I omit one sentence.

“Finally it was agreed that the entire question should not be

settled by me”—that is, Lammers—“in the form of a law but that

the Reich Commissioners should take the existing religious

freedom for granted and should issue the necessary directives.”

Then Document 072-PS, a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg; of that I

should like to read the third paragraph:

“The Führer emphasized that in the Balkans the use of your

experts would not be necessary, since there were no art objects

to be confiscated. In Belgrade there was only the collection of

Prince Paul which would be returned to him intact. The remaining

material of the lodges, _et cetera_, would be taken care of by

the representatives of Gruppenführer Heydrich.”

From Document 062-PS I should like to read the introduction, in which

the Defendant Hess deals with the orders he had issued for the treatment

of airmen. I quote:

“The French civilian population received official instructions

by radio and otherwise on what they were to do at landings of

German aircraft.”

From Document 205-PS I should like to read the opening words of Bormann,

the second paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT: What, is the date of 062-PS? [_The interpreter wrongly

translated this as 205-PS._]

DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943, circular letter Number 70/43.

THE PRESIDENT: I think I have got it now.

THE INTERPRETER: You have 205, My Lord.

DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: No, but I wanted to know the date of 062-PS. It appears

to be 13 March 1940.

DR. BERGOLD: 062-PS? Yes, the date of that is 13 March 1940. That is the

one I read before.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not understand why you read the

document in view of Paragraph 4 of it which is as follows:

“Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or

liquidated.”

DR. BERGOLD: I shall return to that in my final speech, Mr. President. I

can present my arguments now if the Tribunal so desires, but I do not

think the argument is wanted now.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no; I thought you might have another paragraph in the

document which you wish to refer to.

DR. BERGOLD: No. I referred to the introduction, which was the reason

for this document, namely, the statement of the Defendant Hess preceding

Bormann’s document.

I come then to Document 205-PS, dated 5 May 1943, circular letter Number

70/43. I shall quote the following sentence:

“I request that along the lines set out in the attached copy the

necessity for a firm but just treatment of the foreign workers

be made clear in a suitable manner to members of the Party and

the population.”

This circular letter itself was issued by the Defendant Sauckel. I now

come to Document 025-PS, of 4 September 1942 and I read...

THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you going to now?

DR. BERGOLD: 025-PS, dated 4 September 1942. I shall quote the last

sentence of the second paragraph:

“Therefore, and this is also the opinion of the Reich Marshal

and of Reichsleiter Bormann, the problem of domestic workers

must be solved in a way different from that mentioned above.”

And then I quote from Paragraph 3, starting with the second sentence:

“In connection with this”—namely, the employment in Germany of

women workers from the East—“Reichsleiter Bormann also agrees

that members of the Armed Forces or other agencies who have

brought female domestic workers into the Reich illegally will

have their action subsequently approved; approval of such action

in the future will not be withheld, regardless of the official

recruiting scheme. The determining factor in the recruiting of

Ukrainian female workers is the specific wish of the Führer that

only girls whose conduct and appearance permit a permanent stay

in Germany should be brought into the Reich.”

Then I shall read from Figure 1, almost the last paragraph on Page 3 of

your document book:

“Recruiting, especially in the case of domestic servants, must

be on a voluntary basis and must in practice be carried out with

the help of the offices of the Reichsführer SS.”

This concludes my quotations from the document book of the Prosecution,

and I should like now to refer only to the Russian Document USSR-172 and

to Document Dönitz-91, of which I shall make use in my final speech.

This, then, brings me to the end of the presentation of my evidence.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I suggest that if this witness Kempka can

be located, counsel might submit an affidavit or an interrogatory to any

persons who have knowledge of the alleged death of Defendant Bormann. We

certainly would have no objection to it.

DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection either.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, have you any information as to what this

witness Kempka can tell us about the death of Bormann?

DR. BERGOLD: According to the affidavit, which I read to the Tribunal,

he is said to have been present when Bormann was killed by a tank

explosion. He would, therefore, be an eye witness of Bormann’s death,

like the witness Rattenhuber, from whom the witness Krüger obtained her

information. If the witnesses Kempka and Rattenhuber were found, I would

be satisfied with affidavits and interrogatories.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have seen this statement by Kempka some time

ago, which is in affidavit form and which has come to our attention. But

my recollection is that he does not state positively that he saw him

die. But I again suggest we might make further efforts to get an

affidavit from him, or an interrogatory, or carefully question him about

the circumstances of the death.

THE PRESIDENT: A statement was made to the Tribunal at one time by the

Prosecution suggesting that Bormann had escaped from the Chancellery in

a tank and then the tank had been stopped or blown up on a bridge and

that two of the persons inside the tank had last seen Bormann wounded,

or something of that sort.

MR. DODD: Yes, I think that is the best information.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, if the Prosecution has any material in the

shape of affidavits or anything of that sort, the Tribunal would like to

have them placed before them.

MR. DODD: Yes, Sir. I am sure we do not have an affidavit. As I recall,

it was last fall when someone sent down here what purported to be a

narrative account by Kempka of the last days in Berlin. Now, I will try

to look that up and present it to you.

THE PRESIDENT: If you can go into the matter, then possibly they might

be located through the investigations which you would make.

MR. DODD: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Then interrogatories or affidavits could be obtained.

MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Then that concludes your presentation of evidence on

behalf of Bormann?

DR. BERGOLD: That is all I have, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.

Colonel Pokrovsky, is there anything you wish to say? I beg your pardon.

Dr. Bergold, you have offered in evidence all the exhibits that you want

to offer and have given them exhibit numbers, have you?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, in my document book.

THE PRESIDENT: You are intending to offer your document book as

evidence?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: It has exhibit numbers on each document, has it?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, each document has a number.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal would like to know whether you have

arrived at any agreement with Dr. Stahmer on behalf of the Defendant

Göring with reference to affidavit evidence or witnesses, with reference

to the Katyn matter.

COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): My

Lord, we have had three conferences with the Defense Counsel. After the

second meeting I told the Tribunal that, in order to shorten the

proceedings, the Soviet Prosecution was willing to read into the record

only a part of the evidence submitted. About 15 minutes ago I had a

meeting with Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer, and they told me that their

understanding of the Tribunal’s ruling was that the old decision for the

summoning of two witnesses was still in force and that only additional

documents were now under discussion.

In view of this interpretation of the Tribunal’s ruling, I do not think

that we shall be able to come to an agreement with the Defense. As I see

it, the decision in this matter must now rest in the hands of the

Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal orders that, unless an agreement is arrived

at, the evidence shall not be given entirely by affidavits and that the

three witnesses on either side shall be called first thing on Monday

morning at 10 o’clock, unless you can arrive at an agreement before

that, that the evidence is to be offered in affidavits.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I say something on this subject?

A number of counsel who are interested in the Katyn case had a

conference this morning; among them were Professor Exner and Dr.

Stahmer. We agreed to ask the Tribunal to allow two witnesses to be

examined here in person by the Defense. These witnesses would be Colonel

Ahrens and First Lieutenant Von Eichborn. We also agreed to dispense

with the hearing of the third witness but decided to request that an

affidavit of this witness, and in addition two other affidavits, be

submitted. I believe this to be a suggestion which both satisfies us and

saves the most time: Two witnesses would be heard and three affidavits

submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal sees no objection to there

being two witnesses called and one affidavit. But their order was that

three witnesses on either side—that the evidence should be limited to

three witnesses on either side; and they, therefore, are not prepared to

allow further affidavits to be given. The evidence must be confined to

the evidence of three persons on either side. They may give their

evidence either by oral evidence or by affidavit.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I was informed, the original

decision stated that three witnesses were allowed but did not mention

affidavits. That was the reason why Dr. Stahmer and Professor Exner

assumed that, regardless of the witnesses, certain individual points

could be proved by means of affidavits. I think that the hearing of two

witnesses and three affidavits would be quicker than the examination of

three witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner drew a wrong

inference from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal intended and

intends that the evidence should be limited to the evidence of three

witnesses on either side, and whether they give their evidence orally or

by affidavit does not matter. We left it to the Soviet Prosecution and

to defendant’s counsel to see whether they could agree that it should be

given by affidavit in order to save time. But that was not intended to

extend the number of witnesses who might give evidence.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that case, I should be grateful if Dr.

Stahmer and Professor Exner would be heard. I myself have not been in

Nuremberg recently; I was therefore not present when these details were

discussed and it is difficult for me—I see that Dr. Stahmer is

now—perhaps Dr. Stahmer himself could speak about it.

