the war, in the town of Stargard; was owner of a cinema, and was later mobilized in the army, where he served in the 1st Company of the 4th Airborne Division. I begin to quote the statements in evidence given by Le Court contained in the section entitled “Judicial Investigation” beginning with Paragraph 2. The Tribunal will find this place in the document book on Page 68, fifth paragraph. Le Court stated:

“Prior to my capture by Red Army soldiers, that is, before February 1944, I served as laboratory assistant in the 1st Bicycle Company of the 2d Air Force Infantry Regiment of the 4th Air Force Infantry Division at the headquarters of Air Field Service E 33/XI.

“In addition to photographic material, I handled other work when not on duty, that is to say, I spent my free time for my own pleasure in shooting Red Army prisoners of war and peaceful citizens and soldiers. I used to jot down in a special book the number of prisoners of war and peaceful citizens I had shot.”

I omit three paragraphs describing the shooting of prisoners of war by Le Court, and continue the quotation. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the passage that you read a moment ago about jotting down the numbers in his book does not occur in the translation which is before me. I do not know whether it is in your original. I suppose it is. Are you sure it is in the original?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It is there, Mr. President. Mr. President, I just verified this extract which I am quoting with the original book of documents. It corresponds exactly to the text.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. I only wanted to be certain that it was in the original, as it did not occur in the translation before me. You can continue.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I interrupted the quotation on Page 68, and omitted three paragraphs. Thus, I came to Page 69. Perhaps this is the reason why the President of the Tribunal could not find the sentence I quoted. I continue the quotation:

“Besides the shooting of prisoners of war, I also shot guerrillas, peaceful citizens, and burned houses, together with their inhabitants.

“In November 1942 I participated in the shooting of 92 Soviet citizens.

“From April to December 1942, while a member of the Air Force Infantry Regiment, I participated in the shooting of 55 Soviet citizens. I took care of the actual shooting.”

I omit a paragraph and continue:

“In addition, I participated in punitive expeditions when I personally set fire to houses.

“Altogether more than 30 houses in various villages were burned down by me. I arrived in the village with the punitive expedition, entered the houses and warned the population that no one was to leave the houses, which were going to be burned. I set fire to a house, and when anybody tried to save himself—nobody was allowed to leave—I drove him back into the house or shot him. In that way I burned more than 30 houses and 70 peaceful citizens, mainly aged men, women, and children.

“Altogether I have personally shot 1,200 persons.”

For the purpose of saving time I omit six paragraphs and quote further. You will find this on Page 70 of the document book:

“The German High Command promoted in every way the shooting and killing of Soviet citizens. In recognition of good work and service in the German Army, which found expression in the shooting by me of prisoners of war and Soviet citizens, I was promoted before my promotion was due, on 1 November 1941, to the rank of senior corporal. This promotion should have come about on the 1st of November 1942; at the same time I was awarded the East Medal.”

Le Court was in no way an exception, and in confirmation of this I shall now refer briefly to the verdict of the trial held in the town of Smolensk by the district military tribunal against a group of former members of the German Army who were brought to justice for committing atrocities against peaceful citizens and prisoners of war in the town of Smolensk. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, as Exhibit Number USSR-87 (Document Number USSR-87), and joined to the record of the present Trial. The Tribunal will find this document on Page 71 of the document book.

I omit all the general part of the verdict, and beg to be allowed to draw the attention of the Tribunal to that part of the verdict which is in the ninth paragraph on Page 71 of the document book, which says that in 80 graves alone, which were opened up and examined by legal-medical experts in the town of Smolensk and in the district of Smolensk, over 135,000 corpses of Soviet citizens—women, children, and men of various ages—were discovered.

I skip the second page of the verdict and come to that part of the document which gives a description of the criminal deeds of individual defendants brought to trial under these charges. I shall not quote data regarding all 10 defendants, but only 2 or 3 of them.

The Tribunal will find this part on Page 73 of the document book. This is the sixth paragraph of the text. I quote:

“Hirschfeld was interpreter for the German Military Command in the District Kommandantur of Smolensk. He personally beat and seized for treason perfectly innocent Soviet citizens, without consideration for sex and age, and forced them to make false statements. On receiving these false statements forced from them by beatings, the arrested persons were shot by the Kommandantur troops. Hirschfeld participated personally in the annihilation of Soviet citizens in Smolensk in May 1943, by means of asphyxiation through carbon-monoxide in gas vans. In January and February 1943, he participated in punitive expeditions against guerrillas and against peaceful Soviet citizens in the district of Newel-Uswjati. While he was commanding the German punitive unit, he committed, together with his soldiers, acts of violence against the peaceful population.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, in the Tribunal’s translation into English, we have missing pages from 34 up to 45. Do you think that those pages could be found? On our pages—I think your pagination is different—but the document that you are now referring to, USSR-87, begins on Page 34 of our translation, and the translation then skips to Page 45.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I am not quoting the numbers of pages of the translation, but the pages of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I follow that, but I was only wondering whether, by a slip possibly, that these pages had been translated and perhaps had not got into our copy of the documents and whether they could be found. You see, we have all pages missing in the translation.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have not yet seen the translation. If the President will allow me, during the intermission I shall verify the translation, and shall put the translation file into complete order.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Go on in the meantime.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Together with his soldiers, he burned nine Soviet villages and hamlets. He plundered farmers and shot innocent peaceful Soviet citizens who came out of the woods to get to the piles of ashes remaining from their burned-down homes in order to search for food. He participated in the deportation of Soviet citizens into German slavery.

I shall allow myself to quote still another excerpt concerning the defendant named Modisch who was a medical assistant in the German Military Hospital Number 551. The Tribunal will find this part on Page 73 of the document book, in the last paragraph:

2. “Modisch was a medical assistant in the 551st German Military Hospital in the city of Smolensk from September 1941 until April 1943. He was an eyewitness and immediate participant in the killing of prisoners of war, wounded soldiers, and officers of the Red Army, upon whom the German professors and doctors, Schemm, Gette, Müller, Ott, Stefen, Wagner, and others carried out, under the pretext of a cure, various experiments with previously unknown biological and chemical medicines. After that, the wounded prisoners of war were infected with septicaemia and killed.”

And what had Modisch personally done? I quote further from the same document:

“Modisch himself killed, by means of injections of great quantities of strophantin and arsenic, no less than 24 prisoners of war, both Red Army men and officers of the Red Army. In addition, he used, for medical treatment of German military personnel, the blood of Soviet children, ranging in age from 6 to 8 years, by taking great quantities of blood from them, after which the children died. He extracted from Russian prisoners of war the spinal fluid, whereupon because of emaciation they suffered paralysis of the lower extremities. He participated also in the plundering of Soviet medical institutions in the city of Smolensk.”

I skip another page in the document. The Tribunal can convince itself that every one of these 10 defendants brought to trial committed such a long series of crimes that, according to the laws of any civilized country, they would be condemned to death. I quote as an example one of the charges proved during this trial regarding the Defendant Kurt Gaudian. The extract referring to him will be found by the Tribunal on Page 74 and on Page 75. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Gaudian raped seven young girls and then killed them.

I conclude this part by quoting only three lines which state:

“In the month of July 1943, with his participation, 60 inhabitants of the district of Osipowitschi were burned in a stable. The village itself was also burned.”

I skip a part concerning Hentschke and quote only five lines, on Page 75 of the document file from that part of the verdict which concerns Müller, a lance corporal in the 335th Guard Battalion:

“At various times, the Defendant Müller killed 96 Soviet citizens, among them old men, women, and babies. Müller raped 32 Soviet women, of whom 6 were killed after having been raped. Among the women raped, several were 14- or 15-year-old girls.”

I do not know whether it is necessary to continue this quotation. I believe that the nature of these criminals, 7 out of 10 of whom already have ended their lives on the gallows, has been made clear to the Tribunal. However, in order to characterize, not the ones who committed the crimes, but those who were actually responsible for the lives of the population of the occupied territory in the East, I beg the Tribunal to allow me to turn to the diary of the Defendant Hans Frank, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal by our American colleagues as Document Number 2233-PS. We quote certain extracts from Frank’s diary as Exhibit Number USSR-223. The Tribunal will find these excerpts on Page 78 of the document book. I quote that part of the excerpt which the Tribunal will find on Page 86 of the document book, third paragraph, the first column of the text.

On 6 February 1940 Frank gave an interview to the _Völkischer Beobachter_ correspondent, Kleiss. I quote that section of the interview which was already pointed out to the Tribunal. I begin the quotation:

“Interview given by the Governor General to the _Völkischer Beobachter_ correspondent, Kleiss, on 6 February 1940, Page 3:

“Kleiss: ‘It might be interesting to develop the thesis which distinguishes a Protectorate from a Government General.’

“The Governor General: I might state a striking difference: In Prague, for instance, there were hung up red posters announcing that seven Czechs had been shot that day. I then said to myself:

“‘“If I wished to order that one should hang up posters about every seven Poles shot, there would not be enough forests in Poland with which to make the paper for these posters. Indeed, we must act cruelly.”’”

The offensive on the Western Front, which began on 10 May 1940, diverted the attention of world public opinion from the crimes committed under the personal direction of Frank and permitted Frank to have several thousand representatives of the Polish intelligentsia condemned to death by court-martial and physically exterminated.

I quote Frank’s statement at the police conference held on 30 May 1940, where this crime was finally decided upon. I begin this quotation on Page 86 of the document book, sixth paragraph, first column of the text:

“The offensive in the West began on 10 May. On that day the center of interest shifted from the events taking place here. It would be a matter of complete indifference to me whether the deeds attributed by atrocity propaganda and lying reports all over the world to the National Socialist authorities in these districts worried the Americans, the French, the Jews, or the Pope in Rome for that matter. But it was terrible for me and for all of them to be told unceasingly during all these months by the Ministry of Propaganda, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, and even the Army, that ours was a regime of murder, that these crimes of ours were to cease and so forth. And we had to say, of course, we would no longer do it. It was equally clear that up to that moment, under the cross-fire of the whole world, we could not do anything of the kind on a large scale. But since 10 May we are completely indifferent to this atrocity propaganda. We must use the opportunity in our hands.”

I skip now two paragraphs and continue with the quotation:

“I frankly admit that it will cost the lives of some thousands of Poles and that these will be taken mainly from leading members of the Polish intelligentsia. In these times we, as National Socialists, are bound to ensure that no further resistance is offered by the Polish people.”—I draw the attention of the Tribunal to this sentence particularly:

“I realize the responsibility we are thus assuming.”

I skip one paragraph and continue the quotation, which the Tribunal will find on Page 86 of the document file, fifth paragraph.

“Furthermore, SS-Obergruppenführer Krüger and I have decided that appeasement measures should be speeded up. I pray you, gentlemen, to take the most rigorous measures possible to help us in this task. For my own part, I will do everything in my power in order to facilitate its execution. I appeal to you as the champions of National Socialism, and I need surely say nothing further. We will carry out this measure and I may tell you in confidence that we shall be acting on the Führer’s orders. The Führer said to me, ‘The handling of German policy in the Government General and its establishment on a firm basis is a matter which devolves personally on the responsible men in the Government General.’

“He expressed himself in this way: The men capable of leadership whom we have found to exist in Poland must be liquidated. Those following men must . . . be eliminated in their turn. There is no need to burden the Reich and the Reich police organization with this. There is no need to send these elements to Reich concentration camps, and by so doing involve ourselves in disputes and unnecessary correspondence with their relations. We will liquidate our difficulties in the country itself, and we will do it in the simplest way possible.”

I conclude this quotation and pass on to Page 87, second paragraph, first column of the text. I think that this quotation is characteristic, for it was precisely Frank, as the diary proves, who first thought about the creation of special concentration camps, later officially known as “Vernichtungslager” (extermination camps).

I quote the same speech of Frank, Page 9, first paragraph:

“As to the concentration camps, we know perfectly well that concentration camps in the true sense of the word are not going to be organized in the Government General. Every suspected person must be immediately liquidated. Internees from the Government General at present in concentration camps in the Reich must be handed over to us for ‘Operation AB’ or liquidated there.”

I quote further from the same speech in the section—further excerpts from the diary of Hans Frank concerning the year 1940. The Tribunal will find this place on Page 94 of the document book, fifth paragraph, first column of the text. I quote:

“We cannot burden the concentration camps in the Reich with our affairs. We had terrible trouble with the Kraków professors. If we had done the thing from here, it would have been different. For this reason I would ask you most urgently not to send any more people to concentration camps in the Reich but to liquidate them here or to impose punishment according to regulations. Any other method is a burden for the Reich and a perpetual source of trouble. We have an entirely different method of treatment here and we must adhere to it. I must point out expressly that even if peace is concluded, this treatment will not be altered. Peace will mean only that as a world power we should continue more intensively the same general political operations. . . .”

I deem it opportune to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that all the major extermination camps were indeed located on the territory of the Government General.

There was its own periodicity or cycles in the fascist crimes and in the proportions they assumed, and if in 1940 Frank made a long speech to the policemen justifying the so-called “actions” with regard to several thousand Polish intellectuals, then on 18 March 1944, in his speech at the Reichshof, he stated—I quote from Page 93 of the document file, third paragraph, second column. I begin the quotation:

“18 March 1944, Speech at the Reichshof.

“Dr. Frank: ‘If I had gone to the Führer and said, “My Führer, I have to report that I have destroyed a further 150,000 Poles,” he would say, “All right, if it was necessary.”’”

This fascist specialist on legal questions annihilated 3 million Jews in the territory under his jurisdiction which fell only temporarily into the hands of the fascist invaders. On this occasion Frank said—I quote his speech at a business meeting of the NSDAP orators in Kraków on 4 March 1944. The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 93 of the document book, second paragraph, second column of the text; I begin the quotation of Dr. Frank:

“If there are any woebegone souls today who bemoan the fate of the Jews and say with tears in their eyes, ‘Isn’t it awful what is being done to the Jews,’ we should ask them if they are still of the same opinion now. If we had there 2 million Jews carrying on their activities and opposed to them the few German men in the country today, we would no longer have control of the situation. . . . Jews are a race which must be eradicated. When we catch one of them, it is the end of him.”

I pass on to that part of Frank’s diary. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now?

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I received information from our staff that the 11 pages which were not incorporated into the English text in your possession were handed to you. Is it true, Sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Please do.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am quoting now from Frank’s diary at the place which the Tribunal will find on Page 93 of the document file, in the second column of the text, second paragraph below the title, “Meeting of Political Leaders of NSDAP in Kraków, on 15 January 1944.” It begins thus, Dr. Frank, “I did not hesitate to say that for every German killed, up to a hundred Poles would be shot.”

In these dark days the Polish people regarded the victims of Frank and of his henchmen as martyrs. That is the reason it seems to me that, on 16 December 1942, at a government meeting in Kraków, Frank stated—I am quoting excerpts from the diary on Page 92 in the document book, third paragraph after the heading, the first column of the text. I begin the quotation:

“We must consider whether, for practical reasons, executions should be carried out as far as possible on the spot where the murder of a German was attempted. It might also be as well to consider whether special places for execution should be set up, as it has been established that the Polish population streams to the places of execution, which are accessible to everyone, for the purpose of filling vessels with the bloodstained earth, and taking them to church.”

I brought Frank’s diary to your attention, Your Honors, because he was one of Hitler’s closest associates and because this very well-known “learned” jurist of fascism was actually a positive _alter ego_ of those who cut in two the bodies of children in the Yanov Camp. At the same time he was one of the creators of that part of the legal code of the German fascists which completely negated justice. After all, the whole miserable juridical wisdom of _Mein Kampf_ fundamentally comes down to just one wicked formula, that is, that “might is right.” I studied this book and found no other sense in the text. I quote the 64th edition, Page 740.

Frank was to Hitler that necessary evil gnome of jurisprudence whom Hitler needed to clothe in legal form the inhuman theories of fascism. In support of the fact as to how far the profanation of the basic ideas of justice incorporated in the criminal and civil law of all civilized people went, I submit to the Tribunal the original copy of one of Frank’s directives published in the official bulletin of the Governor General for 1943. It is dated 2 October 1943 and is being presented by the Soviet delegation to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-335 (Document Number USSR-335). The Tribunal will find the document quoted on Page 95 of the document book. I quote the document in full:

“Decree: The combating of attacks on German construction work in the Government General, issued 2 October 1943.

“On the basis of Paragraph 5, Section 1, of the Führer’s decree of 12 October 1939 (_Reichsgesetzblatt_ I, Page 2077) I decree, until further notice:

“Paragraph 1.

“(1) Non-Germans who violate laws, decrees, official regulations, or orders with the intention of hampering or interfering with German construction work in the Government General will be punished by death.

“(2) Section 1 does not apply to nationals of countries allied to the Greater German Reich or those who are not at war with the Reich.

“Paragraph 2.

“The abettor and the accomplice will be considered as equally guilty with the perpetrator; the same penalty will be exacted in the case of attempted violations as in the case of those actually committed.

“Paragraph 3.

“(1) The summary courts of the police will be competent to pass judgment.

“(2) The summary court of the Security Police may pass the matter to the German Public Prosecution if there are special reasons for doing so.

“Paragraph 4.

“The summary courts of the Security Police will consist of an SS-Führer belonging to the office of the Commander of the Security Police and Security Service and two members of the office.

“Paragraph 5.

“(1) The following shall be recorded in writing: 1. The names of the judges; 2. the names of those on whom sentence is passed; 3. the evidence on which judgment was based; 4. the offense; 5. the date on which the sentence was imposed; 6. the date on which the sentence was put into effect.

“(2) In matters not covered by the above, the summary court of the Security Police will decide upon its procedure after proper consideration.

“Paragraph 6.

“Sentences passed by the summary court of the Security Police will be put into effect without delay.

“Paragraph 7.

“In cases where an offense against Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this decree also constitutes a further offense which must be dealt with by the summary court, only those paragraphs of this decree are applicable which relate to procedure.

“Paragraph 8.

“This decree will come into force on 10 October 1943.

“Kraków, 2 October 1943; The Governor General, Frank.”

In this manner, Point 1 of the first paragraph established one single punishment, that is, death, for practically any action of a “non-German,” regardless of whether such action was classified by the German overlords as constituting a breach of law or a violation of an administrative order. The same punishment was to be administered for any attempt at similar actions in which the police officials could include practically any actions or expressions of a suspected person—Paragraph 2 of the above-quoted document.

The defendant was deprived of any procedural rights and guarantees. The document which, in accordance with Paragraph 5, was to take the place of the court verdict was, as is evident from the series of questions which had to be recorded in writing, actually for the purpose of registering individual cases of summary justice and not for the purpose of finding justifiable bases for the application of punishment. Every possibility of cassation or appeal to the higher authorities was excluded. The verdict was to be carried out immediately.

And finally, even the “court” procedure itself, founded on Frank’s directives, was actually merely a mockery of justice. The court—and it seems to me the word “court” should be in quotation marks—consisted of three officials of the same SD which kept arresting innocent people on the streets of Polish towns and organizing wanton mass shootings of hostages.

How justified are the conclusions which are made by me on the basis of the aforementioned document, you will see from the text of another document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-332 (Document Number USSR-332). In the document file which is being submitted to the Court, is contained the original copy of the minutes of interrogation of the attorney, Stefan Korbonski. It also contains a translation of the document into Russian, which was certified by the members of the Polish Delegation. Stefan Korbonski lives in Warsaw and, according to information received from the Polish Delegation, should the Tribunal consider it necessary to call Korbonski for cross-examination, he can be brought to the Tribunal session.

I shall take the liberty to express in my own words the introductory part of the document. After having been sworn in Warsaw on 31 October 1945, Stefan Korbonski, who is a lawyer, was interrogated and testified that he was one of the leaders of resistance among the Polish people against the German invaders. This place can be found in the first paragraph of the text of the minutes. In the second half of the minutes the Tribunal will find a place in the document book on Page 98—and it goes on to Page 102—where Stefan Korbonski speaks of exactly the same directives of Frank’s which were read into the record by me just now. In Paragraph 1 of the interrogation minutes he states that in the beginning of October 1943 the Germans posted on the walls of the houses in Warsaw and other cities of the Government General the text of that particular order which was read into the record by me.

I continue the quotation to the end, omitting the first part on Page 99 in the document book which is in the possession of the Tribunal, because it seems to me that this document is very characteristic. I begin the quotation:

“Soon after the publication of this decree and quite independently from the increasing number of executions performed by the Germans in secret in what used to be the Warsaw ghetto, in the Warsaw jail, which was called Paviac, the Germans began to introduce public executions, that is, shooting of whole groups of Poles ranging from 20 to 200 persons in each.

“These public executions were performed in various districts of the city, in streets opened to normal traffic, which were surrounded by the Gestapo guards immediately before the actual executions, so that the Polish population caught within the surrounding district would have to watch the executions either in the streets, or from the windows of the houses situated right behind the backs of the Gestapo men.

“During these executions the Germans shot either people from the Paviac jail where they were confined after their arrest during raids in the streets, or people caught immediately before the actual execution. The number of these public executions, as well as the number of persons executed each time, kept increasing until it reached 200 persons who had to be shot at every execution. These executions continued until the very beginning of the Warsaw insurrection.

“At first the Germans transported the Poles to the place of execution in covered trucks. They were clad in civilian clothes, and sometimes their hands were tied behind their backs. However, as the victims thus brought to the place of execution usually shouted, ‘Down with Hitler,’ ‘Long live Poland,’ ‘Down with the Germans,’ and similar things, the Germans took steps to prevent the possibility of any such disturbances and began to fill their mouths with cement, or seal their lips with adhesive tape. The victims were brought from the Paviac clad in shirts, or in clothes made out of paper.

“I often received information from our underground organization through our agents who were working in the Paviac jail, that shortly before the execution the Germans usually performed operations on the condemned. They bled them and injected various chemical substances to cause physical weakness, thus preventing any attempts at escape or at resistance.

“This was the reason why the condemned were brought to the place of execution pale, weak, and apathetic, and barely able to stand on their feet. But even so, they acted as heroes and never begged for mercy.

“The bodies of those who were shot were loaded into trucks by other prisoners and were taken to a former ghetto, where they were usually burned. The prisoners whose duty it was to transport and to burn the corpses were mostly those confined in the Paviac prison. It was their steady assignment.

“The Polish population immediately covered with flowers the blood spots which were left on the ground. Lighted candles were placed where the corpses previously had lain, and crosses and ikons were hung on the surrounding walls. During the night members of the underground organizations would put an inscription in lacquer on the walls, such as ‘Glory to Heroes,’ ‘Glory to those who perished for the fatherland,’ and so forth.

“When the Germans noticed these inscriptions they arrested all those who happened to be on the spot and led them to the Paviac prison. Sometimes the Germans shot at groups of people kneeling and praying at the execution spots. Such an incident took place on Senator Street where several people were shot at and quite a few were wounded.

“After each public execution the Germans would put on the walls of houses lists of the names of those who were just executed; the names of hostages who would be shot in case the German regulations were not obeyed were given below.

“In Warsaw alone the Germans shot several thousand Poles by means of these public executions. This does not include the victims who were shot in other towns. In the Kraków district several thousand men were similarly shot.”

Thus was put into action Hans Frank’s directive which was already submitted by me to the Tribunal. In the light of Korbonski’s testimony it becomes clear why, on 16 December 1943, there appears in Frank’s diary. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn’t that be 1942?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The 16th of December 1943, Mr. President. One minute—I shall check that.

THE PRESIDENT: It reads “1942” in our document.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honor, evidently the translator put the wrong date into the text before you. I repeat that, in accordance with the text in my possession, this statement was made by Frank on 16 December 1943 at a government meeting in Kraków. If you will permit me I shall again verify the text of the quotation.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, in our statement of the document itself it is translated as 16 December 1942. Evidently it is wrong in one place or the other.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In the testimony itself, in Paragraph 1, Korbonski mentions that in the beginning of December 1943 the Germans posted these lists on the walls of the houses. If the Tribunal will refer to the original of the document it will find “at the beginning of December 1943.”

THE PRESIDENT: I see, it is 1943. It was wrongly translated in the first place.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, 1943. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you, Sir. I shall speak of the change in the procedure of the executions. It was on the Polish territory that the criminal code introducing special rights for the “master race” and Draconic laws for the other nations whom the fascist “masters” considered completely vanquished, was put into practice for the first time.

The report of the Polish Government which had already been submitted to the International Military Tribunal by my colleagues as irrefutable evidence in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter gives a brief description of the regime of lawlessness and despotism which reigned in occupied Poland under the guise of special legislation.

To characterize this legislation I shall take the liberty, if Your Honors please, to refer to two excerpts from the report of the Government of the Polish Republic, which has already been presented to the Tribunal by my colleagues as Exhibit Number USSR-93 (Document Number USSR-93). I shall first read into the record a paragraph which will be found on Page 110 in the document file in possession of the Tribunal, the section dealing with “Germanization of the Polish Law.” It is the fourth paragraph after the heading, and I shall quote only two paragraphs of this section:

“In the Government General the machinery of justice was changed particularly by a decree of 26 October 1939. It bears the signature of Frank. (Encl. 2)

“Polish courts became subjected to supervision of German courts established in the Government General. Their jurisdiction, heavily curtailed, was confined to those cases only for which the German courts had no competence. New ideas of law were introduced. Punishment could be inflicted by intuition; the accused deprived of the right to choose a counsel and to appeal.

“German law was introduced, and Polish law germanized.”

I omit the entire section of the report which deals with this subject and continue the quotation on Page 51 of the Russian text. The Tribunal will find it on Page 129 in the document book in the third paragraph of the text under “Judicial Murders.” That is Page 129, the third paragraph of the text. I begin the quotation:

“a) On 4 December 1941, Göring, Frick, and Lammers signed a decree referred to above which virtually outlawed all Poles and Jews in the incorporated Polish territories. The decree made Poles and Jews a different and second-rank group of citizens. It meant that Poles and Jews were obliged to obey the Reich unconditionally; but on the other hand, as second-class citizens they were not entitled to the protection given by law to others.”

I omit one paragraph and I continue the quotation of the part which deals with the application of death sentences. It begins this way:

“Death sentences could be passed in the following cases:

“1. For removing or publicly damaging posters set up by the German authorities.

“2. For acts of violence against members of the German forces.

“3. For lowering the dignity of the Reich or harming its interests.

“4. For damaging furniture to be used by the German authorities.

“5. For damaging things intended for the work or public order.

“6. For causing disobedience to regulations and orders issued by German authorities—and several other cases which in fact justified imprisonment for a short period at the most.”

I shall omit one passage and I shall limit my quotation to the following two paragraphs:

“b) No Pole”—stated the official Nazi instruction—“was allowed to approach a German woman to stain the noble blood of the Herrenvolk. Those who dared to do it or even those who did not get beyond the stage of attempting to do so, were inevitably facing death. But it was not only a court but the German court which was called upon to pass sentence in these cases. It was found superfluous to arrange trials—a simple order of the police proved sufficient to deprive people of their life.”

I conclude this quotation and pass on to a subject which in my opinion is very correctly referred to as the “Judicial Terror of the German Fascists in Czechoslovakia” in the report of the Czechoslovak Government. In this country we can systematically follow the ever-increasing destruction by the Hitlerites of all the accepted moral and legal standards.

The report of the Czechoslovak Government, already submitted to the Tribunal by my colleagues as Exhibit Number USSR-60, describes this process in detail, beginning with the so-called “people’s courts,” up to the organization of the so-called “Standgerichte.” I do not know what would be a correct translation of this term, so I shall use the term “Standgerichte” throughout. They are already familiar to us as organs of the Nazi arbitrary rule in Poland.

This process of the deterioration or rather collapse of the entire judicial system under the fascist rule is described in the report in great detail; I shall quote only a few short excerpts. I shall begin my quotation on Page 162 of the document book in the possession of the Tribunal, the last paragraph. I begin:

“The power to proclaim a state of emergency was applied not later than 28 September 1941. In accordance with a decree issued on the same date and signed by Heydrich, a state of civil emergency was proclaimed in the ‘Oberlandrat’ district in Prague; and, a few days later, in the remaining parts of the protectorate. ‘Standgerichte,’ which were set up immediately, were active during the entire period and pronounced 778 death sentences. All were executed and 1,000 people were turned over to the Gestapo, that is, sent to concentration camps.”

I omit the end of the paragraph, and I quote the following paragraph:

“The only directive as to the administration, organization, and rules of procedure at the ‘Standgerichte’ is contained in the decree of 27 September 1941.”

I omit the rest of the paragraph and I continue the quotation on Page 163, fifth paragraph of the book of documents.

“The decree does not indicate as to who may fill the position of judge in Standgerichte, whether the judges should be professional people or laymen, and whether the sentences are to be pronounced by a jury or by the judge alone. The decree merely states Standgerichte may be set up by the Reich Protector; he is competent to choose people who are to perform the duties of a judge.”

I omit the rest and continue the quotation on Page 163 of the book of documents, the last paragraph:

“On the basis of the information that we have at hand at present the judges at the Standgerichte were professional judges only in exceptional cases.

“The most important attribute was political reliability. This is the reason why the judges were, one could almost say without exception, members and executives of the NSDAP or other National Socialist organizations; that is, people who with rare exceptions, possessed not the slightest knowledge of law and had no experience in criminal trials.”

I omit the following excerpts and continue the quotation on Page 166 of the document book, at the beginning of the last paragraph; from there I go on to Page 167:

“Standgerichte were never held publicly. Inasmuch as the public was excluded from the preliminary investigations of the Standgerichte, the very existence of this tribunal increased the feeling of insecurity under the prevalent law. There was no appeal against sentences passed by Standgerichte. The records of the investigations of the Standgerichte contain only lists of names of the judges, defendants, and witnesses as well as descriptions of the crimes and the dates of the sentences (Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the decree). Directives permitting and even encouraging such meager records can have only one aim—to prevent any control and to keep secret everything that took place during the investigation, thus covering up all the traces of what had been done.

“According to Section 4, Paragraph 1, of the directive, the Standgerichte could only pass death sentences or turn over the defendants to the Gestapo.”

I omit the following paragraphs containing certain general comments on the same matter and continue my quotation on Page 168, the first paragraph:

“Sentences passed by the Standgerichte must be carried out immediately. (Section 4, Paragraph 3, of the decree). Numerous examples demonstrate that this brutal National Socialist legislation was never toned down. At the end of the so-called trial, it was left to the judges to decide whether the condemned should be shot or hanged. (Section 4, Paragraph 3, of the decree). The condemned person was not granted even a short respite to prepare for death. There was not even a question in the decree about a reprieve. In any case, the brutal haste with which the sentence was carried out, made any reprieve impossible.”

I conclude this excerpt, as well as the entire section devoted to the terrorist legislation of the Hitlerites in Czechoslovakia, with a quotation from Page 169, the fourth line from the top, and further. It is stated there:

“It is quite evident that the Standgerichte did not possess the characteristics which, in accordance with the general opinion, are those of a tribunal and that the trials of the Standgerichte in reality violated all the principles which should be observed in the legislations of all civilized people. Standgerichte cannot be called tribunals and its court examination cannot be called a trial and a decision. I think the proper term would be ‘verdict.’

“The executions resulting from the verdicts of the Standgerichte differ in no way from executions performed without trial. They should be classified as murders.

“It is impossible to find in the regulations which determined the methods of procedure of the Standgerichte even a trace of humanity. For instance, the rule which imposed immediate execution and accorded practically no time to the condemned to prepare for death, is a form of cruelty which, just as the entire institution of the Standgerichte, had as its aim the terrorization of the population.”

I shall conclude the quotation with this excerpt, and I shall take the liberty of remarking that the institution of the Standgerichte did not countermand or exclude simple police sentences passed by means of a procedure similar to the one which was established by Frank in Poland.

It seems to me that all the laws which were cited by me above testify to the fact that the Hitlerites tried to turn the legislation, intended to punish crimes, into one which commits crimes. This is the sole purpose why their “laws” were created.

If Your Honors please, I shall now turn to the terroristic laws and directives of Hitlerite criminals which were issued for the civilian population of the Soviet Union.

Having started the criminal war against the U.S.S.R., the German fascist gang of bandits considered even these laws and “legal” principles especially created for the justification of their crimes, insufficient.

Most of these documents had already been submitted to the Tribunal and I shall confine myself to some very brief quotations. With the Tribunal’s permission I shall read only three lines from a previously submitted document. I am referring to Document Number L-221 submitted to the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution. It contains a brusque reply made by Hitler to Göring at a meeting on 16 July 1941. The Tribunal will find the place on Page 189 in the document file in the first paragraph, first line.

