“Concentration Camp Flossenbürg was founded in 1938 as a camp
for political prisoners. Construction was commenced on the camp
in 1938 and it was not until April 1940 that the first transport
of prisoners was received. From this time on prisoners began to
flow steadily into the camp. (Exhibit B-1.) Flossenbürg was the
mother camp and under its direct control and jurisdiction were
47 satellite camps or outer-commandos for male prisoners and 27
camps for female workers. To these outer-commandos were supplied
the necessary prisoners for the various work projects
undertaken.
“Of all these outer-commandos, Hersbruck and Leitmeritz (in
Czechoslovakia), Oberstaubling, Mulsen and Sall, located on the
Danube, were considered to be the worst.”
I do not wish to take the time of the Tribunal to discuss each of the
Nazi concentration camps which dotted the map of Europe. We feel that
the widespread use of these camps is commonly known and notorious. We
do, however, wish to invite the Tribunal’s attention to a chart which we
have had prepared. The solid black line marks the boundary of Germany
after the Anschluss, and we call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact
that the majority of the camps shown on the chart are located within the
territorial limits of Germany itself. They are the red spots, of course,
on the map. In the center of Germany there is the Buchenwald camp
located near the city of Weimar, and at the extreme bottom of the chart
there is Dachau, several miles outside of Munich. At the top of the
chart are Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen, located near Hamburg. To the
left is the Niederhagen camp in the Ruhr Valley. In the upper right
there are a number of camps near Berlin, one named Sachsenhausen
(formerly Oranienburg, which was one of the first camps established
after the Nazis came into power). Near to that is the camp of
Ravensbrück which was used exclusively for women. Some of the most
notorious camps were located indeed outside of Germany. Mauthausen was
in Austria. In Poland was the infamous Auschwitz; and to the left of the
chart is a camp called Hertogenbosch and this one was located in
Holland, as the chart shows; and below it is Natzweiler, located in
France.
The camps were established in networks; and it may be observed that
surrounding each of the major camps—the larger red dots—is a group of
satellite camps; and the names of the principal camps, the most
notorious camps, at least, are above the map and below it on the chart;
and those names, for most people, symbolize the Nazi system of
concentration camps as they have become known to the world since May or
a little later in 1945.
I should like to direct your attention briefly to the treatment which
was meted out in these camps. The motion picture to which I have made
reference a short time ago and which was shown to the members of this
High Tribunal has disclosed the terrible and savage treatment which was
inflicted upon these Allied nationals, prisoners of war, and other
victims of Nazi terror. Because the moving picture has so well shown the
situation, as of the time of its taking at least, I shall confine myself
to a very brief discussion of the subject.
The conditions which existed inside these camps were, of course, we say,
directly related to the objectives which these Nazi conspirators sought
to achieve outside of the camps through their employment of terror.
It is truly remarkable, it seems to us, how easily the words
“concentration camps” rolled off the lips of these men. How simple all
problems became when they could turn to the terror institution of the
concentration camps. I refer to Document Number R-124, which is already
before the Tribunal as Exhibit USA-179. It is again that document
covering the minutes of the Central Planning Committee on which the
Defendant Speer sat and where the high strategy of the high Nazi
armament production was formulated. I do not intend to read from the
document again, because I read from it this morning to illustrate
another point; but the Tribunal will recall that it was at this meeting
that the Defendant Speer and others were discussing the so-called
slackers, and the conversation had to do with having drastic steps taken
against these workers who were not putting out sufficient work to please
their masters. Speer suggested that, “There is nothing to be said
against the SS and Police taking steps and putting those known as
slackers into concentration camp industries,” and he used the words
“concentration camp industries.” And he said, “Let it happen several
times and the news will soon get around.”
Words spoken in this fashion, we say, sealed the fate of many victims.
As for getting the news around as suggested by the Defendant Speer, this
was not left to chance, as we shall presently show.
The deterrent effect of the concentration camps upon the public was a
carefully planned thing. To heighten the atmosphere of terror, these
camps were shrouded in secrecy. What went on in the barbed wire
enclosures was a matter of fearful conjecture in Germany and countries
under Nazi control; and this was the policy from the very beginning,
when the Nazis first came into power and set up this system of
concentration camps. We refer now to Document Number 778-PS, which bears
Exhibit Number USA-247. This document is an order issued on the 1st of
October 1933 by the camp commander of Dachau. The document prescribed a
program of floggings, solitary confinement, and executions for the
inmates for infractions of the rules.
Among the rules were those prescribing a rigid censorship concerning
conditions within the camp; and I refer to the first page of the English
text, paragraph numbered Article 11, and quoting:
“By virtue of the law on revolutionaries, the following
offenders considered as agitators, will be hanged:
“Anyone who, for the purpose of agitating, does the following in
the camp, at work, in the quarters, in the kitchens and
workshops, toilets and places of rest: holds political or
inciting speeches and meetings, forms cliques, loiters around
with others; who, for the purpose of supplying the propaganda of
the opposition with atrocity stories, collects true or false
information about the concentration camp and its institution,
receives such information, buries it, talks about it to others,
smuggles it out of the camp into the hands of foreign visitors
or others by means of clandestine or other methods, passes it on
in writing or orally to released prisoners or prisoners who are
placed above them, conceals it in clothing or other articles,
throws stones and other objects over the camp wall containing
such information, or produces secret documents; who, for the
purpose of agitating, climbs on barracks roofs and trees, seeks
contact with the outside by giving light or other signals, or
induces others to escape or commit a crime, gives them advice to
that effect or supports such undertakings in any way
whatsoever.”
The censorship about the camps themselves was complemented by an
officially inspired rumor campaign outside the camps. Concentration
camps were spoken of in whispers, and the whispers were spread by agents
of the Secret Police. When the Defendant Speer said that if the threat
of the concentration camp were used, the news would get around soon
enough, he knew whereof he spoke.
We refer to Document 1531-PS. With reference to this document, I wish to
submit a word of explanation. The original German text, the original
German document, the captured document, was here in the document room
and was translated into English as our translation shows. Yesterday we
were advised that it has either been lost or misplaced, the original
German text; and unfortunately no photostatic copy was available here in
Nuremberg. A certified copy is, however, being sent to the office here
from Frankfurt, and it is on its way today; and I ask the Tribunal’s
permission to offer the English translation of the German original,
which is certified to be accurate by the translator, into evidence,
subject to a motion to strike it if the certified copy of the original
German document does not arrive.
I now refer to the Document Number 1531-PS. It bears our Exhibit Number
USA-248. This document is marked “top secret” and it is addressed to all
State Police district offices and to the Gestapo office and for the
information of the Inspectors of the Security Police and the SD. It is
an order relating to concentration camps, issued by the head of the
Gestapo; and I read from the English text, beginning with the second
paragraph, and quoting directly:
“In order to achieve a further deterrent effect, the following
must, in the future, be observed in each individual case:
“3. The length of the period of custody must in no case be made
known, even if the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German
Police or the Chief of the Security Police and the SD has
already fixed it.
“The term of commitment to a concentration camp is to be openly
announced as ‘until further notice.’
“In most serious cases there is no objection to increasing the
deterrent effect by the spreading of cleverly carried out rumor
propaganda, more or less to the effect that, according to
hearsay, in view of the seriousness of his case, the arrested
man will not be released for 2 or 3 years.
“4. In certain cases the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German
Police will order flogging in addition to detention in a
concentration camp. Orders of this kind will, in the future,
also be transmitted to the State Police district office
concerned. In this case, too, there is no objection to spreading
the rumor of this increased punishment as laid down in Section
3, Paragraph 3, insofar as this appears suitable to add to the
deterrent effect.
“5. Naturally, particularly suitable and reliable people are to
be chosen for the spreading of such news.”
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the Tribunal think that they will take judicial
notice of that United States Document, Number 2309-PS; and for the
convenience of the Defense Counsel, the Tribunal having sat until 1 will
not sit again until 2:15.
MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor.
[_A recess was taken until 1415 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, the deterrent effect of the
concentration camps was based on the promise of brutal treatment. Once
in the custody of the SS guards, the victim was beaten, tortured,
starved, and often murdered through the so-called “extermination through
work” program which I described the other day or through the mass
execution gas chambers and furnaces of the camps, which were shown
several days ago on the moving picture screen in this courtroom.
The reports of official government investigations furnish additional
evidence of the conditions within the concentration camps.
Document 2309-PS, which has already been referred to and of which the
Tribunal has taken judicial notice, I now refer to again, particularly
to the second page of the English text, beginning with the second
sentence of the second paragraph:
“The work at these camps mainly consisted of underground labor,
the purpose being the construction of large underground
factories, storage rooms, _et cetera_. This labor was performed
completely underground and as a result of the brutal treatment,
working and living conditions, a daily average of 100 prisoners
died. To the one camp Oberstaubling 700 prisoners were
transported in February 1945, and on the 15th of April 1945 only
405 of these men were living. During the 12 months preceding the
liberation, Flossenbürg and the branch camps under its control
accounted for the death of 14,739 male inmates and 1,300 women.
These figures represent the deaths as obtained from the
available records in the camp. However, they are in no way
complete, as many secret mass executions and deaths took place.
In 1941 an additional stockade was added at the Flossenbürg camp
to hold 2,000 Russian prisoners. From these 2,000 prisoners only
102 survived.
“Flossenbürg Concentration Camp can best be described as a
factory dealing in death. Although this camp had in view the
primary object of putting to work the mass slave labor, another
of its primary objectives was the elimination of human lives by
the methods employed in handling the prisoners.
“Hunger and starvation rations, sadism, housing facilities,
inadequate clothing, medical neglect, disease, beatings,
hangings, freezing, forced hand hanging, forced suicides,
shooting, all played a major role in obtaining their objective.
Prisoners were murdered at random; spite killings against Jews
were common. Injections of poison and shooting in the neck were
everyday occurrences. Epidemics of typhus and spotted fever were
permitted to run rampant as a means of eliminating prisoners.
Life in this camp meant nothing. Killing became a common thing,
so common that a quick death was welcomed by the unfortunate
ones.”
Passing to the next to the last sentence of this same paragraph, quoting
directly . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What are those exhibits that are referred to?
MR. DODD: They are in evidence with the affidavit. They are attached to
it.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not, I suppose, mimeographed in our copy?
MR. DODD: No, we have not had an opportunity to mimeograph each one of
them.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they documents or photographs or what?
MR. DODD: They are principally documents. There are some few plans and
photographs, and so on.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they affidavits or what? There seem to be instances
of . . .
MR. DODD: Well, some of them are in the form of affidavits taken at the
time of the liberation of the camp from persons who were there, and
others are pictures of writings that were found there and of the plans
and so on—such sort of thing.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well the Tribunal will take judicial notice of those
exhibits as well.
MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor.
Reading from the last sentence of this same paragraph on the same page
and quoting:
“On Christmas, 1944, a number of prisoners were hanged at one
time. The prisoners were forced to view this hanging. By the
side of the gallows was a decorated Christmas tree; and as
expressed by one prisoner, ‘It was a terrible sight, that
combination of prisoners hanging in the air and the glistening
Christmas tree.’”
“In March or April, 13 American or British parachutists were
hanged. They had been delivered to this camp some time before
and had been captured while trying to blow up bridges.”
We will not burden the Tribunal with a recital of all of these reports.
We wish, however, to make reference to the Concentration Camp
Mauthausen, one of the most notorious extermination centers; and I refer
particularly to Document Number 2176-PS, which I have already placed in
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-249. This is also an official report of
the office of the Judge Advocate General of the United States 3rd Army,
dated 17 June 1945. I wish to refer to the conclusions on Page 3 of the
English text, at paragraph numbered Roman V, beginning with the second
sentence as follows:
“V. Conclusions. There is no doubt that Mauthausen was the basis
for long-term planning. It was constructed as a gigantic stone
fortress on top of a mountain flanked by small barracks.