DR. STAHMER: I have just heard Dr. Siemers’ report, at least a part of

it. I mentioned already during the last discussion, Mr. President, that

Professor Exner and I had understood the decision to mean that besides

the three witnesses we were also allowed to submit affidavits. Indeed,

the original decision granted us five witnesses, though it made the

reservation that only three of them could give evidence here in Court.

We assumed, therefore, that we could submit affidavits of those

witnesses out of the five who had been originally granted us but who

would not give evidence in Court. The original decision granted us five

witnesses, and then a later decision of the Tribunal...

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, that is not the recollection of the Tribunal; and

if you say so, you must produce written evidence that that was the

decision. The Tribunal’s recollection is not that five witnesses were

allowed.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, yes, yes. I shall submit written evidence of these

decisions to the Tribunal. I cannot remember offhand when they were

made, but originally five witnesses were granted; then I named another

witness, who was also granted, and it was only afterwards that the

decision to allow only three witnesses to give evidence in Court was

announced.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, when the order was made limiting it to three

out of five, there was no reference in that order to affidavits, as far

as I know.

DR. STAHMER: No, affidavits were not mentioned then.

THE PRESIDENT: What I am telling you is that the Tribunal in making that

order of limitation intended to limit the whole of the evidence to three

witnesses on either side, because the matter is only a subsidiary

allegation of fact; and the Tribunal thinks that at this stage of the

proceedings such an allegation of fact ought not to be investigated by a

great number of witnesses, and three witnesses are quite sufficient on

either side.

Therefore the Tribunal does not desire to hear and did not intend that

it should have to hear any evidence except the evidence of three

witnesses, either orally or by affidavit.

The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until Monday 1 July at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY

Monday, 1 July 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.

The Tribunal orders that any of the evidence taken on commission which

the Defense Counsel or the Prosecution wish to use shall be offered in

evidence by them. This evidence will then become a part of the record,

subject to any objections.

Counsel for the organizations should begin to make up their document

books as soon as possible and put in their requests for translations.

That is all.

Dr. Stahmer.

DR. STAHMER: With reference to the events at Katyn, the Indictment

contains only the remark: “In September 1941, 11,000 Polish officers,

prisoners of war, were killed in the Katyn woods near Smolensk.” The

Russian Prosecution only submitted the details at the session of 14

February 1946. Document USSR-54 was then submitted to the Tribunal. This

document is an official report by the Extraordinary State Commission,

which was officially authorized to investigate the Katyn case. This

commission, after questioning the witnesses...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal are aware of the document and

they only want you to call your evidence; that is all.

DR. STAHMER: I wanted only to add, Mr. President, that according to this

document, there are two accusations: One, that the period of the

shooting of the Polish prisoners of war was the autumn of 1941; and the

second assertion is, that the killing was carried out by some German

military authority, camouflaged under the name of “Staff of Engineer

Battalion 537.”

THE PRESIDENT: That is all in the document, is it not? I have just told

you we know the document. We only want you to call your evidence.

DR. STAHMER: Then, as my first witness for the Defense, I shall call

Colonel Friedrich Ahrens to the witness stand.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I have a request to make before the evidence

is heard in the Katyn case. The Tribunal decided that three witnesses

should be heard, and it hinted that in the interests of equality, the

Prosecution could also produce only three witnesses, either by means of

direct examination or by means of an affidavit. In the interests of that

same principled equality, I should be grateful if the Soviet Delegation,

in the same way as the Defense, would state the names of their witnesses

before the hearing of the evidence. The Defense submitted the names of

their witnesses weeks ago. Unfortunately, up to now, I note that in the

interests of equality and with regard to the treatment of the Defense

and the Prosecution, the Soviet Delegation has so far not given the

names of the witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, were you going to give me the names of

the witnesses?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Today we notified the General

Secretary of the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution intends to call

three witnesses to the stand: Professor Prosorovski, who is the Chief of

the Medico-Legal Experts Commission; the Bulgarian subject, Professor of

Legal Medicine at Sofia University Markov, who at the same time was a

member of the so-called International Commission created by the Germans;

and Professor Bazilevsky, who was the deputy mayor of Smolensk during

the time of the German occupation.

[_The witness Ahrens took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

FRIEDRICH AHRENS (Witness): Friedrich Ahrens.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the

Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will

withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. STAHMER: Witness, did you, as a professional officer in the German

Armed Forces, participate in the second World War?

AHRENS: Yes, of course; as a professional officer I participated in the

second World War.

DR. STAHMER: What rank did you hold finally?

AHRENS: At the end as colonel.

DR. STAHMER: Were you stationed in the eastern theater of war?

AHRENS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: In what capacity?

AHRENS: I was the commanding officer of a signal regiment of an army

group.

DR. STAHMER: What were the tasks of your regiment?

AHRENS: The signal regiment of an army group had the task of setting up

and maintaining communications between the army group and the

neighboring units and subordinate units, as well as preparing the

necessary lines of communication for new operations.

DR. STAHMER: Did your regiment have any special tasks apart from that?

AHRENS: No, with the exception of the duty of defending themselves, of

taking all measures to hinder a sudden attack and of holding themselves

in readiness to defend themselves with the forces at their disposal, so

as to prevent the capture of the regimental battle headquarters.

This was particularly important for an army group signal regiment and

its battle headquarters because we had to keep a lot of highly secret

material in our staff.

DR. STAHMER: Your regiment was the Signal Regiment 537. Was there also

an Engineer Battalion 537, the same number?

AHRENS: During the time when I was in the Army Group Center I heard of

no unit with the same number, nor do I believe that there was such a

unit.

DR. STAHMER: And to whom were you subordinated?

AHRENS: I was directly subordinated to the staff of the Army Group

Center, and that was the case during the entire period when I was with

the army group. My superior was General Oberhäuser.

With regard to defense, the signal staff of the regiment with its first

battalion, which was in close touch with the regimental staff, was at

times subordinated to the commander of Smolensk; all orders which I

received from that last-named command came via General Oberhäuser, who

either approved or refused to allow the regiment to be employed for a

particular purpose.

In other words, I received my orders exclusively from General

Oberhäuser.

DR. STAHMER: Where was your staff accommodated?

AHRENS: I prepared a sketch of the position of the staff headquarters

west of Smolensk.

DR. STAHMER: I am having the sketch shown to you. Please tell us whether

that is your sketch.

AHRENS: That sketch was drawn by me from memory.

DR. STAHMER: I am now going to have a second sketch shown to you. Will

you please have a look at that one also, and will you tell me whether it

presents a correct picture of the situation?

AHRENS: May I briefly explain this sketch to you? At the right-hand

margin, that large red spot is the town of Smolensk. West of Smolensk,

and on either side of the road to Vitebsk, the staff of the army group

was situated together with the Air Force corps, that is south of

Krasnibor. On my sketch I have marked the actual area occupied by the

Army Group Center.

That part of my sketch which has a dark line around it was very densely

occupied by troops who came directly under the army group; there was

hardly a house empty in that area.

The regimental staff of my regiment was in the so-called little Katyn

wood. That is the white spot which is indicated on the sketch; it

measures about 1 square kilometer of the large forest and is a part of

the entire forest around Katyn. On the southern edge of this small wood

there lay the so-called Dnieper Castle, which was the regimental staff

headquarters.

Two and a half kilometers to the east of the staff headquarters of the

regiment there was the first company of the regiment, which was the

operating company, which did teleprinting and telephone work for the

army group. About 3 kilometers west of the regimental staff headquarters

there was the wireless company. There were no buildings within the

radius of about 1 kilometer of the regimental staff headquarters.

This house was a large two-story building with about 14 to 15 rooms,

several bath installations, a cinema, a rifle range, garages, Sauna

(steam baths) and so on, and was most suitable for accommodating the

regimental staff. Our regiment permanently retained this battle

headquarters.

DR. STAHMER: Were there also any other high-ranking staff headquarters

nearby?

AHRENS: As higher staff headquarters there was the army group, which I

have already mentioned, then a corps staff from the Air Force, and

several battalion staffs. Then there was the delegate of the railway for

the army group, who was at Gnesdovo in a special train.

DR. STAHMER: It has been stated in this Trial that certain events which

have taken place in your neighborhood had been most secret and most

suspicious. Will you please, therefore, answer the following questions

with particular care?

How many Germans were there in the staff personnel, and what positions

did they fill?