THE PRESIDENT: That document has been read already.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Your Honor. I shall take the liberty of quoting only three lines of this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, go on; but I think that the rest of the page which you are reading is all comments, and you could go straight on to the next document. Read these three lines and then I think you will find. . . .

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This is not quite correct, but I shall now quote those three lines. Hitler said, “The gigantic territory must be quieted as soon as possible.” I am quoting from the next sentence, where Hitler said, “The best way to attain this objective is to shoot everyone, even those who only cast an ugly look.” I am citing these lines because they are the “Leitmotiv” which passes in all the directives and orders of Hitlerites.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, what I am suggesting to you is that the rest of the page which you are now passing in our translation is quite unnecessary to read and you can go straight on, at any rate, to the directive of Keitel of the 16th of September 1941.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: All right, Mr. President. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I quote a directive of Keitel. This directive was submitted to the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution under Document Number C-148 (Exhibit Number USA-555). I quote, on Page 190 of your document book, Paragraph 3, Line 4.

“One must bear in mind that human life in the countries concerned is often of no value whatever, and that intimidating reaction is only possible in the form of application of extraordinary hardness.”

I am further presenting to the Tribunal a photostat of the document which was already submitted as Document Number 459-PS. I shall not quote a single excerpt from it; but I shall take the liberty to remind the Tribunal that point 6 of this document states that any sort of resistance will be broken, not by means of juridical punishment, but if the occupying authorities will succeed in instilling in the population a fear which is the only thing capable, as it is said in the directive, “of depriving the population of any will to resist.”

I take the liberty to confirm this by quoting very briefly just two lines from the directive of the Commander of the 6th Army, General Field Marshal Von Reichenau, which was already presented to the Tribunal by my colleague as Exhibit Number USSR-12 (Document Number USSR-12). The Tribunal will find it on Page 194 of the document book, Line 19 from the top. It is said there, “The fear of German countermeasures must be stronger than the threats from Bolshevist remnants still wandering around.”

I wanted to read into the record one document which bears the seal of the pseudo-legal argumentation of Hans Frank and which is so characteristic of his ordinances and directives. It has been pointed out that this document had already been presented to the Tribunal and I do not wish to retain the attention of the Tribunal on a document which had already been read during a Tribunal session. I am referring to the circular order of the Reich Security Main Office, Number 567-42-176, dated 5 November 1942. It develops that this document has already been presented by the American colleagues as Document Number L-316. I just wish to remind the Tribunal that this document states that even the principles used for determining the activities of non-Germans should be different and that any actions of a non-German should be examined not from the point of view of justice but exclusively from the point of view of prevention. I think that this document is well known to the Tribunal and I shall refrain from quoting it.

Thus in those territories of the occupied countries where the SS followed in the footsteps of the aggressors’ troops, the peaceful population was abandoned to the arbitrary will of the specially trained and fierce representatives of the police forces of German fascism.

I shall take the liberty, while presenting the photostat of the document previously submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number 447-PS, to quote only one line of this document, which the Tribunal will find on Page 197 of the document book, fifth paragraph, after the heading, “The Region of the Operations.” It deals with the special powers of the Reichsführer SS and indicates that “within the scope of these assignments the Reichsführer SS shall act independently and under his own responsibility.”

It is well known what the Reichsführer SS really was. Of the many statements of Himmler, I shall limit myself to only one quotation which is, however, rather characteristic as a leading directive to the responsible officials of the SS who were subordinated to Himmler. On 4 October 1943 at the conference of the SS Gruppenführer at Posen, Himmler said—this document was submitted to the Tribunal by the United States Prosecution as Document Number 1919-PS and was read into the record on 19 December 1945. I shall quote six lines from Page 23 of the photostat of this document. The Tribunal will find the document on Page 201 in the document book. There figures a short quotation.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that if a document has already been read, it should not be read again.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It seems to me that this particular excerpt was not read into the record. The document was submitted on 19 December 1945 as Document Number 1919-PS. But this particular excerpt which I wish to quote now, was not read into the record of the Tribunal. It contains only six lines.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, if you have verified that and can state that with certainty, then you can certainly read it.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I perused the transcript and could not find this excerpt. Therefore it seems to me that it was not read into the record. I shall confine myself literally to six lines. The question at present is only a matter of six lines.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you better go on and quote it then because these interruptions take up a very long time.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I begin the quotation:

“Whether other nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture. Otherwise I am not interested. I am not interested whether 10,000 Russian females die of exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch, as long as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished.”

A document was already submitted to the Tribunal which establishes that the legalization of mass murders and extermination of the peaceful population of the Soviet Union carried out by the Army with a view to terrorizing the population was begun by Hitler and his clique as early as 13 May 1941, that is, over a month before the beginning of the war. In this case I refer to a directive already well known to the Tribunal. This directive emanates from Keitel and is entitled, “Application of Military Jurisdiction in the Barbarossa Region and Special Army Measures.” This document was already read into the record as Exhibit Number C-50 by the United States Prosecution on 7 January 1946. I shall not quote this document because I think that it is well known to the Tribunal. I merely wish to remind the Tribunal that this document categorically denies the necessity for establishing guilt; suspicion alone was sufficient for the application of a death sentence. An official system of group responsibility and mass repressions was set up. Furthermore, it was stated that the “suspect” should be exterminated in any case. This is plainly said in Paragraph 5 of the first section of the directive.

THE PRESIDENT: We better adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In accordance with your instructions, Mr. President, I omit the following documents to which I wished to refer and which have already been submitted to the Tribunal—Document 654-PS, for instance.

I now proceed to the next document, which was submitted to the Tribunal yesterday by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, as Exhibit Number USSR-3. It is the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, entitled, “Directives and Orders of the Hitlerite Government and the German Military Command Regarding the Extermination of the Soviet People.”

My colleague read into the record yesterday a short excerpt from the fourth part of this document concerning the carrying out of mass executions, the so-called executions in camps, where both peaceful citizens and prisoners of war were interned. As this section has already been read into the record, I omit it and proceed to other sections of this report, dealing with the organization by the German fascist criminals, from the very first days of the war with the Soviet Union, of the so-called Sonderkommandos (special task forces).

The document which I am quoting refers to the organization of Sonderkommandos in the camps where prisoners of war and peaceful citizens were interned. I quote this excerpt because the term “Sonderkommando” acquired in the early days of the war a terrible meaning among the civilian population of the temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union. It was one of the most cruel and most brutal organizations ever created by the German fascists for the wholesale slaughter of human beings.

I request the Tribunal to revert to Page 207 of the document book, Column 1 of the text. I begin the quotation:

“It is evident, from the documents discovered, that even before the attack on the U.S.S.R. Hitler’s butchers had compiled lists and index files and collected the necessary information about such leading Soviet workers as their bloodthirsty plans had doomed to extermination. In this manner they prepared the following: ‘Special Index Files for the U.S.S.R.,’ ‘The German Index File,’ ‘Lists for Establishing Domiciles,’ and other index files and lists of the same kind which would facilitate the work of the Hitlerite murderers in the extermination of progressive circles within the population of the U.S.S.R.

“However, the document entitled, ‘Appendix Number 2 to Operational Order Number 8 of the Chief of the Sipo and the SD, Berlin,’ dated 17 July 1941 and signed by Heydrich, who was at that time acting as Himmler’s deputy, emphasizes the lack of such lists and index files and stresses the importance of not hampering the initiative of those who perpetrated the murders. The document states:

“‘There is no possibility of lending any assistance to the Kommandos for the realization of your plans. The “German Index File,” “Lists for Establishing Domiciles,” and “Special Index Files for the U.S.S.R.” will only prove useful in a few cases. The “Special Index Files for the U.S.S.R.” are therefore insufficient, as only an insignificant number of Soviet Russian nationals, considered as dangerous, have been entered in these files.’”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

“For the realization of their criminal plans the German invaders created Sonderkommandos, both in the transient and permanent camps for prisoners of war, on German territory, in the so-called Polish Government General, and in the temporarily occupied territory of the Soviet Union.”

I further omit seven paragraphs and continue the quotation on Page 207 of the document book, Paragraph 6, Column 2 of the text:

“The procedure in the formation of the Sonderkommando is described in Appendix Number 1 to Operational Order Number 14 of the Chief of the Sipo and SD, marked state top secret, Copy Number 15, dated Berlin, 29 October 1941.

“The formation of the Sonderkommandos of the Sipo and SD is carried out in accordance with the agreement of 7 October 1941, reached between the Chief of the Sipo and the SD on the one hand and the OKW on the other hand.

“By virtue of special powers the Kommandos will act independently in conformity with general directives, within the scope of the camp regulations. The Kommandos, of course, maintain close contact with the camp commandants and the officers of the Intelligence Service.”

I omit the following text and continue the quotation from Page 208 of the document book, Paragraph 1. The Tribunal will observe how much the Reich leadership extended the installation of these highly dangerous police organizations. The Sonderkommandos were organized all the way from the town of Krasnogvardeisk—a suburb of Leningrad—to the town of Nikolaiev on the Black Sea. I now continue with my quotation:

“The order of the Chief of the Sipo and SD of 29 October 1941, regarding the organization of the Sonderkommandos, was sent to the operational groups in Krasnogvardeisk, Smolensk, Kiev, and Nikolaiev, and for information to Riga, Moghilev, and Krivoy Rog.”

I would also point out that during their attack on Moscow the Hitlerites organized in Smolensk a special Sonderkommando Moscow, entrusted with the task of mass-murdering the Moscow citizens.

Mention has previously been made of the wide range of authoritative power granted to the Sonderkommando. In the document which I am quoting it is said:

“The tasks of the Sonderkommandos are outlined in the operational directives attached to Decree Number 8 of the Chief of the Sipo and SD, dated Berlin, 17 July 1941, which, under the pretext of a screening of civilians and suspected prisoners of war captured in the Eastern campaign indicate that:

“The special nature of the Eastern campaign calls for special measures, to be carried out on personal responsibility beyond the range of any bureaucratic influences.”

I omit the next extract from this document, since it is merely a repetition of the basic rules which I have already read into the record.

Having launched their criminal war, the Hitlerites directed it towards a mass extermination of the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. I have already read into the record several documents depicting the character of the Hitlerite murderers and the nature of their crimes. The latter consisted in the formation of large criminal units, specially trained by the leaders of the Hitlerite gang. It will, however, be clear to any criminologist that it is not sufficient to create these foul and criminal gangs—it is essential that once the crime has been perpetrated the criminal should feel that he has acted with complete impunity. In order that the crimes envisaged by the major criminals be fulfilled in their monstrous entirety, it became necessary to create for the minor criminals an atmosphere of complete impunity. In accordance with your wishes, Mr. President, I shall not quote the document previously read into the record as Number C-50 by the United States Prosecution, entitled, “Instructions Governing the Application of Martial Law and Special Measures To Be Adopted by the Army in the Barbarossa Area.” But it appears to me that the contents of this document should be firmly borne in mind, for unless the meaning of this document is clearly understood it is quite impossible to envisage the series of wholesale crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerite criminals on the territory of the Soviet Union.

This order, signed by Keitel, though issued in Hitler’s name, was accepted by all the soldiers and all the officers of the fascist army as a personal order from Hitler. What conclusions the German soldiery drew from this order of Keitel’s is confirmed by a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission, to which I shall now refer. It deals with the atrocities committed in the city of Minsk by the German fascist invaders.

I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-38 (Document Number USSR-38). It contains an excerpt from the testimony of the president of the military tribunal of the 267th German Rifle Division, Captain Julius Reichhof. I would ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 215 of the document book, to Column 1 of the text. I quote from the communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the subject of Julius Reichhof’s testimony:

“According to an order issued by Hitler, German soldiers could not be committed to trial by court-martial for acts committed against Soviet citizens. The soldier could be punished only by the commander of his own unit, should the latter deem the punishment necessary. By the same order Hitler granted even more extensive rights to all German Army officers. They could destroy the Russian population according to their own discretion.

“The commander had full right to apply punitive measures to the peaceful population: He was allowed to burn down, _in toto_, villages and towns, rob the population of supplies and livestock, and, on his own responsibility, deport Soviet citizens to Germany for slave labor. Hitler’s order was brought to the attention of every single soldier of the German Army on the eve of the attack on the Soviet Union. In accordance with Hitler’s order, the German soldiers, under the leadership of their officers, committed all sorts of atrocities.”

But even this appeared insufficient to the Hitlerite leaders. In 1942 they considered it necessary to reconfirm, by a sharp directive brooking no exception, that any crime perpetrated by the German fascist soldiery against the peaceful citizens of the Soviet Union should go completely unpunished. The Reich and military leaders particularly emphasized the fact that atrocities committed should so remain unpunished, even if the victims of these atrocities happened to be women and children.

THE PRESIDENT: What was the reference to what you called “sharp directive”?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will at once submit to the Tribunal this directive as Exhibit Number USSR-16 (Document Number USSR-16). It is a photostatic copy of the document certified by the Extraordinary State Commission. The Tribunal will find the text of this directive on Page 219 of the document book. This directive is signed by Keitel and entitled “The Combating of Guerrillas.” The document is dated 16 December 1942. I will quote this document practically in full, starting with the title.

“Subject: The Combating of Guerillas; top secret.

“The Führer has been informed that certain members of the Wehrmacht who took part in the struggle against the guerilla bandits were later called to account for their behavior while fighting.”

My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, Mr. President, explained to the Tribunal yesterday that any resistance movement on the part of the peaceful population was termed “banditry.” I will therefore not detain the Tribunal’s attention any longer in an attempt to decode this German fascist term.

“In this connection the Führer ordered. . . .”

I omit one paragraph and continue the quotation, Page 219 of the document book:

“If the repression of the guerillas in the East, as well as in the Balkans, is not pursued with the most brutal means, it will not be long before the forces at our disposal will prove insufficient to exterminate this plague.

“The troops therefore have the right and the duty to use, in this struggle, any and unlimited means, even against women and children, if only conducive to success.”

I emphasize that the directive mentions all possible means of retribution against women and children. I continue to quote:

“Scruples of any sort whatsoever are a crime against the German people and against the front-line soldier who bears the consequences of attacks by guerillas and who has no comprehension for any regard shown to the guerillas or their associates.

“These principles must serve as a basis for using the ‘Directive for Combating Guerillas in the East.’

“2. No German participating in combat action against guerillas or their associates is to be held responsible for acts of violence either from a disciplinary or a judicial point of view.

“Commanders of troops engaged in combat action against the bands are obliged to see to it that all officers of units under their command be immediately and thoroughly notified of this order, that their legal advisers be immediately acquainted therewith, and that no judgments be passed which are in contradiction to this order.

“Signed, Keitel.”

I hereby conclude the presentation of the documents referring to the first two sections of the list read into the record at the opening of the report. The materials which I have hitherto submitted to the Tribunal were to prove three facts:

1. Direct instigation, by the major criminals, to the perpetration of appalling crimes against wide circles of the peaceful population, by the German Armed Forces.

2. Special education by the Hitler leadership of mass criminal units for the practical realization of its plans for the extermination of peoples.

3. General unleashing of the criminals’ basest instincts in an atmosphere of complete impunity for the perpetrators of the crimes.

These purposes were fully achieved by the major war criminals. The Hitlerites committed crimes against the peaceful populations in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union and in the Eastern occupied countries which, in their extent, in the cruelty of the methods applied, as well as in the cynicism and brutality of purpose of the organizers and perpetrators of the crimes, are without precedent in the history of the world.

I should like to submit evidence which characterizes the extent and the methods of these crimes of the German fascists. I should like to show exactly what Keitel’s order for the “pacification” of the occupied territories meant in the lives of the peaceful population.

The introduction of this regime of terror was the first sign of the arrival of the fascist authorities, whether military or civilian, in the territory of the U.S.S.R. or of other Eastern European countries. Moreover, this regime of terror was not exclusively confined to more savage forms of brutality. It also assumed the form of shameless outrages perpetrated against the honor and dignity of the victims of the German fascists. At the same time the terrorists primarily vented their misdeeds on the heads of such citizens whom they considered politically active and most capable of resisting them.

In confirmation of this fact I refer to a document which I have previously presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-6 (Document Number USSR-6), which is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on “Crimes Committed by the Germans in the Territory of the Lvov Region.” The Tribunal will find the passage to which I am referring on Page 58 of the document book, in the first column of the text, in the last paragraph. I begin the quotation:

“Even before the seizure of Lvov the Gestapo detachments had at their disposal, pursuant to an order by the German Government, lists of the most prominent representatives of the Intelligentsia doomed _a priori_ to annihilation. Mass arrests and executions began immediately after the seizure of Lvov. The Gestapo arrested a member of the Union of Soviet Authors, an author of numerous literary works, Professor Thaddeus Boi-Dhelensky, a professor of the Medical Institute; Roman Renzky, the principal of the University; Vladimir Seradsky, Professor of Forensic Medicine; Roman Longchamp de Berrier, Doctor of Juridical Science, together with his three sons, Professor Thaddeus Ostrovsky, Professor Jan Grek, and Professor of Surgery Heinrich Gilyarovich. . . .”

There follows a long list containing 31 names of outstanding intellectuals of the city of Lvov. I omit the enumeration of their names and continue quoting from the next paragraph:

“Groer, a professor of the Medical Institute at Lvov, who fortuitously escaped death, has told the Commission what follows:

“‘When I was arrested at midnight of 3 July 1941 and placed in a truck, I met Professors Grek, Boi-Dhelensky, and others. We were taken to the hostel of the Abragamovitch Theological College. While we were led along the corridor the members of the Gestapo jeered at us, hitting us with rifle butts, pulling our hair, and hitting us over the head. . . . Later on I saw, from the hostel of the Abragamovitch Theological College, the Germans leading five professors under escort, four of whom were carrying the blood-bespattered body of the son of the famous surgeon Rouff, murdered by the Germans during his interrogation. Young Rouff, too, had been a specialist. The entire group of professors were taken under escort to the Kadetsky Heights, and 15 to 20 minutes later I heard rifle fire from the direction in which the professors were taken.’”

In order to humiliate dignity, the Germans resorted to the most refined methods of torture and then shot their victims. Goldsman, an inhabitant of Lvov, has testified before the special commission that he personally saw how, in July 1941:

“Twenty people, including four professors, lawyers, and physicians, were brought by the SS into the courtyard of House Number 8, on Artishevsky Street. One of them I know by name, Doctor of Juridical Science Krebs. Among them were five or six women. The SS forced them to wash the stairs leading from the seven entrances to the four-story house, with their tongues and lips. After those stairways were washed, the same people were forced to collect garbage in the courtyard with their lips. All garbage had to be transferred to one place in the courtyard. . . .”

I omit the end of this paragraph and continue from the next paragraph:

“The fascist invaders carefully concealed the extermination of the intelligentsia. To repeated requests of relatives and friends concerning the fate of these men of science, the Germans replied, ‘Nothing is known.’

“In the autumn of 1943, on the order of Reich Minister Himmler, the Gestapo men burned the bodies of the murdered professors. Mandel and Korn, former internees of the Yanovsky Camp, who dealt with the exhumation of the bodies, have told the Commission the following:

“‘During the night of 5 October 1943, acting on orders from the Gestapo, we opened a pit between Kadetskaya and Bouletskaya streets by the light of searchlights and took from it 35 bodies. We burned all these corpses.

“‘While lifting the corpses from the pit we found the documents of Professor Ostrovsky, of Otoshek, Doctor of Natural Science, and of Kasimir Bartel, Professor of the Polytechnical Institute.’

“The investigation established that during the first few months of the occupation the Germans arrested or killed more than 70 of the most prominent scientists, technologists, and artists in the city of Lvov.”

What I have just said does not in any way infer that the leaders of local organizations and representatives of the intelligentsia alone were victims of the fascist terror. I only wanted to make it clear that the fascist terror was directed in the first instance against these people.

But one of the characteristic features of Hitlerite terrorism was the fact that it was decreed by the German fascist leaders and materialized by the executioners as a general reign of terror.

To confirm this I refer to a document previously submitted to the Tribunal but not read into the record. It is Document Number USSR-63, which is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission for the investigation of German atrocities in the town of Kerch.

Kerch is a comparatively small town. It is separated from Lvov by many hundred of kilometers. Although the German invaders arrived in Lvov in the beginning of July 1941, they only reached Kerch in November. In January 1942 they had already been driven out by Red Army units.

Thus, the entire period of the first occupation of the city of Kerch—the city of Kerch has been occupied two times—by the Germans was short-lived and did not last more than 2 months. But here are the crimes perpetrated by the German fascists in this town. I begin the quotation. The Tribunal will find the passage in question on Page 227 of the document book, Column 2, Paragraph 5:

“After capturing the city in November 1941, the Hitlerites immediately issued an order to the following effect:

“The inhabitants of Kerch are ordered to deliver all family food stocks to the German Kommandos. Owners of undelivered and detected supplies will be shot.

“By the next order, Number 2, the town council ordered the inhabitants to register immediately all hens, roosters, ducks, chickens, turkeys, geese, sheep, cows, calves, and cattle. Poultry owners were strictly prohibited from using fowl and cattle for their own needs without special permission of the German commandant. After the publication of these orders a wholesale search of all apartments and houses began.

“The members of the Gestapo behaved outrageously. For each kilogram of beans or flour discovered in excess, the head of the family was shot.

“The Germans initiated their monstrous atrocities by poisoning 245 children of school age.”

Later on you will see the small bodies of these children in our documentary film. The infants’ bodies were thrown into the city moat.

“According to instructions issued by the German commandant, all the school children were ordered to appear at the school at a given time. On arrival, the 245 children, school books in hand, were sent to a factory school outside the town, allegedly for a walk. There the cold and hungry infants were offered coffee and poisoned pies. Since there was not enough coffee to go round, those who did not get any were sent to the infirmary where a German orderly smeared their lips with a quick-acting poison. In a few minutes all the children were dead. School children of the higher grades were carried off in trucks and shot down by machine gun fire 8 kilometers outside of the town. The bodies of the first batch of murdered children were brought to the same spot—a very large, very long, antitank trench.”

I continue the quotation:

“On the evening of 28 November 1941 an order, Number 4, of the Gestapo was posted in the town. In compliance with this order the inhabitants who had been previously registered with the Gestapo were to present themselves on 29 November between 0800 and 1200 hours at the Sennaya Square, with a 3 days’ supply of food. All the men and women were to appear, regardless of their age or state of health. Those who did not present themselves were threatened with public execution. Those who arrived at the square on 29 November were persuaded that they had been summoned in order to be sent to work. At noon over 7,000 people assembled in the square. There were young boys, young girls, children of all ages, very old men, and pregnant women. All were transferred to the city prison by the men of the Gestapo. This monstrous extermination of the peaceful population in the prison was carried out by the Germans according to a previously formulated plan of the Gestapo. First of all, the prisoners were asked to hand over the keys of their apartments and to give their exact addresses to the prison commandant. Then all the valuables were taken from the arrested people, including watches, rings, and ornaments. In spite of the cold, boots, felt-boots, shoes, costumes, and coats were removed from all the persons incarcerated. Many women and girls in their teens were separated from the rest of the internees by the fascist blackguards and locked in separate cells, where the unfortunate creatures were subjected to particularly outrageous forms of torture. They were raped, their breasts cut off, their stomachs ripped open, their feet and hands cut off, and their eyes gouged out.

“After the Germans had been thrown out of Kerch, on 30 December 1941, Red Army soldiers discovered, in the prison yard, a formless mass of bodies of young girls, naked, mutilated, and unrecognizable, who had been savagely and cynically tortured to death by the fascists.

“As a site for the mass execution, the Hitlerites selected an antitank ditch near the village of Baguerovsko where for 3 days on end autobuses brought entire families which had been condemned to death.

“When the Red Army entered Kerch, in January 1942, the Baguerovsko trench was investigated. It was discovered that this trench—1 kilometer in length, 4 meters in width, and 2 meters in depth—was filled to overflowing with bodies of women, children, old men, and boys and girls in their teens. Near the trench were frozen pools of blood. Children’s caps, toys, ribbons, torn-off buttons, gloves, milk bottles, and rubber comforters, small shoes, galoshes, together with torn-off hands, feet, and other parts of human bodies were lying nearby. Everything was spattered with blood and brains.

“The fascist savages shot down the defenseless population with dum-dum bullets. Near the edge of the trench lay the mutilated body of a young woman. In her arms was a baby carefully wrapped up in a white lace cover. Next to this woman lay an 8-year-old girl and a boy of 5, killed with dum-dum bullets. Their hands still gripped the mother’s dress.”

The circumstances of the executions are confirmed by the statements of numerous witnesses who were lucky enough to escape unharmed from the open grave. I am going to quote two statements. Twenty-year-old Anatol Ignatievich Bondarenko, now a soldier in the Red Army, states:

“When we were brought up to the antitank trench and lined up alongside this fearful grave, we still believed that we had been fetched in order to fill in the trench with earth or to dig new ones. We did not think we had been brought there to be shot, but when we heard the first shots from the automatic guns trained on us, I realized we were about to be murdered. I immediately hurled myself into the trench and hid between two corpses. Thus, unharmed and half fainting, I lay nearly until the evening. While lying in the trench I heard several of the wounded call to the gendarmes shooting them, ‘Finish me off, blackguard!’ ‘You missed me, scoundrel! Shoot again!’ Then, when the Germans went off to dinner, an inhabitant of my village called out from the trench, ‘Get up, those of you who are still alive.’ I got up and the two of us began to drag out the living from underneath the corpses. I was covered with blood. A light mist hung over the trench—steam arising from the rapidly-congealing mass of dead bodies, from the pools of blood, and from the last breath of the dying. We dragged out Theodor Naoumenko and my father, but my father had been killed outright by a dum-dum bullet in the heart. Late at night I reached the house of some friends in the Village of Baguerovsko and stayed with them until the arrival of the Red Army.”

Witness A. Kamenev stated:

“The chauffeur stopped the car behind the airdrome, and we saw Germans shooting people near the trench. We were dragged out of the car and pushed toward the trench in batches of 10. My son and I were among the first 10. We reached the trench. We were lined up facing it, and the Germans began their preparations to shoot us in the nape of the neck. My son turned to them and shouted, ‘Why are you shooting the peaceful population?’ But the shots rang out and my son instantly jumped into the trench. I threw myself in after him. Dead bodies began to fall upon me in the trench. About 3 p.m. an 11-year-old boy stood up from among the pile of corpses and began to call, ‘Little fathers, those of you who are still alive, get up. The Germans have gone.’ I was afraid to do so, since I thought that the boy was shouting by order of the policeman. The boy called out a second time, and then my son answered him. He stood up and asked, ‘Dad, are you alive?’ I could not say anything and merely nodded. My son and the other boy dragged me out from under the bodies. We saw some others who were still alive and who were shouting, ‘Help us.’ Some were wounded. All the time, while I had been lying in the trench, under the bodies of the dead, I could hear the shrieks and wails of the women and children. The Germans had started shooting old men, women, and children after shooting us.”

I interrupt the quotation here. Although the subsequent text does deal with many other appalling atrocities committed by the Germans, it is, in substance, analogous to the passages which I have already read into the record, relating to crimes perpetrated by the Germans in the town of Kerch. I would, however, invite the Tribunal’s attention to the part referring to the ill-treatment of children. On the whole, these crimes are highly characteristic of the German fascist terror. I quote:

“The German barbarians, in their atrocious ill-treatment of the Soviet people, did not even spare the children. A school teacher, M. N. Kolessnikova, stated that the Germans killed a 13-year-old boy for taking an old car tire and trying to swim in it while bathing in the sea.

“The following incident happened, according to the testimony of E. N. Sapelnikova:

“Maria Bondarenko, who lived in the village of Adjimushkaya, in an attempt to save her three children from starvation, appealed to some Germans working in the kitchen, for a little food. They poured some thin gruel into a small bowl. The Bondarenko family ate it greedily. A few hours later the mother and all three children were dead. The fascist henchmen had poisoned them.

“It has been ascertained from the testimony of N. H. Shoumilova that in July a German officer shot a 6-year-old boy merely because he was singing a Soviet song in the streets of the town.

“Practically all summer long the dead body of a 9-year-old boy dangled in the ‘Sacco and Vanzetti’ garden; the child had been hanged for plucking some apricots from a tree.”

Here I end my quotation from the report on the town of Kerch.

In my statement I have dwelt on the example of Kerch not because the atrocities committed by the Hitlerites in this town were on a particularly large scale or because they stood out, by reason of their cruelty, among the other crimes perpetrated by the Germans—the documents relevant to these latter crimes are at our disposal. Certainly not. On the contrary, I have quoted the report of the Extraordinary State Commission only because it gives a detailed and objective record of Hitlerite military crimes committed against peaceful citizens of one of the many towns which, as a result of a monstrous war unleashed by the German fascist criminals, were doomed to become the victims of a terrorist regime. Such atrocities were perpetrated by the Hitlerites in all the temporarily occupied cities of the Soviet Union.

In confirmation of this statement I now turn to a document of a general nature, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51) but parts of which have not yet been read into the record. I am referring to the note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, V. M. Molotov, of 27 April 1942. In their introduction to this note, the Soviet Government made the following statement—I start my quotation from Paragraph 2 of the reverse side of the Russian text, Paragraph 3 after the heading of the document book. There you will find the following remarks:

“Fresh information and documents are being submitted to the Soviet Government to the effect that the Hitlerite invaders are carrying on a wholesale looting of the Soviet population and do not shrink from any crimes and acts of cruelty or violence on the territories which they temporarily occupied or which they still continue to occupy. The Soviet Government have already declared that these atrocities do not represent accidental excesses perpetrated by single undisciplined military units or by individual German officers or men. The Soviet Government are now in possession of documents recently seized in the staffs of routed German formations, which prove that the carnage and atrocities committed by the fascist German Army were perpetrated in accordance with carefully elaborated plans issued by the German Government, in pursuance of orders from the German High Command.”

I omit the subsequent parts and continue with Section V of the note. The Tribunal will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 8 of the document book, Column 1 of the text, Paragraph 5.

I should like to add a few introductory words to the quotation. It is quite evident from the text of this note how the orders of the Reich leadership concerning the establishment of a regime of terror were executed, in the occupied territories, by the various commissioners of the occupied territories, by the Gauleiter, and by the commanders of German military units. I quote the beginning of Section V of this note—Page 8 of your document book, Column 1, Paragraph 5:

“The inhuman cruelty which the Hitlerite clique—begotten in violence and against the will of the German people—displayed against the inhabitants of the European countries temporarily occupied by the German Army was multiplied a hundredfold by the enemy forces after their invasion of the Soviet Union.

“The carnage to which the Hitlerites exposed the peaceful population of the Soviet Union has far overshadowed the most bloodstained pages of the annals of mankind, as well as of the current world war, and fully reveals the bloodthirsty and criminal plans of the fascists, aimed at the extermination of the Russian, Ukrainian, Bielorussian, and other nationals of the Soviet Union.

“These monstrous fascist plans inspired the orders and instructions of the German High Command for the extermination of the peaceful Soviet citizens.

“Thus, for instance, the instructions of the German Supreme Command, entitled, ‘Treatment of the Civilian Population and of Enemy Prisoners of War,’ reads to the effect that officers are responsible that the treatment of the civilian population be absolutely merciless, and commands that ‘force be used against the entire mass of the population.’ The instructions issued by the German High Command as a directive for the occupational authorities on Bielorussian territory read as follows:

“‘All hostile behavior on the part of the population toward the German Armed Forces and their organizations will be punished by death. Whosoever shelters Red Army soldiers or partisans will be punished by death. If the partisan cannot be found, hostages must be taken from among the population.’”

THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number of what you are reading now? What is the U.S.S.R. number of what you are reading now?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This document was submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-51. It is one of the notes of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Molotov, dated 27 April 1942. All together, four notes have been submitted to the Tribunal under this number. The beginning of the note which I am now quoting is on Page 4 of your document book. The quotation which I am now reading into the record is on Page 8 of your document book.

THE PRESIDENT: It is thought that this is part of the document you read yesterday. Are you sure that it is not?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President. Yesterday I read into the record a note dated 6 January 1942, and the note which I am quoting now is dated 27 April.

Have I your permission to continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: “‘These hostages must be hanged if the guilty parties or their accomplices are not found within 24 hours. During the following 24 hours, double the number of hostages will be hanged on the same spot.’

“Point 7 of Order Number 431/41 of the German commandant of the town of Feodosia, Captain Eberhard, states:

“‘During an alarm every citizen appearing on the street must be shot. Groups of citizens who appear must be surrounded and mercilessly shot. Leaders and inciters are to be publicly hanged.’