Mauthausen, in addition to its permanency of construction, had
facilities for a large garrison of officers and men and had
large dining rooms and toilet facilities for the staff. It was
conducted with the sole purpose in mind of exterminating any
so-called prisoner who entered within its walls. The so-called
branches of Mauthausen were under direct command of the SS
officials located there. All records, orders, and administrative
facilities were handled for these branches through Mauthausen.
The other camps, including Gusen and Ebensee, its two most
notorious and largest branches, were not exclusively used for
extermination; but prisoners were used as tools in construction
and production until they were beaten or starved into
uselessness, whereupon they were customarily sent to Mauthausen
for final disposal.”
Both from the showing of the moving picture and from these careful
reports, which were made by the 3rd Army of the United States on their
arrival at those centers, we say it is clear that the conditions in
those concentration camps over Germany—and in a few instances outside
of the actual borders of the Old Reich—followed the same general
pattern. The wide-spread incidence of these conditions makes it clear
that they were not the result of sporadic excesses on the part of
individual jailers, but were the result of policies deliberately imposed
from above. The crimes committed in these camps were on so vast a scale
that individual atrocities pale into insignificance.
We have had turned over to us two exhibits which we are prepared to show
to this Tribunal only because they illustrate the depths to which the
administration of these camps had sunk shortly before, at least, the
time that they were liberated by the Allied Army. The Tribunal will
recall that in the showing of the moving picture, with respect to one of
the camps, there was a showing of sections of human skin taken from
human bodies in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp and preserved as
ornaments. They were selected, these particular hapless victims, because
of the tattooing which appeared on the skin. This exhibit, which we have
here, is Exhibit Number USA-252. Attached to the exhibit is an extract
of an official United States Army report describing the circumstances
under which this exhibit was obtained; and that extract is set forth in
Document 3420-PS, which I refer to in part. It is entitled:
“Mobile Field Interrogation Unit Number 2; PW Intelligence
Bulletin; 13. Concentration Camp, Buchenwald.
“Preamble. The author of this account is PW Andreas
Pfaffenberger, 1 Coy, 9 Landesschützen Bn., 43 years old and of
limited education. He is a butcher by trade. The substantial
agreement of the details of his story with those found in PWIB
(H) /LF/36 establishes the validity of his testimony. PW has not
been questioned on statements which, in the light of what is
known, are apparently erroneous in certain details, nor has any
effort been made to alter the subjective character of the PW’s
account, which he wrote without being told anything of the
intelligence already known. The results of interrogation on
personalities at Buchenwald have already been published (PWIB
Number 2/12, item 31.).
“‘In 1939 all prisoners with tattooing on them were ordered to
report to the dispensary.’”
THE PRESIDENT: Is this what Pfaffenberger said?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
“‘No one knew what the purpose was; but after the tattooed
prisoners had been examined, the ones with the best and most
artistic specimens were kept in the dispensary and then killed
by injections administered by Karl Beigs, a criminal prisoner.
The corpses were then turned over to the pathological department
where the desired pieces of tattooed skin were detached from the
bodies and treated. The finished products were turned over to SS
Standartenführer Koch’s wife, who had them fashioned into lamp
shades and other ornamental household articles. I myself saw
such tattooed skins with various designs and legends on them,
such as “Hänsel and Gretel,” which one prisoner had on his knee,
and designs of ships from prisoners’ chests. This work was done
by a prisoner named Wernerbach.”
I also refer to Document 3421-PS, which bears Exhibit Number USA-253.
“I, George C. Demas, Lieutenant, USNR, associated with the
United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis
Criminality, hereby certify that the attached exhibit,
consisting of parchment, was delivered by the War Crimes
Section, Judge Advocate General, United States Army, to me in my
above capacity, in the usual course of business, as an exhibit
found in Buchenwald Camp and captured by military forces under
the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary
Forces.”
And the last paragraph of Document 3423-PS (Exhibit USA-252) is a
conclusion reached in a United States Army report, and I quote it:
“Based on the findings in Paragraph 2, all three specimens are
tattooed human skin.”
This document is also attached to this exhibit on the board. We do not
wish to dwell on this pathological phase of the Nazi culture; but we do
feel compelled to offer one additional exhibit, which we offer as
Exhibit Number USA-254. This exhibit, which is on the table, is a human
head with the skull bone removed, shrunken, stuffed, and preserved. The
Nazis had one of their many victims decapitated, after having had him
hanged, apparently for fraternizing with a German woman, and fashioned
this terrible ornament from his head.
The last paragraph of the official United States Army report from which
I have just read deals with the manner in which this exhibit was
acquired. It reads as follows:
“There I also saw the shrunken heads of two young Poles who had
been hanged for having relations with German girls. The heads
were the size of a fist, and the hair and the marks of the rope
were still there.”
Another certificate by Lieutenant Demas is set forth in Document 3422-PS
(Exhibit USA-254) and is similar to the one which I have read a few
minutes ago with relation to the human skin, excepting that it applies
to this second exhibit. We have no accurate estimate of how many persons
died in these concentration camps and perhaps none will ever be made;
but as the evidence already introduced before this Tribunal indicates,
the Nazi conspirators were generally meticulous record keepers. But the
records which they kept about concentration camps appear to have been
quite incomplete. Perhaps the character of the records resulted from the
indifference which the Nazis felt for the lives of their victims. But
occasionally we find a death book or a set of index cards. For the most
part, nevertheless, the victims apparently faded into an unrecorded
death. Reference to a set of death books suggests at once the scale of
the concentration camp operations, and we refer now and offer Document
Number 493-PS as Exhibit Number USA-251. This exhibit is a set of seven
books, the death ledger of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. Each book
has on its cover the word “Totenbuch” (or Death Book)—Mauthausen.
In these books were recorded the names of some of the inmates who died
or were murdered in this camp, and the books cover the period from
January of 1939 to April of 1945. They give the name, the place of
birth, the assigned cause of death, and time of death of each individual
recorded. In addition each corpse is assigned a serial number, and
adding up the total serial numbers for the 5-year period one arrives at
the figure of 35,318.
An examination of the books is very revealing insofar as the camp’s
routine of death is concerned; and I invite the attention of the
Tribunal to Volume 5 from Pages 568 to 582, a photostatic copy of which
has been passed to the Tribunal. These pages cover death entries made
for the 19th day of March 1945 between 15 minutes past 1 in the morning
until 2 o’clock in the afternoon. In this space of 12 and three-quarter
hours, on these records, 203 persons are reported as having died. They
were assigned serial numbers running from 8390 to 8593. The names of the
dead are listed. And interestingly enough the victims are all recorded
as having died of the same ailment—heart trouble. They died at brief
intervals. They died in alphabetical order. The first who died was a man
named Ackermann, who died at 1:15 a.m., and the last was a man named
Zynger, who died at 2 o’clock in the afternoon.
At 20 minutes past 2 o’clock of that same afternoon, according to these
records, on the 19th of March 1945, the fatal roll call began again and
continued until 4:30 p.m. In a space of 2 hours 75 more persons died,
and once again they died all from heart failure and in alphabetical
order. We find the entries recorded in the same volume, from Pages 582
through 586.
There was another death book found at Camp Mauthausen. It is our
Document Number 495-PS and bears Exhibit Number USA-250. This is a
single volume, and again has on its cover the words “Death
Book—Prisoners of War.” And I invite the attention of the Tribunal in
particular to Pages 234 through 246. Here the entries record the names
of 208 prisoners of war, apparently Russians, who at 15 minutes past
midnight on the 10th day of May 1942 were executed at the same time. The
book notes that the execution was directed by the chief of the SD and
the Sipo, at that time Heydrich.
It was called to my attention as late as this morning—a publication of
a New York newspaper published in the United States, part of which is
made up of three or more pages consisting of advertisements from the
families, the relatives of people who once resided in Germany or in
Europe, asking for some advice about them. Most of the advertisements
refer to one of these concentration camps or another. The paper is
called _Der Aufbau_. It is a German-language newspaper in New York City,
published on the 23rd day—this particular issue—on the 23rd day of
November 1945. I do not propose to burden the record of this Tribunal
with the list of the names of all of these unfortunate individuals; but
we refer to it as a publication in the City of New York, a
German-language newspaper of recent date which illustrates the horrible
extent of this terrible tragedy which has affected so many people as a
result of this concentration-camp institution. We feel that no argument,
no particular argument, is necessary to support our statement that the
Nazi conspirators used these concentration camps and the related
instruments of terror in them to commit Crimes against Humanity and to
commit War Crimes.
More about concentration camps will of necessity be involved in the
presentation concerning the persecution of the Jews, but this concludes
our presentation with respect to the concentration camps as a specific
entity of proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, speaking for myself, I should like to know what
these headings mean.
MR. DODD: Yes, I have them here.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 495-PS?
MR. DODD: Yes, Document 495-PS. Column 1 is the serial number assigned
to the prisoners in the order of their deaths.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DODD: Column 2, prisoners-of-war serial number. Column 3 is the last
name, Column 4 is the first name.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DODD: Column 5 is the date of birth. Column 6, the place of birth.
Column 7, cause of death. In these cases their cause of death is stated
as follows: “Execution pursuant to order of the Chief of the Sipo and SD
dated 30th April 1942,” and the ditto marks beneath indicate that the
same cause of death was assigned to the names which come beneath it. In
the eighth column is the date of death and the hour of death. The first
one being 9.5.42 at 2335 hours. In the ninth column there is a space
which says it is reserved for comments.
THE PRESIDENT: There are numbers there too—M1681 is the first one.
MR. DODD: Well, the German word, I am told, means that it confirms the
death with that number. Apparently the number of the . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think you said the number of the corpse.
MR. DODD: The number of the corpse, I think that is what it is as
distinguished from the number of the prisoner. Each corpse was given a
number as well after the individual died.
COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please, the next phase of War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity, the Persecution of the Jews, will be presented
by Major Walsh.
THE PRESIDENT: Major Walsh.
MAJOR WILLIAM F. WALSH (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States):
If the Tribunal please, on behalf of the United States Counsel, I now
present to this august Tribunal the evidence to establish certain phases
of the Indictment alleged in Count One under War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity, and by agreement between the prosecutors the
allegations in Count Four, Paragraph X(B), Crimes against Humanity. The
topical title of this presentation is “The Persecution of the Jews.”
At this time I offer in evidence a Document Book of translations,
lettered “T.” These documents contained in the books are arranged
according to the D-, L-, PS-, and R-series; and under the series the
translations are listed numerically. This title, “The Persecution of the
Jews,” is singularly inappropriate when weighed in the light of the
evidence to follow. Academically, I am told, to persecute is to afflict,
harass, and annoy. The term used does not convey, and indeed I cannot
conjure a term that does convey the ultimate aim, the avowed purpose to
obliterate the Jewish race.
This presentation is not intended to be a complete recital of all the
crimes committed against the Jews. The extent and the scope of the
crimes was so great that it permeated the entire German nation, its
people and its organizations.
I am informed that others to follow me will offer additional evidence
under other phases of the Prosecution’s case. Evidence relating to the
Party organizations and state organizations, whose criminality the
Prosecution will seek to establish, will disclose and emphasize the part
that these organizations played in the pattern and plan for
annihilation.
The French and the Soviet Prosecutors, too, have a volume of evidence
all related to this subject, which will be submitted in the course of
the Trial.
Before I begin a recital of the overt acts leading to the elimination of
the Jews, I am prepared to show that these acts and policies within
Germany from the year 1933 to the end of the war related to the
planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of aggressive wars, thus
falling within the definition of Crimes against Humanity as defined in
Article 6(c) of the Charter.
It had long been a German theory that the first World War ended in
Germany’s defeat because of a collapse in the zone of the interior. In
planning for future wars it was determined that the home front must be
secure to prevent a repetition of this 1918 debacle. Unification of the
German people was essential to successful planning and waging of war,
and the Nazi political premise must be established—“One race, one
state, one Führer.”