AHRENS: I had 3 officers on my staff to begin with, and then 2, and

approximately 18 to 20 noncommissioned officers and men; that is to say,

as few as I could have in my regimental staff, and every man in the

staff was fully occupied.

DR. STAHMER: Did you have Russian personnel in your staff?

AHRENS: Yes, we had four auxiliary volunteers and some female personnel

living in the immediate vicinity of the regimental staff quarters. The

auxiliary volunteers remained permanently with the regimental staff,

whereas the female personnel changed from time to time. Some of these

women also came from Smolensk and they lived in a separate building near

the regimental staff.

DR. STAHMER: Did this Russian personnel receive special instructions

from you about their conduct?

AHRENS: I issued general instructions on conduct for the regimental

headquarters, which did not solely apply to the Russian personnel.

I have already mentioned the importance of secrecy with reference to

this regimental headquarters, which not only kept the records of the

position of the army group, but also that of its neighboring units, and

on which the intentions of the army group were clearly recognizable.

Therefore, it was my duty to keep this material particularly secret.

Consequently, I had the rooms containing this material barred to

ordinary access. Only those persons were admitted—generally

officers—who had been passed by me, but also a few noncommissioned

officers and other ranks who were put under special oath.

DR. STAHMER: To which rooms did this “no admission” order refer?

AHRENS: In the first place, it referred to the telephone expert’s room,

it also referred to my own room and partly, although to a smaller

degree, to the adjutant’s room. All remaining rooms in the house and on

the site were not off limits.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, how is this evidence about the actual

conditions in these staff headquarters relevant to this question?

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, in the Russian document the allegation is

contained that events of a particularly secret nature had taken place in

this staff building and that a ban of silence had been imposed on the

Russian personnel by Colonel Ahrens, that the rooms had been locked, and

that one was only permitted to enter the rooms when accompanied by

guards. I have put the questions in this connection in order to clear up

the case and to prove that these events have a perfectly natural

explanation on account of the tasks entrusted to the regiment and which

necessitated quite obviously, a certain amount of secrecy.

For that reason, I have put these questions. May I be permitted...

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. STAHMER: I have almost finished with these questions.

[_Turning to the witness._] Was the Katyn wood cordoned off, and

especially strictly guarded by soldiers?

Mr. President, may I remark with reference to this question that here

also it had been alleged that this cordon had only been introduced by

the regiment. Previously, there had been free access to the woods, and

from this conclusions are drawn which are detrimental to the regiment.

AHRENS: In order to secure antiaircraft cover for the regimental staff

headquarters, I stopped any timber from being cut for fuel in the

immediate vicinity of the regimental staff headquarters. During this

winter the situation was such that the units cut wood wherever they

could get it.

On 22 January, there was a fairly heavy air attack on my position during

which half a house was torn away. It was quite impossible to find any

other accommodation because of the overcrowding of the area, and I

therefore took additional precautions to make sure that this already

fairly thin wood would be preserved so as to serve as cover. Since, on

the other hand, I am against the putting up of prohibition signs, I

asked the other troop units by way of verses to leave us our trees as

antiaircraft cover. The wood was not closed off at all, particularly as

the road had to be kept open for heavy traffic, and I only sent sentries

now and then into the wood to see whether our trees were left intact.

DR. STAHMER: The Prosecution...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, at a time that is convenient to you, you

will, of course, draw our attention to the necessary dates, the date at

which this unit took over its headquarters and the date at which it

left.

DR. STAHMER: Very well.

[_Turning to the witness._] When did your unit, your regiment, move into

this Dnieper Castle?

AHRENS: As far as I know, this house was taken over immediately after

the combat troops had left that area in August 1941, and it was

confiscated together with the other army group accommodations, and was

occupied by advance parties. It was then permanently occupied by the

regimental headquarters as long as I was there up to August 1943.

DR. STAHMER: So, if I understand you correctly, it was first of all in

August 1941 that an advance party took it over?

AHRENS: Yes, as far as I know.

DR. STAHMER: When did the staff actually arrive?

AHRENS: A few weeks later.

DR. STAHMER: Who was the regimental commander at that time?

AHRENS: My predecessor was Colonel Bedenck.

DR. STAHMER: When did you take over the regiment?

AHRENS: I joined the army group during the second half of November 1941,

and after getting thoroughly acquainted with all details I took over the

command of the regiment, at the end of November, if I remember rightly,

on 30 November.

DR. STAHMER: Was there a proper handing over from Bedenck to you?

AHRENS: A very careful, detailed, and lengthy transfer took place, on

account of the very considerable tasks entrusted to this regiment. Added

to that, my superior, General Oberhäuser, was an extraordinarily

painstaking superior, and he took great pains to convince himself

personally whether, by the transfer negotiations and the instructions

which I had received, I was fully capable of taking over the

responsibilities of the regiment.

DR. STAHMER: The Prosecution further alleges and claims that it was

suspicious that shots were often fired in the forest. Is that true, and

to what would you attribute that?

AHRENS: I have already mentioned that it was one of the main tasks of

the regiment to take all the necessary measures to defend themselves

against sudden attack. Considering the small number of men which I had

in my regimental staff, I had to organize and take the necessary steps

to enable me to obtain replacements in the shortest time possible. This

was arranged through wireless communication with the regimental

headquarters. I ordered that defensive maneuvers should be carried out

and that defense works should be prepared around the regimental

headquarters sector and that there should be maneuvers and exercises in

these works together with the members of the regimental headquarters. I

personally participated in these maneuvers at times and, of course,

shots were fired, particularly since we were preparing ourselves for

night fighting.

DR. STAHMER: There is supposed to have been a very lively and rather

suspicious traffic to and around your staff building. Will you please

tell us quite briefly what this traffic signified?

AHRENS: There was an extraordinary lively traffic around staff

headquarters which still increased in the spring of 1941 as I was having

the house rebuilt. I think I mentioned that it had been destroyed

through air attacks. But, of course, the traffic increased also through

the maneuvers which were held nearby. The battalions in the front area

operating at 300 and 400 kilometers distance had to, and could perform

their job only by maintaining personal contact with the regiment and its

staff headquarters.

DR. STAHMER: There is supposed to have been considerable truck traffic

which has been described as suspicious.

AHRENS: Besides our supplies, which were relatively small, the

Kommandos, as I have just mentioned, were brought in by trucks; but so

was, of course, all the building material which I required. Apart from

that, the traffic was not unusually heavy.

DR. STAHMER: Do you know that about 25 kilometers west of Smolensk there

were three Russian prisoner-of-war camps, which had originally been

inhabited by Poles and which had been abandoned by the Russians when the

German troops approached in July 1941?

AHRENS: At that time I had not yet arrived. But never during the entire

period I served in Russia did I see a single Pole; nor did I hear of

Poles.

DR. STAHMER: It has been alleged that an order had been issued from

Berlin according to which Polish prisoners of war were to be shot. Did

you know of such an order?

AHRENS: No. I have never heard of such an order.

DR. STAHMER: Did you possibly receive such an order from any other

office?

AHRENS: I told you already that I never heard of such an order and I

therefore did not receive it, either.

DR. STAHMER: Were any Poles shot on your instructions, your direct

instructions?

AHRENS: No Poles were shot on my instructions. Nobody at all was ever

shot upon my order. I have never given such an order in all my life.

DR. STAHMER: Well, you did not arrive until November 1941. Have you

heard anything about your predecessor, Colonel Bedenck, having given any

similar orders?

AHRENS: I have not heard anything about it. With my regimental staff,

with whom I lived closely together for 21 months, I had such close

connections, I knew my people so well, and they also knew me, that I am

perfectly convinced that this deed was not perpetrated by my predecessor

nor by any member of my former regiment. I would undoubtedly have heard

rumors of it at the very least.

THE PRESIDENT: This is argument, you know, Dr. Stahmer. This is not

evidence; it is argument. He is telling you what he thinks might have

been the case.

DR. STAHMER: I asked whether he had heard of it from members of his

regiment.

THE PRESIDENT: The answer to that would be “no,” I suppose, that he had

not heard—not that he was convinced that he had not done it.

DR. STAHMER: Very well.

[_Turning to the witness._] After your arrival at Katyn, did you notice

that there was a grave mound in the woods at Katyn?

AHRENS: Shortly after I arrived—the ground was covered by snow—one of

my soldiers pointed out to me that at a certain spot there was some sort

of a mound, which one could hardly describe as such, on which there was

a birch cross. I have seen that birch cross. In the course of 1942 my

soldiers kept telling me that here in our woods shootings were supposed

to have taken place, but at first I did not pay any attention to it.