“In a directive addressed to the 260th German Infantry Division, concerning the treatment of the civilian population, it is pointed out to the individual officers that ‘sufficient severity is not being applied everywhere.’

“Orders posted by the occupants in the Soviet towns and villages announce the death penalty for the most varied reasons: For being on the streets after 1700 hours; for offering lodging for the night to strangers; for not handing over Red Army soldiers to the authorities; for failing to hand over property; for attempting to put out a fire in an inhabited spot intended to be burned down; for travelling from one inhabited spot to another; for refusing to do forced labor; and so on.”

I continue this quotation on Page 8, reverse side of the second column of the text, Paragraph 2:

“The German fascist High Command not only tolerates but actually orders the murder of women and children. Organized infanticide in some of the orders is presented as a means for fighting the partisan movement. Thus, an order of the commander of the 254th German Division, Lieutenant General Von Beschnitz, dated 2 December 1941, considers the fact that ‘old people, women, and children of all ages’ move about behind the German lines as proof of ‘careless good nature,’ and orders the shooting without warning of ‘every civilian person regardless of age or sex approaching our front lines.’ It also orders that the ‘mayors be made responsible for reporting immediately the appearance of any unknown persons, and especially of children, to the local Kommandantur’ and to ‘shoot immediately any person suspected of espionage.’”

Some data regarding the directives received from the Reich authorities by the fascist authorities in the temporarily occupied territories are also contained in the note. I quote from Page 9 of your document book, Paragraph 3, Column 1 of the text:

“Some of the crimes of the German occupiers committed by them during the very first weeks of their piratical attack on the U.S.S.R., and their savage extermination of the civilian population of Bielorussia, the Ukraine, and the Baltic Soviet republics, have only now been documentarily established. Thus, when units of the Red Army in the district of the town of Toropetz, in January 1942, smashed a German SS cavalry brigade, among the documents captured was found a report of the 1st Cavalry Regiment of this brigade concerning the ‘pacification’ by this unit of the Starobinsk district in Bielorussia. The commander of the regiment reports that besides taking 239 prisoners a detachment of his regiment has also shot 6,504 peaceful civilians. The report further states that the detachment acted in pursuance of Order Number 42 issued to the regiment, dated 27 July 1941. The commander of the 2d Regiment of this brigade, Von Magill, states, in his ‘Report Concerning the Execution of Repressive Operations on the River Pripet between 27 July and 11 August 1941,’ the following:

“‘We drove the women and children into the swamp, but that did not produce the desired result, since the swamp was not deep enough for them to drown. One can usually feel bottom (possibly sand) at a depth of 1 meter.’

“In the same headquarters a telegram, Number 37, was found, sent by the commander of the SS Cavalry Brigade.”

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for 10 minutes?

[_A recess was taken._]

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, regarding the Defendant Hess, he will be absent until further notice on account of illness.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue the quotation:

“In the same headquarters there was discovered a telegram, Number 37, from the commander of the Cavalry Brigade, an SS-Standartenführer, to a cavalry unit of the above-mentioned 2d Cavalry Regiment, dated 2 August 1941. It mentioned that the Reichsführer of the SS and the Police, Himmler, considers the number of the exterminated peaceful civilians far too insignificant; and it points out that ‘it is necessary to take radical measures’ and ‘the unit commanders conduct the operations too mildly.’ He also orders to report every day on the number of people shot.”

In this connection we cannot abstain from mentioning the criminal activities of the Defendant Rosenberg in carrying out the general instructions of the Reich leadership for establishing a regime of terror in the Occupied Eastern Territories or rather, if we wish to be more accurate, for issuing, in his capacity as chief author of these instructions, a series of laws in Ostland—this, as we know, was the name given to the occupied regions of the Baltic States—while similar orders and instructions of a terroristic nature were also issued by high-ranking officials of the fascist administration set up by Rosenberg.

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-39 (Document Number USSR-39), the report of the Extraordinary Commission on the atrocities of the German fascist invaders in the territory of the Estonian S.S.R. I quote an excerpt which Your Honors will find on Page 232 of the document book in the first column of the text, Paragraph 3. It begins as follows:

“On 17 July 1941 Hitler issued a decree turning over the legislative powers of the territory of Estonia to Reich Minister Rosenberg, who later turned over this legislative power to the German district authorities.

“Despotism was introduced into Estonia and the peaceful population subjected to brutal terrorism. Reich Minister Rosenberg, the Reich Commissioner for the Baltic regions, Lose, and the Commissioner General of Estonia, Litzmann, completely deprived the Estonian people of all political rights. On the basis of Hitler’s decree of 17 July 1941, Reich Minister Rosenberg promulgated, on 17 February 1942, a special law for people of non-Germanic nationality, providing capital punishment for the slightest resistance against Germanization and for any act of violence against people of German nationality.

“For workers and employees of Estonian origin the occupants introduced corporal punishment. On 20 February 1942 an official of the railroad administration in Riga, Walk, sent the following telegram to the administration of the Estonian railroads:

“‘Every violation of discipline on the part of a native employee, especially absenteeism, being late for work, coming drunk to work, disobeying orders, and so forth, shall from now on be punished with the utmost severity: (a) For the first offense, 15 strokes with a lash on the bare body; (b) if the offense is repeated, 20 strokes with a lash on the bare body.’

“On 12 January 1942 Reich Minister Rosenberg established ‘special courts,’ consisting of a police officer, as president, and two subordinate policemen. The procedural rules were determined by this court at its own discretion. These ‘courts’ pronounced death sentences with confiscation of property. No other penalty was ever decreed. No appeal against the sentences was admitted. In addition to the ‘courts’ established by Rosenberg, death sentences were pronounced by the German political police, and these sentences were carried out on the very same day.

“For the examination of criminal and civilian cases, Commissioner General Litzmann introduced local courts. Judges, prosecutors, investigating magistrates, notary publics [notaries public], and lawyers—all, without exception, were personally appointed by Litzmann.”

I end the quotation.

I further submit to the Tribunal, as our Exhibit Number USSR-18 (Document Number USSR-18), a photostat of a plain-spoken terroristic order of the German military authorities, and I beg Your Honors to accept this document as a relevant part of the evidence. This is an order of the German town commander of the city of Pskov. The Tribunal will find the text of this order on Page 235 of the document book. It is evident from this document that the peaceful civilian population was even forbidden to appear on the highways of their own locality. Any peaceful citizens seen there by the German soldiers were to be shot. I quote the text of the document, beginning with Paragraph 3:

“Therefore, I order:

“1. All members of the civilian population, regardless of age or sex, seen on or in the vicinity of railroad tracks are to be considered as bandits and shot as such. Excepted, of course, are the labor units under guard.

“2. All people mentioned in the first paragraph who cross the fields are to be shot.

“3. All persons mentioned in Paragraph 1 who are found on the roads at night or at dawn are to be shot.

“4. Persons mentioned in Paragraph 1, if found on the roads during the daytime, are subject to arrest and the most detailed examination.”

Such were the terroristic decrees and orders based upon the so-called Leadership Principle that were issued by high-ranking officials and representatives of the military authorities of the fascist German Government. But the right of relentless reprisals against the peaceful populations was not confined to them only; any local Kommandantur, any commander of a small unit, and, finally, any soldier of Hitler’s army acquired the right of reprisal against the peaceful population of the occupied regions.

I shall now submit to the Tribunal several documents which will reveal how the Hitlerite criminals invariably made the most of this right, introducing into the crimes perpetrated against the Soviet people the cruel devices of base and evil creatures who had been granted the right of mocking and murdering with impunity. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9), a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist occupiers in the city of Kiev. The Tribunal will find the passage in question on Page 238 of the document file, Paragraph 5 of Column 1 of the text. I quote:

“The German executioners, from the very first days of their occupation of Kiev, carried out a wholesale slaughter of the population by torture, shooting, hanging, and poisoning by gas in the murder vans. People were seized in the streets and shot either in large batches or singly. Announcements of the shootings were posted in order to intimidate the population.”

I shall interrupt my quotation at this point, and I ask the Tribunal to accept in evidence photostats of several of these posters. Partial mention has already been made of them in the report of the Extraordinary State Commission. From among their number, I would request the Tribunal to accept in evidence the photostat of one such poster, which I submit as Exhibit Number USSR-290 (Document Number USSR-290). The text reads as follows—I ask the Tribunal to excuse me if the translation is, perhaps, slightly incorrect, since the original text is in Ukrainian. I am a Russian, I understand the meaning of the Ukrainian text, but the translation might possibly not be quite correct in every detail. A translation will be made. Here is the text:

“As a reprisal for an act of sabotage, 100 inhabitants of the city of Kiev were shot this day. Let this be a warning.

“Every inhabitant of Kiev is co-responsible for every act of sabotage.

“Kiev, 22 October 1941; The Town Commandant.”

Under Exhibit Number USSR-291 (Document Number USSR-291)—the Tribunal will find the text on Page 243 of the document book—I submit a photostat of the following poster, signed by the commandant of the city of Kiev. I quote the text:

“Means of communication—telephone and telegraph wires—have been damaged in Kiev. Since the saboteurs could not be found, 400 men have been shot in the city.

“This should serve as a warning to the population, and once again I demand that all suspects be immediately reported to the German troops or the German police in order that the criminals may be adequately punished.

“Signed: Eberhard, Major General and City Commandant, Kiev; 29 November 1941.”

As Exhibit Number USSR-333 (Document Number USSR-333), I submit a photostat of the third and last poster in Kiev. The Tribunal will find the text of this poster on Page 242 of the document book at the disposal of the Tribunal. I quote:

“Repeated cases of arson and sabotage in Kiev force me to resort to extreme measures. Consequently, 300 inhabitants of Kiev will be shot today. For every new case of arson or sabotage, several times this number will be shot. Every inhabitant of Kiev is obliged to report any suspects to the German police. I shall maintain order and calm in Kiev by all measures at my disposal and under any circumstances.

“Kiev, 2 November 1941; Eberhard, Major General and City Commandant.”

I refer to another document which has not even been partially read into the record. I refer to Exhibit Number USSR-63 (Document Number USSR-63) of the Commissar of the Djerjinski District Council of the city of Stalingrad. I invite the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that this official act, which was drawn up by the members of the local Soviet authorities and the community of the Djerjinski District of Stalingrad, was approved by the Extraordinary State Commission under the signature of a member of the commission, Academician Trainin, and of other persons. The members of the Tribunal will find the act in question on Page 222 of the document book, Column 1 of the text.

I shall begin the quotation of the report of the commission, which investigated the territory of the Djerjinski District of Stalingrad after the rout of the Germans at Stalingrad. This report contains information regarding the announcements posted in the streets of Stalingrad by the German Kommandantur and concerning the results of these posters. I begin my quotation on Page 222 of the document book in the possession of the members of the Tribunal, in Column 1 of the text, last paragraph:

“. . . the military Kommandantur sowed death everywhere. It posted announcements in the streets, threatening death by shooting at every step. For instance, the following announcement was posted up in Aral Street: ‘Death to him who passes here.’ On the corner of Nevskaya and Medveditzkaya Streets: ‘Right of way forbidden to Russians; for violation of this order—death.’

“As a matter of fact, the Germans shot the citizens at every step: Hundreds of graves along the streets of the Djerjinski District of the city of Stalingrad bear witness to the shooting. The bodies of those who were tortured, shot, or hanged in the Kommandantur proper were at first thrown into a pit near the building of the Kommandantur. After the invaders had been thrown out, there were found 31 corpses in this pit. When the pit was full, the corpses were brought to the cemetery 2 kilometers away from the Kommandantur. At the cemetery there was another pit, 6 meters deep, 40 meters long, and 12 meters wide.

“After the invaders had been thrown out, 516 corpses of Soviet citizens were found in this grave, including the bodies of 50 children who had been tortured to death, shot, or hanged in the building of the Kommandantur and in other places. An examination of the bodies on 25 March 1943 established that the Hitlerites had savagely tortured the Soviet people before murdering them. In addition to the bodies of the children, the corpses of 323 women, 69 old men, and 74 younger men were discovered. One hundred and forty-one corpses bore traces of wounds inflicted by firearms in the head and on the chests; 92 corpses had marks on their necks which showed that they had been hanged. All the other bodies were mutilated and bore traces of torture. One hundred and thirty victims, women and girls, had their arms twisted behind their backs and tied with wire, and 18 of the corpses had their breasts cut off, some had their ears, fingers, and toes chopped off, and the majority showed traces of burns on their bodies.

“An examination of these corpses revealed that 21 women died of torture and wounds and that the remainder had been first tortured and then shot.

“Even the corpses of children were mutilated. Some had their small fingers cut off, their buttocks chopped up, their eyes gouged out.”

I now cease to quote from this document, and, in compliance with the wishes of the Tribunal to the effect that not details but instances testifying to some new data in the system of the Hitler terror be reported, I omit three pages of the report and turn to the following section on the presentation of evidence: “On Tortures Inflicted by the Hitlerites in the Course of Interrogation.”

In general, tortures were officially provided for and sanctioned by the Hitlerites. I present to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-11 (Document Number USSR-11), one of the documents testifying to the fact that tortures were sanctioned officially. This document is an official guide for concentration camps, “The Concentration Camp Statutes,” published in Berlin in 1941. You will find the excerpt I am quoting on Page 244 of the document book in your possession. Section 3 of the instructions, for instance, entitled, “Corporal Punishment,” states:

“Between 5 and 25 strokes are permitted on the loins and buttocks. The number of strokes is to be determined by the camp commandant and is to be entered in the corresponding space in the directives governing punishment.”

I should have liked to refer to one more document, but, as it already has been presented to the Tribunal, in compliance with the Tribunal’s instructions, I will omit this document—it was presented as Document L-89—and continue.

Official formulas to be used in “especially severe interrogations” or, rather, interrogations with application of torture, were issued by the corresponding German police departments. I submit it to the Tribunal and would request them to accept in evidence an original formula of such an “especially severe interrogation.” I submit it as Exhibit Number USSR-254 (Document Number USSR-254). It represents an appendix to the report of the Yugoslav Government. This form, as is evident from the certificate attached to it, was seized from the German archives by units of the Yugoslav Army. I shall not describe this form in my own words but shall quote the report of the Yugoslav Government on Page 21 of the document, from the last paragraph at the bottom of the page. The Tribunal will find this passage on Page 256 of the document book, in the last paragraph. I begin the quotation:

“In order to give a clearer description of the savage cruelty in carrying out this plan of extermination, we submit to the Tribunal another original document which was seized in the German archives in Yugoslavia. It is a blank form for the so-called ‘especially severe interrogations’ of the victims of the Nazi criminals. Such interrogations were conducted in Slovenia by the Security Police and the SD.

“On the first page of the form the police office suggests submitting one particular person to an ‘especially severe interrogation.’ On the second page the competent officer of the SS agrees to such an interrogation. The answer to the question—what this special ‘severe interrogation’ consisted of—is found in the following instructions of this form:

“The especially severe interrogation should consist of. . . . Minutes of the interrogation should be kept. A doctor may (or may not) be asked to be present.

“The mention of the doctor and of his presence at the interrogation leaves no doubt at all that the person interrogated was to be physically tortured. The fact that printed instructions existed for these interrogations obviously suggests a wholesale resort to such criminal methods.”

The Reichsführer SS clearly foresaw cases of attempted suicide by persons under suspicion. The SS leader therefore not only permitted but even ordered the prisoners to be tied hand and foot or shackled in chains. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-298 (Document Number USSR-298), a photostat of a directive of the Chief of the German Police, Number 202/43, of 1 June 1943. The document is certified by the Extraordinary State Commission, and I quote the text of the document. The document is dated 1 June 1943. I quote only the text:

“Subject: Prevention of Escape during Interrogations.

“In order to prevent escape during interrogations in all cases where, owing to circumstances or the importance of the prisoner, there exists an increased possibility of escape or of an attempt to commit suicide, I order the hands and feet of the arrested person to be bound in such a way that escape is impossible. Rings and chains should be used if available.”

I have not submitted the official directives of the German central police authorities to the Tribunal merely to prove that the German officials provided for the application of torture and torment during interrogations. This fact is well known and calls for no special evidence. But I am submitting a document, in the possession of the Soviet Prosecution, which will show how far tortures to which arrested persons were subjected in the police cells exceeded even the instructions issued by the criminals and the officially sanctioned forms of torture.

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1), which is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of the German fascist aggressors in the region of Stavropol. The investigation of these crimes was conducted under the leadership of the eminent academician and Russian author, the late Alexei Nikolaievitch Tolstoy. The Tribunal will find this document on Page 272 of the document book. I begin my quotation from the first paragraph. Academician A. N. Tolstoy, as the Tribunal will doubtless remember, was a member of the Extraordinary State Commission. I begin the quotation:

“Tortures and torments, exceptional in their cruelty, were applied to the Soviet citizens on the premises of the Gestapo. Thus, for instance, Citizen Phillip Akimovitch Kovalchuk, born in 1891 and an inhabitant of the town of Pyatigorsk, was arrested on 27 October 1942 in his own apartment, beaten unconscious, taken to the Gestapo, and thrown into one of the cells. Twenty-four hours later the Gestapo began to torture him; he was interrogated and beaten at night only. For the interrogation he was put in a separate torture chamber equipped with special devices for torture, such as chains with handcuffs for shackling both hands and feet. These chains were fastened to the cement floor of the chamber. To begin with, the prisoners were stripped to the skin and laid on the floor. Then their hands and feet were shackled. Citizen Kovalchuk was subjected to this form of torture. When in chains, he was completely unable to move. He lay on his stomach and in this position was lashed with rubber truncheons for 16 days.

“Apart from these inhuman forms of torture, the Gestapo also resorted to the following: A wide board was placed on the back of the shackled prisoner, and blows were struck on this board with heavy dumbbells. As a result of these blows, the prisoner bled from the nose, mouth, and ears and lost consciousness.

“The torture chamber of the Gestapo was so constructed that while one prisoner was being tortured the prisoners awaiting their turn in the neighboring cell could watch the torture and ill-treatment.

“After the torture, the unconscious prisoner would be thrown on one side, while the next victim of the Gestapo would be forcibly dragged in from the neighboring cell, shackled, and tortured in the same fashion.

“The torture chambers were always covered with blood. The board placed on the back of the prisoners was also soaked in it. The rubber cudgels used for beating the prisoners were red with blood.

“The arrested Soviet people, doomed to be shot after unspeakable torture and beatings, were dragged into trucks, driven out of town, and there shot.”

I omit two paragraphs and continue my quotation:

“Witness Barbara Ivanovna Tchaika, born in 1912, domiciled in Number 31, Djerjinskaya Street (Apartment Number 3), states that during her incarceration in the prison of the Gestapo she had been subjected to incredible torture by the Chief of the Gestapo, Captain Wintz. Witness B. I. Tchaika said on this subject:

“‘I was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the Chief of the Gestapo, the German, Captain Wintz. He summoned me to the torture chamber once for an interrogation. There were four tables in the cell, wooden grills on the floor, and two basins of water in which leather thongs had been placed. Two rings were attached to the ceiling, with ropes drawn through them, from which the prisoners were suspended during the time of their torment. By order of Captain Wintz I was laid on the table by the Gestapo men, stripped, and beaten severely with leather thongs. I was beaten twice. In all I received 75 strokes of the lash; my kidneys were almost torn out and I lost eight of my teeth.’”

What occurred in the torture chambers of Stavropol was no exception at all. The same misdeeds were perpetrated everywhere. In confirmation I will refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission regarding the depredations and atrocities committed by the German fascist aggressors in the city of Kiev. That is Exhibit USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9). The Tribunal will find this document on Page 238 of the document book, Paragraph 2 from the top, Column 2. I begin the quotation:

“Murders were often preceded by sadistic torture. The Archimandrite Valerian testified that the fascists beat sick and feeble people till they were half-dead, poured water over them when the temperature was below zero, and finally shot them in the torture chamber of the German police, established in the Kievo-Petchersk Abbey.”

I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the Kievo-Petchersk Abbey is one of the most ancient architectural monuments in the Soviet Union. It is a specially cherished cultural treasure, very dear to the heart of the Soviet citizens as a tangible memory of the far distant past. The torture chamber of the police had been purposely established in the Abbey. The Tribunal will learn of its eventual fate from the subsequent reports of my colleagues.

When the city of Odessa was under the rule of the fascist invaders, interrogations were accompanied by tortures of an exceptionally cruel nature. I refer to a testimony contained in the report of the Extraordinary State Commission, entitled, “On the Atrocities Committed by the German and Romanian Invaders in the City of Odessa and in the Territory of the Odessa Regions.”

I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-47 (Document Number USSR-47) and request that it be accepted as irrefutable evidence in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. I shall quote this document, which is on Page 282 of your document book, Paragraph 4, Line 10. It contains the testimony of Paul Krapyvny, producer of news reels. I quote this passage from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission, Page 282:

“The interrogator had a voltage control switch on the table, and whenever the person interrogated did not answer the question as the examiner wished, the dial of the voltage control would be mercilessly turned to increase the voltage; the body of the person interrogated would begin to tremble and his eyes to protrude from their sockets.

“The person interrogated, with his hands tied behind his back, would be hoisted up to the ceiling . . . where he would be spun round and round. After having been rotated 200 times in one direction, the victim, still suspended on the cord, would begin to turn at an insane speed in the opposite direction. At that particular moment the executioners would beat him on both sides with rubber truncheons. The man became unconscious both from the insane speed of the rotation and from the beating.”

I refer to the document already presented by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, Exhibit Number USSR-41 (Document Number USSR-41), which is a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes committed by the German fascist invaders in the territory of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. I shall quote from this document, beginning on Page 286 on the reverse side of the document book, Paragraph 2, Column 2 of the text. I begin the quotation:

“In the camps and prisons the German executioners subjected prisoners to ill-treatment, torture, and shooting. In the central prison the internees were beaten and tortured. Day and night shrieks and groans were heard in the torture chambers. Every day from 30 to 35 people died as a result of the tortures. Whoever survived the ill-treatment and torture would return to his cell absolutely unrecognizable, burned to the bone, with parts of his body torn to pieces. No medical aid was given to the tortured.”

The Hitlerites subjected Soviet citizens to ill-treatment and torture in every town of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Your Honors will find analogous statements in the text of every communication of the Extraordinary State Commission. I shall not delay the Tribunal by quoting any further excerpts, I consider the evidence already presented as sufficient.

I shall now proceed to the next section of my report: murder of hostages.

I shall make a few introductory remarks.

One of the most shameful crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia was the use everywhere by the German fascists of the bestial system of taking hostages. This system was introduced by the Hitlerites into all the countries that fell as victims of their aggression. The German criminals resorted to particularly ruthless methods when murdering hostages in Eastern Europe. In introducing the hostage-seizing system the Hitlerites violated every law and custom of warfare.

However, it is difficult to speak of the murder of hostages where the Soviet Union is concerned, since the crimes committed by the Hitlerites everywhere in the temporarily occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. go beyond even this criminal practice of taking hostages. To a great extent the same remarks apply to Poland and particularly to Yugoslavia. Here the Hitlerites, under the pretext of the hostage-seizing system, were really perpetrating immeasurably greater war crimes, whose ultimate aim was the extermination of entire nations.

I shall now present some brief data from documents concerning the different countries of Eastern Europe.

I submit an extract from the report of the Government of the Polish Republic. The Tribunal will find the passage quoted on Page 128 of the document book, Paragraph 6. I begin the quotation:

“a) One of the most disgraceful features of the Hitlerite occupation of Poland was the introduction of the hostage-seizing system. Collective responsibility, payment of collective fines, and the bartering of human life were considered to be the best methods for enslaving the Polish people.

“b) Here are some typical cases of mass reprisals; they illustrate the methods employed by the German occupants.

“c) In November 1939 an unknown person set fire to a barn filled with grain on the outskirts of Nove Miasto Lubavske. The barn was the property of a German. As a result of this action, a certain SS-Standartenführer, Sperling, received an order from the higher authorities to resort to reprisals. A number of Poles from among the most prominent citizens were arrested. Out of those, 15 were selected and publicly shot by SS soldiers. Among the victims were the two brothers Jankovsky, one a lawyer, the other a priest, the tailor Malkovsky, the blacksmith Zemny, Major of the Army Reserve Vona, the son of an innkeeper, the publisher of a newspaper, and a priest, Bronislav Dembenovsky.

“d) In October 1939 the German authorities captured a certain number of Poles in the city of Inovrozlav and imprisoned them as hostages. They were brought to the prison courtyard, where they were unmercifully flogged and shot, one by one. Altogether, 70 men were killed, including the city mayor and his deputy. Among the victims were the most prominent citizens of the town.”

I omit the next sentence. I quote further:

“e) On 7 March 1941 the film star, Igo Sym, who considered himself as being of German nationality and who was in charge of the German theaters in Warsaw, was murdered in his own apartment. Although the murderers were never found, the Governor of Warsaw, Fischer, said that Sym was murdered by the Poles and ordered the arrest of a large number of hostages. He also closed the theaters and imposed a curfew on the Polish population. The hostages were taken in order to secure the arrest of the murderers. About 200 people were arrested, including teachers, priests, physicians, lawyers, and actors. The population of Warsaw was given 3 days to find Sym’s murderers. After the expiration of the 3 days, the killers still remaining unknown, 17 hostages were executed, among them Professor Kopetz, his son, and Professor Zakrzhevsky.”

I conclude this quotation from the report of the Polish Government and ask the Tribunal’s permission to refer to a short excerpt from the report of the Czechoslovakian Government. There is one part I would like to read into the record. Your Honors will find it on Page 141 of the document book. I begin the quotation:

“Even before the beginning of the war, thousands of Czech patriots and especially Catholic and Protestant clergymen, lawyers, doctors, teachers, and so on, were arrested. Furthermore, in every district lists were drawn up of persons who were subject to arrest as hostages at the first sign of any breach of ‘public order and security.’ At first these were only threats. In 1940 Karl Frank announced, in a speech to the leaders of the Movement of National Unity, that 2,000 Czech hostages, interned in concentration camps, would be shot if prominent Czech statesmen refused to sign the declaration of loyalty. Sometime after the attempt on Heydrich’s life, many of these hostages were executed.

“Threats of reprisals against directors of factories in case of some hitch in the work at the factory were a typical method of Nazi terrorism. Thus, in 1939 the Gestapo summoned all the directors as well as the managers of warehouses belonging to various industrial firms and informed them that they would be shot in case of a strike. On leaving they had to sign the following declaration: I am aware of the fact that I would be shot immediately should my factory cease working without a justifiable reason.’

“In the same way, school teachers were held responsible for the loyal behavior of their pupils. Many teachers were arrested only because the pupils in their schools were caught writing anti-German slogans or reading forbidden books.”

I now interrupt the quotation from the report of the Government of the Czechoslovakian Republic, and I begin to read the section recording the killings of hostages in Yugoslavia.

I shall just say a few words by way of introduction. These criminal murders of the peaceful population developed on their own particular lines in Yugoslavia. As a matter of fact, it is impossible at this point to speak of the execution of hostages, although the Hitlerites constantly make use of this term in their official documents, which will be presented to the Tribunal at a later date.

Truth to tell, under the alleged killing of hostages, the Hitlerite criminals were realizing, on an enormous scale, the regime of terroristic extermination of the peaceful citizens not only for crimes which somebody or other had committed, but also for crimes which, to Hitler’s way of thinking, might be committed.

I submit the document that confirms this fact. It contains excerpts from the report of the Yugoslav Government, which Your Honors will find on Page 259 in the document book in their possession, Paragraph 1. I begin the quotation:

“The murder of hostages was one of those methods which were used by military authorities and the Reich Government on an incredible scale for the mass extermination of the Yugoslav population.

“The Yugoslav State Commission for the investigation of War Crimes has at its disposal an innumerable quantity of concrete details and original evidence taken from the German archives. We submit only a very limited number of such details and evidence, which are, however, sufficient proof that the killing of hostages was merely an item in the common plan in the systematic Nazi crime.”

Further, the report of the Yugoslav Government quotes an order of the commander of the so-called Group West, General Brauner. I quote the following excerpt:

“In regions captured by partisans, the seizure of hostages from all strata of the population remains in force as the only really successful means of intimidation.”

To confirm the vast scale of the crimes of the Hitlerites in connection with the murder of hostages, the Yugoslav Government presents to the Tribunal six documents, which I now submit to Your Honors, and I ask for them to be incorporated into the record as evidence. I submit the following documents to the Tribunal:

Firstly, under Exhibit Number USSR-261 (Document Number USSR-261), a certified photostat of a poster of the commanding general and Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, dated 25 December 1942, in which he announces the shooting of 50 hostages. Secondly, as Exhibit Number USSR-319 (Document Number USSR-319), a certified photostat of a poster of the same commanding general, dated 19 February 1943, in which he announces the shooting of 400 hostages, which was carried out in Belgrade on the same date. Thirdly, as Exhibit Number USSR-320 (Document Number USSR-320), a certified photostat of a poster of the regional Kommandantur in Pozarevatz, dated 3 April 1943, announcing the shooting of 75 hostages. Fourthly, as Exhibit Number USSR-321 (Document Number USSR-321), a certified photostat of a poster of the same regional Kommandantur of Pozarevatz, dated 16 April 1943, announcing the shooting of 30 hostages. Fifthly, a certified copy of a poster of the military commandant of Belgrade, dated 14 October 1943, in which he announces the shooting of 100 hostages. I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-322 (Document Number USSR-322).

I continue my quotation from the report of the Yugoslav Government:

“Planned and systematic murder of hostages is revealed by the following testimonies, collected by the Yugoslav State Commission for the investigation of war crimes on the basis of confiscated German archives and data found in the archives. The testimonies refer to Serbia only:

“Four hundred and fifty hostages were shot on 3 October 1941 in Belgrade; 200 hostages were shot on 17 October 1941, in Belgrade; 50 hostages were shot on 27 October 1941, in Belgrade; 100 hostages were shot on 3 November 1941, in Belgrade.

“Further testimonies show the terrible increasing number of these crimes at that time:

“Ten hostages shot on 12 December 1942, in Kraguevatz; 10 hostages shot on 12 December 1942, in Krusevatz; 30 hostages shot on 15 December 1942, in Brush; 50 hostages shot on 17 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 10 hostages shot on 20 December 1942, in Brush; 50 hostages shot on 25 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 10 hostages shot on 26 December 1942, in Brush; 250 hostages shot on 26 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 25 hostages shot on 27 December 1942, in Krusevatz.”

One really could, I think, agree with the statement of the Yugoslav Government that such figures could be cited _ad infinitum_. I continue my quotation:

“The shooting of hostages was, as a rule, conducted in a most barbaric fashion. The victims were mostly forced to stand one behind the other in batches, waiting their turn and witnessing the execution of the preceding batch. In this manner the batches were one after another exterminated.”

I shall submit further to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-205 (Document Number USSR-205), the report of the police administration of the quisling administration of Milan Nedich. It mentions the shooting, on 11 December 1941 in Leskovatz, of 310 hostages, of whom 293 were Gypsies. I continue to quote the report of the Yugoslav Government:

“By an examination of the site and an interrogation of the Gypsies by the regional administration investigating war crimes in Leskovatz, the methods were established by which this shooting was carried out.”

Before reading the excerpt, I submit to the Tribunal the document which was referred to by the Government of the Yugoslav Republic, as Exhibit Number USSR-226 (Document Number USSR-226), and request it be incorporated as evidence. In the report of the Yugoslav Government, the following lines of this document are quoted:

“On 11 December 1941, from 0600 hours to 1600 hours, the Germans transported the arrested hostages in their trucks in batches of about 20 persons each. All of them had their hands bound. They were taken to the foot of the Mountain of Hisar. From there they were driven on foot across the mountain . . . and then made to stand in ranks near recently dug graves, were shot, and then thrown into the graves.”

THE PRESIDENT: I think this will be a good time to break off.

Colonel Smirnov, the Tribunal appreciates the efforts that you have made to leave out unnecessary detail and to cut down the length of your address, and it hopes that during the adjournment you will continue your efforts in that direction.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Certainly, Mr. President.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 18 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

SIXTY-FIRST DAY Monday, 18 February 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make, and I make it in this order, in the form of paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: The Tribunal cannot accept Paragraph 1 of the Prosecution’s motion, as to the evidence of the defendants, dated 11 February 1946, but directs that, in complying with Article 24(d) of the Charter, counsel for the defendants shall confine their evidence to what is required for meeting the charges in the Indictment.