Free trade unions must be abolished, political parties (other than the
National Socialist Party) must be outlawed, civil liberties must be
suspended, and opposition of every kind must be swept away. Loyalty to
God, church, and scientific truth was declared to be incompatible with
the Nazi regime. The anti-Jewish policy was part of this plan for
unification because it was the conviction of the Nazis that the Jews
would not contribute to Germany’s military program, but on the contrary
would hamper it. The Jew must therefore be eliminated.
This view is clearly borne out by a statement contained in Document
1919-PS, Exhibit USA-170. This document is a transcript of a Himmler
speech at a meeting of the SS major generals on 4 October 1943, and from
Page 4, Paragraph 3, of the translation before the Court, I read a very
short passage:
“We know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves if
with the bombing raids, the burdens and deprivations of war, we
still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs,
agitators, and trouble mongers; we would now probably have
reached the 1916-17 stage when the Jews were still in the German
national body.”
The treatment of the Jews within Germany was therefore as much of a plan
for aggressive war as was the building of armaments and the conscription
of manpower. It falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as an
integral part of the planning and preparation to wage a war of
aggression.
It is obvious that the persecution and murder of Jews throughout the
conquered territories of Europe following 1939 are War Crimes as defined
by Article 6(b) of the Charter. It further violates Article 46 of the
Regulations of the Hague Convention of 1907, to which Germany was a
signatory. I quote Article 46 and ask the Court to take judicial notice
thereof:
“Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private
property, as well as religious convictions and practices, must
be respected.”
I know of no crime in the history of mankind more horrible in its
details than the treatment of the Jews. It is intended to establish that
the Nazi Party precepts, later incorporated within the policies of the
German State, often expressed by the defendants at bar, were to
annihilate the Jewish people. I shall seek to avoid the temptation to
editorialize or to draw inferences from the documents, however great the
provocation; rather I shall let the documentary evidence speak for
itself—its stark realism will be unvarnished. Blood lust may have
played some part in these savage crimes, but the underlying purpose and
objective to annihilate the Jewish race was one of the fundamental
principles of the Nazi plan to prepare for and to wage aggressive war. I
shall from this point limit my proof to the overt acts committed; but I
dare to request the Court’s indulgence, if it is necessary in weaving
the pattern of evidence, to make reference to certain documents and
evidence previously submitted.
Now this ultimate objective, that is, the elimination and extermination
of the Jews, could not be accomplished without preliminary steps and
measures. The German State must first be seized by the Nazi Party, the
force of world opinion must be faced, and even the regimented German
people must be indoctrinated with hatred against the Jews.
The first clear-cut evidence of the Party policies concerning the Jews
was expressed in the Party program in February 1920. I offer in evidence
Document 1708-PS, “Program of the National Socialist Party,” Exhibit
USA-255. With the Court’s permission, I would like to quote the relevant
part of that program, Paragraph (4):
“Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the
race can only be one who is of German blood without
consideration of confession. . . .”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I interrupt a minute. It is a little hard
to know where these exhibits are or what volume you are now quoting
from.
MAJOR WALSH: This, Sir, is 1708-PS.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Volume 2?
MAJOR WALSH: Volume 2.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what page of that exhibit?
MAJOR WALSH: That is Paragraph (4) and Paragraph (6), Sir, on the first
page.
Paragraph (4):
“Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the
race can only be one who is of German blood, without
consideration of confession. Consequently, no Jew can be a
member of the race.”
And again, in Paragraph (6):
“The right to determine matters concerning administration and
law belongs only to the citizen; therefore, we demand that every
public office of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the
county, or municipality, be filled only by citizens.”
I now offer Document 2662-PS, _Mein Kampf_, Exhibit Number USA-256. On
Pages 724-725, Hitler, in this book, speaking of the Jew, said that if
the National Socialist movement was to fulfill its task—and I quote:
“It must open the eyes of the people with regard to foreign
nations and must remind them again and again of the true enemy
of our present-day world. In the place of hate against
Aryans—from whom we may be separated by almost everything but
to whom, however, we are tied by common blood or the great tie
of a common culture—it must dedicate to the general anger the
evil enemy of mankind as the true cause of all suffering.
“It must see to it, however, that at least in our country he be
recognized as the most mortal enemy and that the struggle
against him may show, like a flaming beacon of a better era, to
other nations, too, the road to salvation for a struggling Aryan
mankind.”
A flood of abusive literature of all types and for all age groups was
published and circulated throughout Germany. Illustrative of this type
of publication is the book entitled _Der Giftpilz_. I offer in evidence
Document 1778-PS, Exhibit Number USA-257. This book brands the Jew as a
persecutor of the labor class, as a race defiler, devil in human form, a
poisonous mushroom, and a murderer. This particular book instructed
school children to recognize the Jew by caricature of his physical
features, shown on Pages 6 and 7; taught them that the Jew abuses little
boys and girls, on Page 30; and that the Jewish Bible permits all
crimes, Pages 13-17. The Defendant Streicher’s periodical _Der Stürmer_,
Number 14, April 1937, in particular, went to such extremes as to
publish the statement that Jews at the ritual celebration of their
Passover slaughtered Christians.
I offer Document 2699-PS, Exhibit Number USA-258. On Page 2, Column 1,
Paragraphs 6 to 9, I quote:
“Also the numerous confessions made by the Jews show that the
execution of ritual murders is a law of the Talmud Jew. The
former chief Rabbi (and later monk) Teofiti declares that the
ritual murders take place especially on the Jewish Purim (in
memory of the Persian murders) and Passover (in memory of the
murder of Christ). The rules are as follows:
“The blood of the victims is to be tapped by force. On Passover
it is to be used in wine and matzos. Thus a small part of the
blood is to be poured into the dough of the matzos and into the
wine. The mixing is done by the head of the Jewish family.
“The procedure is as follows: The family head empties a few
drops of the fresh and powdered blood into a glass, wets the
fingers of the left hand with it and sprays (blesses) with it
everything on the table. The head of the family then says, ‘Thus
we ask God to send the 10 plagues to all enemies of the Jewish
faith.’ Then they eat, and at the end the head of the family
exclaims, ‘May all Gentiles perish, as the child whose blood is
contained in the bread and wine.’
“The fresh (or dried and powdered) blood of the slaughtered is
further used by young married Jewish couples, by pregnant
Jewesses, for circumcision and so on. Ritual murder is
recognized by all Talmud Jews. The Jew believes he absolves
himself thus of his sins.”
It is difficult for our minds to grasp that falsehoods such as these
could fall on fertile soil, that a literate nation could read, digest,
or believe these doctrines. We must realize, however, that with a
rigidly controlled press which precluded an exposé of such lying
propaganda, some of the ignorant and gullible would be led to believe.
I now offer in evidence Document 2697-PS, a copy of _Der Stürmer_,
Exhibit Number USA-259. This publication, _Der Stürmer_, was published
by the Defendant Streicher’s publishing firm. In this publication,
Streicher, speaking of the Jewish faith, said, “The Holy Scripture is a
horrible criminal romance abounding with murder, incest, fraud, and
indecency.”
And again he said, “The Talmud is the great Jewish book of criminal
instructions that the Jew practices in his daily life.” This is
contained in Document 2698-PS, _Der Stürmer_, which I now offer in
evidence, Exhibit Number USA-260.
This propaganda campaign of hate was too widespread and notorious to
require further elaboration. Within the documents offered in evidence in
this and in other phases of the case will be found similar and even more
scurrilous statements, many by the defendants themselves and others by
their accomplices.
When the Nazi Party gained control of the German State, a new and
terrible weapon against the Jews was placed within their grasp, the
power to apply the force of the state against them. This was done by the
issuance of decrees.
Jewish immigrants were denaturalized: 1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I,
Page 480, signed by Defendants Frick and Neurath.
Native Jews were precluded from citizenship: 1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, Page 1146, signed by Defendant Frick.
Jews were forbidden to live in marriage or to have extramarital
relations with persons of German blood: 1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part
I, Page 1146, signed by Frick and Hess.
Jews were denied the right to vote: 1936 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I,
Page 133, signed by Defendant Frick.
Jews were denied the right to hold public office or civil service
positions: _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1933, Part I, Page 277, signed by
Defendant Frick.
It was determined to relegate the Jews to an inferior status by denying
them common privileges and freedoms. Thus, they were denied access to
certain city areas, sidewalks, transportation, places, of amusement,
restaurants: 1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 1676.
Progressively more and still more stringent measures were applied, even
to the denial of private pursuits. They were excluded from the practice
of dentistry: 1939 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 47, signed by
Defendant Hess.
The practice of law was denied: 1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page
1403, signed by Defendants Frick and Hess.
The practice of medicine was denied: 1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I,
Page 969, signed by Defendants Frick and Hess.
They were denied employment by press and radio: 1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 661.
From stock exchanges and stock brokerage: 1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part
I, Page 169.
And even from farming: 1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 685.
In 1938 they were excluded from business in general and from the
economic life of Germany: 1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 1580,
signed by the Defendant Göring.
The Jews were forced to pay discriminatory taxes and huge atonement
fines. Their homes, bank accounts, real estate, and intangibles were
expropriated.
To digress for a moment from a recital of decrees and to refer
specifically to the atonement fines, I wish to offer Document 1816-PS,
Exhibit Number USA-261. This exhibit is a stenographic report of a
conference under the chairmanship of the Defendant Göring, attended by
the Defendant Funk among others, held at 11 o’clock on 12 November 1938
at the Reich Ministry for Air. From Pages 8 and 9 of Section 7, I quote
the Defendant Göring:
“One more question, gentlemen, what would you think the
situation would be if I announced today that Jewry shall have to
contribute this 1,000,000,000 as a punishment.”
And then the last paragraph on Page 22 of the translation before the
Court—I quote:
“I shall choose the wording this way—that German Jewry shall,
as punishment for their abominable crimes, _et cetera, et
cetera_, have to make a contribution of 1,000,000,000. That will
work. The pigs won’t commit another murder in a hurry. I should
like to say again that I would not like to be a Jew in Germany.”
It was whimsical remarks such as these that originated decrees, for
following this meeting a decree was issued placing upon the German Jews
the burden of 1,000,000,000 Reichsmark fine: 1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, Page 1579, date 12 November 1938, signed by the Defendant
Göring.
Similar decrees are contained in 1939 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page
282, signed by Defendant Göring, and 1941 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I,
Page 722, signed by Defendants Frick and Bormann.
Finally, in the year 1943, the Jews were placed beyond the protection of
any judicial process by a decree signed by the Defendants Bormann and
Frick and others; and the police became the sole arbiters of punishment
and death: 1943 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 372, signed by Frick
and Bormann.
I ask the Court to take judicial notice of the _Reichsgesetzblatt_
decrees cited.
Side by side with the passage of these decrees and their execution went
still another weapon, wielded by the Party and the Party-controlled
state. These were the openly sponsored and official anti-Jewish boycotts
against Jews. I now offer Document 2409-PS, the published diary of
Joseph Goebbels, Exhibit Number USA-262, and I invite the Court’s
attention to Page 290 where, under date of 29 March 1933—the Court will
find the quotation on the top of Page 1 of the translation of
2409-PS—“The boycott appeal is approved by the entire Cabinet.” And
again on the 31st of March 1933 he wrote, on Page 1, first sentence of
Paragraph 2, “We are having a last discussion among a very small circle
and decide that the boycott is to start tomorrow with all severity.”
The Defendant Streicher and the Defendant Frank, together with Himmler,
Ley, and others, were members of a central committee who conducted the
1933 boycott against the Jews. Their names are listed in Document
2156-PS, _National Socialist Party Correspondence_, 29 March 1933,
Exhibit Number USA-263.