However, in the summer of 1942 this topic was referred to in an order of

the army group later commanded by General Von Harsdorff. He told me that

he had also heard about it.

DR. STAHMER: Did these stories prove true later on?

AHRENS: Yes, they did turn out to be true and I was able to confirm,

quite by accident, that there was actually a grave here. During the

winter of 1943—I think either January or February—quite accidentally I

saw a wolf in this wood and at first I did not believe that it was a

wolf; when I followed the tracks with an expert, we saw that there were

traces of scratchings on the mound with the cross. I had investigations

made as to what kind of bones these were. The doctors told me “human

bones.” Thereupon I informed the officer responsible for war graves in

the area of this fact, because I believed that it was a soldier’s grave,

as there were a number of such graves in our immediate vicinity.

DR. STAHMER: Then, how did the exhumation take place?

AHRENS: I do not know about all the details. Professor Dr. Butz arrived

one day on orders from the army group, and informed me that following

the rumors in my little wood, he had to make exhumations, and that he

had to inform me that these exhumations would take place in my wood.

DR. STAHMER: Did Professor Butz later give you details of the result of

his exhumations?

AHRENS: Yes, he did occasionally give me details and I remember that he

told me that he had conclusive evidence regarding the date of the

shootings. Among other things, he showed me letters, of which I cannot

remember much now; but I do remember some sort of a diary which he

passed over to me in which there were dates followed by some notes which

I could not read because they were written in Polish. In this connection

he explained to me that these notes had been made by a Polish officer

regarding events of the past months, and that at the end—the diary

ended with the spring of 1940—the fear was expressed in these notes

that something horrible was going to happen. I am giving only a broad

outline of the meaning.

DR. STAHMER: Did he give you any further indication regarding the period

he assumed the shooting had taken place?

AHRENS: Professor Butz, on the basis of the proofs which he had found,

was convinced that the shootings had taken place in the spring of 1940

and I often heard him express these convictions in my presence, and also

later on, when commissions visited the grave and I had to place my house

at the disposal of these commissions to accommodate them. I personally

did not have anything to do whatsoever with the exhumations or with the

commissions. All I had to do was to place the house at their disposal

and act as host.

DR. STAHMER: It was alleged that in March 1943 lorries had transported

bodies to Katyn from outside and these bodies were buried in the little

wood. Do you know anything about that?

AHRENS: No, I know nothing about that.

DR. STAHMER: Would you have had to take notice of it?

AHRENS: I would have had to take notice of it—at least my officers

would have reported it to me, because my officers were constantly at the

regimental battle headquarters, whereas I, as a regimental commander,

was of course, frequently on the way. The officer who in those days was

there constantly was First Lieutenant Hodt, whose address I got to know

last night from a letter.

DR. STAHMER: Were Russian prisoners of war used for these exhumations?

AHRENS: As far as I remember, yes.

DR. STAHMER: Can you tell us the number?

AHRENS: I cannot say exactly as I did not concern myself any further

with these exhumations on account of the dreadful and revolting stench

around our house, but I should estimate the number as being about 40 to

50 men.

DR. STAHMER: It has been alleged that they were shot afterward; have you

any knowledge of that?

AHRENS: I have no knowledge of that and I also never heard of it.

DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.

FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): Colonel,

did you yourself ever discuss the events of 1940 with any of the local

inhabitants?

AHRENS: Yes. At the beginning of 1943 a Russian married couple were

living near my regimental headquarters; they lived 800 meters away and

they were beekeepers. I, too, kept bees, and I came into close contact

with this married couple. When the exhumations had been completed,

approximately in May 1943, I told them that, after all, they ought to

know when these shootings had taken place, since they were living in

close proximity to the graves. Thereupon, these people told me it had

occurred in the spring of 1940, and that at the Gnesdovo station more

than 200 Poles in uniform had arrived in railway trucks of 50 tons each

and were then taken to the woods in lorries. They had heard lots of

shots and screams, too.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was the wood off limits to the local

inhabitants at the time?

AHRENS: We have...

THE PRESIDENT: That is a leading question. I do not think you should ask

leading questions.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know whether the local inhabitants

could enter the woods at the time?

AHRENS: There was a fence around the wood and according to the

statements of the local inhabitants, civilians could not enter it during

the time the Russians were there. The remains of the fence were still

visible when I was there, and this fence is indicated on my sketch and

is marked with a black line.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: When you moved into Dnieper Castle did you

make inquiries as to who the former owners were?

AHRENS: Yes, I did make inquiries because I was interested. The house

was built in a rather peculiar way. It had a cinema installation and its

own rifle range and of course that interested me; but I failed to

ascertain anything definite during the whole time I was there.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Apart from mass graves in the neighborhood

of the castle, were there any other graves found?

AHRENS: I have indicated by a few dots on my sketch, that in the

vicinity of the castle there were found a number of other small graves

which contained decayed bodies; that is to say, skeletons which had

disintegrated. These graves contained perhaps six, eight, or a few more

male and female skeletons. Even I, a layman, could recognize that very

clearly, because most of them had rubber shoes on which were in good

condition, and there were also remains of handbags.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How long had these skeletons been in the

ground?

AHRENS: That I cannot tell you. I know only that they were decayed and

had disintegrated. The bones were preserved, but the skeleton structure

was no longer intact.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you, that is all.

DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for General Staff and High Command of the

German Armed Forces): Mr. President...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you know the Tribunal’s ruling.

DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have no right to ask any questions of the

witness here.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I just wanted to ask you, in this unusual

case, to allow me to put questions...

THE PRESIDENT: I said to you that you know the Tribunal’s ruling and the

Tribunal will not hear you. We have already ruled upon this once or

twice in consequence of your objections and the Tribunal will not hear

you.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the Katyn case is one of the most serious

accusations raised against the group.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is perfectly well aware of the nature of the

allegations about Katyn and the Tribunal does not propose to make any

exceptional rule in that case and it therefore will not hear you and you

will kindly sit down.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I wish to state that on account of this

ruling I feel myself unduly handicapped in my defense.

THE PRESIDENT: As Dr. Laternser knows perfectly well, he is entitled to

apply to the Commission to call any witness who is called here, if his

evidence bears upon the case of the particular organizations for which

Dr. Laternser appears. I do not want to hear anything further.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the channel you point out to me is of no

practical importance. I cannot have every witness who appears here

called by the Commission.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you are appearing for the Defendant Dönitz,

or is it Raeder?

DR. SIEMERS: Defendant Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, unless the questions you are going to ask

particularly refer to the case of the Defendant Raeder, the Tribunal is

not prepared to hear any further examination. The matter has been

generally covered by Dr. Stahmer and also by Dr. Kranzbühler. Therefore,

unless the questions which you want to ask have some particular

reference to the case of Raeder, the Tribunal will not hear you.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I had merely assumed that there were two

reasons on the strength of which I could put a few questions: First,

because the Tribunal itself has stated that within the framework of the

conspiracy all defendants had been participants; and second, that

according to the statements by the Prosecution Grossadmiral Raeder, too,

is considered a member of the alleged criminal organizations, the

General Staff and the OKW. It was for that reason I wanted to ask one or

two supplementary questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, if there were any allegations that in any

way bore on the case against Defendant Raeder, the Tribunal would of

course allow you to ask questions; but there is no allegation which in

any way connects the Defendant Raeder with the allegations about the

Katyn woods.

DR. SIEMERS: I am grateful to the Tribunal for that statement, Mr.

President.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I be allowed to ask something else?

May I have the question put to the Prosecution, who is to be made

responsible for the Katyn case?

THE PRESIDENT: I do not propose to answer questions of that sort.

The Prosecution may now cross-examine if they want to.

CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the

U.S.S.R.): Please tell me, Witness, since when, exactly, have you been

in the Smolensk district territory?

AHRENS: I have already answered that question: since the second half of

November 1941.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer me further, where were you prior

to the second part of 1941? Did you in any way have anything to do with

Katyn or Smolensk or this district in general? Were you there personally

in September and October 1941?

AHRENS: No, I was not there.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say that you were not there, either

in September or in October 1941, and therefore do not know what happened

at that time in the Katyn forest?

AHRENS: I was not there at that time, but I mentioned earlier on that...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, I am actually only interested in a short

question. Were you there personally or not? Were you able to see for

yourself what was happening there or not?

THE PRESIDENT: He says he was not there.

AHRENS: No, I was not there.

THE PRESIDENT: He said he was not there in September or October 1941.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you, Mr. President.