The Tribunal will announce later their decision with regard to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Prosecution’s motion.

Paragraph 2: With regard to the naming of witnesses, _et cetera_, by the Defense under Article 24(d) of the Charter, which is referred to in Paragraph 1 of Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum to the Tribunal, dated 4 February 1946, the Tribunal makes the following order:

In order to avoid delay in securing the attendance of witnesses and procuring of documents, without prejudice to the defendant’s right to make further application at the conclusion of the case for the Prosecution, counsel for the Defendants Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, and Keitel shall, before 5 p.m. on Thursday, the 21st of February, file with the General Secretary written statements giving the names of the witnesses and particulars of the documents they respectively desire to call or put in evidence, with a summary of the facts to be proved thereby and an exposition of the relevance thereof.

The Tribunal hereby appoints Saturday, the 23rd of February, at 1000 hours—that is to say, 10 o’clock—for the hearing of argument upon such statements in open session.

Paragraph 3: The Tribunal will, in due course, issue directions as to the filing of similar statements on behalf of the other defendants.

Paragraph 4: The Tribunal will announce later their decision on the other matters raised in Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum.

The Tribunal will now hear the defendants’ counsel’s application for a recess.

PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Professor Kraus, representing defendants’ counsel.

The defendants’ counsel are grateful for the opportunity granted by the Tribunal to state in detail the reason for their application of 4 February for an adjournment of the Trial after the conclusion of the Prosecution. This application is the result of a series of proposals with which the Defense have striven to achieve a simple, clear, and as rapid a presentation as possible of its case.

Only a few points of this application call for further amplification.

All the defendants are accused of participation in a conspiracy. That is apparently intended to mean that every act brought up in the course of this Trial, no matter by whom it was committed and to whom it was done, is charged against every one of these defendants, and that he can be convicted on every one of these acts. Even though the individual Defense Counsel finds certain fields with which he must concern himself particularly, there are, nevertheless, no fields at all which he can entirely ignore.

Since most of the Defense Counsel are working with only one assistant and sometimes alone, it can be seen how enormous is the extent of the labor involved in the examination and discussion of the material that is daily presented by the Prosecution. The necessary discussions with the defendants use up the evening hours and the days on which there are no sessions. These discussions are, moreover, because of the security measures that have been taken, very exhausting.

It is, therefore, simply beyond the strength of the individual defense lawyer, along with his attendance at the Trial and his continuous working over of the material presented at the Trial, to make those intellectual and technical preparations that can justifiably be expected in a trial of such significance as this.

The material presented is not yet conclusive. The Russian Prosecution is presenting new evidence daily. In the opinion of the Defense Counsel, it would lead to an incorrect evaluation of the extent and importance of accusations which the Russian Delegation is presenting if the Defense Counsel were expected to conclude their preparations for their defense before they had even heard the conclusions of the case for the Prosecution.

The Tribunal has already been informed in written application of the difficulties involved in obtaining evidence. A few examples might be cited in this respect, examples to which every member of the Defense Counsel could contribute.

One member of the Defense Counsel, in November of last year, applied for a certain witness to be called who was of decisive importance in the presentation of his case. The application was approved by the Tribunal. Although this witness was a very highly placed German official, it was only in January of this year that the camp in which he was interned could be located. The witness has not, as yet, appeared in Nuremberg. Therefore, the Counsel for the Defense has, so far, no idea as to which questions this witness can testify on and what he would testify.

In numerous cases the place of residence of witnesses, whose appearance at the Trial had been requested by the Tribunal in November or December of last year, could not be established. Consequently the Defense Counsel are quite unable to help in locating them in such cases where witnesses, interned in Allied prisoner-of-war camps, have had no opportunity of providing information as to their whereabouts. It has been suggested to some of the Defense Counsel to interrogate witnesses outside Germany by presenting them with questionnaires which would enable them to be interrogated at their place of residence. In no single case have answers to these questionnaires reached the respective counsel for the Defense.

In the case of witnesses living inside Germany, the Defense Counsel have repeatedly been asked either to conduct the interrogation themselves or to present a written affidavit. Since the Defense Counsel are confined to Nuremberg during the sessions, they could only carry out this task during a prolonged recess.

Finally, one member of the Defense had, at the beginning of November, applied for permission to submit a series of documents indispensable to his case. These documents are in the possession of one of the signatories of the Charter. They have been examined by the Prosecution and have been submitted in evidence by the Prosecution insofar as they serve to implicate the defendant in question. The Defense Counsel is still not in possession of these exonerating documents.

We should like to emphasize again the purely technical difficulties that arise from the mimeographing and multiple translations. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Professor Kraus. You referred to a document which you said was indispensable, which was in the possession of a signatory power, examined by the Prosecution, and put in evidence in this case, and the defendants are still not in possession of it.

What is the reference to that document?

DR. KRAUS: No, Mr. President; it is a collection of documents in which the incriminating parts were presented by the Prosecution; but we, the Defense Counsel, are not yet in possession of the exonerating parts of that documentation. Dr. Kranzbühler, who, too, is affected by this case can give you more detailed information.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is an application, I know, by Dr. Kranzbühler; but if it is really a part of a document, the Tribunal has ruled on several occasions that if the Prosecution puts in a certain part of a document, the whole of that document must be available to the defendant’s counsel so that they can criticize and comment upon any other part of it which may throw light upon the part of the document which is put in evidence.

DR. KRAUS: Yes, Mr. President; we are dealing here not with one single document, but with a whole collection of documents and Dr. Kranzbühler only wishes to extract from this collection the documents which would assist him in exonerating his client, after the incriminating documents have been presented by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: You may continue.

DR. KRAUS: The Defense is grateful to the Prosecution for the readiness they have expressed in assisting the Defense in technical questions. The great difficulties which the Prosecution themselves have experienced in this connection, and which have repeatedly led to discussions by the Tribunal, show, nevertheless, that an efficient solution of this problem calls for a suitable length of time. The Defense consider it important to assure the Tribunal of their readiness and their determination not to prolong the Trial unnecessarily. They are, however, of opinion that an inadequate a priori preparation will lead to a corresponding increase in the duration of the Defense, and that the subsequent results might not at all suffice to allow the Tribunal to give a fair verdict.

The Defense Counsel think they are in agreement with the Tribunal in saying that this Trial, so important in the history of humanity, should be conducted throughout with the peace and reflection which have hitherto characterized its course. Per contra, undue importance should not be attached to the understandable impatience of those who insist on a rapid termination of the Trial. In this sense the Defense requests the Prosecution to support their application. The length of time applied for, that is, 3 weeks, cannot be considered unreasonable in view of the total length of time which the Prosecution have envisaged for the completion of their case. The granting of this length of time would, on the other hand, allow for the fact that the Defense, in the conduct of their case, find themselves both spiritually and materially in a very difficult position. Mention should be made that a number of us have subscribed to today’s application, contrary to the opinion of the defendants we represent, who desire a rapid termination of these proceedings. We feel that we are accountable to none but our own consciences and our professional duties as Counsel for the Defense.

I therefore request the Tribunal to take note that, after serious and thorough consideration, my colleagues and I, without exception, are convinced that the length of time applied for, that is, 3 weeks, is the minimum time which they consider essential for an orderly preparation of the defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal would like to know, if you can answer the question, whether defendants’ counsel have by this time ascertained all, or nearly all, the witnesses whom they desire to call in evidence; whether they have made up their minds, up to this stage, as to what witnesses they desire to call.

DR. KRAUS: I cannot answer this question, since that would call for a general inquiry. I should have to ask my colleagues. The cases to my knowledge vary from one lawyer to another. Some of the lawyers of the Defense are more or less ready in this respect; others are not.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I think it would be convenient if I followed the admirably lucid exposition of Professor Kraus by asking the Tribunal to direct its attention to two aspects of the matter: First, what Professor Kraus called the intellectual preparation, and secondly, the mechanical necessities of presentation of the Defense.

On the first point I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the way that it is put in the written application signed by Dr. Stahmer, which was followed in the main by Professor Kraus today. It is stated that a respite is required for the construction of the Defense after conclusion of the Indictment, that is, of the Prosecution; secondly, that the Defense Counsel have, until now, not had the time to prepare their defense in such a manner that smooth functioning is guaranteed; and thirdly, a line or two lower down, in justice it cannot be expected of the Defense Counsel that they will be able to answer on the spot.

I respectfully request the Tribunal’s attention to some matters of dates.

The Indictment in this case was filed on the 18th of October, which is exactly 4 months ago today. The defendants were immediately acquainted with the contents of the Indictment, and it is a document of sufficient public importance to give ground for the belief that Defense Counsel must have, at any rate, had its general contents very quickly in mind.

On that day General Nikitchenko, presiding over this Tribunal, stated at Berlin, “It must be understood that the Tribunal, which is directed by the Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges, will not permit any delay either in the preparation of the defense or of the Trial.”

I remind the Tribunal that the Indictment contains more full particulars than probably any indictment in the history of jurisprudence.

The third point is that preliminary lists of documents were placed in the defendants’ Information Center on the 1st of November. The lodgment of preliminary documents, not complete but amounting to many hundreds, was made on the 15th of November. Except for one, Dr. Bergold, on behalf of the Defendant Bormann, all the counsel representing individual defendants were appointed by the 10th of November.

Next, there have been four detailed speeches by the Prosecution explaining the scope and emphasis of the Prosecution’s case. Every experienced advocate knows that the opening speech giving the emphasis is one of the most important matters for the Defense.

As Professor Kraus said, from the beginning of November there have been applications for witnesses. I shall deal later with certain of the individual points, but I want to say this generally, that any one who has read these applications must be aware that the Defense, from an early date, have appreciated not only the case they have to meet, but the line which they wish to pursue.

My eighth point is that, having heard practically the whole case on Counts One and Two, the common plan and aggressive war, the defendants received a 12-day recess at Christmas, and it was indicated by the President that this was, in part at any rate, for their assistance.

It is a point of fair comment that most of us have been engaged in quite considerable trials where men’s lives have been at stake, when any question of any adjournment at all would not come into the picture. But this case does not stop there.

My next point is that on Counts One and Two, the common plan and aggressive war, the cases against the individual defendants were co-ordinated and the relevant documents collected in the individual presentations. In every case defendants’ counsel had these documents and trial briefs by the latest at the middle of January. All the presentations were concluded by the 17th of January except for four. The matter has been brought up to date by the expositions of M. Dubost, M. Quatre, and by my Soviet colleagues as they went along. In addition, the transcripts, of which each defendant receives a copy in German, show the weight and emphasis which the Prosecution attach to the different individual cases.

We all know, from our own experience, that you cannot prepare any defense in any trial without the burning of midnight oil; but I do impress upon the Tribunal that the assistance which has been given and the time which has been allowed is remarkable in this case.

I want to deal much more shortly with the mechanical side of it, because Professor Kraus has been fair enough and good enough to say that the Prosecution have given assistance. And I want to say this, that we are quite prepared, when there is any question of photostating a German document, or of mimeographing or reproducing a document in any other way, or providing additional clerical assistance, to go beyond what we have done and to meet any request made to us to the utmost of our ability.

Now I want to deal with the essential point which Professor Kraus has made, that the Prosecution have had a long time to prepare and develop their case, and Defense have corresponding rights.

In my respectful submission, there is this essential difference between the case for the Prosecution and the case for the Defense. The Prosecution must cover the whole field; the Defense selects the issues on which it will make its fight.

I respectfully disagree with the contention of Professor Kraus that that is altered by the fact that we are here dealing with a conspiracy charge. Whether the charge is conspiracy or not, there are certain facts which are not in dispute. There are certain facts which will be, as is indicated by Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum, the subject of legal argument or discussion as to the true inference to be drawn from them; and the fact that a case is based on conspiracy does not alter the fact that certain matters are either going to be contradicted by evidence or left uncontradicted.

I, myself, have seen nothing to suggest that, for example, the re-establishment of military forces in Germany, the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss in Austria, the existence and circumstances of concentration camps, many of the actions of certain SS-divisions and bodies under Himmler, are going to be disputed at all, because the defendants’ counsel have had the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses on many of these matters, and there has been no challenge by cross-examination.

I do not question for the moment nor seek to deal with the decision of the Tribunal this morning, which, of course, I accept with the utmost loyalty, but I hope the Tribunal will not think it wrong for me to mention in explanation that the Prosecution were anxious for the Defense to eliminate the matters in issue and would have been prepared, so far as it lies with them, to agree to a certain time being given for that purpose. But yet, the defendants have said—and again I make no complaint—that they are not prepared to do it. Therefore, that reason for adjournment disappears.

I do not want the Tribunal to think that we are either unimaginative or unreasonable. We know, because we have seen the other side of the shield, that there are certain mechanical matters and matters of conclusion of preparation which have to be done before a case is put forward. We quite appreciate that the defenders of Göring, of Hess, and of Ribbentrop may require a day or two to put their tackle in order, but I want to make clear that that, in our view, is quite different from a 3 weeks’ adjournment.

I respectfully agree with every word that Professor Kraus has said about the maintenance of the dignity of the Trial, but it is not essential, in my respectful submission, for the maintenance of the dignity of the Trial that the Trial should take place in slow time. That would not only be wrong, but it would be directly contrary to the portion of the Charter to which General Nikitchenko referred at Berlin.

With regard to the witnesses, there are, as the Tribunal knows, certain difficult matters, in that, to begin with, the defendants asked for many witnesses who were very largely repetitive; and they have, as I judge the application, begun recently to get clear who are the essential witnesses, and the Tribunal will rule on that finally as it has indicated.

I only take one other example. Professor Kraus mentioned the question of certain documents for which Dr. Kranzbühler was asking, which were, as I understand it, U-boat diaries. I have arranged that Dr. Kranzbühler’s assistant will be enabled to go to London and examine these documents at his leisure in the Admiralty. That is on paper in our reply. I respectfully submit that that sort of attitude is the best and most helpful attitude for letting the Defense get what they wish.

Mr. President, I have nearly exhausted my time, and I only say this in conclusion: The Prosecution has had to collate and co-ordinate actions taking place over a long period, certainly 12 years, in some cases 20 years. We have collated and co-ordinated the evidence of these actions. We have presented a case which is grounded mainly on the written statements or written records of statements made by the defendants themselves. The task before the Defense is to give the explanation that what they say is the true color of words that have been proved—and not disputed—to have come out of their own mouths.

They have had the time which I have stated and which I shall not repeat, but that being the state of this case, it is the attitude of the Prosecution, with, as I say, every desire to help in any way that is possible in the actual work, whether it be mechanical or preparing documents or otherwise, that the defense cannot rightfully ask for further time for general reflection and consideration on a case which has that basis. We therefore respectfully but firmly object to any adjournment other than a matter of individual days, not more than a week, certainly—we should say less than that—for the purpose of completing preparations and putting mechanical tackle in order.

That, Mr. President, is the attitude of all my colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider its decision on this matter and it will adjourn this afternoon at 4 o’clock in order to consider the other matters which are raised in Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very good.

Before I sit down, I am asked by my colleagues to make this clear. I, myself, did not tie myself in my argument to any number of days because a weekend may intervene and different considerations may arise, but my colleagues wish it to be before the Tribunal that their view is that, taking into account the time which will elapse before the Soviet case is concluded, and the argument on the organization for which time has to be allowed, that 2 days is the figure they have in mind, although, as I say, a weekend may intervene which may add to that. I want to make it quite clear that we are quite definite.

I am very grateful.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, will you continue your address.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I continue with the presentation of evidence in regard to Yugoslavia.

In corroboration of the criminal system of hostages which was fully developed in Yugoslavia, the Government of Yugoslavia has submitted a series of originals and certified photostatic copies of different documents. I shall not submit my own comments on these documents which were incorporated into the report of the Yugoslav Government. I shall merely restrict myself to the presentation of the documents themselves, since they are definite and do not call for further comment.

I present as Document Number USSR-256(a) the original of an announcement, dated 12 August 1941, which mentioned the shooting of 10 hostages. The printed poster was signed by the German Police Commissioner in Lasko, Hradetzky.

Further, as Document Number USSR-148, I present a certified photographic copy of announcement of the shooting of 57 persons. This poster, from 13 November 1941, was signed by Kutschera.

Further, as Document Number USSR-144, I present a certified copy of an announcement of 21 January 1942, relating to the shooting of 15 hostages. The poster was signed by Roesener.

Further, as Document Number USSR-145, I present a certified photographic copy of a poster announcing the shooting of 51 hostages, and the date is 1942, month unknown. The poster is signed by Roesener.

Further, I present as Document Number USSR-146, an original announcement printed as a poster, signed by Roesener, which announced that on 31 March 1942, 29 hostages were shot.

Further, I present as Document Number USSR-147 a certified photographic copy of the announcement, printed as a poster, which stated that on 1 July 1942, 29 hostages had been shot.

I consider that the sum total of these documents is sufficient to prove that the system of hostages was widely used in Yugoslavia.

To conclude my presentation of evidence in this particular field, I refer to Exhibit Number USSR-304 (Document Number USSR-304), Report Number 6 of the Yugoslav Extraordinary State Commission for the investigation of war crimes. I read one paragraph of this document into the record:

“A group of hostages at Celje were strangled on hooks used by the butchers for hanging meat. In Maribor, the doomed, in groups of five, had to place the bodies of the hostages already executed in boxes and then load them into trucks. After that they themselves were shot, while the next group of five, in their turn, continued with the loading. This went on continuously. Sodna Street in Maribor was all soaked in blood pouring from the trucks.”

I end my quotation here.

It seems to me that in submitting to the Tribunal a summary of the terroristic regime established in the countries of Western Europe, this summary would be incomplete without some mention of a country like Greece, a country which also was a victim of the terroristic regime which the German fascists had established. Therefore I present to the International Military Tribunal a report of the Government of the Greek Republic. This report is duly certified with the signature and seal of the Greek Ambassador in Great Britain, as well as of a member of the British Foreign Office. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-79 (Document Number UK-82), and I shall read into the record a few excerpts from this report which concerns the setting up of the fascist terror regime in Greece and which also deals with the same criminal system of hostages.

The war against Greece was declared by Germany on 6 April 1941, and already on 31 May the German commanding general in Athens had published a frankly terroristic order directed against the peaceful population of Greece. The direct pretext for publishing this was the fact that on 30 May 1941 the Greek patriots had torn down the swastika from the Acropolis.

I here quote this order of the commanding general of the German Armed Forces in Greece, from the report of the Greek Government, on Page 33 of the Russian translation. This order threatens severe punishment for the following reasons:

“a. Because in the night of 30-31 May, the German banner flying over the Acropolis was torn down by persons unknown. Those guilty of this act, as well as their accomplices, will be punished by death.

“b. Because the press and the public opinion of all classes still express evident sympathy in favor of the English, now expelled from the continent of Europe.”

Therefore, even sympathy for the English brought the same terrible punishment.

“c. Because events in Crete were not only not condemned, but were even favorably commented on in many circles.”

Here the commander of the German Armed Forces was evidently referring to the patriotic resistance of the inhabitants of the Island of Crete.

“d. Because, although absolutely forbidden, repeated gestures of sympathy, such as gifts, flowers, fruit, cigarettes, _et cetera_, were made to British prisoners; and these demonstrations were tolerated by the Greek police who did not intervene to stop them with the means at their disposal.

“e. Because the behavior of large number of Athenians towards the German Armed Forces has again become less friendly.”

From that time onwards the same regime of the German fascist terror was established in Greece that characterized the actions of the Hitlerite criminals in all the territories they occupied. In confirmation of that fact I cite the report of the Greek Government on Page 34 of the Russian translation. I quote, beginning with Line 4 from the top of the page:

“In violation of Article 50 of the Hague Convention they systematically punished the innocent, adhering to the principle that the community as a whole must bear the responsibility in full for acts committed by individual persons.

“They used starvation as an instrument of pressure and for weakening the spirit of resistance in the Greek population. Very few people were tried by courts-martial; and these, when held, were a mere parody of justice. They instituted a policy of reprisals, including the seizure and killing of hostages, mass murders, and the destruction and devastation of villages, for acts committed in their vicinity by individuals unknown.

“The great majority of those executed were taken at random from the prisons and camps, without any possible relation to the act, in reprisal for which they were executed. The life of every citizen depended on the arbitrary decision of the local commander.”

It seems to me quite correct to consider the murder, in Greece, of thousands of people by starvation, as one of the most powerful factors of the terrorist regime established by the German fascists in Greece. In connection with this subject, the following statement is made on Page 36 of the Russian text:

“It is an incontestable fact that a great majority of the Greek population lived on the verge of starvation for nearly 3 years. Many thousands suffered from real starvation for several months before relief shipments could reach them. As a result, the death rate increased by 500 or 600 percent in the capital and 800 to 1,000 percent in the Greek islands, as from September 1941 to April 1942. The infant mortality was 25 percent, and the health of the survivors was greatly undermined.”

The report of the Greek Government cites excerpts from reports of neutral missions. I quote one of these excerpts, which is on Page 38 of the Russian text of the Greek Government report. I begin the quotation:

“During the winter of 1941-42 when famine reigned in the capital, conditions in the provinces were still tolerable. During the following winter, however, when Canadian relief for the larger towns had been swallowed up by the unrestricted market, the situation was very different. During our first tours of inspection, when investigating the situation in general, we met in March 1943 populations literally weeping for bread. Many villages lived only on a substitute bread baked with Ersatz flour, wild pears, and acorns—food ordinarily suitable for pigs. In many districts the population had seen no other bread since December. We were taken inside the houses and shown empty shelves and larders; we saw people cooking grass without oil, only to fill their stomachs somehow or other. The inhabitants of the poorer villages were all emaciated. The children, in particular, were often in a pitiful condition with skinny limbs and swollen stomachs. They had none of the vitality and happiness natural to children. It was quite usual for half the children to be unable to attend school.” (Report of the Swedish delegates to the Peloponnesian Islands, January 1944.)

In order to describe the hostage-holding regime established by the Hitler criminals in Greece, I shall also quote excerpts from the Greek Government report. From the text of this report it is quite evident that shootings of hostages during the first weeks of the German occupation of Greece were carried out on a wide scale. I quote, for this reason, an excerpt from the Greek report on Page 41. I begin at the third line from the top of the Russian text:

“Hostages were taken indiscriminately and from every class of the population. Politicians, professors, scientists, lawyers, doctors, officers, civil servants, clergymen, manual workers, women, all those labeled as ‘suspect’ or ‘Communist’ were thrown into local prisons or concentration camps. Prisoners under interrogation were subjected to various ingenious forms of torture. Hostages were concentrated in places of confinement where the arrested persons were subjected to the most unbearable regime.”

The report of the Greek Government—also on Page 41 of the Russian text—states with regard to this matter:

“The inmates were starved, beaten, and tortured. They were made to live under perfectly inhuman conditions without medical help or sanitation. There they were subjected to the refined sadism of the SS guards. Many were shot or hanged. Others died from cruel treatment or starvation, and only a few were released and survived until the date of the liberation of the country. Hostages were also deported to concentration camps in Germany: Buchenwald, Dachau, _et cetera_.”

The report gives the total number of hostages murdered. The same page contains the following statement, “The number of hostages shot amounts to some 91,000.”

In order fully to understand on what a tremendous scale the Hitlerites committed their crimes in connection with the physical extermination of the Soviet people in the territory of the U.S.S.R., I ask the Tribunal to refer to Page 299 in their document book.

THE PRESIDENT: You are now passing away from Greece, are you, Colonel Smirnov?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess then.

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With your permission, Mr. President, and in accordance with the instruction of the Tribunal, I shall omit a number of items in my statement. These items, which I shall exclude from the text, amount to a number of pages; and I request your permission to tell the interpreters how many pages I skip. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to a document dealing with the large-scale extermination of Soviet nationals in the temporarily occupied districts of the U.S.S.R. In confirmation of this fact I refer to a document which you, Your Honors, will find on Page 291 of the document book, at the end of the last paragraph of the first column and on the second column of the text. This deals with the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union concerning the destruction, plundering, and atrocities of the German fascist invaders in the town of Rovno and the Rovno region. I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-45 (Document Number USSR-45).

I quote the results of the examination by legal-medical experts concerning the bodies of peaceful Soviet citizens murdered by the Germans and subsequently exhumed:

“1. In all investigated burial places in the city of Rovno and its surroundings, over 102,000 corpses of peaceful citizens and prisoners of war, shot or murdered by other methods, were discovered. Out of this figure:

“a) In the city of Rovno, near the lumber yard on Belaya Street, 49,000 corpses were discovered.

“b) In the city of Rovno, on Belaya Street, in the vegetable gardens, 32,500.

“c) In the village of Sossenki, 17,500.

“d) In the stone quarries near the village of Vydumka, 3,000.

“e) In the area surrounding Rovno prison, 500.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following text, where we read indications as to the distribution of certain methods of murder adopted by the criminals in the various periods. Mass shootings, as shown in the following Subparagraphs a, b, and c, took place in 1941. The extermination of peaceful citizens in the gas wagons occurred in 1943, as shown in Subparagraph d. Shootings followed by burnings of the corpses in 1943, and shootings in the jail occurred in 1944.

I skip the next page, and draw the attention of the Tribunal to that part of the document which is on Page 240, second column of the text; a description of the methodical destruction of the inmates in Rovno prison. I dwell on this point because similar methods of extermination of Soviet people are typical of the terrorist regime established by the Hitlerite invaders in the temporarily occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. I begin my quotation on Page 240 of the document book:

“On 18 March 1943 the Rovno paper _Volyn_ of the German occupational troops published the following announcement:

“‘On 8 March 1943 inmates of Rovno prison attempted to escape, whereby they killed one German prison official and one guard. The escape was thwarted by the energetic action of the prison guard. By order of the commandant of the German Security Police and the SD, all the prison inmates were shot on that same day.’

“In November 1943 the German district judge was murdered by a person unknown. As a measure of retaliation, the Hitlerites again shot over 350 inmates of Rovno prison.”

I will not quote any further examples of the executions in the prisons, since in those documentary films which will be submitted to the Tribunal, Your Honors will find a series of similar crimes committed by the Hitlerite invaders on the territories of the U.S.S.R. I pass on to the following part of my statement: “The retaliatory destruction of village populations.”

In the infinite chain of German fascist crime, there are some which will remain for a long time, perhaps forever, in the memory of indignant mankind, even though mankind will have learned about still graver crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. One of the crimes that will thus be remembered is the destruction of a small Czechoslovak village called “Lidice” and the bestial reprisal against the population of that village.

Many times and in even more cruel forms, the fate of Lidice was suffered on the territory of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Poland; but mankind will remember Lidice and will never forget it, for this little village became a symbol of Nazi criminality. The destruction of Lidice was a retaliation by the Nazis for the just execution of the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, Heydrich, by Czechoslovak patriots.

The Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., when speaking of Lidice, quoted an official German report concerning this act of terror, which was published in the paper _Der Neue Tag_ on 11 June 1942.

I will quote a very short extract from the report of the Czechoslovak Government, which the Tribunal will find on Page 172 of the document book:

“On 9 June 1942 the village of Lidice was surrounded, on the order of the Gestapo, by soldiers who arrived from the hamlet of Slany in 10 large trucks. They allowed anyone to enter the village, but no one was permitted to leave. A 12-year-old boy tried to escape; a soldier shot him on the spot. A woman tried to escape; a bullet in the back mowed her down, and her corpse was found in the fields after the harvest.

“The Gestapo dragged the women and children to the school.

“The 10th of June was the last day of Lidice and of its inhabitants. The men were locked up in the cellar, the barn, and the stable of the Horak family farm. They foresaw their fate and awaited it calmly. The 73-year old priest, Sternbeck, strengthened their spirit by his prayers.”

I omit the following two paragraphs and pursue my quotation:

“The men were led out of the Horak farm into the garden behind the barn, in batches of 10, and shot. The murders lasted from early morning until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Afterwards the executioners were photographed with the corpses at their feet.”

I skip the following four paragraphs and pass on to the fate of the population of Lidice:

“The fate of the men of Lidice has been described. One hundred seventy-two adult men and youths from 16 years upwards were shot on 10 June 1942. Nineteen men who worked on 9 and 10 June in the Kladno mines were arrested later on in the collieries or nearby woods, taken to Prague and shot.

“Seven women from Lidice were shot in Prague as well. The remaining 195 women were deported to the Ravensbrück concentration camp. Forty-two died of ill-treatment; seven were gassed; three disappeared. Four of these women were taken from Lidice to a maternity hospital in Prague where their newly born infants were murdered; then the mothers were sent to Ravensbrück.

“The children of Lidice were taken from their mothers a few days after the destruction of the village. Ninety children were sent to Lodz, in Poland, and thence to Gneisenau concentration camp, in the so-called Wartheland. So far no trace of these children has been found. Seven of the youngest, less than a year old, were taken to a German hospital in Prague. After examination by ‘racial experts’ they were sent to Germany, there to be brought up as Germans and under German names. Every trace of them has been lost.

“Two or three infants were born in Ravensbrück concentration camp. They were killed at birth.”

The fate of Lidice was repeated in many Soviet villages. Many peaceful citizens of these villages perished in even greater torment: They were burned alive or died, victims of still more brutal forms of execution.

I have considerably reduced the volume of the examples which I wished to quote, and I omit the next page of the text, drawing the attention of the Tribunal to the text on Page 295, second column of the text. This document, already submitted to the Tribunal by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes of the Hitlerite invaders in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. I quote one paragraph only:

“On 3 June 1944 in the village of Perchyoupa of the Trakai district, the Hitlerites broke into the village, surrounded and plundered it completely, after which, having driven all the men into one house and the women and children into three others, they set fire to the buildings. Those who attempted to flee were caught by the fascist monsters and thrown back into the burning houses. In this manner the entire population of the village, 119 souls in all, 21 men, 29 women”—and I stress—“69 children, were burned to death.”

I close the quotation and beg the Tribunal to turn to another document, which I submit as Exhibit Number USSR-279 (Document Number USSR-279). It is a communiqué of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of the German fascist invaders in the cities of Viazma, Gjatsk, and Sychev, of the Smolensk region, and also in the city of Rjev in the Kalinin region.

I would have liked to dwell more fully on this report but I will now summarize it in order to shorten my statement. I skip two pages of the text and pass on to Page 145 of my text. I quote the sixth paragraph:

“In the village of Zajtschiki, members of the Gestapo drove into one house the following persons: Michael Zaikov, age 61; Nikifor Belyakov, age 69; Catherine Begorova, age 70; Catherine Golubeva, age 70; Jegor Dadonov, age 5; Myra Zernova, age 7; and others—23 persons all told. The Gestapo set fire to the house and burned all the victims alive.”

I omit two paragraphs and quote one more paragraph:

“In retreating from the village of Gratschevo in the district of Geschatsk, in March 1943, the assistant chief of the German Field Police, Lieutenant Boss, drove 200 inhabitants into the house of the peasant woman Chistyakowa.”—The names of still more villages are then given.—“He locked the doors, set fire to the house, and all the 200 were burned alive.”

I will not enumerate the names of the people, but I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that some of these people were 63 and 70 years old, some of the children were 3, 4, and 5 years old.

I omit two paragraphs and quote another excerpt:

“The fascists burned all the inhabitants, both young and old, of the villages of Kulikovo and Kolesniki, of the Geschatsk district, in one farmhouse.”

I conclude the reading of this document.

I now ask the Tribunal to accept in evidence a German document, submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USSR-119 (Document Number USSR-119). This is a certified photostat of an operational report and other documents of the 15th Police Regiment. Among them we find one entitled, “Summary of a Punitive Expedition to the Village of Borysovka, 22 and 26 of September 1942.” The Tribunal will find this document on Page 309 of the document book.

I quote in brief from this document, which proves beyond doubt that under the guise of the anti-partisan struggle the Hitlerite criminals mercilessly annihilated the peaceful population of the Soviet villages. I quote the first part under the heading:

“1. Mission: The 9th Company must destroy the village of Borysovka, which is infested by partisans.

“2. Forces: Two platoons of the 9th Company of the 15th Police Regiment, one platoon of gendarmes of the 16th Motorized Regiment, and one tank platoon from Beresy-Kartuska.”

I emphasize, Your Honors, that the expedition included a tank platoon from Beresy-Kartuska. Against whom were these tanks and the two platoons supposed to operate? We find an answer to this question in the following item of this report:

“3. Execution of mission: The company assembled in the evening on 22 September 1942 in Dyvin. During the night from 22 to 23 September 1942, they marched from Dyvin in the direction of Borysovka. The village was encircled from the north to the south by two platoons at 4 a.m. At daybreak the entire population of the village was collected by the village elder of Borysovka. After an investigation of the population with the assistance of the Security Police and the SD from Dyvin, five families were resettled in Dyvin. The remainder were shot by a specially detailed squad and buried 500 meters to the northeast of Borysovka. Altogether 169 persons were shot consisting of 49 men, 97 women, and 23 children.”