As early as 1933 violence against the Jews was undertaken. Raids were
conducted, by uniformed Nazis, on services within synagogues. Attending
members of the synagogues were assaulted and religious insignia and
emblems were desecrated. A report of such an occurrence is contained in
the official dispatch from the American Consul General in Leipzig, dated
5 April 1933.
I offer in evidence Document 2709-PS . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What do you refer to 2156 for?
MAJOR. WALSH: Only, Sir, to show the names of the Defendants Streicher
and Frank as members of the boycott committee.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MAJOR WALSH: Document 2709 has been given Exhibit Number USA-265. From
Paragraph 1 of Page 1, I quote:
“In Dresden, several weeks ago, uniformed Nazis raided the
Jewish prayer house, interrupted the evening religious service,
arrested 25 worshippers, and tore the holy insignia or emblems
from their headcovering worn while praying.”
At a meeting here in Nuremberg, before the representatives of the German
press, the Defendant Streicher and Mayor Liebel of Nuremberg revealed in
advance to the gathered members of the press that the Nuremberg
synagogue was to be destroyed.
I offer in evidence Document 1724-PS, Exhibit Number USA-266, which is
minutes of this meeting, dated 4 August 1938. From Page 1, Paragraph 4
of the original, I quote the translation before the Court:
“The breaking up of the synagogue (information must still be
secret). On August 10, 1938, at 10 o’clock a.m., the breakup of
the synagogue will commence. Gauleiter Julius Streicher will
personally set the crane into motion with which the Jewish
symbols, Star of David, _et cetera_, will be torn down. This
should be arranged in a big way. Closer details are still
unknown.”
The Defendant Streicher himself supervised the demolition.
In support of this, I offer Document 2711-PS, a newspaper account of 11
August 1938, Exhibit Number USA-267, Paragraph 1 of the translation
before the Court:
“In Nuremberg the synagogue is being demolished; Julius
Streicher himself inaugurates the work by a speech lasting more
than an hour and a half. By his order then—so to speak as a
prelude of the demolition—the tremendous Star of David came off
the cupola.”
These accounts of violence were not localized anti-Semitic
demonstrations but were directed and ordered from a centralized
headquarters in Berlin. This is established by a series of teletype
messages sent by the Berlin Secret State Police headquarters to chiefs
of police throughout Germany on 10 November 1938, which contained
instructions pertaining to the pre-arranged demonstration.
I now refer to Document 3051-PS, previously offered in evidence as
Exhibit Number USA-240. I shall quote the relevant part of one of these
confidential orders signed by Heydrich, the translation before the
Court, the last half on Page 2:
“Because of the attempt on the life of the Secretary of the
Legation, Von Rath, in Paris tonight, 9-10 November 1938,
demonstrations against Jews are to be expected throughout the
Reich. The following instructions are given on how to treat
these events:
“1) The Chiefs of the State Police or their deputies must get in
telephonic contact with the political leaders who have
jurisdiction over their districts and must arrange a joint
meeting with the appropriate inspector or commander of the Order
Police to discuss the organization of the demonstrations. At
these discussions the political leaders have to be informed that
the German Police has received from the Reichsführer SS and
Chief of the German Police the following instructions, in
accordance with which the political leaders should adjust their
own measures.
“a) Only such measures should be taken which do not involve
danger to German life or property. (For instance synagogues are
to be burned down only when there is no danger of fire to the
surroundings.)
“b) Business and private apartments of Jews may be destroyed but
not looted. The police is instructed to supervise the execution
of this order and to arrest looters.”
To this point we have found a gradual and a mounting emphasis in the
campaign against the Jews, one of the basic tenets of the Nazi Party and
of the state. The flame of prejudice has now been lighted and fanned.
The German people have been to a large degree indoctrinated, and the
seeds of hatred have been sown. The German State is now armed and is
prepared for conquest and the force of world opinion can now safely be
ignored. Already they have forced out of Germany 200,000 of its original
500,000 Jews. The Nazi-controlled German State is therefore emboldened;
and Hitler, in anticipation of the aggressive wars already planned,
casts about for a “whipping boy” upon whose shoulders can be placed the
blame for the world catastrophe yet to come. The speech before the
Reichstag on 30 January 1939 is set forth in Document Number 2663-PS,
which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-268. I quote:
“If the international Jewish financiers within and without
Europe succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world
war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the world and
the victory of Jewry, but the obliteration of the Jewish race in
Europe.”
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Major Walsh, it would, I think, assist the Tribunal if
you were careful to state the PS number which we have rather more
clearly and slowly. You see, the United States Exhibit number we do not
have and I do not know whether it would be better to state the United
States Exhibit number first and then give us the PS number; I am not
sure it would. Anyhow, if you would go a little more slowly and make
certain we get the PS number, it would be helpful.
MAJOR WALSH: Yes, Your Honor.
The Chief Editor of the official organ of the SS, the _Schwarze Korps_,
expressed similar sentiments on August 8, 1940.
I offer in evidence Document 2668-PS; this is Exhibit Number USA-269,
Page 2 of the original and the full excerpt before the Court in
translation, as follows:
“Just as the Jewish question will be solved for Germany only
when the last Jew has been deported, so the rest of Europe
should also realize that the German peace which awaits it must
be a peace without Jews.”
These were not the only officials of the Party and of the State to voice
the same views. The Defendant Rosenberg wrote for the publication _World
Struggle_. I offer in evidence Document 2665-PS, Exhibit Number USA-270.
This publication, Volumes 1 and 2, April and September 1941, Page 71 of
the original, reads, “The Jewish question will be solved only when the
last Jew has left the European continent.”
The Court will recall Mr. Justice Jackson’s reference to the apologetic
note contained in the diary of Hans Frank when he wrote, and I quote
from Document 2233(c)-PS, Exhibit Number USA-271, bottom of Page 1 of
the translation:
“Of course, I could neither eliminate all lice nor all Jews in
only 1 year’s time. But in the course of time and, above all, if
you will help me, this end will be attained.”
THE PRESIDENT: I forgot to say, Major Walsh, it would help us too, when
you do not begin at the beginning of a paragraph, if you would indicate
about where it is.
MAJOR WALSH: Yes, Sir; I shall do that.
While this presentation is not necessarily intended to be a
chronological narrative of events in the treatment of the Jewish people,
it would appear at this point that we should pause to examine the record
to date. We find that the Nazi Party and the Nazi-dominated State have,
by writings and by utterances, by decrees and by official acts, clearly
expressed their intent: the Jew must be eliminated.
How do they now progress to the accomplishment of this purpose? The
first requirement was a complete registration of all Jews; and inasmuch
as the policy relating to the Jews followed on the heels of German
aggression, such registration was required not only within the Reich but
successively within the conquered territories. For example, within
Germany registration was required by decree (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part
I, 1938, Page 922, 23 July, signed by the Defendant Frick); within
Austria (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Volume 1, 1940, Page 694, 29 April);
within Poland (Kurjer Krakowski, 5 October 1939); in France (_Journal
Officiel_ Number 9, Page 92, 30 September 1940); in Holland
(_Verordnungsblatt_, Number 6, 10 January 1941, signed by the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart).
The second step was to segregate and concentrate the Jews within
restricted areas called ghettos. This policy was carefully worked out,
and perhaps the confidential statement taken from the files of the
Defendant Rosenberg will best serve as an illustration.
I offer in evidence a copy of a memorandum from Defendant Rosenberg’s
file entitled, “Directions for Handling of the Jewish Question,”
Document 212-PS, Exhibit Number USA-272. I quote from the top of Page 2
of the translation before the Court:
“The first main goal of the German measures must be strict
segregation of Jewry from the rest of the population. The
presupposition of this is, first of all, the registration of the
Jewish population by the introduction of a compulsory
registration order and similar appropriate measures. . . .”
And then, in the second sentence, in the second paragraph, on Page 2, I
continue:
“. . . all rights of freedom for Jews are to be withdrawn. They
are to be placed in ghettos and at the same time are to be
separated according to sexes. The presence of many more or less
closed Jewish settlements in White Ruthenia and in the Ukraine
makes this mission easier. Moreover, places are to be chosen
which make possible the full use of the Jewish manpower as a
consequence of present labor programs. These ghettos can be
placed under the supervision of a Jewish self-government with
Jewish officials. The guarding of the boundaries between the
ghettos and the outer world is, however, the duty of the police.
“Also, in the case in which a ghetto could not yet be
established, care is to be taken through strict prohibition and
similar suitable measures that a further intermingling of blood
of the Jews and the rest of the populace does not continue.”
In May 1941 Rosenberg, as the Reich Minister for the Eastern regions,
issued directions confining the Jews to ghettos in the Ukraine.
I offer in evidence Document 1028-PS, Exhibit Number USA-273, and from
the first sentence of the translation before the Court, I read:
“After the customary removal of Jews from all public offices,
the Jewish question will have to be solved conclusively through
the institution of ghettos.”
The policies expressed in the quoted Rosenberg memoranda were not
isolated instances nor the acts of one individual. It was the expressed
state policy. Defendant Von Schirach played his part in the program of
“ghettoization.” I offer in evidence Document 3048-PS, Exhibit Number
USA-274. Before the Court is a full translation of that which I wish to
quote. The Defendant Von Schirach spoke before the European Youth
Congress held in Vienna on 14 September 1942, and from Page 2, Column 2,
of the Vienna edition of the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 15 September, I
quote:
“Every Jew who exerts influence in Europe is a danger to
European culture. If anyone reproaches me with having driven
from this city, which was once the European metropolis of Jewry,
tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Jews into the ghetto
of the East, I feel myself compelled to reply, ‘I see in this an
action contributing to European culture.’”
One of the largest ghettos was within the City of Warsaw. The original
report made by SS Major General Stroop concerning this ghetto is
entitled, “The Warsaw Ghetto is no more.” I now offer this in evidence
at this time, if the Court please, and request leave to refer to it
later on in this presentation—Exhibit Number USA-275, 1061-PS, top of
Page 3 of the translation, Document 1061-PS:
“The Ghetto thus established in Warsaw was inhabited by about
400,000 Jews.
“It contained 27,000 apartments with an average of two and a
half rooms each. It was separated from the rest of the city by
partitions and other walls and by walling-up of thoroughfares,
windows, doors, open spaces, _et cetera_.”
Some idea of the conditions within this ghetto can be gathered from the
fact that an average of six persons lived in every room. Himmler
received a report from the SS Brigadeführer Group A, dated 15 October
1941 which further illustrates the establishment and operation of the
ghettos. I offer Document L-180 in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-276.
The translation, if the Tribunal please, is from the second paragraph
from the bottom of Page 9:
“Apart from organizing and carrying out measures of execution,
the creation of ghettos was begun in the larger towns at once
during the first days of operations. This was especially urgent
in Kovno because there were 30,000 Jews in a total population of
152,400.”
And from the last paragraph on Page 9 continuing to page 10 I quote:
“In Riga the so-called ‘Moscow suburb’ was designated as a
ghetto. This is the worst dwelling district of Riga, already now
mostly inhabited by Jews. The transfer of the Jews into the
ghetto district proved rather difficult because the Latvian
dwellings in that district had to be evacuated and residential
space in Riga is very crowded. Of the 28,000 Jews living in Riga
24,000 have been transferred into the ghetto so far. In creating
the ghetto the Security Police restricted themselves to mere
policing duties, while the establishment and administration of
the ghetto as well as the regulation of the food supply for the
inmates of the ghetto was left to civil administration; the
Labor Offices were left in charge of labor allocation. In the
other towns with a larger Jewish population ghettos shall be
established likewise.”
Jews were also forced into ghettos in the Polish Province of Galicia. No
words in my vocabulary could describe quite so adequately the conditions
as those contained in the report from Katzmann, Lieutenant General of
Police, to Krüger, General of the Police East, dated 3 June 1943,
entitled “Solution of Jewish Question in Galicia.” I offer Document L-18
in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-277. From the translation, if the
Court please, we will begin with the last three sentences on Page 11,
that is, the last three sentences prior to the word “nothing” which is
there on that page: “Nothing but catastrophical conditions were found in
the ghettos of Rawa-Ruska and Rohatyn.”