[_Turning to the witness._] Maybe you recall the family names of the

Russian women workers who were employed at the country house in the

woods?

AHRENS: Those female workers were not working in different houses. They

merely worked as auxiliary kitchen personnel in our Dnieper Castle. I

have not known their names at all.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That means that the Russian women workers were

employed only in the villa situated in Katyn forest where the staff

headquarters were located?

AHRENS: I believe that question was not translated well. I did not

understand it.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I asked you whether the Russian women workers

were employed exclusively in the villa in Kosig Gory where the staff

headquarters were located? Is that right?

AHRENS: The women workers worked for the regimental headquarters as

kitchen help, and as kitchen helpers they worked on our premises; and by

our premises I mean this particular house with the adjoining houses—for

instance, the stables, the garage, the cellars, the boiler room.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will mention a few names of German military

employees. Will you please tell me whether they belonged to your unit?

First Lieutenant Rex?

AHRENS: First Lieutenant Rex was my regimental adjutant.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, was he already assigned to that

unit before your arrival at Katyn?

AHRENS: Yes, he was there before I came.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He was your adjutant, was he not?

AHRENS: Yes, he was my adjutant.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Lieutenant Hodt? Hodt or Hoth?

AHRENS: Lieutenant Hodt is right; but what question are you putting

about Lieutenant Hodt?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am only questioning you about whether he

belonged to your unit or not.

AHRENS: Lieutenant Hodt was a member of the regiment. Whether...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, that is what I was asking. He belonged to

the regiment which you commanded, to your army unit?

AHRENS: I did not say by that that he was a member of the regimental

staff, but that he belonged to the regiment. The regiment consisted of

three units.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But he lived in the same villa, did he not?

AHRENS: That I do not know. When I arrived he was not there. I ordered

him to report to me there for the first time.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will enumerate a few other names. Corporal

Rose, Private Giesecken, Oberfeldwebel Krimmenski, Feldwebel Lummert, a

cook named Gustav. Were these members of the Armed Forces who were

billeted in the villa?

AHRENS: May I ask you to mention the names individually once again, and

I will answer you individually.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Feldwebel Lummert?

AHRENS: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Corporal Rose?

AHRENS: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And I believe, if my memory serves me correctly,

Storekeeper Giesecke.

AHRENS: That man’s name was Giesecken.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, that is right. I did not pronounce this

name quite correctly. These were all your people or at least they

belonged to your unit, did they not?

AHRENS: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And you assert that you did not know what these

people were doing in September and October 1941?

AHRENS: As I was not there, I cannot tell you for certain.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue? Mr. President, since the witness

has stated that he cannot give any testimony concerning the period of

September to October 1941, I will limit myself to very short questions.

[_Turning to the witness._] Witness, would you please point out the

location of the villa and the forest with respect to the

Smolensk-Vitebsk highway? Did the estate cover a large area?

AHRENS: My sketch is on a scale of 1 to 100,000 and is drawn from

memory. I estimate, therefore, that the graves were situated 200 to 300

meters directly west of the road to our Dnieper Castle, and 200 to 300

meters south of the Smolensk-Vitebsk road so that the Dnieper Castle lay

a further 600 meters away.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat that?

AHRENS: South of the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway, approximately 15

kilometers west of Smolensk. According to the scale 1 to 100,000, as far

as one is able to draw such a sketch accurately from memory, the site of

these graves was 200 to 300 meters to the south, and a further 600

meters to the south, directly on the northern bend of the Dnieper, was

situated our regimental staff quarters, the Dnieper Castle.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, the villa was approximately 600

meters away from the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway?

AHRENS: No, that is not correct. What I said...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please give a more or less exact figure. What

was the distance between the highway and the villa, please?

AHRENS: I just mentioned it in my testimony, that is to say, the graves

were about 200 to 300 meters away, and there were a further 600 meters

to the castle, therefore, in all about 900 to 1,000 meters. It might

have been 800 meters, but that is the approximate distance as can also

be seen by this sketch.

THE PRESIDENT: I am not following this. Your question, Colonel Smirnov,

was: How far was it from the road to what you called the country house?

Was it not?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President, I asked how far was the villa

from the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by the “Villa”?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The headquarters of the unit commanded by the

witness in 1941 was quartered in a villa, and this villa was situated

not far from the Dnieper River, at a distance of about 900 meters from

the highroad. The graves were nearer to the highway. I would like to

know how far away were the headquarters from the highway, and how far

away from the highway were the graves in Katyn forest.

THE PRESIDENT: What you want to know is: How far was the house in which

the headquarters was situated from the highway? Is that right?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to know, Mr.

President.

AHRENS: You put two questions to me: first of all, how far were the

graves from the highway; and secondly, how far was the house from the

highway. I will repeat the answer once more, the house was 800 to 1,000

meters south of the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One minute, please. I asked you primarily only

about the house. Your answer concerning the graves was given on your own

initiative. Now I will ask you about the graves, how far were these mass

graves from the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway?

AHRENS: From 200 to 300 meters. It might also have been 350 meters.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, the graves were 200 or 300 meters

from the main road which connected two important centers? Is that right?

AHRENS: Yes, indeed. They were at a distance of 200 to 300 meters south

of this, and I may say that at my time this was the most frequented road

I ever saw in Russia.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That was just what I was asking you. Now, please

tell me: Was the Katyn wood a real forest, or was it, rather, a park or

a grove?

AHRENS: Up to now I have only spoken about the wood of Katyn. This wood

of Katyn is the fenced-in wooded area of about 1 square kilometer, which

I drew in my sketch. This wood is of mixed growth, of older and younger

trees. There were many birch trees in this little wood. However, there

were clearings in this wood, and I should say that from 30 to 40 percent

was cleared. One could see this from the stumps of newly felled trees.

Under no circumstances could you describe this wood as a park; at any

rate one could not come to such a conclusion. Fighting had taken place

in this wood, as one could still see trenches and fox holes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, but anyway, you would not call Katyn wood a

real forest since it was relatively a small grove in the immediate

vicinity of the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway. Is that right?

AHRENS: No, that is not right. It was a forest. The entire Katyn forest

was a regular forest which began near our grove and extended far beyond

that. Of this Katyn forest, which was a mixed forest, part of it had

been fenced in, and this part, extending over 1 square kilometer, was

what we called the little Katyn wood, but it did belong to this entire

wooded region south of the highway. The forest began with our little

wood and extended to the west.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am not interested in the general

characteristics of the wood. I would like you to answer the following

short question: Were the mass graves located in this grove?

AHRENS: The mass graves were situated directly west of our entrance

drive in a clearing in the wood, where there was a growth of young

trees.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, but this clearing, this growth of young

trees, was located inside this small grove, near the Smolensk-Vitebsk

highway, is that correct?

AHRENS: It was 200 to 300 meters south of the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway,

and directly west of the entrance drive leading from this road to the

Dnieper Castle. I have marked this spot on my sketch with a fairly large

white dot.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One more question. As far as you know did the

Smolensk-Vitebsk highway exist before the German occupation of Smolensk,

or was it constructed only after the occupation?

AHRENS: When I arrived in Russia at the end of November 1941, everything

was covered with snow. Later I got the impression that this was an old

road, whereas the road Minsk-Moscow was newer. That was my impression.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I understand. Now tell me, under what

circumstances, or rather, when did you first discover the cross in the

grove?

AHRENS: I cannot tell the exact date. My soldiers told me about it, and

on one occasion when I was going past there, about the beginning of

January 1942—it could also have been at the end of December 1941—I saw

this cross rising above the snow.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This means you saw it already in 1941 or at the

latest the beginning of 1942?

AHRENS: That is what I have just testified.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, certainly. Now, please be more specific

concerning the date when a wolf brought you to this cross. Was it in

winter or summer and what year?

AHRENS: It was the beginning of 1943.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In 1943? And around the cross you saw bones, did

you not?

AHRENS: No.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No?

AHRENS: No, at first I did not see them. In order to find out whether I

had not been mistaken about seeing a wolf, for it seemed rather

impossible that a wolf should be so near to Smolensk, I examined the

tracks together with a gamekeeper and found traces of scratching on the

ground. However, the ground was frozen hard, there was snow on the

ground and I did not see anything further there. Only later on, after it

had been thawing my men found various bones. However, this was months

later and then, at a suitable opportunity I showed these bones to a

doctor and he said that these were human bones. Thereupon I said, “Then

most likely it is a grave, left as a result of the fighting which has

taken place here,” and that the war graves registration officer would

have to take care of the graves in the same way in which we were taking

care of other graves of fallen soldiers. That was the reason why I spoke

to this gentleman—but only after the snow had melted.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: By the way, did you personally see the Katyn

graves?