I consider that these figures are so eloquent that I can conclude the reading of this document and, omitting two pages, pass on to the next part of my statement.

I beg the Tribunal to look at Page 316 of the document book, which contains the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the destruction caused by the German fascist invaders in the Stalinsk region.

Hitherto I have submitted proof of the fact that in the villages the German fascist invaders criminally exterminated the Soviet population by burning their victims alive. In this report we find a confirmation of the fact that people were burned alive equally in the cities and towns. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-2 (Document Number USSR-2). I quote from Page 316 of the document book:

“In the city of Stalino, the German invaders drove the residents of a professor’s house into a barn, closed the entrance, blocked it, poured oil on the barn, and set it on fire. All those in the barn lost their lives, with the exception of two little girls, who saved themselves by pure chance.

“On 11 November 1943 the members of this commission”—I omit the next part containing the composition of this commission—“made excavations on the site of the barn and while investigating it, they discovered 41 charred human corpses.”

From the very first days of the war against the U.S.S.R. the German fascist terror toward the peaceful population assumed monstrous proportions. This was noted in the reports of several German officers, who had participated in the first World War and who stressed the fact that even in the cruelty of the first World War they had never witnessed anything similar.

I again refer to a German document and submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-293 (Document Number USSR-293), an authenticated photostat of a report from the former commander of the 528th Regiment, Major Roesler, and a report by Schirwindt, who was chief of the 9th Military District. Since this document is of sufficient interest I will read it into the record in full. You, Your Honors, will find the extract on Page 319 of the document book. I quote:

“Kassel, 3 January ’42; Major Roesler; Report.

“The matter entrusted to me by the 52d Reserve Regiment, entitled ‘Attitude towards the Civilian Population in the East,’ prompts me to report the following:

“At the end of July 1941 the 528th Infantry Regiment, then under my command, was on its way from the West to their rest area in Zhitomir. After I had moved with my staff into the staff quarters, on the afternoon of the day of our arrival, we heard rifle volleys, at a short distance from us, at regular intervals, followed a little later by pistol shots. I decided to find out what was happening and started out with my adjutant and the courier (First Lieutenant Von Bassevitz and Lieutenant Müller-Brodmann) in the direction of the rifle shots. We soon had the impression that something was happening, since after some time we saw numerous soldiers and civilians streaming toward the railway embankment behind which, as we were told, executions were taking place. We could not, at first, reach the other side of the embankment for a long time. After a certain definite interval, however, we heard the sound of a whistle followed by a volley of about 10 rifles, which in turn was followed, some time later, by pistol shots. When we finally scrambled over the embankment a picture of horror was revealed to us. A pit, about seven to eight meters long and perhaps four meters wide, had been dug in the ground. The upturned earth was piled on one side of the pit. This pile of earth and the side of the pit were completely soaked in blood. The pit itself was filled with numerous corpses of all ages and sexes. There were so many corpses that one could not even ascertain the depth of the pit.

“Behind the pile of earth stood a police detachment under the command of a police officer. The uniforms of the police bore traces of blood. Many soldiers from the troops just billeted in the area stood around. Some of them wore shorts and lounged about as spectators. There were also a number of civilians; women and children. I approached the grave as near as possible in order to get a picture, which I was never able to forget.

“In this grave lay, among others, an old man with a white beard, clutching a cane in his left hand. Since this man, judging from his sporadic breathing, still showed signs of life, I ordered one of the policemen to kill him off. He smilingly replied, ‘I have already shot him seven times in the stomach. He can die on his own now.’

“The bodies lay in the grave, not in rows, but as they had fallen from the top of the pit. All these people had been killed by rifle shots in the nape of the neck and then in the pit were granted the coup-de-grace of a pistol shot.

“I have never seen anything of the kind, either in the first World War, in the Russian, or in the French campaigns of the present war. I have witnessed many disagreeable things in the volunteer detachments in 1919, but I have never witnessed a similar scene.”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

“I wish to add that according to the testimony of soldiers who have often watched these executions, apparently several hundred persons were shot by these methods every day.

“Signed: Roesler.”

Characteristic is the comment in the covering note from the deputy commander of the IXth Army Corps and commanding officer of the 9th Military District, who forwarded Roesler’s report to the chief of the army armament and equipment department, Berlin. I quote this document which the Tribunal will find on Page 318 of the document book. I quote:

“Subject: Atrocities perpetrated on the civilian population of the East.

“With regard to the news of mass executions in Russia, which we are receiving, I was at first convinced that they had been unduly exaggerated. I am forwarding herewith a report from Major Roesler which fully confirms these rumors.”—The last sentence is also typical:

“If these things are done openly, they will become known in the fatherland and give rise to criticism.

“Signed: Schirwindt.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you know who was the deputy commander of the IXth Army Corps and commander of the 9th Military District and do you know who was the chief of the armament and equipment department in Berlin? Do you know whether any reply was made to this report?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I can only give an answer on this subject at a later date. These questions are unknown to me and must be elucidated in a supplementary report. I shall shortly clarify them and give the Tribunal the additional information and will submit the documents dealing with this matter.

I beg to be allowed, in presenting this evidence, to submit to the Tribunal a photostatic copy of a document. I present two albums certified by the Extraordinary State Commission; they will be submitted to each member of the Tribunal. (Exhibits Numbers USSR-387 and 391).

I beg the permission of the Tribunal to show certain photographs on the screen. I must admit these documents have not been selected on the basis of the impressiveness of the atrocities shown—the Tribunal will find even more monstrous episodes of mass atrocities in the document book—but rather, all these photographs have been selected because of their typical character.

Before presenting these documentary photographs, I ask the permission of the Tribunal to submit another German document as Exhibit Number USSR-297 (Document Number USSR-297). It is a certified photostatic copy of one of the reports of the chief of the Security Police and SD, prohibiting the photographing of mass executions. It is very typical that in many of these cases the photographs were taken by the Germans themselves. This attracted the attention of the chief of police and therefore photographing was prohibited to the German fascist criminals.

I quote only a short excerpt from this report—Page 321 of the document book:

“The Reichsführer SS has forbidden the photographing of executions by an order of 12 November 1941, Journal Number 1 1461/41 Ads., and has ordered that insofar as such pictures are needed for official purpose that the entire exposed material be collected in archives.”

I omit the following paragraph and quote the third paragraph:

“The leader of the Einsatzkommando or Sonderkommando or the company commander of the Waffen-SS and the section leader of the war correspondents are charged with the responsibility that plates, films, and prints of these photographs do not remain in the hands of individual members of these task force units.”

I skip the following part of the document in its entirety, as I consider that the quotations which have been presented are sufficient proof that the police authorities were uneasy about the fact that frequent photographing of mass executions by the German fascists gave confirmation of these executions. I beg the Tribunal for permission to start the showing of several of these photo-documents. Would you permit me to do so, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: What are you waiting for, Colonel Smirnov?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The lights should be turned off but apparently there are some technical difficulties which are unfamiliar to me. Therefore I cannot start with the showing of the photo-documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think you can go on with your statement and do the photographs after the adjournment? How long do you think the photographs will take?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I fully agree with you, Mr. President. I beg your permission to present evidence concerning the second part of the statement, namely, the mass annihilation by the German fascists of the citizens of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

The mass extermination of peaceful populations of the Soviet Union and of the countries of Eastern Europe was carried out by the German fascist criminals everywhere, as can be seen from both the official orders and the reports about the carrying out of these executions. In this regard they had the following objectives in mind:

1. Physical elimination of those sections of the population which were capable of resistance; 2. For racial reasons, that is, for the materialization of racial theories inculcating hatred of mankind; 3. For purposes of retaliation; 4. Supposedly “for the struggle against the partisans” whom the German fascists could neither catch nor destroy, and for this reason they vented the full force of their retaliatory measures on the peaceful population.

The execution of children was a particularly cruel method of Hitlerite terrorism. The use especially of torture devices for killing children was one of the prime and most despicable characteristics of the Hitlerite terror regime in the temporarily occupied territory of the Soviet Union.

Immediately after the seizure of power by the fascists, Hermann Göring began to issue laws against vivisection. He pitied dogs, guinea pigs, and rabbits subjected to scientific experiment for the benefit of humanity. In confirmation I refer to Göring’s book _Speeches and Articles_ published in 1940 by Erich Gritzbach at Munich. (Document Number USSR-377). On Page 80 of this book we find Göring’s speech, “The Struggle Against Vivisection.” I shall not quote any lengthy extract from this book and shall only mention one sentence which testifies that for motives, so to speak, of love for animals, Hermann Göring widely exercised his right to intern human beings in concentration camps.

At a certain meeting of SS-Gruppenführer at Posen, as the Tribunal knows, Himmler stated, Document Number 1919-PS, “We Germans are the only people who treat animals kindly.”

But these criminals—from Himmler to Keitel—who sentimentally discussed the tortures of animals, persistently instructed their subordinates to exterminate children senselessly, inhumanly, and cruelly. At the meeting in question Himmler also stated:

“If anyone would come to me and say, ‘You cannot build antitank trenches with children and women, it is inhuman since they will die,’ I should reply, ‘You are the murderers of your own blood.’”

Numerous investigations on the German fascist atrocities in the Soviet Union have shown without any doubt that on occasion of mass shootings many children have been thrown into the grave when still alive. In confirmation of these facts I am referring to official documents, “The German criminals threw into the grave children who were still alive.”

I invite the attention of the Tribunal to a document which has already been submitted by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, as Exhibit Number USSR-46. It is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of the German fascist invaders in the city and region of Orel. The Tribunal will find it on Page 334 of the document book, the last three lines of the page, and on Page 335. I quote:

“Those shot in the city were collected and thrown into ditches, preferably in forest areas. In jail the executions took place as follows: The men had to stand facing a wall while the gendarme fired his pistol into the nape of their necks. The shot penetrated the vital centers and death was instantaneous. In most cases women had to lie face downward on the ground and the gendarme shot them through the base of their neck.

“A second method was to herd people in groups into a ditch, with their faces turned to one side. Then they were killed likewise by shots in the nape of the neck with machine guns. In the trenches corpses of children were discovered who, according to the testimony of witnesses, had been buried alive.”

Furthermore, I refer to a document which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1, a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of the German fascist occupants in the area of Stavropol. I quote from Page 271 of the document book, Paragraph 3, beginning as follows:

“During the inspection of a ravine in the vicinity of Koltso Hill and a distance of 250 meters from the high road. . . .”

I omit the next sentence.

“. . . a washed-out grave was discovered, 10 meters in depth, from which protruded separate parts of human bodies. As from 26 to 29 July 1943, excavations were carried out at this spot and, as a result, 130 corpses were exhumed. The legal-medical examination proved that the corpse of a 4-months-old girl showed no traces of violence. The child had been thrown alive into the ditch where it perished from suffocation.”

I skip the next phrase and quote from the next paragraph:

“The autopsy performed on bodies of dead infants by the legal-medical investigation proved that they had been thrown into the ditch alive, together with their mothers who had been shot. All the other corpses showed traces of torture.”

I will now refer to the verdict of the Military Tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front, which I had already submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-32.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Have I your permission to continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Please do.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Continuing the presentation of evidence on atrocities of German fascist criminals with regard to children, I refer to the testimony of the witness, Bespalov, included in the document previously presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-32 (Document Number USSR-32). The members of the Tribunal will find the place which I refer to on Page 33, fifth paragraph of the document, Column 1 in the document book. Bespalov testified:

“At the end of June last year I myself saw up to 300 girls and women brought on 10 to 12 trucks to the forest park. The unfortunate women were throwing themselves from side to side, weeping, tearing their hair, and rending their clothes. Many fainted, but the German fascists paid no attention to this. By kicks and beatings with rifle butts and sticks they forced them to get up; the executioners themselves stripped and threw into the pits, those who did not rise. Several girls—among them children—tried to run away, but were killed.

“I saw how, after a burst of machine gun fire, some of the women, swaying and helplessly flinging up their arms, staggered toward the standing Germans with heart-rending cries. At this time the Germans were shooting them with pistols. Maddened with terror and grief, mothers clutched their children to their breasts, running with terrible wails into the forest clearing, seeking help.

“The Gestapo members snatched the children from them, seized them by the arms or legs, and threw them alive into the pit; when the mothers ran after them to the pit, they were shot.”

I quote one paragraph out of Exhibit Number USSR-9 (Document USSR-9), already presented to the Tribunal. This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union of the crimes of the German fascist invaders in the city of Kiev. The members of the Tribunal will find this document on Page 238, second column of the text, sixth paragraph:

“On 29 September 1941 Hitler’s bandits drove thousands of the peaceful Soviet citizens to the corner of Melnik and Doktorovskaya Streets and from there to Baybe-yar, where they shot them, after taking all their valuables from them.

“Citizens N. F. Petrenko and N. T. Gorbacheva, who lived near Baybe-yar, stated that they had seen how the Germans threw babies at the breast into graves and buried them alive with their dead or wounded parents. One could see the surface of the ground moving over the buried people who were still alive.”

These were not individual occurrences, but a systematic plan. This inhuman terror was practiced on children, since the chiefs of German fascism understood that this form of terrorism would be particularly frightful for the survivors. Compassion for the weak and the defenseless is an inalienable human trait. By applying their particularly barbarous methods to children, the German fascist criminals showed the rest of the population that there was no crime, no cruelty at which they would stop for the purpose of pacifying the occupied territories. Children did not simply share the fate of their parents. The so-called “actions” were frequently directed against the children themselves. They were taken forcibly from their parents, concentrated in one place, then murdered.

I refer to a very brief report of the Extraordinary State Commission, already submitted to the Tribunal, entitled, “Concerning the Crimes of the German Conspirators in Latvia.” The members of the Tribunal will find the place I refer to on Page 286, on the reverse side, in the second column of the document book, Paragraph 5. Here it states, and I quote:

“In the main jail in Riga they murdered over 2,000 children who had been torn from their parents, and in the Salaspil Camp, more than 3,000.”

From the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of the Hitlerites in Lithuania, the Tribunal will learn of the brutal methods employed by the Germans to separate children from their parents incarcerated in prisons, concentration camps, or ghettos—these methods usually preceded the murder of the children. This document has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-7 (Document USSR-7) to the Tribunal. The members of the Tribunal will find the place referred to on Page 295, first column, sixth paragraph of the document book. I omit the first paragraph, which mentions the organization of the camp. This has no direct relation to children, and I begin with the second paragraph, which shows what was done with them:

“In the beginning of 1944 the Germans in this camp forcibly took children from 6 to 12 years old and carried them off. An inhabitant of the city of Kovno, Vladislav Blum, testified:

“‘Heart-rending scenes occurred under my eyes. The Germans took the children away from their mothers and sent them, no one knows where. Many children were shot together with their mothers.’

“On the walls of the camp buildings inscriptions were discovered concerning the crimes of the Hitlerite monsters. Here are some of them:

“‘Avenge us! Let the whole world know and understand how savagely our children were exterminated! Our days are counted! Farewell! Let the whole world know and let it not forget to avenge our innocent children! Women of all the world, remember and understand all the atrocities which befell our innocent children in the 20th century! My child is already dead, I am indifferent to everything!’”

Further, I refer to the document which has already been presented to the Tribunal under Document Number USSR-63. This is an official report on the torture and shooting of children in the Domachev children’s asylum of the Brest region in the Bielorussian S.S.R. The members of the Tribunal will find this document on the reverse side of Page 223, fifth paragraph, first column. I shall quote three or four paragraphs out of this document, omitting the remainder:

“By order of the German occupational authorities of the district, the Chief of the Prokopchuk district ordered the principal of the children’s home, A. P. Pavliuk, to poison a sick 12-year-old child, Lena Renklach. After Pavliuk refused to carry out the order, the child was shot by policemen in the vicinity of the children’s home, allegedly ‘while trying to escape.’

“In order to save the children from starvation and death, 11 of them were distributed among the local population in 1942, and 16 children were taken by their relatives.”

And this was the further fate of those children. I continue with my quotation:

“On 23 September 1942, at 7 o’clock in the evening, a 5-ton truck appeared in the yard of the children’s home, bringing six armed Germans in military uniform. The group leader, named Max, explained that the children would be taken to Brest and ordered them to be placed in the truck. Fifty-five children and their teacher, Grocholskaya, were placed in the truck. One girl, 9-year-old Tossia Schachmatova, succeeded in climbing out of the truck and escaping. The remaining 54 and the teacher were driven away in the truck in the direction of the station of Dubitz, 1½ kilometers from the village of Leplevka. The car stopped at a frontier gun emplacement, 800 meters from the River West Bug. The children were undressed—which was proved by the fact that the children’s clothes were found in the truck after its return to Domachev—and shot.”

I omit the remaining part of this official report. It has been proved by documents dealing with the shootings that in mass executions of children they were torn in half while still alive and thrown into the flames. To confirm this, I refer to the testimony of the witness, Hamaidas, a native of the village of Lisbenitzky, in the Lvov region, who was confined by the Germans in Yanov Camp at Lvov.

Hamaidas’ occupation in the camp consisted in burning the corpses of those who had been shot. At the same time, he was a witness to the mass shootings of the peaceful population—men, women, and children. The testimony of Hamaidas, together with other documents concerning the Lvov camps, has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c) (Document USSR-6(c)); I quote two lines from the testimony of Hamaidas, from Page 55 of the document book, 11th line from the bottom of the page:

“I was a witness to such facts. The executioner would seize children by the feet, tear them apart while they were still alive, and throw them into the fire.”

Having shot the parents, the German murderers considered it unnecessary to waste ammunition on children. When they did not throw the children into the grave pits they often murdered them simply by hitting them with a heavy object or by pounding their heads against the ground. I refer, in confirmation of this, to the document already presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-6(c), in which are other documents on reports of legal-medical experts employed in the exhumation of corpses in Yanov Camp. I shall quote only two lines of the conclusion. The members of the Tribunal will find the place where I refer to the conclusion of the legal-medical experts on Yanov Camp on Page 330 of the document book, second paragraph at the top of the column, reverse of Page 330. I quote this brief excerpt:

“The executioners did not consider it necessary to waste ammunition on children. They simply killed them by hitting them over the head with a blunt instrument.

“Children were often cut in half with rusty saws and subjected to other forms of torture.”

I ask the permission of the Court to read into the record only one paragraph from a note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., dated 27 April 1942. The members of the Tribunal will find the place to which I refer on Page 8, reverse side, second column, third paragraph:

“The invaders subjected children and adolescents to the most brutal tortures. Among the 160 wounded and maimed children, victims of the Hitlerite terror in the districts of the now liberated Moscow region, undergoing treatment in the Russakov Hospital in Moscow, there is, for instance, the case of a 14-year-old boy, Vanya Gromov, from the village of Novinki, who had been strapped to a table by the Hitlerites and then had had his right arm sawed off with a rusty saw. The Germans chopped off both hands of 12-year-old Vanya Kryukov, of the village of Kryukovo, in the Kursk region, and drove him, bleeding profusely, toward the Soviet troops.”

I omit the rest of the quotation—two pages—since similar facts are related in the document which confirm the above—mentioned episodes.

Children were the first victims of carbon-monoxide poisoning in the German gas vans. In confirmation I refer to the material already submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document USSR-1), which is the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes of the German fascist occupiers in the Stavropol region. The members of the Tribunal will find that brief excerpt on Page 269 in the document book, Paragraph 4:

“It has been established that in December 1942, by order of the chief of the Gestapo for the town of Mikoian-Schachar, Oberleutnant Otto Weber, an extraordinarily cruel massacre was carried out on Soviet children undergoing treatment for bone tuberculosis in the sanatorium of the Teberda health resort. Eyewitnesses to this crime, members of the sanatorium, medical sister, S. E. Jvanova, and medical aide, Polypanova, have testified as follows:

“Before the entrance of the first section of the sanatorium, on 22 December 1942, a German automobile drew up. Seven German soldiers, who had arrived in the vehicle, dragged 54 seriously sick children, ranging in age from 3 years upward, out of the sanatorium (they were too ill to move and therefore were not driven forcibly into the van) and stacked them in layers inside the vehicle. They then closed the door, let in the carbon-monoxide gas, and drove off from the sanatorium. An hour later the vehicle returned to Teberda. All the children had perished. They had been exterminated by the Germans and their bodies thrown into the Teberda ravine near Gunachgir.”

Children were also drowned in the open sea. In confirmation, I refer to the document already submitted, Exhibit Number USSR-63 (Document USSR-63), on the “Indictment of German Atrocities in Sevastopol.” The members of the Tribunal will find the place I am referring to on the reverse side of Page 226, Paragraph 7, second column of the text:

“In addition to the mass shootings, the Hitlerites cruelly drowned peaceful citizens in the open sea.

“Prisoner Corporal Friedrich Heile, of Troop Battalion 2-19 MKA, Naval Transport Detachment, testified as follows:

“‘When I was in the port of Sevastopol, I saw large groups of peaceful citizens, including women and children, brought to the harbor by trucks. All the Russians were loaded on barges. Many resisted. However, they were beaten and driven forcibly onto the barges. About 3,000 people, all told, were loaded on. The barges put out to sea. For a long time the crying was heard in the bay. Several hours passed, and the barges slipped again into their moorings. From the ships’ crews I found out that all the people had been thrown overboard.’”

Heavy artillery fire was openly directed by the German fascist criminals against schools, children’s asylums, hospitals, and other children’s institutions in Leningrad. I present to the Tribunal the summary report of the Leningrad city commission for the investigation of German crimes. This report is being submitted to the Honorable Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-85 (Document Number USSR-85). I shall not quote any long passage from this report. I shall merely draw the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that on Page 347, Volume II, Paragraph 4, in the document book, the Judges may see for themselves the list of targets exposed to German artillery fire, which is testified to by the logs of the fighting units. The following are some of those targets, “Number 736, a school in Baburinsk Street; number 708, Institute for the Care of Mothers and Infants; number 192, Palace of Pioneers.”

I also shall take the liberty of quoting only a short excerpt from the testimony of the director of School Number 218, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 348, Volume II, first paragraph. The director of School Number 218, located at 13 Rubenstein Street, writes:

“On 18 May 1942, School Number 218 underwent artillery fire. A 12-year-old boy, Lenja Isarow, was killed. A little girl, Dona Binamowa, turned white and moaned with pain. ‘Mummy, how can I get along without my leg?’ she said. Leva Gendelev was bleeding to death. He was given aid, but it was too late. He died in the arms of his mother, calling out, ‘Accursed Hitler!’

“Djenia Kutareva, though seriously wounded, begged that his father should not be disturbed because he suffered from heart disease. The teacher and all the pupils assisted the victims.”

I conclude the quotation concerning Leningrad. I omit two pages of the text and draw the Tribunal’s attention to Page 355, Volume II, second column, Paragraph 6. Your Honors will find there a document submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-8 (Document Number USSR-8). This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on “The Infamous Crimes of the German Government in Auschwitz.” I shall quote several short passages from the second report entitled, “Murderers of Children.” At the same time, however, I would ask Your Honors to pay special attention to Page 47 of the Auschwitz album (Exhibit Number USSR-30), as well as to Pages 48 and 49. The photographs on these pages clearly show how emaciated these children were. I omit the first paragraph, and I quote:

“Investigations have proved that the Germans completely sapped the strength of children between 8 and 10 years of age, by forcing them to do the same heavy work they gave to the adults. Toil beyond their strength, beatings, and torture soon exhausted the children—then they were killed.

“Ex-prisoner Jacob Gordon, a doctor from Vilna, testified:

“‘In the beginning of 1943 at Camp Birkenau 164 boys were taken away to the hospital, where they were killed by injections of carbolic acid in the heart.’

“Ex-prisoner Bakasch Waltraut of Düsseldorf, Germany, testified:

“‘In 1943 when we worked on the construction of a hedge surrounding Crematorium Number 5, I myself saw SS men throw several living children into bonfires.’”

Here is what some of the children, who were saved by the Red Army, themselves testify about the tortures to which they were subjected. I omit the next paragraph and ask the Tribunal, while I read, to refer to Page 50 of the photographic documents of Auschwitz. Here we find the photographs of a 12-year-old boy, Zihmlich, and a boy of 13, Mandel, and the Tribunal can see the deformation of these children from exposure to cold. I continue:

“A 9-year-old boy, Andrasz Lerintsiakosz, a native of the city of Klez, Hungary, testified:

“‘After we had been driven to Block 22 of the camp, we were beaten, mainly by German women who were put over us as guards. They beat us with sticks. During my stay in the camp, Dr. Mengele bled me very frequently. In November 1944 all the children were transferred to Camp A, known as the Gypsy Camp. During roll call it was discovered that one child was missing. Thereupon, the leader of the women’s camp, Brandem, and her assistant, Mendel, drove us all into the street at 1 o’clock in the morning and left us standing there in the cold until noon.’”

I omit the next three paragraphs of the quotation, and I read into the record the last paragraph of this section:

“There were, among the 180 children liberated from Auschwitz and examined by physicians, 52 under 8 years of age and 128 between the ages of 8 and 15. All arrived in the camp in the second half of 1944, that is, they spent between 3 to 6 months in the camp. All 180 children underwent a medical examination, which established that 72 suffered from tuberculosis of the lungs and glands, 49 suffered from the consequences of malnutrition and elementary dystrophy (complete exhaustion), and 31 from frostbite.”

I submit to the Tribunal and request Your Honors to accept as evidence Exhibit Number USSR-92 (Document Number USSR-92). It is a directive from the Administration of Food and Agriculture, entitled, “Treatment of Pregnant Women of Non-Germanic Origin.” I refer this document to the Tribunal because, in their hatred of the Slav race, the German fascist criminals even attempted to murder babes in the womb. The members of the Tribunal will find the document on Page 362, in Volume II of the document book. I shall read two short paragraphs into the record. I quote:

“There has recently been a considerable increase in the birth rate among women of non-Germanic origin. Difficulties have arisen in consequence, not only in connection with the use of these people for labor but, to a greater extent, with a danger of a social-political nature, which should not be underestimated.”

I omit one paragraph and quote further:

“The simplest method for overcoming these difficulties would be to inform, as soon as possible, the institutions which employ them for labor, of the pregnancy of the non-Germanic women.”

I draw your special attention to the last sentence, “These institutions must attempt to compel the women to get rid of their children by resorting to abortion.”

I conclude my quotation.

The analysis of the material connected with the Hitlerite terror in the countries of Eastern Europe is positive proof that the atrocities perpetrated on children will remain forever the most disgraceful page in the history of German fascism.

I request permission, Your Honor, to present now the photographic documentation which, owing to a technical difficulty, I was unable to show before the luncheon recess. With your consent I shall show it at once. Apparently the presentation will now be more successful than earlier in the day. I should emphasize that in selecting the photographs I was not guided, so to speak, by the horror of their contents, but simply by the fact that they demonstrate typical procedures of the German fascist crimes.

[_Pictures were then projected on the screen._]*

(1) Here we see one person being shot. This snapshot was taken in the Moscow region during the German advance on Moscow. The man was executed in reprisal for the death of a German.

(2) Here we see four persons being shot. The four youths condemned to death are standing on the edge of a pit which they dug. The members of the Tribunal can see for themselves that the German criminals standing on the outskirts of the wood are laughing at the victims.

(3) This snapshot was taken at the time of the execution. The killing is carried out in the typical German style, that is, by a shot in the back of the neck. You will observe that the victims are crying out at the moment of death.

(4) The snapshots, Your Honors, which I am now showing were taken by the German Obergruppenführer Karl Strock, chief of the Nipal Gestapo. It represents a German mass execution. The victims have been ordered to strip on the execution ground. Here you see a young girl seated, already undressed, and next to her her brother Jacob, who has also been ordered to strip. I wish to emphasize the fact that the snapshots were taken in December, when the cold is intense.

(5) In addition to some native women condemned to be shot, this snapshot also shows a very young girl endeavoring to hide behind her mother on the left.

(6) In December naked women in this snapshot have also been taken to the execution ground. Condemned to death, these women were forced by the same Obergruppenführer Strock to pose before the camera.

(7) Here we have a group of men and with them a small child accompanied by his mother. They are going to the execution ground. The child clutches his mother closely.

(8) This is an amateur photograph, albeit a very clear one. Here, Your Honors, you see a group of people and some dead bodies, with machine guns to the right of them. I would ask the Tribunal to observe the disposal of the dead bodies. The photograph is probably taken during the first months of the German occupation because the bodies have been thrown into the pit carelessly; in the latter months orders were given to lay out the bodies tidily in rows.

(9) This is a snapshot of the same group. Here you see both women and young girls condemned to death.

(10) In Yanov Camp the executions are carried out to the strains of the “Death Tango” played by an orchestra conducted by Professor Striks, an internee in the camp, together with his bandmaster, Mundt. I request Your Honors to observe two points of interest in this snapshot. To the right we see the camp commander, Obergruppenführer Gebauer, in white uniform, and behind him his dog, Rex, known to us through many interrogations as having been trained to harass living persons and to tear them to pieces. It is evident that Gebauer is leading the orchestra to the execution ground.

(11) One of the gallows used by the German fascists in their endeavor to establish a regime of terror in the temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union. The snapshot was found in the files of the Yanov Gestapo. A woman of sorts is seen laughing at the foot of the gallows.

(12) A second gallows erected in the same market place, at Lvov, also taken from the archives of the Gestapo.

(13) I am showing Your Honors the snapshot of an entire street festooned with bodies of Soviet citizens. This is a street in the city of Lvov, and I beg to remind the Tribunal that according to the records of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs the same hangings also occurred in Kharkov.

(14) The same street in Lvov. The snapshot was taken from the archives of the Lvov Gestapo.

(15) The gallows were not the only means of execution. The guillotine, too, was used on a vast scale. In this snapshot you see the heads of victims guillotined in the prison of Danzig. The snapshot was taken in the Anatomic Institute in Danzig, where the bodies of the victims were brought after execution.

(16) I shall not show you too many snapshots of tortures inflicted. I only wish to show a few typical examples. This snapshot was taken from a dead Gestapo soldier. It shows a young girl being flogged. Later you will see what next they did to her.

(17) It is not quite clear whether the girl is being strung up by the hair or hanged by the neck. Judging by the convulsive movement of her hands, I think that a noose has just been placed round her neck. Observe the bestial face of the scoundrel who is hanging her.

(18) Here is a snapshot taken from a dead Gestapo soldier. I wish to emphasize the manner in which the German fascists mocked the chastity of the Russian women. They had just forced these Ukrainian women to run naked before the German brutes.

(19) This snapshot will help you to understand subsequent events. It represents a machine for grinding human bones. Next to the machine stands the prisoner of war who feeds the machine. It can grind the bones of 200 persons at a time. As has been proved to the commission, it has a constant yield of 200 cubic meters of bone flour.

That is all. Photographs are identified as Exhibits USSR-100, 101, 102, 212, 385, 388, 389, 390, 391.

* Mr. Counsellor Smirnov’s explanations of the pictures were not recorded by the Russian stenographers. They were recorded, however, in English and German, and these notes are used in the English and German editions respectively, even though the two texts differ in some respects.

Will you now permit me to submit further documentary evidence?

In the first part of my presentation I dealt with German mass terrorism and spoke specifically about the extermination of children and the infamous methods used by the Germans with regard to them, since terror applied to children—terror most savage, most brutal—is one of the characteristic features of fascist bestiality.

I now present to the Tribunal evidence of mass extermination of the population in various parts of Eastern Europe. I submit to the Tribunal brief excerpts from the report of the Polish Government, which Your Honors will find on Page 127 of the document book, in the second paragraph of the text. It describes the so-called Anin massacre. I quote:

“At the end of December 1939 a Polish policeman was shot in the vicinity of Warsaw by a bandit. Subsequent investigations showed that the murderer was in a restaurant in Vaver, near Warsaw. Two German policemen tried to arrest him. When the police entered the restaurant, the bandit opened fire, killing one policeman and wounding another, that is, he apparently killed one and wounded another.

“In reply the German authorities, on 26 December 1939, ordered mass reprisals, and a punitive expedition made its appearance in the village.