“The Jews of Rawa-Ruska, fearing the evacuation, had concealed
those who suffered from spotted fever in underground holes. When
evacuation was to start it was found that 3,000 Jews suffering
from spotted fever lay about in this ghetto. In order to destroy
this center of pestilence at once, every police officer
inoculated against spotted fever was called into action. Thus we
succeeded in destroying this plague-boil, losing thereby only
one officer. Almost the same conditions were found in Rohatyn.”
On Page 19 of this same document, L-18, the last paragraph, I wish to
quote further.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR WALSH: “Since we received more and more alarming reports
on the Jews becoming armed in an ever-increasing manner, we
started, during the last fortnight in June 1943, an action
throughout the whole of the District of Galicia with the intent
to use strongest measures to destroy the Jewish gangsterdom.
Special measures were found necessary during the action to
dissolve the living quarters in Lvov where the dug-out mentioned
above had been established. Here we had to act brutally from the
beginning in order to avoid losses on our side; we had to blow
up or to burn down several houses. On this occasion the
surprising fact arose that we were able to catch about 20,000
Jews instead of 12,000 Jews who had registered. We had to pull
at least 3,000 Jewish corpses out of every kind of hiding place;
they had committed suicide by taking poison.”
On Page 20 of this document, the third paragraph I read:
“Despite the extraordinary burden heaped upon every single SS
and Police member during these actions, the mood and spirit of
the men were extraordinarily good and praiseworthy from the
first to the last day.”
These acts and actions of removal and slaughter were not entirely
without profit. The author of this report, on the ninth page of this
translated copy stated, and I quote the last paragraph:
“Together with the evacuation action we executed the
confiscation of Jewish property. Very high values were
confiscated and handed over to the Special Staff ‘Reinhard.’
Apart from furniture and many textile goods, the following
amounts were confiscated and turned over to Special Staff
‘Reinhard.’”
I would like to read a few of the many and assorted items listed under
this confiscation:
“20.952 kilograms of golden wedding rings; 7 stamp collections,
complete; 1 suitcase with pocket knives; 1 basket of fountain
pens and propelling pencils; 3 bags filled with rings—not
genuine; 35 wagons of furs.”
I will not burden the Court with the detailed lists of objects of value
and of the money confiscated; but the foregoing is cited to illustrate
the thoroughness of the looting of a defenseless people, even to the
11.73 kilograms of gold teeth and inlays.
By the end of 1942 Jews in the Government General of Poland had been
crowded into 55 localities whereas before the German invasion there had
been approximately 1,000 Jewish settlements within this same area. This
is reported in the 1942 official gazette for the Government General,
Number 94, Page 665, 1 November 1942.
The Jews having been registered and confined within the ghettos, they
now furnished a reservoir for slave labor. It is believed pertinent at
this time to point out the difference between the slave labor and labor
duty. The latter group were entitled to reasonable compensation, stated
work hours, medical care and attention, and other social security
measures, while the former were granted none of these advantages, being
in fact on a level below a slave.
Defendant Rosenberg, as Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied
Territories, set up within his organization a department which, among
other things, was to seek a solution for the Jewish problem by means of
forced labor. His plans are contained in another document, 1024-PS,
which I now offer in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-278.
I quote the first part of Paragraph 3 of Page 1 of the document
entitled, “General Organization and Tasks of Our Office for the General
Handling of Problems in the Eastern Territory.” This is dated 29 April
1941. This brief excerpt reads as follows:
“A general treatment is required for the Jewish problem for
which a temporary solution will have to be determined (forced
labor for the Jews, creation of ghettos, _et cetera_).”
Thereafter he issued instructions that Jewish forced labor should be
effected and utilized for every manual labor; and I refer to Document
212-PS, already in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-272. From Page 3 of this
document, Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 7, I quote Paragraph 5:
“The standing rule for the Jewish labor employment is the
complete and unyielding use of Jewish manpower regardless of age
in the reconstruction of the Eastern Occupied Territories.”
And from Paragraph 7 of the same page I read:
“Violations of German measures, especially evasions of the
forced labor regulations, are to be punished by death in the
case of the Jews.”
From the ghettos Jewish labor was selected and sent to a concentration
area. Here the usable Jews were screened from those considered
worthless. For example, a contingent of 45,000 Jews would be expected to
yield 10,000 to 15,000 usable laborers. My authority for this statement
is contained in a RSHA telegram to Himmler, marked “urgent” and
“secret,” dated 16 December 1942.
I offer this document, 1472-PS, in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-279; and
from the translation before the Court I read the last four lines:
“In the total of 45,000 are included physically handicapped and
others (old Jews and children). In making a distribution for
this purpose, at least 10,000 to 15,000 laborers will be
available when the Jews arriving at Auschwitz are assigned.”
From Document L-18, a report from the Lieutenant General of the Police,
Katzmann, to General of the Police East, Krüger, already in evidence,
Exhibit Number USA-277, we find the clearly outlined nature of the
forced labor situation for the Jews. On Page 2 of the translation,
starting with Paragraph 6, I read:
“The best remedy consisted in the formation of forced labor
camps by the SS and Police Leader. The best opportunity for
labor was offered by the necessity to complete the ‘Dg. 4’ road
which was extremely important and necessary for the whole of the
southern part of the front and which was in a catastrophically
bad condition. On October 15, 1941, the establishment of camps
along the road was commenced; and despite considerable
difficulties there existed, after a few weeks only, seven camps
containing 4,000 Jews.”
From Page 2, Paragraph 7, I read:
“Soon more camps followed these first ones, so that after a very
short time the completion of 15 camps of this kind could be
reported to the superior leader of SS and police. In the course
of time about 20,000 Jewish laborers passed through these camps.
Despite the hardly imaginable difficulties arising from this
problem I can report today that about 160 kilometers of the road
are completed.”
And from Page 2, Paragraph 8, I read:
“At the same time all other Jews fit for work were registered
and distributed for useful work by the labor agencies.”
And on Page 5, last part of Paragraph 1 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Don’t you want the remainder of that paragraph on Page 2?
MAJOR WALSH: It is such a lengthy document, I hesitated to burden the
record with so much of it, and had extracted certain portions therefrom,
but I shall be very glad to read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: “Then, for instance, the Municipal Administration
at Lvov had no success in their attempts to house the Jews
within a closed district which would be inhabited only by Jews.
This question, too, was solved quickly by the SS and Police
Leader through his subordinate officials.”
MAJOR WALSH: With the Court’s permission, I add that to the record.
Reading the last paragraph of Page 2:
“When the Jews were marked by the Star of David, as well as when
they were registered by the labor agencies, the first symptoms
appeared in their attempts to dodge the order of the
authorities. The measures which were introduced thereupon led to
thousands of arrests. It became more and more apparent that the
civil administration was not in a position to solve the Jewish
problem in an approximately satisfactory manner. Then, for
instance, the municipal administration at Lvov had no success in
their attempts to house the Jews within a closed district which
would be inhabited only by Jews. This question, too, was solved
quickly by the SS and Police Leader through his subordinate
officials. This measure became the more urgent as in the winter
of 1941 big centers of spotted fever were noted in many parts of
the town . . . .”
And on Page 5 of this document, L-18, last half of Paragraph 1, I read:
“During the removal of the Jews into a certain quarter of the
town several sluices were erected at which all the work-shy and
asocial Jewish rabble were caught during the screening and
treated in a special way. Owing to the peculiar fact that almost
90 percent of artisans working in Galicia were Jews, the task to
be solved could be fulfilled only step by step, since an
immediate evacuation would not have served the interest of war
economy.”
And again, on Page 5, Paragraph 2, the latter part, beginning with
“cases were discovered”:
“Cases were discovered where Jews, in order to acquire any
certificate of labor, not only renounced all wages but even paid
money themselves. Moreover, the organizing of Jews for the
benefit of their employers grew to such catastrophical extent
that it was deemed necessary to interfere in the most energetic
manner for the benefit of the German name.
“Since the administration was not in a position and showed
itself too weak to master this chaos, the SS and Police leader
simply took over the entire disposition of labor for Jews. The
Jewish labor agencies, which were manned by hundreds of Jews,
were dissolved. All certificates of labor given by firms or
administrative offices were declared invalid, and the cards
given to the Jews by the labor agencies were validated by the
police offices by stamping them. In the course of this action,
again, thousands of Jews were caught who were in possession of
forged certificates or who had obtained, surreptitiously,
certificates of labor by all kinds of pretexts. These Jews also
were exposed to special treatment.”
If the Court please, at this time I would like to arrange for the
showing of a very short motion picture, perhaps one of the most unusual
exhibits that will be presented during the Trial. With the Court’s
permission I would like to call upon Commander Donovan to assist.
THE PRESIDENT: Need we adjourn for it or not?
MAJOR WALSH: No, Sir. The movie itself is very, very short, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COMMANDER DONOVAN: May it please the Tribunal, the United States now
offers in evidence Document Number 3052-PS, Exhibit Number USA-280,
entitled “Original German 8-millimeter Film of Atrocities against Jews.”
This is a strip of motion pictures taken, we believe, by a member of the
SS and captured by the United States military forces in an SS barracks
near Augsburg, Germany, as described in the affidavits now before the
Tribunal.
We have not been able to establish beyond doubt in which area these
films were made, but we believe that to be immaterial.
The film offers undeniable evidence, made by Germans themselves, of
almost incredible brutality to Jewish people in the custody of the
Nazis, including German military units.
It is believed by the Prosecution that the scene is the extermination of
a ghetto by Gestapo agents, assisted by military units. And, as the
other evidence to be presented by the Prosecution will indicate, the
scene presented to the Tribunal is probably one which occurred a
thousand times all over Europe under the Nazi rule of terror.
This film was made on an 8-millimeter home camera. We have not wished
even to reprint it, and so shall present the original, untouched film
captured by our troops. The pictures obviously were taken by an amateur
photographer. Because of this, because of the fact that part of it is
burned, because of the fact that it runs for only 1½ minutes, and
because of the confusion on every hand shown on this film, we do not
believe that the Tribunal can properly view the evidence if it is shown
only once. We therefore ask the Tribunal’s permission to project the
film twice as we did before the Defense Counsel.
This is a silent film. The film has been made available to all Defense
Counsel, and they have a copy of the supporting affidavits, duly
translated.
[_The film was shown._]
COMMANDER DONOVAN: [_Continuing._] May it please the Tribunal, while the
film is being rewound I wish to say that attached to the affidavits
offered in evidence is a description of every picture shown in this
film. And, with the Tribunal’s permission, I wish to read a few
selections from that at this time, before again projecting the film, in
order to direct the Tribunal’s attention to certain of the scenes:
Scene 2—A naked girl running across the courtyard.
Scene 3—An older woman being pushed past the camera, and a man in SS
uniform standing at the right of the scene.
Scene 5—A man with a skullcap and a woman are manhandled.
Number 14—A half-naked woman runs through the crowd.
Number 15—Another half-naked woman runs out of the house.
Number 16—Two men drag an old man out.
Number 18—A man in German military uniform, with his back to the
camera, watches.
Number 24—A general shot of the street, showing fallen bodies and naked
women running.
Number 32—A shot of the street, showing five fallen bodies.
Number 37—A man with a bleeding head is hit again.
Number 39—A soldier in German military uniform, with a rifle, stands by
as a crowd centers on a man coming out of the house.
Number 44—A soldier with a rifle, in German military uniform, walks
past a woman clinging to a torn blouse.
Number 45—A woman is dragged by her hair across the street.
[_The film was shown again._]
COMMANDER DONOVAN: [_Continuing._] We submit to the Tribunal for its
permanent records this strip of 8-millimeter film.