AHRENS: Open or before they were opened?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Open, yes.

AHRENS: When they were open I had constantly to drive past these graves,

as generally they were approximately 30 meters away from the entrance

drive. Therefore, I could hardly go past without taking any notice of

them.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am interested in the following: Do you

remember what the depth of the layer of earth was, which covered the

mass of human bodies in these graves?

AHRENS: That I do not know. I have already said that I was so nauseated

by the stench which we had to put up with for several weeks, that when I

drove past I closed the windows of my car and rushed through as fast as

I could.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: However, even if you only casually glanced at

those graves, perhaps you noticed whether the layer of earth covering

the corpses was deep or shallow? Was it several centimeters or several

meters deep? Maybe Professor Butz told you something about it?

AHRENS: As commander of a signal regiment I was concerned with a region

which was almost half as large as Greater Germany and I was on the road

a great deal. My work was not entirely carried out at the regimental

battle headquarters. Therefore, in general, from Monday or Tuesday until

Saturday I was with my units. For that reason, when I drove through, I

did cast an occasional glance at these graves; but I was not especially

interested in the details and I did not speak to Professor Butz about

such details. For this reason I have only a faint recollection of this

matter.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: According to the material submitted to the High

Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution, it has been established that the

bodies were buried at a depth of 1½ to 2 meters. I wonder where you met

a wolf who could scratch the ground up to a depth of 2 meters.

AHRENS: I did not meet this wolf, but I saw it.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me please, why you started the exhumation

on these mass graves in March 1943 only, after having discovered the

cross and learned about the mass graves already in 1941?

AHRENS: That was not my concern, but a matter for the army group. I have

already told you that in the course of 1942 the stories became more

substantial. I frequently heard about them and spoke about it to Colonel

Von Gersdorff, Chief of Intelligence, Army Group Center, who intimated

to me that he knew all about this matter and with that my obligation

ended. I had reported what I had seen and heard. Apart from that, all

this matter did not concern me and I did not concern myself with it. I

had enough worries of my own.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And now the last question. Please tell me who

were these two persons with whom you had this conversation, and maybe

you can recollect the names of the couple who told you about the

shootings in the Katyn woods?

AHRENS: This couple lived in a small house about 800 to 1,000 meters

north of the entrance to our drive leading to the Vitebsk road. I do not

recall their names.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So you do not remember the names of this couple?

AHRENS: No, I do not recall the names.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So you heard about the Katyn events from a

couple whose names you do not remember, and you did not hear anything

about it from other local inhabitants?

AHRENS: Please repeat the question for me.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, you heard about these Katyn events

only from this couple, whose names you do not remember? From none of the

other local inhabitants did you hear anything about the events in Katyn?

AHRENS: I personally heard the facts only from this couple, whereas my

soldiers told me the stories current among the other inhabitants.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you know that during the investigation of the

Katyn affair, or rather of the Katyn provocation, posters were placarded

by the German Police in the streets of Smolensk, promising a reward to

anyone giving any information in connection with the Katyn event? It was

signed by Lieutenant Voss.

AHRENS: I personally did not see that poster. Lieutenant Voss is known

to me by name only.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And the very last question. Do you know of the

report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning Katyn?

AHRENS: Do you mean the Russian _White Paper_ when you mention this

report?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, I mean the report of the Soviet

Extraordinary State Commission, concerning Katyn, the Soviet report.

AHRENS: Yes, I read that report.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, you are acquainted with the fact that

the Extraordinary State Commission names you as being one of the persons

responsible for the crimes committed in Katyn?

AHRENS: It mentions a Lieutenant Colonel Arnes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, do you wish to re-examine?

DR. STAHMER: Witness, just a little while ago you said that you did not

know when First Lieutenant Hodt joined your staff. Do you know when he

joined the regiment?

AHRENS: I know that he belonged to the regiment during the Russian

campaign and actually right from the beginning.

DR. STAHMER: That is, he belonged to the regiment from the beginning?

AHRENS: Yes. He belonged to this regiment ever since the beginning of

the Russian campaign.

DR. STAHMER: Just one more question dealing with your discussion with

Professor Butz. Did Professor Butz mention anything about the last dates

on the letters which he found?

AHRENS: He told me about the spring of 1940. He also showed me this

diary and I looked at it and I also saw the dates, but I do not recall

in detail just which date or dates they were. But they ended with the

spring of 1940.

DR. STAHMER: Therefore no documents were found of a later date?

AHRENS: Professor Butz told me that no documents or notes were found

which might have given indications of a later date, and he expressed his

conviction that these shootings must have taken place in the spring of

1940.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the

witness.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Witness, can you not remember exactly

when Professor Butz discussed with you the date at which the corpses

were buried in the mass graves?

AHRENS: May I ask to have the question repeated?

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): When did Professor Butz speak to you

about the mass graves and assert that the burial of the corpses must

have taken place in the spring of 1940?

AHRENS: I cannot tell you the date exactly, but it was in the spring of

1943, before these exhumations had started—I beg your pardon—he told

me that he had been instructed to undertake the exhumation and during

the exhumations he was with me from time to time; therefore it may have

been in May or the end of April. In the middle of May he gave me details

of his exhumations and told me among other things that which I have

testified here. I cannot now tell you exactly on which days Professor

Butz visited me.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): So far as I can remember, you stated

that Professor Butz arrived in Katyn. When did he actually arrive there?

AHRENS: In the spring of 1940 Professor Butz came to me and told me that

on instructions of the army group, he was to undertake exhumations in my

woods. The exhumations were started, and in the course of...

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): You say 1940? Or perhaps the

translation is wrong?

AHRENS: 1943, in the spring of 1943. A few weeks after the beginning of

the exhumations, Professor Butz visited me, when I happened to be there,

and informed me; or, rather, he discussed this matter with me, and he

told me that to which I have testified here. It may have been the middle

of May 1943.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): According to your testimony, I

understood you to say in answer to a question put by the defense

counsel, that Professor Butz asserted that the shootings had taken place

in the spring of 1940 before the arrival of the commission for the

exhumations. Is that correct?

AHRENS: May I repeat once more that Professor Butz...

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): It is not necessary to repeat what you

have already said. I am only asking you, is it correct or not? Maybe the

translation was incorrect, or maybe your testimony was incorrect at the

beginning.

AHRENS: I did not understand the question just put to me. That is the

reason why I wanted to explain this once more. I do not know just what

is meant by this last question. May I ask this question be repeated?

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): At the beginning, when you were

interrogated by the defense counsel, I understood you to say that

Professor Butz told you that the shooting had taken place in the spring

of 1940, that is before the arrival of the commission for the

exhumations.

AHRENS: No, that has not been understood correctly. I testified that

Professor Butz came to me and told me that he was to make exhumations

since it concerned my woods. These exhumations then took place, and

approximately 6 to 8 weeks later Professor Butz came to me—of course,

he visited me on other occasions as well—but approximately 6 to 8 weeks

later he came to me and told me that he was convinced that, as a result

of his discoveries, he was now able to fix the date of the shootings.

This statement which he made to me, refers approximately to the middle

of May.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Were you present when the diary and the

other documents which were shown to you by Professor Butz were found?

AHRENS: No.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): You do not know where he found the

diary and other documents?

AHRENS: No, that I do not know.

THE PRESIDENT: When did you first report to superior authority the fact

that you suspected that there was a grave there?

AHRENS: At first, I was not suspicious. I have already mentioned that

fighting had taken place there; and at first I did not attach any

importance to the stories told to me and did not give this matter any

credence. I believed that it was a question of soldiers who had been

killed there—of war graves, like several in the vicinity.

THE PRESIDENT: You are not answering my question. I am asking you, when

did you first report to superior authority that there was a grave there?

AHRENS: In the course of the summer 1942 I spoke to Colonel Von

Gersdorff about these stories which had come to my knowledge. Gersdorff

told me that he had heard that too, and that ended my conversation with

Von Gersdorff. He did not believe it to be true; in any case he was not

thoroughly convinced. That I do not know, however.

Then in the spring of 1943, when the snow had melted, the bones which

had been found there were brought to me, and I then telephoned to the

officer in charge of war graves and told him that apparently there were

some soldiers’ graves here. That was before Professor Butz had visited

me.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you make any report in writing?

AHRENS: No, I did not do that.