“A detachment of ‘Landesschützen,’ under the command of an officer, was dispatched to Vaver and to the summer resort of Anin. Both of these localities were surrounded by a cordon of soldiers. The proprietor of the restaurant where the event occurred was immediately hanged, and his body suspended in front of his house for 3 days. At the same time the men were dragged out from every house. Having thus rounded up about 170 persons, the Germans made them stand in the railway station, facing the wall and with their hands held above their heads, for several hours. Afterwards their documents were checked and a few were dismissed, but the vast majority were informed that they would be executed. They were then taken to a field, split up into groups of 10 to 14, and executed by volleys from machine guns.

“The number of individual graves discovered on the execution ground amounted to 107. Among those executed were two doctors, 30 youths under 16 years of age, and 12 old men over 60. One was an American citizen of Polish origin. He was shot together with his son.”

I shall omit the next paragraph of the report of the Polish Government dealing with the massacre in Piastoshyn, and I quote only an announcement from a German paper, the _Weichsel Zeitung_, of 23 October 1939. This announcement was quoted in the Polish report. I read:

“In the Tuchel district, the farm of a Reich citizen, Fritz, in the vicinity of Pretzin, was burned by Polish bandits in the night of 21-22 October. The citizen Fritz had a heart attack in consequence. By order of the chief of the Civil Administration a punitive expedition was dispatched to this locality, in order to teach the guilty bandits a lesson which would show them that acts of this kind would be severely punished. In reprisal 10 Poles, known for their hostile attitude towards Germany, were shot. In addition an order was given to the Polish inhabitants of this locality to rebuild the burned buildings and to pay for the damage done.”

I shall omit half of the following page, and I quote briefly the circumstances of the Yousefouv massacre in Poland. Your Honors will find this quotation on Page 128, Paragraph 2 of the document book:

“In the middle of January 1940 a family of German colonists in the village of Yousefouv was robbed and murdered by bandits, as the Germans themselves stated in the newspapers at a later date. A punitive expedition set out for Yousefouv.”

I omit the next paragraph, and then I continue:

“The expedition started a large-scale massacre. All the males who were caught in Yousefouv and the vicinity, even 11-year-old boys, were arrested and shot on the spot. Altogether 300 people were murdered.”

Mass extermination of the peaceful population in Yugoslavia was of an exceptionally cruel nature. I quote that part of the report of the Yugoslav Government entitled, “Mass Murder of the Civilian Population and the Destruction of Villages.” I beg the Tribunal to accept as evidence a photostat of the order of Lieutenant General Neidtholt, which is presented as Exhibit Number USSR-188 (Document Number USSR-188). I cite this order, which was quoted in the report of the Yugoslav Government:

“The settlements of Zagniezde and Udora must be destroyed, the male population of these settlements hanged, and the women and children taken to Stoliac.”

I omit the next page of the text and begin the quotation regarding the atrocities of the German fascist criminals in Kragujevac. In confirmation of this report of the Yugoslav Government, we submit to the Tribunal a certified photostat copy of a communication from the commander of the garrison at Kragujevac, in which he admitted the shooting of 2,300 people. This document is being submitted to the Tribunal, and I ask the Court to accept this as evidence under Exhibit Number USSR-74 (Document Number USSR-74). I quote from the report of the Yugoslav Government on the mass murder in Kragujevac:

“This was a mass murder committed on 21 October 1941, in Kragujevac, by a German punitive expedition under the command of Major König. Besides König, the regional commander, Bischofshausen, and the commandant of the settlement, Dr. Zimmermann, participated in the organization and realization of this crime.

“Already 10 to 15 days before the crime in Kragujevac was committed, one battalion arrived to reinforce the German garrison. First of all, the following villages were destroyed in the vicinity of Kragujevac: Mechkovac, Marsic, and Groshnic. In Mechkovac the punitive expedition murdered 66 people, in Marsic, 101, and in Groshnic, 100. All the victims were peaceful citizens of the villages in question.

“When, after the perpetration of these crimes, the punitive expedition arrived in Kragujevac, they began by carrying out their plan to exterminate the citizens of Kragujevac, especially the Serbian intelligentsia. As early as the beginning of October the district commandant, Dr. Zimmermann, demanded of the director of schools in Kragujevac the regular attendance of the school children; otherwise they would be considered saboteurs and shot. After such a threat, all the pupils attended school regularly. On 18 October 1941, in conformity with a previously prepared list, all male Jews were arrested, as well as all persons who were considered Communists. They were imprisoned in the barracks of the former Yugoslav auto-transport headquarters in Stanovlensko Polje. They were kept without any food until 20 October, and all were shot at about 6 o’clock in the evening; approximately 60 persons were killed.

“The same day, that is, 20 October, they began to round up the entire male population of Kragujevac. After every exit from the city had been blocked, the Germans went into every public building and drove out all the employees. After that, all the professors and pupils from the fifth grade upward, together with the school masters, were taken from the high schools and seminaries.”

I omit the next two sentences and quote further:

“Together with the others, all the prisoners from the Kragujevac prison were taken off to the barracks. Then the order was given to them to go into the courtyard of the barracks. Here all their personal belongings were taken from them. The first to be shot were those who were originally incarcerated in the prison—approximately 50 persons. The rest were locked up in barracks. The next day, 21 October, as from 7 o’clock in the morning, they were taken off in batches to Stanovlensko Polje, and there shot down by machine gun fire. Those who did not die at once were finished off by the Germans with automatic guns and rifles.”

I conclude this quotation and continue after the next three paragraphs.

“The relatives of the victims of this mass slaughter were forbidden to visit the place of execution until the burial of the victims had been completed and all traces of the crime eliminated. They were also forbidden to hold any requiem masses or religious services for the victims. In the obituary notices in the papers it was forbidden to mention that the victims had met their death in the mass execution.”

I omit the next five paragraphs and invite the attention of the Tribunal to a short part of the report of the Yugoslav Government dealing with the so-called “death march” or “march of blood,” that march of dire fame which took place in the camp of Yarak. I quote that particular part which deals with this atrocious crime of the Hitlerites:

“In the beginning of September 1941 a large German punitive expedition rounded up all the male population between the ages of 14 and 70 years and drove them from Shabatka across the Sava River into the settlement of Yarak in Sirinya. That was the so-called death march. About 5,000 men had to run a distance of 23 kilometers and back again. Those who could not stand the pace and fell by the way were ruthlessly shot on the spot. Because many were old and weak, the number of victims was great, especially while crossing the bridge over the Sava.”

I conclude this, and I continue the next paragraph:

“On the way back they met another group of 800 peasants who had to cover the same distance, but the treatment of this group was still more brutal. They had to run with their arms raised over their heads. They were systematically murdered on the way. Only 300 men of the group reached Yarak alive.”

I interrupt the quotation here. I omit this page and the next, and, concluding my presentation of the mass murders of the civilian population in Yugoslavia, I would ask the Tribunal to accept in evidence the public announcement of the Chief of the German Armed Forces in Serbia. This document is presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-200 (Document Number USSR-200). Without making any comment at all, I simply quote this document, using the original text incorporated in the report of the Yugoslav Government. In the report the Commander-in-Chief in Serbia quotes the following facts:

“In the village of Skela, a Communist detachment opened fire at a German military truck. It was established that several of the inhabitants had been watching and had seen the preparations for this attack. It was further established that these inhabitants could have warned the nearest station of the Serbian gendarmerie. It was also established that they could have secretly warned the German military trucks against the pending attempt. The inhabitants did not profit by the opportunity and had thus placed themselves on the side of the criminals. The village of Skela was burned to the ground. Supplies of ammunition exploded in several houses during the fire, and this was accepted as a proof of complicity on the part of the inhabitants. All the male inhabitants of the village whose participation in the attack had been proved were shot, and 50 Communists were hanged on the spot.”

I now omit five pages of my presentation, and I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the brief excerpts from the report of the Greek Government, on Pages 39 and 40 of the Russian text of this report, from which we can see that the same inhuman and criminal methods of mass shootings were used by the Hitler criminals in the temporarily occupied territory of Greece. I begin my quotation:

“As soon as the island of Crete was occupied by the Germans. . . . In compliance with this announcement, the first reprisals were made, and several people, most of them absolutely innocent, were shot, and the villages of Skiki, Brassi, and Kanades”—perhaps I am stressing the wrong syllables, since I do not know how these words should be pronounced in Greek—“all these villages were burned down as a reprisal for an attack by collaborators of the Greek police during the invasion of Crete. On the sites where these villages formerly existed, posts were erected with inscriptions in Greek and in German: ‘Destroyed as a reprisal for the brutal murder of a detachment of paratroopers and half a platoon of sappers by armed men and women in the rear.’

“Measures of reprisal, which at first were of a temporary nature, later grew in intensity, especially after the resistance made by organized partisan detachments throughout the country in the beginning of 1943. The technique was always the same. The day after some act of sabotage or any other action committed by the partisans near a village, the German troops would appear in this village. The inhabitants would be rounded up in the central square or some other place suitable for the occasion, to listen to a public announcement, but in reality to be killed on the spot by machine gun fire. After this the Germans either burned the villages or else, in some cases, they would first plunder a village and then open fire on it. The inhabitants were killed openly in the streets, houses, and fields, regardless of age and sex. There were few cases when only the male population from the age of 16 years and over were executed. In other cases, when the men succeeded in hiding in the mountains, the Germans would execute the old men, women, and children who had remained in the villages, hoping that their age and their sex would protect them. The villages of Arachovo, Kalovryta, Gestamon, Klessoura, Kommeno, and Lissovouni may be considered as typical examples. Some villages were destroyed for the sole reason that they were located in some region where partisans had been active.”

I omit the next sentence since it has a direct bearing on another text of the report. I continue my quotation:

“The number of people murdered amounts to nearly 30,000.”

I am now going over to the presentation of evidence of mass exterminations of the peaceful population in the territory of the U.S.S.R. by the Germans.

As to the circumstances of the mass executions, we may now judge them not only by the testimony of eyewitnesses or of the perpetrators of the atrocities; we may, in part, judge them on the basis of the material collected by the legal and medical commission. I say “in part” because, as from 1943, fearing retribution for the crimes committed, the Hitlerites began to destroy the traces of their crimes. They exhumed and burned corpses, ground bones, and strewed the ashes on the fields; they also used the slag formed by the corpses cremated, as well as the bone flour, for repairing the roads and fertilizing the fields. But notwithstanding the efforts of the criminals to conceal the traces of their crimes, it was impossible to destroy all the corpses of the people murdered.

The first mass “action” of the Germans, when tens of thousands of innocent and peaceful people were murdered at a time, was the “Kiev action.” In order to realize the extent of these atrocities I refer Your Honors to a communication of the Extraordinary State Commission already submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-9. I quote from Page 238, on the reverse side of the document book, at the end of the third paragraph from the top. I quote:

“In Kiev, over 195,000 Soviet citizens were tortured to death, shot, and poisoned in the gas vans, as follows:

“(1) In Baybe-yar, over 100,000 men, women, children, and old people.

“(2) In Darnitza, over 68,000 Soviet prisoners of war and peaceful citizens.

“(3) In the antitank trench in the vicinity of Syretzk Camp and in the camp proper, over 25,000 peaceful Soviet citizens and prisoners of war.

“(4) In the grounds of the Hospital of St. Cyril, 800 insane patients.

“(5) In the grounds of the Kiev-Pechersk Abbey, about 500 peaceful citizens.

“(6) In the cemetery of Ljukjanousk, about 400 peaceful citizens.”

I continue to quote from this document, Page 238, second column of the text, Paragraph 6, and I give two short excerpts from this page. I begin:

“In 1943, sensing the uncertainty of their position in Kiev, the occupying forces, in an attempt to conceal the traces of their crimes, opened up the tombs of their victims and began to burn the corpses. The Germans relegated the burning of the corpses in Baybe-yar to the internees of Syretzk Camp. SS officer Topheide was placed in charge of this work, together with members of the gendarmerie, Johann Merkel and Vogt, and the commander of the SS platoon, Rever.

“The witnesses, L. K. Ostrovski, C. B. Berlandt, W. Y. Davydov, Y. A. Steyuk, and J. M. Brodski, who had escaped the shootings at Baybe-yar on 29 September 1943, testified:

“‘As prisoners of war we were interned in the Syretzk Concentration Camp in the outskirts of Kiev. On 18 August 100 of us were sent to Baybe-yar. There we were shackled in chains and ordered to exhume and burn the corpses of Soviet citizens who had been murdered by the Germans. Here the Germans brought granite monuments and iron railings from the cemetery. From these monuments we made platforms on which we placed rails, and on top of these rails we laid the iron grills to act as fire bars. On the iron grills a layer of firewood was placed, and on top of the firewood we placed a layer of corpses. On the corpses we placed a further layer of firewood and poured petroleum over the whole. Following this order the corpses were piled up in several layers and then ignited. About 2,500 to 3,000 corpses were placed in each of these “ovens.” The Germans detailed special crews for the removal of earrings, rings, and also gold teeth from the jaws of the dead.

“‘When all the corpses were burned, new “ovens” were stacked, and so on. The bones were smashed into small particles by bulldozers and the ashes strewn over the Yar, so that no traces should be left. The men worked from 12 to 15 hours a day.

“‘The Germans used excavators in order to expedite the work. From 18 August until the day of our escape—29 September—approximately 70,000 corpses were burned.’”

I interrupt this quotation and invite the attention of the Tribunal to a document on Page 287, Volume II, Paragraph 5 of the document book, second column. This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on crimes of the German fascist invaders in the territory of the Latvian S.S.R. In the place to which I will draw the attention of the Tribunal it is shown that the Hitlerites systematically carried out executions in the forest of Birkeneck. I make a special point of quoting this because further on we shall present documentary films showing full details of these mass shootings. I begin the quotation:

“In the forest of Birkeneck, on the outskirts of the city of Riga, the Hitlerites shot 46,500 peaceful citizens. The witness, M. Stabulnek, a woman who lived in the vicinity of the forest, stated that:

“‘On Friday and Saturday before Easter, 1942, packed busses went from the city to the forest. I saw 41 busses passing my house from the beginning of Friday morning to noon. On Easter Sunday, many inhabitants—I among them—went into the forest to the site of the executions. There we saw one large open pit containing the bodies of women and children who had been shot; they were either naked or in their underwear. There were traces of torture and ill-treatment on the corpses of the women and children, many of whom had black and blue bruises on their faces and cuts on their heads. Some had had their hands and fingers cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their stomachs ripped open.’”

I now omit one paragraph and continue:

“The commission discovered, on the execution ground, 55 graves covering a total area of 2,885 square meters.”

I quote one more paragraph from this communication:

“In the forest of Dreilin, 5 to 7 kilometers east of Riga, along the highway to Luban, the Germans shot over 13,000 peaceful citizens and prisoners of war. The witness, W. S. Ganus, testified:

“‘As from August 1944 the Germans organized excavation crews to open up the graves, and all through the week bodies were burned. The forest was surrounded by German guards armed with machine guns. On and after 20 August black, closed cars filled with citizens, among whom were women and children—so-called “refugees”—began to arrive; they were shot and their bodies burned immediately. I had hidden in the bushes and watched this fearful scene. The screams of the victims were terrible. I heard shouts of “Murderers,” “Hangmen” and the children crying, “Mama, don’t leave me.” The bullets of the murderers stopped the screams.’”

I conclude this document because it now contains only analogous facts. I wish to invite the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that 38,000 people were shot in this forest.

I further request the Tribunal to refer to a document already presented to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-47, which is the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on crimes committed by the German and Romanian invaders in Odessa and the region of Odessa. I shall refer to two very brief excerpts of this report. Your Honors will find one of the excerpts I wish to quote on Page 283, Volume II of the document book, first column of the text, Paragraph 5. I begin:

“On 21 December 1941 the Romanian gendarmes proceeded to execute the internees in the camp. The internees were brought, under guard, to a half-ruined building on the outskirts of the forest. There they were forced to kneel by the ravine; then they were shot. From the edge of the ravine those who were killed—and often those who were only wounded—fell to the foot of the ravine, where a gigantic fire of straw, reeds, and wood had been built. The smaller children were thrown alive into this fire by the executioners. The burning of the corpses went on for 24 hours on end.”

Here I interrupt my quotation, since details of these crimes will follow later, and I refer the members of the Tribunal to Page 283 of the document book, Paragraph 3, Column 2, containing a complete summary of the data available:

“According to the preliminary figures, as established by the commission, the Germano-Romanian occupiers shot, tortured to death, and burned, in Odessa and the region of Odessa, up to 200,000 people.”

In confirmation of the fact that during the mass executions, the so-called “actions,” the German criminals buried people who were still alive, I submit to the Tribunal, under Exhibit Number USSR-37 (Document Number USSR-37), a report of the Extraordinary State Commission, dated 24 June 1943. I quote the act, which the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 359, in Volume II of the document book. The place that I refer to will be found on Page 362 of the document book:

“While excavating the pit at the foot of Chalk Hill (Mielovaya Gora) in the town of Kupiansk, 71 bodies were discovered, including the bodies of 62 men, eight women, and one infant. All the victims were unshod and some of them were quite naked.”

I pass to the quotation of Paragraph 4, Page 362:

“The Commission notes that there were many whose wounds were not fatal; they had evidently been thrown into the pit and buried alive. This has also been confirmed by citizens who passed near the pit soon after the shooting; they saw the ground stirring and heard dull groans emanating from the grave.”

In confirmation of this fact, I would request the Tribunal to read into the record the original minutes, taken from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission, on the interrogation of the witness, Vassilievitch Joseph Ivanovitch, examined by the public prosecutor of the city of Stanislav at the request of the Extraordinary State Commission. We submit this document as Exhibit USSR-346 (Document Number USSR-346). I shall quote only two paragraphs from the minutes of this interrogation:

“In the beginning of 1943 we burned people there in the cemetery, to which firewood was brought for this purpose. There were cases where women and children were thrown alive into the pits and there buried.

“One woman—I do not know her name—begged an officer not to shoot her, and he gave her his word that she would not be shot. He even said, ‘I give you my word as an officer that you will not be shot.’ After the shooting of the group to which this woman belonged, this officer himself took her by the hand, threw her alive into the pit, and she was buried alive.”

Thus, in one whole series of cases, the victims were purposely buried alive in order to add extra cruelty to the misdeeds of the criminals. In other cases this was due to the fact that the Germans did not even consider it necessary to verify whether the people to be liquidated were dead or not.

An investigation of the data on the exhumation of these bodies, when the German fascists no longer had the time to destroy the traces of their crime by burning them, shows that towards the end of 1941 and in 1942 the criminals did not particularly attempt to camouflage the execution grounds—and this despite the instructions, already known to the Tribunal, issued by fascist headquarters on the camouflaging of execution grounds and keeping secret the so-called executions. I am of the opinion that this can be explained only by the fact that the Germans, in spite of some set-backs, were convinced of their final victory, and that, therefore, they hoped that their deeds would not be punished.

I refer to the document already presented with other documents to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-2(a), a report of the Extraordinary Commission of the Soviet Union on atrocities committed by the German fascist invaders in the region of Stalinsk. There we find a report of the medical-legal expert commission on the atrocities committed by the German fascist invaders in the alabaster quarries near the city of Artemovsk, in the Stalinsk district. I shall quote only a brief excerpt from this document. I shall omit the greater part of the indictments.

In the document book, Page 366, fifth paragraph, of the first column of the text, Your Honors will find the following:

“Two kilometers to the east of the city of Artemovsk, in the tunnel of the quarry of the alabaster works, 400 meters from the entrance, there is a small opening walled up with bricks. When the bricks were removed a continuation of the tunnel was discovered. This was a narrow passage rising steeply, having at the end a broad, oval cavern, 20 meters in length, 30 meters in width, and 3 to 4 meters in height.

“The entire cavern was filled with dead bodies and only a small area at the entrance and a narrow strip in the center were free of corpses. The bodies were closely pressed one against the other, with their backs turned to the entrance to the cavern.

“This is typical because it shows the customary German routine of shooting in the nape of the neck.

“The corpses were wedged so tightly that, at first glance, it appeared as though there was just one solid mass of intertwined bodies. The last layers had been heaped on the first, which were then closely pressed to the walls of the cavern.”

I omit the two following pages of the report, and I merely quote the conclusion of the legal-medical expert commission. You will find this on Page 366, Volume II, second column of the text, Paragraph 15:

“According to the testimony of the inhabitants of Artemovsk, on 9 February 1942 several thousand people were driven into the abandoned alabaster quarries, carrying their small household possessions and food.

“As and when the cavern filled up, the people were shot either when standing or kneeling down; then another batch would be driven in and shot down on the corpses of the first batch; the corpses of the victims were piled one on top of another. Some people tried to flee from the impending murder, trampled one another down, and died in agony.”

I further omit three pages of my presentation and continue on Page 209. During the period of the mass executions the German fascist criminals elaborated a definite technique for the execution of their crimes. I would like to mention some of the most typical methods employed, because the Tribunal will realize, on hearing individual instances, how criminally this technique of atrocities was perfected by the Germans and how increasingly cynical was the premeditation of these monstrous crimes. In confirmation of my statement, I should like to present some documents to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: We shall have to break off now. It is 4 o’clock.

The Tribunal would be glad to know how much longer your presentation will be.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall finish my presentation of evidence tomorrow.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

SIXTY-SECOND DAY Tuesday, 19 February 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.

The Defense motion for a recess cannot be granted. When a recess at Christmas was decided upon, the Tribunal informed the Defense Counsel that no further recess would be granted.

As Counsel for the Prosecution has pointed out, Defense Counsel have already had several months in which to prepare their defenses to a case which depends principally upon documents in the German language, written by the defendants themselves or their associates. They have also had constant assistance from the Tribunal and the Prosecution in connection with documentary evidence and witnesses.

The Tribunal has observed that many of the Defense Counsel have already found it possible, quite properly, to absent themselves from court, and the Tribunal sees no reason why some of the time which must elapse for the conclusion of the case for the Prosecution should not be utilized in preparation of their defenses out of court.

The Tribunal therefore decides that, at the conclusion of the Prosecution’s case against the individual defendants, the argument on the groups or organizations alleged to be criminal shall take place and that thereafter applications for documents and witnesses by those defendants whose witnesses and documents have not already been decided upon shall be heard in open session. In this way several days will be occupied in which many of the Defense Counsel can be absent from court and they can prepare their defenses out of court.

That is all. You may continue, Colonel.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honor, you asked me yesterday who, in January 1942, was the chief of the military economy and armament department of the German Army. I could not answer yesterday but today I can report to you that General of the Infantry Thomas held this position.

As to the second question which you put to me, that is, what measures were taken in regard to the correspondence connected with the report of Major Roesler, I requested information from Moscow, where this correspondence is kept. There are only excerpts from this correspondence in the archives, the rest of the correspondence is in another archive. We requested information from this archive and as soon as the latest disposition of this correspondence is ascertained, I will immediately report to the Tribunal. This will take about a day or two.

Before continuing my statement, I wish to remark that today I should conclude the presentation of all the evidence concerned with my statement. I have to submit a considerable number of documents, and therefore my statement will be rather fragmentary. I will not dwell on particulars and will endeavor not to repeat what has already been said by the prosecutors of other countries. This will render my statement somewhat piecemeal, for which I must beg your indulgence.

I will now proceed with my statement.

The legal-medical expert’s report, drawn up in the city of Smolensk, has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-48 (Document Number USSR-48). It was signed by a member of the Extraordinary State Commission for the Soviet Union, President of the Medical Academy and eminent Soviet physician, Academician Burdenko, by the principal legal-medical expert of the Ministry for Health, Dr. Prozorovsky, and other experts. In addition to the final conclusions which have already been presented by my colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, I now submit to the Tribunal the actual record of these experts’ investigation. From this the Tribunal will be able to judge, not only the final conclusion but also the methods used for this investigation. The Tribunal can see for themselves the detailed description of each burial ground investigated by experts, as well as the detailed examination of the corpses exhumed from the ditches. I will not repeat those parts of the account which have already been partially quoted by Colonel Pokrovsky. Therefore I omit four pages of my statement and pass on to Page 213. The part which I wish to quote now Your Honors will find on Page 377 of the document book, Volume II, Paragraph 2 of the page. The experts describe a typical scene of a burial site of the German victims in 1941 and the beginning of 1942. I quote:

“The ditches from which the corpses were exhumed were not common burial grounds. The corpses were not laid out in a row, one next to the other, but layer upon layer, a solid mass of women’s and men’s bodies heaped together in confusion. In this mass of corpses some were bent or half bent, some were lying on their faces, on their sides, or on their backs, some were on their knees, with faces down or up, with legs and arms interlinked. It was impossible to separate the corpses before they were exhumed from the ditch.”

However, this chaotic manner of burial of the corpses appears to characterize only the mass burials of victims of the first mass shootings which were carried out toward the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942. During subsequent exhumations the legal-medical experts discovered very many burial grounds where the corpses were laid down in orderly fashion, layer on layer.

A typical scene of such a burial ground the Tribunal can find in the album regarding the Lvov Camp. On Page 15 of this album there is a picture of a burial ground of the later period. The bodies are lying in regular layers, and this can be explained by. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Which album is this?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It is the album which concerns the Lvov Camp, Your Honor. It was submitted to the Tribunal yesterday. The picture I am talking about is on Page 15 of the album. It is a photograph which was discovered in the Gestapo headquarters at Lvov.

The reason that impelled this regular disposition of bodies will become clear to the Tribunal from an excerpt of the Extraordinary State Commission’s report on atrocities.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this a photograph of the bodies as they lay in the trench or after they had been moved?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, it is a photograph taken by some Gestapo official, Your Honor, and was discovered in the archives of the Lvov Gestapo. If you will look at this picture, you will see that the corpses are lying almost in regular rows on the spot of this mass shooting.

What was the reason for this regular laying out of the corpses? The Tribunal will find the answer to this on Page 290 of the document book, second column of the text, Paragraph 8. This is a report of the Extraordinary State Commission on atrocities committed by the German fascist invaders in the city and region of Rovno. I quote:

“The witness Karpuk, a worker on a German farm near Belaya Street, testified:

“‘Several times I saw how the Hitlerites exterminated Soviet citizens, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, and Jews. This took place usually in the following manner: The German butchers brought the doomed people to the place of execution, forced them to dig a ditch, ordered them to undress, and to lie down in the ditch, face downward. The Hitlerites fired at the back of the necks of the victims with automatic pistols. Then another group of people lay down on top of the bodies of those shot and were finished off in the same manner, and then a third row, and so on, until the ditch was filled. Then they poured quicklime over the corpses and covered them with earth.’”

One can judge how widespread was this infamous and cruel method of mass execution from an excerpt concerning the executions in Maidanek. I quote from a Soviet-Polish communiqué already presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-29 (Document Number USSR-29). The Tribunal will find this on Page 65 of the document book, first column of the text, Paragraph 14. I begin the quotation:

“On 3 November 1943, 18,400 people were shot in the camp; 8,400 came from the camp itself, and 10,000 were herded there from the city and other camps.”

I omit the next sentence.

“The shootings started early in the morning and ceased late in the evening. The SS brought the people, stripped naked, to the ditches in groups of 50 or 100 men. They were packed into the bottom of the ditch face down and shot with automatic rifles. Then a new group of people were piled on the corpses and shot in the same manner; and so on until the pits were full.”

I especially concerned myself with determining the exact date when this method was used for the first time. According to Soviet documents this started in the second half of 1942. But in general, it may be stated that similar methods of shooting were already adopted by the German police detachments in Poland in 1939.

Thanks to the kindness of our British colleagues, I submit to the Tribunal a document which was received by our delegation from the British Prosecution. It is a photostat of the document—the original is in the archives of the British Delegation and I think I am safe in saying that if the Tribunal requires the original copy, it can be presented. The authenticity of the information which is contained in this correspondence cannot be questioned. It is a German report taken from the archives of Hitler’s aide-de-camp. I quote one place, which the Tribunal may find on Page 391 of the document book, second volume, Paragraph 2, (Document USSR-342). The German staff doctors considered it necessary to report to Hitler about these shootings because “since these shootings were done publicly, enemy propaganda may derive much material. . . .”

Out of this correspondence I quote a short excerpt from the record of Corporal Paul Kluge’s interrogation. Paul Kluge belonged to a medical detachment stationed in Shwetz. He heard that a shooting of Poles would take place on Sunday, 8 October 1939, in the Jewish cemetery. Out of curiosity he decided to visit the place of execution. I quote only that part of his interrogation which relates the manner of shooting. The Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 393 of the document book, second volume, second paragraph (Document Number USSR-42). I start the quotation:

“We were already of the opinion that we were the victims of silly rumors and had returned to our barracks, when suddenly a large bus full of women and children drove into the cemetery. We returned to the cemetery. Then we saw a party consisting of a woman with three children, aged from 3 to 8 years, led to an open grave about 2 meters wide and 8 meters long. The woman was forced to descend into this grave and took the youngest child with her in her arms. Two men, members of the punitive expedition, handed the other two children to her. The woman was forced to lie, face down, in the grave and beside her three children, in the same manner, on her left. After that, four men of the detachment also climbed down into the grave, aimed their guns so that the barrels were about 30 centimeters away from the napes of their necks. Thus they shot the woman and her three children.

“Then the chief of the detachment called on me to help fill in the grave. I obeyed this order and, being quite near, I could see the next party of women and children being shot in the same manner as were the first.

“In all, there were nine or ten groups of women and children, all shot in the same way, four at a time in the same grave.”

We can therefore see that this method of mass shooting is of very early origin.

I omit the next page of the report as it contains the minutes of another interrogation with similar information, and submit to the Tribunal proof of other, even more cruel methods of mass shootings which the Hitlerite criminals invented, beginning with 1943 and continuing to the end of the war.

The Hitlerite criminals, beginning with 1943, began to adopt different methods to cover the traces of their crimes, in particular, to burn the bodies. It has been proved by documents that the Hitlerites compelled their victims, first to prepare the kindlings and logs, then to lie down on these wood piles. Then the first group was shot. The next party of condemned persons brought logs, laid them down on the layer of corpses, and then lay down themselves on these logs and were then executed.

I beg Your Honors to turn to the album concerning the Auschwitz Camp, where the pictures of another camp, Kloga, are also included. You will find there a typical example of this cruel manner of shooting. In order to prove this, I turn to a document which has already been submitted previously to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-39. The excerpt which I wish to quote is on Page 233 of the document book, second column of the text, last paragraph. I start the quotation:

“On 19 September 1944 the Germans began the liquidation of the Kloga Camp. Unterscharführer of the Camp, Schwarze, and the chief of the office, Hauptscharführer Max Dalmann, selected 300 people from among the internees, and made them carry firewood to a clearing in the woods. Seven hundred other men were forced to build pyres. When these pyres were ready the German butchers began mass shootings of the internees.

“In the first place, those who carried the wood and built up the fires were shot and then the remaining victims. The shooting was carried out in the following manner: At the point of a gun members of the SD Police units forced the prisoners to lie face down on the platforms of the pyres and then they shot them with submachine guns or revolvers. The bodies were burned on the fires.”

To save time I omit the next part of the quotation. In order to prove that the methods in other camps were even more cruel but of the same type as the ones described above, I beg the Tribunal to turn to a document, which has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-38 (Document Number USSR-38). It is the report on the atrocities of the German invaders in the town of Minsk. I refer to a quotation which the Tribunal will find on Page 215 of the document book in the second column of the text, last paragraph.

In the first part of this quotation you will read how, in order to conceal the traces of their crimes, the German Hitlerite invaders built near the camp in Maly Trostianets primitive crematorium installations. I begin my quotation by that passage of the report which speaks of the shootings which occurred in the immediate neighborhood of these primitive crematorium installations. To facilitate the task of the translators, I inform you that I omitted three pages of the text and I read now from Page 223 of the Russian text of the speech.

I begin the quotation with the testimony of the witness Savinsky, who stated as follows:

“Having reached a point 10 kilometers from Minsk, near the village of Maly Trostianets, the car stopped near one of the barns. We all understood that we were brought here to be shot. . . . By order of the German butchers the interned women were brought out in groups of four from the car. Seeing that it was my turn, together with Anna Gobubovich, Yulia Semashko, and another woman whose name I do not know, I climbed on top of the pile of bodies. Shots were heard. I was slightly injured on the head and fell.”

I omit the next part of the quotation which described how this woman saved herself. I quote the last paragraph:

“The legal-medical experts discovered that there were bullet wounds in the necks of these bodies. In the barn and on the stacks of logs the Germans shot and burned 6,500 persons.”

I omit the next three pages of the text and next submit to the Tribunal the proofs of the organization of the German fascist invaders. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through to us that 63 people were killed. The translation in writing is 6,500.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The translation in writing is absolutely correct, Mr. President. For the confirmation of this, one could turn to the original document—the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union. This was a gross error on the part of the interpreters. They diminished the number of those shot more than 10,000 times.