MAJOR WALSH: It is difficult from this point to follow the thread of
chronological order or a topical outline. So numerous are the documents
and so appalling the contents that in this brief recital the Prosecution
will make no effort to itemize the criminal acts. Selected documents,
however, will unfold the crimes in full detail.
Before launching a discussion of the means utilized to accomplish the
ultimate aim, that is the extermination of the Jewish people, I now turn
to that fertile source of evidence, the diary of Hans Frank, then
Governor General of occupied Poland. In a cabinet session on Tuesday, 16
December 1941, in the government building at Kraków, the Defendant Frank
made a closing address to the session. I offer now in evidence that part
of the document, Number 2233(d)-PS, Exhibit Number USA-281, identified
CV 1941, October to December, and from Page 76, line 10, to Page 77,
line 33, of the original and of the entire translation before the Court.
I quote:
“As far as the Jews are concerned, I want to tell you quite
frankly that they must be done away with in one way or another.
The Führer said once: ‘Should united Jewry again succeed in
provoking a world war, the blood of not only the nations which
have been forced into the war by them will be shed, but the Jew
will have found his end in Europe.’ I know that many of the
measures carried out against the Jews in the Reich at present
are being criticized. It is being tried intentionally, as is
obvious from the reports on the morale, to talk about cruelty,
harshness, _et cetera_. Before I continue, I would beg you to
agree with me on the following formula: We will principally have
pity on the German people only and nobody else in the whole
world. The others, too, had no pity on us. As an old National
Socialist I must also say: This war would be only a partial
success if the whole lot of Jewry would survive it, while we
would have shed our best blood in order to save Europe. My
attitude towards the Jews will, therefore, be based only on the
expectation that they must disappear. They must be done away
with. I have entered negotiations to have them deported to the
East. A large conference concerning that question, to which I am
going to delegate the State Secretary Dr. Bühler, will take
place in Berlin in January. That discussion is to take place in
the Reich Security Main Office with SS Lieutenant General
Heydrich. A great Jewish migration will begin, in any case. “But
what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be
settled down in the ‘Ostland’ in villages? This is what we were
told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them
either in the ‘Ostland’ or in the ‘Reichskommissariat.’ So
liquidate them yourselves.
“Gentlemen, I must ask you to arm yourselves against all feeling
of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and
wherever it is possible, in order to maintain there the
structure of the Reich as a whole. This will, naturally, be
achieved by other methods than those pointed out by Bureau Chief
Dr. Hummel. Nor can the judges of the Special Courts be made
responsible for it because of the limitations of the frame work
of the legal procedure. Such outdated views cannot be applied to
such gigantic and unique events. We must find at any rate a way
which leads to the goal, and my thoughts are working in that
direction.
“The Jews represent for us also extraordinarily malignant
gluttons. We have now approximately, 2,500,000 of them in the
Government General, perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and
everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or
poison those 3,500,000 Jews; but we shall nevertheless be able
to take measures which will lead, somehow, to their
annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures
to be determined in discussions with the Reich. The Government
General must become free of Jews, the same as the Reich. Where
and how this is to be achieved is a matter for the offices which
we must appoint and create here. Their activities will be
brought to your attention in due course.”
This, if the Tribunal please, is not the planning and scheming of an
individual, but is the expression of the official of the German State,
the appointed Governor General of occupied Poland. The methods used to
accomplish the annihilation of the Jewish people were varied and,
although not subtle, were highly successful.
I have from time to time made reference to certain utterances and
actions of the Defendant Rosenberg as one of the leaders and policy
makers of the Nazi Party and German State. It is perhaps reasonable to
assume that the Defendant Rosenberg will claim for many of his actions
that he pursued them pursuant to superior orders. I have before me,
however, a captured document, Number 001-PS, marked “secret,” dated 18
December 1941, entitled “Documentary Memorandum for the
Führer—Concerning Jewish Possessions in France,” Exhibit Number
USA-282. I dare say that no document before this Tribunal will more
clearly evidence the Defendant Rosenberg’s personal attitude, his
temperament, and convictions toward the Jews more strongly than this
memorandum, wherein he, in his own initiative, urges plundering and
death. I offer in evidence Document Number 001-PS. The body of the
memorandum reads as follows:
“In compliance with the order of the Führer for protection of
Jewish cultural possessions, a great number of Jewish dwellings
remained unguarded. Consequently, many furnishings have
disappeared because a guard could, naturally, not be posted. In
the whole East the administration has found terrible conditions
of living quarters, and the chances of procurement are so
limited that it is not possible to procure any more. Therefore,
I beg the Führer to permit the seizure of all Jewish home
furnishings of Jews in Paris who have fled or will leave shortly
and those of Jews living in all parts of the occupied West to
relieve the shortage of furnishings in the administration in the
East.
“2. A great number of leading Jews were, after a short
examination in Paris, again released. The attempts on the lives
of members of the Forces have not stopped; on the contrary they
continue. This reveals an unmistakable plan to disrupt the
German-French co-operation, to force Germany to retaliate and,
with this, evoke a new defense on the part of the French against
Germany. I suggest to the Führer that, instead of executing 100
Frenchmen, we shoot in their place 100 Jewish bankers, lawyers,
_et cetera_. It is the Jews in London and New York who incite
the French Communists to commit acts of violence, and it seems
only fair that the members of this race should pay for this. It
is not the little Jews but the leading Jews in France who should
be held responsible. That would tend to awaken the anti-Jewish
sentiment.”—Sighed—“A. Rosenberg.”
[_Dr. Thoma approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you to speak slowly so that your application
will come to me through the earphones correctly.
DR. THOMA: Since the Prosecutor is now dealing with the case against my
client, Rosenberg, may I be permitted to voice an objection to Document
212-PS, Exhibit Number USA-272. The Prosecutor claims that this document
was a directive issued by the Minister for the East. It begins with the
words . . .
THE PRESIDENT: None of that has come through on the earphones. I don’t
understand you. You had better begin again.
DR. THOMA: The Prosecutor presented earlier today Document Number
212-PS, Exhibit Number USA-272, claiming that its content was a
directive issued by the Minister for the East on the treatment of Jews.
In this document he is said to have given instructions that violations
of German regulations by Jews, especially violations of the compulsory
labor laws, could only be punished by death. This document does not
originate with the Defendant Rosenberg; nor did it by mistake . . .
THE PRESIDENT: More slowly, please.
DR. THOMA: This document does not originate with the Defendant
Rosenberg. It bears neither a date nor an address, nor his signature. I,
therefore, object to the assertion that this document originated with
the Defendant Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I don’t think that Counsel for the
Prosecution said that, that Document 212-PS emanated from Rosenberg. I
didn’t so understand him.
DR. THOMA: I understood him to say that it was a directive issued by the
Minister for the East; and if I am not mistaken, he also said it was
dated April 1941. At that time there was no Ministry for the East.
Rosenberg was only named Minister for the East in July 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask the Counsel for the Prosecution.
MAJOR WALSH: It is my understanding, Sir, that that document, 212-PS,
was taken from the captured files of Rosenberg.
DR. THOMA: That is true, it was found among the papers of the Defendant
Rosenberg; the Defendant Rosenberg claims, however, that he has never
seen this document, that he knows nothing about it, and that it has
never passed through his hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Rosenberg, when he is called as a witness or when you
appear to speak for him, will be able to say that he has never seen the
document before. All that Counsel, for the Prosecution has said—and it
appears to be true—is that the document was found in Rosenberg’s file.
You can say or prove by Rosenberg’s evidence when you call Rosenberg—if
you do call him—that he never saw the document. Do you understand?
DR. THOMA: Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 5 o’clock now, so we will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 14 December 1945 at 1000 hours._]
TWENTIETH DAY
Friday, 14 December 1945
_Morning Session_
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I bring up two points with regard to yesterday’s and
all future presentation of evidence on the section dealing with Crimes
against Humanity.
Firstly, I request that the affidavit of the witness Pfaffenberger,
which was submitted yesterday, be stricken from the record. The witness
himself will later have to be cross-examined, since his affidavit is
fragmentary in most important points. In many cases it does not appear
whether his statements are based on personal observations or on hearsay,
and therefore it is too easy to draw false conclusions. The witness did
not mention that the Camp Commander Koch and his inhuman wife were
condemned to death by an SS court, among other things, on account of
these occurrences. It is, of course, possible to ascertain the complete
facts by questioning the witness at a later stage of the Trial. But
until then the Tribunal and all members of the Prosecution and the
Defense must be continually influenced by such dreadful testimony.
The contents of this testimony are so horrifying and so degrading to the
human mind that one would like to avert one’s eyes and ears. In the
meantime such statements make their way into the press of the whole
world, and civilization is justly indignant. The consequences of such
prejudiced statements are incalculable. The Prosecutor clearly
recognized the significance of this testimony and exposed the sorry
documents in yesterday’s proceedings.
If weeks or months pass before such testimony is rectified, its initial
effect can never be wholly eliminated; but truth suffers and justice is
endangered thereby. Surely, Article 19 of the Charter does not envisage
bringing about such a state of affairs.
Secondly, I should, therefore, like to suggest that at the present stage
of the Trial the testimony of witnesses who live in Germany and whose
appearance here in court is possible should not be read in the
proceedings. For at this stage of the Trial the charges being made are
even more terrible than those referring to wars of aggression, since the
tortured lives and deaths of human beings are involved.
At the beginning of the Trial the Tribunal refused to admit testimony of
the witness Schuschnigg, and it is my opinion that what was valid then
should be all the more valid at this stage of the Trial.
I should like to emphasize my suggestion particularly with regard to the
Defendant Dr. Kaltenbrunner himself, since it was not until the spring
of 1943 that he became Chief of the Reich Security Main Office and
since, in the opinion of the Defense, many, if not all, of his
signatures were forged and the entire executive function attached to the
concentration camps and the things connected with them lay exclusively
in Himmler’s hands. That I hope to prove at a later date. I mentioned it
now in order to justify my suggestion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear counsel for the Chief
Prosecutor of the United States.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Dodd, who had
charge of the matter which is under discussion, left for the United
States yesterday; and I shall have to substitute for him as best I can.
This Tribunal sits under a Charter which recognized the impossibility of
covering a decade of time, a continent of space, a million acts, by
ordinary rules of proof, and at the same time finishing this case within
the lives of living men. We do not want to have a trial here that, like
the trial of Warren Hastings, lasted 7 years. Therefore the Charter sets
up only two standards by which any evidence, I submit, may be rejected.
The first is that evidence must be relevant to the issue. The second is
it must have some probative value. That was made mandatory upon this
Tribunal in Article 19 because of the difficulty of ever trying this
case if we used the technical rules of Common Law proof.
One of the reasons this was a military tribunal, instead of an ordinary
court of law, was in order to avoid the precedent-creating effect of
what is done here on our own law and the precedent control which would
exist if this were an ordinary judicial body.
Article 19 provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound by technical
rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible
extent expeditious and non-technical procedure and shall admit any
evidence which it deems to have probative value. That was made
mandatory, that it shall admit any evidence which it deems to have
probative value. The purpose of that provision, Your Honors, I may say,
was this: That the whole controversy in this case—and we have no doubt
that there is room for controversy—should be centered upon the value of
evidence and not on its admissibility.
We have no jury. There is no occasion for applying jury rules.
Therefore, when a piece of evidence is offered, there are two questions
which arise: Does it have probative value? If it has no probative value,
then it should not encumber the records, of course. The second is, does
it have relevancy? If it has not, of course it should not come in.
The evidence in question has relevance; no one questions that. No one
can say that an affidavit, duly sworn, does not have some probative
value. What probative value it has, the weight of it, should be
determined on the submission of the case. That is to say, if a witness
has made a statement in an affidavit, and it is denied by Mr.
Kaltenbrunner, and you believe that the denial has weight and
credibility, of course, the affidavit should not be considered in the
final consideration of the case. But we are dealing here with events
that took place over great periods of time and great distances. We are
dealing with witnesses widely scattered and a situation where
communications are almost at a standstill.