THE PRESIDENT: Never?

AHRENS: No, I was not in any way concerned with this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

DR. STAHMER: Then, as another witness, I should like to call Lieutenant

Reinhard von Eichborn.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

[_The witness Von Eichborn took the stand._]

Will you state your full name please.

REINHARD VON EICHBORN (Witness): Reinhard von Eichborn.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the

Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will

withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. STAHMER: Witness, what is your occupation?

VON EICHBORN: Assistant judge.

DR. STAHMER: Were you called up for service in the German Armed Forces

during this war?

VON EICHBORN: Yes, in August 1939.

DR. STAHMER: And what was your unit?

VON EICHBORN: Army Group Signal Regiment 537.

DR. STAHMER: And what was your rank?

VON EICHBORN: At the outbreak of the war, platoon leader and lieutenant.

DR. STAHMER: And at the end?

VON EICHBORN: First lieutenant.

DR. STAHMER: Were you on the Eastern Front during the war?

VON EICHBORN: Yes, from the beginning.

DR. STAHMER: With your regiment?

VON EICHBORN: No, from 1940 onward, on the staff of Army Group Center.

DR. STAHMER: Apart from this Regiment 537, was there an Engineer

Battalion 537?

VON EICHBORN: In the sphere of the Army Group Center there was no

Engineer Battalion 537.

DR. STAHMER: When did you arrive with your unit in the vicinity of

Katyn?

VON EICHBORN: About 20 September the staff of Army Group Center

transferred its headquarters to Smolensk, that is to say in the Smolensk

region.

DR. STAHMER: Where had you been stationed before?

VON EICHBORN: How am I to understand this question?

DR. STAHMER: Where did you come from?

VON EICHBORN: We came from Borisov.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. The witness said 20 September. That does not

identify the year.

DR. STAHMER: In what year was this 20 September?

VON EICHBORN: 20 September 1941.

DR. STAHMER: Was Regiment 537 already there at that time?

VON EICHBORN: The staff of Regiment 537 was transferred at about the

same time together with the staff of the army group to the place where

the headquarters of the army group was. Advance units had already been

stationed there previously, in order to set up communication facilities.

DR. STAHMER: And where was this staff accommodated?

VON EICHBORN: The staff of Army Group Signal Regiment 537 was

accommodated in the so-called Dnieper Castle.

DR. STAHMER: Where was the advance unit?

VON EICHBORN: The advance unit may have occupied this building, too—or

at least a part of this advance unit did—to safeguard this building for

the regimental staff.

DR. STAHMER: Do you know who was in command of this advance unit?

VON EICHBORN: Lieutenant Hodt was in command of this advance unit.

DR. STAHMER: When did this advance unit come to Katyn?

VON EICHBORN: Smolensk fell on about 17 July 1941. The army group had

planned to put up its headquarters in the immediate vicinity of

Smolensk, and, after this group had selected its quarters, this region

was seized immediately after the fall of the city. The advance unit

arrived at the same time as this area was seized, and that was probably

in the second half of July of 1941.

DR. STAHMER: Therefore the advance unit was there from July of 1941

until 20 September 1941?

VON EICHBORN: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: And the entire staff was there from 20 September 1941?

VON EICHBORN: Yes. It may be that part of the staff arrived somewhat

later, but the majority of the staff arrived on 20 September.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of the staff of the army group or the

staff of the signal regiment?

VON EICHBORN: I am speaking of both staffs, because the moving of large

staffs such as that of an army group could not be undertaken in 1 day;

usually 2 to 3 days were needed for that. The operations of the signal

corps had to be assured, and therefore the regiment had to leave some of

the staff behind until the entire staff had been moved.

DR. STAHMER: Where was the advance unit accommodated?

VON EICHBORN: At least part of the advance unit was accommodated in the

Dnieper Castle. Some of the others were in the neighborhood of those

places where later on the companies were billeted. The reason for that

was to keep the billets ready for this regiment until the bulk of it had

been moved.

DR. STAHMER: How about the Regimental Staff 537?

VON EICHBORN: That was in the Dnieper Castle.

DR. STAHMER: Can you give us the names of the officers who belonged to

the regimental staff?

VON EICHBORN: At that time there was Lieutenant Colonel Bedenck, the

commanding officer; Lieutenant Rex, adjutant; Lieutenant Hodt, orderly

officer; and a Captain Schäfer, who was a telephone expert. It may be

that one or two others were there as well, but I can no longer remember

their names.

DR. STAHMER: The preceding witness has already told us about the tasks

of the regimental staff. How were the activities of the regimental staff

controlled?

VON EICHBORN: The regiment, which consisted of 10 to 12 companies, had

to give an exact report each evening as to what work had been allotted

to the various companies. This was necessary as we had to know what

forces were available in case of emergency, for undertaking any new

tasks.

DR. STAHMER: How far away from the Dnieper Castle were you billeted?

VON EICHBORN: Approximately 4 to 5 kilometers. I cannot give you the

exact distance as I always made it by car, but it would be about 4 to 5

kilometers.

DR. STAHMER: Did you frequently go to Dnieper Castle?

VON EICHBORN: Very frequently when I was off duty, as I had belonged to

this regiment and knew most of the officers, with whom I was on friendly

terms.

DR. STAHMER: Can you tell us about the kind and extent of the traffic to

the Dnieper Castle?

VON EICHBORN: In order to judge this you have to differentiate between

persons and things. So far as people were concerned, the traffic was

very lively because the regiment had to be very centrally organized in

order to be equal to its tasks. Therefore, many couriers came and

commanders of the various companies frequently came to visit the

regimental staff.

On the other hand there was a heavy traffic of trucks and passenger

cars, because the regiment tried to improve its billets there; and since

we remained there for some time all sorts of building alterations were

carried out in the house.

DR. STAHMER: Did you hear anything about there being three Russian camps

with captured Polish officers, 25 to 45 kilometers west of Smolensk,

which had allegedly fallen into German hands?

VON EICHBORN: I never heard anything about any kind of Polish officers’

camps or Polish prisoner-of-war camps.

DR. STAHMER: Did your army group receive reports about the capture of

such Polish officers?

VON EICHBORN: No. I would have noticed that, since the number of

prisoners, and especially the number of officers, was always submitted

to me in the evening reports of the armies which took these prisoners.

It was our responsibility to receive these signal reports and we

therefore saw them every evening.

DR. STAHMER: You did not receive a report to that effect?

VON EICHBORN: I neither saw such a report from an army, which would have

issued it, nor did I ever receive a report from an army group which

would have had to transmit this report in their evening bulletin to the

High Command of the Army (OKH).

DR. STAHMER: Could a report like that have been handed in from another

source or been sent to another office?

VON EICHBORN: The official channel in the Army was very stringent, and

the staffs saw to it that official channels were strictly adhered to. In

any case the armies were always required to make the detailed reports,

following the lines stipulated in the form sheets and this applied

especially to the figures concerning prisoners. Therefore, it is quite

out of the question that if such a number of officers had fallen into

the hands of an army, it would not have reported the matter through the

appropriate channel.

DR. STAHMER: You said, just a little while ago, that you were in

particularly close relationship with the officers of this regiment. Did

you ever hear that Polish prisoners of war, officers, were shot at some

time or other in the Katyn forest at the instigation of Regiment 537

under Colonel Bedenck or under Colonel Ahrens?

VON EICHBORN: I knew nearly all the officers of the regiment, as I

myself had been over a year with the regiment, and I was on such

familiar terms with most of the officers that they told me everything

that took place, even anything of an unofficial nature. Therefore, it is

quite out of the question that such an important matter should not have

come to my knowledge. From the nature of the whole character moulding in

the regiment, it is quite impossible that there should not have been at

least one who would have come to tell me about it immediately.

DR. STAHMER: Were all the operational orders for Regiment 537 officially

known to you?

VON EICHBORN: The operational orders for this army group signal regiment

were twofold: The orders which concerned only the wireless company and

those which applied to the nine telephone companies. Since I was a

telephone expert, it was quite natural for me to draft these orders and

submit them to my superior, General Oberhäuser. Therefore, each order

which was issued had either been drafted by me or I had seen it

beforehand.

DR. STAHMER: Was there ever at any time an order given out by your

office to shoot Polish prisoners of war?

VON EICHBORN: Such an order was neither given to the regiment by our

office nor by any other office. Neither did we receive a report to this

effect, nor did we hear about things like that through any other

channel.

DR. STAHMER: If an order like that came through official channels, it

could come only through you?