So I omit the following three pages of the statement and will present evidence of the existence of special places of mass executions where the number of victims was numbered by hundreds of thousands of persons and where the doomed were brought in not only from the surrounding regions but from many countries of Europe.

By means of brief excerpts I submit to the Tribunal proof of the existence of two such centers, which were among the most famous. They are the center of mass executions of Panary, 8 kilometers from Vilna, and Fort Number 9, the “Fort of Death” in Kaunas, which has acquired a particularly grim reputation.

I quote a report which has been submitted to the Tribunal, the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the atrocities of the Hitlerite invaders in Lithuania. The Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 294, second column of the text, last paragraph. For the convenience of the interpreters I inform you that I am quoting from Page 228. I omit the first three paragraphs which state that the mass execution place at Panary was organized in July 1941 and existed until June 1944. I continue the quotation starting with the fourth paragraph where it is related how the Hitlerites attempted to cover up the traces of their crimes in this place of mass executions. I quote:

“In December 1943”—stated witness Saydel Matvey Fedorovich—“we were forced to exhume and burn the corpses.”

I omit the next sentence and continue the quotation:

“For this purpose, we placed on each pyre about 3,000 corpses, poured oil over them, placed incendiary bombs on four sides, and set it on fire.

“The burning of corpses continued from the end of 1943 to June 1944. During this period, more than 100,000 corpses were dug out from nine pits of a total volume of 21,179 cubic meters and were burned on fires. The last days before their retreat the Hitlerites did not have time to burn the bodies of the shot. . . .”

I omit the next few paragraphs and quote the results of the medical-legal expert commission:

“The corpses that were examined were, for the most part, those of the civilian population. A small number of corpses were found dressed in military uniforms. On some of the corpses were found objects of religious worship of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox faith. According to the objects and documents found, it has been established that among those who were shot, there were physicians, engineers, students, chauffeurs, mechanics, railroad workers, tailors, watchmakers, tradesmen, _et cetera_.”

I omit the next three paragraphs and pass on to the concluding sentence:

“The medical-legal expert commission has established that the German fascist butchers shot and burned in Panary not less than 100,000 people.”

I quote further proof concerning the Fort of Death in Kaunas. I begin the quotation:

“Fort Number 9 was called by the residents of Kaunas the ‘Fort of Death.’ This fort, located 6 kilometers northwest of the city, is an old iron-reinforced concrete fortification. Inside, there are numerous casements, which were used by the Germans as cells for prisoners. This fort is surrounded by a concrete wall and barbed wire.

“In the very first days after their arrival in Kaunas, the Hitlerites drove some 1,000 Soviet war prisoners into the fort and forced them to dig ditches in a field of over 5 hectares in area, at the western wall of the fort. During the months of July and August 1941, 14 ditches were dug, each of them 3 meters wide, more than 200 meters long, and more than 2 meters in depth. Those who entered Fort Number 9 never survived. In columns of several thousand people, the Hitlerites drove in there women, children, adolescents, men, and aged persons for the purpose of shooting them and burning their bodies.”

I omit the next three paragraphs and continue my quotation:

“In Fort Number 9 people of different nationalities were shot: Russians, Ukrainians, Bielorussians, Lithuanians, Poles, and Jews. The following people were shot in this fort: a deputy to the Supreme Soviet Council of the U.S.S.R., Bydzhinskiene; a deputy to the Supreme Soviet Council of the Lithuanian S.S.R., Zhibertas; and others. Besides Soviet citizens the Hitlerites exterminated French, Austrian, and Czechoslovak citizens in Fort Number 9.

“A former supervisor of Fort Number 9, the witness Naudjunas, testified:

“‘The first group of foreigners, numbering 4,000, arrived at the fort in December 1941. I talked to one of the women, who said that they were being transported to Russia, allegedly for work. On 10 December 1941 the extermination of foreigners began. They were ordered to leave the fort in groups of 100 people, allegedly for inoculations. Those who left for inoculations did not return. All 4,000 foreigners were shot. On 15 December 1941 another group arrived, numbering approximately 3,000 persons, which was also exterminated.’”

I omit the next paragraph on this page, and nearly the whole of the following page, and quote only the conclusive data:

“The Investigation Commission ascertained that the Hitlerites had exterminated in Fort Number 9 over 70,000 peaceful inhabitants.”

In numerous cases the German fascists used methods full of cruel cunning for the mass extermination of peaceful Soviet citizens. In order to prove this statement, I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission for the Stavropol region, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document Number USSR-1). The Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 268 of the Document Book; I quote one paragraph—the second paragraph, of the text:

“It is established that before retreating from the city of Geozgievsk on 9 and 10 January of this year, by order of the chief physician of the German hospitals in the city, Baron Von Heiman, the German soldiers sold alcohol and soda water at the city market, which proved to be methylated spirit and oxalic acid. The result consisted in mass poisoning of the inhabitants of this town.”

Among the crimes perpetrated by the German fascists on Soviet territory I must mention especially the treatment to which they subjected the inhabitants of Leningrad. I have already mentioned this in speaking of the Leningrad children yesterday.

In order to shorten my quotation from the Extraordinary Commission’s report on Leningrad—although, being a citizen of Leningrad myself, I would like the Court to have an accurate picture of the sufferings endured by the great city as a result of the German fascist terror—I will quote only general data regarding the German destruction and crimes in the city of Leningrad. The Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 345 of the document book, second volume. I begin the quotation:

“During the 900-day siege of Leningrad, when the German fascist invaders were in possession of its suburbs, they perpetrated countless atrocities on the peaceful civilians.

“The Germans dropped on Leningrad 107,000 demolition and incendiary bombs and 150,000 heavy artillery shells. Every minute throughout the siege each Leningrad resident was in the same danger as if he had been on a field of battle. Every instant he was threatened with death or mutilation. Bombing and artillery fire killed a total of 16,747 and wounded 33,782 persons.”

I interrupt my quotation, omit the next page of my statement, and beg the Tribunal to notice Page 347 of the second volume of the document book, an excerpt from the diary of the German artillery men who shelled Leningrad. These notes are most cynical and cruel.

I will now give figures of persons who died of hunger in Leningrad in the terrible winter of 1941-1942. I quote only one line: “As a result of the hunger blockade of Leningrad, 632,253 people perished.”

I omit the following two pages and pass on to evidence concerning the adoption by the Hitlerites of special machines for the extermination of people by monoxide gas—in special machines (Sondermaschinen), by “gas vans” or “murder vans,” (_dushegubki_) as the Soviet people rightly named them. The very fact of employing such machines for the mass murder of people constitutes a very heavy charge against the leaders of German fascism. The special equipment for mass extermination of people in hermetically closed automobiles in which the exhaust pipes were connected to the bodies of the car by means of special movable tubes was utilized by the German fascists for the first time in the U.S.S.R. in 1942. I would like to remind the Tribunal that these gas vans were mentioned for the first time in a report which I have already submitted to the Tribunal concerning the atrocities of the German fascist aggressors in the town of Kerch. This document was submitted as Document Number USSR-63 and refers to the spring of 1942.

I remind the Tribunal of an excerpt from the statements of the witness Darya Demchenko who saw how from two murder vans German military personnel in Kerch dragged out the bodies of the murdered and dumped them into an antitank ditch.

However, the mass extermination of people in gas vans was ascertained without reasonable doubt for the first time in the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on atrocities of the German occupiers in the Stavropol region. This document was submitted to the Tribunal by me earlier as Exhibit Number USSR-1 (Document USSR-1). Investigation of the crimes committed by the German fascists in the Stavropol region was directed by a prominent Soviet writer and member of the Extraordinary State Commission, Academician Alexey Nikolaevitch Tolstoy, who now is deceased.

This very thorough investigation was undertaken with the assistance of the most prominent specialists in forensic medicine, inasmuch as human imagination, having set definite logical limits to any crime, could only with difficulty then accept the existence of these machines. However, the results of the investigation corroborate in full the testimony of surviving witnesses regarding the murder vans and the German fascist mass murders of peaceful citizens executed by this means.

The report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the Stavropol region gives the first detailed description of the mechanism of these murder vans; and I am reading a quotation which the Tribunal will find on Page 268 of the document book, Paragraph 4. I quote this excerpt in full as the technical matter here detailed coincides with those technical details which the American Prosecution so fully reported to the Tribunal. This is corroborative evidence, and is therefore important. I begin my quotation:

“The mass extermination of peaceful citizens of the U.S.S.R. by the Germans was done by poisoning them with carbon monoxide in specially constructed machines or ‘murder vans.’

“Prisoner of war E. M. Fenchel testified:

“‘While working as a motor mechanic, I had the opportunity of studying in detail the van construction especially adopted for suffocating and exterminating people with exhaust gases. There were several such vans in the town of Stavropol at the disposal of the Gestapo.

“‘Their construction was as follows: The body was approximately 5 meters long by 2½ meters wide by approximately 2½ meters in height. It was shaped like a railway car without windows. Inside it was lined with galvanized sheet iron; on the floor, also covered with galvanized iron, was a wooden grating. The door of the body was lined with rubber and was tightly closed with an automatic lock. On the floor of the van, under the grating, were two metal pipes.’”

I omit the end of the sentence.

“‘These pipes were connected with a transverse pipe of equal diameter. . . .’”

I omit the next part of the sentence.

“‘These pipes had frequent holes a half centimeter in width. From the transverse pipe down through a hole in the galvanized iron floor went a rubber hose with a hexagonal screw at the end, threaded so as to fit the thread on the end of the engine exhaust pipe. This hose is screwed on to the exhaust pipe and when the engine is running all the exhaust gas goes into the body of this hermetically closed van. From the accumulation of these gases, a man inside the van died within a short space of time. The machine could contain approximately 70 to 80 people. The motor of this machine usually bore the trademark “Sauer.”’”

I omit the following part of the quotation, because the data contained therein is already known to the Tribunal and I beg the Tribunal to pay attention to Page 270 of the document book, first paragraph, which says that in the Stavropol region the murder vans were used for the killing of 660 people who were ill in the local hospital. Further I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission regarding the Crimes of the German fascist criminals in Krasnodar. I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-42 (Document Number USSR-42). It concerns the mass killing of people in murder vans. I will not quote this document. I pass on to Page 243. I submit to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-55 the verdict of the military tribunal of the North Caucasian Front. I wish only to quote a short excerpt from this verdict in order to save time. The Tribunal will find this on Page 439 of the document book, Volume II, Paragraph 2. I begin the quotation:

“The legal investigation has also ascertained as facts the systematic torture and burning, in the cellars of the Gestapo by the Hitlerite criminals, of many arrested Soviet citizens, as well as the extermination by carbon-monoxide gases in specially built cars (murder vans), that is, the asphyxiation of approximately 7,000 innocent Soviet people, including more than 700 patients from the hospitals of the town in Krasnodar region; among them were 42 children, from 5 to 16 years old.”

I omit the pages of the text.

Next I submit to the Tribunal a report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the atrocities of the German fascist invaders in the town of Kharkov and the Kharkov region. I submit this document to the Tribunal under Document Number USSR-43. I will not quote this document, but will go over to another, more comprehensive document, namely, the verdict of the military tribunal of the 4th Ukrainian Front which was pronounced in this case. This document has been introduced to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-32 (Document Number USSR-32). The Tribunal will find this excerpt which I would like to quote on Page 222 of the document book, first paragraph. I begin the quotation:

“For the mass executions of Soviet citizens the German fascist invaders used the so-called gas wagons: Large, closed cars which were known to the Russians as ‘murder vans.’ Into these gas wagons the German fascist invaders drove Soviet citizens and murdered them by special poisonous gas, carbon-monoxide. In order to hide the traces of the monstrous crimes committed and the mass extermination of Soviet people by way of asphyxiation with carbon-monoxide in these gas wagons, the German fascists burned the bodies of their victims.”

I conclude this quotation and omit the next page of the text and another page, and go on to Page 252 of my statement.

In order to prove that the murder vans were used not only at places I mentioned, I now refer to a report of the Extraordinary State Commission which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-9 (Document Number USSR-9), on the atrocities committed in the town of Kiev. The Tribunal will find there a proof of the fact that murder vans were used in Kiev.

THE PRESIDENT: We have just had handed up to us, in the written translation of your address, Page 234. We already had Page 234. Do you want this to be 234(a)? Is it just one page that you are handing up now?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: There is a different numbering in the English text, Mr. President; and it is difficult for me to talk about the text which is in your possession, because I simply do not know the numbering of the English translation.

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe it is 234(a)?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am on Page 251 of the Russian text.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the better course will be to adjourn now and perhaps the slight muddle in these translations can be cleared up.

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have interrupted my report of the wide application of murder vans in the temporarily occupied regions of the U.S.S.R.—that is, I interrupted the report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning crimes in Rovno and the Rovno region. The members of the Tribunal will find reference to this on Page 291, second column of the text, Paragraph 10 of the document book. I limit myself to one paragraph only. I begin the quotation:

“The extermination of peaceful citizens and prisoners of war in the town of Rovno used to take place by means of mass shooting from tommy-guns and machine guns, murder with carbon-monoxide in murder vans, while in separate instances people were thrown into pits and buried alive. Some of the victims, particularly those executed at the quarries near the village of Vydumka, were burned on special places prepared in advance.”

I end my quotation and go over to Page 253 of the text, Paragraph 3. Further, in conjunction with the same matter, I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes in Minsk. The members of the Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 215 of the document book, second paragraph, second column of the text. I read one quotation from this report. I begin the quotation, “Thousands of Soviet citizens have perished in concentration camps at the hands of the German executioners.”

I omit the following four sentences and pass on to the testimony of witness Moisievitch. He says—I begin the quotation:

“I was an eyewitness to the manner in which the Germans killed people in their murder vans. From 70 to 80 people were forced into a murder van and then driven away to an unknown destination.”

I end my quotation, and I ask the Tribunal’s permission to draw its attention to the fact that in Minsk the principle of the murder van was used for stationary gas chambers, which were installed by the criminals in common bath houses. It is also mentioned in this report of the Extraordinary State Commission.

Further, I refer to the verdict of the court-martial of the Smolensk military region, dated 15-19 December 1945, which the Tribunal will find on Page 72 of the document book. There it is related that in Smolensk the Germans also employed special gas automobiles, the so-called murder vans for killing Soviet people with carbon-monoxide. It seems to me that it is not merely coincidence that murder vans appeared in the territory of the U.S.S.R. in the year of 1942. At that time the chief criminals were still quite convinced of victory and started carrying out in practice their premeditated plans for the extermination of the people of Europe. They were not then afraid of responsibility for these crimes. That is why in 1942 there appeared new links in the long chain of the crimes committed by the leaders of German fascism. The fascist technique of extermination was once again in full swing. It created murder vans, gas chambers in the concentration camps, special electrical appliances for the mass murder of the doomed, crematoria, and also “Zyklon” banks.

Now, I pass over to the next section of my presentation: “Concentration camps for the peaceful population.”

Inasmuch as this subject has already been extensively treated by the members of the Prosecution who presented their cases before me, I shall try to be as brief as possible; I shall limit myself either only to absolutely new information or to the text of the documents which serve as an explanation to the movie films which will be shown today before the Tribunal.

I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that at the end of 1941 and in 1942 the scale of German fascist crimes committed in concentration camps reached vast proportions. In particular, I refer to the report of the Polish Government in confirmation of this statement. On Page 138 of the document book the members of the Tribunal will find the testimony to the effect that in 1942 one of the most terrifying extermination camps, the Treblinka Camp Number 2, was in rapid process of erection. The Germans called this “Treblinka B.” Further, I refer to the report of the extraordinary State Commission on Auschwitz. The members of the Tribunal will find the extract which I am going to quote on Page 353 in the document book, Volume II, second column of the text, Paragraph 2. I quote a short excerpt from Page 257:

“In 1941 the first crematorium for burning the corpses of murdered people was built in the Auschwitz Camp. This crematorium had three ovens. Attached to the crematorium was a so-called ‘special purpose bath-house.’ That was a gas chamber for asphyxiating people.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following sentence:

“In the summer of 1942 the Reichsführer SS Himmler inspected Auschwitz Camp and ordered it to be greatly enlarged and technically perfected.”

I end my quotation here, and I call the attention of the Tribunal to Page 136 on the reverse side of the document book; this is from a report of the Polish Government, which shows that the Camp Sobibur was founded during the first and second liquidation of the Jewish ghetto. But the extermination on a large scale in this camp really started at the beginning of 1943. In this same report, in the last paragraph on Page 136 of the document book, we may read that Camp Belsen was founded in 1940; but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under the pretext that the people were being led to the bath-house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed.

Usually the concentration camps of German fascism can be divided into two groups: the labor concentration camps and the extermination camps. It seems to me that such a differentiation is not quite correct, because the labor camps also served the purpose of extermination.

I omit two pages of the text and I pass on to the Page 260. In confirmation of what I said just now, I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission relative to Yanov Camp in the city of Lvov. The Tribunal will find this on Page 59 in the document book, Paragraph 5 of the first column of the text. But at the same time, I ask the members of the Tribunal to refer to Page 6 of the album of documents relative to the Lvov Camp. One of them is a picture of “a trench in the valley of death.” The ground is soaked with human blood to the depth of 1½ meters. On the next pages are shown the belongings taken from the executed persons. This picture was taken by the experts of legal medicine about 2 months after the mass shootings.

From the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission on crimes in the Yanov Camp it can be seen that here in what was officially a usual work camp, over 200,000 Soviet citizens were exterminated, according to the findings of the legal experts. I quote only the first paragraph on Page 261 of the Russian text. I begin the quotation:

“In view of the total area of burial grounds and the area of 2 square kilometers in which the ashes and bones were scattered as well the expert commission concluded that in the Yanov Camp there were exterminated over 200,000 Soviet citizens.”

I omit the next part of my presentation, which deals with the regime of starvation in concentration camps. This was already very well presented by the representative of the British Prosecution, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. This must be already quite clear to the Tribunal and I don’t think it will be necessary to give any additional proofs. But I ask the Tribunal’s permission for a presentation of evidence on a camp which was created by the German fascists only during the last stage of the war. I refer to Page 265 of my presentation.

Maidanek and Auschwitz camps served as a means of extermination only for those who really were sent to these camps. These two camps were not a direct menace for those people who were outside the walls of the camp; but, in the course of the war, having already suffered grave defeats, German fascism began to practice new bestialities for exterminating peaceful citizens—thus, in Bielorussia camps of death, not only to exterminate the inmates of the camp itself but, first and foremost, to spread infectious diseases among the peaceful population and the ranks of the Red Army. There were no crematoria and gas chambers in these camps but these camps should in all justice be considered as among the most brutal concentration camps which were created by fascism for extermination of people.

I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-4 (Document Number USSR-4) the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the investigation of the murder of people by means of spreading typhus epidemics. Such evidence was not presented before, and I shall therefore quote several excerpts from this report. I begin the quotation on Page 454 of the document book, first column of the text, first paragraph; last paragraph on Page 266 of the Russian text. I begin the quotation:

“On 19 March 1944 advancing Red Army units discovered, near the settlement of Osaritchi in the region of Polesskoy in the Bielorussian S.S.R., within the limits of German defense lines, three concentration camps in which there were over 33,000 children, women, and old men incapable of work.”

I interrupt my quotation, and I omit one paragraph.

“The camps were really open squares surrounded by barbed wire. The approaches to them were mined. There were no buildings whatever even of the most insignificant type in the camp grounds.”

I call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that all this happened in March, in Bielorussia, when it is really very cold there.

“The inmates were sitting on the ground. Many of them had lost their ability to move and were lying unconscious in the mud. It was forbidden to the inmates to build fires, to gather brush or branches for bedding. The Hitlerites shot Soviet people for the slightest attempt to violate this order.

“For concentration camps close to the nearest line of defense, the Germans, in the first place, selected sites in such places where they did not hope to retain their position. Secondly, they concentrated large masses of Soviet people in the camps, placing there primarily women, children, and old men unable to work. Thirdly, they placed in these camps thousands of typhus patients who were brought from various temporarily occupied regions of the Bielorussian S.S.R., especially for this purpose. They were kept together with the starved, weak inmates who no longer could serve as labor and who were living there under the most unhygienic conditions.

“Among those liberated from these camps were 15,960 children up to the age of 13; 13,072 women incapable of work, and 4,448 old men.”

I omit the next page and read Page 269 of the Russian text. I quote only one paragraph which reveals the methods used by the criminals to drive into the camps peaceful citizens from various regions of Bielorussia. Witness Mrs. L. Pikarskaya, who was liberated from the camp, testified before the commission:

“On 12 March 1944 late in the afternoon, we, the inhabitants of the city of Jlobin, were forced to assemble within half an hour at the station Jlobin South. Here the Germans selected all the young ones and took them away. Having herded us into railroad cars, the Germans closed the doors tightly. Where we were going we didn’t know, but we all anticipated some evil. . . .

“As we found out later on, we were taken along the Rudobelkovsky railway and unloaded late in the afternoon on 15 March. During the night, knee deep in sticky mud, we were driven into a camp. From this camp were driven into another one. On the way the Germans beat us, and those who lagged behind were shot. One woman was walking with three children. One of the children fell down. The Germans shot at him. Horrified, the mother and the two other children looked back; the monster soldiers shot them down one by one. The mother cried out in agony, but her shriek was interrupted by a direct shot. Another mother and son, the Bondarews, walked side by side. The child could not stand the tiring journey and fell down. The mother bent over him, she wanted to encourage him with a word; but neither the son nor the mother rose or saw the blue sky again; the Germans shot them.”

I omit the next page of this document and I pass to the presentation of some evidence testifying to the fact that the Germans purposely concentrated in this camp the typhus-stricken people. I quote three paragraphs from Page 271 of this text:

“A. S. Mitrachovich, a resident of the village of Novo-Belitza who was liberated from the camp, testified:

“‘We who were sick with typhus were driven to the village of Mikul-Gorodok into a camp surrounded by barbed wire.’

“An inhabitant of the hamlet of Novogrudok, Z. P. Gavrilchik, testified:

“‘During 3 days typhus-stricken patients were brought in motor cars into camp, with the result that many who were healthy also became sick.’”

I omit the next two pages of the document and I pass over to what the members of the Tribunal will find on Page 254, on the reverse side, second column of the text, Paragraph 6. I quote:

“The German Army Command used to send their own agents to the camps near the front line to observe how the typhus was spreading among the inmates and also among the Red Army units.”

Next there is the testimony of one of such agents, the traitor Rastorguev. I omit this quotation.

To conclude the presentation of evidence relative to this matter, I shall only quote a few excerpts from the findings of the medical experts of epidemical diseases. The Tribunal will find it on the back of Page 454, second column of the text. This is Page 274 of the Russian text. I begin the quotation:

“(a) The German authorities placed together in concentration camps both the healthy and the typhus-stricken Soviet citizens.

“(b) In order to expedite the dissemination of typhus in the camps, the Germans used to transfer the typhus patients from one camp to another.

“(c) On many occasions when typhus patients refused to go into the camp, the German authorities used force.

“(d) German aggressors used to move typhus patients from hospitals into the camps and mixed them with the healthy camp inmates.”

And the last paragraph:

“(e) The infecting of the Soviet population with typhus began in second half of February and was practiced to the middle of March.”

The result of it was mass infection of the people interned in the camp, and the members of the Tribunal will find proof of this in the next paragraph where it is said that the Red Army Command sent 4,052 Soviet citizens to the hospitals, among them 2,370 children below 13 years of age, all liberated just from one hamlet of Ozarichi, in the Poless region.

I omit those sections of my presentation where I wanted to give concrete information as to the terrible conditions under which the inmates of these concentration camps had to live, and I pass to Page 277 of my statement where I deal with concentration camps of the “usual type.”

I quote short excerpts only from the report of the Yugoslav Government dealing with Camp Banyitza, near Belgrade, from which it is evident that the Yugoslavian camp, so far as bestial conditions are concerned, was quite identical with the camps in other countries of Eastern Europe. The members of the Tribunal will find this passage on Page 263 of the document book, second paragraph. I quote the third paragraph of this document:

“Camp Banyitza, near Belgrade was established by the German occupational authorities as far back as June 1941. From the captured documents of this camp it is evident that 23,637 inmates were registered there. However, from the testimony of the surviving witnesses, especially the employees of the quisling authorities who worked in this camp, it was possible to establish that in reality a much greater number of victims passed through this camp.”

I omit the next paragraph and continue my quotation:

“The witness Monchilo Demyanóvich”—or Demyánovich, I don’t know where to put the accent—“at the end of 1943 participated in burning corpses of the victims from Camp Banyitza.”

I omit the following part of the paragraph and continue my quotation:

“At the interrogation on 7 February 1945, he testified before the Yugoslav State Commission that during the period of his work there, he counted 68,000 corpses.”

I omit further five pages of the report, as the information contained therein is well known to the Tribunal. I pass to Page 283 of the Russian text. I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-193 (Document USSR-193) an excerpt from an official register of the hospital at Camp Saimyshte, near Belgrade.

The report of the Yugoslav Government justly states that this hospital reminds one more of a camp chapel, where the bodies of the dead were brought for the last rites. On some days—I beg the Tribunal to refer to the entry Number 1070—there were delivered the bodies of tens and hundreds of people who had died of starvation. For instance, under the entry note 1070 are listed 87 corpses delivered to the hospital. Under Number 1272, 122 bodies are noted, under Number 2041 there were 112 bodies delivered. I don’t consider that these figures need any comment to illustrate the camp regime, especially as far as living conditions of the inmates are concerned.

In the camps in the territory of the U.S.S.R. temporarily occupied by Germans, the living conditions of the inmates at all camps were of extreme grimness.

I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union on the crimes in the Lithuanian S.S.R. I begin the quotation:

“In the territories of the Lithuanian S.S.R., the Hitlerites exterminated in great numbers not only the local population but also people who were driven here from the Orlov, Smolensk, Vitebsk, and Leningrad regions. From the summer of 1943 to June 1944, 200,000 people passed through the camp for the evacuated population near the town of Alitous.”

You will see this camp in the movie document which will be presented today.

I omit the next part of the quotation and I read two paragraphs further down:

“Due to the filthy living conditions, the unbelievable crowding, lack of water, starvation, disease, and mass shootings, about 60,000 Soviet citizens perished during 14 months in this camp.”

I omit the two next pages of the text and I quote from Page 288 of the report. It is mentioned here that for the families of Red Army soldiers special concentration camps were set up in the territories of the Lithuanian S.S.R. The following order was posted in this camp:

“For expressing displeasure with German authorities and for violation of the camp regime the Soviet people shall be shot without trial, jailed, or sent on forced labor for life to Germany.”

I omit one paragraph and continue:

“A German woman in command of four such camps, Elisabeth Zeeling, frequently announced to the inmates, ‘You are my slaves; I shall punish you in any way I want.’”

I refer further to the report of the State Extraordinary Commission relative to the crimes in the city of Kiev. This report describes murders in the camps which will be also shown in the films today. I quote only one quotation from this report, which shows the methods of extermination of people in the Syretzk Camp. I quote Page 289, Paragraph 3, of the Russian text:

“Radomsky and Rieder used all kinds of devices for the extermination of Soviet citizens. For instance, they invented the following method of murder: Several Soviet prisoners would be forced to climb a tree and others had to saw it down. The prisoners would fall together with the tree and be killed.”

Further, I quote a short excerpt from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on crimes in the Estonian S.S.R. This excerpt describes the very severe regime in the Estonian camps. I quote the last paragraph on Page 90:

“Daily in the camp there were public floggings of the inmates on a bench especially built for this purpose. Besides this, for the smallest offense people were kept without any food for 2 days; or, in the coldest weather, they were forced to stand tied to a post for 2 or 3 hours. Not only the SS guards but also the administration of the camp and the German physicians took part in torturing the internees. The German doctor, Botmann, personally beat two inmates, Dr. Salkinson and Dr. Tzetzov. Besides this, Dr. Botmann systematically poisoned sick inmates, injecting the poison (evipan) under their skin. The medical attendant Unterscharführer Gent killed 23 elderly inmates with an ax. The witness I. M. Ranter testified, ‘In February 1944 two children were born in the camp at Kloga. Both of them were thrown alive into the furnace of the crematorium and burned.’”

I interrupt my quotation, as I consider that the regime in these concentration camps has already been sufficiently described. I pass on to the presentation of evidence on the camps of extermination, the so-called “Vernichtungslager.” Numerous proofs on this subject have already been presented to the Tribunal and therefore I shall limit myself to the presentation of evidence which is connected with the documentary films which are to be shown to the Tribunal today. I consider that the Tribunal has had enough proof of the fact that citizens of all European countries were exterminated in concentration camps. People both from Western Europe and from the countries of Eastern Europe were brought into these camps. This is shown not only by official reports on these camps, but also from a board with names of inmates of one of the camp’s sections which Your Honors can find in the album of documents on Auschwitz. The citizenry of all European countries may be found.

A special technique was used in the extermination of the people and in connection with this I draw the attention of Your Honors to one fact, which I especially investigated when I was analyzing the materials relating to concentration camps. I decided to ascertain the number of individual firms in the German fascist state engaged in building crematoria for the concentration camps.

I shall present to the Tribunal the evidence that in fascist Germany there were at least three special firms engaged in building crematoria and crematorium installations for concentration camps. This testifies to the scale of the crimes committed in these camps. I omit the text from Pages 295 to 303. I begin the presentation of evidence relating to this section. I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes of German fascist invaders in Auschwitz. I quote the documents, which are on Page 353 in the document book of the Tribunal, and which are quoted in the text of the report. I begin the quotation:

“Construction of new vast crematoria was entrusted to the German firm of Topf and Sons of Erfurt, which immediately began to build four powerful crematoria and gas chambers in Birkenau. Berlin demanded with impatience that the construction be expedited and all work completed by the beginning of 1943.

“In the office records of the Auschwitz Camp there was discovered a voluminous correspondence between the administration of the camp and the firm of Topf and Sons. Among them the following letters:

“‘I. A. Topf and Sons, Erfurt; 12 February 1943.

“‘To Central Construction Office of SS and Police, Auschwitz.

“‘Subject: Crematoria 2 and 3 for the camp for prisoners of war.

“‘We acknowledge receipt of your wire of 10 February, as follows:

“‘We again acknowledge receipt of your order for five triple furnaces, including two electric lifts for raising the corpses and one emergency lift. A practical installation for stoking coal was also ordered and one for transporting the ashes. You are to deliver the complete installation for Crematorium Number 3. You are expected to take steps to ensure the immediate dispatch of all the machines complete with parts.’”

I omit the next document which deals with “bathhouses for special purposes” (gas chambers), and present to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-64 (Document Number USSR-64), a document which is appended to the report of the Yugoslav Government. This is a certified photostat of a document externally having all the official character of a business document from a “sound business firm.” The name of the firm is Didier-Werke. The subject of the correspondence—the construction of crematoria “designed for a large camp in Belgrade.” The document presented by me characterized the firm Didier as a firm with considerable experience in construction of crematoria for concentration camps and which advertised itself as a firm that understood the demands of its clients. For placing the bodies into the furnace, the firm designed a special conveyer with a two-wheeled shaft. The firm claimed that it could fill this order much better than any other firms, and asked for a small advance, to draw up draft plans for the construction of a crematorium in the camp.

I quote a few short excerpts from this document—the first two paragraphs:

“With reference to your son’s visit and his conversation with our expert, Herr Storl, we note that the Belgrade SS unit intends to build a crematorium for a large camp and that you have received instructions to design and construct the building in collaboration with local architects.”

I interrupt my quotation and I shall quote one more excerpt:

“For putting the bodies into the furnace, we suggest simply a metal fork moving on cylinders.

“Each furnace will have an oven measuring only 600 millimeters in breadth and 450 millimeters in height, as coffins will not be used. For transporting the corpses from the storage point to the furnaces we suggest using light carts on wheels and we enclose diagrams of these drawn to scale.”

I interrupt my quotation here and I present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-225 (Document Number USSR-225). This document will be brought to you presently, Mr. President. May I refer to it? It will be presented to you within a few minutes.