If this affidavit stands at the end of this case undenied, unchallenged,
it is not, then, beyond belief that you would give it value and weight.
An affidavit might bear internal evidence that it lacked credibility,
such as evidence where the witness was talking of something of which he
had no personal knowledge. I do not say that every affidavit that comes
along has probative value just because it is sworn to. But it seems to
me that if we are to make progress with this case, this simple system
envisioned by this Charter, which was the subject of long consideration,
must be followed; that if, when a piece of evidence is presented, even
though it does not comply with technical rules governing judicial
procedures, it is something which has probative value in the ordinary
daily concerns of life, it should be admitted. If it stands undenied at
the close of the case, as many of these things will, then, of course,
there is no issue about it; and it saves the calling of witnesses, which
will take an indefinite period of time as we have already seen. I may
say that the testimony of the witness Lahousen, which took nearly 2
days, could have been put in, in this Court, in 15 minutes in affidavit
form, and all that was essential to it could have been placed before us;
and if it were to be denied you could then have determined its weight.
We want to adhere to this Charter. I submit it is no reason for
deviating from the Charter that an affidavit recites horrors. I should
have thought that the world could not be more shocked by recitals of
horrors in affidavits than it has been in the documents that have
proceeded from sources of the enemy itself. There is no reason in that
for departing from the plain principles of the Charter.
I think the question of orderly procedure and the question of time are
both involved in this. I think that the Tribunal should receive
affidavits, and we have prepared them—we hope carefully, we hope
fairly—to present a great many things that would take days and days of
proof. I may say that this ruling is more important in subsequent stages
of this case than it is on this particular affidavit.
There is another reason, perhaps. We have some situations in which a
member of an accused organization, who is directly hostile to our
position because the accusation would reach him within the accused
class, has made an affidavit or affidavits which constitute admissions
against interest; but on some other issue he makes statements which we
believe are untrue and incredible; and we do not wish to vouch for his
general credibility by calling him as a witness, but we wish to avail
ourselves of his admission. Those things we think since we have to make
our proof largely from enemy sources. All this proof and every witness 8
months ago were in the hands of the enemy. We have to make our proof
from them. God alone knows how much proof there is in this world that we
have not been able to reach. We submit that the orderly procedure here
is to abide by this Charter and admit these affidavits. If they stand
unquestioned at the end of the case, there is no issue about them. If
they are questioned, then the weight is a matter which you would
determine on final submission.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I have three questions I should like
to ask you. The first is: Where is Pfaffenberger?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That I cannot answer at the moment, but I will get
an answer as quickly as I can. It is unknown to us at the moment. If we
are able to ascertain, I will inform you at the conclusion of the noon
recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The second point to which I wish to draw your attention
is Article 16(e) of the Charter, which contemplates cross-examination of
witnesses by the defendants. The only reason why it is thought that
witnesses who are available should not give evidence by affidavit is
because it denies to the Defense the opportunity of cross-examining
them.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that this provision means just exactly what
it says. If we call a witness, they have the right of cross-examination.
If he is not called, they have the right to call him, if he is
available, as their witness; but not, of course, the right of
cross-examination. The provision itself, if Your Honor notices, reads
that they have the right to cross-examine any witness called by the
Prosecution; but that does not abrogate or affect Article 19, that we
may obtain and produce any probative evidence in such manner as will
expedite the Trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the next point to which I wish to draw your
attention is Article 17(a). As I understood it, you were arguing that it
was mandatory upon the Tribunal to consider any evidence which was
relevant. Therefore, I draw your attention to Article 17(a) which gives
the Tribunal power to summon witnesses to the Trial.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. I think there is no conflict in that
whatever. The power of the Tribunal to summon witnesses and to put
questions to them was introduced into this Charter through the
continental systems of jurisprudence. Usually there are not Tribunal
witnesses in our procedure in the States. Witnesses are called only by
one of the parties; but it was suggested by the continental scholars
that in this kind of case, since we were utilizing a mixture of the two
procedures, the Tribunal itself should have the right to do several
things. One is to summon witnesses, to require their attendance, and to
put questions to them. I submit that this witness, whose affidavit has
been received, can be called, if we can find him, by the Tribunal and
questioned.
The next provision—and it bears, on the spirit of this—of Article 17
is that the Tribunal has the right to interrogate any defendant. Of
course, under our system of jurisprudence the Tribunal would have no
such right, because the defendant has the unqualified right to refrain
from being a witness; but in deference again to the continental system,
the Tribunal was given the right to interrogate any defendant, and his
immunities, which he would have under the Constitution of the United
States, if he were being tried under our system, were taken away.
I submit that the perfect consistency in those provisions empowers the
Tribunal on its own motion (Article 17) to summon witnesses, to
supplement anything that is offered, to put any questions to witnesses
and to any defendant.
If any witness is called, the right of cross-examination cannot be
denied; but that does not abrogate Article 19, which was intended to
enable us to put our case before the Tribunal so that the issue would
then be drawn by the defendants and the weight of what we offer
determined on final submission.
THE PRESIDENT: Lastly, there is Article 17(e), which I suppose, in your
submission, would entitle the Tribunal, if they thought right, after
receiving the affidavit, to take the evidence of Pfaffenberger on
commission.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, I think it would, Your Honor. I may say, in
reference to that section—what, perhaps, may be surprising to those
accustomed to our system of jurisprudence—that it was one of the most
controversial issues we had in the framing of this Charter. We had in
mind the authorization of what we call “masters” to go into various
localities, perhaps, and take testimony, not knowing what might be
necessary. Our practice, however, of sending “masters in equity” to take
testimony and make recommendations was not acceptable to the continental
system, and we finally compromised on this provision which authorizes
the taking of testimony by commissions.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Your Honors,
I have come forward after my colleague, Mr. Jackson, to make my own
statement, inasmuch as I think that the petition of the Defense is
fundamentally wrong and should not be complied with.
We are submitting our objections for the Tribunal’s consideration. I
fully share the viewpoint held by the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.A.,
Mr. Jackson, and in addition should like to point out the following; The
Defense Counsel, in his petition, raises the question of whether the
Prosecution should refer to, or make public, documents containing
affidavits of persons residing in Germany. A statement of this sort is
completely out of order since, as is known, the defendants committed the
greater part of their atrocities in all countries of Europe and it will
be readily understood that the witnesses of these atrocities live in
different parts of these countries; it is essential that the Prosecution
have recourse to the testimony of such persons, whether it be written or
oral. Your Honors, we have entered a phase of the Trial in which we have
to set forth the atrocities connected with so-called War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity, atrocities which were committed by the
defendants over extensive areas. We shall submit as evidence documents
originating from the defendants themselves or from persons who suffered
at the hands of the war criminals; it would be impossible to summon all
these witnesses to the Trial so that they could give their evidence
orally. It is absolutely necessary to have affidavits and written
testimonies from these witnesses.
As His Honor the President has already remarked, Article 17 provides for
the right of summoning witnesses to the Trial. That is correct; but it
is impossible to summon all the witnesses who could depose affidavits on
the crimes committed by the defendants. I therefore refer to Article 19
of the Charter which reads:
“The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence.
It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent
expeditious”—and I emphasize, Your Honor, _expeditious_—“and
non-technical procedure and shall admit any evidence which it
deems to have probative value.”
I would ask the Tribunal to proceed according to this article which
definitely admits written affidavits of witnesses as evidence. That is
what I wished to say by way of a supplement to the statement of Mr.
Jackson.
MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, as far as the British
Delegation is concerned, they desire to support what the American Chief
Prosecutor has said, and we do not feel we can usefully add anything.
THE PRESIDENT: [_To M. Faure of the French Delegation._] Do you wish to
add anything?
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.
President, I wish simply to inform the Court that the French Prosecution
is entirely in accord with the remarks of the American and Soviet
Prosecutors.
I think, as the representative of the American Prosecution said, it is
impossible to settle the question of evidence in this Trial solely by
hearing oral testimony in the courtroom, for under those circumstances
it might be opportune to call to the witness stand all the inhabitants
of the territories involved, which is obviously impossible. The Defense
will have every opportunity of discussing the documents which have been
presented by the Prosecution, including the written testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that Counsel for Kaltenbrunner was
suggesting that every witness must be called but that witnesses who were
in Germany and available should be called and that their evidence should
not be given by affidavit.
M. FAURE: The Defense has the right of calling them as witnesses if it
so desires.
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I add a few more words to this important question?
The replies which have just been given illustrate that one of the main
principles of the proceedings is that the Trial should proceed speedily.
That is also expressed in Article 19 of the Charter, and no one can hope
more than we that this principle be followed; but it is nevertheless my
opinion that another principle, the highest known to mankind, the
principle of truth, should not thereby suffer. If there is a fear that
truth will suffer through an over-hasty trial, then formal methods of
procedure must take a secondary place. There are human principles which
remain unspoken, which need not be spoken.
This spirit of truth is certainly contained in and governs Article 19;
and the objections I raised to the testimony of this witness seem to me
justified to such a degree that the important principle of speeding up
the Trial should give way to the principle of truth. Humanity itself is
in question here. We want to establish the truth for our own generation
and for that of our children. But if such testimony remains untold for
months, then a part of mankind might well despair of all humanity and
the German people, in particular, would suffer.
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for the Defendant Bormann): May it please
the Tribunal, I should like to bring up one other point, which appears
to me important, because it was apparently the real source of this
discussion. According to our legal system it is the duty of the
Prosecution to produce not only the incriminating evidence but also
evidence for the defense of the accused. I can well understand that my
colleague, Dr. Kauffmann, protests the Prosecution’s failure to mention
a very important point, namely, that the German authorities indicted
this inhuman SS leader and his wife and condemned them to death. It is
highly probable that the Prosecution knew of this and that these
horrible exhibits of perverted human nature, which were presented to us,
were found in the files of the German Court.
I believe the whole discussion would not have arisen if the Prosecution
had mentioned, as part of the ghastly evidence, the fact that the German
authorities themselves passed judgment on this inhuman man and condemned
him to death.
We find ourselves in difficulties because, in contrast to our own
procedure, the Prosecution for the most part simply presents
incriminating evidence but omits to present the exculpating evidence
which may form part of any document or part of the testimony of a
witness. If the German procedure had been followed in the present case
and if the Prosecution had stated that this man was condemned to death,
then in the first place, the evidence against the Defendant
Kaltenbrunner would not have appeared so weighty and secondly, public
opinion would, on the whole, have been left with a different impression.
My colleague Kauffmann could then have limited himself to proving at a
later stage of the Trial that Kaltenbrunner had, in fact, nothing at all
to do with this affair; and the inhuman character of the proceedings and
the dreadful impression which it made on us would have been avoided.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you explain the part of the German law to which you
were referring, where you say it is the duty of the Prosecution not only
to produce evidence for the Prosecution but also to produce evidence for
the Defense.
DR. BERGOLD: That is a general principle of German jurisprudence,
established in Paragraph 160 of the Reich Code of Penal Procedure. It is
one of the basic principles of law in Germany to . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Give me that reference again.
DR. BERGOLD: Paragraph 160. German law incorporates this principle in
order to enable an accused person to . . .
THE PRESIDENT: 160 of what?
DR. BERGOLD: Of the Reich Code of Penal Procedure. The same is true of
Austria. In the Austrian Code of Penal Procedure there is a similar
paragraph with which, however, I am not quite familiar. This principle
is established to permit the whole truth of a case to be brought to
light, since a defendant in custody is frequently not in a position to
produce all the evidence in his favor. Therefore, under German law it is
the Prosecution’s duty to present the exculpating as well as the
incriminating evidence in a particular case.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The question arising out of Pfaffenberger’s evidence does
not specifically concern the Defendant Von Papen, because that part of
the Indictment does not apply to his case. I am therefore speaking only
of the principle behind it. I believe that in practice the effect of the
different opinions expressed by the Prosecution and the Defense cannot
be of very great importance. Justice Jackson agrees with us that every
witness whose affidavit is presented can, if available, be called to the
stand by the Defense. Thus, in all cases in which the Defense holds that
an affidavit is evidence of secondary value and as such insufficient and
that direct examination of the witness is necessary—in all such cases
there would be duplication of evidence, namely, the reading of the
affidavit and then the examination and cross-examination of the witness.