VON EICHBORN: This order would have necessitated a great many members of

the regiment being taken away from their own duties, which were to

safeguard the system of communications. As we were very short of

signallers, we had to know what almost every man in the regiment was

doing. It would have been quite out of the question for any member of

the regiment to have been taken away from such a duty without our

knowledge.

DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, whom are you appearing on behalf of?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: For Grossadmiral Dönitz, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: There is no charge made against Grossadmiral Dönitz in

connection with this offense at all.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, the exhumations and the

propaganda connected with them occurred during the period when

Grossadmiral Dönitz was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. The Prosecution

alleges that at that time Grossadmiral Dönitz was a member of the

Cabinet and had participated in all acts taken by the Government.

Therefore, I must consider him as being implicated in all the problems

arising out of the Katyn case.

THE PRESIDENT: That would mean that we should have to hear examination

from everybody who was connected with the Government. And the Tribunal

has already pointed out, with reference to Admiral Raeder, that his case

was not connected with this matter. It is only when a case is directly

connected with the matter that counsel for the individual defendants are

allowed to cross-examine, in addition to the defendant’s counsel who

calls the witness. If there is any suggestion that you want to make to

the counsel who is calling the witness, you can make it to him, but you

are not entitled...

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: But I am asking your permission to put two

or three questions to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: If you have any special questions to put, you may suggest

them to Dr. Stahmer, and Dr. Stahmer will put them. Dr. Kranzbühler, if

you want to put any questions, you may put them to Dr. Stahmer, and he

will put them to the witness.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, I did not quite understand.

Shall I propose to Dr. Stahmer to put the questions or...

THE PRESIDENT: If you cannot do it verbally, you may do it in writing,

and you may do it later on. But I really do not think there can be any

questions which are so difficult to suggest to Dr. Stahmer as all that.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: They can also be put through Dr. Stahmer. I

was only thinking that I would save some time by putting the questions

myself.

THE PRESIDENT: I told you if you wish to ask any questions, you must ask

them through Dr. Stahmer.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: In the meantime, the Tribunal will go on with the

cross-examination, and any questions which you wish to put can be put in

re-examination.

Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, I am interested to know your exact

function in the army. Were you in charge of teleprinter communications

at the headquarters of Army Group Center or were you a wireless expert?

VON EICHBORN: No, Mr. Prosecutor, you are wrong. I was the telephone

expert of Army Group Center, not the wireless expert.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is exactly what I am asking you. The

translation was evidently incorrect. So you were in charge of telephone

communications, were you not?

VON EICHBORN: Yes; you are right.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Ordinary telegrams, or ciphered telegrams?

VON EICHBORN: The task of a telephone expert connected with an army

group consisted in keeping the telephone lines intact...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, I am not interested in the tasks in a

general way. I would like to know whether these were secret ciphered

telegrams or the ordinary army mail, army communications which were not

secret.

VON EICHBORN: There were two kinds of telegrams, open and secret.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were secret telegrams transmitted by you, too?

VON EICHBORN: Both came through me.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, all communications between the

Wehrmacht, between Army units and the highest police authorities also

passed through you; is that correct?

VON EICHBORN: The most important telegrams, and especially the secret

ones were submitted to the telephone expert.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes. Consequently, the correspondence between

the police authorities and the Armed Forces units passed through you; is

that correct? I am asking you this question for a second time.

VON EICHBORN: I must answer with the reservation that the messages did

not pass through the telephone expert, but only the most important

secret teletype matters were submitted to him—not the whole

correspondence, because that went also through the mail as well as by

courier service.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is clear. Do you know in this case that in

September and October 1941 there were special detachments in Smolensk

whose duty, in close co-operation with the Army, was to carry out the

so-called purge of the prisoner-of-war camps and the extermination of

prisoners of war?

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I must decisively object to this

questioning of the witness. This questioning can have only the purpose

of determining the relations between the General Staff and the OKW and

any commands of the Security Service. Therefore, they are accusing the

General Staff and the OKW; and if I, Mr. President, as defense counsel

for the General Staff and the OKW am not permitted to put questions,

then on the basis of equal treatment, the same rules must apply to the

Prosecution as well.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I, Mr. President, make a short statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the question is competent.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg your pardon.

THE PRESIDENT: I said the question was competent. You may ask the

question.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like to ask you the following question,

Witness. Since all secret teletypes passed through you, did you ever

encounter among these telegrams any from the so-called 1st Einsatzgruppe

“B”—that was the so-called first command—or from the Special Command

“Moscow” which at that time was located at Smolensk and kept in reserve

in anticipation of better times? The latter had the order to perpetrate

mass murders in Moscow. Both commands were located at Smolensk at that

time.

VON EICHBORN: No such reports came into my hands. I can fully explain

this to you, Mr. Prosecutor. When any detachments of this sort had been

established in the area of Army Group Center, these detachments had

their own wireless stations. It was only later on in the course of the

Russian campaign that these posts had teletype facilities as well; then

they used the army group network. However, that only happened later.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, the telegrams of those special

units which, by order of high police authorities, were assigned to carry

out special actions in co-operation with military units, did not pass

through your hands in September and October of 1941?

VON EICHBORN: That is correct. At that time, there were no teletype

facilities and offices for such special units, even if they were in that

area at all.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, this document was already

presented to the Court together with the Extraordinary State Commission

Report, Document Number USSR-3. If the High Tribunal will permit it, I

should like to present to the Tribunal and to the Defense photostatic

copies of one of the documents which was attached to the report of the

Extraordinary State Commission. If the Tribunal will look at Page 2 of

this document, it will see that the Special Command “Moscow” and the

Einsatzgruppe “B” were both located in Smolensk. It says on the first

page that these detachments together with units of the Armed Forces,

were assigned to carry out mass killings in the camps. If the Tribunal

will permit me, I shall submit this document now...

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, that is a matter of argument. We shall

take judicial notice of it, of course, of everything which is in the

Soviet Government’s publication. And I understand you to say that this

document is a part of the Soviet Government communication or Soviet

Government report.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President; but I would like to ask

permission to present an original German document, a secret document,

which states that in the Smolensk area there were two large special

commands whose duties were to carry out mass murders in the camps, and

that these actions had to be carried out together with the Armed Forces

units which had to co-operate with them.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, is this document which you have just

handed up to us a part of the report USSR-3?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President, it is a part of the report,

Document USSR-3, called “Special Directives of the Hitler Government

Concerning the Annihilation of Prisoners of War.” I would like to ask

the Tribunal to allow me to present one of the original documents even

if the report, USSR-3, has been already submitted in full.

It says there that these special units were located in Smolensk and were

assigned together with the Armed Forces units to carry out mass killings

in the camps.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov. This document is already in

evidence, if the Tribunal understands correctly.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you, Mr. President.

[_Turning to the witness._] Consequently, we may consider it as an

established fact that the correspondence, the telegraphic messages of

these special detachments did not pass through your hands; is that

correct?

THE PRESIDENT: He has said that twice already.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me, Mr. President.

[_Turning to the witness._] Why did you assert with such certainty that

there were no reports about the killing of the Poles? You know that the

killing of the Polish prisoners of war was a special action, and any

report about this action would have to pass through your hands? Is that

correct?

VON EICHBORN: I answered the prosecutor—rather, I answered Dr.

Stahmer—that if in the area of Army Group Signal Regiment 537 killings

of that sort had taken place, I would undoubtedly have known about them.

I did not state what the prosecutor is now trying to ascribe to me.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the Tribunal think you had better read

this passage from this document, which is in the German language, to the

Tribunal so that it will go into the record.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In this document, Mr. President, it is stated...

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Colonel Smirnov.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you, Mr. President.

This document is dated “Berlin, 29 October 1941.” It is headed, “The

Chief of the Security Police and of the Security Service.” It has a

classification, “Top Secret; Urgent letter; Operational Order

Number-14.” Reference is made to decrees of 17 July and 12 September

1941. I shall now read a few short sentences, and I shall begin with the

first sentence:

“In the appendix, I am sending directions for the evacuation of

Soviet civilian prisoners and prisoners of war out of permanent

prisoner-of-war camps and transit camps in the rear of the

Army...

“These directives have been worked out in collaboration with the

Army High Command. The Army High. Command has notified the

commanders of the armies in the rear as well as the local

commanders of the prisoner-of-war camps and of the transit

camps.

“The task force groups, depending on the size of the camp in

their territory, are setting up special commands in sufficient

strength under the leadership of an SS leader. The commands are

instructed immediately to start work in the camps.”