I submit the new document as Exhibit Number USSR-225; it deals also with the construction of those crematoria for concentration camps in Belgrade and contains the correspondence of the firm Kori, G.m.b.H. This is a well-known firm, which considered that even every business letter must be ended with “Heil Hitler!” As its clients were well known to it, the firm Kori once again inquired whether “two furnaces would be sufficient.” The firm, among other things, mentioned that it had already built four furnaces for Dachau and five for Lublin; it emphasized that its technically perfected furnaces gave full satisfaction in practice. I quote a very short excerpt of this document which the Tribunal will find on Page 471 in Volume II of the document book. I quote the first paragraph; this is Page 38, first paragraph of the text:

“Following our verbal discussion regarding the delivery of a crematorium installation of simple construction, we suggest our perfected coal-burning furnaces for crematoria which have hitherto given full satisfaction.

“We suggest two crematoria furnaces for the building planned, but we advise you to make further inquiries to make sure that two ovens will be sufficient for your requirements.”

I omit the next paragraph and continue the quotation:

“The area required for the furnaces, including space for the stokers and other personnel, is shown by the attached diagram. Sketch J. Number 8998 shows an installation with two furnaces. Sketch J. Number 9122 shows the arrangement of four furnaces in the construction projected for Dachau. A further sketch, J. Number 9080, shows the Lublin installation with 5 crematoria furnaces and two built-in compartments for stoking.”

I omit the next part of the document. The ending is very typical:

“Awaiting your further news, we will be at your service. Heil Hitler! C. H. Kori, G.m.b.H.”

And so we have established that the design and construction of the crematoria ovens for German concentration camps. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know, as they have not these letters before them, to whom they were addressed.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This letter, Mr. President, was addressed to the SS units in Belgrade. These documents were taken by the Yugoslav Government. The SS units in Belgrade considered that the methods of extermination practiced in Bandetz and Saimyshte, which I have already described to the Tribunal, were not adequate and they decided to perfect them. For this purpose they started building, or rather they designed the construction of crematoria in the concentration camps. This was the subject of the lively business correspondence between the SS police and the SS units in Belgrade and the German firms, part of which I have just presented to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Were the other letters that you referred to also addressed to SS units?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President, they were also addressed to the SS units. The first letter, addressed to the administration of the Auschwitz Camp was from the firm Topf and Sons.

I shall now present to the Tribunal evidence of the fact that besides the stationary crematoria, there existed also movable crematoria. The Tribunal already knows about the movable gas chambers. These were “murder vans.” There were also created transportable crematoria. An SS member, Paul Waldmann, testifies to their existence. He was one of the participants in the crime perpetrated by the German fascists when 840,000 Russian prisoners of war in Sachsenhausen were annihilated at one time. The Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52) on Auschwitz has already been presented to the Court. I quote that particular extract from the testimony of an SS member, Waldmann, which mentions the mass execution in Sachsenhausen:

“The war prisoners murdered in this way were cremated in four movable crematoria, which were transported on car trailers.”

I omit the next two pages of my report which deals with gas chambers and crematoria. I think the Tribunal already has a clear idea of this question. But I ask the Tribunal to pay attention to the repugnant methods introduced by the German fascists for industrial utilization of corpses. Further I shall present to the Tribunal evidence which would testify to even more repulsive utilization of the corpses. Now I shall quote from a report on Auschwitz, which the Tribunal will find on Page 353, reverse side, of the document book. Beside this I ask the Tribunal to refer to the Auschwitz album, where on Pages 34, 35, and 36 they will see the photographs of 7 tons of hair which was taken from dead women, packed for shipment to Germany. I begin the quotation:

“From 1943 the Germans, in order to utilize the bones which were not burned, started to grind them and sell them to the firm Strem for the manufacture of superphosphates. In the camp there were found bills of lading, addressed to the firm Strem, of 112 tons and 600 kilograms of bone meal from human corpses. The Germans also used for industrial purposes hair shorn from women who were doomed for extermination.”

I omit the next pages of my statement and I want to draw the Tribunal’s attention to the findings of a commission of technical experts which the Tribunal will find on Page 65, reverse side, of the document book, Paragraph 2.

Special research took place in the gas chambers. On the basis of exact chemical reactions it was established that poisoning in gas chambers was done by means of hydrocyanic acid, Cyclone A and Cyclone B, and also carbon-monoxide.

I quote one paragraph from the findings of the technical experts’ commission:

“Technical and medical-chemical analysis of the gas chambers in the concentration camps in Maidanek”—that is on Page 319 of the document, third paragraph—“confirms and proves that all those chambers, especially the first, second, third, and fourth, were designed and used for systematic and mass extermination of people by means of poisonous gases, such as hydrocyanic acid and carbon-monoxide.”

I omit the following extracts of my statement which describe the regime in the camps of Auschwitz and Maidanek. I consider that the Tribunal has already a very clear idea of this. Part of the people were sent immediately to their death in gas chambers, while the one-fifth or one-sixth which was left in the camp were subjected to starvation and killed afterwards. I had the intention of presenting many documents and excerpts from documents which confirm this fact; but to save time, I omit them, and pass on to Page 324 of my statement. I mention this for the convenience of the interpreters. I quote several facts which deal with cynical and repugnant plundering of inmates who were killed in Maidanek and Auschwitz. I ask the Tribunal to refer simultaneously with the text I am going to present to the Auschwitz album, where on Page 27 you will see a picture of suitcases, which were the property of the inmates; on Page 28 suitcases with labels of different countries and on Page 39 a colossal warehouse of children’s clothes; the same on Page 33.

The document which had not been presented in time, Your Honor, is the correspondence with the Kori firm—now presented to the Tribunal. I ask to be excused for the delay. I quote only that particular part of the report on Auschwitz, which the Tribunal will find on Page 325, on the reverse side, of the document book, where there is stated what was discovered by the commission at the warehouses of this camp. I quote one paragraph; this is on Page 325, second paragraph:

“On the grounds of the Auschwitz Camp there were 35 special warehouses for sorting and packing the belongings and clothes. Before the retreat under the pressure of the Red Army, 29 of these warehouses were burned with the things stored in them. In the remaining six were discovered:

“1. Men’s clothes and underwear, 348,820 sets; 2. female clothes and underwear, 836,255 sets; 3. women’s footwear, 5,525 pairs; 4. men’s footwear, 38,000 pairs; 5. rugs and carpets, 13,964 pieces.”

I omit the following two paragraphs and I quote . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: It is time to adjourn.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honors, the same picture of organized plundering of the murdered persons was ascertained by the commission during the investigation of Maidanek. I will not quote in full this part of the communiqué of the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary Commission, and will quote only one excerpt of the general economic administration of the SS which is contained in the communiqué of the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary Commission, and which the Tribunal will find on the back of Page 66 of the document book, first column of the text, third paragraph. I begin the quotation:

“To all commandants of the concentration camps:

“According to a statement received from the Reich Security Main Office, parcels of clothing were sent from the concentration camps mainly to the Gestapo administration in Brünn and in some there were bullet holes and blood stains on the articles. Some of the parcels were damaged, so that outsiders could see what was inside them.

“As the Reich Security Main Office will in the near future issue regulations concerning the utilization of articles of property belonging to the deceased inmates, the sending of these articles is to cease immediately until definite regulations have been issued as to the disposal of property belonging to internees who have been put to death.

“Signed: Glücks, SS Brigadeführer and major general of the SS.”

I pass on to the presentation of evidence, depicting the scale of the crimes committed.

In only two camps of death the criminals exterminated 5½ million people. In proof of this I quote the conclusions of the Extraordinary State Commission for Auschwitz. I will quote only a short excerpt. It is preceded by a detailed calculation. The Tribunal will find this reference on Page 356 of the document book, second column of the text, fourth paragraph. I begin the quotation:

“However, employing rectified coefficients for the part-time use of the crematorium ovens and for the periods when they stood empty, the technical expert commission has ascertained that during the period of time that the Auschwitz Camp existed the German butchers exterminated in this camp not less than 4 million citizens of the U.S.S.R., Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium, and other countries.”

I quote the corresponding passages from the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary Commission’s report on Maidanek. The Tribunal will find this quotation on Page 66, reverse side, of the document book, second column of the text, Paragraph 6. I begin the quotation:

“The Polish-Soviet Extraordinary Commission has ascertained that during the 4 years’ existence of the extermination camp at Maidanek the Hitlerite hangmen, following the direct order of their criminal government, exterminated by mass shooting and mass killing in gas chambers approximately 1.5 million persons: Soviet prisoners of war, prisoners of war of the former Polish Army, and nationals of various countries—Poles, Frenchmen, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, Croats, and a great number of Jews.”

With this document I conclude that section of my statement which concerns the concentration camps and pass on to the last section entitled, “Concealment of Traces of Crimes.”

During the period of their temporary military successes, the German fascist criminals did not bother themselves very much with concealing the trace of their crimes. They did not even consider it necessary to camouflage the burial grounds in which they hurled the bodies of the murdered persons after the shootings.

But after the defeat suffered by the Hitlerite war machine at Stalingrad, the situation changed. Fearing retaliation, the criminals began to take urgent measures to conceal the traces of their crimes. Where possible, they burned the corpses. Where this could not be done, the burial grounds were carefully camouflaged with moss or green foliage. The earth which covered the graves of those shot was smoothed out with special machines and with caterpillar tractors.

However, the main method adopted by the German fascist criminals for camouflaging their crimes was the burning of the corpses. The ashes from the burned bodies were strewn over the fields. The bones which had not been calcinated were crushed in special machines and mixed with manure for the preparation of fertilizers. In large camps the crushed bones of the victims were sold to the German firms to be transformed into superphosphates.

As proof of the enormous scale of the Hitlerites’ criminal activity directed toward concealing the traces of their crimes, I shall submit to the Tribunal a series of documents. I will refer, first of all, to the communiqué of the Polish-Soviet Extraordinary State Commission on Maidanek. This document was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-29 (Document Number USSR-29). The part of the communiqué to which I refer will be found by the Tribunal on Page 65 of the document book, on the other side, Column 2 of the text, last paragraph. In order to save time, I will allow myself to summarize the contents of this document:

In the beginning of 1942 two ovens for the burning of corpses were built:

“As there were a great many corpses, the Germans, in 1942, began building, and by autumn of 1943 had concluded, the building of powerful crematoria consisting of five ovens. These ovens burned unceasingly. The temperature in these ovens could reach 1,500 degrees Celsius. In order to be able to put as many bodies as possible into the ovens, the corpses were dissected and the limbs hacked off.”

I omit the next paragraphs and beg the Tribunal to pay attention to the passage which is three paragraphs further down.

The ovens in the crematories proved to be inadequate, so the Germans were compelled to resort to special primitive cremation installations which had been made in the following way—I begin the quotation by Paragraph 1, Page 334 of the text:

“On rails or on automobile frames which served as grates planks were placed. Corpses were laid on the planks, then more planks, and again corpses. Five hundred to 1,000 corpses were piled on one pyre. All that was covered with gasoline and ignited.”

I quote a short excerpt which ascertains the scale of criminal actions taken to conceal the trace of these crimes, Page 336, first paragraph:

“The commission has ascertained that in the ovens of the crematoria alone more than 600,000 corpses were burned. More than 300,000 corpses were burned on the gigantic pyres in the Krempetz Woods; more than 80,000 corpses were burned in the two old ovens; not less than 400,000 corpses were burned on pyres in the camp itself, near the crematoria.”

As a proof of these same circumstances, that is to say, of the scale of the criminal activity of the Hitlerites in concealing the traces of their crimes, I refer now to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union for the town of Minsk. The members of the Tribunal will find this quotation on the back of Page 215, second column of the text, Paragraph 4. I quote a short excerpt:

“In the Blagovtschchina Woods 34 ditch graves were discovered, camouflaged with evergreen branches. Some of the graves reached a length of 50 meters. During a partial excavation of five of these graves, corpses and a layer of ashes 50 centimeters or 1 meter thick was discovered at a depth of 3 meters. Near the graves the commission discovered a great number of small human bones, hair, false teeth, and numerous small personal articles. The investigation has ascertained that the fascist exterminated here up to 150,000 persons.

“At a distance of 450 meters from the former hamlet of Petrashkevichi eight ditch graves have been discovered. Their size is 21 meters long, 4 meters wide, and 5 meters deep. Before every ditch grave there are enormous piles of ashes, remainders of the burned corpses.”

I omit the next page and in proof of this same circumstances I am now referring to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning the crimes of the German fascist invaders in the Lvov region. This document has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-6. I quote a very short excerpt from this document. The part which I will quote will be found by the members of the Tribunal on Page 164, on the reverse side, second column of the text, Paragraph 5:

“Upon the order of Reich Minister Himmler and of Major General of Police Katzmann, special measures for exhuming and burning the corpses of murdered, peaceful citizens, Soviet prisoners of war, and citizens of foreign countries were carried out in June 1943. In Lvov the Germans created a special Sonderkommando Number 1005 composed of 126 men. The chief of this Kommando was Hauptsturmbannführer Scherlack; his assistant, Hauptsturmbannführer Rauch. The duty of this Sonderkommando was to exhume and burn the corpses of the civilians and prisoners of war who had been liquidated by the Germans.”

I dwell on this extract, and I would beg the Tribunal to remember this number, “Sonderkommando Number 1005.” This Kommando was the prototype of similar Sonderkommandos created by the Germans. Later, the Sonderkommandos created for this task received the numbers of 1005-A, 1005-B, _et cetera_.

I terminate the quotation with the conclusion of the medical-legal experts. I quote the last paragraph on Page 340 of the text:

“Thus the Hitlerite murderers adopted in the territory of the Lvov region the same methods for concealing their crimes which they employed earlier in connection with the murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest.

“The expert commission ascertained full similarity of method in camouflaging the graves in Lissenitzach Forest with those used to camouflage the graves of the Polish officers killed by the Germans at Katyn.

“To extend the experiments in exterminating people, cremating corpses, and camouflaging the crimes, the Germans set up in Lvov, in the Yanov Camp, a special school for the preparation of qualified cadre. The commandants of the camps of Lublin, Warsaw, Kraków, and other cities attended this school. The chief of the Sonderkommando Number 1005, Scherlack, taught the commandants on the spot how to organize the exhumation of the corpses from the graves, how to pile them on stacks, burn them, how to scatter the ashes, to crush the bones, to fill up the ditches, and how to plant trees and brush wood on the graves as camouflage.”

I now refer to a document which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number USSR-61, which is the report of the examination in the town of Lvov of the special machine for the crushing of bones. This record may be found by the members of the Tribunal on Page 473 of the document book. As I have very little time left at my disposal, I shall only quote very short excerpts. I quote Paragraph I, on Page 342:

“The machine for crushing bones was mounted on a special carriage on the platform of a trailer. It is easily transportable by automobiles or other means of transportation without dismounting.”

I omit the next paragraph, and shall read one more short extract:

“The machine will function in any spot and does not require additional adaptation. It can be transported by automobile or any other vehicle.

“A machine of these dimensions can produce 3 cubic meters of calcinated bone powder during 1 hour.”

I omit the next four pages of the report, and submit to the Tribunal as evidence the original record of the interrogation of Gerhard Adametz (Exhibit USSR-80, Document Number USSR-80), taken by an American army lieutenant, Patrick McMahon. Gerhard Adametz was interrogated under oath. I dwell especially on this document, which has been put kindly at our disposal by our American colleagues, because Adametz’ testimony, to use a legal term, in some points corroborates our own evidential material. The testimony is very lengthy, and I will limit myself to a few short quotations.

Gerhard Adametz was a member of Sonderkommando 1005-B. I draw the attention of the Tribunal again to the fact that the first Sonderkommando was simply 1005; this one is Sonderkommando 1005-B. The excerpt which I shall quote from the testimony of Gerhard Adametz will be found by the members of the Tribunal on Page 480 of the document book, beginning with the second paragraph. Gerhard Adametz said that, together with 40 other members of the Schutzpolizei, he left Dniepropetrovsk and was sent to Kiev. I remind the Tribunal of the name of Baybe-yar, which the Tribunal has already heard. I begin to quote the testimony of Adametz, Page 347:

“Our Leutnant Winter reported about our column to Oberleutnant Hanisch, who was the Zugführer of the Schutzpolizei of Group 1005-A. The place smelled of corpses. We felt faint, stopped our noses, and tried not to breathe. Oberleutnant Hanisch addressed us. I remember the following excerpts:

“‘You have come to the place where you are to serve and support your comrades. You already smell an odor coming from the church behind us. We must all get used to this, and you must all do your duties. We will have to guard internees and do so very strictly. Everything that takes place here is the secret affair of the Reich. Everyone of you answers with his head if ever an internee under his guard succeeds in escaping; besides this, he will be subjected to a special regime. The same fate awaits anyone who lets out anything or is careless in his correspondence.’”

I omit the next sentence and continue the quotation:

“After this speech of Oberleutnant Hanisch, we were led out so as to acquaint ourselves with the place where we were to serve. We left the cemetery and were brought to an adjoining field. The road which crossed this field was guarded on both sides by policemen, who chased away all those who tried to approach it. In the field we saw about 100 internees resting from work. The legs of each internee were in chains of about 75 centimeters long. The internees were dressed in civilian clothes.”

I omit the next part of the paragraph and continue the quotation:

“The work of the internees consisted, as we found out later, of exhuming corpses which were buried here in two common graves, transporting them, piling them up in two enormous piles, and burning them. It is difficult to estimate; however, I believe that on this spot were buried from 40,000 to 45,000 corpses. One antitank ditch served as a grave and was partially filled with corpses. This ditch was 100 meters long, 10 meters wide, and 4 to 5 meters deep.”

I interrupt my quotation, and continue with the last paragraph of the text:

“On the day of our arrival, about 10 September 1943, there were three or four small piles of corpses on the field.”

It is interesting to note what this fascist expert in the burning of corpses understood by the words “small piles.” I continue the quotation:

“Every such pile consisted of about 700 corpses. It was about 7 meters long, 4 meters wide, and 2 meters high.”

I interrupt my quotation and continue from the next page:

“Here and in other places I observed the following methods which were employed (burning of corpses):

“With the aid of iron hooks, the corpses were dragged to certain spots and then piled on a wooden platform. Then the whole pile of corpses was surrounded with logs, petroleum was poured on and ignited.

“We, the policemen of detachment 1005-B, were then led back to the cemetery to the church. However, not one of us could eat because of the terrible smell and because of all we had seen.”

Although further on the text is very interesting, I have to leave it out in order to save time and continue the quotation from Page 351, second paragraph. I quote this excerpt, as in the report of the Kiev Extraordinary State Commission I already had the honor to report to the Tribunal about statements of internees who had fled from these Kommandos.

Adametz’ testimony gives full confirmation of this episode. I shall only read a short quotation:

“About 29 September 1943 at 4:15 a.m. during dense fog, about 30 internees escaped. They tore off their foot chains, rushed out of their barracks with shouts, and ran away in different directions. Six of them were shot; because of the dense fog the others succeeded in escaping.”

I interrupt my quotation. I beg the Tribunal to pay attention to the fact that as soon as the work of burning corpses was completed the internees were murdered. In proof of this I quote the following excerpt from Adametz’ statement, Page 352, second paragraph of the text:

“In other places where I also served as guard, the internees were murdered after their work (exhuming and burning of corpses) had been concluded. For this purpose they were brought in groups or individually, under the escort of the policemen chosen for this purpose, to a spot designated by the SD. The police were afterwards sent back to bring along more internees. Then the members of the SD forced the internees to lie, face down, on a wooden platform, and immediately shot them in the nape of the neck. The internees in many cases obeyed this order without resistance and lay down next to their comrades who already had been shot.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the further career of the Sonderkommando. You will find information on this subject in the same record. This Sonderkommandant served in Kryvoy Rog, in Nikolaev, at Voznessensk, and in Riga. That is to say, it crossed my country nearly from the extreme south to the Baltic countries; a distance of thousands of kilometers. Everywhere it carried out the same work. In confirmation of this I will quote only a short excerpt regarding the last stage on the Kommando’s work in Riga—Page 357 of the statement. I begin the quotation, “We members of Kommando 1005-B received an order to go to several newly built barracks which were situated about 250 meters from six or seven mass graves.” I quote this passage, as Bikerneksky Forest will be shown in the documentary film:

“The latter were situated about 4 kilometers from the suburbs of Riga in the Bikern Forest”—in the record the name of the Bikerneksky Forest was spelled wrong—“there were about 10 or 12 thousand. A fresh group of 50 or 60 internees was brought there, and in the middle of June 1944 work began (the exhumation and burning of corpses) in the same way as I described at the beginning. This work was completed by the end of July 1944. I believe that at that period the front was only about 300 kilometers away. These 10,000 to 12,000 corpses were those of men, women, and children of all ages and had been buried about 2 years ago.”

I remind Your Honors, that the extract from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission which I quoted mentioned the date of the shooting as 1942, and this proves that these two testimonies concur with each other once again. I continue the quotation:

“The policemen believed that these people had been shot by the SS. However, this was only a supposition. This fresh group of 50 to 60 internees was murdered at the end of July 1944.”

I omit the following part of the document and will only quote the conclusion of Gerhard Adametz’ record, Page 359, Paragraph 4:

“Afterwards, we were of the opinion that the Nazis were actually afraid that the mass graves would be discovered by the advancing Russians and that these monstrous mass killings would become known to the civilized world. I believe that about 100,000 corpses were exhumed from mass graves by the SD, serving with the Sonderkommandos 1005-A and 1005-B. I believe that similar Kommandos also were engaged on the same work, but I do not know how many. If I had thought or known that I would ever be compelled to carry out this dirty and degrading work I would have emigrated somewhere.”

I omit the last part; the record concludes with the text of the oath and the signature of Gerhard Adametz.

Before submitting to the Tribunal the other evidence of another crime of the Hitlerites, I beg the Tribunal to allow me to make a few introductory remarks. The murder of several million people was carried out by the German fascist out of motives dictated by their mankind-hating, cannibal theories of racism and of the “right of masters” to exterminate peoples. All these murders were planned in cold blood. All these crimes, unprecedented in scale, were carried out at exact dates set for this purpose. Moreover, as I showed many times before, a special technique was invented for the mass killings and for the concealment of the traces of their crimes.

But, besides this, there is another characteristic in the many crimes committed by the German fascists which makes them even more detestable. In many cases, the Germans, having killed their victims, did not stop here, but made the corpses objects of jeers and mockery. Mockery of the dead bodies of victims was common practice in all extermination camps. I remind the Tribunal that the bones which had not been calcinated were sold by the German fascists to the firm Strem. The hair of the murdered women was cut off, packed in sacks, pressed and sent to Germany.

Among the same crimes are those on which I shall now submit evidence. On numerous occasions, I have already pointed out that the principal method used to cover up the traces was to burn the corpses, but the same base, rationalized SS technical minds which created gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such methods of complete annihilation of human bodies, which would not only conceal the traces of their crimes, but also serve in the manufacturing of certain products.

In the Danzig Anatomic Institute semi-industrial experiments in the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes were carried out. I submit to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-197 (Document Number USSR-197), the testimony of one of the direct participants in the production of soap from human fat. It is the testimony of Sigmund Mazur, who was a laboratory assistant at the Danzig Anatomic Institute.

I omit two pages of the statement and turn to Page 363. I begin the quotation—it is rather long, but I think I shall have the necessary time for the presentation of the evidence, and I beg to draw the attention of Your Honors to this quotation:

“Q: ‘Tell us how the soap was made out of human fat at the Danzig Anatomic Institute.’

“A: ‘In the courtyard of the Anatomic Institute a one-story stone building of three rooms was built during the summer of 1943. This building was erected for the utilization of human bodies and for the boiling of bones. This was officially announced by Professor Spanner. This laboratory was called a laboratory for the fabrication of skeletons, the burning of meat and unnecessary bones. But already during the winter of 1943-44 Professor Spanner ordered us to collect human fat, and not to throw it away. This order was given to Reichert and Borkmann.

“‘In February 1944 Professor Spanner gave me the recipe for the preparation of soap from human fat. According to this recipe 5 kilos of human fat are mixed with 10 liters of water and 500 or 1,000 grams of caustic soda. All this is boiled 2 or 3 hours and then cooled. The soap floats to the surface while the water and other sediment remain at the bottom. A bit of salt and soda is added to this mixture. Then fresh water is added, and the mixture again boiled 2 or 3 hours. After having cooled the soap is poured into molds.’”

I will present to the Tribunal these molds into which the soap was poured. Further I shall prove that this half-finished sample of human soap was really found in Danzig.

“The soap had an unpleasant odor. In order to destroy this disagreeable odor, Benzolaldehyd was added.”

I omit the next part of the quotation, which explains from where they received this preparation. This is of no importance at this stage, and I continue the quotation on Page 364, Paragraph 4:

“The fat of the human bodies was collected by Borkmann and Reichert. I boiled the soap out of the bodies of women and men. The process of boiling alone took several days—from 3 to 7. During two manufacturing processes, in which I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms of soap were produced. The amount of human fat necessary for these two processes was 70 to 80 kilograms collected from some 40 bodies. The finished soap then went to Professor Spanner, who kept it personally.

“The work for the production of soap from human bodies has, as far as I know, also interested Hitler’s Government. The Anatomic Institute was visited by the Minister of Education, Rust; the Reichsgesundheitsführer, Doctor Conti; the Gauleiter of Danzig, Albert Forster; as well as professors from other medical institutes.

“I used this human soap for my personal needs, for toilet and for laundering. For myself I took 4 kilograms of this soap.”

I omit one paragraph and continue the quotation.

“Reichert, Borkmann, Von Bargen, and our chief professor, Spanner, also personally used this soap.”

I omit the following paragraphs and conclude the quotation on Page 365, from where I shall read one paragraph which concerns the industrial utilization of human skin:

“In the same way as for human fat, Professor Spanner ordered us to collect human skin, which after having been cleaned of fat was treated by certain chemical products. The work on human skin was carried out under the direction of the chief assistant, Von Bargen and Professor Spanner himself. The ‘finished’ skin was packed in boxes and used for special purposes which I don’t know.”

I now submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-196 (Document Number USSR-196), the copy of the recipe for soap produced from the corpses of the executed. I will not dwell on this recipe which is identical to that which has already been described in Mazur’s testimony. But the proof of the fact that this recipe is correct, Your Honors, can be found in Mazur’s record, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number USSR-197. I will not quote this record. In order to prove that the record of Mazur’s interrogation corresponds to reality, I shall now submit to the Tribunal two documents which have been kindly put at our disposal. They are records of sworn statements by two British prisoners of war; in particular that of John Henry Witton, a soldier of the Royal Sussex Regiment. The document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-264 (Document Number USSR-264). The members of the Tribunal will find this quotation in Paragraph 5, Page 495, of the document book. I quote a very short excerpt from this record, if the necessary time is granted to me. This is Page 367. I quote:

“The corpses arrived at an average of seven to eight per day. All of them had been beheaded and were naked. They arrived sometimes in a Red Cross wagon containing five to six corpses in a wooden case and sometimes in a small truck which contained three to four corpses.”

I omit the next sentence.

“The corpses were unloaded as quickly as possible and taken down into the cellar, which was entered from a side door in the main entrance hall of the Institute.”

I omit the next sentence.

“They were then put into large metal containers where they were then left for approximately 4 months.”

I omit the next three sentences and continue the quotation:

“Owing to the preservative mixture in which they were stored, this tissue came away from the bones very easily. The tissue was then put into a boiler about the size of a small kitchen table. . . . After boiling the liquid it was put into white trays about twice the size of a sheet of foolscap and about 3 centimeters deep.”—These were the basins which I have already shown the Tribunal—“Approximately 3 to 4 trayfuls per day were obtained from the machine.”

This witness himself did not witness the application of the soap, but I am submitting to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-272 (Document Number USSR-272), the written testimony of a British citizen, William Anderson Neely, a corporal of the Royal Signals. The members of the Tribunal will find this excerpt on Page 498 of the document book, Volume 2. I begin the quotation:

“The corpses arrived at an average rate of 2 to 3 per day. All of them were naked and most of them had been beheaded.”

I interrupt the quotation—I omit two paragraphs and continue the quotation:

“A machine for the manufacture of soap was completed some time in March or April 1944. The British prisoners of war had constructed the building in which it was housed in June 1942. The machine itself was installed by a civilian firm from Danzig by the name of AJRD. It consisted, as far as I remember, of an electrically heated tank in which bones of the corpses were mixed with some acid and melted down.

“This process of melting down took about 24 hours. The fatty portions of the corpses and particularly those of females were put into a crude enamel tank, heated by a couple of bunsen burners. Some acid was also used in this process.

“I think it was caustic soda. When boiling had been completed, the mixture was allowed to cool and then cut into blocks for microscopic examination.”

I continue the quotation from the following paragraph:

“I cannot estimate the quantity produced, but I saw it used by Danzigers in cleaning tables in the dissecting rooms. They all told me it was excellent soap for this purpose.”

I submit half-finished and some finished soap. (Exhibit USSR-393) Here you shall see a small piece of finished soap, which from the exterior, after lying about a few months, reminds you of ordinary household soap. I give it over to the Tribunal. Beside this I now submit to the Tribunal the samples of semi-tanned human skin (Exhibit USSR-394). The samples which I now submit prove that the process of manufacturing soap was already completely worked out by the Institute of Danzig; as to the skin it still looks like a semi-finished product. The skin which resembles most the leather used in manufacture is the one you see on top at the left. So one can consider that the experiments on the industrial fabrication of soap from human fats were quite completed in the Danzig Institute. Experiments on tanning of human skin were still incomplete and only the victorious advance of the Red Army put an end to this new crime of the Nazis.

Gentlemen, I have now to submit to you only one more piece of evidence, which is the last among the proofs concerning war crimes against the peaceful population presented by the U.S.S.R. Prosecution. Besides, certain witnesses may arrive here from the Soviet Union who may testify concerning the points which I have submitted. I will beg the permission of the Tribunal to examine these witnesses after the presentation of further evidence is finished.

Before submitting my last proof, I beg the Tribunal to allow me to make a few conclusive remarks.

The lengthy list of crimes against the peaceful inhabitants of the temporarily occupied areas of the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece cannot be exhausted even in the most detailed statement. One can only point out a few very typical cases of cruelties, of base and systematic methods adopted by the major criminals who had conceived these crimes, as well as those who executed these crimes. Those who are now in the dock have freed from “the chimera of so-called conscience” hundreds of thousands and millions of criminals. They educated these criminals and created for them an atmosphere of impunity and drove their bloodthirsty hounds against peaceful citizens. They mocked at human conscience and self-respect. But those who were poisoned in murder vans and gas chambers, those who were torn to shreds, those whose bodies were burned in the ovens of crematoria and whose ashes were strewn to the winds, appeal to the conscience of the world. Now we cannot yet name, or even number, many of the burial places where millions of innocent people were vilely murdered. But on the damp walls of the gas chambers, in the places of the shootings, in the forts of death, on the stones and casemates of the prisons, we can still read brief messages of the doomed, full of agony, calling for retribution. Let the living ones remember these voices of the victims of German fascist terror, who before dying appealed to the conscience of the world for justice and for retribution.

As a last proof I submit to the Tribunal the script and the sworn affidavit of the persons who assembled and made this documentary film. I beg the Tribunal to accept as evidence this documentary film (Document Number USSR-81). I also beg the Tribunal to allow, if possible, a short recess—about 10 minutes—for the technical preparation of the demonstration of these documents.

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Your Honor, may I have permission to present now the documentary evidence?

[_The documentary film entitled, “The Atrocities by the German Fascist Invaders in the U.S.S.R.,” was then shown._]

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, have you finished your address?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have finished the presentation of my evidence, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you inform the Tribunal how much longer the Soviet Delegation is likely to be?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I find it difficult to give you an answer to this question. I will ask the Chief Prosecutor to do this.

GEN. RUDENKO: Tomorrow we shall begin the presentation of evidence on spoliation and pillage of communal and private property, and we think that the speaker on this question will conclude the presentation of the materials tomorrow. Then there will be presented to the Tribunal the evidence as to destruction of cities, villages, monuments of national culture and art. That will take approximately a day and a half. In other words, I mean half of Thursday’s or Friday’s session, and a half of the following day’s session, taking into account that on this question we shall also have to present a documentary film.

Then there will be presented evidence concerning deportation of slave labor. This will take approximately 3 to 4 hours. The final presentation deals with evidence of Crimes against Humanity. During the presentation of the evidence in all the sections we shall call several witnesses, with the permission of the Tribunal. I could not present to the Tribunal today a list of the witnesses, because there are difficulties in bringing them here to Nuremberg. This list will be formulated tomorrow toward the end of the session.

To sum up, I think that altogether the Soviet Prosecution will conclude the presentation of evidence either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 20 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

TRANSCRIBER NOTES

Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus “Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.

Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.

An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as possible to the original document presentation and layout.

[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. VII_, by Various.]