This would undoubtedly delay the proceedings of the Trial; and to
prevent that the Tribunal would, in all such cases, rule against the
reading, of the affidavit. Consequently, it is futile for the
Prosecution to present affidavits of witnesses who can be expected to
appear in person later in the proceedings.
I do not think that the Prosecution should be worried about this. It is
a matter of course that we—and we assume the same is true of the
Prosecution—that we, the members of the Defense, want the Trial to be
as speedy as possible but also want it to proceed cautiously to
establish the full truth. But, it is obvious, if evidence is introduced
which is a potential cause of completely unjust findings, that such
evidence will have to be clarified in a more complicated and
time-consuming way when the witness is called in person.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the objection that has been
raised when the Court adjourns.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I have one word?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, it is unusual to hear counsel who
opposes an objection a second time.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I merely want to give you the answer to the
question which you asked me as to the whereabouts of Pfaffenberger. My
information is that these affidavits were taken by the American Army at
the time it liberated the people in these concentration camps, at the
same time the films were taken and the whole evidence that was available
gathered. This witness was present at the concentration camp, and at
that time his statements were taken. We do not know his present
whereabouts, and I see no reasonable likelihood that we will be able to
locate him within any short time. We will make an effort.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, might I endeavor to assist? I
think I have now obtained the German order to which the Defense Counsel
referred, Paragraph 160. It is, My Lord, of course, in German. Perhaps I
might hand it up, and the court translators will no doubt deal with the
paragraph.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think one bit of additional information should be
furnished in view of the statements made here that we have information
that we are withholding. Kaltenbrunner has been interrogated. At no time
has he made such a claim, so I am advised by our interrogators; and
under the Charter our duty is to present the case for the Prosecution. I
do not, in any instance, serve two masters.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I call upon Major Walsh. Major Walsh, did you give a
lettering to the document book with which you are dealing?
MAJOR WALSH: Yes. If Your Honor please, it is the letter “T.” May it
please the Tribunal, during the last session the Prosecution presented
briefly the preliminary steps leading to the ultimate objective of the
Nazi Party and the Nazi-controlled State, that is, the extermination of
the Jews. Propaganda, decrees, the infamous Nuremberg Laws, boycotts,
registration, and “ghettoization” were the initial measures in the
program. I shall, with the Court’s permission, continue with a
discussion of the methods utilized for the annihilation of the Jewish
people.
I would like first to discuss starvation. Policies were designed and
adopted to deprive the Jews of the most elemental necessities of life.
Again the Defendant Hans Frank, then Governor General of Poland, wrote
in his diary that hunger rations were introduced in the Warsaw ghetto;
and referring to the new food regulations in August 1942, he callously,
and perhaps casually, noted that by these food regulations he virtually
condemned more than 1 million Jews to death. I offer in evidence that
part of Document 2233(e)-PS, diary of Hans Frank, “Conference Volume,”
24 August 1942, Exhibit USA-283. And I quote:
“That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be
noted only marginally. It is a matter of course that should the
Jews not starve to death it would, we hope, result in a speeding
up of the anti-Jewish measures.”
Frank’s diary was not the only guide to the deliberate policy of
starvation of the Jews. They were prohibited from pursuing agricultural
activities in order to cut them off from access to the source of food. I
offer Document 1138-PS in evidence, Exhibit USA-284. I refer the Court
to Page 4 of the translation, marked with the Roman numeral V,
Paragraphs a and b. The document is entitled “Provisional Directive on
the Treatment of Jews . . .” and it was issued by the Reich Commissioner
for the Ostland. I read:
“Jews must be cleaned out from the countryside. The Jews are to
be removed from all trades, especially from trade with
agricultural products and other foodstuffs.”
Jews were excluded from the purchase of basic food, such as wheat
products, meat, eggs, and milk.
I offer in evidence Document 1347-PS, Exhibit USA-285, and I quote from
Paragraph 2 on the first page of the translation before the Court. This
is an original decree, dated 18 September 1942, from the Ministry of
Agriculture. I quote:
“Jews will no longer receive the following foods, beginning with
the 42d distribution period (19 October 1942): meat, meat
products, eggs, wheat products, (cake, white bread, wheat rolls,
wheat flour, _et cetera_), whole milk, fresh skimmed milk, as
well as such food distributed not on food ration cards issued
uniformly throughout the Reich but on local supply certificates
or by special announcement of the nutrition office on extra
coupons of the food cards. Jewish children and young people over
10 years of age will receive the bread ration of the normal
consumer.”
The sick, the old, and the pregnant mothers were excluded from the
special food concessions allotted to non-Jews. Seizure by the State
Police of food shipments to Jews from abroad was authorized, and the
Jewish ration cards were distinctly marked with “Jew,” in color, across
the face of the cards, so that the storekeepers could readily identify
and discriminate against Jewish purchasers.
The Czechoslovakian Government published in 1943 an official document
entitled “Czechoslovakia Fights Back.” I offer this book in evidence,
Document 1689-PS, Exhibit USA-286. To summarize the contents of Page
110, it states that the Jewish food purchases were confined to certain
areas and to certain days and hours. As might be expected, the period
permitted for the purchases was during the time when food stocks were
likely to be exhausted.
By Special Order Number 44 for the Eastern Occupied Territories, dated 4
November 1941, the Jews were limited to rations as low as only one-half
of the lowest basic category of other people; and the Ministry of
Agriculture was empowered to exclude Jews entirely or partially from
obtaining food, thus exposing the Jewish community to death by
starvation.
I now offer in evidence Document L-165.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you read anything from 1689-PS?
MAJOR WALSH: Just to summarize, Sir, the contents of Page 110.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you are offering L. . .
MAJOR WALSH: L-165, Your Honor, Exhibit USA-287. I refer the Court to
the last half of the first paragraph of the translation. This is a press
bulletin issued by the Polish Ministry of Information, dated 15 November
1942. The Polish Ministry concludes that, upon the basis of the nature
of the separate rationing and the amount of food available to Jews in
the Warsaw and Kraków ghettos, the system was designed to bring about
starvation; and from the quotation I read:
“In regard to food supplies they are brought under a completely
separate system, which is obviously aimed at depriving them of
the most elemental necessities of life.”
I would now like to discuss annihilation within the ghettos. Justice
Jackson in his opening address to the Tribunal made reference to
Document 1061-PS, “The Warsaw Ghetto Is No More,” marked Exhibit
USA-275.
This finest example of ornate German craftsmanship, leather bound,
profusely illustrated, typed on heavy bond paper, is the almost
unbelievable recital of a proud accomplishment by Major General of the
Police Stroop, who signed the report with a bold hand. General Stroop in
this report first pays tribute to the bravery and heroism of the German
forces who participated in the ruthless and merciless action against a
helpless, defenseless group of Jews, numbering, to be exact, 56,065,
including, of course, the infants and the women. In this document he
proceeds to relate the day-by-day account of the ultimate accomplishment
of his mission—to destroy and to obliterate the Warsaw ghetto.
According to this report, the ghetto, which was established in Warsaw in
November 1940, was inhabited by about 400,000 Jews; and prior to the
action for the destruction of this ghetto, some 316,000 had already been
deported. The Court will note that this report is approximately 75 pages
in length, and the Prosecution believes that the contents are of such
striking evidentiary value that no part should be omitted from the
permanent records of the Tribunal and that the Tribunal should consider
the entire report in judging the guilt of these defendants.
The defendants were furnished with several photostatic copies of the
entire document at least 20 days ago and have had ample time, I am sure,
to scrutinize it in detail. If the Court, in the exercise of its
judgment, determines that the entire report may be accepted _in toto_,
the Prosecution believes that the reading of a portion of the summary,
together with brief excerpts from the daily teletype reports, will
suffice for the oral record. I would like the Court to examine it; and I
present it to the Court, together with the duplicate original thereof,
and ask that the Court rule that the entire document may be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: Major Walsh, the Court will take that course, provided
that the Prosecution supplies as soon as possible, both to the Soviet
and to the French members of the Tribunal, copies in Russian and French
of the whole document.
MAJOR WALSH: Yes, Sir; may I consult with . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I do not say present immediately, but present as soon as
possible.
MAJOR WALSH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going to read the passages that you think
necessary?
MAJOR WALSH: Yes. From Page 6 of the translation before the Court of
Document 1061-PS I would like to read the boastful but nonetheless vivid
account of some of this ruthless action within the Warsaw ghetto. I
quote, second paragraph, Page 6:
“The resistance put up by the Jews and bandits could be broken
only by the relentless and energetic use of our shock-troops by
day and night. On 23 April 1943 the Reichsführer SS issued
through the Higher SS and Police Leader East at Kraków his order
to complete the combing out of the Warsaw ghetto with the
greatest severity and relentless tenacity. I therefore decided
to destroy the entire Jewish residential area by setting every
block on fire, including the blocks of residential buildings
near the armament works. One building after the other was
systematically evacuated and subsequently destroyed by fire. The
Jews then emerged from their hiding places and dugouts in almost
every case. Not infrequently the Jews stayed in the burning
buildings until, because of the heat and the fear of being
burned alive, they preferred to jump down from the upper stories
after having thrown mattresses and other upholstered articles
into the street from the burning buildings. With their bones
broken they still tried to crawl across the street into blocks
of buildings which had not yet been set on fire or were only
partially in flames. Often the Jews changed their hiding places
during the night by moving into the ruins of burnt-out
buildings, taking refuge there until they were found by our
patrols. Their stay in the sewers also ceased to be pleasant
after the first week. Frequently from the street we could hear
loud voices coming through the sewer shafts. Then the men of the
Waffen-SS, the Police, or the Wehrmacht Engineers courageously
climbed down the shafts to bring out the Jews and not
infrequently they then stumbled over Jews already dead or were
shot at. It was always necessary to use smoke candles to drive
out the Jews. Thus one day we opened 183 sewer entrance holes
and at a fixed time lowered smoke candles into them, with the
result that the bandits fled from what they believed to be gas
into the center of the former ghetto, where they could then be
pulled out of the sewer holes there. A great number of Jews who
could not be counted were exterminated by blowing up sewers and
dugouts.
“The longer the resistance lasted, the tougher the men of the
Waffen-SS, Police, and Wehrmacht became. They fulfilled their
duty indefatigably in faithful comradeship and stood together as
models and examples of soldiers. Their duty hours often lasted
from early morning until late at night. At night search patrols,
with rags wound around their feet, remained at the heels of the
Jews and gave them no respite. Not infrequently they caught and
killed Jews who used the night hours for supplementing their
stores from abandoned dugouts and for contacting neighboring
groups or exchanging news with them.
“Considering that the greater part of the men of the Waffen-SS
had only been trained for 3 to 4 weeks before being assigned to
this action, high credit should be given to the pluck, courage,
and devotion to duty which they showed. It must be stated that
the Wehrmacht Engineers, too, executed the blowing up of
dugouts, sewers, and concrete buildings with indefatigability
and great devotion to duty. Officers and men of the Police, a
large part of whom had already been at the front, again excelled
by their dashing spirit.
“Only through the continuous and untiring work of all involved
did we succeed in catching a total of 56,065 Jews whose
extermination can be proved. To this should be added the number
of Jews who lost their lives in explosions or fires but whose
number could not be ascertained.”
THE PRESIDENT: Major Walsh, in the section that you are just upon now,
ought you not to read the opening paragraphs of this document, which set
out the amount of the losses of the German troops?